Viking vs. Uniworld

We are wondering if there is anyone who has travel both Viking and Uniworld and which one would they take. We have both good about both of the cruises.

j man

We used Uniworld last year and thought they were warm, friendly, and very professional. The boat was delightful.

We're doing Avalon this year simply based on schedule. We always wondered why Viking spends so much on advertising.

We are wondering if there is anyone who has travel both Viking and Uniworld and which one would they take. We have both good about both of the cruises.

 

j man

You won't find many who have cruised both these lines, since Uniworld is considered to be in the top luxury group while Viking is near the bottom. People are more likely to cross-shop Uniworld with Tauck, AMA and Avalon.

You won't find many who have cruised both these lines, since Uniworld is considered to be in the top luxury group while Viking is near the bottom. People are more likely to cross-shop Uniworld with Tauck, AMA and Avalon.

I have cruised with both. Personally, I don't find that much difference in the two lines. We cruised in December with Uniworld, and before that it was around 2006 or 2007 when we did Castle's along the Rhine. We have had 4 trips with Viking.

I cruise mostly for the itinerary. I am not real picky about the food, the wine served, etc. I did not find a difference in the level of service on either boat. I found that I was very uncomfortable sitting on the sofas in Uniworld's lounge. The other choice of seating was a table and chairs arrangement. I much preferred the large, soft lounge chairs and sofas on Viking's ships.

I would travel with either company again if the itinerary was what I was looking for.

Why limit yourself to those two..Check out Avalon ( we liked them a bit better than Viking) and I have also heard good things about AMA. I think you will enjoy river cruising no matter which you choose. I would pretty much go by who has the itinerary you like best.

I have cruised with both. Personally, I don't find that much difference in the two lines. We cruised in December with Uniworld, and before that it was around 2006 or 2007 when we did Castle's along the Rhine. We have had 4 trips with Viking.

 

I cruise mostly for the itinerary. I am not real picky about the food, the wine served, etc. I did not find a difference in the level of service on either boat. I found that I was very uncomfortable sitting on the sofas in Uniworld's lounge. The other choice of seating was a table and chairs arrangement. I much preferred the large, soft lounge chairs and sofas on Viking's ships.

 

I would travel with either company again if the itinerary was what I was looking for.

You raise a good point. Different people value different things on a cruise. If you're not picky about food and wine, then almost any river cruise will meet your expectations about food and wine. If you don't make special demands of your butler, you will be just as happy on a ship that doesn't provide (and charge) for that service.

I am very picky about food and wine, so that was my main criterion. Based on CC reviews, AMA seemed to have the best food and included wine pourings -- and our experience bore this out. I don't generally drink except with meals, so I wasn't interested in an all-inclusive open-bar policy.

So it's important to know what you value, and then look for a cruise line that excels in those areas. Itineraries are probably the easiest thing to compare (although it isn't always easy to figure out from the websites how long you will spend in each port and whether you will sail at night or during the day -- which matters a lot to some posters). Service seems to be pretty good across the board, at least for the basic levels of cabin and dining room (if you want someone to stand outside the loo and hand you a coin to get in, you must sail on Tauck). The other factors have to be teased out from reviews and CC threads.

since Uniworld is considered to be in the top luxury group while Viking is near the bottom.

Great.. we booked a river cruise with Viking... what makes this cruiseline "near the bottom" ... It sure looked nice on their website and commercials...

anything I need to be aware of ???

Great.. we booked a river cruise with Viking... what makes this cruiseline "near the bottom" ... It sure looked nice on their website and commercials...

 

anything I need to be aware of ???

I have travelledwith both - and would travel with both again. We also tend to book for itinerary- then price --> have have travelled with most major lines already, with our first Avalon cruise coming up in June.

We enjoyed our Viking cruise last April - and have another one booked with them next May.

Don't worry about being "near the bottom"... this is truly subjective.

Fran

Great.. we booked a river cruise with Viking... what makes this cruiseline "near the bottom" ... It sure looked nice on their website and commercials...

 

anything I need to be aware of ???

I have been on four Viking cruises and I plan to go on many more with them.

I have had great cruises, no problems with anything. I have gone with different friends each time and they all loved Viking.

I don't see any reason to change to another line.

