Jump to content

Regent Says, We're Not Sorry You Have Cancer and We're Keeping Your Money


jhower
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dear Friends,

This is a textbook story of how to take a loyal customer and piss them off for life. In the summer of 2016 my husband and I booked a cruise on Regent to the Western Caribbean. This trip would have been our fourth vacation with them. About a month later I was diagnosed with colon cancer and had surgery. We contacted Regent about the situation and asked them to allow us to reschedule our trip and apply our funds to another trip. It is important to note that we did not ask for a refund.

 

They Refused. Instead, they kept about $10,000 and refunded the balance.

 

This was wrong on so many levels. First, they showed no compassion for my medical situation, which we had no control over. Second, they made a very bad business decision, because we will never take another trip with them again. Had they accommodated our needs they would have made us loyal customers for life. Now they have our $10,000, but have lost who knows how much in future business

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to second guess, but this bad situation is why it is advisable to buy trip cancellation insurance (I recommend a private company like TravelGuard over Regent's own protection).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a difficult situation. Unfortunately, people are faced with traumatic situations every day -- whether it is the loss of a loved one, a horrible diagnosis, a hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc. While I do understand that people should have travel insurance, IMO, if the cruise line is able to fill your suite with full-paying passengers, you should be able to receive a future cruise credit equal to the amount you paid for your cruise. If the cruise line cannot fill the suite, unfortunately you would lose your money. It is really horrible to think that cruise lines make double their money on a suite when the person(s) that originally booked the suite had a tragedy affect their lives.

 

Just my strong but humble opinion and is something that all cruise lines should think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear about your cancer, but glad to hear all is good now. I can't believe Regent said "We're not sorry you have cancer. That may be the way you feel, but really. This happen to us also but on "O", we had to cancel a trip because of a life illness and also we didn't get the credit for are next trip. Did I like that, no. However going into this we knew what the rules would be and purchased travel insurance just in case. We had no idea that the illness was about to happen, but it did. Did we stop cruising on "O" because of this, no--in fact Regent is part of the "O" family. We did get are money back, but that was because of the insurance. Really sorry about the cancer, and now your better which is great. But we all make choices during life, some good, some bad. But they are, our choices and we have to live with the choices we make. When someone doesn't buy insurance they shouldn't expect a credit or refund---and all lines use the same policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, perhaps it is wrong for ALL cruise lines to take advantage of a crisis (again, this assumes that the suite is filled by a full paying passenger). Change can only occur if passengers speak out. With all that is going on in the world, it may be time to speak out! Why should cruise lines benefit in these cases?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, perhaps it is wrong for ALL cruise lines to take advantage of a crisis (again, this assumes that the suite is filled by a full paying passenger). Change can only occur if passengers speak out. With all that is going on in the world, it may be time to speak out! Why should cruise lines benefit in these cases?

 

I get your point, TC, but "what if" there were 2 suites (same category, for this example) of unrelated travelers that each had to cancel for one or another of the unforeseen reasons....say, 601 and 602. What should happen if only ONE of them gets resold by the cruiseline? The one who cancelled first? Or whoever cancelled the actual suite that was resold? Or split the "profit" between the original occupants of the 2 suites? Gets complicated......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, perhaps it is wrong for ALL cruise lines to take advantage of a crisis (again, this assumes that the suite is filled by a full paying passenger). Change can only occur if passengers speak out. With all that is going on in the world, it may be time to speak out! Why should cruise lines benefit in these cases?

 

Then why have insurance? What if -- what if -- what if. Where do you cut it off. I don't think cruise lines make a lot of money on this. People have a choice, it's one you have to make-if you want to take that risk and not buy insurance that is your choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your point, TC, but "what if" there were 2 suites (same category, for this example) of unrelated travelers that each had to cancel for one or another of the unforeseen reasons....say, 601 and 602. What should happen if only ONE of them gets resold by the cruiseline? The one who cancelled first? Or whoever cancelled the actual suite that was resold? Or split the "profit" between the original occupants of the 2 suites? Gets complicated......

