Oceania vs Azamara - Asia - 2012?

We are avid X and Princess cruisers, but also love small luxury ships like Silverseas PA ll, Old Regent's Paul Gaughin, and Xpedition, but have not yet sailed either AZ or OC, or the old R Ships (Princess)

We are looking at confirming our first ever Asian Cruise/Vacation and are looking at near identical itin's for both AZ and or OC Jan 2012

True, OC has less days at Sea (4 versus 6), AZ has more overniters, OZ visits 2-3 more ports, but otherwise the basic Hong Kong to Singapore itin is virtually the same

The price, however, is substantially different - Using competing TA's (lol) even with taking in consideration the OC air credit, the OC PH3 is some $2,300 USD each (x 2 pax) MORE than AZ N1, and the OC CC-A1 is some $1,000 USD each MORE than the AZ SV-VX

The question I have for more experienced AZ and or OC cruisers is;

Are OC food, service, staff (we tend to book non cruiseline excursions) that much better, say $2,000 to $4,300 USD better, and if not, why the huge price differential?

Thx in advance

jc - Toronto

We are avid X and Princess cruisers, but also love small luxury ships like Silverseas PA ll, Old Regent's Paul Gaughin, and Xpedition, but have not yet sailed either AZ or OC, or the old R Ships (Princess)

 

We are looking at confirming our first ever Asian Cruise/Vacation and are looking at near identical itin's for both AZ and or OC Jan 2012

 

True, OC has less days at Sea (4 versus 6), AZ has more overniters, OZ visits 2-3 more ports, but otherwise the basic Hong Kong to Singapore itin is virtually the same

 

The price, however, is substantially different - Using competing TA's (lol) even with taking in consideration the OC air credit, the OC PH3 is some $2,300 USD each (x 2 pax) MORE than AZ N1, and the OC CC-A1 is some $1,000 USD each MORE than the AZ SV-VX

 

The question I have for more experienced AZ and or OC cruisers is;

 

Are OC food, service, staff (we tend to book non cruiseline excursions) that much better, say $2,000 to $4,300 USD better, and if not, why the huge price differential?

 

Thx in advance

jc - Toronto

i would suggest that you look at the reviews of these cruises that are posted on CC in the "Ship Review" section.

On this thread you are going to get very pro "O" posters, the same on the "AZ" thread.

Although I am a strong supporter of "O" several of my friends who have sailed on "AZ" have been very pleased with their experiences.

We have sailed them both, albeit only once each. I have booked Riviera next September but would not hesitate to book AZ again either. I thought the experience onboard was nearly indistingishable. For an identical itinerary, the less expensive option would seem a no-brainer to me. YMMV, but you are certain to love this cruise, we have done Asia 3x, once with Regent, once with Celebrity and once with RCCL. A fascinating part of the world.

---------------

Helen

We have not sailed on AZ

I agree with David , check the reviews & pick the itinerary/price that works best for you

Be sure you are comparing the "BOTTOM LINE" not just quotes from online TA's

You can compare using the cruise lines websites & check the same cabin numbers for each

Enjoy what ever cruise you choose

Lyn

We are dedicated to Oceania. Love the line! However, because of scheduling we decided to try Azamara on a SouthEast Asia cruise last year. We had an amazing time. The overnights in major cities were priceless. Overall Azamara did not disappoint. Feel that Oceania is slightly better but not by Thousands of Dollars. You can't go wrong with either.

We just finished a 19 night Oceania Insignia cruise and have done Azamara as well. We enjoyed Azamara more, the ships were identical but you cannot beat the overnights in ports. We felt Oceania over priced for what it delivered.

So now you have opinions on both side of the question!

I, too, have not sailed on Azamara but I don't see how you can go wrong whatever you decide. And I cannot disagree with Baldercash's feeling that Oceania has become overpriced!

Good luck in deciding.

Az also includes wine with dinner.

We're considering Az with their increased perks. Better pricing for the Asia cruise in 2012 and with complimentary self-serv laundry and wine with lunch and dinner, we'd be silly not to try an itinerary that suits us.

We've sailed on both Azamara and Oceania. We like the overnights on Azamara and the slightly more casual feel (3 night St. Petersburg, 1 night Stockholm). On Oceania, the food seemed a bit better, but not enough better to make it a deciding factor. A few things were annoying. No frig in the more basic cabins (I think that may have changed) and the cabanas, slightly ridiculous on a Midnight Sun cruise to northern Norway-hardly used but blocked off so no one could access the front of the ship. Loved the yogalates classes on O, never tried any classes on Azamara. Also the afternoon tea with the string quartet was a highlight. Nothing on Azamara came close. Both were weak on lectures, especially considering the interesting itineraries. We would make our choice based on the itinerary and, if both had the same itinerary, the deciding factor would be time in port and cost.

A bit nervous about O at the moment because of the recent changes to this year's Midnight Sun itinerary after people had made their final payment. We just signed up for Viking Expeditions to Iceland and Greenland-a really interesting itinerary if they don't change it at the last minute.

We've sailed on both cruise lines. Azamara's service is excellent, but the food was disappointing as was the afternoon tea, which couldn't even begin to compare with O's. If your itinerary is port intensive, the food might not matter.

