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

[basor]

4 minutes ago, mjobtx said:

Oceania knows what percentage of its passengers buy beverage packages. Oceania also knows that beverage packages have an extremely high gross profit margin. They have little or no value to my wife and me. Oceania is making a calculated decision that they hope will increase their profit margins. There is nothing wrong with that. But simply MORE is a failed attempt at camouflaging a significant price increase for the ancillary elements of a cruise on top of the easily identifiable increases in cabin tariffs. I personally think they went too far too fast. 

OLife versus simply MORE shore excursion value comparison using 180-day 2024 and 2025 ATW cruises.

ATW 2024 – OLife 78 shore excursions or $7,800 shipboard credit

        Maximum shore excursion value $15,522

 

ATW 2024 – simply MORE, $10,800 shore excursion credit (30% reduction compared to OLife)

 

ATW 2025 – OLife 64 shore excursions or $6,400 shipboard credit

        Maximum shore excursion value $12,736 (18% reduction compared to 2024 ATW)

 

ATW 2025 – simply MORE, $9,800 shore excursion credit (23% decrease compared to OLife)

 

For shorter cruises, the reduction in value of the shore excursion amenity will be proportional. Whatever the amount, both the shore excursion credit and the beverage package are use it or lose it amenities. For some of us, there is a lot to lose.

 

There will be some percentage of cruisers that will be very happy about simply MORE. They are the passengers that always purchase a “House Select” beverage package which costs $39.95 per day per person. On a 180-day cruise, the value of that amenity is $7,191 per person or $14,382 per cabin. That will more than offset the decrease in value of the previous shore excursion amenity. I don’t know what percentage of Oceania’s passengers purchase the “House Select” beverage package but Oceania does. In my opinion, Oceania knows that including the high gross margin “House Select” beverage package and reducing the value of the shore excursion amenity will be  more advantageous to Oceania than OLife. For those of us that don’t drink or don’t buy beverage packages for a variety of reasons, the inclusion has no value.

 

To sum up the differences between OLife and simply MORE:

• ·         Significantly reduced value of shore excursion amenity with simply MORE
• ·         No option for shipboard credit in lieu of shore excursions with simply MORE
• ·         Elimination of a cruise only option with simply MORE
• ·         Addition of the “House Select” beverage package with simply MORE

 

 

Your calculations may be true for an ATW cruise but for our shorter cruises, the SBC is not a significant difference.  As you indicated, for those that chose the Cruise Only option, SM is not advantageous for them.  For those of us that chose OLife and took either the beverage package or the shore excursions, 

it has not been a drastic change,  We have found on our 5 cruises booked for 2024 and 2025, we have saved money or paid less than $100.00 for SM.  Everyone's situation is different and for those wishing to have a "cruise only" option, they will need to move to a different cruise line but those are very limited (Windstar ). Enjoy traveling however works best for you....

[susiesan]

5 hours ago, QuestionEverything said:

 

I like cruising, but not as much anymore, since we have increased land travel - land travel is simply more rewarding experience wise.

I'm with you. I've been going on safaris recently for land travel. I was in Namibia in 2021, Botswana 2 months ago in May, and will go on safari in Uganda in January. I had also been in Tanzania and South Africa in the past 8 years when I started going on safaris. They are my favorite kind of vacation now.

 

I have also done a lot of land travel in Asia in the past 10 years as DIY trips. Japan is especially easy to get around on your own.

 

As to the original topic, my next cruise booked after the Sept. 2 Sirena which does not have SM is with Azamara in Sept. 2024. I have not cruised with them since they were spun off from RCCCL/Celebrity. because I'm one of the people who likes the size of the R ships, the smaller cabins and bathrooms don't bother me. Their included beverage package is better than O's SM included wine & beer with meals. On Azamara there are spirits on the list of beverages along with wine and beer and you can have a drink anytime and anywhere you want, not just with lunch and dinner. Since I'm not a big wine drinker but I do like cocktails, this will work better for men if I have to pay for a beverage package.

 

[mjobtx]

4 minutes ago, 1985rz1 said:

Yes, it's a mixed bag, and it is important to do the math as you have done.  But be careful in using the maximum shore excursion value in the comparison, as it's rare to actually reach that value.  Our experience is a factor of 1.6 to 1.7 is more in tune with what is actually doable.  This doesn't change your assessment as the excursion comparison still shows a loss, just not quite as bad.

I decided to start with the maximum because it is theoretically possible. But even if you use a reduced number, the result is OLife provided a higher benefit. It is just a matter of how much less. We are booked on the 2024 ATW which is why I chose it. We booked in March 2022, so OLife is our program. Our qualifying shore excursions have a value of $175 per excursion or $13,650 versus an allowance of $10,800 from simply MORE. The OLife advantage to us is a significant $2,850 or 26.64% more than the simply MORE program. Your mileage may vary but it will be greater under OLife than under simply MORE.

