Regent Says, We're Not Sorry You Have Cancer and We're Keeping Your Money

[ronrick1943]

Have to agree with Sheila on this. Like I said it happened to us. Can you imagine the people Regent would need to follow up with each person wanting a refund. Also it's unthinkable, but how many people will fill out forms for a refund but may not tell the truth about the reason. In other words lie just to get the refund. You say no they wouldn't---why do so many people have handicap cards that do really need them. They even have their doctors they've been going to for years sign off to get one. The systems for cruise lines works just fine now. You buy insurance if you want and be safe or you don't and live with the results.

I know every time I get on a ship, I say why did I buy the insurance--but the times I needed it I was glad I made the purchase. But I always hope I never have to use it, I like cruising and enjoy the time on the ship. Rick

[flossie009]

I don't understand the reasoning. If one category is sold out -- a person cancels -- Regent resells the suite at full price. Do they not make money on this?

 

As I said in my original post (moved to a general thread), it is not Regent's fault and they should not lose money on someone else's tragedy nor should they make money off of said tragedy!

OK, let me explain my reasoning using a real example:

Seven Seas Mariner departing 10 Nov 2017 for a 7 night roundtrip cruise from Miami.

As of today G&H are waitlisted; D,E&F are available. PH B&C are waitlisted; PH A are available.

 

Let's assume someone cancels a B, C, G or H suite. At this late stage Regent may or may not manage to re-sell the suite; however if that suite had not come available it is highly likely that Regent would have convinced the new prospective cruiser to book one of the slightly higher grade suites.

 

As far as the 'named' suites are concerned I assume that these would be more difficult to re-sell at full price at a late stage; more than likely anything coming available through cancellation would only be filled through a discounted upsell

 

Hence my argument that Regent can only be considered to 'profit' from cancellations if the cruise is waitlisted in all categories (i.e. 100% fully booked) e.g. the following Mariner cruise to the Amazon.

[flossie009]

Regent customers showing their best side

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[fizzy]

I'm with the group who feels that it was foolish not to have trip insurance and I'm sure that the OP now realizes this. By the way, I'm not unsympathetic....been there/ done that and insurance covered the cruise. I think that a way around Regent (or any cruise line) supposedly profiting from your misfortune......once it becomes clear that you are not going to get your desired refund would be to let the cruise go by with no cancellation on your part. Be a "no show". From your perspective, while you are angry that you are losing your money, they won't be double profiting by the resale of your cabin. Just a thought.

[Pies4u]

Cancelling through ill health is, clearly, a sensitive matter - but that is what travel insurance is for surely?

 

I've not cancelled a cruise but we had to cancel 2 successive holidays due to bereavement, (mother then mother in law), the insurance compensated us for that accordingly, no problem. We simply re-booked at a later time, 5 weeks in 1 case and a year in the other (New Year event).

 

The customer loyalty element does work both ways but I have to say that we have always found Regent to be very helpful and accommodating if any difficulties have arisen regarding a booking and/or any amendments to plans have been necessary.

[Travelcat2]

OK, let me explain my reasoning using a real example:

Seven Seas Mariner departing 10 Nov 2017 for a 7 night roundtrip cruise from Miami.

As of today G&H are waitlisted; D,E&F are available. PH B&C are waitlisted; PH A are available.

 

Let's assume someone cancels a B, C, G or H suite. At this late stage Regent may or may not manage to re-sell the suite; however if that suite had not come available it is highly likely that Regent would have convinced the new prospective cruiser to book one of the slightly higher grade suites.

 

As far as the 'named' suites are concerned I assume that these would be more difficult to re-sell at full price at a late stage; more than likely anything coming available through cancellation would only be filled through a discounted upsell

 

Hence my argument that Regent can only be considered to 'profit' from cancellations if the cruise is waitlisted in all categories (i.e. 100% fully booked) e.g. the following Mariner cruise to the Amazon.

