Navigator itinerary change

[Savblanc]

Hi All.

We are booked on Navigator for the Miami to Vancouver cruise departing 17th June and have just been advised by our travel agent that we are no longer stopping in San Diego and instead have an "extra" sea day.

No reason has been given and just wondering if anyone can shed any light on why this has been changed....this change has been advised just after we have paid our FINAL payment..........:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Many thanks for any input!!!!

[flossie009]

How very disappointing that (yet again) Regent are making late itinerary changes..........reducing port time

 

Presumably they have already offered to reimburse guests for the port charges, fuel savings (slower speed required) and value of excursions not taken :rolleyes:

[UUNetBill]

Our last Navigator cruise was drastically changed - but in that case it turned out well, we got to see some new ports and had a fantastic cruise. That one was motivated by world events, though, substituting Haifa for Istanbul. I can't see why they'd just drop a port with no explanation or offers of compensation. As Flossie said, an extra sea day isn't always in everyone's best interest, although it does tend to pad Regent's wallet just a bit, doesn't it?

 

:(

[pingpong1]

Savblanc - I'm sure this is particularly disappointing to you (and others) if you selected this itinerary for the very reason that San Diego WAS on the itinerary - Which also happens to be a very beautiful and charming city to visit.

 

Seems like Regent is really screwing with their customers on this one - particularly when a significant change like this is made after final payments are due.

 

But I'm sure we'll hear from one predictable quarter as to why this change is perfectly logical and makes all the sense in the world - at least from Regent's point of view.

[Island Cruiser]

I would be as disappointed as you are. SD is a great port stop. Also disappointing: the absence of an explanation. Why did Regent cancel? What efforts did Regent undertake to book an alternative west coast port stop in lieu of an extra sea day?

[Travelcat2]

How very disappointing that (yet again) Regent are making late itinerary changes..........reducing port time

 

Presumably they have already offered to reimburse guests for the port charges, fuel savings (slower speed required) and value of excursions not taken :rolleyes:

 

Port charges are not refunded on Regent cruises (long story but there are threads about it on CC) and missed Regent Choice excursions would have been reimbursed immediately. There is a reason why Regent "included" excursions have no value. While I don't know specifics, if a value was placed on them, someone could expect some type of credit for not taking any excursions (which brings us to another topic - off subject about receiving a credit for opting out of excursions).

 

There seems to be something going with port stops in San Diego (which, according to the Port Commissioner is a "small port). The only alternative in that area I can think of is Los Angeles which, IMO, is not a great port and excursions could easily get embroiled in L.A. traffic which could be a problem.

 

I would ask my TA to check with their Regent corporate contact (different than Customer Service that passengers call into) and see if they can provide a reason.

[JMARINER]

It seems that Regent has not yet cancelled their berthing spot in San Diego for that cruise.

 

https://www.portofsandiego.org/document/cruise/7763-2016-2017-san-diego-cruise-calendar/file.html

 

J

Edited January 26, 2017 by JMARINER

[DaveFr]

The Navigator was supposed to arrive in San Diego on July 3, 2017. This is speculation on my part but there is a fireworks extravaganza in San Diego Harbor on July 4th. The fireworks are shot from four barges in the harbor. It takes a number of days to set up the barges. One of the barges is across from the cruise ship docks and all the barges may at least partially block the large ship channel in the harbor. If the large ship channel is blocked by the barges, it would not be possible to bring the Navigator into port. Safety considerations may also be at play. A couple of years ago there was a mishap and all the fireworks on a barge blew up simultaneously. I doubt the Port authorities would allow a cruise ship anywhere near the barges.

 

So I can see the Port authorities closing the port to the Navigator on July 3rd due to access and safety issues. Again, just speculation on my part.

[Savblanc]

Thanks for all the input....as we are travelling from Australia thought the "locals" on cc would have some feasible explanation!!! Quite disappointed as SD was one port we really wanted to go into especially as DH Birthday and we thought we would have a birthday lunch at a nice restaurant with the friends we are travelling with....oh well not much can be done......DH has rung the Regent office in Australia and they are contacting head office to ask why and what compensation we will get????????? Fine print says basically they can do whatever they like.......as first time Regent cruises perhaps our last if that's how things are done!!!!!!!

Shall keep you updated!!!!!!

Many thanks for all the comments.:mad::mad::mad:

[flossie009]

Port charges are not refunded on Regent cruises (long story but there are threads about it on CC) and missed Regent Choice excursions would have been reimbursed immediately. There is a reason why Regent "included" excursions have no value. While I don't know specifics, if a value was placed on them, someone could expect some type of credit for not taking any excursions (which brings us to another topic - off subject about receiving a credit for opting out of excursions).

 

Thank you; I was aware of the corporate 'gobbledegook' that means that Regent do not reimburse guests for their late itinerary changes; I should have added 'LOL' to my post!

 

The most disappointing thing about Regent's communication is they do not appear to have given any explanation to their guests

DaveFr's theory sounds feasible and if this is the reason then why not tell your guests

 

It would be good if Regent could think about positioning the ship somewhere near to the coast on 04 July to allow guests to view one of the numerous firework displays that will be occurring

[Travelcat2]

It would be good if Regent could think about positioning the ship somewhere near to the coast on 04 July to allow guests to view one of the numerous firework displays that will be occurring

 

Agree with you - great idea!

