Oceania Decline

[njhorseman]

4 hours ago, Hlitner said:

The fact that you pay more for Regent than O does not mean the corporation makes a bigger profit.

As a businessman who spent many years working for giant corporations and eventually owning several small businesses including a travel agency I know that  you're absolutely wrong.

 

"Luxury" goods and services always should carry a higher profit margin and any company that didn't price their product that way is managed by fools that are totally ignorant of psychology. Many customers actually want to pay more for luxury because it reinforces their perception that the product or service really is that much better than ordinary. Look up the concept of cognitive dissonance.

 

As @cruisemom42 said, a classic example comes from the automobile manufacturing business. Corporations frequently market corporate twins that are are fundamentally the same vehicle under different brands with the upmarket brand being equipped with fancier fittings carrying an additional cost far less than the difference in price of the upmarket brand versus the mass market brand. Put $5,000 worth of additional equipment and fancier trimmings on a $30,000 car and watch it sell for $45 to $50,000.

 

 

Edited March 4 by njhorseman

[njhorseman]

3 hours ago, ak1004 said:

Correct - but then again, why people who leave O will necessarily go to Regent? Plenty of other luxury line.

As I stated earlier they will rely on the advice of their trusted travel agent and move to Regent if that is what the agent is recommending. (I owned a travel agency at one time so I have a pretty fair idea about how that works)

Edited March 4 by njhorseman

[ak1004]

7 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

As a businessman who spent many years working for giant corporations and eventually owning several small businesses including a travel agency I know that  you're absolutely wrong.

 

"Luxury" goods and services always should carry a higher profit margin and any company that didn't price their product that way is managed by fools that are totally ignorant of psychology. Many customers actually want to pay more for luxury because it reinforces their perception that the product or service really is that much better than ordinary. Look up the concept of cognitive dissonance.

 

as @cruisemom42 said, a classic example comes from the automobile manufacturing business. Corporations frequently market corporate twins that are are fundamentally the same vehicle under different brands with the upmarket brand being equipped with fancier fittings carrying an cost far less than the difference in price of the upmarket brand versus the mass market brand. Put $5,000 worth of additional equipment and fancier trimmings on a $30,000 car and watch it sell for $45 to $50,000.

 

 

 

This might be true in general, not necessarily true for cruise lines.

 

Specifically, when comparing O and Regent:

 

Regent is more expensive, but it also has more inclusions, higher crew/guest ratio (so higher expense per guest) etc. Also, even if they make more per guest, their ships are about half size compared to O, so they don't necessarily make more per sailing.

 

4 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

As I stated earlier they will rely on the advice of their trusted travel agent and move to Regent if that is what the agent is recommending. (I owned a travel agency at one time so i have a pretty fair idea about how that works)

 

First, a lot of people do their homework and don't necessarily rely on the TA - many don't even use a TA. Second, why a TA would recommend specifically Regent and not SS, Explora, Crystal or SB for people who move from O? 

 

NCLH knows that people who leave O might stay inside NCLH group, but might also go elsewhere. Why would they risk to lose a customer all together instead of keeping them on O?

 

Those crazy conspiracy theories are completely disconnected from reality. and yet people keep repeating them over and over again.

[njhorseman]

6 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

This might be true in general, not necessarily true for cruise lines.

 

Specifically, when comparing O and Regent:

 

Regent is more expensive, but it also has more inclusions, higher crew/guest ratio (so higher expense per guest) etc. Also, even if they make more per guest, their ships are about half size compared to O, so they don't necessarily make more per sailing.

Do you have any experience in the travel business to support the notion that this isn't true?

 

The correct measure is profit per guest. The capacity of the ship is the capacity of the ship and is of no importance.

 

I move from O to R and NCLH makes $20 (a made up number...I have no idea of exactly what it may be) more profit per day. My neighbor moves from NCL to O and fills what used to be my spot and NCLH makes $20 more per day from my neighbor. My other neighbor moves from Carnival to NCL and NCLH have someone filling the open berth left by my first neighbor. The concept is really simple...keep your ships full and your profit as high as possible.

 

14 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

First, a lot of people do their homework and don't necessarily rely on the TA - many don't even use a TA. Second, why a TA would recommend specifically Regent and not SS, Explora, Crystal or SB for people who move from O? 

My original reply was to a poster who said that their TA  had half of their O cruisers moving to R. Clearly a substantial number of people do rely on their TA's advice...and as I stated before I was in the business and I know that it's true. 

