Analysis of 2012 Grand Voyage/Euro Cruises

[mrlevin]

I finally got around to looking at the Voyager cruises. I selected as a starting point the 7 Feb Auckland to Sydney cruise as this kicks off the 139 night Grand Voyage to Copenhagen. Overall, my limited analysis shows Voyager is selling even worse than Mariner.

There are 26 cruises (not counting combo cruises) on Voyager starting 7 Feb in Auckland and ending 14 Nov in Luxor. Out of those 26 cruises, Cat H is still available on three (3 Jun, 7 Oct, and 17 Oct) of these cruises. Cat G is available on 22 of these cruises. Even though you would have to book a Cat G guarantee on nine of these cruises, specific Cat G cabins are available on every sailing between 2 Jul and 31 Oct. The entire Norhern Europe season has Cat H waitlisted but every other category available.

Cat F and Cat E are available on every cruise though on seven sailings it is Cat F guarantee and 3 sailings it is Cat E guarantee. In fact, the only sailings that appear heavily booked are the Sydney to Singapore and Singapore to Dubai segments of the Grand Voyage.

To paraphrase Samuel Morse:

What hath PCH wrought?

Does anyone have a way to put a positive spin on this?

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Well what do you surmise from it, Marc? That people's investment portfolios along with the economy are in the tank, so people are deferring decisions about travel? Or do you see something more sinister? What could PCH have wrought?

I did notice with some surprise a day or two ago that a cruise that I was looking at on Voyager, namely, Aegean Harbors on Voyager, Oct 17, 2012 has G availability (along with everything else except H, which is, in fact, a GTY.)

I smell bargains.

[wripro]

Could it be the extremely high fares people are being asked to pay for all the "free" things?

[mrlevin]

Well what do you surmise from it, Marc? That people's investment portfolios along with the economy are in the tank, so people are deferring decisions about travel? Or do you see something more sinister? What could PCH have wrought?

I smell bargains.

Wendy, the law of supply and demand says that both supply and the equilibirum price should decrease; however, there is really no way to lower supply (I guess they could give free cruises to staff and agents). So, prices should really decrease.

Why I blame PCH? Two basic reasons. First, the prices have gone up too much. And, quarterly price increases just make it worse as it appears that PCH plans on selling many of the cabins at higher rates instead of really trying to sell early. Second, maybe all inclusive including excursions has pushed Regent into too small a niche. I have no insider knowledge nor do I know what is going on at other cruiselines (my Silversea cruise was sold out but now has availability but that is a single data point).

BTW, if you take advantage of air and the excursions, how much is the comparable per diem on Voyager cruise you are looking at?

[turtlemichael]

Could it be the extremely high fares people are being asked to pay for all the "free" things?

If Seabourn can have 25% of a Spirit cruise taken by Belgian TAs I guess they have a few spare bunks too :)

[Wendy The Wanderer]

BTW, if you take advantage of air and the excursions, how much is the comparable per diem on Voyager cruise you are looking at?

Good question, Marc. Let's see...G cabin is $4849 (won't do a GTY on Voyager). That makes it $693 per diem, the H would be $649. That would come down a bit if you subtracted the $500 for the "free" hotel, but then I'd have to add back in the deviation fee. Pretty steep, isn't it?

(And of course, I'd try to eak out buying Business Air, which would be another $2K pp.)

For us, per diem isn't as important as the bottom line total. This one is within our usual budget, although we'd probably do extravagant pre- and post-cruise stays and blow the bankroll on that.

This is just a wishlist item in any case, and would only happen if we cancelled our Alaska trip next May.

[ChatKat in Ca.]

Remember that there are Travel Agents and consolidators that block out groups of cabins too. They're taken out of inventory and then might be returned to inventory when unsold. That might be the case with Seabourn/Silverseas too.

Our mailbox has been flooded with offers by everyone - except Regent.

[jhp]

[QUOTE I smell bargains.[/QUOTE]

I hope Wendy is right!

[wripro]

On Regent the credit for the "free" hotel is $600. That and the "free" excursions are what I was referring to. Both if these "freebies" drive up the fares considerably.

