Viking versus Oceania

I just noticed this thread on the Viking board

http://boards.cruisecritic.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2345680

and thought it might be of interest to some of you. I know that this topic was discussed at some point last year and wonder whether anyone else has more recent views on the matter. We have been on two Oceania cruises (both on O ships) and loved them so much that we are about to go on a third, but am considering Viking for a Baltic cruise.

I just noticed this thread on the Viking board

http://boards.cruisecritic.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2345680

and thought it might be of interest to some of you. I know that this topic was discussed at some point last year and wonder whether anyone else has more recent views on the matter. We have been on two Oceania cruises (both on O ships) and loved them so much that we are about to go on a third, but am considering Viking for a Baltic cruise.

Thank you for sharing this ... interesting read ... we are leaving sunday for our first O experience.

Viking looks fantastic....but they really do not have great itineraries. Istanbul, Tunisia, Algeria....really? Maybe when they have more ships sailing they can add more interesting ports. Plus, in the Baltic I don't want to embark or disembark in Bergen. Not easy to get to/from.

Having used both lines a couple of comments;

1. The differential in the quality of food between the two lines are huge! However, if one is satisfied with ok food, but not great food, then the price differential between the two lines may not be worth the difference in price alone. Viking charges extra for their specialty restaurants and those are definitely not up to O's standards.

2. Viking's included tours are much more cattle car operations than most here would like overall. One still has the option of arranging their own tours and probably should.

3. Some people like the sleek and clean IKEA look of Viking. After about a day, I found it boring. I enjoy all the artwork and upscale furnishings of O over the IKEA look of Viking. It gives those "at sea" days a different filing. Some people sit in their cabins most of those days so it's a each to his their own thing.

4. I haven't fortunately been on a noro cruise, but I felt there exists a higher level of personal service on O than on Viking overall.

I guess my summary of the entire experience is that Viking is OK but not great. That goes across the board in most all categories. I wouldn't denounce them as bad in any aspect. On an individual basis one must determine if they'd rather pay less to have OK (to mediocre) food, ok crew service, and just an overall OK pleasant time, to paying more and having a more exceptional experience (most of the time omitting the noro cases) on Oceania. On the food side, let's be honest, some people are just as happy eating at Ponderosa as they are a real steakhouse preparing exceptional food. The wines, offered by the glass on Viking were phlonk. For some, phlonk is fine especially if cheap. It's just a case of what matters to you. If you are just as happy staying in a Holiday Inn resort and not paying the premium to stay in a Westin Resort then I believe you will be very satisfied with Viking over Oceania. Nothing wrong with either decision, just a personal one.

I will add a comment to the note above about getting into Bergen. For those of us that don't fly in the day of the cruise, getting to Bergen is simple. UA has non stop service from EWR to Oslo. Oslo is a tourist destination of its own., and I wish that Oceania included it in more on its schedule. One of the scenic splendors of Norway is the train ride from Oslo to Bergen. So it's as simple as taking the highly efficient train system to Bergen and a cheap cab ride to the port.

Thank you for the link.

I take this review, like most others, with a grain of salt - mostly because I do not know the poster and his/her likes and dislikes.

For example, OP posts the following:

"It seemed like staff on Oceania were not empowered to stretch the rules or know when to go outside the box. Rules seemed to take precedence over customer service. Not the case one Viking. For example, on Oceania, if you were one minute early for the buffet or main dining room you had to wait until the "correct" opening time. However, on Viking they would seat you early and not blink an eye. Viking staff were generally more helpful and seemed empowered to make decisions."

I have no idea what OP means by this as we often go to the Terrace well before opening as we like a particular table for 2 in the corner. Not only are we welcomed to sit down, we are offered drinks even before the buffet opens; and the food is often available 5 to 10 minutes before official opening time. The MDR is stricter for opening times as you need to be seated by the staff rather than just seat yourself and this cannot be done before they are ready. IMO, it is unfair to expect the staff to be ready well before opening of the MDR as they do need to rest sometime between lunch and dinner.

Also, Manfredi's may be better than Toscana (according to OP) but I would definitely miss Polo, Jacques & Red Ginger - especially as Toscana is my least favorite of the four.

