Oceania Decline

[mnocket]

18 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

including the ability to look at actual cars on various lines at the wonderful site called "The Man in Seat 61" which includes trains in Europe, UK, Asia, Africa, Australia and more:  https://www.seat61.com/

 

Great link.  Bookmarked.  Thanks.

[marieps]

On 3/3/2024 at 1:14 AM, cruisemom42 said:

 

Well, as one example, I'll point to the 28-day Japan "cherry blossom" cruise I took last April on Holland America. Just for starters, you get 28 days circumnavigating all of the main islands of Japan for less than the price of the 16 day Regatta cruise mentioned by the OP.

 

(HAL does offer a limited number of Japan cruises in the fall, but to me cherry blossom timing was a big driver, and while it's a bit of a crap shoot as to whether you'll hit "full bloom" or not, the HAL itinerary is designed to take you from the south to the north, so at some point along the way you're bound to hit the sweet spot.)

 

The Oceania itinerary really doesn't even include that much of Japan, and does none of the very interesting and lesser known northern ports. (For example, I really liked Aomori and Hakodate). It does include stops in other places like Vietnam and Singapore, which is fine, but it's not Japan.

 

The HAL cruise has the minimum number of extra-Japan stops (at least one foreign port per cruise, much like US regulations, and the 28-day cruise is really considered 2 14-day cruises...) The 2024 itinerary (now sold out) is shown below as it is fairly similar to the 2023 one I did, although it does include a few more intriguing-sounding ports on the western side.

 

There are probably others as well. All I know is that when I was looking for 2023, O's itineraries were not even in my top 3 or 4.

 

 

Oceania Regatta Itinerary:

 

 

HAL Itinerary:

 

 

 

I love it when a CCer backs up his/her post with a clear and no nonsense foundation.  Props.

[Mareblu]

6 hours ago, FeliciaLee said:

We have only taken one Seabourn cruise. One of those great deals online. It was 11 nights in Nov/Dec 2022.

 

The things we loved were: friendliness and warmth of crew and passengers. Prizes for games. Gelato. Cabin. Price per night for value. Buffet.

 

The things that weren't so great: lack of activities. Start of dining time at 7pm. So-so quality and service in MDR. Espresso was never hot enough no matter how much we begged.

 

We really had a great cruise on Seabourn, but the late dining time just isn't for us. Keep in mind that although it includes more than Oceania, you still have to pay the port fees & taxes additionally. So that ups the price per night. Also, shore excursions aren't included, either.

 

But for the price per night? Yes, it was an excellent product and an excellent cruise!

If you consider 7.00pm “late”, please don’t move to Spain.

[clo]

On 3/5/2024 at 11:13 AM, ORV said:

If you are planning on Amtrak prepare to be disappointed. We traveled from Chicago to New Orleans about 25 years ago and it was great. We were in their best sleeper car and they actually had fantastic food prepared on the train by a chef. Fastforward to a 2019 or so and we did the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle with a stop in Glacier National park in Montana. Rooms were dirty, dining room had stuff piled up in the corner. Food was pre-prepared box lunches and dinners like you get in Coach on airlines. Truly bad. Other than our room attendant most of the workers were sub par. The best part of the trip was Chicago beforehand, the two days at Glacier, and Seattle, and it sure ain't what it used to be. We were also in the best sleeper car they offer on this trip also. 

I've long wondered if the US is just too darn big for good train travel.

[QuestionEverything]

1 minute ago, clo said:

I've long wondered if the US is just too darn big for good train travel.

clo, I agree. Add in Canada with same big distance and few people.

Europe is so different and I have done so many train adventures in Europe, I just love it indeed.

Our next trip is to take the Mighty train from Oslo Norway to Bergen, then a long voyage to Nor Cape at the top of Norway on Hurtigruten, then take another Mighty train from Nor Cape down to Bergen. Ships and trains indeed. It is in planning. These trains have been featured on Discovery Mighty Trains.

One of my favorite Mighty trains is the Glacier Express to Zermatt to see the Matterhorn!

clo, there certainly are other forms of travel than cruising, that is for sure!

Stay well!

[clo]

2 minutes ago, QuestionEverything said:

clo, I agree. Add in Canada with same big distance and few people.

Europe is so different and I have done so many train adventures in Europe, I just love it indeed.

Our next trip is to take the Mighty train from Oslo Norway to Bergen, then a long voyage to Nor Cape at the top of Norway on Hurtigruten, then take another Mighty train from Nor Cape down to Bergen. Ships and trains indeed. It is in planning. These trains have been featured on Discovery Mighty Trains.

One of my favorite Mighty trains is the Glacier Express to Zermatt to see the Matterhorn!

clo, there certainly are other forms of travel than cruising, that is for sure!

