Oceania Cruises Missing More

[Vineyard View]

3 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

 

Folks need to realize that many cruise ports are still reeling from lost business during the pandemic. And, if they can squeeze another transient tenant in (by reducing port times) or somehow avoid other costs (e.g., their full share of the hourly cost of longshoremen, security, etc), they can choose to do it whether the cruise line likes it or not. 
 

Clearly, there is a misassumption among some of the CC “armchair quarterbacks” that all negatively impacting (on passengers) decisions regarding ports are at O’s (or any cruise line’s) sole discretion. 

LMAO.

I am by no means an authority on all of this. I am a traveler who enjoys spending as much time in port as possible. I am not disputing weather forecasting vs present time tender cancellation. Because I just don’t know. 
But shortened port times that I keep reading about over and over again on CC with respect to Oceania, and not other lines I am watching, have me suspicious. Clearly, I do not have the background and knowledge of many here, but I do read other threads on other lines, and of the ones that I do read, Oceania sure seems to be #1 on the list in frequency. That to me is not a good indication. 
 

When we previously sailed on Viking they did not publish their port times on the website. It was a huge bone of contention, and I still do not see that on a cursory glance just now. If I remember  correctly, when you put your deposit down you received the detailed itinerary with the port times. They are the only line I follow who has done that, but for the most part, they had decent port times and did not change them from the after booking schedule. 

[Flatbush Flyer]

Just now, Host Jazzbeau said:

 But why does it affect Oceania so much more than other cruise lines?

Well, let’s first have someone cite a bona fide primary source that confirms that assumption. I doubt that any of us here have the schedule change specifics for all (or even most or even many or even two handfuls of) cruise lines.

[Host Jazzbeau]

1 minute ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Well, let’s first have someone cite a bona fide primary source that confirms that assumption. I doubt that any of us here have the schedule change specifics for all (or even most or even many or even two handfuls of) cruise lines.

Enjoy your Oceania cruises to nowhere.  I'm not booking on cruise lines I don't have confidence in.

[ak1004]

12 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Well, let’s first have someone cite a bona fide primary source that confirms that assumption. I doubt that any of us here have the schedule change specifics for all (or even most or even many or even two handfuls of) cruise lines.

57 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

We compared two similar itinerates, one SS and one O, both 10 nights.

 

Dubrovnik: SS 9-22 (13 hours) O 7-17 (10 hours).

Corfu SS 9-23 (14 hours) O 8-19 (11 hours)

 

On this specific itinerary, O was till 9pm only in one port, the rest 6-7pm. SS - four ports after 10pm. 

 

To me, this is huge, and it's pretty typical. At this point, "more time in ports" is just a slogan. 

 

We don't pay thousands of dollars to stay on the ship and to have more sea day.

 

No line is perfect. We love O, but ports hours becoming a real issue.

 

I provided one example of SS vs O. There are a lot more. And those are the original hours from May 2022 booking of May 2024 sailing, I'm sure those hours will be shortened based on what we see on other O sailings.

[Flatbush Flyer]

4 minutes ago, Vineyard View said:

I am by no means an authority on all of this. I am a traveler who enjoys spending as much time in port as possible. I am not disputing weather forecasting vs present time tender cancellation. Because I just don’t know. 
But shortened port times that I keep reading about over and over again on CC with respect to Oceania, and not other lines I am watching, have me suspicious. Clearly, I do not have the background and knowledge of many here, but I do read other threads on other lines, and of the ones that I do read, Oceania sure seems to be #1 on the list in frequency. That to me is not a good indication. 
 

When we previously sailed on Viking they did not publish their port times on the website. It was a huge bone of contention, and I still do not see that on a cursory glance just now. If I remember  correctly, when you put your deposit down you received the detailed itinerary with the port times. They are the only line I follow who has done that, but for the most part, they had decent port times and did not change them from the after booking schedule. 

I don’t know the current number of cruise lines. But, I do seem to remember that there are/were approx 400 cruise ships afloat (perhaps someone here has the correct numbers).
 