In addition, while sushi is OK, I am not a fish lover (but I do love shellfish/seafood).

Thus from the sound of it, I am likely to be much happier with the food on O than Viking - unlike OP.

To each their own :)

Thank you for the link.

I take this review, like most others, with a grain of salt - mostly because I do not know the poster and his/her likes and dislikes.

For example, OP posts the following:

"It seemed like staff on Oceania were not empowered to stretch the rules or know when to go outside the box. Rules seemed to take precedence over customer service. Not the case one Viking. For example, on Oceania, if you were one minute early for the buffet or main dining room you had to wait until the "correct" opening time. However, on Viking they would seat you early and not blink an eye. Viking staff were generally more helpful and seemed empowered to make decisions."

I have no idea what OP means by this as we often go to the Terrace well before opening as we like a particular table for 2 in the corner. Not only are we welcomed to sit down, we are offered drinks even before the buffet opens; and the food is often available 5 to 10 minutes before official opening time. The MDR is stricter for opening times as you need to be seated by the staff rather than just seat yourself and this cannot be done before they are ready. IMO, it is unfair to expect the staff to be ready well before opening of the MDR as they do need to rest sometime between lunch and dinner.

Also, Manfredi's may be better than Toscana (according to OP) but I would definitely miss Polo, Jacques & Red Ginger - especially as Toscana is my least favorite of the four.

In addition, while sushi is OK, I am not a fish lover (but I do love shellfish/seafood).

Thus from the sound of it, I am likely to be much happier with the food on O than Viking - unlike OP.

To each their own :)

The Viking appears to be a sort of knockoff of a O ship minus the ambiance and food... and an extension of a river cruise operation at sea ( I could never see a river cruise...where you can drive the same route)

. I think I will stick with O which is an American co and with which I have good experiences and relations/agents

I too could care less about Sushi or Toscana . Yes It would be great in O put in some 14 day cruises up and down the norway coast like the other lines....

Seeing that region is only economically practical by cruise ship, much like Tahiti where land costs are obscene.

Having used both lines a couple of comments;

 

1. The differential in the quality of food between the two lines are huge! However, if one is satisfied with ok food, but not great food, then the price differential between the two lines may not be worth the difference in price alone. Viking charges extra for their specialty restaurants and those are definitely not up to O's standards.

 

2. Viking's included tours are much more cattle car operations than most here would like overall. One still has the option of arranging their own tours and probably should.

 

3. Some people like the sleek and clean IKEA look of Viking. After about a day, I found it boring. I enjoy all the artwork and upscale furnishings of O over the IKEA look of Viking. It gives those "at sea" days a different filing. Some people sit in their cabins most of those days so it's a each to his their own thing.

 

4. I haven't fortunately been on a noro cruise, but I felt there exists a higher level of personal service on O than on Viking overall.

 

I guess my summary of the entire experience is that Viking is OK but not great. That goes across the board in most all categories. I wouldn't denounce them as bad in any aspect. On an individual basis one must determine if they'd rather pay less to have OK (to mediocre) food, ok crew service, and just an overall OK pleasant time, to paying more and having a more exceptional experience (most of the time omitting the noro cases) on Oceania. On the food side, let's be honest, some people are just as happy eating at Ponderosa as they are a real steakhouse preparing exceptional food. The wines, offered by the glass on Viking were phlonk. For some, phlonk is fine especially if cheap. It's just a case of what matters to you. If you are just as happy staying in a Holiday Inn resort and not paying the premium to stay in a Westin Resort then I believe you will be very satisfied with Viking over Oceania. Nothing wrong with either decision, just a personal one.

 

I will add a comment to the note above about getting into Bergen. For those of us that don't fly in the day of the cruise, getting to Bergen is simple. UA has non stop service from EWR to Oslo. Oslo is a tourist destination of its own., and I wish that Oceania included it in more on its schedule. One of the scenic splendors of Norway is the train ride from Oslo to Bergen. So it's as simple as taking the highly efficient train system to Bergen and a cheap cab ride to the port.

Viking doesn't charge for their specialty restaurants.

