Doesn't Someone in Regent Ops know how to read Tide Tables?

[Travelcat2]

Are "tides and currents" 100% accurate (months in advance) or could global weather changes affect it? I find this interesting since few things can be predicted so far in advance.

 

In my opinion "changes due to weather or the whims of local port authorities sometimes occur are entirely irrelevant to this discussion" does not hold true unless this information can be verified. I look forward to proof of this claim. In the meantime, we learn a lot from CC threads and will continue to book cruises based on itineraries - even if the itinerary changes mid-cruise. IMO, having this information available before final payment is a big plus (assuming that what has been stated is 100% accurate).

 

Hopefully most people reading this thread will understand that missed ports or changes in the time spent in port is not the "norm" for Regent but certainly can happen -- just as rough seas or bad weather can cancel a port stop (in addition to terrorism threats and a host of other reasons).

 

I truly hope that passengers on this cruise are able to enjoy the port stop - no matter how long it is:)

Edited July 8, 2016 by Travelcat2

[Emperor Norton]

Having only strayed from Regent once and having missed only 1 port in 45 nights on board (high wind), I have to ask: Do other lines (the regular comparisons - Crystal, Seabourn, Silversea, etc.) ever miss ports like this or is this purely a Regent thing?

 

Because frankly, I've either been really lucky or someone else is consistently unlucky. I agree that when Regent makes changes or has problems, they're not very open with their explanations, either onboard or via the main office. But like I said, I've only missed one port so far - is that normal??

 

If Regent misses the same number of ports as other lines but just doesn't communicate it effectively, that seems to me like an easy fix.

 

Oh, and I like Gilly's idea about marking ports likely to be missed or rescheduled - that would be an easy fix, too. Honesty and openness sells, I think...

 

0 missed ports on Crystal, 1 ??* and 1 miss on Seabourn, 0 missed on Radisson, Several on Regent and one miss on Oceania.

 

*the ?? was a case where it was too rough to tender so we had to dock. Which is odd as I find docking preferable to tendering unless the dock is hell and gone from Cartagena and the tender will drop you in a better area.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Emperor Norton

[freddie]

Lordie, I probably should not re-enter this discussion, as it is becoming somewhat of a head-banging-against-a-wall exercise. But, nonetheless, I will do so.

 

Yes, tide tables and current tables are remarkably accurate a very long while, usually several years, in advance. Perhaps if some posters had any experience with boating on our lovely Puget Sound or anywhere else they might better understand such matters.

 

Once again, for the who-knows-which time, this discussion is not about changes due to weather conditions or local port authorities at the time of the port stop. The concern is regarding a very recently announced change in schedule for a cruise in December allegedly based upon "local tide restrictions", something that was either known or available to Regent well before this cruise was scheduled, advertised, and sold. I fail to understand, barring the intentional intent of certain posters to derail the discussion into other areas of focus (or defocus?), why those unforeseeable events are repeatedly introduced to muddy the primary issue, which is foreseeable events.

 

Perhaps the best thing for those of us who seem to understand the theme of this thread would be to retire from the fray and allow those who wish to drag it out into unrelated and irrelevant territory to have their fun. Fortunately, it appears that most of the posters on this thread recognize the nature of the subject matter thereof, irrespective of the attempts of certain posters to derail the thread and bring up immaterial matters in a determined blind defense of all-things-Regent.

 

For Dog's sake, if we hated Regent, we would not be booked on this cruise or another next year. Thus, I am not in the slightest on the attack against Regent. Yikes, why am I indulging myself in this rant?

 

Cheers, Fred

[Travelcat2]

0 missed ports on Crystal, 1 ??* and 1 miss on Seabourn, 0 missed on Radisson, Several on Regent and one miss on Oceania.

 

*the ?? was a case where it was too rough to tender so we had to dock. Which is odd as I find docking preferable to tendering unless the dock is hell and gone from Cartagena and the tender will drop you in a better area.

 

Thanks for the response. Very interesting. It does show how different each person's experience on Regent is. Or, perhaps we have selected itineraries that do not have many issues.

 

In terms of tides and currents, the best way to learn is to ask questions. Sorry that this seems frustrating. Please continue with the discussion that Regent may or may not pay attention to.

[flossie009]

If Regent misses the same number of ports as other lines but just doesn't communicate it effectively, that seems to me like an easy fix.

Oh, and I like Gilly's idea about marking ports likely to be missed or rescheduled - that would be an easy fix, too. Honesty and openness sells, I think...

