Losing confidence in Oceania.

[deck chair]

Hello:   I typically sail with Cunard line but decided to try Oceania and the Sirena this past January on a 20 day cruise from Miami.  I had a fabulous time, fabulous enough that I booked a 40 day cruise on the Insignia from LA to

Sydney on the Insignia, a segment of the ATW. 

 

I was very recently informed that there have been changes to the itinerary:

1.  Kailua-Kona has been added with port times 8-6.

2.  Hilo is now 7-4 from7-5.

3. Nawiliwili has been added with port times 11-5:30. (Why even bother?)

4.  Maui has been eliminated.  (No surprise.)

5.  Honolulu has been changed to 7-5 from 8-10.  (Shorted by FIVE hours!)

6.  Nuku Hiva has been eliminated.  

I am most disappointed the call to Honolulu has been drastically shortened. All these changes were blamed by Oceania on "BERTHING CONFLICTS!)  Count me as skeptical given Oceania's growing reputation for changing port calls and times. Is Oceania telling us that port spaces were not fixed well before the routes were published and then sold to the unsuspecting public?  O t could it be that Oceania is doing this to save money and screw the public? 

If that is true, it tells me that Oceania is incompetent and cannot be trusted.  It also causes me to worry that our several port call sin New Zealand and French Polynesia will be altered as well for some reason.

It's too late to cancel because final payment was months ago.

I have been sailing on ships since I was six years old, a passage from New York to Beirut.  I have been on countless hips on countless voyages over my many decades on our beautiful planet.  I quite understand can change routing and owe passengers nothing.  In this immediate case, for these changes is very suspicious.  Not weather related or due to political unrest.  

Guess how many times itineraries have been changed on my many ocean sailings on such ships as the LURLINE, FRANCE, LEONARD DA VINCI, OCEANIC, ROTTERDAM And others.  Four to five changes all weather related.  What is with Oceania?  Unless I am missing something I don't get the sense other cruise lines have these same issues.  

This episode has left a bad taste in my mouth, and I will think twice before booking them again notwithstanding all their many qualities.  I could go on, but I think readers will get the point.   Be well.

 

Deck Chair.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by deck chair
Clarify

[ToxM]

Sounds to me like all lines are now avoiding Maui and there is a lot of competition for port berths. 

 

I wonder if the South Pacific islands are getting stricter with ship numbers in their waters. it might be worth having a look at the what’s in port website to see if other ships are having the same issue. You will be travelling to these places when a lot of ships will be visiting especially if a lot of lines are doing west to east circumnavigations. 

 

Not making excuses for O, they are notorious for shortening times in port lately.

[PinonNoir]

3 minutes ago, ToxM said:

Not making excuses for O, they are notorious for shortening times in port lately.

Yep, they have shortened times in port on both of my last two cruises, one this past July, and one just this month.  Interesting that they never add time to any port!  They do however show up early from time to time (twice on our cruise this month), but for those planning their own excursions, that isn't helpful.

[Flatbush Flyer]

You’re laboring under a very false assumption. No ship’s master (nor the company itself) wants to alter the original itinerary.
Changing and even eliminating ports can be a very expensive undertaking. And, when there are added costs, I can’t remember ever having seen a surcharge to passengers.

 

Many contracted port related expenses associated with the original itinerary (from tugs to tours) may not be partially/totally refundable. Adding sea days incurs additional F&B and other related hotel costs to handle the increased passenger load. There can also be unforeseen MarOps costs in added navigational planning and implementation. And let’s not forget that many of the shortened stays in a port are a decision made by the port.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Flatbush Flyer

[PhD-iva]

46 minutes ago, deck chair said:

Hello:   I typically sail with Cunard line but decided to try Oceania and the Sirena this past January on a 20 day cruise from Miami.  I had a fabulous time, fabulous enough that I booked a 40 day cruise on the Insignia from LA to

Sydney on the Insignia, a segment of the ATW. 

 

I was very recently informed that there have been changes to the itinerary:

1.  Kailua-Kona has been added with port times 8-6.

2.  Hilo is now 7-4 from7-5.

3. Nawiliwili has been added with port times 11-5:30. (Why even bother?)

4.  Maui has been eliminated.  (No surprise.)

5.  Honolulu has been changed to 7-5 from 8-10.  (Shorted by FIVE hours!)

6.  Nuku Hiva has been eliminated.  

I am most disappointed the call to Honolulu has been drastically shortened. All these changes were blamed by Oceania on "BERTHING CONFLICTS!)  Count me as skeptical given Oceania's growing reputation for changing port calls and times. Is Oceania telling us that port spaces were not fixed well before the routes were published and then sold to the unsuspecting public?  O t could it be that Oceania is doing this to save money and screw the public? 

If that is true, it tells me that Oceania is incompetent and cannot be trusted.  It also causes me to worry that our several port call sin New Zealand and French Polynesia will be altered as well for some reason.

It's too late to cancel because final payment was months ago.

I have been sailing on ships since I was six years old, a passage from New York to Beirut.  I have been on countless hips on countless voyages over my many decades on our beautiful planet.  I quite understand can change routing and owe passengers nothing.  In this immediate case, for these changes is very suspicious.  Not weather related or due to political unrest.  

