Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    35

    Is on board entrainment reduced

    Is there any truth that Fred Olson are canceling on board entertainers and speakers to reduce costs?



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    8,814
    Images
    10
    Of course not! (Source?)

    Olsen have increased profits/reduced costs by stretching ships and/or adding extra cabins. They are probably: 1) the only line only lines to not serve lunch on embarkation day, 2) charge a fuel surcharge as a percentage of passengers fare and not a flat fee.

    Olsen fares are also rarely very cheap either.

    Last edited by Malcolm, Essex; 3rd March 2011 at 12:52 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    677
    Quote QUOTE: View Post
    Of course not! (Source?)

    Olsen have increased profits/reduced costs by stretching ships and/or adding extra cabins. They are probably: 1) the only line only lines to not serve lunch on embarkation day, 2) charge a fuel surcharge as a percentage of passengers fare and not a flat fee.

    Olsen fares are also rarely very cheap either.
    Hi The fact that Fred. Olsen do not offer cheap fares suggest that they can fill their ships at the price offered, therefore they must be doing something right. I read once that this line as the highest number of repeat passengers in the cruise industry. PS On a personal levelI have noted a significant reduction in the level of service and food quality in recent years. The nightly entertainment as never been a "lavish" affair (although the shows are prefectly acceptable) so I doubt whether anybody would notice any significant changes here. However, due to the increase in the passenger numbers and no change in the seating arrangements in the main theatre Fred. Olsen have introduced a second show in the smaller show lounge each evening to accomodate all the guests.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    8,814
    Images
    10
    Alan, I think Olsen's big selling point is a 'British' experience on charming/intimate ships. There fares are realy cheap and the food rarely wonderful although normally pretty good.

    I think P&O shot themselves in the foot when they lost 'Victoria' - a smaller ship.

    Olsen have expanded their flleet in recent years, so as you say Alan they must be doing something right.;)


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,641
    Images
    1
    Quote QUOTE: View Post
    Alan, I think Olsen's big selling point is a 'British' experience on charming/intimate ships. There fares are realy cheap and the food rarely wonderful although normally pretty good.

    I think P&O shot themselves in the foot when they lost 'Victoria' - a smaller ship.

    Olsen have expanded their flleet in recent years, so as you say Alan they must be doing something right.;)
    Hi Malcolm
    Excuse me if i change one word in your post,,,,Thomson for Olsen.
    Could you tell me the difference between Olsen ships (that you seem to approve of) and Thomson ships (which you dont),bearing in mind that Bodicca is 10yrs older than Thomson ships.(Is she an 'old clunker' Wilba)
    Do i even need to mention the problems Olson had last year with their ships,not least the mass outbreaks of Norovirus,and the stick they took on this forum.
    I am not knocking FO,its my idea of good small ship cruising.
    I am questioning your motives for knocking Thomsons and yet seemingly aproving of FO.
    PS,did you mean fares are realy cheap or rarely cheap?
    JC

    Last edited by jc, liverpool; 4th March 2011 at 01:31 PM.
    C P Scott,,,,,"Comment is Free,,but Facts are Sacred"
    The Guardian,,,,, Newspaper of the Year.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    677
    Quote QUOTE: View Post
    Hi Malcolm
    Excuse me if i change one word in your post,,,,Thomson for Olsen.
    Could you tell me the difference between Olsen ships (that you seem to approve of) and Thomson ships (which you dont),bearing in mind that Bodicca is 10yrs older than Thomson ships.(Is she an 'old clunker' Wilba)
    Do i even need to mention the problems Olson had last year with their ships,not least the mass outbreaks of Norovirus,and the stick they took on this forum.
    I am not knocking FO,its my idea of good small ship cruising.
    I am questioning your motives for knocking Thomsons and yet seemingly aproving of FO.
    PS,did you mean fares are realy cheap or rarely cheap?
    JC
    Hi JC
    I prefer smaller ships on the whole; but there are drawbacks, the low key production shows being one example. In my opinion Thomson's cruises are very underrated (I have only been with this company three times) but the cruise experience was very good. In contrast I have been with Fred. Olsen on 12 occassions (they have been in the cruise business longer) but as I have already stated the product is not as good as it once was. IMO I think that many cruisers are very class conscious and have preconceived ideas of the Thomson's cruiseline and so immediately think of them as inferior. I have sailed on many of Fred. Olsen ships and believe me very few ships could be in a poorer condition than the Black Prince before it's eventual demise (although I am the first to admit that many passengers miss it's passing). In contrast, I have sailed on all five of Cunard last vessels but I still think this cruiseline is the most overrated in the industry and definitely liiving on past glories. If you are fortunate enough to sail Grill class this statement is not true. The rating of cruiselines is definitely not totally objective and I am sure that we all subject to a little bias in our assessments.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,641
    Images
    1
    Quote QUOTE: View Post
    Hi JC
    I prefer smaller ships on the whole; but there are drawbacks, the low key production shows being one example. In my opinion Thomson's cruises are very underrated (I have only been with this company three times) but the cruise experience was very good. In contrast I have been with Fred. Olsen on 12 occasions (they have been in the cruise business longer) but as I have already stated the product is not as good as it once was. IMO I think that many cruisers are very class conscious and have preconceived ideas of the Thomson's cruise line and so immediately think of them as inferior. I have sailed on many of Fred. Olsen ships and believe me very few ships could be in a poorer condition than the Black Prince before it's eventual demise (although I am the first to admit that many passengers miss it's passing). In contrast, I have sailed on all five of Cunard last vessels but I still think this cruise line is the most overrated in the industry and definitely living on past glories. If you are fortunate enough to sail Grill class this statement is not true. The rating of cruise lines is definitely not totally objective and I am sure that we all subject to a little bias in our assessments.
    Hi Alan
    Thanks for the considered reply.
    People choose different lines for many reasons.
    Its just i dont agree that if something is New,Big and Glitzy it automatically becomes better.
    I like smaller ships,i like port intensive cruises,i like 7 day fly-cruises,i dont like sea days,i enjoy good food,i like casual,i like A/I,i like the community feel of small ships,the friendliness of fellow passengers (which i didn't get on a 3500 px ship)and even age profile.
    If P+O sailed 7nt from Barcelona say with a 1200 px ship i would probably try that.
    But not with say Cunard/Celebrity,just not my style.
    Thomsons are the only line at the moment + in the past who fulfills my criteria.
    This year i may try MSC/Costa because i want to go to St Petersburg and they can do it in 7nts from Stockholm/Copenhagen.
    If Thomson was doing it,it would be booked already.
    PS,put your tin hat on after your Cunard comment.
    JC

