Poer arrival and departure changes

[Vallesan]

7 minutes ago, Tranquility Base said:

Sure; however IF the decision has been made to sail at reduced speed, surely ONE of the  priorities is to inconvenience as few passengers as little as possible.

 

Many of us had this "one hour later on arrival ; one hour earlier on departure" situation last year.

My recollection is that this was notified by email weeks before sailing.

Not on day of boarding.

 

If major disruption is occurring elsewhere, I would have thought keeping problems on other ships as minor as possible would be smart.

Earliest notification possible to those affected is one such measure.

 

 

Last year the world  situation was very different to this year!

I can only say that the cruise lines probably know better than we do what their priorities are. I don’t believe any ‘business’ will ‘aggravate’ their customers knowingly without thought. After all without customers they have no business ….. no matter what they are selling!

[clo]

15 hours ago, pmatawan said:

On a multi segment cruise, crew knows nothing about future segments. Can't even book a ship tour on next segment yet.

I may be misunderstanding here but we have what I think would be called "multi segment" and because of Simply More I've booked excursions on both segments.

[Queen of DaNile]

18 hours ago, pmatawan said:

Nothing wrong with ship. It seems to be the norm lately as I have read here about these issues on cruise critic and Facebook. I'm guessing it is a cost saving issue. When I say Miami makes these decisions its a direct quote from cruise director and others on board. On a multi segment cruise, crew knows nothing about future segments. Can't even book a ship tour on next segment yet. So planning for upcoming ports is difficult without firm information of port arrival and departure times. I canceled a private excursion going to Hanoi as I anticipate we will depart 1 hour earlier than what's currently on the schedule.

I heard third hand yesterday that there IS a problem with one of the ship's engines. If it is true,  it should be communicated to the guests to stop speculation. 

Edited January 29 by Queen of DaNile

[Snaefell3]

1 hour ago, Queen of DaNile said:

I heard third hand yesterday that there IS a problem with one of the ship's engines. If it is true,  it should be communicated to the guests to stop speculation. 

"Slow steaming".  Could indeed be because of motor (or generator) problems, but more likely done to lower fuel costs -- you'll note we haven't been seeing Fuel Surcharges despite higher fuel costs.

[pmatawan]

7 hours ago, clo said:

I may be misunderstanding here but we have what I think would be called "multi segment" and because of Simply More I've booked excursions on both segments.

I was able to book excursions for all 6 segments prior to boarding ship. Once on board, I can only book current segment.

[ak1004]

We love O, but those reports are really concerning to us. We travel to see the world, not to be on the ship.

 

That said, on our recent SS cruise we spoke to several people and they mentioned that they had similar issues on their SS sailings. There are also reports on social media about cancelled ports on other lines, including SB and SS. So at this point, I'm not convinced that O does this more than other lines - but if indeed it does, we will be looking for alternatives, even if we have to pay more.

[pmatawan]

4 hours ago, Snaefell3 said:

"Slow steaming".  Could indeed be because of motor (or generator) problems, but more likely done to lower fuel costs -- you'll note we haven't been seeing Fuel Surcharges despite higher fuel costs.

I have never heard of a ship charging fuel surcharges even when fuel prices were higher then now. I asked the crew at reception why port times are being shortened and they say only " operational issues". When I followup with additional questions, they say port conflicts. When I ask are there port conflicts at 9 of the 10 ports on this segment, the answer goes back to " operational issues". So apparently, the crew is unable to communicate the truth, whatever it may be. They do deny any problem with the engine.

[clo]

4 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

We love O, but those reports are really concerning to us. We travel to see the world, not to be on the ship.

 

That said, on our recent SS cruise we spoke to several people and they mentioned that they had similar issues on their SS sailings. There are also reports on social media about cancelled ports on other lines, including SB and SS. So at this point, I'm not convinced that O does this more than other lines - but if indeed it does, we will be looking for alternatives, even if we have to pay more.

Thanks for this. I'd been having the same thoughts/feelings. Maybe someone could "Ask a Cruise Question" about this.

[Snaefell3]

51 minutes ago, pmatawan said:

I have never heard of a ship charging fuel surcharges even when fuel prices were higher then now.

I've *paid* them, albeit not recently.

 

From the Ticket Contract for our cruise this coming March, §2.i:

"Carrier reserves the right to charge a fuel surcharge supplement, without prior notice, should the closing price of West Texas Intermediate Fuel increase above $65 USD per barrel on the NYMEX".  For what it's worth, WTI closed today at $74.51/bbl.

[tigerfan75]

31 minutes ago, Snaefell3 said:

I've *paid* them, albeit not recently.

 

From the Ticket Contract for our cruise this coming March, §2.i:

"Carrier reserves the right to charge a fuel surcharge supplement, without prior notice, should the closing price of West Texas Intermediate Fuel increase above $65 USD per barrel on the NYMEX".  For what it's worth, WTI closed today at $74.51/bbl.

I’ve also paid them.  It was when we last sailed Cunard about 12 years ago….

