After 25 Oceania cruises we will not come back..

[TRLD]

Just now, stevesol6718 said:

Please stop nit picking.   Are you an engineer or just like to show how bright you are?. Ours was the only room in the line on both sides that did not have air.   Our friends were next door and the air was fine. No open door, no closed drapes. Temp was as high as 90 degrees in the room.  Been on many cruises and know the rules.  Ship engineers were in to check maybe 25 times without result.  They never had a conclusion

Not nit picking just pointing out the characteristics of how cruise line AC systems are designed and work. I can clearly why the engineers around you would be scratching their heads if all the cabins around you were fine and the dampers and controls were working.

 

Clearly the ship spent time trying to solve the problem since you indicated that they stopped in to check often. 

 

Personally if faced with a similar situation where I considered the cabin to be unacceptable I would inform them that if they could not resolve the issue I would disembark at the next port.

 

What is unclear is if the ships engineers agreed that there was a problem and if they considered the room to be unacceptable. If they did then a letter to that condition would probably result in a refund of the remaining days if you left the ship.

 

By remaining on the cruise after they indicated that there was not another room available and the conditions remained made it into more of an inconvenience situation.

[Vineyard View]

16 minutes ago, TRLD said:

 

 

Personally if faced with a similar situation where I considered the cabin to be unacceptable I would inform them that if they could not resolve the issue I would disembark at the next port.

 

By remaining on the cruise after they indicated that there was not another room available and the conditions remained made it into more of an inconvenience situation.

Really???  This seems completely absurd to me!  They are just supposed to disembark in some port because the problem could not be resolved?  And then what?  Spend a ton of money on a hotel, flights, etc? Who wins in that suggestion? Not the passenger. I think that is a horrible solution. 

[clo]

10 hours ago, Sthrngary said:

@urlaub Just write Oceania a letter.  Mail it to the top executives in Florida. Make them sign for it.  Explain your situation.  Explain your cruise history.  Social Media is a place to vent not fix the issue.  Travel agents are not as committed to your resolution as you are.  Keep sending the letters weekly until they call you or answer you.  At this stage, Oceania or any brand has made you so disappointed, you may never go back.  So, now it is the principle of the thing.  Don't give up. 

 

Cruise well and enjoy every moment. 

ABSOLUTELY. Go to the top. 

[clo]

31 minutes ago, TRLD said:

What is unclear is if the ships engineers agreed that there was a problem and if they considered the room to be unacceptable. If they did then a letter to that condition would probably result in a refund of the remaining days if you left the ship.

 

I assume you're suggesting that the engineers themselves write this letter that they AND the OP can send. Sounds good to me.

[TRLD]

47 minutes ago, clo said:

I assume you're suggesting that the engineers themselves write this letter that they AND the OP can send. Sounds good to me.

What I am saying is that if they acknowledge that there is a problem and that they have not been able to fix it. Then I would request that they put it in writing and then I would terminate the cruise at the next port and request a refund for remaining cruise days.

 

I would not stay on the ship if I found conditions to be unacceptable. 

 

I would note that I have seen cases where the ships staff may placate a customer when they might think that the situation is not unusual. 

 

If one stays on board then the situation is an annoyance and one still gets the benefits of the cruise. 

[TRLD]

1 hour ago, Vineyard View said:

Really???  This seems completely absurd to me!  They are just supposed to disembark in some port because the problem could not be resolved?  And then what?  Spend a ton of money on a hotel, flights, etc? Who wins in that suggestion? Not the passenger. I think that is a horrible solution. 

Maybe so. I have done it and been refunded the remainder of the cruise fare. After all if a situation is unacceptable you do not exactly support one's case by accepting it.

 

Turned the time into a land trip in Europe.

 

In my case the problem was a noise issue which the cruise line indicated could not be fixed and no cabin was available. I disembarked at the next port. Rest of cruise fare was refunded.

 

Hard to say something is unacceptable if you are willing to accept it, continue getting the benefits of the cruise and then asking for compensation afterwards.

Edited March 6 by TRLD

[njhorseman]

12 hours ago, urlaub said:

Oceania is not as it was before they came under the roof of NCL.

Just because NCLH is the corporate name it doesn't mean that NCLH is run by NCL executives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Except for a very brief time immediately after Oceania and Regent Seven Seas became part of NCLH that corporation's CEO has been an "Oceania person". First, Frank Del Rio, Oceania's founder and now that FDR has retired Harry Sommer, who was an FDR protege. In fact to prepare Sommer for his eventual role as CEO of NCLH, FDR appointed Sommer to be CEO of NCL.

So the reality is just the opposite of what you suggest.  If anything the NCL "fans" should be complaining about being put under the umbrella of Prestige Cruise Holdings...Oceania and Regent Seven Seas.

Read the Cruise Critic boards of virtually every cruise line and you'll find similar complaints about the product not being what it used to be. 

[Vineyard View]

1 hour ago, TRLD said:

Maybe so. I have done it and been refunded the remainder of the cruise fare. After all if a situation is unacceptable you do not exactly support one's case by accepting it.

 

Turned the time into a land trip in Europe.

 

In my case the problem was a noise issue which the cruise line indicated could not be fixed and no cabin was available. I disembarked at the next port. Rest of cruise fare was refunded.

 

Hard to say something is unacceptable if you are willing to accept it, continue getting the benefits of the cruise and then asking for compensation afterwards.