Stay well!

That train from Oslo to Bergen is supposed to be incredible and that was just one part of a trip when covid raised its ugly. And we LOVE Hurtigruten and have done that cruise on their now retired ship the Lofoten, a 100 pax ship! You'll love it I'm sure.

BTW, years ago we did a Rocky Mountaineer from Vancouver to Jasper, coach to Banff and back to Vancouver. So wonderful.

Have great trips. Cat

[Hlitner]

16 minutes ago, clo said:

I've long wondered if the US is just too darn big for good train travel.

I think your answer lies back with the Eisenhower administration.  Around 1956 that administration, and Congress, made a commitment to build what we now call the Interstate Highway system.  If they had decided to adopt and support some kind of national rail system, our current transportation system might be different.  I lived in Japan during the late 60s, and while the US was busy building highways, the Japanese were busy building an amazing national rail system.  Consider that the original "bullet trains" were already functioning (between Tokyo and Osaka) before the 1970 World's Fair (held in Osaka).  That system was very similar to their current system (which is now thoughout much of the country).  Today, Japan uses its rail system similar to the way we use our Interstate Highway system.

 

To answer your question, I do not think that the USA is too darn big for good train travel, but simply decided to go a different direction.  These days, building a real good passenger rail system would be cost prohibitive and would be blocked, at every opporunity, by various environmental groups that would give rail some lip service until they started with their usual steps of obstruction.  

 

A friend of mine used to run a very large international textile company.  He is a true patriot and wanted to construct many factories in the USA.  Instead, he built them in China, India, and some other countries.  Why?  He pointed out that in China he could have a new factory up and running within a year (China had actually built empty shell factories and adjacent cities for workers that were ready to go) while building a new factory in the USA would normally take about 10 years because of all the various environmental rules.  The Empire State building was constructed in just 1 year!  Today, the planning and construction of such a building would likely take at least a decade.  One can argue whether our system is good or bad, but one cannot argue that our system involves lots of delays (leading to increased cost).  

 

Hank

 

 

[clo]

3 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

I think your answer lies back with the Eisenhower administration.  Around 1956 that administration, and Congress, made a commitment to build what we now call the Interstate Highway system.  If they had decided to adopt and support some kind of national rail system, our current transportation system might be different.  I lived in Japan during the late 60s, and while the US was busy building highways, the Japanese were busy building an amazing national rail system.  Consider that the original "bullet trains" were already functioning (between Tokyo and Osaka) before the 1970 World's Fair (held in Osaka).  That system was very similar to their current system (which is now thoughout much of the country).  Today, Japan uses its rail system similar to the way we use our Interstate Highway system.

 

To answer your question, I do not think that the USA is too darn big for good train travel, but simply decided to go a different direction.  These days, building a real good passenger rail system would be cost prohibitive and would be blocked, at every opporunity, by various environmental groups that would give rail some lip service until they started with their usual steps of obstruction.  

 

A friend of mine used to run a very large international textile company.  He is a true patriot and wanted to construct many factories in the USA.  Instead, he built them in China, India, and some other countries.  Why?  He pointed out that in China he could have a new factory up and running within a year (China had actually built empty shell factories and adjacent cities for workers that were ready to go) while building a new factory in the USA would normally take about 10 years because of all the various environmental rules.  The Empire State building was constructed in just 1 year!  Today, the planning and construction of such a building would likely take at least a decade.  One can argue whether our system is good or bad, but one cannot argue that our system involves lots of delays (leading to increased cost).  

 

Hank

 

 

Brilliant post and I almost totally agree 🙂 I'm one of those Left Coast tree-huggers 🙂

[MEFIowa]

35 minutes ago, QuestionEverything said:

... Add in Canada with same big distance and few people....

Though not too long ago, sometime in 2022 or 2023 on my NPR station in Iowa I listened to a CBC "As It Happens" radio discussion of the famous "Canadian Spiral Tunnels". From what I remember, there were both westbound and eastbound trains in the Canadian Rockies that are amazing!

 

https://www.clevercanadian.ca/spiral-tunnels-in-canada/#:~:text=The Spiral Tunnels are a pretty cool engineering,and are connected by a series of switchbacks.

[Snaefell3]

17 hours ago, Mareblu said:

Yes, we spoke to the CD (who was previously CD on a previous O Nautica cruise), reception, and our butler.  Many others had also complained.  You can guess the general response:  “your concerns will be noted but no-one else has complained”, or as reception said, “there is no record of other complaints”.  I think that angered me more than the below-par cuisine.

::ponders::  Did you consider the nuclear option?  File a low-sodium medical dietary request?

