Cancelled Ports

[mauibabes]

Shepherd is right ma’am, spend your time fighting a battle you can win, not one you can’t because you agreed to it in your booking contract.  I know you have a number of O bookings made so focus your efforts on more positive activities.  Chronic complaining does not always lead to the desired results eventhough we do hear about the squeaky wheels. I find it is alway better to pick your battles because personally, I do not like losing. 
 It does not matter if another line’s ship goes into a port or arrives earlier or later, you are not on that ship and the Oceania ships have different capabilities and operational guidelines. The Oceania Captain, and they are excellent, are charged with the safety of the ship, passengers and crew and they all take that responsibility seriously. They will do what they must to protect you. 
It is a bummer when an arrival is adjusted, it often impacts tours, both ship and private, but I prefer safe than sorry. 
JMHO,

Mauibabes

[VacayAddict]

We’ll at least they are making the cookies tastier now.

[pinotlover]

2 minutes ago, VacayAddict said:

We’ll at least they are making the cookies tastier now.

I believe an infamous Austrian Princess turned French Queen stated similarly:

 

” Let them eat cakes “

 

How did that turn out? 😂

[jonthomas]

Contracts are signed in good faith by both parties.

If the good  faith is replaced by increasing the cruise line's profit then O can expect the consumer to vote with their dollar and spend it elsewhere.

Or at least, make their opinions known very loudly. That too can have its consequences. 

 

Your answer to all those who had shortened or lost ports for no apparent reason, is to say and do nothing, since they signed THE contract. I wonder how they feel with that advice.

 

And there you go m'am.

[jonthomas]

1 hour ago, VacayAddict said:

We’ll at least they are making the cookies tastier now.

Perhaps, just perhaps,  the cookies are better because enough of you asked that they be improved.

Since there is very little additional cost to the cruise line, a change happened. 

Personally I never touch them.

No not "some religious thing".

[ak1004]

11 minutes ago, jonthomas said:

Contracts are signed in good faith by both parties.

If the good  faith is replaced by increasing the cruise line's profit then O can expect the consumer to vote with their dollar and spend it elsewhere.

Or at least, make their opinions known very loudly. That too can have its consequences. 

 

Your answer to all those who had shortened or lost ports for no apparent reason, is to say and do nothing, since they signed THE contract. I wonder how they feel with that advice.

 

And there you go m'am.

How cancelling ports is increasing their profits? It’s exactly the opposite.

[jonthomas]

Don't cruise lines have to pay big bucks to be in ports, as in port charges? Aren't those included in our cruise costs?

Should those port charges be refunded if the ship cancels a port while other ships are there?

I am sincere in asking the questions.

So I'm sure there will be someone here who will enlighten me and correct me.

[jonthomas]

Perhaps what some  ports now charge is greater than the revenue generated by tours.

Panama comes to mind, charging cruise lines exorbitant amounts. But again, I don't pretend to have the facts in front of me.

[PhD-iva]

7 minutes ago, jonthomas said:

Don't cruise lines have to pay big bucks to be in ports, as in port charges? Aren't those included in our cruise costs?

Should those port charges be refunded if the ship cancels a port while other ships are there?

I am sincere in asking the questions.

So I'm sure there will be someone here who will enlighten me and correct me.

O stopped refunding port fees from skipped ports when they stopped itemizing port fees on the invoice (Don’t shoot the messenger!)

[jonthomas]

1 hour ago, ak1004 said:

How cancelling ports is increasing their profits? It’s exactly the opposite.

Some have said here that O has the dubious distinction of being the cruise line that has shortened ports and cancelled ports the most.

 

In your opinion, why do you think this is happening? Is it all just bad luck? 

[ak1004]

37 minutes ago, jonthomas said:

Perhaps what some  ports now charge is greater than the revenue generated by tours.

Panama comes to mind, charging cruise lines exorbitant amounts. But again, I don't pretend to have the facts in front of me.

I’m pretty sure that their revenue from excursions is few times larger than the port fees. Also I don’t know how port fees work, but it’s possible that they are not refundable if the port is cancelled on a short notice. So it’s entirely possible that in some cases the cruise line loses the revenues from excursions and also the port fees. Not to mention tons of angry customers who always know better than the captain if it’s safe or not to dock or tender.

[jonthomas]

36 minutes ago, PhD-iva said:

O stopped refunding port fees from skipped ports when they stopped itemizing port fees on the invoice (Don’t shoot the messenger!)

Thank you for the info. So then they profit. I think someone here said, they were reimbursed for the missed port(s). That would be appropriate. Although others have said , as per contract, they owe you nothing.

[ak1004]

2 minutes ago, jonthomas said:

Some have said here that O has the dubious distinction of being the cruise line that has shortened ports and cancelled ports the most.

 

In your opinion, why do you think this is happening? Is it all just bad luck? 

I really have no idea. And don’t get me wrong, cancelled ports is the biggest concern to me. I don’t sail for sea days. I sail to see the world.

 

that said, I have no evidence that O does it more than other lines. And I still didn’t get an answer what is their interest of doing it. They have a lot to lose and nothing to gain.

