Reduced port stays

[IWantToLiveOverTheSea]

Well, at least one cruise line doesn't even post the times in their itineraries.  And in my opinion, people on that line as a whole are more vocal/leaning towards perfectionists/less flexible than the people we've cruised with on Oceania.  They would be yelling and screaming if they got a letter saying something was changed. (Hhmm...maybe that's why the cruise line doesn't post times?)  I like that cruise line a lot, but I feel a little uncomfortable booking unless I have a general idea of how long we'll be in each port, even if it changes a little from the initial itinerary made long ago. 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by IWantToLiveOverTheSea

[IWantToLiveOverTheSea]

10 minutes ago, sofietucker said:

Yep. We're cheated of our visits: If departure is pushed to 5 from 6, all aboard will be 4, so we have to leave our museum or site by 3...

All aboard will likely be 4:30, assuming you're on Oceania, and you're not tendering.

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Psoque said:

I’m not sure the reduction in port stays has anything to do with the environment.  Actually, unless I’m mistaken, it is probably better for the environment for the ship to be not moving much.  I’m really miffed that Oceania thinks we are stupid enough to believe their “good for the environment” lies.

While the prime motivation for this is not environmental, but controlling fuel costs, it does save fuel to be in port less time.  The fuel burned in port for the hotel load is also burned while at sea, so that remains constant for a cruise of a given number of days.  Next, the ship needs to get from port to port according to the itinerary, so the distance traveled is going to be constant, whether it is done slowly or fast.  Now, when you get to propulsion load, the fuel required is not a straight line relationship with speed, it is exponential.  So, if by cutting a couple of hours off ports can reduce the speed needed to get to the next port from 16 knots to 12 knots, that will save about 50% on fuel over the older itinerary at higher speed.

 

I don't comment on customer relation decisions, as that is not in my wheelhouse.  Just wanted to clear up the fuel savings misunderstandings.

[MEFIowa]

47 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

... I never realized the purpose of a cruise for some was to find bridge participants 10-12 hours per day. Port? We were in Port?

BUT there is an upside.

 

Sirena was the only ship in Kingstown, St. Vincent on our day in 11/22. So few got off the ship that there were all the drivers and empty vehicles waiting to take people places. The published official monopoly rate for a round trip to Black Point Tunnel was $150 (for up to 4 people). As we kept walking by the vehicles eventually the man in charge said, "For you, $100." So wife and I took it!

 

And when we were at Puerto Plata, DR, we were the only two who took a trip up the mountain by van to the national park with its 1/2 replica of the Rio Jesus. To then take the Caribbean's only cable car back down. So few cruisers were out that in the middle of the "pink street" sitting outside a bar someone started talking to me. We talked cigars and rum. He had a store 4 blocks away off the beaten path. No business. I bought 2 Cuban cigars from him at $12.50 per. He just wanted someone to talk to and visit his shop. A man so desperate to sell me a painting in his store that I was interested in but it was 1600 hours and I had to be at the gangplank at 1630 (and was about 3/8s of a mile away walking!) that he promised me he rush the removal off the stretcher boards, roll it up, and pack it ASAP. And he did. I walked up that gangplank right at 1630!

 

And the man selling the painting in his story was so desperate to sell to anyone that day that after we agreed on the price I told him I had no cash (bought rum and cigars already). But did he take credit card. He had to look quickly in his store to find his card reader, pull it out and dust it off. But it worked!

Edited January 23, 2023 by MEFIowa
Added a clarifying comment

[Psoque]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

While the prime motivation for this is not environmental, but controlling fuel costs, it does save fuel to be in port less time.  The fuel burned in port for the hotel load is also burned while at sea, so that remains constant for a cruise of a given number of days.  Next, the ship needs to get from port to port according to the itinerary, so the distance traveled is going to be constant, whether it is done slowly or fast.  Now, when you get to propulsion load, the fuel required is not a straight line relationship with speed, it is exponential.  So, if by cutting a couple of hours off ports can reduce the speed needed to get to the next port from 16 knots to 12 knots, that will save about 50% on fuel over the older itinerary at higher speed.

