Oceania Decline

[pinotlover]

I believe for us land based are typically less expensive. The primary reason is food costs. In the ship, I’m paying the pro rated costs of the average costs of meals served on the ship. On land, I’m charged for what we ordered. I’m taking a wine group to Italy in September. We won’t eat American food in Italy, so any comparison of what that highly Americanized meal costs in Italy isn’t really a comparison at all. Some nights, our dinners at very high end venues may be more that that prorated average cruise meal. Other nights it will be considerably less. For us, local fresh cuisine with local herbs and spices at land based restaurants  have most always proven better than cruise food. We can likewise save a mint buying extremely good quality wine, to accompany that meal, at that local restaurant versus onboard. If we just choose to do pizza one night or a charcuterie selection, it will be a lot less than the prorated meal cost onboard.
 

The analysis additionally doesn’t quantify any costs for missed ports or reduced port stays. I pay the cruise line a lot of money to take me to X location, so I can see the area. I believe there is a significant cost to me when Oceania opts to cancel a port. I have never yet experienced a land cruise on Oceania that costs less than a private tour that does the exact same itinerary. Oceania is typically 2-3 times the cost. 
 

We cruise for the ports, not the ship. I understand I am paying a price for convenience in getting me to other wise hard to reach locations such as island hopping in the Canary Islands. Overall, with many itineraries, cruising is not less expensive for travelers. Perhaps so for cruisers however.

[LuAnn]

8 minutes ago, fdnycruiser said:

We all cruise for different reasons, but some like myself,like being at sea. The more sea days the better. Wouldn’t be interested at all in a land based vacation 

Me too...I could just go around in a circle and be happy!!! Being on the ocean is "my happy place". 

[mamaclark]

18 minutes ago, LuAnn said:

Me too...I could just go around in a circle and be happy!!! Being on the ocean is "my happy place". 

That's great, but it is not mine! It's simply a floating hotel with great food providing access to places I want to see. Thank God we are not all alike! 

[basor]

2 hours ago, LuAnn said:

WOW!! Those rates are incredible..I'm Obviously not looking at the right sales!! Good for you!!!

Please notice he is quoting prices starting from several years ago and include the "once in a lifetime" Extraordinary Sale held last Summer.   What is in the past, is in the past but it certainly is to your benefit to keep an eye out for sales that might apply to any cruise you have booked or thinking of booking.  Our TA is very good about monitoring and repricing our cruises to continue to save us money or add value to a cruise.

[Harters]

3 hours ago, TRLD said:

Which may be correct for whatever choices you make.

There's no "may" about it. 

[Harters]

1 hour ago, pinotlover said:

We cruise for the ports, not the ship. I understand I am paying a price for convenience

This is where it becomes difficult to make straight comparisons between land based and cruise base. There is obviously a cost to the actual cruising. But, if I take the experience of my research that I've mentioned on an earlier thread, I know that  the all inclusive resort costs about 50% of a similar length O cruise. The resort pretty much mirrors what I'd call the hotel experience onboard - the room, the speciality restaurants, good quality of food, the included booze, the entertainment, etc.  So I would need to ask myself do I find it good value to spend the other 50% on travelling between the different ports. It will be for some but not for others.  

[clo]

2 hours ago, fdnycruiser said:

Wouldn’t be interested at all in a land based vacation 

I assume that's just how you currently feel. Have you hit or do you plan to hit at least some of the places that aren't accessible by cruise ship.

[clo]

2 hours ago, pinotlover said:

I believe for us land based are typically less expensive. The primary reason is food costs. In the ship, I’m paying the pro rated costs of the average costs of meals served on the ship. On land, I’m charged for what we ordered. I’m taking a wine group to Italy in September. We won’t eat American food in Italy, so any comparison of what that highly Americanized meal costs in Italy isn’t really a comparison at all. Some nights, our dinners at very high end venues may be more that that prorated average cruise meal. Other nights it will be considerably less. For us, local fresh cuisine with local herbs and spices at land based restaurants  have most always proven better than cruise food. We can likewise save a mint buying extremely good quality wine, to accompany that meal, at that local restaurant versus onboard. If we just choose to do pizza one night or a charcuterie selection, it will be a lot less than the prorated meal cost onboard.
 

The analysis additionally doesn’t quantify any costs for missed ports or reduced port stays. I pay the cruise line a lot of money to take me to X location, so I can see the area. I believe there is a significant cost to me when Oceania opts to cancel a port. I have never yet experienced a land cruise on Oceania that costs less than a private tour that does the exact same itinerary. Oceania is typically 2-3 times the cost. 
 

