Regent No Longer All Inclusive

[journeyfan]

Regent apparently has decided to abandon their all-inclusive pricing. In addition to the prices listed on their website, there is now a separate charge for government fees and taxes. This varies from cruise to cruise, but after looking at several cruises (those we've already booked and those we were considering booking), the new charge amounts to an additional 2% to 4% of the per person cost for the lowest price suite. This is a true price increase. For example, although today's price on their website for the August 22, 2012 Alaskan cruise on the Navigator remains the same as yesterday's price (as far as the per person charges quoted in the table for each suite category), you now must add $145 per person to that price to reflect the fees and taxes. When booking a cruise, it would be very easy not to notice this additional charge when glancing at the price tables.

[rallydave]

Regent apparently has decided to abandon their all-inclusive pricing. In addition to the prices listed on their website, there is now a separate charge for government fees and taxes. This varies from cruise to cruise, but after looking at several cruises (those we've already booked and those we were considering booking), the new charge amounts to an additional 2% to 4% of the per person cost for the lowest price suite. This is a true price increase. For example, although today's price on their website for the August 22, 2012 Alaskan cruise on the Navigator remains the same as yesterday's price (as far as the per person charges quoted in the table for each suite category), you now must add $145 per person to that price to reflect the fees and taxes. When booking a cruise, it would be very easy not to notice this additional charge when glancing at the price tables.

Absolutely true journeyfan. In addition, a very prolific TA known to many on this board and who I can't name for obvious reasons has posted on their webpage an explanation of the change and that supposidly, this will not affect anyone who has booked prior to July 1.

Also on that web page is a statement that this added charge wll not exceed $17/person/day. Well, all the Alaska cruises with the exception of the first and last of the season are 7 nites and 7 X 17 is $119 which certainly contradicts either the price on the web page or the statement from Regent and certainly exceeds the $17/day maximum.

Just another example of Regent not being able to communicate in a businesslike manner. It is simply amazing that a multi-million dollar company owned by a multi-billion dollar Investment Group can't seem to proof read what they publish or compare what various departments are publishing to make sure they are consistant.

There is a basic tenant of law that states that any ambiguity in a contract or document is construed against the writer. Think anyone booking a cruise could claim that the lowest price for the taxes that is published is what they should pay regardless of what the price on their invoice is. And, NO, I'm not a lawyer and this is NOT legal advice. Please note all the could's, thinks, and should's in my statement.

[DaveFr]

Absolutely true journeyfan. In addition, a very prolific TA known to many on this board and who I can't name for obvious reasons has posted on their webpage an explanation of the change and that supposidly, this will not affect anyone who has booked prior to July 1.

Also on that web page is a statement that this added charge wll not exceed $17/person/day. Well, all the Alaska cruises with the exception of the first and last of the season are 7 nites and 7 X 17 is $119 which certainly contradicts either the price on the web page or the statement from Regent and certainly exceeds the $17/day maximum.

Just another example of Regent not being able to communicate in a businesslike manner. It is simply amazing that a multi-million dollar company owned by a multi-billion dollar Investment Group can't seem to proof read what they publish or compare what various departments are publishing to make sure they are consistant.

There is a basic tenant of law that states that any ambiguity in a contract or document is construed against the writer. Think anyone booking a cruise could claim that the lowest price for the taxes that is published is what they should pay regardless of what the price on their invoice is. And, NO, I'm not a lawyer and this is NOT legal advice. Please note all the could's, thinks, and should's in my statement.
Dave,

It appears that Regent has realized that its listed amount for taxes and fees was not correct. If you look at the Alaska cruises now on the website you'll see that the tax amount has been changed to $119 which, as you indicate above, is 7x17. In effect, Regent has increased its bottom line fares by at least the amount of taxes and fees.

Dave

[rallydave]

Dave,

It appears that Regent has realized that its listed amount for taxes and fees was not correct. If you look at the Alaska cruises now on the website you'll see that the tax amount has been changed to $119 which, as you indicate above, is 7x17. In effect, Regent has increased its bottom line fares by at least the amount of taxes and fees.

