Oasis: Problems?

[birdsNworms]

To be sure, the Oasis of the Seas is something to behold. It is grand, and it stands on its own as an architectural and maritime achievement. But, amid all the pre-inaugural buzz out there, I feel there exists a great dearth of real -- read that to mean not PR scripted and stuffed down the throat -- news about the ship and the actual circumstances surrounding the launch and viability of the product RCCL claims is a 'game changer'.

Apparently, the product the vast majority of non-paying travel agents and media assembled for these junkets cruises prior to the December 1 inaugural saw was decidedly different from the one I was introduced to.

Not that I was not wowed. I was. Anyone should be, even the harshest critic. It is more that it seems the media, mostly consisting of bloggers and cruiseline oriented domain owners sprinkled with a small group of travel and business writers, were and are concerned with gaining future invitations to such events and perhaps -- in the desperate economic environment -- are even looking to RCCL as a future employer with their overtly effusive and criticism-lite coverage.

The fact that Royal Caribbean elected to charge for cupcakes and coffee ($8.27+ for a quad espresso) but to allow alcohol to flow free and liberally may also indicate something of a fix.

I was one of the first people to board Oasis after the ship was brought back to Port Everglades following the GMA broadcast on Friday, November 20. Before boarding, there were some pretty obvious hitches no one appears to have reported. Curiously so. (One, involving what appeared to be media as they had some expensive cameras in tow and I noted Kerry Sanders of NBC in the mix, was most troubling...but I am waiting on a friend at the CBS station in Miami to confirm what I saw and provide more specifics.)

Like, for example, parking. Upon arrival, in spite of most of the previous night's guests having been shuttled from the airport or local hotels, there was not a single space available in the one, remarkably small (given that this is the largest ship of its kind afloat) parking lot provided for Oasis guests. Given there were only 1,000 guests on this 'private concert with Rihanna' overnighter, and the ship holds 5400-6296 paying guests, this is a big hitch. Any overflow would be to parking, if available, shared with other cruiselines and a convention center. And involve transportation from one part of the port to the actual terminal.

Rimmed with curved black-spiked ironwork, it is rather unwelcoming and perplexing. Port Everglades is a secure facility -- no ID, not on a manifest, no entry. Inside, it is even less worthy of comment. Clearly, the budget for the required multilevel parking structure was nixed along with any creative whimsy for the terminal itself.

Boarding the ship, the first thing that hits you, in a nod to Arthur Frommer's criticism, is that you have no sense you have boarded a ship. To the contrary, you really do feel as though you've just left your car in the lot at your local mall and strolled -- albeit following a stressful two hour or so wait -- in.

This is a thread throughout the structure, as even the highly promoted loft suites feel entirely removed from the ocean. Inside, it seems more like being in a condo tower than being on a ship. And the most expensive cabin on the Oasis, flanked by these other suites, has a view of...the basketball courts. That 843 sq ft balcony is hardly a selling point given this entire lack of privacy and noisy element ringed with surveillance cameras. The ocean is so far away on the horizon it is a strain to even catch a glimpse beyond the uproar on the sports courts below.

Also, while very nice, it is far, far from being in the lead of what this segment of the market has available. And the loft concept leaves much to be desired -- namely, some privacy as the bedroom is open to below (no glass, not even a curtain to pull). According to the PR folks, it was designed with two couples in mind. When pushed, they insist it will only be sold to a maximum of four even when capacity is listed at six. Although, another common theme is that many cabins on the Oasis are capped at two passengers when on any other ship they would be quads or more.

Perhaps this is a nod to some real crowd control issues the line has already confronted in the design phase.

Which is going to be a substantial issue. Many 'reviewers' have noted that with "3200 agents and media" aboard the ship did not feel crowded 'but dining options were still limited' by that capacity.

Well folks, the Oasis of the Seas has yet to ever see 3200 guests.That number was floated by the PR staff to give the invited agents and others the idea they could envision the ship adequately providing a premium product at capacity. After all, double the number onboard on November 20 and you've overshot capacity. On November 20-22, there was plenty of available space.