We cruise for the ports, not the ship. I understand I am paying a price for convenience in getting me to other wise hard to reach locations such as island hopping in the Canary Islands. Overall, with many itineraries, cruising is not less expensive for travelers. Perhaps so for cruisers however.

I just LOVED this post! I could picture your Italy. Thanks for sharing.

[TRLD]

1 hour ago, Harters said:

This is where it becomes difficult to make straight comparisons between land based and cruise base. There is obviously a cost to the actual cruising. But, if I take the experience of my research that I've mentioned on an earlier thread, I know that  the all inclusive resort costs about 50% of a similar length O cruise. The resort pretty much mirrors what I'd call the hotel experience onboard - the room, the speciality restaurants, good quality of food, the included booze, the entertainment, etc.  So I would need to ask myself do I find it good value to spend the other 50% on travelling between the different ports. It will be for some but not for others.  

From what you have stated the scope of your research appears to be a data set of 1 all inclusive resort located in one lower price country.

[pinotlover]

1 hour ago, TRLD said:

From what you have stated the scope of your research appears to be a data set of 1 all inclusive resort located in one lower price country.

Where is the cost analysis of missed ports and cut port times in those analysis? To hard fast cruisers they may be negligible. To others it’s massive. Until that is quantified in the analysis, it’s useless.

[Snaefell3]

"It is the difference of opinion that makes horse-races"

— Mark Twain

[pinotlover]

22 minutes ago, Snaefell3 said:

"It is the difference of opinion that makes horse-races"

— Mark Twain

Matter of opinion. How about how do equate a simple cheese pizza masquerading as a Marguerite Pizza on the Vista and the real thing with the actual ingredients on shore? Is that an equal analysis? 

[Snaefell3]

9 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

Matter of opinion. How about how do equate a simple cheese pizza masquerading as a Marguerite Pizza on the Vista and the real thing with the actual ingredients on shore? Is that an equal analysis? 

I'm on for the experiment!  Can you get us funding?  😉 

[ak1004]

1 hour ago, pinotlover said:

Where is the cost analysis of missed ports and cut port times in those analysis? To hard fast cruisers they may be negligible. To others it’s massive. Until that is quantified in the analysis, it’s useless.

 

And to me comparing a low cost resort in Cyprus to the cost of PH on O is useless.. 

 

But I guess if you spend a week in a resort, the risk to miss any ports is close to zero..

 

But I think comparing a good hotel in Barcelona, Paris, Rome or London to OV on O is a more accurate comparison..

[TRLD]

1 hour ago, pinotlover said:

Where is the cost analysis of missed ports and cut port times in those analysis? To hard fast cruisers they may be negligible. To others it’s massive. Until that is quantified in the analysis, it’s useless.

They do not impact costs unless the price is reduced. 

 

The cost is a the relative cost of cruising to the equivalent land based vacation by those that track both industries.

 

Your comment really makes no sense, but then this being cruise critic one should be used to it 

[daydreamer62]

4 hours ago, Harters said:

This is where it becomes difficult to make straight comparisons between land based and cruise base. There is obviously a cost to the actual cruising. But, if I take the experience of my research that I've mentioned on an earlier thread, I know that  the all inclusive resort costs about 50% of a similar length O cruise. The resort pretty much mirrors what I'd call the hotel experience onboard - the room, the speciality restaurants, good quality of food, the included booze, the entertainment, etc.  So I would need to ask myself do I find it good value to spend the other 50% on travelling between the different ports. It will be for some but not for others.  

Exactly. A resort based vacation to me would be akin to boarding a ship that never leaves the dock. Those who enjoy that shouldn't be complaining about port changes of any kind. I just don't think you can compare the two like for like. 

[Harters]

8 hours ago, TRLD said:

From what you have stated the scope of your research appears to be a data set of 1 all inclusive resort located in one lower price country.

That would be one way of phrasing it.

 

Another way would be to say I've compared the costs of two specific holidays that we'd be interested in booking and reached conclusions. 

[PhD-iva]

On 3/5/2024 at 6:05 PM, mamaclark said:

We used trains for a trip from Budapest - Vienna - Prague. Trains were on time, clean and comfortable. We absolutely loved it! I do agree with your stations and luggage statement though. Now I am looking at luxury train travel with time spent on and off the train and someone else handling all the details.😁

Please share (if allowed) sufficient details so I and others could evaluate this luxury train option. Thx!

