Regent going in the wrong direction

[JPR]

I've never heard of food poisoning from eating caviar. Are you sure it wasn't the sour cream or blinis? Did it smell or taste

Ike ammonia?

[Wendy The Wanderer]

... a longtime Regent loyalist, going back to the Diamond and nearing Seven Seas Society Platinum level....

 

The topic is whether Regent is slipping, and it is relevant that its sister cruise line's newest ships are in most ways superior, particularly in the areas of quality of food and service, which used to be Regent's strengths. Voyager and Mariner are fine ships, and I would always choose them over Oceania's "R" ships for the same itinerary--but not over Riviera and Marina.

 

I certainly hope Regent matches or surpasses them when its newest ship is launched.

 

I agree, the subject of the quality of the newer Oceania ships is entirely germaine to whether Regent is slipping or not--after all, they are sister cruise lines!

 

I agree with the poster that said ...best cruise voyager... worst cruise Voyager.

...

Is it the cruise or cruise line or what? We have had great and bad cruises on big ships. and small ships. ... Each cruise is unique.

Lots of things go to make it magical or not. Kind of like life.

 

Agreed. Individual experience may vary, especially when most of us, except for the privileged few, cruise at most once or twice a year.

[Travelcat2]

I agree, the subject of the quality of the newer Oceania ships is entirely germaine to whether Regent is slipping or not--after all, they are sister cruise lines!

 

\.

 

As you know, they are separate companies. While I could argue your point, we have thankfully moved on from that subject and back to the topic of this thread.

[Travelcat2]

I like the concept of prepaying for things..but Regent needs to get some new itineraries.

 

Regent added a couple of new itineraries for the end of next year on the Voyager. Hopefully that will continue into 2015. The first half of 2015 itineraries are reportedly due in September:-)

[ChatKat in Ca.]

Having sailed on both lines and not yet on the new Riviera or Marina, I found it very easy to compare. I find them quite similar and both work for me and our style of travel with an edge to Oceania. I'd rather show my card than pay for what I don't need/want. As I know many of the Regent staff after using them as my cruise line of choice for the last 12 years, the people will be missed when I am on Oceania and I give up some of my benefits of being Gold, the itinerary will be the decision maker for us and the value. Each of us has our own tolerance for what works.

[Travelcat2]

Having sailed on both lines and not yet on the new Riviera or Marina, I found it very easy to compare. I find them quite similar and both work for me and our style of travel with an edge to Oceania. I'd rather show my card than pay for what I don't need/want. As I know many of the Regent staff after using them as my cruise line of choice for the last 12 years, the people will be missed when I am on Oceania and I give up some of my benefits of being Gold, the itinerary will be the decision maker for us and the value. Each of us has our own tolerance for what works.

 

Confused.... does that mean that you think Regent is going in the wrong direction or not?

 

Really interested in reading responses and opinions to the OP's question.

[ChatKat in Ca.]

Confused.... does that mean that you think Regent is going in the wrong direction or not?

 

Really interested in reading responses and opinions to the OP's question.

 

In comparing Regent from what period? The inaugural sailing of the Mariner which was a spectacular cruise with every single thing perfection? The food beyond? In 2003 it was just as delightful. Both cruises had Jaime and Dana as Cruise directors. In 2005 and 2006? The perfection was still there except on the Paul Gauguin who had just been leased by Grand Circle and managed by RSSC? In 2007 there was a huge difference to us and we completely noticed slippage and in November 2011 further difference and particularly in the service and food quality. Our tours were disappointing. Hence, we have no Regent cruises booked, are sailing Oceania and touring with Tauck and river cruising with them also. Editing to add, that prices have skyrocketed beyond what I am willing to pay as well. For the same money, I can take a Tauck Tour and have a land tour that is all inclusive or a River Cruise that exceeds expectation.

[Travelcat2]

Assuming that the OP did not mean to go back to when Regent was owned by Carlson. On the other hand, the OP seems to know very little about Regent in recent times other than was has been read on CruiseCritic. Perhaps that is why the thread was going inactive.

 

It is an interesting subject and could result in an good discussion - probably on a new thread (if it could stay on topic). We have sailed Regent quite a bit in the last five years and find the direction it seems to be going very positive (other than a few slips here and there over the years). Not everyone will like Regent but there are enough repeat and new customers to keep most of their sailings full. IMO, Regent is better now than it has been in the almost 10 years we have been sailing.

