Explorer design change

Just received an email from Regent that deck 14 of the Explorer is being redesigned to accommodate the addition of two more Penthouse A suites. Under the old design, suites 1408 and 1409 had wraparound balconies. Someone figured out that they could eliminate part of those balconies and add what I assume will be suites 1410 on the port side and 1411 on the starboard side. According to the email, all Penthouse A suites on deck 14 will now have 111 square foot balconies.

Caught the change before receiving the email. I did not expect a bait and switch tactic from RSSC. Very sad to see them put revenue over honoring customer contracts.

This is deceptive and unfair to those that have already booked those suites with the wrap around. When something seems to be too good to be true (I.e. Large wrap around balcony for the same prince as the regular penthouse...then it usually is).

It seems that outside space on the Explorer is not a priority, but overly trendy designed inside space and max revenue is.

Waiting . . .

It is certainly possible that there will be compensation. Not too surprised to see changes on the Explorer - the ship is still 14 months away from being completed. Really do not think there is an intentional "bait and switch" going on.

Badabump!

yup.

I am a bit confused. I just took a look at the deck plan - deck 14 -- on the Explorer (here is a link http://www.rssc.com/ships/explorer.aspx?Ship=EXP) and I don't see how any of the suites have/had wraparound balconies except for the Explorer Suite. Is there something I'm missing?

P.S. Have to laugh that the superstition still exists about the number "13" --no deck "13" on the Explorer:-)

I have the printed brochure that I fought long and hard for; in that brochure, there are six Penthouse suite, with 1407 and 1408 being the last ones aft. There are two Concierge suites, 1405 and 1406 crammed between the Penthouse suites. Now they have put Concierge suites on the aft and added two more Penthouse suites to the list. In this brochure, 1407 and 1408 do indeed have beautiful wraparound decks.

I have the printed brochure that I fought long and hard for; in that brochure, there are six Penthouse suite, with 1407 and 1408 being the last ones aft. There are two Concierge suites, 1405 and 1406 crammed between the Penthouse suites. Now they have put Concierge suites on the aft and added two more Penthouse suites to the list. In this brochure, 1407 and 1408 do indeed have beautiful wraparound decks.

Okay - now I "think" I understand. We have not seen the brochure only the layout on the website site which has obviously been changed. Deck 14 is so small - I suppose that the "view" from the wraparound deck was of the jogging track.

There appears to a very diligent group of people that to have the time to notice these changes for the rest of us. I thank you! One day when I'm retired I will do the same for others.

Interesting observation:) Actually, when my DH worked, he did all of the research. Once I got involved I became hooked. While I no longer have the dimensions of each suite on Regent, Crystal, Seabourn and Silversea on a spreadsheet, with a comparison chart of all amenities, I have a general idea of what is going on. and am 99% certain that we will only be sailing on Regent in the future. Now I spend time studying ports. I'm glad that someone was paying attention to the Explorer changes. While I did know about the new dining venue a couple of months ago, for the most part the Explorer has not been on my radar (although we are booked on a cruise with several CC'ers who will be great to sail with).

Back to the subject. Just looked at deck "14" again and, according to the website, the two additional suites are not PH suites but are concierge level "D" suites. Based on the posts on this thread, am I to assume that this the website is now incorrect?

I honestly had to dig to find the printed brochure that I have on the Explorer; I was glad that I had tucked it into a drawer instead of throwing it away. But it also shows the 2 Concierge suites, inserted among the Penthouse suites. I thought that was a little puzzling, then decided that maybe there was only a certain amount of square footage available.

Deck 14 old and new:

 

 

It's reasonable for someone booking Penthouse A 1407 or 1408 to be disappointed that they will not get a huge wrap-around balcony. However, it's not reasonable to expect that graphics posted on the web or in a brochure, while the ship is still being built, are final. And because they are simple graphics, not blueprints (or whatever the builders use these days), they should never be relied on as being accurate or even to scale.

 

By the way, the original deck 14 photo did not have the launderette in it - the stairs and elevator stretched across the inside - because it's just a graphic.

