Beware of the Cancellation Policies if the cruise is changed.

[QuestionEverything]

Hence why like some posters above, I am moving my travel $ increasingly away from cruises to land vacations.

I travel for the itinerary, not food/shows etc.

Cruise line reducing time in port, cancel for "reasons" is not acceptable to me.

Check out the NCL thread on port changes - very upset people.

Oh yes, and cruise lines, your "environmental" excuse is Garbage, yes Garbage.

And the "it is in the contract" is total bull.

There may be many obedient consumers who will tolerate this anti customer treatment, but not me.

 

 

[wcGma]

Could you post the names of the Oceania executives to write letters?  I emailed many of the guest services and guest relations Vice Presidents as well as left phone messages. I never received a response. Are you suggesting mailing those letters to them at the Oceania address?  
 

[clo]

11 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 

Speaking of  “ bait and switch “

 

We were booked on a Silversea World Cup cruise in Dec.2022 with 3 days in Qatar.

 

6 weeks before the cruise SS sent us an email that they have received notice from the Qatar government that they have cancelled all cruise calls at the port of Doha until early 2023. So they cancelled the 3 days in Doha. The only problem? The decision by the Qatar government was made 6 months before. No compensation was offered, and no option to cancel since it was deep into the penalty period.

 

btw, Azamara did the same “ bait and switch “.

 

I'm not justifying what O did, they could go the extra mile and offer at least an option to move the deposit to another cruise. I'm saying that O is not better or worse than other lines. And I'm yet to see a firm evidence that O skips ports more than other lines. Talked to some people on our last SS cruise, what SS did on few occasions is much worse.

Thanks. I appreciate knowing that this isn't a single company.

[clo]

1 hour ago, wcGma said:

Could you post the names of the Oceania executives to write letters?  I emailed many of the guest services and guest relations Vice Presidents as well as left phone messages. I never received a response. Are you suggesting mailing those letters to them at the Oceania address?  
 

I'm kinda busy right now but you should be able to google "executives mailing addresses oceania cruises." I've done this a number of time and not just for complaints.

[Sthrngary]

When I read the authors post #1, I really read it as a request from experience cruisers on how to simply cancel the cruise in 2025, and not have to pay the administration fee.  This kind of issue happens all the time and it creates deep emotions from the community. So I saw this way. a Problem, what is the potential solutions.  It is now about brand bashing which is fine, social media provides an outlet for that.  I find it funny as soon as it get to brand bashing, some of the same player come out of the wood work.  

 

In an earlier post on this thread, I personally shared I also have been disappointed with more then one brand on more than one issue.  It happens especially with cruising because of in my humble opinion, not allowing the frontline touchpoint team member to be empowers to make a simple call. This situation was a simple call. This leads to a client/guest to get upset.  Does the brand have to help the client in this situation or the few I had.  Unquestionably NO.  That is NOT the point.  Great companies become great because the trust their team member to make good decisions.  

 

Then some of these great companies get sold to bigger companies and the policies change.  Soon, what was a great, successful and profitable company is no more.  I an NOT saying that for this situation with Oceania, I am saying that is what happens when employees are not empowered to handle something as simple as an administration fee for a product not available for two years.  Not a good look for any company.  It would have been nice for Oceania to simply say, we wave the fee and send the deposit back.  To do it without aggravating the guest.  If done right away, this leads to the guest possibly rebooking right away.  It also leads to a guest to walk away for ever.  I will take those odds if it is my company.

 

Will this thread, the authors experience, and the comments make me never cruise with Oceania again, NO.  What if it happens to me would I be upset, YES.  Would I make a stink about it online in social media, NO.  WHY? I would just handle it myself first with my agent and then directly with Oceania.  Why am I so confident it can and will be handled with direct contact. Simple, much more intense and costly situations have been handled in my past, if we approach it with direct and clear communication in writing.  The old way, with Registered mail.  The emphasis should be to fix the issue. Again, we all have the right to complain online. It simply does not fix the issue. If this situation makes you not want to use the brand, in this case Oceania, book else where. That is the best reaction if you are that upset with this or any other policy.

