Oceania Cruises Missing More

[LHT28]

1 minute ago, ak1004 said:

 

 Yes, I know, we are just a rounding error, but if there are thousands of rounding errors, maybe it will have some impact.

They will find  new rounding errors to replace those  that move on to other lines 😄

[MEFIowa]

Or IF it ends up being more than "rounding errors" they'll either undo it or modify it. To remain competitive.

[PaulMCO]

11 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

 

Some folks here are still turning a deaf ear to those port changes caused by port authorities at times closer to or during their cruise and to the reality that many small, exotic ports don’t offer shore power because they don’t have it.

 

And, finally, there’s another edge to the “port fees refund” discussion: ships may still incur some of the contracted costs for a missed port while picking up added charges for a replacement port. And yet, O does not pass any new port charges onto the passengers. Go figure 🤔.

In any case, we will be replaced by the next generation regardless of what O does or doesn’t  change and it may be our own mortality that causes it.

Seabourn is not doing this.  We sat next to Riviera this May at Kusadasi.  Both came in at around 8am.  O was gone at 1700h while Encore did not leave until 2300h.

 

Why are you not seeing the same outcry on Regent.  Obvious because NCL is not pulling the same crap with them.   Guess $$ matters.

Edited August 23, 2023 by PaulMCO

[ak1004]

Looks like Crystal has similar issues - 

 

 

Port changes without notice.

[Vineyard View]

4 hours ago, Sebbiesgrammy said:

Why?? Because Oceania has made it a point of pride to have more unique and less traveled ports on their itineraries. Many of these newer cruise stops have no passenger docks and, if you're lucky, a commercial dock that is adapted for cruise passengers. Some are scary places but at least the ship is docked.  Unique stops in exotic locales -- Thus, more tendering. Thus, more risk. Thus, unhappy passengers.  To manage our expectations we  can choose boring itinerary, carbon reduction efforts or overcrowded ports.  Pick two.  Life is an adventure and aren't we lucky that we get to visit some of these places, drop a few bucks and leave and that we don't have to solve the problems we leave behind us.  

Maybe true on some itineraries. I would argue that there are other lines who have the same strategy and the shortened port times are not reported on them like they are on Oceania (Seabourn, etc) Nor as many skipped ports. SB ports we visited this year were majority tendered, with some having no docks due to locations being so small. No issues. Maybe we were just lucky, but I don’t read about these issues with them. So IDK 

[Vineyard View]

11 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Did you miss the part about two cyclones and an earthquake? Everyone of our extra days was related to severe weather. Vanuatu even turned down tha Captain’s offer of humanitarian aid because the situation was so dangerous.

So, should we now also blame cruise line for bad weather?

I was not arguing with you. Not sure why you responded this way. 
We have sailed in extreme weather, and that is a different dialogue than what is being discussed here. 

[Flatbush Flyer]

39 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

We still like the O product very much, but as someone mentioned, O constantly finds new ways to lose customers. The new pricing model forces us to pay for something that we don't use. The new cancellation policy really makes it hard to book in advance. We cruise to see the world, have no interest to spend time on the ship, so the cancelled ports and shortened port stays are a big concern.

 

Now they refused to extend our future cruise certificate, basically giving up a guaranteed booking. With the pricing now pretty close to SB and SS, there is a good chance that this booking will go to another line.

 

Still case by case basis, no loyalty to any line, but it's likely that going forward, less of our business will go to O. Yes, I know, we are just a rounding error, but if there are thousands of rounding errors, maybe it will have some impact.

FWIW: I have, on several occasions, been able to get an extension on a Future Cruise Certificate and a Future Cruise Credit (not always but often enough).

A worthwhile strategy is to, first, not ask for an unspecified extension. That will always get a “no.” Instead, have a specific cruise in mind (preferably two with at least one more expensive than the value of any Future Cruise Credit). Then ask O directly and/or via your preferred TA (I do both) to apply the requested extension to that first priority new booking possibility. Expect the reality that this will need to be approved by an O reservations supervisor. And, in my experience, this has worked well in getting it applied. Having a second possible future booking as a further negotiating tool (particularly if you intend to book it anyway) bolsters your proposal.

 

 

[PhD-iva]

This thread is about a cruise that includes ports in Scotland. I am just back from 10 days in Scotland (and a three day extension to London), on a small group land tour. Not allowed to mention the tour agency.

I had a wonderful fabulous time, just as I usually do when I’m on an Oceania or Regent cruise. My next cruise is on Regent Voyager, 17 days Buenos Aires to Santiago Chile.
What I would like to add to this discussion is that one consequence of seeing many locations and sights and attractions in Scotland over the 10 days we were there means that we stayed in five hotels. That is a lot of packing and unpacking. A lot.  The fabulous tour company included porterage for all locations, but it still is a real issue.
Will I go on another very busy land tour? Probably yes. I loved it! However I walk 4 or 5 miles on a daily basis, and I understand that many people who cruise are not in any kind of physical condition to be able to keep up with that pace. So, for as many complaints as we have about any cruise line, it still remains a viable method to travel to many places, and only unpack once. 

