Hotel package & business class air for new 2014 cruises

[DaveFr]

I just tried a dummy booking for a new 2014 cruise (Lisbon to Miami - 11/27/14) in Category G, a non-concierge suite. The hotel package was not available for Cat G. However, contrary to what several others have posted, a business class upgrade was available for Cat G. The upgrade cost $1299 pp.

[ridolphi]

Thanks for that info Dave.

 

That was how I understood it, the hotel package was only for Concierge and above, but the business class upgrade, even with the increase cost in most cases, was still available to all categories below PH where it is included.

 

It is possible, although I do no know this for a fact, that Regent has discontinued the hotel package for those below Concierge because many were opting out and doing their own, although if that is the case, not sure why they didn't discontinue it for all categories, just a thought.

[pingpong1]

Hi Joann - If your theory with respect to Regent eliminating the pre-cruise hotel package for non-Concierge passenger is correct - doing away with this "perk", because most people took the credit and booked their own hotel instead - then why also further "rub salt in the wound" at the same time and raise all those same non-Concierge fares? Increasing profits (Okay, reducing costs by eliminating an "unecessary" expense) is one thing, but then also increasing the basic fare at the same time that they eliminate one of the former benefits is really a pretty brazen move, from a customer relations standpoint at least. Perhaps the theory/hunch is that "new" customers won't "miss" something they never had? But to long-time "loyalists" and returning customers, it seems to be generating some fairly vigorous "soul searching" (thoughts regarding value for money) - to the point that some are considering "jumping ship" (sorry, I couldn't resist :)). An additional observation - Could it be that Mr. Conroy knew what was coming in the future and wanted "no part of it"? Regards to all.

[forevertravel]

Pingpong1 you hit the nail on the head. Yes, it seems Regent has stopped caring to keep its loyal customers. The ironic part is that people who cruise with HAL, Princess or other mainstream lines are not going to cruise with Regent because the prices are a lot more. Regent will do well to keep us happy and not make us feel like second class citizens if we do not book Concierge level cabins. Many have posted that Regent had to take away perks and increase prices because they are not making a profit. Well, lots of businesses are not making a profit in this economy. Someone posted they got rid of Mark Conroy to save money. Gee, if this is true that's a lousy way to make money. It's the same as taking perks away now. What's next? I think we will love to see a reply from CEO, of course, that won't happen. It'll be interesting to know how many loyal customers are burning up the phone lines today to book cruises.

[Travelcat2]

Pingpong1 you hit the nail on the head. Yes, it seems Regent has stopped caring to keep its loyal customers. The ironic part is that people who cruise with HAL, Princess or other mainstream lines are not going to cruise with Regent because the prices are a lot more. Regent will do well to keep us happy and not make us feel like second class citizens if we do not book Concierge level cabins. Many have posted that Regent had to take away perks and increase prices because they are not making a profit. Well, lots of businesses are not making a profit in this economy. Someone posted they got rid of Mark Conroy to save money. Gee, if this is true that's a lousy way to make money. It's the same as taking perks away now. What's next? I think we will love to see a reply from CEO, of course, that won't happen. It'll be interesting to know how many loyal customers are burning up the phone lines today to book cruises.

 

I made the post about Mark Conroy. I absolutely did not mean that "they got rid of Mark Conroy to save money". While I have no idea what the circumstances were behind Mark Conroy's departure, I do have a theory (based on having worked in a company that was bought out more than once). My theory is that he had a contract to continue on with Regent for five years and that the contract ran out. In any event, having one President over both Regent and Oceania does save money -- even if I truly wish that Regent had a President as dedicated to Regent as Mark Conroy was.

 

As I mentioned on another thread, I do not understand the workings of a large company from a financial standpoint. However, this is what I am seeing in our fairly small town. We go to restaurants 6 times a week and are very familiar with the menu, portion sizes and prices. In the past four years, prices have gone up at the same time portion sizes diminish. Sometimes only portion sizes diminish or quality goes down. My friend in Newport Beach, CA goes to high-end restaurants nearly every day and has observed the same thing. I tend to think to myself that I would never do this....... I'd raise prices and leave the portion size and quality alone. On the other hand, there must be a reason why this is happening.

