empty cruise

[trvlrs]

While I do not know Chatkat's reason, I disagree that a "whole segment" of loyal cruisers left Regent for other cruise lines. I do agree that some Regent passengers switched cruise lines - not specifically long time loyal cruisers.

 

I've seen more the usual amount of passengers leave twice. First was when the "concierge" level program was put into place. In the opinion of some, all Regent passengers were no longer being treated equally. Unless you are in a certain level cabin, you could no longer book excursions and dining reservations with everyone else. More recently, passengers in certain cabin categories were no longer eligible for the included one night pre-cruise hotel stay.

 

The second time some passengers left Regent is when excursions went all-inclusive. There are CC members today that still post that they would return to Regent if they could opt out of excursions. In all fairness, included excursions brought many new passengers to Regent. This is a very contentious subject so I will withhold any further comments on excursions (lest I get blasted from other posters:-)

 

Very interesting travelcat2 what you said and I never thought about it until now. The all inclusive package was very attractive the first time we cruised Regents but we never joined any excursions except the ballet evening. This summer on Mariner, as I mentioned in a different post, I am very disappointed in the choice of excursions but no big deal since we always do our own things.

I can understand why some CC member would like the choice to opt out...Can save a pretty penny...

[RachelG]

Was with regent both before and after all included excursions. To me, not a big deal either way. If they are included, I am more inclined to do them, if they interest me, rather than doing my own thing. But not a big deal either way.

[ChatKat in Ca.]

Almost all of my friends have left to cruise elsewhere - cost has gone way up, quality is down, excursions are fine if you want a full bus to places you have been. We have been going on River Cruises and Land tours with Tauck or on our own. We were on Oceania - where we feel the food is better and we can tour privately for less.

[trvlrs]

I can see how this conversation can become a lengthy one and like the French say: "Des goûts et des couleurs on ne discute pas". Taste and colors cannot be argued. Everyone has their opinion.

I am not sure if everyone is comparing apples to apples. If you compare the lower end suites on Regents with the ones on Oceania (that's what we can afford) you get more for your money on Regents and a room with a veranda (very important to us). If we are comparing the high end suites on both ships, then it is definitely cheaper on Oceania. It all depends on ones budget.

[Travelcat2]

I can see how this conversation can become a lengthy one and like the French say: "Des goûts et des couleurs on ne discute pas". Taste and colors cannot be argued. Everyone has their opinion.

I am not sure if everyone is comparing apples to apples. If you compare the lower end suites on Regents with the ones on Oceania (that's what we can afford) you get more for your money on Regents and a room with a veranda (very important to us). If we are comparing the high end suites on both ships, then it is definitely cheaper on Oceania. It all depends on ones budget.

 

Very good points. I definitely agree. Although we have upsells to high end suites on Regent, we could not afford to pay the list price. On the other hand, we booked a Vista suite (1200 - 1500 sq. ft.) on Oceania and it was about the cost of a penthouse on Regent. Even when we added on the cost of a premium alcohol package, it was a great deal.

 

Yes -- everyone has different tastes. In a previous post I was debating the fact that there are so many people leaving Regent - for whatever reason. When we are onboard a Regent ship and attend the Gold and above event, there are as many people as they has always been. Some leave -- some are new and others have graduated to higher levels in the Seven Seas Society. As my daughter would say, it's all good:)

Edited May 4, 2014 by Travelcat2

[2old4this]

Not sure what this has to do with ships running empty. There are plenty of passengers from the same cruise lines you mentioned that have moved to Regent. People switch for different reasons. Many return to Regent or sail Regent in addition to other lines like we do. The point is that Regent doesn't run anywhere near close to empty. Our upcoming cruise, which includes Russia, has less people than we have sailed with in years..... but they still are sailing with approximately 550 guests (out of 700). Other cruise lines are also having difficulty selling Baltic cruises.

 

P.S. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with Princess and HAL passengers moving up to Regent. Most of us started with non-luxury cruising.

 

Regarding your P.S., Travelcat2, I'm having trouble measuring luxury for it can be many things and differ in how each of us evaluate our over-all cruise experiences. I've used HAL on several occasions and Regent, too. I see differences in the manner in which the companies handle cruise payments, tipping, excursions, and alcohol, otherwise the luxury of a good cabin, stage shows, dinners, and service seem to balance out for me.

 

If I could do away with anything offered by Regent it would be the paid-up-front excursions. Still, I like having the tours waiting for me as I reach ports.

[Travelcat2]

Regarding your P.S., Travelcat2, I'm having trouble measuring luxury for it can be many things and differ in how each of us evaluate our over-all cruise experiences. I've used HAL on several occasions and Regent, too. I see differences in the manner in which the companies handle cruise payments, tipping, excursions, and alcohol, otherwise the luxury of a good cabin, stage shows, dinners, and service seem to balance out for me.

