Explorer design change

Wouldn't a "gift" - whether it be a cooking class, onboard credit or anything else create an expectation amongst other Regent guests? Over the years I have read about many disappointments that happen - missing a port when that port was the reason you booked the cruise, etc. From what I have seen and heard, when something significant occurs, Regent definitely steps up to the plate. However, in this case, permitting a refund on a cruise with the highest cancellation fees that Regent has ever had is a big deal. IMO, this gesture is worth a lot.

I mentioned a lawyer because I wondered what he/she would make of the situation - I never even mentioned a lawsuit. Nor did I mention or expect any compensation, all I want is a decent explanation as to why changes have been made now. Regent must have been considering this particular change a while ago, so why did they accept reservations and deposits? This change will only affect two or three dozen people at the most, but some empathy from them would go a long way. I know there's nothing that can be done now and yes I'll be cancelling the cruise, but it doesn't detract from the disappointment. It's all very well for some people to say that well you must expect changes like this when a ship hasn't been built yet, but if Regent can send out glossy brochures and expect passengers to reserve suites on the basis of that brochure, then they should honour what's been booked and paid for. Many thanks for all your, mostly nice comments.

There really should be a prominent mention in Regent's literature that the "photographs" that we see of the Explorer are not real and are based on what the ship is expected to look like. I do not receive many brochures from Regent - perhaps there is something in the promotional materials that addresses this issue (may be in the fine print?)

Although I think some sort of goodwill gesture by RSSC would be appropriate for those who booked suites 1407 and 1408, their brochure does specifically say things in the brochure are subject to change. I just pulled out the white brochure announcing the Explorer, and on the terms and conditions page the first sentence reads “Information contained in this brochure is not an offer or a contract.” Later in the terms and conditions there’s a section titled ”Notice” that says “While Regent Seven Seas Cruises makes every effort to adhere to the specifics shown in this brochure, circumstances may require otherwise. All information contained herein is subject to change without notice at the discretion of Regent Seven Seas Cruises.”

I’d be disappointed too if I had booked one of those cabins. Probably not enough to cancel a cruise, but that’s me.

Regent doesn't owe them anything but a full refund if they want to cancel. Regent has given them plenty of notice. SHIP happens when you are building a ship. Get over it.

Regent doesn't owe them anything but a full refund if they want to cancel. Regent has given them plenty of notice. SHIP happens when you are building a ship. Get over it.

LOL, well said! Its hard to feel sorry for those "unfortunate" enough to be able to book a PH aboard the Explorer, regardless of the size or shape of the balcony.

A friendly reminder that originally when it was first announced that the design of the subject suites had changed, there was no offer of any refund or ability to change to a different suite.

It was only after an outcry that the offer to cancel without paying the deposit or changing suites was offered. While they certainly have the ability to make changes in the design of any of the suites without any legal obligation to provide compensation or allow cancellation or change without any penalty.

The cheerleaders on this board who are praising the offer to avoid the penalty need to understand that had there not been an outcry, there most likely would not have been any change from the head office. What is upsetting is that the home office had to be called on the table before doing the right thing when a company that really cared about more than the bottom line would have provided some sort of offer with the initial announcement.

I like a nice balcony as much as the next guy...I sit out there sometimes for breakfast, or when sailing into port, or with a cognac before bed...but to cancel a cruise because my balcony is smaller than a sketch showed it to be? On a brand-new ship? Nah, I don't think I'd cancel. But that's just me...

A friendly reminder that originally when it was first announced that the design of the subject suites had changed, there was no offer of any refund or ability to change to a different suite.

 

It was only after an outcry that the offer to cancel without paying the deposit or changing suites was offered. While they certainly have the ability to make changes in the design of any of the suites without any legal obligation to provide compensation or allow cancellation or change without any penalty.

 

The cheerleaders on this board who are praising the offer to avoid the penalty need to understand that had there not been an outcry, there most likely would not have been any change from the head office. What is upsetting is that the home office had to be called on the table before doing the right thing when a company that really cared about more than the bottom line would have provided some sort of offer with the initial announcement.

I don't know if your narrative on this issue is correct or not. I have not seen anyone post the initial communications from Regent to the affected customers or to their TA's.

I doubt that this "outcry" thread got anything changed. Complaints via phone by those affected would.

A friendly reminder that originally when it was first announced that the design of the subject suites had changed, there was no offer of any refund or ability to change to a different suite.

