Jump to content

Passengers annoyed with Regent : Tokyo to Vancouver 2021


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

I truly doubt that folks will have been "loyal" to Regent for price reasons.  And they have been sticking with Regent because it's the cruiseline that gives them the product that fits their wishes.

 

So for all the bluster that hints (or more) at leaving for greener pastures, two questions - why haven't you left before and will you really like what you find elsewhere?  How happy will you be with the smaller cabin sizes and higher passenger count on Crystal?  How about the dress codes and much smaller ships on Silversea?  You get my drift.

What you are missing is that the cruise line writes the terms and conditions as well as the ticket contract in a favorable way to them.  This is true about all terms and conditions and contracts in all business relationships and not unique to cruise lines.  In this case the ticket contract clearly says a pro-rated refund if the cruise is shortened.  Two other possibilities but, neither applicable.

 

The cruise line expects the customer to comply with the terms of the contract.  That compliance needs to be reciprocal   especially since the writer was able to craft the contract in any way they chose.  All that people are asking is that the contract be abided to and refunds fairly applied. Nothing more, nothing less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

I truly doubt that folks will have been "loyal" to Regent for price reasons.  And they have been sticking with Regent because it's the cruiseline that gives them the product that fits their wishes.

 

So for all the bluster that hints (or more) at leaving for greener pastures, two questions - why haven't you left before and will you really like what you find elsewhere?  How happy will you be with the smaller cabin sizes and higher passenger count on Crystal?  How about the dress codes and much smaller ships on Silversea?  You get my drift.

Perhaps it is innate in human nature to be reticent to embrace change, and step outside of one's comfort zone.

 

Otherwise how will one determine if there are other suppliers of a product that fits, or exceeds, one's wishes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

Glad that you brought up this point.  Those of us that have been sailing Radisson/Regent for a long time have had issues that could have severed our relationship with Regent.  Instead of severing the relationship, we tried another luxury line - just for comparison purposes and learned that the grass is not greener on the other side.  We know of others that actually left Regent - only to return.  My point is that people that feel Regent is not being fair in this case (and perhaps they are not) and that you are losing money,  is it worth it to you to spend thousands of dollars on a different cruise line that you may not like?  

I realize what you say, but this is something Regent needs to correct period.  Like I said Jackie, what if you were staying at a hotel for 19 nights and on the 18th they told you you'd need to leave the hotel today-however you must pay for the 19th night anyway. What you you say........????It's really not different - you lost a night period. Regent needs to do the right thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

I was posting when you were.  Thank you for looking at the Ticket Contract.  Since they do not charge passengers for a cruise that is lengthened, I cannot see why passengers should expect money back if it is shortened by one day (that needs to be in the contract as well as it does not seem right if passengers have it both ways).  

 

As I posted above, it would be surprising if this did not happen more.  As a Captain once said when he changed our itinerary so that we would not be in Santorini with 8 other ships...... the ports do not get bigger but more and more ships/people keep arriving.  In my opinion, there will be a breaking point that will affect all cruise ships.  I would be surprised with all of the articles and discussion in the cruise industry about overtourism, if some Regent itineraries for 2021 are not changed due to restrictions that cities put on their ports.  Some ports really cannot handle all of the tourists.  

 

During the summer in Vancouver, for instance, they run out of places to dock, likely do not have the ability to have people tender, the cruise terminal can be so packed that it takes three hours to get through and the traffic for miles around the cruise terminal is crazy.  

When you lose a port you don't lose a day--you're at sea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Is this a private fight or can anyone join in ?"  Let us say for the sake of argument, that we have a limited product that we market to the public for a price and we advertise it out on the market and to our amazement it begins selling like ' hot cakes'. We begin to raise the price on the remaining inventory and it sells out with still more orders pouring in. What do we do to increase our profit in this fortunate scenario? We want to sell to those willing to pay more, so let us try to shake out some of those that purchased early at lower prices. Voila. No loyalty. Pure profit motive.