[TheSeaAroundUs]

Marc, your analyses are fascinating. I exhort you to continue to apply your intellect in such a manner.

[kuldalai]

There is no such thing as a free lunch . Government Authorities should clamp down on such misleading advertising claiming things are free when clearly they are NOT and are built into the end pricing . The adverts should say all inclusive, but FREE it definitely is not .

Compare two cruise lines for a similar itinerary and the one with all the claimed freebies will be much dearer than the line that does not advertise that way .
Caveat Emptor !!!! (Buyer Beware) Q E D .

Like adverts here in Australia that advertise to book a Balcony Stateroom and then have the audacity to claim that you will get a "guaranteed balcony stateroom" . If you book a Balcony Stateroom then of course that is what you will get, so the guaranteed bit is marketing spin and meaningless .

[Shipkicker]

There is no such thing as a free lunch . Government Authorities should clamp down on such misleading advertising claiming things are free when clearly they are NOT and are built into the end pricing . The adverts should say all inclusive, but FREE it definitely is not .

Compare two cruise lines for a similar itinerary and the one with all the claimed freebies will be much dearer than the line that does not advertise that way .
Caveat Emptor !!!! (Buyer Beware) Q E D .

Like adverts here in Australia that advertise to book a Balcony Stateroom and then have the audacity to claim that you will get a "guaranteed balcony stateroom" . If you book a Balcony Stateroom then of course that is what you will get, so the guaranteed bit is marketing spin and meaningless .

There are Turth in Advertising laws in the United States. They are enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Click here to read a bit about truth in advertising. (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/greenlights/index.shtml) The FTC Act requires that advertising not be deceptive. It must also be capable of substantiation. Clearly when Regent provides a credit for not taking one of their services advertised as "FREE", then it is not "FREE". It may be provided at no additional charge/cost to the consumer, but is not free. You can file a complaint with the FTC by clicking here. (https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?lang=en)

[rallydave]

There are Truth in Advertising laws in the United States. They are enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Click here to read a bit about truth in advertising. (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/greenlights/index.shtml) The FTC Act requires that advertising not be deceptive. It must also be capable of substantiation. Clearly when Regent provides a credit for not taking one of their services advertised as "FREE", then it is not "FREE". It may be provided at no additional charge/cost to the consumer, but is not free. You can file a complaint with the FTC by clicking here. (https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?lang=en)

Well that explains why Regent stated just that when I tried to dispute some Regent charges because they didn't deliver on a free special event. Their response to the credit card company was that since it was free, it had no value therefore, they couldn't refund any money. Next thing you know, the cruise lines will charge for something and then say the cruise is free to avoid any refunds. Very shroud way to avoid any refunds for undelivered or poorly delivered items.

Seems Regent is aware of this law and uses it to their advantage. They can fail to deliver on anything they identify as free and then legally not refund any money.

A very annoying way to use the law that is supposed to protect the consumer to instead protect the company. Just proves that the lawyers (legislatures) who write laws and tout how they are to help the general public also lie to the general public but instead deceive the general public by doing the exact opposite of what the law is supposed to do and the public is none the wiser.

[Shipkicker]

Well that explains why Regent stated just that when I tried to dispute some Regent charges because they didn't deliver on a free special event. Their response to the credit card company was that since it was free, it had no value therefore, they couldn't refund any money. Next thing you know, the cruise lines will charge for something and then say the cruise is free to avoid any refunds. Very shroud way to avoid any refunds for undelivered or poorly delivered items.

Seems Regent is aware of this law and uses it to their advantage. They can fail to deliver on anything they identify as free and then legally not refund any money.

A very annoying way to use the law that is supposed to protect the consumer to instead protect the company. Just proves that the lawyers (legislatures) who write laws and tout how they are to help the general public also lie to the general public but instead deceive the general public by doing the exact opposite of what the law is supposed to do and the public is none the wiser.
If your post is about shore excursion, then Regent is in the clear on that one (in my opinion). Although we all know the cost of excursions are included in the cruise fare, the fact that Regent does not offer any reduction/credit in fare or other charge(s) concerning excursion indicates they are “FREE.” “FREE” airfare and “FREE” hotel are two of the items that clearly do not meet the standard under the truth in advertising statues. Another clear violation is the “FREE Champagne” which in reality (so I have read, my first Regent cruise is this November) is not Champagne, rather it is sparkling wine. If they advertise Champagne, then they have a statutory obligation (at least in the United States) to provide Champagne. About 30 years ago when I was in the restaurant business, I attended a seminar concerning truth in advertising. I remember one of the speakers telling the audience, if you have Long Island Duck on your menu, you had better make sure that duck is from Long Island and that you can prove it is from Long Island.

