Old Liquor Policy

[VIRGINIA ARTIE]

With the economy tanking and cruise prices escalating, does anyone think it would be a good idea for Regent to curtail price increases, and return to the old liquor policy?

A 7 day cruise, 2 for 1 specials, and other incentives that they previously used would be offset by reinstating the old policy without sacrificing service or amenities.

What is your opinion?

[BILLP1]

NO, NO, NO,

 

It is what makes Regent special. If it changes so will we...

 

I have not talked to anyone on our Regent cruises who thinks that the prices are too high.

 

You might want to try Crystal or Oceania..

[Jim B]

I agree. It took us years to get RSSC to change their policy.

A Regent experience elevated to another level when they became all incluisive.

I appriciate the increase in prices is alarming. I'm not sure this has that much to do with it. I think the fuel costs are #1 problem right now.

[Travelcat2]

Definitely not. In order to effectively compete with Silversea and Seabourn, it needs to be all-inclusive.

[wripro]

Trust me when I tell you that the all inclusive policy has VERY LITTLE to do with the price increases. It's kind of like advocating a summer gas tax holiday.....sounds good but means nothing.

[HappyCruiser44]

Actually, I disagree. If you talk to Regent Execs they will tell you that the all-inclusive change DID lead to cost increases.

 

The logic of pricing is different - they raised prices even higher than increases in their actual costs because they CAN. The ships are full and there is demand for the product.

[colleenmf]

No, no, no!!! I love the new Regent policy and I don't drink that much. Rarely have much more than wine with dinner.

 

The prices are rising but just just means I have to budget better, save more, ration my trips, and maybe travel less often. But I would rather travel "Regent style" than travel more.

[canadagal]

I can't see Regent ever going back to the old liquor policy. Yes, prices have risen and why not. If they can fill their ships at higher prices then it's good for their bottom line. So far they don't seem to be having any problem selling cruises at the higher prices. As was stated on another thread, it's all supply and demand and they have raised prices because they can! Gone are the days when Regent ships were sailing half full and also gone are the days of those great sales. I think part of this, is that more people are cruising now then before and people are not afraid to travel like in previous years. I also agree that the pricing did increase when all-inclusive was introduced and that increase was acknowledged by Regent as well. I just think current pricing is now more reflective of supply and demand.

I also think that Regent needs to stay all-inclusive in order to be on par with the other luxury lines.

Pat

[VIRGINIA ARTIE]

We have only cruised Regent for years ,Bill, and still keep our same cruise schedule. I only wanted to get other's thoughts on the matter.

[petlover]

As much as we hate the higher prices, I can't imagine Regent ever going back to the old liquor policy so my vote is a big NO ! Keep it all inclusive.

[parislady40]

I have to agree. Keep the policy as it is. I did a cruise in January, and had to sign for everything. It really began to irritate me, especially when you are in a deep conversation, or taking in a special moment etc. To be honest, that was one of the biggest draws to Regent for us. We were Windstar fans and even with them, the prices are being raised with nothing added. It's one of the reasons that they have lost us to Regent! My vote is No too! Keep it inclusive.

[wripro]

My point is being validated by other posters. Regent is raising prices because it can, not because they have gone all inclusive. Remember that the previous liquor policy provided wine with lunch and dinner, cocktails at the table in the restaurant and a free in room bar setup which now, except for penthouse suites, must be requested and often isn't (saving Regent money there.) So the only place they have added free alcohol is the bars. And this does NOT make enough of a difference in their costs to warrant the price increases. Now that Regent passengers have gotten used to all inclusive, losing it might cause a huge defection to Silversea or Seabourn (which will soon have three new ships with balconies.)

[gemcruiser]

I don't drink alcohol...pretty much water and soft drinks. However, I am thinking I want to stay with an all inclusive line when planning future trips. It just makes life easier onboard. After cruising with Regent, I don't think I could ever go back to the mainstream lines. It's a style of cruising and yes, I am willing to pay for it.