I went back and read the original comparison of a Viking Oceans cruise and an Oceania cruise, and disagreed with a lot of things the poster said. Of course, everyone's experience is different, and everyone steps on a ship with different desires, so that's often going to be the case. We sailed on Viking Star in September 2015 and we've been on Oceania a lot, both large and small ships, with our last cruise in January 2016, Marina to the South Pacific. The things I most disagreed with when reading the original thread are:

Viking had a better selection of food on the buffet. Yes, it was quite good, but not better. I guess there might have been more non-meat offerings as the poster wanted, but I'm a meat eater and don't mind eating meat a lot. I think the grills on O ships add a dimension to the buffet experience that Viking has (so far, anyway) not topped.

Poster didn't eat in dining room for dinner, or at least didn't review it, and I felt O's and V's were about the same. V had more tables for two, though, if you want that. They are not exactly quiet or private, though! Also, if you like to be served, you'll want to know that Viking's dining room is not ALWAYS open for breakfast and lunch, so some trips to the buffet or Mamsens (limited menu, but nice venue) may be needed, with no service. Also, if having food in the buffet placed on your plate by servers is important to you, be aware that Viking does less of that than Oceania. (Wash your hands a lot.)

Disagree that V had more variety at pool grill. O definitely had more if you're into both meat and fish!

Viking's food overall was quite good, and usually O's is too - I'm happy with both lines in that regard.

Agree that O's tea is better, but not by much, unless it's the selection of tea that's important. Viking had wonderful WARM scones, though - that's all I wanted and didn't care about much else!

Those free excursions offered by Viking were great as long as you don't want anything long or special. We took some and enjoyed them, but some people have bashed them as being piddly. Nevertheless, you'll save a lot of money by taking them compared to even the cheapest excursions offered by Oceania. Then again, you can go out and do things on your own for not much money in most ports, so that's what we often do.

Rooms were similar in size and amenities to Oceania's. Yes, closet and drawer space in veranda cabins was a little limited compared to O's, but unless you're on a very long cruise and/or like to take twice as much stuff on a cruise than I do, it's adequate.

As to where I feel Viking gives a better experience: If you like modern and airy, Viking is for you. Yes, the bathrooms in veranda cabins are wonderful. The whole ship (Star) is beautiful, and there's plenty of space to spread out and be by yourself - or not. I'm not so sure there was a difference in the "say yes" aspect - but I really didn't have an opportunity to test it on Viking! I feel both lines are great in being willing to do "your world your way."

For a cruise longer than 12 days, or ones with lots of sea days, I'd probably lean towards Oceania, as there are more food venues (especially on the O ships) and more entertainment and activities. Our O South Pacific cruise had lots of sea days and lots of entertainment during the sea days - excellent! On the O ships, I usually enjoy the Artist's Loft. If you like a very visible and hands on cruise director, you may prefer O, based on my one cruise on V.

The original review of O vs V was focused 80% on food, but of course there are many other factors that come into play when choosing which line is best for you. Personally, I loved both lines, and will continue to consider both equally. However, right now Viking's itineraries are limited, and availability of the least expensive rooms is limited unless you book even earlier than you have to do on Oceania. Those two things are significant handicaps for us. For now, itinerary will rule (as it always does) but I'm hoping Viking will be able to branch out more in the next couple years so that I have more choice. That would be ideal. I'm also hoping that they don't start cutting corners once they're less in the spotlight (i.e., not a new line trying to make a great impression.)

We hope to try Viking sometime buf for now the itineraries are too basic, been there, done that. Their included excursions are less valuable if you've already been to a port.

We did Viking river and mostly liked the product other than food. Their river menus emphasize fish. Those who really enjoy fish rated the food higher than I did. Their "meat" selections were mostly of middling quality.

They've diversified their ocean menus which look pretty good.,

I think Viking Ocean cruises are great for people who have cruised on Viking Rivers but haven't done ocean cruising and perhaps aren't sure if they'll like it or not. The itineraries are, as you say, pretty basic, plus they've made things a little easier than on most cruise lines by providing an included excursion in each port. You don't have to make as many decisions as you do on most cruise lines, or worry as much about how much you'll spend on board after you've already spent a lot for the cruise itself (for example, basic beer & wine for the most part are included, plus the excursion in each port (Viking's choice, not yours!))

