Reduced port stays

[shepherd really]

In 2001 on a transatlantic cruise on the Radisson Diamond we sailed out of San Juan PR. About an hour into the cruise, the Captain announce that we lost one engine but would proceed at a lower speed.  It was nice to hear the truth, that's the way it should be done.

[Jayne E]

4 minutes ago, Eloise4Ever said:

 

Thank you for your clarity and brevity. 

 

I'm really surprised that there isn't more protest about this issue though. Especially since O's tendency to skip ports or shorten port times seems to coincide with the introduction of Simply More. It's not a great look for a cruise line to be blatantly profiteering from their customers by reducing shore excursion expenses while at the same time disappointing customers by missing or shortening ports. Double whammy!

We go back with O when they specifically advertised “longest port times” and they delivered.  Arrivals at 7-8 AM and departures 6-8 P.M.  Never arrived at 1 P.M. or departed at 2 P.M.!  Obviously they no longer mention port times as a reason to book!

[urlaub]

13 hours ago, Snaefell3 said:

Checking the Port of Bordeaux's website, I'm surprised that in addition to it's river-cruise sized berths, it has a "Maritime" port with berths big enough for Riviera. 

 

Why then, dock downriver at Le Verdon?  Bordeaux/Maritime only has 2 berths, and if Riviera is ship #3?  Alternatively, river depth might be an issue: shallow vs Riviera's 24' draft, or flooding vs her 165' air-draft -- that sort of thing puts river cruisers on busses all the time.  😞  Sympathies on your 60 mile bus ride to "real Bordeaux".

 

 

Normally you can do excursions from Le Verdon to Bordeaux through the beautiful vineyards and villages in the wine region Medoc. You can also stay onboard from Le Vernon to Bordeaux which is like a beautiful river cruise.

[Vallesan]

51 minutes ago, pmatawan said:

At least we could understand why so much time has been cut from ports.

How is the cruise apart from the in port time issues? We should have been on the cruise with you but had to cancel at the last moment. Would be interested to know what we are missing!

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, Vallesan said:

Yes I would to but not sure that everyone would like hear that there was a problem with the engines!

 

Have you been cruising long? I ask because engine troubles of one sort or another are not uncommon when cruising.

 

I'd certainly rather know this, if it is true, than deal with all the speculation and blaming that happens when port timings are changed or ports are canceled.

 

 

Edited January 30 by cruisemom42

[Vallesan]

51 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Have you been cruising long? I ask because engine troubles of one sort or another are not uncommon when cruising.

 

I'd certainly rather know this, if it is true, than deal with all the speculation and blaming that happens when port timings are changed or ports are canceled.

 

 

First ‘modern’ cruise was in 2015 and we’ve probably sailed 200+ days with 4 lines, all small ships. I must admit I don’t recall there being any ‘engine trouble’ but then maybe we weren’t informed at the time!

[pmatawan]

3 hours ago, Vallesan said:

How is the cruise apart from the in port time issues? We should have been on the cruise with you but had to cancel at the last moment. Would be interested to know what we are missing!

This is our 1st Oceania cruise and I'm spoiled by the food and great staff. Couldn't go back to the lesser cruiselines. Especially  impressed by the lobster and shrimp available at Terrace Cafe every night. Only other disappointment has been with the slow internet. I had expected it to be better than pre StarLink.  It has gotten somewhat better, but was not so great at start of cruise in India and Sri Lanka.

[Vallesan]

17 minutes ago, pmatawan said:

This is our 1st Oceania cruise and I'm spoiled by the food and great staff. Couldn't go back to the lesser cruiselines. Especially  impressed by the lobster and shrimp available at Terrace Cafe every night. Only other disappointment has been with the slow internet. I had expected it to be better than pre StarLink.  It has gotten somewhat better, but was not so great at start of cruise in India and Sri Lanka.

So glad you’re enjoying it. We’ve never had a ‘bad’ cruise with Oceania. In fact our least enjoyable cruise, which actually wasn’t ’bad’, was with Regent. We have a few Oceania planned for later this year. We like the general atmosphere on Oceania ships and of course the food and staff!
 

