Oceania vs Regent

[jwas1]

We are diehard Regent cruisers. I know both lines share a common owner. We are considering an Oceania cruise because Regent does not have a similar locale cruise. Will we be disappointed with Oceania?

[orchestrapal]

We are diehard Regent cruisers. I know both lines share a common owner. We are considering an Oceania cruise because Regent does not have a similar locale cruise. Will we be disappointed with Oceania?

I'm sure you are booking knowing the main differences. I would advise booking a PH or above so that you do not suffer in a a small, compared to Regent, cabin. Try it you will be surprised how well O does in making it's cruisers happy.:)

[hondorner]

You won't be disappointed in the food, the service, the staff, or the overall condition of the ships. As long as you appreciate the basic differences (Oceania is not all inclusive, which means you will have to sign a chit for drinks), you will find more similarities than differences. Both have similar dress codes, similar smoking policies, similar open dining, and similar small ships. As OrchestraPal suggested, the standard cabins are smaller, and the showrooms are single-deck lounges rather than a theater, which means that the entertainment is more cabaret-style.

 

All three current ships are almost exactly the same, so your itinerary choice will not depend on the ship. Of course, while somewhat larger (but still mid-size), the new Marina will be fabulous with higher ceilings in the main dining room, a true theater, larger staterooms with separate tub and shower, 4 specialty restaurants, and fabulous decor.

[pacheco18]

I was really hoping to try Regent this year or next but the complaints about the all inclusive shore excursions have turned me off.

 

We always do private excursions -- we like to determine our own itinerary and be in a group no larger than 10. Seems like the Regent excursions involve busloads and waiting -- poor organization and not really "premium." Many long time Regent cruisers are saying they will take their business elsewhere.

 

If I am going to be "paying" for excursions I won't use, waste of money.

 

I vote for O. I generally prefer to pay for what I use -- whether it's alcohol or excursions.

[VIRGINIA ARTIE]

We have been Regent cruisers for the past 5 years, and are taking our first cruise with Oceania in January. We do not drink and take very few excursions, so were paying for extras that we do not use. The service on our last Regent was excellent, but the food was not. Since we do not spend much time in our cabin, a smaller one will be satisfactory. This board gives such insight into the workings of Oceania, that you will know what to expect.

Bon voyage!:D

[frqttrvlr09]

I completely agree with all that has been said by the rest of the posters about the differences between Regent and Oceania, though I will add that for the first several weeks of my Regent cruise (see below) the service in all the dining areas was well below Oceania's until personnel changes were made in response to many passenger complaints at the next major port. I have sailed both Oceania (twice last fall, with 3 BTB cruises starting in a month) and Regent (a 2 1/2 month cruise to and around SA, Antarctica and the Amazon earlier this year) and precisely for the reasons stated by Virginia Arte and Pacheco 18, I won't be sailing Regent again after an already booked Nov. 2011 cruise that is partly paid for by a cruise credit by Regent for some circumstances that occurred on the prior cruise. It is not humanely possible for anyone or two people to drink enough alcohol to make up the difference in price between the 2 lines, and there are NOT "unlimited free shore excursions" despite what Regent's advertising says. Believe me, I am many thousands of dollars poorer because of that advertising. The larger bathrooms, walk in closets, extra vanity/desk and hot breakfasts for those in non-concierge staterooms isn't enough to tempt me back either.

[pacheco18]

I completely agree with all that has been said by the rest of the posters about the differences between Regent and Oceania, though I will add that for the first several weeks of my Regent cruise (see below) the service in all the dining areas was well below Oceania's until personnel changes were made in response to many passenger complaints at the next major port. I have sailed both Oceania (twice last fall, with 3 BTB cruises starting in a month) and Regent (a 2 1/2 month cruise to and around SA, Antarctica and the Amazon earlier this year) and precisely for the reasons stated by Virginia Arte and Pacheco 18, I won't be sailing Regent again after an already booked Nov. 2011 cruise that is partly paid for by a cruise credit by Regent for some circumstances that occurred on the prior cruise. It is not humanely possible for anyone or two people to drink enough alcohol to make up the difference in price between the 2 lines, and there are NOT "unlimited free shore excursions" despite what Regent's advertising says. Believe me, I am many thousands of dollars poorer because of that advertising. The larger bathrooms, walk in closets, extra vanity/desk and hot breakfasts for those in non-concierge staterooms isn't enough to tempt me back either.

 

Wow - that is the final nail on the Regent coffin for me.

Thanks for the honest assessment.