[jonthomas]

2 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

I’m pretty sure that their revenue from excursions is few times larger than the port fees. Also I don’t know how port fees work, but it’s possible that they are not refundable if the port is cancelled on a short notice. So it’s entirely possible that in some cases the cruise line loses the revenues from excursions and also the port fees. Not to mention tons of angry customers who always know better than the captain if it’s safe or not to dock or tender.

Then it's a real puzzle, isn't it.

We are  big fans of O, as I'm sure everyone here knows. 

We have not yet missed any ports. Nor have shortened port stays bothered us.

But so many others have missed ports, vital ones. When the itin is why you sail, you don't want to be with a cruise line that has the reputation for most sea days.

 

[ak1004]

2 minutes ago, jonthomas said:

Then it's a real puzzle, isn't it.

We are  big fans of O, as I'm sure everyone here knows. 

We have not yet missed any ports. Nor have shortened port stays bothered us.

But so many others have missed ports, vital ones. When the itin is why you sail, you don't want to be with a cruise line that has the reputation for most sea days.

 

 

I agree with you 100%. But the question is: is the only the reputation, or statistics do support it? I don't have the answer. But I don't believe that any line, including Oceania, would miss a port, unless they consider it absolutely necessary. Maybe many O guests feel obligated to share their missed ports to support the "reputation", I have no idea. 

[osandomir]

Nobody wants to lose their port time or anything else for the matter, but I think that no amount of complaining here will affect Oceania business decisions. Why book so many cruises with them if you aren’t satisfied. You won’t get anything changed, maybe just cookies. Just book something that you know you will like better.

Edited October 7, 2023 by osandomir

[1985rz1]

37 minutes ago, jonthomas said:

We have not yet missed any ports. Nor have shortened port stays bothered us.

But so many others have missed ports, vital ones.

But how do you know that your perception of others is not biased by the reports you see here on CC, a miniscule number of O cruisers.  We see here many ranting about missed ports and shortened port times, but what percentage of cruises and cruisers actually experience them.  Your data is  all based on those who chose to post on CC.  What is the fraction of cancelled ports, fleet wide, and are they justified by weather...etc.  What fraction of fleet wide port times have been shortened?  Does anyone have the data to make any informed claims?

[BarbaraM]

1 hour ago, ak1004 said:

I’m pretty sure that their revenue from excursions is few times larger than the port fees. Also I don’t know how port fees work, but it’s possible that they are not refundable if the port is cancelled on a short notice. So it’s entirely possible that in some cases the cruise line loses the revenues from excursions and also the port fees. Not to mention tons of angry customers who always know better than the captain if it’s safe or not to dock or tender.

According to a GM on a recent cruise, port fees are not refunded should a ship decide to cancel last minute. Canceling is not done lightly, and not done for cost savings if this is true. 

[Tranquility Base]

2 hours ago, ak1004 said:

.....and nothing to gain.

Reduced fuel bill ?

[Tranquility Base]

1 hour ago, ak1004 said:

But I don't believe that any line, including Oceania, would miss a port, unless they consider it absolutely necessary.

How much effort a cruise line puts into finding a replacement port is important also.

 

Recently, on another cruise line, we were a day late making our Westbound Suez transit due to technical.

We therefore had to miss Mykonos after the Suez due to the need to regain the schedule in the Med.

They did however, give us an unscheduled  5 hour stop in Messina which still meant we were back on schedule the next day.

 

They could easily just have made it a sea day, but they obviously put some effort into making  the missed port as palatable as possible.

They earned much kudos for that.

[Mrs f.]

Our 35 day Australia circumnavigation had 4 ports lost. One to "unable to tender due to high waves" and 3 due to New Zealand requiring the ship be cleaned as per biofouling rules (we weren't going to New Zealand  the next cruise was) . we had also found port changes sheet on our bed when we got on board.  We also lost all power on the ship for hours one night.  What O offered was an announcement from the Captain thanking us for our understanding.   What more than 60 couples/singles   (all from rollcall) got was $500pp  FCC.      In spite of it all, this was probably the best cruise I've ever been on. We met so many lovely people 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Mrs f.

[ak1004]

6 hours ago, Tranquility Base said:

Reduced fuel bill ?

How exactly they are saving fuel by canceling ports?? Are you saying that ships consume more fuel when docked in a port?

[d9704011]

14 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

How exactly they are saving fuel by canceling ports?? Are you saying that ships consume more fuel when docked in a port?

Not that I have any idea what Tranq B meant, but they could save fuel by not actually making their way to the missed port(s); rather than steaming a few hundred miles over a couple of days, just putter around at sea doing eight knots to nowhere and chalk up some fuel consumption savings.  Kind of a ridiculous suggestion but I've seen worse on the boards!

Edited October 7, 2023 by d9704011

[ak1004]

3 hours ago, d9704011 said:

Not that I have any idea what Tranq B meant, but they could save fuel by not actually making their way to the missed port(s); rather than steaming a few hundred miles over a couple of days, just putter around at sea doing eight knots to nowhere and chalk up some fuel consumption savings.  Kind of a ridiculous suggestion but I've seen worse on the boards!

Well, if this is the way some people feel, they probably shouldn't book Oceania. There are always choices. I'm sure some people will now blame O for cancelled ports in Israel..

[Tranquility Base]

.....

Edited October 7, 2023 by Tranquility Base