Reduced port stays

[Snaefell3]

1 minute ago, shepherd really said:

West Texas Crude by the barrel is a poor measure of fuel cost, since these ships burn bunker fuel by the ton.  

Not if you are a lawyer writing a contract.  WTI is well-litigated, and Joe's Bunker Service's price isn't. 😛😉

[ak1004]

29 minutes ago, Eloise4Ever said:

 

I did. You clearly saw mine but seem to have missed the point. My post is about what happens to the Simply More cohort and the simple fact that O do not make them whole when the company fails to provide the services the guest purchased as part of their cruise fare. Simple as that.

 

 

 

And my point is that this whole theory started long before SM when O was providing full refunds, so it doesn't hold.

 

As an example, we sailed on Silversea that includes one excursion in each port. Many times most excursions are sold out very quickly (on our cruise in May about 60% of the excursions are already sold out). Good luck to get a refund. Same with port fees. Exactly the same practice as O. And they are ultra luxury all inclusive line.

[shepherd really]

13 minutes ago, Snaefell3 said:

Not if you are a lawyer writing a contract.  WTI is well-litigated, and Joe's Bunker Service's price isn't. 😛😉

You think the Bunker fuel market doesn't have well established pricing history? Really?  If the passenger contract references a fuel that isn't even used to justify a fuel surcharge, I'd find that problematic. 

[tigerfan75]

All of this energy and emotion makes wish for the good ol’ days of sandals, wine, and cookies…

[Queen of DaNile]

10 hours ago, Vallesan said:

Yes I would to but not sure that everyone would like hear that there was a problem with the engines!

We finally have it in writing as to the current situation on Riviera

"It is with sincere apologies we must notify you that due to technical issue there has been changes in the itinerary".

[pmatawan]

2 hours ago, Queen of DaNile said:

We finally have it in writing as to the current situation on Riviera

"It is with sincere apologies we must notify you that due to technical issue there has been changes in the itinerary".

But they have not been able to explain what the technical issue is, have they? With the issue be fixed or can we expect more port reduction times on the other segments?

[DrHemlock]

59 minutes ago, tigerfan75 said:

days of sandals, wine, and cookies…

Yes, please!

[ORV]

Some of you guys really are smart enough to not feed the trolls. So let’s not. 

[clo]

14 hours ago, pmatawan said:

I crave truth and transparency only.

As do I. But I've been trying to get over that craving.

[Hanoj]

5 hours ago, tigerfan75 said:

All of this energy and emotion makes wish for the good ol’ days of sandals, wine, and cookies…

Has Oceania improved their cookies🤪? If so, it may make it easier to endure shortened port stays and inability to use SM excursion credits. May add weight to the issues too.

Edited January 31 by Hanoj
Typo

[ruthe17]

5 hours ago, pmatawan said:

But they have not been able to explain what the technical issue is, have they? With the issue be fixed or can we expect more port reduction times on the other segments?

We are on the following cruise Bangkok to Hong Kong. Would appreciate updates on reduced time in ports and if any ports are cancelled. We are especially interested on the Vietnam ports.  Thanks in advance.

[Vallesan]

8 hours ago, Eloise4Ever said:

 

I did. You clearly saw mine but seem to have missed the point. My post is about what happens to the Simply More cohort and the simple fact that O do not make them whole when the company fails to provide the services the guest purchased as part of their cruise fare. Simple as that.

 

 

Doesn’t this come back to the question … Is Oceania a good fit for you NOW?

If not fine.

Is there any data published to show that Oceania cancels and shortens more port stays since SimplyMore was introduced?

Is there any data to show Oceania misses more ports than any other line?

Or are these just ‘guesses’?

 

[Eloise4Ever]

6 hours ago, Vallesan said:

Is there any data published to show that Oceania cancels and shortens more port stays since SimplyMore was introduced?

Is there any data to show Oceania misses more ports than any other line?

Or are these just ‘guesses’?