The internet is so hit and miss depending on which part of the world you’re in. We had a tip a few years ago before StarLink, if you’re in your cabin prop the door open because the routers are in the hallways. Seemed to help!

Anyway, enjoy!

[Snaefell3]

2 hours ago, Vallesan said:

First ‘modern’ cruise was in 2015 and we’ve probably sailed 200+ days with 4 lines, all small ships. I must admit I don’t recall there being any ‘engine trouble’ but then maybe we weren’t informed at the time!

You've probably sailed lots days with an engine down -- ships have multiple engines, and they will shut one down to do scheduled oil changes, etc, as they sail along on the rest.

 

Engines don't often break down without them seeing trouble coming, and ships postpone oil changes, etc, while they swap out the wonky cylinder or whatever.  "Engine trouble" you hear about usually means the the problem is bad enough to need a drydock to fix, or the needed part is a big one that has to be specially built, or both.

[Vallesan]

1 minute ago, Snaefell3 said:

You've probably sailed lots days with an engine down -- ships have multiple engines, and they will shut one down to do scheduled oil changes, etc, as they sail along on the rest.

 

Engines don't often break down without them seeing trouble coming, and ships postpone oil changes, etc, while they swap out the wonky cylinder or whatever.  "Engine trouble" you hear about usually means the the problem is bad enough to need a drydock to fix, or the needed part is a big one that has to be specially built, or both.

You could be so right! You know what when I sail I’m on ‘holiday’ to enjoy. I reaally don’t need to know all  the mechanics of sailing, unless it becomes something that is going to affect safety!

 

I will just carry on sailing, if port times are cut, or ports missed that’s part of cruising. Definitely not something that will stop me cruising. Cruising is my holiday of choice!

 

 

[ORV]

10 minutes ago, Snaefell3 said:

You've probably sailed lots days with an engine down -- ships have multiple engines, and they will shut one down to do scheduled oil changes, etc, as they sail along on the rest.

 

Engines don't often break down without them seeing trouble coming, and ships postpone oil changes, etc, while they swap out the wonky cylinder or whatever.  "Engine trouble" you hear about usually means the the problem is bad enough to need a drydock to fix, or the needed part is a big one that has to be specially built, or both.

Did you work in the Maritime industry? What is or was your field of specialty?

[ak1004]

6 hours ago, Eloise4Ever said:

 

Thank you for your clarity and brevity. 

 

I'm really surprised that there isn't more protest about this issue though. Especially since O's tendency to skip ports or shorten port times seems to coincide with the introduction of Simply More. It's not a great look for a cruise line to be blatantly profiteering from their customers by reducing shore excursion expenses while at the same time disappointing customers by missing or shortening ports. Double whammy!

 

How exactly they "profiteering from their customers" by cancelling ports? Don't they lose tens of thousands in revenues from cancelled excursions?

[ORV]

Just as an addition to this thread, the cruise I’m on right now has 12 ports, we’ve been to 6 of them. The only change has been to 1, Punte del Este, from 8am to 10 am. That was announced on 11/13/23. I realize that could change in an instant. 

[DrHemlock]

51 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

How exactly they "profiteering from their customers" by cancelling ports? Don't they lose tens of thousands in revenues from cancelled excursions?

No, they gain thousands in revenues from cancelled ports and excursions.  

With a now-reduced total number of port stops and excursions available for the entire cruise, customers with SM "Use It Or Lose It" excursion allowances will have to try and find other excursions in other ports to take, thereby filling up excursions that might otherwise go begging...if any are to be found, as several posters here have said some ports and excursions get booked out early, leaving no availability left.

And, any of the "UIOLI" money that ends up left on the table because no interesting or available alternate excursion(s) could be found simply stays 100% in O's pocket.

(Not an accountant or insider, so it's JMO.)

