Jim & Kat on Navigator: our 1st cruise --commentary & thoughts

[TrulyBlonde]

Respectfully, if you will look back on this thread you will find that it was not me that kept bringing it back up to the top of the threads. by making new posts. Actually, I attempt to stop the repeat questions directed to me (such as I did last night) Also, I do not disagree with Octoberkat's experience on the Navigator but have questioned (prior to and after the cruise) whether her expectations of a luxury cruise were realistic. It was nice to read what her expectations were of the cruise. BTW, what is "muzak"? In would be nice for someone to start a thread about luxury cruising expectations.

 

Actually, it would be nice to be able to debate cruising calmly. It is interesting that for 2-3 weeks (end of last month and beginning of this month) things were quite calm on the Regent board. Not sure what happened....... full moon?

 

TC2..I counted well over 30 posts from you on this topic (not including the posts that were deleted with the debate between you and Octoberkat). You are correct, it is time for a new thread as it is very repetitive and becoming tiresome.

On the other hand, is is refreshing to hear other points of view, whether it is a positive review or a negative one. I find you to be very helpful many times as well, and most people on here are intelligent enough to form their own opinions regarding what they want or expect in a luxury cruise or any cruise.

[rallydave]

Respectfully, if you will look back on this thread you will find that it was not me that kept bringing it back up to the top of the threads by making new posts. Actually, I attempt to stop the repeat questions directed to me (such as I did last night) Also, I do not disagree with Octoberkat's experience on the Navigator but have questioned (prior to and after the cruise) whether her expectations of a luxury cruise were realistic. It was nice to read what her expectations were of the cruise. BTW, what is "muzak"? In would be nice for someone to start a thread about luxury cruising expectations.

 

Actually, it would be nice to be able to debate cruising calmly. It is interesting that for 2-3 weeks (end of last month and beginning of this month) things were quite calm on the Regent board. Not sure what happened....... full moon?

 

Actually I counted 40 posts out of 201 total posts to date from you or 20% of the thread posted by you not including the posts that were deleted by Host Dan.

 

Every post brings the thread back to the top so mystifying how you can possibly say it wasn't you bringing this thread back to the top???????

 

And, perhaps you can answer the question yourself regarding what happened by looking in a reflective device!!

[CruisetheCs]

It remains a mystery to me why threads (not just this one) that have less than rave reviews about a ship are discussed for a long period of time while positive threads are dismissed rather quickly.

 

What keeps a lot of threads alive are repeated attempts to make the bad experience seem not as bad as the passenger thought it was or to defend Regent's service despite the guest's dissatisfaction. These kinds of rebuttals to an unsatisfactory experience just invite more people to disagree and keep the threads alive.

 

With good experiences, for the most part, people don't try to make the experience seem atypical or imply that it is the passenger's fault in some manner.

 

And when people continue to post observations it invites others such as me to post observations. That's what keeps the thread alive.

[gnomie1]

pingpong1, Imo there is no better river cruise line than Tauck. Uniworld comes in a close second. If you would like to go into more depth please e-mail me at w sloan . nl at gmail.com.

 

I will second that - Tauck has some amazing river cruises and they are usually top notch all the way!

 

gnomie :)

[Travelcat2]

A DF of mine was the Southeast director of a major news organization. We discussed why "negative news" accounted for a majority of the reported stories. His comment was negative stories attracted more readers. Why? Well, in order for the reader to digest problematic information, troubleshooting tactics help to put the contents of the report in perspective. The negative stories become a "puzzle" of sorts.

 

Happy, feel good, stories are exactly that. Something that does not require the reader anything more than the enjoyment to relax and enjoy the information, hence, no need to ruminate the details.

 

This supposition might explain the numerous responses to the posts that seem negative in nature. Just a thought.

 

Very logical - thanks for your comment. I can see where many questions are asked in order to determine what the "problem" was on a particular cruise, what caused it and if/how it can be remedied. There is still one issue that people can't let go of (coffee) and I'm determined to figure it out (sort of like playing amateur detective;)

 

Have to laugh about the post counting. Seriously, it is content - not the number of posts that counts IMO. The OP had a lot of questions and comments -- I had a lot of answers and comments. In between a few of us shared some off topic comments. As has been said many times, if someone is not interested in what is being said, simply don't read it.

