Oceania Decline

[ak1004]

1 hour ago, Vineyard View said:

I too wish that there was this data available. It would put all this to rest.  That said, I cannot imagine that the audience on these various cruise lines on CC are that drastically different in their review styles. I have to think that those who post on HAL, Viking, SB, Oceania, Azamara, etc are not so very different in their review styles. So when I follow these boards, and one that repeatedly discusses skipped ports or reduced port times, that does say something to me. I honestly read of these two issues way more on Oceania than I do on the other cruise line threads that I follow. 

 

There is no logical explanation why O would cancel ports more than other lines.

 

However, there is a logical explanation why O guests complain more than other lines guests. It's the way O handles things when something goes wrong. Their communication is very poor, and rarely (almost never) any compensation is offered. When we missed a port with SS due to supply issue, they offered us a 10% future cruise credit. O would never do it. When you question why a port was missed, their answer is "we know better". Which is probably true, but this is not a proper response.

 

When a business treats its customers like adults, offers good communication and/or explanation and/or compensation, people are much less likely to complain.

 

This is the only explanation I can think of. I still don't believe that any line would cancel a port unless absolutely necessary. (reduced port times is a different issue)

[mamaclark]

Just now, cruisemom42 said:

 

I do exactly the same, and I agree with your assessment.

 

I am a bit overwhelmed. I was sure when I opened this topic I would be shouted down as a traitor to O. Clearly, I misread the current climate AND my fellow cruisers. Forgive? What I have learned is that "times they are a changin' " in cruising and that I need to realize the old days at the price point I am willing to spend are gone. So, I shall look at this cruise from a different and more relative/current perspective. I cannot tell y'all how helpful this has been to us. 

[FlyerTalker]

2 hours ago, ak1004 said:

There is no logical explanation why O would cancel ports more than other lines.

 

There IS a logical explanation.  Somehow, corporate HQ has decided to make those cancellations.

 

Now, whether that is the CORRECT explanation is another question.  But it is perfectly logical to say that increased cancellations are because someone chooses to do so.

 

 

[Mareblu]

8 hours ago, don731 said:

Just off Vista after 17 nights.  Not as great as our last cruise on Riviera in fall 2022.  Wonderful ship, uneven service in most dining venues.  No where close to Cunard Grill class for about the same price a few months ago, and makes a $200 per night premium for Seabourn look like a bargain.  As always, everyone’s experience is different.  Not a great value for us at a net of $750 per night in V1 verandah.  

We'll be on Hlitner's Vista cruise, followed a few weeks later by a Cunard Queen Anne voyage around the British Isles.  It will be truly interesting comparing two new vessels of different cruise lines.  We've enjoyed many O cruises, but only one previous Cunard, in Queens Grill, just over a year ago.  It was indeed a marvellous experience, and the dining in QG was exceptional.  We did not enjoy the extra $ for everything outside the Grills Lounge, though, even coffee was charged, as was bottled water and everything else you could think of.  Internet access also comes at a hefty price.  Naturally, we expected to be charged for alcoholic beverages.  Coffee, tea, chocolate, etc. was included in Grills Lounge, otherwise you signed for it.  I really felt terrible for the folk in other levels of accommodation, when I realised that was the situation.  The wonderful thing about an O cruise is that extras are covered.  We have upgraded to the higher drinks package for the Vista cruise, as we have done before with O voyages, because we both enjoy the experience  of not having to think about ordering and signing for pre and after dinner drinks.  I know there's a valid argument (and a good one) for not needing to go to that extra expense, but when it's done, it's done.  It's a nice feeling.  We're looking forward to both cruises.

