Simply More Means Simply Back to Which Cruise Line for You?

[cruisemom42]

3 hours ago, JKrise said:

Lets be tolerant of different Points of View.

For instance I don't like the fact that I now have to pay for "Free Alcohol" when I do not drink.

The Oceania 'Cruise Only' fare offered a wonderful product at a great price that accommodated others like myself. 

Ah....who knows, maybe the 'Simple More' can be backed out of the price as a 'Credit' if you ask for it.

 

Spare a thought for those of us who travel solo. I "don't like" the fact that I have to pay almost twice as much to cruise as anyone traveling with a cabin-mate. For the per diem I will pay on Oceania, anyone else traveling with another warm body could be in a suite.

 

For years I looked in vain for an O itinerary that was so wonderful I could justify the cost, or for a sale or low supplement on a cruise I'd want to take. Finally O wised up and started making a few solo cabins available. I booked a great itinerary at a cost that is still high, but worth it to me. Still paying much more per diem for my category.

 

Things change on every line. 

 

I don't necessarily think Oceania's program change will benefit me, but I will not count O out for future cruises either. Sales happen, programs also change. I will continue to look for value on any line.

 

I can't answer the OP's question exactly because I've never been loyal to any line. My two previous cruises were on HAL and Celebrity. After my upcoming Oceania cruise in August,  I will be on Azamara for a BTB, then back to Oceania. Some lines I rarely look at because I can't truthfully afford them (well I could, but I like to cruise and travel multiple times per year). Others I rarely look at because they are a compromise too far. Sometimes a line will be off my radar screen for a while due to experience or reports that they are going through some tough times.

 

But I can tell you that if any one of those lines offered a one-off itinerary or experience that hit every point I like, I'd probably find a way to make it work. As with most things in life, being flexible and able to compromise is better than either uncompromising loyalty or drawing silly lines in the sand.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by cruisemom42

[oskidunker]

10 hours ago, Cliff-FLL said:

I agree.  Worst coffee on the seas. 🤮

True

[QuestionEverything]

1 hour ago, ak1004 said:

 

Cruising is definitely losing appeal due to the higher costs?

 

I just looked at Trafalgar. Typical 10 nights trip to Europe is around $4,500-5,000 CAD. This is pretty much in line with the cost of OV cabin on Marina/Riviera. And it includes only breakfast and some dinners. All lunches are extra. So adding all extra costs, it might be more expensive than a cruise. And I'm not sure if Trafalgar is a good comparison to O, I think it's more comparable to mid range level like Celebrity.

 

Not to mention that packing/unpacking every few days and extensive time in buses moving from place to place is much less appealing to me.

Greetings!

Costs are only one element of vacation decision making.

Land trips are wonderful, we adore them. 

Increasingly we are adding much more variety to our travel; land trips more, a brand new super magnificent vehicle for driving trips around North America, and cruising is in there too.

My point was not 100% about costs - it was about my and others impressions of cruising and how it fits into the post covid world of travel. Our impressions of cruising are not as favorable as it used to be. 

 

[LHT28]

2 hours ago, ak1004 said:

Not to mention that packing/unpacking every few days and extensive time in buses moving from place to place is much less appealing to me.

Up at 6am on the bus by 8 am  sitting all day  in what is like economy seat on an airline

 

Not my idea of  a relaxing vacations  but some people love bus tours

 

Trafalger used to be budget friendly tours

[ak1004]

2 minutes ago, LHT28 said:

Up at 6am on the bus by 8 am  sitting all day  in what is like economy seat on an airline

 

Not my idea of  a relaxing vacations  but some people love bus tours

 

Trafalger used to be budget friendly tours

 

Exactly.

 

We did it twice with Gate1. 4 cities in 9 days. Theoretically you have 2-3 days in each city. In reality, you spend 5-6 hours just travelling between the cities. Add time for packing/unpacking, hotels check in and check out, etc. 

[cruisemom42]

There are small group land tours -- fewer people, more room on buses. Fewer "shopping opportunities".  

 

I'm not a HUGE fan of bus tours either, but I do take some that have a particular focus, usually with a qualified professor-cum-guide in addition to a tour arranger. Typically you get much more in depth learning opportunities than on a cruise.

 

Also, land travel doesn't have to involve a bus tour. Spending a few days or a week in a city and then traveling to another via train or short flight is easy, particularly in Europe.