[Mareblu]

16 minutes ago, Snaefell3 said:

::ponders::  Did you consider the nuclear option?  File a low-sodium medical dietary request?

At the time, no, but it's a good suggestion for any similar future situations.

[Snaefell3]

46 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

think your answer lies back with the Eisenhower administration. 

My 2¢:

 

• Eisenhower had a specific, military, rationale behind the "National System of Interstate and DEFENSE Highways" -- remember he was a 5-star general.

 

• Population density greatly affects the "roads vs rail" equation: if you look at only the US East the answer is "rail", and if you look only at the US West the answer is "road".  But, with the Interstates in place for military reasons, the US national answer is "roads".

 

[Snaefell3]

5 minutes ago, Mareblu said:

At the time, no, but it's a good suggestion for any similar future situations.

Sorry I didn't get to you in time.  😉 

[Hanoj]

11 hours ago, ak1004 said:

Going back to the topic of "decline" - there appears to be a contest for stupid and for abusive behavior towards passengers on many lines. Looks at this topic:

 

 

“Decline”understates these apparent trends. Devolution is more apt. 

[ak1004]

8 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

“Decline”understates these apparent trends. Devolution is more apt. 

Doesn’t really matter how you call it. But if this decline or devolution exists in all cruise lines, where would you go? Don't compare to what it was 10 years go. Compare to what other lines offer now.

Edited March 7 by ak1004

[clo]

5 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

Doesn’t really matter how you call it. But if this decline or devolution exists in all cruise lines, where would you go? Don't compare to what it was 10 years go. Compare to what other lines offer now.

As others have said, for those who have these problems, I'd sure not cruise anymore.

[ak1004]

4 minutes ago, clo said:

As others have said, for those who have these problems, I'd sure not cruise anymore.

I agree. But that’s not me. I still enjoy cruising very much, on different lines.

[stephglobal]

On 3/6/2024 at 3:27 PM, Snaefell3 said:

My 2¢:

 

• Eisenhower had a specific, military, rationale behind the "National System of Interstate and DEFENSE Highways" -- remember he was a 5-star general.

 

• Population density greatly affects the "roads vs rail" equation: if you look at only the US East the answer is "rail", and if you look only at the US West the answer is "road".  But, with the Interstates in place for military reasons, the US national answer is "roads".

 

This post has nothing do to with Oceania's decline. But agree with you Snaefell3 (and Hlitner) re: The US interstate highway system initiated in the 1956 Act basically launched the interstate highway system. It had several good intentions--- but in hindsight, likely at the expense of a better railway system. The goals at the time were to first support national defense.  Major military things at the time relied primarily on ground transport.  Second, to support a now little-acknowledged goal, to allow people to escape cities in the case of possible [atomic] bombings. It was the Cold War era.  There were of course more goals, such as business/economic, which also matter.

Moving on, it is great to support non-automobile means of transport. I value the folks on CC that post on these alternatives!

[TRLD]

On 3/6/2024 at 3:27 PM, Snaefell3 said:

My 2¢:

 

• Eisenhower had a specific, military, rationale behind the "National System of Interstate and DEFENSE Highways" -- remember he was a 5-star general.

 

• Population density greatly affects the "roads vs rail" equation: if you look at only the US East the answer is "rail", and if you look only at the US West the answer is "road".  But, with the Interstates in place for military reasons, the US national answer is "roads".

 

And he based them on the German Autobahn system. Recognizing both the military and commercial benefits.

[pinotlover]

45 minutes ago, TRLD said:

And he based them on the German Autobahn system. Recognizing both the military and commercial benefits.

It was indeed a great advancement for the US. One aspect, which didn’t follow the German Autobahn system, has proven problematic over the years. For political reasons they ran the systems right through the middle of downtowns in major cities instead of natural by passes. Ripping out homes and industrial areas to build the roads into and through major cities like Atlanta, KC, Denver, etc. was poor planning at the time. Then , she those earlier roads became commuter routes along with national highways, problems developed. Rip out more homes and more industrial areas to widen or increase the size of the highways became the only option. Then, what was homogenous neighborhoods became very divided and self segregating communities. 

[Snaefell3]

1 hour ago, pinotlover said:

For political reasons they ran the systems right through the middle of downtowns in major cities instead of natural by passes. Ripping out homes and industrial areas to build the roads into and through major cities like Atlanta, KC, Denver, etc. was poor planning at the time

As @stephglobal pointed out, it wasn't "political".  It was the mid 1950s and the plan was to provide evacuation routes ahead of nuclear bombers.

 

"It seemed like a good idea at the time."

— Every planner, ever, after being the very first to deal with a problem.

[Hanoj]

Decline seems widespread in the travel and hospitality industries, though it appears more acute with cruising since this form of travel/vacationing is more expensive compared to other modes, and the supply logistics are more problematic, thus affecting food quality (and quantities) in particular.

