Cruise to Mostly Nowhere--Part 2

[mauibabes]

@JayneE

We have hit and missed Amalfi several times, it is always a weather issue along the Amalfi coast. Same for Sorrento. We were diverted to Naples but were still able to get our private tour to meet us there and take us back to Ravello and Amalfi. Absolutely beautiful views from Villa Ruffolo in Ravello. We would love to take in an evening with a Summer Concert there one day. 🙏👍.

Bring your lucky whatever along on your trip. 🙏🤞

Mauibabes

[hankandteri]

1 hour ago, mauibabes said:nning

Since this Board has “exploded”, I am sure some how, some way it has come to the attention of Oceania and just because we may not see any specific words on this subject from Oceania, they have heard the “roar”.  

I hope you’re right, Maui, but if they were really listening, I would expect someone from O to respond some way, somehow—via text, letter, email, phone call or on this thread—even if it was just to tell me I’m a deranged idiot they never want to see or hear from again. Frank, if you’re out there, I was in cabin 11002 and my contact info is on file. 

[YourWorldWithBill]

2 hours ago, mauibabes said:

@JayneE

We have hit and missed Amalfi several times, it is always a weather issue along the Amalfi coast. Same for Sorrento. We were diverted to Naples but were still able to get our private tour to meet us there and take us back to Ravello and Amalfi. Absolutely beautiful views from Villa Ruffolo in Ravello. We would love to take in an evening with a Summer Concert there one day. 🙏👍.

Bring your lucky whatever along on your trip. 🙏🤞

Mauibabes

Now I have something to worry about: we picked our cruise on Riviera in November because of the stop in Sorrento (others going to Naples were not as appealing for other reasons), where we will take the excursion to Pompeii. Well, hope springs eternal...

[YourWorldWithBill]

1 minute ago, hankandteri said:

 Frank, if you’re out there, I was in cabin 11002 and my contact info is on file. 

Let us know when you hear from Frank 😆

[Jayne E]

2 hours ago, mauibabes said:

@JayneE

We have hit and missed Amalfi several times, it is always a weather issue along the Amalfi coast. Same for Sorrento. We were diverted to Naples but were still able to get our private tour to meet us there and take us back to Ravello and Amalfi. Absolutely beautiful views from Villa Ruffolo in Ravello. We would love to take in an evening with a Summer Concert there one day. 🙏👍.

Bring your lucky whatever along on your trip. 🙏🤞

Mauibabes

Yes, if we had gone to Naples, would have been able to go back to Ravello again. A favorite place!. Breathtaking views.  Unfortunately we went to Salerno.  Guess we’ve been fortunate not to have missed Amalfi in the past. 

[Hanoj]

3 hours ago, YourWorldWithBill said:

Let us know when you hear from Frank 😆

Does Frank poach, err, post here?

[cruiserchuck]

I would suspect Oceania is satisfied with their decision to skip the stops in Portugal.  They have stated they were worried the ship would get stuck in Portugal due to strikes.  By avoiding Portugal, they avoided the risk.  With  20/20 hindsight, it appears they could have made the stops, but they had to make the decisions in real time, which they did.  
 

It seems to me that Oceania has explained the decision as much as they need to/are going to.  Missing ports is always a risk of traveling by cruise ship, and the terms and conditions passengers agree to allow Oceania to skip ports as they deem necessary.

Edited June 11, 2023 by cruiserchuck

[YourWorldWithBill]

3 hours ago, Hanoj said:

Does Frank poach, err, post here?

I have no idea what that was about, just thought I'd offer some humor (to me).

[KS&JW]

13 hours ago, cruiserchuck said:

  Missing ports is always a risk of traveling by cruise ship, and the terms and conditions passengers agree to allow Oceania to skip ports as they deem necessary.

 

I have learned that if you really want to go somewhere, fly, as you never know with a cruise. 

[Queen of DaNile]

12 hours ago, YourWorldWithBill said:

I have no idea what that was about, just thought I'd offer some humor (to me).

Years ago, Frank J. Del Rio would pop on here occasionally.

[Hanoj]

4 minutes ago, Queen of DaNile said:

Years ago, Frank J. Del Rio would pop on here occasionally.

Hi Frank!

[no1talks]

5 hours ago, KS&JW said:

 

I have learned that if you really want to go somewhere, fly, as you never know with a cruise. 