That is because every pre-inaugural cruise was intentionally capped at approximately 1000 invitees plus their guests and crew. Something only lower level crew members, think cabin attendants, were reluctantly offering to those who queried by way of cabin assignments/occupancy. A good, reliable indicator. Add in as many stowaways as you want, and you are still way short of the actual capacity required for RCCL's revenue modeling to work.

Having been on the ship for this time, that is a troubling indicator. It is also vexing that we initially missed the entire gym/spa area because in the ship's "Live the Oasis" tour book it was somehow omitted. (The reports about this area are dead-on. It is a sad statement when such an expensive ship has a facility so sterile, so crew-like to present to the guest...And watch-out for that glass staircase in the spa. Seriously.)

Then, you have the entertainment issue. Oasis is debuting a true, Broadway show in Hairspray. Did I miss this? No one has talked about the entertainment because it was largely absent on this 'showcase' cruise. IF you saw the two signature shows RCCL is promoting for this ship or the one in the AquaTheater, please let us know about them as entertainment is a pretty essential part of the cruise experience.

On Oasis, it was largely AWOL. Save for the skating show, a holdover from the Voyager and Freedom classes. Which Tom Scallen and Willy Bietak did a great job on given the limitations. But it is hardly new or can it be cited as an innovation -- that was ten years ago RCCL.

Even boarding the ship and walking around, there was an entire lack of music/entertainment beyond the physical diversions built into the ship -- think FlowRider, Zipline, Merry-Go-Round, etc. Sure, "Central Park" -- like the entire ship -- is impressive, but...well, every time I walked through it I saw glasses and beer bottles in the planters and heard agents (mind you, this was a free cruise) rumbling about how off the price-points were for their market. Bottom-line, it takes more than what was being presented.

Of which, I must comment that it was crazy to hear RCCL's PR folks pushing the add-ons considering the already exceptionally high buy-in price on the Oasis and the current economy. One would think that common sense would have had them telling these agents of all the many things that Royal Caribbean decided to include in that cost.

Internet, however, is another story, contrary to some reports here and on other websites. There are, indeed, two smallish Internet facilities that are part of the design [not there for press only] on decks 7 and 9 forward plus various clusters in the conference areas, teen area, and others. In addition to the in-room set-up and WiFi, there is enough when coupled with the obvious belief the target consumer of this product will travel with his/her/their own laptop. No revenue loss there.

I know many of the cruiseline's top executives and their PR staff have embraced the idea of this ship being a "resort at sea". Likening it to a family-friendly Las Vegas or even a floating Walt Disney World. Of course, this begs the obvious question: if you are looking for a Las Vegas or a WDW, why not simply go there and avoid the potential problems this new market -- first time cruisers -- required by Oasis might well encounter?

For those who want to be at sea, and want to know they are afloat, there are opportunities for this. The solarium for one is worth mentioning as is the small but stunning Viking Crown Lounge. If you want to feel like you are Jack's "king of the world", this ship will not disappoint.

That said, what is clear is that you actually have to search out these locations as otherwise it is difficult to know you are anywhere but at a very pricey resort on land with many, many add-on costs. And to have to search out locations to feel as though you are on a ship is, by any reasonable evaluation, a substantial failure in the product.

It has been reported, as stoked by RCCL itself, that you will pay a 144% premium to book the Oasis right now. If that were only the case. The truth: RCCL is demanding a quixotic 300%-plus cost factor over its own Freedom Class for similar sailing dates.

Now I certainly agree this ship should command a premium over its competitors, but that moves beyond such a thing. By any interpretation, it is gouging. If you include the competition other lines present, the premium jumps to over 400%. Astounding.

Again though, this is one impressive ship. One impressive feat. But can it float?

The ship may not be an evolution to a maturing market, or a revolutionary twist on that market. The Oasis -- and the Allure -- may as one reporter noted, and RCCL's PR lackeys stunningly linked to, be dinosaurs of an arrogant era where bigger is better and damn the consequences.