     This is only hypothetical and what was the reason given for removing a day? There may be a more innocent reason. Besides this may already be moot and future cruise vouchers are being printed as we type.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rattanchair said:

"Is this a private fight or can anyone join in ?"  Let us say for the sake of argument, that we have a limited product that we market to the public for a price and we advertise it out on the market and to our amazement it begins selling like ' hot cakes'. We begin to raise the price on the remaining inventory and it sells out with still more orders pouring in. What do we do to increase our profit in this fortunate scenario? We want to sell to those willing to pay more, so let us try to shake out some of those that purchased early at lower prices. Voila. No loyalty. Pure profit motive.

     This is only hypothetical and what was the reason given for removing a day? There may be a more innocent reason. Besides this may already be moot and future cruise vouchers are being printed as we type.

Port room...too many ships on original debarkation day.  To verify I looked up cruise port schedule and it supports this as valid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, ronrick1943 said:

I realize what you say, but this is something Regent needs to correct period.  Like I said Jackie, what if you were staying at a hotel for 19 nights and on the 18th they told you you'd need to leave the hotel today-however you must pay for the 19th night anyway. What you you say........????It's really not different - you lost a night period. Regent needs to do the right thing.

 

I actually see both sides of this issue.  If we were staying at a hotel and were asked to leave, they would refund our money.  However, if we stayed an extra night, we would expect to pay for it.  

 

Perhaps my views are skewed as I have known some of the people at Regent headquarters for a few years and never once felt that they were trying to take advantage of their customers (loyal or not).  To the contrary, they seem to be always looking for ways to make the Regent experience better.  

 

While none of us knows exactly why Regent made the decisions that they made about this cruise, I am confident that it was not to upset their passengers.  I assume that Regent is not happy about the situation either and will likely "sail around" all night to nowhere (after passengers disembark - awaiting for a docking spot for arriving passengers the next day.)  They likely will be paying additional docking charges.

 

At this point, I do not know what the "right thing" is.  Instead of OBC's, perhaps they could give a future cruise credit.  This cruise is so far out that it is good that they changed the itinerary now rather than a year from now so that people can cancel, choose another cruise or accept what Regent is offering.   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re PORT ROOM

 

Is there a typical protocol of which ships change?

When/how the sailings are planned... this was planned way in advance. So what changed? 

 

I ask this because in spring we were to be in the Azores and then Celebrity moved us to Madeira. It was about port crowding and honestly after hearing how many ships were in the Azores--we were grateful to the the only ship in Madeira that day. 

 

Any insight as to how/when/who moves which ship to another port or day?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fogfog said:

Re PORT ROOM

 

Is there a typical protocol of which ships change?

When/how the sailings are planned... this was planned way in advance. So what changed? 

 

I ask this because in spring we were to be in the Azores and then Celebrity moved us to Madeira. It was about port crowding and honestly after hearing how many ships were in the Azores--we were grateful to the the only ship in Madeira that day. 

 

Any insight as to how/when/who moves which ship to another port or day?

 

 

 

I believe that on Regent, the Captain is in contact with Miami (headquarters) and together they decide about port changes (generally due to weather issues).

 

Your post is the second time in two days about a ship that had to change ports to to port crowding (aka overtourism).  This is likely going to continue to happen as ports put limits on cruise ships.  

 

As mentioned by another poster earlier, Regent puts their schedules out about 2 years in advance.  As we all know, many things can change in two years.  Regent was likely finalizing port stops for 2021 and learned from the port authority that there was no room for the ship on the day it was expected to dock.  It is always that, when changes are necessary, they are made so far in advance.  Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

I actually see both sides of this issue.  If we were staying at a hotel and were asked to leave, they would refund our money.  However, if we stayed an extra night, we would expect to pay for it.  

 

Perhaps my views are skewed as I have known some of the people at Regent headquarters for a few years and never once felt that they were trying to take advantage of their customers (loyal or not).  To the contrary, they seem to be always looking for ways to make the Regent experience better.  

