Rumor Alert : Oceania Newbuild Order Coming Soon ?

[MightyQuinn]

... Even under the Azamara banner I worry. When the Quest had that fire, they didn't even try to replace her with a charter, they just ran the Journey alone for something like four or five months.....

I know this is a rumor thread but here are some facts about that Azamara fire. ;);)

 

We were aboard Quest during the engine room fire incident. It happened on March 30, 2012 off the coast of the Philippines. Damage was extensive and Quest was unable to continue sailing without major repairs. We were forced to abandon ship in Malaysia on April 1, 2012 and the rest of our 17-nite voyage was canceled. Azamara also canceled the next 12-nite cruise but resumed regular sailings on April 24, 2012. So all in all, Quest was out of service for not quite a month.

 

Now back to the rumors .... I hope Oceania does built another O class ship. For us, they are just perfect in every way! And if any R class ships become available for sale, I think Oceania would be a much more likely purchaser than Crystal.

[pacheco18]

Wait a year and the 2 R ships Azamara has will be available. RCCL has not ever spent any money on the ships or committing to the AZ brand with back office support. Also the RCCL new builds coming the next three years will take all of their capital expenditure budget. AZ is a figurative pimple on RCCL' s behind. If O would make an offer, the ships could be had at very reasonable costs in my opinion.

 

Plus 1

I hope it happens.

[pacheco18]

AZ has their 2016 schedule out already for booking. IF O or Crystal were to acquire them do you think the 2016 itineraries would remain as planned? I must say they have some great itineraries!

 

Azamara does have great itineraries -- which is why I have booked 3 cruises on Azamara. If Oceania had similar itineraries on the R ships, I would be on O.

 

I am finding Oceania's itineraries to be somewhat repetitive. Like many of you, we are very well traveled -- that's the "problem." LOL Every once in a while they add a new port, but one new port in a cruise is not enough for me to book. I have 2 O cruises this year, one for 2015 and hope to book 2 for 2016 if the itineraries are right. I would love more overnights (in ports that are worth it) and more late night stays.

[Love.II.Cruise]

I like Venezia - or maybe "Utopia".

 

I like both of these names. ;)

[ShopperfiendTO]

Euphoria. Virtuosa. Bravura. Curiosa. I like Ocarina myself, sea/ocean-related!

[tanny18]

Meshugga(h) -- if you get my drift LOL

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I love it!! Arlene

[pacheco18]

Actually, we spent two days in Bali and a day in Java - it was truly wonderful. I think you are right about the old and dated Azamara ships, and we'll wait and see if O has some great intineraries! I see that A has shorter cruises and when you are going that far, you want to stay longer. We'll see what comes out for 2016!! Meanwhile, I have to plan my FREEBIE after our September cruise!. Arlene

 

The Freebie -- make it a good one

 

Azamara is best done b2b to get the longer cruise and their brochure is organized by putting all the cruises in sequence by ship -- so it's easy to find the cruise before and after.

[Andy]

OK, I'll bite. Who is Edie Bornstein????

 

Hi Toranut97,

 

Ms Bornstein is a former Azamara executive, who is now President Of Crystal Cruises.

[Andy]

That's the problem.....who knows? :cool:

Even under the Azamara banner I worry. When the Quest had that fire, they didn't even try to replace her with a charter, they just ran the Journey alone for something like four or five months.....

 

As MightyQuinn mentioned, Azamara Quest was out of service for roughly 1 month. As for getting another ship on such short notice... where does one go to replace a 30,000 ton ship on a few days notice, and for a short period of time ? It's not like Royal Caribbean (nor any other cruise line) has a back up fleet. Is Hertz renting cruise ships these days ? :)

 

Based on various reports from the media, and from those who were onboard Quest at the time, Azamara's management team and their onboard officers and crew handled the Quest situation as well as possible, especially considering the extremely difficult circumstances.

[JimandStan]

where does one go to replace a 30,000 ton ship on a few days notice, and for a short period of time?

 

My point exactly and that is certainly a huge concern when booking with a line that is only operating two ships on such far flung itineraries. One mishap and 50% of their passengers may find themselves dis-accommodated, and in Shanghai, yet. :eek:

 

It's odd to be looking at things from this side of the fence, actually, because we were Holland America devotees back in the early 1980's when they were struggling mightily to keep three ships at sea.

 

I don't have very much good to say about the Carnival buyout of HAL, but at the very least it gave Holland America the capitol to build (forgive the pun) a boatload of new ships.

 

I wonder why RCCL isn't supporting Azamara in the same way?