I just wonder, after being on a ship where no one was paying and the booze was flowing more than the FlowRiders, if it is viable...? Or, when all the buzz quiets after the christening on November 30, it will be only a matter of time before the government of Finland or a savvy investor takes ownership for pennies on the dollar?

That would be sad. But, seeing the poor show RCCL put on in reality and not as disseminated by those who wrote with any eye toward future invites and/or employment, I think heads should roll over this one.

[Aquahound]

Welcome to Cruise Critic.

[above sea level cruiser]

Originally Posted by birdsNworms

To be sure, the Oasis of the Seas is something to behold. It is grand, and it stands on its own as an architectural and maritime achievement. But, amid all the pre-inaugural buzz out there, I feel there exists a great dearth of real -- read that to mean not PR scripted and stuffed down the throat -- news about the ship and the actual circumstances surrounding the launch and viability of the product RCCL claims is a 'game changer'.

Apparently, the product the vast majority of non-paying travel agents and media assembled for these junkets cruises prior to the December 1 inaugural saw was decidedly different from the one I was introduced to.

Not that I was not wowed. I was. Anyone should be, even the harshest critic. It is more that it seems the media, mostly consisting of bloggers and cruiseline oriented domain owners sprinkled with a small group of travel and business writers, were and are concerned with gaining future invitations to such events and perhaps -- in the desperate economic environment -- are even looking to RCCL as a future employer with their overtly effusive and criticism-lite coverage.

The fact that Royal Caribbean elected to charge for cupcakes and coffee ($8.27+ for a quad espresso) but to allow alcohol to flow free and liberally may also indicate something of a fix.

I was one of the first people to board Oasis after the ship was brought back to Port Everglades following the GMA broadcast on Friday, November 20. Before boarding, there were some pretty obvious hitches no one appears to have reported. Curiously so. (One, involving what appeared to be media as they had some expensive cameras in tow and I noted Kerry Sanders of NBC in the mix, was most troubling...but I am waiting on a friend at the CBS station in Miami to confirm what I saw and provide more specifics.)

Like, for example, parking. Upon arrival, in spite of most of the previous night's guests having been shuttled from the airport or local hotels, there was not a single space available in the one, remarkably small (given that this is the largest ship of its kind afloat) parking lot provided for Oasis guests. Given there were only 1,000 guests on this 'private concert with Rihanna' overnighter, and the ship holds 5400-6296 paying guests, this is a big hitch. Any overflow would be to parking, if available, shared with other cruiselines and a convention center. And involve transportation from one part of the port to the actual terminal.

Rimmed with curved black-spiked ironwork, it is rather unwelcoming and perplexing. Port Everglades is a secure facility -- no ID, not on a manifest, no entry. Inside, it is even less worthy of comment. Clearly, the budget for the required multilevel parking structure was nixed along with any creative whimsy for the terminal itself.

Boarding the ship, the first thing that hits you, in a nod to Arthur Frommer's criticism, is that you have no sense you have boarded a ship. To the contrary, you really do feel as though you've just left your car in the lot at your local mall and strolled -- albeit following a stressful two hour or so wait -- in.

This is a thread throughout the structure, as even the highly promoted loft suites feel entirely removed from the ocean. Inside, it seems more like being in a condo tower than being on a ship. And the most expensive cabin on the Oasis, flanked by these other suites, has a view of...the basketball courts. That 843 sq ft balcony is hardly a selling point given this entire lack of privacy and noisy element ringed with surveillance cameras. The ocean is so far away on the horizon it is a strain to even catch a glimpse beyond the uproar on the sports courts below.

Also, while very nice, it is far, far from being in the lead of what this segment of the market has available. And the loft concept leaves much to be desired -- namely, some privacy as the bedroom is open to below (no glass, not even a curtain to pull). According to the PR folks, it was designed with two couples in mind. When pushed, they insist it will only be sold to a maximum of four even when capacity is listed at six. Although, another common theme is that many cabins on the Oasis are capped at two passengers when on any other ship they would be quads or more.

