Losing confidence in Oceania.

[pinotlover]

49 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

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.

 

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.)

 

 

 

We overall enjoy the food in Oceania, but it’s the itinerary that drives us. We had an overnight on Nautica in Iceland. A group of us did a great private land tour and we over night ashore. We had really great food and an enjoyable time. We’ve done the same on other cruises. Some people come back to the ship most every day to eat lunch aboard. That’s great. We didn’t travel to Turkey, Cypress, Santorini, Italy, etc to eat ship food or drink ship wine. Nor did we travel to South America this past Spring to eat ship’s food. Often times we are still so full from great local fresh cuisine from lunch, dinner is relatively minimal. The food on Az was fine, what we ate of it. Not superb , but we were mostly eating ashore , so neither O nor A compared to what we were having. Our problem with Az is I don’t think we’ll ever do an R ship again regardless of the name on the stack.

[SATaxman]

1 hour ago, Bobbyjimbob said:

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!

We were on that cruise. How did you get a refund for the changed itinerary? We could not. Our first O cruise. the excursion we skipped due to the changes was 75% of $209 pp. Could have paid for Lots of Martinis! Do you think there is anything we can do now?

[cruisemom42]

3 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

I don’t think we’ll ever do an R ship again regardless of the name on the stack.

 

And I love the R class. Otherwise agree with you 99.997%.  😉

[Yesimapirate]

1 hour ago, DrKoob said:

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. 

I think you're confusing federal regulations with caring.   Most people will tell you airlines are among the least caring businesses in the world.

[Snaefell3]

5 hours ago, Heartfelttraveler said:

⋮

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.

First, my prayers for you and your husband.

 

A thought for you...  "Self-insure".  Insurance companies hire buildings full of actuaries to calculate the cost of the risks to the last penny then charge that much plus a tidy (that's with a 'd', not an 'n' 😉 ) profit.  You might wish to consider insuring only against risks that would be financially devastating (medevac, etc) rather than merely losing a cruise you can afford.

[Bobbyjimbob]

SAT ….we just used a little demanding tone,kept getting told change would show on the account on the TV. They made one change but charged us the full tour cost which was $50 more. After demanding at Reception I was actually given a $50 bill on the morning of disembarkation!!  Found that hard to believe! Was it the person I finally dealt with or did I wear them down? Other cancellation posted to our credit card. I believe they count on people just giving up on a complaint. I always mention retention of my business as reason for them to “do the right thing”. Try for sure,reference this board even to prove it’s been done. Good luck!

[susiesan]

5 hours ago, ToxM said:

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. 

 

 

And still the cruise lines keep building more and more new ships adding more berths to a limited supply of ports. I can foresee a point at popular ports where 2 ships have to share a berth, one will have the morning hours and then leave and another will dock for the afternoon.

[cruisemom42]

53 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

As for your need for data, might I suggest that you do a little research on your own. Pick a busy port (e.g., Miami) and start monitoring the PA website for any cruise or shipping line that strikes your fancy six months out through to the current week. You’ll soon realize that port schedules in recent years can become an even greater moving target than was already the case in pre-pandemic years.

 

Good idea. I will definitely do this. I can understand the shifting of berths; however as of now, color me still skeptical regarding shortening of times. I cruise quite a bit and have not encountered it except for a dozen or so years ago when cruise lines were looking for ways to save fuel during an oil spike. I also do not hear of it happening with any frequency on other board on CC that I follow. 

[Snaefell3]

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Good idea. I will definitely do this. I can understand the shifting of berths; however as of now, color me still skeptical regarding shortening of times. I cruise quite a bit and have not encountered it except for a dozen or so years ago when cruise lines were looking for ways to save fuel during an oil spike. I also do not hear of it happening with any frequency on other board on CC that I follow. 

Yep!  "Berthing issues" makes a reasonable-sounding excuse until you think it through:  If your ship leaves at 4pm instead of 5, do you really think there is really going to be a ship pulling in at 6pm? 🤦‍♂️

[pinotlover]

From what I’ve been told from various cruise lines different ports work under different scenarios. In Europe, and other ports, most commonly it’s a seniority system. Priority is given on a seniority basis on how long the line has been docking at that port. They have up to a certain date to request docking and then it’s first come first. Some of the smaller ports are strictly first come first. 
 

