Simply More Means Simply Back to Which Cruise Line for You?

[MarkWiltonM]

With the Simply More program, we are no longer looking at Oceania for future bookings. 

 

Ironically, we started looking at Oceania a few years ago when Celebrity tried to force cruisers to take their "Always Included" package of alcoholic beverages, internet, and gratuities. We don't drink alcohol so we have avoided lines that include this with the fare (except for "old" Crystal, for which we made an exception because the food was so good). Now, Celebrity is once again giving cruisers a choice between "Cruise Only" and "Always Included" and Oceania is doing what Celebrity tried to do for several years. We've booked three cruises recently on Celebrity and have two more cruise-only Oceania cruises booked, on Vista and Marina. Although there are a few things we enjoy about the smaller ships of Oceania, we are actually looking forward to getting back to Celebrity, which in our opinion have a more vibrant, more contemporary atmosphere.  

 

Anyone else going back to cruise lines you had abandoned in favor of Oceania? 

[AMHuntFerry]

You might find this topic interesting since it has a similar discussion (although it includes trying new-to-cruiser lines too).

 

[Orator]

17 minutes ago, MarkWiltonM said:

With the Simply More program, we are no longer looking at Oceania for future bookings. 

 

Ironically, we started looking at Oceania a few years ago when Celebrity tried to force cruisers to take their "Always Included" package of alcoholic beverages, internet, and gratuities. We don't drink alcohol so we have avoided lines that include this with the fare (except for "old" Crystal, for which we made an exception because the food was so good). Now, Celebrity is once again giving cruisers a choice between "Cruise Only" and "Always Included" and Oceania is doing what Celebrity tried to do for several years. We've booked three cruises recently on Celebrity and have two more cruise-only Oceania cruises booked, on Vista and Marina. Although there are a few things we enjoy about the smaller ships of Oceania, we are actually looking forward to getting back to Celebrity, which in our opinion have a more vibrant, more contemporary atmosphere.  

 

Anyone else going back to cruise lines you had abandoned in favor of Oceania? 

Celebrity is now testing vaping in the casino.They are becoming more like Royal Caribbean. Read the Celebrity board before you consider returning.

[grifdoglover]

We don’t like huge ships and prefer new ships but we look at itinerary first, dates, prices and being a bit older now certain lines fit the bill differently then when we were younger.  Notice lines…not married to one brand and we have had great experiences and not so great on all our cruise travels.  Keep your options open as I said earlier variety is the spice of life.

[ak1004]

2 hours ago, MarkWiltonM said:

With the Simply More program, we are no longer looking at Oceania for future bookings. 

 

Ironically, we started looking at Oceania a few years ago when Celebrity tried to force cruisers to take their "Always Included" package of alcoholic beverages, internet, and gratuities. We don't drink alcohol so we have avoided lines that include this with the fare (except for "old" Crystal, for which we made an exception because the food was so good). Now, Celebrity is once again giving cruisers a choice between "Cruise Only" and "Always Included" and Oceania is doing what Celebrity tried to do for several years. We've booked three cruises recently on Celebrity and have two more cruise-only Oceania cruises booked, on Vista and Marina. Although there are a few things we enjoy about the smaller ships of Oceania, we are actually looking forward to getting back to Celebrity, which in our opinion have a more vibrant, more contemporary atmosphere.  

 

Anyone else going back to cruise lines you had abandoned in favor of Oceania? 

 

Our friends sailed with Celebrity for 30 years, reached Elite plus. We finally convinced them to try O. They are not going going back to Celebrity. 

 

After trying a Mercedes, we are not going back to Honda. Yes, it costs more, but nobody asks why Mercedes costs more than Honda..

 

If you want a luxury experience, you have to pay for it, including paying for things you don't use. 

[ORV]

4 hours ago, MarkWiltonM said:

With the Simply More program, we are no longer looking at Oceania for future bookings. 

 

Ironically, we started looking at Oceania a few years ago when Celebrity tried to force cruisers to take their "Always Included" package of alcoholic beverages, internet, and gratuities. We don't drink alcohol so we have avoided lines that include this with the fare (except for "old" Crystal, for which we made an exception because the food was so good). Now, Celebrity is once again giving cruisers a choice between "Cruise Only" and "Always Included" and Oceania is doing what Celebrity tried to do for several years. We've booked three cruises recently on Celebrity and have two more cruise-only Oceania cruises booked, on Vista and Marina. Although there are a few things we enjoy about the smaller ships of Oceania, we are actually looking forward to getting back to Celebrity, which in our opinion have a more vibrant, more contemporary atmosphere.  

 

Anyone else going back to cruise lines you had abandoned in favor of Oceania? 

