Regent Seven Seas-NOT worth the $$$!!!

[cruiseluv]

I agree with Catlover54 above,

 

Many times servers have no interest in communicating to the appropriate person what we need. On a luxury product as supposedly Regent is, there should be that kind of team effort.

 

With regards to the OP, I'm usually more moved to writing a review if I have had a bad experience. So, I'm not that suspicious about this being the first post of this person. Yes, I would like him/her to come back and validate their comments , for sure.

[Travelcat2]

Agree that many people will write a negative review rather than a positive one -- just like negative threads have more posts than positive ones. I started a positive thread a few days ago and expected it to crash and burn (due to lack of interest). Surprisingly, there are 100% thoughtful posts on that thread. However, as soon as this thread emerged today, it took off (in terms of posts). While both positive and negative posts are important in order to read all sides of Regent, it is sad to see how much more interesting people find what is wrong with Regent rather than what is right.

 

The one problem I do have with this thread is the subject. Stating that Regent is "NOT worth the $$$!!!" just does not feel right. Two posters on this thread had disappointing experiences with Regent and will probably not sail with them again. The subject felt overstated and overblown IMO.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

This forum is called "Cruise Critic" folks.

[lincslady]

Unless the OP comes back to explain more (probably unlikely, as they are either so wound up they will not read any more about Regent, or possibly the whole post was just someone being nasty), since the title is so unpleasant I would suggest the thread is taken off in the not too distant.

 

The only way to reply to a post like this, as people did originally, is just to ask for more detail of what they hated so much, and details of their cruise. If nothing is forthcoming the Host should remove it within, say, a week. Maybe?

[cruiseluv]

Unless the OP comes back to explain more (probably unlikely, as they are either so wound up they will not read any more about Regent, or possibly the whole post was just someone being nasty), since the title is so unpleasant I would suggest the thread is taken off in the not too distant.

 

The only way to reply to a post like this, as people did originally, is just to ask for more detail of what they hated so much, and details of their cruise. If nothing is forthcoming the Host should remove it within, say, a week. Maybe?

 

Don't agree with that. Neither the original post nor the subsequent responses violate any rule. I think people can read it and draw their own conclusions.

Edited July 15, 2015 by cruiseluv

[televisu]

Thank you Travelcat. I see you got a copy of the link to the review. Some of what we felt may be linked to the NCL acquisition. I sensed they were trying to realize some quick economies of scale and with objective feedback, I hope they will react in a way so as to not lose their core Regent customer base. That is why I was ok with the concept of a credit to give them another chance. However, with the paltry credit that for me was not commensurate with the loss of our cabin use, it becomes harder to take the risk again.

[hondorner]

This forum is called "Cruise Critic" folks.

Yes, but to be a critic does not automatically mean one must be negative.

 

Critic:

 

"One who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique."

 

"One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter."

 

"A person who judges, evaluates, or criticizes."

 

So, what is criticism?

 

"The act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything."

 

And finally, the one that SHOULD always be used for this forum:

 

"Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. The purpose of constructive criticism is to improve the outcome."

[wripro]

Why are so many people spending so much energy on this?

[hondorner]

...Some of what we felt may be linked to the NCL acquisition. I sensed they were trying to realize some quick economies of scale and with objective feedback, I hope they will react in a way so as to not lose their core Regent customer base...

Regent has nothing to gain from "quick economies of scale." The current management of Regent is very near the same as it has been since 2008; during which time it became even more successful. The primary difference is that the previous President, Kumal Kamlani, has been replaced by Jason Montague, a gentleman who has been with Oceania and Prestige Cruise Holdings since their inceptions. That's a positive change for Regent.

 

Moreover, the overall management of the new holding company for all three cruise lines, NCL Holdings, is essentially from Prestige Cruise Holdings, the same management Regent has enjoyed for abut 8 years. In other words, Frank Del Rio is still in charge, as he has been since early 2008.

 

He is savvy enough to realize that each brand appeals to a different audience, and I'm certain the guest experience will not be blended with NCL in any way -- it would, as you point out, be counter-productive.