 

The cruise line would have to set the policy. IMO, it doesn't have to be complicated.

 

Rick, to be 100% honest, after working with the insurance industry for 20 years and watching them rip people off, I could care less about them. However, what I propose does not negate the need for travel insurance. Rather, travel insurance should undergo changes as well.

 

My post is meant to make people think ......... Maybe the life of the status quo has expired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very sorry to hear of the TS/OPs difficult situation and it is obviously disappointing to hear a report that Regent was not sympathetic in dealing with the cancellation.

 

However, the terms of contract were clear including Regent's advice to all guests that they should take out adequate insurance. The TS/OP states that Regent "made a very bad business decision", but it was the TS/OPs personal decision not to cover potential losses with adequate cancellation insurance.

 

 

We always ensure that we have adequate insurance cover for our costly Regent cruises, particularly because in the UK we are liable to lose a hefty 20% non-refundable deposit if cancelling any time after booking (unless booked on-board).

 

Here in the UK there has been much debate as to whether travel companies should be able to 'profit' from cancellation clauses. Government advice has been issued and a few individuals have managed to argue successfully in court that they should receive most of their money back if the travel company has re-sold the booking.

The following links may be of interest:

Obviously the legal arguments may not be applicable outside the UK but the principles of the arguments will be the same

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having re-read the TS/OPs post, I have a number of further observations/questions:

  1. This post is the first to be made by the TS/OP
  2. It appears the Regent cruise was cancelled in the Summer/Autumn of 2016. Why has this post popped up over a year later?
  3. How long before the cruise was the cancellation made?
  4. What grade of suite was cancelled?
  5. Where is the TS/OP based? U.S. or elsewhere? (Booking/Cancellation conditions can differ)
  6. Did the TS/OP book direct with Regent or through a TA?
  7. How much was refunded by Regent?
  8. How did Regent calculate/justify the non-refunded element?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having re-read the TS/OPs post, I have a number of further observations/questions:
  1. This post is the first to be made by the TS/OP
  2. It appears the Regent cruise was cancelled in the Summer/Autumn of 2016. Why has this post popped up over a year later?
  3. How long before the cruise was the cancellation made?
  4. What grade of suite was cancelled?
  5. Where is the TS/OP based? U.S. or elsewhere? (Booking/Cancellation conditions can differ)
  6. Did the TS/OP book direct with Regent or through a TA?
  7. How much was refunded by Regent?
  8. How did Regent calculate/justify the non-refunded element?

All excellent questions! We almost had to cancel a cruise this past February when I fractured my shoulder in 3 places and had emergency surgery. Thankfully we were able to go ahead and go--because I didn't just want to sit around the house for 3 weeks in pain which would have been the alternative. But if we had cancelled, we would not have received or expected a refund. It would have been virtually impossible for Regent to have filled our spot with such short notice. And we knew the rules going in. It always amazes me when people complain about a cruise line, airline, or whatever following their own clearly posted rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quite agree. But I also agree with TC - IF the suite could be re-sold then why not refund more money to the client in a goodwill gesture. Could be done on a "wait and see" basis. But really nothing, nothing at all can replace travel insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having re-read the TS/OPs post, I have a number of further observations/questions:

  1. This post is the first to be made by the TS/OP
  2. It appears the Regent cruise was cancelled in the Summer/Autumn of 2016. Why has this post popped up over a year later?
  3. How long before the cruise was the cancellation made?
  4. What grade of suite was cancelled?
  5. Where is the TS/OP based? U.S. or elsewhere? (Booking/Cancellation conditions can differ)
  6. Did the TS/OP book direct with Regent or through a TA?
  7. How much was refunded by Regent?
  8. How did Regent calculate/justify the non-refunded element?