 

First, I really like the picture. Thank you for explaining your thinking - I now can see both sides. My thinking is that that a category is waitlisted for a reason -- presumably because there are people wanting that category for whatever reason. If someone really wants a waitlisted category suite, they generally would put down a deposit. As soon as a waitlisted suite becomes available (even if it before the cancellation phase), the people on the list are contacted in order to book the suite. IMO, if I was waitlisted for a category suite and it became available at the last minute, I'd jump on it and be very happy.

 

In our case, we would be waitlisted for a named suite and again, IMO, they would resell faster than the H-E suites (again, assuming that the category is waitlisted). If I were waitlisted for a Seven Seas Suite - that is the suite I want - not a lower nor a higher one.

 

On the other hand, as you eluded to, in the H-E categories, a person might be more likely to book another category since they are the same size. In fact, using both of our scenarios, it would work better if all the H-E suites were booked so I guess that we agree for those suites.

 

In terms of many comments made by other posters, this thread has never been about insurance (other than me bashing insurance companies). I am not recommending against insurance. Actually, my recommendation could make a passenger whole in a situation where the insurance company may not pay (the scenario on the other thread might qualify and poss' situation might qualify). There are situations when no one has died but the area they are in has been devastated by a hurricane and perhaps their home or business was damaged).

 

In terms of people lying -- I won't go there other than to say that a person could lie to an insurance company almost as easily as to a cruise line. I would like to think that people are honest but apparently I am mistaken.

 

 

P.S. flossie, in your real life scenario, the one suite that would likely sell almost immediately is the "A" category (PH) as there is no other choice for a PH suite. Again, just my opinion based on a tiny bit of experience in terms of waitlisting.

[jeb_bud]

Our Alaska cruise this year got preempted when DW broke her leg while we were traveling to the port. We spent the cruise in a hospital.

 

I only had the credit card insurance, clearly not full coverage.

 

I gambled. I lost. I learned a lesson.

 

I asked my TA to see about a refund or credit because "nothing ventured, nothing gained" but I wasn't surprised when Regent said no.

 

We've rebooked for next year and I haven't decided yet whether to buy insurance or roll the dice again with CC insurance. Slow learner? Probably.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Bellaggio Cruisers]

Jackie-

If thousands or tens of thousands of dollars would be "at risk" for each cancellation on Regent, I am sure many people would lie to get their money back. Plus, how much would Regent have to spend in personnel to check each claim for every cruise? How would they investigate? Someone would have to pay. Don't you think our rates would be raised? Also, insurance rates would go up for lack of clients, if only sick people bought insurance.

This has become a redundant conversation

Perhaps the insurance industry does need investigation, and you should let congress know.

For now, if you can't afford the insurance then you really can't afford the cruise. And, if you choose to take the chance, don't complain if something unfortunate happens.

Much worse, I was offended by the title of this thread. Also, something is fishy--The cruise was over a year ago. Why speak up now when you have never posted before. What's the real story?? Why did they refund $10,000? Why hasn't the poster responded to the many questions?

Sheila

[Travelcat2]

Sheila,

 

Obviously people that sail on a luxury cruise line can afford insurance - that isn't the point. Again, this thread isn't about whether you should buy insurance or not. Some people don't buy it because they can afford to lose the money if they can't make the cruise for whatever reason.

 

In terms of lying, anyone that lies about getting a cancer diagnosis ......., let's just say that karma will likely get them. OTOH, I did not think of investigation of claims. In the case of the hurricane, not much proof is needed. In case of illness, unless someone can find a doctor or hospital that will lie, something proving the claim of injury should suffice. Remember, we are only talking about cancellations when Regent can resell the suite at full price. If they can't, the person doesn't get the future cruise credit.

 

The more that I think about it, if a suite category is waitlisted and Regent can resell the suite at full price, why can't anyone cancel during the penalty phase. Obviously there would need to be some penalty (perhaps 5%) for doing this and, it could only be done if their suite is resold. This would take away the need for proof and no one has to lie.