[JMARINER]

It would be good if Regent could think about positioning the ship somewhere near to the coast on 04 July to allow guests to view one of the numerous firework displays that will be occurring

 

Sorry, but even if the ship did stop in San Diego, it would still be far into Mexican waters by July 4th. It is only about 10 miles (16KM) from the harbor mouth to the US/Mexico border.

 

As to DaveFr speculation as to the harbor fire works, it is my recollection that the barges are towed into the harbor from a remote dock south of the cruise terminal late in the afternoon of the 4th.

 

San Diego is great stop and a very pretty sail away in the afternoon, past point Loma and looking back toward the skyline. Sad that Regent isn't stopping for you.

 

j

[Savblanc]

We are actually sailing north to San Francisco from SD so don't know whether that will make any difference to 4th July celebrations and fireworks at sea??

Guess it will be what it will be but another sea day even though we love them wasn't our preferred option!!!!

Looks like an early start with a champagne breakfast for the birthday boy now!!!!:):):):):):):

[flossie009]

Sorry, but even if the ship did stop in San Diego, it would still be far into Mexican waters by July 4th. It is only about 10 miles (16KM) from the harbor mouth to the US/Mexico border.

 

 

Since the ship is due into San Francisco on 05 July, I would have thought it would be off the coast of California on the evening of 04 July..................or is my geography at fault.......................or maybe the border is being moved to make the wall easier to build ;)

[Goofyisme]

Must be a change in the tide tables.

[pingpong1]

Notwithstanding all the forgoing suggestions for a possible work around solution......why would Regent NOT have taken into account the fireworks celebration in San Diego harbor (on the night of the 4th), along with the associated barge logistics involved.....long before they ever solidified the initial itinerary/sailing schedule and announced San Diego as port call in the first place?

 

I'm assuming that Regent employs lots of smart people in their cruise planning and logistics department/s, who know about (and should take into account) all the various long-scheduled activities happening at worldwide ports which might potentially conflict with Regent port calls.

 

And knowing this information (like annual 4th of July fireworks shows in San Diego harbor) well in advance, they would eliminate and/or work around these potential conflicts long before they ever publish an advertised itinerary, which customers count on and use as a basis for planning, booking (and saving for) cruises to places they might be particularly interested in?

 

And if poor long-range planning (on the part of Regent) causes a cruise itinerary to be changed after it is has been advertised/published, with final cruise payments already having been collected, l think it's unreasonable to expect customer to just have to "suck it up", without being offered the opportunity to cancel their trip, if they so choose.

 

Please note that I am not talking about a last minute port change brought about by emerging political turmoil, natural disaster, or some other unforeseen event beyond Regent's control which might occur after the schedule is published.

 

If Regent actually did eliminate San Diego from this itinerary solely because their own planners "forgot" about the fireworks celebration before they published the original itinerary (I would guess that they wouldn't be inclined to publicly admit this), I think that "goof" should be on them and not at the expense of paying customers.

[Travelcat2]

And it was fabulous! (Warning, if you're going to watch, turn your volume down.)

 

[YOUTUBE]ndVhgq1yHdA[/YOUTUBE]

 

What amazing footage - thanks for posting!

[larry1365]

When the Navigator left here last week it was a few hours late even though it had been here overnight. Yes, there was rain on Friday and briefly on Saturday morning. But the reason given was delayed provisioning.

 

In 2010, the Voyager World Cruise started here in San Diego. The ship also left late due to provisioning. In that instance, the longshoremen left at the end of their shift at 5pm. Everyone had to scramble to get some to come in to complete the provisioning. We left 4-5 hours late. The Captain said he would never start a cruise from here again.

[Travelcat2]

It sounds as if San Diego has the same bloody unions as they have in Florida. They move slowly and stop what they are doing at the exact moment that they can take a break. Watching the union workers in Miami was like watching a snail convention. Thankfully, dock workers in the rest of the world are much better.

 

IMO, staying away from U.S. ports could be a positive for Regent. I realize that Miami is an important port for Regent but it is good to see that the Explorer will avoid the U.S. for most of 2018!

Edited January 28, 2017 by Travelcat2

[Savblanc]

Hi everyone... we have just heard back re itinerary change via our TA and the reason given and I quote " this change was made due to environmental regulations in California limiting numbers of calls to vessels not connecting to shore power..........end of quote!!!!!

Exactly what that means Im not sure but that's their answer..........

 

One unhappy cruiser as that was our only opportunity to see SD as we won't be travelling to that part of the world again!!:(:(

 

Thanks for all your help...

[UUNetBill]

Hi everyone... we have just heard back re itinerary change via our TA and the reason given and I quote " this change was made due to environmental regulations in California limiting numbers of calls to vessels not connecting to shore power..........end of quote!!!!!

Exactly what that means Im not sure but that's their answer..........

 

One unhappy cruiser as that was our only opportunity to see SD as we won't be travelling to that part of the world again!!:(:(

 

Thanks for all your help...

 

Sounds like they lost their berth for whatever reason and Cali doesn't want them sitting at anchor burning fuel to keep the lights on.

 

It's still a lame excuse, though...if they had a berth with power, why did they lose it? I've seen it happen where w had to anchor and tender in a port that wasn't supposed to be a tender port...guess Cali's environmental refs are stricter than most normal places.

[whoopie]

It's because it is July 4th and everything will be closed for the holiday. We are in that cruise too.