 

It feels like cruise patrons (across different lines and luxury categories) must expect less (to match expectations with present realities) but pay more. Not a great recipe for business success for what most consumers consider as discretionary consumption. This discretionary spending will manifest differently as some will cruise less frequently, some not all, and others will select lower cabin categories, shorter cruise durations, and or sail with different lines. It appears the present challenges will be met by more crossovers (between cruise lines and between vacation modes - land based vs cruise, etc) and thus less brand loyalty. Hopefully this will temper fare increases. We are definitely in this camp, and will probably be favoring more resort destinations, travelled to by plane or automobile. We plan to do more “tours” on such trips, especially when visiting a new locale. 
 

The timing of Oceania’s new Simply More campaign, regarded by some as a thinly veiled price increase initiative, in the current cruise “decline” climate may not have been the most astute. But, then, there seem to be many company executives, both with publicly owned and privately held companies of all sizes, making inexplicably poor and myopic decisions. 

 

Who is John Galt?

[QuestionEverything]

13 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

Decline seems widespread in the travel and hospitality industries, though it appears more acute with cruising since this form of travel/vacationing is more expensive compared to other modes, and the supply logistics are more problematic, thus affecting food quality (and quantities) in particular.

 

It feels like cruise patrons (across different lines and luxury categories) must expect less (to match expectations with present realities) but pay more. Not a great recipe for business success for what most consumers consider as discretionary consumption. This discretionary spending will manifest differently as some will cruise less frequently, some not all, and others will select lower cabin categories, shorter cruise durations, and or sail with different lines. It appears the present challenges will be met by more crossovers (between cruise lines and between vacation modes - land based vs cruise, etc) and thus less brand loyalty. Hopefully this will temper fare increases. We are definitely in this camp, and will probably be favoring more resort destinations, travelled to by plane or automobile. We plan to do more “tours” on such trips, especially when visiting a new locale. 
 

The timing of Oceania’s new Simply More campaign, regarded by some as a thinly veiled price increase initiative, in the current cruise “decline” climate may not have been the most astute. But, then, there seem to be many company executives, both with publicly owned and privately held companies of all sizes, making inexplicably poor and myopic decisions. 

 

Who is John Galt?

Hanoji, excellent analysis and you are very perceptive.

I agree 100% with your conclusions and changes in consumer behavior.

Your "cross over" element is spot on - all my cruise friends are now booking high end land trips, not a cruise booked by any of them, including me.

There will continue to be the very dedicated cruise junkies but like in everything these days $, consumers are changing their decisions.

The Simply More is simply an insult to me and is a turnoff. I totally enjoyed the al a cart product offering and it was unique in the premium category.

Thanks so much.

[oskidunker]

35 minutes ago, Hanoj said:

Decline seems widespread in the travel and hospitality industries, though it appears more acute with cruising since this form of travel/vacationing is more expensive compared to other modes, and the supply logistics are more problematic, thus affecting food quality (and quantities) in particular.

 

It feels like cruise patrons (across different lines and luxury categories) must expect less (to match expectations with present realities) but pay more. Not a great recipe for business success for what most consumers consider as discretionary consumption. This discretionary spending will manifest differently as some will cruise less frequently, some not all, and others will select lower cabin categories, shorter cruise durations, and or sail with different lines. It appears the present challenges will be met by more crossovers (between cruise lines and between vacation modes - land based vs cruise, etc) and thus less brand loyalty. Hopefully this will temper fare increases. We are definitely in this camp, and will probably be favoring more resort destinations, travelled to by plane or automobile. We plan to do more “tours” on such trips, especially when visiting a new locale. 
 

The timing of Oceania’s new Simply More campaign, regarded by some as a thinly veiled price increase initiative, in the current cruise “decline” climate may not have been the most astute. But, then, there seem to be many company executives, both with publicly owned and privately held companies of all sizes, making inexplicably poor and myopic decisions. 

 

Who is John Galt?

Good thoughts. I am with you.  Mostly Oceania and Viking after 25 Princess cruised. 

[EJL2023]

25 minutes ago, QuestionEverything said:

Hanoji, excellent analysis and you are very perceptive.

I agree 100% with your conclusions and changes in consumer behavior.

Your "cross over" element is spot on - all my cruise friends are now booking high end land trips, not a cruise booked by any of them, including me.

There will continue to be the very dedicated cruise junkies but like in everything these days $, consumers are changing their decisions.

The Simply More is simply an insult to me and is a turnoff. I totally enjoyed the al a cart product offering and it was unique in the premium category.

Thanks so much.

And while SM is an insult to you, I enjoy it.