cerise638

53 minutes ago, wripro said:

The Regent was xcursions we’re never free, they were included n the inflated fares. Now not only are many of them no longer included you’ll have to pay extra for them.

Let's not go with conspiracy theories yet.  It is probably that they are still determining which included excursions they can run in a safe way.  A lot of their suppliers could still be furloughed so info is just not available

2 hours ago, Portolan said:

Many to choose from, but one which stands out was off Voyager in the Mediterranean: an evening reception at the Celsus Library at Ephesus followed by a classical concert in the Grand Theater.  The reception was a Gold and above special event (back when those events were way more special due to fewer in the group).  The concert was for all passengers on the ship.

That looks spectacular.  You were very lucky to experience that

Let's cheer ourselves up and think of our happy memories. 

My stand out moment on Regent was on our second cruise about 18 months apart from our first both on Mariner. We sat down in the Observation lounge.  About 2 minutes later we were greeted by name and told our drinks would be with us shortly - at that point we hadn't ordered anything.  Another few minutes and our regular pre dinner Vodka martini (from our first cruise) was served perfectly.  To say we were impressed is an understatement.

Please share your Regent moments

1 minute ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

Thank. you for your post.  You seem to have a better undertanding than some of us.  OTOH, only quoting part of a contract can make a company look bad which, for some posters, is the point.

 

I have yet to determine why the contract has been brought up yet again.  It isn’t like it has changed lately.  

TC2. The title of this post is about terms and conditions and what is applicable and when.  I unfortunately have waded in because contract law fascinates me.  Not saying Regent have changed anything just that they have Terms that protect them in extreme circumstances but my point is that they still would have to be seen to act reasonably in applying any of those clauses

14 minutes ago, greykitty said:

Well, @cerise638, if a company were that lax to accept a rewritten contract and deposit, then they deserve whatever they get!  LOL 

 

Absolutely. It has worked in my favour once or twice but in the context of b2b contracts rather than b2c.

4 minutes ago, rallydave said:

I disagreed because you said provide your Ts an Cs before final payment which comes after deposit. With your clarification of course you could provide your Ts snd Cs when you purchase the cruise before a contract is in place. 
 

Of course you would have your Ts ann Cs rejected and have to live with the cruise line Ts and Cs Or not pay the deposit. 
 

have to ask why you earlier Said I only picked part of the ticket contract as I quoted the full portion of sellers position. 

I think that to pull out that particular clause out of the ticket contract without reference to consumer laws in different jurisdictions can be misleading and I bet it is also in many other travel companies terms.  I think I did say I have been guilty of this myself.  This is where reasonableness comes in the application of the clause.

Just now, greykitty said:

That only works if Company X would accept your terms and deposit.  I agree - you'd be getting that money and T&C back fastest possible way, not signed by the company.  What would be their reason to accept your Terms & Conditions? 

Quite frankly ineptitude.  I would have to make it very clear what my conditions for paying the deposit were.  If they did not read them then it would be a reverse of caveat emptor.  I think that's why I have stressed that it is theoretitcal

1 hour ago, rallydave said:

 

Agree with you but, doubt anyone cruising would spend the money to take it to the court specified by Regent.

 

 

Unfortunately this quote is incorrect other than the last sentence whether or not US or UK.  Regent clearly states that you have accepted their T's and C's once you put a deposit down and they shall prevail as long as they don't violate the law as you properly stated.

 

As far as you sending your own T's and C's, that would only be possible if you send those with your deposit and in that case am positive you would get your deposit back as your T's and C's would not be acceptable.  You cannot unilaterally send in your T's and C's once a Contract is in place as any changes would need to be bilateral and again would not be acceptable to any company and thus the original T's and C's stand.  A Contract stands with and offer and acceptance and that occurs with the deposit..