 

 

Let's forget about the conspiracy theories. They are a distraction from the simple fact that O does not provide OBC to compensate their guests if they are unable to use the shore excursion credit that was included as part of their purchased cruise fare. I guess everybody defending this practice by O is okay with that.

[Eloise4Ever]

11 hours ago, ORV said:

Some of you guys really are smart enough to not feed the trolls. So let’s not. 

 

So predictable. I wondered how long it would take for the O cheerleaders to trot out the old reliable "troll" trope.

[ORV]

1 minute ago, Eloise4Ever said:

 

Let's forget about the conspiracy theories. They are a distraction from the simple fact that O does not provide OBC to compensate their guests if they are unable to use the shore excursion credit that was included as part of their purchased cruise fare. I guess everybody defending this practice by O is okay with that.

Yet there are multiple reports saying they do. 

[Eloise4Ever]

1 minute ago, ORV said:

Yet there are multiple reports saying they do. 

 

Multiple reports saying they do provide OBC to guests unable to spend their shore excursion OBC due to port cancellations?

[ORV]

On 1/29/2024 at 5:11 PM, RPen63 said:

If you prefer experience over conjecture, you can read the following, otherwise “question” away.

 

we had a situation recently where O reduced port time and we found out through an updated invoice and prepurchase summary where the first tour (full day)  we had bought was cancelled.  After the dust settled, we were refunded for the value of that excursion as if we had booked it in excess of the SM entitlement.  We ended up with excess SM credits to spend.  Although communication was lacking, we were treated fairly.

Here is one, there are others of people onboard getting refunds or additional tours, but I’m not going to waste time digging them up for you. 
 

Have you personally experienced losing your SM credits?

[Vallesan]

32 minutes ago, Eloise4Ever said:

 

Let's forget about the conspiracy theories. They are a distraction from the simple fact that O does not provide OBC to compensate their guests if they are unable to use the shore excursion credit that was included as part of their purchased cruise fare. I guess everybody defending this practice by O is okay with that.

I never mentioned ‘conspiracy’ although you seem to think that Oceania is ‘conspiring’ to cancel trips in order for them to ‘profiteer’ from the passengers.

 

You have not been directly affected by this situation so I’m not quite sure why you are so angry, on other peoples’ behalf, in wondering why more people aren’t up in arms. They obviously realise that nothing in life is perfect and are making the best of it.

 

So this brings me back to the same question…. Is Oceania a good fit for you NOW?

I’m assuming not.

 

 

[DrHemlock]

9 hours ago, Hanoj said:

Has Oceania improved their cookies🤪? If so, it may make it easier to endure shortened port stays

Due to technical reasons, regular cookies are now being replaced by shortbread.

[Eloise4Ever]

1 hour ago, ORV said:

Here is one, there are others of people onboard getting refunds or additional tours, but I’m not going to waste time digging them up for you. 
 

Have you personally experienced losing your SM credits?

 

Thanks for that but honestly I don't think it's terribly clear. The poster does say they ended up with "excess SM credits" which may be understood as SM credits they couldn't spend.

 

I personally haven't experience losing SM credits but for me, unethical business practices are a red flag. Please note, I didn't dream this scenario up. It has been mentioned a few times on this thread that the SM excursion credit is "use it or lose it".

[ak1004]

People can believe whatever they want and build all kinds of conspiracy theories.

 

Personally I do NOT believe that any cruise line would cancel ports unless they absolutely have to. Unlike reduced times in ports, they have nothing to gain from cancelled ports.

 

As for lost SM credits - I assume that if you booked an excursion and the port was cancelled, you have to use the credit for another excursion. No refunds. But this is no different from SS, Regent or Viking. Those lines have one included excursion in each port, and if the port is cancelled, you don't get any refunds. Technically, you paid for the excursion in that port (we know that nothing in life is free), so how this practice is different from what O does?

[cruisemom42]

20 minutes ago, Eloise4Ever said:

I personally haven't experience losing SM credits but for me, unethical business practices are a red flag. Please note, I didn't dream this scenario up. It has been mentioned a few times on this thread that the SM excursion credit is "use it or lose it".