 

Not sure why. you are asking these questions as they some of them don't really speak to the issue. Whether the TS booked through Regent or not, the suite "grade, how much was refunded, the calculation, etc. the TS would have lost their money. Whether they booked through the U.S. or not might be different but, IMO, the heart of the issue is that they lost their money because they did not have insurance. On top of that, Regent may have resold their suite and therefore received double the money for the suite because of this.

 

 

I am glad that this issue is being brought up - even if it is a year later because there are more and more tragedies going on in the world that cause cruise/airline cancellations and, IMO, companies should not benefit ("benefit" being the key word) from from these situations by receiving more money than if the passenger had been able to take the cruise.

 

Rachel, I remember your the situation with your arm very well and hope that it healed completely without any further issues. I agree that people that book cruises should read the fine print and know exactly what the consequences of cancelling would be. My issue is that it may be time for Regent (and other cruise lines and airlines) to revisit their contracts and see if they make sense in today's world.

Edited by Travelcat2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regent, like all travel companies, have done their homework on their costings. Part of their revenue model is knowing how many guests will cancel their bookings and at what points, and those forfeited deposits go towards allowing them to set their overall prices. It doesn't happen often, but when you sell 10s of thousands of cruises per year, even a 1% cancellation rate adds up to enough deposit revenue to make a difference.

 

For the traveler, it really is about the insurance decision. Will you pay for insurance to mitigate the risk? Will you rely on your credit card company's cancellation insurance? Will you be self-insured? These are all relevant questions to which there is no wrong answer. But in deciding not to insure you make the default decision that you will be self-insured.

 

I think it is misplaced to expect the cruise company to give up a deposit that everyone agreed would be subject to certain forfeitures because the guest made the decision to be self-insured rather than obtain cancellation insurance. If you choose to take the risk at the outset of the contract, it is unethical to expect to transfer the risk when circumstances change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is misplaced to expect the cruise company to give up a deposit that everyone agreed would be subject to certain forfeitures because the guest made the decision to be self-insured rather than obtain cancellation insurance. If you choose to take the risk at the outset of the contract, it is unethical to expect to transfer the risk when circumstances change.

 

Agree with what you said but would like to gently remind you that we are not talking about a "deposit" but rather the full cost of the cruise. Also, my comments are about Regent receiving double the cruise fare for a particular suite. This just feels wrong on many levels.

 

In general, and as an example, our November 17th cruise has been waitlisted for months. Had someone been killed or injured in Las Vegas two days ago been booked on our cruise, there is no question that their suite would be resold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with what you said but would like to gently remind you that we are not talking about a "deposit" but rather the full cost of the cruise. Also, my comments are about Regent receiving double the cruise fare for a particular suite. This just feels wrong on many levels.

 

In general, and as an example, our November 17th cruise has been waitlisted for months. Had someone been killed or injured in Las Vegas two days ago been booked on our cruise, there is no question that their suite would be resold.

 

Personally, I do not see anything wrong with what Regent did. The OP should have purchased Travel Insurance. They did not, but want all the benefits of said travel insurance. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Why should Regent pay for their mistake?

 

As far a being able to resell that cabin, it is no different than any other hotel, cruise line, airline or any other company with a perishable item in inventory. Regent has every right and obligation to resell that cabin and double their profits.

 

You now want Regent to act like an insurance company. Well, they could but the cruise price you will pay will ultimately go up. Are you willing to pay for someone else's mistake?

Edited by commodore2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regent, like all travel companies, have done their homework on their costings. Part of their revenue model is knowing how many guests will cancel their bookings and at what points, and those forfeited deposits go towards allowing them to set their overall prices. It doesn't happen often, but when you sell 10s of thousands of cruises per year, even a 1% cancellation rate adds up to enough deposit revenue to make a difference.

 

For the traveler, it really is about the insurance decision. Will you pay for insurance to mitigate the risk? Will you rely on your credit card company's cancellation insurance? Will you be self-insured? These are all relevant questions to which there is no wrong answer. But in deciding not to insure you make the default decision that you will be self-insured.

