NCL Reports It Has Agreed to Purchase PCH

[Eager2Travel]

How fast do you think the changes will occur? We sail in October. And we finally are suppose to get free laundry.

[newlondon]

JPR, I'm on your wave length. As I posted previously on this thread it is not in the acquiring company's best interest to destroy a successful acquiree.

I am concerned about the itinerary issue; the business model, however, I suspect will not change too significantly. If it does "hello Silversea."

[Travelcat2]

I tend to disagree. Driving customers to Seabourn and Silversea will not improve the bottom line, but will only destroy the Oceania and Regent brands. NCL may take that route by raising prices while cutting quality, but I doubt it. The most successful companies like Apple do not engage in that behavior. Those that do have much greater market power and less competition. Frankly, Regent needs the infusion of capital in my view, because its product was declining well before the merger was even considered.

 

Let's see some evidence of real decline rather than engaging in rampant speculation.

 

I am curious why you feel that Regent needs an infusion of capital? From what I can tell, their profits were not as high as expected because of the investment they make in their ships and the commitment to build the Explorer. In any case, definitely agree that the last thing Regent needs is to have their customers driven away to other luxury cruise lines.

 

Eager2Travel: Nothing to worry about -- the deal won't close until a few weeks after your cruise has ended. And, I would not worry about some kind of immediate changes.

 

Regent has been through a buy-out before and the sky didn't fall -- the ships didn't fall apart. Apollo wanted to make money from the acquisition and they have. Don't forget that they still have a controlling interest in NCL and will continue to be a part of the equation.

 

The Board of Directors of NCL Cruise Holdings is interesting as it has a strong Apollo influence. For anyone interested, here is their current members http://www.ncl.com/about/board-of-directors

[njhorseman]

After doing some research, I've learned that Heritage Wharf in Bermuda was built specifically for the Norwegian Breakaway ship. There is more here than meets the eye. Is NCL invested in Bermuda? Do they have an agreement with them? I'm not a conspiracy theorist but something smells fishy in Bermuda.

 

That's incorrect. Heritage Wharf was built in order to allow two NCL ships to dock in Bermuda every week, but it was finished before the Breakaway was even designed, and in fact It had to go through a costly rebuilding in order to accommodate the Breakaway. It was originally designed to handle ships no larger than the size of NCL's Jewel class.

 

It was touch and go last year as to whether the rebuilding of Heritage Wharf would be completed in time for the Breakaway's first cruise to Bermuda (it was, but literally only by hours).

 

NCL has a simple deal...they have primary contractual rights to use Heritage Wharf. They committed to docking two ships per week there in season, and in return Bermuda built the pier. Nothing fishy or unusual about it. A normal business deal.

[HanaleiSailor]

s

 

Agree. Don, you and I have had a "wait and see" attitude and have been quite positive on the Regent and Oceania boards. My concern isn't so much Bermuda specifically but with statements Mr. Sheehan is making in advance of the deal becoming final. If he is already anticipating changing itineraries - without learning what Regent and Oceania guests want...... this is not a good thing. It took FDR time to learn what Regent passengers expect and desire -- I can only hope that Kevin Sheehan would learn from FDR and perhaps not make statements to the press that could cause further concern from Regent and Oceania customers.

 

I wrote my thoughts on the merger earlier and have told myself that I should leave it what I have written; however, the article TC2 is talking about here (posted earlier in the thread) indicates that the Chairman of NCL is already talking about "changes" for the PCH brands (in this case itinerary). This is not a good sign as it indicates an early willingness of the new owners to make changes to Oceania and Regent.

 

Earlier I posted that in the large corporate mergers that I have directly/indirectly experienced in the past, changes have always occurred (and in almost all cases these changes were not for the benefit of customers, but of shareholders). I fear that the early NCL winds are blowing in the direction of typical corporate merger, rather than in the direction of something "different."

 

We sail on the Voyager next month, and I expect a great cruise. The optimist in me hopes that the NCL takeover will be OK for Regent and Oceania, but the realist must be sitting on my shoulder and whispering to me this week as I have to admit that I have looked at itineraries on Sea Dream, Sea Cloud and Windstar for 2015.