 

[ak1004]

2 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

There are small group land tours -- fewer people, more room on buses. Fewer "shopping opportunities".  

 

I'm not a HUGE fan of bus tours either, but I do take some that have a particular focus, usually with a qualified professor-cum-guide in addition to a tour arranger. Typically you get much more in depth learning opportunities than on a cruise.

 

Also, land travel doesn't have to involve a bus tour. Spending a few days or a week in a city and then traveling to another via train or short flight is easy, particularly in Europe.

 

 

Agree - but small group tours are also significantly more expensive.

 

The only land tour I would consider is something that has maybe only 1-2 travels between cities. Say 4-5 days in Madrid, then 4-5 days in Barcelona and another 4-5 days in Lisbon. In each city there is also an option for short travels to see places nearby. 

 

Yes, you definitely see more in each place than on a cruise, but also see less places. On a cruise you "taste" each port, and then decide if it's worth to come back. Some ports are overnight. We also arrive 2-3 nights earlier to each port, so we have at least one place that we learn more in depth.

 

There is a tradeoff to everything.

[cruisemom42]

3 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

There is a tradeoff to everything.

 

Agreed. That's why I do a little of each. 😁

[mjobtx]

11 hours ago, Cliff-FLL said:

Except that Oceania is not saying it's "included".  Rather, they are very boldly proclaiming that these things are "FREE":

"2 for 1 Cruise Fares" - let's just say they've beaten that laughable horse to death;

"FREE Roundtrip Airfare" - but only if you pay more for the included-airfare option;

"FREE Airport Transfers" - but only if you pay more for the included-airfare option;

So how are either of these options "FREE" if you have to pay more to receive them?

 

Moving on, we get to the other FREE benefits of simply MORE:

"FREE Shore Excursions" - but only up to a certain dollar limit, depending on the cruise length;

"FREE Champagne, Wine, & More" - but only at certain times when they say you can have it;

"FREE Gourmet Specialty Dining" - which is no different than what they've always offered;

"FREE Unlimited Wi-Fi" - which, to the best of my knowledge, has always been the case.

 

For a cruise we have scheduled for May 2024, the new fare, without "FREE" airfare, increases the price by $400pp.  We're certainly not going to drink enough of their wines at lunch & dinner to justify that amount and the FREE shore excursions would probably be taken only so we don't lose the extra money we're already being charged.

 

So, to be clear, I don't intend to, "Get over it or move on."  I'll look at Oceania objectively, ignore all of their "FREE" perks while I compare them to other cruise lines, and make an informed decision as to whether or not Oceania is the best selection.  Before, I probably would have just decided which Oceania cruise I wanted.  Now, I'll simply decide on the basis of itinerary and what is more reasonably priced based on its "FREE" benefits.

For many of us simply MORE is a whole lot less. The value of the shore excursions that were a part of OLife has been reduced by simply MORE over the OLife value that had already been reduced for 2025 sailings. And you have no choice but to use it or lose it. Many people arrange private shore excursions in ports. Now they will be forced to either use the Oceania credit or lose it. There is no longer a choice of shipboard credit instead of shore excursions. There is only a shipboard credit to be used solely for the purchase of Oceania shore excursions. USE IT OR LOSE IT!. The former House Select Drinks Package that was prices at $39.95 per person per day is now included. For those of us that don't drink or ever buy the drinks package for a variety of reasons it is USE IT OR LOSE IT! FREE Gourmet Specialty Dining and Free Unlimited WiFi were previously included. They are not an addition. There is no longer a "Cruise Only" option. 

 

I am not certain that the marketing whizzes at Oceania thought this new offer through or maybe they did. For many of us, simply MORE will be a huge price increase because of the reduced value of shore excursions when compared to OLife. For 2025, Oceania had already reduced the number of shore excursions available and/or the value of the shipboard credit in the OLife program. As an example, the OLife shore excursion amenity for the 180 day 2024 ATW was 78 shore excursions or $7,800 shipboard credit. For the 2025 ATW, that had been reduced to 64 shore excursions or $6,400. That is an 18% increase in price. The simply MORE program for a newly booked 2024 ATW provides $10,800 in shore excursion credit. That represents a reduction in value of up to $4,722 over the OLife amentity and a reduction of up to $1,936 over the already reduced OLife shore excursion value for the 2025 ATW. The simply MORE values for the 2025 ATW have not been loaded yet so I am unable to see if there is a further decrease in value. For shorter cruises, the decrease in value will be proportional but there will be a decrease in value unless you always bought a drinks package. Oh, and there is no longer a cruise only option. The only option is with or without air. 