[pingpong1]

Hi TC - Here's Business Economics 101. And I'm sure everyone knows this already. For any company, big or small, they can only do one of two things (or a combination of both) to enhance (increase) revenues - the "profit" reported to shareholders. Revenue equals "income minus expenses". They can focus on the "income" side of the equation (increasing the amount of money coming in the door by raising fares) or they can focus on reducing the "expense" side of things (cost of operating the business - ships, supplies, advertising, staff, fuel, food, "free air", "free hotels", "free excursions", etc.). Regent seems to be attempting the "combination" route. Trying to improve BOTH sides of the revenue equation at the same time (increasing income AND reducing expenses). A very tricky thing to do! Particularly when your company is selling a very discretionary and price sensitive product - like cruising. No one absolutely "needs" to go on a cruise (although I know some of us would argue that point :))

 

The price (for the cruise) is set by the marketplace, based upon the perceived "value" or "worth" (to the customer) of the product and what they're willing to spend for that entertainment. If the company chooses to maintain the same price for the product and increase revenue by just reducing expenses (eliminating desireable and valuable benefits/perks), they can wind up "cheapening" the product and thus, reducing the perceived value of the product to the customer. Remember that ultimately, the marketplace (the customer) determines what the product is "worth", not the company.

 

On the other hand, every company would probably like to just increase their income (prices) while holding expenses steady, but it has to be done within the parameters of what the market will "bear". They can only raise their prices to the extent that their customers (both future and returning) perceive the "product" is worth - in relation to similar products offered by competitors in a similar marketplace. The comments of many folks on these threads indicate that a lot of past customers are now questioning whether the new prices being advertised have just about reached or perhaps exceeded the perceived value - remember, a judgement made by customers and not by the business owners.

 

Also remember that the level of most expenses a cruiseline must pay are going up and these are also set by numerous marketplaces. Companies have less ability to control expenses (the cost of doing business) UNLESS they reduce the number of those "benefits" included in the original product - which unfortunately, also reduces the perceived "value" of the product and ties directly back to the cost that can be charged for the product.

 

We also see Regent attempting to reduce expenses ("free hotels", "free air", etc.) at the same time they're increasing their income (fare prices). Time will tell how this all plays out. I suppose there are some customers who are in a position where price really is no object. And if that's the market Regent is trying to dominate, then I don't think they'll ever need more than 3 ships in their fleet. Even though that particular customer base is willing to pay (and can afford) simply any price increase that Regent charges (sort of like Rolls Royce owners), even they have to keep perceiving that the increasing prices charged (by Regent) are "worth it" (remember, even Rolls doesn't sell as many cars as they used to).

 

And underlying all of this, the demographics of Regent's past customer base (or the people they were trying to attract as new customers) is changing. Many people on this board are now looking at alternatives (such as Oceania), which might meet all their "needs" quite nicely AND for a lesser price.

[Travelcat2]

pingpong1: Thank you so much for taking the time to post that explanation. It is one of the few I have read that makes sense and did not cause my eyes to glaze over (although I may need to reread it to insure I understand).

 

One thing that I had not considered was the marketplace. From what I have read on the Silversea and Seabourn boards, Regent is filling their ships more than their competition (have no clue how Crystal is doing). While I know that every ship isn't full on every itinerary, we must pick the ones that are full......our last four cruises with Regent have been full. As of this morning, there is one cabin left on our March, 2013 cruise. So, since Regent is raising prices and decreasing some benefits, only time will tell if it makes a difference. It seems that the lowest categories on Regent are always guaranteed or waitlisted. We'll see if this changes:confused:

 

There is a point where people actually will go to another cruise line -- not just talk about it or take one or two cruises on another line as we have done. We will stop cruising before we settled for anything less than a luxury cruise (Regent or Silversea style).

 

I do not believe that the majority of Regent cruisers have unlimited funds to spend on cruising. It appears that Regent is in the drivers seat (so to speak) at the moment.

 

Thanks again for Business Economics 101;)

[ridolphi]

pingpong - your explanation is probably more spot on than mine, and makes much more sense. Mine was just a guess on my part.

 

We know a lot of cruisers who always take the lowest cabin on Regent, as we do usually ourselves, and frankly we are finding the increases are becoming harder and harder to justify, at least to justify more than one cruise every year or year and a half. We have used the comp hotel, the air and when using the air always upgrade, but now its not such a good deal, although probably still a better deal than paying biz class if we don't have miles. Other times we do our own hotel, and/or use miles for air, it just depends on the situation, area traveling to and such I am sorry to see them eliminate the pre hotel for cat F,G and H, and increase the biz class to Europe in most instances, as overall it was a nice selling point for them to be able to say "its all included, "free" air, "free" pre night hotel, "free" excursions (which we have found to be pretty well done overall) etc and now they have to specify who gets what so to speak.

