History Lesson?

There is some reference to, and indeed frustration with, the seeming perpetual "reinvention" of Azamara Club Cruises.

As a big believer in the explanatory power of history, just look at the today's interesting events in Scotland, I wonder if longtime ACC cruisers or HostAndy could provide a primer as to how this cruise line evolved.

For example, I think I know that the Quest and Journey were acquired from the defunct Renaissance Line and initially were part of Celebrity's fleet. I also think I know that the ACC brand was created to salvage Azamara which had a weak presence in the market.

I do know that when I first sailed on ACC a few years ago, I thought that there was no way it could continue to offer that on board experience at that price point.

I'm not suggesting this thread rehash arguments as to ACC's future, but perhaps it's history will help us decide if the current changes are revolutionary or evolutionary.

Thanks to anyone who can throw light upon this matter.

Nordski, if you want to learn about the evolution of Azamara, all you need do is sit down for a while and comb the old posts starting from the beginning. There's heaps of interesting reading in there.

I rarely post but after all the comments on the "enhancements" of the loyalty program I thought I would offer a story.....

A friend excitedly told me about a new restaurant he and his wife had found. They thought it was wonderful and he knew my wife and I would love it as well. When he told me the name, I explained that it used to be our favorite local restaurant and we used to go there all the time. It then changed hands and the new owners put in a lot more tables. The extra tables were so closely packed, we felt we were dining with the strangers next to us and we did not like it so we quit going.

He replied to me simply...... We never knew it the old way with less tables so we just loved it for what it was.

He had a very valid point that I have thought about a lot in reference many other things.

Maybe that is what Azamara is counting on??

The story certainly has a point! I am going on AZ for the first time in Feb. on an itinerary that is just awesome -- very exciting and unique (at least for me) I have been on R ships on 2 other lines. This is my most expensive and longest cruise though I have come close a few times -- I am really looking forward to the experience.

I must say that the last few months have "tarnished" my anticipation just a bit. I am like the 2nd diner -- just coming on the scene and I bet that I will be well impressed -- at least I hope so. But all this hulabaloo and discussion is making me feel negative about the cruise when I doubt I would have ordinarily if the timing a bit different. I was expecting less internet and laundry benefits (have the level to get something on several major lines but not line loyal enough to have full recognition of my 300 + day cruising history) but willing to try new line knowing that soon might have status. Now this status thing is not at all possible. Won't happen. Is it a deal breaker? -- probably not but it will be a factor and IS a factor even for this upcoming cruise. Negative vibes swelling loud and long -- does not set up even new or satisfied customers to have a positive experience. AZ has hurt themselves.

Only they know why and how far they had to go (and even if consequences are horrible) for the reasons they took this action. If the reason was not good enough or proves fatal then loyal fans/investors will have bigger problems than just a bag of dirty laundry or internet minutes and their loyalty points will be worth zilch!

Here it is explained in just a couple paragraphs. A very short history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azamara_Club_Cruises

I do know that when I first sailed on ACC a few years ago, I thought that there was no way it could continue to offer that on board experience at that price point.

Prices were NOT increased because of the "more-inclusive" liquor policy or the introduction of Azamazing Evenings, as some keep repeating here. With ships the size of Quest and Journey, it simply is not possible to be profitable at the Celebrity price point, and the Azamara on-board experience was significantly different from Celebrity, HAL, and any other so-called "premium" line.

This is why Princess, with its much lower price point, has had its two R-ships on the market for some time now, and why cruise lines with ships carrying 700 passengers or fewer are at price points comparable with or higher than Azamara's now are, and why Oceania's two new ships have a [very unappealing to me] passenger capacity 73% higher than R-ships.

Here it is explained in just a couple paragraphs. A very short history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azamara_Club_Cruises

Well, I'm certainly embarrassed at not having thought of that source. Thanks for reminding me.

And din929 makes an excellent suggestion as well to do some selective research in the archives of this board.

With both these resources, it's a little easier to understand how ACC has come to its present iteration. Clearly, there are some posters here who have lived through these changes and I'm trying to understand that experience.

This is the crux of the matter. When Pimentel was named president, prices were such that the cruise line lost money even when the ships sailed full. Prices had to be increased or the line was on a going-out-of-business business plan. The on-board experience could not be sustained at that price point.

 

Prices were NOT increased because of the "more-inclusive" liquor policy or the introduction of Azamazing Evenings, as some keep repeating here. With ships the size of Quest and Journey, it simply is not possible to be profitable at the Celebrity price point, and the Azamara on-board experience was significantly different from Celebrity, HAL, and any other so-called "premium" line.