Dave

Dave,

Thanks for the update. Glad regent fixed their error and hope they fixed all of the cruises. It's great that they fixed it but, most of my comments still apply as it should be correct from the beginning and there are still brochures with incorrect pricing out in the world.

I realize some of you might say that no one or company is perfect and that is certainly true. What we really are looking for is minimizing the errors and regent still has a long way to go to reach an acceptable level of errors. It's even possible that regent found the errors after reading this thread and if so that is a good sign.

Hopefully the concierge program is undergoing modifications based on inputs from this board as well. We should see something within a month, many of us hope.

[journeyfan]

Two hours ago, the taxes and fees for the 12-day 8/22/12 cruise we were considering was an extra $145. I guess Regent realized that was less than $17 a day. Now the new charge is $209 pp.... a 3.2% increase. Wonder why Regent feels the need to increase their prices that much on a cruise still 14 months away. I'm rapidly losing all interest in Regent. Time to look elsewhere.

[wripro]

Maybe that's why Regent markets so many of its amenities as "free" instead of "included." Neither makes sense.

[Observer]

Is it significant that the price increase by adding the taxes/port charges are (I am fairly certain) not commissionable to travel agents? Thus, Regent gets to keep all of this additional money and does not need to share a portion with TAs. A TA on the board can correct me if I am mistaken.

[rallydave]

This realtime fixing of screwups is getting more and more interesting. Remember the info I got from Regent thru a Regent specialist TA; it clearly stated that the increased taxes, and I shall quote:

Regent Seven Seas Cruises will clearly highlight the associated taxes and fees as a surcharge of up to $17 per guest, per day. This charge will vary by voyage.

This clearly states that the taxes will be added, will vary and will be a maximum of $17/guest/day. This open value is understandable as taxes will vary by cruise price and ports with different port charges per stop. Now it appears that instead of pricing the taxes at what they actually are, they are charging everyone on every cruise the $17/person/day.

If this is what they are doing, this could be considered unethical if not illegal. While Regent is free to price a cruise at whatever they want and the market will bear, this charge is clearly stated as Government Fees and Taxes. Not a lawyer but, don't see how Regent can charge an amount identified as Government Fees and Taxes at other than what these fees and taxes are. Maybe they are all $17/person/day for every cruise but, that is highly unlikely.

What it appears Regent did is to put the $17/person/day in the latest brochure, then when setting up the website they changed to the actual costs and once they realized the error of their ways, changed the website to match the brochure rather than fix the brochure and leave the website alone. If this is true, once again, Regent has failed to correctly price the taxes/fees and messed up one more time.

If I am correct, what is Regent doing and who is minding the store????? And, if not, sure would like an explanation as to why the taxes per day are the same for all cruises. For sure a 7 day cruise with 7 ports is more expensive in port fees/taxes than a Trans-Atlantic with 9 sea days and 6 ports.

Anyone out there have an answer to this conundrum?? Expect we will see more updates to the webpage and some sort of change to the brochure.

We shall see???

[Travelcat2]

It seems as though Regent cannot do anything right lately. The one thing they have yet to try is open communication. Regent obviously has our email addresses so they have the abilty to communicate. Had this new "fee" been communicated to their customers, we would still not be happy with it, but could perhaps understand the reasoning behind it. Then, the errors on the website and brochures would be seen as programming or printing errors. Instead, it is obvious that management is not communicating with their internal departments either. Very sad state of affairs.

[PaulaJK]

I am truly confused.

--Don't port taxes vary port by port?
and
--Aren't taxes related to the amount you spent for your cabin/voyage?

Therefore, how can everything come in at $17 per day..........this seems more like a surcharge. Also I notice that Regent did not REDUCE its fares by the amounts it said it had been already absorbing in port fees and taxes.

[DaveFr]

This realtime fixing of screwups is getting more and more interesting. Remember the info I got from Regent thru a Regent specialist TA; it clearly stated that the increased taxes, and I shall quote:

Regent Seven Seas Cruises will clearly highlight the associated taxes and fees as a surcharge of up to $17 per guest, per day. This charge will vary by voyage.

