mjobtx

While we know that Oceania has no control over the weather and the political situations in the world; they do control how they respond. In addition to the changes made because of the Red Sea conflict, three other ports were missed because of weather or other reasons. The sea days are starting to increase significantly. If no more ports are missed, sea days will represent 42.8% versus 30% of the total itinerary. The reduction in ports visited is significant. And the time in many some ports old and new has been reduced making it difficult to have a decent experience. 

The message that we are receiving from Oceania's response is that loyal, high spending clients are not valued and that we can be replaced. We probably can but we expected better. At the very least we expected Oceania match the responses that Viking and Royal Caribbean made their clients affected by the same circumstances. 

For the around the world passengers, the decision about what to offer was woefully insufficient given the drastic change. In the last 60 days alone, sea days increased from 18 to 32 (78%) to the point that sea days are now 53.3% of the itinerary. After a letter signed by 156 ATW passengers was sent to Carlos Ortega, Frank A. Del Rio and others; Oceania offered an FCC worth  5% of the fare. It was originally restricted to use only on the 2025 and 2026 ATW and/or their segments. Oceania removed that restriction at the time they offered the 5% FCC. 

A second letter will soon be sent because from the perspective of the number of ports and port hours, ATW passengers will have lost 13% of the expected experience of the cruise. We shall see if Oceania responds and if they do, what their response will be to their most loyal and highest spending clients. 

It should be said that both Viking and Royal Caribbean had to make similar changes for the same reason. Both made more appropriate adjustments and provided significantly more options. 

49 minutes ago, Rainbow3fe said:

That sounds absurd. In January when our Oceania ship was unable to dock in 2 South African ports we received our money back for our missed tours immediately.  I don't think those passengers asked the right questions before accepting the new excursions. 

In our case, the cancelled excursions were immediately credited to our onboard account. No additional action was required. If we booked a replacement, it was charged to our onboard account. The transactions were totally separate.

11 minutes ago, basor said:

SM excursion program does include the YWC 25% discount and the UPC - it is listed on the shore excursion page and the excursion show the pricing - the same as before:

 

TOUR PRICING	UNLIMITED PASSPORT COLLECTION (UPC)	SIMPLY MORE SHORE EXCURSION PACKAGE
Individual Excursions at regular price	Unlimited excursions for $879.00	Minimum of 5 excursions for 25% off

That's a relief? Because I have nothing booked under simply MORE, I could not determine if the discount packages were still available and I could not find the information in the FAQs. 

I am personally relieved because we will probably book at least one more cruise with Oceania and it will be under the simply MORE program. The excercise I have been going through comparing the programs has been for the purpose my planning. I want to maximize the value received based on the options available to me. I am sharing how the change in programs affects my wife and me as well as  others under the same circumstance that being primarily people that do not buy beverage packages. 

39 minutes ago, basor said:

Your calculations may be true for an ATW cruise but for our shorter cruises, the SBC is not a significant difference.  As you indicated, for those that chose the Cruise Only option, SM is not advantageous for them.  For those of us that chose OLife and took either the beverage package or the shore excursions, 

it has not been a drastic change,  We have found on our 5 cruises booked for 2024 and 2025, we have saved money or paid less than $100.00 for SM.  Everyone's situation is different and for those wishing to have a "cruise only" option, they will need to move to a different cruise line but those are very limited (Windstar ). Enjoy traveling however works best for you....

You got me wondering so I did a new comparison of two 10 day cruises from Athens to Istanbul on the Sirena.

OLife 7 - 17 July 2023, 

6 shore excursions - maximum value $1,194

A2 cabin - $5,849

simply More 14 - 24 October 2023

$800 shore excursion credit

A2 cabin - $5,999

In order for the simply MORE $800 to pay for 6 shore excursions, the excursions would have to cost an average of $133.33 each. 

If shore excursions cost a more realistic average of $175 each, the simply MORE allowance is worth $250 less than the OLife shore excursion amenity. That is an additional 2% increase in cost on top of the 2% increase in the cost of the cabin. 

If you always buy a beverage package you are ahead by $549 ($799 drinks package minus $250 reduced shore excursion value). If you don't buy a beverage package, you have an additional 2% increase in cost over the 2.5% increase in cabin cost. While the amount may be small, in the long term percentages matter when compounded over several trips. 