 

Aloha from Hanalei,

 

Mark

[Travelcat2]

That's incorrect. Heritage Wharf was built in order to allow two NCL ships to dock in Bermuda every week, but it was finished before the Breakaway was even designed, and in fact It had to go through a costly rebuilding in order to accommodate the Breakaway. It was originally designed to handle ships no larger than the size of NCL's Jewel class.

 

It was touch and go last year as to whether the rebuilding of Heritage Wharf would be completed in time for the Breakaway's first cruise to Bermuda (it was, but literally only by hours).

 

NCL has a simple deal...they have primary contractual rights to use Heritage Wharf. They committed to docking two ships per week there in season, and in return Bermuda built the pier. Nothing fishy or unusual about it. A normal business deal.

 

I'm posting the article entitled "Construction at Heritage Wharf to accommodate Norwegian Breakaway" http://bermudasun.bm/Content/NEWS/News/Article/Construction-at-Heritage-Wharf-to-accommodate-Norwegian-Breakaway/24/270/62885 as I did not post it on the Regent board. If the article is not true, then what I posted what incorrect. The article was written in January, 2013 and the project was not yet completed.

 

You did answer the question as to why NCL wants ships to dock there. "NCL is committed to docking two ships per week there in season....." Thank you.

 

HanaleiSailor: Appreciate your input on the latest development.

[njhorseman]

I'm posting the article entitled "Construction at Heritage Wharf to accommodate Norwegian Breakaway" http://bermudasun.bm/Content/NEWS/News/Article/Construction-at-Heritage-Wharf-to-accommodate-Norwegian-Breakaway/24/270/62885 as I did not post it on the Regent board. If the article is not true, then what I posted what incorrect. The article was written in January, 2013 and the project was not yet completed.

 

You did answer the question as to why NCL wants ships to dock there. "NCL is committed to docking two ships per week there in season....." Thank you.

 

HanaleiSailor: Appreciate your input on the latest development.

 

As I posted on the Oceania board, you didn't read the article carefully enough to realize it was a rebuilding. There are words and phrases in the article that tell you that. (And if you had done more research and read other articles it would have been even more obvious... there was a big controversy as to why they had to spend millions to reconstruct a pier that had been built only a couple of years earlier.)

 

NCL has a 10 year contract with Bermuda. Royal Caribbean has a contract with Bermuda allowing Royal and Celebrity ships primary use of Kings Wharf (which may require modification to handle Quantum class ships).

 

Cruise lines sign contracts with ports and governments for use of their facilities and even have piers built for them in return for agreeing to dock ships at those piers for a specified number of years. There's nothing mysterious or nefarious about it. It's normal business practice.

[Travelcat2]

I responded on the Oceania board. I should have simply posted the article on the Regent initially instead of trying to interpret it. I don't want to make duplicate posts on two boards. It was quite clear from the title, "Construction at Heritage Wharf to accommodate Norwegian Breakaway" that there was construction underway to accommodate a particular ship. It does not matter if it was an existing wharf or not.

 

Actually, what is happening in Bermuda isn't the point. The point is that Kevin Sheehan is talking about changes in itineraries and the final documents have not been signed. The statements he is making to the media seem to indicate that he has not yet studied the premium and luxury cruise market and is unaware of what their customers are looking for. IMO, stopping in Bermuda for more than one night on multiple cruises isn't it.

[njhorseman]

I responded on the Oceania board. I should have simply posted the article on the Regent initially instead of trying to interpret it. I don't want to make duplicate posts on two boards. It was quite clear from the title, "Construction at Heritage Wharf to accommodate Norwegian Breakaway" that there was construction underway to accommodate a particular ship. It does not matter if it was an existing wharf or not.

 

Actually, what is happening in Bermuda isn't the point. The point is that Kevin Sheehan is talking about changes in itineraries and the final documents have not been signed. The statements he is making to the media seem to indicate that he has not yet studied the premium and luxury cruise market and is unaware of what their customers are looking for. IMO, stopping in Bermuda for more than one night on multiple cruises isn't it.

 

The first sentence of your first post about Heritage Wharf was: "After doing some research, I've learned that Heritage Wharf in Bermuda was built specifically for the Norwegian Breakaway ship." You then said "There is more here than meets the eye", and later " I'm not a conspiracy theorist but something smells fishy in Bermuda".

