Gold and Above to Receive Same Benefits for Dining and Excursion Sign-up

[tallship]

I have now read through this thread. These changes don't sit well with me especially since excursions are now included as part of the total price and being Silver I may not get the excursion I want nor the one I have already in a sense paid for as part of my cruise fare. The best way to resolve this would be to allow folks to opt out of excursions altogether and get a rebate like the pre-cruise hotel

 

Caribbean Excursions - opt out for 600 pp

Med Excursions - opt out for 800 pp

Alaska Excursions ......and so on

 

This would create a level playing field because if I cannot get the excursion I want in the first place and have to book it privately I do not feel like I am having to pay for it twice nor am I subsidizing the enjoyment of Gold and Concierge Class folks.

[mrlevin]

I have now read through this thread. These changes don't sit well with me especially since excursions are now included as part of the total price and being Silver I may not get the excursion I want nor the one I have already in a sense paid for as part of my cruise fare. The best way to resolve this would be to allow folks to opt out of excursions altogether and get a rebate like the pre-cruise hotel

 

Caribbean Excursions - opt out for 600 pp

Med Excursions - opt out for 800 pp

Alaska Excursions ......and so on

 

This would create a level playing field because if I cannot get the excursion I want in the first place and have to book it privately I do not feel like I am having to pay for it twice nor am I subsidizing the enjoyment of Gold and Concierge Class folks.

 

This would be a nightmare to manage. You would still like to be able to book excursions onboard so they have to have the price for the already included excursions and charge you. In addition, people at the 180 mark can check to see value of excursions they are going to book and compare to opt-out amount. If it is more, you stay in; if it is less, you opt out. This is adverse selection. Regent cannot take advantage of a normal population curve which will raise prices for all of us. This is a terrible option.

[turtlemichael]

Barb,

 

I agree with you, I didn't mean to gloss over the fact that the remaining 15% (or whatever that percentage is, which I suspect could be even lower) will be at a disadvantage. What I was trying to point out is that the "advantage" of being able to book excursions and dining reservations early under the "Concierge" program is drastically diluted since a supermajority of pax share the same "advantage". Therefore , I fail to see the incentive for pax that are not Gold and above to book the standard cabin categories above F.

 

I suspect that you are right, cruiseluv. The approach Regent adopts is I repeat myself, marketing on the run. Reactionary marketing. The consequences of their initial policy were identifiable in advance. You didn't need a marketing degree to see that this policy would disadvantage long term cruisers. The folk on Cruise Critic picked it up immediately.

 

Then Regent apparently say "Ahh, we see it too. We don't want to disadvantage our valued golds and above so we'll give it to them".

 

The consequence is that a large majority are to be entitled to early tour and restaurant bookings. Therefore, the concierge class guests, who Regent were trying to advantage so that more people would book the higher grade suites, now have no real advantage. But on the other hand, a new lower class is created which is even more disadvantaged. These are the Silvers and below who book into the F, G and H categories.

 

Paying for a luxury cruise I now find that I will have second pick at tour and restaurant reservations. I'll probably get a tour but maybe not the one I want (and have paid for). I'm failrly sure I'll get a restaurant booking but maybe not on the day or time that I want. 85%, or some other figure, of fellow guests will have picked over the bones before I get a chance. Maybe it won't be as bad as that, maybe it will, but who knows? I do like spontaneity and uncertainty in life, rather than the mundane and predictable, but not when it comes to spending 10's of thousands on cruise bookings. :)

 

This is not what I want and it is not what I am paying for. I hope it makes Regent more money but I seriously doubt it. So we move on. As always, YMMV.

[poss]

Another high ho silver who has much loved our cruises with Radisson/Regent. I want to ditto symarb, SanFran et.al. Made us sad to cancel our scheduled cruise for August 2012 (which I'd booked virtually the day that booking possibility opened, but simply don't want to settle for the excursion "leavings.")

What I want to say is that I hope very much that folks like us who've terrifically enjoyed Regent and who will now be trying other cruise lines-- please, please post your impressions and comparisons.

We'll be doing Celtic Charms this summer and who knows whether we'll even be "perpendicular and taking nourishment" (as they say in Geezerville) by summer of 2012. If we're fortunate enough to be able to cruise again, I'd love to get impressions from former Regent fans. (Don't have a whole lot of energy to do lots of research on my own.)

Good sails to all-- and thanks Drebs and everyone for all the input.

[tallship]

This would be a nightmare to manage. You would still like to be able to book excursions onboard so they have to have the price for the already included excursions and charge you. In addition, people at the 180 mark can check to see value of excursions they are going to book and compare to opt-out amount. If it is more, you stay in; if it is less, you opt out. This is adverse selection. Regent cannot take advantage of a normal population curve which will raise prices for all of us. This is a terrible option.