[Vallesan]

47 minutes ago, Mareblu said:

We'll be on Hlitner's Vista cruise, followed a few weeks later by a Cunard Queen Anne voyage around the British Isles.  It will be truly interesting comparing two new vessels of different cruise lines.  We've enjoyed many O cruises, but only one previous Cunard, in Queens Grill, just over a year ago.  It was indeed a marvellous experience, and the dining in QG was exceptional.  We did not enjoy the extra $ for everything outside the Grills Lounge, though, even coffee was charged, as was bottled water and everything else you could think of.  Internet access also comes at a hefty price.  Naturally, we expected to be charged for alcoholic beverages.  Coffee, tea, chocolate, etc. was included in Grills Lounge, otherwise you signed for it.  I really felt terrible for the folk in other levels of accommodation, when I realised that was the situation.  The wonderful thing about an O cruise is that extras are covered.  We have upgraded to the higher drinks package for the Vista cruise, as we have done before with O voyages, because we both enjoy the experience  of not having to think about ordering and signing for pre and after dinner drinks.  I know there's a valid argument (and a good one) for not needing to go to that extra expense, but when it's done, it's done.  It's a nice feeling.  We're looking forward to both cruises.

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.

[don731]

On 2/28/2024 at 9:28 AM, tunaman2011 said:

Greetings

 

We had the same thing happen in December. Just outside after walking through the customs booths there were busses waiting to take passengers back to Terminal J. They loaded the bags under the bus then traveled to the front of Terminal J where they dropped us off.

 

Good Sailing

Tom

 

6 hours ago, Mareblu said:

We'll be on Hlitner's Vista cruise, followed a few weeks later by a Cunard Queen Anne voyage around the British Isles.  It will be truly interesting comparing two new vessels of different cruise lines.  We've enjoyed many O cruises, but only one previous Cunard, in Queens Grill, just over a year ago.  It was indeed a marvellous experience, and the dining in QG was exceptional.  We did not enjoy the extra $ for everything outside the Grills Lounge, though, even coffee was charged, as was bottled water and everything else you could think of.  Internet access also comes at a hefty price.  Naturally, we expected to be charged for alcoholic beverages.  Coffee, tea, chocolate, etc. was included in Grills Lounge, otherwise you signed for it.  I really felt terrible for the folk in other levels of accommodation, when I realised that was the situation.  The wonderful thing about an O cruise is that extras are covered.  We have upgraded to the higher drinks package for the Vista cruise, as we have done before with O voyages, because we both enjoy the experience  of not having to think about ordering and signing for pre and after dinner drinks.  I know there's a valid argument (and a good one) for not needing to go to that extra expense, but when it's done, it's done.  It's a nice feeling.  We're looking forward to both cruises.

We were fortunate to experience QG on the QE2 many years ago….it was quite an experience.  PG on the Elizabeth was wonderful as well.  We will probably stay away from the Anne as we don’t care for the Pinnacle class ships….too many passengers on essentially the same space as the Vista class ships.  Our TA usually can get us outstanding OBC to cover some of the costs like internet…we’re platinum on Cunard. Plus a much larger stateroom in Grill class with your own fancy coffee maker than on Oceania.  We may try Azamara later this year, as we had an outstanding cruise with them pre-Covid.

[QuestionEverything]

7 hours ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

There IS a logical explanation.  Somehow, corporate HQ has decided to make those cancellations.

 

Now, whether that is the CORRECT explanation is another question.  But it is perfectly logical to say that increased cancellations are because someone chooses to do so.

 

 

The increase in cancellations and the deliberately shortened port stays all are on O. Like many here, I monitor the situation across many other cruise lines. O is the top in reported deviations from scheduled itinerary as has been posted on the O thread and as noted in customer reviews.

The arrogant, condescending on board and corporate communications adds further suspicion.

My TA who knows O very, very well has had many complaints from his clients about O's port disruptions, I enquired of him about this topic and yesterday he emailed that about 1/2 of his O clients are now booking Regent etc to ensure itinerary. 

This is a real issue and a fundamental one for many O customers.

 

 

[Queen of DaNile]

We are literally doing a Seabourn/Oceania back to back this summer so our comparisons will be very fresh. We had no intention of revisiting Riviera so soon but due to itinerary changes caused by conflicts in the Middle East, this particular sailing came in at a very attractive price. 