23 minutes ago, basor said:

Your calculations may be true for an ATW cruise but for our shorter cruises, the SBC is not a significant difference.  As you indicated, for those that chose the Cruise Only option, SM is not advantageous for them.  For those of us that chose OLife and took either the beverage package or the shore excursions, 

it has not been a drastic change,  We have found on our 5 cruises booked for 2024 and 2025, we have saved money or paid less than $100.00 for SM.  Everyone's situation is different and for those wishing to have a "cruise only" option, they will need to move to a different cruise line but those are very limited (Windstar ). Enjoy traveling however works best for you....

I said in the beginning that people that always buy a beverage package will come out ahead. The rest of us will not. The comparison is less to SBC than to the value of the shore excursion amenity under OLife. Its maximum value was almost double the SBC option. Certainly the numbers are smaller on shorter cruises but the percentage disadvantage remains. I can find on scenario under which I realize more value under simply MORE that OLife if I do not buy beverage packages. If you have an example of how you pay less under simply MORE than OLife, please share it. 

I also realize that everyone's situation is different. My post is about the affect that the new program has on those of us that do not buy beverage packages using my own personal experience as an example. If you visit the Roll Calls  you will find quite a few people that previously booked "Cruise Only."

NOTE: the examples and commentary I have made are comparing only the effects of Oceania's OLife program with its new simply MORE program. I am not comparing to any other cruise line. Not unexpectedly, simply MORE represents a significant increase in price and reduction in value to those of us that do not buy beverage packages. For those that to, simply MORE is a net positive.

4 minutes ago, 1985rz1 said:

Yes, it's a mixed bag, and it is important to do the math as you have done.  But be careful in using the maximum shore excursion value in the comparison, as it's rare to actually reach that value.  Our experience is a factor of 1.6 to 1.7 is more in tune with what is actually doable.  This doesn't change your assessment as the excursion comparison still shows a loss, just not quite as bad.

I decided to start with the maximum because it is theoretically possible. But even if you use a reduced number, the result is OLife provided a higher benefit. It is just a matter of how much less. We are booked on the 2024 ATW which is why I chose it. We booked in March 2022, so OLife is our program. Our qualifying shore excursions have a value of $175 per excursion or $13,650 versus an allowance of $10,800 from simply MORE. The OLife advantage to us is a significant $2,850 or 26.64% more than the simply MORE program. Your mileage may vary but it will be greater under OLife than under simply MORE.

The OLife program also offered a "Your World Collection" 25% discount on shore excursions booked above a fixed number. That number included the excursions booked using the free excursion amenity. There was also an "Unlimited Passport Collection" but that was only advantageous to us on our Alaskan cruise. For the 2024 ATW, the YWC 25% discount became available once we booked 6 shore excursions above our included number. There is no mention of those discount packages still existing under simply MORE. If they do not exist, then Oceania has implemented a significant increase in price on all booked excursions that previously would have been discounted. 

1 hour ago, shepherd really said:

Correct, but I assign a low value to the house beverage package based on the amount my wife and I drink and the limitation of only during lunch and dinner. On port intensive cruises that means dinner only. Add in the nights of free drink events and the happy hours and it isn't worth much. 

Oceania knows what percentage of its passengers buy beverage packages. Oceania also knows that beverage packages have an extremely high gross profit margin. They have little or no value to my wife and me. Oceania is making a calculated decision that they hope will increase their profit margins. There is nothing wrong with that. But simply MORE is a failed attempt at camouflaging a significant price increase for the ancillary elements of a cruise on top of the easily identifiable increases in cabin tariffs. I personally think they went too far too fast. 

OLife versus simply MORE shore excursion value comparison using 180-day 2024 and 2025 ATW cruises.

ATW 2024 – OLife 78 shore excursions or $7,800 shipboard credit

        Maximum shore excursion value $15,522

ATW 2024 – simply MORE, $10,800 shore excursion credit (30% reduction compared to OLife)

ATW 2025 – OLife 64 shore excursions or $6,400 shipboard credit

        Maximum shore excursion value $12,736 (18% reduction compared to 2024 ATW)

ATW 2025 – simply MORE, $9,800 shore excursion credit (23% decrease compared to OLife)

For shorter cruises, the reduction in value of the shore excursion amenity will be proportional. Whatever the amount, both the shore excursion credit and the beverage package are use it or lose it amenities. For some of us, there is a lot to lose.