Different people like different things and that is a good thing as then those of us that love Viking can still get room on the Viking cruises we want to go on if we book far ahead.

Great.. we booked a river cruise with Viking... what makes this cruiseline "near the bottom" ... It sure looked nice on their website and commercials...

 

anything I need to be aware of ???

The vast majority of posters on CC have enjoyed their Viking cruises and plan to cruise with them again. But whenever comparisons are made, Viking falls to the bottom. Why? All cruise lines go to pretty much the same places and offer the same basic services. But on some the quality of the food and wine are better, the quality and variety of the shore excursions are better, the level of service is higher, the included amenities list is longer. All this is subjective, and particularly on a first river cruise you may not feel that anything is missing at all.

There are three objective points about Viking:

• they pack more passengers into the same size ships

• they require full payment much earlier than the other lines (which also makes it much more difficult to change your mind about a Viking cruise if, say, there's a revolution in Ukraine)

• they did not do well at all last year during the Danube flooding

PS - have you ever seen a commercial that made the product NOT look nice?

(if you want someone to stand outside the loo and hand you a coin to get in, you must sail on Tauck). .

Let's put this out of context statement in it's proper context. I've always used that example of a company that is truly all-inclusive and it's not hard to tell who that loaded comment was aimed at but believe you me if you really need a loo and you have no change in your pocket you'd appreciate a Tauck TD on hand to give you a 50cent coin. That's why I think Tauck is the best.

Let's put this out of context statement in it's proper context. I've always used that example of a company that is truly all-inclusive and it's not hard to tell who that loaded comment was aimed at but believe you me if you really need a loo and you have no change in your pocket you'd appreciate a Tauck TD on hand to give you a 50cent coin. That's why I think Tauck is the best.

It wasn't meant to be a loaded comment. [And I assume you didn't mean to imply a scatalogical pun in that wording ;)] I think it is a good example of how Tauck is more all-inclusive than any other line. That is a virtue, although on the itineraries I have checked it does lead to Tauck being the most expensive for US passengers.

The vast majority of posters on CC have enjoyed their Viking cruises and plan to cruise with them again. But whenever comparisons are made, Viking falls to the bottom. Why? All cruise lines go to pretty much the same places and offer the same basic services. But on some the quality of the food and wine are better, the quality and variety of the shore excursions are better, the level of service is higher, the included amenities list is longer. All this is subjective, and particularly on a first river cruise you may not feel that anything is missing at all.

 

There are three objective points about Viking:

• they pack more passengers into the same size ships

• they require full payment much earlier than the other lines (which also makes it much more difficult to change your mind about a Viking cruise if, say, there's a revolution in Ukraine)

• they did not do well at all last year during the Danube flooding

 

PS - have you ever seen a commercial that made the product NOT look nice?

Jazzbeau,

Do you speak from experience - have you sailed with Viking?

Jazzbeau,

 

Do you speak from experience - have you sailed with Viking?

No. My research indicated that it wasn't a good value and that it doesn't excel in the areas we care about (cabin size, food). And that was before the flooding that tarnished its reputation.

But the point of Cruise Critic is for lots of people to share their experience, so a thorough research through this forum gives a person a good base of information to make such judgments.

No. My research indicated that it wasn't a good value and that it doesn't excel in the areas we care about (cabin size, food). And that was before the flooding that tarnished its reputation.

With respect, I think at least some of the reaction to your comments is that now you have the 'Host' title what you are saying carries a different weight so I'm not sure it is so appropriate to be making subjective comments delivered as fact without direct experience to back them up.

Viking were far from alone in having problems during the floods and we also not the worst at handling what happened from what I recall given the sheer number of ships they had to handle, yet you've recently singled them out for comment twice for that problem.

You also need to note that the requirement to pay very early is not a fact in all markets so you do them a disservice when you state that as a general fact, when it is not so.

I have no doubt you have the best intentions, but when you have the 'Host' title it does change things a little ...

With respect, I think at least some of the reaction to your comments is that now you have the 'Host' title what you are saying carries a different weight so I'm not sure it is so appropriate to be making subjective comments delivered as fact without direct experience to back them up.