[Dolebludger]

When many of us advocated the present liquor policy, Regent (then Radisson) was only 1/2 full or less on many sailings. There was concern among us (and within the trade) that Radisson could not survive at that occupancy rate. Regent was fighting back with fare cuts and specials, but was still not getting its occupancy rate up. When Mark Conroy was questioned about the cost to Radisson of the all inclusive that many advocated, he responded that it would be about $10 per day per guest. So all inclusive seemed a good, cheap way to cure Radisson's occupancy problem, and one of the longest threads this board has ever seen ensued asking Radisson (now Regent) for the new all-inclusive policy.

 

Rates did not skyrocket immediately after the switch to all inclusive. Occupancy rates did. As one poster mentioned above, Regent may have raised their rates, on the theory that they could get away with it with occupancy so high. But there is a strange similarity between the upward curve of the price of fuel and the curve upward of Regents rates. Just a guess, but I blame fuel costs for most of the fare increases. And, I think that almost all of the remainder of the increase has been caused by the drastic drop in the value of the US dollar against almost all foreign currency. I feel that the all inclusive policy is not a major factor in the increases.

[neviboy]

The concern these days is the value of the U.S. dollar in Europe. We have just returned from a trans atlantic cruise on Voyager. Although the number of ports were small we contacted former Regent cruiser friends in Malaga and spent a very enlightening day.

They have resided in Spain for several years and have cruised Regent and SS.

The cost of living in Europe, compared to the U.S. dollar is at least double.

From the point of view of shopping, for example, forget it, unless one wants to buy items unobtainable in the U.S.

We lunched at a Poseida restaurant with a great view over Malaga. Martinis at 8 Euros each, salad entrees , a pastry and coffee amounted to U.S.$60.00 for two.

The pleasure of cruising, in my opinion, is to spend time absorbing the local atmosphere as well as the 'sights,' This is now quite expensive. Even the cruise ship excursions will be increased to reflect the higher local costs.

The temporary solution is to cruise S.America, Mexico, and the Caribbean.

[Dolebludger]

Hi, Nevil:

 

I certainly feel your pain -- and more. I agree with all said in your post PLUS I have frankly been priced out of the market for Regent's fares and those of similar lines. I love to cruise, so I am hoping that fuel prices will decrease, and the value of the dollar will increase, so fares will decrease and put me back in the market again. The $10 per diem (or even $20 or $50) decrease that represents Regent's decrease in cost from abolishing all-inclusive wouldn't be a drop in the bucket in getting fares back down to where I could justify them again. Do you know that I did a seven day Diamond Caribbean cruise in '03 for $1400 pp (with upgrade), and this cruise WAS all-inclusive? That's an extreme example, I'll grant you. But in the same time period we did the Mariner in the Med for about $2700 pp per week. And very well worth it. But just look at the fares now. More than doubled! I just can't justify the new fares. And I can't justify the hassle of the mass market either. So we've been doing some domestic travel we neglected when Regent was such a bargain, and doing other things. Sure hope we get a correction in this economic mess, and sure hope the correction translates into much lower Regent fares, because I sure do have the "cruise fever".

[mythologist]

I saw a big difference before Regent went all-inclusive and afterwards. Once they were an A/I, everyone was out of their rooms, relaxed, and their fun-loving side was flourishing. It has been great to see. The A/I formula has brought Regent much success with their passengers.

[canadagal]

Hi, Nevil:

 

I certainly feel your pain -- and more. I agree with all said in your post PLUS I have frankly been priced out of the market for Regent's fares and those of similar lines. I love to cruise, so I am hoping that fuel prices will decrease, and the value of the dollar will increase, so fares will decrease and put me back in the market again. The $10 per diem (or even $20 or $50) decrease that represents Regent's decrease in cost from abolishing all-inclusive wouldn't be a drop in the bucket in getting fares back down to where I could justify them again. Do you know that I did a seven day Diamond Caribbean cruise in '03 for $1400 pp (with upgrade), and this cruise WAS all-inclusive? That's an extreme example, I'll grant you. But in the same time period we did the Mariner in the Med for about $2700 pp per week. And very well worth it. But just look at the fares now. More than doubled! I just can't justify the new fares. And I can't justify the hassle of the mass market either. So we've been doing some domestic travel we neglected when Regent was such a bargain, and doing other things. Sure hope we get a correction in this economic mess, and sure hope the correction translates into much lower Regent fares, because I sure do have the "cruise fever".