It sounds like rolling the dice…..get off and hope you receive credit for the unused portion of your cruise, while you are spending money on land travel plus flights you had not budgeted for (unless you can land travel to the final destination of your cruise for flight home….which may or may not be possible. Sounds like it worked for you, but it also sounds like a fairly significant gamble. JMHO

[TRLD]

1 minute ago, Vineyard View said:

It sounds like rolling the dice…..get off and hope you receive credit for the unused portion of your cruise, while you are spending money on land travel plus flights you had not budgeted for (unless you can land travel to the final destination of your cruise for flight home….which may or may not be possible. Sounds like it worked for you, but it also sounds like a fairly significant gamble. JMHO

If a situation is unacceptable then put your money behind the claim, otherwise it is merely an annoyance.

 

 

[Vineyard View]

Just now, TRLD said:

If a situation is unacceptable then put your money behind the claim, otherwise it is merely an annoyance.

 

 

That is certainly one way of looking at it, but not necessarily the only way. 
 

[ORV]

Where I come from we call that cutting your nose off to spite your face. And since the OP in the issue was in South America having just been there I didn't see any ports I would have liked to get off at and find my own way home. 

[TRLD]

21 minutes ago, ORV said:

Where I come from we call that cutting your nose off to spite your face. And since the OP in the issue was in South America having just been there I didn't see any ports I would have liked to get off at and find my own way home. 

Would not have any problem traveling around or from most of the SA countries. Have spent time in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Peru and Brazil. 

 

Again if the situation is not bad enough to leave the cruise, then it is an annoyance because clearly it was acceptable enough to continue the cruise.

Edited March 7 by TRLD

[Tranquility Base]

....

Edited March 7 by Tranquility Base

[Snaefell3]

5 hours ago, ak1004 said:

Look at the recent Silver Nova fiasco and see that there are not many places to hide from the cruise lines corporate stupidity.

My 2¢:

• Delaying disembarkation for a photo op is bad optics.

• Scheduling flights so tight that an 11am arrival will make you miss them is rolling the dice anyway -- fog, whales, mariner in distress, man overboard, ...

[clo]

2 hours ago, TRLD said:

then I would terminate the cruise at the next port and request a refund for remaining cruise days.

That's where I disagree with you. Now you have even more to get refunded. And I think a lot more hoops to jump through. Flights - and hoping your next port has any, hotels, meals, etc.

[clo]

23 minutes ago, TRLD said:

Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Peru and Brazil. 

I haven't been to Uruguay but I can assure you that there are scores,probably hundreds of places that you can't fly out of.

[ak1004]

11 minutes ago, Snaefell3 said:

My 2¢:

• Delaying disembarkation for a photo op is bad optics.

• Scheduling flights so tight that an 11am arrival will make you miss them is rolling the dice anyway -- fog, whales, mariner in distress, man overboard, ...

I disagree. Booking a noon or 1pm flight is completely normal. Plenty of time. And for those who fly to Europe there might be only one direct flight.

 

And with 11am arrival, they have to rebook it.

[clo]

27 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

direct flight.

Do you mean direct or nonstop? Different things. Direct means a stop but you don't change planes.

[ak1004]

3 minutes ago, clo said:

Do you mean direct or nonstop? Different things. Direct means a stop but you don't change planes.

Well, maybe both? Non stop is better obviously but direct still good enough for many people. But if you change last minute as many people will have to, you might not be able to get either of them. 
 

This is not just bad optics. This was a really stupid decision.

[Snaefell3]

48 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

And with 11am arrival, they have to rebook it.

Yup.  ...and "photo op" just added one more thing to the list of things that could cause an 11am arrival and a rebooking.  The folks didn't deserve RCI causing them to miss flights, but those folks can look in the mirror for the root cause of their problem.

 

Did Silver Nova have the nous to put on something like an extravaganza buffet to "celebrate the meeting of ::yada, yada, yada:: at sea" while folks were looking at their watches waiting for debarkation?

[ak1004]

3 minutes ago, Snaefell3 said:

Yup.  ...and "photo op" just added one more thing to the list of things that could cause an 11am arrival and a rebooking.  The folks didn't deserve RCI causing them to miss flights, but those folks can look in the mirror for the root cause of their problem.

 

Did Silver Nova have the nous to put on something like an extravaganza buffet to "celebrate the meeting of ::yada, yada, yada:: at sea" while folks were looking at their watches waiting for debarkation?

I don’t really understand your comment. In all our years of cruising we were never delayed to arrive on the last port. The cruise lines themselves say that booking anytime after noon is safe. 

[Snaefell3]

1 minute ago, ak1004 said:

I don’t really understand your comment. In all our years of cruising we were never delayed to arrive on the last port. The cruise lines themselves say that booking anytime after noon is safe. 

I like your luck.   Mine says 2 out of 17.

[FlyerTalker]

3 hours ago, clo said:

I haven't been to Uruguay but I can assure you that there are scores,probably hundreds of places that you can't fly out of.

 

I've been to Uruguay.

 

There are very few places that you can cruise to where you can't fly out.  Perhaps not fly out with a non-stop flight to the USA, but that's not the same as "you can't fly out of".

 

From Montevideo, for example, one could fly to Buenos Aires, Rio, Sao Paulo or more and then head north to the USA.

 

 

[clo]

10 minutes ago, FlyerTalker said:

Montevideo

??? That's a city not a beach town.

[FlyerTalker]

20 minutes ago, clo said:

??? That's a city not a beach town.

 

You're the one who brought up Uruguay.  But even the "beach" town stop at Punta del Este in Uruguay has air service to Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo.

 

Try again.