 

Viking were far from alone in having problems during the floods and we also not the worst at handling what happened from what I recall given the sheer number of ships they had to handle, yet you've recently singled them out for comment twice for that problem.

 

You also need to note that the requirement to pay very early is not a fact in all markets so you do them a disservice when you state that as a general fact, when it is not so.

 

I have no doubt you have the best intentions, but when you have the 'Host' title it does change things a little ...

I read all the River Cruising posts about the flooding very carefully, because our cruise was coming up soon at that point. I don't have a statistical analysis, but my very clear recollection is that the Viking cruisers were very upset because Viking refused to cancel cruises and instead turned them into very expensive bus tours. This was odd, because with so many ships Viking should have been able to bus passengers around bridges to swap ships. The only other cruise line that was getting really bad reviews was Scenic, and at this point I'm not sure how far that extended beyond Marty's disastrous experience with Evergreen.

All the cruise lines had to deal with the same flooding, but some had a very passenger-friendly approach and got kudos on Cruise Critic. AMA was one of those, which was very reassuring for our upcoming cruise.

But to go to your "subjective" point: I reject this argument. Any cruise line can have a bad day, so someone's personal experience from ONE cruise is not reflective of the line's general quality. I am much more willing to accept a positive review based on ONE cruise, because it's harder to punch above your weight. But to repeat my point from the prior post: the benefit of Cruise Critic is that you can assemble many different experiences -- far more than even the most "Elite" cruiser -- to see the long-term quality of each cruise line. That is what I repeated in the "subjective" part of my original post.

As to Viking's policies in other markets: sorry, I am a provincial Amurcan. But I also view CC as a basically American website, so you should expect that generally here.

Why are you ignoring the fact that Viking wins Cruise Critic awards which are based on customer ratings? So a few Viking haters keep posting their prejudices at every possible opportunity. Why does that put them at the bottom? I just don't get it.

You won't find many who have cruised both these lines, since Uniworld is considered to be in the top luxury group while Viking is near the bottom. People are more likely to cross-shop Uniworld with Tauck, AMA and Avalon.

I think this comment was with respect to level of luxury, not any sort of overall rating. At any luxury level a cruise line can perform very well in their category, doesn't mean they are the best or most luxurious across all categories.

I read all the River Cruising posts about the flooding very carefully, because our cruise was coming up soon at that point. I don't have a statistical analysis, but my very clear recollection is that the Viking cruisers were very upset because Viking refused to cancel cruises and instead turned them into very expensive bus tours. This was odd, because with so many ships Viking should have been able to bus passengers around bridges to swap ships.

The way you phrase that is typical of what I'm concerned about.

Anyone reading your post would assume that Viking didn't cancel any cruises, turned them all into bus tours and didn't swap ships around bridges, all of which would be an incorrect representation. Add 'some' in front of each clause and you'd be closer to the truth.

As for your assertion that this is a 'basically American website' you should perhaps check that view with the site owners as they seem to be doing all they can to appeal to the global market and the evidence is to be found right here in the mix of nationalities on this forum.

If you are only able to comment on the US aspects then at least make it clear that is what you are doing instead of giving the impression that your statements are universally applicable, when they are not.

The way you phrase that is typical of what I'm concerned about.

 

Anyone reading your post would assume that Viking didn't cancel any cruises, turned them all into bus tours and didn't swap ships around bridges, all of which would be an incorrect representation. Add 'some' in front of each clause and you'd be closer to the truth.

OK, "some." Including one more right now:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=42362814&postcount=207

Hello,

The way you phrase that is typical of what I'm concerned about.

 

Anyone reading your post would assume that Viking didn't cancel any cruises, turned them all into bus tours and didn't swap ships around bridges, all of which would be an incorrect representation. Add 'some' in front of each clause and you'd be closer to the truth.

 

As for your assertion that this is a 'basically American website' you should perhaps check that view with the site owners as they seem to be doing all they can to appeal to the global market and the evidence is to be found right here in the mix of nationalities on this forum.

 

If you are only able to comment on the US aspects then at least make it clear that is what you are doing instead of giving the impression that your statements are universally applicable, when they are not.

While it seems to be true that most members of cruise critic are US-citizens I also nevertheless have a problem with the statement about viewing this mainly as a US site.