There is no “ we’ll kick you out at 11:00 to get another ship in. The line makes their request and they reserve and pay for the request. If requests are made and altered, those are done 18-24 months prior unless emergencies happen. 

[deck chair]

Hello!   Thank you for all your interesting responses.  I am reading many opinions, speculations and guesses but few hard facts regarding this change of itinerary.  Strange how it was announced after final payment. If it had been before final payment I would have cancelled and booked the Queen Mary 2 to get me to Australia.

 

What would be truly helpful, and illuminating is for Oceania to explain exactly why these changes were made instead of just blaming BERTHING CONFLICTS.  The fact that Oceania has failed to do to leads me to suspect they are just out to save money, the consumer be damned.  

 

As I indicated in my OP, I have been sailing on ships such as the QE2 and Sagafjord for many decades and except for a very few weather-related causes have never experienced any changes in itineraries until Oceania.  As I said, most especially because of their growing reputation for unreliable itineraries I will think twice before I book another Oceania cruise.  Thanks again for all your comments and thoughts.  Be well.

 

Deck Chair.

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by deck chair

[Harry Lake]

12 hours 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. 

OT but are you thinking about no more travel or a different type. We've done a number of escorted. The early ones were great, the recent ones not so much. We've not done a ton of cruises but have enjoyed them. And we can hit more places than we can DIY. We're thinking about flying in to Barcelona (a city we adore) and then driving or 'training' around northern Spain and then over to Portugal (we've only done Lisbon).

 

We're in our mid70s and trying to figure stuff out 🙂

[FlyerTalker]

12 hours ago, DrKoob said:

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. 

 

 

Apples and oranges.  Your example is one of a few hours (three, by your own statement).  Cruises would be wholesale changes over many weeks and months.

 

 

[Flatbush Flyer]

3 hours ago, Snaefell3 said:

 

Did you mis-tag which post to quote or do you really think a ship would pull into a *cruise* berth at 6pm?

 

Container, break-bulk, bulk, ro-ro, or tanker pull in at 6pm?  Of course, but not at a cruise berth.

And i just previously posted one example of that happening where we had to move late in the day (of an overnight) to accommodate another cruise ship’s late afternoon arrival. 
And, on yet another occasion, we arrived in a port AM, deposited passengers for tours (including us) and left for most of the day while another ship took the berth for a half day port stop. Our O ship returned to the berth later that day (in time for the full day tour returnees). Unusual? Absolutely. But, times have changed. 

A sidebar story for our mariner readers - not a cruise ship (nor a commercial ship).

Bound (years ago) for St Petersberg (on an itinerary arranged years in advance), California’s TS Golden Bear was informed by a less-than-politically-sensitive Port Captain that there was “no room at the inn.”  Quick call to the US State Department (including an explanation that the PC said he might find space for whiskey and cigarettes) and the Port Capt. magically found a spot. But, he needed to get even for having been reprimanded by Moscow. So, his offer was only for a “stern tie.” Not to worry: He didn’t realize that the ship carried a faculty/student complement ;and the equipment needed to modify (overnight) the fantail for easy egress.

Imagine his surprise at the trouble/free disembarkation (not to mention his surprise at the informal gift given him by some of the students (a box within which was a sign that said “Wet Paint”).😎

[ak1004]

1 hour ago, deck chair said:

Hello!   Thank you for all your interesting responses.  I am reading many opinions, speculations and guesses but few hard facts regarding this change of itinerary.  Strange how it was announced after final payment. If it had been before final payment I would have cancelled and booked the Queen Mary 2 to get me to Australia.

 

What would be truly helpful, and illuminating is for Oceania to explain exactly why these changes were made instead of just blaming BERTHING CONFLICTS.  The fact that Oceania has failed to do to leads me to suspect they are just out to save money, the consumer be damned.  

 

As I indicated in my OP, I have been sailing on ships such as the QE2 and Sagafjord for many decades and except for a very few weather-related causes have never experienced any changes in itineraries until Oceania.  As I said, most especially because of their growing reputation for unreliable itineraries I will think twice before I book another Oceania cruise.  Thanks again for all your comments and thoughts.  Be well.

 

Deck Chair.

 

 

We sailed on QM2 twice. To me this is not a viable alternative anymore. Louse food (even in specialty restaurants), unprofessional service, almost 3,000 passengers, plus an absurd and archaic dress code - thank you, but no thank you.

[DrKoob]

1 hour ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

 

Apples and oranges.  Your example is one of a few hours (three, by your own statement).  Cruises would be wholesale changes over many weeks and months.

 

 

Can you explain something to me? Why do people automatically excuse cruise ship companies they like? When the company has obviously done something that has truly changed someone's vacation? It's like you are shills for the cruise line. One of the things I found in my 20 years on Cruise Critic is that on any forum for any cruise line there are people who will defend that cruise line no matter what. The OP is upset that his cruise was substantially changed.

 

And I don't I think this is an apples and oranges situation. It's a three-hour change on a flight that costs $6,000 (FC). And they offered to let me change it to any flight I wanted or to refund me. I am guessing the OP has at least $6K involved and they have substantially changed his vacation. 

[ak1004]

17 minutes ago, DrKoob said:

Can you explain something to me? Why do people automatically excuse cruise ship companies they like? When the company has obviously done something that has truly changed someone's vacation? It's like you are shills for the cruise line. One of the things I found in my 20 years on Cruise Critic is that on any forum for any cruise line there are people who will defend that cruise line no matter what. The OP is upset that his cruise was substantially changed.

 

And I don't I think this is an apples and oranges situation. It's a three-hour change on a flight that costs $6,000 (FC). And they offered to let me change it to any flight I wanted or to refund me. I am guessing the OP has at least $6K involved and they have substantially changed his vacation. 

 

I think that people have the right to be upset. To me, the biggest issue is that some people automatically assume that cruise companies do it on purpose to screw them. They don't have the whole picture and don't know all the factors involved.

 

We have ports cancelled on our O cruise in May, and we had ports cancelled on our SS cruise last December. We were upset too, but our assumption is that no cruise line takes those decisions lightly and all of them do it only if absolutely necessary. So far, I have not seen any evidence that O does it more than other lines. 

 

I don't defend O, and I don't defend SS. I just give them the benefit of the doubt and trust that the captain has more information that we do and sees the big picture. The world now is very different from pre Covid, and all evidence or history that we have from pre Covid is irrelevant.

[Snaefell3]

2 hours ago, DrKoob said:

Can you explain something to me? Why do people automatically excuse cruise ship companies they like? When the company has obviously done something that has truly changed someone's vacation? It's like you are shills for the cruise line.

Nope.  More like "we actually read all 15 pages of Oceania's legally binding Ticket Contract and understood what we were getting into before paying our fares anyway".

[Harters]

8 hours ago, Harry Lake said:

are you thinking about no more travel or a different type.

Definitely different. The decision about cruising will be about how much it represents value for money for us. I will be very happy if we conclude to carry on cruising but will be fine if we decide to spend our money elsewhere. 

 

We've done a couple of escorted tours, both in South Africa. Enjoyed both, so that might be future idea. We're also both in our 70s, with health issues starting to build up, so I think we're in a period of adjustment like you. Over the decades, we've often enjoyed road trips in the States but my night driving vision isnt what it was so I think they are most probably now behind us. 

[DrKoob]

6 hours ago, Snaefell3 said:

Nope.  More like "we actually read all 15 pages of Oceania's legally binding Ticket Contract and understood what we were getting into before paying our fares anyway".

If everyone read those, no one would ever cruise. So you are standing up for a contract, not for a cruise line? Having been a business owner before retiring I know that what's in a contract is often best fixed when the company does something wrong. If you are a good company, you try your best to fix the problem. 

[DrKoob]

8 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 

I think that people have the right to be upset. To me, the biggest issue is that some people automatically assume that cruise companies do it on purpose to screw them. They don't have the whole picture and don't know all the factors involved.

 

We have ports cancelled on our O cruise in May, and we had ports cancelled on our SS cruise last December. We were upset too, but our assumption is that no cruise line takes those decisions lightly and all of them do it only if absolutely necessary. So far, I have not seen any evidence that O does it more than other lines. 

 

I don't defend O, and I don't defend SS. I just give them the benefit of the doubt and trust that the captain has more information that we do and sees the big picture. The world now is very different from pre Covid, and all evidence or history that we have from pre Covid is irrelevant.

While I agree with most of what you are saying, the OP's situation is about cancellations way outside the purview of the captain. These are happening weeks in advance. I totally get when you can't tender into a port because of weather. And I also totally get when schedules change, but when they change that much that a port becomes a place you can only get off the ship for a few hours, the cruise line should offer an out.

[shepherd really]

23 minutes ago, DrKoob said:

If everyone read those, no one would ever cruise. So you are standing up for a contract, not for a cruise line? Having been a business owner before retiring I know that what's in a contract is often best fixed when the company does something wrong. If you are a good company, you try your best to fix the problem. 

I read the contract and I cruise so your statement that "nobody would cruise" is incorrect.  Also irrelevant, since you agree to the contract when you make your deposit, whether you read it or not. 

[ak1004]

32 minutes ago, DrKoob said:

While I agree with most of what you are saying, the OP's situation is about cancellations way outside the purview of the captain. These are happening weeks in advance. I totally get when you can't tender into a port because of weather. And I also totally get when schedules change, but when they change that much that a port becomes a place you can only get off the ship for a few hours, the cruise line should offer an out.

 

But compensation was not the issue of the original post. OP suggested that "Oceania is doing this to save money and screw the public"

 

To me, this is not the case, I simply don't believe that cruise lines do it on purpose.

 

An example: on our "world cup cruise" on SS last December, they eliminated 3 days in Doha, and they sent a notice 6 weeks before the sailing, which was after final payment. The reason given was that Qatar banned cruise ships from entering their ports for the duration of the World Cup. Which was true - the only issue was that the decision was made by Qatar back in April. Same happened with Azamara. No compensation or way out was offered. 

 

Did they do it to screw us? I don't think so and I don't know the whole picture.

 

But my answer is always the same: if you believe that the cruise line is there to screw you, find another line. Just be careful, because with such attitude, you might be running out of cruise lines very quickly.

[FlyerTalker]

12 hours ago, DrKoob said:

Can you explain something to me? Why do people automatically excuse cruise ship companies they like? When the company has obviously done something that has truly changed someone's vacation? It's like you are shills for the cruise line. One of the things I found in my 20 years on Cruise Critic is that on any forum for any cruise line there are people who will defend that cruise line no matter what. The OP is upset that his cruise was substantially changed.

 

If you read my postings, you will find that I am FAR from a shill for ANY cruiseline.  I will not automatically defend a cruiseline, no more than I would defend any business automatically.

 

What I do is provide a rational, reasonable approach to business.  The customer is not always right, nor is the business.  But what I try to do is remove the emotion and look at the practical side.

 

Maybe we should comment about posters who automatically assume things about other posters....hmmm?

 

 

[DrKoob]

2 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 

But compensation was not the issue of the original post. OP suggested that "Oceania is doing this to save money and screw the public"

 

To me, this is not the case, I simply don't believe that cruise lines do it on purpose.

 

An example: on our "world cup cruise" on SS last December, they eliminated 3 days in Doha, and they sent a notice 6 weeks before the sailing, which was after final payment. The reason given was that Qatar banned cruise ships from entering their ports for the duration of the World Cup. Which was true - the only issue was that the decision was made by Qatar back in April. Same happened with Azamara. No compensation or way out was offered. 

 

Did they do it to screw us? I don't think so and I don't know the whole picture.

 

But my answer is always the same: if you believe that the cruise line is there to screw you, find another line. Just be careful, because with such attitude, you might be running out of cruise lines very quickly.

No, the OP did not want compensation but he did want to either get a refund or be able to switch cruises to something more like his original cruise. And your situation with a decision made in April that you weren't informed of until six weeks before sailing in December is a PERFECT example of a cruise line failing to do right by it's clientele. If that isn't screwing you, I don't know what is. They knew. They just didn't tell you before final payment so you were the ones being screwed, not them.