SusieQft

At least it does not have a brand new mortgage.

Not quite the same, but I have flown domestically on Thanksgiving Day many times.  The planes and airports are not crowded, but friendlier than normal.  This way I get a better price and less crowded flight than in the days before and after the holiday.

It seems the 90 day policy is retroactive.

2 hours ago, Pcardad said:

My experience was part of the COVID-19 problem and Regent did provide extraordinary customer service. Care for my safety and well-being is far greater than a delay in returning some money.

I am impressed by your story of Regent customer service.  As I recall, they reimbursed you for your cruise and transportation (maybe more than reimbursed?), and threw in a free week in Bali.  Very nice.

You have identified yourself as a TA who knows how to work the system, and who can be a very squeaky wheel at times.  And "loyal to a fault."  We can see your loyalty on display with your frequent repetition of this story, which happened at the very beginning, before it became obvious what a huge, overwhelming and prolonged problem Regent was facing. 

What I wonder is how the rest of us without your skills and resources would fare in similar circumstances.  And how Regent will handle similar cases when they finally start sailing again.  I am not saying that Regent would not do the same for me, but your story does not 100% convince me that I would receive the same treatment.

4 hours ago, greykitty said:

What I'm looking forward to is when production so ramps up that we can start buying useful masks that are fashionable as well.  You know, matching my outfit, etc.    

You just have to make your own!  If you make the outfit also, it can really match.  😉

10 minutes ago, Maxmann65 said:

Seems to be the best way to avoid some of the nastiness. Although crickets do make a noise when the temperature is just right 😉

Sometimes nastiness is the only way some people can think of to entertain themselves.  Many more constructive entertainments have been curtailed.

1 hour ago, RJ2002 said:

 

I am not disputing your information regarding Chase, but it seems across various CC forums, interest in the topic of credit card chargebacks is growing.  Over on the Silversea forum, one person has referenced this 869 page document related to VISA's rules.  On several threads over on Silversea, it has been noted that someone has 540 days from the date the original transaction was processed for disputes where a service was not received.

 

Even though I've got plenty of time on my hands, I have NOT reviewed this 869 page tome...  LOL

 

https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/about-visa/visa-rules-public.pdf

Thank you for this interesting document.  (Well, it does have a few interesting tidbits in the haystack.)

p.689 "Invalid Disputes" --  "A Transaction in which the Cardholder cancelled the merchandise or service before the expected delivery or service date"

p.688, Europe only -- "For a Dispute related to non-receipt of travel services from a provider who has failed, if the services are covered by a bonding authority/insurance scheme, the Issuer must attempt to obtain reimbursement from the relevant bonding authority/insurance scheme., unless the bond or insurance scheme is insufficient. If the bond or insurance scheme is insufficient, the Issuer may use information in the public domain to initiate the Dispute."

p. 690 -- "A Dispute must be processed no later than either:  120 calendar days from the Transaction Processing Date  [or] 120 calendar days from the last date that the Cardholder expected to receive the merchandise or services" [Footnote]  "Not to exceed 540 calendar days from the Transaction Processing Date"

Assuming that JMariner is correct that this is a only contract between the issuer and the merchant, then this requirement may mean that they must complete processing of the dispute within that time frame, not that the customer has that long to file a dispute.  I did not see any date that explicitly says when the dispute must be filed (not to say it is not in there somewhere).

I'm sure there are other interesting tidbits, but that is what I found so far.

Maybe fewer people are posting because there really is nothing new to say, and most of what is on our minds to talk about is not terribly positive.  Hanging out here reminds us that we are not cruising, there are no live threads, and no one knows when this limbo state will end.  

TC2 -- Of course I realize that the Alaska itineraries will require a Canadian port to be open, and that is still up in the air.  That is why I said, "if possible."

The reason I think the US based itineraries will be viable sooner is because they will not require flying to Europe.  I realize you don't think that will be a problem, but I do think it will be for some time.

Why do you say that LA is an "iffy" port?  Maybe I have this wrong, but I think Navigator was denied docking there for environmental reasons, but that Mariner meets the requirements.  Obviously that was not the issue for your March cruise, though, which I think was on Splendor and certainly not on Navigator.

4 hours ago, orvil said:

Because I am the squeaky wheel, I wanted to know my rights under the circumstances.  This morning I contacted my credit card company and asked.  The US law is clear.  I have 60 days upon discovery of a problem to dispute a charge. 

If this is exactly the policy, then my interpretation would be that you "discover" the problem at 90 days when you have not yet received your refund within the promised time frame.  Why do you not see it this way?