Perhaps this is a nod to some real crowd control issues the line has already confronted in the design phase.

Which is going to be a substantial issue. Many 'reviewers' have noted that with "3200 agents and media" aboard the ship did not feel crowded 'but dining options were still limited' by that capacity.

Well folks, the Oasis of the Seas has yet to ever see 3200 guests.That number was floated by the PR staff to give the invited agents and others the idea they could envision the ship adequately providing a premium product at capacity. After all, double the number onboard on November 20 and you've overshot capacity. On November 20-22, there was plenty of available space.

That is because every pre-inaugural cruise was intentionally capped at approximately 1000 invitees plus their guests and crew. Something only lower level crew members, think cabin attendants, were reluctantly offering to those who queried by way of cabin assignments/occupancy. A good, reliable indicator. Add in as many stowaways as you want, and you are still way short of the actual capacity required for RCCL's revenue modeling to work.

Having been on the ship for this time, that is a troubling indicator. It is also vexing that we initially missed the entire gym/spa area because in the ship's "Live the Oasis" tour book it was somehow omitted. (The reports about this area are dead-on. It is a sad statement when such an expensive ship has a facility so sterile, so crew-like to present to the guest...And watch-out for that glass staircase in the spa. Seriously.)

Then, you have the entertainment issue. Oasis is debuting a true, Broadway show in Hairspray. Did I miss this? No one has talked about the entertainment because it was largely absent on this 'showcase' cruise. IF you saw the two signature shows RCCL is promoting for this ship or the one in the AquaTheater, please let us know about them as entertainment is a pretty essential part of the cruise experience.

On Oasis, it was largely AWOL. Save for the skating show, a holdover from the Voyager and Freedom classes. Which Tom Scallen and Willy Bietak did a great job on given the limitations. But it is hardly new or can it be cited as an innovation -- that was ten years ago RCCL.

Even boarding the ship and walking around, there was an entire lack of music/entertainment beyond the physical diversions built into the ship -- think FlowRider, Zipline, Merry-Go-Round, etc. Sure, "Central Park" -- like the entire ship -- is impressive, but...well, every time I walked through it I saw glasses and beer bottles in the planters and heard agents (mind you, this was a free cruise) rumbling about how off the price-points were for their market. Bottom-line, it takes more than what was being presented.

Of which, I must comment that it was crazy to hear RCCL's PR folks pushing the add-ons considering the already exceptionally high buy-in price on the Oasis and the current economy. One would think that common sense would have had them telling these agents of all the many things that Royal Caribbean decided to include in that cost.

Internet, however, is another story, contrary to some reports here and on other websites. There are, indeed, two smallish Internet facilities that are part of the design [not there for press only] on decks 7 and 9 forward plus various clusters in the conference areas, teen area, and others. In addition to the in-room set-up and WiFi, there is enough when coupled with the obvious belief the target consumer of this product will travel with his/her/their own laptop. No revenue loss there.

I know many of the cruiseline's top executives and their PR staff have embraced the idea of this ship being a "resort at sea". Likening it to a family-friendly Las Vegas or even a floating Walt Disney World. Of course, this begs the obvious question: if you are looking for a Las Vegas or a WDW, why not simply go there and avoid the potential problems this new market -- first time cruisers -- required by Oasis might well encounter?

For those who want to be at sea, and want to know they are afloat, there are opportunities for this. The solarium for one is worth mentioning as is the small but stunning Viking Crown Lounge. If you want to feel like you are Jack's "king of the world", this ship will not disappoint.

That said, what is clear is that you actually have to search out these locations as otherwise it is difficult to know you are anywhere but at a very pricey resort on land with many, many add-on costs. And to have to search out locations to feel as though you are on a ship is, by any reasonable evaluation, a substantial failure in the product.

It has been reported, as stoked by RCCL itself, that you will pay a 144% premium to book the Oasis right now. If that were only the case. The truth: RCCL is demanding a quixotic 300%-plus cost factor over its own Freedom Class for similar sailing dates.