We've sailed on both cruise lines. Azamara's service is excellent, but the food was disappointing as was the afternoon tea, which couldn't even begin to compare with O's. If your itinerary is port intensive, the food might not matter.

How recent was your cruise on Azamara? The reviews for Azamara recently, including one by Host Dan, who cruises frequently on Seabourn, have been very positive. There is no indoor smoking whatsoever on Azamara, which is a plus, along with the included gratuities and wine, and we wish Oceania would include some of these, too.

No indoor smoking?Az is sounding better and better. Will be checking their itineraries!

Hmm --- included wine, included gratuities, and charge less for it -- are they really that hard up for bookings?

slow server again...

No indoor smoking?

I read they are down to smoking on the same area on the pool deck as O none in the lounge

Are you listening Oceania ;);)

Hi Lyn...we need to catch up!

hondorner: Re hard up for bookings...Really? Instead, perhaps Azamara is listening to pax's preferences. If Az offers a similar product for less $, we're game to try it.

Hmm --- included wine, included gratuities, and charge less for it -- are they really that hard up for bookings?

Alternatively, Oceania may be rather confident based on their past marketing success, and increasing their fares (too?) aggressively, time will tell.

I must say that I find these constant digs about Oceania's prices to be somewhat disingenuous.

Clearly, you are a great admirer of the Oceania product yourself, or you wouldn't be so anxious for the prices to come down.

I say this with the greatest respect, but if Oceania is no longer within your means, perhaps you would be happier shopping elsewhere.

I'd love to buy the gorgeous produce at Whole Foods, but $4.50 for a single red pepper is more than I am willing to pay, so I patronize another store.

Life is all about compromise ;)

I must say that I find these constant digs about Oceania's prices to be somewhat disingenuous.

 

Clearly, you are a great admirer of the Oceania product yourself, or you wouldn't be so anxious for the prices to come down.

 

I say this with the greatest respect, but if Oceania is no longer within your means, perhaps you would be happier shopping elsewhere.

 

I don't see at all how Meows comment that Oceania is confident so increasing their pricing is a dig?

However, you assume that Meow wants to try Azamara because she can not afford Oceania. Perhaps she is just a good consumer.

I don't see at all how Meows comment that Oceania is confident so increasing their pricing is a dig?

 

However, you assume that Meow wants to try Azamara because she can not afford Oceania. Perhaps she is just a good consumer.

I agree - there are some posters on these boards who simply cannot tolerate any criticism of O. That is very unfortunate and renders their posts less credible. There is good and bad about every cruise line. O is not perfect by any means.

I looked at Azamara for quite a while but did not book because it was priced similarly to O and the criticisms of Azamara put me off. Now things seem to have changed. Azamara seems to offer a similar (a few say better) product for less money and even O cruisers are giving Azamara high marks. I can afford ANY cruise I want (and the $4.50 pepper), but overpaying or paying more for the same thing is not in my blood. I agree with Meow, who I would bet is in the same boat.

Although I love O, I will be giving Azamara serious consideration going forward. Itineraries will dictate. I also like the overnights in port. And as has been said before on another thread about the disappointing 2012 itineraries, O's itineraries are getting a little tired.

...hard up for bookings...Really?

Really. Let's review the history. First, Royal Caribbean tries to buy Oceania. Then, Oceania tries to buy more "R" ships, but Royal Caribbean blocks the move by buying them first. At first, RCCL has no idea what to do with them -- there's talk of putting them with Celebrity Xpedition in a "small ship" division of Celebrity, but ultimately they decide to start a new cruise line and copy Oceania in every respect.

Azamara is created as a division of Celebrity, with Celebrity management. The decision to copy Oceania, however, is blatant, since none of the Azamara policies math Celebrity. At the time, Celebrity had only fixed dining and formal nights; Az had open dining and country club casual. Az (at the time) had the exact same smoking restrictions as Oceania, while Celebrity was more liberal. They even rebuilt the ships to get closer to Oceania -- Journey and Quest sprang from the only two R ships that were "different", in that they had no suites on deck 8.

It was clear to anyone who was watching closely at the time that RCCL (the owner of Celebrity) was trying to steal Oceania clients any way they could, perhaps in retaliation for their failed attempt to buy Oceania. They even raided Oceania for some staff!

If so, the plan fell flat on it's face. Only a few Oceania guests tried Azamara back then, and most of those came back with poor comparisons. At the same time, Celebrity loyalists who tried Azamara were confused by the policies -- At that time, the Celebrity board on Cruise Critic was filled with folks who staunchly defended traditional dining and formal nights.

The only thing Celebrity management could do to fill their ships was lower the price. Even then, most reports said that the only thing that made Azamara worth choosing was the lower price. Yes, they were "listening to the passengers' preferences", and those preferences were clearly for Oceania unless Azamara was deeply discounted! Even the fact that they called their room stewards (for all cabins) "butlers" didn't seem to help.