Where are the cruise industry “performance” graphs/charts (not unlike those for airlines’ “on time” performance). I can’t remember ever seeing anything from the US Federal Maritime Commission or the US Department of Transportation regarding cruiseline performance stats (which still would probably only deal with itineraries from US ports). And what CLIA numbers I’ve seen appear to not focus on that kind of info.

 

In any case, “following” a handful of lines on a chat room that does not require source citations for allegedly factual info (beyond personal anecdotes of extremely limited experiences) does not constitute evidence that O (or any NCLH line or any other line at all) leads the industry in port changes.

 

[Flatbush Flyer]

19 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

Enjoy your Oceania cruises to nowhere.  I'm not booking on cruise lines I don't have confidence in.

…which is reasonable because it’s your money and it’s your feeling regardless of being unsubstantiated.

That said, however, the question remains: “Where does Oceania fall on a list of port performance comparisons compiled by a neutral agency or organization?

[Host Jazzbeau]

3 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

…which is reasonable because it’s your money and it’s your feeling regardless of being unsubstantiated.

That said, however, the question remains: “Where does Oceania fall on a list of port performance comparisons compiled by a neutral agency or organization?

And you are welcome to use your money to create such a comparison, if that's the only thing that would convince you.  As for me and my house, we will trust the posts on Cruise Critic.  BTW, if having the last word is important to you, please reply – because I'm out of this thread...

[Flatbush Flyer]

13 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

I provided one example of SS vs O. There are a lot more. And those are the original hours from May 2022 booking of May 2024 sailing, I'm sure those hours will be shortened based on what we see on other O sailings.

Your attempt to make a point is genuinely appreciated. But, that’s the problem - it’s a single anecdotal comparison.

We’re now beginning a discussion of research methodology which I doubt any of us want to have. 
Perhaps we can all agree that, if any of us don’t like what they perceive to be a significant  O issue, they can easily vote with their wallet.

[Vineyard View]

6 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

I don’t know the current number of cruise lines. But, I do seem to remember that there are/were approx 400 cruise ships afloat (perhaps someone here has the correct numbers).
 

Where are the cruise industry “performance” graphs/charts (not unlike those for airlines’ “on time” performance). I can’t remember ever seeing anything from the US Federal Maritime Commission or the US Department of Transportation regarding cruiseline performance stats (which still would probably only deal with itineraries from US ports). And what CLIA numbers I’ve seen appear to not focus on that kind of info.

 

In any case, “following” a handful of lines on a chat room that does not require source citations for allegedly factual info (beyond personal anecdotes of extremely limited experiences) does not constitute evidence that O (or any NCLH line or any other line at all) leads the industry in port changes.

 

All true and valid points. So since there does not seem to be these stats available, the chat rooms are pretty much what we have for understanding experiences with cruise lines? IDK. Maybe you have that information   I certainly do not have the depth of knowledge to argue.
I am not saying these are statistically correct by any means, but they are what we’ve got. And so if that’s the hand we are dealt, then looking at the different cards in the deck on a chat room are what we have to base our decisions upon. And if the cards are stacked in one direction or another, both favorably or unfavorably, then likely that will be how those on here will make decisions. Along with TA recommended. 
Others not connected here will likely just choose on price and itinerary. I don’t know FB, but if you have a better idea, I a, sure open to exploring - - and sincerely not disrespect meant. 

[ak1004]

15 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Your attempt to make a point is genuinely appreciated. But, that’s the problem - it’s a single anecdotal comparison.

We’re now beginning a discussion of research methodology which I doubt any of us want to have. 
Perhaps we can all agree that, if any of us don’t like what they perceive to be a significant  O issue, they can easily vote with their wallet.

 

Maybe. This was an example of O cruise that we booked and replaced with SS cruise, mostly because of longer port stays and better itinerary.

