Israel Next week Voyager

[kathy49]

8 minutes ago, CrushIt said:

True enough. We walked away from this cruise, knowing that we probably would get nothing for it. So be it. It is in the rear view mirror. I’m just the type of person who likes to explore people’s motivations for doing things. You’re right - time will tell. Our TA books a lot of cruises. I’ve known her for  twenty years. I can see her steering people away from RSS now. Plenty of competition.

I would have thought that an agent that is a preferred agency booking a high volume of Regent would have some good bargaining power to at least get a FCC or portion thereof...I would be making more demands for my agent to argue the case...Cruise lines do value their high producing agencies and will do more for them than independent bookings.. the cost of these cruises is very very high and I would really have a tough time walking away without trying.

Edited October 13, 2023 by kathy49

[GMIAC]

2 minutes ago, mrlevin said:

I have seen a lot of words here but have people reported to their consumer affairs department of local TV stations?  I have yet to see a Special Report on ABC regarding this lack of customer service.

"Tragedy is when I stub my toe. Comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die."

- Mel Brooks

[bebop bonnie]

For so many obvious reasons, this has been one of the most important, dynamic threads I’ve seen in many years!  Often in the past, on a significant or stressful thread, someone from Regent has chimed in.  And sometimes that has ‘cooled the waters’ so to speak!!  Just wonder if anyone at RSSC is monitoring this thread now, or have I missed something??

[Techno123]

24 minutes ago, CrushIt said:

Greek Islands? Been there - Done that and was not really impressed. 

So you have visited all 6000? Or just the 227 that are inhabited? or just the ports you visited on cruises? Saying been there, done that, not impressed is an insult to a lovely part of the world. The Greek Islands are many, beautiful and diverse but can only really be appreciated properly by stopping at least a few days (preferably far away from cruise passengers - no insult to my fellow cruisers intended but we do tend to choke up the small ports 😜)

 

My view is that cruising is like a smorgasbord - it gives you a taste of an area - if you enjoy the taste you can go back for more and really immerse yourself. If a place is on your bucket list, a cruise is probably not the best way to visit it for the only time as it tends to be rather contrived.

[HotelSnob1]

Hopefully, they are watching this thread … or they are busy booking port excursions for the changes to our itinerary … hope they are doing the latter for now! 😂 

[HotelSnob1]

2 minutes ago, Techno123 said:

So you have visited all 6000? Or just the 227 that are inhabited? or just the ports you visited on cruises? Saying been there, done that, not impressed is an insult to a lovely part of the world. The Greek Islands are many, beautiful and diverse but can only really be appreciated properly by stopping at least a few days (preferably far away from cruise passengers - no insult to my fellow cruisers intended but we do tend to choke up the small ports 😜)

 

My view is that cruising is like a smorgasbord - it gives you a taste of an area - if you enjoy the taste you can go back for more and really immerse yourself. If a place is on your bucket list, a cruise is probably not the best way to visit it for the only time as it tends to be rather contrived.

 

[HotelSnob1]

Yup! We go to Alaska every year to fish … and catch different fish in different parts of the state … and it all started with a delightful Regent cruise in the 90’s! Traipsed thru Italy & Greece with a backpack in the late 70’s … hostels … campsites, etc. The world is BIG and some of its beauty is so easily reachable by ship!

[roninman]

8 minutes ago, bebop bonnie said:

For so many obvious reasons, this has been one of the most important, dynamic threads I’ve seen in many years!  Often in the past, on a significant or stressful thread, someone from Regent has chimed in.  And sometimes that has ‘cooled the waters’ so to speak!!  Just wonder if anyone at RSSC is monitoring this thread now, or have I missed something??

Man, there are so many B-school case studies doing post mortems on external inflection points... and how a timely and really sincere and appropriate reaction can actually lift a company... and alternatively on how failing to recognize it becomes one more step in succumbing to competition...  

 

[NYC-London]

44 minutes ago, forgap said:

Admirable and I wish more businesses added the “long game” to their business model.  When you value relationships, have pride in your product, make it right when things go awry, you gain a customer (and their friends) for life.  