    C P Scott,,,,,"Comment is Free,,but Facts are Sacred"
    The Guardian,,,,, Newspaper of the Year.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    8,110
    Images
    2

    Talking

    Quote QUOTE: View Post
    Hi Malcolm
    Excuse me if i change one word in your post,,,,Thomson for Olsen.
    Could you tell me the difference between Olsen ships (that you seem to approve of) and Thomson ships (which you dont),bearing in mind that Bodicca is 10yrs older than Thomson ships.(Is she an 'old clunker' Wilba)
    Do i even need to mention the problems Olson had last year with their ships,not least the mass outbreaks of Norovirus,and the stick they took on this forum.
    I am not knocking FO,its my idea of good small ship cruising.
    I am questioning your motives for knocking Thomsons and yet seemingly aproving of FO.
    PS,did you mean fares are realy cheap or rarely cheap?
    JC
    Yep definitely clunker material, I've not sailed on her, nor any of the Thomson fleet, but I have sailed on plenty of vintage stuff and know from experience and the reviews the importance of careful cabin selection. Those near the stern get more vibration than an Ann Summers store on Valentines Day...................Hey!!!! I'm winding you up again



    BTW I'm off on the Irish Ferry tonight........If you think the onboard spend is high on the likes of RCI/Celebrity try one of these for a laugh.

    Dick Turpin must have served his apprenticeship with these guys!..........I'll report back tomorrow.

    Last edited by Wilba; 5th March 2011 at 07:33 AM.
    Wilba

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,641
    Images
    1
    Those near the stern get more vibration than an Ann Summers store on Valentines Day...................Hey!!!! I'm winding you up again
    Hi Wilba
    Love it!!,keep up the winding
    JC

    C P Scott,,,,,"Comment is Free,,but Facts are Sacred"
    The Guardian,,,,, Newspaper of the Year.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    8,814
    Images
    10
    Quote QUOTE: View Post
    Could you tell me the difference between Olsen ships (that you seem to approve of) and Thomson ships (which you dont),bearing in mind that Bodicca is 10yrs older than Thomson ships.
    I approve of both Olsen and Thomson and have enjoyed cruises with both lines. In fact I enjoy many aspects of 'older' ships. The age of the ship is irrelevant to me, however the maintenance is not. (The QE2 was still kept in very good condition after 30 years)

    The difference between Olsen and Thomson is the condition of their ships. Olsen own their ships and has spent a lot of money renovating them - they are generally kept at a reasonably high standard of decor. However, Thomson's are all on charter and Thomson do not spend a lot of money on the refits/decor. Celebration, Spirit and Destiny are all acknowledged as being well-worn (tired).

    The biggest difference between 'Dream' since she entered service and Olsen's fleet seems to be one of sewage, plumbing and lack of air-conditioning.

    I've not cruised on Dream, but have read the many poor reviews here. If you doubt me, just do the maths: calculate the average star rating for any Olsen ship for the last six months then do 'Dream'. I've not had time to do this, but Olsen will win.

    Do I even need to mention the problems Olson had last year with their ships, not least the mass outbreaks of Norovirus...
    No it's not good but I'm not sure Olsen can be blamed for the Norovirus.

    Last edited by Malcolm, Essex; 5th March 2011 at 06:52 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new topics
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •