Why Regent?

[edels]

TahoeTravler (like the moniker BTW) captures mostly why we've returned.

We first started in 2008/9 when I had to pick a cruise line for my parents 50th Wedding Anniversary cruise. I am terribly allergic to tobacco smoke and had reached the point in life where I wouldn't go anywhere where I might have room that the last person smoked in and or had a bunch of drifting second hand smoke. At the time Regent was almost the only line that didn't allow smoking in cabins or on verandas. I also loved the idea that it was a small ship (the Navigator) as my mom uses a walker. This being their 50th -- i convinced everyone that we should do luxury. This BTW was a hard sell to my Dad -- he wasn't sure about the price at ALL. Everyone LOVED the cruise for all the reasons TahoeTravler mentions. My Dad, the skeptic, RAVED for the rest of his life about how good the cruise was and how he didn't have to sign for a thing and everyone took great care of of Mom and him. My Husband and I, continue to come back but not often. In fact, for my mom's birthday, we are going on Princess because we couldn't afford the Regent single supplements and because a RT out of Seattle will be much easier for her. This trip with my Mom will be my first mass market cruise. I'll tell you what think between the two after I get back.

 

My experiences with Regent have included, having to avoid the pool deck because of a cloud of tobacco smoke, and having to penetrate a heavy cloud of smoke before entering the main dining room. Now electronic cigarettes with their questionable and disturbing emissions are permitted throughout most of the ship including cabins. This is unacceptable to me, so I will not be cruising with Regent again. I regret having to do this, because I had plans for other cruises with Regent, and was looking forward to the new ship.

[jhp]

My experiences with Regent have included, having to avoid the pool deck because of a cloud of tobacco smoke, and having to penetrate a heavy cloud of smoke before entering the main dining room. Now electronic cigarettes with their questionable and disturbing emissions are permitted throughout most of the ship including cabins. This is unacceptable to me, so I will not be cruising with Regent again. I regret having to do this, because I had plans for other cruises with Regent, and was looking forward to the new ship.

 

How long has it been since you cruised Regent, Edels? Smoking is now confined on the pool deck to one area at the opposite end of the ship from the pool bar. As I recall, there are two doors leading outside on either side of the ship so that you could avoid it. The smoking area in Mariner Lounge, next to the dining room,has been eliminated. I don't recall a smoking lounge at the entrance to either the Voyager or the Navigator. Smoking has been eliminated indoors in all lounges, all balconies and cabins,and only outside in Horizons Lounge, and I assume Gallileos, on one side of the ship. I don't know what more you could ask, other than a complete ban on smoking on all ships, period.

Edited July 30, 2014 by jhp

[Travelcat2]

My experiences with Regent have included, having to avoid the pool deck because of a cloud of tobacco smoke, and having to penetrate a heavy cloud of smoke before entering the main dining room. Now electronic cigarettes with their questionable and disturbing emissions are permitted throughout most of the ship including cabins. This is unacceptable to me, so I will not be cruising with Regent again. I regret having to do this, because I had plans for other cruises with Regent, and was looking forward to the new ship.

 

I just returned from 28 days on the Voyager and never once saw an electronic cigarette (actually, I've never seen one on Regent). When you talk about a heavy cloud of smoke before entering Compass Rose, you must mean the Voyager Lounge. Smoking is no longer allowed there (it hasn't been for probably a year or so). And, on the pool deck, we just avoid areas around the pool bar. You may want to give Regent another try. I believe that they now have the strictest anti-smoking policy of any luxury cruise line.

[Emperor Norton]

Hello all.

 

My wife and I are planning our 10 year anniversary and are thinking about a European cruise. We want to do a higher end cruise with a pre-cruise and a 1 week to 10 day post cruise.

 

We would like to know why you choose Regent and if there are any cons. I know there will be many answers so I thank you for taking your time and answering my question.

 

In my opinion -

 

Cons - food trails Seabourn, Crystal, (and on occasion Silversea and Disney). Their prices are higher than the competition. They royally burn you on their included tours (and even more so the pay tours).

 

Pros - very casual dress code

[HanaleiSailor]

Aloha,

 

How many Regent cruises have you taken? And what makes you so bitter about Regent?

 

Aloha from Hanalei,

Mark

[visagrunt]

I've been looking for a winter getaway to the Carribean, and comparing Regent, Seabourne and Silversea.

 

While Seabourne and Silversea have a small price advantage on outsides, the margin is very small for a balcony. Once you throw in airfare (YVR-STT or YVR SJU), that margin gets even smaller. Add one or two shore excursions and the arithmetic moves favourably.

[Travelcat2]

Really do not understand this part of Emperor Norton's post: "Cons - food trails Seabourn, Crystal, (and on occasion Silversea and Disney)."

