Final Payment Due Date

[kctwinmommy]

1 minute ago, Hanoj said:

Yes, and @millybess, whose experience was different is from Canada.

Got it! Didn't even pay attention to her city there. 😉 That may be why then.

[millybess]

5 minutes ago, kctwinmommy said:

Got it! Didn't even pay attention to her city there. 😉 That may be why then.

@Hanoj @kctwinmommy  I wonder if that's the case.

 

 

Edited June 23 by millybess

[kctwinmommy]

@millybess - and like I said, not like it mattered to us. We had charges on our account anyway. LOL! We don't prepay our gratuities, we bought some drinks, and we did add 2 excursions. So, the ones we cancelled just partially covered that stuff.

[sharkster77]

2 hours ago, Squawkman said:

Bit you must ask for the 6 month PIF. It is NOT automatic.

We were going to ask for the 6 month PIF, but the Viking agent offered it to our TA before we had the chance!  Maybe it was offered because agent knew they were speaking to a TA?

[Peregrina651]

9 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

 my guess is that their bean counters decided that forcing final payment very early will help their bottom line,

 

This is not a new policy for Viking -- and Viking has always marched to the beat of a different drummer. They are not a member of CLIA and are not bound by their policies.

 

When the company was started up as a river cruise company in the early 1990s, payment was due in the month the cruise was booked. They were only booking one season at a time in those days, not the one to two years in advance that we see today. Regardless of what your sail date was, your payment was due at the end of the month in which you booked. As the company grew, the policy remained the same.

 

When they started up Viking Oceans, they continued with a similar policy. When we booked in 2014 for a 2016 cruise, we were actually surprised that our payment in full was not due at the end of the month, as we had come to expect. We already knew that Viking did things differently and we also knew that if we wanted to sail with Viking, it would have to be on their terms.

 

Also note that the UK, Australia and New Zealand markets have different terms and conditions than those in US and Canada that are being discussed here.

 

And no one is "forcing" anyone to pay early. Those who don't like the policy have plenty of other cruise lines to choose from.

 

 

[CDNPolar]

5 hours ago, Peregrina651 said:

 

 

And no one is "forcing" anyone to pay early. Those who don't like the policy have plenty of other cruise lines to choose from.

 

 

 

Exactly.... it has been said many times before that Viking have these payment terms because they can.  OR, because they could...

 

I read above here somewhere where an ocean ship only had some 700 something guests?

 

Not typical of Viking for sure... so perhaps this is a trend starting?

[tubeamps]

We have taken 2 Viking Ocean trips, one London to Norh Cape/Bergen the other SE Asia.

Both were great cruises. Now looking at itineraries for 2025/2026.

We find the final pay dates that are 12 to 15 months prior to sailing to be something we just will not do again. 
 

So our most recent cruise to Japan was on Regent and our next cruise will be on Regent.

Prices are similar, product is similar. Depending on itinerary Regent is a little more but not by much.

If Viking ever changes their policy we will consider sailing with them again.

[JF - retired RRT]

20 hours ago, millybess said:

We always pay with ACH -- final payment, excursions, and SSBP.  You will find it quick and easy, especially when choosing and paying for your excursions.  

 

Just a tip: we don't prepay gratuities before we board.  You might find that you will acquire some OBC while on board -- possibly booking another cruise (and that OBC must be used before you disembark), or the laundry ruining your favourite skirt, or something like that.

Is ACH the same as echeck?

[OneSixtyToOne]

10 minutes ago, JF - retired RRT said:

Is ACH the same as echeck?

Yes. It stands for “Automated Clearing House” and is an electronic fund transfer directly from your bank account. ACH is technically the name of the network member banks use to transfer funds.

 

Edited June 23 by OneSixtyToOne

[TayanaLorna]

18 hours ago, millybess said:

We've never had that happen.  

 

If we cancel excursions before we board, the payment goes back to our bank account.  There is a week before we board where we can't access MVJ, so if we want to change/cancel excursions, we have to wait until we board.

 

After we board, if we make adjustments, the payment either gets redeposited into our bank account or sometimes to our credit card.  I'm not quite sure why it's one or the other, but we have been told it's up to the office in California.

 

We have never had a payment for an excursion applied as OBC -- refundable or non-refundable.

 

But like everything else having to do with their office in LA, it could be who's behind the desk.

FYI, we (US) have been able to change/cancel excursions in the week before our cruise by telephoning Viking but ,Yes, cannot do it on MVJ.

[millybess]

11 minutes ago, JF - retired RRT said:

Is ACH the same as echeck?