[ak1004]

4 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

FWIW: I have, on several occasions, been able to get an extension on a Future Cruise Certificate and a Future Cruise Credit (not always but often enough).

A worthwhile strategy is to, first, not ask for an unspecified extension. That will always get a “no.” Instead, have a specific cruise in mind (preferably two with at least one more expensive than the value of any Future Cruise Credit). Then ask O directly and/or via your preferred TA (I do both) to apply the requested extension to that first priority new booking possibility. Expect the reality that this will need to be approved by an O reservations supervisor. And, in my experience, this has worked well in getting it applied. Having a second possible future booking as a further negotiating tool (particularly if you intend to book it anyway) bolsters your proposal.

 

 

 

Well, if we had a specific cruise in mind, we would book it and wouldn't need an extension. We were waiting for 2025 itineraries since we are fully booked till end of 2024. But they are out somewhere in September and our certificate is valid till September 10, and we are travelling first half of September.

 

Unless I misunderstood what you were saying.

[Flatbush Flyer]

54 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

We still like the O product very much, but as someone mentioned, O constantly finds new ways to lose customers. The new pricing model forces us to pay for something that we don't use. The new cancellation policy really makes it hard to book in advance. We cruise to see the world, have no interest to spend time on the ship, so the cancelled ports and shortened port stays are a big concern.

 

Now they refused to extend our future cruise certificate, basically giving up a guaranteed booking. With the pricing now pretty close to SB and SS, there is a good chance that this booking will go to another line.

 

Still case by case basis, no loyalty to any line, but it's likely that going forward, less of our business will go to O. Yes, I know, we are just a rounding error, but if there are thousands of rounding errors, maybe it will have some impact.

If you’re talking about O’s current primary demographic (geezers like me), most of those “thousands” won’t be “thousands” forever.

Doesn’t make me happy but it is what it is. Fortunately for us, we are always poised to “jump ship” for new travel opportunities and have already booked a land/sea expedition package for next year.

[Flatbush Flyer]

4 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

Well, if we had a specific cruise in mind, we would book it and wouldn't need an extension. We were waiting for 2025 itineraries since we are fully booked till end of 2024. But they are out somewhere in September and our certificate is valid till September 10, and we are travelling first half of September.

 

Unless I misunderstood what you were saying.

There are two FCC restrictions to be considered. One is “book by” and one is “cruise by.” In our case, “book by” was not as much of an issue as was “cruise by.” In each of our cases, we wanted future cruises outside of the “cruise by” restriction. And they were approved.

[Vineyard View]

6 minutes ago, PhD-iva said:

This thread is about a cruise that includes ports in Scotland. I am just back from 10 days in Scotland (and a three day extension to London), on a small group land tour. Not allowed to mention the tour agency.

I had a wonderful fabulous time, just as I usually do when I’m on an Oceania or Regent cruise. My next cruise is on Regent Voyager, 17 days Buenos Aires to Santiago Chile.
What I would like to add to this discussion is that one consequence of seeing many locations and sights and attractions in Scotland over the 10 days we were there means that we stayed in five hotels. That is a lot of packing and unpacking. A lot.  The fabulous tour company included porterage for all locations, but it still is a real issue.
Will I go on another very busy land tour? Probably yes. I loved it! However I walk 4 or 5 miles on a daily basis, and I understand that many people who cruise are not in any kind of physical condition to be able to keep up with that pace. So, for as many complaints as we have about any cruise line, it still remains a viable method to travel to many places, and only unpack once. 

Like you, I am an avid walker and could physically do what you just described…..but I wouldn’t  want to. I want time to enjoy the places I am visiting. So it’s either a land trip with 2-3 home bases to explore from, or a cruise. Moving hotels every night holds no appeal to me/us. Close friends are getting ready to take a DIY Scotland/Ireland for two weeks, changing hotels nightly - I hope they have as great a  time as you did! 
I am glad you had a great experience 
 

[ak1004]

4 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

There are two FCC restrictions to be considered. One is “book by” and one is “cruise by.” In our case, “book by” was not as much of an issue as was “cruise by.” In each of our cases, we wanted future cruises outside of the “cruise by” restriction. And they were approved.

 

Okay, this is different from our case. We booked last September and had to use it till Sep.10 2023.

 

I still have a hard time understanding why they wouldn't extend it, but I guess it is what it is. No matter what we say, O (and any cruise line) will do what they consider the best for them. Same with the new pricing, new cancellation policy etc. And the customers will do what they consider the best for them.

[Flatbush Flyer]

4 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

Okay, this is different from our case. We booked last September and had to use it till Sep.10 2023.

 

I still have a hard time understanding why they wouldn't extend it, but I guess it is what it is. No matter what we say, O (and any cruise line) will do what they consider the best for them. Same with the new pricing, new cancellation policy etc. And the customers will do what they consider the best for them.

“Use it?” “Book by” or “cruise by” or both?

In either case, pick a future cruise from what’s currently available through much of 2025 and ask again for that specific extension.

[ak1004]

1 minute ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

“Use it?” “Book by” or “cruise by” or both?