 

This is why Princess, with its much lower price point, has had its two R-ships on the market for some time now, and why cruise lines with ships carrying 700 passengers or fewer are at price points comparable with or higher than Azamara's now are, and why Oceania's two new ships have a [very unappealing to me] passenger capacity 73% higher than R-ships.

Thanks for confirming what I remembered of the most recent transition.

I had no idea that Princess was shopping around its R ships.

This is the crux of the matter. When Pimentel was named president, prices were such that the cruise line lost money even when the ships sailed full. Prices had to be increased or the line was on a going-out-of-business business plan. The on-board experience could not be sustained at that price point.

 

Prices were NOT increased because of the "more-inclusive" liquor policy or the introduction of Azamazing Evenings, as some keep repeating here. With ships the size of Quest and Journey, it simply is not possible to be profitable at the Celebrity price point, and the Azamara on-board experience was significantly different from Celebrity, HAL, and any other so-called "premium" line.

 

This is why Princess, with its much lower price point, has had its two R-ships on the market for some time now, and why cruise lines with ships carrying 700 passengers or fewer are at price points comparable with or higher than Azamara's now are, and why Oceania's two new ships have a [very unappealing to me] passenger capacity 73% higher than R-ships.

I agree with your analysis. Just can not put on a quality product at a price point that is mid to premium range on 600 + passenger ships.

We like small ships and have done several different kinds from 24 passenger River cruise on the Amazon R. to less than 100 on a paddle boat and 65 on the fjords of NZ and again on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and 42 on Galapagos Island tour of 8 islands. All were a much different package than "cruise ship" with dining rooms and bars etc. Each was chosen for their particular special niche and experience and each did that well and had a good experience, good food but not "foodie" dining experience, most had nature or marine or history specialist as only entertainment and some had alcohol but only simple drinks. Because of small numbers, laundry done on ship for a small fee, internet not really -- but pulled into harbor almost daily. Crew maybe 15 -20 if included seamen. Many of these ships loosely defined as "family run" with Captain over crew, naturalist as cruise director, hotel manager/accountant/hostess etc in one with some staff who served/cleaned/baggage person and whatever including life guarding and piloting motor boats.

Not saying AZ will go to this but they will have to find a niche and that is going to be painful for the loyals who like just as it was. Perhaps those same loyals would be priced off the ships if they went to a model that could make money for company with only 650 passengers. My best guess would be to go for long and exotic journeys with makeover to be suites only and very exclusive and luxury oriented old folks homes. Nursing homes seem to get away with huge prices when you can't cruise anymore. :rolleyes:

I think this is at the heart of all the current "problems" if like Princess you have two loss making ships as part of a bigger entity then commercially it might not be ideal but it can be coped with. So when Azamara was part of Celebrity the same would apply but as a stand alone line with two small ships the cost of a cruise has to reflect the running cost of a 600+ pax ship so you have to offer something different or extra to a mainstream cruise line this is where Azamara are heading I feel.

We were told when on Ocean Princess a few years ago that the cost of the senior staff on the ship was exactly the same as a Grand class ship but this had to be covered by 650 pax instead of 3000. Running costs while they were less they were not substantially so, direct staff, food etc were proportional to passengers, the end result was that fares on the small ships needed to be substantially higher to make them profitable. However it was still basically Princess and passengers had a price expectation, this is obviously what Celebrity found as well hence the existence of Azamara.

We have had the pleasure of travelling the Galapagos Islands on Celebrity Xpedition that without doubt was the most expensive one weeks cruise we have ever taken, but with 92 passengers and all inclusive (even the plane flying to Balta was Celebrity branded) there was no expectation the cost per person should be the same as an "S" class.

Princess did have a third ship the old R8 which had previously been sailing as Minerva 2 for a one ship upmarket UK line Swan Hellenic (was part of Carnival Corp but was sold when the ship was transferred to Princess). This became Royal Princess but was transferred to P&O UK a few years ago to become Adonia, I say this as today we had an email offering a 10 day Christmas Market cruise (usually very popular in the UK) on Adonia with Inside, Outside and Balconies all at £599 ($960) pp. This is just one in a long line of offers for this ship, which seems to give credence to the argument that small ship cruising needs to offer a more "luxurious" experience as it appeals to a different market?