 

Cruise well and enjoy every moment. 

 

 

[Torquer]

1 hour ago, wcGma said:

Could you post the names of the Oceania executives to write letters?  I emailed many of the guest services and guest relations Vice Presidents as well as left phone messages. I never received a response. Are you suggesting mailing those letters to them at the Oceania address?  
 

Don't email or try to phone company executives.  You need to write a letter and send it via US mail.  In my experience with other companies, it is much more likely to get results.  So that would be:

Frank Del Rio, President

Oceania Cruises

7665 Corporate Center Drive

Miami, Florida 33126

[wcGma]

Thank you for the information. Have worked through my travel agent with poor Oceania response. While I don’t have more than ten cruise experiences, I was shocked to find how little recourse one has once you sign the contract with changed itinerary cancellation policies. A cautionary tale for all especially now with penalties so far out from the sailing date. Further, my new understanding is that cancel for any reason trip insurance reimbursement may be 70%. Recourse for those who had to cancel due to the current political unrest could not use trip insurance as areas of concern were not classified as covered. Would be interested to hear how people who tried credit card disputes fared.

I did get a deposit administrative fee back from Crystal pre Covid (old Crystal cruises) when itinerary dropped major port after calling and speaking with a manager. Got put through right away on the phone. I don’t expect perfection and am willing to assume some risks relative to making contracts and dealing with the conflict of personal vs corporate interests but my experience with O customer services has been beyond disappointing. 

[AMHuntFerry]

3 hours ago, wcGma said:

Could you post the names of the Oceania executives to write letters?  I emailed many of the guest services and guest relations Vice Presidents as well as left phone messages. I never received a response. Are you suggesting mailing those letters to them at the Oceania address?  
 

In addition to Torquer's info, other names/titles: https://www.oceaniacruises.com/corporate

 

[ak1004]

23 hours ago, Sthrngary said:

When I read the authors post #1, I really read it as a request from experience cruisers on how to simply cancel the cruise in 2025, and not have to pay the administration fee.  This kind of issue happens all the time and it creates deep emotions from the community. So I saw this way. a Problem, what is the potential solutions.  It is now about brand bashing which is fine, social media provides an outlet for that.  I find it funny as soon as it get to brand bashing, some of the same player come out of the wood work.  

 

In an earlier post on this thread, I personally shared I also have been disappointed with more then one brand on more than one issue.  It happens especially with cruising because of in my humble opinion, not allowing the frontline touchpoint team member to be empowers to make a simple call. This situation was a simple call. This leads to a client/guest to get upset.  Does the brand have to help the client in this situation or the few I had.  Unquestionably NO.  That is NOT the point.  Great companies become great because the trust their team member to make good decisions.  

 

Then some of these great companies get sold to bigger companies and the policies change.  Soon, what was a great, successful and profitable company is no more.  I an NOT saying that for this situation with Oceania, I am saying that is what happens when employees are not empowered to handle something as simple as an administration fee for a product not available for two years.  Not a good look for any company.  It would have been nice for Oceania to simply say, we wave the fee and send the deposit back.  To do it without aggravating the guest.  If done right away, this leads to the guest possibly rebooking right away.  It also leads to a guest to walk away for ever.  I will take those odds if it is my company.

 

Will this thread, the authors experience, and the comments make me never cruise with Oceania again, NO.  What if it happens to me would I be upset, YES.  Would I make a stink about it online in social media, NO.  WHY? I would just handle it myself first with my agent and then directly with Oceania.  Why am I so confident it can and will be handled with direct contact. Simple, much more intense and costly situations have been handled in my past, if we approach it with direct and clear communication in writing.  The old way, with Registered mail.  The emphasis should be to fix the issue. Again, we all have the right to complain online. It simply does not fix the issue. If this situation makes you not want to use the brand, in this case Oceania, book else where. That is the best reaction if you are that upset with this or any other policy.