This clearly states that the taxes will be added, will vary and will be a maximum of $17/guest/day. This open value is understandable as taxes will vary by cruise price and ports with different port charges per stop. Now it appears that instead of pricing the taxes at what they actually are, they are charging everyone on every cruise the $17/person/day.

If this is what they are doing, this could be considered unethical if not illegal. While Regent is free to price a cruise at whatever they want and the market will bear, this charge is clearly stated as Government Fees and Taxes. Not a lawyer but, don't see how Regent can charge an amount identified as Government Fees and Taxes at other than what these fees and taxes are. Maybe they are all $17/person/day for every cruise but, that is highly unlikely.

What it appears Regent did is to put the $17/person/day in the latest brochure, then when setting up the website they changed to the actual costs and once they realized the error of their ways, changed the website to match the brochure rather than fix the brochure and leave the website alone. If this is true, once again, Regent has failed to correctly price the taxes/fees and messed up one more time.

If I am correct, what is Regent doing and who is minding the store????? And, if not, sure would like an explanation as to why the taxes per day are the same for all cruises. For sure a 7 day cruise with 7 ports is more expensive in port fees/taxes than a Trans-Atlantic with 9 sea days and 6 ports.

Anyone out there have an answer to this conundrum?? Expect we will see more updates to the webpage and some sort of change to the brochure.

We shall see???
Dave,

I certainly don't want you to think I'm stalking your posts but I must point out that when you say Regent taxes and fees are exactly $17 per day per person for all cruises, you are simply wrong.

Take a look at a number of 2011 and 2012 cruises and you'll see that all cruises do not have taxes and fees that equal $17 per person per day. For example, the Rome to Ft. Lauderdale cruise this November charges $156 for taxes and fees. If Regent were charging at $17 per day, the total would be $238. Similarly, the very port intensive 22 day Southampton to Copenhagen cruise next June would charge $374 at $17 per day but, instead, charges $357 for taxes and fees.

Also, the fact that the separate tax and fee charge on a cruise is $17/day/person does not necessarily mean that Regent has increased the charge from the true amount to $17/day/person. Since Regent stated in the memo you quoted that the additional taxes and fees would be a maximum of $17/day/person, if the taxes and fees Regent was assessed were more than $17/person/day, Regent would reduce the additional tax and fee charge to the maximum and leave the excess taxes and fees in the cruise fare.

In January 2009, Regent signed an agreement with the Florida Attorney General's office (see: http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-7NXM78/$file/ClassicCruisesAVC.pdf) after the fuel surcharge debacle. In that document, Regent agreed not to charge amounts in excess of the advertised cruise fare unless they were fees or charges from a governmental or quasi-governmental authority or unless Regent was charging a fuel supplement fee. Regent also agreed that any charge it collected in addition to the advertised cruise price (except for a fuel supplement) would be remitted in its entirety to governmental or quasi-governmental entities. Because of these provisions, I cannot believe Regent would risk violating the agreement by moving cruise expenses to the additional taxes and fees line. In any event, since they are required to turn over all taxes and fees to the appropriate governmental entity, they have nothing to gain by cheating their passengers.

Frankly, I'm more bothered by the fact that Regent did not reduce cruise fares by an amount equal to the separate charge for taxes and fees. In some cases, Regent increased the cruise fare for a particular cruise in addition to the separate charge for taxes and fees. I find this type of hidden price increase very unseemly.

Dave

[DaveFr]

Paula,

See my response to rallydave. The separate tax and fee charges are not $17/person/day for all Regent cruises. Port charges do vary from port to port. My impression is that the taxes are more like head taxes than sales taxes so they would not be dependent upon the cruise fare.

Dave

[PaulaJK]

Are 'head taxes' government taxes?

[MightyQuinn]

This recent move by Regent is very interesting, since Oceania also used to charge a flat rate pp per day for “government fees, taxes, security and handling charges.” The per diem amount was the same for cruises in a particular region (Europe, South America, Caribbean) regardless of how many ports were visited, where they were or time of year. We did a 14-day transAtlantic with 3 ports in Nov '09 on Oceania and paid $26 pp per day in government fees and taxes (yes, $364 pp on a repositioning!) which was the exact same amount for a 14-day European cruise with 12 ports! Very curious indeed. Oceania has since abandoned this practice and now includes all these various charges in their quoted cruise price.