 

It was only after an outcry that the offer to cancel without paying the deposit or changing suites was offered. While they certainly have the ability to make changes in the design of any of the suites without any legal obligation to provide compensation or allow cancellation or change without any penalty.

 

The cheerleaders on this board who are praising the offer to avoid the penalty need to understand that had there not been an outcry, there most likely would not have been any change from the head office. What is upsetting is that the home office had to be called on the table before doing the right thing when a company that really cared about more than the bottom line would have provided some sort of offer with the initial announcement.

I'm not sure if you're correct on this and frankly I don't feel like wasting time and going over the threads. What i'm sure of is that the "victims" kept going back to Regent (and posting here)to get some sort of further satisfaction. I don't recall any of them saying that they were going to be hit with cancellation charges and that's why they kept moaning and groaning about the change.

Ok, I'm a sucker for getting things straight, so I did go back and found this from one of the affected passengers:

I am one of the unfortunates who has booked suite No. 1407 on the Explorer. My TA sent me an e-mail from Regent who said that I can either cancel the cruise and get my deposit back or choose another cabin.

So, there was no need for an "outcry" for this people to get an offer to get their money back from the beginning. Rallydave, where did you read that the people were initially threatened with cancellation charges?

I'm not sure if you're correct on this and frankly I don't feel like wasting time and going over the threads. What i'm sure of is that the "victims" kept going back to Regent (and posting here)to get some sort of further satisfaction. I don't recall any of them saying that they were going to be hit with cancellation charges and that's why they kept moaning and groaning about the change.

+1. Definitely agree. Secondly, there was certainly no outcry from the 14 or so people affected. The OP came to Cruise Critic for views on the subject - not Regent. For the most part, all posters have tried to explain to the OP and other affected person that Regent has no further obligation in this matter but were doing the right thing by allowing cancellations.

+1. Definitely agree. Secondly, there was certainly no outcry from the 14 or so people affected. The OP came to Cruise Critic for views on the subject - not Regent. For the most part, all posters have tried to explain to the OP and other affected person that Regent has no further obligation in this matter but were doing the right thing by allowing cancellations.

I agree that there was no "outcry" from them about being charged cancellation penalties, however, several of them kept up the outcry about being deprived of their wrap around balcony and how unfair it was. It became quite repetitive.

Ok, I'm a sucker for getting things straight, so I did go back and found this from one of the affected passengers:

 

 

 

So, there was no need for an "outcry" for this people to get an offer to get their money back from the beginning. Rallydave, where did you read that the people were initially threatened with cancellation charges?

Didn't actually read that however, the OP in post 1 said nothing about being able to cancel or change suites. The next poster stated that he had seen the change prior to receiving the e-mail and also said nothing about being able to cancel without penalty.

Then ensued much talk about what cancellation penalties were among other talk and much after the initial post the one you quoted another person who had booked one of the affected suites stated that they had then received an e-mail stating they could cancel or change suites with no penalty.

One can assume the people in the beginning of the thread asking for compensation were possibly asking for no cancellation penalty or additional compensation, can't be sure and based on what was posted you might be correct and I might be correct as well depending on what the original 2 posters either failed to include in their posts about no penalty refund or their e-mail did not allow no penalty cancellation. Need the OP or second poster to post to clarify that.

Also, amazing how the chief cheerleader can post total agreement with a post that was not definitive at all.

This is an interesting scenario. Regent could have reacted in so many ways, and unfortunately, decided to take the easy way out which in the long term will reflect negatively on the company.

There are some who believe that the Regent response was beyond expectation due to the severe cancellation penalties that are currently in place with regard to Explorer reservations. Actually, this is not the case - Regent had a contractual and legal obligation to provide the customer an opportunity to cancel their reservation and refund all monies paid. Since Regent is no longer able to provide the customer what they had a contract to purchase, Regent must allow the contract to be cancelled without penalty, which is what happened. No more, no less.

However, this could have been handled in a much better manner. As we have witnessed over and over, Regent seems to believe that they are above the need to "play nice". They seem to have taken a page out of the high end designers playbook - make it appear that the item is very rare and difficult to obtain and provide negative customer service and people will be striving to obtain our products. This may work for $10,000 handbags, but not in the luxury cruise business.

Regent could have handled this so much better and in the end, generate a large amount of good will, but for whatever reason, this is not the way that Regent chooses to operate. For the life of me I cannot understand why they continue to do this, especially when they are having difficulty filling ships.

