msafiri

I am not going to further defend something that does not require a defense.

Thank you. That would be helpful.

As someone who is using CruiseCritic to help make a decision on my first cruise, the integrity of the site is important to me & knowing if the review was written by someone who got a free cruise or someone who paid for it is helpful.

The argument that opinions are not influenced by the offer of a free cruise is not supported by research.

This dialog should be about whether CruiseCritic should require reviewers to note if their cruise was comped by the cruise line. Obviously, I think they should require this disclosure. Others may disagree. Code words like "invited" do not suffice for this novice.

I am sure that CruiseCritic & TripAdvisor work hard to insure the integrity of their site. Requiring disclosure of comped cruises would be a positive step in my opinion. I don't know what the downside would be. Maybe others can offer reasons why comped cruises should be kept a secret.

For information I enclose details of my email to Cruise Critic and their reply about three of the Explorer cruise reviews -

 

Whilst reading the reviews on Regent’s new ship, The Explorer, over the weekend I discovered that three of the reviews – those by LCBettaver, tvlforfun & msh597 – were from people that had sailed on the two pre Maiden Voyage cruises and had therefore been guests of Regent Seven Seas and had a free cruise.

I could find no mention of this in their reviews and therefore wondered if it was fair/correct to include these reviews along with those by fare paying passengers?

I think it is disappointing that these reviewers did not disclose that their cruises were comped by the cruise line if in fact they were. It illustrates how dangerous it is to rely on social media.

I suspect these reviewers felt their reviews were “fair & balanced” and unbiased by receiving something for free that others have to pay for. Unfortunately, psychological research clearly demonstrates that their self assessment is probably wrong.

There is a great book on this topic titled “Predictably Irrational” by Dan Ariely. It is a fun read even for a lay person & demonstrates hidden forces that shape our decisions in ways that are different than we realize. I highly recommend it unless you want to continue to live in the false belief that you are totally rational & your views are consistently unbiased. (Full disclosure – I paid the full Amazon price for the Kindle version of this book. I was not reimbursed nor did I take it as a business tax deduction.)

I hope CruiseCritic will find a way to insure the integrity of these reviews. It looks & feels sleazy that the reviewers did not disclose their free cruise.

And, I agree with a previous poster that suggested using the term "invited" is not a satisfactory disclosure for a free cruise.

Most stockholders are not professionals and base their purchasing decisions on instinct, word of mouth and their stockbroker.

Not true, at least for NCLH. 85% of their stock is held by institutions, not individuals.

pingpong1, I think you nailed it.

These service issues don’t show up as frequently on the boards of other luxury cruise lines. Maybe Regent should send someone to the competitors to find out how they do it.

For the fares Regent charges, I think it is reasonable for the OP to expect better service than they received.

I found the answer myself:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cruises/cruise-news/10695036/Cruise-regulations-put-Svalbard-off-limits.html

 

The regulation has been in effect since 1 Jan 15 and was announced in early 2014. Regent HAS KNOWN for over FIFTEEN MONTHS that they would not be able to sail into Magdalena Fjord.

 

Is this any way to run a cruise line? :confused:

 

Marc

Actually, they have known for more than 15 months. The date of the article in The Telegraph is March, 2014.

Here are 2 articles that go back to November, 2013, explaining the ban.

http://www.cruise-norway.no/viewfile.aspx?id=3886

http://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/10216.html

I suspect they were aware this ban was coming before that. The current website still indicates that the Voyager will visit Magdalena Bay this month.

Whether the Regent operations people failed to inform the marketing people about the ban or whether the marketing people decided to not let people know about the change until they got on the ship doesn’t matter. One possibility is ineffective operations & the other option is dishonest marketing.

If the Captain of the Voyager just found out about the ban while they were under way to Magdalena Bay, that is even more scary.

I read reviews & am influenced by them, but once I make my decision, I expect things will go well & I don't go on the trip planning for problems.

I would not want to board a cruise ship with the plan that if the food is not good, I should complain to the F&B Director and/or the Executive Chef.

I would board a luxury cruise ship expecting it to be excellent. Why would you have to complain on a luxury cruise ship to avoid getting steak that was cold, almost impossible to cut and had too much gristle? What could they do instantly to fix poor quality beef & why did it happen in the first place? If getting high quality food required complaining, I would never return.

I advocate making your best judgment based on the reviews & then enjoying it.

Of course my opinion has no value because, as my signature indicates, I have never cruised. Concerns about food is one of the reasons why Regent is very low on my potential list.

Are you suggesting that before you make a reservation at a luxury resort, you don’t find out who the general manager, chef, front desk staff, waiters, concierge, & bell staff are?

Oh the horrors.

Perhaps you are not cut out for cruising.

Works for Regent is a phrase you introduced.

Sorry it confused you.

“Working for Regent” is not a criteria I use to judge a cruise line unless I am an owner.

Working for the customer is all that matters to me if I am a potential customer.

If Regent is making money for their greedy owners with a strategy of confusing the customer, then they are not a cruise line I want to do business with.

Helping Regent’s stockholders get wealthier by confusing customers does not make my list of priorities.