[DaveFr]

Are 'head taxes' government taxes?
I would think they could be governmental taxes. I would think an example of a governmental head tax was the late, unlamented Alaska cruise tax imposed equally on every cruise passenger.

Dave

[rallydave]

Dave,

I certainly don't want you to think I'm stalking your posts but I must point out that when you say Regent taxes and fees are exactly $17 per day per person for all cruises, you are simply wrong.

Take a look at a number of 2011 and 2012 cruises and you'll see that all cruises do not have taxes and fees that equal $17 per person per day. For example, the Rome to Ft. Lauderdale cruise this November charges $156 for taxes and fees. If Regent were charging at $17 per day, the total would be $238. Similarly, the very port intensive 22 day Southampton to Copenhagen cruise next June would charge $374 at $17 per day but, instead, charges $357 for taxes and fees.

Also, the fact that the separate tax and fee charge on a cruise is $17/day/person does not necessarily mean that Regent has increased the charge from the true amount to $17/day/person. Since Regent stated in the memo you quoted that the additional taxes and fees would be a maximum of $17/day/person, if the taxes and fees Regent was assessed were more than $17/person/day, Regent would reduce the additional tax and fee charge to the maximum and leave the excess taxes and fees in the cruise fare.

In January 2009, Regent signed an agreement with the Florida Attorney General's office (see: http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-7NXM78/$file/ClassicCruisesAVC.pdf) after the fuel surcharge debacle. In that document, Regent agreed not to charge amounts in excess of the advertised cruise fare unless they were fees or charges from a governmental or quasi-governmental authority or unless Regent was charging a fuel supplement fee. Regent also agreed that any charge it collected in addition to the advertised cruise price (except for a fuel supplement) would be remitted in its entirety to governmental or quasi-governmental entities. Because of these provisions, I cannot believe Regent would risk violating the agreement by moving cruise expenses to the additional taxes and fees line. In any event, since they are required to turn over all taxes and fees to the appropriate governmental entity, they have nothing to gain by cheating their passengers.

Frankly, I'm more bothered by the fact that Regent did not reduce cruise fares by an amount equal to the separate charge for taxes and fees. In some cases, Regent increased the cruise fare for a particular cruise in addition to the separate charge for taxes and fees. I find this type of hidden price increase very unseemly.

Dave

No problem with the stalking Dave. We all need someone looking over our shoulders when we make an error. I did something I tell other not to do. I compared the posted taxes for the Alaska cruises with the next cruise we are on which is the March TA from FLL to BCN. I didn't check all of the cruises that's for sure so I certainly understand you finding others that aren't $17/day. When I found the cruise I am booked on and don't need to pay the extra fees was the full $17/day for 9 sea days and 6 port days, that set me off. As others have stated, they don't think this is for port taxes and fees but, what else could be calculated at the same price for passengers from Cat H to the Owners Suite. Certainly can't be for taxes on the fare and I really don't know what other taxes there are on mostly international cruises but, port taxes.

Would be really nice if Regent explained this. I was unaware of the Regent settlement from 09 and fully understand your comment about them not messing with taxes and not keeping any excess money. But, with all the confusion and changes that Regent may still be making I'm not sure what the real answer is. It is just that the odds of all of the cruises for the next year and a half have the same or almost the same taxes/fees on a per day basis. We do know that Regent had issues posting the correct dollars on the website today so what other issues have they had that didn't intentionally violate the 09 agreement that haven't been disclosed.

Sure would be nice for Regent to post what taxes/fees they are charging and should I take another Regent crusie other than the one already booked, I certainly will find out what I am paying hundreds of dollars for that is entitled "taxes/fees". We as customers are entitled to know what we are payng for, not within the cruise rates but, something entitled taxes/fees needs to be disclosed what taxes/fees and the 09 issue and resolution supports our entitlement.

Thanks for keeping me honest Dave,

Dave

[Suite Travels]

Perhaps it's time you start looking at Crystal or Seabourn both are excellent lines and no hidden charges.

