Oceania vs Regent

[frqttrvlr09]

Just for clarification: I do admit to some apparent naivete when I learned that in order to see Iguazu Falls and Machu Picchu, it would require very costly multiiday/multi night packages. And that the only way to visit Torres del Paine was a $899 day trip requiring a charter flight. Ditto for Quito, Equador. I was till laboring under the "Free Unlimited Shore Excursion" delusion.

 

Anyway, I think the advertising is misleading. I do know Regent received quite a few complaints when it began this "come on" from people like me who felt misled and deceived, and subsequently I understand it began placing an asterisk after same. For me, it came too late. That said, the itinerary was truly a dream, making the ports a trip of a lifetime.

[hondorner]

And, in further clarification, I didn't mention Iguazu Falls and Machu Picchu because my experience in South America was on Oceania, and on Oceania, those excursions are pre- or post-cruise land trips, not ship's tours. I wondered how you could spend "thousands" above the discounted tours in South America; now I understand.

 

And, since I didn't take the tour and don't recall the name, if Torres del Paine is the same Chilean National park excursion that I mentioned out of Ushuaia or thereabouts (or Punta Aernaas or Puerto Montt), it was $999 on Oceania and you got a $100 discount as part of your Regent "Free or Discounted Tours" (perhaps a better description).

[meow!]

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..

The question remains, if Oceania can let people opt out of the "included air", why can't RSSC let people opt out of the "included excursions"? The same FDR should have the same thinking for both issues!

[JimandStan]

The question remains, if Oceania can let people opt out of the "included air", why can't RSSC let people opt out of the "included excursions"? The same FDR should have the same thinking for both issues!

 

 

The answer to your question is simple. If you're looking for RSSC without the excursions, sail Oceania.

 

If you like Oceania, but hate signing for everything, sail RSSC.

 

For heavens sake, if EVERYTHING were a la carte, there wouldn't be any sense in maintaining two seperate cruise lines.

[hondorner]

The question remains, if Oceania can let people opt out of the "included air", why can't RSSC let people opt out of the "included excursions"? The same FDR should have the same thinking for both issues!

RSSC also lets one opt out of the included air, and supplies the same, or perhaps more generous, air credit if one does choose that option. In that regard, they are the same. That option has to do with getting to or from the cruise, and is especially fair to folks like me, who can drive to Miami or Fort Lauderdale for many cruises.

 

On the other hand, included tours fall into the same category as included adult beverages. You know up front that you will be "paying for other peoples' drinks", and you choose to get your money's worth -- or not. There are many who sail Regent and never have a drink and there are even more, like Betsy and I, who sail Regent and only have an occasional drink outside the wine poured at dinner. That's our choice. Likewise, it's also our choice if we choose to ignore a "free" tour for a given port and make our own arrangements. As someone suggested, either here or on the Regent forum, it probably only costs Regent a small fraction of the list price, so the corresponding credit would be small if offered.

 

I wasn't participating in the Regent forum back then, but I've been told that the identical discussions were held when adult beverages were declared inclusive. Since then, most guests have become inured to the fact; I predict the same will happen with inclusive excursions. There are still many who will not book Regent because they "don't want to pay for other peoples' drinks", and there are still a few who are convinced the quality of drinks has been lowered under the policy (it has not).

 

There will be some who take the same attitude towards the included excursions and refuse to book Regent, whether over the cost or the perceived quality. That's sad, but there are plenty of others to take their place.

 

The most snobbish comments I have heard in that regard are that many of the new folks who move to Regent will be "coming from the ranks of mass market ships", as if all those are somehow commoners who don't deserve Regent. Given the boorish behavior of a few of the Old Guard Regent guests, that's a silly idea.

[pacheco18]

Don - points well taken, of course.

 

We drink very little alcohol (wine with dinner, an occasional drink before dinner, a beer now and then) and NEVER take ship tours. Paying for everyone else's drinks AND everyone else's excursions is more generous than I want to be.

[meow!]

Since both air and shore excursions are "sourced out" services (operated by outside contractors), they should be considered similar in category!

[wripro]

Regent has included shore excursions as a way of differentiating itself from the other luxury lines, even though they have raised their prices way above others to do so imo. Still, it is part of their product for now and the choice we have to make is not whether to opt out of we don't like it but whether not to sail with them if we don't like it. It's like any product. If you don't like what they're offering, go elsewhere instead of trying to make them change things to your desires.