[TedC]

Do Long Island Ducks eyes differ from Peking Ducks?

[rallydave]

If your post is about shore excursion, then Regent is in the clear on that one (in my opinion). Although we all know the cost of excursions are included in the cruise fare, the fact that Regent does not offer any reduction/credit in fare or other charge(s) concerning excursion indicates they are “FREE.” “FREE” airfare and “FREE” hotel are two of the items that clearly do not meet the standard under the truth in advertising statues. Another clear violation is the “FREE Champagne” which in reality (so I have read, my first Regent cruise is this November) is not Champagne, rather it is sparkling wine. If they advertise Champagne, then they have a statutory obligation (at least in the United States) to provide Champagne. About 30 years ago when I was in the restaurant business, I attended a seminar concerning truth in advertising. I remember one of the speakers telling the audience, if you have Long Island Duck on your menu, you had better make sure that duck is from Long Island and that you can prove it is from Long Island.

Well Shipkicker, I'm a bit confused by your latest post and you my post may have confused you as well. My special event was a shore excursion that was advertised as free and by what I think you stated, if it is advertised as free, it is not subject to truth in advertising and if they then refund money for theat free excursion, it becomes subject to truth in advertising.

So, Regent advertises many things as free and thus not subject to truth in advertising and if they refund any money for those things, that would make them subject to truth in advertising. Thus by making them free, they avoid truth in advertising and save making any refunds and avoid issues with the truth in advertising law. Regent is thus using a loophole in the truth in advertising law by advertising things as free and not subject to the truth in advertising law as well as therefor not being subject to refunds due to failure to be truthful in their advertising.

Have I got it right Shipkicker?

[trouper75]

Long time Regent cruisers have apparently missed something: PCH means what?
B

[Colonel(Ret.)Wes]

cut/paste from Linkedin: Prestige Cruise Holdings is the parent company for both the Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises brands. Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises are the world’s only upper premium cruise lines. Cuisine, Comfort, Service and outstanding value are the pillars that define our five-star product and have positioned the lines as the cruise companys of choice for travelers seeking a truly refined and casually elegant travel experience.

Prestige Cruise Holdings is the market leader in the Upper Premium and Luxury segments of the cruise industry with approximately 4,000 berths between the Regent Seven Seas Cruises and Oceania Cruises brands.

[Travelcat2]

cut/paste from Linkedin: Prestige Cruise Holdings is the parent company for both the Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises brands. Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises are the world’s only upper premium cruise lines. Cuisine, Comfort, Service and outstanding value are the pillars that define our five-star product and have positioned the lines as the cruise companys of choice for travelers seeking a truly refined and casually elegant travel experience.

Prestige Cruise Holdings is the market leader in the Upper Premium and Luxury segments of the cruise industry with approximately 4,000 berths between the Regent Seven Seas Cruises and Oceania Cruises brands.

Rather a complicated way of saying that Regent and Oceania are owned by Apollo and operated by Prestige Cruise Holdings (PCH). Regent and Oceania have separate presidents but do share many executive positions -- all of whom report to Frank Del Rio, CEO of PCH.

Hope this simple explanation is helpful. In terms of the above . . . . not sure where this poster found this unfortunate description of Regent and Oceania. Regent is a SIX star product while Oceania is a five star product.

[cruiseej]

Travelcat, that description Col. Wes posted is from the company's own listing on the LinkedIn website (as he stated). So it's not an "unfortunate description" -- it's the company's own description.

I've noticed that you always make a major fuss about the difference between luxury and premium cruise lines, or here, between 6-star and 5-star cruise lines -- and their application to siblings Regent and Oceania.