[tallship]

I agree with Chatkat (Kathy)....i was over the moon with Regent in 2006 - did 2 cruises that year and 2 the next....then had a really bad experience in 2009 right after the dry dock on Navigator (read my review).

 

The worst part of that experience was that it took Regent almost a month to respond at which point I decided to post my review online. We had paid a premium for that cruise as it was a holiday sailing and were so deflated by Regent's response or lack thereof. We received a 500 pp future cruise credit (not even close to the disappointment we experienced and moved on).

 

Following that, I did a number of cruises in the Med with my Mom and several in Alaska. I noticed the food beginning to improve and I never had bad experiences in CR as others have. Then, this year we had another bad experience on Navigator in May. The food was not great even though the menus were the same as what we had on Mariner 6 weeks earlier. The meals in La Veranda were poor. The service was just off and we did not enjoy ourselves. In fact, the special Indian meal we ordered one day was inedible.

 

What have I learned is that the Regent experience is somewhat inconsistent. On the Mariner six weeks earlier, we had a great chef and a well run ship. While there were small issues, they were addressed promptly. On the Navigator, there seemed to be a lot of slippage and while we wrote a lengthy Comment card, there never was or never is any follow up.

 

My sense is that there is a heightened focus on cost management (which is sensible) and perhaps a lot of new officers and crew. This would create a heightened need for training and instilling appropriate cultural norms and incentives to consistently deliver a high quality cruise experience. Don't get me wrong, Regent is very good....BUT ....The Regent Experience is very costly to risk the possibility of experiencing the inconsistency of service and food from cruise to cruise.

[mariners]

I was one of those passengers who really wanted Regent to go all inclusive. I was looking for a replication of our experience on Song of Flower. In those days, Regent (RSSC) prided itself in the luxury cruising that provided the same fabulous service and experience to all passengers regardless of the category booked. Today, Regent is a different product. It is now somewhere between the Regent I knew and the Oceania that I read about on CC. In my opinion, Regent has definitely gone the wrong direction. Although I miss our past experiences, I accept that Regent has chosen a different route and plan my cruises accordingly. This, of course, is my opinion regarding the changes and others are free to disagree.

 

I also believe that there is a relationship between Oceania and Regent. From what I have read, staff/crew spend time moving between the different ships. Individuals responsible for the ultimate decisions have an ongoing close business relationship. In the end, this might make perfect business sense but, for me, the personal touch is missing.

[funny26]

Those who say that Regent and Oceania are two different companies are only correct that they have different names; as Mariners so aptly pointed out, crew members alternate between the two lines, management of both lines are headquartered in the same building, etc. While the people who perform the specific tasks for each company are different people, part of the move to the same building for sure had to do with economy of scale and for instance, the people who answer the phones and book the flights in the air department may be separate people but, have no doubt that the air contracts and policies are if not identical, so close that only a lawyer could see the difference.

 

And importantly FDR, COB of PCH has a hand in every decision for both lines and most importantly, the President of PCH, Oceania, and Regent is the same person so again have no doubt that decisions made in all three Presidents offices, policies & procedures, procurements, food purchases, etc. are made by the same people and with very similar results.

[Travelcat2]

Those who say that Regent and Oceania are two different companies are only correct that they have different names; as Mariners so aptly pointed out, crew members alternate between the two lines, management of both lines are headquartered in the same building, etc. While the people who perform the specific tasks for each company are different people, part of the move to the same building for sure had to do with economy of scale and for instance, the people who answer the phones and book the flights in the air department may be separate people but, have no doubt that the air contracts and policies are if not identical, so close that only a lawyer could see the difference.

 

And importantly FDR, COB of PCH has a hand in every decision for both lines and most importantly, the President of PCH, Oceania, and Regent is the same person so again have no doubt that decisions made in all three Presidents offices, policies & procedures, procurements, food purchases, etc. are made by the same people and with very similar results.

 

Not sure what your point is. If either cruise line was going in the wrong direction, it is not because of the sister company (that is intentionally run differently). IF Regent is "going in the wrong direction", it has nothing to do with Oceania.

 

It is important for me to state that I have the highest respect for mariners and tallship's opinions. In the case of tallship, the Navigator has had problems on and off for years. It is sad because she is a darling ship with a few inherent problems.

 

As the CEO of Oceania and Regent has stated repeatedly, it is not the intent of Prestige Cruise Holdings to have both cruise lines be the same. IMO, they have achieved their goal. Comparing Regent and Oceania is like comparing Oceania to Carnival. They are both cruise ships -- you have to sign for things -- there are benefits that are different, etc.