 

I don't comment on customer relation decisions, as that is not in my wheelhouse.  Just wanted to clear up the fuel savings misunderstandings.

Your explanation is valid, only if the ship is moving most of the time when it is not in port.  In my experience, most overnight travel between ports includes extended periods of the ship sitting on water, not moving.  I knew that the speed of the ship affects fuel consumption in an exponential manner, and if that’s really the case, the ship should be moving at a reasonably slow pace ALL OF THE TIME.  Also, my argument was about their claims about carboon (emission) neutrality.

[pinotlover]

Captain Max told our ship that 70% of fuel consumption ( that was on the Nautica) went to hotel and dining operations. Only 30% went to propulsion. Therefore, any savings via reduced speed would only affect the 30% number not total consumption. Any savings in fuel consumption, plus the larger savings from reduced port docking fees is a significant number and a company with a mountain of debt ( NCLH) will want to capture any of that possible.

[Classiccruiser777]

Oceania has yet to update their website with the revised port times. This is both deceptive and unethical.

 

This decision of reduced port times is to burn less fuel by decreasing cruising speeds and to increase the onboard sales opportunities for NCLH, thus improving the bottom line, nothing less.

 

As I said, deceptive and unethical.

[LHT28]

2 minutes ago, Classiccruiser777 said:

Oceania has yet to update their website with the revised port times. This is both deceptive and unethical.

 

This decision of reduced port times is to burn less fuel by decreasing cruising speeds and to increase the onboard sales opportunities for NCLH, thus improving the bottom line, nothing less.

 

As I said, deceptive and unethical.

Are you forced to buy stuff onboard ??

We only use up OBC   because  it is use it or lose it

[pinotlover]

3 minutes ago, LHT28 said:

Are you forced to buy stuff onboard ??

We only use up OBC   because  it is use it or lose it

A bit hasty there LHT28. Neither the shops nor the casino can be open while the ship is in port. It is my understanding that rents paid by those vendors are determined by, or correlate with, the number of hours they are open. Shorter port times equals more hours of operation for those vendors. 

 

Just consider how much more Oceania can charge/earn for retail space versus AZ with all its overnights and late departures. 

[jazznruby]

1 hour ago, pinotlover said:

A contrast of Cruisers vs Travelers. The Cruisers could care less, while the Travelers are upset. A simple glimpse of how lopsided the balance in numbers in favor of the Cruisers: look at the huge percentage of people gleefully headed to Boardamania and the maybe roast turkey. They don’t care about any of that Etalian or Spanish food in port, why they can eat at Olive Garden or El Toribbo whenever they want at home. Meanwhile, we Travelers, in the obvious minority, show up to empty boarding lines at 2:30-3:00. The odds are stacked against the Travelers in this affair.

Such a specious argument. (And I assume you mean 'The Cruisers COULDN'T care less' 🙂.) Real travelers want to spend more than a day, even a full day, somewhere. Cruising is great for many reasons, not the least of which is the opportunity to visit a lot of places in a relatively short period of time. It's not intended for immersion in the local culture. It's a fine way to have a taste, and then return for an extended period if the spirit moves you. Or if you want to visit a particular place, forget the cruise altogether, get on an airplane, spend some real time there, and truly experience it. We've done both those scenarios.Those of us who love cruising do it for many reasons. Maybe those who choose to stay onboard have been to a port many times, and don't feel the need to see it again. They don't all head to 'Boardamania'(?) or to the buffet. Or maybe mobility becomes an issue at some point. No need to denigrate. Bottom line - losing an hour or two in port should not diminish the overall  satisfaction of what was never intended to be an all encompassing travel experience.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, pinotlover said:

Captain Max told our ship that 70% of fuel consumption ( that was on the Nautica) went to hotel and dining operations. Only 30% went to propulsion.

I'm sorry, but this cannot be possible, unless the ship is spending 75% of the cruise in port, and all the time steaming is being done at 4-5 knots.