Not everyone who is dissatisfied with O has to move to R. It's not as if R's ships are sailing half empty. Lots of people can move from O to SS, SB, Crystal or Explora and there will still be enough to fill R's berths. 

30 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

Those crazy conspiracy theories are completely disconnected from reality. and yet people keep repeating them over and over again.

I've never suggested any conspiracy theories. I'm using my business experience...including my experience in the travel industry to suggest that NCLH had a pretty decent idea that this was an expected result of some rejiggling of the relative positioning their products.

[ak1004]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

Do you have any experience in the travel business to support the notion that this isn't true?

 

The correct measure is profit per guest. The capacity of the ship is the capacity of the ship and is of no importance.

 

I move from O to R and NCLH makes $20 (a made up number...I have no idea of exactly what it may be) more profit per day. My neighbor moves from NCL to O and fills what used to be my spot and NCLH makes $20 more per day from my neighbor. My other neighbor moves from Carnival to NCL and NCLH have someone filling the open berth left by my first neighbor. The concept is really simple...keep your ships full and your profit as high as possible.

 

My original reply was to a poster who said that their TA  had half of their O cruisers moving to R. Clearly a substantial number of people do rely on their TA's advice...and as I stated before I was in the business and I know that it's true. 

Not everyone who is dissatisfied with O has to move to R. It's not as if R's ships are sailing half empty. Lots of people can move from O to SS, SB, Crystal or Explora and there will still be enough to fill R's berths. 

I've never suggested any conspiracy theories. I'm using my business experience...including my experience in the travel industry to suggest that NCLH had a pretty decent idea that this was an expected result of some rejiggling of the relative positioning their products.

 

Well, you were the one who mentioned "NCLH's strategy is working". This assumes that they intentionally hurt the O experience to "move up" their guests to Regent.. this was based on one anecdotical evidence of one TA who moved half of their customers from O to Regent..

 

The truth is that by introducing SM, they actually moved O closer to Regent and further from the mass market - O is now more expensive, but also has more inclusions. If anything, they risked to cannibalize Regent.

[njhorseman]

19 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

Well, you were the one who mentioned "NCLH's strategy is working". This assumes that they intentionally hurt the O experience to "move up" their guests to Regent.. this was based on one anecdotical evidence of one TA who moved half of their customers from O to Regent..

 

The truth is that by introducing SM, they actually moved O closer to Regent and further from the mass market - O is now more expensive, but also has more inclusions. If anything, they risked to cannibalize Regent.

I quoted the "anecdotal evidence" in the context of my experience in this business. You haven't quoted anything to contradict that and I'm reasonably sure you have no experience in the travel business.

 

Simply More doesn't come close to Regent's inclusions. Without getting into all the details:

 -Simply More only includes wine and beer at lunch and dinner. Regent includes full open bar including liquor at any time the bars/lounges are open.

 -Simply More provides a dollar allowance toward shore excursions while Regent offers (theoretically) unlimited shore excursions.

 -Regent fares always include gratuities. On Oceania gratuities are not included except under specific circumstances.

-Regent has some free pre/post cruise land programs

-Regent fare includes business class air from most major US and Canadian airports on intercontinental flights. Oceania fares include coach class air.

 

[ak1004]

8 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

I quoted the "anecdotal evidence" in the context of my experience in this business. You haven't quoted anything to contradict that and I'm reasonably sure you have no experience in the travel business.

 

Simply More doesn't come close to Regent's inclusions. Without getting into all the details:

 -Simply More only includes wine and beer at lunch and dinner. Regent includes full open bar including liquor at any time the bars/lounges are open.

 -Simply More provides a dollar allowance toward shore excursions while Regent offers (theoretically) unlimited shore excursions.

 -Regent fares always include gratuities. On Oceania gratuities are not included except under specific circumstances.

-Regent has some free pre/post cruise land programs

-Regent fare includes business class air from most major US and Canadian airports on intercontinental flights. Oceania fares include coach class air.

 

 

I'm well aware of what O and R include. I did not say that SM moves O close to R, I said "closer".

 

I don't need to have experience in the travel business to know that people who are dissatisfied with O have an equal chance to move to ANY other line, and it would be foolish for NCLH to expect that they will necessarily move to Regent. In fact, some might even say that O became too expensive for them and they move back to Celebrity/Princess etc.