 

But I compared a few more. On every single one I compared, SS had longer port stays. Might be anecdotal comparison, but the fact remains. You can rarely find any 10-12 days O itinerary with more than 1-2 port stays after 7pm. SS? Almost every sailing has 3-4 ports with stays till 10-11pm.

[Flatbush Flyer]

1 minute ago, Vineyard View said:

All true and valid points. So since there does not seem to be these stats available, the chat rooms are pretty much what we have for understanding experiences with cruise lines? IDK. Maybe you have that information   I certainly do not have the depth of knowledge to argue.
I am not saying these are statistically correct by any means, but they are what we’ve got. And so if that’s the hand we are dealt, then looking at the different cards in the deck on a chat room are what we have to base our decisions upon. And if the cards are stacked in one direction or another, both favorably or unfavorably, then likely that will be how those on here will make decisions. Along with TA recommended. 
Others not connected here will likely just choose on price and itinerary. I don’t know FB, but if you have a better idea, I a, sure open to exploring - - and sincerely not disrespect meant. 

I have no answers other than I have little trust in limited anecdotal “evidence.”

But, nonetheless, here’s some of mine:

Of course, I too have personally experienced some O port place and time changes over the past twelve months. But, a quick review of my records shows that over approx. 100 days on O ships in those past twelve months, we had about 10 added sea days with most of them due to weather (e.g., cyclone damage in NZ, cyclone/earthquake in Vanuatu, etc). We also had port location changes (e.g., Trieste instead of Venice- fully expected) and arrival/departure time changes (often obviously necessitated by the weather related port changes). 
In the grand scheme of things, at least for us, the changes were no big deal. We enjoy sea days, understood the needed modifications, were disappointed but not devastated enough to jump ship.

[Vineyard View]

That is a lot of sea days in the past 12 months, regardless of how many cruises or areas of cruising. So…Thank you for providing these details. They do matter in the analysis. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Vineyard View

[Flatbush Flyer]

4 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

Maybe. This was an example of O cruise that we booked and replaced with SS cruise, mostly because of longer port stays and better itinerary.

 

But I compared a few more. On every single one I compared, SS had longer port stays. Might be anecdotal comparison, but the fact remains. You can rarely find any 10-12 days O itinerary with more than 1-2 port stays after 7pm. SS? Almost every sailing has 3-4 ports with stays till 10-11pm.

Since we generally don’t do cruises less than three weeks long, I can’t comment on the short ones.

 

How about comparing cruises with overnights in ports? Azamara used to claim it as one of its best features. O finally decided to follow suit about five years ago. Since then we enjoyed quite an additional number of port overnights -sometimes even two nights in a single port (e.g., Reykjavík).

 

In any case, we still keep coming back to the fact that, if folks are unhappy, Bobbie is forcing them to stay with O.

 

 

[Flatbush Flyer]

5 minutes ago, Vineyard View said:

That is a lot of sea days in the past 12 months, regardless of how many cruises or areas of cruising. So…Thank you for providing these details. They do matter in the analysis. 

Did you miss the part about two cyclones and an earthquake? Everyone of our extra days was related to severe weather. Vanuatu even turned down tha Captain’s offer of humanitarian aid because the situation was so dangerous.

So, should we now also blame cruise line for bad weather?

[cruiseaholic78]

We do not appreciate being lied to!
On our Australian cruise last year Thursday Island was cancelled for “operational reasons” and some port times were reduced.

The worst thing of all was losing two ports because Regatta had to ‘try’ to do hull cleaning needed for the next cruise to New Zealand. It was obvious that arranging companies to do hull cleaning was not something that was possible at a days notice!

 

Posted February 14 (edited)

 

Attached  is an article dated 7th January in which an Oceania spokesperson said that the vessel would be missing two ports and was on her way to Philip Island. They KNEW at least on 7th (it might have been submitted earlier) that we would not be going so why did they not inform us until the morning on 8th and allow people to gather in the lounge awaiting non existent excursions.