In the end, this strategy will not serve them well. There is too much transparency & too many smart customers for them to get away with this long term.

I do not congratulate Regent for this slimy strategy.

First, I think vacations are to be enjoyed, not evaluated constantly while in progress. We pay to enjoy ourselves & are not paid to write detailed reviews of microscopic detail. I prefer high level opinions good & bad about hotels, restaurants, & cruise lines.

Emperor Norton, I think I share your views about at least one of the posters you reference.

The difference for me is that I don’t think this poster really has the ear of the cruise line’s management.

If you were a member of management of that cruise line, would you want that poster cheerleading for your product?

In my opinion, this poster is harming the image of the brand for which he/she is cheerleading.

As someone who is using these boards in an effort to decide if I want to take a cruise and which cruise line I want to take, I have eliminated one cruise line for fear of being on the same ship with that cruise line’s cheerleader. I think I would abandon ship if he/she were on my cruise. I don’t think that’s fair, but personalities of CC posters do influence my opinion of cruise lines. I do wonder how well the personality of the CC board for a particular cruise line mirrors the on-board personality of passengers and whether that should matter.

Your post speaks distinctly, TravelCat, no messing with you, to be sure.

OctoberKat, I am sorry you are subjected to these put-downs. As a never-ever cruiser & someone reluctant to take the plunge (so to speak,) I found your insights particularly interesting – more helpful than those from some self-declared, experienced cruisers. And, as another poster has noted, I found your writing style refreshing for this forum. I look forward to reading about your experiences on Silversea & Seabourn, both of which I am considering for my first plunge.

TC, I am trying to understand your reasoning

Mark, you seem to believe there is some. I do not think that is a good assumption - exercise in futility. Thanks for trying.

There are 3 themes to this thread:

1) Should Regent cancel its stop in Senegal based on concerns for passenger safety because of the Ebola virus?

There have been views presented on both sides of this question. I have no opinion & don’t need to form one since I am not going. I can’t imagine that Regent would put passengers & crew in harm’s way. Even if they don’t care about customers or crew, I am certain they care about shareholders and the financial risk if someone got a serious illness from this stop is huge. If Regent does decide to cancel based on the same information other cruise lines used to cancel their stops, Regent could certainly be faulted for slow decision making. If Regent decides it’s safe to stop & if in fact that means they can’t stop at Cape Verde, they could also be faulted for slow decision making.

2) Is Regent doing an adequate job communicating to passengers?

I think the jury is in on this one & maybe with one exception, the overwhelming opinion is that Regent is doing a horrible job. If passengers perceive there is a threat, perception is reality to these passengers & Regent should provide more information than they have. I don’t think Regent should use this board to communicate. There are lots of other credible channels. At the risk of being struck by lightning or threatened with legal action, I would also add that this is a failure of leadership at Regent.

3) What can be done about our frustration with another poster?

I have been guilty of expressing frustration that did not add any value. I have recently concluded that I can’t change another poster (particularly if that poster doesn’t want to change.) I can only change myself. So, I have implemented the “ignore” feature of CC. So far, it seems to be working for me. I have not thrown anything at the walls, stayed awake in the middle of the night, or taken a double dose of my blood pressure medication. You can still see posts of people on your ignore list if they are quoted by another poster, but I have disciplined myself to ignore these posts too. I highly recommend this feature. It saves time & reduces stress.

As mentioned previously, it would have been much easier to handle on Roll Call.

It certainly would have been much less embarrassing for Regent & possibly a certain poster if it had been handled on Roll Call, but it would have denied the rest of us a helpful insight into Regent customer service.

Thanks Mark for your usual calm & intelligent post.

Regent has lost significant credibility on this issue. As you know as a businessperson, once a business loses credibility, it is very hard to recover. In the end, I am sure they will do the right thing, but their handling of this situation will have a long term cost that would have been so easy to prevent.

The poster you reference has also lost significant credibility & seemingly with each post, digs her hole deeper. She too may return to reasonable & helpful posts but may never recover her previous credibility (which in some eyes was already very low.)

Although I am not minimizing the concerns that these five posters have, we are only talking about a handful of people.

With few exceptions, the passengers on this cruise do not seem very happy.

Can both of these statements be true?

borntocruz,

I doubt her posts on this board have gotten her any benefits on-board. I am guessing that her benefits come from frequent cruising or spending $.

In my opinion, her board personality has had a negative impact on the Regent brand.

I can’t imagine that the Regent executives are happy about her suggestion that “ Regent attorneys read CC and do not take well to threats or intentionally putting Regent in a bad light.” (It didn’t stop her from posting untruthful statements about Seabourn.)

In addition, on this thread, http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1184369&page=2 her buddy Frank Del Rio made one of his rare appearances on this board to say; “TravelCat2 comments are more often than not, disturbing, and more importantly, not true, and this case regarding air travel is no exception.”

So, I don’t think she is being rewarded for her “cheerleading.”

You can only speak for yourself and once you expressed that, where is there to go?

Responder,

You just don’t get it.