 

I don't see how it is any different than checking the value of the hotel ahead of time and opting out

 

What do you suggest so that the rest of us don't end up subsidizing your travel when we cannot book the excursions we want

[mrlevin]

I don't see how it is any different than checking the value of the hotel ahead of time and opting out

 

What do you suggest so that the rest of us don't end up subsidizing your travel when we cannot book the excursions we want

 

Sorry, my post wasn't worded very nicely. I don't have many recommendations to fix what Regent has screwed up. If you are planning on using Regent air, you coould book, see if good excursions are available at 180 days out, then cancel if not. This is kind of hard though when you have to book ff tickets so far in advance.

 

The great unknown is the importance of those small excursions that do fill up fast. Ephesus wiht an expert was limited to 12 people so it was good to book fast. Of course, once we got on board, they started up a second group in the afternoon. Some of the winery tours are also small groups that sell out. If these excursions are make or break; not much you can do except move on and hope that you could book excursion from another ship or on your own.

 

We booked our last cruise just three months before we left. I had two excursions that were "must have" for me. I was still able to get those tours. So, whether this really matters is dependent on tours you want.

 

Again, I am sorry about wording of my last post.

[tallship]

Thanks, Marc

 

Lets see what they end up doing. I was talking to a travel writer and many folks are "jumping ship" so lets see if that makes a difference

 

Best option would be to scrap the priority part of this Concierge program but perhaps add other Concierge style perks - a special, upgraded excursion free of charge to those in higher cabin classes, limo to the ship or a big red balloon indicating your status

 

I would not object with this - For example, people who book with a Virtuoso agent always get an extra perk or two - I am quite OK with the higher priced cabins to get other perks just not ones that would make it worse for those who choose not to pay for the higher priced cabins. As was said earlier, these cruises cost a LOT of money to begin with

[Roland4]

I suppose I mentioned it and I will still ask how this was calculated or who did so. I always thought that this kind of information required a source. I would be interested in seeing that source..

That you have always used the hypothetical number doesn't make it so.

 

In TC's "defence" the 5% figure is a "truism" that I have seen used on virtually every one of the CC boards for the luxe and mass market lines at one time or another over the years. I very much doubt if anyone ever actually "calculated" it and I have no idea how one would even attempt to do so.

[TedC]

We were only able to book one excursion last Dec. on Voyager because we booked VERY late. But on board all excursions for other four ports cleared waitlist - so not all is lost!

 

 

I'm quite sure Regent will try to accommodate as many excursion requests as possible to keep guests happy - no matter how late requests are made.

[ChatKat in Ca.]

@Jackie/TravelCat - Mrs. Conroy was (and may still be) in Marketing at Silversea which is why Mr. Conroy would have sailed on that line.

 

The bottom line -raising prices and filling the middle tiers is the motivation: To get people to pay for the cabins that no one would book on a first basis.

 

Including excursions, air and hotels to think you have a better value also raises the bottom line so you will pay more. You percieve a better value in what you are paying for.

 

First off, I want to do my own excursions. The experience is what I travel for. A bus trip with 40 + other people at a premium price is not that. Plus I don't want to pay for that - all inclusive. I want to choose. I don't want to wait in a virtual line. This model doesn't fit my travel profile.

 

People with money will pay for what they value even if it costs more. But to pay more for the potential of not getting what they want is not luxury.

[turtlemichael]

 

First off, I want to do my own excursions. The experience is what I travel for. A bus trip with 40 + other people at a premium price is not that. Plus I don't want to pay for that - all inclusive. I want to choose. I don't want to wait in a virtual line. This model doesn't fit my travel profile.

 

 

Well ChatKat the choice for you is obvious. Don't sail on Regent while it has inclusive tours. Reading your recent travel profile, this would not be a problem for you.

 

For others who want to sail on Regent and enjoy their inclusive tours, the choice to date has been obvious too. It changes though when Regent includes tours in the fare we pay but which we may not have timely access to.

[Travelcat2]

@Jackie/TravelCat - Mrs. Conroy was (and may still be) in Marketing at Silversea which is why Mr. Conroy would have sailed on that line.

 

 

Hi Kathy - Mrs. Conroy left Silversea about a year ago. Still, it doesn't surprise me that Mr. Conroy was on the Spirit soon after she was launched. He seems to have a good understanding of luxury cruising as he has been involved in it for years. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the top management of PCH. I would love to see Bob Binder or FDR sail on Seabourn, Silversea and even Crystal. It would be an eye opener for them.