Bowie

Don't worry about anything. We've recently finished our 5th Az cruise in 3 years. The on board cruise has been wonderful in each instance. This site, like many other social media sites, has a very high proportion of negativity. My experience is that Azamara ashore (I.e. Royal Carribean) are hopeless. They are not user friendly in any shape or form. We will never buy "Open Pasage" onboard again and they tend to stuff up B2b bookings (e.g. different cabins for consecutive cruises). A lot of the negativity is due to the on shore administrative operations - they are HOPELESS. However, the on board experience is wonderful. I have no doubt you will love all aspects of the cruise - itinerary, fellow travellers, entertainment, food, crew, support staff, port locations, free water/shuttles to very good locations, organisation (at least) of the Azamazing nights, white night.

Tony

I agree completely about the Azamara back office staff. The customer service people I have contacted with questions or concerns tend to be clueless, uncooperative and occasionally rude. Many seem to have some difficulty with the English language as well. The staff on the ships are uniformly excellent.

Yes, the onboard experience is wonderful, but less of that is being made available all the time during the time I cruise (spring and fall) with the substantial increase in the amount of charters.

There is some reference to, and indeed frustration with, the seeming perpetual "reinvention" of Azamara Club Cruises.

 

As a big believer in the explanatory power of history, just look at the today's interesting events in Scotland, I wonder if longtime ACC cruisers or HostAndy could provide a primer as to how this cruise line evolved.

 

For example, I think I know that the Quest and Journey were acquired from the defunct Renaissance Line and initially were part of Celebrity's fleet. I also think I know that the ACC brand was created to salvage Azamara which had a weak presence in the market.

 

Hi Nordski,

The Wikipedia page will offer a great deal of information. Just to add a little more info : You are correct in that Journey and Quest were Renaissance ships at one point. Journey was R Six, and Quest was R Seven.

Here's the press release from May 2007 : http://www.rclinvestor.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=103045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=996028&highlight=

The initial plan was for the 2 ships, Blue Dream (Journey) and Blue Moon (Quest), which were transferred from Pullmantur... to be named Celebrity Journey and Celebrity Quest. In May 2007, and the very last minute, the brand was separated from Celebrity, and Azamara Cruises was born - also led by Celebrity's President & CEO, Dan Hanrahan. Reportedly, the plan was so "hush hush", that the crew were unaware of the rebranding until the last moment. Unfortunately, Journey's maiden voyage was a mess - as the ship was not ready from her $19 million dollar makeover in drydock. There were reports of several unfinished items. I remember the howling on the forum - it was incredible.

I sailed on Quest's maiden voyage in November 2007 - which was also delayed from her originally scheduled sailing date, by a few weeks. While they were much better prepared on Quest, and we had a very nice time despite some incredibly bad weather... that I recall, there were many instances where the words Celebrity and their trademark X were visible around the ship.

Larry Pimentel was brought in to run Azamara in July 2009. Through his leadership, they rebranded as Azamara Club Cruises in December 2009. Here's a link to the July 2009 Press Release : http://www.rclinvestor.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=103045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1304602&highlight=

If you have additional questions, please feel free to ask !

This is the crux of the matter. When Pimentel was named president, prices were such that the cruise line lost money even when the ships sailed full. Prices had to be increased or the line was on a going-out-of-business business plan. The on-board experience could not be sustained at that price point.

 

Prices were NOT increased because of the "more-inclusive" liquor policy or the introduction of Azamazing Evenings, as some keep repeating here. With ships the size of Quest and Journey, it simply is not possible to be profitable at the Celebrity price point, and the Azamara on-board experience was significantly different from Celebrity, HAL, and any other so-called "premium" line.

 

This is why Princess, with its much lower price point, has had its two R-ships on the market for some time now, and why cruise lines with ships carrying 700 passengers or fewer are at price points comparable with or higher than Azamara's now are, and why Oceania's two new ships have a [very unappealing to me] passenger capacity 73% higher than R-ships.

I think this is a good analysis.

I'm waiting for another Azamara ship as many of us have for a while and talk of which we have heard on the ships for probably about the same length of time. If we are to believe the talk of Larry Pimental (I have no reason not to) and with a more positive economic outlook I personally feel now is the time, especially with the lengthy charters in Quest's future. A new ship would make me feel much more comfortable about the Azamara future and it will set a new standard to aim for in terms of the company and all of the ships. Not too big though please.

Phil

Hi Nordski,

 

The Wikipedia page will offer a great deal of information. Just to add a little more info : You are correct in that Journey and Quest were Renaissance ships at one point. Journey was R Six, and Quest was R Seven.