I try to teach this to my clients everyday - I can attest that my clients who went above and beyond during Covid, even though they were not required and in the short term cost them financially, in the long term they have benefited greatly, many now expanding and going through the difficult task of hiring new employees. The amount of positive free advertising, via word of mouth and social media reviews cannot be underestimated.

 

The same holds true for the opposite - I have two clients who are no longer in business because during Covid they refused to deviate from signed contracts or issue partial refunds, even though the services provided were greatly diminished. When the contracts came up for renewal, too many customers sought out other providers and the businesses were forced to close.

 

There is a reason that trying to calculate the financial value of goodwill can be challenging but can make all the difference between a business being successful or failing.

 

One problem that businesses seem to forget - they cannot control social media. I know that Regent wants everyone to use their corporate controlled Facebook so they can dictate the narrative. Now there are businesses that go to great lengths to either scrub negative coverage or make sure it does not appear on the first page of a google search but the ability for the consumer to become educated about a product or service is much easier today than it was twenty years ago. 

[pingpong1]

26 minutes ago, giustot said:

Regent sold a Holy Land cruise to Israel and Egypt that included Jerusalem and the Pyramids. It can’t deliver that product. No substitutions would be comparable. 

 

Giustot - I think that's exactly the point that many of the posters are making here (and which some posters are alternatively ignoring or dismissing).  What Regent may "legally be allowed to do" isn't necessarily what they "should" do. The new/revised cruise itinerary that's being substituted to replace the original one is making the "revised product different enough" that many/most of their customers would have liked some other alternatives (rather than just having to "suck it up" or "walk away" and leave thousands of their own personal dollars in the "rubbish bin" (that's for my UK friends).  Actually, those hard-earned dollars haven't disappeared at all...Regent is simply keeping those dollars without having to provide the product to those customers who decided not to take the cruise (with a substantially modified/changed itinerary and the associated last minute "travel hassles")!  It's almost certain that the second category of customers (the ones who declined to take the cruise) will now never book another Regent cruise again.

 

What if I were to order a pair of Bass Weejun Loafers from Amazon and instead, Amazon sent me a pair of converse sneakers, telling me that they were "out of the loafers but since you ordered shoes, we've sent you replacement shoes and your order is now complete?"  It seems that this is Regent's corporate "position" (and some posters seem to actually agree with the "morality" of that position) i.e., "the customers booked a cruise and Regent is giving them a cruise."

 

In my (perhaps trite) Amazon example, the company is substituting a product that many would think is "substantially different" from what was ordered.  Some here seem to be saying that "it wasn't (Amazon's/Regent's) fault" that they didn't have any loafers to send me...BUT many of us also think that it wasn't my or the (Regent's customers') fault, either!

 

I believe that if Regent's "first corporate instinct" had been to immediately offer FCC's (not cash) towards a future cruise... to the customers who may have wanted that option... most everyone would have been universally supportive of that decision, including most of us on this board.  Many/most of the booked customers probably would have been content to stay on the revised cruise too, while others (certainly not the majority) may have decided to use the offered FCC's towards booking another future cruise.  Most everyone would have been fairly happy, would have understood the predicament of the situation for both Regent and the customers, and would have applauded Regent's responsive and generous offer (i.e., doing something for their customers that they didn't legally have to do).  Regent wouldn't have even been "out" that much money (as some have pointed out, Regent has their own insurance to protect them from these kinds of business losses), and Regent would have retained the majority of good will among their customers (even those of us who were not directly affected), as well as the general public at large.   But now, I think their position on this matter has made customer perception more "strained"...even among those passengers who are accepting (maybe grudgingly) this substantially changed itinerary.  Perhaps Regent's main corporate concern was that they could be setting a "precedent" for future/similar situations. 

 

 

    

[pingpong1]

1 hour ago, bebop bonnie said:

For so many obvious reasons, this has been one of the most important, dynamic threads I’ve seen in many years!  Often in the past, on a significant or stressful thread, someone from Regent has chimed in.  And sometimes that has ‘cooled the waters’ so to speak!!  Just wonder if anyone at RSSC is monitoring this thread now, or have I missed something??

Oh, they're definitely monitoring!

[labonnevie]

3 hours ago, cwn said:

 And it is also a chance for disappointment to take a cruise because one or more ports is a must see port and the only reason that you take the cruise. You set yourself up for disappointment from the start because the port stop is not a guarantee.