[JMARINER]

In TC's "defence" the 5% figure is a "truism" that I have seen used on virtually every one of the CC boards for the luxe and mass market lines at one time or another over the years. I very much doubt if anyone ever actually "calculated" it and I have no idea how one would even attempt to do so.

 

Well I'll take a stab at it. Back a few years ago I heard there were 75,000 SSS members. (I am sure that has gone up). Based on the highest number of CC members votes in a poll, about 500 for the "formal night" poll a year or so ago I would guesstimate the number at .67% which is way less than the 5% number. I would think, in reality, that the true number is even less, which is probably why we rarely see any formal response to CC posts from any Company representative.

 

Anyone have a newer number on SSS members? How about a guess at how many people ever look at the Regent Board?

 

j

[ChatKat in Ca.]

Well ChatKat the choice for you is obvious. Don't sail on Regent while it has inclusive tours. Reading your recent travel profile, this would not be a problem for you.

 

 

 

Actually after planning for the Australia NZ Cruise for several years and booking it for last November (2010) on a guarantee we did not have a cabin assignment and the offer to stay home was so generous, accepted the bump and did a trip we had no time to take.

 

After our replacement cruise in November, we are not planning on booking Regent unless they make the tours optional.

[Responder]

Well I'll take a stab at it. Back a few years ago I heard there were 75,000 SSS members. (I am sure that has gone up). Based on the highest number of CC members votes in a poll, about 500 for the "formal night" poll a year or so ago I would guesstimate the number at .67% which is way less than the 5% number. I would think, in reality, that the true number is even less, which is probably why we rarely see any formal response to CC posts from any Company representative.

 

Anyone have a newer number on SSS members? How about a guess at how many people ever look at the Regent Board?

 

j

 

You pretty much summed up what I was driving at.

 

People tend to maximize or minimize to suit the occasion.

[mrlevin]

A recent post regarding a Mark Conroy Town Hall said that there are 180,000 SSS members and 100,000 regular customers that take at least one cruise every 18 to 36 months.

 

So, of the 100,000, how many frequent this board? 1% = 1,000. There appear to be less than 200 posters (still alive) and I imagine many times that number lurkers. So, I would say 1% of active SSS members read this board.

 

All of this is pure speculation on my part; I have no access to real data.

[hondorner]

I think the cruise line arrives at their guess by observing how many guests show up at "Meet & Mingle" events versus the total number of passengers aboard. On Oceania, I have seen groups as small as 12 out of 684 (roughly 2%) and 108 out of 1100 (about 10%), but that was on the Maiden Voyage of Marina, where 820 of the 1100 or so guests were repeat cruisers. Cruise Critic folks tend to be overwhelmingly repeat cruisers.

 

It's a little more problematical on Regent, which has very sparse participation on Cruise Critic roll calls, of which most do not seem to be interested in organizing a Meet & Mingle.

 

Neither cruise line has official M & M meetings, so at best it's all guesswork. Still, I've always seen the 4% to 5% number, and even heard corporate folks use the number, usually to explain why they can't grant CC folks any special privileges. They respect what we have to say, and take a great interest in it, but largely because we are the largest group with a public voice, not because we represent a significant force.

[Roland4]

Well I'll take a stab at it. Back a few years ago I heard there were 75,000 SSS members. (I am sure that has gone up). Based on the highest number of CC members votes in a poll, about 500 for the "formal night" poll a year or so ago I would guesstimate the number at .67% which is way less than the 5% number. I would think, in reality, that the true number is even less, which is probably why we rarely see any formal response to CC posts from any Company representative.

 

Anyone have a newer number on SSS members? How about a guess at how many people ever look at the Regent Board?

 

j

 

More as an aside, I wasn't suggesting the number was correct, only that it is commonly used. My personal thought, based on the number of people we have cruised with over the years who have never heard of Cruise Critic, has always been that it is probably closer to 0.5%, if it is even that high. Your 0.67% is as good an estimate as any.

[Responder]

More as an aside, I wasn't suggesting the number was correct, only that it is commonly used. My personal thought, based on the number of people we have cruised with over the years who have never heard of Cruise Critic, has always been that it is probably closer to 0.5%, if it is even that high. Your 0.67% is as good an estimate as any.

 

So, if the logical estimates are closer to the truth, why do some members of this board keep pounding as if Regent considers it the Gospel. No one really knows if any changes were effected because of the postings on this board or via an assessment of bookings along with the bottom line.

 

Regent can't be completely off the wall since other luxury lines have begun to emulate much of their business model.

 

I see this board as a way to share information about the aspects of cruising instead of trying to either scare new cruisers away or cause the long time crowd to revolt.