So many great replies.

Very good point being brought up about Oceania's port selection being superior to Viking. This is clearly the case for me. Harder to select a good Viking cruise as just not as interesting itineraries. Also very limited choice in the Caribbean as Viking seems content for now to do a small excursion out of Puerto Rico. Also, don't understand why Viking often stays two days in their first port. We were lucky, as Viking changed their itinerary on our cruise at the last minute and skipped the extra day in Istanbul (due to the recent bombing in Taksim area, I think) and spent at day at Troy, instead. On the Caribbean cruises, they spend two days in Puerto Rico at the beginning, which makes little sense as one can arrive early if one wants more time -- or stay an extra day as the end up there also. Imagine if Oceania started each of their Caribbean cruises with two days in Miami!

Also, great point about Viking sometimes not opening their dining room for lunch. We had looked at the lunch menu on the television in the cabin and I saw they were offering a Monte Cristo sandwich and was planning to try it out (the one on the Oceania was great -- and for me the Viking Reuben sandwich was slightly better than the Oceania Reuben, so wanted to see how the Monte Cristo's compared.) It was very odd to have seen the menu for that lunch and then not get to eat there. (It is nice that Viking shows menus on their television -- but great for Oceania to do the same.) Oceania as the surf and turf sandwich available, that is worth noting -- in general, Viking doesn't seem to be a very lobster friendly ship -- maybe friendly to the lobster but not to the lobster eaters. :)

For us, the Viking excursions were short and simple. On the Oceania we usually take excursions on our own, as the Oceania excursions are priced quite high, and better for us to hire a driver or do something on our own, spending the same or just slightly, and getting a more personalized experience. But since the Viking Cruises were free, we decided to take most of them, and very happy to have a short excursion that allowed us to eat lunch on the ship.

Though both my wife and I are not crazy about beef (we don't eat beef, pork, lamb or chicken at home due to the environmental impact and the cruel treatment of animals on U.S. farms), we treat ourselves to any food that appeals to us on vacation (within limits -- we wouldn't eat whale meat, rhino meat, etc.) We love the Florentine steak at Manfredi's. That was something special. I also ate the prime rib at the buffet (excellent quality -- not as good as the 32 ounce prime rib at Oceania's Polo Grill, but a more manageable portion.) I am a big fan of duck and lamb, and Viking offered an excellent roasted duck in the buffet one night and had lamb several times in several forms. Missed the option of having the grilled lamb chops or lobster that Oceania offers on at the Terrace Cafe and, as I and others pointed out, this is an important point in Oceania's favor.

Definitely love Oceania's Red Ginger. Prefer that way over Polo Grill, Toscana or Manfredi's. So, yes, not having something to match Jacques or Red Ginger, is a negative. However, I think the quality of freshness on Viking, for our trip at least, was even superior to Oceania. For example, the tuna sashima was fresher and better than on Oceania. Also we had octopus sushi available every night at Viking at that was a real treat.

It was sort of odd we didn't eat in the main dining room. It was just the buffet provided such a great sampling of main courses that we just never ending up setting aside a night to go to the main dining room. Due this fact alone, any comparisons I can make of of dining between the two ships will be inadequate. That is why it is great to see other people post on this topic, as I think that are adding so much more than my original post.

The main reason we went on Viking is to try something different than Oceania -- we have had tried everything on the Red Ginger menu -- and almost everything that appeals to us in the Oceania specialty restaurants. In addition, Oceania rotates their menus for the main dining room, so it was worth it to explore Viking. If Oceania could make some improvements in terms of more spice and flavor to some dishes, more selection of regional food and provide a better selection of healthy food, whole grain bread and expand their sushi offerings, there would be little reason for us to take any other line.

Not sure which is a better value. When one factors in Viking free excursions, free wine and beer with meals and free laundry, I think both are so close that one shouldn't consider price, but just which ship has a better itinerary or matches one food preference's better.