 

Oceania used to be an easy choice for us. It represented a good value for the money paid. For us, that value has been greatly reduced. It is time to look at other options. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by mjobtx

[vtgumby]

11 hours ago, julia said:

Well Cliff, I hate to tell you but.....

Oceania DOES NOT CARE if you move on.  Sorry.  Cold, hard, fact.

They are covering increased costs on EVERY LEVEL. As is every single cruise line, hotel, theme park, restaurant, grocery store, etc, etc. Bemoaning the increases will have no effect on the outcome. Either you CHOOSE to cruise or you don't.

OR you choose to cruise a different cruiseline. You are right about corporate not caring, that is UNTIL enough people jump ship, but Cliff didn’t say that, he merely stated what many of us are saying which is we will not just be O only cruisers but will look into other lines to find the value we seek.

It isn’t to cruise or not but rather more judicial choosing of our cruises.

I shall still look at O along with beloved W and AZ and when the value is there we’re booking but there IS a price point for some of us, O may be challenging ours.

[mjobtx]

4 minutes ago, vtgumby said:

OR you choose to cruise a different cruiseline. You are right about corporate not caring, that is UNTIL enough people jump ship, but Cliff didn’t say that, he merely stated what many of us are saying which is we will not just be O only cruisers but will look into other lines to find the value we seek.

It isn’t to cruise or not but rather more judicial choosing of our cruises.

I shall still look at O along with beloved W and AZ and when the value is there we’re booking but there IS a price point for some of us, O may be challenging ours.

We too will be looking at other cruise lines. Oceania's simply MORE which for us is "a whole lot less" significantly devalues the experience for us. We have never been prone to accept "take it or leave it" conditions.

[ak1004]

People should always check options and compare. We did it before SM and will continue doing it after SM. Could never understand people who cruise exclusively on one line. No line is perfect. Each line has pros and cons, why not to try more than one? Choice is good. Variety is good.

 

Of course Oceania DOES NOT CARE if you move on. No line does. For them there are two things that matter: profits and guest satisfaction. In that specific order. And if profits come at expense of guests satisfaction, so be it.

 

The SM price increase is now history. It is what it is. Going forward, the only thing that matters is the overall value and how O compares to other lines in terms of itineraries, price, and overall package.

[mjobtx]

16 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

People should always check options and compare. We did it before SM and will continue doing it after SM. Could never understand people who cruise exclusively on one line. No line is perfect. Each line has pros and cons, why not to try more than one? Choice is good. Variety is good.

 

Of course Oceania DOES NOT CARE if you move on. No line does. For them there are two things that matter: profits and guest satisfaction. In that specific order. And if profits come at expense of guests satisfaction, so be it.

 

The SM price increase is now history. It is what it is. Going forward, the only thing that matters is the overall value and how O compares to other lines in terms of itineraries, price, and overall package.

You are correct on all points. But no one likes a massive price increase or to be told that they have to buy and pay for something they do not want and cannot use while at the same time having the value of the things they do want and use decreased. With the new program, Oceania has forced many of its clients out of their comfort zones. We are used to price increases but we are not used to paying for something we don't want and being told to USE IT OR LOSE IT! 

 

We do sail on other cruise lines but Oceania has received more of our business and until this recent change would have continued to receive more. Why? Because once you reach a certain level, there are perks like prepaid gratuities, free custom air arrangements, increased shipboard credit. All of those things have value. All of those things were present before the change and are factored into our decision on which cruise line to use. Given Oceania's recent drastic price increases (increased tariffs, decreased value of shore excursion amentity) for a sizeable segment of their passengers and their reduction in choices available (no shipboard credit in lieu of free excursions, no cruise only option, mandatory drinks package), I fear that Oceania will take the axe to their loyalty program and devalue it as well. 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by mjobtx

[vtgumby]

1 hour ago, ak1004 said:

 

Yes, you definitely see more in each place than on a cruise, but also see less places. On a cruise you "taste" each port, and then decide if it's worth to come back. Some ports are overnight. We also arrive 2-3 nights earlier to each port, so we have at least one place that we learn more in depth.