 

https://cruisepassenger.com.au/news/queen-elizabeth-fourth-ship-to-fall-foul-of-new-zealands-environmental-laws/

Edited August 23, 2023 by cruiseaholic78

[daydreamer62]

37 minutes ago, cruiseaholic78 said:

We do not appreciate being lied to!
On our Australian cruise last year Thursday Island was cancelled for “operational reasons” and some port times were reduced.

The worst thing of all was losing two ports because Regatta had to ‘try’ to do hull cleaning needed for the next cruise to New Zealand. It was obvious that arranging companies to do hull cleaning was not something that was possible at a days notice!

 

Posted February 14 (edited)

 

Attached  is an article dated 7th January in which an Oceania spokesperson said that the vessel would be missing two ports and was on her way to Philip Island. They KNEW at least on 7th (it might have been submitted earlier) that we would not be going so why did they not inform us until the morning on 8th and allow people to gather in the lounge awaiting non existent excursions.

 

https://cruisepassenger.com.au/news/queen-elizabeth-fourth-ship-to-fall-foul-of-new-zealands-environmental-laws/

I feel sorry for any cruise passenger who was on a NZ cruise this year. It really was the most appalling summer (and has continued) weather wise. I think it's likely more than 70% of cruises would have been affected  and if you'd managed to get to a port in the north island you would have been met with grey (skies) and brown (mud) not to mention at least 2 once in 500 year events in Auckland, Northland and Hawkes Bay that people ( and the land) are still recovering from , and that is without the hull cleaning debacle that affected so many cruises. We topped our average annual rainfall around April so you'd have to think it will be better this year.. But.. when you celebrate 2 fine days in a row it gets a bit old..  I'm celebrating because my favourite winery is reopening next week after being devastated by the floods way back in February.I don't think Oceania (or any of the cruise lines) can take the blame for missed ports in this region at least.

[cruiseaholic78]

1 minute ago, daydreamer62 said:

.I don't think Oceania (or any of the cruise lines) can take the blame for missed ports in this region at least.

Our cruise was not actually going to New Zealand it was a circumnavigation of Australia and the missed ports (two of them) were due to underwater hull cleaning. 

[daydreamer62]

11 minutes ago, cruiseaholic78 said:

Our cruise was not actually going to New Zealand it was a circumnavigation of Australia and the missed ports (two of them) were due to underwater hull cleaning. 

Believe me many many ports were missed in both countries and the Pacific islands during our summer and so many ships had to try and negotiate hull cleaning demands. It was all over our news at the time.  I'm sorry you missed some of your ports, it must be disappointing especially if it's a once in a lifetime trip , and I'm sorry for the thousands of others who had vacation plans disrupted (I feel more sorry for those who suffered a loss their  livelihoods when the cruise ships couldn't dock.. especially after the last few years ...and even more sorry for the many many who lost their homes and businesses and their loved ones who were washed away in the floods .

[Sebbiesgrammy]

7 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

 But why does it affect Oceania so much more than other cruise lines?

Why?? Because Oceania has made it a point of pride to have more unique and less traveled ports on their itineraries. Many of these newer cruise stops have no passenger docks and, if you're lucky, a commercial dock that is adapted for cruise passengers. Some are scary places but at least the ship is docked.  Unique stops in exotic locales -- Thus, more tendering. Thus, more risk. Thus, unhappy passengers.  To manage our expectations we  can choose boring itinerary, carbon reduction efforts or overcrowded ports.  Pick two.  Life is an adventure and aren't we lucky that we get to visit some of these places, drop a few bucks and leave and that we don't have to solve the problems we leave behind us.  

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

@chengkp75 has explained elsewhere that sailing more slowly doesn't really save much carbon since the hotel energy load doesn't change.  If a port offers port power [which allows switching off the hotel generators], reduced time in port might actually increase the ship's carbon footprint.  So my own [cynical] opinion is that this is nothing more than virtue signaling.