 

visagrunt: In my opinion, there is more to compare between the three cruise lines than $$$. For instance, Seabourn and Silversea's ships are considerably smaller than Regent's (except for Regent's Navigator which is only slightly larger some of the other ships). Which would be more comfortable for you? Silversea is a much more formal cruise line - some people prefer the formality of Silversea.

 

While we have not been on Seabourn, we have been on Silversea three times and have sailed on or toured all three types of their ships. While we enjoy Silversea, there are only two of the five ships that we will sail on.

 

Suggest you do further research to decide which cruise line is right for you. Obviously, just about everyone on the Regent board prefers Regent. Good luck in your research.:)

[edels]

How long has it been since you cruised Regent, Edels? Smoking is now confined on the pool deck to one area at the opposite end of the ship from the pool bar. As I recall, there are two doors leading outside on either side of the ship so that you could avoid it. The smoking area in Mariner Lounge, next to the dining room,has been eliminated. I don't recall a smoking lounge at the entrance to either the Voyager or the Navigator. Smoking has been eliminated indoors in all lounges, all balconies and cabins,and only outside in Horizons Lounge, and I assume Gallileos, on one side of the ship. I don't know what more you could ask, other than a complete ban on smoking on all ships, period.

 

I had two cruises on Voyager where the pool bar was unapproachable because of a smoke cloud, and the smoke spread across to the other side of the deck area. The pool deck now has a different designated area for smoking, but will the smoke simply spread from this area across the whole deck, as is my experience of “designated areas”? The entrance area to the main dining room was constantly smoky, and on one occasion the smoke reached up the atrium to the 7th deck level. One got tired of having to traipse around the ship to get to the rear entrance to the dining room. Perhaps this entrance area has now been improved, but is there smoke escape from the connoisseur club? The discouraging result of these past experiences was my cancelling a booked cruise on Mariner and my discontinuing a planned extension cruise on Voyager.

 

On one occasion on the Navigator I had to slowly run the gauntlet of a heavy smoke cloud in the corridor in the area of the connoisseur club, to get to a rather nice reception, which therefore had a “smoky aftertaste”. This experience dissuaded me from taking a planned Alaska cruise on the Navigator. Additionally, I was left with somewhat of an impression that Regent did not really care about passengers being smoked-out.

 

In contrast, I took a two-month-plus splendid cruise on the well-appointed Oceania Marina, where there were no issues with smoking. Smokers were accommodated in two defined areas, apparently comfortably: a small corner of deck and a partitioned-off corner of a lounge. I suggest that Oceania is the most smoking-limiting of the cruise lines, and that there is a possible route here for Regent to improve their limiting the exposure of passengers to smoke.

 

Regent’s recent policy change permitting electronic cigarettes throughout the ship (except dining areas), with their emissions, fume or particulate, is a most retrograde step. Allowing them in the cabins of all places is shocking. This is the place where one spends most of one’s time breathing. These cigarettes are an obfuscation of the hazards of smoking, and are also an insidious encouragement to smoking, particularly among the young. At present, I do not feel comfortable about cruising with Regent.

[jhp]

Well, I can assure you that Regent has done everything possible to eliminate the discomfort of non smokers on their ships since last time you cruised them. It happened after you cruised with them.

 

I cannot imagine smoke passing from one extreme area on the pool deck back or forward to the other on the other side, outside. Let's be reasonable.

 

The smoking area in the Voyager Lounge has been eliminated, to my knowledge. I don't know about the casino, I can't remember last time I was in one. Butthat smoking area was all the way back in the room. Maybe one or two rows of slots.

 

Actually, my sister just returned from a recent cruise on Oceania Marina to the Baltics. I asked her to check out the smoking areas for me, given the history of the former cruise line that owned the ships, and their policy of NO smoking anywhere. They now seem same as Regent to me, except on the Marina there is an inside smoking area inside (glass enclosed) in Horizon Lounge, not an isolated room, like Connoisseur Club, and another area at the pool deck. She is a non smoker. I know I am in a minority, but really.......

 

Just won't comment on your feeling about electronic cigarettes. Only because it allows me to continue to cruise in Regent, but only outside on my deck late at night. I feel no guilt for what it will do to others, as I know it won't.

Edited August 1, 2014 by jhp

[Emperor Norton]

Really do not understand this part of Emperor Norton's post: "Cons - food trails Seabourn, Crystal, (and on occasion Silversea and Disney)."

 

...

 

What I meant was overall I found the food to be superior on both Seabourn and Crystal. Further that Silversea for the most part was about equal to Regent but sometimes exceeded it. With Disney I found the service and food in their extra pay restaurant to be superior but the rest of the food not so much. Of course food is subjective.;)

[Travelcat2]

What I meant was overall I found the food to be superior on both Seabourn and Crystal. Further that Silversea for the most part was about equal to Regent but sometimes exceeded it. With Disney I found the service and food in their extra pay restaurant to be superior but the rest of the food not so much. Of course food is subjective.;)

 

Thanks for the explanation. I haven't sailed on Seabourn or Crystal so can't comment on that. We have sailed on Silversea three times and agree that the food was fairly equal to Regent however I feel that Regent's specialty restaurants were better than Silversea. As you said, food is subjective.