Not sure why you are saying my statement is incorrect.  My understanding of contract law is if I for instance pay the deposit but attach my own Terms then if the company I am dealing with accepts my deposit then my terms are in force.  I agree with you that the likelihood of this is low which is why I stated `in theory`.   The whole conundrum of this is why lawyers make lots of money drawing up contracts and terms

5 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

Not sure why blacksmith is being blasted for feeling that the contracts are a bit scary.  They every right to feel and express their feelings and opinions!!!

 

In terms of my post, I think that posters are using the contracts to enforce their negative beliefs about Regent (even though they know that that Regent will go above and beyond what their contracts state).  Harping on this issue again and again is also reinforcing negativism.  Isn't there enough of that going on right now without looking for something negative to post?

 

My résponse to blacksmith was to lessen fears - based on our experiences with Regent and the many things they have done that they did not legally have to do.  

 

Unless someone is a lawyer in this field or writes contracts for cruise lines (that are considerably different than other types of contracts), perhaps one should not come across as an authority on Regent's contracts.  What companies actually do in real life is much more important than the contracts they have in place to protect them from people that like to sue companies for just about anything that you can think of.  IMHO, Regent has to protect themselves from these people.  And, these stringent contracts is likely why cruise lines often win lawsuits.  

 

Maybe - just maybe - some posters will look back and appreciate what Regent has done for them with the new guidelines that have been set forth during this pandemic.  And I also hope that posters will realize that Regent is doing what it needs to do in terms of not cancelling cruises too far in advance and is not holding back information about whether or not a cruise will sail on a particular date and which ports they will be able to stop at.  They simply do not know right now and that is a fact.

TC. We were posting and the same time.  Absolutely agree with you about why there are so many apparently draconian clauses in these terms

in reality Regent or any other company will only apply these in extremes - as I have said they need to meet the test of reasonableness to succeed in a court of law.

We are in unprecedented times but I do think Regent should cancel cruises when they have certainty they cannot operate them.  Everyone is thinking oh Alaska's cancelled because of Canadian ban.  I am not saying there are but there could be negotiations going on which mean this may not be the case so companies are quite prepared to pull the plug yet

43 minutes ago, greykitty said:

Anyone who thinks clauses are put into contracts 'just for fun' or as a 'scare tactic' - I just don't know what to think.  Contracts exist to be enforced at need.  

 

Granted, public opinion would be even less in favor of cruise ships should the the lines start playing hardball.  But that's probably the only 'court' the lines would lose in regarding terms & conditions.  

Disagree.  If the terms are considered unreasonable or violate consumer law then they can be overturned by a court.  If I wished to send to Regent my own Terms of how I expected them to behave as a provider of a service then in theory my terms would prevail until they refuted them by another document such as a final invoice that I paid.  However my terms would have to considered reasonable by a court of law (UK)

You have also misinterpreted what the poster said (again). Cutting and pasting a section of ticket conditions to suit your negative  point is scaremongering and I will admit I have done this myself without realising the impact on others.  

5 hours ago, rallydave said:

No a lawyer either but, have written many huge Contracts requiring understanding of T's and C's.  Simply go to the cruise contract and ticket contract and you will see where Regent along with most other cruise lines have included in the Contract the ability to change things and not have to provide valid reasons.  It's a no win situation for the customer but, because it is in the Contract they are allowed to make those unilateral changes to a bi-lateral Contract.

 

That said, with this clause in the Contract,  they can do most anything.

 