Variety is the spice of life and we may try a Holland America cruise, even though it may fall short of the Oceania or Viking experience, just for the different experience. We also considering going on Seabourn.

So many great replies.

 

Not sure which is a better value. When one factors in Viking free excursions, free wine and beer with meals and free laundry, I think both are so close that one shouldn't consider price, but just which ship has a better itinerary or matches one food preference's better.

 

Variety is the spice of life and we may try a Holland America cruise, even though it may fall short of the Oceania or Viking experience, just for the different experience. We also considering going on Seabourn.

I don't mean to slam Holland, as I've never cruised with them. However, my impression of them is that they are DEFINITELY a cut below Viking or Oceania. I've also noticed they have had a lot of norovirus episodes per the CDC website tally, although I realize they DO have a lot of ships, and so I should cut them some slack for that. I've also heard from a friend that the quality has declined over the past 5 years or so. I cruise mostly for the places we visit, but sometimes you sit back and realize that the ship DOES matter. After being die hard Oceania fans, we took a chance on Celebrity for 2 (or maybe 3?) Caribbean cruises on their 2500 or so pax ship (Summit). What interested me is that they offered cheaper and shorter cruises in the Caribbean, and because I like trying new things. The first cruise was tolerable, but now we're to the "never again" point. Now if I take a chance on anything, it will probably be Azamara. Their itineraries are limited as they only have two ships, but at least they're interesting. They also have small ships, and (hopefully, anyway) they're a little better quality than Celebrity, which I believe owns Azamara. Seaborne just sounds too formal for our cruising style, and too pricey.

I also tried to compare Viking versus Oceania price-wise, and agree that they're probably close. The free airfare on Oceania has to be considered against the freebies that Viking offers. I notice that Viking is starting to offer free air fare now, which is interesting. What some people often forget when it comes to pricing, though, is the number of ports that cruise ships visit. You can go on a pretty cheap cruise on some of the big boys, but very often you'll spend many, many more days at sea. I just tracked one ship, for example, that embarked passengers in Florida and didn't stop until they got to Boston, three days later. Now they're in Boston for 2 days. I would NOT have been happy on that itinerary!

I'm sure Viking will offer more itineraries in time. Oceania's were somewhat limited in the early years!

Sorry, I spelled Seabourn incorrectly! Also, just for the record, Oceania has free laundry rooms too.

Sorry, I spelled Seabourn incorrectly! Also, just for the record, Oceania has free laundry rooms too.

Is the free usage of the washers and dryers on Oceania a recent change? The last time I cruised on Oceania Rivera, they charged for the usage of their washers and dryers.

Is the free usage of the washers and dryers on Oceania a recent change? The last time I cruised on Oceania Rivera, they charged for the usage of their washers and dryers.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. The washers and dryers aren't free, just the irons. It's pretty inexpensive, though - certainly better than paying for the cruise line to do your laundry!

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. The washers and dryers aren't free, just the irons. It's pretty inexpensive, though - certainly better than paying for the cruise line to do your laundry!

They are inexpensive as you say. However, I don't like hassles-and I did not like having to constantly go to reception to buy those tokens to put in those washers and dryers. To me there is simply to much nickle and diming with Oceania-which is one reason why my wife and I have to decided to cruise with the true luxury cruise lines-like Crystal. But hey, to each his own. :)

PS: I will give Oceania credit where credit is due, and in my humble opinion the food on Oceania was excellent. However, for us the excellent food did not outweigh, (in my opinion) the mediocre service and the nickel and diming.

They are inexpensive as you say. However, I don't like hassles-and I did not like having to constantly go to reception to buy those tokens to put in those washers and dryers. To me there is simply to much nickle and diming with Oceania-which is one reason why my wife and I have to decided to cruise with the true luxury cruise lines-like Crystal. But hey, to each his own. :)

 

PS: I will give Oceania credit where credit is due, and in my humble opinion the food on Oceania was excellent. However, for us the excellent food did not outweigh, (in my opinion) the mediocre service and the nickel and diming.

Does Crystal have included laundry?

Does Crystal have included laundry?

