Orlando Ashford Named Executive Chairman of Azamara

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Mary229 said:

I think it will be a few years before sycamore imprints it’s personality on Azamara.   I am simply glad to see a new entrant serving the North American market with midsize ship, moderately priced cruises.  I am hoping Orlando’s hiring signals they will be expanding into HAL-like intensive, in depth itineraries.   We hardly need another Caribbean/Mediterranean/Alaska leisure line 

I would like to see Azamara provide the small ship, itinerary focused cruises that HALs small ships used to do.  It will be interesting to see where it positions itself concerning price, inclusions and service.  

[nocl]

50 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

I have and I have zero interest!  The ships are too small.  Friends who have sailed on them when they were brand new and sailed as Renaissance Cruise vessels had negative reports as to the onboard facilities.  The deck plans that I have seen as Azamara vessels show little/no change since their original construction.  

 

To each his/her own, and if you enjoy them, please--patronize this new venture.  If no one else benefits, their crew will benefit by being employed.  

Having sailed on the Pacific Princess and other R Class I certainly will, you can keep the mega ships, I focus on the itinerary and these ships can get into ports others can not.

[ECCruise]

10 hours ago, nocl said:

I would like to see Azamara provide the small ship, itinerary focused cruises that HALs small ships used to do.  It will be interesting to see where it positions itself concerning price, inclusions and service.  

I don't think you need to worry. 

Azamara has already positioned itself on price, inclusions and service.  They have been doing itinerary focused cruises since their inception almost 14 years ago. They have, at present, committed to providing the same basic product.  There is a quite large (for a small, 3 ship cruise line) base of very loyal customers.  Yes, there have been changes over the years (where hasn't there been?) but they provide, for us, an excellent product.  

[ECCruise]

11 hours ago, Av8rix said:

Aw, rats!  With all but two of our "little" ships gone, I was thinking of switching to Azamara because they still use small ships.   But with this news....NO WAY!!!  Perhaps Oceania.

Having sailed both Oceania and Azamara numerous times, including less than a year ago 2 cruises, 25 days on Oceania and 24 days on Azamara separated by only a week, you might be making a huge mistake making that decision without seeing how things progress.

In our opinion, Azamara is superior to Oceania in all the things that matter to us. 

[Himself]

17 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

Here's Cruise Critic's article on this:

More News for Azamara: Holland America Line Cruise Vet Steps Into Executive Role

 

 

He was ONLY with HAL a few years.  I would hardly call him a Vet of HAL.

[cruisemom42]

16 hours ago, taxmantoo said:

Orlando will soon make sure Azamara has nobody's attention 🙂 According to what our travel agent has heard from numerous clients, Azamara rates very poor in the entertainment domain.  I hope they are not relying on Orlando to MAGA, i.e. Make Azamara Great Again! 

 

Azamara's focus has never been on entertainment. To me Azamara provides what a lot of HAL regulars seem to keep saying that they want:  itinerary and destination focused cruises on smaller ships with excellent service.

 

If you cruise for large production shows and lots of entertainment onboard, you were never Azamara's target audience. Also, they used to have a very small casino, but those were taken out a few years ago.

 

 

13 hours ago, Mary229 said:

I think it will be a few years before sycamore imprints it’s personality on Azamara.   I am simply glad to see a new entrant serving the North American market with midsize ship, moderately priced cruises.  I am hoping Orlando’s hiring signals they will be expanding into HAL-like intensive, in depth itineraries.   We hardly need another Caribbean/Mediterranean/Alaska leisure line 

 

Azamara as a brand has been around for quite some time. Whether Sycamore changes them  up remains to be seen. They have some very good itineraries BUT unlike HAL they don't tend to sell them as lengthy cruises -- you have to buy them as BTBs. However, they certainly do not repeat a lot of cookie cutter itineraries. 

 

Also, no line sailing ships with 700 passengers is going to be "moderately" priced. The operational costs per person don't allow for it. Unless you want them to sail at a loss...  However, they are generally somewhat less expensive than Oceania, who I've viewed as their primary competition in recent years, though Viking Ocean is also making a run at the same market.

 

 

12 hours ago, Av8rix said:

Aw, rats!  With all but two of our "little" ships gone, I was thinking of switching to Azamara because they still use small ships.   But with this news....NO WAY!!!  Perhaps Oceania.