 

Everyone should not that NCL did NOT purchase Regent or Oceania, or even purchase Prestige. Apollo Management, the controlling shareholder, formed NCLH in order to take it public with an IPO. NCLH owns NCL. Apollo Management had also announced their intention to take PCH (the managing company of Oceania and Regent) public, but ultimately came to the conclusion that NCLH could absorb PCH and accomplish the same goal.

 

It's unfortunate they chose NCLH (Norwegian Cruise Lines Holding) as the name for the public company; if they had chosen "Apollo Cruises Holding", for example, no one would likely even remember that NCL would be part of that company.

[UUNetBill]

Well, it's been 2 years since we've sailed with Regent and we're booked at the end of this month. You can bet that we'll post our experiences here, either good or bad, and if it helps others make an informed decision, fine.

 

What I take issue with is someone just venting like that with no details nor supporting information. I agree that we'll probably never hear another post from the OP, regardless of who or what was posted after that initial rant.

 

The purpose of the forums is to share knowledge and help others - and I'm sorry, but I don't feel that the OP did either. I feel it was a flame job and really doesn't help anyone at all. If he or she would care to elaborate, I'd welcome it.

 

I apologize if my use of the word 'crapping' was construed as vulgar or snobbish - it was meant as neither. And if anyone got a snicker out of it, I further apologize for dragging you down to my level.

 

Over the years, my wife and I have gleaned a ton of useful information here, and we've met some great people online. We've engaged in some nice conversations and we've learned a lot about our fellow travelers and destinations. Unfortunately, I'm also coming to the conclusion that the sniping and bickering are starting to overwhelm the positive apsects of this forum. It's a damn shame.

 

Maybe my wife IS right - I'm just getting old and cranky...

[hondorner]

Why are so many people spending so much energy on this?

Why do you care?

[UUNetBill]

Wow. Yup.

[rallydave]

Regent has nothing to gain from "quick economies of scale." The current management of Regent is very near the same as it has been since 2008; during which time it became even more successful. The primary difference is that the previous President, Kumal Kamlani, has been replaced by Jason Montague, a gentleman who has been with Oceania and Prestige Cruise Holdings since their inceptions. That's a positive change for Regent.

 

 

Don, I can give you 50,000,000 things to gain from "quick exonomies of scale and other reported changes at both Regent and Oceania. Those things are dollars and hopefully you remember the $50M bonus to be paid after the first year of the purhase for savings compared to the previous year under PCH. Can't be sure but, believe the bonus goes to the previous stockholders of PCH of which many of the current management were stockholder of.

 

Obviously none of us can be sure of what, if any changes have been made nor the exact terms of the bonus, however that is a significant bonus requiring significant savings in order to be paid.

[DJinLA]

Holy cow everyone...I had no idea this would happen! Yes, it's my first post, but I contacted many in Regent multiple times before posting, and do not feel they addressed what happened. Once I'm back at my keyboard, I'll provide the details, including what we liked most (the other passengers, the cruise director and the cabin). In fact, I can probably cut and paste most of what you want to know.

 

Thank you to those who didn't jump the gun before I had a chance to reply. It's only been a day or two and I work full-time.

[PaulaJK]

Yeah !!! Lessons to be learned, seagulls to be forgotten/

[DogLover]

DJinLA,

 

Thanks for checking in - great to see you are not a post and run type ;)

 

We sail Regent (Voyager) for the first time in September, so we are interested in all feedback, both positive and negative.

 

Look forward to hearing specifics about your experience.

 

Sharon

[cruiseluv]

Hi DjinLA,

 

When time permits please do give us more info. I'm speaking for myself , I'm truly interested in what you have to say, thanks.

[hondorner]

Don, I can give you 50,000,000 things to gain from "quick exonomies of scale and other reported changes at both Regent and Oceania. Those things are dollars and hopefully you remember the $50M bonus to be paid after the first year of the purhase for savings compared to the previous year under PCH. Can't be sure but, believe the bonus goes to the previous stockholders of PCH of which many of the current management were stockholder of.

 

Obviously none of us can be sure of what, if any changes have been made nor the exact terms of the bonus, however that is a significant bonus requiring significant savings in order to be paid.