Now I certainly agree this ship should command a premium over its competitors, but that moves beyond such a thing. By any interpretation, it is gouging. If you include the competition other lines present, the premium jumps to over 400%. Astounding.

Again though, this is one impressive ship. One impressive feat. But can it float?

The ship may not be an evolution to a maturing market, or a revolutionary twist on that market. The Oasis -- and the Allure -- may as one reporter noted, and RCCL's PR lackeys stunningly linked to, be dinosaurs of an arrogant era where bigger is better and damn the consequences.

I just wonder, after being on a ship where no one was paying and the booze was flowing more than the FlowRiders, if it is viable...? Or, when all the buzz quiets after the christening on November 30, it will be only a matter of time before the government of Finland or a savvy investor takes ownership for pennies on the dollar?

That would be sad. But, seeing the poor show RCCL put on in reality and not as disseminated by those who wrote with any eye toward future invites and/or employment, I think heads should roll over this one.

And you are? - other than a first time poster - ?????

[Aquahound]

Originally Posted by above sea level cruiser

And you are? - other than a first time poster - ?????

..an interesting (to say the least) blogger, ref this post on a Disney forum. He didn't return to explain this one either.

As a longtime follower of LP and an admirer of all of the work Doobie and Rebekah and the many others have done here, I thought I would post about this to see if it resonates with other LP-ers.

I am curious to know if any of the folks on this board have been extended an offer by Walt Disney World -- or any Disney resort worldwide -- to return as compensation for something having gone wrong with a visit only to find that once they have left the resort Disney revoked the offer in part or whole. This is not directed toward those fans/visitors who have received upgrades or discounts for inconsistencies in quality, misunderstandings, or the like.

Rather, this is specifically directed at those quests who would have had often significant legal claims against TWDC and signed away liability in exchange for an apology from management and an invitation for a return visit on Disney to, as TWDC describes it, 'deliver the product we know we have and you have come to expect from us.'

With disturbing regularity, once the guest leaves the resort after the incident -- avoidable accident or travel interruption or gross negligence or a combination of this which results in a financial loss to the guest and typically injury -- they either receive notice from Disney's guest services division advising them the offer they accepted was extended in error or when they attempt to use the return offer they are told it is invalid.

Frequently, Disney then tenders a fractional offer for what the company terms the guest's "misunderstanding" of what was actually extended. This is usually a value of less than ten percent of the original agreement and is tagged as strictly a "goodwill gesture". As for the written, 'official' agreement usually handed to the guest prior to their departure, Disney disavows the validity of that contract -- a contract/offer Disney drafted and willingly extended.

As Disney is self-insured, and employs a cadre of lawyers, they are largely self-regulating and operate outside most of the restrictions other companies must strictly adhere to. This both dissuades wronged parties from pursuing a legal remedy and serves as a significant impediment in locating an attorney who would actually engage TWDC. Disney is not shy about expressing this David v. Goliath scenario in pressuring guests to cede their legal claim and accept the return trip.

Considering this, they simply do not get sued by guests with the great regularity one would expect from a company that works directly in a location-based, guest interactive environment of Disney's volume. To contrast with the cruise line industry or major mall operators, which are cited regularly for the number of (admittedly often dubious) claims they have to defend against, Disney's litigation rate is significantly lower to an extent that cannot be reconciled with TWDC simply being a more vigilant corporate citizen.

I am not writing about the many questionable slip-and-falls or the slew of scammers who hit WDW with the same regularity and zeal of those who hit the Las Vegas strip. The claims Disney quickly quells with offers of a return visit do not fall into this category. In fact, Disney has a very iron-fisted approach to allegedly frivolous claimants, banning them from its properties with far greater regularity than most visitors would ever suspect. (Additions of scanning technology and a move toward a cash-less society have been made with an increasing eye on 'locking the gate' on these people before they have the opportunity to enter.)

My interest, however, is in those guests who take Disney's "vacation on us" (or something similar) enticement to vacate a legitimate claim only to have that return trip swiftly stripped once that guest leaves Disney's property.