Guess how many times itineraries have been changed on my many ocean sailings on such ships as the LURLINE, FRANCE, LEONARD DA VINCI, OCEANIC, ROTTERDAM And others.  Four to five changes all weather related.  What is with Oceania?  Unless I am missing something I don't get the sense other cruise lines have these same issues.  

This episode has left a bad taste in my mouth, and I will think twice before booking them again notwithstanding all their many qualities.  I could go on, but I think readers will get the point.   Be well.

 

Deck Chair.

Suggest you research other cruiselines, like I am doing. When you find a better one than O, please come back here and let us know.

[Snaefell3]

• There is a practice called "slow steaming" that allows ships to reduce fuel consumption.

• There is a practice called "fuel surcharge" that allows ships to recover increased fuel costs.

 

Notice the price of petroleum-based fuels lately?  Personally, I prefer option #1.

[pinotlover]

16 minutes ago, Snaefell3 said:

• There is a practice called "slow steaming" that allows ships to reduce fuel consumption.

• There is a practice called "fuel surcharge" that allows ships to recover increased fuel costs.

 

Notice the price of petroleum-based fuels lately?  Personally, I prefer option #1.

Cruisers vs Travelers

 

Oceania is jockeying for the former. You’re their target clientele.

[Flatbush Flyer]

1 minute ago, pinotlover said:

Cruisers vs Travelers

 

Oceania is jockeying for the former. You’re their target clientele.

Unless I’ve missed something after all these years, my understanding has always been that you have zero experience in commercial marine operations.

In any case, are you advocating for a fuel surcharge to meet your “need for speed” to head to a port where the port captain has already shortened your berth time (for whatever reason)?

[Snaefell3]

2 hours ago, pinotlover said:

Cruisers vs Travelers

 

Oceania is jockeying for the former. You’re their target clientele.

::eyes the headlines about the Makhachkala airport takeover in Dagestan::   Yep.

 

'25?  Who knows.  I do hope "traveler" does become advisable again. 🤞  As it is, our next cruise is a risk-adverse "Colonial America & Bermuda".

Edited October 30, 2023 by Snaefell3

[jazznruby]

3 hours ago, pinotlover said:

Cruisers vs Travelers

 

Oceania is jockeying for the former. You’re their target clientele.

🙄

[Heartfelttraveler]

Something to think about.

the ship you are sailing on has one, two, or three ports that have to be eliminated and your cruise line is jockeying to dock in ports that have been booked for two years.  The port authority shortens another ship’s port time to be able to slip your ship in for a few hours.

 

The last few years have been very stressful for the cruise lines from managing illness, stocking, crew and passenger expectations.

 

I used to think the only guarantee in cruising was your cabin.  But then Royal Caribbean turned people away at the port because they double booked.

 

Here in the USA when purchasing trip insurance there is a choice to include acts of war.  I never checked it or added the cost.  I may consider it for our Japan cruise.  Insurance has become very expensive for us.  We are oldish and have expensive trips.  But, I think very worth it - as I sit with my husband in the medical facility - NOT COVID.

[ToxM]

Whoever above said that the only guarantee you really have at the moment is the cabin has it bang on. 

 

The supply chain is still messed up from Covid, and current events are going to have a huge impact on this for the foreseeable future. 

 

Staffing on cruiselines is still suffering from a lack of staff, the ability of people who want to work on ships to get to ships, and the challenge of losing seasoned staff and taking on new staff to get them to the level of service and culture required for their chosen cruiseline. 

 

Country states and individual ports are tightening up entry requirements for environmental reasons, or dealing with natural disasters (See Maui), or just rethinking how they want their tourist spots used by cruise passengers (Venice and soon to Amsterdam, Barcelona etc). 

 

There is a widening conflict that has and will continue to affect large portions of the world. 

 

All of the above are effecting ALL cruiselines, not just Oceania. 

 

I think if you can cope with all of the above or varying elements of the above during a trip then go for it, enjoy the cruise and hope for things to get back to how they used to be (unlikely). If any or all of the above will ruin your trip, then it may be time to assess how and where you take your annual/biannual holiday. 

 

 

[Harters]

1 hour ago, ToxM said:

it may be time to assess how and where you take your annual/biannual holiday

We have a transatlantic booked for next year. Something we've fancied doing for a while. But I think that, after that, we'll have a think about whether cruises are still for us. Maybe yes, maybe no. 

[ToxM]

10 minutes ago, Harters said:

We have a transatlantic booked for next year. Something we've fancied doing for a while. But I think that, after that, we'll have a think about whether cruises are still for us. Maybe yes, maybe no. 