 

Regulars and most other posters are here to answer questions to the best of their ability based on their experiences and opinions which may differ from others experiences and opinions. There will be debates that go back and forth - hopefully based on those differences - not based on bullying.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Travelcat2

[Pam]

I know everybody is getting tired of this thread, but I guess I have a low entertainment threshold or something because it's kind of interesting to me.

 

Mark and I were never big cruisers; early in our marriage we did two Windjammer Barefoot Cruises, and thought that was THE way to go (except the lack of hot showers on the first one, that they didn't tell us about until we were trapped onboard). We preferred to fly to an island, rent a car (or once a motorcycle) and explore. We went on a few RCCL cruises, just because, did the Panama Canal on Legend and really had a good time.

 

Then my travel agent (who wasn't a big agent, wasn't knowledgable on cruises, and went out of business a long time ago) called me and said "PAM! There is a new cruise ship coming out that you absolutely have to try! It's all suites, and balconies, do y'all want to go to Alaska?" We were all for it, we were on Mariner's first voyage to Alaska, and we were home.

 

I don't think we ever thought of or looked for "luxury". We sailed the Big Suites; Seven Seas on Mariner and Voyager, Voyager Suite, Grand Suite on Mariner, Master and Grand on Navigator. Then, on our last Navigator cruise, we sailed in a regular old suite/cabin. Ya know what? We could have saved a lot of money by sailing in the regular suites, although we did enjoy the extra space in the bigger ones (and the extra half bath!!). It was nice not to sign a ticket for drinks, although at least the first few we did have to other than at dinner, and that wasn't such a big deal. Unlike most people, we liked Navigator just fine. One of the waiters was bringing luggage onboard, saw us in our suite; he dropped the luggage and came for a big hug. That was Navigator to us.

 

Mark was getting ready for weight loss surgery, and our cruise fell in the last couple of weeks. He had to follow a very, very strict diet regimen if they were going to be able to do the surgery without full incision. I thought he was nuts, how do you go on a cruise and follow this diet??? Simple; he told our servers what he could eat, and the chef made those things so attractive that he was very happy eating them. He had the surgery with no full incision. That was Navigator to us.

 

Luxury? Maybe not. And it's been six years or so since we were on Navigator, so I can't talk about present times. We never sailed any other the other "luxury" lines because we didn't feel the need. With the huge single supplement, I don't plan to go back, so I won't be able to talk about the here and now. But I certainly have happy memories of the Regent ships, and little, aging Navigator in particular.

[diebroke]

Diebroke - Would you please divulge the name of the River Cruise Line that you did your two weeks on (and apparently liked very much)? I see more (European) river cruises in my future and would like to try something other than Avalon (the first I took) or Viking. There must be something "higher up the food chain" than those two. ;) I seem to recall dearly departed T. Orpington (RIP) once recommending either Tauck or Scenic to me. Was it either of those? Thanks Much.

 

pingpong1, We did AmaWaterways. We went as part of a group that focused on very special food & wine experiences beyond those provided by the ship. I just took my TA’s advice & did not do any research myself. I did some visual inspections of other ships on the rivers & felt that the physical furnishings on our ship were superior to most other ships we saw & walked through, particularly the top deck. I have nothing else on rivers to compare with our river experience.

I don’t claim to be knowledgeable of other “luxury” river cruises. I have heard very good things about Tauck. I don't want to say that Ama is the best.

 

What I liked:

Cruising down the river on the top deck & watching the scenery go by; the walking tours in each of the small towns (guides were outstanding); the regional foods served in the dining room (most were in the “comfort food” category which was just fine with me); the friendly & entertaining servers, all of whom were European.

 

What would be disappointing compared to luxury cruises:

Even the largest cabins would be considered small by luxury ocean cruise standards. The ship had a reservation only special restaurant purporting to serve gourmet meals. It was quite disappointing. I have seen places try to pull off the “gourmet” dining experience without the expertise or quality ingredients. It never works. Ama did an outstanding job on the regional cuisine in the dining room.

I don’t do shows, spas, casinos, or fitness centers so can’t comment on that.