I think I will try to change my expectations for cruising in the future. I will cruise expecting to sit by the pool (weather permitting), play trivia daily, have a before dinner drink and (usually) good to excellent food. I will also expect to see the ocean most days. (I can do most of this in Laguna Beach.)
If by some chance we happen to get into a few ports, regardless of where they are, my expectations will have been exceeded. I can only hope that the cruise fares I pay are somewhat less than those previously. 

[Texasrocks]

1 hour ago, HotelSnob1 said:

Hopefully, they are watching this thread … or they are busy booking port excursions for the changes to our itinerary … hope they are doing the latter for now! 😂 

Different department just like the regent air. guest service just tries to mop up the mess that air and shoreex makes.  and right now none of them are doing a good job.  Day 1 300 people lined up at the shoreex desk...just wait

Edited October 13, 2023 by Texasrocks

[HotelSnob1]

Hopefully we will have good news to report on the availability of shore excursions for the crowd … I am already taking my “sea” day in port when we are in Athens & Rhodes. 😀😀😀😀

[dabear]

This same thing happened to us a few years back when we signed up for a cruise on Celebrity that included 3 nights in Israel. We booked overnight excursions, tours etc. Right before our departure , an uprising occurred in Israel . We debated about cancelling but no word even from X. We proceeded & while on the ship Israel was cancelled & the Greek Islands were substituted. We had been there before & were not happy. A lot of negative posts were on CC. As previously said, the cruise line has the right to change itinerary. The bottom line, Celebrity is still in business. 

 

We also had a cruise once that departed from Istanbul. Fortunately we flew in 3 days earlier to tour . Low & behold, Turkey had an unrest & the ship left 2 days earlier, causing many passengers to scramble to embark at a different port. I don't recall any benefits etc provided for these changes.Really, it's just unfortunate situations that experienced cruisers should recognize can happen. If no bonus or compensation was given to unhappy pax, that's just the big cruise business today. 

We may not like it, but especially after covid, etc, that's the cruise business today

Edited October 13, 2023 by dabear
addition

[HotelSnob1]

And, at this juncture in the thread, there are some clients on this cruise that were in Haifa pre-cruise, got out to Jordan and are making their way to Istanbul.  

[kathy49]

There was a trend in the past year or two to home port ships in Haifa. Things were quiet and I am sure it was a good business decision at the time....however that has now backfired. I know that MSC and RCCL were two that used Haifa as home port. Now that will change. This situation/war is not a short term skirmish. 

[Texasrocks]

8 minutes ago, pingpong1 said:

Giustot - I think that's exactly the point that many of the posters are making here (and which some posters are alternatively ignoring or dismissing).  What Regent may "legally be allowed to do" isn't necessarily what they "should" do. The new/revised cruise itinerary that's being substituted to replace the original one is making the "revised product different enough" that many/most of their customers would have liked some other alternatives (rather than just having to "suck it up" or "walk away" and leave thousands of their own personal dollars in the "rubbish bin" (that's for my UK friends).  Actually, those hard-earned dollars haven't disappeared at all...Regent is simply keeping those dollars without having to provide the product to those customers who decided not to take the cruise (with a substantially modified/changed itinerary and the associated last minute "travel hassles")!  It's almost certain that the second category of customers (the ones who declined to take the cruise) will now never book another Regent cruise again.

 

What if I were to order a pair of Bass Weejun Loafers from Amazon and instead, Amazon sent me a pair of converse sneakers, telling me that they were "out of the loafers but since you ordered shoes, we've sent you replacement shoes and your order is now complete?"  It seems that this is Regent's corporate "position" (and some posters seem to actually agree with the "morality" of that position) i.e., "the customers booked a cruise and Regent is giving them a cruise."

 

In my (perhaps trite) Amazon example, the company is substituting a product that many would think is "substantially different" from what was ordered.  Some here seem to be saying that "it wasn't (Amazon's/Regent's) fault" that they didn't have any loafers to send me...BUT many of us also think that it wasn't my or the (Regent's customers') fault, either!