OK

[Hlitner]

3 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 

Our friends sailed with Celebrity for 30 years, reached Elite plus. We finally convinced them to try O. They are not going going back to Celebrity. 

 

After trying a Mercedes, we are not going back to Honda. Yes, it costs more, but nobody asks why Mercedes costs more than Honda..

 

If you want a luxury experience, you have to pay for it, including paying for things you don't use. 

I think you are putting O into a category that does not fit.  When we think of luxury cruise lines we think of lines where there is no tipping, just about everything is included (all drinks, internet, caviar, etc), the space ratios (tons per passenger) are in the 70 range, and all cabins are suites with decent sized bathrooms (most with shower, tub, double sink).  Compare that to an O R-ship.

 

While we will not quibble with the "premium label" some apply to O, the "luxury" term does not apply.  As to Celebrity, we also moved away from that line (after attaining Elite Plus) for multiple reasons.  However, I think you would get a big argument from the folks who book their "retreat" suites when you think of X as a Honda.

 

As to paying for things you may not use, even most luxury lines (Seabourn, Silverseas, Sea Dream, Scenic, etc) do not force folks to pay for cruise line excursions!  The one big exception is Regent...and what a shocker...it happens to be part of the same NCLH family that is now playing the same game with O.  In fact, it is one reason we have avoided booking cruises on Regent.

 

Hank

[ak1004]

11 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

I think you are putting O into a category that does not fit.  When we think of luxury cruise lines we think of lines where there is no tipping, just about everything is included (all drinks, internet, caviar, etc), the space ratios (tons per passenger) are in the 70 range, and all cabins are suites with decent sized bathrooms (most with shower, tub, double sink).  Compare that to an O R-ship.

 

While we will not quibble with the "premium label" some apply to O, the "luxury" term does not apply.  As to Celebrity, we also moved away from that line (after attaining Elite Plus) for multiple reasons.  However, I think you would get a big argument from the folks who book their "retreat" suites when you think of X as a Honda.

 

As to paying for things you may not use, even most luxury lines (Seabourn, Silverseas, Sea Dream, Scenic, etc) do not force folks to pay for cruise line excursions!  The one big exception is Regent...and what a shocker...it happens to be part of the same NCLH family that is now playing the same game with O.  In fact, it is one reason we have avoided booking cruises on Regent.

 

Hank

 

I believe we discussed this before.

 

There are many parameters that define luxury.

 

I agree with you about Oceania R ships, I believe that the O class ships are a step above in terms of luxury (cabin size, space/passenger ratios, dining options etc.) space/passenger ratio of QM2 is higher than Oceania O ships - does it make it more luxury?

 

Inclusions is only one of the parameters. SS and regent are more inclusive than Regent - does it make them more luxury?

 

Crystal had entry level cabins smaller than O or Viking - and yet it was considered a luxury line while O and Viking are in the "premium" category.

 

The Celebrity retreat is probably in line with the luxury lines, but it's a small percentage of the cabins and cannot be considered as representative of what vast majority of Celebrity guests experience.

 

And as I mentioned in the other thread, SS includes excursions as well. So does Regent.

 

As we discussed, it's about the overall value.

Edited July 3, 2023 by ak1004

[DrKoob]

3 hours ago, ak1004 said:

 

Our friends sailed with Celebrity for 30 years, reached Elite plus. We finally convinced them to try O. They are not going going back to Celebrity. 

I agree. Besides, they took away all the Elite benefits by giving them to everyone on the ship. Slowed down the WiFi, no more Elite cocktail party every night, etc. But the OP is right, they do have a more vibrant and contemporary style. As for me, I am too old for vibrant and contemporary. 😜

[LHT28]

Most of the small cruise lines  have  drinks included  of some description  I could live with that 

what I do not want is  to pay for the excursions  I do not take

 

Will have to weigh the pros & cons of other lines we are interested in & Oceania

or maybe just  fly someplace   & explore  the area

 

 If O  had included the drinks  at lunch/dinner  fine 

but leave  the  excursions  as a package deal your can opt in/out of   or pay for those that you want

 

Time will tell  if this comes back to bite them in the pocket book or they  become the most popular line  at sea

JMO

 

[curmudgeon98]

We look at the overall value package of what we are getting that matters to us.  If there are things included that we won't use, or not included that we will, I don't fret about it as long as the overall product and cost works for us.

 

    

[Hanoj]

3 minutes ago, curmudgeon98 said:

We look at the overall value package of what we are getting that matters to us.  If there are things included that we won't use, or not included that we will, I don't fret about it as long as the overall product and cost works for us.

