SusieQft

2 hours ago, mrlevin said:

 

My port fees and taxes were refunded within a week and the FCC was applied to a previously booked cruise within three days.

I am confused.  When Regent Reassurance was first announced it said that the FCC had to be applied to a new booking.  I thought I saw when they extended it past September, that it could be applied to any booking.  I found that very "reassuring" because I have bookings in October 2020 and May 2021.  But now the Regent website again says the FCC must be used for a new booking.  So did you just happen to use yours in a brief window when they allowed it to be applied to existing bookings, or do they not enforce the new bookings only restriction?

51 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

We used points and are still  jumping through hoops to try to get points back, etc.   It will take a while for fights to stabilize and I would rather have the experts at Regent looking out for us.

I was thinking of using points for our May 2021 Regent Navigator booking (Miami to NYC), after (if) we make final payment in December.  I was under the impression that you don't necessarily get back the cost of the flights, and especially not the deviation fees and non-gateway fees, if your Regent booking is cancelled.  Could you explain how that works?  I am thinking that points would be easier and less costly to unwind, as well as to get business/first class domestic flights.

What happens if your luggage does not make the connection where you go through customs to re-enter the US?  Do you proceed without your luggage, and eventually, hopefully, it makes it to your final destination?

Yes, no movement without USCG permission, but I would expect that permission to be fairly easy to get if a ship wanted to leave US waters and promised not to come back.  Not that I think there will be a huge rush of ships wanting to do this....

1 hour ago, GOARMY said:

Previous Posters have hit on the reason(s) we picked East to West

I hate to break it to you, but the last time I checked Japan was west of Alaska, and the April voyage is West to East.  You will have some 23 hour days instead of some 25 hour days.  Unless you go the long way, of course, avoiding the International Date Line.  But that would take a lot longer.

1 hour ago, Travelcat2 said:

In my opinion, one of the main reasons for the masks are for those that are infected and are not yet showing systems. Since no one knows if they have it (until symptoms appear), it is best for everyone to wear one.  I have a box of N95 masks in front of me and it is clear on the packaging that it will not prevent "you" from becoming infected.

Did you originally purchase the masks to protect yourselves or to protect others?  IMO, they can protect "you" to some extent, but not without supplementing them with hand washing, not touching your face, etc.

1 hour ago, Travelcat2 said:

When the shortage of masks began, it seemed strange that health care workers needed them supposedly to protect patients from getting any illness from them.  This never made sense to me and appeared (and still appears) to be a reaction by the CDC, etc. to not having enough masks.

I totally agree with you that the reason the CDC told the general public not to wear masks was motivated by protecting the supply for the use of health care workers, and they should have said so instead of saying they did not work.

However, until the current pandemic, masks have been primarily used by health care workers to protect patients from any pathogens that may be spread from the health care worker to the patient.  They are used in surgery to keep the air in the OR as clean as possible.  They are used when entering an isolation room, which in normal circumstances is much more often isolation to protect a patient with a compromised immune system from receiving exposure to any pathogens.

With the current situation, masks will surely offer some protection for the wearer, but also a wearer who may have the virus (either symptomatic  or asymptomatic) will provide some protection of others by wearing a mask.  Both factors are in play.

I agree that the CDC was disingenuous in the rationale for their initial request for the public not to wear masks, but the idea that the mask is worn to protect others is a valid one.

Personally, I prefer sailing from East to West because my bio clock is a little over 24 hours, and short days are very difficult. 

If the rules are changed, either by Regent or an outside mandate, in such a way that some people are disqualified from cruising for the foreseeable future (if there is such a thing), we should hope that Regent would offer those people a 100% cash refund.  I think if such a change in the rules occurs after final payment, they are morally obligated to do so.  And if it is true that Regent will always do the right thing, then there is nothing to worry about.

By 2022 there should hopefully be a vaccine out and things should be returning to whatever the "new normal" will be.  Based on Regent's reluctance to cancel things prematurely, I would expect countries, ports, and Regent to proceed optimistically to schedule 2022 with the assumption that the Covid-19 issues will be in the background by then.  If there are a few countries/ports that don't want to do that, then the new itineraries can just avoid those countries/ports.  It should be far easier to do that in advance rather than changing the itineraries after they are already announced and have bookings.

Does anyone know when we can expect Regent to announce the rest of their 2022 itineraries? 

With so many future cruise credits out there, I'm sure they would fill up quickly.  I am going to have to decide soon whether or not to make final payment on an October booking, and it would be nice to know what my options would be if I finalize it and then it later turns into future cruise credits.

I just like to keep it real, not to promote gloom and doom for the sake of negativity.  Optimism is great, but IMO it is irresponsible to have blinders on and not look at all the possibilities.  Of course, sometimes things come out of left field that we have no way of predicting, but informed decision making requires an analysis of all foreseeable scenarios and an attempt to figure out the likelihood of each one happening.  We also need to realize that sometimes things do come out of left field, and absolute statements that we will always have a positive outcome are unrealistic.  I am of a mind that it is better to under promise and over deliver.  I don't want to make major financial commitments without knowing (as best I can) what range of possibilities to expect. 