 

Dave, we've had this debate before. The bonus is based on back office synergies. I don't think the bonus was to be $50Million, I think it was to be $50Million in savings to trigger a bonus. As reported, the savings is now projected to be $125Million, all based on back office synergies.

[DJinLA]

This is a tough crowd! I didn't (and still don't) even know what "OP" stands for, but I figured out you meant me. Fortunately, some of you thought I might show up again...thank you! Those of you who thought I was a "one hit wonder" were correct that I was frustrated, but we DID have poor service. Some of you had similar experiences however in fairness, we should all remember that what might be unsatisfactory for one person/couple, might be fine for another.

 

Our ship was the Mariner, and we traveled to the Mediterranean. As background, I have experienced on the following lines with family from 1986-2005: Sitmar/Princess, Holland America, NCL, Royal Caribbean and Carnival (only once on that line!). Most of the time there were three generations traveling, so large ships were the way to go. In 2010 and 2014, we went on Uniworld cruises (more on that later).

 

We deliberately selected Regent for a number of reasons. First, there are all the obvious reasons...multiple locations, I was tired of doing all the planning, unpacking once, etc. We also want to bring one or both of our adult children with us on future vacations and 20-somethings really need the variety in activities (although the bigger ships are better for this). We made a point of looking into various high-end cruise lines, of which Regent was one. Additionally, I always travel with friends (on this trip one person was gluten-free and he enjoyed the selections offered), and currently talking to many friends about taking a similar trip for a big birthday coming up, which we later shared with Regent during follow up communications.

 

We enjoyed a number of things about Regent. Our room and its steward, the gym and the ship’s passengers were arguably the highlights of our time onboard. When we noticed the service gap at dinner, not long after boarding, I thought it might be us. As we began to meet other passengers and became friendly with many, people began talking about the service issue. I met one couple, on one of our excursions, who had over 250 days traveling with Regent; the wife said she’d noticed various service problems on this particular trip. I had conversations with at least four other individuals/couples with similar experiences.

 

But enough background…you want specifics:

 

We initially began going to dinner at 8PM, on the later side we learned (our reservation the second or third night at Signatures was at 8:30PM since that was all we could get), which was a problem from the get go. I came to realize that as dinner patrons left, the ship was redirecting staff to bars and places outside of the dining rooms, but left horrible service in its wake. After a few nights, we began going earlier, and even begged to have our 8:30PM Prime 7 reservation (all we could get) moved up by calling and standing in line. About three days in we began asking if we could please finish our dinner in two hours or less (at that point we were averaging 2 ½ hours), and were always told, “We’ll do our best.” A few times, when we couldn’t find waiters, we served ourselves wine! It seemed as if we had to ask the “right” person to do a particular task…there didn’t seem to be much cross-training (I'm sorry, but this happened over and over again).

 

Another night we decided to sit at an “open” table with two couples, and the older couple was part of the 67 who were onboard since Rio. Toward the end of our dinner he told our waiter they wanted to have faster service so they could make the show and our dessert order and delivery came quicker than our prior requests. I assume this couple was well- known, although that shouldn’t have made a difference. Sitting down to a nice dinner is an important part of why we cruise, and I would say that we were frustrated at least seven nights out of nine…after Rome all day, we couldn’t face two plus hours of dinner so ordered food in our suite. While our entrée was lukewarm, it was much easier that night.

 

An additional food service example came when we went to La Veranda for breakfast one morning and I ordered tea...I don’t drink coffee. I waited a few minutes and then ordered it from someone else. Again time went by. We were sitting outside so I got up, went inside and found a server I remembered from somewhere else and asked him to bring me tea. He returned with hot water, but no tea. After they told me they had to go to another restaurant for tea (it was breakfast, so not a big stretch to expect tea) I asked, “Why can’t you get some tea at the pool, which is right outside the restaurant?” They said it wasn’t there. A few minutes later we left and I went directly to the pool, area where there was always tea and coffee, and it was right there!!! It was as if they had to make up a story to explain why I hadn’t been served.