 

But then, there is a reason that someone else is running the company not me LOL:D

[WesW]

Kelvin/Pingponp1, concur w/TC, u provided an outstanding/easy to understand biz analysis. And agree with Ridolphi/Joann's spot on summary of the recent increases/decreases as well. In our opinion, Regent's ongoing/aggressive combination approach to increasing revenue for us has lessened the delivery of the Regent cruise luxury product--for us. For example, changing some deck seven G suites to F suites later this year for increased revenue, reducing air credit by $200 pp effect this past Oct 1st for new bookings, taking the Free Hotel/transfer only for non concierge suite bookings now, charging $499 pp for (what were (2012/2013 free (paid in cruise fare) land pre/post trips last year and some this year) pre/post trips in 2014, providing no more dedicated dance instructors, dedicated arts & crafts instructors, hosts, or dedicated cooking programs (e.g. Le Cordon Bleu)--why? the suites required by these folks cost revenue. We enjoy dance lessons on board (non provided on our 18 day voyage in December on the Voyager (six sea days), no formal cooking program offered (tho there was ONE cooking competition between chefs/GM and a few guests (TC was one :)), some excursions buses went on excursion with no Regent escort (a safety issue in our minds (hosts/other Regent staff (e.g.Boutique Asst mgr help provide accountability, providing first aid if needed).

 

Couple these new pricing strategies by Regent and with the departure of Mark Conroy at the end of last month--led us to what Kelvin intimated above--not only looking at alternatives to Regent but also booking alternatives (e.g., Silversea). For now, we will most miss our goto Regent front office guy Barry, but mostly we will miss, the wonderful voyager crew members we have become so fond of.

[hondorner]

...even they have to keep perceiving that the increasing prices charged (by Regent) are "worth it"...

To add to that perception, one has to have a firm understanding of the way prices are increasing in ways that affect cruise lines. I sometimes find my memory faulty in that regard. I find it difficult to equate my first cruise with Oceania to current offerings. That first cruise, at the end of 2006, was a 26 day, exotic Amazon River cruise from Miami to Manaus and return, in a Concierge cabin on Regatta, at a cost of a little over $11,000 for the two of us. Today, that same $11,000 barely gets a lower category veranda cabin on a 15 day repositioning cruise on Oceania. 6-1/4 years is not a long time, yet prices have doubled for a cruise almost half as long and perceived as not as desirable

 

Here's the rub -- even when I remember that fuel prices and operation costs of all sorts have risen, my own income has shrunk in that period, partly because of full retirement but mostly due to losses incurred in the financial meltdown.

 

TC says she'll stop cruising before she accepts a lesser product, but I think that's kind of extreme. I fall into the camp of "any" cruise is better than no cruise at all. As a result, this September, I'll be taking a 24 day cruise to Copenhagen, Norway, Iceland and stops between, and back to Miami, in a 406 sq ft suite with butler and concierge, for the same approximately $11,000 -- but I'll be doing it on NCL. I simply can't afford Scandinavia on Regent or even Oceania in any category, but I'd (almost) sail in the hold of a tramp steamer rather than pass up the opportunity. Maybe when I've been everywhere and done everything I'll be able to be that dismissive...but to reach that goal I'll have to adapt, perhaps even to the point of an inside cabin on NCL.

[Eager2Travel]

I have to agree with Don. We just put a deposit on a Ring of Fire cruise of 38 days from Los Angeles to Auckland in a suite the size of Regent's. We don't have a butler and it is on Holland America but it is a wonderful itinerary we have been wanting to do. The cost for the two of us is what we would spend for 15 days on Regent in New Zealand. The airfare for biz class is $3,300. Regent's charge for biz class upgrade is $3,000. That doesn't look like such a great deal in comparison. We know all about the extra costs and that is fine. Not having the included excursions gives us more flexibility.

 

I will miss the included wine and drinks and great food but I may come home with fewer additional pounds. We love being on Regent but I want to retain my ability to adapt to less.;)

 

We are so pleased to have found this as Regent seems stuck in repeating their same itineraries with minor variations.

 

Ann

[Gcto]

Like with all businesses, the intent is to make money and not to lose money. J As Pingpong1 already outlined, prices are set by marketplace in general and a company will usually try to maximize their profit without losing sales.

Everything is getting more expensive over time, whether we see this in actual prices charged or (as someone stated earlier, in less product received like in restaurants etc). Like with any product, the intent is to charge the maximum price for the product without losing customers. If you charge too much, customers will stay away and your profit/revenue will go down. Finding that sweet spot is an art sometimes, and sometimes just brute force.

This problem shows up in each business at various times, usually when offering a new product (how much should I charge for this new car, PC, software etc. ) outside the just plain “this is what it costs me to provide the product and this is what percentage I would like to make”. Very often this also shows up when a new manager/CEO/Company takes over. They try to “maximize profit” or try to show that they are better than the previous management J

On top of this, you have competition from other lines here. The cruise industry seems to have more capacity than passengers and especially the larger lines (Carnival, RCL, etc) are adding more and more beds without raising prices for the base product. But, they do raise prices, just not as visible. Food quality on those ships is going down, you get charged for everything and then some. A drink was 8.95 now it’s 9.95, you pay for this and that. All while the base price is not changing.

Regent is an all-inclusive product or they claim it to be and they can’t willy nilly charge more for wine/drinks/specialty restaurants etc. But they can increase prices or limit offerings or services. I would assume that Regent has done some research to support their actions, but it is up to us, the consumers, to agree or not.