 

4 minutes ago, OneSixtyToOne said:

Yes. It stands for “Automated Clearing House” and is an electronic fund transfer directly from your bank account. ACH is actually the name of the network member banks use to transfer funds.

 

OneSixtyToOne is correct.  We set up our bank account info on MVJ a few days before final payment is due or choosing excursions.  

[millybess]

12 minutes ago, TayanaLorna said:

FYI, we (US) have been able to change/cancel excursions in the week before our cruise by telephoning Viking but ,Yes, cannot do it on MVJ.

Yes, that is true and we have done that on occasion, usually through our TA, if the excursion is within a day or two of boarding the ship..

[kctwinmommy]

@Peregrina651 - well stated! And I guess I'm in the minority, but it didn't bother me at all having to pay a year in advance. I like having everything paid off early. I realize it's more of a psychological thing, as it doesn't actually matter when you pay for it all. Once the price is locked in, it's the price. Although there are other things that have the potential to rise, so it's better to pay for it before they do.

[CDNPolar]

I think that everyone wishes that Viking would look at their final payment dates and make a revision to this policy, but I think you will also find that there are differences with other countries - AU and UK - as well.

 

We happily paid our first Viking cruise fare 12 months in advance, but then quickly learned that for Canada and USA that if you have a future Viking booking - river or ocean - that your payment due reduces to 5 months.  Since that point, we have always had at least one future cruise on the books to keep that 6 month payment in place.

 

Because you can move a deposit by modifying a reservation to any other itinerary before final payment, we just do a 'placeholder' reservation and it is not uncommon for us to move that booking to something else or different dates.  It is just to keep the final pay terms.

 

What I do wish that Viking would do as a loyalty offering is that once you have completed X number of cruises, that the final payment is aligned with the first penalty which is at 120 days.

 

I think that for loyalty and repeat voyages, this would be a nice perk.

[Peregrina651]

10 hours ago, CDNPolar said:

I think that everyone wishes that Viking would look at their final payment dates and make a revision to this policy, but I think you will also find that there are differences with other countries - AU and UK - as well.

 

I don't disagree with you.

 

Viking did experiment with a 6 month paid in full for most pax back in 2017 but gave up on it in 2018, reverting to the original scheme of 1 year or more except if you book on board or already have a future cruise on the books. I don't know why they experimented or why they reverted back; I only know that they did.

 

As long as most guests keep coming back under today's terms, I don't think Viking has much incentive to make changes.

 

Personally, I find the recent steep price increases to be more of a penalty than the loss of interest on payments made 6-12 months in advance.

 

 

[CurlerRob]

6 hours ago, Peregrina651 said:

As long as most guests keep coming back under today's terms, I don't think Viking has much incentive to make changes.

 

Personally, I find the recent steep price increases to be more of a penalty than the loss of interest on payments made 6-12 months in advance.

 

Agreed. I'm always intrigued by those who state that they will never sail Viking again due to this policy - it must touch a very different nerve with them than its reality. Apart from increasing the cost of a Viking trip slightly, it has no other impact.

 

The policy is simply a surcharge - at today's interest rates it would typically be between 1% and 4% depending on the PIF difference to other lines. It's easy to do the math and add the opportunity cost to the cost of the Viking trip for personal affordability analysis or competitive comparisons. 🍺🥌

[Catlover54]

45 minutes ago, CurlerRob said:

 

Agreed. I'm always intrigued by those who state that they will never sail Viking again due to this policy - it must touch a very different nerve with them than its reality. Apart from increasing the cost of a Viking trip slightly, it has no other impact.

 

The policy is simply a surcharge - at today's interest rates it would typically be between 1% and 4% depending on the PIF difference to other lines. It's easy to do the math and add the opportunity cost to the cost of the Viking trip for personal affordability analysis or competitive comparisons. 🍺🥌

 

Yes, "math" (or really just arithmetic) is the issue.  It is a surcharge that at today's longer term CD rates is easily 5% (depending on terms), so one must realistically add 5% to the cruise cost if paid off in full over one year in advance.  This also adds to the total amount one has to potentially fight to get returned if unusual events occur (e.g., as happened with Covid, where lines were offering FCC "within one year" instead of refunds), which might not be so unusual going forward. It is *a* factor to me, but not the controlling factor, if a line is so fantastic that one should jump at the chance of paying 5% more.  And it is not as if Viking has the best reputation for customer service and easy refunds and compensation, e.g., when river cruises went south  due to water level inadequacies or excesses, there was great resistance to compensation.