Not that flying is always stroll in the park these days. We avoid it as much as possible by driving to embarkation ports.

[mallie24]

We are booked but not yet paid final payment.  Itinerary includes three days in Myanmar.  There is a DO NOT TRAVEL advisory for both Canada and the United States, yet Oceania will not declare any changes to the itinerary.  We already have five sea days in an Itinerary of 20 days so an additional three would also represent "a cruise to almost nowhere".  Thoughts?

[KS&JW]

21 minutes ago, no1talks said:

Not that flying is always stroll in the park these days. We avoid it as much as possible by driving to embarkation ports.

While true that flying is challenging these days, no way to drive to Rome or Oslo or Tokyo, etc. 

[Jayne E]

21 minutes ago, mallie24 said:

We are booked but not yet paid final payment.  Itinerary includes three days in Myanmar.  There is a DO NOT TRAVEL advisory for both Canada and the United States, yet Oceania will not declare any changes to the itinerary.  We already have five sea days in an Itinerary of 20 days so an additional three would also represent "a cruise to almost nowhere".  Thoughts?

Search older Oceania CC boards.  A few months ago another party had multiple posts regarding having made final payment and wanting to cancel due to DO NOT TRAVEL advisory for Myanmar.  Initially not allowed but he was persistent...don't remember how it was resolved.

[ShopperfiendTO]

On 6/10/2023 at 3:26 PM, YourWorldWithBill said:

Now I have something to worry about: we picked our cruise on Riviera in November because of the stop in Sorrento (others going to Naples were not as appealing for other reasons), where we will take the excursion to Pompeii. Well, hope springs eternal...

 

Sorrento is a tender port.

 

If the water is too rough to tender, you will most likely dock in Naples.  If the focus of this port is going to Pompeii, then docking in Naples instead of tendering in Sorrento isn't really going to impact your Pompeii excursion as it is about the same from either Sorrento or Naples. 

 

In fact, with Naples, if your port day is long, you could also make a stop at Herculaneum on your way back, which is much closer to Naples.

Edited June 11, 2023 by ShopperfiendTO

[YourWorldWithBill]

5 hours ago, Queen of DaNile said:

Years ago, Frank J. Del Rio would pop on here occasionally.

Yep, actually I had seen that reference in the original comment; just hoping he's popping by to what will surely make his day. 

[YourWorldWithBill]

2 minutes ago, ShopperfiendTO said:

 

If the focus of this port is going to Pompeii, then docking in Naples instead of tendering in Sorrento isn't really going to impact your Pompeii excursion as it is about the same from either Sorrento or Naples. 

 

In fact, with Naples, if your port day is long, you could also make a stop at Herculaneum on your way back, which is much closer to Naples.

Yes, I chose this instead of another cruise docking at Napes because of other ports in the itinerary. Otherwise I might have preferred Naples. And Herculaneum is an option here, also, but farther, as you said. The issue is always whether a different port is clogged on that day.

[osandomir]

4 hours ago, mallie24 said:

We are booked but not yet paid final payment.  Itinerary includes three days in Myanmar.  There is a DO NOT TRAVEL advisory for both Canada and the United States, yet Oceania will not declare any changes to the itinerary.  We already have five sea days in an Itinerary of 20 days so an additional three would also represent "a cruise to almost nowhere".  Thoughts?

For this year cruise Oceania dropped the Myanmar way after the final payment day. The state department is still advising against any travel there. It’s a political unrest and a military operation that is going on in Myanmar right now, so there’s no place for reasonable expectations that it’ll be possible to travel there in the nearest future. We missed our chance to visit Myanmar when our cruise was canceled due to COVID and now I have no idea when we’re able to go there.
 

If you don’t want to take your chances (very low) it’s better to cancel your cruise before the final payment date. Also remember that there’s a non refundable administrative fee applied one month prior to final payment.

[Redtravel]

I can understand your disappointment missing ports. It happens for a variety of reasons. When you book a cruise, the cruise line doesn’t cancel ports without good reasons. Cruise lines don’t want unhappy guests.  Having been on many cruises, I have had changes in ports.  If there are changes, telling the guests as soon as possible helps.  Guests deserve honest answers when asked about changes.  Cruise schedules can be affected by weather, rough seas, strikes, sickness, civil unrest, etc.  In March 2020, we were on Sirena when the world went into lockdown. We were shut out of most ports.  Crew was extremely supportive. We were happy to get  home safely. Sometimes things happen. accept that things can happen.  Even though you may miss a port, enjoy the rest of your cruise.  Happy that we can travel again.