 

I think it is misplaced to expect the cruise company to give up a deposit that everyone agreed would be subject to certain forfeitures because the guest made the decision to be self-insured rather than obtain cancellation insurance. If you choose to take the risk at the outset of the contract, it is unethical to expect to transfer the risk when circumstances change.

I think this is one of the better posts I've read on the question of cancelled cruises. In my not so humble opinion, the phrase "But in deciding not to insure you make the default decision that you will be self-insured" pretty much says it all. Many of us spend a lot of money on trip insurance - why should we incur this expense if Regent may or may not reimburse us for needing to cancel? Regent's policy is spelled out in their contract so no one should be surprised if they forfeit all or part of their cruise fare if they cancel. Can you imagine the flaming posts on CC if two people had to cancel cruises and one received a full refund because Regent was able to sell their cabin and the other didn't because Regent couldn't sell theirs? The bad press, the threat of lawsuits, etc. would far exceed the griping because Regent adheres to their written policy.

 

I, for one, don't care whether Regent makes a little extra money by selling a cabin at the last minute, whether the original passenger was insured or not. I mean, Regent still gets the money either way, regardless of whether it comes from the passenger or an insurance agency.

 

It's a complicated business model, and we all know the risks (or we should, anyhow). I hate reading posts from people who have had to cancel cruises due to hardship or illness, but they had the choice to buy insurance. We could probably have paid for a cruise or two with the money we've paid for insurance, but that's the way it goes - we just factor the price of insurance into the cruise fare when we decide where to go...

 

Just my opinion, of course.

---------------------------------------------------------------

PS - just curious - are any of you advocating for refunds from Regent shareholders in the company? I think that'd maybe change your outlook.

Edited by UUNetBill
Added a PS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, they showed no compassion for my medical situation, which we had no control over.

 

This part jumped out to me, and as a fellow cancer survivor, I do have empathy for you. But they had no control over it either. And if they showed "compassion" to everyone who had a hard story, it would impact their bottom line quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why. you are asking these questions as they some of them don't really speak to the issue. Whether the TS booked through Regent or not, the suite "grade, how much was refunded, the calculation, etc. the TS would have lost their money. Whether they booked through the U.S. or not might be different but, IMO, the heart of the issue is that they lost their money because they did not have insurance. On top of that, Regent may have resold their suite and therefore received double the money for the suite because of this.

Without further information from the TS/OP we do not know the full and balanced story.

The TS/OP says that "Regent kept about $10k and refunded the balance". How much was the balance that was refunded?

We have no idea whether Regent had the opportunity to re-sell the suite. This would be dependant on time left before sailing, grade of suite, how well the cruise was selling etc. etc.

 

I am glad that this issue is being brought up - even if it is a year later because there are more and more tragedies going on in the world that cause cruise/airline cancellations and, IMO, companies should not benefit ("benefit" being the key word) from from these situations by receiving more money than if the passenger had been able to take the cruise.

 

Rachel, I remember your the situation with your arm very well and hope that it healed completely without any further issues. I agree that people that book cruises should read the fine print and know exactly what the consequences of cancelling would be. My issue is that it may be time for Regent (and other cruise lines and airlines) to revisit their contracts and see if they make sense in today's world.

My post 9 above addressed the question of travel companies 'profiteering' from cancellation clauses.

 

 

Finally, although the TS/OPs situation would have been extremely distressing, I must admit to thinking that the title of this thread is somewhat over-emotive. I find it very difficult to believe that any Regent representative would say "We're not sorry you have cancer..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree about the subject of the thread but regardless of the answers to your questions, Regent would not refund the money (if the TS lived in North America) - whether or not the suite was resold.) There is a small percentage of the fare that is refunded - do not recall what it is related to. The fact that Regent refunded "the balance" (regardless of what it was) likely means that they were not in the 100% cancellation portion of the cancellation contract.

