Second Open Letter to Frank Del Rio

Hello Mr. Del Rio,

It is I, Arlene, again, representing the other 683 passengers on the 35 day Cape Town to Singapore cruise beginning December 22nd….(Remember, I wrote to you in August?) How disappointing and frustrating it is for us to be told once again that a port has been cancelled. Let me refresh your memory about this cruise. First, at the beginning, Kenya and Tanzania were eliminated and more time at the beach was added. Didn’t like, but we accepted that. Then you took away 3 days in Burma to quote Oceania: “....we have been made aware that Burma (Myanmar) is an affected country for purposes of travel under the enforcement guidelines imposed by the United States Department of the Treasury.” Well when we see something from the US Government, we accept that as well. Unfortunately, we should not have and questioned this. We should have realized we were not being told by the State Department or Defense Department, BUT the Treasury Department. Why can’t we go to Burma? Because we would buy stuff and take it home with us against the rules of our government? Tell us we can’t and we won’t. In Australia and New Zealand we were told not to buy any “wood” products to take home and we didn’t. Give us a real explanation and we may accept it. Many of us had to cancel private tours to go to Bagan overnight to see the spectacular temples. The tour company I booked this with could not imagine why, since Oceania was there in April. I could not give him a reason, only the above-mentioned quote from Oceania. So then you gave us two days in India – Cochin and Chennai – and along with that you included the visas gratis. How kind. And we accepted that, albeit grudgingly. Now your itinerary or destination department has taken away Chennai and the reason being “berthing problems.” How on earth could Oceania not have known there was a problem with a berth? And if so, why not anchor off shore and put us all in tenders. We have no problem with tendering, as we have all done it many times. This change is disappointing on many levels, the most important of which is that the substitution (Mangalore) has a reputation for being one of the worst ports to visit. I have this on good advice as some of the people sailing with us visited there in 2009 with Oceania; and because of the lack of things to do and see, Oceania scratched it from its future cruises. To make matters worse, I asked my tour company in India if they had tours in Mangalore and the answer was, “yes we do, but there isn’t much to see!” Had any one thought about adding Goa instead of Mangalore? That is a much more interesting place. And in place of Chennai, you also gave us another day in Sri Lanka…just what we wanted 3.5 days in that country. None of us booked this cruise for this. As someone remarked on CC, “Safari, Sands and Sri Lanka.” We didn’t sign up for this. This itinerary has been changed so many times, I don’t think any of us knows what the original was.

You have antagonized and upset the 70-odd posters on Cruise Critic going on this cruise and I’m sure all the others. Many of us booked this cruise for specific places and you have deleted them. Compensation in the form of a visa is not good enough. We are spending many thousands of dollars on this cruise; we have private tours booked that had to be rearranged, cancelled and rebooked. You have whole departments for this; we are only a few.

We know that Oceania can taketh away and giveth back as when you gave back Victoria on the August 26th cruise to Alaska. It was a good thing to do and all of us appreciated that you rearranged the ports so we could be there. Why not giveth back now? Ideally, everyone I know would really love to have Burma back; but in the alternative, we’d accept Chennai and do away with Trincomalee, Sri Lanka.

You may not know that this will be our 10th (11th & 12th because of the amount of days) cruise and we have 3 more booked. We love sailing with Oceania and have been loyal passengers since 2003, but this is the second time in only a few months that I have been so very upset with Oceania and it is an unpleasant way to feel. Put yourself in our position and see how you would react. I would appreciate an answer from you or someone high enough up the corporate ladder who can give us a detailed explanation as why this was happened and what can be done to rectify some of it and make your passengers happy. Arlene tanny5258@att.net

Tanny

sorry to hear your cruise has been affected again

Canada still has a warning for Burma

http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=200000

Might more than just a shopping issue

other countries as well

http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=149000

http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=128000

Maybe the USA have similar reports

Tanny

sorry to hear your cruise has been affected again

 

Canada still has a warning for Burma

http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=200000

Might more than just a shopping issue

 

other countries as well

http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=149000

http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=128000

 

Maybe the USA have similar reports

No worse than the travel warnings for Sri Lanka. Oceania specifically made the excuse of treasury regulations.

Dept of State's travel website http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html

Mexico is on the list as are several Western Africa nations, the Philippines, Colombia, and 2 areas in Israel.......and of course, Kenya BUT not Myanmar.

Arlene,

Bad luck (and poor decision by O, IMO) - let's hope they will restore the Myanmar stop. I don't know that anything has changed in the last couple of months that would make Myanmar less safe than it was, say in July. At least then you could have cancelled (if you wanted to) before final payment.

There are five (5) degrees of travel advisory on the Australian Government web site:

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au

Be alert to own security

Exercise caution

High degree of caution

Reconsider your need to travel

Do not travel

The following countries of our cruise are all the mid-range (High Degree of Caution):

South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, India in general, Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand. All for a variety of reasons from Serious Crime to Politically motivated violence and civil unrest.