 

Richard, I agree and feel your pain. However, do you not think that the time frame of 2003 was still during the period when people were just not venturing far from home because they were concerned about safety when traveling? The travel market in general was depressed then. People simply wanted to stay close to home or cruise from a port close to home that did not include any air travel. I think as confidence grew in the safety of traveling over the next few years then prices also increased. Again, more of a supply and demand issue. I really do understand your concerns about being priced out of the market with the devaluation of the US dollar. In the same breath however it's a boon for Canadian and European pax. The past several months have been the first time I can remember since the late 60's that I didn't have to factor in a lot more money then the quoted price due to the exchange rate. Now when I look at the price quoted I figure that's about what I'll pay. A rarity that I'm not quite used to yet. I know it won't last forever but as long as the cruiselines can sell to other markets then I don't see the prices coming down anytime soon. Just my take on it all.

Pat

[Dolebludger]

Pat:

 

Yes, recovery from 9/11 fright might well be a reason for full ships and resulting higher fares. I'm happy that Canadians are benefiting from the weak US dollar. It makes me feel better that someone is benefiting!

 

I will say that prices may eventually come down -- just don't know when or how far. To the extent that a cruise lines depends on US passengers, we've got some real problems here. Prices for everything are running far ahead of personal income growth. In one major US city, 1/4 of the houses are in foreclosure. Consumer debt is at an all-time high. Job lay-offs abound, as does unemployment. And for us "non-working class" (retired), investments are not doing well at all. Classical economic models tell us that high prices for non-essentials (like cruises) just can't last.

 

We'll see,

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

"Job lay-offs abound, as does unemployment"

 

Unemployment rate is 5.5%, historically a low number and considered "full employment".

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Please post the source of the "In one major US city, 1/4 of the houses are in foreclosure" claim.

 

I searched Realty-Trac and other sources and the worst rate I could find was 1 in 30 homes in Stockton, CA got forclusure notices in the quarter.

 

Now, anyone familiar with Stockton would not be surprised, or dismayed, by that number....

 

Even Detroit was only 1 in 68.

[Dolebludger]

I don't want to hijack this thread on the subject of economics. So I'll just say that high paying jobs are being lost and low paying ones are being created, so the 5.5% unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Back to cruising, I do feel that there has got to be a "breaking point" on what seems to be ever-increasing fares. We'll just have to wait and see where that point is.

[canadagal]

I have to agree with you on that point Richard. Even though I can now buy more with a Cdn. dollar Regent is really tipping the scales now at what I consider value for the money. I'm seeing all kinds of last minute sales on the luxury lines with really good pricing that kind of makes me want to not book anything months or a year out as the better prices now seem to be just after final payment and closer in to the embarkation dates. So maybe there is a shift starting already. I can only hope so as I love cruising but refuse to pay ridiculous high prices too.

Pat

[cruiseyguy]

With U.S. economic woes spreading worldwide, combined with all the newbuild capacity coming online, you can count on 2009-2010 being a buyers market for cruising.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Pat, I agree with you. Our first time on the Paul Gauguin in 2000, we paid top dollar (with a $.68 CDN$!) Our next trip was in spring of 2003, a year and a half after 9/11. Special offers abounded and we got a real deal on the PG.

 

The next year in 2004, we got a great deal on the Diamond.

 

We have twice picked 2-for-1 deals in the Caribbean in December (at par, or close!!!) But I was looking at prices for those deals, and the base price has definitely increased, but perhaps not that spectacularly. (These are all minimum cabin fares on Nav, G in Voyager, FLL-FLL, 7-days, all in the early December time-frame)

 

In 2006, our 7-day Navigator eastern caribbean had a %50 discounted price of: $1784 pp (before any air, taxes, or further discounts.) Plus we got a cabin upgrade thrown in.

 

In 2007, our 7-day Voyager western caribbean had a %50 discounted price of $2550.

 

Looking at 2008 December cruises, I see: Voyager, western carib, G cabin, $2795

 

Looking at 2009 December cruises, I see: Navigator, western carib., $2495

 

So I can see that Navigator is still priced below Voyager in general, and that the per diem is creeping up, and has been every year. I'm looking at that Navigator cruise in 2009 (PG this year), and I'm seeing +$700 pp, or a $100 per day increase from 2006. Not bad really for a 3 year interval.