The names are, to my knowledge, how the cruise industry classifies different cruise experiences; the latter, to my knowledge, is pure marketing creation, with no basis in any objective standard. (Luxury use to be defined a "five-star", until some marketing person decided to label their product as 6-star. Now, it's widespread. For example, Sandals markets their resorts as 6-star, even though no one would confuse them with, say, Four Seasons or Ritz-Carlton.) As to the names, they are commonly used by the travel industry, but there is no absolute standard nor is there a wall dividing the classes -- just shades of gray. Even on the Regent website, they refer to Oceania as "upper premium" -- shades of gray.

It's fine to talk about the similarities and differences between cruising experiences on the different cruise lines, but it doesn't seem worth getting huffy about labels which are applied, particularly the ones which are pure marketing-speak.

-- Eric

[Travelcat2]

Travelcat, that description Col. Wes posted is from the company's own listing on the LinkedIn website (as he stated). So it's not an "unfortunate description" -- it's the company's own description.

-- Eric

I do see your point and admit to having negative feelings when Regent is put in the same category as Oceania (not trying to overly picky. . . . but, the description did not indicate which cruise line was upper premium and which was luxury). You are also correct that the five or six star rating is used for marketing purposes.

Regent has advertised itself as a six star cruise line. Now they state that both Oceania and Regent are 5 star? Perhaps this is why three upper level management people have been added to the "Regent/Oceania"* management team as well as a new advertising firm. Any accuracies contained on the Regent website are purely coincidental:-)

*This is how Seatrader Insider referred to the two cruise lines in their latest article.

[Responder]

I do see your point and admit to having negative feelings when Regent is put in the same category as Oceania (not trying to overly picky. . . . but, the description did not indicate which cruise line was upper premium and which was luxury). You are also correct that the five or six star rating is used for marketing purposes.

Regent has advertised itself as a six star cruise line. Now they state that both Oceania and Regent are 5 star? Perhaps this is why three upper level management people have been added to the "Regent/Oceania"* management team as well as a new advertising firm. Any accuracies contained on the Regent website are purely coincidental:-)

*This is how Seatrader Insider referred to the two cruise lines in their latest article.

What difference does the marketing lingo make?

Do you buy clothes or food based on what a company puts out in its blurbs?

Only you can decide if you like or don't like the product and go from there. The rest is all fluff...unless of course, there is a percieved element of class distinction.

[xplrcrzn]

In answer to the OP's original query, PCH and Regent have made a series of bad bets that the economy was improving. It's not.

[tallship]

Perhaps it is time to rethink the pricing structure altogether

[wripro]

Who cares how many fake stars the management company assigns? The only thing that matters is how many you assign them. If you like the line sail with them. If not, don't.

[mrlevin]

In answer to the OP's original query, PCH and Regent have made a series of bad bets that the economy was improving. It's not.

They didn't just bet on improving economy; they forced themselves into a niche by including excursions. For me, it has been wonderful as I have taken advantage of so many excursions that my "cruise only" cost has dropped dramatically. For others, it appears that that comparison is not as favorable.

[Anna B.]

They didn't just bet on improving economy; they forced themselves into a niche by including excursions. For me, it has been wonderful as I have taken advantage of so many excursions that my "cruise only" cost has dropped dramatically. For others, it appears that that comparison is not as favorable.

Yes, Marc, there are definitely two sides to this coin. On our last cruise before excursions were included (not Regent) we spent a small fortune every day. Add drinks to that plus tipping and our credit card bill at the end of a 14 day cruise was alarming!

[tallship]

Interesting thread
I ran into one of my colleagues who asked me which cruise line we used for Alaska
When I stated Regent - they sais...omg...they are so expensive

I think people do have limits in mind and with the economy souring, it is tough to do the higher prices

[Responder]

Interesting thread
I ran into one of my colleagues who asked me which cruise line we used for Alaska
When I stated Regent - they sais...omg...they are so expensive

I think people do have limits in mind and with the economy souring, it is tough to do the higher prices

I get the same response from most all my friends who sail regularly on the 4-5000 passenger behemoths for $679.00 a week. Not a whole to discuss with them, and they have done this before the economic crunch and will continue to do so after.....and it has not a whole lot to do with how much money they have in the mattress.