 

It's revisionist history to now say "It does not matter if it was an existing wharf or not" given the premise of your first post.

 

And don't sell Kevin Sheehan short. There's a good chance ( good ranging from 99 to 100%) that he's had substantial conversations with Regent and Oceania management about future plans (and that doesn't mean anything is etched in granite at this point). Maybe they don't think this is such a bad idea.

[fizzy]

Anyone sailing on the line is one of "most" Regent passengers and I can assure the expert that we sailed the Navigator to Bermuda the 3 times it was offered RT out of New York and would have continued forever if it was offered because it was that good.

[Responder]

Anyone sailing on the line is one of "most" Regent passengers and I can assure the expert that we sailed the Navigator to Bermuda the 3 times it was offered RT out of New York and would have continued forever if it was offered because it was that good.

 

We were also on that itinerary and did enjoy it as well, but after 10+ years with Regent, I wonder if we still qualify.

[John G]

Actually, what is happening in Bermuda isn't the point. The point is that Kevin Sheehan is talking about changes in itineraries and the final documents have not been signed. The statements he is making to the media seem to indicate that he has not yet studied the premium and luxury cruise market and is unaware of what their customers are looking for. IMO, stopping in Bermuda for more than one night on multiple cruises isn't it.

 

Although I’ve taken one of the NYC – NYC Bermuda cruises, I’m not a fan of Bermuda. But clearly some RSSC clients are, or used to be — I just took a look at the Navigator’s 1993 schedule, and they had 16 different cruises where they stopped in Bermuda for 2 or more nights (they stopped for 4 nights on the majority of those cruises). Most were trips from NYC or Florida. So this isn’t something new – it’s a return to something old. BTW, I believe they cut out the frequent Bermuda cruises when they decided to send Mariner to Europe in the summer, and Navigator starting cruising in Alaska.

 

And even though the documents for the acquisition haven’t been signed (and I share some of the concerns I’ve seen expressed about the acquisition, although I’m in wait-and-see mode), it’s totally appropriate for those in charge to start thinking about itineraries. After all, the Seven Seas Explorer will be coming on line soon, and even if RSSC wasn’t being sold, someone would be thinking right about now where that ship was going to sail. And how current itineraries of the existing ships might change because of that. Frankly, I look forward to seeing some new itineraries! That’s a good thing, not a bad thing IMO.

[Travelcat2]

Although I’ve taken one of the NYC – NYC Bermuda cruises, I’m not a fan of Bermuda. But clearly some RSSC clients are, or used to be — I just took a look at the Navigator’s 1993 schedule, and they had 16 different cruises where they stopped in Bermuda for 2 or more nights (they stopped for 4 nights on the majority of those cruises). Most were trips from NYC or Florida. So this isn’t something new – it’s a return to something old. BTW, I believe they cut out the frequent Bermuda cruises when they decided to send Mariner to Europe in the summer, and Navigator starting cruising in Alaska.

 

.

 

Assume you mean the Navigator's 2003 schedule as she was not built in 1993. Or, it is possible you mean Navigator of the Seas? We started cruising on Radisson in 2004 but did not sail on the Navigator until 2007. In the 10 years we have been sailing, we've only noticed stops in Bermuda a few times. We did stop there once and it was quite nice - no complaints whatsoever (although one day was enough).

 

Sorry but I'm still confused by your post. Regent has not had a ship in the Caribbean in the summer that I recall (weather related I assume). I do remember when they took the Mariner out of Alaska and put her in Europe. The Navigator has been doing the Caribbean during the winter for several years. Guess I'm just getting old -- or perhaps this all happened between 1998 when the Navigator was built and 2004 when we became aware of Radisson, etc. In any event, since the Navigator spends months in the Caribbean, I wonder why they seldom sail to Bermuda?

