Regent Seven Scams Cruises

[Aussie Paul]

I booked 2 suites on "Seven Seas Mariner" for next April, and friends then booked another 2 suites, so that we could cruise together. When I asked Regent to book my "free pre-cruise accommodation package", I was told that my travel agent had opted me out of it! Regent said I had to pay another USD300.00 per person on top of the cruise fare to get the "free" package!

After telling RSSC that I was referring it to the Australian regulatory authority (which is there to protect consumers, and whose decision I had told RSSC that I would abide by), I received a letter from their legal counsel to say that my cruise had been cancelled!

If that is RSSC's interpretation of customer service, I'm glad I'm not travelling with them! I'm annoyed, however, that my friends were unable to cancel their bookings, so we now can't travel together. Now I'm going with Seabourn, which gets much better reviews in any case.

The Australian regulatory authorities (both the Office of Regulatory Services and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) are now collecting the information required to assess the case and, hopefully, to prosecute RSSC.

[cruiseej]

Okay, I'll bite...

 

Aussie Paul, you say that Regent told you your Travel Agent opted you out of the pre-cruise accommodation. That's a pretty common thing people do to get a lower fare and book a less-expensive hotel, so my first and somewhat obvious question is: is it true or not? If it's true, then why are you mad at Regent and not at the TA? Did the TA quote you a lower fare than the published fare -- and accomplish that by canceling the pre-cruise hotel? If so, you should be going after the TA for fraud, not Regent.

 

Did your friends book through the same TA? Did they encounter the same issue with the cost of the pre-cruise hotel, or was it just you?

 

If your friends no longer want to cruise without you, why don't they simply make the same threats you did to Regent, and get themselves thrown off the cruise, too? ;)

 

-- Eric

[Travelcat2]

Sounds like a lot of miscommunication. However, going to the authorities over a minor pre-cruise hotel misunderstanding is a bit over the top. Unfortunately it is too late to make suggestion on how to rectify the situation. This type of thing could happen on any cruise line.

[Hambagahle]

Eric is right on as far as I am concerned. We routinely opt out of the pre-cruise hotel package and thus pay a fare that is $300 pp less than anyone who takes the package. Clearly your TA told Regent you did not want the package... so talk to your TA.

 

As for Seabourn being better than Regent - I am not so sure. I know people who have cruised both and think the contrary... and based on what I see in terms of heavy Seabourn discounting I rather think they are right.

 

Anyway it isn't very nice to call a company the kind of name that you did when it seems an honest mistake was made which was certainly not your fault, nor theirs!

[Dreps]

I agree that this reaction against Regent does not seem warranted based on the information presented by the OP. I will add that we have very close Australian friends who are frequent Regent cruisers and who have also cruised on Silversea and Oceania. They were on their first Seabourn cruise in the fall. I was anxious to hear their comparisons because of the "deals" available on Seabourn. "Unfortunately," it was clear that they much preferred Regent.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

My TA routinely opts me out of air and hotels at booking time to minimize the size of my deposit, knowing I can opt in later. Simple mis-communication.

[shuguley]

When you booked your cruise, your TA should have immediately provided you with a detailed written invoice from Regent showing exactly what was and was not included, the price offered, the suite assigned and any down payment made. You ALWAYS need to review this invoice carefully to make certain mistakes and miscommunications have not occurred. Never take it for granted that all arrangements are as you thought.

 

From the information provided, it appears the mistake here was with your TA and you, not Regent. Regent simply did what they were asked to do on your behalf by your authorized agent.

[PaulaJK]

While the TA most probably made the initial problem & should have been in the loop regarding the booking, I am unsure that our OP requested that Regent to [what sounds to be] unilaterally cancel his passage. Customer service for most companies certainly would include explaining and dealing with irate clients.

[shuguley]

The TA in this case was the authorized agent for and legally represented the OP. Why would Regent require unilateral confirmation that the hotel be canceled?