 

Here's the press release from May 2007 : http://www.rclinvestor.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=103045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=996028&highlight=

 

The initial plan was for the 2 ships, Blue Dream (Journey) and Blue Moon (Quest), which were transferred from Pullmantur... to be named Celebrity Journey and Celebrity Quest. In May 2007, and the very last minute, the brand was separated from Celebrity, and Azamara Cruises was born - also led by Celebrity's President & CEO, Dan Hanrahan. Reportedly, the plan was so "hush hush", that the crew were unaware of the rebranding until the last moment. Unfortunately, Journey's maiden voyage was a mess - as the ship was not ready from her $19 million dollar makeover in drydock. There were reports of several unfinished items. I remember the howling on the forum - it was incredible.

 

I sailed on Quest's maiden voyage in November 2007 - which was also delayed from her originally scheduled sailing date, by a few weeks. While they were much better prepared on Quest, and we had a very nice time despite some incredibly bad weather... that I recall, there were many instances where the words Celebrity and their trademark X were visible around the ship.

 

Larry Pimentel was brought in to run Azamara in July 2009. Through his leadership, they rebranded as Azamara Club Cruises in December 2009. Here's a link to the July 2009 Press Release : http://www.rclinvestor.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=103045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1304602&highlight=

 

If you have additional questions, please feel free to ask !

Thanks so much for those links.

Interesting how the terms "intimate" (referring to the onboard experience) and "immersion" (referring to ports) were established early in the line's history and have remained constant themes as to the "niche" Azamara wishes to occupy. Of course, the strategy for sustaining those goals has altered.

Also, the rather loose use of the descriptors "deluxe", "premium" and "luxury" was, perhaps unfortunately, there from the start.

I've also tried to identify when Bill Leiber's outstanding role as CBO began, since his personal responses seemed to me to represent ACC's "intimate" approach. I can't find an announcement concerning his appointment, but the earliest post seems to be in November 2010. Is that about right?

The story certainly has a point! I am going on AZ for the first time in Feb. on an itinerary that is just awesome -- very exciting and unique (at least for me) I have been on R ships on 2 other lines. This is my most expensive and longest cruise though I have come close a few times -- I am really looking forward to the experience.

 

I must say that the last few months have "tarnished" my anticipation just a bit. I am like the 2nd diner -- just coming on the scene and I bet that I will be well impressed -- at least I hope so. But all this hulabaloo and discussion is making me feel negative about the cruise when I doubt I would have ordinarily if the timing a bit different. I was expecting less internet and laundry benefits (have the level to get something on several major lines but not line loyal enough to have full recognition of my 300 + day cruising history) but willing to try new line knowing that soon might have status. Now this status thing is not at all possible. Won't happen. Is it a deal breaker? -- probably not but it will be a

factor and IS a factor even for this upcoming cruise. Negative vibes swelling loud and long -- does not set up even new or satisfied customers to have a positive experience. AZ has hurt themselves.

Only they know why and how far they had to go (and even if consequences are horrible) for the reasons they took this action. If the reason was not good enough or proves fatal then loyal fans/investors will have bigger problems than just a bag of dirty laundry or internet minutes and their loyalty points will be worth zilch!

You will have a wonderful time. We are doing our second Az cruise in 7 weeks and can't wait. I'm sure the loyalty changes won't affect your experience. We think Az is like no other company - just a wonderful experience!

Thanks so much for those links.

You are welcome !

I've also tried to identify when Bill Leiber's outstanding role as CBO began, since his personal responses seemed to me to represent ACC's "intimate" approach. I can't find an announcement concerning his appointment, but the earliest post seems to be in November 2010. Is that about right?

Bill made his Cruise Critic debut on October 13, 2010. Thought our community would enjoy reading Bill's post #1, of 1,642 posts : http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1291487

You are so right about Bill. His writing style and approach matched Azamara so perfectly. Thanks to my conversations with Bill, I believe my writing style improved greatly, as he knew how to speak from the heart, and deliver the message with passion and integrity... even when the news was something we were less than pleased with. IMO, he was the perfect CBO.

Gems like Bill are one in a million, and he's dearly missed - both on a professional level and, as a dear friend.

You are welcome !

 

 

 

 

Bill made his Cruise Critic debut on October 13, 2010. Thought our community would enjoy reading Bill's post #1, of 1,642 posts : http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1291487

 

You are so right about Bill. His writing style and approach matched Azamara so perfectly. Thanks to my conversations with Bill, I believe my writing style improved greatly, as he knew how to speak from the heart, and deliver the message with passion and integrity... even when the news was something we were less than pleased with. IMO, he was the perfect CBO.