 

P.S. It is good to know that there are a few Regent customers that will be happy to go back and forth to Bermuda. If Regent had been aware that they could fill ships by adding Bermuda, they may have added Bermuda to the itinerary more often. I do understand that the Caribbean is a big draw for people that live in Florida since they don't have to travel to get there. Fortunately there are thousands and thousands and thousands of people that take advantage of the cheap cruises to the Caribbean. Even we plan on sailing to the Caribbean in a couple of months (not to Bermuda). I should mention that we are doing it on the Riviera in a 1,500 sq., ft. Vista Suite. The price and suite were the enticements - not the destination. Sometimes bargains can be a good thing.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Travelcat2

[John G]

Assume you mean the Navigator's 2003 schedule as she was not built in 1993. . . . or perhaps this all happened between 1998 when the Navigator was built and 2004 when we became aware of Radisson, etc. In any event, since the Navigator spends months in the Caribbean, I wonder why they seldom to Bermuda?

 

Sorry, I meant 2003! Thanks for the correction. I know the Navigator still did the Bermuda run in 2005, because that's when we did it. Although I don't think it made quite as many trips to Bermuda then as it did in 2003. I don't know why they dropped the Bermuda trips -- assume the Caribbean is more popular, and it's usually the only ship in the Caribbean these days (the Mariner seldom cruises there now, and I don't believe the Voyager has ever done more than a handful of cruises there, usually as part of the world voyage).

[Travelcat2]

Sorry, I meant 2003! Thanks for the correction. I know the Navigator still did the Bermuda run in 2005, because that's when we did it. Although I don't think it made quite as many trips to Bermuda then as it did in 2003. I don't know why they dropped the Bermuda trips -- assume the Caribbean is more popular, and it's usually the only ship in the Caribbean these days (the Mariner seldom cruises there now, and I don't believe the Voyager has ever done more than a handful of cruises there, usually as part of the world voyage).

 

Now it makes sense. Thanks.:)

[Texan1636]

Figure it out, it can't. Currently there is a $50M carrot dangling in front of their noses to "significant increases in revenue" - that can only happen by either cutting expenses or increasing prices. Regent is now at a point where if they increase their prices any more, it will just turn off more customers so the only way to achieve this goal is to cut expenses. Remember - it is not what the paying passenger wants - it is what will increase the value of the stock.

 

That is the finance lesson of the day - now back to work.

 

gnomie :)

 

I don't understand how the obligation of the buyer (NCL, who will be operating Prestige in 2015) to potentially pay an additional $50 million can be seen as a "carrot." Actually, it's just the opposite - the financial incentive would be for NCL to be sure that Prestige is NOT too profitable in 2015 so that this money doesn't have to be paid to the sellers. In fact, if you pull the merger agreement from the SEC website, you see that the sellers were concerned about this and included language to attempt to force NCL to operate the business in the same way in 2015 as it has been operated previously.

[ChatKat in Ca.]

Anyone sailing on the line is one of "most" Regent passengers and I can assure the expert that we sailed the Navigator to Bermuda the 3 times it was offered RT out of New York and would have continued forever if it was offered because it was that good.

 

We only did it once because it was not frequently offered but it was delightful.

[Travelcat2]

I don't understand how the obligation of the buyer (NCL, who will be operating Prestige in 2015) to potentially pay an additional $50 million can be seen as a "carrot." Actually, it's just the opposite - the financial incentive would be for NCL to be sure that Prestige is NOT too profitable in 2015 so that this money doesn't have to be paid to the sellers. In fact, if you pull the merger agreement from the SEC website, you see that the sellers were concerned about this and included language to attempt to force NCL to operate the business in the same way in 2015 as it has been operated previously.

 

What you posted makes sense. If NCL puts out itineraries that Regent/Oceania customers do not like, they would not be as profitable as they have been. However, once they lose their customer base, they may never return.

[Sunprince]

I don't understand how the obligation of the buyer (NCL, who will be operating Prestige in 2015) to potentially pay an additional $50 million can be seen as a "carrot." Actually, it's just the opposite - the financial incentive would be for NCL to be sure that Prestige is NOT too profitable in 2015 so that this money doesn't have to be paid to the sellers. In fact, if you pull the merger agreement from the SEC website, you see that the sellers were concerned about this and included language to attempt to force NCL to operate the business in the same way in 2015 as it has been operated previously.