 

IMO, passengers who switch from Carnival to Regent (many do), can be very disappointed because Regent is a country club environment. Very laid back, very upscale with passengers that have traveled the world extensively. There is no loud music at the pool....... it is a quiet environment. This does not mean that Carnival passengers could not enjoy Regent..... but it is important, IMO, to understand the atmosphere on Regent.

 

For people who do not drink and do not want included excursions, Oceania is a wonderful option -- whether on the old or new ships. We thoroughly enjoyed Oceania but did miss the benefits of Regent (especially "free" laundry as we are platinum Seven Seas Society members:-) As I have posted previously, the specialty restaurants are better than Regent. However, you are very limited as to how many times you can dine there. The other dining venues, IMO, do not match Regent.

 

Some people feel that Regent has priced itself out of the luxury market. I beg to differ (even though I am not a fan of paying higher prices). If you want the Regent experience, you have to pay for it.

[funny26]

Not sure what your point is. If either cruise line was going in the wrong direction, it is not because of the sister company (that is intentionally run differently). IF Regent is "going in the wrong direction", it has nothing to do with Oceania.

 

IMO, it does not take a lawyer to see the difference. It is fairly obvious.

 

My point was that the two companies are run almost identically by a President who is President of Oceania, Regent, and PCH which is contrary to your comments and I provided how they are almost identical. While I was specifically speaking of the air contracts, policies, policies and procedures in response to a post saying that the air departments are different.

 

And, since you are saying that it is fairly obvious how the companies are different, then most of the rest of us who are reading and posting must be stupid as no one else has posted that they can see the difference as easily as you seem to be able to yet you can only define the differences as a "feeling". In fact, we all believe the two companies are nearly identical with the only identified difference being all inclusive vs. not inclusive; and please don't bring up the luxury vs. non-luxury nomenclature which has absolutely no meaning to most of us. We choose to go on the cruise line that is best for us no matter the designation by others.

 

It is only those who need to satisfy their need to be above others who care if a cruise line is designated by the cruise line luxury.

[Travelcat2]

My point was that the two companies are run almost identically by a President who is President of Oceania, Regent, and PCH which is contrary to your comments and I provided how they are almost identical. While I was specifically speaking of the air contracts, policies, policies and procedures in response to a post saying that the air departments are different.

 

And, since you are saying that it is fairly obvious how the companies are different, then most of the rest of us who are reading and posting must be stupid as no one else has posted that they can see the difference as easily as you seem to be able to yet you can only define the differences as a "feeling". In fact, we all believe the two companies are nearly identical with the only identified difference being all inclusive vs. not inclusive; and please don't bring up the luxury vs. non-luxury nomenclature which has absolutely no meaning to most of us. We choose to go on the cruise line that is best for us no matter the designation by others.

 

It is only those who need to satisfy their need to be above others who care if a cruise line is designated by the cruise line luxury.

 

Oh my gosh. You insist on making this a Oceania vs. Regent thread. Unfortunately, even the CEO of Oceania/Regent (whom I have met) thinks there is a difference between luxury and premium plus. So, on that point, you need to argue with him.

 

IF you were on Carnival, the "feeling" would be that of a (on many itineraries) a party atmosphere. Lots of young people drinking and having wet t-shirt contests, etc.

 

On Oceania, the age would be more 50's and 60's (some younger - some older) that do not drink much. The bars are full when drinks are on sale or free.

 

Regent - the age is typically older than Oceania and the ship is very quiet. There are always a group of passengers that stay up late and utilize the disco. However, with early "included" excursions, most of the ship is quiet after the show.

 

Speaking of excursions, most Oceania passengers do their own (sharing with other Oceania passengers). We enjoyed this very much. Regent passengers book every possible excursion they can and wait like a herd of sheep in the theater to board the bus.

 

On Regent, no one knows or cares what level of suite you book. On Oceania, you must show you card to get a drink so the staff knows what "stateroom or suite" you are booked in. Does this matter? Not sure. Maybe - Maybe not!

 

Funny 26: Have you ever taken a cruise on Regent? And, do you really believe that Frank Del Rio and Kunai Kamlani do not have the ability to run two DIFFERENT cruise lines? It is possible that you are highly underestimating these two gentlemen.

[funny26]

I'll answer your specific questions and not get into your weird differences.

 

Yes, have cruised on Regent multiple times and to answer the OP, certainly, Regent is going downhill and firmly believe the decline of Regent are mainly in Miami and not on board the ships except for the issues caused by Miami.