Edited January 30 by DrHemlock

[cruisemom42]

Whether or not Oceania is profiting from these changes -- and they almost certainly would be profiting from cutting port stays short...both in terms of being able to sail more slowly to next destination and cutting port fees -- they are disturbing to one who travels primarily for itinerary.

 

My first O cruise was booked around the time it was announced that the line was going to be shortening port times in order to be more environmentally conscious (😒). However, this didn't impact that particular itinerary of Iceland/Greenland/Canada ports. 

 

However, the cruise I just took on Insignia over New Year's (through the Panama Canal) was a bit of a mess with ports being canceled and changed seemingly every day. Nicaragua was out. Grand Cayman was out. Acapulco was out. Days shifted. Puerto Vallarta was added. Ye gods, it was hard to keep up!  And yet it was mentioned on our roll call at least 4-6 weeks before sailing that Acapulco would be a no-go, by someone in the know. Unfortunately, O opted NOT to inform us until days after we were onboard. I just don't like those kinds of tactics.

 

Luckily, this itinerary was booked by me mainly for the canal transit (which was wonderful) and the relaxation on the ship. Insignia was in wonderful form. 

 

My current thinking is that I would book O again, but only for those itineraries where the ports themselves take a backseat to other considerations -- which truthfully, for me, is not very often. I'm unwilling to take a chance on booking them for places where I am really keen on specific ports. Right now, O seems to have one of the worst records in that regard.

 

[ak1004]

1 hour ago, DrHemlock said:

No, they gain thousands in revenues from cancelled ports and excursions.  

With a now-reduced total number of port stops and excursions available for the entire cruise, customers with SM "Use It Or Lose It" excursion allowances will have to try and find other excursions in other ports to take, thereby filling up excursions that might otherwise go begging...if any are to be found, as several posters here have said some ports and excursions get booked out early, leaving no availability left.

And, any of the "UIOLI" money that ends up left on the table because no interesting or available alternate excursion(s) could be found simply stays 100% in O's pocket.

(Not an accountant or insider, so it's JMO.)

 

There is a small hole with this theory.

 

Even if what you say was true (and it's not because guests can always book another excursion), but this thread and theory started more than a year ago, while SM started in October.

 

So before SM, people would get a full refund for the cancelled excursion = tens of thousands in lost revenues for O. 

 

Next excuse please?

[Eloise4Ever]

2 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 

How exactly they "profiteering from their customers" by cancelling ports? Don't they lose tens of thousands in revenues from cancelled excursions?

 

IMO O are "profiteering" in these circumstances because they are denying their guests the chance to spend the Simply More shore excursion credit, the price of which was included in the cruise fare. If they were following reputable business practices they would refund guests for a service which they purchased but which the company can no longer provide. As O are not giving refunds, it seems clear that they're making an unethical profit out of the Simply More cohort.

 

And don't even get me started on the fact that O don't refund port fees in the case of missed ports. That sharp practice deserves a whole thread of its own.

[ak1004]

1 minute ago, Eloise4Ever said:

 

IMO O are "profiteering" in these circumstances because they are denying their guests the chance to spend the Simply More shore excursion credit, the price of which was included in the cruise fare. If they were following reputable business practices they would refund guests for a service which they purchased but which the company can no longer provide. As O are not giving refunds, it seems clear that they're making an unethical profit out of the Simply More cohort.

 

And don't even get me started on the fact that O don't refund port fees in the case of missed ports. That sharp practice deserves a whole thread of its own.

 

Did you see my previous post??

 

Unreal..

[shepherd really]

1 minute ago, Eloise4Ever said:

And don't even get me started on the fact that O don't refund port fees in the case of missed ports. That sharp practice deserves a whole thread of its own.

Unlike many mainstream lines, Oceania doesn't break out port fees or taxes as separate charges.  This is literally much ado about nothing.   Perhaps O is not a good fit for you. 

[Eloise4Ever]

1 minute ago, ak1004 said:

 

Did you see my previous post??

 

I did. You clearly saw mine but seem to have missed the point. My post is about what happens to the Simply More cohort and the simple fact that O do not make them whole when the company fails to provide the services the guest purchased as part of their cruise fare. Simple as that.