 

Yes, that is true but Oceania is by no means the only cruise line to do this. 

 

The SM credits are an "inclusion" in your fare. It's up to you to use them or not. 

 

HAL, for example, allows you to buy (or includes, on certain specials) their "Have It All" package, which includes $200 credits for shorex and 2 free specialty dining reservations. 

 

If you don't manage to book the shorex or if you can't make reservations for a time that suits you, you don't get the money back.

 

How far does one want to push this? Some cruise lines sell you a beverage package with, say, a 15-drink limit. If you don't drink all 15, is the cruise line ripping you off? Do you deserve a credit?

 

I think not...

 

 

[ak1004]

5 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Yes, that is true but Oceania is by no means the only cruise line to do this. 

 

The SM credits are an "inclusion" in your fare. It's up to you to use them or not. 

 

HAL, for example, allows you to buy (or includes, on certain specials) their "Have It All" package, which includes $200 credits for shorex and 2 free specialty dining reservations. 

 

If you don't manage to book the shorex or if you can't make reservations for a time that suits you, you don't get the money back.

 

How far does one want to push this? Some cruise lines sell you a beverage package with, say, a 15-drink limit. If you don't drink all 15, is the cruise line ripping you off? Do you deserve a credit?

 

I think not...

 

 

 

On our last SS cruise, we had $600 OBC carried from the previous cruise. Do you realize how much effort does it take to waste a $600 OBC on an all inclusive line, with a tiny boutique store?

 

I think it is very unethical to have an all inclusive cruise and give you a non refundable OBC (use it or lose it). We will never sail on SS again (well, after our next one in May)..

[Eloise4Ever]

10 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

As for lost SM credits - I assume that if you booked an excursion and the port was cancelled, you have to use the credit for another excursion. No refunds. But this is no different from SS, Regent or Viking. Those lines have one included excursion in each port, and if the port is cancelled, you don't get any refunds. Technically, you paid for the excursion in that port (we know that nothing in life is free), so how this practice is different from what O does?

 

6 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

Yes, that is true but Oceania is by no means the only cruise line to do this. 

 

The SM credits are an "inclusion" in your fare. It's up to you to use them or not. 

 

HAL, for example, allows you to buy (or includes, on certain specials) their "Have It All" package, which includes $200 credits for shorex and 2 free specialty dining reservations. 

 

If you don't manage to book the shorex or if you can't make reservations for a time that suits you, you don't get the money back.

 

These are all fair points. The issue was raised by folks who couldn't use their SM shore excursion credit because O cancelled or shortened time in ports. All other excursions were sold out. I think in these cases the cruise line could see that the guest had "spent" the OBC before boarding and refund them accordingly if a port was cancelled.

 

With the luxury lines the excursion costs don't stand out so much as everything is included in the fare. With O they are saying "pay the fare and we will give you x amount of money to spend on excursions". Which may be why folks are feeling hard done by. 

 

 

[pinotlover]

Just a few personal observations from one that cruises purely for the ports and sees SM as only a price increase.

 

1.  I believe Oceania could improve the situation by not allowing SM credits to be used until after FP.

 

2.  People on my upcoming cruise have complained about no ship tours in certain ports being available. What they mean is: no tours they want to do. There’s a difference. When we didn’t like Vikings included tours, we booked private ones, and didn’t cry over lost funds. Seeing and doing what we wanted to do in port was far more important to us than any

free/included ship tour. I realize not all feel that way.

 

3.  Oceania has a history of missing ports and cutting port times. That’s established. Therefore, if you really cared about your SM credits, why would anyone wait until the last couple of ports to use them? Apply them early in the cruise so that if necessary they can be used later on.

 

4. There’s a bit of “ the early bird gets the worm” to all of this. If you are one of those that enjoy Oceania shorexs or are really emphatic about the SM credit, perhaps a strategy is to book the cruise at least a year in advance before tours are released so to get those tours you desire. This may mean; not booking aboard, or missing another of the constant sales, but only you can decide what’s more important.

 

SM is now the order of business. The exercise now should be how to strategize  on best using the new policies.