 

Sorry, but you do not understand the deal. The transaction will close in Q4 with additional incentives for Prestige shareholders in 2015 after the deal closes if certain post deal conditions are met. Your rationale of "not too profitable in 2015" makes zero sense. I have not looked at the SEC docs and could be wrong but in these types of deals there are always incentives for the selling shareholders to maintain/improve certain key measures. NCL paid a premium, $50M is relatively small dollars for them vs the purchase price. But more so bigger dollars for Prestige shareholders, particularly Prestige executive officers. It's a bonus for them really and an incentive to ensure a smooth and profitable transition to maintain the brand.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Sunprince

[gnomie1]

What you posted makes sense. If NCL puts out itineraries that Regent/Oceania customers do not like, they would not be as profitable as they have been. However, once they lose their customer base, they may never return.

 

This is one area that corporate does not seem to understand. I think that they really believe that passengers, esp upper tier Society members, are quite loyal to the product and would never even think of booking elsewhere. That use to be us and many other people we know. I believe this has already started, prior to the announcement of the purchase by NCL. Due to the excessive cutbacks, long time loyal customers are now booking elsewhere. On our last cruise which ended last month, I ran into quite a few couples who were dismayed at the continued cutbacks in service and did not book a future cruise. While in the past, ships ran near capacity, I do not believe the same holds true anymore, except for certain sailings. NCL needs to remember that the population able and willing to spend the money on Regent/Oceania is far smaller than for the other ships and if people have the perception that they are not getting good value for their money, they will go elsewhere

 

gnomie :)

[gnomie1]

Sorry, but you do not understand the deal. The transaction will close in Q4 with additional incentives for Prestige shareholders in 2015 after the deal closes if certain post deal conditions are met. Your rationale of "not too profitable in 2015" makes zero sense. I have not looked at the SEC docs and could be wrong but in these types of deals there are always incentives for the selling shareholders to maintain/improve certain key measures. NCL paid a premium, $50M is relatively small dollars for them vs the purchase price. But more so bigger dollars for Prestige shareholders, particularly Prestige executive officers. It's a bonus for them really and an incentive to ensure a smooth and profitable transition to maintain the brand.

 

 

THANK YOU!!

 

gnomie :)

[Travelcat2]

This is one area that corporate does not seem to understand. I think that they really believe that passengers, esp upper tier Society members, are quite loyal to the product and would never even think of booking elsewhere. That use to be us and many other people we know. I believe this has already started, prior to the announcement of the purchase by NCL. Due to the excessive cutbacks, long time loyal customers are now booking elsewhere. On our last cruise which ended last month, I ran into quite a few couples who were dismayed at the continued cutbacks in service and did not book a future cruise. While in the past, ships ran near capacity, I do not believe the same holds true anymore, except for certain sailings. NCL needs to remember that the population able and willing to spend the money on Regent/Oceania is far smaller than for the other ships and if people have the perception that they are not getting good value for their money, they will go elsewhere

 

gnomie :)

 

This is an area where we disagree. I do not see cutbacks. I saw loyal customers booking elsewhere twice:

 

1. When the "Concierge" program was put into effect (still dislike this program intensely but understand why they did it)

 

2. When excursions became "free". They lost more customers with this than with the previous change (based upon posts on CC). It seems that they included excursions to keep sales up during the downturn of the economy but, IMO, should it have stopped it by now.

 

We were booked on two Asia cruises that were overbooked (2013 and 2014). They had to make offers to passengers to change to another cruise. When we changed to another cruise, that cruise ended up 100% full.

 

On our last cruise, there were well over 500 repeat customers (on the Voyager in July). Our upcoming cruise (next month) is approximately 90% full (and it is a fairly boring itinerary IMO).

 

The service on Regent (and Oceania) remains excellent. The food is usually excellent (except when a chef from Oceania is transferred onto a Regent ship. They are clueless as to what Regent customers are used to). We had a long time Regent Executive Chef on our last cruise (Jonathan Smid) and the food could not have been better. I did ask him why lamb chops from New Zealand are usually wonderful but occasionally disappointing. He said that the lamb comes from the same farm but some lambs may be less active, etc. and therefore the chops are not as good. However, they come in the same shipment. While they probably should notice the less than perfect chops, they do not.

 

I know of at least one long time Regent loyalist that now sails on Oceania. For the life of me, I cannot understand the reasoning. While they have two excellent restaurants (on the Riviera and Marina only), the other restaurants were equal to or less than Regent. The only draw I can see (and is why we will sail them in November) is that you can get a huge suite for less $$$ than Regent.