The Seabourn leg is definitely more expensive but includes unique ports that we're willing to pay for. Upgrading to Concierge on Oceania was a bargain by comparison and gives us the option to stay on the ship and enjoy the spa deck should there be changes to the ports.

My focus will be on comparing the food and quality of our time in port. We know what to expect from both lines so the question is how they deliver in virtually real time.

[njhorseman]

14 minutes ago, QuestionEverything said:

My TA who knows O very, very well has had many complaints from his clients about O's port disruptions, I enquired of him about this topic and yesterday he emailed that about 1/2 of his O clients are now booking Regent etc to ensure itinerary. 

This is a real issue and a fundamental one for many O customers.

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.

 

Those passengers will be replaced by NCL customers moving up to Oceania as well as former HAL, Princess and Celebrity customers moving over to O. Most of them will think O is the greatest invention since sliced bread.

 

Looks like a good business move to me.

[ak1004]

8 hours ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

There IS a logical explanation.  Somehow, corporate HQ has decided to make those cancellations.

 

Now, whether that is the CORRECT explanation is another question.  But it is perfectly logical to say that increased cancellations are because someone chooses to do so.

 

 

 

My point was that any decision must have a reason behind it. What's their reason to do it as a policy?

[ak1004]

9 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

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.

 

Those passengers will be replaced by NCL customers moving up to Oceania as well as former HAL, Princess and Celebrity customers moving over to O. Most of them will think O is the greatest invention since sliced bread.

 

Looks like a good business move to me.

 

Why would O customers move specifically to Regent? Personally I would never sail on Regent at the current prices, but would consider SB, SS, maybe Windstar.

 

At the same time, HAL, Princess and Celebrity customers might move to Azamara, Viking or Windstar, not necessarily O.

 

btw, we have at least 2 couples who sailed on Celebrity for 30+ years, tried O, and don't come back to Celebrity. So there are many opinions.

 

You see how any conspiracy theory can be debunked in seconds?

[QuestionEverything]

Just now, njhorseman said:

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.

 

Those passengers will be replaced by NCL customers moving up to Oceania as well as former HAL, Princess and Celebrity customers moving over to O. Most of them will think O is the greatest invention since sliced bread.

 

Looks like a good business move to me.

I like your post, certainly could be the corporate "plan". 

Now this "plan" likely only works on customers that are itinerary focused.

I am not moving upwards in cruising, I am reducing cruising and moving $ to customized land travel.

[Hlitner]

40 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

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.

 

Those passengers will be replaced by NCL customers moving up to Oceania as well as former HAL, Princess and Celebrity customers moving over to O. Most of them will think O is the greatest invention since sliced bread.

 

Looks like a good business move to me.

No question that each cruise line corporation wants to see customers stick with their various brands.  But, there is not much (or any) benefit to them if you book NCL, O, or Regent since they are all in the same corporate familiy.  The fact that you pay more for Regent than O does not mean the corporation makes a bigger profit.  Regent and O are two different products with Regent offering better space ratios, better passenger/staff ratios, having more inclusions, etc.  

 

And sure, any cruise line hopes to get folks to "move over" to their product and does their best to make that customer want to return on future cruises.  That is just good business.  All that being said, DW and I cruise (and have cruised) on many cruise lines (17) and do not even think about the overall corporate structure (i.e. NCLH, CCL. RCI, MSC, etc).  We simply book individual cruise lines.  In the past year we have booked O, Explora Journeys, HAL, Princess, Seabourn and Silversea.  In our case, what you call "moving over" is just meaningless malarky.  

 

Hank

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, ak1004 said:

 

Why would O customers move specifically to Regent? Personally I would never sail on Regent at the current prices, but would consider SB, SS, maybe Windstar.

 

At the same time, HAL, Princess and Celebrity customers might move to Azamara, Viking or Windstar, not necessarily O.

 

btw, we have at least 2 couples who sailed on Celebrity for 30+ years, tried O, and don't come back to Celebrity. So there are many opinions.

 

You see how any conspiracy theory can be debunked in seconds?