 

My point is that there is zero evidence to suggest that NCLH would intentionally cause a decline in O to move O customers to Regent.

 

To me, I have concerns about O cancelling ports and reducing times, but I have zero concerns about their on board product. I see absolutely no decline. 

[ORV]

7 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 Also, my impression is that the complaints come from the same few people.

Exactly, we have 2-4 people here rather vocally and continually beating that drum. Then others read their posts and repeat it. At least one if not more are on an anti-Oceania tirade because their feelings were hurt when the GM and Captain didn't acknowledge their maritime expertise and follow their advice.  Changing their name and locations really doesn't really fool those of us that follow this forum on a regular and long-term basis. People that have just come here in the last 6 months to a year don't understand the history of some posters. I'm not saying missed ports, shortened port times and changed itineraries doesn't happen. Obviously it does, but it's not as nefarious as some make it out to be. 

 

My personal experience is that Oceania is still a good product and one I'm ok with paying the fare for. Have there been changes in the product? Yes. But you really have to know the product and the previous 15 to 20 years history to realize what they are. None of this is cheerleading, just a personal observation of what I've experienced. 

 

Since the Covid shutdown we've been on 5 Oceania cruises and have 3 more booked. Other than the one last March that was going to Bermuda that went sideways and canceled Bermuda and wound up with an overnight in Jacksonville, everything has pretty much been as scheduled on my cruises. Of course the Captain didn't want to drive into a major storm. 

[Mareblu]

16 hours ago, Vallesan said:

It will be interesting to see how the two cruises compare especially as they are so close together. 
 

Apart from the size of the Cunard ships, I have never fancied the ‘two class’ or is it three, that Cunard operate. I love the fact that once you leave your cabin on an Oceania ship everyone gets the same service. Although that’s true of the ‘luxury’ lines too.

Yes, that's a valid point, and another reason we have enjoyed sailing Oceania since 2007.  NCL's Haven is a similar product, in a fashion, to Queens Grill on Cunard.  The bottom line is truly the bottom line:  you pay an awful lot extra for special treatment, like most things in life.  We have also sailed Seabourn and Silversea, and absolutely loved both.  Probably our most enjoyable cruise was a Seabourn b2b a few years ago.  After a month, I thought I'd need to be dragged off, but disembarked obediently.  Our Silversea experience was a very close second.  We had avoided Cunard for years for the very reasons you mention, but after enjoying our Queen Elizabeth voyage immensely last year, won't hesitate to book again if we enjoy the looming Queen Anne experience as much.  I understand the point about Queen Anne's design, but wouldn't dream of commenting until I've personally sailed on her.  For us, it's the destination, the experience, the service, and the ambience.  

[pinotlover]

8 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 

But this is very easy to check.

 

Azamara who has similar size ships is listing the port charges separately.

 

I just checked few European sailings, here are some examples:

7 ports - $160 CAD

10 ports - $226 CAD

9 ports - $219 CAD

 

So on average, it's around $20-25 CAD or $15-18 USD per port. Pretty insignificant compared to all all the revenues they lose from the excursions. Not to mention all the extra food people consume while on board instead of on shore.

 

And if they cancel on the last minute, I'm not even sure they get those port fees back..

I believe these are the dollars AZ will reimburse one for a missed port, nothing to do with actual port fees.

[mamaclark]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

I quoted the "anecdotal evidence" in the context of my experience in this business. You haven't quoted anything to contradict that and I'm reasonably sure you have no experience in the travel business.

 

Simply More doesn't come close to Regent's inclusions. Without getting into all the details:

 -Simply More only includes wine and beer at lunch and dinner. Regent includes full open bar including liquor at any time the bars/lounges are open.

 -Simply More provides a dollar allowance toward shore excursions while Regent offers (theoretically) unlimited shore excursions.

 -Regent fares always include gratuities. On Oceania gratuities are not included except under specific circumstances.

-Regent has some free pre/post cruise land programs

-Regent fare includes business class air from most major US and Canadian airports on intercontinental flights. Oceania fares include coach class air.

 

I appreciate the comparison of the two inclusions. Food for thought, and that is not a poor pun!

[ak1004]

24 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

I believe these are the dollars AZ will reimburse one for a missed port, nothing to do with actual port fees.

I won’t argue because I don’t know. But Celebrity, Princess etc show similar amounts. I’m not sure why the actual fees would be different.