[PaulaJK]

It sounds as though it was Regent that unilaterally canceled his cruise after he/OP filed a complaint....at least that was what my post was meant to address. .....If that was so, then there is a certain 'risk' in complaining about Regent..........but frankly, the entire process sounds a bit confused.

 

On an unrelated issue, we just rec'd our documents for an upcoming voyage and thought that the new presentation/ packaging was excellent.

[commodore2010]

Uh, NEVERMIND

[Aussie Paul]

Thanks for your comments, everyone, but:

 

1. How could my travel agent opt out of something that was not optional? Does that mean the "FREE Luxury Hotel Package" is not free? Does it mean that I could have opted out of the "FREE Beverages", the "FREE 24-hour room service" and the "FREE Unlimited Shore Excursions"? What about "FREE meals", which are not even advertised as inclusions? "FREE" might mean something different in American, but in English it means you don't pay for it!

 

2. I paid the exact fare advertised for the cruise by the travel agent, *************. So there was no question that I chose to opt out of the accommodation package. In any case, why would Regent advertise it as free if it is a $600 extra (for one room for one night)? I could have got the room for a lot less on Wotif!

 

3. Eric's suggestion would have been a good one, except that the reason my friends had to stay with the booking was that they were committed to other travel arrangements around the cruise. Because Australia is so far from Europe, Aussies would rarely travel all that way just for a one-week cruise.

 

4. I didn't refer Regent to the Australian authorities until I had exhausted all options with Regent. They weren't even prepared to discuss the matter, saying it was "quite clear" that I had opted out of the free accommodation package. It certainly wasn't clear to me. They refused to show me where I had the option of paying less in lieu of the accommodation, and unilaterally cancelled my booking, resulting in a lot of additional expense and effort on my part.

 

5. In response to Travelcat2, I would suggest that it's not "over the top", when a cruise line cancels your trip without even attempting to fix what I agree could have been a minor issue. Maybe your regulators are not as supportive of consumers as ours are. The Australian authorities will not tolerate false or misleading advertising.

[nana541]

Hummmmmmm just saying! Somehow the TA is up to their eye balls in this IMHO......

My receipt from Regent clearly shows the full price of the cruise minus whatever changes I have opted for....less air credit, less no hotel, less SSS credit, and reflects the final price....Wondering if OP's TA shared this itemized document from Regent with his client. I believe OP is royally P------ Off at the wrong party.....maybe should be unhappy with TA.

[Portolan]

Thanks for your comments, everyone, but:

1. How could my travel agent opt out of something that was not optional?

Air and the precruise hotel package have always had the option to not use them and receive a credit toward the cost of the cruise. What if it started in your hometown...the air and hotel would be pretty much useless.

2. I paid the exact fare advertised for the cruise by the travel agent, *************.

Did the fare your TA offer you match Regent's web site? If not, then your TA is the one who mislead you.

I think the reason you aren't getting much sympathy here for accusing Regent of deception is:

1) most (all?) of us haven't seen or heard of this practice (in many, many Regent cruises), and

2) the information you present makes it seem like your TA is the one who has mislead you.

[commodore2010]

I'm sure the australian authorities are all over this one.....

 

I'm just curious, why do you not question your agent about what happened or not happened? You clearly seem to think that they have done nothing wrong and I would bet that it was the agent that screwed this up.

[cruiseluv]

Thanks for your comments, everyone, but:

 

1. How could my travel agent opt out of something that was not optional? Does that mean the "FREE Luxury Hotel Package" is not free? Does it mean that I could have opted out of the "FREE Beverages", the "FREE 24-hour room service" and the "FREE Unlimited Shore Excursions"? What about "FREE meals", which are not even advertised as inclusions? "FREE" might mean something different in American, but in English it means you don't pay for it!

 

2. I paid the exact fare advertised for the cruise by the travel agent, *************. So there was no question that I chose to opt out of the accommodation package. In any case, why would Regent advertise it as free if it is a $600 extra (for one room for one night)? I could have got the room for a lot less on Wotif!