Fortunately, there is a variety of options we have and personally I do like the all-inclusiveness of Regent, but like with all things there is a limit. As Wes already pointed out changes during his latest Voyager travel are making him look at other options. Hambaghle compared Oceania and Regent and found Oceania had some advantages they liked. Others might find the bigger ships, the larger crowds etc less enticing etc. I think it is a good idea (and I hope Regent continues listening to us) to voice our concerns. If enough people don’t like what’s coming, things will change, but if enough people don’t care of are still buying the product…then changes will stay. The bottom line is important whether it’s Regent or us.

[Travelcat2]

\TC says she'll stop cruising before she accepts a lesser product, but I think that's kind of extreme. I fall into the camp of "any" cruise is better than no cruise at all. As a result, this September, I'll be taking a 24 day cruise to Copenhagen, Norway, Iceland and stops between, and back to Miami, in a 406 sq ft suite with butler and concierge, for the same approximately $11,000 -- but I'll be doing it on NCL. I simply can't afford Scandinavia on Regent or even Oceania in any category, but I'd (almost) sail in the hold of a tramp steamer rather than pass up the opportunity. Maybe when I've been everywhere and done everything I'll be able to be that dismissive...but to reach that goal I'll have to adapt, perhaps even to the point of an inside cabin on NCL.

 

Hi Don...... it seems that the perception on CruiseCritic is that members are hooked on cruising. In our case, we are not. We did land vacations for almost 20 years before sailing on Regent (and the Paul Gauguin) in 2004. There are still many places (some within the U.S. and Canada) that we have yet to visit. We do not consider ourselves "cruisers". We were tired of plane flights when we started cruising. We used frequent flyer points to go around the world on Qantas and TWA in 1987. At that time, it was easy to do. By the turn of the century, flying was a pain in the a.. (aka butt). Flying to embarkation/debarkation ports seemed easier than the way we were traveling. This is no longer the case. It would not take that much for us to dump cruising and return to land vacations. The first places in line to return to are Fiji (all-inclusive private island at a much lower price than Regent) and South Africa.

 

Just hoping that cruise lines do not get too big for their britches (have no clue how to spell that!)

[HanaleiSailor]

Aloha all,

 

One thing that I have not seen mentioned in the ongoing discussions about declining service and increased costs on many cruise lines is the fact that there has been so much capacity added to the cruise industry over the past 5-10 years, I wonder if there has been increasing difficulty on the part of the cruise lines to recruit and train sufficient numbers of capable English- speaking staff?

 

Have there been so many cabins added to the market that the labor pool is insufficient to supply the demand, especially with the type of staff expected by guests on a "luxury line?" If so, I wonder if the cost of labor has increased over the past few years, even though the quality of the available labor pool must have been diluted by the sheer number of new staff required for all of the new ships?

 

Just my two cents. . .

 

Happy VD and aloha to all!

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Aloha all,

 

One thing that I have not seen mentioned in the ongoing discussions about declining service and increased costs on many cruise lines is the fact that there has been so much capacity added to the cruise industry over the past 5-10 years, I wonder if there has been increasing difficulty on the part of the cruise lines to recruit and train sufficient numbers of capable English- speaking staff?

 

Have there been so many cabins added to the market that the labor pool is insufficient to supply the demand, especially with the type of staff expected by guests on a "luxury line?" If so, I wonder if the cost of labor has increased over the past few years, even though the quality of the available labor pool must have been diluted by the sheer number of new staff required for all of the new ships?

 

Just my two cents. . .

 

Happy VD and aloha to all!

 

It's an interesting theory, but I can't imagine it's true. Think about it. Asia is a vast repository of people with increasingly good education, English skills and rising expectations.

[Travelcat2]

While I am not familiar with labor costs, there were several articles in travel magazines/journals regarding the difficulty in finding staff when the megaships first debuted. I can't imagine that it would have improved much as there seems to be new ships being launched all the time. I wonder if this is one of the reasons we are seeing so many new crew members from the Baltic countries -- perhaps Regent is tapping into a new resource? I did notice some attitude changes when we were on board in December - mainly from some crew from this area. After having a long discussion with a crew member from Estonia (one of my favorite places on earth), I learned that it does not come natural to them to be open to strangers. Wes and I both this bartenders name on our comment cards as a standout person on our cruise -- she had only been on board 4 months and had learned quite a lot in terms of being open and friendly with passengers.

[WesW]

TC, u mean the fab Nele of course, still pine for her delicious blue cheese stuffed Olive Gin martinis :)

[Travelcat2]

TC, u mean the fab Nele of course, still pine for her delicious blue cheese stuffed Olive Gin martinis :)

 

You hit the nail on the head! We watched her stuff those olives using a toothpick;)