 

If I could do away with anything offered by Regent it would be the paid-up-front excursions. Still, I like having the tours waiting for me as I reach ports.

 

Luxury is difficult to measure. When I talk about luxury cruise lines, I am referring to Regent, Seabourn, Silversea and Crystal which are more or less the cruise lines that people in the U.S. and Canada sail on (that are designated "luxury" -- either by the cruise lines themselves, TA's or travel magazines). We also sail on Oceania which, according to their CEO, is an upper premium cruise line.

 

While not a definition of luxury, for us, we want all-inclusive, excellent service and food, large suites and ships that hold between 400 and 700 passengers. We basically want to be taken care of without thinking about anything other than which restaurant to dine in, which lounge to have a drink and whether or not we want to see the show. This is what we consider a vacation. What works for us doesn't necessarily work for others.

 

Like yourselves we do not sail exclusively on Regent (but prefer it to all cruise lines). Perhaps this is why it bothered me whens someone implied that there is practically a mass exodus from Regent to other luxury lines. This is simply not true. I have friends that love Regent and others that prefer other cruise lines.

 

In terms of people who have sailed or vacationed in many parts of the world as we have, included excursions simply do not work if you do not have an opt out option. Having said that, we would not have opted out of excursions on our upcoming cruise as most of the ports are in Norway and Finland - ports that we have not visited and ports that do not have a lot of options for small group tours (booked off of the ship).

 

This thread was about whether or not Regent has a minimum number of passengers that are required to sail. The answer is no. I wonder why people took the opportunity to explain why some people (a minority) no longer sail on Regent. IMO, if you prefer another cruise line -- Bon Voyage -- have a great time on whatever cruise line you prefer........ but, kindly do not come back to bash Regent. Regent "shunned" loyal customers? As one dearly beloved Regent Cruise Director would say...... "rubbish".

[ChatKat in Ca.]

L

 

This thread was about whether or not Regent has a minimum number of passengers that are required to sail. The answer is no. I wonder why people took the opportunity to explain why some people (a minority) no longer sail on Regent. IMO, if you prefer another cruise line -- Bon Voyage -- have a great time on whatever cruise line you prefer........ but, kindly do not come back to bash Regent. Regent "shunned" loyal customers? As one dearly beloved Regent Cruise Director would say...... "rubbish".

 

As many threads take a turn during a discussion on related matters, there is no BASHING except that another opinion disagrees with yours. My opinions are just as valid here as yours, Jackie. I have sailed the line as much as you have - nearly 200 nights - in all levels of Suites on Regent since it was the Inaugural Sailing of the Mariner in 2001. I am entitled to provide my opinion whether or not it agrees with your opinion. I am also allowed to criticize my own experience - even if it differs from yours. This is a public board.

[Travelcat2]

As many threads take a turn during a discussion on related matters, there is no BASHING except that another opinion disagrees with yours. My opinions are just as valid here as yours, Jackie. I have sailed the line as much as you have - nearly 200 nights - in all levels of Suites on Regent since it was the Inaugural Sailing of the Mariner in 2001. I am entitled to provide my opinion whether or not it agrees with your opinion. I am also allowed to criticize my own experience - even if it differs from yours. This is a public board.

 

 

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and to criticize your experiences. I am puzzled, however, as to why you criticized your experiences and explained that you and your friends no longer sail on Regent (and alleged that "Regent has shunned a whole segment of formerly loyal cruisers.....") when the thread is about whether or not Regent ships need a minimum number of passengers to sail.

 

The OP sounds like they are new to Regent and, from my perspective, it felt as if you were bashing Regent. For this reason, I countered your allegations with the opinion of someone who has also sailed on Regent for many years.

 

Perhaps you should start a thread where you and your friends and others can voice their reasons why they no longer sail on Regent? It would be quite interesting.

 

Hopefully we can keep this thread calm and on topic as much as possible. As you know, most threads do stray a bit...... it happens. I suppose that when it seems that Regent is being shown in less than a favorable light for reasons that I do not agree with I put my Regent cheerleader hat on and go into defensive mode:)

Edited May 5, 2014 by Travelcat2

[2old4this]

Luxury is difficult to measure. When I talk about luxury cruise lines, I am referring to Regent, Seabourn, Silversea and Crystal which are more or less the cruise lines that people in the U.S. and Canada sail on (that are designated "luxury" -- either by the cruise lines themselves, TA's or travel magazines). We also sail on Oceania which, according to their CEO, is an upper premium cruise line.

 

While not a definition of luxury, for us, we want all-inclusive, excellent service and food, large suites and ships that hold between 400 and 700 passengers. We basically want to be taken care of without thinking about anything other than which restaurant to dine in, which lounge to have a drink and whether or not we want to see the show. This is what we consider a vacation. What works for us doesn't necessarily work for others.