 

Bill,

As usual you have hit the nail on the head. All we want from Regent is comprehensive, honest and accurate communication

If, with regards to the foreshortening of the stop in Yangon Burma, there are other factors or someone has just screwed up then for goodness sake tell us and then offer some assistance in re-planning to make the most of the 2 days that we are in port

 

 

 

Please continue with the discussion that Regent may or may not pay attention to.

 

It would be very disappointing if Regent management do not pay attention to constructive criticism from their loyal customers

(PS Thank you so much for giving us your permission to continue discussing this topic)

 

 

 

We have also had cruises disrupted with missed ports due to weather, mechanical difficulties and medical emergencies. Frustrating, but in most cases the Captain clearly explained the situation and seasoned cruisers accept that 'ship happens'

However, what we are discussing on this thread is a situation which appears to involve repeated p*** poor pre-planning and a lack of comprehensive information for customers or pro-active assistance with re-scheduling excursions for the significantly shorter time in port

Edited July 8, 2016 by flossie009
PS added

[Gilly]

We are gold SS members and have been cruising with Regent since 2008, so are relative newbies compared to many here. But we've just counted up and reckon we've missed a total of five ports: Galle, Safaga, Iquique, Coquimbo and Port Stanley. In addition to those, we've missed a glacier sail by listed as a port in the cruise schedule.

 

Galle, Sri Lanka: as I understand it (from watching cricket reports!), Galle is prone to certain weather patterns which result in relatively frequent misses by cruise ships generally. Might be worth a “subject to weather conditions” asterisk on the schedule?

 

Iquique + Coquimbo, Chile: both are open water berths currently as a result of earthquake damage. Whilst Regent can’t control such things, the Pacific swell is a known factor and the combination of the two might make some kind of pre-cruise advice worthwhile for the time being.

 

Safaga, Oman: missed due to rescheduling of the Suez canal transit - something completely beyond Regent's control and a one off, I think (or?)

 

Port Stanley, Falkland Islands: the reasons for our missing this port remain unclear, but as I understand it, the weather frequently prevents a scheduled stop, even if that was not the situation earlier this year. Definitely worthy of an asterisk, IMHO.

 

Of course, we recognise that there are any number of factors which can affect the schedule and however careful the planning is, there will be times when changes are inevitable. However, forewarned is forearmed and managing expectation ought to be part of Regent’s communication strategy I believe. Speaking to the crew about their experience of missed ports amongst other topics is often quite revealing, because they have recognised that “X often happens when we call here” or “that happened last year too”. I might add that none of these factors would necessarily stop us booking a particular itinerary – we’d just be prepared for the worst case scenario and be thrilled when we discovered that we needn’t have worried at all. That’s why we do the lifeboat drill, isn’t it?!

[UUNetBill]

I'm sure it would also be a relatively easy matter for them to post historical trends going back five years or so showing the percentage of times they were in and out of a port on schedule, how often they docked late or had to leave early, and how often they had to skip it completely. I see it as something like the travel sites showing the percentage of on-time departures/arrivals.

 

Wouldn't need to be right on the main page, but maybe accessible on each port's page, something like:

 

As scheduled: 96.6%

Delayed arr/dep: 2.6%

Missed: 0.8%

 

But that's probably not something they'd like to publicize, especially if the numbers aren't all that pretty...

[Host Dan]

Thread is now unlocked. Had to have management review.

[Travelcat2]

Great - thanks Dan. I have another question/comment. Although tides are pretty much pre-determined, it seems that weather does have an effect on whether or not cruise ships (or even river boats) can sail. There are many times that rivers overflow their banks during high tide because of heavy rain. Also, river boats sometimes cannot make it through an area because of low tides (and perhaps drought conditions?). Therefore, it appears that weather could be a factor!?

 

In terms of changing arrival times at a port, we have seen a ship waiting for "us" (whichever Regent ship we are on) to leave so they could dock so it does not appear to be an easy thing to do.

 

Bill, like your idea(s) but don't think that Regent would give percentages of how often they miss or are late to a port unless other cruise lines were doing the same. Also, arriving late to port is generally due to weather (or mechanical difficulties).

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Yes, conditions of drought or floods could certainly affect port stops, as do storms. But these conditions normally wouldn't be estimated in this time frame, e.g., three or four months before the cruise. I would expect these contingency changes to be made perhaps weeks before the cruise, if not *during* the cruise, such as they do when storms are encountered.