[jwas1]

Having just returned from a 2 week Regent cruise, I am at a loss to understand the negative comments of others on this thread. The food was every bit as good as we have had on our previous 5 cruises as was the service. Except for one occasion where the guide was not up to snuff on English the shore excursions were quite good and well organized. All inclusive is a big deal for me. I am not an alcoholic, but I enjoy sampling several wines with dinner and enjoying a single malt or port outside Horizons lounge after dinner. Our cruise was made up of 74% Regent repeat customers so some folks seem to like what they are getting for their money. I do appreciate all of the positive comments about Oceania which have allayed my fears of not liking a cruise with them.

[wripro]

To me "all inclusive" is an attitude rather than a difference in price. I love not having to sign for anything. It makes the whole experience more like that of a guest than a paying passenger. Having said that I do not like the idea of included excursions because I think Regent has really raised their prices to a very high point in order to include them. And also having said that I love Oceania and will be sailing the Marina in March. I can't wait.

[frqttrvlr09]

WiPRo,

I would estimate that 2/3 or more of the passengers on one or more segments of my recent 2/12 month Regent cruise were return passengers. Virtually every one of them commented on what they felt was a decline in the quality of the food and the service from their prior Regent cruises, noting, correctly or not, that they felt it was "because it now has the same ownership group as Oceania" which they assumed was "lower quality". I don't agree (that Oceania is lower quality, at least not as far as food and service is concerned) for the reasons I stated previously. And I understand Oceania now includes water and soft drinks for free, and Nautica has refrigerators to stock up same in the non-concierge staterooms. BUt what I want to make clear, and what WiPro pointed out in part, is that while Regent has higher prices than Oceania, undoubtedly in part because of its so-called "all inclusive" policies, EVERYTHING IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. Passengers still have to pay for most of the shore excursions, and any wine that is not the recommended wine of the day/meal, etc. is extra, for example. Again, I don't drink alcohol, so none of this signing chits for alcohol issue matters to me, but I would still rather do that than pay such a high cost that in no way can I justify. I did not know that all-inclusive did not really mean all inclusive until the shore excursions were released 3 months prior to the cruise and then it was too late to cancel. That is why I said, "many thousands of dollars later."

[Wendy The Wanderer]

You actually spoke to 2/3s of the passengers? Quite a feat.

 

This thread is about whether a Regent fan would like Oceania, not about why Oceania fans would not like Regent.

[wripro]

The industry standard for "all inclusive" has always meant alcohol, all beverages and gratuities. It has never included shore excursions until Regent included them as a means to overcome the poor economy. It obviously fools enough people who don't realize they are paying more than they would on other luxury lines.

[hondorner]

I realize that I am paying more for Regent than I would some other luxury lines, but that does not render me "fooled" -- in fact, I think it is pretty smart, because I GET more for my dollar with Regent. I am perfectly happy with the included tours, which, in contrast by some of the claims on this thread, are almost all perfectly included -- only those tours which would command a premium on ANY cruise line have an extra fee attached on Regent, and there are very few of those. So far, I have booked 12 tours on Regent and only one has had a premium attached -- and there were other tours available in that port.

 

For my added dollar, I also avoid formal nights, avoid smoking issues, get wonderfully sized and equipped cabins, and more. Some of these things are randomly included on other luxury lines, but only Regent offers them all.

 

Oceania remains my favorite cruise line because I get all of the service, better menu choices, more comfortable beds, arguably better food (a completely subjective matter), included sodas (my drink of preference), included gratuities from my agent, and only pay extra for rare adult beverages and whatever tours I take.

 

If, while on Oceania, I paid for all the tours I get included on Regent, my Oceania experience would cost more than Regent. Of course, I carefully shop for my Regent cruises and only choose those with the lowest fares, so the excursions are truly free.

[meow!]

You have surely made your point. However, not everyone wants group tours on shore. We always take taxi tours on our own, which are private (don't have to mingle and smile at others), flexible (go wherever we want), convenient (can park at spots not accessible to buses and thereby save some walking and waiting), and efficient (can cover more ground in less time). The taxi fare is usually not much more than what cruise lines charge for a couple (whether that is a separate charge or included in the fare).

 

We have only taken one cruise line tour, with Silversea at Panama Canal (which the cruise line gave as a special treat, albeit at a price), which was fine, but normally we avoid group bus tours. So whether it is nice to have included tours or not depends on the individual. For us, we would rather not have to pay for the included tours, and thereby feel obliged to make good use of them!

[pacheco18]

The industry standard for "all inclusive" has always meant alcohol, all beverages and gratuities. It has never included shore excursions until Regent included them as a means to overcome the poor economy. It obviously fools enough people who don't realize they are paying more than they would on other luxury lines.