 

I believe that if Regent's "first corporate instinct" had been to immediately offer FCC's (not cash) towards a future cruise... to the customers who may have wanted that option... most everyone would have been universally supportive of that decision, including most of us on this board.  Many/most of the booked customers probably would have been content to stay on the revised cruise too, while others (certainly not the majority) may have decided to use the offered FCC's towards booking another future cruise.  Most everyone would have been fairly happy, would have understood the predicament of the situation for both Regent and the customers, and would have applauded Regent's responsive and generous offer (i.e., doing something for their customers that they didn't legally have to do).  Regent wouldn't have even been "out" that much money (as some have pointed out, Regent has their own insurance to protect them from these kinds of business losses), and Regent would have retained the majority of good will among their customers (even those of us who were not directly affected), as well as the general public at large.   But now, I think their position on this matter has made customer perception more "strained"...even among those passengers who are accepting (maybe grudgingly) this substantially changed itinerary.  Perhaps Regent's main corporate concern was that they could be setting a "precedent" for future/similar situations. 

 

 

    

As a reminder this cruise was to be a 14 day from Israel to Venice and Regent made some BS story about Voyager needed dry dock in Rome.  As it turns out voyager is sailing from Rome the next day ????   I don't think that any of the original ports are on this one maybe one.

[labonnevie]

In 2018, we were on Navigator, Perth to Singapore (part of the WC). After skipping a port in Australia, we ran aground leaving Bali. Had to eventually return to port, stuck there for 36 hours, couldn’t get off the ship. As a result we missed Borobudur and were late to another port, canceling most excursions there.
We were not happy. 
What did Regent do? They gave everyone a fcc for 25% of the fare we had paid. We were happy customers. 

[roninman]

What a treat if the cruise line had made gestures to indicate we were all in this together, how as a team can we deal with it, how can we demonstrate we care?  

 

How much better than repeated lectures here on how the carrier had every right to do everything they did (or did not do), approaching the point where passengers are being blamed for their own plight?

 

At the end of the day, customers are bearing the brunt.   The cruise line retains its dollars, albeit possibly incurring extra overtime by the air team.

 

Consumers are weird, in that they tend to apprehend this as one sided.

 

 

 

[melbox4]

7 minutes ago, roninman said:

What a treat if the cruise line had made gestures to indicate we were all in this together, how as a team can we deal with it, how can we demonstrate we care?  

 

How much better than repeated lectures here on how the carrier had every right to do everything they did (or did not do), approaching the point where passengers are being blamed for their own plight?

 

At the end of the day, customers are bearing the brunt.   The cruise line retains its dollars, albeit possibly incurring extra overtime by the air team.

 

Consumers are weird, in that they tend to apprehend this as one sided.

 

 

 

[Texasrocks]

Doesn't look like much to do in Bozcaada

 

May as well be a sea day.  Surprised they aren't trying to go Izmir for Ephesus

[Kwaj girl]

27 minutes ago, labonnevie said:

In 2018, we were on Navigator, Perth to Singapore (part of the WC). After skipping a port in Australia, we ran aground leaving Bali. Had to eventually return to port, stuck there for 36 hours, couldn’t get off the ship. As a result we missed Borobudur and were late to another port, canceling most excursions there.
We were not happy. 
What did Regent do? They gave everyone a fcc for 25% of the fare we had paid. We were happy customers. 

 

We were on the full World Cruise 2018 and hadn't problem getting off the ship during those extra hours.  Gave me the chance to get another one of those famous $10 foot massages in the terminal. 😉

[CrushIt]

Maybe we are all just victims of COVID that produced cruise line executives who have lost the ability to do the right thing. That’s all I’ve asked all along this ordeal. No refund? No problem. But then, do a re-booking or a credit. Simple. These RSS people are no different than the other cruise execs. They know right from wrong. They just made a choice that replaced “Dear Valued Customer and Travel Partner”  with “Dear Balance Sheet Entry Line”. 

[labonnevie]

Just now, Kwaj girl said:

 

We were on the full World Cruise 2018 and hadn't problem getting off the ship during those extra hours.  Gave me the chance to get another one of those famous $10 foot massages in the terminal. 😉

We were told we couldn’t get off because the Lloyd’s of London divers could clear the ship at any time and they didn’t want to wait for any passengers to return before getting under way. Maybe because you were WC and we weren’t or maybe because you just went to the terminal or maybe we didn’t talk to the right people???