[gbp]

I think we have three or so threads that are essentially discussing the same topics; Regent's breakout of government fees, price increases, and whether or not Regent is all-inclusive. I think it would be a good idea to merge them, if that's possible and agreeable to all.

Otherwise, it's a hassle keeping up-to-date with three different different threads, not to mention the quandry of which thread to post to. I arbitrarily picked the July 1 price increase thread to post to and I guess I'll stay with that thread should I make any subsequent posts.

Really, though, I think the moderators should create just one thread from the multiple threads that overlap each other.

[Travelcat2]

gbp: While your idea is a good one, merging threads is a time consuming effort for the moderators whose time is mostly voluntary. Multiple threads about the same or similiar subjects happens all the time. It's just something we have to put up with. Host Dan has accommodated us many times. . . . this request may just be over the top:-)

Suite Travels: You again???? Suggest you do a search on the Regent board on Crystal. There are some interesting posts -- most of which are not singing the praises of that cruise line.

Back to the topic. I do not feel that Regent "absorbed" taxes when it became inclusive. They simply added it into the fare. It reminds me of the fuel charge that was tacked on a while back and had to be refunded to many customers. I am fairly certain that at least one of the many fare increases over the past couple of years has been to add in fuel charges. Because of the variables and the necessity to use taxes only for the purpose of paying taxes, maybe the accounting is easier to do this way??? The bottom line to me is the lack, once again, of any communication to their loyal customers.

[Suite Travels]

Well, TC.....wait to you see the awards. TC, as I have stated before you have never stepped foot on Crystal or Seabourn. You have Nothing to compare.

[Travelcat2]

Well, TC.....wait to you see the awards. TC, as I have stated before you have never stepped foot on Crystal or Seabourn. You have Nothing to compare.

Well, if they pay us to try it, we would:-) Actually, there are four major luxury lines (not counting the teeny, tiny Seadream). . .. we have sailed on both Regent and Silversea and will eventually try Seabourn. I think this gives us a basis for comparison. There is nothing we have ever read about Crystal that would entice us to try it. They cannot fill their ships (and there is only two). Maybe they are paying you to advertise it? Now, maybe (please) can we keep on topic. It isn't polite to post on a thread when the intent is only to tout your favorite cruise line.

[cruiseluv]

"Regent no Longer All Inclusive"! Wow, I saw that title and thought maybe Regent had announced it was not including excursions or drinks anymore. But no, nothing so dramatic as that. All that it refers to is to some government taxes/fees amounting to no more than 2 % of the total cost of the cruise (and much lower % for the more expensive cabins). I guess we could have quibbled with the "All inclusive" moniker earlier since Regent's fare does not include things like Spa, beauty treatments, laundry/ dry cleaning etc.

[DaveFr]

Perhaps it's time you start looking at Crystal or Seabourn both are excellent lines and no hidden charges.
Suite Travels, where have you been? You haven't been on this board for quite awhile plugging Crystal or Seabourn. :D

While I respect your opinion regarding the relative merits of the various luxury cruise lines, I wish you would get your facts straight before posting. I don't see any hidden charges on Regent. Regent no longer includes up to $17/day in taxes and fees in its cruise fares. The amount of additional taxes and fees is now clearly shown just below the fare table for a cruise. It is separated from the fare table and from following text by blank lines and uses the same font and font size as the fare table. Where the cruise fare remains the same after removing the taxes and fees, this is a hidden price increase which I don't like but it is not a hidden charge.

In fine print below its fare table for a cruise, Crystal says that taxes and fees in a specified amount are additional. This is no different than what Regent is doing now although the use of fine print makes it less likely that a potential passenger would realize taxes and fees are additional.

On its itinerary page for a cruise, Seabourn mentions in fine print that taxes and fees are additional but does not specify the amount. You or your TA have to contact Seabourn to find out how much the additional taxes and fees will be. The fare page for a cruise does not indicate anything about additional taxes and fees. So, if anything Seabourn comes the closest to having a hidden charge although they are not violating any laws or agreements.