[pinotlover]

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I'm sorry, but this cannot be possible, unless the ship is spending 75% of the cruise in port, and all the time steaming is being done at 4-5 knots.

His numbers, and he captained the ship since O bought it. I’m guessing, on smaller ships, that hotel operations/dining/etc operations eat up a far higher percentage of total fuel than does a 6000 passenger behemoth. 

[bob brown]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

While the prime motivation for this is not environmental, but controlling fuel costs, it does save fuel to be in port less time.  The fuel burned in port for the hotel load is also burned while at sea, so that remains constant for a cruise of a given number of days.  Next, the ship needs to get from port to port according to the itinerary, so the distance traveled is going to be constant, whether it is done slowly or fast.  Now, when you get to propulsion load, the fuel required is not a straight line relationship with speed, it is exponential.  So, if by cutting a couple of hours off ports can reduce the speed needed to get to the next port from 16 knots to 12 knots, that will save about 50% on fuel over the older itinerary at higher speed.

 

I don't comment on customer relation decisions, as that is not in my wheelhouse.  Just wanted to clear up the fuel savings misunderstandings.

What about those (few) ports (and ship’s), that are equipped with shore line power capabilities?

 

Is the cost and carbon impact lower than the ship’s own power generation?

[PhD-iva]

4 hours ago, LHT28 said:

Best to talk with your wallet 

They need the income from people to sustain the business

Those of us regulars  might be not as important any more  just think of all the perks they could save if the regulars  would drop O as their cruise line  of choice

They will new people  with no loyalty perks to pay  for  a few years  & those that  have 60+ cruises  will be gone with the new wave of cuts happening

 I will be waiting to see how  this year goes before booking a cruise on O

Checking other options

 

Pls keep us posted; I value the opinion of many regular posters who provide useful/helpful information (w minimal drama).

If you go decide to book elsewhere, I’d be interested to know. Hmmmm. This might be a good topic for a new thread.

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, bob brown said:

What about those (few) ports (and ship’s), that are equipped with shore line power capabilities?

 

Is the cost and carbon impact lower than the ship’s own power generation?

That depends on how the shore power is generated.  If the power comes from an oil or coal powered power plant, then no.  If it comes from hydro or other "renewable" source, then yes, for carbon footprint.  Typically, there is no cost savings for shore power, and most times it is more expensive (the infrastructure at the port has to be paid off), and there is a cost to the cruise line for installing the shore power equipment on the ship.  The main reason for ports requiring shore power is to remove pollutants from the port area, not to change the carbon footprint.

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, jazznruby said:

Real travelers want to spend more than a day, even a full day, somewhere.

 

I travel in many different ways -- I do independent travel on land, I do specialized tours (e.g., usually in-depth history or art or archaeological tours) in small groups, and I cruise. 

 

Maybe I'm not a "real" traveler, 🙄 but when I cruise I am cruising for specific itinerary/destinations. Sometimes one day in a place is all it takes to satisfy my primary interests. For example, I'm keenly interested in Classical -- mostly Roman -- history. I can see in a day one major site or several smaller sites in enough detail to satisfy me. Med cruises are a great option for some of these smaller sites and also allow the possibility to combine with pre- or post-cruise land travel.

 

I really don't need more than a day to see Philippi from Kavala, for example, or Butrint from Sarande, or the 3-4 well-preserved Roman monuments in Pula. 

 

And of course, I also have taken multiple Med cruises -- more than I can count on two hands so far -- so other places can be revisited and new sites there visited or old ones re-visited with new insights from my reading/research.

 

Having said all that, I have been looking for several years for a cruise that takes me to the specific places in Greenland -- basically where ruins of Viking settlements or museums exist -- that I want to see. I just booked Oceania a few weeks ago. Now I am getting notified of shortened hours in ports. The letter I received does state that shore excursion hours were not impacted by the changes; personally, I've not had a chance to compare yet.  But as an introduction to Oceania cruising, it is not a favorable first impression.