Let us get this thing into perspective or the whole tourist industry will grind to a halt.

It is a real world – let us enjoy it.

Good point Oz. It's interesting to note that cruise ships put into Mexico, the Philippines, Columbia, Israel, etc...including O.

I think the main bone of contention is that our cruise has been changed from it's original itinerary and with flimsy excuses.......plus the most recent change was after final payment and to a port in India that has little to offer the tourist as well as YET ANOTHER in Sri Lanka! Indeed, we've now found ourselves on Sands, Safaris and Sri Lanka which is not what we purchased and definitely not what attracted us to book in the first place.

There's been much displeasure posted recently regarding port changes for Norway, Alaska, SF-NY cruises......and now our cruise. Makes for lots of unhappy cruisers.

We are CC members who are also on this cruise Cape Town to Singapore.

We would like to thank Arlene for representing us on these matters and to confirm that we are 100% in agreement with every comment made.

Coincidental to this thread I found the following in this weekend's edition of a major Australian daily in a piece about the current changes in Burma's political scene.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/surprises-in-burmas-guided-democracy-20111014-1lp1s.html

Still, it has led to Washington's most senior diplomatic official for Asia, Kurt Campbell, promising the US will ''match their steps with comparable steps", suggesting the releases will be followed by the easing or lifting of some of the sanctions targeted against senior Burmese army commanders and their civilian business partners.

Campbell, an assistant secretary of state, told an audience in Bangkok on Monday the Myitsone Dam suspension was one of several developments that "demand closer attention", and the US was "looking forward in the course of the next several weeks to continuing a dialogue that has really stepped up in recent months''. He described Thein Sein as ''a serious interlocutor'' and said his discussions with Suu Kyi were "very consequential".

Perhaps Oceania could assist the US State Department in meeting their objectives regarding Myanmar?

Mangalore, yuck. Filthy place, never mind nothing to see. The whole ship had to be washed after we left there - ore dust. I, too, would be upset with all those changes. Good luck.

The cruise lines are training us not to cruise for the ports of call. I realize that there are reasons to change ports but the least painful that they make it the better it is for the cruisers and the industry. Better financial comp or substitutions would help. I no longer cruise to see a particular port, I don't have the budget for a do over it that port gets skipped. I cruise to vacation and do land travel to see the world.

We must realize that the Captain or Master of the ship has the responsibility for the well being of all the passengers, crew and condition of the ship. If in his/her mind that there might be a problem due to the information obtained in the bridge. This knowledge might not be public knowledge of current conditions of weather, social unrest, government regulations, political issues, etc. The decision has to be made with immediacy of the moment. When on board we have to follow. There are good reasons for the Captain to change plans. It is not a democracy on a ship. So we have to make the best of it when we can and enjoy what we have control over. There is no use to fret over things we can't change.

... I no longer cruise to see a particular port, I don't have the budget for a do over if that port gets skipped. I cruise to vacation and do land travel to see the world.

That has become our mind set as well. The ports become serendipitous to us it is the value of the ship experience that keep us with Oceania cruises.

Bill & Jeannie

I do agree with Bill P's mindset ... we generally accept changes as a part of the cruise experience. On the other hand, I understand Arlene's feelings, especially after the final payent has been made. At a minimum, the "tale away" for O from this is to try to minimize such changes in the future.

As per the OP they aren't on the ship and it's not the Captain or Master making these decisions - the cruise begins Dec 22nd.

We must realize that the Captain or Master of the ship has the responsibility for the well being of all the passengers, crew and condition of the ship. If in his/her mind that there might be a problem due to the information obtained in the bridge. This knowledge might not be public knowledge of current conditions of weather, social unrest, government regulations, political issues, etc. The decision has to be made with immediacy of the moment. When on board we have to follow. There are good reasons for the Captain to change plans. It is not a democracy on a ship. So we have to make the best of it when we can and enjoy what we have control over. There is no use to fret over things we can't change.

In the case of port cancellations O may reach a decision in a number of ways. A decision by a non-seafaring operational manager, a marketing manager, a financial executive, a Captain or a collaborative efforts by some of these folks. And even this may change from time to time. JMO

And maybe-perhaps, when you are making long-range decisions because of known problem areas, it can be better to be safe than sorry. I mean that in terms of being able to adjust your itinerary easily. The itinerary changes we had in November 2005 were fairly significant -- although they didn't have nearly the impact that the changes on OP's cruise have.

I understand her distress and unhappiness. Those of us on non-Libya who were on the internet and knew what was happening weren't happy either. And we wrote many letters to management ... Initially we won our point, but then Qadaffi made it impossible to stick to the original itinerary.

Mura

Thanks, Arlene... You have at least 8 Canadians supporting you... Nice job.

I am somewhat confused. In countless instances and in several marketing brochures, the port intensive itineraries have been cited as a primary reason for selecting Oceania Cruises. While the ambience of the ships is lovely, it is not enough to ensure our continued allegiance to Oceania. Indeed, if the cruise experience were all that their clientele sought, couldn't Oceania merely repeat the same itinerary in perpetuity? I think not.