 

There is a tradeoff to everything.

This is a big reason why we cruise, to get the taste of a city and then, yes, we do go back for an extended time so thanks for the reminder. Now I’m smiling at some of those tastes that led to a much fuller meal.
That and our love for lots of sea days! 😉

[ak1004]

2 minutes ago, mjobtx said:

You are correct on all points. But no one likes a massive price increase or told that they have to buy and pay for something they do not want or cannot use while at the same time having the value of the things they do want and use decreased. With the new program, Oceania has forced many of its clients out of their comfort zones. We are used to price increases but we are not used to paying for something we don't want and being told to USE IT OR LOSE IT! 

 

We do sail on other cruise lines but Oceania has received more of our business and until this recent change would have continued to receive more. Why? Because once you reach a certain level, there are perks like prepaid gratuities, free custom air arrangements, increased shipboard credit. All of those things have value. All of those things were present before the change and are factored into our decision on which cruise line to use. Given Oceania's recent drastic price increases (increased tariffs, decreased value of shore excursion amentity) for a sizeable segment of their passengers and their reduction in choices available (no shipboard credit in lieu of free excursions, no cruise only option), I fear that Oceania will take the axe to their loyalty program and devalue it as well. 

 

 

I don't disagree. On the contrary. As someone who doesn't drink and prefers to take private tours, I'm among those who would prefer the old program to stay. For me it worked perfectly because we drink a lot of specialty coffee and mineral water, but not alcohol. So it was a perfect fit for us (include things that we use and exclude things we don't).

 

However, this is the trend with all premium/luxury lines. There are many things that we pay for and not necessarily use on the upscale lines. Some people don't use Wi-Fi, but were still paying for it anyway. Some people don't care about specialty restaurants, or don't drink specialty teas and coffees. SS recently started to include excursions in their fares. Where do you draw the line? Cannot please everyone.

 

Many people say that if they wanted to book all inclusive, they would book SB or SS. Maybe they will if the price difference becomes small (I know we will) - and maybe it will cause O to re consider (but I'm not holding my breath).

 

I also agree about the loyalty program, and this is exactly why we sail on many lines. Having those perks is nice, but they are still a relatively small percentage of the total fare.

 

btw, speaking of loyalty programs, Windstar gives you a 5% discount on all sailings after the first sailing. SS does the same for select sailings, and extra 5% after 100 nights. So there are other programs that are also pretty good. 

[mjobtx]

4 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

I don't disagree. On the contrary. As someone who doesn't drink and prefers to take private tours, I'm among those who would prefer the old program to stay. For me it worked perfectly because we drink a lot of specialty coffee and mineral water, but not alcohol. So it was a perfect fit for us (include things that we use and exclude things we don't).

 

However, this is the trend with all premium/luxury lines. There are many things that we pay for and not necessarily use on the upscale lines. Some people don't use Wi-Fi, but were still paying for it anyway. Some people don't care about specialty restaurants, or don't drink specialty teas and coffees. SS recently started to include excursions in their fares. Where do you draw the line? Cannot please everyone.

 

Many people say that if they wanted to book all inclusive, they would book SB or SS. Maybe they will if the price difference becomes small (I know we will) - and maybe it will cause O to re consider (but I'm not holding my breath).

 

I also agree about the loyalty program, and this is exactly why we sail on many lines. Having those perks is nice, but they are still a relatively small percentage of the total fare.

 

btw, speaking of loyalty programs, Windstar gives you a 5% discount on all sailings after the first sailing. SS does the same for select sailings, and extra 5% after 100 nights. So there are other programs that are also pretty good. 

We do pay for things we don't necessarily want or use. But shore excursions and drinks packages are the two most expensive things you can pay for besides the cruise itself. That is why the effect of simply MORE is so dramatically negative for us. The reason we sail Oceania most frequently followed by Regent is their itineraries. Up until recent years, the itineraries of many small ship cruise lines were uninspiring. Creative, longer itineraries are what drew us to Oceania. After our ATW in 2024, we will reevaluate. Oceania has made it easier for us to switch by offering us far less value for our money. 

 

 

[LHT28]

28 minutes ago, mjobtx said:

I fear that Oceania will take the axe to their loyalty program and devalue it as well. 

 

That will be their next project

🙄

[QuestionEverything]

People will vote with their pocket book, and that is a Great thing.

Cruising is nice, I have seen quite enough water though.

