Suites on Voyager

[rallydave]

The information was given to me by e mail from Regent in London who in turn got the confirmation from Regent in the US. They informed us that over 50 suites had been reserved for this cruise by ZAP with the option of more if required. They confirmed that over half the suites had already been reserved. This was enough to make us decide against the cruise but I hope that you have a fabulous trip brownsf it is a great itinerary

 

Once again a case of Regent providing incorrect information. This is no surprise and people need to be aware of the fact that information received from Regent on shore representatives is more often incorrect than correct.

 

This incorrect information has been reported on CC many times and needs to be reiterated frequently for others who haven't heard of these issues.

 

It's a real shame that Regent (and Oceania) have the ability to provide truly excellent products once one gets on the water but, the home office staff is so clueless and provides incorrect information more often than not.

 

Noticed on an Oceania thread that the CEO of PCH who owns both Regent and Oceania took the time to describe the differences between their suite and executive lounges but, seems to not have the time to manage his home office staff in Miami and Omaha. Truly a shame and one of the the reasons knowledgeable people are leaving for other cruise lines and while Regent at least is trying to draw people from mainstream lines, these people will quickly become disillusioned and move on also.

[OrpingtonT]

Once again a case of Regent providing incorrect information. This is no surprise and people need to be aware of the fact that information received from Regent on shore representatives is more often incorrect than correct.

 

 

Is this quite fair. There is not a lot of conflict here as I read it. The group has reserved 50 suites and 50 or 60 people have booked the cruise, which is around half as both Regent and brownsf have said. Of course others may book and the allocation of 50 suites may be taken up. This sort of thing is normal I believe, though I wouldn't be too keen on such a cruise myself.

[Travelcat2]

Agree that it is not fair to bash Regent on this point. Many times cruise lines attempt to hide the fact that there is a group on board. In this case Regent seems to have been quite open. And, there certainly could be more members of the group booking before they release the unsold cabins.

[rallydave]

Agree that it is not fair to bash Regent on this point. Many times cruise lines attempt to hide the fact that there is a group on board. In this case Regent seems to have been quite open. And, there certainly could be more members of the group booking before they release the unsold cabins.

 

It is fair to bash Regent on any incorrect information and even if the information about 50 suites being held is correct, there are more than enough instances or incorrect information from the home office identified on this board which only covers in the neighborhood of 5 to 10% of the people cruising Regent to justify bashing the home office support or lack thereof.

 

And, what specific information do you have that the 50 suites being held is correct?? We do have it from the even organizer which is more than likely better than that from the Regent home office. Also, what statistical data do you have to support your supposition that many times cruise lines hide the fact that there are groups aboard or is that simply conjecture on your part?

[Travelcat2]

For readers information: When some people do not respond directly to others, it does not imply that the poster is correct. Rather, it can simply mean that it is not worth the time to argue a useless point. It seems as if bashing Regent at every possible opportunity somehow makes Rallydave happy. He is certainly entitled to his opinion. It is just a shame that someone who no longer sails on Regent continues to cast aspersions. He made his point by leaving Regent and taking his money with him. Rallydave, hopefully you and your wife will enjoy Holland America so much that Regent will no longer be in the forefront of your mind. Okay -- now you can have the last word and I will not respond.

[forgap]

Geesh, Travelcat, lets not have a cat fight! Everyone has a point of view and i believe the readership can come to their own own opinion about any topic. Your post was a bit harsh.

[Travelcat2]

Geesh, Travelcat, lets not have a cat fight! Everyone has a point of view and i believe the readership can come to

their own own opinion about any topic. Your post was a bit harsh.

 

Yes it was -- I agree with you. However, there is, IMO, a very good reason why it was.

[rallydave]

Yes it was -- I agree with you. However, there is, IMO, a very good reason why it was.

 

tc's very good reason is that she as usual only read what she wanted to read in my post and failed to read where I said the onboard experience was excellent and that it was the home office I was commenting on.

 

This is even though she as well as many others on this board have commented numerous times about the extremely poor actions of the home office. There would be fewer of these "cat fights" if tc actually read the entire post. She has herself commented that she speed reads posts and doesn't always read all of the words.

 

Extremely difficult to deal with people who over react to part of a post while failing to read the entire post.

 

As forgap commented, everyone need to draw their own conclusions from differing posts.

[newlondon]

I will only make one comment. Rallydave is a Regent basher despite his protestations to the contrary. Examine his financial analysis-suspect at best. Jackie doesn't like to be challenged and is a Regent cheer leader despite the fact that Regent does make many mistakes.

The reader can make their own judgement on this one:D

[Travelcat2]

I will only make one comment. Rallydave is a Regent basher despite his protestations to the contrary. Examine his financial analysis-suspect at best. Jackie doesn't like to be challenged and is a Regent cheer leader despite the fact that Regent does make many mistakes.

The reader can make their own judgement on this one:D

 

You did make me laugh. I agree with what you wrote........ just one addition...... you can disagree with my posts or opinion -- as long as I am not personally attacked. And, yes -- I do defend my position;)

[newlondon]

Nothing wrong with that, just be fair and accurate:)

[LindaM]

Nothing wrong with that, just be fair and accurate:)

 

And, being fair and accurate means not accusing a poster of saying one thing on one board, and something totally opposite on another. You need to be 100% sure before you go there... (This isn't you TC!)