 

 

[Snaefell3]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

Whether or not Oceania is profiting from these changes -- and they almost certainly would be profiting from cutting port stays short...both in terms of being able to sail more slowly to next destination and cutting port fees -- they are disturbing to one who travels primarily for itinerary.

I've a theory about what's happening, and I'll repeat it here -- bear with me if you've heard it over on the other thread.

 

Cruise lines set their fares when they announce a cruise based upon the expected fuel cost, and right now they are hurting (among other things) from not correctly predicting current fuel costs, and would rather endure the grumbles from cutting port stays short than the fury of adding fuel surcharges even after Final Payment dates.

 

For example, the Ticket Contract for our cruise on O this coming March says:

"(§2.i) Carrier reserves the right to charge a fuel surcharge supplement, without prior notice, should the closing price of West Texas Intermediate Fuel increase above $65.00 USD per barrel on the NYMEX … This charge may apply, at Carrier’s sole discretion, to existing and new reservations and Carrier may collect the fuel surcharge supplement at the time of sailing, even if the Fare has been paid in full."

Today WTI closed at $74.51/bbl, and O has the right to impose the surcharge even now after Final Payment  …but they have'nt.

 

Edited January 30 by Snaefell3

[Eloise4Ever]

2 minutes ago, shepherd really said:

Unlike many mainstream lines, Oceania doesn't break out port fees or taxes as separate charges.  This is literally much ado about nothing.   Perhaps O is not a good fit for you. 

 

Again, I am very surprised that folks are comfortable with this kind of dubious business practice. O may not break out their port fees but don't you think they should?

 

Any company that treats their customers in such an underhand way is not a good fit for me. I find it amazing that so many are untroubled by these practices. To say this is much ado about nothing gives O carte blanche to treat their guests poorly.

 

[Snaefell3]

1 minute ago, Eloise4Ever said:

 

Again, I am very surprised that folks are comfortable with this kind of dubious business practice. O may not break out their port fees but don't you think they should?

 

Any company that treats their customers in such an underhand way is not a good fit for me. I find it amazing that so many are untroubled by these practices. To say this is much ado about nothing gives O carte blanche to treat their guests poorly.

 

Peace!  What you may not have noticed is that O doesn't boost (in my experience) port fees when they substitute a more expensive port, either.

[shepherd really]

1 minute ago, Eloise4Ever said:

 

Again, I am very surprised that folks are comfortable with this kind of dubious business practice. O may not break out their port fees but don't you think they should?

 

Any company that treats their customers in such an underhand way is not a good fit for me. I find it amazing that so many are untroubled by these practices. To say this is much ado about nothing gives O carte blanche to treat their guests poorly.

 

I'm comfortable with this practice and I don't think they need to break them out.   I pay the fare, I take the cruise, I don't obsess about the company's overhead.  It's irrelevant to me. 

[shepherd really]

9 minutes ago, Snaefell3 said:

I've a theory about what's happening, and I'll repeat it here -- bear with me if you've heard it over on the other thread.

 

Cruise lines set their fares when they announce a cruise based upon the expected fuel cost, and right now they are hurting (among other things) from not correctly predicting current fuel costs, and would rather endure the grumbles from cutting port stays short than the fury of adding fuel surcharges even after Final Payment dates.

 

For example, the Ticket Contract for our cruise on O this coming March says:

"(§2.i) Carrier reserves the right to charge a fuel surcharge supplement, without prior notice, should the closing price of West Texas Intermediate Fuel increase above $65.00 USD per barrel on the NYMEX … This charge may apply, at Carrier’s sole discretion, to existing and new reservations and Carrier may collect the fuel surcharge supplement at the time of sailing, even if the Fare has been paid in full."

Today WTI closed at $74.51/bbl, and O has the right to impose the surcharge even now after Final Payment  …but they have'nt.

 

West Texas Crude by the barrel is a poor measure of fuel cost, since these ships burn bunker fuel by the ton.