 

[susiesan]

 

 

43 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Having said all that, I have been looking for several years for a cruise that takes me to the specific places in Greenland -- basically where ruins of Viking settlements or museums exist -- that I want to see. I just booked Oceania a few weeks ago. Now I am getting notified of shortened hours in ports. The letter I received does state that shore excursion hours were not impacted by the changes; personally, I've not had a chance to compare yet.  But as an introduction to Oceania cruising, it is not a favorable first impression.

 

The letter says that shore excursion operations will not be impacted, it does not say anything about hours. O will still run their excursions, they will just be shorter and the price will be the same.

[Cruzin Terri]

59 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

I just booked Oceania a few weeks ago. Now I am getting notified of shortened hours in ports. The letter I received does state that shore excursion hours were not impacted by the changes; personally, I've not had a chance to compare yet.  But as an introduction to Oceania cruising, it is not a favorable first impression

One of the reasons I moved from HAL to Oceania was because HAL kept shortening the times in port and O had longer times in port..  Having said that. Oceania is disappointing me by doing the exact same thing.

Thankfully i still feel that the other reasons for booking Oceania—food, service and smaller ships, bringing my own wine on board without paying a corkage fee up front—make me want to continue to sail with them.  

However, make no mistake.  I do not cruise to spend all day on the ship.  I cruise for the itinerary and shortened port times do not sit well with me.

Terri

Edited January 23, 2023 by Cruzin Terri

[Classiccruiser777]

12 minutes ago, Cruzin Terri said:

One of the reasons I moved from HAL to Oceania was because HAL kept shortening the times in port and O had longer times in port..  Having said that. Oceania is disappointing me by doing the exact same thing.

Thankfully i still feel that the other reasons for booking Oceania—food, service and smaller ships, bringing my own wine on board without paying a corkage fee up front—make me want to continue to sail with them.  

However, make no mistake.  I do not cruise to spend all day on the ship.  I cruise for the itinerary and shortened port times do not sit well with me.

Terri

Several years ago Oceania “enhanced” the loyalty program. 

[shepherd really]

22 minutes ago, susiesan said:

 

 

The letter says that shore excursion operations will not be impacted, it does not say anything about hours. O will still run their excursions, they will just be shorter and the price will be the same.

You're an optimist, I bet they'll go up, some just over $200, so they don't qualify for their "not free" excursion option.  

[halfapair]

They can save fuel by sailing slower between ports, thereby reducing fuel costs. Taking away time in port allows them to go slower....

From 2008, but looks like it applies to 2023:

https://www.seattletimes.com/life/travel/cruise-ships-cut-ports-and-slow-down-to-save-on-fuel/

Edited January 23, 2023 by halfapair
Added a link

[Classiccruiser777]

34 minutes ago, halfapair said:

They can save fuel by sailing slower between ports, thereby reducing fuel costs. Taking away time in port allows them to go slower....

From 2008, but looks like it applies to 2023:

https://www.seattletimes.com/life/travel/cruise-ships-cut-ports-and-slow-down-to-save-on-fuel/

And less time in port means more time the ship’s stores, casino, spa and bars can be selling to a captive audience.

[shepherd really]

1 minute ago, Classiccruiser777 said:

And less time in port means more time the ship’s stores, casino, spa and bars can be selling to a captive audience.

And shorter times in ports also means lower dockage fees.  It's a win/win for Oceania's bottom line.  FDR and Jr gotta keep their generous benefit packages, at their customers' expense.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, shepherd really said:

And shorter times in ports also means lower dockage fees.  It's a win/win for Oceania's bottom line.  FDR and Jr gotta keep their generous benefit packages, at their customers' expense.

Folks like to say this, but nearly every port charges dockage fees by the 24 hour period.

[marieps]

16 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Folks like to say this, but nearly every port charges dockage fees by the 24 hour period.

This poster has contributed several valuable pieces of info to this thread.  As the son of a Maine Maritime graduate, many thanks.