[hankandteri]

On 6/10/2023 at 7:15 PM, cruiserchuck said:

I would suspect Oceania is satisfied with their decision to skip the stops in Portugal.  They have stated they were worried the ship would get stuck in Portugal due to strikes.  By avoiding Portugal, they avoided the risk.  With  20/20 hindsight, it appears they could have made the stops, but they had to make the decisions in real time, which they did.  
 

It seems to me that Oceania has explained the decision as much as they need to/are going to.  Missing ports is always a risk of traveling by cruise ship, and the terms and conditions passengers agree to allow Oceania to skip ports as they deem necessary.

Hey Chuck--everything you state is totally fair and correct. I agree with you, however that's not what prompted me to post.

 

I'm sure everything Oceania did was legal, but it was not moral. There's a line between putting the best face on things and lying to your customers. Oceania crossed that line big time, which is a no-no when people are paying the kind of money all of us do to patronize them.

 

1. First they lied about the situation by saying there was a port strike, when there was in fact ideal weather with wide open ports beckoning. There was no civil unrest and no strikes were scheduled at those ports on the days we were to visit, and none in fact took place on those days.

2. Then, when the lie was exposed, they bungled the cover up by not being transparent about their real rationale. The second explanation was "well, if there had been a port strike we might have gotten stuck. Plus we know more than you do. We're not going to tell you what that is, you're just going to have to trust us." Sorry, none of that is remotely plausible. Portugal doesn't hold cruise ships hostage indefinitely. Doesn't happen. You know it, I know it, Oceania knows it.

3. Then they went all silent and unresponsive to the passengers--collectively and individually. Loose lips sink ships and all that.

4. The substitute programming offered on the bonus sea days was unimaginative at best and vastly inferior to the promised itinerary, so zero effort to make up for the unforced errors.

 

Stupidity is a defense I can accept. I could have lived with "hey, some goober in Miami made a dumb mistake and cancelled the ports, but we're going to do our best to make it up to you with two of the best sea days in the history of cruising. We're going to everything we can to make you forget Lisbon and Porto exist."

 

But lying, then covering up the lie, going on radio silence, and finally offering cold gruel in the form of copy-and-paste sea days in return was too much for me to accept without remarking on it here.

 

Was there a reason behind their actions? Yeah. Was it a good one? Probably not, but who knows since they're not talking? Were their actions legal? Sure. Were they transparent, honest and moral in their dealings with their passengers? Nope, not even close. That's why I got on my soapbox.

 

I'm no stranger to disappointment, and perfection isn't my expected standard. I managed to have a good trip despite the itinerary fiasco, albeit on an inferior cruise to the one I had signed up for.

[ak1004]

1 hour ago, hankandteri said:

Hey Chuck--everything you state is totally fair and correct. I agree with you, however that's not what prompted me to post.

 

I'm sure everything Oceania did was legal, but it was not moral. There's a line between putting the best face on things and lying to your customers. Oceania crossed that line big time, which is a no-no when people are paying the kind of money all of us do to patronize them.

 

1. First they lied about the situation by saying there was a port strike, when there was in fact ideal weather with wide open ports beckoning. There was no civil unrest and no strikes were scheduled at those ports on the days we were to visit, and none in fact took place on those days.

2. Then, when the lie was exposed, they bungled the cover up by not being transparent about their real rationale. The second explanation was "well, if there had been a port strike we might have gotten stuck. Plus we know more than you do. We're not going to tell you what that is, you're just going to have to trust us." Sorry, none of that is remotely plausible. Portugal doesn't hold cruise ships hostage indefinitely. Doesn't happen. You know it, I know it, Oceania knows it.

3. Then they went all silent and unresponsive to the passengers--collectively and individually. Loose lips sink ships and all that.

4. The substitute programming offered on the bonus sea days was unimaginative at best and vastly inferior to the promised itinerary, so zero effort to make up for the unforced errors.