 

Like yourselves we do not sail exclusively on Regent (but prefer it to all cruise lines). Perhaps this is why it bothered me whens someone implied that there is practically a mass exodus from Regent to other luxury lines. This is simply not true. I have friends that love Regent and others that prefer other cruise lines.

 

In terms of people who have sailed or vacationed in many parts of the world as we have, included excursions simply do not work if you do not have an opt out option. Having said that, we would not have opted out of excursions on our upcoming cruise as most of the ports are in Norway and Finland - ports that we have not visited and ports that do not have a lot of options for small group tours (booked off of the ship).

 

This thread was about whether or not Regent has a minimum number of passengers that are required to sail. The answer is no. I wonder why people took the opportunity to explain why some people (a minority) no longer sail on Regent. IMO, if you prefer another cruise line -- Bon Voyage -- have a great time on whatever cruise line you prefer........ but, kindly do not come back to bash Regent. Regent "shunned" loyal customers? As one dearly beloved Regent Cruise Director would say...... "rubbish".

 

Excellent response and I agree with your findings. Regent doesn't have to depart half empty anytime given their ability to communicate with their past cruisers while offering special deals and rates right up to the last few days of a cruise. Then there are the thousands of TAs waiting for another taste of what Regent has to offer.

[cAPS lOCK oN]

To maybe get this thread back on topic... Tomorrow is final payment day for our Voyager Baltic cruise, and Regent's website shows availability for every class of cabin. Given the political hotness of the region, I'm assuming that cruise will not suddenly fill up, our even be close to full.

 

We're in a category E cabin (concierge class). What are our chances of being offered an upsell or upgrade? How close to sail date do these offers come around?

[Travelcat2]

To maybe get this thread back on topic... Tomorrow is final payment day for our Voyager Baltic cruise, and Regent's website shows availability for every class of cabin. Given the political hotness of the region, I'm assuming that cruise will not suddenly fill up, our even be close to full.

 

We're in a category E cabin (concierge class). What are our chances of being offered an upsell or upgrade? How close to sail date do these offers come around?

 

"Available" categories can be deceptive. If there is one cabin available in a class, it shows "available". However, on the first leg of our Baltic/Scandinavian cruise (June 28), there shows availability in all categories and there are actually 80 cabins available. So, the ship should have between 500 and 550 passengers (this is taking into consideration the "guarantees" that are not assigned a suite yet).

 

Generally, if there upsells, they come up between 3 weeks and 6 weeks prior to the cruise. This is just an average. My TA once received an upsell offer while we were in the air - flying to the port.

[Mudhen]

We're pretty close to the 6 week point now. Haven't heard a peep. Will keep everyone posted.

[RachelG]

My upsell offers have generally come very close to cruise time, usually a week or closer before.

[greygypsy]

Our most recent cruise on the Mariner was full, but you would have never known it on the ship. Public areas not especially crowded, easy to get into restaurants, and most everyone was back on board in the afternoon and on sunny days the pool area - including the loungers - were usually available. Agree with other posters that many cruises were less crowded for a few years post 9/11 but that seems to have mostly changed. But there is no question that some cruises, either due to itinerary, cost or combo of the two, are still less crowded. Before we sailed on our cruise we were offered an "upsell" with a lot of cash to take the next Mariner cruise, from Rome to Istanbul. We couldn't do it, due to work concerns and we didn't really like the itinerary, so we passed, but our TA said that cruise was "wide open" and it was less than a month away. Jeff

[countflorida]

While I do not know Chatkat's reason, I disagree that a "whole segment" of loyal cruisers left Regent for other cruise lines. I do agree that some Regent passengers switched cruise lines - not specifically long time loyal cruisers.

 

I've seen more the usual amount of passengers leave twice. First was when the "concierge" level program was put into place. In the opinion of some, all Regent passengers were no longer being treated equally. Unless you are in a certain level cabin, you could no longer book excursions and dining reservations with everyone else. More recently, passengers in certain cabin categories were no longer eligible for the included one night pre-cruise hotel stay.

 

The second time some passengers left Regent is when excursions went all-inclusive. There are CC members today that still post that they would return to Regent if they could opt out of excursions. In all fairness, included excursions brought many new passengers to Regent. This is a very contentious subject so I will withhold any further comments on excursions (lest I get blasted from other posters:-)

 

While I agree, the two segments described by Travelcat (who doesn't go back quite as far with RSSC - both versions - as we do) were not the first or even the second mass exodus from Regent. The first I'm aware of was earlier than either of those when Radisson went all-inclusive on alcoholic beverages, and many clients who either didn't drink or didn't drink much decided to cruise elsewhere. One significant group in this segment were the Friends of Bill W, for obvious reasons.