 

Take a look at this:

https://cruise.blog/2023/09/what-are-port-fees-cruise-and-how-much-are-they
 

“Port fees are fees charged by the ports of call to the cruise line (ships don't get to dock for free!). In turn, they pass these fees on to the passengers. This extra charge can be anywhere from $16-$25 per person, per day.”

 

 

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, ak1004 said:

I'm well aware of what O and R include. I did not say that SM moves O close to R, I said "closer".

You also made a comment " If anything, they risked to cannibalize Regent". If Simply More didn't move O that much closer to R, which obviously it doesn't, then where's the cannibalization risk? 

 

Simply More was primarily about making O's product look closer to that of its direct competitors, particularly Viking Ocean with the added benefit of increasing revenue and profit. When Simply More was introduced fares increased, and for some of us Simply More provides little benefit because we don't drink alcohol so we would be paying for something we'll never use. 

2 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 

I don't need to have experience in the travel business to know that people who are dissatisfied with O have an equal chance to move to ANY other line, and it would be foolish for NCLH to expect that they will necessarily move to Regent.

Again, this isn't about moving large numbers of customers but rather providing some with incentive to move to Regent.

You're failing to acknowledge that when customers have faith in their travel agent they will give a lot weight to the TA's recommendations. If you had any familiarity with the business you'd know that. 

[njhorseman]

23 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

I won’t argue because I don’t know. But Celebrity, Princess etc show similar amounts. I’m not sure why the actual fees would be different.

 

Take a look at this:

https://cruise.blog/2023/09/what-are-port-fees-cruise-and-how-much-are-they
 

“Port fees are fees charged by the ports of call to the cruise line (ships don't get to dock for free!). In turn, they pass these fees on to the passengers. This extra charge can be anywhere from $16-$25 per person, per day.”

 

 

Too bad that you didn't include the last sentence of the section of the article you're quoting because it shows that whoever wrote it really doesn't have a great deal of knowledge and might not be a reliable source of information. Here's what they say (bold highlight is mine): 

"The total cost depends on what line you are sailing with, as well as what stateroom category you selected. "

 

No, no, no. The only place in the world that I know of where "port fees" can vary by stateroom category is Hawaii because Hawaii imposes General Excise Tax (GET), which is similar to a sales tax, on cruise fares. Because GET will be computed as a percentage of fare it will obviously vary by  stateroom category...more expensive stateroom = higher GET = higher "port fees". 

 

[ak1004]

18 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

 

Again, this isn't about moving large numbers of customers but rather providing some with incentive to move to Regent.

You're failing to acknowledge that when customers have faith in their travel agent they will give a lot weight to the TA's recommendations. If you had any familiarity with the business you'd know that. 

So you continue insisting that their plan is making O a worse product on purpose and hope that some of O guests will switch to Regent?

[ak1004]

5 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Too bad that you didn't include the last sentence of the section of the article you're quoting because it shows that whoever wrote it really doesn't have a great deal of knowledge and might not be a reliable source of information. Here's what they say (bold highlight is mine): 

"The total cost depends on what line you are sailing with, as well as what stateroom category you selected. "

 

No, no, no. The only place in the world that I know of where "port fees" can vary by stateroom category is Hawaii because Hawaii imposes General Excise Tax (GET), which is similar to a sales tax, on cruise fares. Because GET will be computed as a percentage of fare it will obviously vary by  stateroom category...more expensive stateroom = higher GET = higher "port fees". 

 

What's your point? Are you saying that port fees are higher than $15-20 per person? Do you have a more reliable source that proves otherwise? Or you just like to argue for the sake of argument?

[njhorseman]

3 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

So you continue insisting that their plan is making O a worse product on purpose and hope that some of O guests will switch to Regent?

Sure, if it makes you happy I'll agree to how you're putting it.

Can we put this topic to bed now?

[ak1004]

6 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Sure, if it makes you happy I'll agree to how you're putting it.

Can we put this topic to bed now?

Well, you said it, not me.

 

”So you've confirmed that NCLH's strategy is working. They're going increase their revenue by having Oceania customers move to Regent, where they'll pay more than they would have on O for a comparable cabin and itinerary.”

 

A direct quote from few posts ago.

 

btw, when you consider all the inclusions, costs, and the size of the cabin, Regent customers will not necessarily pay more, and NCLH will not necessarily make more per customer.

 

But you are right, time to put this horse out of its misery..