 

I think what it does is make people believe that they don't have to add on the usual cost of tours to the total cost of their trip as they would on another line. That could be a saving of $1-2000 per person, depending on itinerary, length of cruise, number of ports and type of excursions booked. Unfortunately, the Regent included tours have gotten such poor reviews that the savings really isn't there for some of us.

[pacheco18]

I GET more for my dollar with Regent. I am perfectly happy with the included tours, which, in contrast by some of the claims on this thread, are almost all perfectly included -- only those tours which would command a premium on ANY cruise line have an extra fee attached on Regent, and there are very few of those.

 

Don - that's not the complaint I have been reading on the Regent boards. It's not the just extra fee tours that are causing passengers concern. The complaint is that the free tours are poorly organized, people are herded like cattle into lounges with excessive wait times, and that the tours are "large group" catastrophes. That seems quite unlike the Regent experience in other respects.

 

And it's not just one or two posters reporting this. Seems to be the consensus. In fact many repeat Regent passengers think the all included tours have attracted more mass market types to the line - a bit snobbish LOL

That's why I am such a fan of CC. I would not want to book a Regent cruise and have a similar experience - then I would be fooled.

[LHT28]

And it's not just one or two posters reporting this. Seems to be the consensus. In fact many repeat Regent passengers think the all included tours have attracted more mass market types to the line - a bit snobbish LOL

That's why I am such a fan of CC. I would not want to book a Regent cruise and have a similar experience - then I would be fooled.

Maybe people feel they have paid for the tours upfront or they are FREE so they are taking advantage of them. ;)

So having a whole ship full of passengers want the shorex will cause a backlog

 

I am not a fan of ship's tours but have taken a few of them when they work out better for the port than private tours.

 

If I were ever to take a Regent cruise I would still make my own arrangements in the ports. :D

 

Lyn

[hondorner]

Don - that's not the complaint I have been reading on the Regent boards. It's not the just extra fee tours that are causing passengers concern. The complaint is that the free tours are poorly organized, people are herded like cattle into lounges with excessive wait times, and that the tours are "large group" catastrophes. That seems quite unlike the Regent experience in other respects.

 

And it's not just one or two posters reporting this. Seems to be the consensus. In fact many repeat Regent passengers think the all included tours have attracted more mass market types to the line - a bit snobbish LOL

That's why I am such a fan of CC. I would not want to book a Regent cruise and have a similar experience - then I would be fooled.

What's snobbish, in my opinion, are some of these posters stating that having to gather in the theater (with other people! Gasp!) and waiting until the bus number is called is somehow demeaning.

 

I went on 7 tours on Regent Navigator last January, and in every case we were asked to go to the comfortable, air-conditioned theater, with drinks available, as a gathering point for the excursion, rather than waiting in the Caribbean sun while standing and and sweating on the pier. The destinations folks were wonderfully organized, handing out bus numbers or tender numbers, and then escorting the group to the gangway each time a number was called. We relaxed and chatted with friends, then went directly out to get on the bus, local boat, or whatever the tour transportation involved (only a couple involved buses, which were small tour buses, not huge motor coaches).

 

One of the more vocal posters on the Regent forum frequently relates experience where they went to the pier at an appointed time (after presumably waiting somewhere to exit) and waling on to a waiting vehicle. I'm certain that happened. But, one also has to remember that in those days, Regent frequently partially empty, and service is a lot easier to arrange when there is a light load. Also, the practices at that time had at least some bearing on the fact that the cruise line was put up for sale. Things had to change to make the product work, and many of the Regent Old Guard would like things to go back to the old ways -- even if it bankrupts the cruise line.

 

The excursions themselves have not changed; in fact, one of the guests on my upcoming Regent cruise took the same cruise back when the excursions were not included, and they are essentially the same excursions!

 

As far as I can tell, the fares were not increased to pay for the cruises; the excursions were included as a marketing tool to fill the ships in a bad economy, and it worked! There is every reason to believe that if the included excursions were dropped, the price of a cruise would not be reduced.

 

So, my attitude about the excursions is the same as that of the open bar and the free launderettes -- if I want to take advantage of it I will, and if I don't, no big deal.

 

By the way, most of the included excursions last only a small portion of the time the ship is in port, so I still get to walk around on my own, shop if I want to (I don't), or even take a taxi or rent a car to fill the rest of the day.

 

I would never let the controversy over the inclusion of excursions be the determining factor in my choice of cruise line.

[hondorner]

Here's a quote that was just posted by a guest now aboard the Regent Mariner in the Mediterranean:

"Everything on the cruise has been very well organized. No long waiting in the theater for tours to start and no huge crush of people. The most we waited was maybe 10 minutes."