 

The next notable group who left for other venues were those who smoked, when that deleterious habit was banned in the suites and on verandas. Mark Conroy recounted the (monetary) pain that change inflicted on Radisson during a town hall meeting on one of the Presidential cruises, I think around 2005 or '06 - a lot of cancellations on the following year's world cruise among other losses, but it turned out he was a pioneer; most all of the other lines have since copied his lead.

 

I'm not sure how many left for other lines when Radisson cut back from a stewardess and steward for each group of suites to one or the other for a smaller (but according to the survivors, not a half-sized) group of suites. About this time, I recall there was (or at least seemed to be) a reduction in the number of choices available on the menu, particularly in soups, salads and appetizers. In other words, traditional cost-cutting had set in. I must be quick to add that this happened while the Carlson group was still the owners. I do know that a number of friends we'd regularly sailed with but no longer see at sea on Regent mentioned (in Christmas cards or e-mail messages) that the steep increase in prices, particularly after PCS took over, coupled with the noticeable decline in quality "ran them off".

 

In all honestly, I had personally thought for some time that RSSC needed to do something to fill the ships rather than cut costs, but they have seemed to survive and to be thriving these days. We don't cruise with Regent as often as we used to, trying other lines and diversions, but do try and cruise with them at least once each year. Thus I do worry about the decline in ratings by those who have reviewed Regent ships and cruises here on Cruise Critic over the past couple of years. I tallied the overall ratings for the last 100 reviews posted, from October 2012 to April 2014, giving one star a score of 1 and five stars + scoring 6. The average for the entire almost two-year period was 4.29, not so good for a six-star line, right?

 

The scoring looks much worse when you break those one hundred reviews into two segments, the most recent 50 reviews vs. the earlier 50: the earlier 50 scored 4.73, while the later 50 scored only 3.86. That's a really big decline, almost a full star, and to someone who's about to make final payment on an overly expensive two-week Regent cruise with numerous excursions I wouldn't be able to enjoy if I wanted to (I have limited mobility), somewhat of a worry. Not a scientific poll, but rather an indicator of something happening, from just those people who went out of their way to write up their experience, good or bad or somewhere in between. It wasn't that there were more 1s and 2s in the later group, just fewer 5s and 6s and more 3s and 4s. A disturbing trend or indicator, me-thinks.

Edited May 13, 2014 by countflorida

[Travelcat2]

Of course you are correct about people leaving Regent prior to the two incidents I mentioned. I was looking at the timeframe since Regent was purchased by Apollo/PCH - around 6 years ago. I do recall (fondly) when Radisson went non-smoking and all-inclusive I also remember when ships were not as full as they are today.

 

Thank you for doing the rating averages -- they are quite interesting. I wonder if the rating average decline would be the same for Silversea and Seabourn since there have been major issues on both of these cruise lines in the past 2-3 years.

 

Getting back to Regent, like almost everyone that cruised pre-PCH, we thought that the Regent Experience was wonderful. It is a provable fact, however, that the ships were not being maintained to the level they have been post-PCH. For instance, the Navigator was in very poor mechanical shape. Rumor has it that PCH put $100M into the Navigator and will be putting quite a bit more during dry dock next year (presumably to fix the boiler issues that cause brown water, etc.) Regent is no longer privately owned and are required to make money.

 

As I recall, PCH purchased Regent at the beginning of the downturn of the economy (I could be off a year or so). Regent was able to keep their ships quite full while Silversea and even Crystal were having difficulties in that area (according to what I've read and heard).

 

We are certainly as affected by the increase in prices and adoption of certain policies that we do not agree with as anyone else. We have sailed on other cruise lines to determine if the grass was greener on the other side. In general, we have not found the overall experience (or pricing) on Silversea or Oceania to be measurably different. There are pluses and minuses but they pretty much equal out.

 

As I have posted previously, everyone has their own reasons for staying with, leaving or taking a vacation from Regent. For us, we love the Regent Experience and the wonderful crew on the ships, the officers and the people we have spoken with or met from Regent headquarters. I do not see Regent only as a corporation with steel ships. The human beings running Regent are dedicated human beings that really care about the company and the guests. This has been proven to me in many ways. Perhaps this is why I am seen as a Regent cheerleader (albeit one that gets frustrated and angry with them at times:-) Regent isn't perfect (as evidenced by our last cruise which I would rate the lowest out of 10 years of cruising with Regent).

 

I did want to comment on the upcoming Rome to Istanbul cruise that is apparently less than full. I read last year that cruise lines were cutting back in the Med. due to over saturation. Another area they have cut back on is the Baltic. When we first sailed to the Baltic (2006), the Mariner and Voyager both did the 7 night Baltic cruises during July and August. This year the Mariner isn't doing the Baltic at all and while the Voyager has some Baltic cruises this summer, they are deviating somewhat (such as the 28 night Stockholm to Copenhagen cruise that concentrates on Norway).