 

I suppose a few Regent loyalists have switched to Crystal but most of us do not want to make daily reservations in order to avoid having set seating. Silversea was a big competitor - we sailed them three times (itineraries not offered by Regent). However, their ships are not being maintained. I could see a Regent loyalist giving them a try but not returning. Seabourn may have obtained a few Regent loyalists but their cost cutting has created some issues for Seabourn loyalists. I read their board periodically. When you board their larger ships, you are quarantined into a small area where sandwiches are served until the suites are ready. They are also very stingy with soap, shampoo, etc. You need to empty one before they give you more (I obviously do not know this as a fact -- only from what I've read on CC).

 

Anyway, the above is why I disagree with your statement regarding "cutbacks"

Edited September 12, 2014 by Travelcat2

[Texan1636]

Sorry, but you do not understand the deal. The transaction will close in Q4 with additional incentives for Prestige shareholders in 2015 after the deal closes if certain post deal conditions are met. Your rationale of "not too profitable in 2015" makes zero sense. I have not looked at the SEC docs and could be wrong but in these types of deals there are always incentives for the selling shareholders to maintain/improve certain key measures. NCL paid a premium, $50M is relatively small dollars for them vs the purchase price. But more so bigger dollars for Prestige shareholders, particularly Prestige executive officers. It's a bonus for them really and an incentive to ensure a smooth and profitable transition to maintain the brand.

 

I don'[t understand what you are saying. The buyer (NCL) will be operating the business all throughout 2015 (yes, they will likely keep existing management in place, but NCL will be making all decisions on budgets, etc.). That buyer will either (a) not have to pay an additional $50 million at the end of 2015 if things are not extremely profitable (measured by revenues reduced by, among other things, on-board expenses, as detailed in the merger agreement) or (b) have to pay an existing $50 million if the company exceeds certain profitability targets (I"m oversimplifying, as there is a formula, but $50 million is the maximum). For a buyer in this circumstance, the financial incentive is to not maximize profitability on a "book" basis in 2015, because they would have to give a significant chunk back to the sellers - they could sit on things (even improve the product) for a year to incentivize customers to book cruises in 2016 and following (the measurement period for the "earn-out" is only 2015, so improved profitability pushed from 2015 to 2016 flows right to the pocket of the buyer, not the seller). The $50 million payment requirement certainly doesn't make the buyer want to inflate profitability for 2015. Obviously, the sellers (and their lawyers) agree with me, as they put protective provisions in the merger agreement designed to deal with the exact buyer motivations that I'm describing - this is what I do for a living, by the way, and I've been opposite Apollo on numerous deals.

[Sunprince]

This is an area where we disagree. I do not see cutbacks. I saw loyal customers booking elsewhere twice:

 

1. When the "Concierge" program was put into effect (still dislike this program intensely but understand why they did it)

 

2. When excursions became "free". They lost more customers with this than with the previous change (based upon posts on CC). It seems that they included excursions to keep sales up during the downturn of the economy but, IMO, should it have stopped it by now.

 

We were booked on two Asia cruises that were overbooked (2013 and 2014). They had to make offers to passengers to change to another cruise. When we changed to another cruise, that cruise ended up 100% full.

 

On our last cruise, there were well over 500 repeat customers (on the Voyager in July). Our upcoming cruise (next month) is approximately 90% full (and it is a fairly boring itinerary IMO).

 

The service on Regent (and Oceania) remains excellent. The food is usually excellent (except when a chef from Oceania is transferred onto a Regent ship. They are clueless as to what Regent customers are used to). We had a long time Regent Executive Chef on our last cruise (Jonathan Smid) and the food could not have been better. I did ask him why lamb chops from New Zealand are usually wonderful but occasionally disappointing. He said that the lamb comes from the same farm but some lambs may be less active, etc. and therefore the chops are not as good. However, they come in the same shipment. While they probably should notice the less than perfect chops, they do not.

 

I know of at least one long time Regent loyalist that now sails on Oceania. For the life of me, I cannot understand the reasoning. While they have two excellent restaurants (on the Riviera and Marina only), the other restaurants were equal to or less than Regent. The only draw I can see (and is why we will sail them in November) is that you can get a huge suite for less $$$ than Regent.

