You're right, and they don't typically question the cost they see advertised. This makes the advertised price of these two lines appear lower than a similar cruise on a competitor like Crystal or Seabourne. In the case of Oceania there rates appear lower on the surface than Azamara. Its definately a marketing thing. If folks actually compare the gross total they'll spend between the lines that put things in and those that seperate the costs for advertising purposes, who will they call first? The one that appears to be a real bargain. The problem is, this will eventually force other lines to follow suit. I'm willing to bet there will be many more announcements in the near future of lines pulling the port charges from advertised rates shown to the public. In the end, this short sighted marketing will affect the average cruise shopper. They will have no idea how to budget for the cruise they see advertised until they call on each and every cruise of interest. Port charges are not like a tax of between $40 and $70 per person on an average 7 day sailing from FL. They are not like the $5. to $9. per day, per person fuel surchagre that everyone now (we didn't have to add this in our heads until Feb. 2008) has to plan for. On a 3 or 4 day cruise, the port charges can be significantly higher than the actual cruise rate, expecially on cabins for 3 or 4 passengers where the rate is reduced for add'l pax. There will soon be no transparency in pricing, you'll have to call to see what each and every cruise actually is going to cost.