ak1004

This might be true in general, not necessarily true for cruise lines. Specifically, when comparing O and Regent: Regent is more expensive, but it also has more inclusions, higher crew/guest ratio (so higher expense per guest) etc. Also, even if they make more per guest, their ships are about half size compared to O, so they don't necessarily make more per sailing. First, a lot of people do their homework and don't necessarily rely on the TA - many don't even use a TA. Second, why a TA would recommend specifically Regent and not SS, Explora, Crystal or SB for people who move from O? NCLH knows that people who leave O might stay inside NCLH group, but might also go elsewhere. Why would they risk to lose a customer all together instead of keeping them on O? Those crazy conspiracy theories are completely disconnected from reality. and yet people keep repeating them over and over again.

On our 4 cruises, we have 6 cancelled ports with 4 replacements. From what I read here, at least 50% (if not more) of the cancelled ports are replaced. Don't forget that it's not easy to find a replacement port last minute as many ports are booked well in advance. Also, most of the time it's impossible for the ship to book any excursions for the replacement port last minute. So they lose all the excursions revenue from the cancelled port, don't have any new revenue from the new port, still pay the port fees, and don't have any fuel savings. Here the whole conspiracy theory goes down the toilet.

btw, none of the luxury lines (SB, SS etc) is refunding the port fees as far as I know.

You make some excellent points. Regarding "move up" strategy - I don't believe it can even apply to cruise lines because most people might not even know that NCL, O and Regent are part of the same parent company, while most people would probably know that Chevy and Buick both belong to GM (they are even being sold under one roof). I agree 100% regarding shortened ports, I don't buy their sustainability BS for one second. And you might be right regarding the reason behind cancelled ports. On the same time, more often than not the cancelled port is replaced by another one.

Imagine paying 50%+ more for SS cruise just to find out that they run out of Perrier, Pellegrino and most diet drinks around mid cruise. Not as a one time occurrence, but on a regular basis. Cruise after cruise.

But this is very easy to check. Azamara who has similar size ships is listing the port charges separately. I just checked few European sailings, here are some examples: 7 ports - $160 CAD 10 ports - $226 CAD 9 ports - $219 CAD So on average, it's around $20-25 CAD or $15-18 USD per port. Pretty insignificant compared to all all the revenues they lose from the excursions. Not to mention all the extra food people consume while on board instead of on shore. And if they cancel on the last minute, I'm not even sure they get those port fees back..

I don't think anyone is saying it's not happening. My question is - is it happening more on O than other lines? I suggested that people might be complaining more on O because O doesn't treat its customers as adults when things go wrong. Also, my impression is that the complaints come from the same few people. On the last Marina topic (the long one) 2 different people reported from 2 fairly long sailings, and only one cancelled port, substituted with another much more interesting port. Many times people "forget" to mention that canceled port is substituted with another one - this probably is much more trouble for O. Correct - but then again, why people who leave O will necessarily go to Regent? Plenty of other luxury line.

Azamazing Evening and White Night were among the highlights of our Azamara cruise. O could attract a lot of new customers by doing something similar, also lowering the average age from 70-80.

Why would O customers move specifically to Regent? Personally I would never sail on Regent at the current prices, but would consider SB, SS, maybe Windstar. At the same time, HAL, Princess and Celebrity customers might move to Azamara, Viking or Windstar, not necessarily O. btw, we have at least 2 couples who sailed on Celebrity for 30+ years, tried O, and don't come back to Celebrity. So there are many opinions. You see how any conspiracy theory can be debunked in seconds?

My point was that any decision must have a reason behind it. What's their reason to do it as a policy?

I'm curious where are you going to move? Have you read other lines reviews?

We are booked on Vista Rome to Istanbul in Nov.2025, so they do Western Med. But yes, I wish Riviera stayed there too.