 

I wouldn't worry about insurance companies - they lie on a daily (if not hourly) basis.

 

Jackie

[Bellaggio Cruisers]

Sheila,

 

Obviously people that sail on a luxury cruise line can afford insurance - that isn't the point. Again, this thread isn't about whether you should buy insurance or not. Some people don't buy it because they can afford to lose the money if they can't make the cruise for whatever reason.

 

In terms of lying, anyone that lies about getting a cancer diagnosis ......., let's just say that karma will likely get them. OTOH, I did not think of investigation of claims. In the case of the hurricane, not much proof is needed. In case of illness, unless someone can find a doctor or hospital that will lie, something proving the claim of injury should suffice. Remember, we are only talking about cancellations when Regent can resell the suite at full price. If they can't, the person doesn't get the future cruise credit.

 

The more that I think about it, if a suite category is waitlisted and Regent can resell the suite at full price, why can't anyone cancel during the penalty phase. Obviously there would need to be some penalty (perhaps 5%) for doing this and, it could only be done if their suite is resold. This would take away the need for proof and no one has to lie.

 

I wouldn't worry about insurance companies - they lie on a daily (if not hourly) basis.

 

Jackie

 

Hi Jackie

Love ya lots but--

What are the answers to my questions from this mysterious poster:

1- why haven't any of our questions been answered?

2- why did he/she get back $10,000 of the $20,000?

3- why wait over one year to post?

4- why only one post ever?

5- why the title that was so offensive?

Don't you have the same questions as I do?

 

With regard to doctor letters, the best example I can offer is -- you know I have mobility issues. Doctors give out so many letters to people for Permanent "handicap" parking stickers. It becomes so very difficult to find these parking spots. Unless Herb is driving and can drop me off, it's almost impossible for me to drive myself, even to the supermarket. Doctors are notorious for giving out letters.

 

I agree that insurance companies charge way too much money. What are our choices? Let's discuss that issue.

That's important.

[Travelcat2]

Hi Jackie

Love ya lots but--

What are the answers to my questions from this mysterious poster:

1- why haven't any of our questions been answered?

2- why did he/she get back $10,000 of the $20,000?

3- why wait over one year to post?

4- why only one post ever?

5- why the title that was so offensive?

Don't you have the same questions as I do?

 

With regard to doctor letters, the best example I can offer is -- you know I have mobility issues. Doctors give out so many letters to people for Permanent "handicap" parking stickers. It becomes so very difficult to find these parking spots. Unless Herb is driving and can drop me off, it's almost impossible for me to drive myself, even to the supermarket. Doctors are notorious for giving out letters.

 

I agree that insurance companies charge way too much money. What are our choices? Let's discuss that issue.

That's important.

 

Hi Sheila,

 

Yes - I do have the same questions that you do and I wish that he/she would return to the thread. My guess is that the other thread brought up this issue in their minds. Although the post is questionable (and the subject is horrible - unfortunately there are many horrible subjects - not sure what people are thinking) - I can't see why someone would post something like that if it were not true. Regarding the partial payment, one could only guess that they were not in the 100% penalty phase yet.

 

Regarding insurance companies - if anyone could figure it out, they could become a billionaire. I worked so hard to find insurance (healthcare) for our employees -- a company that wasn't ripping their customers off - actually paid for what they said they would pay for and wasn't going to cost two arms and two legs. I is worse now than it was then.

 

The leeches (sorry for name calling but they deserve it) learned that I did a search about travel insurance and now I'm being bombarded with spam (they go into my spam folder immediately) and even though I have ad blocker, my email provider found a way to insert an ad in the space where my inbox is. Lo and behold, the exact same company that I checked out is advertising in that space.

 

IMO, the only way the insurance companies will improve is if/when a few honest companies come into the marketplace that offer insurance at a reasonable cost and gives you exactly what you are paying for. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

 

Jackie

[Bellaggio Cruisers]

Hi Sheila,

 

Yes - I do have the same questions that you do and I wish that he/she would return to the thread. My guess is that the other thread brought up this issue in their minds. Although the post is questionable (and the subject is horrible - unfortunately there are many horrible subjects - not sure what people are thinking) - I can't see why someone would post something like that if it were not true. Regarding the partial payment, one could only guess that they were not in the 100% penalty phase yet.