I deliberately chose an international site, I could have become a member of a German forum.

Laura from cruise critic answered me in a different thread that cruise critic very much welcomes comments from non US-members as there is a growing interest in the site from other markets. Well that is how I understood her post.

So, I am a little confused by a host who definitely takes sides. Therefore I welcome the added line in hostjazzbeau's post about where he stands in regard to cruisecritic.

BACK ON TOPIC:

living in the area, I take a particular interest in comparing the Basel - Amsterdam and vice versa itineraries of the different companies. Hypothetically-speaking, as I will probably not do such a tour of "my river" in 8 or 9 days, my decision-making is as follows:

Viking and Uniworld have more or less the same ports within the same time-span.

The Viking modern ships are too Northernly bare light and airy for me. Uniworld has a more French modern playful style, a bit over the top for me, but I prefer that to the Scandinavian look.

I have looked at the excursions of both companies and as regards exploring customs of the country and learning about the culture at first glance Uniworld looks superior to me.

Checking the terms and conditions published online by the companies, Uniworld's look a little favorable to me. But they are really similar (the US-versions).

notamermaid

Thank you notamermaid for your thoughtful reply.

I apologize for my intemperate remark about the US focus, but I want to explain that Cruise Critic hosts are not expected to be experts who know everything. By both preference and this position I spend a lot of time reading Cruise Critic (I read every post on the River Cruise forums) and doing other research about cruising and traveling. I feel that that gives me valuable insight even when I haven't cruised on a particular line or ship, but I am aware that my personal focus is from a US perspective. I guess what I should have said is that I'm very careful to check my facts regarding US laws and marketing but don't claim to know all the differences for Canadian, UK, Australia/New Zealand and European markets.

I am troubled that you read my posts as taking sides. When I report about my AMA cruise, I am stating my own personal experience -- which any Cruise Critic member should feel free to do. When I comment about other cruise lines, it is always in response to a question and is my best attempt to fairly summarize the relevant threads on Cruise Critic. There have been many threads asking for rankings of the river cruise lines in terms of luxury, and while there is some variation Uniworld is always at or near the top and Viking is at or near the bottom. OP didn't seem to be aware of these other threads, so I felt that I was merely reporting, not taking sides.

It was clear last summer that Viking's cruisers (who posted on Cruise Critic) were very unhappy about how Viking turned their cruises into bus trips and gave them no alternative. Other cruise lines seemed to be much more flexible in allowing people to cancel, and more generous in offering credits and compensation. Those are facts that I gleaned from extensive reading of Cruise Critic at the time. There are also two current threads, one from China and one from Bordeaux, that seem to reflect the same approach on Viking's part. Again, I'm not trying to take sides but merely reporting what other Cruise Critic posters have said that seems to be relevant to this conversation.

...There are also two current threads, one from China and one from Bordeaux, that seem to reflect the same approach on Viking's part...

Which China thread are you referring to?

Which China thread are you referring to?

Sorry, not China - Mandalay and Bangkok:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1975727

You won't find many who have cruised both these lines, since Uniworld is considered to be in the top luxury group while Viking is near the bottom. People are more likely to cross-shop Uniworld with Tauck, AMA and Avalon.

I am a CPA and my husband is a dentist. We have been on two Viking cruises...the Danube in 2012 and the Rhine in 2013. We enjoyed the first trip so much, we booked the second one and we enjoyed it so much we're booked on the Viking Star Ocean liner. We had read things about Viking on cruise critic and would probably not have booked our first cruise with them but another couple asked us to go with them and four other friends. The eight of us had a wonderful trip! The cabins, the food, the service were wonderful! If what we have experienced on Viking is " near the bottom" then I would love to experience what is the top. On my birthday, our chef took me with him on a shopping trip and I got to select the cheeses the ship would enjoy that night for dinner. Maybe all the cruise lines do that...I wouldn't know because like you, I have only cruised with one line and that is Viking. I would never try to compare Viking with other lines because I have not cruised with them but I have no problem vouching for the Viking experiences we have had. I don't think my friends and I are " near the bottom" of river cruise passengers and that is what was implied by the statement you made...we are neither easily impressed nor easily fooled.

It is a real disservice to offer opinions on a product you have never used.