[SeaBunny]

To get back to OPs question...

 

We've done 2 Regents and have booked a third. Obviously we liked what we experienced.

 

The ships have smaller passenger counts but are much more spacious than Azamara (check the tonnage).

 

All inclusive is always a bonus. Including airfare is really only an advantage if the ship is not returning to the port it embarked from. You can get your cruise priced without that option if you wish.

 

In our experience, Regent excursions are pretty much like other ships in quality -- good or average as a rule. However, when we did post and pre land options (Egypt and India), they were excellent. They had many buses of passengers but they were all about half full and otherwise handled to make you feel special. Land hotels were lovely, too.

 

If you are traveling to an area where you feel less than comfortable, having excursions included is a big plus. In addition, it can save you hours and hours of individual research trying to figure out what to do at each port. I tell DH I feel like I get a second vacation just because I am relieved of all that research.

 

The food was excellent both times no matter where we ate on board. The staff was lovely. We were surprised to be remembered by several staff members on our second cruise -- which was on a different Regent ship! That makes you feel good.

 

It's wonderful for DH to leave jackets and ties at home.

 

I'm trying to think of a negative. Hmmm... Got it! We can't go often enough.

[marinaro44]

The ships have smaller passenger counts but are much more spacious than Azamara (check the tonnage).

Actually, the passenger counts are virtually identical: 700 for Regent's two larger ships and 694 for Azamara's. Regent's staterooms (for the most part they are NOT true suites) are much larger.

 

Azamara's on-board ambiance is warmer, the crew is friendlier, the senior officers are much more engaged with passengers, and there are more late nights and overnights in ports. Food quality is comparable. Azamara's specialty restaurants are easier to get into as there is a charge for non-suite passengers, and we've never had to share a table to get a reservation.

 

Regent is more inclusive, with flights and higher-end liquor included as well as most shore excursions--although some here complain about the last all the time and the flights can be forgone for cash, making them not really "included" in my book. Regent often offers excellent pricing for business class upgrades. Regent ships have larger theaters and offer bigger productions. Afternoon teas are more elaborate on Regent. Regent turns its buffet into a sit-down (for the main course) restaurant at dinner while Azamara has a dinner buffet for those who'd prefer really casual dining.

 

Both offer an excellent cruise experience but there are significant differences.

[SeaBunny]

Actually, the passenger counts are virtually identical: 700 for Regent's two larger ships and 694 for Azamara's. Regent's staterooms (for the most part they are NOT true suites) are much larger.

 

Azamara's on-board ambiance is warmer, the crew is friendlier, the senior officers are much more engaged with passengers, and there are more late nights and overnights in ports. Food quality is comparable. Azamara's specialty restaurants are easier to get into as there is a charge for non-suite passengers, and we've never had to share a table to get a reservation.

 

Actually what I intended, but stated poorly, was that Regent ships had smaller passenger counts than most cruise ships but were much more spacious than Azamara's ships (with relative passenger counts -- the smaller Navigator carries only 490 passengers but is still larger than either Azamara ship).

 

It's not just in the suites but the public areas as well. We were on an Azamara TA that was 1/3 under booked yet when there was any social activity (games and the like) people were sharing chairs. You could not walk thru the space if you wanted to -- literally cheek to cheek of the lower body.

 

We were rather disappointed in most things Azamara. That doesn't mean we won't return, but our expectations will be adjusted.

[Travelcat2]

In my opinion, the biggest difference is that Azamara does not even consider itself to be a luxury cruise line and is not in competition with Regent. The reason Silversea, Seabourn and Crystal have been mentioned a few times on this thread is because it is in direct competition with Regent (in the U.S.). Until fairly recently, Regent had the largest regular suites of all the luxury cruise lines. With Seabourn and Silversea's new ships, this is no longer the case. Luxury cruise lines do call "staterooms" that have both a bedroom and a separate sitting area suites (even if they are only separated by a curtain).

 

P.S. I have heard that Azamara's senior officers are warmer than on Oceania (which would not be too hard to do). However, we find the officers on board Regent to be very approachable. The General Manager's office is open most of the time for anyone who wishes to drop in, have a chat or discuss an issue. While we do not know how friendly officers are on Crystal or Seabourn, we do not find them particularly welcoming or open on Silversea.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Travelcat2

[jhp]

I am trying out Azamara for the first time for a transatlantic crossing next April, and looking forward to it. I upgraded to what is a basic Regent cabin size, and since it is a crossing, and not many ports, it was a bargain, I thought. I booked because a dear travel friend was on, and it brought others whom we know. She tells me that many of the officers she has met are former Regent employees. Perhaps this is why someone said they are somewhat "warmer". At any rate, I like to try new lines from time to time. I always love my Regent cruises. But the appeal of the price, the itinerary, and my friends aboard are what guided me. And no less, the 25% single supplement is something I just no longer see on Regent. They simply sail so full this would not be a good business decision for them.