There will be some percentage of cruisers that will be very happy about simply MORE. They are the passengers that always purchase a “House Select” beverage package which costs $39.95 per day per person. On a 180-day cruise, the value of that amenity is $7,191 per person or $14,382 per cabin. That will more than offset the decrease in value of the previous shore excursion amenity. I don’t know what percentage of Oceania’s passengers purchase the “House Select” beverage package but Oceania does. In my opinion, Oceania knows that including the high gross margin “House Select” beverage package and reducing the value of the shore excursion amenity will be  more advantageous to Oceania than OLife. For those of us that don’t drink or don’t buy beverage packages for a variety of reasons, the inclusion has no value.

To sum up the differences between OLife and simply MORE:

• ·         Significantly reduced value of shore excursion amenity with simply MORE
• ·         No option for shipboard credit in lieu of shore excursions with simply MORE
• ·         Elimination of a cruise only option with simply MORE
• ·         Addition of the “House Select” beverage package with simply MORE

6 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

Wasn't it the same with oLife? If you booked with oLife and selected 4 excursions, one of them in the last port, and the port was cancelled, wouldn't you lose it?

We took the shore excursion amenity and booked our shore excursions. They qualified for the Unlimited Passport Collection. We were given refunds for all canceled shore excursions. We had the option of replacing them. We replaced two of them but the transactions were debits and credits. We were credited for the ones we cancelled and debited for the ones we added. The transactions were not linked.

2 minutes ago, shepherd really said:

Agreed, I ran the numbers for both my already booked cruises.  Neither was a deal. On one, the amount I would spend on excursions went up by $125pp, add in the $600 pp higher cruise price and the lack of value for the "Simply more" benefits and it was not even a close call.  Your results may vary.

It works in your favor if you always buy the House Select Beverage Package but we don't. However, prior to simply MORE, Oceania reduced the shore excursion amentity so its value was more in line with the simply MORE value. But simply MORE is still less than the lowered OLife shore excursion amenity. Oceania is trying to disguise significant increases in price as benefits. For those of us that don't buy beverage packages, the disguise doesn't work.

Just now, shepherd really said:

Both seem doubtful, especially if the cancellations are on the final port before the end of the cruise, when booking another tour is not an option.  Sounds like use it or lose it.  Ports cancelled? Too bad, so sad.  

That would be my concern. With simply MORE it is already a use it or lose it amenity. It just becomes less valuable if you can't use it because of cancelled ports and a credit for the cost of the booked and cancelled shore excursion is not issued. For us, the simply MORE program is a net negative. 

37 minutes ago, MarkWiltonM said:

 

Another thing to consider is how often Oceania cancels port calls, due to weather, the possibility of labor unrest (?!), etc. On our cruise to Bermuda in March, which was titled "Pink Sands Soiree" and was to spend 3 days in Bermuda, the entirety of the Bermuda portion of the cruise was canceled and we instead had two nights in (wait for it) -- Jacksonville, Florida!!! The third day was an extra sea day. We didn't have any Oceania excursions booked in Bermuda, but for those who did choose excursions as their O Life option, they had to settle for hastily arranged excursions in frickin' Jacksonville, Florida. I have never seen so many sad faces on a cruise in all my years of sailing.  

Our issue with simply MORE is that it forces you to book Oceania shore excursions in order to use the allowance. However, you do have the flexibility to book OE, OS etc. excursions that were not available with the OLife shore excursion amentity. That said, the total value of the simply MORE amenity is less than the maximum total value of the OLife shore excursion amenity. 

We recently had three shore excursions cancelled on our Alaskan cruise. We were given refunds. I can't tell from the information available what will happen with simply MORE. Will Oceania issue a refund to your onboard account or will they force you to book another shore excursion in order to maximize the value of the amenity.

1 hour ago, lackcreativity said:

I will not dispute your observation, only stress your point about this being a subset of cruisers. We began our travels with Globus, and loved those trips back in the day. You can visit places not accessible by cruise ship, and spending all your time in the places you visit is a bonus. We didn't even mind the buses!