 

While none of us knows exactly why Regent made the decisions that they made about this cruise, I am confident that it was not to upset their passengers.  I assume that Regent is not happy about the situation either and will likely "sail around" all night to nowhere (after passengers disembark - awaiting for a docking spot for arriving passengers the next day.)  They likely will be paying additional docking charges.

 

At this point, I do not know what the "right thing" is.  Instead of OBC's, perhaps they could give a future cruise credit.  This cruise is so far out that it is good that they changed the itinerary now rather than a year from now so that people can cancel, choose another cruise or accept what Regent is offering.   

 

 

They are not just sailing around for a day waiting for passengers the next day.  The debarkation AND embarkation of next cruise were moved up a day. No extra dock charges. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the King Solomon solution to this problem is pretty obvious.
 

Where "A" = passengers booked Tokyo to Vancouver,  "B" = passengers booked Vancouver round-trip, and  "C" = Regent Seven Seas Cruise Line ... on Saturday, May 8, in Vancouver:

 

  • "A" maintains sole possession of their suites until 12 noon.
  • "B" boards the ship at 12 noon and shares a suite with "A." (It will be just like a hallway Block Party, but inside the suite, and "C" officers work the suites pouring out champagne for everyone!)
  • "A" vacates their suite at 4 pm, "B" takes sole possession, and both bid sad farewells to their new BFFs.
  • "C" gives both  "A" and "BOBC for their inconvenience ... and protect everyone's fare.
Win, Win, Win!
Edited by drib
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

I actually see both sides of this issue.  If we were staying at a hotel and were asked to leave, they would refund our money.  However, if we stayed an extra night, we would expect to pay for it.  

 

Perhaps my views are skewed as I have known some of the people at Regent headquarters for a few years and never once felt that they were trying to take advantage of their customers (loyal or not).  To the contrary, they seem to be always looking for ways to make the Regent experience better.  

 

While none of us knows exactly why Regent made the decisions that they made about this cruise, I am confident that it was not to upset their passengers.  I assume that Regent is not happy about the situation either and will likely "sail around" all night to nowhere (after passengers disembark - awaiting for a docking spot for arriving passengers the next day.)  They likely will be paying additional docking charges.

 

At this point, I do not know what the "right thing" is.  Instead of OBC's, perhaps they could give a future cruise credit.  This cruise is so far out that it is good that they changed the itinerary now rather than a year from now so that people can cancel, choose another cruise or accept what Regent is offering.   

 

 

I really disagree with you Jackie.1/You really only have one side here, people are being moved out of a suite they purchased in good faith.  Also at Regents request they tell you that you must board the ship a day early, you are accommodating Regent and shouldn't have to pay for the additional night.

I think you're missing the point, Regent made a business decision not to go to Vancouver (even if it was forced by the port), most 

companies would do the right thing to please customers refunding what they have paid for the one night.  Really great companies would also get them to Vancouver and pay a one night hotel and give an OBC for good well.  It's just common sense for good PR and customer relations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ronrick1943 said:

I really disagree with you Jackie.1/You really only have one side here, people are being moved out of a suite they purchased in good faith.  Also at Regents request they tell you that you must board the ship a day early, you are accommodating Regent and shouldn't have to pay for the additional night.

I think you're missing the point, Regent made a business decision not to go to Vancouver (even if it was forced by the port), most 

companies would do the right thing to please customers refunding what they have paid for the one night.  Really great companies would also get them to Vancouver and pay a one night hotel and give an OBC for good well.  It's just common sense for good PR and customer relations.

Also Rick what several people are missing is that it is a fact  Regent made a decision when the Ticket Contract was written to three options when a cruise is cut short and one option if it is made longer.   For a longer cruise no additional costs to the customer.  For the shorter crusei two of the three options are not applicable in this instance so the only option in this case is a proportionate refund for the missing days.  The current situation may not have been considered when the Contract was written but, as they say it is what it is until the Contract is revised.

