Voyager is SCREWED in Athens - Cruise CANCELLED

[peteropny]

In terms of independent airfare. Regent advertises an all--inclusive package. They have negotiated contracts with air carriers that are generally lower than anything the public can purchase themselves. When you purchase the whole package, and, as in the case of the Voyager, the cruise doesn't occur. . . . Regent will refund the total package, or, give you a choice of other cruises (longer itineraries than the scheduled October 3rd itinerary are being offered at no additional cost to the passenger). As with the cruise fare, Regent is not legally bound to reimburse for Regent airfare.

 

If a passenger decides not to take advantage of Regent air. . . whether it is because they do not like the routing, they are using frequent flyer miles or for some other reason, there is an obvious risk involved. While this situation is probably the worst case scenario, if the ship arrives late and you miss your independent flight, it is your responsibility to work it out.

 

Sorry, I disagree completely. We purchased independent air that we upgraded with System Wide Upgrades (Delta Platinum) at a cost that is somewhat less than what Regent would have charged for Business Class air - so why should they not give us a refund (of less money totally for the purchased tickets only - no value being ascribed to the Upgrade certificates) than if we had went with their air package.

 

In the case of the ship arriving late and you miss your independent flight, Regent already has set a precedence in reimbursement of "extra" costs incurred when the Mariner was delayed by one day (due to a pod problem) in Alaska in 2006 (we were on that cruise and was reimbursed for the change fee charged by Alaska airlines).

[ChatKat in Ca.]

You can insure your miles used in some cases. Miles do have cash value. I did insurance recently and there was a question as to insurance for flights if you took a cruise. If you paid for seats worth $5000 you can insure them but it's about 10% of the fare. We like one of the other posters will "self insure" and take a risk for somethings. Insurance is not meant to cover everything. We like to cover for cancellation or mechanical breakdowns and to have health insurance for our travel.

[CruisinGerman]

Dear friends:

 

I just can't believe some of the things I am reading here.

 

From what I am reading, you readily accept that the ridiculous contracts they issue in the United States would hold up in court.

 

One of the reasons we have these travel protection laws in Europe is that most EU countries (excluding the UK and its historical brothers and sisters) are "Code" and not "Case Law" countries, which means that in the EU case law usually doesn't make law as it has the ability to do in the United States, and usually serves only as limited interpretation of laws.

 

One major premise of our travel protection laws is that unilateral clauses placed by the cruise line or carrier that are considered to be abusive are not valid. In the United States, I believe your courts have the ability to interpret this, and I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Courts would uphold Regent's purported contractual position, which is:

 

1. Regent markets its cruise and related services;

2. Regent takes your money;

3. Regent itself cancels the trip;

4. Regent doesn't have to give back the money

 

Here in Spain, our travel laws specifically state that in this type of case Regent must refund EVERYTHING (cruise, hotels, transfers, air, etc.) whether purchased through Regent or not, plus Regent must pay the passenger a penalty of at least 25% of everything purchased (cruise, hotels, transfers, air, etc.). These payments must be made in CASH within 30 days, although the consumer may clearly accept an offer of future certificates, etc. if the consumer feels it is a better offer.

 

We might have this written into a specific travel protection law, but I believe your courts have the capacity to make a similar interpretation, since the underlying premise here is nothing more than the fact that the passenger must be left in an equal or better financial position vis-à-vis the passenger's financial position before booking the cruise in question when the cruise is cancelled by the organizer itself.

 

In reading the travel section of the Sunday New York Times, a few weeks ago there was an article about airline protection and how there are lobbies in the United States to implement laws similar to our EU Airline Passenger Rights Regulation. Perhaps it is also time to lobby for other types of travel protection as well.

 

As far is the tricky insurance issue goes, it is my understanding that unused travel insurance (unused in the sense that the trip is cancelled, not that you went on the trip but you didn't get sick or the cruise line didn't go bankrupt mid-cruise) may be applied to a future trip.

 

However, if the insurer refuses to do this, please make your case with Regent, as I do believe this is one of the expenses Regent should be made to pay as part of "returning the passenger to his original financial position".