I don't believe that's actually what I've said.  While hotel load is constant, whether at sea or in port, that hotel load can vary from 100% of load (in port), to 50% of load (slow steaming), to 15% of load (full speed), so generally, sailing slower will save fuel, especially when you consider that fuel consumption vs speed is not linear, but exponential, and a small decrease in speed from full speed can save considerable fuel.  So, if you are on a fixed itinerary, the hotel load is a fixed consumption for the entire cruise.  Then it becomes a calculation of how much fuel is burned going from port to port at 20 knots or at 14 knots.  If you can keep the schedule regardless of which speed you are going, then the slower speed (less time in port, more time at sea) saves fuel.

[jo-b]

I think there are two issues here, one is missing ports at short notice and the other changes made in advance and not communicated.

 

On the current Vista cruise we have a lot of the second, we have 5 tender ports. Oceania both online in the itinerary details and directly when telephone for  clarification by people on our roll call said there were no tender ports. To anyone who knew some of the ports this was obvious tosh, at least a couple of the ports have no docking facilities no matter the size of ship or whether anyone else was in port. Also the changes to schedule were not communicated ahead of time and are quite drastic in one case. 

 

As to missing a tender port I am happy to believe the weather was to blame, the Captain actually said it was due to heavy swells, These are not visible, unlike the whitecaps caused by wind which the armchair weather experts said were not too bad. 
 

Another line we have travelled on in the past said they abandoned late and overnight stops as so few passengers made use of them it was not economically viable. 

[Flatbush Flyer]

9 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

….In any case, we still keep coming back to the fact that, if folks are unhappy, Bobbie is forcing them to stay with O.

 

 

Oops. Not “Bobbie.” Rather “no one.”

[pinotlover]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

I don't believe that's actually what I've said.  While hotel load is constant, whether at sea or in port, that hotel load can vary from 100% of load (in port), to 50% of load (slow steaming), to 15% of load (full speed), so generally, sailing slower will save fuel, especially when you consider that fuel consumption vs speed is not linear, but exponential, and a small decrease in speed from full speed can save considerable fuel.  So, if you are on a fixed itinerary, the hotel load is a fixed consumption for the entire cruise.  Then it becomes a calculation of how much fuel is burned going from port to port at 20 knots or at 14 knots.  If you can keep the schedule regardless of which speed you are going, then the slower speed (less time in port, more time at sea) saves fuel.

Finally, my point.

 

If Oceania wants to play save the planet and putter along at 10 knots instead of 17 knots, their choice. If that decision means port times at any given destination is X-Y, their choice. The computer algorithms can calculate that now in advance of itinerary release. The computer algorithms can calculate that 6 months prior to sailing. Stop the lies and post the true itinerary upfront. Stop the nonsense of the bait and switch and waiting until we board to give us the true planned itinerary. 

[LHT28]

9 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 

Maybe. This was an example of O cruise that we booked and replaced with SS cruise, mostly because of longer port stays and better itinerary.

 

But I compared a few more. On every single one I compared, SS had longer port stays. Might be anecdotal comparison, but the fact remains. You can rarely find any 10-12 days O itinerary with more than 1-2 port stays after 7pm. SS? Almost every sailing has 3-4 ports with stays till 10-11pm.

you have the choice to choose the line that works best for you

it sounds like Oceania is not for you

 

 

[ak1004]

38 minutes ago, LHT28 said:

you have the choice to choose the line that works best for you

it sounds like Oceania is not for you

 

 

 

We still like the O product very much, but as someone mentioned, O constantly finds new ways to lose customers. The new pricing model forces us to pay for something that we don't use. The new cancellation policy really makes it hard to book in advance. We cruise to see the world, have no interest to spend time on the ship, so the cancelled ports and shortened port stays are a big concern.

 

Now they refused to extend our future cruise certificate, basically giving up a guaranteed booking. With the pricing now pretty close to SB and SS, there is a good chance that this booking will go to another line.

 

Still case by case basis, no loyalty to any line, but it's likely that going forward, less of our business will go to O. Yes, I know, we are just a rounding error, but if there are thousands of rounding errors, maybe it will have some impact.