 

Why?  Azamara is much more like HAL than Oceania. People seem to think the two lines are quite similar, but I think their emphasis is very different. Oceania focuses on the onboard component, and particularly on food. They started with the R-class ships but have since built somewhat larger ones and actually have new (larger) ships on order. About twice the passenger load of the R-class ships. 

 

Azamara, on the other hand, focuses on itineraries. Nearly every time I have compared similar itineraries, Azamara wins out over Oceania -- with more interesting ports and longer port stops (often until 10-11 pm at night) and quite a few overnight stops.

 

If you are a solo, Azamara offers (or has offered up until now) some very good specials with low single supplements. Oceania virtually never charges less than the full 200% for solos.

 

[ECCruise]

11 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Azamara's focus has never been on entertainment. To me Azamara provides what a lot of HAL regulars seem to keep saying that they want:  itinerary and destination focused cruises on smaller ships with excellent service.

 

If you cruise for large production shows and lots of entertainment onboard, you were never Azamara's target audience. Also, they used to have a very small casino, but those were taken out a few years ago.

 

 

 

Azamara as a brand has been around for quite some time. Whether Sycamore changes them  up remains to be seen. They have some very good itineraries BUT unlike HAL they don't tend to sell them as lengthy cruises -- you have to buy them as BTBs. However, they certainly do not repeat a lot of cookie cutter itineraries. 

 

Also, no line sailing ships with 700 passengers is going to be "moderately" priced. The operational costs per person don't allow for it. Unless you want them to sail at a loss...  However, they are generally somewhat less expensive than Oceania, who I've viewed as their primary competition in recent years, though Viking Ocean is also making a run at the same market.

 

 

 

Why?  Azamara is much more like HAL than Oceania. People seem to think the two lines are quite similar, but I think their emphasis is very different. Oceania focuses on the onboard component, and particularly on food. They started with the R-class ships but have since built somewhat larger ones and actually have new (larger) ships on order. About twice the passenger load of the R-class ships. 

 

Azamara, on the other hand, focuses on itineraries. Nearly every time I have compared similar itineraries, Azamara wins out over Oceania -- with more interesting ports and longer port stops (often until 10-11 pm at night) and quite a few overnight stops.

 

If you are a solo, Azamara offers (or has offered up until now) some very good specials with low single supplements. Oceania virtually never charges less than the full 200% for solos.

 

Excellent summation all around.  My thoughts exactly.

[St Pete Cruiser]

A friend was quick to send me the news that Orlando Ashford was hired for Azamara.

 

I think Azamara was sold by RCCL as its future profit status was in jeopardy with aging ships up against Viking Ocean and Oceania.  

 

 

[kangforpres]

Did he take the 48oz Tomahawk steak with him? Has anyone ever ordered that on a HAL ship, or know of someone who did?

 

So Azamara bought by hedge fund $ and run by Orlando Ashford. Will all 3 ships collide with each other on the open seas?

 

-P.

[KirkNC]

53 minutes ago, kangforpres said:

Did he take the 48oz Tomahawk steak with him? Has anyone ever ordered that on a HAL ship, or know of someone who did?

 

So Azamara bought by hedge fund $ and run by Orlando Ashford. Will all 3 ships collide with each other on the open seas?

 

-P.

We ordered two tomahawk steaks on the 2019 world cruise for lunch....we had nine people and they carved them for us.  They were delicious.  We did it because the waiters got a day off if they sold a steak so our waiter and assistant got a day off and we enjoyed a tasty meal. They did it up, dressed up the table with fancy napkins and flowers.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by KirkNC

[KroozNut]

19 hours ago, FlaMariner said:

LOL...let's hope his first call is to Oprah and he brings her over there also....

 

And away from HAL..

[kangforpres]

Oh that's a nice incentive for the waiters. I was wondering why Orlando never offered the eat the entire steak and get a free cruise challenge. (7 day Caribbean, interior stateroom of course)

 

[KroozNut]

17 hours ago, KirkNC said:

Too bad he completely ignored us as we were disembarked in Perth.

 

Why were you disembarked in Perth?

[KirkNC]

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Azamara's focus has never been on entertainment. To me Azamara provides what a lot of HAL regulars seem to keep saying that they want:  itinerary and destination focused cruises on smaller ships with excellent service.

 

If you cruise for large production shows and lots of entertainment onboard, you were never Azamara's target audience. Also, they used to have a very small casino, but those were taken out a few years ago.