 

And, I'll add to your second question since there are three companies we are discussing here and no, don't think Frank or Kunal or anyone for that matter are able to run three different companies at the same time. At one time there were different people as President of PCH, Regent, and Oceania. Now one person is expected to perform the duties that three people used to be required to perform these duties. Of course, Kunal can be President of all three companies in name only but, as i said doubt that anyone has the capability of running multiple multi-million dollar companies especially ones that you say are different products.

 

And if you don't see a conflict of interest in one person being President of the three companies, especially with one being the parent of the other two, there's nothing I can say other than am sorry you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to be able to make you change so "end of discussion".

[Caroldoll]

No way can Oceania be compared to Celebrity or especially Carnival or any of the mainstream lines. Come on. Oceania is Regent light. If you want to be cared for from the cradle to the grave, go on Regent and stand in line to be taken to your hotel and stand in line for a freebie tour.

 

If you want to do your own thing (and we don't share tours with others because of my husband's height), then you go on Oceania.

 

If you want to drink yourself silly, get the unlimited prestige drink card. As a matter of fact we don't "drink ourselves" anywhere. We simply have four or five drinks a day, mostly at night. If you want to drink all day long or more than a few, go on Regent.

 

One is not better and one is not worse, but DO NOT TRY TO MARGINALIZE ANYONE. Different strokes for different folks. I don't want to vacation in a beige suite with beige corridors and beige everywhere. I simple prefer the décor on Oceania which is more in my DH's latino taste...colorful and sumpotuous. This is a preference. Color makes me happy. The paintings on O and the lovely Lalique make me happy...they make me feel at home.

 

Let us not COMPARE and let us not throw barbs against anyone, whether they like Carnival, Celebrity, Oceania or Regent. Remember, different strokes for different folks.

[Travelcat2]

Not trying to change anyone's mind! It is what it is. Surprised that you didn't add PCH's interest in NCL!

 

Caroldoll: You know that I respect your opinion. However, you are bashing Regent because of the décor of the ship? I am disappointed that you felt the need to put down Regent passengers as I certainly would not look for negative things to say about Oceania passengers.

 

As you also know, we do not drink ourselves silly,. We have wine at lunch, wine at dinner and one or two drinks in between (sounds like less than you and your DH have). We purchased the "package" on Oceania and probably did not drink enough to make it worthwhile......however, it made us feel better to not pay 18% on every drink (and probably have to sign -- not sure about that).

 

We loved the décor of the Riviera. But, it does not negate our enjoyment of the Voyager and Mariner.

 

It amazes me that posters that do not like Regent feel that it is okay to bash Regent. If someone is speaking of a specific cruise with specific issues, that is understood. But, IMO, no cruise line is good or bad because of how it is decorated or the fact that passengers have the opportunity to drink too much.

 

Above everything on this thread, IMO, the leaders of Regent and Oceania are the best in the business. If you have any doubts, ask the question on the Oceania board.

[Caroldoll]

and I am entitled to like Oceania better, and if something comes up better, I am open to it. I am not locked in to any one particular line. Regent is good and fabulous for a lot of people, but Oceania is not to be compared with Carnival. No way. I like them both.

[Travelcat2]

and I am entitled to like Oceania better, and if something comes up better, I am open to it. I am not locked in to any one particular line. Regent is good and fabulous for a lot of people, but Oceania is not to be compared with Carnival. No way. I like them both.

 

 

You absolutely are entitled to like Oceania better. But, why would you share that information on the Regent board?

 

BTW, I was not saying that Oceania is like Carnival. IMO, comparing Regent to Oceania is as silly as comparing Oceania to Carnival. They are different...... very, very different.

[Caroldoll]

but if you will read some of the posts before yours you will see that Oceania was brought up.

[tallship]

I'll answer your specific questions and not get into your weird differences.

 

Yes, have cruised on Regent multiple times and to answer the OP, certainly, Regent is going downhill and firmly believe the decline of Regent are mainly in Miami and not on board the ships except for the issues caused by Miami.

 

And, I'll add to your second question since there are three companies we are discussing here and no, don't think Frank or Kunal or anyone for that matter are able to run three different companies at the same time. At one time there were different people as President of PCH, Regent, and Oceania. Now one person is expected to perform the duties that three people used to be required to perform these duties. Of course, Kunal can be President of all three companies in name only but, as i said doubt that anyone has the capability of running multiple multi-million dollar companies especially ones that you say are different products.