[hondorner]

Don - points well taken, of course.

 

We drink very little alcohol (wine with dinner, an occasional drink before dinner, a beer now and then) and NEVER take ship tours. Paying for everyone else's drinks AND everyone else's excursions is more generous than I want to be.

Then, quite obviously, Regent is not the best choice for you. They, of course, understand that they cannot be all things to everyone.

 

My reason for explaining so much of the Regent policy is because some people. not you, arrive at the conclusion that the best way to handle such a situation is to blame Regent and put them down because they are doing something different. You may have noticed, but I don't quite see things that way.

[hondorner]

...even though they have raised their prices way above others to do so imo...

I take your point, but geek that I am, I feel bound to say that Regent has not raised their fares to pay for the excursions -- they have simply not cut their fares the way the luxury lines have done. The bottom line comes out the same way -- the other lines may have lower fares -- but anyone who wants to take ships' excursions on those lines will have to pay for them, and the total may well come out higher than Regent.

 

The rest of your point is entirely valid -- for those who do not want to take ships' excursions, and who do not see any other value in Regent, should opt for another cruise line. There are plenty of luxury lines to choose from, and plenty of passengers to go around. For every person who does not book Regent for this reason, there is a Silversea or Seabourn or Crystal passenger who is switching to Regent to take advantage of this policy. Contrary to some opinions, not everyone who is switching to Regent (and filling their ships, in contrast to the other lines) is a peon from those dreaded mass market lines...

[frqttrvlr09]

I think this thread has been beaten to death, and I admit to a club or more, but just "to set the record straight": I spent several thousand dollars on shore excursions WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE the multi day, multi night trips to Machu Picchu or Iguazu Falls. The cruise lasted 65 days, so there were a lot of shore excursions. I am now a somewhat wiser, more experienced cruiser and I now know not to believe what you read, and ask a lot of questions of the Line and your TA, as well as on this Site and others even if you think they are stupid questions (but beware! and wear a hard hat), before you cruise with any Line.

[pacheco18]

I think this thread has been beaten to death, and I admit to a club or more, but just "to set the record straight": I spent several thousand dollars on shore excursions WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE the multi day, multi night trips to Machu Picchu or Iguazu Falls. The cruise lasted 65 days, so there were a lot of shore excursions. I am now a somewhat wiser, more experienced cruiser and I now know not to believe what you read, and ask a lot of questions of the Line and your TA, as well as on this Site and others even if you think they are stupid questions (but beware! and wear a hard hat), before you cruise with any Line.

 

Great advice -- and if more people followed it there would be less disappointment and fewer of those first time posters who rant and rave simply because they had no idea what to expect.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

This thread has certainly gone completely awry. The original posters question has not been answered, and the thread has become a "let's bash Regent" thread. The OP asked if a diehard Regent cruiser would enjoy Oceania. This question has not been answered in the slightest, and I for one would like to hear the answer.

[esther e]

I'll answer that: Yes, they would. :) Both lines are excellent and we would be hard-pressed to choose if dates were the same, etc.

[LHT28]

This thread has certainly gone completely awry. The original posters question has not been answered, and the thread has become a "let's bash Regent" thread. The OP asked if a diehard Regent cruiser would enjoy Oceania. This question has not been answered in the slightest, and I for one would like to hear the answer.

 

Since we do not know the person.... hard to answer

 

It depends on whether the die hard Regent cruiser

1) could sign for drinks etc...

2)have a smaller cabin (if on the R ships)

3)live with no free drinks

4)no free excursions

5)more limited smoking locations

 

Of course they COULD enjoy Oceania it is all a matter of their needs/wants & expectations...they could even enjoy RCCL if they had it in their mind to do so

 

It is much like the food question...it depends & is all subjective

 

 

I say give O a try then decide

 

Lyn

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Yes, but these are all pretty well-known differences. But what about service, dining, general ambience, etc. I think I know most of the answers to these questions, having researched O extensively, but the OP might not.

I've been told that dining is just as good or better. And ditto service. Some day I'm going to have to find out for myself!

Oh, and one other tangible difference--Regent has really *great* Business Class upgrades, and Oceania does not. Regent also has free shuttles from many docks, and includes transfers when you book their air.