 

The issue is much larger than just this TS and the TS on the other thread where they lost their money due to the hurricane. Think about poss who is loved and respected by many of us on CC. The last we heard she was trying to find out if she could gift her cruise to someone (under the current rules, she cannot). I'm not sure if insurance would even cover her situation (devastated by the hurricane but it sounds as if her apartment is intact - even though many things around her are not). IF her category of suite is sold out on her October cruise and IF her insurance did not cover the issue, why should she lose her money and Regent be able to sell her suite to someone else?

 

I understand the current contracts, etc., but wonder when they written and what the world was like at that time. Regent can drop ports due to unrest, weather, disasters or even having too many refugees in port and this is happening more and more frequently. Shouldn't passengers affected by disasters/death/severe illness be able to re-coop their money (by a future cruise credit) IF Regent is able to resell their suite?

 

IMO, this speaks to the issue of humanity. Regent would not lose money by selling her suite and giving her a future cruise credit. In fact, they would have full compensation for the current cruise and would have sold another suite on a future cruise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regent would not lose money by selling her suite and giving her a future cruise credit. In fact, they would have full compensation for the current cruise and would have sold another suite on a future cruise.

Surely this argument only works if the cruise is sold out? Otherwise Regent could have sold another suite rather than re-selling the cancelled suite.

 

The misfortune causing the passenger to cancel may not be the passenger's fault, but nor is it Regent's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely this argument only works if the cruise is sold out? Otherwise Regent could have sold another suite rather than re-selling the cancelled suite.

 

The misfortune causing the passenger to cancel may not be the passenger's fault, but nor is it Regent's.

 

I don't understand the reasoning. If one category is sold out -- a person cancels -- Regent resells the suite at full price. Do they not make money on this?

 

As I said in my original post (moved to a general thread), it is not Regent's fault and they should not lose money on someone else's tragedy nor should they make money off of said tragedy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several years ago, we cancelled our Regent cruise in the Mediterranean because of illness When we had to cancel our Regent cruise, after final payment was made, we never even questioned whether Regent owed us anything. We never questioned whether our suite was resold.

 

 

We never travel without insurance. Our insurance company refunded all our monies. We always insure for the full amount. Insurance is costly because the cruise is expensive and so is the policy we buy.

This is the norm for most travelers.

 

 

I am sorry, but I do not understand why the TS thinks they are entitled to anything. They are not. That was the contract you made with Regent.

As you can see, only one poster, amongst many, has raised issues regarding a refund. Can you imagine the havoc it would create for Regent, if they had to decide who is the entitled to a refund and who is not.

 

 

In addition, has the poster on the other thread, who wanted to cancel because of Irma problems, checked if his insurance company covered this issue? Did he have insurance? That question was never answered.

 

 

Everyone else understands Regent policy regarding this issue. If that policy changes, it won't be because of this thread or Cruise Critic followers.

Sheila

Edited by Bellaggio Cruisers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the last post (not bashing you Sheila), we are like mice in a maze that will keep going around in circles without questioning anything. No one expects Regent to take care of the TS on the other thread (and this TS is way past it). This is simply something for Regent to think about in the future. Things are not the same now as they were in the past and we should at least be asking questions. Not to do so, IMO, is like sticking your head in the sand.

 

People will continue paying insurance companies that will continue to get richer (multi multi billionaires) and try to find ways to deny claims. No one will be accountable for anything and some people will be happy with that.

 

Sheila, must disagree that "the norm for most travelers" is insure their cruises for the maximum amount, covering pre-existing conditions and all possible eventualities. Perhaps someone would like to share the cost to cover all of these items for a 3 week trip costing $40,000 for two people in their 60's, 70's and 80's. Some companies would charge 25% of the cruise cost for the older individuals.

 

Anyway, as long as everyone is happy with the way it is, I'll put my head in the sand with the rest of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...