As a Disney fan myself, I am particularly troubled by this predatory scheme TWDC is now actively employing to escape liability. As someone who is bound by contract law, like most everyone here and in business in most industrialized nations, I am especially concerned that TWDC engages in this conduct with an overt arrogance that -- well, unlike everyone else -- they need not be bound by the law or common decency.

If any of the folks here have been on the receiving end of one of these non-invite-invites, please share your experience as it seems apparent Disney is aggressively duping many of its guest and loyal fans when things go [often terribly] wrong. No matter how one loves Disney, there's just nothing magical about that kind of wrong.

[above sea level cruiser]

Originally Posted by Aquahound

..an interesting (to say the least) blogger, ref this post on a Disney forum. He didn't return to explain this one either.

As a longtime follower of LP and an admirer of all of the work Doobie and Rebekah and the many others have done here, I thought I would post about this to see if it resonates with other LP-ers.

I am curious to know if any of the folks on this board have been extended an offer by Walt Disney World -- or any Disney resort worldwide -- to return as compensation for something having gone wrong with a visit only to find that once they have left the resort Disney revoked the offer in part or whole. This is not directed toward those fans/visitors who have received upgrades or discounts for inconsistencies in quality, misunderstandings, or the like.

Rather, this is specifically directed at those quests who would have had often significant legal claims against TWDC and signed away liability in exchange for an apology from management and an invitation for a return visit on Disney to, as TWDC describes it, 'deliver the product we know we have and you have come to expect from us.'

With disturbing regularity, once the guest leaves the resort after the incident -- avoidable accident or travel interruption or gross negligence or a combination of this which results in a financial loss to the guest and typically injury -- they either receive notice from Disney's guest services division advising them the offer they accepted was extended in error or when they attempt to use the return offer they are told it is invalid.

Frequently, Disney then tenders a fractional offer for what the company terms the guest's "misunderstanding" of what was actually extended. This is usually a value of less than ten percent of the original agreement and is tagged as strictly a "goodwill gesture". As for the written, 'official' agreement usually handed to the guest prior to their departure, Disney disavows the validity of that contract -- a contract/offer Disney drafted and willingly extended.

As Disney is self-insured, and employs a cadre of lawyers, they are largely self-regulating and operate outside most of the restrictions other companies must strictly adhere to. This both dissuades wronged parties from pursuing a legal remedy and serves as a significant impediment in locating an attorney who would actually engage TWDC. Disney is not shy about expressing this David v. Goliath scenario in pressuring guests to cede their legal claim and accept the return trip.

Considering this, they simply do not get sued by guests with the great regularity one would expect from a company that works directly in a location-based, guest interactive environment of Disney's volume. To contrast with the cruise line industry or major mall operators, which are cited regularly for the number of (admittedly often dubious) claims they have to defend against, Disney's litigation rate is significantly lower to an extent that cannot be reconciled with TWDC simply being a more vigilant corporate citizen.

I am not writing about the many questionable slip-and-falls or the slew of scammers who hit WDW with the same regularity and zeal of those who hit the Las Vegas strip. The claims Disney quickly quells with offers of a return visit do not fall into this category. In fact, Disney has a very iron-fisted approach to allegedly frivolous claimants, banning them from its properties with far greater regularity than most visitors would ever suspect. (Additions of scanning technology and a move toward a cash-less society have been made with an increasing eye on 'locking the gate' on these people before they have the opportunity to enter.)

My interest, however, is in those guests who take Disney's "vacation on us" (or something similar) enticement to vacate a legitimate claim only to have that return trip swiftly stripped once that guest leaves Disney's property.

As a Disney fan myself, I am particularly troubled by this predatory scheme TWDC is now actively employing to escape liability. As someone who is bound by contract law, like most everyone here and in business in most industrialized nations, I am especially concerned that TWDC engages in this conduct with an overt arrogance that -- well, unlike everyone else -- they need not be bound by the law or common decency.