ORV, yes the washers and dryers are free. Also, they are open 24 hours and day. In addition, I almost always saw available washers and dryers-no matter what time of day or night I went in to use them.

I did not like having to constantly go to reception to buy those tokens to put in those washers and dryers.

You couldn't buy more than one at a time? :confused:

I like ships where washed and folded laundry is included. Happened on the Mekong, but it was limited to 7 pieces per person in 7 days.

You couldn't buy more than one at a time? :confused:

 

I like ships where washed and folded laundry is included. Happened on the Mekong, but it was limited to 7 pieces per person in 7 days.

I don't remember whether you could or not . However, I don't think that there were any refunds if you did had any tokens left over.

I was kidding. Of course, you could buy more than one. I used mine up.

Since we seem to have (sort of) segued into comparing Crystal and Oceania, I'll throw in my 2 cents. In planning an autumn Med cruise, I looked at both lines very seriously. In the end, I chose Oceania. Partly because the itinerary matched what we wanted, but also because Crystal has 2 formal nights. This particular European trip of ours is 2 months in length, with train travel in Italy, a Paris apartment and the 8-day cruise in the middle of it all. We didn't want to pack suits, shined shoes and other formal attire since we need to travel light. And, I guess we're just slobs at heart and feel more comfortable in business casual, nice sundresses and sandals. We live in a big city and can dress up to eat any time we want, so that formality just isn't an appeal on vacation.

Also, personally, I'd rather use my online credit to choose the wines I want with dinner. It might be nice to have wine included in the price (Crystal), but my experience is that the free stuff is always something I don't particularly like. I don't want to be stuck with a cloying Chardonnay if I don't want it.

I don't remember whether you could or not . However, I don't think that there were any refunds if you did had any tokens left over.

Actually you can turn in the extra tokens if you have leftovers. I have recent experience with this.

You can also get them from the Concierges in the lounge if you have access there. You can also get them from the machine in the laundry room.

But I think your point is that there shouldn't be a charge at all. I'm pretty sure there's a reason why, and it's not necessarily a profit one.

1. The differential in the quality of food between the two lines are huge! However, if one is satisfied with ok food, but not great food, then the price differential between the two lines may not be worth the difference in price alone.

3. Some people like the sleek and clean IKEA look of Viking. After about a day, I found it boring.

4. I haven't fortunately been on a noro cruise.

 

I guess my summary of the entire experience is that Viking is OK but not great. That goes across the board in most all categories. I wouldn't denounce them as bad in any aspect. On an individual basis one must determine if they'd rather pay less to have OK (to mediocre) food, ok crew service, and just an overall OK pleasant time, to paying more and having a more exceptional experience (most of the time omitting the noro cases) on Oceania. On the food side, let's be honest, some people are just as happy eating at Ponderosa as they are a real steakhouse preparing exceptional food. The wines, offered by the glass on Viking were phlonk. For some, phlonk is fine especially if cheap. It's just a case of what matters to you. If you are just as happy staying in a Holiday Inn resort and not paying the premium to stay in a Westin Resort then I believe you will be very satisfied with Viking over Oceania. Nothing wrong with either decision, just a personal one.

You sound fairly negative on V which I can understand that overall you felt it more Holiday Inn than Westin. That is a nice way to summarize, but more details on food would help me.

I have been on a Noro cruise on Riviera. I didn't get Noro but I have no desire to be under Code Red again. Riviera continues to have problems so I am looking for an alternative.

You keep saying that V costs less than O but when I compare prices in the Caribbean in 2017 they appear fairly close to me as to booking cost of similar cabins. Now there are some details like included drinks and excursions that I am not adjusting the per diem, O Life includes some. The O air credit at $400 to MIA is not a large amount compared to the a cruise fare of $5000+ and V has some free air although no credit.

So I am not looking at V as a cost saving alternative to O, I see them as similar pricing. I am hoping for a similar level of quality, kind of a Business Class level substantially above main stream lines RCCL,X,NCL. At least this is not some timeshare long-term commitment, I can go on V once and then decide to be a repeat customer.

I do wonder about the IKEA look, if I will feel like I am in a nursing home or low security prison.