There's no conspiracy theory at work here, just business strategy. 

Remember that there are only a relatively small, fixed number of berths to be filled on any cruise.  It only takes a few people to climb the ladder to fill them.

Not everyone is very concerned about price. Many are simply looking for the experience they desire.

Many will rely on the advice of their trusted travel agent in making a choice of a cruise line.

[Vineyard View]

1 hour ago, ak1004 said:

 

My point was that any decision must have a reason behind it. What's their reason to do it as a policy?

Therein lies a very good question. Why?  Don’t know, but I do know what I read, and I read posts of changed itineraries and shortened ports WAY more on Oceania than on other lines.  Defending that it doesn’t happen is not convincing. Defending that it doesn’t make sense doesn’t change that it is happening….and I agree with you on that….it doesn’t make sense. But it doesn’t change what is occurring. 

[pinotlover]

1 hour ago, ak1004 said:

 

My point was that any decision must have a reason behind it. What's their reason to do it as a policy?

I would love to have a recording, or better yet the transcript, of Captain Max’s lunch time messages on the costs of port fees for the ships. It was exorbitant, and far surpassed any earnings the ships may make for the stops. The ports are there for the itineraries to draw customers. Everything beyond that is expense.

[ak1004]

2 minutes ago, Vineyard View said:

Therein lies a very good question. Why?  Don’t know, but I do know what I read, and I read posts of changed itineraries and shortened ports WAY more on Oceania than on other lines.  Defending that it doesn’t happen is not convincing. Defending that it doesn’t make sense doesn’t change that it is happening….and I agree with you on that….it doesn’t make sense. But it doesn’t change what is occurring. 

I don't think anyone is saying it's not happening. My question is - is it happening more on O than other lines? I suggested that people might be complaining more on O because O doesn't treat its customers as adults when things go wrong. Also, my impression is that the complaints come from the same few people. On the last Marina topic (the long one) 2 different people reported from 2 fairly long sailings, and only one cancelled port, substituted with another much more interesting port. Many times people "forget" to mention that canceled port is substituted with another one - this probably is much more trouble for O.

 

24 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

There's no conspiracy theory at work here, just business strategy. 

Remember that there are only a relatively small, fixed number of berths to be filled on any cruise.  It only takes a few people to climb the ladder to fill them.

Not everyone is very concerned about price. Many are simply looking for the experience they desire.

Many will rely on the advice of their trusted travel agent in making a choice of a cruise line.

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

[Vineyard View]

AK1004, I don’t know how to respond. I, and many others, have been reading the same. O cancels more and changes more. Is it reported more because of the insufficient manner in which O seems to handle these disruptions? IDK. It might contribute some, but I think that if it were such an apparent pattern on other lines, it would be a point of contention on those lines as well. 

[ak1004]

7 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

I would love to have a recording, or better yet the transcript, of Captain Max’s lunch time messages on the costs of port fees for the ships. It was exorbitant, and far surpassed any earnings the ships may make for the stops. The ports are there for the itineraries to draw customers. Everything beyond that is expense.

 

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..

[cruisemom42]

2 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 

Why would O customers move specifically to Regent? Personally I would never sail on Regent at the current prices, but would consider SB, SS, maybe Windstar.

 

At the same time, HAL, Princess and Celebrity customers might move to Azamara, Viking or Windstar, not necessarily O.

 

btw, we have at least 2 couples who sailed on Celebrity for 30+ years, tried O, and don't come back to Celebrity. So there are many opinions.

 

You see how any conspiracy theory can be debunked in seconds?

 

I don't think it is a conspiracy theory and I'd suggest we stop looking at it as one.

 

The "move up" strategy was used successfully by car manufacturers for years, e.g., GM. They assumed you'd start out with one of their less expensive brands and gradually you would move up to the more aspirational (and expensive) top-drawer brands. Of course, customers then tended to be more brand-loyal overall. (My grandfather would have been a prime example.)  Of course, they knew that you could move to a different brand, be it GM to Ford or Princess to Oceania, but they idea was that if your experiences were good overall, you might give the edge to the same brand. It also helps when perks carry over. I know many an RCCL cruiser who "moved up" to Celebrity because Celebrity honored their past-passenger status.