 

Regarding insurance companies - if anyone could figure it out, they could become a billionaire. I worked so hard to find insurance (healthcare) for our employees -- a company that wasn't ripping their customers off - actually paid for what they said they would pay for and wasn't going to cost two arms and two legs. I is worse now than it was then.

 

The leeches (sorry for name calling but they deserve it) learned that I did a search about travel insurance and now I'm being bombarded with spam (they go into my spam folder immediately) and even though I have ad blocker, my email provider found a way to insert an ad in the space where my inbox is. Lo and behold, the exact same company that I checked out is advertising in that space.

 

IMO, the only way the insurance companies will improve is if/when a few honest companies come into the marketplace that offer insurance at a reasonable cost and gives you exactly what you are paying for. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

 

Jackie

 

Hey Jackie

This time we agree on everything. I just wonder if it was a bogus posting because, as a thread starter, we usually respond to all questions.

But, it has stimulated good thoughts about insurance companies and their ripoffs.

Hugs

Sheila

[Travelcat2]

Hey Jackie

This time we agree on everything. I just wonder if it was a bogus posting because, as a thread starter, we usually respond to all questions.

But, it has stimulated good thoughts about insurance companies and their ripoffs.

Hugs

Sheila

 

Sending hugs back:D

[flossie009]

In terms of many comments made by other posters, this thread has never been about insurance (other than me bashing insurance companies). I am not recommending against insurance.

I am very glad to read this clarification.

It is so important that Regent cruisers are adequately covered for their expensive cruises and, if not, realise that there is no other safety net.

 

I don't think you are getting much support for your proposal because, although put forward with the best of intentions, it would have the following negative effects:

• Regent cruise prices would have to increase to cover the additional costs and risks that the company would be taking on
  
• More cruisers would take the risk of having no, or inadequate, travel insurance
  
• Many of us would feel that we were subsidising those who were enabled to cancel without penalty
  

 

P.S. flossie, in your real life scenario, the one suite that would likely sell almost immediately is the "A" category (PH) as there is no other choice for a PH suite. Again, just my opinion based on a tiny bit of experience in terms of waitlisting.

I may be obtuse but I cannot understand why anyone would want to queue up to pay extra for a PHA on Mariner; PHCs & Bs are the same size, layout and are well positioned.

My argument regarding the PHs A-C is therefore the same as that for suites D-H. i.e. it would make more sense for Regent to sell the available PHA than re-sell (and reimburse) a cancelled B or C.

[mikenbob]

The answer seems fairly straightforward to me. The agreement between Regent and the passenger(s) is a contract of the terms acceptable to all parties. Nothing more, nothing less. If I wreck my brand new car while driving off the dealership lot while taking a call from my doctor who just gave me horrible news, would the dealer give me a new car? Of course not. In all likelihood, I would have purchased insurance that would provide a replacement new car. The dealer gets two sales, I get the car that I wanted (and hopefully a false diagnosis), and the insurance company does what they were paid to do. This is not about being nice, karma, or anything else...it is a business decision by all parties to the agreement.

[ellie1145]

To be diagnosed with cancer is an awful thing to happen, and I feel for the OP.

 

However, as one who always buys travel insurance, and who has over the years paid out thousands of pounds to do so, I would be pretty angry if, having done so (as advised by all cruise companies), those who do not choose to take that advice were fully reimbursed by a cruise line if they had to cancel. It would make a mockery of the contract.