 

Cruise well and enjoy every moment. 

 

 

 

If every time I was upset with a cruise line I said "never again", I would be running out of cruise lines very quickly.

 

Most if not all cruise lines follow their cancellation policies. We all know the cancellation policies when we book. Don't like it? Don't book. We all have choices.

 

As for cancelled ports - there are more reports about cancelled ports from all lines. Someone posted today on another social media about Seabourn cancelling 2 ports. Similar reports from SS. So I'm not sure why people say that this is exclusive to O.

[Vallesan]

33 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

If every time I was upset with a cruise line I said "never again", I would be running out of cruise lines very quickly.

 

Most if not all cruise lines follow their cancellation policies. We all know the cancellation policies when we book. Don't like it? Don't book. We all have choices.

 

As for cancelled ports - there are more reports about cancelled ports from all lines. Someone posted today on another social media about Seabourn cancelling 2 ports. Similar reports from SS. So I'm not sure why people say that this is exclusive to O.

Obviously it isn’t exclusive to Oceania, as you and I know, but people get bogged down with minutia.

 

All cruise lines are cancelling and re-routing at the moment.

 

Cruise lines aren’t cancelling for the ‘fun of it’ or to ‘annoy passengers’, it’s their livelihood. Passenger and crew safety is of the upmost importance. Profitability is  also a huge consideration for them.

 

So, as passengers, maybe we all have to be a little more tolerant, a little ‘less precious’ and more understanding of the worldwide situation.

[mariners]

The OP did not write about an upcoming (over the next 6 month) cruise going to an area where passenger/crew/staff safety is an issue.  The OP wrote about a change that Oceania has chosen to make on a cruise advertised as "Tropics to Antarctica", but  no longer goes to Antarctica. The initial post was providing information to other passengers who might believe that they were booking a specific cruise that does not fall under the scenarios that some of the posters are trying to compare the cancellation to such as "safety", or a port that is cancelled for reasons outside the cruise lines control ...  I have had many cruises impacted by those issues, and, typically, support the cruise line under those circumstances.

 

However, Oceania is making a fundamental change to an itinerary.  I state that because I have been lucky enough to have a sailing that included Antarctica.  It cost a lot more per diem because of including Antarctica.  I knew that ports might be cancelled, itineraries might have to change (which happened), and I willingly chose to take those risks.  What I did not do was agree to a S.A. cruise that did not include Antarctica, nor would I be prepared to accept a cruise line choosing to change that itinerary to a S.A. only cruise over a year ahead of time where the cruise line refused to return my down payment. 

 

I am not new to cruising, and have sailed on many different cruise lines over the past 30+ years.  I consider myself "tolerant".  I have also accepted the financial penalty of having to cancel a cruise for reasons unrelated to the cruise line for reasons not covered by insurance.  That being said, I also stand up to what I believe is not acceptable, and, in this regard, the OP has my complete support.  I wish the individual/couple/family a positive resolution and hope there will be a follow-up post that provided that information.

 

FYI, Sthrngary has many enlightening and informative posts.  I think this post might be relevant, and beneficial to the OP and others who might be facing similar situations: 

 

 

 

 

[GeezerCouple]

40 minutes ago, mariners said:

The OP did not write about an upcoming (over the next 6 month) cruise going to an area where passenger/crew/staff safety is an issue.  The OP wrote about a change that Oceania has chosen to make on a cruise advertised as "Tropics to Antarctica", but  no longer goes to Antarctica. The initial post was providing information to other passengers who might believe that they were booking a specific cruise that does not fall under the scenarios that some of the posters are trying to compare the cancellation to such as "safety", or a port that is cancelled for reasons outside the cruise lines control ...  I have had many cruises impacted by those issues, and, typically, support the cruise line under those circumstances.