Over the past few years, including yesterday at a Father's Day BBQ, I have met numerous travel agents who each repeat the same story. For whatever reason, Regent does not believe it is necessary to provide outstanding customer service outside of the cruise ship experience. I have heard so many times, esp from professional experienced travel agents, that their goal is to establish a long term beneficial relationship with their customers and that is only achievable when all parties agree to participate. When one party, i.e. Regent, refuses to step up to the plate and treat luxury cruise passengers in a manner that shows care and concern, it will eventually backfire and hurt the bottom line. Yes, we all know that there are a few cruises that sold out quite quickly, but for the most part, there are many cruises, some scheduled to leave within the next few months, which are far from full - in fact, some are selling at more than 60% discount in some parts of the world (i.e. over the pond).

So yes, Regent had no obligation other than to allow the affected passengers to cancel and obtain a full refund. They did so because by law they were required to do so. On the other hand, think of the good will that could have been obtained, not only by passengers but by the many TA's who follow CC, if Regent had stepped up to the plate and went above and beyond to the few passengers who were adversely affected by the change in architectural plans.

I personally know quite a few TA's, including my former TA, who do not enjoy working with Regent because they refuse to be a team player and as such, recommend other vacation venues and luxury cruise lines. In fact, just yesterday I learned of a new vacation option that I was unaware of that we are now investigating - it came very highly recommended because the company will always stand behind their customers. A couple of years ago we were booked a vacation that for a number of reasons had to be canceled one year before departure, enough time to make other plans. Before anyone had a chance to complain, each booked individual received a complete refund and a very substantial credit toward a future vacation "as a good will gesture". Needless to say, this company has become one of our favorites and we recommend them all the time. Until Regent starts to realize that just playing by the rules is no longer "good enough" when dealing with the luxury market, they will continue to make decisions that will ultimately reflect negatively on the bottom line. How many times does a TA need to have first hand experience and/or read that Regent refused to "do the right thing" before they start referring elsewhere?

gnomie :)

This is an interesting scenario. Regent could have reacted in so many ways, and unfortunately, decided to take the easy way out which in the long term will reflect negatively on the company.

 

IMO, definitely not the "easy way out". And, IMO, it does not reflect negatively on the company. There have been much worse disappointments as has been pointed out above (such as missing a port that was the sole reason for booking a cruise)

 

There are some who believe that the Regent response was beyond expectation due to the severe cancellation penalties that are currently in place with regard to Explorer reservations. Actually, this is not the case - Regent had a contractual and legal obligation to provide the customer an opportunity to cancel their reservation and refund all monies paid. Since Regent is no longer able to provide the customer what they had a contract to purchase, Regent must allow the contract to be cancelled without penalty, which is what happened. No more, no less.

 

As explained in an earlier post, Regent's brochures are very specific about possible changes. They have neither a "contractual" or "legal obligation" to provide an opportunity to cancel their reservations and refund all monies paid. If you believe this not to be true, kindly check with an attorney..... show them the "contract" and allow them to advise you.

 

However, this could have been handled in a much better manner. As we have witnessed over and over, Regent seems to believe that they are above the need to "play nice". They seem to have taken a page out of the high end designers playbook - make it appear that the item is very rare and difficult to obtain and provide negative customer service and people will be striving to obtain our products. This may work for $10,000 handbags, but not in the luxury cruise business.

 

The Explorer's maiden voyage is indeed difficult to obtain (over 200 passengers on waitlist) and it is obviously rare to have the opportunity to sail on a Regent maiden voyage.

 

Regent could have handled this so much better and in the end, generate a large amount of good will, but for whatever reason, this is not the way that Regent chooses to operate. For the life of me I cannot understand why they continue to do this, especially when they are having difficulty filling ships.

 

There is a small handful of passengers that may be upset with Regent over this small issue. I wonder if any company would go any further than they already have for the 14-16 passengers involved.

 

Over the past few years, including yesterday at a Father's Day BBQ, I have met numerous travel agents who each repeat the same story. For whatever reason, Regent does not believe it is necessary to provide outstanding customer service outside of the cruise ship experience. I have heard so many times, esp from professional experienced travel agents, that their goal is to establish a long term beneficial relationship with their customers and that is only achievable when all parties agree to participate. When one party, i.e. Regent, refuses to step up to the plate and treat luxury cruise passengers in a manner that shows care and concern, it will eventually backfire and hurt the bottom line. Yes, we all know that there are a few cruises that sold out quite quickly, but for the most part, there are many cruises, some scheduled to leave within the next few months, which are far from full - in fact, some are selling at more than 60% discount in some parts of the world (i.e. over the pond).