9. CARRIER’S RIGHTS
The Ship, either before embarkation or at any time thereafter and whether or not required by any maritime necessity, may remain in port, proceed by any route and deviate from or change the advertised scheduled or intended route at any stage of the voyage and may proceed to and stay at any places whatsoever, although in a contrary direction to, or outside of, or beyond the usual route, one or more times, in any order, for loading or discharging fuel, stores, laborers, stowaways, Guests, or members of the Ship’s company, for this, or any prior or subsequent voyage and/or for any purpose whatsoever that We, as Carrier, or the Master may deem advisable. Any such procedure shall be considered not to be a deviation but within the voyage herein intended as fully as if specifically described herein. The above mentioned provisions are not to be considered as restricted by any words of this Ticket Contract. The Ship may adjust compass, drydock or go on ways before or after commencement of the voyage and may sail without pilots, tow or be towed, and assist vessels in all situations and deviate for the purposes of saving life or property. Except as provided in Clause 4(c), if the performance of the proposed voyage is hindered or prevented (or in the opinion of the Carrier or Master, is likely to be hindered or prevented) by war, hostilities, blockage, ice, labor conflicts, weather, surf, shallow waters, insurrections, disturbances, on board or ashore, restraint of any Governmental Authority, breakdown of the Ship, congestions, docking difficulties or any other cause whatsoever, or if We, as Carrier, or the Master of the Ship consider that for any reason whatsoever, beyond the control of the Carrier, proceeding to, attempting to enter, or entering or remaining at any port may expose the Ship to risk of loss or damage, or be likely to delay the Ship, You and Your baggage may be landed at any port or place at which the Ship may call, in which event Our responsibility shall cease and this Ticket/Contract shall be deemed to have been fully performed, or if You have not embarked, We may cancel the proposed voyage without liability to refund any Cruise or CruiseTour Fares paid in advance

43 minutes ago, SusieQft said:

Tert333, I was very surprised to hear this, so I posed the question to Steve Dasseos of tripinsurancestore.com on the forum he currently has active at 

When I did this, I did not notice that you are Canadian, so your statement may very well be true in Canada.  Steve sells trip insurance in the US and has made it very clear that his answers apply to insurance in the US only, except in rare cases where he might make a specific reference to another country.

 

In any case, I thought I would post the link to his answer here to reassure at least the travelers in the US that they don't need to worry about this particular problem, at least not as far as their insurance goes.

Agree it differs in all countries.  If you travel from the UK to when all but essential travel is advised then most parts of your insurance are invalidated.  If you are already abroad insurance is still valid.  

i think everyone needs to look at their policy very carefully as their is no one answer to this.

There was no suggestion in the article I read that the vaccine would be released before it was tested and  known to be viable.

Obviously side effects are a big part of clinical trials.  They are balancing all those risks against being able to manufacture large quantities of the Vaccine if it is effective.  Not a decision I would like to call.

Very early days but CIO of AstraZeneca has announced they will commence manufacturing of the Vaccine they are developing with Oxford University BEFORE knowing effectivity. With input from a couple of charities including one backed by Bill Gates they are hoping for a billion doses before the end of 2020.  

He and others are quite open about the fact that the vaccine may not end up being effective and it is a big risk.  They will not know until August. 

There is agreement to supply the US with 300 million doses (TC2 no need to fly across the pond 😊) and the UK 100 million doses as early as September and also a commitment to supply the poorest nations

We can only hope that it does turn out to be effective and that other vaccines under development are too 

Being from the West Country missing draught cider too but funnily enough did have humous, feta and veggies for lunch today but home prepared so not quite the same as chilling in a nice restaurant

It will be while before restaurants open here but very much looking forward to it

1 hour ago, UUNetBill said:

We usually try to have at least one on the books to look forward to (we just recently had four pending, which is easily a first - and probably last) for us.  I never checked my account unless I had one pending so I can’t say whether it makes a difference - but I will say it SHOULDN’T make a difference.

 

There are some nice features on Regent’s website, but there are still quite a few areas that could use some work....

I agree that it shouldn't.  To use an IT community phrase I suspect it has some undocumented features in the My Account permissions section.  Probably as simple as the original requestor didn't foresee that someone without a cruise booked would be interested in their history.  

Greykitty.  The clause which is clause 12 in the ticket contract also has me very worried. I haven't yet found an insurer that covers that in the UK.  I must admit that I hadn't given it a thought before the virus.   For cruising to begin again the travel insurance sector is going to need to be very transparent as to what they will and will not cover.