[njhorseman]

2 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

What's your point? Are you saying that port fees are higher than $15-20 per person? Do you have a more reliable source that proves otherwise? Or you just like to argue for the sake of argument?

My point is that the writer is giving a very oversimplified and somewhat factually incorrect explanation so I would not rely on their numbers. The whole "$16 to $25 per person per day" statement is also suspicious. Per day? Does that include sea days or does the author mean per port day? 

 

I really hate to say this again, but for the last time...I happen to know some stuff from having been in the business. 

 

That's all I'm going to say...so don't concern yourself with my being argumentative. 

 

 

[njhorseman]

2 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

But you are right, time to put this horse out of its misery..

Given my chosen Cruise Critic handle was that an intentional attempt to insult or offend me?

Edited March 5 by njhorseman

[ak1004]

9 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Given my chosen Cruise Critic handle was that an intentional attempt to insult or offend me?

Haha.. I didn’t even notice your handle and definitely had no intention to insult you. I meant we should end the argument.

 

Piece?

Edited March 5 by ak1004

[ak1004]

7 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

My point is that the writer is giving a very oversimplified and somewhat factually incorrect explanation so I would not rely on their numbers. The whole "$16 to $25 per person per day" statement is also suspicious. Per day? Does that include sea days or does the author mean per port day? 

 

I really hate to say this again, but for the last time...I happen to know some stuff from having been in the business. 

 

That's all I'm going to say...so don't concern yourself with my being argumentative. 

 

 

So based on your knowledge and experience, what are the port fees, for example in the Med? This is a genuine question.

[njhorseman]

2 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

So based on your knowledge and experience, what are the port fees, for example in the Med? This is a genuine question.

First, "the Mediterranean" encompasses a large  number of ports and countries, so your question can't possibly be answered meaningfully.  

Even if you were more specific...a cruise embarking in Port A, calling on Ports B, C, D and E and disembarking in Port F, it would still be next to impossible to answer because the various port fees are not always readily available to the public. To further complicate matters cruise lines can sometimes negotiate with the ports and the agreements reached can mean that Cruise Line1 may not be paying the same fees as Cruise Line 2.

Different cruise lines also use different formulas to compute the port fees they charge the passengers. The process essentially involves making assumptions about the estimated total cost and dividing that by the estimated number of passengers expected to be on board. The word "estimated" is crucial because there are are both fixed and variable components to the costs and the actual number of passengers who eventually will sail is never known until the ships leaves its homeport.

To give you an idea I looked at various 9 day NCL Mediterranean cruises embarking in September 2024 and the port fees ranged from about $178 per person to $303 per person. Port fees on a 9 night cruise on a Royal Caribbean ship the same month were $135 per person, and a 9 night cruise on Celebrity quoted about $150. None of these are particularly meaningful for comparison purposes because the ports differ, but they do give some idea of how much they can vary.

[ak1004]

13 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

First, "the Mediterranean" encompasses a large  number of ports and countries, so your question can't possibly be answered meaningfully.  

Even if you were more specific...a cruise embarking in Port A, calling on Ports B, C, D and E and disembarking in Port F, it would still be next to impossible to answer because the various port fees are not always readily available to the public. To further complicate matters cruise lines can sometimes negotiate with the ports and the agreements reached can mean that Cruise Line1 may not be paying the same fees as Cruise Line 2.

Different cruise lines also use different formulas to compute the port fees they charge the passengers. The process essentially involves making assumptions about the estimated total cost and dividing that by the estimated number of passengers expected to be on board. The word "estimated" is crucial because there are are both fixed and variable components to the costs and the actual number of passengers who eventually will sail is never known until the ships leaves its homeport.

To give you an idea I looked at various 9 day NCL Mediterranean cruises embarking in September 2024 and the port fees ranged from about $178 per person to $303 per person. Port fees on a 9 night cruise on a Royal Caribbean ship the same month were $135 per person, and a 9 night cruise on Celebrity quoted about $150. None of these are particularly meaningful for comparison purposes because the ports differ, but they do give some idea of how much they can vary.

so the range of $16-25 quoted in the article is not completely far fetched? In fact, it seems pretty accurate. And this is exactly why they provided a range and not a number. In any case, saving on those fees doesn’t sounds like a huge incentive for a cruise line to cancel ports..

[ak1004]

Speaking of delays/changes - just saw this:

 

SS delayed arrival to FLL by 4 hours for a photo op..

Edited March 5 by ak1004