[pacheco18]

And here is one of many posts from the thread "Regent and Inclusive Tours"

 

 

"Dysfunctional Excursions

I also agree that the excursions need to be reworked somehow. Most of the posts I have read where the OP indicates that the lines wern't bad were from passengers who were comparing the lines on Regent to the lines on mass market ships. "Free" excursions is bringing many, many passengers from mass market ships. Regent is now being discussed on the general boards where cost comparisons are being done. This is great for Regent in terms of filling the ships, but not so good for those of us who are not pleased to be sitting in a full theater trying to figure out if you can get on a waitlisted cruise.

 

The lines on our Navigator cruise this summer were the worst we have seen -- all due to excursions.

 

While deciding to do tours on your own or with a private company is appealing, remember that at tender ports, you will not be allowed on the tender until the Regent excursions have boarded the tenders. On the way back to the ship, if you are unlucky enough to arrive at the tender dock the same time as a Regent excursion, you probably will have to wait until the next tender arrives as they receive first priority.

 

There is a lot more information on the dysfunctional excursions -- just do a search."

 

Check out the thread - it is full of similar posts -- some even saying that they won't sail on Regent again because of it. Apparently many of these posters have different sensibilities with respect to this issue.

[meow!]

There is every reason to believe that if the included excursions were dropped, the price of a cruise would not be reduced. .

Perhaps what RSSC should do with its included excursions is like what Oceania does with its included air. Give those who don't want those excursions rebates as Oceania gives to those who opt out of the included air. That should be fairer all around.

[frqttrvlr09]

I don;t often disagree with the wise Cruiser-Sage Hondorner, but I do in part regarding the Regent shore excursion issue. Regent advertisements state, and emphasize, "Free Unlimited Shore Excursions." Now, to me, as a lawyer and having at least average intelligence, that means what it says: the shore excursions are free, and the number of shore excursions that are free are "unlimited." Ergo, all the shore excursions are free. That fact was a major enticement for me to book the 2 1/2 month circumnavigation of Central and South America incl. Antarctica, the Amazon cruise and parts of the Carribbean this past winter. I have not taken a lot of cruises - six before that one (including two last fall on Oceania) - compared to many people on CC, but I can read. It was a very expensive cruise for me to take, particularly with a veranda and a single supplement. It was also a cruise where, especially for people like myself that had not been to South America and do not speak Spanish, it was not that easy to plan private shore excursions for. I also did not have the time to do so since I had just been on 2 back to back cruises with Oceania just a month before. I priced out what each of the legs of the Regent cruise would cost as stand alone segments on other cruise lines, including Oceania, but also less expensive lines, but then added the shore excursions to those other lines. Initially, the result was, it was in fact less expensive to take this trip with Regent than other lines, which did not have the entire itinerary and did not have an "all inclusive" policy. However, as I said on an earlier post, I subsequently learned, much to my surprise and dismay, that all of the shore ex's were not free; that many of the ones I wanted to go on (going to see penguins; riding dune buggies; any city tour that lasted more than a few hours, for example) cost money and not an insignificant amount. So, suddenly, Regent was no longer economically such a good deal. In fact, due to the length of the cruise, I paid several thousand dollars just for daily ship-sponsored shore excursions. Most were sold out, the buses were full, and thus I cringe whenever I read a post advising someone who is asking whether they should book a ship shore ex now or wait that they should wait: many people on this cruise were upset and disappointed because they did wait, whether because they followed the advice on CC or just don't like to plan ahead. On my upcoming 3 back to back cruises, totalling over 2 1/2 months on Oceania, I have booked only one ship's shore ex (and that is only because the private tour operator I arranged a trip with for myself and a few others cancelled its tour because of Oceania's short port stay). Every other port I am doing a private shore ex.

 

I do agree that the entertainment lounge on Regent's Seven Seas Mariner is a cool, comfortable place to wait to disembark the ship. It was generally organized and Destination Services had things under control. THere were some rather vivid and chaotic exceptions but it was due more to problems at the port and/or with the tour providers.