[OrpingtonT]

And, being fair and accurate means not accusing a poster of saying one thing on one board, and something totally opposite on another. You need to be 100% sure before you go there... (This isn't you TC!)

 

You really should say who you do mean. Give an opportunity for a reply.

[LindaM]

You really should say who you do mean. Give an opportunity for a reply.

 

That is why we can quote others---they know we are speaking to them, in most cases. Unless they are totally disconnected! The person I quoted should remember---as the experience was one I will never forget!

[newlondon]

I guess my original mea culpa was not good enough. If you want a pound of flesh, once again I apologize. I would hope that will help you get over an innocent mistake.

[LindaM]

I guess my original mea culpa was not good enough. If you want a pound of flesh, once again I apologize. I would hope that will help you get over an innocent mistake.

 

A pound of flesh is a little sarcastic. It was pretty unnerving to be accused of writing something on another board (which I don't frequent). Personally, I don't think people who do that should expect a simple apology to be sufficient. That type of mistake is inexcusable. You can't just do something really terrible and think an "I'm sorry" will justify it. Sorry, you opened up the wound, with what you wrote to TC.

[newlondon]

The other poster was a Linda. Sorry once again, but I don't understand the paranoia over something that was an oversight. If you read these boards people make mistakes all the time and some get imo excessively criticized. My advice is to understand when there is serious animosity or just a mistake. I guarantee you LindaM there was no animosity, certainly not to the extent you are now showing towards me. If you can't deal with a mistake I feel sorry for you.

[LindaM]

The other poster was a Linda. Sorry once again, but I don't understand the paranoia over something that was an oversight. If you read these boards people make mistakes all the time and some get imo excessively criticized. My advice is to understand when there is serious animosity or just a mistake. I guarantee you LindaM there was no animosity, certainly not to the extent you are now showing towards me. If you can't deal with a mistake I feel sorry for you.

 

Hmmm.....if the post hadn't been pulled, you would be able to read what you wrote. Sounded like animosity to me and the overseer of this board. It was probably the most "animosity" I have been exposed to on these boards. You have to take responsibility for your actions. I know it was a mistake on your part---no one wants to chastise another then got caught being wrong. You are seriously overreacting to me just calling you out on something you wrote to me. Sorry if that upsets you, but hopefully you have learned from this mistake. All is forgiven!

[newlondon]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe you have forgiven, and you don't understand that I made a mistake due to reading to quickly, but I have no quarrel with you. As you say let's move on.

[AWED23]

You did make me laugh. I agree with what you wrote........ just one addition...... you can disagree with my posts or opinion -- as long as I am not personally attacked. And, yes -- I do defend my position;)

:confused: What about your personal and abusive post as regards Rallydave in post #30 ??? Do the rules not apply equally to all posters?

[rallydave]

:confused: What about your personal and abusive post as regards Rallydave in post #30 ??? Do the rules not apply equally to all posters?

 

Thanks for the kind words AWED23. You are spot on with your observation. It is a real shame that someone who has so many opinions, so few facts and the inability to completely read their own as well as others posts is unable to apologize when they are wrong so many times.

 

You are absolutely correct that the rules that are spouted are only meant for others and not for the writer. Highly doubt you will get any response to your excellent post.

[Travelcat2]

Oh my goodness...... someone needs to look up the word "personal". Stating that a poster bashes Regent all the time is not a personal attack any more than people who state that I am a Regent cheerleader is a personal attack.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic or the disagreement above. :rolleyes:

 

Rallydave: I read every word of the post you keep nagging at me about. IMO, making repeated posts against Regent is not remedied by one positive sentence. I ignore most of your posts because they are negative and critical towards me. We do not see each other's point of view.....period! It is useless for me to respond to your posts that consistently bash me -- question everything I say -- tell me that I'm lying, not reading things properly or do not know the facts. When I have been wrong I have apologized (which is the only way you know that I sometimes speed read and may have missed something. My comments now are only to remind people that my lack of response to a post does not indicate that I am in agreement with what was posted.

 

For at least the 100th time, if everyone posted in response to "posts" not "posters", this nonsense would not be happening. As also mentioned previously, I do not even think about whether posters on CruiseCritic like or hate me. I post to share as much information as possible to "newbies". They can read everyone's opinions and decide for themselves. I will continue to post as long as my information is current and relevant. And, I try to follow CruiseCritic's guidelines to the letter. They permit us to post on their website and we have the obligation to respect their guideslines.

 

IMO, this page has become a waste of time and is completely off topic.

[Mjflowers]

Now I am totally convinced as to why I read these post on CC. Some kids just say the darndest things and make me crack up. I need a chuckle every once in a while.:D

[hmh60]

I like to read several Cruise Critic forums and I must say that this one is one of the most entertaining.

 

Cunard is another favorite.

[Travelcat2]

Actually, I also find it pretty entertaining. Some posters are just going to argue ........ something we can always look forward to (or not):)