 

And if you don't see a conflict of interest in one person being President of the three companies, especially with one being the parent of the other two, there's nothing I can say other than am sorry you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to be able to make you change so "end of discussion".

 

 

The whole recent history of PCH, Regent, Oceania would make for a very good case study for aspiring business students....it woud be interesting to hear their thoughts on this whether it be from a governance or operations standpoint

[Caroldoll]

these lines and do a good job. I see them all good in their own ways. They have the insight and experience to do this without help from any of us.

[ChatKat in Ca.]

I do not see this as bashing at all. Regent has become the stepchild of PCH. It has definitely declined from where it was. Makes no difference if you compare it to 2001 to 2003 to 2005 to 2007 to 2009 to now. Service is not consistent, food is not as good, ships are not as comfortable. Alll things evolve. It is not bashing. Bashing would be far more extreme. It's all included might be good for many. I said when PCH Bought Regent that I felt it was a merger waiting to happen. When management is the same across the board, just because the line has a different name to distinguish the the two doesn't mean they are identical. They are very close. I like them both. The itineraries are the same pretty much. Excursions - same. Menus - not much different. Italian, French, Steakhouse.... Maybe linens and decor are different. Both are good products. But ....Regent has declined from where it was. Regardless of who owns it. Its not a subtle difference.

[Travelcat2]

zorro90068: It just "ain't" gonna happen. Compare......compare.......compare. Some posters are stuck on comparisons with other cruise lines. The interesting thing is that a person can better compare Regent before it was purchased and after.

 

Multi-millions of dollars have been put into all of the ships. The Navigator alone cost a reported $100M to fix. Before being purchased, she was losing electricity in the middle of the ocean, listed, had a severe aft vibration and rusty water. The Navigator served me fish that I could not cut with a knife (this was mentioned in my review of the Navigator). She is now a beautiful little ship -- even more modern than her sisters that will be upgraded later this year and early next year.

 

IMO, food consistency is one of the biggest challenges for any restaurant. Food itself isn't consistent -- even for those of us who cook at home. If you purchase watermelon, fish, meat or any fresh item and prepare it the same way that you always do, does it always taste identical? Fresh fruit and vegetables in particular are different - depending the time of the year and which part of the world they are from.

 

To add to food inconsistency, add in people's tastes. When a steak in P-7 was cut in half (to share), one person loved their half and the other person didn't (true story).

 

My experience with food on Regent has been good to great. I am not generally a fan of Signatures but had a couple of excellent meals on the Mariner in March.

 

Service is just as good as it was in 2004 - sometimes better. The only issue we have had with service was with a butler (actually two butlers) on the Mariner -- same cruise referenced above.

 

The "rumor" that Regent will with merge with its sister company is no longer believed by most Regent regulars. FDR has posted on the Regent board repeatedly that this will not happen -- not now or in the future. It isn't in the best interest of the parent company to do so. In terms of Regent being the stepchild of PCH -- so? They sure the heck treat their stepchild well IMO.

 

If there is a specific problem on one of the ships, management wants to know about it. I doubt if anyone at PCH will read this thread as it is all over the place (although FDR claims to read every word posted on CC:-)

[ChatKat in Ca.]

Some examples of the food decline. In all the years of sailing, you could always get Crab Benedict in Compass Rose for breakfast. On the 2007 cruise they asked me to special order it a day before. So I did. In 2011, you could not get it even with special order and even though they had king crab on board.

 

In the first few sailings as SSS member, you could get Oestra Caviar at the SSS party. You could order it by room service. In 2011, you were limited to one caviar spoon of it at the SSS party. Not available any other time.

 

Included excursion was a Food and Wine Trails excursion at $269 pp. Bus tour on a full bus to a winery with a food expert. Wine paring supposed to take place. 3 course lunch that was pasta primarily. We were so disappointed in the quality of that excursion. We could have had a PRIVATE tour. with another couple for that. Mediocre wine.

 

Wines are far less quality. We used to get Chalone, Sonoma Cutrer, Penfolds, Coppola, Some lovely French wines, Super Tuscans. Now wines are mostly unknown. Recalling one wine I could buy at Trader Joes for $5.00 a bottle on our last cruise.

 

On board, we could not dine in the specialty restaurants on 3 dates. Completely reserved by Park West. On a 10 day cruise on a full ship.

 

Less shows, less music. All tours leaving at the same time on full buses.

 

In fairness, coffee corner is a big plus.