In either case, pick a future cruise from what’s currently available through much of 2025 and ask again for that specific extension.

 

Book by Sep.10 2023. It expires on Sep.10. We don't have anything to book from what's available, and we don't want to book something knowing that we will need to change it anyway. If they refuse to extend it, so be it. 

 

[Flatbush Flyer]

5 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

Book by Sep.10 2023. It expires on Sep.10. We don't have anything to book from what's available, and we don't want to book something knowing that we will need to change it anyway. If they refuse to extend it, so be it. 

 

If you were on a cruise right now, I’d just book anything that is a remote possibility since doing a BoB gets you one free cruise change (which you could do later). But, I assume you’re not on a ship now or in the next few weeks.

Also, check if you can turn it in for the original cost less any penalty and return of SBC you may have received on the cruise where you purchased it. I think that’s allowed.

[Flatbush Flyer]

54 minutes ago, Vineyard View said:

I was not arguing with you. Not sure why you responded this way. 
We have sailed in extreme weather, and that is a different dialogue than what is being discussed here. 

I know you weren’t arguing. That said, my point is that, if you subtracted all the significant weather causes from our total missed ports over a year, you’d have less than 3% of port adjustments. 

[ak1004]

7 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

If you were on a cruise right now, I’d just book anything that is a remote possibility since doing a BoB gets you one free cruise change (which you could do later). But, I assume you’re not on a ship now or in the next few weeks.

Also, check if you can turn it in for the original cost less any penalty and return of SBC you may have received on the cruise where you purchased it. I think that’s allowed.

 

Yes, this is what we are doing. Getting a refund of the deposit less SBC.

 

Thank you for your help.

[Flatbush Flyer]

1 hour ago, ak1004 said:

Looks like Crystal has similar issues - 

 

 

Port changes without notice.

Of course they do -as do all sorts of cruise lines and the ports that service them. 
Looks like those magical “algorithms” 🤣haven’t yet been adjusted for a post pandemic reality.

[Pandazoo]

@PhD-iva Well at least you got to see and do what was planned with the land trip.   A cruise missing ports and cutting short time in ports is not allowing you to do that.  I have never taken a land trip where I had to pack and unpack daily it sounds exhausting.  I personally would prefer it to a cruise where I don’t get to visit planned ports.  Sure the occasional miss due to unexpected issues is fine but O seems to be doing this on a regular basis.  These trips are too expensive to be so disappointing.  

[EJL2023]

6 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Of course they do -as do all sorts of cruise lines and the ports that service them. 
Looks like those magical “algorithms” 🤣haven’t yet been adjusted for a post pandemic reality.

Exactly, as I alluded to post 17 above. 

[LHT28]

resolved

[pinotlover]

44 minutes ago, PhD-iva said:

This thread is about a cruise that includes ports in Scotland. I am just back from 10 days in Scotland (and a three day extension to London), on a small group land tour. Not allowed to mention the tour agency.

I had a wonderful fabulous time, just as I usually do when I’m on an Oceania or Regent cruise. My next cruise is on Regent Voyager, 17 days Buenos Aires to Santiago Chile.
What I would like to add to this discussion is that one consequence of seeing many locations and sights and attractions in Scotland over the 10 days we were there means that we stayed in five hotels. That is a lot of packing and unpacking. A lot.  The fabulous tour company included porterage for all locations, but it still is a real issue.
Will I go on another very busy land tour? Probably yes. I loved it! However I walk 4 or 5 miles on a daily basis, and I understand that many people who cruise are not in any kind of physical condition to be able to keep up with that pace. So, for as many complaints as we have about any cruise line, it still remains a viable method to travel to many places, and only unpack once. 

We’re much more civilized and in the middle! Taking a group to Tuscany. We’ll spend a few days each in Florence, Greve In Chianti, and Montalcino; then travel around those bases with fewer moves. No packing and unpacking daily.

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, PhD-iva said:

Not allowed to mention the tour agency.

I don't see why not.  Land tour operators are mentioned and recommended by name every day on the ports of call boards. It's only cruise agencies/agents that can't be named.

Edited August 23, 2023 by njhorseman

[the more ports the better]

I have been on several O cruises where we sailed past a port where other ships were docked.  We were also supposed to dock and not tender.  Very frustrating!

 

However….. last month, we were supposed to dock in Rhodes but the island had several large fires.  I fully expected a sea day but O managed to substitute Marmaris which ended up being a great day.  I was surprised but pleasantly so!  I would have loved Rhodes but Marmaris was a good runner up.

 

Also, cruising accounts for about one third of one percent of all carbon emissions.  Slowing down won’t make much of a difference.  Airlines account for about 3% of carbon emissions and about 500,000 people fly each day.  About 650,000 people sail on cruise ships each day.  With 650,000 people on cruise ships at any given time that means a lot less cars on the road, dishwashers and washing machines being run, light being turned on and off and heat turned up or air being turned down among other things.

 

I’m not saying cruise ships do not account for any carbon footprint but everything needs to be taken into account and looked at in the grand scheme of thing.