My cruise in November is fully covered for cancellations or medical expenses including repatriation due to covid as it was booked before the crisis on my annual policy.  If I take a fcc then according to them all bets are off and any new covid clauses will apply at the time of the new booking.

 I've got a couple of months before final payment to make a decision on whether to cancel and claim my 20% deposit back from the insurer or whether to pay and decide later on whether to cruise

A dilemma but I'll worry about it nearer the time 

Tc2 you recommended on another thread that Figi was a Great destination for a landtrip.  It is a long way from the UK. We have done the Philippines and Bali so not quite the same area.  In your opinion is it different enough to make the trip  worthwhile and would you combine with anywhere else.

 All thoughts welcome 

I have to say I have only ever been able to see my past cruising history when I have an upcoming cruise booked.  Maybe all you lucky folks who are able to cruise more frequently have always had an upcoming cruise in the wings.

Would add that this refers to UK website as well

15 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

Your point about onboarding lodging, etc if there was an outbreak is definitely something to think about.  I'm not certain if they are in our Ts&Cs - will have to check.  Still, my husband, Dennis, thinks that cruise ships will likely be safer than any place on earth as their restrictions will be enforced and the sanitation measures sound quite good.

 

Have to ask where you live in the U.K.  Dennis is from London  so we have been there several times (but not recently as we seem to always be cruising).  I love the West of England (actually, I love everything about England).  It is so wonderful to have my own private tour guide (especially when trying to navigate the "tube" in London.)  It is really confusing for this American that was raised in Los Angeles with horrible transportation.

 

I also want to thank you for your kindness and support.  It is appreciated more than you know!

TC. I am lucky enough to live in the South West of England between Bath and Bristol in a village with all the cliches, Church, village pub etc.  But we are close enough to two beautiful cities to get the benefit of their amenities.

I think everyone needs to be kind to one another especially at the moment.  Quite often I read posts that make me mad but then take a deep breath and usually realise that everyone has the right to voice their opinions without censure.

Wouldn't it be boring if we all thought the same

Seem to be sensible measures and what I would expect.  I wouldn't be surprised if they slightly exceed whatever final regulations come out from the relevant authority

Doesn't cover their protocols should they have an outbreak onboard from someone that was displaying no symptoms when they boarded.  This is my main fear and the subsequent quarantine and difficulty getting into port

Regent UK Ts&Cs have a clause which means that the passenger has to pay for all board and lodgings should the ship be quarantined.  It is impossible to get insurance to cover for this (well I haven't found one yet that will cover)

Unless this clause is removed I cannot see myself cruising until this crisis is over.  Well that is what my head says.  My heart is another story

26 minutes ago, flossie009 said:

 

The probability, and dire consequences, of a pandemic has long been seen as one of the greatest risks to lives and economies around the world.

This graph is from the UK's National Risk Register for 2008 and shows a pandemic to be likely, with the highest of impacts:

 

UK Gov National Risk Register 2008

 

............... but I agree that, despite these accurate predictions, most governments and companies were ill-prepared when the inevitable occurred. 

 

Thanks for the graph Flossie. Being in Business Continuity Planning and Risk Management for many years to be honest there is little anyone can do to influence the likelihood of a Global Pandemic.  However the impact is so high any prudent Global Supply Chain Business have had plans in place to mitigate that impact and are audited on those plans.   Sad to say that many governments have chosen not to take this approach due to the costs.  Somewhat understandable due to the many calls on the public purse but with 20:20 hindsight may not

have been correct.

Lovely video from the Voyager Crew on the RSSC Facebook page.  Sorry having difficulties posting a link. It made me a bit tearful and yearning to get cruising again

Agree. What a lovely spot.  I'm envious of any view of water. 

18 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

For those of you not cruising this year, what type of vacation will you be taking?  For us, if we do not cruise in November, we may find a cave somewhere and hibernate until this is over with.

If I can't cruise in November I might come and join you.  We need to find a cave that will allow social distancing, internet access so we can be alerted if a cruise becomes viable and a good store of gin, vodka and Veuve Cliquot