The printed Explorer brochure that I have shows that 1407 and 1408 have the wrap around balconies. Also in the description of penthouse suites it states that penthouse suite balconies ranging from 111 sf to approx 532 sf. So the design has definitely changed. And indeed, the wrap around balcony "had" a view of the upper jogging track.

Is it not "reasonable to think" that the published advertising literature and floorplans should be presumed accurate enough, and that this information is purposely being made available, for the main intent of customers using the provided information to make multi-thousand dollar booking decisions for future cruises (with no possibility for them to get deposit refunds back if the information proves to be faulty)? :confused:

I don't think Regent can be held accountable for web site errors - but they should fix them.

If Regent can not be held accountable for their web site errors, who can be???? Somebody has to be accountable for web site errors and it's usually the company that is named on the web site no matter who puts the web site together and in the case of Regent, their website is managed and designed in house.

If Regent can not be held accountable for their web site errors, who can be???? Somebody has to be accountable for web site errors and it's usually the company that is named on the web site no matter who puts the web site together and in the case of Regent, their website is managed and designed in house.

While it certainly appears that you would like to blame Regent for this, with the constant changes that are bound to happen with a new build, nothing is set in concrete. Obviously, any photographs that you see of the Explorer are computer generated - a model that Regent expects to have in place in July, 2016. As we are learning, not everything that the architect expected to work is actually working (IMO this is to be expected). What would you like to see done? Sue Regent? Sue the architect? Fire the person who attempts to keep up with numerous website changes on a daily basis or ?????? Perhaps Regent should not book anything on the Explorer until the build is complete?

As you may know, the best made plans do not always work out. Look at Oceania's Riviera (the most beautiful ship we have sailed). It was planned a long time in advance but was late in debuting. Passengers that were booked on the maiden voyage could not take it due to delays. IMO, if any passengers had the right to be upset and disappointed, it was those passengers.

Are you booked on the Explorer in one of the suites affected? If so, perhaps you should contact your TA and ask them if you (or anyone else) has a leg to stand on in terms of this change.

drib: Apparently you posted at the exact same minute that I did. I agree that the passengers in the two suites affected should be given the opportunity to cancel without penalty. Suggest that they contact Regent's president via email. I hear that he is very responsive.

Sue Regent, of course not; however, this is a material change to the contract provided at booking. Of course, if I had one of the two cabins that were Cat D and now Cat A, I would also hold Regent's feet to the fire (i.e., hold them to the contract), stating I had a contract for a specific cabin regardless of the size.

There have been so many mistakes with the rollout of the Explorer (remember the queen bed fiasco) that it is clear that those in charge have no idea what they are doing; bring back the team that brought out Navigator (ok, it does vibrate), Mariner, and Voyager in quick succession.

Marc

While it certainly appears that you would like to blame Regent for this, with the constant changes that are bound to happen with a new build, nothing is set in concrete. Obviously, any photographs that you see of the Explorer are computer generated - a model that Regent expects to have in place in July, 2016. As we are learning, not everything that the architect expected to work is actually working (IMO this is to be expected). What would you like to see done? Sue Regent? Sue the architect? Fire the person who attempts to keep up with numerous website changes on a daily basis or ?????? Perhaps Regent should not book anything on the Explorer until the build is complete?

 

As you may know, the best made plans do not always work out. Look at Oceania's Riviera (the most beautiful ship we have sailed). It was planned a long time in advance but was late in debuting. Passengers that were booked on the maiden voyage could not take it due to delays. IMO, if any passengers had the right to be upset and disappointed, it was those passengers.

 

Are you booked on the Explorer in one of the suites affected? If so, perhaps you should contact your TA and ask them if you (or anyone else) has a leg to stand on in terms of this change.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote and you quoted??? I think not!! You were too busy trying to think of what I said that you asked me questions about everthing I didn't write or state. I simply asked drib who should be held responsible for WEB SITE ERRORS to which drib graciously agreed should be blamed on Regent. I said absolutely NOTHING about the ship, the change or absolutely anything else you blasted me about!!!!!

Perhaps it would help if you simply read posts that you choose to criticize before you start writing totally incorrect babble!!!!!!