 

I go with no particular expectations or biases. Just works for me. First time I cruised Silversea after so many on Regent, I was so super critical, comparing each and every detail, like pitting on the aluminum chairs on the balcony, or the lack of art on the walls in the DR! Next time I cruised that line, it was so much better. I started out fresh with no expectations!

 

I love every cruise I've taken so far. My heart's with Regent, but they are not always where I'm going when I want to go.

Edited August 8, 2014 by jhp

[jhp]

To add to my comments above, I think Regent knows better than to think "it is not even in competition" with Azamara. There are many crossovers between these lines in my own little cruising world alone. Regent would not be that naive, for sure. Any line that is trying to break in to a bigger market with a great product is competition to them. Just as Radisson was in early 2000's as they were growing, and came to compete head-on with Silversea, Seabourn, and Crystal and whatever lines were there at the time, and made it big time. There's an open market out there, and who gives the most value all around, in the eyes of the customer will win newcomers every year, is my opinion. Never estimate the ability of the small guy to deliver.

 

Seabunny, appreciated your thoughts, as well as those of Marinaro44.

Edited August 8, 2014 by jhp

[Travelcat2]

It is certainly fine to disagree with me but isn't this thread "Why Regent" - not why "Azamara"? I do know of some people that try both Oceania and Azamara but usually it is due to the cost not because they no longer like Regent or other luxury lines. The only reason we tried a "premium plus" cruise line is because it is a sister company to Regent and the new ships were reportedly the best at sea (agree with that assessment). There are two reasons we are sailing on Oceania again: 1) We are doing a Caribbean cruise and prefer not to sail on the Navigator and 2) Cost -- We will be in a huge suite with 2 bathrooms, will have included tips and internet - have purchased the premium alcohol package and....... are paying about the same cost as a Regent cruise. It was a no brainer (however, we definitely do not prefer Oceania to Regent -- when you sail on a premium cruise line, it is a premium cruise line -- no matter how beautiful the ship is).

 

We prefer Regent to any line we have sailed. We are not tempted by other luxury ships (except Silversea when they have a special itinerary) because nothing is perfect -- there are pluses and minuses to every cruise line. Regent has the ship size, the service, the food, the crew -- everything that we are happy with. The only thing I dislike about Regent are included excursions and that isn't worth changing cruise lines for (IMO).

[edels]

I had two cruises on Voyager where the pool bar was unapproachable because of a smoke cloud, and the smoke spread across to the other side of the deck area. The pool deck now has a different designated area for smoking, but will the smoke simply spread from this area across the whole deck, as is my experience of “designated areas”? The entrance area to the main dining room was constantly smoky, and on one occasion the smoke reached up the atrium to the 7th deck level. One got tired of having to traipse around the ship to get to the rear entrance to the dining room. Perhaps this entrance area has now been improved, but is there smoke escape from the connoisseur club? The discouraging result of these past experiences was my cancelling a booked cruise on Mariner and my discontinuing a planned extension cruise on Voyager.

 

On one occasion on the Navigator I had to slowly run the gauntlet of a heavy smoke cloud in the corridor in the area of the connoisseur club, to get to a rather nice reception, which therefore had a “smoky aftertaste”. This experience dissuaded me from taking a planned Alaska cruise on the Navigator. Additionally, I was left with somewhat of an impression that Regent did not really care about passengers being smoked-out.

 

In contrast, I took a two-month-plus splendid cruise on the well-appointed Oceania Marina, where there were no issues with smoking. Smokers were accommodated in two defined areas, apparently comfortably: a small corner of deck and a partitioned-off corner of a lounge. I suggest that Oceania is the most smoking-limiting of the cruise lines, and that there is a possible route here for Regent to improve their limiting the exposure of passengers to smoke.

 

Regent’s recent policy change permitting electronic cigarettes throughout the ship (except dining areas), with their emissions, fume or particulate, is a most retrograde step. Allowing them in the cabins of all places is shocking. This is the place where one spends most of one’s time breathing. These cigarettes are an obfuscation of the hazards of smoking, and are also an insidious encouragement to smoking, particularly among the young. At present, I do not feel comfortable about cruising with Regent.

 

Toronto's medical officer recommends city-wide e-cigarettes ban

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/toronto-s-medical-officer-recommends-city-wide-e-cigarettes-ban-1.1956021