 

Also, if you hired a cat sitter before flying off to Athens, I believe Regent should also pay those costs.

 

If you purchased insurance through Regent, you still have a case for a full refund. If you the passenger should agree, I see no reason why Regent's own insurance can't be applied towards a future cruise, since it was Regent itself who cancelled this cruise.

 

While obviously not all passengers are familiar with the law, this case is a matter of logic, fairness and common sense, and I just can't believe that there are several people around here who accept that Regent can take their money under these circumstances, and cause passengers to incur additional expenses towards a cruise that Regent itself cancels, and then not give the money back and not make restitution for monies that the passenger will now lose due to Regent's fault.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[Mark_T]

Dear friends:

 

I just can't believe some of the things I am reading here.

 

From what I am reading, you readily accept that the ridiculous contracts they issue in the United States would hold up in court...

 

I do understand how strange most of this feels from a European perspective.

 

I live in the UK but spend about half my time in USA each month so I am frequently reminded about the similarities and the differences ...

 

The USA legal system does a lot of things much better than Europe but consumer protection isn't one of them. In this area at least, the USA is stuck somewhere about 20 years behind us.

 

I feel we are not helping our friends here by constantly pointing out how much easier it would be if only they lived over here. They don't and they have to live with the consequences when it comes to matters like this.

 

It is also an odd paradox that those who need travel insurance the most (USA) tend to buy it a lot less frequently than those who need it the least (European) due often to the horrifying costs of this sort of insurance in the USA and this is why people are trying so hard to get that cost refunded. I'm not going to rub salt in the wound by saying just how cheap travel insurance is over here but our taxi to/from the airport last trip cost more than our annual multi-trip insurance policy for my whole family.

 

Sadly I doubt they are going to find that an easy task since the insurance began to be consumed the moment they went 'on-risk' and I suspect that many are going to need to use that insurance to recover the costs that Regent don't refund. I also wonder if in some way Regent are 'sharing' the cost of the refunds with the insurer where possible since they are in fact 'on-risk' for some of the costs?

 

I do still hope that everyone is made 'whole' by the time this is over as it is hard to overestimate the trauma this sort of thing can cause when we all tend to plan these events so far ahead and become so emotionally invested in them.

[JMARINER]

........I am not trying to be argumentative and do feel very badly for the affected passengers. Everyone says this is Regent's fault as if it were intentional. Regent is doing a sub-standard job of communication regarding this issue. . . . however, it has not been determined that this is their fault......

 

Cat,

 

I do not you are being argumentative in the least.

 

As to Regent refunding the cruise and other costs, they should. Legally required to or not, they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't. They too purchase insurance to cover their losses, but I would assume a good deal of the loss/cost is out of their pocket.

 

We may never be told who is at fault with the POD. But based on past history, there have been POD problems on dozens of ships for the last 15 years. I think I read somewhere that Regent sued Roll-Royce for the Mariner pods and got some substantial amount. (links below) I guess some would argue that it is Regent fault for building a ship using troublesome technology. (Voyager uses different POD's)

 

Regent always seems to have a communication problems when issues like this arise. On the ship things run smoothly and for the most part problems are handled well. But when major problems like this arise, they rate poorly in keeping their customers informed. Not a word on their website. One thin "press release" in USA Today. I would think with all the negative comments and confusion about refunds, insurance, flights, etc. they would do some kind of damage control. But then again readers here are just a tiny portion of their clientèle and as much as some would think Regent follows this board, it seem apparent that they don't.

 

j

 

 

http://www.lloydsshipmanager.com/ll/news/analysis-carnival-joins-mermaid-pod-legal-battle/20017599188.htm;jsessionid=48ACA151EAFE6D2ACC632430BF70886C

[CruisinGerman]

Mark,

 

I'm just trying to tell everybody to stand their guns and to let logic, fairness and common sense prevail when it comes time to negotiate with Regent.

 

As far as transferring travel insurance to another trip, this is actually something I read on the insurance section of these boards, and in several threads on the RCCL and NCL boards. This issue pops up ever so often, and it is my understanding that the U.S. policies of TravelGuard, Travelex, CSA and the like will indeed let you transfer unused coverage for a cancelled trip to another trip. I have no further information in this respect, but I do feel because the topic has been mentioned, affected persons should try calling the insurers to see if this is possible.

 

Yes, I agree that prices we pay in Europe for travel insurance are unusually low. I purchased from insurancebookers dot es an annual multi-trip policy for two people. It is the Platinum version, covering unlimited cancellation and unlimited medical, and it only cost 240 euros per year. The funny thing is that the policy is issued by AIG/Chartis, who also happens to own TravelGuard. I looked on the U.S. websites, and TravelGuard Platinum Cruise & Tour is awfully expensive and doesn't provide the same level of coverage.

 

In any case, on the whole, U.S. salaries tend to be higher than European salaries so I guess in the long run it all balances out as to who pays what.

 

I do hope everybody gets their own personal issues with Regent settled as soon as possible because they deserve to be able to make future plans and spend their money as they wish.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[Mark_T]

... and it is my understanding that the U.S. policies of TravelGuard, Travelex, CSA and the like will indeed let you transfer unused coverage for a cancelled trip to another trip.

 

I don't disagree, if it is possible they should do it, but I'm wondering given that Regent acted as agent for these policies in the first place if there has been some 'deal' with the insurer already so these polices have in fact been 'used' already. Especially as there seems to be a mixed message from some people suggesting they were told to claim first then come back to Regent for anything that wasn't covered.

 

 

The funny thing is that the policy is issued by AIG/Chartis, who also happens to own TravelGuard. I looked on the U.S. websites, and TravelGuard Platinum Cruise & Tour is awfully expensive and doesn't provide the same level of coverage.

 

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that it is just about impossible to buy a holiday package of any kind over here without having travel insurance so the risk is spread over a much larger base of customers than is the case in the USA.

 

I do hope everybody gets their own personal issues with Regent settled as soon as possible because they deserve to be able to make future plans and spend their money as they wish.

 

On that I'm sure we all agree.

[neviboy]

Another reason for the high cost of trip insurance are hospital costs.

I spent 3 days in the I.C. ward of a private Cyprus hospital with visits from a cardiologist and round the clock monitoring. Cost 3800 Euros.

Compare with U.S. hospital costs.

What I am furious about is the $2700 charged by the ship's doctor

( A Phillipino) for 3 hours in the 'infirmery,' an ECG and a blood test.

I have complained to Regent.

[Mark_T]

Another reason for the high cost of trip insurance are hospital costs.

 

Our policies over here tend to be for either 'world-wide' (excluding USA) or just 'world-wide' with a premium to include the USA.

 

However my 'taxi fare' priced policy is for full world-wide coverage including the USA with unlimited medical cost coverage.

 

The almost universal uptake of travel insurance for holidays over here is what drives the price down rather than medical costs I think.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

I've been reading the thread on the "other" board, and apparently CSA has agreed to transfer its policies to a subsequent cruise. Also that no refunds from insurers for the flight to Athens, for fairly obvious reasons, or for pre-cruise hotels, etc. Still very confusing, I'm so glad I am not personally involved.

[Mark_T]

I've been reading the thread on the "other" board, and apparently CSA has agreed to transfer its policies to a subsequent cruise.

 

That is good news indeed, as long as everyone affected is able to take another cruise of course.

 

Also that no refunds from insurers for the flight to Athens, for fairly obvious reasons, or for pre-cruise hotels

 

I'm still not sure why this is considered 'obvious' unless you mean because the insurance is being transferred to another cruise?

 

If that is the case then yes, it is obvious you can't claim and also have the policy transferred.

 

However I don't see any reason to absolve Regent of responsibility for flight/hotel costs just because they were not booked through them directly though.

 

This became a 'journey in vain' for people because of Regent's cancellation of the cruise and liability should attach to that.

 

Good luck everyone in sorting it all out, I'm sure we are all wishing you the best.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

I'm talking about the private insurers, not Regent. Apparently you either use your insurance and make a claim, or leave the policy whole and transfer it. If the latter, that doesn't absolve Regent.

 

By "obvious", I meant that it's because the flight was actually taken, so the private insurers (like CSA), will not reimburse for it.

[cruiseluv]

I have now read the "fine print" of the CSA policy I purchased to cover my Mariner cruise a couple of months ago. This is a fairly comprehensive policy which I purchased independently, but I believe is the same one sold through my TA.

 

Under the section titled GENERAL PLAN EXCLUSIONS, which starts by saying:

 

"We will not pay for any loss under the plan caused by, or resulting from:...

 

22. failure of any tour operator, Common Carrier, or other

 

travel supplier, person or agency to provide the bargained-

 

for travel arrangements;..."

 

Clearly this is the situation that happened here: Regent as the travel supplier failed to provide "the bargained-for travel arrangements".

 

Passengers that have this kind of policy (which I believe is fairly typical) are not covered by their insurance for the expenses/losses they incurred due to Regent cancelling their trip.

[petlover]

My husband and I don't buy cruise insurance so yesterday I submitted all our pre-cruise expenses to Regent (hotel, dinner, transfers) as well as the cost AA charged us to redeposit our unused f.f. miles for return flight (luckily we had booked using 2 - one way tickets). I submitted receipts directly to Regent so we'll see how this all plays out.

 

Everything submitted is 100% legitimate, we would never have been in Athens to begin with except for this TUT (nickname)/Oct. 3rd cruise. We are thankful that Regent did an excellent job of getting us home from Athens. We have cruised many many nights on Regent and they've always done right by us, hopefully they will do the right thing now as well.

[Travelcat2]

Sorry, I disagree completely. We purchased independent air that we upgraded with System Wide Upgrades (Delta Platinum) at a cost that is somewhat less than what Regent would have charged for Business Class air - so why should they not give us a refund (of less money totally for the purchased tickets only - no value being ascribed to the Upgrade certificates) than if we had went with their air package.

 

In the case of the ship arriving late and you miss your independent flight, Regent already has set a precedence in reimbursement of "extra" costs incurred when the Mariner was delayed by one day (due to a pod problem) in Alaska in 2006 (we were on that cruise and was reimbursed for the change fee charged by Alaska airlines).

 

Actually, you are not disagreeing "completely". I did say that Regent's negotiated fares are "generally lower". It's good that you can get airfare at a better price than Regent. In your case, your independent air was "somewhat less" than Regent. Again, this is generally not the case.

 

You may have opened a can of worms by bringing up "precedence". Please remember that I am posting what I believe to be what Regent is legally responsible for rather than what may or may not be morally correct.

 

In 2006, Regent was owned by another company. Is there a precedence under the current ownership? This could very well be one of the reasons that Regent doesn't want to make statements in writing. In 2013 someone could refer to what is being done on the non-Voyager cruise and ask for the same thing (even though the situation may be different -- as yours was -- you did not miss an entire cruise).

 

It would make sense for Regent to reimburse airline change fees. If it were not setting a precedence, they could reimburse people for independent air at the price that Regent would have paid under their contract.

 

Mark_T: Thanks for explaining some of the differences of U.S. and EU policies. I know that CruisinGerman is only trying to help.

[seattlesloop]

Where are FDR and Conroy to address these matters and concerns, on a public forum, to end speculation and give some definitive answers? Lots of armchair quarterbacking here and no one with some real answers coming forward. Horrible PR!

[wacogirl]

Sure wish Regent or someone would give us updates on the pod repairs. Since our 10/17 cruise was cancelled and we've rebooked on the 10/27 cruise, it would be nice to know how those repairs are progressing.

[Timbuktu123]

Having had a short stint in the PR field, I'm shocked that Regent hasn't done a better job "spinning" this situation.