 

"Discriminating" against persons taking private shore ex's is not unique to Regent. On Oceania, you have to wait until the people taking the ship's shore ex's are called before you can get off the ship. Few people, including me, are happy with this policy, particularly when you know and can sometimes even see your guide standing by his vehicle a hundred yards away from the ship, waiting for you while you impatiently wait to get going. It was particularly distressing in Santorini on Insignia, where those on the ship's shore ex not only got off the ship first; they disembarked onto a tender that took them to shore where buses waited for them to take them into town. THEN the ship was repositioned and put at anchor; thus, about an hour after the passengers going on the ship shore ex's disembarked onto a beach, the rest of us with private shore excursions got off, rode a tender to a pier, walked down a long pier, and then had to either walk up the god knows how many stairs; take the mules; or wait in a long line to take the funicular, up to the town. We thus ost a good 2 hours getting into Santorini. Most of us did not know this was going to happen, so we had guides waiting for that entire time, confused. The ship returned to Santorini on the second of the 2 back to back cruises and this time I didn't even get off the ship. There was a huge cruise ship already at anchor off the port, and I could see hundreds if not over a thousand people waiting in line to go up the funicular. It just wasn't worth it.

[pacheco18]

Perhaps what RSSC should do with its included excursions is like what Oceania does with its included air. Give those who don't want those excursions rebates as Oceania gives to those who opt out of the included air. That should be fairer all around.

 

 

I think that's a wonderful idea -- would likely entice me to give Regent serious consideration once again.

[hondorner]

Nor do I often disagree with frqttrvlr09, whom I especially admire for the amazing and accurate descriptions of Alaska.

 

I, too, read the hype about Free Unlimited Shore Excursions, but perhaps as a result of my extended years, I took it with a grain of salt -- much like Oceania's "Free Air" that we all know is not free, just included in the fare.

 

I haven't taken many more cruises than my learned friend, but one thing I have discovered is that there is no such thing as unlimited excursions. Every excursion process is limited by the resources and capacities of the excursion vendor; none are provided by the cruise line. If it would require 10 buses to accommodate every passenger, and only 9 buses exist at the port (or none, as in Cape Verde), some passengers are going to be disappointed regardless of whether the cruise line is luxury or steerage, or whether the excursion is "free" or paid.

 

This is only common sense, and the wise passenger books very early (I usually reserve about two minutes after the opening time for the bookings) in order to avoid disappointment. Somehow, I understood this before I ever took a Regent cruise and understood this despite the claim for "unlimited" excursions.

 

I have also taken enough shore excursions to understand that some are more expensive than others, and a few, like the flight to the Tikal ruins in Guatemala or the flight to the national park from Usuaia, are very expensive -- $999 per person or more -- and common sense tells one that these will not be free; otherwise everyone would take them, running smack into the capacity problem that limits the "unlimited" number of excursions.

 

These premium tours are an added cost, just like the premium wines or spirits are at additional cost via the otherwise "inclusive" drinks on Regent. Obviously, they are not going to pour $300 per bottle wine freely, or everyone would choose it, and they would quickly run out.

 

Perhaps (he says lightly, teasing you a little bit) your problem is that you are an attorney, and have been trained to take things too literally?

 

Finally, I have not taken Mediterranean cruises on any cruise line (they are too port intensive for my health), and perhaps the majority of excursions on those cruises are too expensive to be "free", but in South America and the Caribbean, the VAST majority of the cruises are totally "free". I'm paying $99 per person extra for one of my excursions (in Guatemala) in December, but all of the other excursions I booked are "free", and virtually all (I can't guarantee precisely all)of the excursions are the same as they were before the excursions were included.

 

One of the "free" excursions I booked last January on Regent was the America's cup sailing experience in St. Maarten, for over ten years voted the Best Excursion in the Caribbean, so the quality of the tour was excellent. Of course, the transportation for that excursion was a retired America's Cup yacht,and the supply of those is somewhat limited, so it would be impossible to guarantee "unlimited" excursions in that venue. Sadly, the weather was too choppy and my excursion was canceled. Horrors! should I have been compensated for something for which I paid in my cruise fare? The potential attorney side of my personality says "Yes", but the old man's common sense side of me says, "Suck it up".

 

In other words, the excursions haven't changed (so if they are "disastrous" now, they were disastrous then, just not "free"); and it's unlikely that the capacities of the excursion vendors has change much. the only thing that has changed is that now, many of the excursions are included in fare, and all excursions -- even the premium ones with extra fees -- have been reduced by an amount that corresponds to the average tour (somewhere around $100 to $150 per person). What's to complain about?

 

Assuming I'm correct in my educated speculation that fares would NOT be reduced if the inclusive tours were eliminated, then this entire discussion is moot and pointless.

 

Enjoy what is.

[pacheco18]

are[/i] an attorney, and have been trained to take things too literally?

 

I, too, am an attorney. I think we are trained to the expect (demand?) the "benefit of the bargain" and the "free excursion" hype (it is hype - they are promoting these free excursions to sell more cruises) does not live up to its expectations for many.