It's one thing for the decision to be made by the captain on the spot: entirely a different matter to be notified of port changes only after final payment has been made--at worst deceptive; at best, poor management.

I think that part of the problem is lack of communication as to the specific reason for skipping a port. When we were on HAL's Voyage of the Vikings we were were given a good reason why we skipped a port. There were only two berths - both occupied. We would have had to tender in. We would have had to climb a steep wet ladder to get on the dock. The captain felt that he would be risking the safety of his passengers.

In contrast when were were on a HAL cruise from Japan to Vancouver, the time in Sitka was greatly reduced with no explanation. Someone said that it was because of the tides. I would have liked an official explanation because Sitka was one of the ports I was looking forward to. We are not children so why can we not be given accurate information as to the reasons for the changes.

We must realize that the Captain or Master of the ship has the responsibility for the well being of all the passengers, .......SNIP...........................There are good reasons for the Captain to change plans. It is not a democracy on a ship..... There is no use to fret over things we can't change.

You sound as if you are speaking from experience as am I.

1. The Captain can and will make the final decision as circumstances dictate and if he knows his job will clearly advise his reasons to the crew and and passengers and HEAD OFFICE.

2. The situation in Myanmar has shown signs of improvement over the last 18 months and this appears to be accelerating. NAUTICA visited Yangon last year.

3. It is not too late to change this decision particularly as the "original" cruise is still being advertised for 2012.

I say again "Bring Back Burma" :mad:

"We must realize that the Captain or Master of the ship has the responsibility for the well being of all the passengers......"

I think most have us have been on a number of cruises before and know very well how important following captain's orders is while aboard. This is not our case.

We also all accept that sometimes there are factors requiring alterations in the itinerary and go along with them. Indeed, that is exactly what happened when Myanmar was dropped, people were disappointed but nobody complained. Now after the fourth port change the cruise does not resemble the one which we were first offered and our disappointment at losing so many important ports is well founded and the reasons for the change, especially for Myanmar, being so flimsy leaves us exasperated. We are not sheep, we pay well for our cruises and yes we are allowed to question the reasons that an itinerary change is made. If I took the cruise only for the ship or to go to places which are decided for me I would stay in the Caribbean as it's cheap and the ports are much the same.

Arlene, thanks so much for representing us so well and I'm sure I'm right in thinking that O as maybe the most client conscious cruise line will listen and hopefully we might get MYANMAR back.

The cruise lines are training us not to cruise for the ports of call. I realize that there are reasons to change ports but the least painful that they make it the better it is for the cruisers and the industry. Better financial comp or substitutions would help. I no longer cruise to see a particular port, I don't have the budget for a do over it that port gets skipped. I cruise to vacation and do land travel to see the world.

You are right in principle - land travel is much better if one wants to see more of a country than one can on a cruise and plans are more firm. However, arranging a land trip to Italy or France is one thing and a land trip to Myanmar is quite another. Obviously, many people on this itinerary felt that this would be the only way they would ever get to see Myanmar and now they can't. What is worse is that the reasons for this are not very clear or obvious and that is part of why they are so upset.

The cruise lines are training us not to cruise for the ports of call. I realize that there are reasons to change ports but the least painful that they make it the better it is for the cruisers and the industry. Better financial comp or substitutions would help. I no longer cruise to see a particular port, I don't have the budget for a do over it that port gets skipped. I cruise to vacation and do land travel to see the world.

That has become our mind set as well. The ports become serendipitous to us it is the value of the ship experience that keep us with Oceania cruises.

Bill & Jeannie

Just as a counterpoint I'll mention that the Itinerary is the #1 reason when we choose Oceania to cruise on. If we are looking for an on board experience then we will be making other choices of cruise lines that fit our lifestyle better.

I am somewhat confused. In countless instances and in several marketing brochures, the port intensive itineraries have been cited as a primary reason for selecting Oceania Cruises. While the ambience of the ships is lovely, it is not enough to ensure our continued allegiance to Oceania. Indeed, if the cruise experience were all that their clientele sought, couldn't Oceania merely repeat the same itinerary in perpetuity? I think not.

Exactly.

We travelled on this cruise last year and Burma was the highlight.

It was wonderful and, after all the scare-mongering we heard before arrival, we wondered what it was all about once we got there.

The people were lovely and there was so much to see. Everyone we meet on the cruise rated Burma very highly.

We can’t imagine why Oceania should elect to cancel this stop, and feel very sorry for you all.

As with your cruise this year, we also had ports of call cancelled last year (Dar El Salaam, Zanzibar and Mombasa) AFTER we had paid our final payment which caused a furore amongst the passengers.

Too much of a coincidence that the same thing has happened again! :mad:

Never thought we would be doing this but, after 10 Oceania cruises, we are now looking around at other options for our next cruise because we believe the standard of service and itineraries offered have gone down.:(

Good luck