 

However, as we aged, we found that even with the support offered by the tour company, the constant packing and unpacking, every morning with an early departure, and yes, now the long stretches on the buses became tiring. That's when we tried our first cruise (Viking). We are not going back. We may branch out to Oceania in search of new itineraries, but the ease of travel is of importance to us now. Glad that we all have so many options.

 

 

 

We feel the same way. The older I get, the less I am willing to schlepp luggage in and out of hotels, train stations, and trains every two or three days. Our stress level goes up and our enjoyment level goes down. If we take a land trip, we stay for at least a week in one location and sightsee by private guide from there. 

19 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

But Regent is even more inclusive and much more expensive. You presumably pay for unlimited drinks (not only at lunch/dinner) and all excursions (not only a credit).  

It is and that is why we choose Oceania most of the time. Oceania's new program is creating an even bigger price to value gap than it did before. I realize that choices can't always be totally objective and equal on all points. But now, the decision has become more difficult because of Oceania devaluing its offer.

7 minutes ago, EJL2023 said:

Haven’t we always had that freedom? So really nothing new. For years I refused to do cruises. Everyone has always had preferences, even before SimplyMore 

Taken in a vacuum, you are correct. Taken in the context of this thread and Oceania's latest program that greatly devalues the inclusions for many especially the non-drinkers among us; there is something new and for many of us worse. You are correct. Each of us has a decision to make after weighing the factors.

1 minute ago, LHT28 said:

That will be their next project

🙄

That is what scares me.

4 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

I don't disagree. On the contrary. As someone who doesn't drink and prefers to take private tours, I'm among those who would prefer the old program to stay. For me it worked perfectly because we drink a lot of specialty coffee and mineral water, but not alcohol. So it was a perfect fit for us (include things that we use and exclude things we don't).

 

However, this is the trend with all premium/luxury lines. There are many things that we pay for and not necessarily use on the upscale lines. Some people don't use Wi-Fi, but were still paying for it anyway. Some people don't care about specialty restaurants, or don't drink specialty teas and coffees. SS recently started to include excursions in their fares. Where do you draw the line? Cannot please everyone.

 

Many people say that if they wanted to book all inclusive, they would book SB or SS. Maybe they will if the price difference becomes small (I know we will) - and maybe it will cause O to re consider (but I'm not holding my breath).

 

I also agree about the loyalty program, and this is exactly why we sail on many lines. Having those perks is nice, but they are still a relatively small percentage of the total fare.

 

btw, speaking of loyalty programs, Windstar gives you a 5% discount on all sailings after the first sailing. SS does the same for select sailings, and extra 5% after 100 nights. So there are other programs that are also pretty good. 

We do pay for things we don't necessarily want or use. But shore excursions and drinks packages are the two most expensive things you can pay for besides the cruise itself. That is why the effect of simply MORE is so dramatically negative for us. The reason we sail Oceania most frequently followed by Regent is their itineraries. Up until recent years, the itineraries of many small ship cruise lines were uninspiring. Creative, longer itineraries are what drew us to Oceania. After our ATW in 2024, we will reevaluate. Oceania has made it easier for us to switch by offering us far less value for our money. 

16 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

People should always check options and compare. We did it before SM and will continue doing it after SM. Could never understand people who cruise exclusively on one line. No line is perfect. Each line has pros and cons, why not to try more than one? Choice is good. Variety is good.

 

Of course Oceania DOES NOT CARE if you move on. No line does. For them there are two things that matter: profits and guest satisfaction. In that specific order. And if profits come at expense of guests satisfaction, so be it.

 

The SM price increase is now history. It is what it is. Going forward, the only thing that matters is the overall value and how O compares to other lines in terms of itineraries, price, and overall package.

You are correct on all points. But no one likes a massive price increase or to be told that they have to buy and pay for something they do not want and cannot use while at the same time having the value of the things they do want and use decreased. With the new program, Oceania has forced many of its clients out of their comfort zones. We are used to price increases but we are not used to paying for something we don't want and being told to USE IT OR LOSE IT! 

We do sail on other cruise lines but Oceania has received more of our business and until this recent change would have continued to receive more. Why? Because once you reach a certain level, there are perks like prepaid gratuities, free custom air arrangements, increased shipboard credit. All of those things have value. All of those things were present before the change and are factored into our decision on which cruise line to use. Given Oceania's recent drastic price increases (increased tariffs, decreased value of shore excursion amentity) for a sizeable segment of their passengers and their reduction in choices available (no shipboard credit in lieu of free excursions, no cruise only option, mandatory drinks package), I fear that Oceania will take the axe to their loyalty program and devalue it as well. 