There is no logical explanation why O would cancel ports more than other lines. However, there is a logical explanation why O guests complain more than other lines guests. It's the way O handles things when something goes wrong. Their communication is very poor, and rarely (almost never) any compensation is offered. When we missed a port with SS due to supply issue, they offered us a 10% future cruise credit. O would never do it. When you question why a port was missed, their answer is "we know better". Which is probably true, but this is not a proper response. When a business treats its customers like adults, offers good communication and/or explanation and/or compensation, people are much less likely to complain. This is the only explanation I can think of. I still don't believe that any line would cancel a port unless absolutely necessary. (reduced port times is a different issue)

We came to the exactly the same conclusion. I would consider O much closer to the true luxury lines than mass market lines. To us, it's all about itinerary and price. We would probably consider lines like SB where the prices are often fairly close to O. Crystal now has the most absurd pricing of all lines. Paying more than O 60-70% for a smaller cabin on a 20+ years ship doesn't make sense to me. Yes, it was marginally better than O in terms of service when we sailed with them 5 years ago, and probably still is, but I won't pay those prices. In most cases the improvement is really just marginal in many areas.

We look mostly at Europe too, and yes, we expected SB to be much more expensive too. That said, I just looked at Vista prices and compared to Ovation and Encore. Vista entry level veranda is in $450-500 USD a day range. Some slightly less, some slightly more, but most fall into that range. SB does have few sailings under $500 USD, but most are still around $500-600. So on average, SB is still more expensive, but I agree that the gap is much smaller that I expected. Of course it's not exactly apples to apples - SB is more inclusive (although the excursion credit on O offsetting the drinks cost more or less) and the cabins are larger. So finding SB sailing around $500 or less would be very attractive if the itinerary is good.

@ORVand @shepherd really please remind me, any cancelled ports, reduced port times or any other itinerary changes on your sailings?

Is this unique to O? I see a lot of reports about cancelled ports on other lines as well. And I still don't see how they save money by cancelling ports. I believe the opposite is true - tens of thousands of dollars of lost revenue from cancelled excursions would far outpace any savings they might have from ports fees or fuel savings.

Yes, we discussed it, it really depends on the itinerary and the category you book. In some cases Oceania is not more expensive than Celebrity, depending mostly on the ship. But overall, SB is more expensive on average, otherwise I don't think many people would book O. Viking prices don't make sense to me at all. In many cases they are more expensive than SS (and SS includes excursions as well).

Hank, you are so right about the "value". Some people might say that while O is better than HAL, the cost makes it poor value. Some might say the same when comparing O to SS or SB. So it's really about expectations. For us, we don't go back to big ships, even if costs half compared to O, but everyone is different. We are well aware of O shortcomings (mediocre entertainment, poor internet etc) and we learned to accept them.

Thank you for the review. I don't think O competes directly with SB, probably more with Azamara, Viking and Windstar. SB is also more inclusive and more expensive, so you might expect to get a slightly better experience. We sailed on Azamara once and enjoyed it very much. We found service comparable with O, food slightly better on O, but we like the newer ships on O better. Much better cabins, more dining choices etc. I would recommend trying one of the newer ships.

I really learned to take the reviews with a grain of salt. Some of them are just ridiculous. This applies to all lines. We were on SS in Dec.2022, had a great time. When we returned, someone posted a 1 star review titled "a cruise to hell". Read recent reviews on SB, SS and Regent, all cost significantly more than O. We did 3 cruises on O post Covid, 2 on Riviera and 1 on Regatta. No complains about the food, in fact, I liked it better than SS. Service pretty consistent as well. Entertainment and activities still mediocre, as we expected. Excursions mixed bag, we will probably book mostly private tours going forward. So I don't really see the decline that some people talk about. Many sailings are sold out months in advance. You can always find faults if you dig deep enough. For us, O still offers best value for money, till proven otherwise.

If TV is part of the problem, should be fairly easy to fix I would think? Especially if they are aware of the issue and admit there is a problem.

Well, if people don't do their homework.. and believe they got half price.. it's a win/win.

THIS I completely agree. But it has nothing to do with port charges.

I was wondering the same thing. Did they make thinner walls to save money? I don't believe this is the case, but people can believe what they want. Why it's okay for some people and too noisy for others? Is it the location of the TV? The angle? But if some people declare it a ‘no fly zone’, better for us, as the ships will be less full..