If it is 60 days from the day you made the charge, then all is lost for most to use this strategy.  That would be the other extreme of interpretation, and what I had thought the policy is.  Sixty days from discovery is much better for the consumer.

3 hours ago, mrlevin said:

 

Maybe Splendor (Pacific coast and Mexico) and Explorer (Caribbean) will all that will be sailing this year.  If USA passengers can't fly to Europe I imagine it would be only European cruise lines that will sail at all in Europe this year.  Of course, Voyager has had large Asian passenger loads on Far East trips so maybe it will be home-ported out of Shanghai or Hong Kong for a while.  Aa for Alaska, I sure hope Mariner still has an Alaskan season this summer.

 

Marc

The current schedule has Mariner doing Pacific coast (Alaska and then Mexico) this year, including our October RT LA booking.  Explorer doing Alaska next year.  Splendor is scheduled for Caribbean this winter and next winter.  Are you suggesting they will do a major rehaul of the schedule, including the already planned US based sailings, and moving them to a different ship?

It seems more logical to me to resume Mariner first for its existing Pacific coast itineraries, if possible, rather than substituting the Splendor on the west coast.  Predicting the future is very difficult, but if Regent can't sail in Europe how would they be able to schedule and fill a whole new series of US based itineraries?

Quarantines are by their very nature discriminatory, but sometimes necessary.

2 hours ago, mrlevin said:

Slowly, anticipated arrival 9 May so they are making a three day trip into a 14 day trip.

Is this to satisfy quarantine requirements so that people can disembark there?

I have not seen any social distancing guidelines that explicitly say this, but IMO briefly passing someone in the hallway is not nearly as high a risk as sitting or standing or even walking next to them for a prolonged period of time.  Especially if both people look away from each other when within 6 feet.

12 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

Many people were not cruising Regent at that time and have no idea whatsoever when included excursions were started or why. Regent needed to fill the ships and they did so.

I admit I was one of those not here at the time.   But if adding included excursions worked to increase the number of people sailing Regent, what makes you think that excluding them now would also increase the number of people sailing?

4 minutes ago, Pcardad said:

 

Respectfully, I disagree with your premise that people who would opt out don't take excursions. It has been my experience in hundreds of nights as a passenger that people on Regent are not really inclined to waste the money they paid and take the Regent excursion most of the time. They only book their own if an outside factor comes in to play (they want to see something not offered or medical, etc.).

4 minutes ago, rallydave said:

Not trus Susie.  Say for instance Regent put $100 in the cruise fare for each port day for excursions and they gave the opt outers the $45 Pcarded mentioned, that is still $55 pure profit that Regent is retaining.  No loss still a gain.

Yes, you are both right to the extent that the people who do not want the excursions are going on them anyway.  I based my assumption that they are "MOSTLY" not in large part on what TC2 has posted, that she very rarely goes on the excursions.  If she and her husband are atypical in this regard among the passengers who would want this option, then there might be a way for Regent to offer an onboard credit for significantly less than they are including in the cost for shore excursions and make it work financially.

1 minute ago, Pcardad said:

Like I said in Post #443 - these numbers are high. Illustration purposes, etc. Regent know show much they make per person per day per cruise and can easily credit that number. Just because we don't know, doesn't mean they don't. I am certain they do.

Yes, but the main point is that those who opt out are those who are MOSTLY not taking excursions anyway, so Regent will lose money/lose profit by giving them a rebate.  The question is whether they will make it up in volume.

Reminds me of the old saying that it is okay to lose money on every sale, because you will make it up in volume.

4 minutes ago, Pcardad said:

 

Nope - the amount of credit issued in lieu of excursions. Fare remains the same. Perhaps a $45 credit per day if you opt out. It would be about half of whatever Regent actually pays. 

I seriously doubt that Regent is paying $45 per day per passenger for shore excursions.  Maybe that is a ballpark amount for those that actually take a shore excursion that day, but not for those who don't or for for sea days.  Even if you say $45 pp per day for port days only, the people who are already not taking excursions are the ones that will take the opt-out.  (Yes, they are subsidizing the others who do take excursions, just like those who do not drink or use their butler subsidize those who do.)  If you give them $45 per day pp, even as an onboard credit, for the most part you are returning money that would otherwise have been profit, not money that would have otherwise been spent on shore excursions.

26 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

Apparently the distance between the UV light and and humans is a big issue.  The danger seems to be when you are close to the artificial light.

This is true.  The intensity of light or any other electromagnetic radiation decreases by the square of the distance form the source.  If you are twice as far away it is 1/4 the intensity, at three times as far, it is 1/9 the intensity, etc.  This is not significant for sunlight because we are so far from the sun already.  If you moved from the moon (which has no atmosphere) to a point half way between the earth/moon and the sun, the light and all the other solar radiation would be 4 times stronger.