Jackie, I think that was one of your more extreme overreactions. I honestly think that since there is an expensively printed, fancy catalogish brochure that has been mailed to thousands of people, Regent was saying "this IS what it's going to be" and they misrepresented a few things. They have been accepting deposits (non-refundable deposits) that were put down in good faith that what you see IS what you get.

So, you give Regent your deposit but you don't get what you saw. Sue? No, that's rather extreme. Be allowed to cancel and get your deposit back because you didn't get what you saw? Absolutely. I have thought the non-refundable deposit thing was ridiculous from the start, and this makes it more so.

You can take defending all things Regent a little too far, and I think you did this time. They messed up, and they should be held responsible.

You can take defending all things Regent a little too far, and I think you did this time. They messed up, and they should be held responsible.

I did indicate that the two affected suites should be able to cancel. Actually, it would be more appropriate to allow them to transfer their deposit to another cruise (the same could be done for passengers that booked PH suites with the understanding that there would be a bathtub). However, IMO, Regent (or any other company) should not be held "legally" responsible for website errors or other changes that may occur as the Explorer continues to be built. I stand by my statements and hope the attorneys have covered themselves for these issues.

Pam - As a person who believes in the honesty and integrity of Regent management, it was upsetting to read that the OP suggested that this might be a bait and switch. In my opinion, that was the "extreme overreaction".

Mark, as I misreading your post? When you stated "Of course, if I had one of the two cabins that were Cat D and now Cat A, I would also hold Regent's feet to the fire (i.e., hold them to the contract), stating I had a contract for a specific cabin regardless of the size", would you really be upset if you paid for a Cat D and it became a Cat A? I would celebrate rather than be upset .

Pretty easy fix and good PR. Comp the affected suites a generous discount. We're only talking two suites, no biggie.

As for web site issues, the standard has been set by the airlines which, nine times out of ten, honor their mistaken fares. This is similar. So, cough it up, Regent, a tiny bite for you, big value for avoiding aggravation and bad PR.

Pam,

I agree that anyone who booked a Penthouse A Suite on Explorer expecting a wraparound balcony on Deck 12 should be entitled to cancel with a full refund of their deposit. Whether intentional or not, Regent misled these folks and should make them whole.

However, in the interest of accuracy, it should be noted that, according to the ticket contract, until 151 days before the cruise, cancellation of a Penthouse A Suite or below (A - H) only has a penalty of a $200 administrative fee per suite which is recoverable if another Regent cruise is booked within a year. The entire deposit would be forfeited for the maiden voyage of the Explorer but all other Explorer cruises have the same cancellation penalties as a 15-night cruise on the other Regent ships. At the present time, Penthouse Suite deposits are not non-refundable.

Yes, and here's the online document for that:

 

http://www.rssc.com/media/hostedfiles/legal/US_TC.pdf

 

See the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 ... but wait! It reads for Explorer cruises through November 2 only, and there are five more Explorer voyages after November 2. So, no cancellation penalty at all for those? :eek:

Unfortunately there are cancellation penalties for those five Explorer cruises. :D The Ticket Contract (http://www.rssc.com/media/hostedfiles/legal/USTicketContractJanuary2015.pdf), which is controlling, has been updated to include all Explorer cruises through December 28. The cancellation policy for Explorer cruises now reads:

The following cancellation penalties apply only to the Seven Seas Explorer Maiden Voyage July 20, 2016

Suite Category: RS MS-SS2 A-H

Time of Deposit – 151 days prior to departure 100% 50% 25%

150 – 121 days prior to departure 100% 50% 50%

120 – 91 days prior to departure 100% 50% 50%

90 – 76 days prior to departure 100% 75% 75%

75 - 0 days prior to departure 100% 100% 100%

The following cancellation penalties apply only to the Seven Seas Explorer Inaugural Season August 3, 2016 – December 28, 2016

Suite Category: RS MS-SS2 A-H

Time of Deposit – 151 days prior to departure 50% 25% $200*

150 – 121 days prior to departure 50% 50% 15%

120 – 91 days prior to departure 50% 50% 50%

90 – 76 days prior to departure 75% 75% 75%

75 - 0 days prior to departure 100% 100% 100%