I’ve got two TA’s next year - we are also re-evaluating whether our next holiday after that will be a cruise. First TA is with Regent and then second is with O for them to give me a good measure. I cruise for sea days and the ship, hubby cruises for new destinations and relaxation. We both enjoy a game of poker in the afternoons on sea days (and make money from them, which we offset against the cruise cost). We can do biz class to Vegas and stay in a hotel that will give us good access to poker tournaments and a good budget for food for a couple of weeks cheaper than the same length of cruise  in a standard verandah on an O class ship. We used to do 2 two weeks trips a year to Vegas just for poker before we discovered cruising (before anyone comments, it’s at least 12 hours to vegas for us and an 8 hour time difference, we go a for a long time to justify the distance/time, and we only play poker, I have done the sightseeing in the previous 15+ trips to Vegas). I love cruising - and O ticks all my personal boxes on what a cruise should be - I’ve never felt like a product was more suited to me, but O is pricing itself out of our value league. We don’t drink that much and we always felt O’s tours were too expensive. Regent is all inclusive. But the itinerary was what won that one for us . 

 

I have a cruise cert with O to use or get a refund on, waiting on news from the ATW segments for 2026. They may lose me as a customer if they don’t get them out before December. 

 

January may change all that - Regent may make us jump ship to them, it’s a very first world conundrum that I know I am lucky to have. 

[ToxM]

27 minutes ago, Harters said:

We have a transatlantic booked for next year. Something we've fancied doing for a while. But I think that, after that, we'll have a think about whether cruises are still for us. Maybe yes, maybe no. 

 

If I had my way I would only do TA’s, I love them. 

[Harters]

3 minutes ago, ToxM said:

but O is pricing itself out of our value league

That is the big issue, IMO. 

 

We cruised with P & O in the 90s but became disenchanted with the formality, so didnt really cruise for many years (apart from a week on the shortlived Island Escape and a short cruise out of Miami, as part of a longer holiday to Florida). Then we discovered O and realised that it was possible to have an relatively upmarket experience with decent food without the formality of needing to wear jackets. I don't go to land based restaurants which have jackets required dress codes and am certainly not doing it on holiday. So, we've enjoyed two cruises on O and am really looking forward to all the sea days. But it is a lot of money and, whilst we've every intention of  spending our savings, rather than leaving it for the next generation, I do wonder how much there is actually value for money in an O cruise. The big question is whether we might decide that different types of holiday may be a better bet for us. 

[DrKoob]

If any cruise line truly cared about their customers, then all they have to do when they make these changes to multiple itineraries/ports is to offer a refund or allow a move to a different cruise. No matter when the changes take place. If the changes are many and genuinely affect the ports, then you should be able to make that change. This is not the cruise you originally signed up for.

 

The airlines do this. We were scheduled for a flight from SEA to CDG next month and they moved our flight by 3 hours. We were offered a complete rebook at no charge to an earlier or later flight in the same class of cabin. 

[cruisemom42]

I cruise for itinerary and enjoy smaller ships. As a solo, cruising is expensive and I don't have the deep pockets for luxury lines, so choices are limited.

 

Oceania does seem to go on about how they are "all about itinerary", at least that was the case when I did my original research and booked the Iceland & Greenland itinerary that sailed this year. 

 

If that focus has changed, they should change their marketing. 

 

While I didn't experience any shenanigans on that cruise (e.g., no shortened hours and only one Greenland port canceled that was completely necessary due to obvious bad weather), I am leery of other itineraries where such cancellations and/or shortenings may occur.

 

I just got off a B2B Azamara cruise in the Med with several overnights as well as long port days. Same small ship. It's an attractive alternative for me but probably will not "do" for those O cruisers for whom food is top of their list. (Not that the food on Azamara was bad, it wasn't. Just not as good as Oceania.)

 

 

 

[ak1004]

55 minutes ago, ToxM said:

O is pricing itself out of our value league. We don’t drink that much and we always felt O’s tours were too expensive. Regent is all inclusive. But the itinerary was what won that one for us . 

 

 

Which line would you consider a better value?

[cruisemom42]

10 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

In any case, are you advocating for a fuel surcharge to meet your “need for speed” to head to a port where the port captain has already shortened your berth time (for whatever reason)?

 

I'm not familiar with this being a "thing" -- can you provide any data or examples of when this has occurred?

[ak1004]

10 hours ago, pinotlover said:

Cruisers vs Travelers

 

Oceania is jockeying for the former. You’re their target clientele.

 

Things are not black and white. For us it's 70% the itinerary and 30% the ship.

[Bobbyjimbob]

They need to care more. On Oceania Trieste to Rome couple weeks ago the detail list provided with the tour tickets listed changes to so many excursions it was shocking. They state also that tours ordered on Your World discount can not be changed or refunded. We did get them to refund 2 changes out of 8 booked,in spite of the notification,but I think they count on most people just accepting the changes. Not fair at all!

[ToxM]

14 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

Which line would you consider a better value?

No idea yet, I am a Regent virgin and an O devotee. 

 

I suppose the lines are now blurring slightly because of Simply More. 

 

I am very curious about how Regent will perform compared to O. 

[ak1004]

6 minutes ago, ToxM said:

No idea yet, I am a Regent virgin and an O devotee. 

 

I suppose the lines are now blurring slightly because of Simply More. 

 

I am very curious about how Regent will perform compared to O. 

 

Regent pricing never made sense to us. Even accounting for air credit, Regent is at least 60% more expensive than O for similar itineraries.

[ToxM]

This is a TA on one of their smaller ships with an iron we have always wanted to do.