 

The OLife program also offered a "Your World Collection" 25% discount on shore excursions booked above a fixed number. That number included the excursions booked using the free excursion amenity. There was also an "Unlimited Passport Collection" but that was only advantageous to us on our Alaskan cruise. For the 2024 ATW, the YWC 25% discount became available once we booked 6 shore excursions above our included number. There is no mention of those discount packages still existing under simply MORE. If they do not exist, then Oceania has implemented a significant increase in price on all booked excursions that previously would have been discounted. 

[mjobtx]

23 minutes ago, basor said:

Your calculations may be true for an ATW cruise but for our shorter cruises, the SBC is not a significant difference.  As you indicated, for those that chose the Cruise Only option, SM is not advantageous for them.  For those of us that chose OLife and took either the beverage package or the shore excursions, 

it has not been a drastic change,  We have found on our 5 cruises booked for 2024 and 2025, we have saved money or paid less than $100.00 for SM.  Everyone's situation is different and for those wishing to have a "cruise only" option, they will need to move to a different cruise line but those are very limited (Windstar ). Enjoy traveling however works best for you....

I said in the beginning that people that always buy a beverage package will come out ahead. The rest of us will not. The comparison is less to SBC than to the value of the shore excursion amenity under OLife. Its maximum value was almost double the SBC option. Certainly the numbers are smaller on shorter cruises but the percentage disadvantage remains. I can find on scenario under which I realize more value under simply MORE that OLife if I do not buy beverage packages. If you have an example of how you pay less under simply MORE than OLife, please share it. 

 

I also realize that everyone's situation is different. My post is about the affect that the new program has on those of us that do not buy beverage packages using my own personal experience as an example. If you visit the Roll Calls  you will find quite a few people that previously booked "Cruise Only."

 

NOTE: the examples and commentary I have made are comparing only the effects of Oceania's OLife program with its new simply MORE program. I am not comparing to any other cruise line. Not unexpectedly, simply MORE represents a significant increase in price and reduction in value to those of us that do not buy beverage packages. For those that to, simply MORE is a net positive.

[basor]

20 minutes ago, mjobtx said:

I decided to start with the maximum because it is theoretically possible. But even if you use a reduced number, the result is OLife provided a higher benefit. It is just a matter of how much less. We are booked on the 2024 ATW which is why I chose it. We booked in March 2022, so OLife is our program. Our qualifying shore excursions have a value of $175 per excursion or $13,650 versus an allowance of $10,800 from simply MORE. The OLife advantage to us is a significant $2,850 or 26.64% more than the simply MORE program. Your mileage may vary but it will be greater under OLife than under simply MORE.

 

The OLife program also offered a "Your World Collection" 25% discount on shore excursions booked above a fixed number. That number included the excursions booked using the free excursion amenity. There was also an "Unlimited Passport Collection" but that was only advantageous to us on our Alaskan cruise. For the 2024 ATW, the YWC 25% discount became available once we booked 6 shore excursions above our included number. There is no mention of those discount packages still existing under simply MORE. If they do not exist, then Oceania has implemented a significant increase in price on all booked excursions that previously would have been discounted. 

SM excursion program does include the YWC 25% discount and the UPC - it is listed on the shore excursion page and the excursion show the pricing - the same as before:

 

TOUR PRICING	UNLIMITED PASSPORT COLLECTION (UPC)	SIMPLY MORE SHORE EXCURSION PACKAGE
Individual Excursions at regular price	Unlimited excursions for $879.00	Minimum of 5 excursions for 25% off

[mjobtx]

39 minutes ago, basor said:

Your calculations may be true for an ATW cruise but for our shorter cruises, the SBC is not a significant difference.  As you indicated, for those that chose the Cruise Only option, SM is not advantageous for them.  For those of us that chose OLife and took either the beverage package or the shore excursions, 

it has not been a drastic change,  We have found on our 5 cruises booked for 2024 and 2025, we have saved money or paid less than $100.00 for SM.  Everyone's situation is different and for those wishing to have a "cruise only" option, they will need to move to a different cruise line but those are very limited (Windstar ). Enjoy traveling however works best for you....

You got me wondering so I did a new comparison of two 10 day cruises from Athens to Istanbul on the Sirena.

OLife 7 - 17 July 2023, 

6 shore excursions - maximum value $1,194

A2 cabin - $5,849

 

simply More 14 - 24 October 2023

$800 shore excursion credit

A2 cabin - $5,999

 

In order for the simply MORE $800 to pay for 6 shore excursions, the excursions would have to cost an average of $133.33 each. 