If any of the folks here have been on the receiving end of one of these non-invite-invites, please share your experience as it seems apparent Disney is aggressively duping many of its guest and loyal fans when things go [often terribly] wrong. No matter how one loves Disney, there's just nothing magical about that kind of wrong.

Paul - are we looking at a lawyer or a pissed off Disney character?

[dfishner]

To the OP and your point is exactly what?

[Aquahound]

Originally Posted by above sea level cruiser

Paul - are we looking at a lawyer or a pissed off Disney character?

LOL! Perhaps Grumpy got his law degree!

[The Grumpus]

That's quite a report. So the parking lot is small??? Okay, thanks for the tip, I'll be sure to take a cab when it is my turn to sail.

[cruisingator2]

LMAO at this report. First of all welcome to Cruise Critic. Sounds like a Carnival employee. John Heald is that you?

Thanks for your report but I will judge for myself.

[vermontcruisers]

Very cynical...

I hope he's wrong.

[BecciBoo]

Could it be JJ? No, not his style. O well, it still doesn't make me want to skip Lady O. But the pics I am seeing everywhere does make me want to go!

[HeavySurf]

Well, I'm glad to know about the parking problem. Other than that, I will be more than happy to see and judge Oasis for myself (in just a few more days.)

What I find fails in the OP's argument against Oasis and Allure is that he says the ship will be too crowded with 6000 passengers, but in spite of that, it will never even HAVE anywhere near 6000 passengers because it is too expensive, too poorly designed and conceived, and lacks all the facilities 6000 passengers will require.

Maybe he thinks slamming Oasis will get him a free invitation to sail on NCL's Epic or Carnival's Dream. Or maybe he just sincerely hates Oasis and that is his right. There are plenty of other ships he can sail at the size, design and price points he believes are better suited to his taste.

[pscruzinboyz]

For me........Talk Negative all you want, I am so excited to get on but I still have 11 months to go......No review will ever sway me to Cancel. Actually, I have read so many good things that I might have to book in the spring time because of my excitement. Sorry for your insight but there are people that just do not like BIG SHIPS......Me, Bigger the better and i can't wait to get on.

BTW, welcome to CC

Mike B.

[GXmanDC]

Welcome to CC. How is it that you were invited onto one of these cruises? Are you in the travel industry?

[Aquahound]

Originally Posted by HeavySurf

Well, I'm glad to know about the parking problem.

Hey HeavySurf, I don't think the parking will be a problem. The new lot for the Oasis is pretty big. The problem with the GMA showing and the other tours was that nearly everyone drove. On a typical cruise, the majority don't drive. Also, you won't have countless RCI staff, production crews, etc, etc, taking up all the spaces.

[labadooze]

I'm sure he is wrong!

[bajathree]

Being that this is your first post under this assumed NEW persona and you most probably have another persona with over a couple thousands posts on it.....do you really think anyone is going to take anything you say seriously sorry but I have no trust for anyone who just can't come out and say what they think under their "REAL" persona.

[BND]

Think the OP ever thought that maybe this inaugural overnighter wasn't what a full up cruise will be? Maybe, just maybe, we should all wait for a review of a real 7 day cruise. This cruise was about showing off the ship as a whole, not a typical cruise. The OP's diatribe was just a bit overdone.

I for one, am waiting for a few cruises to be completed and reviewed by those who have "been around the block" before I make any decision one way or another.

[eroller]

A first time CC poster with nothing but negative things to say about OASIS. Sounds like this person went looking for any issues he/she could find, and perhaps has an ax to grind with Royal Caribbean for whatever reason.

I realize that everything is not perfect, but not everything can be all bad either. When I read a review that is too far left or right, the poster loses all credibility with me.

For the most part, the reviews coming in on OASIS have been quite positive, and these are from very experienced cruisers and the media. RCI should be proud of the way they have handled the introduction of the largest ship in the world. There has never been more planning around a single passenger ship in my lifetime. There have been far smaller and more ordinary ships that have had inaugurals that were complete disasters.

Back to the OP, I smell a troll.

Ernie

[Brad1185]

I enjoyed the OPs insight and comments. I sure hope he's right.