Of course, the effectiveness of artificial UV light in killing the virus would decrease in the same proportion.  So if you had the UV light set at the right intensity to kill the virus, then moving it 3 times as far away would make it safer for people and also much safer for the virus.

2 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

There is still the question as to why places that are hot and sunny still have the virus.

Yes, this is still a question, along with what will happen in the summer.  But sunlight will not help anywhere that people congregate indoors.  This could at least partially explain the virus in hot and sunny places.

2 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

In terms of other comments, please do not take away our butlers.

Maybe we could have an opt-out program for the butlers.  Those who want a large suite but not a butler could get a lower price.  Or, to say EXACTLY the same thing in a different way, they could charge extra for the butler, above and beyond the cost for that level of suite without the butler.  (Sorry, I just could not resist this one.)

2 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

If someone is comfortable being on a bus with something coughing and not always covering their mouths behind them is not an issue, I find that scares.  

We have been faced with this in the past, as well as in a restaurant and even people getting in the pool and coughing severely.  All of these are especially gross, since they are difficult for others to simply distance themselves.  Hopefully people will be more aware of how irresponsible this is in the future, and perhaps those impacted will be less reticent to call them out on it.

That NY Magazine article is dated April 9.  They have been studying the effect of light on the virus, and sunlight exposure was the item that wiped it out most quickly as reported in that explosive press conference on April 23.  I'm not sure they isolated exactly what frequency light did the job, but the presumption was that it was some part of the UV spectrum.  That study is still unpublished and obviously a little more work needs to be done, but light has been shown to kill Covid-19. 

Once they fine tune the details, it might be possible for artificial UV lights to be used to keep surfaces pretty much virus-free.  At the presser, there was a somewhat lengthy discussion of using UV lights just below a high ceiling (i.e. away from the people in the room) in conjunction with ceiling fans to circulate the air up there to keep the virus at a minimum in the room air.

At least the virus does not survive as well in heat and humidity.

I also did not say anything about doing away with hotels (or air), only that they are optional add-ons.  The difference between that description and marketing them as "included" is purely semantics, nothing else.  There is one price with them, and a lower price without them.

2 hours ago, mrlevin said:

 

Hurricane season starts 15 May in Pacific; much safer for the ships to be in Los Angeles than Mexico.  Of course, Ensenada is pretty far north so not really in harms way.

If they are going to move solely to get out the the way of hurricanes, wouldn't it make more sense to do so only if and when one threatened?  Hurricane season in the Atlantic will probably be underway before they will be able to sail with passengers, anyway.

If Regent allowed those who do not take excursions to opt out, they would not decrease their cost, since those passengers do not take excursions anyway.  (I know, dividing passengers into those who do excursions and those who don't is a bit simplistic, but I am doing it for the sake of simplification.)  Since the per passenger revenue would go down, the only way this could be cost effective for Regent would be to increase the total number of passengers. 

Obviously, this would not make sense for Regent if the ships are sailing full.  There might be a dip in occupancy once they start sailing again, but I suspect it will be very temporary.  All those FCCs floating around out there have to be used within a short time period, and that alone will help to ensure that the 2021 and 2022 sailings are relatively full.

The other logical disconnect in the pro-opt out argument is that it seems to me that those wanting the opt out are mostly long time Regent sailors who have been there, done that, and still want to sail Regent anyway.  And are for the most part, sailing Regent anyway.  I don't think I have seen anyone post that they personally would sail more often if given this choice.  I was not reading the board back when people were saying they would leave Regent because of this, and if they left they may very well have found compatible cruise lines elsewhere.  If so, giving the opt out option now may not get them back, anyway.  How many were sitting at home waiting for Regent to lower the prices, before we all had to sit at home anyway?

Part of the loyalty to any given cruise line is familiarity, relationships with the crew, and the reward program.  By now the people who may have left Regent over this issue have probably developed all of those things on other lines.  IMO, whatever number of past cruisers who would be brought back to Regent would be minimal compared to new customers who might not be drawn to Regent for the included excursions.

Before you say this yet again, I will do it for you: 

4 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

It is unfortunate that I am being misquoted repeatedly about the excursion issue.  I have absolutely not made any comment about removing or stopping included excursions.

It is nonetheless true that an opt out would put a "price" on the included excursions and would factor into the decision making for all people considering Regent, both new as well as returning passengers.  They would become an optional add-on instead of being included.  This is also true of the air and hotel, regardless of how Regent words it in its marketing.