[Tranquility Base]

Is my time onshore worth $6.43 per hour......you betcha it is.

 

As my teacher used to say ...."show all workings".

 

Fuel Surcharge is a maximum  of $10 pp per day.

I am using $6 pp pd as my example.

15 day cruise for a couple = $180.

14 hours lost of the OP's segment.

$180 / 14 = $12.86 per hour per couple or $6.43 per hour per person.

 

Warp speed, Mr Sulu;

Aye, Captain.

[Snaefell3]

4 minutes ago, Tranquility Base said:

Is my time onshore worth $6.43 per hour......you betcha it is.

Reasonable attitude.

 

Methinks O's attitude is "Shorter port stays won't trigger the same general fury as extra fees added after Final Payment". 🙄

[ORV]

I’ve been cruising since 1998 and never paid a fuel surcharge. Maybe it depends on the cruise line. I’ve been on ships of all the big 3 plus Costa and Silversea, prior to being part of RCG and Regent before they were part of NCL. Pretty sure fuel has been higher in some of that period than it is now. 

[pmatawan]

23 hours ago, clo said:

I may be misunderstanding here but we have what I think would be called "multi segment" and because of Simply More I've booked excursions on both segments.

Prior to boarding I was able to book ship excursions on each of the 5 segments. Due to the changes in port arrivals and departures, I canceled several private excursions on future segments in anticipation of additional future schedule changes. I have been unable to book replacement ship tours for future segments of this cruise.

[clo]

59 minutes ago, pmatawan said:

Prior to boarding I was able to book ship excursions on each of the 5 segments. Due to the changes in port arrivals and departures, I canceled several private excursions on future segments in anticipation of additional future schedule changes. I have been unable to book replacement ship tours for future segments of this cruise.

Thanks. I'm certainly going to look at that Good explanation.

[Snaefell3]

1 hour ago, ORV said:

I’ve been cruising since 1998 and never paid a fuel surcharge. Maybe it depends on the cruise line. I’ve been on ships of all the big 3 plus Costa and Silversea, prior to being part of RCG and Regent before they were part of NCL. Pretty sure fuel has been higher in some of that period than it is now. 

You don't get fuel surcharges because of high fuel prices, per se.  Lines build the expected price of fuel into their fares.  You get fuel surcharges when the lines don't see a price rise coming.

 

For example, it looks like $65/bbl WTI fuel costs were built into our fare for this coming March  (or so indicates §2.i of our Ticket Contract).  With WTI closing at $74/bbl yesterday, O has the legal right to add a Fuel Surcharge even now after Final Payment, but I think they are using "slow steaming" as a less --uhm-- provocative alternative.

 

[Hanoj]

On 1/30/2024 at 8:37 AM, Snaefell3 said:

You don't get fuel surcharges because of high fuel prices, per se.  Lines build the expected price of fuel into their fares.  You get fuel surcharges when the lines don't see a price rise coming.

 

For example, it looks like $65/bbl WTI fuel costs were built into our fare for this coming March  (or so indicates §2.i of our Ticket Contract).  With WTI closing at $74/bbl yesterday, O has the legal right to add a Fuel Surcharge even now after Final Payment, but I think they are using "slow steaming" as a less --uhm-- provocative alternative.

 

And you don’t see a price rise coming when the price elasticity of demand doesn’t allow for it. I think the revenge spending after the shutdowns may have played itself out for cruises. Many have experienced declines in service and quality and are noticing what appear to be less than transparently communicated cost cutting measures, which risk consumers losing confidence thereby diminishing demand. O seems to be using port durations roulette as a pathway of least resistance.   
 

I just priced a late June 2024 Alaska cruise on Regatta in a PH3 (Seattle to Seattle - I won’t begin or end a cruise in Vancouver BC) and it’s over $1,563 per night. I’m unwilling to let O “optimize arrival and departure times,” ostensibly as part of their Sail & Sustain program, to reduce operating costs. I read in a in Regatta cruise review that the guests “were cured of ever cruising again” over such changes. I think I’m there. Sailed on Vista in August around the British Isles and we had port duration changes communicated after we boarded. 
 

It’s improbable every cruise line will survive the present challenges facing the industry. Oceania may be hastening its own demise. Or not. In the meantime, I will postpone booking decisions, either to chose last minute deals (for which I would be willing to accept compromises and lowered expectations) or to let it play out.

 

 

[pmatawan]

Well some officers admit there is an engine issue affecting cruise speed. Most guests onboard that I have spoken to seem to feel that a proper explanation would have been received better then " technical issue".

[Tranquility Base]

2 hours ago, pmatawan said:

Well some officers admit there is an engine issue affecting cruise speed. Most guests onboard that I have spoken to seem to feel that a proper explanation would have been received better then " technical issue".

Last year we were sailing from Colombo - Muscat - Dubai - Aqaba - Mediterranean on Princess.

We were late leaving Columbo that night due to a refuelling issue. 

The next day we were sailing slower than normal.