Finally, the price was comparable to 2 weeks on a luxury ocean cruise. Not sure what makes it so expensive. It was port intensive with no "sea days" & maybe there are fees associated with the many locks.

 

Summary: I really liked it and was happy with my choice of river cruise lines. It will be etched in my memory for many reasons & felt more like a travel experience than some ocean cruises. Not sure it should be compared to ocean luxury cruising & I think I will log far more days ocean luxury cruising than river luxury cruising. I will do it again.

[pingpong1]

Pam & Diebroke - Thanks to both of you for your very different yet upbeat thoughts and comments.

 

Pam, I too like Navigator very much and we're looking forward to our 2nd cruise on the "Nav" in October through New England and Canada (originating in NYC). Our first encounter with her was in Alaska and we're eager to get onboard again. Diebroke, Thanks so much for taking the time to supply the nice input and summary of your experience with AMA.

 

From both of your comments, along with those of some others, I'm beginning to think that in defining a "luxury" cruise, it has to be defined by each of us - the customers - rather than the company trying to do it for us. It seems to have a lot to do with each of our own respective states of mind, individual expectations and experiences, and maybe particular memories, meals, and ways that we've been treated while on a particular cruise along with the service and consideration provided by particular crew members, staff, and fellow passengers. In other words, any one of us might actually have a "luxury experience" on a Princess, NCL, or HAL cruise - if everything happened to "click" the way we wanted it too - and despite the fare we were charged.

 

Maybe we can only say a particular cruise was a "luxury experience" after it was over and upon reflection, rather than before we even begin the cruise and plunk down a huge "bucket full" of money (in the case of Regent). :eek:

 

Also, having had a "luxury" experience on one particular cruise with one particular company does not necessarily mean that all succeeding cruises on the same line, or even on the same ship, will also be similar "luxury" experiences for us. Just a thought. Regards.

[OctoberKat]

From both of your comments, along with those of some others, I'm beginning to think that in defining a "luxury" cruise, it has to be defined by each of us - the customers - rather than the company trying to do it for us. It seems to have a lot to do with each of our own respective states of mind, individual expectations and experiences, and maybe particular memories, meals, and ways that we've been treated while on a particular cruise along with the service and consideration provided by particular crew members, staff, and fellow passengers. In other words, any one of us might actually have a "luxury experience" on a Princess, NCL, or HAL cruise - if everything happened to "click" the way we wanted it too - and despite the fare we were charged.

 

Maybe we can only say a particular cruise was a "luxury experience" after it was over and upon reflection, rather than before we even begin the cruise and plunk down a huge "bucket full" of money (in the case of Regent). :eek:

 

Also, having had a "luxury" experience on one particular cruise with one particular company does not necessarily mean that all succeeding cruises on the same line, or even on the same ship, will also be similar "luxury" experiences for us. Just a thought. Regards.

 

This makes a lot of sense to me.

[Hambagahle]

To me too! Well said, pingpong1

[janecambridge]

luxury

ˈlʌkʃ(ə)ri/

noun

1.

a state of great comfort or elegance, especially when involving great expense.

"he lived a life of luxury"

synonyms: opulence, luxuriousness, sumptuousness, richness, costliness, grandeur, grandness, splendour, magnificence, lavishness, lap of luxury, bed of roses, milk and honey;

 

 

 

We were sold a cruise with Regent,at a travel show,with Luxury being the optimum word.

Having said many times that we loved the ship,the staff and most of the passengers,the rest,for us,for what we paid,was not luxurious,magnificent,sumptuous,lavish,opulent,grand,elegant or comfortable.

But it was a great expense.

[Travelcat2]

From both of your comments, along with those of some others, I'm beginning to think that in defining a "luxury" cruise, it has to be defined by each of us - the customers - rather than the company trying to do it for us. It seems to have a lot to do with each of our own respective states of mind, individual expectations and experiences, and maybe particular memories, meals, and ways that we've been treated while on a particular cruise along with the service and consideration provided by particular crew members, staff, and fellow passengers. In other words, any one of us might actually have a "luxury experience" on a Princess, NCL, or HAL cruise - if everything happened to "click" the way we wanted it too - and despite the fare we were charged.