As Sergeant Friday used to say: "Just the facts, ma'am." :D

Dave

[journeyfan]

"Regent no Longer All Inclusive"! Wow, I saw that title and thought maybe Regent had announced it was not including excursions or drinks anymore. But no, nothing so dramatic as that. All that it refers to is to some government taxes/fees amounting to no more than 2 % of the total cost of the cruise (and much lower % for the more expensive cabins). I guess we could have quibbled with the "All inclusive" moniker earlier since Regent's fare does not include things like Spa, beauty treatments, laundry/ dry cleaning etc.
Until July 1, the brochure fare included ALL costs that you were REQUIRED to pay to go on the cruise. You are not required to use the spa, get dry cleaning done, use the Internet, or buy premium wine. You are required to pay the government fees. The concern is not that these fees add a great deal to the cost. It is that they are not included in the advertised brochure fare and would be easy to overlook when comparing cruise costs. It's an effort to be deceptive. While the font size on their website for these additional fees is quite large, it is very small in the brochure I received.

[cruiseluv]

Until July 1, the brochure fare included ALL costs that you were REQUIRED to pay to go on the cruise. You are not required to use the spa, get dry cleaning done, use the Internet, or buy premium wine. You are required to pay the government fees. The concern is not that these fees add a great deal to the cost. It is that they are not included in the advertised brochure fare and would be easy to overlook when comparing cruise costs. It's an effort to be deceptive. While the font size on their website for these additional fees is quite large, it is very small in the brochure I received.

Have they issued new brochures that omit the government fees , thus being "deceptive"? Frankly, I can't get too excited on fees of around $17 per person, per day when the per diems in the lowest categories are around $700. As long as they disclose what those taxes/fees are I can add them to the base fare , and decide if the total fare is something I want to spend or not. Not too difficult to do.

[Travelcat2]

Until July 1, the brochure fare included ALL costs that you were REQUIRED to pay to go on the cruise. You are not required to use the spa, get dry cleaning done, use the Internet, or buy premium wine. You are required to pay the government fees. The concern is not that these fees add a great deal to the cost. It is that they are not included in the advertised brochure fare and would be easy to overlook when comparing cruise costs. It's an effort to be deceptive. While the font size on their website for these additional fees is quite large, it is very small in the brochure I received.

I agree. If it were not for the person who posted that there was going to be a new fee on July 1st, I don't think many of us would even be aware of the change. As has been mentioned, these fees were separate before and were rolled into the fare. Separating them out once again without any type of announcement is not the right thing to do to your customers.

[tallship]

I agree. If it were not for the person who posted that there was going to be a new fee on July 1st, I don't think many of us would even be aware of the change. As has been mentioned, these fees were separate before and were rolled into the fare. Separating them out once again without any type of announcement is not the right thing to do to your customers.


Agree. The first I heard of it was from this board.

[nanook21]

I received at least 3 emails from Regent over the past two weeks, warning that prices were going up July 1. They didn't specify which itineraries it would apply to, nor did they indicated it was government fees and such. Just that the fares would be going up. Not very transparent at all, in my mind, it was kind of a guessing game, like a 'loss-leader' in store sales. However, we heeded that warning and booked our Oct 2012 Istanbul-Venice on June29th to beat the increase. ;) However..... If they keep playing these games, and keep raising price every six months, it might be our last Regent cruise.

[Suite Travels]

TC, Crystal ships are running close to full capacity including the single supplements.

As far as the extra charges, our TA breaks everything down for us when we book or put money on a particular cruise so we have no surprises. I don't read the fine print that is what our TA is paid to do. I rely on our excellent TA to disclose all the details.

[Travelcat2]

I received at least 3 emails from Regent over the past two weeks, warning that prices were going up July 1. They didn't specify which itineraries it would apply to, nor did they indicated it was government fees and such. Just that the fares would be going up. Not very transparent at all, in my mind, it was kind of a guessing game, like a 'loss-leader' in store sales. However, we heeded that warning and booked our Oct 2012 Istanbul-Venice on June29th to beat the increase. ;) However..... If they keep playing these games, and keep raising price every six months, it might be our last Regent cruise.

Great to see that you are booked on a cruise departing from Istanbul -- one of the most beautiful ports in the world (IMO). In terms of this subject -- you bring up a great point. Regent does communicate. . . . just does not include information that customers want and need to know. There seems to be something very wrong with their marketing.