 On the CC forums, even luxury travelers (and Viking is not even technically classified as  "luxury"), people fuss about saving even a few hundred dollars, so on a longer cruise well into 5 figures, it is not an insignificant amount.  I totally understand some people psychologically like the idea of paying everything off ahead of time, but one is always free to do that even if it were not mandated by the line for a booking to be maintained.

 

To me it is not a "no way" consideration, just a realistic assessment of the extra cost for Viking,  compared with other arguably comparable cruises.  It was not as much of an issue when secure interest rates were in the financial toilet.  Some lines (e.g., Silverseas) offered/offer  a discount in the total price for booking and paying off the cost early, which acknowledges (at least in part) the lost earned interest cost. 

On a similar note, I don't like that Scenic wants a 20% deposit which is non-refundable, no matter how long before the cruise is scheduled.  What are they afraid of?  Plus, they are very difficult to deal with on customer service. 

And I also don't like it when foreign lines like Hapag Lloyd (my favorite line) try to charge Americans in dollars and then provide unfavorable exchange rates, which can make a difference in net thousands of dollars, but if one is alert, one can avoid this by paying in Euros. 

These maneuvers seem to me to  all just be ways of hiding the true higher charges of the cruise offered. If you're fine with them (and obviously many are), great.

 But if demand is as high as Viking claims it is ,  I have to ask  why, if Viking has more bookings than they can handle and is doing customers a favor by offering cruises, Viking keeps sending out so many and such frequent advertisements to me and others to book their cruises.  My luxury travel TA is also not fond of them in terms of customer service dealings, compared with other lines, but of course she may have other vested interests she may not be willing to discuss with me.

 

[CurlerRob]

20 minutes ago, Catlover54 said:

 

Yes, "math" (or really just arithmetic) is the issue.  It is a surcharge that at today's longer term CD rates is easily 5% (depending on terms), so one must realistically add 5% to the cruise cost if paid off in full over one year in advance.  This also adds to the total amount one has to potentially fight to get returned if unusual events occur (e.g., as happened with Covid, where lines were offering FCC "within one year" instead of refunds), which might not be so unusual going forward. It is *a* factor to me, but not the controlling factor, if a line is so fantastic that one should jump at the chance of paying 5% more.  And it is not as if Viking has the best reputation for customer service and easy refunds and compensation, e.g., when river cruises went south  due to water level inadequacies or excesses, there was great resistance to compensation.

 On the CC forums, even luxury travelers (and Viking is not even technically classified as  "luxury"), people fuss about saving even a few hundred dollars, so on a longer cruise well into 5 figures, it is not an insignificant amount.  I totally understand some people psychologically like the idea of paying everything off ahead of time, but one is always free to do that even if it were not mandated by the line for a booking to be maintained.

 

To me it is not a "no way" consideration, just a realistic assessment of the extra cost for Viking,  compared with other arguably comparable cruises.  It was not as much of an issue when secure interest rates were in the financial toilet.  Some lines (e.g., Silverseas) offered/offer  a discount in the total price for booking and paying off the cost early, which acknowledges (at least in part) the lost earned interest cost. 

On a similar note, I don't like that Scenic wants a 20% deposit which is non-refundable, no matter how long before the cruise is scheduled.  What are they afraid of?  Plus, they are very difficult to deal with on customer service. 

And I also don't like it when foreign lines like Hapag Lloyd (my favorite line) try to charge Americans in dollars and then provide unfavorable exchange rates, which can make a difference in net thousands of dollars, but if one is alert, one can avoid this by paying in Euros. 

These maneuvers seem to me to  all just be ways of hiding the true higher charges of the cruise offered. If you're fine with them (and obviously many are), great.

 But if demand is as high as Viking claims it is ,  I have to ask  why, if Viking has more bookings than they can handle and is doing customers a favor by offering cruises, Viking keeps sending out so many and such frequent advertisements to me and others to book their cruises.  My luxury travel TA is also not fond of them in terms of customer service dealings, compared with other lines, but of course she may have other vested interests she may not be willing to discuss with me.

 

 

Your points are varied, but certainly balanced. Just two comments:

 

1) My reference was to posters who indeed said "no way" apparently based solely on the policy, versus your "realistic assessment of the extra cost", which is completely valid.

 

2) As has been mentioned, there is a simple workaround with Viking to ensure you never have a PIF date more than 6 months in advance (book something with a $25 deposit way out, then you get 6 months PIF on a different booking) - that cuts the added cost to 3 months worth of interest, or around 1.25% using your example. 