[mamaclark]

42 minutes ago, PhD-iva said:

Please share (if allowed) sufficient details so I and others could evaluate this luxury train option. Thx!

That was not a luxury train, I was mostly replying to the comments regarding handling your own luggage, stations, etc, We booked our own trains with no problems. If you Google luxury train travel you will see a plethora of options that are available all over the world. Have fun researching!

[ak1004]

9 hours ago, daydreamer62 said:

Exactly. A resort based vacation to me would be akin to boarding a ship that never leaves the dock. Those who enjoy that shouldn't be complaining about port changes of any kind. I just don't think you can compare the two like for like. 

 

Or maybe a TA? By then again, TAs are typically much cheaper, so this wouldn't fit the theory that land vacations are cheaper.

[Harters]

4 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

TAs are typically much cheaper,

Indeed so. Our forthcoming cruise is Vista's TA. The "per day" cost is cheaper than the Vista cruise we'd been looking at for next year. And we're very much looking forward to all those sea days - it should be a real rest, once we've recovered from the flight to Miami. 

[Waltershipman]

On 3/3/2024 at 3:57 AM, Harters said:

If I was to compare my recollection of our 2018 cruise (Marina)  with my recollection of our 2023 cruise (Nautica), then I'd suggest there had been a decline in the dining experience, most notably in the GDR. Less menu choice, simpler (cheaper to produce) dishes, smaller portions, service not as sharp. But, although noticeable, these were not major issues that would spoil a holiday. But, let's face it, the whole of the hospitality industry has had to consider cutbacks post-Covid. I could easily spot the same declines in regularly visited land-based restaurants. But, no, it's not the same. The dining experience is an important part of the cruise experience - and you're paying a lot of money for that experience.

 

I'm sure there will come a time when we want to reflect on whether cruising still offers such a "value for money" experience. We're not there yet but I see that discussion on the horizon. Our forthcoming Vista cruise is likely to be the key.

Great points well said

[cruisemom42]

We will never come to a consensus on these issues because the actual $$ are only a part of the equation. Personal preference does play a huge role in the choices we make and what seems "comparable" to us as highly individual consumers.

 

For example, all the comparisons people make about luxury lines being comparable to O in cost often include the comment "as long as you're booking a suite on O" or something like that. So...for those NOT booking suites, it's not exactly comparable. 

 

Or this: I really have zero interest in "all inclusive" resorts as I understand them, which is that you are on a property and you rarely leave the property to do anything else. That is not why I travel, either by land or by sea. I want to see places of interest to me, not vegetate on a ship or ashore. (I will confess that maybe 1 cruise in 20 is undertaken just for relaxation though.)

 

On the other hand, I would consider Cyprus a very interesting destination and one I wouldn't mind spending time at, so long as I wasn't "only" staying at an AI -- in which case I think the AI would probably be wasted on me. Not interested in beaches, pools, fancy drinks, etc. I would be spending all my time doing things like visiting the Greek and Roman ruins on the island, the little villages, the two different sides, etc.

 

So...how does that square? It doesn't. Every vacation is evaluated on slightly different criteria and we all have different criteria. IMO, it's really silly to waste time arguing that one thing is more expensive than another. As long as I can "afford" it, the expense doesn't really matter, and a $3,000 vacation in an average hotel outside Naples (near Pompeii) may hold a greater attraction for me than a $13,000 cruise on Oceania. 

 

 

[Harters]

3 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

I would consider Cyprus a very interesting destination

Lots to do. I know you'd enjoy the very well preserved Roman site at Paphos ( about a 30 minute walk from where we will be staying). https://www.visitpafos.org.cy/a-proud-heritage/archaeological-sites/

 

Another couple of kilometres further on is the "Tomb of the Kings", dating to the 4th century BCE. 

 

We've visited Cyprus several times over the years, usually renting an apartment and car to get out and about round the island (although never been to the occupied north - although my partner lived there as a child).  We've picked the all-inclusive resort this time to see how it compares with  the hotel side of things on an Oceania cruise - looks to us very comparable (good sized room with balcony, speciality restaurants, booze included all day, shows in the evening, etc).

[cruisemom42]

3 minutes ago, Harters said:

Lots to do. I know you'd enjoy the very well preserved Roman site at Paphos ( about a 30 minute walk from where we will be staying). https://www.visitpafos.org.cy/a-proud-heritage/archaeological-sites/

 

Another couple of kilometres further on is the "Tomb of the Kings", dating to the 4th century BCE. 

 

 

 

I've been to Kourion (Curium) but not to Paphos. It's on my list. 😉