So, consumers have the freedom to explore other vacation options and they can decide what they want.

 

[mjobtx]

1 minute ago, LHT28 said:

That will be their next project

🙄

That is what scares me.

[EJL2023]

10 minutes ago, QuestionEverything said:

People will vote with their pocket book, and that is a Great thing.

Cruising is nice, I have seen quite enough water though.

So, consumers have the freedom to explore other vacation options and they can decide what they want.

 

Haven’t we always had that freedom? So really nothing new. For years I refused to do cruises. Everyone has always had preferences, even before SimplyMore 

[mjobtx]

7 minutes ago, EJL2023 said:

Haven’t we always had that freedom? So really nothing new. For years I refused to do cruises. Everyone has always had preferences, even before SimplyMore 

Taken in a vacuum, you are correct. Taken in the context of this thread and Oceania's latest program that greatly devalues the inclusions for many especially the non-drinkers among us; there is something new and for many of us worse. You are correct. Each of us has a decision to make after weighing the factors.

[ak1004]

1 hour ago, mjobtx said:

We do pay for things we don't necessarily want or use. But shore excursions and drinks packages are the two most expensive things you can pay for besides the cruise itself. That is why the effect of simply MORE is so dramatically negative for us. The reason we sail Oceania most frequently followed by Regent is their itineraries. Up until recent years, the itineraries of many small ship cruise lines were uninspiring. Creative, longer itineraries are what drew us to Oceania. After our ATW in 2024, we will reevaluate. Oceania has made it easier for us to switch by offering us far less value for our money. 

 

 

 

But Regent is even more inclusive and much more expensive. You presumably pay for unlimited drinks (not only at lunch/dinner) and all excursions (not only a credit).  

[Hambagahle]

We are actually quite happy with this "Simply More" - and since we are already booked for an April 2024 cruise on Vista had the option to stay as we were OR switch to the new programme.

 

We switched.   We do drink (probably more than we ought but we happen to like an apéro before dinner and wine with dinner.). Our suite includes 6 bottles of "booze" which we can choose.  And we can have our apéro in the suite before going to a restaurant - which we usually do anyway.   We had planned to pay for the upgraded "beverage package" before SimplyMORE came about.

 

We also took 3 free excursions and added one that we paid for...  So the 4 suit us fine.

 

We can't use Oceania's airfare - because we live in Europe.  So that isn't part of the equation for us.

 

Net/net we found we would save a little money...so we chose to take the new programme.

 

What we will do in the future (if at our age there is another cruise in the future!) will certainly involve either Oceania or Regent.  We don't cruise on any other lines.   So we are "happy campers" - I think that is the US expression!!

[Hlitner]

Traveling on land offers many advantages to any cruise, including the ability to go where you want without the constraints of a port day and getting back to the ship.  DW and I have long enjoyed just flying (or taking a cruise) to Europe where we might spend some time in a favorite city and than simply rent/lease a car for a few weeks.  A car allows us to go where we want, when we want, stay as long as we want, and not have to deal with the what we consider the horrors of bus travel.  Trains are also a good option for getting from Point A to Point B, but also are very limiting when moving around outside major cities.  

 

I might add that a car allows folks to go many places not even accessible to cruisers.  Just a year ago we were in Europe, flew to Prague, rented a car, drove through parts of the Czech Republic and Poland.  It was a fantastic trip, we ate better than on nearly any cruise, and our cost was less than a premium or luxury cruise line.  And consider that none of the areas we visited are even accessible by cruise ship (and mostly not readily visited by river cruise).  We are now thinking about a driving trip, next year, that would start in Trieste (where we debark from an O cruise) and take us south to Split, through some parts of Croatia and Slovenia, up into the Austrian Alps, and back into Italy (to drop the car and fly home).  Many of the places we want to drive are not accessible to any kind of cruise.

 

While we still love cruises, we have found that for us the perfect trip combines some cruising with a land trip.  The best of both worlds :).

 

Hank

[mjobtx]

19 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

But Regent is even more inclusive and much more expensive. You presumably pay for unlimited drinks (not only at lunch/dinner) and all excursions (not only a credit).  

It is and that is why we choose Oceania most of the time. Oceania's new program is creating an even bigger price to value gap than it did before. I realize that choices can't always be totally objective and equal on all points. But now, the decision has become more difficult because of Oceania devaluing its offer.