[pacheco18]

My point exactly and that is certainly a huge concern when booking with a line that is only operating two ships on such far flung itineraries. One mishap and 50% of their passengers may find themselves dis-accommodated, and in Shanghai, yet. :eek:

 

It's odd to be looking at things from this side of the fence, actually, because we were Holland America devotees back in the early 1980's when they were struggling mightily to keep three ships at sea.

 

I don't have very much good to say about the Carnival buyout of HAL, but at the very least it gave Holland America the capitol to build (forgive the pun) a boatload of new ships.

 

I wonder why RCCL isn't supporting Azamara in the same way?

 

If you read the Azamara boards, Azamara devotees are wondering the same thing. Refurbishment was cancelled. There is no talk of a new build except for wishful thinking on the part of some.

 

I think the Oceania refurbishment is going to be a problem for Azamara. The best thing about Azamara is the on board experience (warm and fuzzy crew) but that can only take you so far. Oceania on board experience is different but excellent as well. As for the itineraries, Oceania could take a lesson from Azamara on that score. . . . .

[rallydave]

My point exactly and that is certainly a huge concern when booking with a line that is only operating two ships on such far flung itineraries. One mishap and 50% of their passengers may find themselves dis-accommodated, and in Shanghai, yet. :eek:

Nice hiding of your real point and leading the readers off on a bunny trail!!

 

??? Your point exactly was "When the Quest had that fire, they didn't even try to replace her with a charter, they just ran the Journey alone for something like four or five months....."

 

with the "try" in italics and underlined. No cruise line is going to be able to find a replacement for even the erroneously stated four or five months without disrupting people who have planned their cruises months in advance so why "try". No matter if a cruise line has 2 ships or 10 ships, when fires and other unexpected problems come up, people will be disrupted.

 

Really don't understand the attack on Azamara and then pretending that your original post agreed with what Host Andy said.

[JimandStan]

Nice hiding of your real point and leading the readers off on a bunny trail!!

 

??? Your point exactly was "When the Quest had that fire, they didn't even try to replace her with a charter, they just ran the Journey alone for something like four or five months....."

 

with the "try" in italics and underlined. No cruise line is going to be able to find a replacement for even the erroneously stated four or five months without disrupting people who have planned their cruises months in advance so why "try". No matter if a cruise line has 2 ships or 10 ships, when fires and other unexpected problems come up, people will be disrupted.

 

Really don't understand the attack on Azamara and then pretending that your original post agreed with what Host Andy said.

 

My recollection is that even after the initial emergency repairs to the Azamara Quest were completed in the far East, (which I agree took about 5 weeks) substantial additional repairs were required at local facilities before she actually resumed her Sailing Schedule.

 

I didn't dicker that detail with Andy, because the larger point that I was trying to make, perhaps unsuccessfully, was that for any cruise line with only two ships, having one unexpectedly out of service for an extended length of time is nothing short of disastrous.

[hondorner]

I sincerely doubt RCCL will ever sell either of their R ships to Oceania. I also doubt Oceania would build a duplicate R ship.

[Travelcat2]

My recollection is that even after the initial emergency repairs to the Azamara Quest were completed in the far East, (which I agree took about 5 weeks) substantial additional repairs were required at local facilities before she actually resumed her Sailing Schedule.

 

I didn't dicker that detail with Andy, because the larger point that I was trying to make, perhaps unsuccessfully, was that for any cruise line with only two ships, having one unexpectedly out of service for an extended length of time is nothing short of disastrous.

 

You got your point across quite well IMO. Had a cruise line with several ships had a ship out of service for five weeks, there would probably be accommodation on one of the other ships for the same or similar itinerary. While disruptive, it is better than being "SOL" on Azamara. Although I have heard good things about Azamara, the parent company does not seem to be taking care of the ships which, IMO, is a recipe for disaster.

[Paulchili]

You got your point across quite well IMO. Had a cruise line with several ships had a ship out of service for five weeks, there would probably be accommodation on one of the other ships for the same or similar itinerary. .

 

What about the passengers that were booked on that "other" ship? Now they would be SOL instead of the original passengers.

Unless you have an extra ship sitting empty and doing nothing, you cannot really substitute ships.

[Dr. Cocktail]

You got your point across quite well IMO. Had a cruise line with several ships had a ship out of service for five weeks, there would probably be accommodation on one of the other ships for the same or similar itinerary. While disruptive, it is better than being "SOL" on Azamara. Although I have heard good things about Azamara, the parent company does not seem to be taking care of the ships which, IMO, is a recipe for disaster.

 

 

Your first statement is barely worth the effort of a response ... cruise lines' itineraries are set years in advance. If a ship is taken out of commission for any reason, most cruise lines will try to accommodate passengers to the best of their ability. They will most certainly not have "spare" ships available on like itineraries.

 

I am sure this discussion would not have taken place when both Oceania and Regent respectively each had only two ships. Crystal has been a successful two ship company for many years.

 

I am also unsure how you have come to the conclusion that Azamara doesn't take care of their ships based on one incident.

 

I loved both of my Oceania cruises but I am constantly upset by extreme Oceania loyalists who feel the need to denigrate the competition at all costs. To add insult to injury, most have never actually sailed on competing lines!

 

I am really curious (seriously) why certain posters must ALWAYS take potshots at other cruise lines. It only serves to make the Oceania boards look petty and ignorant.

 

We have a great product ... celebrate its quality on its own merits and not by childishly denigrating others.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Dr. Cocktail

[JimandStan]

Your first statement is barely worth the effort of a response ... cruise lines' itineraries are set years in advance. If a ship is taken out of commission for any reason, most cruise lines will try to accommodate passengers to the best of their ability. They will most certainly not have "spare" ships available on like itineraries.

 

I agree with you, but if the Line has three, four or five other vessels to offer their displaced clientele as a substitute, passengers are that much more likely to find something else that pleases them. No Line has spare ships, but a fabulous itinerary at a great (i.e. fire-sale) price, can go a long way toward making you forget the cruise that you missed.

 

I am sure this discussion would not have taken place when both Oceania and Regent respectively each had only two ships. Crystal has been a successful two ship company for many years.

 

Ah, but Crystal is well known to be foremost in the industry for the maintenance and upkeep of their ships, and updates them as often as bi-annually. Perhaps their diligence is a function of their being a subsidiary of Mitsubishi, but whatever it is, those ships are never anything less than immaculate.

 

I am also unsure how you have come to the conclusion that Azamara doesn't take care of their ships based on one incident.

My conclusion about how Azamara maintains their ships is based primarily on the number of times that they have cancelled scheduled refurbishments. It does not take a rocket scientist to infer that if they are cutting back on what the passengers can see and touch, that below decks is not flush with money for keeping the machinery spaces in top trim.

 

I loved both of my Oceania cruises but I am constantly upset by extreme Oceania loyalists who feel the need to denigrate the competition at all costs. To add insult to injury, most have never actually sailed on competing lines!

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have sailed on Azamara, Celebrity, Hal, Princess, Cunard, Seabourn, Crystal, as well as any number of now defunct Cruise Lines, and I'm therefore very comfortable in making the comparisons that I do.

 

I am really curious (seriously) why certain posters must ALWAYS take potshots at other cruise lines. It only serves to make the Oceania boards look petty and ignorant.

 

To the contrary it is the unfortunate use of invective such as petty, ignorant and childish which makes the Boards look bad.

I haven't made any "potshots" that I can't back up with facts (such as the cancelled refurbs) and in point of fact I have not written anything here that other Azamara Passengers are not saying right now on their Board,

 

and I quote:

"Even though we knew before both Quest and Journey went into dry-dock that things had been scaled back it did't stop Azamara's much vaunted description of what was being done to them. I realised something was up when the majority of the photo updates were either of the newly painted blue hull or the new ceiling lights in the main dining room. My thoughts were born out when I stayed in a cabin post-update that looked exactly the same as it did before. Hence my comment above for Mr Pimental cut through the corporate speak and get on with it rather than promising long and delivering short on the hardware."

 

We have a great product ... celebrate its quality on its own merits and not by childishly denigrating others.

 

Making comparisons which highlight those areas where Oceania IS superior, and for 90% of the Lines which I've sailed, it is VASTLY superior, seems to me to be the very essence of why Cruise Critic exists.

 

Some prefer to list the foibles of a number of mediocre cruise lines in the hope that they will improve.

 

Instead, I extol the virtues of a single great Cruise Line in the selfish hope that they will be able to keep up the good work where Cunard, Sitmar, Home Lines, Royal Cruise Line, Royal Viking and Holland America (our previous Cruise Lines of choice) eventually let us down.

[pacheco18]

 

I loved both of my Oceania cruises but I am constantly upset by extreme Oceania loyalists who feel the need to denigrate the competition at all costs. To add insult to injury, most have never actually sailed on competing lines!

 

I am really curious (seriously) why certain posters must ALWAYS take potshots at other cruise lines. It only serves to make the Oceania boards look petty and ignorant.

 

We have a great product ... celebrate its quality on its own merits and not by childishly denigrating others.

 

I could not agree more. Same thing happens on the Azamara boards to even a greater extent. I believe that if a person is considering any cruise line for the first time, visits the boards and sees the denigrating comments about a cruise line that they have enjoyed, it is a turn off. It is to me.

 

There are plenty of ways to extol the virtues of the cruise line we love without bashing other lines.

[rallydave]

Your first statement is barely worth the effort of a response ... cruise lines' itineraries are set years in advance. If a ship is taken out of commission for any reason, most cruise lines will try to accommodate passengers to the best of their ability. They will most certainly not have "spare" ships available on like itineraries.

 

I am sure this discussion would not have taken place when both Oceania and Regent respectively each had only two ships. Crystal has been a successful two ship company for many years.

 

I am also unsure how you have come to the conclusion that Azamara doesn't take care of their ships based on one incident.

 

I loved both of my Oceania cruises but I am constantly upset by extreme Oceania loyalists who feel the need to denigrate the competition at all costs. To add insult to injury, most have never actually sailed on competing lines!

 

I am really curious (seriously) why certain posters must ALWAYS take potshots at other cruise lines. It only serves to make the Oceania boards look petty and ignorant.

 

We have a great product ... celebrate its quality on its own merits and not by childishly denigrating others.

 

+100 And some of these same people take others to task for things they dislike multiple times and while they unequivocally state that they don't do the same thing that they are complaining about that simply isn't true based on previous posts. As the saying goes, they speak with forked tongue!

[wripro]

There are some people, and this occurs on most boards, who react to a criticism of their preferred cruise line like a stab to the heart. It's as if you were criticizing their grandchildrens' piano recital. Best to ignore that kind of fervor the same as any kind of misplaced fervor.

[hypercafe]

Every board has a handful of people who respond to every post and feel any opinion but theirs is wrong and the try to belittle them. Just bare it no mind.

[Travelcat2]

Your first statement is barely worth the effort of a response ... cruise lines' itineraries are set years in advance

I am sure this discussion would not have taken place when both Oceania and Regent respectively each had only two ships. Crystal has been a successful two ship company for many years.

 

I loved both of my Oceania cruises but I am constantly upset by extreme Oceania loyalists who feel the need to denigrate the competition at all costs. To add insult to injury, most have never actually sailed on competing lines!

 

I am really curious (seriously) why certain posters must ALWAYS take potshots at other cruise lines. It only serves to make the Oceania boards look petty and ignorant.

 

 

1. My first statement that you do not think warrants a response was JimandStan got the point across very well.

 

2. I am not an "extreme Oceania" loyalist -- I am a Regent loyalist.

 

3. My views of how Azamara ships are being taken care of comes from the Oceania board so they may indeed be slanted. I have not sailed on Azamara and have no reason to take a pot shot at the cruise line.

 

Rallydave: Once again I must ask -- have you ever stepped foot on an Oceania ship -- or, do you have a cruise booked? You seem to have opinions about a cruise line that you have not sailed. While I would be the first person to say that information obtained from a website is valid -- I have shared information on cruise ships that I have not sailed on but make it clear where the information is from. What are your Oceania comments based on? And, did you post only to make a slam against someone? Not nice and certainly not helpful to anyone.

 

Paulchili: When I said that accommodation could be made on another ship I did not necessarily mean the same dates and certainly would not expect other passengers to be displaced. When Regent's Voyager was out of service due to a pod problem, some passengers went onto the sister ship (that was not fully booked at the time) -- some went on a future cruise (with substantial compensation) and others received a refund and had all of their expenses paid (people had embarked when the pod problem became known -- the ship had not gone anywhere -- passengers were put up in a hotel until flights could be arranged for them). With a cruise lines like Oceania, Seabourn or Silversea, the accommodation choices could be even greater as they have so many more ships.

 

wripro: You hit the nail on the head!

Edited May 31, 2014 by Travelcat2

[pacheco18]

Travelcat

 

Why do you feel the need to defend/explain your posts? People will make of them what they will. They will credit your statement or discredit. Constant defensiveness won't change anyone's mind.

 

There is also no point is criticizing someone who posts just because they never sailed on a particular line. EVERYone is entitled to an opinion -- people on these boards tend to know whose opinion is trustworthy. No need to attack a fellow poster.

 

This is starting to sound like the Regent board (UGH) and I would hate that. It is one of the many reasons that I have no interest in sailing Regent.

 

Let's all try to be a little less contentious. State your opinion and move on. Or disagree graciously. This oneupsmanship is killing these boards.