 

However, Oceania is making a fundamental change to an itinerary.  I state that because I have been lucky enough to have a sailing that included Antarctica.  It cost a lot more per diem because of including Antarctica.  I knew that ports might be cancelled, itineraries might have to change (which happened), and I willingly chose to take those risks.  What I did not do was agree to a S.A. cruise that did not include Antarctica, nor would I be prepared to accept a cruise line choosing to change that itinerary to a S.A. only cruise over a year ahead of time where the cruise line refused to return my down payment. 

 

I am not new to cruising, and have sailed on many different cruise lines over the past 30+ years.  I consider myself "tolerant".  I have also accepted the financial penalty of having to cancel a cruise for reasons unrelated to the cruise line for reasons not covered by insurance.  That being said, I also stand up to what I believe is not acceptable, and, in this regard, the OP has my complete support.  I wish the individual/couple/family a positive resolution and hope there will be a follow-up post that provided that information.

 

FYI, Sthrngary has many enlightening and informative posts.  I think this post might be relevant, and beneficial to the OP and others who might be facing similar situations: 

I agree that this cancellation is one of the more difficult ones.  "Antarctica" is in the name of the cruise.  It's not just one of several ports of call.

 

However, on the bigger issue of "changing itineraries", I do think it would be very helpful, and perhaps (maybe not...) avoid a lot of disappointment (and maybe vitriol?) if cruise lines didn't bury the "we reserve the right to change the itinerary...", etc., and displayed that more prominently.

 

Although it's not always the case, for this thread/complaint, the OP is new (or newly posting on CC, anyway).  OTOH, they were clearly familiar with complaints by others about just this issue, so they aren't newbies to this issue.

 

There are some things "in the fine print" that really shouldn't be (in our personal opinions, of course 😉 ).

 

Of course, one *should* read the fine print carefully, for cruises, insurance, car rentals, etc.

 

As for Oceania (or other cruise lines), when it is such a *fundamental* change to the itinerary, if it wasn't a last minute unavoidable change, and especially if it's in the distant future, perhaps be more flexible on "non-refundables"...?

 

My biggest complaint about this is when some newbie, who is already swamped with assorted lists of "things to worry about" gets really blindsided by something significant.

No, there's no way to avoid this for every "rule", but some are more critical than others.

 

GC

[ak1004]

2 hours ago, mariners said:

The OP did not write about an upcoming (over the next 6 month) cruise going to an area where passenger/crew/staff safety is an issue.  The OP wrote about a change that Oceania has chosen to make on a cruise advertised as "Tropics to Antarctica", but  no longer goes to Antarctica. The initial post was providing information to other passengers who might believe that they were booking a specific cruise that does not fall under the scenarios that some of the posters are trying to compare the cancellation to such as "safety", or a port that is cancelled for reasons outside the cruise lines control ...  I have had many cruises impacted by those issues, and, typically, support the cruise line under those circumstances.

 

However, Oceania is making a fundamental change to an itinerary.  I state that because I have been lucky enough to have a sailing that included Antarctica.  It cost a lot more per diem because of including Antarctica.  I knew that ports might be cancelled, itineraries might have to change (which happened), and I willingly chose to take those risks.  What I did not do was agree to a S.A. cruise that did not include Antarctica, nor would I be prepared to accept a cruise line choosing to change that itinerary to a S.A. only cruise over a year ahead of time where the cruise line refused to return my down payment. 

 

 

 

How would you compare this to the situation I described earlier when a cruise advertised as "World Cup cruise" with 3 days at Doha did not dock in Doha anymore, and the notice was sent 6 weeks in advance when many guests already paid thousands for non refundable tickets to the World Cup? 