After several years floundering around like this, it was apparent that even Celebrity management was so deeply entrenched in the mass market mindset that the only way to improve Azamara was to bring in new management. RCCL hired Larry Pimentel, formerly of Sea Dream Yacht Club, to turn Azamara around.

Mr. Pimentel, an able manager, made several immediate changes. He renamed the cruise line "Azamara Club Cruises" and apparently was given a free hand to manage Azamara free of Celebrity influence. He got rid of the fake "butlers", improved training, brought in a new mindset, added the free wine pouring at lunch and dinner -- and raised prices to match Oceania. When he was asked what he thought about Mr. Pimentel, FDR commented, "At least they won't be trying to copy us any longer".

The reaction was immediate. Celebrity loyalists were incensed that prices had gone up, but many Oceania loyalists reported that Azamara was almost as good as Oceania. Along the way, however, something apparently slipped, because fares have reportedly gone back down somewhat (in order to entice bookings, I would suppose), wine is still being poured (another "bribe" to entice bookings), and free gratuities have been added to the mix.

No matter how much cruise lines "listen to the passengers" and respond to their wishes, they are still being operated as a for-profit business. There are two methods to compete in that business -- offer a better product, or offer a lower price. Lowering the fares and paying for wine and gratuities are clearly part of the latter method. Has Azamara improved enough to match Oceania's experience? Apparently not, or they would not have to lower their price.

Is Oceania worth the extra money? I guess it depends on how discriminatory the guests are. O continues to generate loyalty without having to resort to "buying" it; I think that sends a pretty clear message.

Funny - I get twice as many email promotions and brochures for Oceania as I do for Azamara.

Unless someone here has access to Azamara's books, I don't think anyone can determine if they are "hard up" for bookings. Not all O ships sail full either. There are huge discounts offered on O sailings to Alaska and several 2011 European cruises. There are A loyalists just as there are O loyalists.

I do not understand how people on these boards making sweeping conclusory statements without anything behind them besides their own personal biases.

I prefer to keep an open mind.

Because my opinions are based not on experience, but on perception, a different take.

I have never cruised, but have thought for several years about cruising, looked mainly at Oceania and Azamara for a cruise, and last year booked a late 2011 cruise on Oceania.

The responses on this thread and on the identical thread on the Azamara board are surprising. Roughly 12 months ago, there was some negativity on the Azamara board. Before 2010, my take was that Azamara was Oceania Lite--same ships, same concept, roughly the same product with Oceania slightly better, but with clearly better pricing offering very good and perhaps superior value. Then in 2010 there was new management at Azamara, resulting in increased pricing that narrowed the price gap between Oceania and Azamara and 2011 itineraries featuring a number of shorter cruises of fine to seven nights.

Now, with two new ships coming into service, Oceania is appparently increasing its pricing, again creating a pricing gap between itself and Azamara. In the long run, supply and demand will reign. If perceived to offer superior value, Azamara will increase its pricing. If sales become more challenging, especially with its increased capacity, Oceania will adjust its pricing accordingly.

An issue that is being raised with increasing frequency on the Azamara and Oceania boards is the quality of service offered by the two companies with Azamara cruisers competing for superlatives in describing Azamara's crews. Over a two year period, Oceania is doubling its capacity. There will be growing pains. Next year--if I understand correctly that it will be operating its two new ships as well as two R ships--Oceania will have nearly three times the passenger capacity of Azamara. The pricing gap between the two cruise lines will change, but it seems that at this time, for one picking between these two lines, this may be a good time to consider Azamara.

Again, thoughts from someone who really doesn't know.

Because my opinions are based not on experience, but on perception, a different take.

 

I have never cruised, but have thought for several years about cruising, looked mainly at Oceania and Azamara for a cruise, and last year booked a late 2011 cruise on Oceania.

 

The responses on this thread and on the identical thread on the Azamara board are surprising. Roughly 12 months ago, there was some negativity on the Azamara board. Before 2010, my take was that Azamara was Oceania Lite--same ships, same concept, roughly the same product with Oceania slightly better, but with clearly better pricing offering very good and perhaps superior value. Then in 2010 there was new management at Azamara, resulting in increased pricing that narrowed the price gap between Oceania and Azamara and 2011 itineraries featuring a number of shorter cruises of fine to seven nights.

 

Now, with two new ships coming into service, Oceania is appparently increasing its pricing, again creating a pricing gap between itself and Azamara. In the long run, supply and demand will reign. If perceived to offer superior value, Azamara will increase its pricing. If sales become more challenging, especially with its increased capacity, Oceania will adjust its pricing accordingly.

 

An issue that is being raised with increasing frequency on the Azamara and Oceania boards is the quality of service offered by the two companies with Azamara cruisers competing for superlatives in describing Azamara's crews. Over a two year period, Oceania is doubling its capacity. There will be growing pains. Next year--if I understand correctly that it will be operating its two new ships as well as two R ships--Oceania will have nearly three times the passenger capacity of Azamara. The pricing gap between the two cruise lines will change, but it seems that at this time, for one picking between these two lines, this may be a good time to consider Azamara.

 

Again, thoughts from someone who really doesn't know.

I think your perceptions are right on the money. I have made a similar analysis after monitoring the Azamara boards.