 

Gems like Bill are one in a million, and he's dearly missed - both on a professional level and, as a dear friend.

Bill's post is an invaluable link to the creation of the CBO on this forum, a position that Azamara has wisely continued to fill.

In it, the rationale and mission are clearly described and, as we all know, have become part of the Azamara experience and tradition.

I am particularly drawn to the important distinction

Bill makes between "factual knowledge" and "inferential knowledge", and his role in promoting the former and dispelling the latter.

Thanks Host Andy for providing access to this initial statement that I was unable to locate. Perhaps it needs a place of honor on this forum.

There is some reference to, and indeed frustration with, the seeming perpetual "reinvention" of Azamara Club Cruises.

 

As a big believer in the explanatory power of history, just look at the today's interesting events in Scotland, I wonder if longtime ACC cruisers or HostAndy could provide a primer as to how this cruise line evolved.

 

For example, I think I know that the Quest and Journey were acquired from the defunct Renaissance Line and initially were part of Celebrity's fleet. I also think I know that the ACC brand was created to salvage Azamara which had a weak presence in the market.

 

I do know that when I first sailed on ACC a few years ago, I thought that there was no way it could continue to offer that on board experience at that price point.

 

I'm not suggesting this thread rehash arguments as to ACC's future, but perhaps it's history will help us decide if the current changes are revolutionary or evolutionary.

 

Thanks to anyone who can throw light upon this matter.

Nordski, I've been thinking about this post of yours because it's such an interesting take on what's going on with Azamara. I said earlier that reading ancient Azamara forum posts was a good way to learn what it was like in the beginning but I forgot that the Cruise Critic blogs are another source of info as well. And what an eye-opener I came across. :eek:

This is an article entitled "The Birth of Azamara" in which Carolyn Spencer Brown, CC Editor, interviewed then President Dan Hanrahan. http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=480 You wanted to know if Azamara's changes are "evolutionary" or "revolutionary?" Reading this article suggests that in some instances they are neither. The bungling that Azamara incurred way back in 2007 has reared its ugly head once more. Evolution? Revolution? Let's try "Stagnation." It kills me to say it but as much as I love Azamara they seem to pay no attention to their history, and as such are condemned to repeat it.

Each of us has his own views on what benefit(s) they will miss the most and what new benefit(s) they deem useless. I thought Mr. Hanrahan's response in the CC interview article about the one category upgrade in particular was excellent because I have very little hope of ever taking advantage of the $199 suite upgrade benefit. I wish the current President Larry Pimental would heed his words, as so:

CC: What are plans for a passenger loyalty program on Azamara, and how will it differ from the others? (asked by ocngypz)

DH: It will all be the same (as Celebrity) with two major exceptions. Since there's no thalassotherapy pool on Azamara, we can't offer that benefit. And we can't give out one-category upgrades. The size of the ship will preclude us from that because there just aren't enough cabin categories.

Azamara's Captain's Club is twinned with Celebrity's. If you've reached Elite on Celebrity, then you'll have reached Elite on Azamara.

Nordski, I've been thinking about this post of yours because it's such an interesting take on what's going on with Azamara. I said earlier that reading ancient Azamara forum posts was a good way to learn what it was like in the beginning but I forgot that the Cruise Critic blogs are another source of info as well. And what an eye-opener I came across. :eek:

 

This is an article entitled "The Birth of Azamara" in which Carolyn Spencer Brown, CC Editor, interviewed then President Dan Hanrahan. http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=480 You wanted to know if Azamara's changes are "evolutionary" or "revolutionary?" Reading this article suggests that in some instances they are neither. The bungling that Azamara incurred way back in 2007 has reared its ugly head once more. Evolution? Revolution? Let's try "Stagnation." It kills me to say it but as much as I love Azamara they seem to pay no attention to their history, and as such are condemned to repeat it.

 

Each of us has his own views on what benefit(s) they will miss the most and what new benefit(s) they deem useless. I thought Mr. Hanrahan's response in the CC interview article about the one category upgrade in particular was excellent because I have very little hope of ever taking advantage of the $199 suite upgrade benefit. I wish the current President Larry Pimental would heed his words, as so:

 

CC: What are plans for a passenger loyalty program on Azamara, and how will it differ from the others? (asked by ocngypz)

DH: It will all be the same (as Celebrity) with two major exceptions. Since there's no thalassotherapy pool on Azamara, we can't offer that benefit. And we can't give out one-category upgrades. The size of the ship will preclude us from that because there just aren't enough cabin categories.