 

Regent should have come out immediately with a blanket appology to all its customers and explained what was going on. "Ship" happens, so rather than try to hide the truth you try to innundate the audience with all sorts of details. When you do that you have a chance of doing an end run around the bad publicity. Regent should have contacted one of those Discovery channel producers to do a program on the whole process. Sure the pod broke, and passengers are terribly disappointed but that's happened anyway. By turning this bit of bad luck into an "emergency illness" and how the whole team at Regent and "pod engineering" pulled together to make lemonade out of lemons, would have been a masterly PR and Advertising effort. At the very least they should have a section on their website giving daily briefings to keep us all informed. Hey Regent, welcome to the information age!

 

As a recent successful example, take a look how the Chilean government handled the miner's acccident. We saw it on the news every day, plenty of briefings and video from the mine. I hardly heard anything about the negatives (how did the accident happed in the first place). But I for one have a very positive view of how competent Chile is and their emergency services. They'd be the ones I'd want to rescue me from a hurricane disaster!

[Sunviking]

Having had a short stint in the PR field, I'm shocked that Regent hasn't done a better job "spinning" this situation.

 

Regent should have come out immediately with a blanket appology to all its customers and explained what was going on. "Ship" happens, so rather than try to hide the truth you try to innundate the audience with all sorts of details. When you do that you have a chance of doing an end run around the bad publicity. Regent should have contacted one of those Discovery channel producers to do a program on the whole process. Sure the pod broke, and passengers are terribly disappointed but that's happened anyway. By turning this bit of bad luck into an "emergency illness" and how the whole team at Regent and "pod engineering" pulled together to make lemonade out of lemons, would have been a masterly PR and Advertising effort. At the very least they should have a section on their website giving daily briefings to keep us all informed. Hey Regent, welcome to the information age!

 

As a recent successful example, take a look how the Chilean government handled the miner's acccident. We saw it on the news every day, plenty of briefings and video from the mine. I hardly heard anything about the negatives (how did the accident happed in the first place). But I for one have a very positive view of how competent Chile is and their emergency services. They'd be the ones I'd want to rescue me from a hurricane disaster!

 

I couldn't agree with you more. Posting absolutely nothing on their website is awful PR. A daily update even if it said nothing more than that they are working on the problem or showing a photo of the ship in drydock would help.

[seattlesloop]

Silence speaks volumes. Regent seems to building quite the library.

 

Updates are not admissions of responsiblity for such a debacle and responsibility over what Regent will pay out to those affected; updates inform the status of Voyager. Don't those who have booked upcoming cruises deserve to know the status of their cruises as to whether it's a "go" or a "cancellation?" For an upscale cruise line, Regent is behaving in the very shabbiest of ways.

[ChatKat in Ca.]

I said that way up in the thread. - Silence is deadly.

[overthebar]

It would have been most helpful if Regent had spelled out their position regarding compensation etc. It has been very confusing! We have finally decided to accept the offer of another cruise Dubai to Cape Town but will have to pay our own airfares. The cruise is 25 days instead of 14 so we are happy enough with this and the itinerary is very good. I thought Regent would cover our air travel but having thought again about the matter, I think it is a fair deal and maybe we were expecting too much. :)

[ogie58]

It is interesting that Regent has treated passengers on the Oct 3rd Voyager cruise in an inconsistent manner. I was never offically offered any cruise option and would not have even know of the cruise options if I had not read about them on this site. I am pleased that they have credited my credit card with a full refund of the cruise cost but am disappointed that I was never given the option of choosing another cruise that other passengers were.

[Oceans&Rivers]

I just can't believe some of the things I am reading here.

 

From what I am reading, you readily accept that the ridiculous contracts they issue in the United States would hold up in court.

 

One of the reasons we have these travel protection laws in Europe is that most EU countries (excluding the UK and its historical brothers and sisters) are "Code" and not "Case Law" countries, which means that in the EU case law usually doesn't make law as it has the ability to do in the United States, and usually serves only as limited interpretation of laws.