[jhp]

I'm sure if I had been cruising the large ships for several years with great memories, I'd be wide eyed just looking at the Regent prices. But really, when you price out what a comparable cabin, excursions, air, alcohol, gratuities, etc cost on those ships, the difference in price is outweighed by the value (what I perceive as value, not someone else)

I do remember on the Voyager Shakedown cruise (2004?), at a town hall meeting during the cruise, Mark Conroy told us that (then) Radisson was trying to target experienced Princess, Celebrity and HAL cruisers who were looking to move on to more luxury (and maybe less crowds and lines). Must have been a hard sell. Well, for years, (along with keeping their current clientele happy), that marketing has worked. With the current economy, I will perhaps be cruising less, but I'll just move to a different type of travel. Certainly not much of a sacrifice since I've gotten 4 grandkids in the past 3 years!

[Travelcat2]

I'm sure if I had been cruising the large ships for several years with great memories, I'd be wide eyed just looking at the Regent prices. But really, when you price out what a comparable cabin, excursions, air, alcohol, gratuities, etc cost on those ships, the difference in price is outweighed by the value (what I perceive as value, not someone else)

I do remember on the Voyager Shakedown cruise (2004?), at a town hall meeting during the cruise, Mark Conroy told us that (then) Radisson was trying to target experienced Princess, Celebrity and HAL cruisers who were looking to move on to more luxury (and maybe less crowds and lines). Must have been a hard sell. Well, for years, (along with keeping their current clientele happy), that marketing has worked.

Do you really feel that more Princess, Celebrity and HAL cruisers will be sailing on Regent in this economy?

[xplrcrzn]

Do you really feel that more Princess, Celebrity and HAL cruisers will be sailing on Regent in this economy?

I think it is more likely that Regent cruisers will be considering Celebrity or HAL (although probably not Princess).

[Wendy The Wanderer]

I think it is more likely that Regent cruisers will be considering Celebrity or HAL (although probably not Princess).

Touché! That's how I certainly feel, although I'm not sure that I won't just go to land trips. But why not Princess? My conundrum is that I'm happy to do land, which is a lot cheaper in many cases than a cruise, but I do love that feeling of being on a ship.

[xplrcrzn]

Touché! That's how I certainly feel, although I'm not sure that I won't just go to land trips. But why not Princess? My conundrum is that I'm happy to do land, which is a lot cheaper in many cases than a cruise, but I do love that feeling of being on a ship.

I've moved away from cruises in the last year toward more, shorter land trips. I feel this allows me to explore a particular city or region more thoroughly plus I can control costs better. As for Princess, many people love the line but it isn't generally considered to be in the same category as HAL and Celebrity. Certainly nothing wrong with Princess as the line has been quite successful over the years.

[bigdipper]

This may not be exactly relevant, but we gold Mariners are doing HAL 112 day world cruise in Jan. for roughly $58K including air and insurance in low/center/outside cabin. That location would be our choice on any ship. We do not drink and will probably do $10K in tours. For us RSSC has moved beyond point where cost equals value. Days traveling on HAL are about same as RSSC/Radison and a recent 14 day stint on Statendam reinforced our perception that HAL service/food/ambiance is quite acceptable for us.
Sister line Oceania (~100 days) does meet our specs. and the upcharge there, if it IS even an upcharge is acceptable.
This is just us and we make no claim to represent a market significant segment.
Ralph

[TedC]

I think it is more likely that Regent cruisers will be considering Celebrity or HAL (although probably not Princess).

I think for many It would be difficult to go back to ships with 2000 or more passengers and signing chits etc after Regent.

[xplrcrzn]

I think for many It would be difficult to go back to ships with 2000 or more passengers and signing chits etc after Regent.

My experience has been that quite few luxury cruisers actually go back and forth between the big lines and the deluxe ones, for a variety of reasons.

[jhp]

Agree with above poster. I know several Regent Platinum and Titanium cruisers who switch around between Regent and other larger ship lines. Seems really elistist to asume that ALL Princess, HAL, and cruisers can't afford it.... Some people wouldn't pay those prices regardlless of their resouces.