[clo]

2 hours ago, mariners said:

The OP did not write about an upcoming (over the next 6 month) cruise going to an area where passenger/crew/staff safety is an issue.  The OP wrote about a change that Oceania has chosen to make on a cruise advertised as "Tropics to Antarctica", but  no longer goes to Antarctica. The initial post was providing information to other passengers who might believe that they were booking a specific cruise that does not fall under the scenarios that some of the posters are trying to compare the cancellation to such as "safety", or a port that is cancelled for reasons outside the cruise lines control ...  I have had many cruises impacted by those issues, and, typically, support the cruise line under those circumstances.

 

However, Oceania is making a fundamental change to an itinerary.  I state that because I have been lucky enough to have a sailing that included Antarctica.  It cost a lot more per diem because of including Antarctica.  I knew that ports might be cancelled, itineraries might have to change (which happened), and I willingly chose to take those risks.  What I did not do was agree to a S.A. cruise that did not include Antarctica, nor would I be prepared to accept a cruise line choosing to change that itinerary to a S.A. only cruise over a year ahead of time where the cruise line refused to return my down payment. 

 

I am not new to cruising, and have sailed on many different cruise lines over the past 30+ years.  I consider myself "tolerant".  I have also accepted the financial penalty of having to cancel a cruise for reasons unrelated to the cruise line for reasons not covered by insurance.  That being said, I also stand up to what I believe is not acceptable, and, in this regard, the OP has my complete support.  I wish the individual/couple/family a positive resolution and hope there will be a follow-up post that provided that information.

 

FYI, Sthrngary has many enlightening and informative posts.  I think this post might be relevant, and beneficial to the OP and others who might be facing similar situations: 

That's perfectly written. There are travelers who have been to every continent except Antarctica. It's a bucket destination. To cancel that part and not offer a FULL refund is...what is a good word??? OFFENSIVE? UNETHICAL? It will certainly affect my future buying decisions.

Thanks for writing this so well.

 

 

 

 

T

[PhD-iva]

4 hours ago, mariners said:

… nor would I be prepared to accept a cruise line choosing to change that itinerary to a S.A. only cruise over a year ahead of time where the cruise line refused to return my down payment. 

.

 

 

 

IIRC, the OP objected to Oceania imposing the $100 pp cancellation policy. I might have the amount slightly off.
Sorry, but seems reasonable to me. YMMV

Edited January 21 by PhD-iva
Edit

[QuestionEverything]

Oceania fundamentally changed the product offering that someone paid for.

Oceania owes the customer, not the other way around.

Period.

[clo]

2 hours ago, PhD-iva said:

IIRC, the OP objected to Oceania imposing the $100 pp cancellation policy. I might have the amount slightly off.
Sorry, but seems reasonable to me. YMMV

Why do you think it's reasonable?

[PhD-iva]

1 minute ago, clo said:

Why do you think it's reasonable?

Cruisers who reserve an itinerary and later cancel are holding up inventory, meaning other potential pax cannot make their vacation plans with that cabin/ship. Later when cruisers cancel, cruise lines must scramble to fill those cabins, often at discounted prices.
A cancellation policy helps to weed out those “window shoppers.” Won’t stop me from making a deposit if I’m serious about the itinerary. I have canceled in the past anyway when “life happens”. I agreed to the cancellation fee in advance.

I might not like it, but I can understand it.

[clo]

13 minutes ago, PhD-iva said:

Cruisers who reserve an itinerary and later cancel are holding up inventory, meaning other potential pax cannot make their vacation plans with that cabin/ship. Later when cruisers cancel, cruise lines must scramble to fill those cabins, often at discounted prices.

Scrambling a year ahead of time...when it's no longer Antarctica? 

[PhD-iva]

3 minutes ago, clo said:

Scrambling a year ahead of time...when it's no longer Antarctica? 

Again, I might not like it, but I agreed to it when I made the deposit. As explained above, the cancellation policy serves a legitimate business purpose. 
Everyone needs to make their peace with each cruise line they sail with. Don’t like it? Spend your dollars elsewhere. I am actively looking for O alternatives. Am open to suggestions……

[clo]

4 minutes ago, PhD-iva said:

the cancellation policy serves a legitimate business purpose. 