 

So yes, Regent had no obligation other than to allow the affected passengers to cancel and obtain a full refund. They did so because by law they were required to do so. On the other hand, think of the good will that could have been obtained, not only by passengers but by the many TA's who follow CC, if Regent had stepped up to the plate and went above and beyond to the few passengers who were adversely affected by the change in architectural plans.

 

I personally know quite a few TA's, including my former TA, who do not enjoy working with Regent because they refuse to be a team player and as such, recommend other vacation venues and luxury cruise lines. In fact, just yesterday I learned of a new vacation option that I was unaware of that we are now investigating - it came very highly recommended because the company will always stand behind their customers. A couple of years ago we were booked a vacation that for a number of reasons had to be canceled one year before departure, enough time to make other plans. Before anyone had a chance to complain, each booked individual received a complete refund and a very substantial credit toward a future vacation "as a good will gesture". Needless to say, this company has become one of our favorites and we recommend them all the time. Until Regent starts to realize that just playing by the rules is no longer "good enough" when dealing with the luxury market, they will continue to make decisions that will ultimately reflect negatively on the bottom line. How many times does a TA need to have first hand experience and/or read that Regent refused to "do the right thing" before they start referring elsewhere?

 

Our TA has no difficulty dealing with Regent. There are so many TA's out there...... it is really not a big deal is a handful of them no longer want to book Regent. For every TA that no longer refers clients to Regent, there are several that will. How many Regent specialist TA's do you know? There are only a few that specialize in luxury cruising - Regent in particular. Really curious (off topic), if you respect the view of your "former TA", why do you no longer work with them?

 

gnomie :)

Responses in red above. Since I read all of the luxury cruise boards, I find "issues" with all luxury cruise lines. If a TA refers clients to other luxury lines, it seems like they trade one set of issues for another. One luxury cruise line (that I will not name unless asked), would/will not give a refund - even when their ship has failed health/sanitation inspection - not once but twice. Other luxury cruise lines either have set seating (with reservations for open seating difficult to obtain unless you are a regular), or have smoking on balconies.

Testaments to Regent "stepping up to the plate" for real issues (not just a balcony and location change) has been posted on Cruise Critic numerous times. If there is a real problem, you can bet that Regent will take care of you. In this case, as has been posted, there is no real harm done -- just disappointment. Whom among us has not been disappointed by something?

Nothing in life is perfect. Anyone that does not like the way Regent does business has other choices.

What a wonderful insightful post gnomie1.

And, don't forget, there is a $50M carrot hanging out there for the first year of the purchase of PCH for the previous PCH stockholders. It behooves them to maximise savings for at least the first year until about November so that they maximize their share of the $50M.

Hopefully after the first year of the purchase without the significant bonus out there things will change more toward the customer and away from the maximizing of savings.

Hi Folks,

I would like to keep this thread open and alive, but please, please keep the discussion "on topic". If this is not a possibility, we will have to discontinue the discussion.

Thanks! :)

I just have the feeling that no matter what Regent did or didn't do, that some people will find fault with it.

It does get old.

I just have the feeling that no matter what Regent did or didn't do, that some people will find fault with it.

 

It does get old.

While you are absolutely correct commodore, don't forget, no matter what Regent does or doesn't do, some people will not find fault with it.

A perfect Catch 22

While you are absolutely correct commodore, don't forget, no matter what Regent does or doesn't do, some people will not find fault with it.

 

A perfect Catch 22

And the other way around. Just sayin' Now, back on topic please?

In hopes of finding an alternative suite with a wraparound balcony to suggest, I just checked out the Explorer decks and was surprised to learn that "most" forward suites and aft suites are upper suites (with small suites in between). Comments have been made on other threads regarding the lack of a aft lounge. I really wonder why Regent chose not to have their very popular aft Horizon and Seven Seas suites on the Explorer. I did note that there are a couple of Seven Seas suites forward, however, they are considerably more costly than PH suites.

Still, in terms of cancelling a cruise because of the PH balcony changes, there are some huge balconies aft on the Mariner (also the Voyager but there are vibration issues to contend with on the Voyager). The per diem on the Mariner for the end of next year is considerably less than the Explorer (looking at late August through October, 2016.

You should be able to cancel without penalty due to this material change. No other compensation is due. (This does not constitute legal advice.)