 

Regarding the more contentious topic, again, I don't necessarily "buy" that Oceania is doing this on purpose to make money. Or least, not the way you're thinking about it. And I also don't buy that every scheduled port skipped is done spuriously. I was on the Iceland/Greenland cruise with @QuestionEverything where we had to skip Nuuk due to weather conditions. The night the announcement was made, there were 30+ foot waves we were sailing through. I don't believe any of us doubted the captain.

 

However, the fact remains that Oceania cancels or misses or shortens a lot of ports. More than their competitors. Here's what I think as someone who has followed many cruise lines over time. O got ambitious a few years back and wanted to start competing on more than just their "Best Cuisine at Sea". They started putting together more ambitious itineraries and made claims about being in port longer (a claim that objectively still goes to Azamara in this category...) 

 

I think they overextended themselves in this respect. I cruise for itinerary, so I tend to notice when changes get made and people complain. O continues to put "troublesome" ports on their itineraries to attract customers -- and perhaps they legitimately hope that those ports will be less troublesome by the time the cruise rolls round. Often, they're not. Look at past issues with Myanmar, for example. Or as another less exotic example, Oceania had Corinto, Nicaragua listed as a port of call on my Panama Canal cruise (end of Dec) up until 2 months ahead, when they canceled it (26 Oct) -- despite the fact that the port had been closed to cruise traffic for months.

 

So to me, I would blame misplaced faith that borderline ports will someone "work out", coupled with the idea to pull in passengers with very interesting itineraries, and topped off with a healthy dollop of poor communications.

 

Now the shortening of port times -- that is very much a conscious decision to minimize costs and O should continue to be called out for it. If they want to do it, fine, but do it when putting itineraries together, not at the last minute and not after final payment.

 

 

 

Edited March 4 by cruisemom42

[ak1004]

4 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I don't think it is a conspiracy theory and I'd suggest we stop looking at it as one.

 

The "move up" strategy was used successfully by car manufacturers for years, e.g., GM. They assumed you'd start out with one of their less expensive brands and gradually you would move up to the more aspirational (and expensive) top-drawer brands. Of course, customers then tended to be more brand-loyal overall. (My grandfather would have been a prime example.)  Of course, they knew that you could move to a different brand, be it GM to Ford or Princess to Oceania, but they idea was that if your experiences were good overall, you might give the edge to the same brand. It also helps when perks carry over. I know many an RCCL cruiser who "moved up" to Celebrity because Celebrity honored their past-passenger status.

 

Regarding the more contentious topic, again, I don't necessarily "buy" that Oceania is doing this on purpose to make money. Or least, not the way you're thinking about it. And I also don't buy that every scheduled port skipped is done spuriously. I was on the Iceland/Greenland cruise with @QuestionEverything where we had to skip Nuuk due to weather conditions. The night the announcement was made, there were 30+ foot waves we were sailing through. I don't believe any of us doubted the captain.

 

However, the fact remains that Oceania cancels or misses or shortens a lot of ports. More than their competitors. Here's what I think as someone who has followed many cruise lines over time. O got ambitious a few years back and wanted to start competing on more than just their "Best Cuisine at Sea". They started putting together more ambitious itineraries and made claims about being in port longer (a claim that objectively still goes to Azamara in this category...) 

 

I think they overextended themselves in this respect. I cruise for itinerary, so I tend to notice when changes get made and people complain. O continues to put "troublesome" ports on their itineraries to attract customers -- and perhaps they legitimately hope that those ports will be less troublesome by the time the cruise rolls round. Often, they're not. Look at past issues with Myanmar, for example. Or as another less exotic example, Oceania had Corinto, Nicaragua listed as a port of call on my Panama Canal cruise (end of Dec) up until 2 months ahead, when they canceled it (26 Oct) -- despite the fact that the port had been closed to cruise traffic for months.