She obviously believes that if you thought it was a dumb comment the first time you read it, you will have a religious conversion & see the light the 10th time you read the same thing.

TC - are you aware that when you board the ship and your picture is taken, it is shown to ALL the crew, with remarks at to whom special attention should shown. NEWSFLASH - Regent is not stupid, they know that you will come back to CC and praise them to the end of the earth, therefore, you were the recipient of special attention.

I’ll bet the Regent executives are really upset with her for exposing the clandestine activities of their lawyers. Maybe she won’t get such good service next time.

Eager2Travel,

I agree. This board can be very entertaining – better than many soap operas.

Responder,

I have thought about your situation overnight & have new concerns. I assume by now, Regent’s lawyers have identified your real name & home address. If there is a windowless van with antennas on top sitting outside your home 24 hours a day, please go to a pay phone & call 911 immediately.

Rcandkc,

Based on your blasphemous comments about Regent’s included airfare, I have the same advice for you as Responder. You are not safe.

Regent attorneys read CC and do not take well to threats or intentionally putting Regent in a bad light.

What an outrageous & irresponsible allegation.

If Regent has lawyers monitoring social media to go after individuals who unfairly put Regent in a bad light & if this is picked up by responsible press, it could lead to a huge scandal for Regent & should result in the firing of the beloved FDR.

The good news is that I don’t think any rational & intelligent person believes this to be true.

Responder, I think you can sleep without fear of the Regent lawyers. If they do come after you as has been suggested, I would love to represent you. I am certain that I could win enough money for you to live for the rest of your life on Seabourn.

I suppose you now can continue to run around in circles and scream and shout:rolleyes:

Thank you for your permission. It is a thoughtful gesture.

I too have been involved in a lot of M&As.

In the high-tech world, companies can occasionally be acquired for their proprietary technology or highly skilled staff. Those are the exceptions. In the rest of the cases, acquisitions are strictly about improving the financials.

We can be sure of 4 things:

1. NCL paid a premium over the valuation of PCH as a stand-alone company;
   
2. After paying this premium, NCL expects their financials to improve as a result of the acquisition;
   
3. The people who put this deal together for NCL have very specific estimates of where they will get increased revenues and reduced costs;
   
4. There will be winners & losers and history says that the acquired company is usually the loser (except for the executives who receive generous severance packages.)
   

Financial improvement comes from increasing revenues or lowering costs.

I don’t see how this particular acquisition can lead to increased revenues. That happens when a company acquires a dominant market share & therefore, can increase prices without losing customers to lower priced competitors. Not the case here. Revenues could also increase if they can sell more fares (increase occupancy.) I suppose there is increased opportunity for up-selling to Regent and Regent’s occupancy did drop last year, but it was still over 95%.

So, the big benefit has to be reducing costs. As has been noted, increased buying power will allow them to purchase the same products at a lower cost. I doubt that is enough & there must be a big number estimated from increased efficiencies from system integration & staff reductions. Anyone who is not an insider on the deal is just guessing how they estimated the cost reductions. If they do not achieve these financial goals, heads will roll.

It would be unusual if the PCH executives did not have a clause in their contracts that offered generous compensation in the event of an acquisition. Since PCH is not publicly traded, this too will remain a mystery. It will be written in public statements that ex-PCH executives will remain as consultants to NCL, but they will not be asked for advise or ever be seen again in the halls of either company.

In summary, things will have to change if they are to achieve the sizeable financial benefits of this acquisition. How these changes will affect the customer experience are only guesses by those of us who are not insiders on the deal. What is written by the company has little relation to the facts.

The United/Continental merger is certainly a good example of a failed merger. In this case, everybody lost – customers, shareholders, & employees. None of the benefits from the merger seem to have happened. The only correction I offer is that they kept the United name, but it was really a takeover by Continental as all the top executives are ex-Cons & the United senior execs mostly lost their jobs. The only part that seems fair is that both the former United frequent fliers & the former Continental frequent flyers feel they were equally ripped off by the merger. I think that is true of the employees as well.

I personally don't want to HAVE to communicate with or KNOW somebody special in management. I want to receive what I have been told I have paid for.

Let me try a different approach. If the Kamlani family were staying at a very high end hotel and were on their way down for their "free/included" breakfast before they met the hired tour guide for the day's excursion, would it be OK if they were told "we are sorry but we couldn't get the breakfast business together today and it's a shame because if you had come down around 2 a.m., we might have had some free stuff for you to eat"?

Should they just be disappointed and move on? Should they demand the food portion of their stay be reimbursed? Should they wonder what other unpleasant surprises they will be facing? Should they demand to speak to the manager and waste tour time?

I personally would rather not havebeen told I was getting a free breakfast and have made other choices as a customer. Does that make sense? And I quit.

fizzy,

How dare you suggest Mr. Kamlani would be upset by this? Don't you realize that the hotel contracts out its breakfast service & therefore is not responsible when it isn't available. I am sure the hotel is doing the best they can. In addition, nobody should think breakfast is that important. He should be able to do without it. If he wanted to eat breakfast every day, he should stay at home.

ps I think your analogy makes perfect sense & I don't think you sound angry - just logical.