 

Because of an issue with our cruise billing, we each received a $100 onboard credit. More than halfway into the cruise, I noticed that my husband had received the credit but I hadn’t. I went in-person to Reception to discuss, followed up once with her and twice with another woman. I was told the Miami office was closed, and would get back to me shortly (after the second follow up I asked to be advised either way but that didn’t happen). Then I was told that they couldn’t contact my travel agent, which was likely untrue because she lives on email. The reason I followed up so much was because I knew the shops would be closed once we were in port in Venice…which is exactly what happened. The prior to leaving the ship, I was told $100 was credited (it actually went yet again to my husband’s account) but we were in port. They suggested a spa treatment, but I explained that we were going on a shore excursion.

 

Some of you asked about excursions. We wisely didn't book 8-10 hour excursions each day (only one at-sea day), or we would have been exhausted. I would say we had a few not-so-good excursions (a winery was one), and the rest we good to very good. So much depends on the guide, and it was often difficult to hear, so we missed the wireless headsets we've enjoyed on other trips. They should be required, imo!!! Our Venice tour was fun taking the gondola and Murano was somewhat interesting, but the church (can't recall the name) was not worth seeing.

 

Overall and given the service gaps experienced, the price tag and our frustration with constantly having to follow up on things that should have just been done correctly, we did not receive the value expected from a high-end cruise line. I really wanted to love Regent, so I filled out the survey in detail. A few weeks after coming home I heard from one of their reps, who requested that I write, in detail, about what happened. He said, "It will really be worth your while." Unlike Televisu who received a big $500 credit, we received an offer of $400 credit on a future cruise. Really? A first-time Regent traveler who anticipates 20 years of travel ahead of us and providing examples? I followed up, via snail mail, with the CEO and COO and subsequently received a form letter. There's more to the story, but I'm sure some of you now wish you didn't ask for details.

 

Re a riverboattrip, it may be "apples and kumquats," however I could have gone on 2-3 trips for what I paid for this one. The rooms are much smaller and travel is restricted to rivers, but I just through the suggestion out there as a means of comparison.

 

To UNNetBill - I agree with your wife...you are a bit cranky!

 

If you don't think what we experienced is valid in your own mind, please share your personal experiences on your trips, rather than critique someone else's perception. I've worked very hard for 37 years and thought of Regent as a service industry, who would care about a new traveler. The reaction from executive management told me otherwise. I think everyone deserves a second chance and if a bunch of friends wanted me to try Regent again...I would look very closely before making any decision. Unfortunately, it won't be anytime soon.

[tallship]

Thank you for sharing your experience. I think it is really unfortunate that you felt slighted both by the company and by others on this board.

 

I agree that when you pay premium prices (fares have easily doubled in the last 3-5 years) that service should be close to flawless. The dining issue has been around for years with little done to correct it. Some of it is training and some of it is that they are simply short-staffed. By the time we see the staff in the evening, many have already put in 8-10 hours...it is not a good situation all the way around but something Regent needs to address.

 

Others on this board will say that a good TA will assist you in dealing with Regent but trust me that is very hit and miss. The relationship between TA and Regent is very symbiotic and lucrative. There is little incentive on either side to support the customer. If you complain or criticize too much on these boards, the fan club will try to shut you down as you've already experienced with this thread.

 

All in all, there is much to like about Regent but the service and quality are best described as inconsistent and that is something we cannot afford in terms of precious vacation time and dollars.

[lincslady]

DJinLA

 

Really pleased that you have come back with detail of your problems. I guess the reason people, including me, were a bit dubious and unhappy about your OP ( I think original post or poster) was the very damning title to the thread, with then no real follow-up. This sort of thing happens now and again on all the lines' threads, and can sometimes be traced to simple nastiness, written by people who have never cruised on that line.

 

I am sure that at the time you were feeling understandably cross and frustrated with Regent, which would explain the title, which was bound to feel offensive to the ardent Regent fans.

[rallydave]

Dave, we've had this debate before. The bonus is based on back office synergies. I don't think the bonus was to be $50Million, I think it was to be $50Million in savings to trigger a bonus. As reported, the savings is now projected to be $125Million, all based on back office synergies.