 

 

 

Did you ever ask your travel agent this question( ie: if she had opted you out of the hotel, same about Air)? I do agree that its very misleading to announce FREE hotel and air, since you indeed have the option to get $$$ off if you opt out of it so obviously its not "Free". I think before having made such a fuss with the government agency, you should have gotten the full story from your TA.

[sanne]

Think this is rather difficult to discuss unless all the facts are known. What has been apparent recently, is the Regent web site now automatically defaults to an Australian Regent site with different prices than the US one. So maybe there is a different fare structure in Australia.

[RachelG]

As far as I can tell, the TA is the person at fault, not Regent. When the TA makes the cruise reservation, they tell Regent if you want to opt out of hotel and air. We always opt out. This option is nothing new (for air--hotel wasn't included till recently). And we get the hotel and air credit.

Your invoice from the TA should clearly indicate this. It is not some big mystery. What, exactly, does the invoice from the TA say?

[nana541]

The Regent Invoice and the TA invoice are two totally differant things! OP may not know what the Regent Invoice should actually look like and may have only seen what the TA has represented to him......

[TahoeTraveler]

If the OP booked between 14 - 16 September, that was when Regent had that 3-day "sale" which clearly (at least for most of us) stated that it was "cruise only" (hotel and air not included). It is possible that the TA booked that promotion, and the invoice didn't show the opting out of the hotel and air, because that was never in the price in the first place. If that is the case, it sounds as if the TA never explained to the OP that the booking did NOT include hotel and air. And it would certainly explain why Regent said it was quite clear the OP had chosen not to take the hotel package, as it was not in that pricing promotion.

 

And regardless of invoices, different fare structures, etc., the TA is the one who is supposed to take care of the customer and make sure that he is satisfied with the booking and completely understands it. It just does not sound as if that is what happened in this case.

[nana541]

You may have nailed it...... And the trail still seems to lead back to the TA not making "Full Disclosure" or at the very least not fully explaining all the details of the booking to the OP :(

[hondorner]

I think it's been pretty well established that this was a problem that can be laid at the feet of the travel agent, not Regent. The question remains, however, as to why the client's cruise was cancelled.

 

Considering the name given to this thread, and considering the actions taken by the OP, and considering that apparently Regent tried to explain the situation, my guess is that Regent finally tired of the situation and decided it would be better off without this particular guest.

[BlewWater]

I think it's been pretty well established that this was a problem that can be laid at the feet of the travel agent, not Regent. The question remains, however, as to why the client's cruise was cancelled.

 

Considering the name given to this thread, and considering the actions taken by the OP, and considering that apparently Regent tried to explain the situation, my guess is that Regent finally tired of the situation and decided it would be better off without this particular guest.

 

I know of a number of businesses in a variety of sectors that will, as a matter of routine, dismiss a customer/client if the customer uses the threat of a lawsuit in any complaint. The company might still try to alleviate the complaint about the prior unsatisfactory service, but they will no longer do future business with the customer.

 

I suspect there are some details about the manner in which the original poster handled the grievance that we don't know about.

[RachelG]

I know of a number of businesses in a variety of sectors that will, as a matter of routine, dismiss a customer/client if the customer uses the threat of a lawsuit in any complaint. The company might still try to alleviate the complaint about the prior unsatisfactory service, but they will no longer do future business with the customer.

 

I suspect there are some details about the manner in which the original poster handled the grievance that we don't know about.

 

 

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Hambagahle]

I rather think Hondorner is collect. Having worked in the US in a travel-related business for some 20+ years I can well remember saying "lets not have that person on our programme..."

 

Not that this excuses everything. the TA is responsible for explaining, totally, the costs involved and what those costs cover AND also explaining what can and cannot be opted out of. (Bad English but there you go!)

 

For me, just the title of the first post on this thread got my hackles up! If you want to solve a problem, don't become part of the problem!!