 

Cruise lines are not charities. They lay out their terms and conditions fully before a booking is taken. If they started to tweak these terms and conditions on an ad hoc basis where would it end? At the moment it is fair. If you cancel, for any reason, after a certain period of time, you lose everything. Hence the need for insurance. If cruise lines started to give some people their money back, even for such a reason as cancer, it would no longer be fair. And where does it end? What are reasonable grounds for a refund of the cruise fare? The lead passenger's illness? The spouse or partner of the lead passenger? A relative or friend of the lead passenger?

 

It is a minefield. That's why the terms and conditions are explicit. No refund for any reason whatsoever.

 

That is when you must make your own decision about insurance. Yes, it's costly. Yes, you may not actually need it. But if you don't get it and you end up needing it you have nobody to blame but yourself.

 

It is a very sad situation to be diagnosed with cancer. I don't underestimate the impact of this, and I have sympathy for anyone in this situation. But unfortunately the OP obviously declined to insure against such an eventuality, presumably thinking it was a risk worth taking. This time it was the wrong decision. But it's not the cruise lines fault, and they are doing no more than they openly declared in their terms and conditions.

[Travelcat2]

I am very glad to read this clarification.

It is so important that Regent cruisers are adequately covered for their expensive cruises and, if not, realise that there is no other safety net.

 

I don't think you are getting much support for your proposal because, although put forward with the best of intentions, it would have the following negative effects:

• Regent cruise prices would have to increase to cover the additional costs and risks that the company would be taking on
  
• More cruisers would take the risk of having no, or inadequate, travel insurance
  
• Many of us would feel that we were subsidising those who were enabled to cancel without penalty
  

 

I may be obtuse but I cannot understand why anyone would want to queue up to pay extra for a PHA on Mariner; PHCs & Bs are the same size, layout and are well positioned.

My argument regarding the PHs A-C is therefore the same as that for suites D-H. i.e. it would make more sense for Regent to sell the available PHA than re-sell (and reimburse) a cancelled B or C.

 

Regarding the first bolded section.

 

1. Regent should charge the person(s) cancelling the cruise the amount it is costing them to process it (including airline cancellation, etc.). In some cases, the person cancelling would have to pay the entire cost of the flights (still less than the entire cruise fare). I would not want to see Regent out 1 penny for this.

 

2. Someone would be short-sighted to cancel insurance if this were implemented. Plus, they would need insurance (a lesser amount if they were risk takers - just an amount covered by most credit card companies in the U.S.) to recoop the monies not reimbursed through the future cruise credit.

 

3. Regent customers would not subsidize anything since Regent would not be losing money.

 

Second bolded section. Based on your example, I should have said PH "B" and "C" rather than "A". While the suites are the same time, we have not booked a cruise because we don't want to be in a certain PH category (specifically on the Voyager). We all have different reasons for wanting a specific category and my response to your example was not the best one.

 

mikenbob - wow - you really took my words and turned them into another story (not complaining - just not understanding). My comment about karma was specifically about someone lying that they have cancer - nothing whatsoever to do with insurance companies, contracts, cars, etc.

 

I fully understand Regent contracts and how they exist today (and have existed for years). My suggestion was to relook at their contracts with 2017 eyes and see if it still makes sense.

 

It is interesting to read the strong reactions (many off point) regarding a query into whether or not it makes sense for Regent to sell a suite twice - particularly when it would not cost them anything to provide a future credit credit.

 

Maybe the idea sucks - maybe it has some merits but either way, IMO, it was worth discussing. Perhaps I would like to shake up the status quo and not be that mouse that keeps happily running through the maze and never questioning anything. :halo: :evilsmile:

[mikenbob]

Regarding the first bolded section.

 

mikenbob - wow - you really took my words and turned them into another story (not complaining - just not understanding). My comment about karma was specifically about someone lying that they have cancer - nothing whatsoever to do with insurance companies, contracts, cars, etc.