[esther e]

I have to say the food on O is superior to Regent. Radisson was a different story, but we won't go there since it's no longer Radisson. Service, ambiance, etc. are equal. The perks for long-time cruisers are fabulous on R, though, i.e., free internet.

[wripro]

I think the Op would definitely enjoy O if he makes up his mind to enjoy it. But if he comes aboard and spends the entire cruise comparing every little aspect he might not.

[pacheco18]

I do not think this question can be answered . . .

I sail O - but I also sail Celebrity.
I like Celebrity for some cruises -- I am sure there are O cruisers who would not even consider it.
Bottom line -- someone who likes O will like Celebrity. Someone who likes O will NOT like Celebrity.

Same will be true for Regent - or any other line. All an intelligent person can do is read the posts (pros and cons), note the differences between the 2 lines and decide if those differences are deal breakers. With respect to O, if you hate signing for a drink -- it's a deal breaker. If you want free internet -- it's a deal breaker. If you want shuttles at all ports - it's a deal breaker. If those issues don't matter to you, then O is a consideration.

[hondorner]

I beg to differ that the original question was never answered. I provided most of these answers in post 3, except for the comments about food -- and I try to not comment on food because it is so subjective.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

So you did, Hondorner, my apologies. My point of posting was that the thread seemed to have turned to Regent-bashing.

[LHT28]

Just an added note

I do not think the OP would be happy on Oceania from their simple statement

[quote]
[B]All inclusive is a big deal for me[/B][/quote]

This could be the deal breaker for them ....but only they can decide

Lyn

[SanFranCruizer]

We have sailed on Oceania and Regent. We liked both. Both had good service and decent food. I actually would give the advantage to Oceania in terms of food. Neither had lines for anything. Both were relaxed in terms of dress code. Oceania has smaller cabins, but we booked a PH and that was similar in size to Regents basic cabin. I like the not signing for drinks thing, much more than I thought I would. But Oceania was wonderful, and I would sail them again. The main reason I haven't sailed Oceania is that we prefer PH or better, and many times when we have compared itineraries, the PH comes in at the same price as Regent or sometimes more! But if itinerary was an issue (Oceania had it and Regent didn't) we would sail Oceania in a heartbeat. I think the OP could have a wonderful time on Oceania.

[frqttrvlr09]

I have only sailed one of Regent's ships so far (Seven Seas Mariner, though I went on board the Navigator when both ships were in port earlier this year in the Carribbean) and one Oceania ship (Insignia) and am about to sail the newly refurbished Nautica. Without repeating what was said by me and others previously, I think the main difference for me is that Oceania has more of a comfortable country club feel to it, and seems cozier. Oceania's ships still have real libraries, which are wonderful to curl up in and read a book, and also comfortable places to sit throughout the ship and read or talk or have a cup of coffee. I think the food, trying to be objective, is slightly but not materially better. However, in my opinion, the food in Toscana is superb, better than any of the specialty restaurants on the two lines. The service is comparable, meaning (to me) good at all levels, everywhere on the ships (though there were problems, as I noted above, on the Regent trip at the beginning). While I have only stayed in staterooms without concierges or butlers, but with verandas, on both ships, the comparable class of Regent rooms are larger, the bathrooms are much larger (and include bath tub, if this matters), there are essentially two desks, more room for clothes (a walk in closet) and more room for books etc. (a large wall unit with shelves) in these rooms. With refrigerators now in Nautica's staterooms, and "free" soda and water, it evens things up even more for me. I'm not getting into the "unlimited free" shore excursion discussion again but since I mostly now go on private ones it is essentially irrelevant. Also not touching the other aspect of the "all inclusive" on Regent (alcohol). I thought Oceania's Insignia had a better computer room situation than Regent; while it was usually crowded and full, there was always an IT manager there (unlike Regent), and further it offered classes regularly on all sorts of techniques (unlike Regent). The lecturers on Regent were almost uniformly superb, and better. Oceania had classical music performers before and after dinner and during the day outside the MDR that I really enjoyed. Other things (smoking policy, no kid activities, etc.) are virtually identical.
You just have to decide what is important to you.

[pacheco18]

I know on the Regent boards veteran Regent cruisers place a great deal of importance on not having to sign for anything. Having just cruised on the all inclusive PG, I can understand why some find that a very important aspect of the ambience on the cruise. It was great, but not the deal breaker for me it might be to some. If you place tremendous importance on never taking out your sea card to pay for a drink, stay with Regent.