 

So to me, I would blame misplaced faith that borderline ports will someone "work out", coupled with the idea to pull in passengers with very interesting itineraries, and topped off with a healthy dollop of poor communications.

 

Now the shortening of port times -- that is very much a conscious decision to minimize costs and O should continue to be called out for it. If they want to do it, fine, but do it when putting itineraries together, not at the last minute and not after final payment.

 

 

 

 

You make some excellent points.

 

Regarding "move up" strategy - I don't believe it can even apply to cruise lines because most people might not even know that NCL, O and Regent are part of the same parent company, while most people would probably know that Chevy and Buick both belong to GM (they are even being sold under one roof).

 

I agree 100% regarding shortened ports, I don't buy their sustainability BS for one second.

 

And you might be right regarding the reason behind cancelled ports. On the same time, more often than not the cancelled port is replaced by another one.

[cruisemom42]

43 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

And you might be right regarding the reason behind cancelled ports. On the same time, more often than not the cancelled port is replaced by another one.

 

Speaking only from my own experience, Nuuk was not replaced. Nor was Corinto (as shown below).

 

 

 

And on the latter cruise there were other changes and cancellations as well. Grand Cayman was missed (no replacement), and also Acapulco (which WAS replaced). So on my cruises, 3 out of 4 missed ports were just a loss...

 

 

[Sojourner02]

We have been on Oceania for eight cruises.  The last one being January 2024 to the Caribbean on their newest ship Vista.

 

The ship was absolutely beautiful and the service was outstanding. Our cabin was luxurious. The staff and the officers couldn't do enough for us. That was the general consensus of all the passengers we spoke to.

 

The food was good in the specialty restaurants.   Ember, the newest restaurant was mediocre. Aquamar, had wonderful healthy choices.  We just loved dining on the Terrace cafe and drinking their great champagne.

 

Most of the tours were not that good.  We spent many hours on the bus.  The majority of the passengers were elderly and most of them never got off.  They felt it wasn't worth it.

 

 We have sailed on Celebrity, Azamara, Viking sea and Royal Caribbean.  Not going back.

 

We are back on The Vista in July to the Med.  

[ak1004]

31 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Speaking only from my own experience, Nuuk was not replaced. Nor was Corinto (as shown below).

 

 

 

And on the latter cruise there were other changes and cancellations as well. Grand Cayman was missed (no replacement), and also Acapulco (which WAS replaced). So on my cruises, 3 out of 4 missed ports were just a loss...

 

 

 

On our 4 cruises, we have 6 cancelled ports with 4 replacements. From what I read here, at least 50% (if not more) of the cancelled ports are replaced. Don't forget that it's not easy to find a replacement port last minute as many ports are booked well in advance. Also, most of the time it's impossible for the ship to book any excursions for the replacement port last minute. So they lose all the excursions revenue from the cancelled port, don't have any new revenue from the new port, still pay the port fees, and don't have any fuel savings. Here the whole conspiracy theory goes down the toilet. 

[cruisemom42]

32 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

On our 4 cruises, we have 6 cancelled ports with 4 replacements. From what I read here, at least 50% (if not more) of the cancelled ports are replaced. Don't forget that it's not easy to find a replacement port last minute as many ports are booked well in advance. Also, most of the time it's impossible for the ship to book any excursions for the replacement port last minute. So they lose all the excursions revenue from the cancelled port, don't have any new revenue from the new port, still pay the port fees, and don't have any fuel savings. Here the whole conspiracy theory goes down the toilet. 

 

I'm not the one arguing a conspiracy. When ports are changed last minute then yes, it is difficult to find a substitution. Nuuk and Grand Cayman are examples of that. But arguably O should have changed 2 of the 4 ports I mentioned much earlier. Nicaragua was a no-go for months, and Acapulco had extensive hurricane damage, also well in advance of our visit.

 

Conspiracy theory, no. Oceania not paying attention and/or "hoping for a Hail Mary play", yes.