 

Azamara's Captain's Club is twinned with Celebrity's. If you've reached Elite on Celebrity, then you'll have reached Elite on Azamara.

Thanks so much for the thoughtful response and interesting link.

I guess I'm less in the "bungling" camp since I do think there are some consistent themes in the product that ACC is trying to bring to the market.

However, the one theme that is exceptionally difficult to assess is "profitability" since we, obviously, do not have access to the metrics that have been applied for the past 5 years. Lottie A's post on another thread was promising. Oceania/Regent's sale to Norwegian may eventually prove instructive in how that cruise line will address profitability in smaller ships.

And there is another theme that I think is consistent, but this time on the part of ACC's clientele. A few years ago, when ACC announced their "more-inclusive" programme, which was correlated with an increase in fares (necessary in my opinion), there was also a "psychic storm" on this forum with, if I recall correctly, a number of posters demanding a refund based upon this change and vows to abandon ship.

I think it was in this context that the ever-astute CBO Bill Leiber pointed out an important feature of this storm: that for some of those posters it was an issue of "tough love". What I took him to mean was that those cruisers

really "loved" the ACC experience and demanded that it remain as it was including the cost. As an element of that debate some were upset that, as light or non-drinkers, they would be subsidizing "drinkers" and perhaps their propensity to over consume. Curiously, this argument has not emerged concerning free internet and, for example, my subsidizing those who are much more often online. Regardless, I think this "tough love" is a recurrent theme.

So I guess I see some themes and, as you cogently suggest, perhaps "bungling" in implementation to reach ACC's goals is one of them. I particularly enjoyed the quote from Dan Hanrahan.

And I certainly agree that those more loyal cruisers deserve better recognition and that the one level upgrade will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

On the other hand like some posters do I take this "bungling" personally? No, no more than when Dell loaded the egregious Windows 8.0 on my new computer. I am rather more interested as to how this "improvement" is corrected.

Thanks again for your response, and I am avidly following your exceptionally well-written review of your last cruise.

Nordski--regarding my comment of "bungling" I was thinking in terms of their ill-prepared launching of the brand. They released before they were truly ready and suffered quite a bit of backlash because of it. No doubt they were under pressure to get a move on and start sailing already. I think the same situation has happened now with LCV. With the revamp of Royal Caribbean's and Celebrity's loyalty program, there has to have been pressure on Azamara to get on with it and release their new loyalty formulation. This forum represents a miniscule portion of Azamara passengers and look at all the pressure that we alone put on them! So they released and the same kind of uproar they faced in 2007 they're repeating in 2014. My opinion is that it was then and is now an unnecessary bungling that tries the patience of its passengers who can, and have, voiced their displeasure by looking elsewhere.

On another note after reading through many of the posts in the last few weeks, it would appear that each of us has our own ideas about what should be chopped and what should be retained. I personally love that basic drinks are included and when I read someone who whines about "them" subsidizing "us" I think to myself, "Go to Oceania then if you're so peeved. They have R class ships and they'll make the drinkers pay through the teeth for it." What I've learned from LCV is that no matter how you try you can't please all the people all the time. You defintely have a point when you talk "tough love." :D

I personally love that basic drinks are included and when I read someone who whines about "them" subsidizing "us" I think to myself, "Go to Oceania then if you're so peeved. They have R class ships and they'll make the drinkers pay through the teeth for it."

As someone who enjoys cruising both on Oceania (really love the new and beautiful "O" ships) and Azamara, I object to your characterization of the drink costs on Oceania. One does not "pay through the teeth": there are many price points on the large and excellent wine list, daily two-for-one drink specials and Captain's parties on each cruise with free drinks. You also can bring aboard as much alcohol as you want at any port at no charge.

As someone who enjoys cruising both on Oceania (really love the new and beautiful "O" ships) and Azamara, I object to your characterization of the drink costs on Oceania. One does not "pay through the teeth": there are many price points on the large and excellent wine list, daily two-for-one drink specials and Captain's parties on each cruise with free drinks. You also can bring aboard as much alcohol as you want at any port at no charge.

No worries, Pam. I simply meant "pay through the teeth" in comparison to "free." Anytime you're paying for something that you could otherwise get as complimentary, it's an extravagance, even when the price is reasonable. I named Oceania only because they have the R class ships which are kissing cousins to the Quest and Journey (though probably not so much so since their extensive renovations!)