4 minutes ago, vtgumby said:

OR you choose to cruise a different cruiseline. You are right about corporate not caring, that is UNTIL enough people jump ship, but Cliff didn’t say that, he merely stated what many of us are saying which is we will not just be O only cruisers but will look into other lines to find the value we seek.

It isn’t to cruise or not but rather more judicial choosing of our cruises.

I shall still look at O along with beloved W and AZ and when the value is there we’re booking but there IS a price point for some of us, O may be challenging ours.

We too will be looking at other cruise lines. Oceania's simply MORE which for us is "a whole lot less" significantly devalues the experience for us. We have never been prone to accept "take it or leave it" conditions.

11 hours ago, Cliff-FLL said:

Except that Oceania is not saying it's "included".  Rather, they are very boldly proclaiming that these things are "FREE":

"2 for 1 Cruise Fares" - let's just say they've beaten that laughable horse to death;

"FREE Roundtrip Airfare" - but only if you pay more for the included-airfare option;

"FREE Airport Transfers" - but only if you pay more for the included-airfare option;

So how are either of these options "FREE" if you have to pay more to receive them?

 

Moving on, we get to the other FREE benefits of simply MORE:

"FREE Shore Excursions" - but only up to a certain dollar limit, depending on the cruise length;

"FREE Champagne, Wine, & More" - but only at certain times when they say you can have it;

"FREE Gourmet Specialty Dining" - which is no different than what they've always offered;

"FREE Unlimited Wi-Fi" - which, to the best of my knowledge, has always been the case.

 

For a cruise we have scheduled for May 2024, the new fare, without "FREE" airfare, increases the price by $400pp.  We're certainly not going to drink enough of their wines at lunch & dinner to justify that amount and the FREE shore excursions would probably be taken only so we don't lose the extra money we're already being charged.

 

So, to be clear, I don't intend to, "Get over it or move on."  I'll look at Oceania objectively, ignore all of their "FREE" perks while I compare them to other cruise lines, and make an informed decision as to whether or not Oceania is the best selection.  Before, I probably would have just decided which Oceania cruise I wanted.  Now, I'll simply decide on the basis of itinerary and what is more reasonably priced based on its "FREE" benefits.

For many of us simply MORE is a whole lot less. The value of the shore excursions that were a part of OLife has been reduced by simply MORE over the OLife value that had already been reduced for 2025 sailings. And you have no choice but to use it or lose it. Many people arrange private shore excursions in ports. Now they will be forced to either use the Oceania credit or lose it. There is no longer a choice of shipboard credit instead of shore excursions. There is only a shipboard credit to be used solely for the purchase of Oceania shore excursions. USE IT OR LOSE IT!. The former House Select Drinks Package that was prices at $39.95 per person per day is now included. For those of us that don't drink or ever buy the drinks package for a variety of reasons it is USE IT OR LOSE IT! FREE Gourmet Specialty Dining and Free Unlimited WiFi were previously included. They are not an addition. There is no longer a "Cruise Only" option. 

I am not certain that the marketing whizzes at Oceania thought this new offer through or maybe they did. For many of us, simply MORE will be a huge price increase because of the reduced value of shore excursions when compared to OLife. For 2025, Oceania had already reduced the number of shore excursions available and/or the value of the shipboard credit in the OLife program. As an example, the OLife shore excursion amenity for the 180 day 2024 ATW was 78 shore excursions or $7,800 shipboard credit. For the 2025 ATW, that had been reduced to 64 shore excursions or $6,400. That is an 18% increase in price. The simply MORE program for a newly booked 2024 ATW provides $10,800 in shore excursion credit. That represents a reduction in value of up to $4,722 over the OLife amentity and a reduction of up to $1,936 over the already reduced OLife shore excursion value for the 2025 ATW. The simply MORE values for the 2025 ATW have not been loaded yet so I am unable to see if there is a further decrease in value. For shorter cruises, the decrease in value will be proportional but there will be a decrease in value unless you always bought a drinks package. Oh, and there is no longer a cruise only option. The only option is with or without air. 