The Captain announced a generator problem, and parts and personal would  board in Dubai and fix the problem enroute. 

Muscat would have to be missed as Dubai was a turnaround port, and in order to start repairs ASAP. Apparently it was a reasonably big job.

 

The first few days ex Dubai the Captain gave 'the team are still working on it" updates.

It became obvious on about day three that we would not make Aqaba (Petra on schedule).

Soon after that Captain announced Aqaba delayed by 1 day, Suez transit delayed by 1 day, first port in the Med substituted by another closer non-scheduled port.

 

Soon after that Captain announced 'all fixed', slow speed to remain in the Red Sea due to already announced delay, but normal speed after Suez.

 

All in all, contingency plan was well executed and communications were made in a timely and professional manner.

Edited February 5 by Tranquility Base

[QuestionEverything]

On 1/29/2024 at 6:57 PM, ak1004 said:

We love O, but those reports are really concerning to us. We travel to see the world, not to be on the ship.

 

That said, on our recent SS cruise we spoke to several people and they mentioned that they had similar issues on their SS sailings. There are also reports on social media about cancelled ports on other lines, including SB and SS. So at this point, I'm not convinced that O does this more than other lines - but if indeed it does, we will be looking for alternatives, even if we have to pay more.

We are the same - it is all about the ports. Reliability on arrival and departure is a very significant metric for us.

I believe ORV posted on another thread (a long post with 4 or 5 paragraphs) that O is known by many as having one of the poorer reliability for arrivals.

I have noted many posters stating the same over the years, and I have experienced some dubious O excuses.

Having been on numerous bulk carriers on the Great Lakes, I understand ship context versus weather etc (been in mighty storms on the Great Lakes), so I am aware of complexity.

The O bull about shortened port time being "environmental" fools no one.

The O history of port arrivals, poor corporate communication to guests and now lack of shore excursions, has resulted in us having O bookings at this time.

 

 

[pmatawan]

Well last week Oceania changed our arrival time into Nha Trang port today from 10 am to 12 noon due to a technical issue. Today we arrived 2 hour early into port,  so I'm assuming they fixed the "technical issue".

 

[pinotlover]

A bit of pondering:

 

1.  In a couple months, Oceania will release a new set of cruises, the first big release in a couple of years. These wouldn’t be cruises and times they haven’t been able to sell for two years, but new releases. Grab hold of your shorts when you see the new prices.

 

2. Whether partially rebuilt or not, those on R ships are on 20+ year old vessels, some of which “were rolled hard and put away wet “ by other lines. I’m guessing at least one of them ( probably Regatta) won’t be on that new cruise release. FDR has already said they aren’t going to keep pouring dollars into those ships. Buyer beware when booking a R ship. Oceania will try to keep it going at a price.

 

3. A friend just yesterday returned from a NCL cruise ( same company as O). They missed half the ports, and were always given lane excuses. He said never again.  I believe this slow steaming, skip ports, reduced port times game is turning customers off. Possible new answer, see #1 above and wait for the new pricing. 

[QuestionEverything]

pinotlover - thanks for your excellent analysis directly above.

Your points are well taken.

Especially the NCL linkage to O and NCL.............

I have the impression the cruise lines think we are all desperate to cruise and will put up with price increases, downgrading of product, tampering with itineraries - News Flash, no many of us are not. Not my household or our 4 friends households who have cruised for decades - none of us have cruises booked. 

 

 

[Vineyard View]

Stuff happens. Ports are skipped, technical occurs. It seems a pattern higher on O than others based on reading here as well as the other book face. It occurs to me that how a company responds when stuff happens is important.
I read on the other book face that there was a technical issue with a SB port recently. I don’t recall the details. What stood out - All were provided an apology, a $250 OBC, and a 10% off future cruise if booked within 30 days. Not the only time I have read similar on SB, or other boards. Viking comes to mind as well. 

I do not read very much about O responding in a positive way when stuff happens - skipped ports or shortened ports. Maybe a new thread highlighting when/if  that does occur would be helpful for those of us who hesitate booking, in large part, because of how O has negatively handled so many instances. 

[Vallesan]

41 minutes ago, Vineyard View said:

Stuff happens. Ports are skipped, technical occurs. It seems a pattern higher on O than others based on reading here as well as the other book face. It occurs to me that how a company responds when stuff happens is important.
I read on the other book face that there was a technical issue with a SB port recently. I don’t recall the details. What stood out - All were provided an apology, a $250 OBC, and a 10% off future cruise if booked within 30 days. Not the only time I have read similar on SB, or other boards. Viking comes to mind as well. 

I do not read very much about O responding in a positive way when stuff happens - skipped ports or shortened ports. Maybe a new thread highlighting when/if  that does occur would be helpful for those of us who hesitate booking, in large part, because of how O has negatively handled so many instances. 

We only ‘know’ that Oceania is ‘guilty’ of missing ports etc more than other lines because of what is reported here. We actually don’t know as a ‘fact’! 
Anybody have any ‘real’ data?