I have bookings in October and January that I have not cancelled, but final payments are coming up and I will have to decide soon.  I feel like a teeter totter, thinking one minute I should cancel them, take my losses (there will be some, for reasons best omitted), and stop worrying about it.  The next minute I remember how much I want to go on each of these trips, and how much I would regret it if I cancel now and then they are able to sail without any problems.  It is not an easy choice.

2 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

The Terms and Conditions are what they are.

Yes, and as rallydave pointed out, we should be able to count on the T&Cs.  It is wonderful that Regent has made a practice of going above and beyond, and it is reasonable to hope that they will be able to continue to do so in the future.  IMO, it is not reasonable to assume that their past generosity is unchangeable and to berate others who point out what Regent has actually agreed in writing to do. 

Current events are hitting them hard, and they may not have the resources to go above and beyond in the future.  We have threads speculating about bankruptcy of various cruise lines.  Falling back to meeting only their written T&Cs would be preferable to that, and hopefully much more likely.  Although going back to business as usual would be even better, of course.

As they say about investments, past performance is no guarantee of future success.

15 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

As has been mentioned (and verified by Regent), the issue of medical clearance for people 70 and over is dead.

For now.  But then again, so are actual cruises.  We don't know what the new policies will be when they start back up.

3 hours ago, RachelG said:

3 hours ago, tubeamps said:

Last time I checked immunizations aren’t 100% effective, has this changed?

They aren't for things like the flu, because the virus mutates.  And unfortunately, probably won't be for coronavirus for the same reason.  Plus a person has to have a competent immune system. 

In other words, some people who have been immunized will still be able to spread the virus.

I have not heard of a TA giving a rebate before you sail.  Generally they will send it after you are safely on board and their commission is secure.

Thank you.  I realized they are live in the theater.  My question was about the replay.  Is it a loop or only at set times, or is it on demand.  Can I start the lecture at the beginning on the TV any time I want?  After the live version, of course.

Would a typical sea day on the world cruise have just one enrichment lecture?

Are they shown in a loop on the TV, or on demand?

6 minutes ago, wripro said:

Why do you care? They did the work on the original cruise, had to deal with he cancellation and will do more work on the future cruise. Whatever commissions they get they've earned.

Besides the reason mentioned by TravelCat2, I also care because I am changing TAs, and this would mean I would not have to worry about which TA I use to rebook the cruise using the FCC.  I think that the TAs have more than earned their commissions in the current environment.

1 hour ago, Anchorbuoy said:

"....we are protecting 100% of your commissions on any voyage we voluntarily suspended as well as protecting 100% of your commissions for any cancellations under Regent Reassurance..... we are also protecting commissions on the 100% Future Cruise Credits when you rebook your clients through the end of 2022. This includes those made for bookings canceled by our temporary suspension of operations or for those earned under Regent Reassurance."

Does this mean the TA earns the commission for the cancelled booking and again for the new booking?

3 hours ago, CruiserFromMaine said:

Ws that a refund of a cruise that Regent recently cancelled?

No, it was from American Airlines.

Crystal did post them on their website.  Keith just copied the list into a post on CC.

I got a refund on my Citi credit card, and when I called to request cash out they were able to transfer it directly to my Wells Fargo bank account.  I already had the card set up for automatic payments from my bank for the balance due each month, so I don't know if they would have transferred it otherwise.

35 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

SusieQft - Sorry - I wasn't suggesting that the ports open up before it is safe too do so.  There are huge differences of opinion as to when that could occur.  I feel that it will be this summer while others believe that it will be next year.  Time will tell.

My point is that, whenever cruises restart, we will not KNOW it is safe at first.  And if we restart this summer, we definitely will not KNOW it is safe until after the cruises have been going for a while.  Even then, if/when a "second wave" of coronavirus starts, we could end up with a second wave of last minute cruise cancellations as well. 

Yes, it might remotely be possible to restart cruises this summer (which will start only about a week before the end of June, anyway), and the brave souls who sail then will test out the theory that it is safe.  After that, we may leave the realm of "huge differences of opinion" and enter the realm of facts.

I am desperately hoping that cruises restart this summer and are safe (and tested), so that I can be more comfortable with sailing on my October 2020 and January 2021 bookings.

I seriously doubt that Alaska will want to be on the "bleeding edge" of port re-opening, since a cruise ship full of people shedding virus would not be very helpful for their own very early place on the curve.  Being spread out geographically is no doubt helping Alaska in this, especially since people are probably still effectively home bound, but the cruises will go to population centers where it is not as spread out and it will also be warmer so that people will be moving about and interacting more.  

The restriction on US only sailings will protect them from the virus as an unintended consequence, and IMO it would be very foolish for Alaska to push for a temporary change in the law.  A permanent change would be nice, but I don't see that happening either.