 

    

This is exactly our approach and why we are likely to consider several different lines for future cruises. But we are also doing more resort vacations and are doing more private tours in new destinations, an idea we have adapted from cruising. Prior to the shutdowns, cruising had become our preferred mode for travel. But now cruising is one of several options for travel/vacationing and we may go years between cruises. Our first cruise since two Viking cruises were canceled in 2020 and 2021 will be on Vista in August 2023, our first with Oceania. SM is not available for this cruise, and loosing the ability for cruise-only fares will mean we look at several different lines for future cruises. The cruise-only fares with ala carte pricing was a significant factor in choosing O since it was a better value to us since we eschew alcohol and ship sponsored tours.

[oskidunker]

No way would I go back to Princess. 

[Cliff-FLL]

7 hours ago, MarkWiltonM said:

Anyone else going back to cruise lines you had abandoned in favor of Oceania? 

As much as we've enjoyed Oceania, the recent changes will definitely make us take a closer look at former and never-used cruise lines.  We've been sailing only on Oceania for more that 14 years and, as much as we've enjoyed it, this is a great opportunity to take a closer look at what other lines are now offering.  With the change to simplyMore, exclusivity will be going out the door and Excel spreadsheets will become a major determinant in our cruise-line decision, on a cruise-by-cruise basis.  Bye, bye loyalty...

[Cliff-FLL]

3 minutes ago, oskidunker said:

No way would I go back to Princess. 

I agree.  Worst coffee on the seas. 🤮

[julia]

Why is everyone SO bent out of shape with the "inclusion" of beer and wine??   The cost to the cruise line for alcohol is MINIMAL!  It's not the $12-$15 drinks that are "included"... it's pennies on the dollar for what they pay wholesale.  FREE? No, nothing is free.  It's "included".  Get over it or move on.  

[Cliff-FLL]

15 minutes ago, julia said:

  FREE? No, nothing is free.  It's "included".  Get over it or move on.  

Except that Oceania is not saying it's "included".  Rather, they are very boldly proclaiming that these things are "FREE":

"2 for 1 Cruise Fares" - let's just say they've beaten that laughable horse to death;

"FREE Roundtrip Airfare" - but only if you pay more for the included-airfare option;

"FREE Airport Transfers" - but only if you pay more for the included-airfare option;

So how are either of these options "FREE" if you have to pay more to receive them?

 

Moving on, we get to the other FREE benefits of simply MORE:

"FREE Shore Excursions" - but only up to a certain dollar limit, depending on the cruise length;

"FREE Champagne, Wine, & More" - but only at certain times when they say you can have it;

"FREE Gourmet Specialty Dining" - which is no different than what they've always offered;

"FREE Unlimited Wi-Fi" - which, to the best of my knowledge, has always been the case.

 

For a cruise we have scheduled for May 2024, the new fare, without "FREE" airfare, increases the price by $400pp.  We're certainly not going to drink enough of their wines at lunch & dinner to justify that amount and the FREE shore excursions would probably be taken only so we don't lose the extra money we're already being charged.

 

So, to be clear, I don't intend to, "Get over it or move on."  I'll look at Oceania objectively, ignore all of their "FREE" perks while I compare them to other cruise lines, and make an informed decision as to whether or not Oceania is the best selection.  Before, I probably would have just decided which Oceania cruise I wanted.  Now, I'll simply decide on the basis of itinerary and what is more reasonably priced based on its "FREE" benefits.

[julia]

Well Cliff, I hate to tell you but.....

Oceania DOES NOT CARE if you move on.  Sorry.  Cold, hard, fact.

They are covering increased costs on EVERY LEVEL. As is every single cruise line, hotel, theme park, restaurant, grocery store, etc, etc. Bemoaning the increases will have no effect on the outcome. Either you CHOOSE to cruise or you don't.

[gcmv]

I will compare with Windstar for future cruises.

We cruised several times with them; as prices went up, we decided to try different cruise lines (Phoenix, Hapag Lloyd and Oceania)..

Now it's time to double-check again ...

[shepherd really]

4 hours ago, julia said:

 

Oceania DOES NOT CARE

That slogan should test well in focus groups.

[JKrise]

6 hours ago, julia said:

Why is everyone SO bent out of shape with the "inclusion" of beer and wine??   The cost to the cruise line for alcohol is MINIMAL!  It's not the $12-$15 drinks that are "included"... it's pennies on the dollar for what they pay wholesale.  FREE? No, nothing is free.  It's "included".  Get over it or move on.  

Lets be tolerant of different Points of View.

For instance I don't like the fact that I now have to pay for "Free Alcohol" when I do not drink.