 

Hence my puzzlement with some other's views on the matter ... 🍺🥌

[CDNPolar]

We have only sailed Uniworld once so far, but we were offered a 10% reduction in total cabin price to pay at 7 months out.  TEN PERCENT.  That is a lot of cash on a Uniworld Nile River cruise.

 

This certainly beats paying any number of months in advance with Viking, but I don't know if this is a standard with Uniworld, or was it a special at that time, or was it something to do with the large TA that we bought this cruise through?

[Mike07]

1 hour ago, CDNPolar said:

We have only sailed Uniworld once so far, but we were offered a 10% reduction in total cabin price to pay at 7 months out.  TEN PERCENT.  That is a lot of cash on a Uniworld Nile River cruise.

 

This certainly beats paying any number of months in advance with Viking, but I don't know if this is a standard with Uniworld, or was it a special at that time, or was it something to do with the large TA that we bought this cruise through?

 

 

I priced out a few itineraries once they uniworlds website and saw similar offers at the time of booking.... Ten percent or so many thousands off if PIF in a much shorter timeframe. Though I think if you had to cancel, penalties would have been slightly stiffer than the general cruise line 120d out philosophy.

 

I generally don't get terribly worked up about lost interest and paying so far in advance because it's just a Viking idiosyncracy. We all must endure this philosophy from their corporate office.

 

Though my TA said that Uniworld offers no ACH or cash discount. So card, ACH, etc all the same price.

 

Edited Tuesday at 11:20 AM by Mike07

[OneSixtyToOne]

9 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

Yes, "math" (or really just arithmetic) is the issue.  It is a surcharge that at today's longer term CD rates is easily 5% (depending on terms), so one must realistically add 5% to the cruise cost if paid off in full over one year in advance.

If you pay via ACH you get a 3.3% discount so the difference in your example is 1.7%. Seems trivial, especially pre-COVID where interest rates were at historic lows and you’d be pressed to find 2% CDs.

 

Also you will not get a full year interest because you don’t pay the day you sail on any cruise line.

Edited Tuesday at 12:40 PM by OneSixtyToOne

[CJANDH]

10 hours ago, Mike07 said:

 

I generally don't get terribly worked up about lost interest and paying so far in advance because it's just a Viking idiosyncracy. We all must endure this philosophy from their corporate office.

We don't have to endure it at all. The ultimate action is to cancel your cruise and switch to a cruise line with more customer friendly HQ policies. I hate their arrogance.

[Hanoj]

10 hours ago, OneSixtyToOne said:

If you pay via ACH you get a 3.3% discount so the difference in your example is 1.7%. Seems trivial, especially pre-COVID where interest rates were at historic lows and you’d be pressed to find 2% CDs.

 

Also you will not get a full year interest because you don’t pay the day you sail on any cruise line.

Of course this comparison ignores credit card rewards (and some other travel benefits depending on card) when paying the cruise fare by card, particularly if no interest charges are incurred by paying off the balance each cycle.

[Hockeyump]

Viking are able to use these payment terms in the US because the consumer laws allow them to do so. UK and, I believe, Australia have different final payment dates due to the law in their countries.

[Hanoj]

49 minutes ago, CJANDH said:

We don't have to endure it at all. The ultimate action is to cancel your cruise and switch to a cruise line with more customer friendly HQ policies. I hate their arrogance.

The tone and tenor of this comment, and similar ones across numerous CC forums for luxury and premium lines, indicates diminishing brand loyalty for some consumers (myself included), which is affecting the entire travel and hospitality industries. Overall, this is good for consumers IMO, though not as easy. There was a time when I thought I would only cruise with Viking, but that is no longer the case. We last sailed with VO five years ago, but have an Eastern Mediterranean/Adriatic cruise with VO in October 2024. Last August we sailed Oceania’s Vista, which we enjoyed, but not enough for Oceania to become our preferred cruise line. 
 

Before booking (just two weeks ago) our upcoming VO cruise I had perused offerings from several luxury and premium lines, none of which seem to satisfy all my criteria, including Viking. Part of this is due a realization that my travel preferences changed during the shutdowns, and we have become more independent minded, including automobile based road trips (something I thought we’d not do again after all the kids moved out). Another factor eroding my brand loyalty is observing differences in how the competing cruise lines are dealing with the challenges facing the industry (cost cutting to alleviate debt burdens, training of staff, supply issues affecting quality, etc.). It’s become increasingly evident that not all operators are equal to the extant challenges, enough so that no company seems immune to risking alienating heretofore loyal patrons. 
 

So caveat emptor, although of ancient origin, seems very relevant today. I’m grateful for the wide range of choices available, and for the ability to glean insights from other travelers’ experiences shared on these forums.