 

Don, really don't remember us discussing this issue in the past but, might be a senior moment from one of us. Found a Feb 2015 press release from NCLH which not only confirms the $50M bonus, also says nothing of only back office synergies, simply says Performance milestones and they do mention specifically Port fees and shore excursion con$

 

At the pont of time of the press release they had originally identified $25M in savings at the time of the purchase and an additional $15M had been identified at the time of the press release totalling $40M as of Feb 2015. We are now in July 2015 or 5 months later and you are saying $125M has now been identified, an increase of $85M in 5 months. I did find the following in the 1st Quarter Results Press Release. Integration of Norwegian and Prestige Cruise Holdings (Prestige) operations largely complete. Continued synergy identification efforts lead to $75 million in synergies for 2015, $115 million for 2016. So even for 2016 the latest report is $115M with a new projection for 2015 of $75M.

 

Please provide where you came up with the $125M number and back office comments since what I found today differs significantly and supports total savings and the $50M bonus I stated.

 

By the way, below is a link to the Feb press release I quoted.

http://www.ncl.com/nclweb/pressroom/pressRelease.html?storyCode=PR_021715F

 

Of course neither of us can be certain of what savings are applicable nor how the bonus is calculated however seems reasonable based on the press release it is total savings which could include on board staff savings along with food, etc.

 

Company Updates and Other Business Highlights

In November 2014, the Company completed the acquisition of Prestige Cruise Holdings for total transaction consideration of $3.025 billion in cash, stock and the assumption of debt. Additionally, contingent cash consideration of up to $50 million would be payable to Prestige shareholders upon achievement of certain 2015 performance milestones. The Company issued $680 million in senior unsecured notes in a private placement to fund a portion of the purchase price along with related fees and expenses.

 

At the time of the acquisition the Company announced cost synergies in the $25 million range. The Company is reiterating this level for 2015, having identified synergies in the consolidation of office operations, insurance costs, port fees and shore excursion concessionaire contracts. In addition the Company has so far identified revenue synergies of $15 million exclusively from opportunities in onboard revenue, for a first year synergy figure of at least $40 million, which is embedded in the Company's guidance. The same items that constitute this $40 million synergy in 2015, equate to approximately $50 million in 2016.

 

Let's simply let others determine what facts and figures to accept as factual.

 

Edited July 16, 2015 by rallydave

[fizzy]

Bravo to you! I don't think your expectations were at all out of line. If only some of these companies would take the time to actually listen to their supposed valued customers, things would work better all around. People should not have to spend so much of their onboard vacation following up, re-inquiring and contacting travel agents to straighten out common sense issues that SOMEONE on board should have the authority to correct. Thank you for taking a good deal of your time to detail your experiences. It seems that the biggest issues have become staffing levels and perhaps corporate will take notice at some point.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

...

All in all, there is much to like about Regent but the service and quality are best described as inconsistent and that is something we cannot afford in terms of precious vacation time and dollars.

 

Tina, does this mean that Regent is out of the picture for you right now?

 

To the OP, thanks for having the courage to come back and give us all that detail. It's the "spottiness" of service that really rankles, at least for me. I remember one incident where we were in Rio overnight and had guests come on board (our local guide and friends). They were late arriving and the staff in CR got antsy--they wanted us out of there! It took some eyebrow raising and eye-rolling to settle them down and make it clear that they had to be gracious with us. Yes, we pushed the envelope a bit, but did get our orders in by the 9 o'clock deadline, and in the end, all was well.

[televisu]

All - really good comments on the inconsistency of Regent service and that is probably the best summary of my overall experience, (outside of the diesel fuel odor that forced us out of the cabin for 2.5 days.) And my apologies if I stated this incorrectly, we received the $500 credit toward a future cruise (each) not an actual credit for what we paid. The letter with the credit, apologized for the "unpleasant odor" and that they were not able to meet my expectations. My reaction was "unpleasant?", this was a noxious overwhelming odor that nauseated us. The comment about not being able to meet my expectations seemed intended to highlight that in some way my expectations were unreasonable. Anyway, as I state in my review, there were some very well done aspects to the cruise. I just hope these elements continue and that they are not simply vestiges of the old Regent.