 

My dear, my comment had absolutely nothing to do with your comment about karma...just reflecting the emotions expressed by many in this thread that I summed up using that word. Believe it or not, many of my comments have absolutely nothing to do with you! :*

[Travelcat2]

My dear, my comment had absolutely nothing to do with your comment about karma...just reflecting the emotions expressed by many in this thread that I summed up using that word. Believe it or not, many of my comments have absolutely nothing to do with you! :*

 

Since I was the only person to mention "karma", I made an incorrect assumption ...,. Sorry!:halo:

[RachelG]

The answer seems fairly straightforward to me. The agreement between Regent and the passenger(s) is a contract of the terms acceptable to all parties. Nothing more, nothing less. If I wreck my brand new car while driving off the dealership lot while taking a call from my doctor who just gave me horrible news, would the dealer give me a new car? Of course not. In all likelihood, I would have purchased insurance that would provide a replacement new car. The dealer gets two sales, I get the car that I wanted (and hopefully a false diagnosis), and the insurance company does what they were paid to do. This is not about being nice, karma, or anything else...it is a business decision by all parties to the agreement.

 

Well said. We were broken into at the ranch last night. Approximately $40,000 of equipment , firearms, etc stolen. It is covered by insurance, but still very upsetting. However, I would not go back to the gun dealership to give me a new rifle, even though the rifle had never been used to shoot anything

[Robb]

Someone may have pointed this out before( I did not read all the messages ) , but the OP has only one message. None before this thread and no responses. It may be legitimate, but....

 

We will never travel without insurance---missed a cruise 15 years ago because of a heart attack and by-pass surgery and lost the entire amount. Be prepared, be insured.

[iamheisenberg]

qrCehxKPJ0s

[Bellaggio Cruisers]

qrCehxKPJ0s

 

Fabulous!!!!!! This says it all-----

Thanks

Sheila

[garyb(uk)]

To be diagnosed with cancer is an awful thing to happen, and I feel for the OP.

 

However, as one who always buys travel insurance, and who has over the years paid out thousands of pounds to do so, I would be pretty angry if, having done so (as advised by all cruise companies), those who do not choose to take that advice were fully reimbursed by a cruise line if they had to cancel. It would make a mockery of the contract.

 

Cruise lines are not charities. They lay out their terms and conditions fully before a booking is taken. If they started to tweak these terms and conditions on an ad hoc basis where would it end? At the moment it is fair. If you cancel, for any reason, after a certain period of time, you lose everything. Hence the need for insurance. If cruise lines started to give some people their money back, even for such a reason as cancer, it would no longer be fair. And where does it end? What are reasonable grounds for a refund of the cruise fare? The lead passenger's illness? The spouse or partner of the lead passenger? A relative or friend of the lead passenger?

 

It is a minefield. That's why the terms and conditions are explicit. No refund for any reason whatsoever.

 

That is when you must make your own decision about insurance. Yes, it's costly. Yes, you may not actually need it. But if you don't get it and you end up needing it you have nobody to blame but yourself.

 

It is a very sad situation to be diagnosed with cancer. I don't underestimate the impact of this, and I have sympathy for anyone in this situation. But unfortunately the OP obviously declined to insure against such an eventuality, presumably thinking it was a risk worth taking. This time it was the wrong decision. But it's not the cruise lines fault, and they are doing no more than they openly declared in their terms and conditions.

 

I couldn't agree more

[Travelcat2]

For anyone that may think that I'm bull headed (who me?:evilsmile:), I have changed my mind on this subject. These threads began after some devastating hurricanes and continued through the worst shooting incident in the U.S. in modern history. I was in shock (still am) and am mourning the loss of lives and property that have occurred during the past few weeks. The subject of this thread was the straw that broke the camels back (even though I feel that the subject is inflammatory and wrong on many levels). I doubt if there are many (or any) posters that have not had someone close to them (or themselves) devastated by a cancer diagnosis.

 

Am I sorry that I started the thread (since moved to the general insurance board) or responded so strongly on this thread? No - not really. It was as important for me to post what I did as it is to make this post. I am not angry at Regent or other luxury cruise lines that have the same policy - even though I don't agree with them. OTOH, I am likely guilty of having an overabundance of compassion and let things that happen to other people affect me a bit too much.