 

 

 

Azamara as a brand has been around for quite some time. Whether Sycamore changes them  up remains to be seen. They have some very good itineraries BUT unlike HAL they don't tend to sell them as lengthy cruises -- you have to buy them as BTBs. However, they certainly do not repeat a lot of cookie cutter itineraries. 

 

Also, no line sailing ships with 700 passengers is going to be "moderately" priced. The operational costs per person don't allow for it. Unless you want them to sail at a loss...  However, they are generally somewhat less expensive than Oceania, who I've viewed as their primary competition in recent years, though Viking Ocean is also making a run at the same market.

 

 

 

Why?  Azamara is much more like HAL than Oceania. People seem to think the two lines are quite similar, but I think their emphasis is very different. Oceania focuses on the onboard component, and particularly on food. They started with the R-class ships but have since built somewhat larger ones and actually have new (larger) ships on order. About twice the passenger load of the R-class ships. 

 

Azamara, on the other hand, focuses on itineraries. Nearly every time I have compared similar itineraries, Azamara wins out over Oceania -- with more interesting ports and longer port stops (often until 10-11 pm at night) and quite a few overnight stops.

 

If you are a solo, Azamara offers (or has offered up until now) some very good specials with low single supplements. Oceania virtually never charges less than the full 200% for solos.

 

We had 2 B2B booked with Azamara when the purchase was announced.  We canceled as we want to see how the dust settles.  I really want them to succeed but have a great deal of skepticism with the new owners.  Time will tell. 

[KirkNC]

3 minutes ago, KroozNut said:

 

Why were you disembarked in Perth?

Yes, somewhat unceremoniously I might add.  It was March 22nd when HAL shutdown all cruises.  We were half way into a world cruise that was supposed to be Fort Lauderdale round trip so we had to make our way home as best we could.  Our luggage arrived eight months later.

Edited January 28, 2021 by KirkNC

[cruisemom42]

Just now, KirkNC said:

We had 2 B2B booked with Azamara when the purchase was announced.  We canceled as we want to see how the dust settles.  I really want them to succeed but have a great deal of skepticism with the new owners.  Time will tell. 

 

Indeed. I am skeptical too, but less so after they also purchased Pacific Princess. Let's hope they keep the good and perhaps raise the profile of the line a bit. (But not too much. 😁)

[KirkNC]

2 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Indeed. I am skeptical too, but less so after they also purchased Pacific Princess. Let's hope they keep the good and perhaps raise the profile of the line a bit. (But not too much. 😁)

My guess is they will run the line for three or four years and then either take it public or sell it to someone.  I love the size ships and assuming they refurbish the PP it will make a nice addition but I fear for the quality of the product.  They will want to show it can make money for the eventual sale so I foresee cost cutting and the dreaded deferred maintenance.

[ontheweb]

19 minutes ago, kangforpres said:

Oh that's a nice incentive for the waiters. I was wondering why Orlando never offered the eat the entire steak and get a free cruise challenge. (7 day Caribbean, interior stateroom of course)

 

LOL, they could make it an episode of Man Versus Food, though if Man wins he usually only gets a tee shirt or his name on the wall.

[JeffElizabeth]

16 hours ago, ECCruise said:

Azamara is by no means new.  And their ships are small, not midsize (less than 700 pax).  And considerably more expensive than HAL, so definitely not moderately priced.

Azamara virtually invented intensive, port focused itineraries many years ago.  Have far more overnight stays than any cruise line, including some 2 night stays.

Check them out.

We like smaller boats so they are on our radar. 

[Mary229]

3 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

Azamara as a brand has been around for quite some time. Whether Sycamore changes them  up remains to be seen. They have some very good itineraries BUT unlike HAL they don't tend to sell them as lengthy cruises -- you have to buy them as BTBs. However, they certainly do not repeat a lot of cookie cutter itineraries. 

 

Also, no line sailing ships with 700 passengers is going to be "moderately" priced. The operational costs per person don't allow for it. Unless you want them to sail at a loss...  However, they are generally somewhat less expensive than Oceania, who I've viewed as their primary competition in recent years, though Viking Ocean is also making a run at the same market.

I guess we differ on what moderately priced is.  I looked at their current selections and they seemed moderate to me.   For us we are one and done cruisers. As a native gulf coaster I spent my youth sailing the same routes over and over with different lines.   I have a list of cruises to do and then will be finished so cost is not the bottom line for me.  The problem I have with luxury lines is the ambience, not the cost.