 

Maybe we can only say a particular cruise was a "luxury experience" after it was over and upon reflection, rather than before we even begin the cruise and plunk down a huge "bucket full" of money (in the case of Regent). :eek:

 

Also, having had a "luxury" experience on one particular cruise with one particular company does not necessarily mean that all succeeding cruises on the same line, or even on the same ship, will also be similar "luxury" experiences for us. Just a thought. Regards.

 

I also find your thoughts interesting but it brings up a couple of questions. How you feel a "luxury" cruise line should advertise itself (vs. a "premium" or "mainstream" cruise line with a section of the ship that is set up as "luxury) in order to differentiate itself.?

 

This isn't the first OP whose basis of comparison was on land based. To simply say that you really cannot compare a luxury hotel to a luxury cruise ship sounds harsh but is true. How would you explain it. I find food easier to describe because they cannot do farm to table food due to obvious restraints.

 

This is a interesting topic - wish it were on a different thread so it could get the attention it deserves.

[tallship]

luxury

ˈlʌkʃ(ə)ri/

noun

1.

a state of great comfort or elegance, especially when involving great expense.

"he lived a life of luxury"

synonyms: opulence, luxuriousness, sumptuousness, richness, costliness, grandeur, grandness, splendour, magnificence, lavishness, lap of luxury, bed of roses, milk and honey;

 

 

 

We were sold a cruise with Regent,at a travel show,with Luxury being the optimum word.

Having said many times that we loved the ship,the staff and most of the passengers,the rest,for us,for what we paid,was not luxurious,magnificent,sumptuous,lavish,opulent,grand,elegant or comfortable.

But it was a great expense.

 

I think this post says it best

[fizzy]

The word "luxury" has been so over used on the Regent board that it has become meaningless. Premium...what's that? Any advertising that I notice about cruises has Oceania listed as luxury. JUST my opinion, but I don't find a ship with inside rooms and people frantically clamoring for 2 for 1 booze specials for an hour to be luxury. Perhaps small ship all inclusive would be a better description. It still comes down to whether this is your style of cruising and whether you feel you are getting value for your money. This subject doesn't need a new thread at this point because the exact same debates will continue.

[OctoberKat]

Winding this up with a few remarks and, then, praise heaven (and I expect most join me in this fervent prayer), I am done ... for a while and until another thread.

 

We are delighted to have sailed and loved it. This won't be a long-term obsession for us because we're starting late yet we're, for sure and certain, on the right t®a©k and grateful we can treat ourselves so well in the near term.

 

As for the "luxury" discussion, fizzy and Janecambridge encapsulated the issue best above. With regard to Regent in particular the problem is the cruise line's assertion of providing luxury sine non qua. If one is an upscale traveler and "first time" cruiser, and forks over a hefty dollar amount, then the expectation must be for a level approximating luxury ashore, setting aside food which all agree isn't and can't be comparable and I'm nulling that out in my comparison. This is not delivered on Regent Navigator and, in fact, may not pertain on other "luxury" lines as well, I don't yet know.

 

I have been characterized in this and in other threads as having referred or alluded to my recent Navigator cruise as "negative." Nay, not so; I have said many times, many ways (hum the tune with me), that we had a fine cruise, a pleasurable voyage. I've nattered at length about all this herein. I do pick some nits yet determined it was a pleasurable cruise. It is true we were not over the moon but that doesn't equal a negative experience.

 

Want to thank the folk who contributed here and expanded the thread. Appreciated your (mostly) kind comments and cogent additions.

Edited March 18, 2015 by OctoberKat

[jhp]

OctoberKat, I cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed your comments. While this whole thread was going on, I was on a couple of 30 day cruises, one on the Mariner, the other on the Voyager, and of course, I enjoyed them both. I've also been on the Navigator, it was my intro to Raddison/Regent in 2000. for my first, and I loved it. 452 nights later, I'm still happy.

 

Glad to hear you are exploring others, as a new cruiser, outside of Regent, and will be interested to hear more from you!

 

I've only cruised on Silversea, Princess, and Disney (grandkids deserve a great cruise). Once on Carnival, so long ago I don't remember. I love them all. Trying out Azamara in a couple of weeks.

 

Looking forward to hearing of your future adventures! Side note, you write so well~