 

All of the what if's and other option are not applicable as the contract is quite clear in what happened and what the contractual remedies are.  Your hotel examples are good however not applicable as with the options clearly in the Ticket Contract they legally are the only options available and what ifs are not applicable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rallydave said:

Also Rick what several people are missing is that it is a fact  Regent made a decision when the Ticket Contract was written to three options when a cruise is cut short and one option if it is made longer.   For a longer cruise no additional costs to the customer.  For the shorter crusei two of the three options are not applicable in this instance so the only option in this case is a proportionate refund for the missing days.  The current situation may not have been considered when the Contract was written but, as they say it is what it is until the Contract is revised.

 

All of the what if's and other option are not applicable as the contract is quite clear in what happened and what the contractual remedies are.  Your hotel examples are good however not applicable as with the options clearly in the Ticket Contract they legally are the only options available and what ifs are not applicable.

Agree with you 100% about the contract.  I'm talking about Good Customer Relations and what Corporations do without asking and do what is needed.  So to say you don't give away the ship, but Corporations do what's right in the first place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2019 at 1:06 PM, rallydave said:

Hopefully Regent will follow their own contract.

 

f. If the Cruise is shortened or terminated, (for reasons other than mechanical failures of the Ship), We will, at Our option, either make a proportionate refund of the Cruise Fare or We will transfer You to another Ship or the port of final destination by other means. If the scheduled length of the Cruise is increased, You will have no responsibility for the cost of the additional Cruise Fare and We will have no responsibility to pay or compensate You in any manner, including any direct or consequential damages. In either of the above circumstances, Our responsibility ends once We return You to the point of origination as booked and ticketed by Us.

 

I am a Regent newbie with my first voyage booked on Mariner for a year from now.  And I am really looking forward to experiencing Regent.  Needless to say, I find this situation very disturbing, and I agree with the majority here that Regent should give the passengers losing a day their per diem back as a fare reduction, or at a minimum as a future cruise credit.  The on board credit just does not cut it.  IMHO

 

I really hate to bring this up, but as I read the quoted paragraph from the contract, to me (I am not a lawyer) it says that the two options said to be irrelevant are that Regent will transfer you to another ship OR that Regent will transfer you to the port of final destination by other means.  So the question is would transferring you to the port a day early count as "other means."  To me it is ambiguous, and Regent could argue that they are meeting the terms of the contract.  What if Regent added a post-cruise hotel night in Vancouver?  Did they offer this in addition to the OBC?

 

Regardless of what the contract says or how it is interpreted, offering a refund of the per diem as an option is clearly the fair thing to do, as evidenced by the many passionate comments on this thread.  It takes a lot of "Wows" to make up for one "Oops."

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SusieQft said:

To me it is ambiguous, and Regent could argue that they are meeting the terms of the contract. 

Fair question SusieQft.  Worked many years writing negotiating, etc. many multi million dollar contracts and there is a tenet of contracts that applies to all Contracts and that is any ambiguity in a Contract is construed against the writer of the Contract which I believe would overcome your comment.

 

Good thoughts though that haven't been mentioned.

Edited by rallydave
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ronrick1943 said:

Agree with you 100% about the contract.  I'm talking about Good Customer Relations and what Corporations do without asking and do what is needed.  So to say you don't give away the ship, but Corporations do what's right in the first place. 

Through Hapag-Lloyd Cruises I booked a 2 night pre-cruise stay in the Fairmont Four Seasons in Hamburg.

 

Two days before flying out to Germany H-L advised my TA that it had been notified by the hotel that it was overbooked, and my reservation was cancelled.

It further advised that it had booked me into the Hotel Atlantic for which it would pay, and that it would refund me the cost of the original hotel.

 

That certainly created good will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: Azamara - We are back with New Greece Voyages
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Barbara Muckermann, CMO Silversea Cruises
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...