 

Stupidity is a defense I can accept. I could have lived with "hey, some goober in Miami made a dumb mistake and cancelled the ports, but we're going to do our best to make it up to you with two of the best sea days in the history of cruising. We're going to everything we can to make you forget Lisbon and Porto exist."

 

But lying, then covering up the lie, going on radio silence, and finally offering cold gruel in the form of copy-and-paste sea days in return was too much for me to accept without remarking on it here.

 

Was there a reason behind their actions? Yeah. Was it a good one? Probably not, but who knows since they're not talking? Were their actions legal? Sure. Were they transparent, honest and moral in their dealings with their passengers? Nope, not even close. That's why I got on my soapbox.

 

I'm no stranger to disappointment, and perfection isn't my expected standard. I managed to have a good trip despite the itinerary fiasco, albeit on an inferior cruise to the one I had signed up for.

 

You keep repeating the same speculations over and over and presenting them as facts - but the only fact is that they are just speculations. You have no proof when they made a decision. You have no proof who made the decision. You have no proof that they lied.

 

But yes, they know more than we do. Cruise lines don't just cancel ports for no reason because they don’t want unhappy guests and they don't want to lose revenues from shore excursions (at least $150k in this case).

 

So all your so called facts are not facts - they are just your interpretation of the events.

[susiesan]

23 hours ago, mallie24 said:

We are booked but not yet paid final payment.  Itinerary includes three days in Myanmar.  There is a DO NOT TRAVEL advisory for both Canada and the United States, yet Oceania will not declare any changes to the itinerary.  We already have five sea days in an Itinerary of 20 days so an additional three would also represent "a cruise to almost nowhere".  Thoughts?

Cancel now. You will NOT be going Myanmar, no one is even by air or land. Find another cruise or do a land vacation to southeast Asia. You could easily spend the 20 days between Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand on a custom tour for far less than the cruise.

[hankandteri]

9 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

You keep repeating the same speculations over and over and presenting them as facts - but the only fact is that they are just speculations. You have no proof when they made a decision. You have no proof who made the decision. You have no proof that they lied.

Did they say there was a port strike when there was none? Yes, they did.

 

Did they give a full explanation of why they really cancelled? No, they did not. Did they dissemble in their follow-up explanation? Why, yes they did.

 

I'm not speculating about the lie or the cover-up. They happened. You were there. I've been forthright in pointing out that I absolutely was speculating as to the real motives behind the decision since the cruise line wasn't interested in sharing them. Playing amateur detective/forensic accountant can be fun.

 

I'm kind of curious, AK, are you a TA or Oceania employee? You were on the same cruise I was, and your relentless defense of behavior that was not in your best interest puzzles me.

[ak1004]

28 minutes ago, hankandteri said:

Did they say there was a port strike when there was none? Yes, they did.

 

Did they give a full explanation of why they really cancelled? No, they did not. Did they dissemble in their follow-up explanation? Why, yes they did.

 

I'm not speculating about the lie or the cover-up. They happened. You were there. I've been forthright in pointing out that I absolutely was speculating as to the real motives behind the decision since the cruise line wasn't interested in sharing them. Playing amateur detective/forensic accountant can be fun.

 

I'm kind of curious, AK, are you a TA or Oceania employee? You were on the same cruise I was, and your relentless defense of behavior that was not in your best interest puzzles me.

 

I'm not a TA or Oceania employee. If you look at my signature, you can see that we sailed on 11 different lines, so I'm also not a loyalist or a cheerleader.

 

We had ports cancelled with SS, Azamara and Crystal, as well as with other lines. Some lines are more transparent, some are less. Some give you compensation, some don't. Some reasons look reasonable, some don't. On our last SS cruise we had 3 days on Doha cancelled, then one day in Bahrein. Some guests described it as "bait and switch". The reason given was completely far fetched. Maybe it was valid, maybe they had a different reason but didn't want to share it. It doesn't really matter.

 

Port cancellations are always disappointing, but I will repeat one more time: it's not the cruise lines interest to cancel ports. My assumption is that they have more facts than we do and wouldn't cancel if they absolutely didn't have to. Your assumption is that they lie, cover up and have some hidden agenda and do it on purpose. 

 

We will continue sailing with O, SS and Azamara (Crystal is just doesn't make sense at this point financially) because we love all those lines and love the on board experience.