Oceania used to be an easy choice for us. It represented a good value for the money paid. For us, that value has been greatly reduced. It is time to look at other options. 

2 hours ago, Host Kat said:

@mjobtx

 

Howdy from a fellow Texan!  

 

Perhaps the following from the Guidelines we all agreed to follow when registering for our free Cruise Critic memberships will be helpful:

 

"Other Cruise & Travel Sites

Cruise Critic reserves the right to approve or deny links which lead directly to or link to cruise-related material or message boards that are not located within Cruise Critic. Additionally, we respectfully request that you do not use our forums to promote or advertise other cruise-related websites."

 

Also,

 

"Question: Why don't you allow us to post about other cruise sites? My post contains *** and then you removed it!  Answer:  Actually, we do allow the legitimate linking to information at another cruise site, as long as that link isn't posted in an attempt to drive traffic to that site (in the sole discretion of Cruise Critic), or if the posting of such site is meant to cause disruption within the community. If a website's url or name is replaced by a series of *****, it may mean that particular website had spammed our community with advertisements for their site, or that member(s) may have posted in a way that we consider self-promotion or advertising."

 

If you have any further questions, comments or feedback concerning board moderation, please send an email to the Community Manager LauraS per the following also from the Guidelines:

 

"... Discussion of the management of this community is not allowed on the forums..." 

 

"... However, we would be happy to address any concerns you have via email.   Please write to the Community Manager at:  community@cruisecritic.com..."

 

"... The Community Manager has overall control of everything that happens within the Community. The Community Manager oversees how the board is styled, what forums to create and how to organize them, is responsible for our Rules of Participation, what information to require from members and who to appoint as Community Hosts. You may contact the Community Manager at: community@cruisecritic.com..."

 

"... If you have any questions or comments regarding our posting guidelines or any content found on our message boards please be sure and let me know. I'll be happy to discuss them with you.

LauraS
Senior Manager, Community
community@cruisecritic.com..."

 

Please send your email to LauraS from your Cruise Critic email address of record and be sure to mention your Cruise Critic user name.

 

I sincerely hope  this additional information will be helpful & glad to have a fellow Texan aboard Cruise Critic! 

 

Happy sails,

 

Host Kat 

I didn't violate any of those rules. Apparently the AI just goes berserk once in a while. I thank you for your post because I now have a contact to email.

Michael & Patricia

Plano, TX

They are not political. They are not advertising anything. They contain no foul language. So why starting today are all of my posts hidden? Who can I contact to get the problem corrected? I participate in an active Oceania Insignia Roll Call for the 2022 ATW cruise. Now I cannot participate.

By being able to post this, it appears that only my posts in the ATW Roll Call are affected but I have no idea why.

Michael & Patricia

Plano, TX

2 minutes ago, michaelfl said:

after a few world cruises on the (no longer existing) amsterdam i have finally decided  book the 2023 world cruise on the insignia. i never sailed on oceania but i hear they are several notches better than holland america. still a long way to go - but definetely something new to look forward to.

I think you will enjoy it a great deal. We switched from HAL and Celebrity a few years ago and we haven't gone back. Oceania and Regent provide the best experiences and  most creative itineraries we have ever had. The best part of the ATW is the people you meet. 

Michael & Patricia

Plano, TX

3 minutes ago, ORV said:

I'm curious how many of the ones booked was a redo for 2020 and 2021. It certainly seems like there is a market for these extended cruises. 

I don't know what the numbers are but I personally know several that were on the shortened 2020 ATW  that jumped to 2022 and some of them have jumped again to the 2023 because they are concerned that only Oceania shore excursions will be allowed on the 2022 ATW. There is hope that with time, we can return to normal.

Michael & Patricia

Plano, TX

1 hour ago, LHT28 said:

The cruise is 2 yrs away 

The current statement on capacity levels was for start up after the pandemic

I saw an interview with FDR  he stated  it would be  up to 60% capacity   for  several months when they start sailing again along with  other restrictions until things are back to non pandemic times

 

So by 2023 it could be back to 99% capacity

No one really knows what the future holds for the cruise industry

 

That would be my assumption as well. The industry can't operate for long on 60% capacity. I expect the 2022 ATW will sail at 80% capacity, possibly more depending on the trajectory of the pandemic around world. By 2023, the cruise lines should be back to full capacity.