If shore excursions cost a more realistic average of $175 each, the simply MORE allowance is worth $250 less than the OLife shore excursion amenity. That is an additional 2% increase in cost on top of the 2% increase in the cost of the cabin. 

If you always buy a beverage package you are ahead by $549 ($799 drinks package minus $250 reduced shore excursion value). If you don't buy a beverage package, you have an additional 2% increase in cost over the 2.5% increase in cabin cost. While the amount may be small, in the long term percentages matter when compounded over several trips. 

[mjobtx]

11 minutes ago, basor said:

SM excursion program does include the YWC 25% discount and the UPC - it is listed on the shore excursion page and the excursion show the pricing - the same as before:

 

TOUR PRICING	UNLIMITED PASSPORT COLLECTION (UPC)	SIMPLY MORE SHORE EXCURSION PACKAGE
Individual Excursions at regular price	Unlimited excursions for $879.00	Minimum of 5 excursions for 25% off

That's a relief? Because I have nothing booked under simply MORE, I could not determine if the discount packages were still available and I could not find the information in the FAQs. 

 

I am personally relieved because we will probably book at least one more cruise with Oceania and it will be under the simply MORE program. The excercise I have been going through comparing the programs has been for the purpose my planning. I want to maximize the value received based on the options available to me. I am sharing how the change in programs affects my wife and me as well as  others under the same circumstance that being primarily people that do not buy beverage packages. 

[Rainbow3fe]

23 hours ago, MarkWiltonM said:

 

Another thing to consider is how often Oceania cancels port calls, due to weather, the possibility of labor unrest (?!), etc. On our cruise to Bermuda in March, which was titled "Pink Sands Soiree" and was to spend 3 days in Bermuda, the entirety of the Bermuda portion of the cruise was canceled and we instead had two nights in (wait for it) -- Jacksonville, Florida!!! The third day was an extra sea day. We didn't have any Oceania excursions booked in Bermuda, but for those who did choose excursions as their O Life option, they had to settle for hastily arranged excursions in frickin' Jacksonville, Florida. I have never seen so many sad faces on a cruise in all my years of sailing.  

That sounds absurd. In January when our Oceania ship was unable to dock in 2 South African ports we received our money back for our missed tours immediately.  I don't think those passengers asked the right questions before accepting the new excursions. 

[mjobtx]

49 minutes ago, Rainbow3fe said:

That sounds absurd. In January when our Oceania ship was unable to dock in 2 South African ports we received our money back for our missed tours immediately.  I don't think those passengers asked the right questions before accepting the new excursions. 

In our case, the cancelled excursions were immediately credited to our onboard account. No additional action was required. If we booked a replacement, it was charged to our onboard account. The transactions were totally separate.

[ak1004]

On 7/4/2023 at 1:47 PM, 1985rz1 said:

Yes, it's a mixed bag, and it is important to do the math as you have done.  But be careful in using the maximum shore excursion value in the comparison, as it's rare to actually reach that value.  Our experience is a factor of 1.6 to 1.7 is more in tune with what is actually doable.  This doesn't change your assessment as the excursion comparison still shows a loss, just not quite as bad.

 

And if you book a minimum number of excursions and get 25% discount, then it's closer to 1.2 to 1.3.

 

But also don't forget that with SM you can book any excursion, including OE and OS, which you could not with oLife.

 

So for people who used to book ship excursions or mix of ship and private tours, not much is changing.

[1985rz1]

17 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

And if you book a minimum number of excursions and get 25% discount, then it's closer to 1.2 to 1.3.

 

But also don't forget that with SM you can book any excursion, including OE and OS, which you could not with oLife.

 

So for people who used to book ship excursions or mix of ship and private tours, not much is changing.

Yes, taking advantage of the OLife YWC does reduce the overall savings, and  the OEs and OSs are part of the 25%. Usually we find enough "included" ones for the OLife benefit and then add other that we want. The net gain is small, and with SM in the future I won't worry about it. However, in the question of moving current bookings  to SM, I don't see any advantage for us the give up even a small net gain for those cruises if there are no other benefits I want.

Edited July 5, 2023 by 1985rz1

[ak1004]

1 minute ago, 1985rz1 said:

Yes, taking advantage of the OLife YWC does reduce the overall savings, and  the OEs and OSs are part of the 25%. Usually we find enough "included" ones for the OLife benefit and then add other that we want. The net gain is small, and with SM in the future I won't worry about it. However, in the question of moving current bookings  to SM, I don't see any advantage for us the give up even a small net gain for those cruises.

 

Agree. And if your current booking is was done at least 6-12 months ago, it is safe to assume that the prices already increased even before SM, so the gap between the original price paid and the SM price is much wider.

[1985rz1]

6 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

if your current booking is was done at least 6-12 months ago

Yes.  It's all situational.