 

I suppose a few Regent loyalists have switched to Crystal but most of us do not want to make daily reservations in order to avoid having set seating. Silversea was a big competitor - we sailed them three times (itineraries not offered by Regent). However, their ships are not being maintained. I could see a Regent loyalist giving them a try but not returning. Seabourn may have obtained a few Regent loyalists but their cost cutting has created some issues for Seabourn loyalists. I read their board periodically. When you board their larger ships, you are quarantined into a small area where sandwiches are served until the suites are ready. They are also very stingy with soap, shampoo, etc. You need to empty one before they give you more (I obviously do not know this as a fact -- only from what I've read on CC).

 

Anyway, the above is why I disagree with your statement regarding "cutbacks"

 

We are also considering Seabourn. Despite cutbacks (I've heard this on all the lux lines), they have many loyal customers. I see that they have just relaxed their smoking policy and dress code to be more in line with Regent. Smart move!! Their main attraction (for me at least) is ship size and space. I think Seabpurn is Regents biggest competitor, given excursions are not included ( as many loyal Regent customers don't like it included). I previously avoided them due to smoking policy but will give it a try at some point.

[Responder]

This is an area where we disagree. I do not see cutbacks. I saw loyal customers booking elsewhere twice:

 

1. When the "Concierge" program was put into effect (still dislike this program intensely but understand why they did it)

 

2. When excursions became "free". They lost more customers with this than with the previous change (based upon posts on CC). It seems that they included excursions to keep sales up during the downturn of the economy but, IMO, should it have stopped it by now.

 

We were booked on two Asia cruises that were overbooked (2013 and 2014). They had to make offers to passengers to change to another cruise. When we changed to another cruise, that cruise ended up 100% full.

 

On our last cruise, there were well over 500 repeat customers (on the Voyager in July). Our upcoming cruise (next month) is approximately 90% full (and it is a fairly boring itinerary IMO).

 

The service on Regent (and Oceania) remains excellent. The food is usually excellent (except when a chef from Oceania is transferred onto a Regent ship. They are clueless as to what Regent customers are used to). We had a long time Regent Executive Chef on our last cruise (Jonathan Smid) and the food could not have been better. I did ask him why lamb chops from New Zealand are usually wonderful but occasionally disappointing. He said that the lamb comes from the same farm but some lambs may be less active, etc. and therefore the chops are not as good. However, they come in the same shipment. While they probably should notice the less than perfect chops, they do not.

 

I know of at least one long time Regent loyalist that now sails on Oceania. For the life of me, I cannot understand the reasoning. While they have two excellent restaurants (on the Riviera and Marina only), the other restaurants were equal to or less than Regent. The only draw I can see (and is why we will sail them in November) is that you can get a huge suite for less $$$ than Regent.

 

I suppose a few Regent loyalists have switched to Crystal but most of us do not want to make daily reservations in order to avoid having set seating. Silversea was a big competitor - we sailed them three times (itineraries not offered by Regent). However, their ships are not being maintained. I could see a Regent loyalist giving them a try but not returning. Seabourn may have obtained a few Regent loyalists but their cost cutting has created some issues for Seabourn loyalists. I read their board periodically. When you board their larger ships, you are quarantined into a small area where sandwiches are served until the suites are ready. They are also very stingy with soap, shampoo, etc. You need to empty one before they give you more (I obviously do not know this as a fact -- only from what I've read on CC).

 

Anyway, the above is why I disagree with your statement regarding "cutbacks"

 

If as you say only 5% of cruisers read CC, why all the verbiage to make your point?

 

In my world, raising prices as Regent has been doing and not improving what has been around for a while, is the same as cutbacks. I suppose a prime example would be the internet service. Let's not argue about that as I have more expertise in that area than you.

 

You seem to quote a lot of opinions you read on CC to make your case. After all, you offer opinions in all your posts.

So, whose opinions are more worthy?

 

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what loyalty is all about. Some of it for me is familiarity. As we get older we want more of the familiar security blanket. That doesn't mean that everything works all the time.....but it does mean that we keep paying the ever increasing prices even when it doesn't work well.