[Dr. Cocktail]

I agree with you, but if the Line has three, four or five other vessels to offer their displaced clientele as a substitute, passengers are that much more likely to find something else that pleases them. No Line has spare ships, but a fabulous itinerary at a great (i.e. fire-sale) price, can go a long way toward making you forget the cruise that you missed.

 

 

 

Ah, but Crystal is well known to be foremost in the industry for the maintenance and upkeep of their ships, and updates them as often as bi-annually. Perhaps their diligence is a function of their being a subsidiary of Mitsubishi, but whatever it is, those ships are never anything less than immaculate.

 

 

My conclusion about how Azamara maintains their ships is based primarily on the number of times that they have cancelled scheduled refurbishments. It does not take a rocket scientist to infer that if they are cutting back on what the passengers can see and touch, that below decks is not flush with money for keeping the machinery spaces in top trim.

 

 

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have sailed on Azamara, Celebrity, Hal, Princess, Cunard, Seabourn, Crystal, as well as any number of now defunct Cruise Lines, and I'm therefore very comfortable in making the comparisons that I do.

 

 

 

To the contrary it is the unfortunate use of invective such as petty, ignorant and childish which makes the Boards look bad.

I haven't made any "potshots" that I can't back up with facts (such as the cancelled refurbs) and in point of fact I have not written anything here that other Azamara Passengers are not saying right now on their Board,

 

and I quote:

"Even though we knew before both Quest and Journey went into dry-dock that things had been scaled back it did't stop Azamara's much vaunted description of what was being done to them. I realised something was up when the majority of the photo updates were either of the newly painted blue hull or the new ceiling lights in the main dining room. My thoughts were born out when I stayed in a cabin post-update that looked exactly the same as it did before. Hence my comment above for Mr Pimental cut through the corporate speak and get on with it rather than promising long and delivering short on the hardware."

 

 

 

Making comparisons which highlight those areas where Oceania IS superior, and for 90% of the Lines which I've sailed, it is VASTLY superior, seems to me to be the very essence of why Cruise Critic exists.

 

Some prefer to list the foibles of a number of mediocre cruise lines in the hope that they will improve.

 

Instead, I extol the virtues of a single great Cruise Line in the selfish hope that they will be able to keep up the good work where Cunard, Sitmar, Home Lines, Royal Cruise Line, Royal Viking and Holland America (our previous Cruise Lines of choice) eventually let us down.

 

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ….. interesting how you assumed that my post was aimed only at you. I congratulate you on your excellent use of quotes. As I have not mastered that skill, I will address your statements in a non-highlighted note.

 

You are correct that a replacement cruise at a great price could help mitigate your response to a cancelled cruise. The odds are that said replacement cruise would be sometime in the future. It would be highly unlikely that one could immediately reshape one’s personal schedule and get reasonable airfare and connections to match the dates of your just cancelled cruise. No matter which line you choose, it would be in the future but you are correct in stating that a two line ship could offer much less selection than a five line one.

 

When Azamara was launched, they spent millions refurbishing their ships and spent millions more on a mini-refurb a few years ago. I was among those disappointed that the ships did not get the extreme makeovers that many expected. It’s one thing to say that RCI’s patience is running out on Azamara’s profitability and quite another to infer that a large public company like RCI is knowingly running unsafe and dangerous ships.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble but your “comfortable … comparisons” are simply your opinions and not facts. While they are no less important than anyone else’s on Cruise Critic, they are also no more important. Your excellent language skills, catchy turns of phrase and empirical statements illustrated with great graphics do not actually make your statements true.

 

Actually, your remarks do define a “potshot” - “a criticism, especially a random or unfounded one”. Your calling Azamara’s maintenance as substandard without having actually having access to staffing and budget reports of those of Oceania and Azamara is mere conjecture.

 

Again, the “very essence” of Cruise Critic is not your telling the world why Oceania is superior to other lines you have sailed on. It may be so on Oceania Sycophant or Cruise Bully but not here.

We have both been extremely lucky to have the health, the means and the ability to travel extensively but unlike you, I have maintained my inquisitive nature and respect for other people’s opinions.

 

The “very essence” of Cruise Critic is the collegial and respectful transfer of information and enthusiasm among a unique community.

 

It’s funny - my partner and I traveled with some of our best friends three weeks ago on Norwegian Breakaway in Haven Penthouses. Our friends have been on about twelve Oceania cruises, primarily in Penthouses and Owner’s Suites. We all had a wonderful time and found many areas superior to Oceania. I thought it would be fun to post a comparative review here highlighting two companies that are related through a parent corporation. I then thought of all of the effort writing and then having all of the “usuals” dump all over my review and decided it wasn’t worth the time. Obviously, I was correct in my opinion.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Dr. Cocktail