Operative word - legitimate LOL

[ak1004]

18 minutes ago, PhD-iva said:

Again, I might not like it, but I agreed to it when I made the deposit. As explained above, the cancellation policy serves a legitimate business purpose. 
Everyone needs to make their peace with each cruise line they sail with. Don’t like it? Spend your dollars elsewhere. I am actively looking for O alternatives. Am open to suggestions……

 

There are alternatives, but not necessarily better.

 

We sailed on SS twice, found it a small step up compared to O. Paying for many things we are not necessarily using. 

 

Will be doing our first SB cruise in September, but also typically much more expensive.

 

Azamara might be a good alternative, but small cabins and old ships is an issue. And drinks are included too as far as I know.

 

Looking at Windstar currently, could be a good option. This is probably the only premium line that doesn't include drinks (yet).

 

So if you want a small ship experience, not too many options.

[clo]

6 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

There are alternatives, but not necessarily better.

 

We sailed on SS twice, found it a small step up compared to O. Paying for many things we are not necessarily using. 

 

Will be doing our first SB cruise in September, but also typically much more expensive.

 

Azamara might be a good alternative, but small cabins and old ships is an issue. And drinks are included too as far as I know.

 

Looking at Windstar currently, could be a good option. This is probably the only premium line that doesn't include drinks (yet).

 

So if you want a small ship experience, not too many options.

Check our Norwegian Hurtigruten. We did Antarctica and a Norwegian coastal cruise and adored both.

[osandomir]

31 minutes ago, PhD-iva said:

Again, I might not like it, but I agreed to it when I made the deposit. As explained above, the cancellation policy serves a legitimate business purpose. 
Everyone needs to make their peace with each cruise line they sail with. Don’t like it? Spend your dollars elsewhere. I am actively looking for O alternatives. Am open to suggestions……

I don’t oppose the new cancellation policy. It makes for more planning before we book the particular cruise, but I understand that at the end it would help Oceania’s business operations. So, I don’t mind to put a non refundable deposit when I’m serious about the itinerary in the whole.

 

The problem here is that OP didn’t agree to buy a cruise which wouldn’t go to Antarctica at the first place. I can’t imagine to put a deposit on the cruise to Alaska and ended up cruising in the Mediterranean for example. But yes, Oceania can do it and keep non refundable deposit in case one has no interest to go to Europe. Keep in mind that the decision was made a full year prior to sailing. Maybe the initial Antarctica offering provided for more bookings and better revenue than just Brazil and Argentina. Not the best business practice in my opinion.

[ak1004]

35 minutes ago, osandomir said:

I don’t oppose the new cancellation policy. It makes for more planning before we book the particular cruise, but I understand that at the end it would help Oceania’s business operations. So, I don’t mind to put a non refundable deposit when I’m serious about the itinerary in the whole.

 

The problem here is that OP didn’t agree to buy a cruise which wouldn’t go to Antarctica at the first place. I can’t imagine to put a deposit on the cruise to Alaska and ended up cruising in the Mediterranean for example. But yes, Oceania can do it and keep non refundable deposit in case one has no interest to go to Europe. Keep in mind that the decision was made a full year prior to sailing. Maybe the initial Antarctica offering provided for more bookings and better revenue than just Brazil and Argentina. Not the best business practice in my opinion.

The question is who decides that the change was dramatic enough to justify a refund? If a cruise was supposed to go to France, Spain and Portugal but Portugal was cancelled and replaced with more ports in Spain, is it dramatic enough? How about Greece, Turkey and Israel, but now Israel is out for obvious reasons? World Cup cruise where Qatar is cancelled? Some people book South America for Brazil and Argentina. Others consider Antarctica as the main part of the cruise. 
 

Rules are rules, once you start to bend them, you create precedents and open a pandora box. This applies to all cruise lines, not only O.