The Oceania 'Cruise Only' fare offered a wonderful product at a great price that accommodated others like myself. 

Ah....who knows, maybe the 'Simple More' can be backed out of the price as a 'Credit' if you ask for it.

[QuestionEverything]

Been cruising since 1989. Been on many lines.

If, if, I cruise, O is no longer the go to. I am not paying for alcohol we do not drink, nor cruise ship shore excursions which are inferior to customized private tours, not interested in WiFi and we purchase 0 stuff on any ship.

We sail for itinerary - so Cunard is always in consideration. The mass lines do not go to the locations we are interested in.

However, a Big issue is this - cruising is definitely losing appeal to some people, so land travel trips are now our #1 priority. All our friends who travel extensively and cruised extensively......we all have our Trafalgar and Globus brochures front and center now.

Just booked a Trafalger 23 day tour of England, Scotland, Wales, crossing to N and S Ireland. 

My interest in cruising has plummeted and I know I am not the only consumer who is reducing cruising.

That is an issue for cruising - not so much the switching between lines.

 

[PhD-iva]

13 minutes ago, QuestionEverything said:

Been cruising since 1989. Been on many lines.

 

However, a Big issue is this - cruising is definitely losing appeal to some people, so land travel trips are now our #1 priority. All our friends who travel extensively and cruised extensively......we all have our Trafalgar and Globus brochures front and center now.

Just booked a Trafalger 23 day tour of England, Scotland, Wales, crossing to N and S Ireland. 

My interest in cruising has plummeted and I know I am not the only consumer who is reducing cruising.

That is an issue for cruising - not so much the switching between lines.

 

Agree. My next vacation is a land tour of Scotland with a three day post extension in London. Less than five weeks to go.

[MarkWiltonM]

We originally switched to Oceania because (1) the food was supposed to be incredible and (2) we didn't have to "pay" for alcohol as part of our fare, because we don't drink. We also don't buy cruise lines shore excursions any more, and Oceania didn't include these until now as something "free" that you actually are paying for in the increased fare. (Free is never free.)

 

Regarding the food, we do not find the food to be incredible. It is more consistently decent than on less-expensive lines like Celebrity and HAL, but it's still often disappointing. We've had crappy food in Jacques and especially Tuscan Grill, but also Red Ginger (we've also had very good food in Red Ginger and some good food in Jacques). Never bothered to go to Polo. We usually enjoy the GDR and Terrace Cafe. But the food can't compare, IMO, to the food that we had on Crystal ("old Crystal" as it's now called compared to "new Crystal" launching at the end of the month). Yes, Crystal was more expensive and did include alcohol, but I think food-wise it's a fair comparison because Oceania boasts  that it has "the finest cuisine at sea."

 

All that said, as long as we could purchase "cruise-only" fares we were keeping Oceania in the mix, planning to alternate the small ship and larger ship experiences. If Oceania brings back the cruise-only fares at some point, we'll take another look.

 

I believe FDR, Jr. said the Simply  More program was in response to travel agents' indicating that the O Life packages and choices were too confusing. They were. But I don't think it would be too confusing to slip back in a cruise-only option in the future. Not holding our breath, but since Celebrity backtracked on the same strategy perhaps Oceania will as well.  

 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by MarkWiltonM

[ak1004]

51 minutes ago, QuestionEverything said:

Been cruising since 1989. Been on many lines.

If, if, I cruise, O is no longer the go to. I am not paying for alcohol we do not drink, nor cruise ship shore excursions which are inferior to customized private tours, not interested in WiFi and we purchase 0 stuff on any ship.

We sail for itinerary - so Cunard is always in consideration. The mass lines do not go to the locations we are interested in.

However, a Big issue is this - cruising is definitely losing appeal to some people, so land travel trips are now our #1 priority. All our friends who travel extensively and cruised extensively......we all have our Trafalgar and Globus brochures front and center now.

Just booked a Trafalger 23 day tour of England, Scotland, Wales, crossing to N and S Ireland. 

My interest in cruising has plummeted and I know I am not the only consumer who is reducing cruising.

That is an issue for cruising - not so much the switching between lines.

 

 

Cruising is definitely losing appeal due to the higher costs?

 

I just looked at Trafalgar. Typical 10 nights trip to Europe is around $4,500-5,000 CAD. This is pretty much in line with the cost of OV cabin on Marina/Riviera. And it includes only breakfast and some dinners. All lunches are extra. So adding all extra costs, it might be more expensive than a cruise. And I'm not sure if Trafalgar is a good comparison to O, I think it's more comparable to mid range level like Celebrity.

 

Not to mention that packing/unpacking every few days and extensive time in buses moving from place to place is much less appealing to me.