 

I would suspect that for most all the cruisers who can afford to sail on luxury cruises, they have a pretty decent level of intelligence in order to have reached these heights...or they were able to pick their parents.;)

 

Since there is such a huge variety of tastes abounding, how or why should someone's likes or dislikes necessarily appeal to others. I'm pretty sure that people who have regularly sailed with Regent will weather the impending doom, and those who haven't, if not imbued with negativism, will have a great time....all the time..

[mrlevin]

One reason that Oceania would never be considered luxury "to me" is that they don't allow special orders.

[ChatKat in Ca.]

[quote name=hondorner;28865105I

 

It's a little more problematical on Regent' date=' which has very sparse participation on Cruise Critic roll calls, of which most do not seem to be interested in organizing a Meet & Mingle.

 

 

Regent doesn't set up the Mix and Mingle Meetings. Those are mostly done by Princess, Carnival, Royal Caribbean. Most of the people on this board make their own. A number of us have the same TA and have traveled together or met on land

[hondorner]

Regent doesn't set up the Mix and Mingle Meetings. Those are mostly done by Princess, Carnival, Royal Caribbean. Most of the people on this board make their own. A number of us have the same TA and have traveled together or met on land

I'm aware of that; Oceania does not set them up, either. On the Oceania Cruise Critic forum, more people participate in the roll calls, and many more people set up their own get-togethers. No TA needed. That was the basis for my guesstimate, as illustrated by the examples I gave. Nothing to do with Princess, or Carnival, which also do not sponsor Meet & Mingles to the best of my knowledge. I believe only Royal Caribbean, with it's siblings Celebrity and Azamara, actively sponsors Cruise Critic gatherings.

 

None of which has any bearing on the conclusions I drew.

[xrvlcruiser]

Meet & Mingle . . . .and Crystal . . .

[golferwayne]

Here goes with my first ‘meaningful’ post.

 

She who must be obeyed (SWMBO) and I have limited cruise experience. Our first was five years ago on a RCL Western Caribbean and our second will be on the Mariner in October 2011. We are booked into an F class suite as it allowed us a mid ship location on as low a deck as possible.

 

Our interests include good food, wine, golf (not a good match with cruising). We are moving into the stage of life were we wish to travel and learn about other parts of the world. We retired a few years ago and have blown our brains out golfing and feel it is time to travel without a golf focus.

 

We do not enjoy the packing and unpacking every few days, thus one of the attractions of cruises. The Regent package seemed to match fairly well with our interests, and the Mediterranean cruises offered were also attractive from a length and port perspective. After a short evaluation of price/ feature comparability of some cruises we chose Regent.

 

While the advertising is “FREE” excursions, “FREE” Airfare, “FREE” hotel, it is obvious this is simply built into the pricing. The only thing that is sold as “FREE” is worth every penny!

 

So, how does Regent’s new marketing of concierge, and the subsequent extension of this to SSS Gold members affect this newbie?

We are not affected by the change for our booked cruise. We will assess our cruise based on whether the cruise met or exceeded our expectations and whether the price was fare. The ability to obtain acceptable reservations in Signatures and Prime 7 and our overall dining experience will be one element of the evaluation. The ability to obtain desired or acceptable excursions will be second element. The final element would be the general cruise experience including accommodation, service etc. Future cruises with Regent would be based this assessment. What I have discerned from this forum is that we should end up with a favorable assessment. On both the excursions and specialty restaurants I have not seen any major complaints about availability.

 

If we were planning a cruise today that would occur after Regent’s Concierge Service comes into force I offer the following thoughts. Availability and selection of specialty restaurant reservations and land excursions will be less favorable than in the current environment, unless you qualify for early booking. By extension, the value of my cruise dollar is diminished. Without some objective feedback from cruises operated with the Concierge Service, we would be reluctant to choose a Regent Cruise.

As for a second Regent cruise, which would occur after Concierge Service is implemented, we will delay a decision until some objective feedback exists on availability and selection of specialty restaurants and shore excursions for those passengers not offered the early booking features.

 

In closing, I do not expect I should be able to book every excursion I want, nor should I be assured restaurant reservations on the dates and times I wish. Even on those cruise ships were you pay full fare for excursions and a premium for specialty restaurants you are not assured of availability.

Hopefully not to long and rambling, but in writing this it helped me clarify my thoughts on the subject.

[TheSeaAroundUs]

So very logical and clearly presented, Wayne. Excellent post!

 

(I tried golf as a teenager; I had such a wicked slice that I could not imagine adequately remedying it even if I were to devote decades to the task ... so I thought I'd leave the sport to those who possess sufficient patience!:))