 

One major premise of our travel protection laws is that unilateral clauses placed by the cruise line or carrier that are considered to be abusive are not valid. In the United States, I believe your courts have the ability to interpret this, and I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Courts would uphold Regent's purported contractual position, which is:

 

1. Regent markets its cruise and related services;

2. Regent takes your money;

3. Regent itself cancels the trip;

4. Regent doesn't have to give back the money

 

Here in Spain, our travel laws specifically state that in this type of case Regent must refund EVERYTHING (cruise, hotels, transfers, air, etc.) whether purchased through Regent or not, plus Regent must pay the passenger a penalty of at least 25% of everything purchased (cruise, hotels, transfers, air, etc.). These payments must be made in CASH within 30 days, although the consumer may clearly accept an offer of future certificates, etc. if the consumer feels it is a better offer.

 

We might have this written into a specific travel protection law, but I believe your courts have the capacity to make a similar interpretation, since the underlying premise here is nothing more than the fact that the passenger must be left in an equal or better financial position vis-à-vis the passenger's financial position before booking the cruise in question when the cruise is cancelled by the organizer itself.

 

In reading the travel section of the Sunday New York Times, a few weeks ago there was an article about airline protection and how there are lobbies in the United States to implement laws similar to our EU Airline Passenger Rights Regulation. Perhaps it is also time to lobby for other types of travel protection as well.

 

As far is the tricky insurance issue goes, it is my understanding that unused travel insurance (unused in the sense that the trip is cancelled, not that you went on the trip but you didn't get sick or the cruise line didn't go bankrupt mid-cruise) may be applied to a future trip.

 

However, if the insurer refuses to do this, please make your case with Regent, as I do believe this is one of the expenses Regent should be made to pay as part of "returning the passenger to his original financial position".

 

Also, if you hired a cat sitter before flying off to Athens, I believe Regent should also pay those costs.

 

If you purchased insurance through Regent, you still have a case for a full refund. If you the passenger should agree, I see no reason why Regent's own insurance can't be applied towards a future cruise, since it was Regent itself who cancelled this cruise.

 

While obviously not all passengers are familiar with the law, this case is a matter of logic, fairness and common sense, and I just can't believe that there are several people around here who accept that Regent can take their money under these circumstances, and cause passengers to incur additional expenses towards a cruise that Regent itself cancels, and then not give the money back and not make restitution for monies that the passenger will now lose due to Regent's fault.

 

Having spent a considerable amount of time in Europe myself, I am not surprised that consumer laws are more favorable to citizens, and I have a related question that I hope you can answer for me. I recall that when I lived in Germany (pre-EU) doing some post-graduate work, the subject of whether companies that offer toll-free telephone numbers were entitled to know the phone numbers (and with caller ID nowadays, the names and location) of those who called those businesses, which is how it is done here in the U.S.. German citizens/residents were adamant that no individual should have to give up their personal numbers and information to a business simply because the businesses were footing the bill for the calls. Germans considered it the cost of those businesses doing business, not a "right" to one's personal information. They also made the case that people would not call "hotlines" for health, etc. if it was not private. Makes sense to me!

 

Can you tell me if what I have described, above, is still the case with toll-free numbers (in the EU, Spain, Germany)?

[WesW]

Ogie58: believe you have until 15 Oct to choose one of the replacement cruises below:

Recommend you call your tvl agent or Regent directly and ask. Good luck:

 

AVAILABLE VOYAGES

 

Seven Seas Navigator, October 26, Bangkok – Sydney, 21 nights

Seven Seas Voyager, October 27, Athens – Fort Lauderdale, 27 nights

Seven Seas Voyager, October 27, Athens-Barcelona, 12 nights

Seven Seas Voyager, November 8, Barcelona – Fort Lauderdale, 15 nights

Seven Seas Mariner, November 8, Dubai - Cape Town, 25 nights

Seven Seas Navigator, December 1, Auckland – San Francisco, 20 nights

Seven Seas Mariner, December 3, Cape Town – Rio de Janeiro, 14 nights

Seven Seas Voyager, December 27, Fort Lauderdale - San Francisco, 17 nights

Seven Seas Voyager, January 14, San Francisco – Auckland, 25 nights

Seven Seas Voyager, February 23, Sydney - Beijing, 25 nights

Seven Seas Voyager, April 9, Bangkok - Dubai, 25 nights