 

I had just never spent a lot of time investigating as I did not like RCCL.  I didn't like the product and having met some reps was not impressed with their "vision".  I didn't find Oceania particularly expensive either, I just prefer to sail with South East Asian sailors and hotel staff. I have been steered away from Viking by numerous agents and past passengers.I guess I am pickier than I know.  

Edited January 28, 2021 by Mary229

[JeffElizabeth]

33 minutes ago, KirkNC said:

My guess is they will run the line for three or four years and then either take it public or sell it to someone.  I love the size ships and assuming they refurbish the PP it will make a nice addition but I fear for the quality of the product.  They will want to show it can make money for the eventual sale so I foresee cost cutting and the dreaded deferred maintenance.

I actually have this worry about any cruise line right now. I fear they will all want to cut out the extras until they start filling up the ships again. 

[KirkNC]

13 minutes ago, JeffElizabeth said:

I actually have this worry about any cruise line right now. I fear they will all want to cut out the extras until they start filling up the ships again. 

A valid concern but I fear with Azamara that they have a much shorter runway so they will have to move more.  They won’t care as much about customer retention because their horizon is so short.

[cruisemom42]

11 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

I guess we differ on what moderately priced is.  I looked at their current selections and they seemed moderate to me.   For us we are one and done cruisers. As a native gulf coaster I spent my youth sailing the same routes over and over with different lines.   I have a list of cruises to do and then will be finished so cost is not the bottom line for me.  The problem I have with luxury lines is the ambience, not the cost.

 

I had just never spent a lot of time investigating as I did not like RCCL.  I didn't like the product and having met some reps was not impressed with their "vision".  I didn't find Oceania particularly expensive either, I just prefer to sail with South East Asian sailors and hotel staff. I have been steered away from Viking by numerous agents and past passengers.I guess I am pickier than I know.  

 

Perhaps I wouldn't consider Oceania as expensive if I didn't have to pay double as a solo for every trip. The per diem rate for that puts them above what I like to pay. 

 

Unlike you, I am an inveterate traveler and I enjoy repeating areas as long as their are new/different things to see and do. I've been going to Rome for years (land and cruise visits) and have yet to exhaust all that city has to offer.

 

Since most of my interest revolves around the ports and itinerary, I usually comparison shop. However, I am increasingly adamant about not sailing on larger ships when smaller ones are available. I have given both plenty of opportunities and I can say that for me, being on a smaller ship almost invariably provides a better experience all around.

 

I'm curious what reasons travel agents and past passengers have given to steer you away from Viking?  I haven't sailed with them myself but their ships look very nice. I'm not a big fan of the idea of included excursions they offer (especially since most seem pretty basic) or of having to pay so far in advance. But I've always thought I'd try them eventually, especially as other small ship options are disappearing.

 

[KirkNC]

3 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Perhaps I wouldn't consider Oceania as expensive if I didn't have to pay double as a solo for every trip. The per diem rate for that puts them above what I like to pay. 

 

Unlike you, I am an inveterate traveler and I enjoy repeating areas as long as their are new/different things to see and do. I've been going to Rome for years (land and cruise visits) and have yet to exhaust all that city has to offer.

 

Since most of my interest revolves around the ports and itinerary, I usually comparison shop. However, I am increasingly adamant about not sailing on larger ships when smaller ones are available. I have given both plenty of opportunities and I can say that for me, being on a smaller ship almost invariably provides a better experience all around.

 

I'm curious what reasons travel agents and past passengers have given to steer you away from Viking?  I haven't sailed with them myself but their ships look very nice. I'm not a big fan of the idea of included excursions they offer (especially since most seem pretty basic) or of having to pay so far in advance. But I've always thought I'd try them eventually, especially as other small ship options are disappearing.

 

To me the negatives with Viking are; no inside cabins, fairly lame included excursions and a Eastern European crew.

[Mary229]

1 minute ago, cruisemom42 said:

Unlike you, I am an inveterate traveler and I enjoy repeating areas as long as their are new/different things to see and do. I've been going to Rome for years (land and cruise visits) and have yet to exhaust all that city has to offer.

I am a traveler, just not a inveterate cruise traveler. I take two or three non-business trips a year and usually those are not cruise.  I also did travel extensively for my business.   I consider a cruise an introductory voyage to an area then I will go back and do some land travel.    I don't like big ships either.  

 

I would rather not say in public what they said about Viking as it may or may not be based in fact.  I have just heard negative remarks enough times not to bother researching.  There are many other options.