giustot

My opinion on this. The passengers who missed the ship were completely in the wrong. But they realized they were late and communicated with the authorities. The ship's captain knowingly chose to leave behind sick, elderly and pregnant passengers on a small island off the coast of Africa. There is a difference between what's legally right and what's morally right. The captain should be ashamed of himself.

For those who can't read the article, I think I can gift it. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/01/travel/cruise-travel-insurance.html?unlocked_article_code=1.TU0.tPU0.zI9u-awVA_vq&bgrp=a&smid=url-share

The last time I did this from Miami the luggage was not on the same bus with passengers. It was picked up earlier in the morning and went separately to the ship and I didn't see it again until it was delivered to the room.

I would recommend asking the Food & Beverage manager. He can arrange a personal tour for you.

The comment wasn’t directed at you. It was for the original poster.

You're fortunate that you had the opportunity to sail in a much larger suite at a substantially discounted price. Technically, what you received was an "Upsell" not and "Upgrade." The "Why" is simple. Regent made money from your upsell and also even more money if it could resell your original cabin.

In no way is substituting a Greek Isles cruise for a Holy Land cruise, and forcing passengers to take it or lose all of their money, comparable to an airline equipment change.

I appreciate your input. My point is that what happened here amounts to much more than just a change in itinerary, such as substituting one Greek island for another. This is a completely different cruise. If a company wants to say "a contract is a contract" when they sold me a Holy Land cruise and provide a Greek isles cruise, I would say you breached that contract when you completely revised the cruise.

I don't believe the rules allow you to sell one cruise and deliver a completely different one. If I were on the cruise, I would argue that when I booked and signed my contract with you, it was for a Holy Land cruise that would include Jerusalem and the Pyramids. You could not deliver it and I understand why. But since you can't offer me a comparable cruise, you must offer compensation. And you knew this well before the ship sailed, when I could have canceled and stayed home. For a time after Israel was canceled, the Voyager was still going to Egypt, too close to the war zone for comfort. Passengers were being forced to take that cruise to Egypt, potentially putting them in harms way, and causing great emotional distress. No one does this to their customers, at least not the ones they want to keep. The mark of a great company is not one that performs well when everything is going fine, A great company performs well when everything is going badly. Some people want to give Regent the benefit of the doubt and say they just wanted to put stockholders first. Well, safety comes first. Personally, I think Regent just screwed up on this.

That's a difficult sentence for me to understand. Am I correct in believing that what you want to say here is that it costs 10 times more to gain a new customer than to keep a loyal customer.

It’s good to hear that Regent is at least offering some compensation. I wouldn’t look at 25% as a final offer. Passengers should continue voicing their concerns and perhaps the offer will increase. It’s still difficult for me to understand how badly Regent handled this, forcing passengers to take a cruise that was nowhere near the one they signed up for. This has done irreparable harm to the Regent brand.

Another thought here. Everyone seems to be talking about passengers having insurance as a way to cancel if they’re unhappy with the revised itinerary. What about Regent’s insurance. Not the plan they sell you, but the policy they carry for themselves. Regent sold a Holy Land cruise to Israel and Egypt that included Jerusalem and the Pyramids. It can’t deliver that product. No substitutions would be comparable. Why can’t Regent’s insurance company take the loss for refunding any passengers who wish to cancel?

Here is what I see as the risk: The increased likelihood of terrorism directed at Americans. Egypt is very close to the war zone. There are people there who don’t like Americans. There are religious extremists there. Porting a cruise ship with Americans there is a very big and visible target. Putting passengers on buses and taking them to Cairo puts them in even greater risk. Under normal conditions I would have said it’s reasonably safe to stop in Egypt, but not now with the war going on next door. I would be surprised if Regent’s insurance company would even allow the ship to dock in Egypt. Bottom line, no passenger should ever be forced to take a cruise into a war zone when they had no idea the conditions would be such when they booked. America is not a neutral party in this war and I would advise Americans to stay far away from any conflict areas or places where extremists operate.

It was a “difficult decision” to cancel Israel? Are you kidding me? It was an obvious decision. And the decision not to offer refunds or even a FCC to passengers who want to cancel is shameful. I’m not on the cruise but I have been sailing Regent for 20 years. There was a time when we would not even question Regent’s reputation for doing what’s right and taking care of its passengers. It seems to be a different company now. No passenger should be forced to take this cruise or lose tens of thousands of dollars. So much for passenger safety is first and foremost in whatever we do. Just because a company has a legal right to do something does not make it acceptable. Tom.

There is a big, big difference between a crazy person shooting a congresswoman and a war in the Middle East, the largest in 50 years, between the state of Israel and the terrorist group Hamas.

I feel very badly for the passengers involved with this, on the ship now as well as preparing to board on the 14th. Until Regent announces its revised plan, we're all just guessing. It's very safe to say the Voyager will not be stopping in Israel. Passengers will have to get on and off the ship at another port a safe distance away. The country is at war. There will not be any tourism happening. I would also be concerned about the next two stops which are in Egypt. I don't think it's safe for Americans to be there at this time. A cruise ship with well to do Americans on board is too inviting a target. A revised itinerary is likely to include Greece and Italy. That may be fine for some passengers. For now I would completely avoid any ports in the Middle East. Tom

Perhaps you'll allow me to tell you what your personal connection to Normandy is. It's the reason we're typing these messages in English rather than German. I'd stop by and say "Thank You." MSM involves walking up 10 stories just to get to the base of the church.

Some of the food has been very good. My point was that the featured appetizers included only soups and salads. Very easy and inexpensive mass produced dishes. I have never experienced such limited choices on any cruise line. Yes, there are the always available choices. But I think the daily selections should be better. While the asparagus and wedge salads may look good on paper, they were both very disappointing in their presentation and taste. The shrimp cocktail is very small shrimp. I can understand why people order two. On the other hand, the onion soup is excellent. But you don’t want to order it every night. And yes, a good alternative to poor appetizers is to order a half portion of the pasta from the entrees. Also, not trying to be unnecessarily critical, Tuscan Grill was very good overall, but we found Murano to be more emphasis on show than property seasoning the food. However, the Murano desserts were excellent.

It was definitely the dinner menu. I ate there. It was the menu they served.

Had a problem posting so I had to reply to my original post to explain my point.

At last night’s dinner on the Equinox, the four featured appetizers were two salads and two soups. Never in 30 years of cruising have I seen anything like that.

I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. My wife and I were seriously considering taking a cruise on the Viking Mississippi in the summer of 2023. Now that's not going to happen. If I were an executive at Viking Cruises, I would be ashamed to have my name associated with this ship. Tom.

The original poster was not clear about exactly what type of insurance he purchased through his travel agent. Most people seem to be assuming it was an independent policy, whose effective dates could easily be modified. But from what he says his travel agent told him, he may have purchased an Oceania policy, along with the cruise, through his travel agent. If that is the case, and he booked independent travel dates, it might explain why Oceania insurance would only cover the cruise itself.

There's a big difference between the Mandarin Oriental and the Diplomat (which is not even in Miami.)