 

Thanks Dan for re-opening the thread. It's an interesting discussion. I sure wish Regent would respond in some way beyond boilerplate disclaimers.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Wendy The Wanderer

[gnomie1]

I'm sure it would also be a relatively easy matter for them to post historical trends going back five years or so showing the percentage of times they were in and out of a port on schedule, how often they docked late or had to leave early, and how often they had to skip it completely. I see it as something like the travel sites showing the percentage of on-time departures/arrivals.

 

Wouldn't need to be right on the main page, but maybe accessible on each port's page, something like:

 

As scheduled: 96.6%

Delayed arr/dep: 2.6%

Missed: 0.8%

 

But that's probably not something they'd like to publicize, especially if the numbers aren't all that pretty...

 

What a great idea - sort of like, truth in advertising. Many airlines now do this, providing the percentage of on time arrival, canceled flights, etc. This would actually be a very easy thing to do, however, since it would not benefit Regent, but rather the passenger, I cannot see Regent actually doing this.

 

We have missed lots of ports, on one cruise in particular we missed three straight ports due to an ill passenger and the need to get to a major port as quickly as possible. Most passengers were surprised that Regent was not really prepared for this because they did not appear to have a "back-up" plan with regard to passenger activities and seemed to be scrambling. We did not receive any type of refund for the missed ports. We have also missed ports due to weather and once for "technical" reasons, supposedly something to do with the operations of the tenders. Things happen and no matter type of vacation one takes, they need to be flexible. However, the difference seems to be how the operator handles such disruptions - once we were on a Tauck tour and due to a horrific highway accident, we had to sit on the bus for close to nine hours and it caused our entire schedule to be changed and one stop was cancelled. Without even asking for anything, when all the passengers arrived home, we found a very nice credit for a future trip due to changes in the itinerary through no fault of their own. When Regent does not go to port, the savings must be significant, however that has never been passed down to the passengers. Think of the goodwill that would be generated if Regent took a more proactive approach with regard to communications and interactions with the passengers.

 

gnomie :)

[mariners]

We have not sailed on Regent for quite a few years now but I have been following threads again as we are thinking of taking an extended or world cruise within the next few years. Because of that, problems that passengers have experienced with each cruise line has become much more important to me in helping me make the final decision on our choice of cruise line. Itinerary and ports/time in ports are a huge factor for me as I (we) have no difficulty adapting to open/set dining, size of cabins, etc.

 

We have missed ports on all of the cruise lines that we have sailed; we have had full itineraries cancelled because of changes in dry dock as well as world events; we have had port changes due to weather; we have had port changes due to passenger illness; etc. I have always appreciated how other passengers shared on CC how the cruise line handled each event.

 

Thank you, Freddie, for starting this thread and thank you to all of those passengers who have contributed to keeping this thread on topic. Regent definitely dropped the ball by not ensuring that the itinerary was possible before selling it to the public. From what I have read on this and some other threads, the head office personnel who are responsible for itineraries and scheduling still need to hire someone who is better able to help them ensure that passengers get, barring unforeseen circumstances (which is what TC2 seems to be describing), what they have paid for when they book a cruise.

 

Freddie, I am also glad to read that Regent shore excursion are trying to help passengers maximize their time that they will have in port. I hope that those of you who have booked private excursions have had positive results, too.

 

I wish all of you who will be sailing this itinerary all the best. I hope that you will post your experiences when you return. It is only from those who are on a sailing that we can get a true picture.

 

gnomie, it looks like we had some similar experiences and were typing, despite my delay in posting, at the same time.

Edited July 8, 2016 by mariners

[newlondon]

Several comments: UU that's why we consider Tauck the best. They try never to leave their clients unhappy.

I am astonished that most posters don't understand that tide charts are calculated using the movements of the moon in particular coordinated with the relative positions of the earth and the sun. Gravitational forces are well known and can be forecast accurately well into the future.

Lastly, and Dan please don't delete, Chatcat, why do you consistently post critical comments on this board since you have migrated to Crystal as is shown in your cruise plans and history?

[UUNetBill]

Bill, like your idea(s) but don't think that Regent would give percentages of how often they miss or are late to a port unless other cruise lines were doing the same. Also, arriving late to port is generally due to weather (or mechanical difficulties).

 

TC, of course they won't do it. No real benefit to Regent, just the passengers...the passengers who write the checks to keep them in business.

 

Frankly, people on here are always criticizing Regent because they do/don't do things that the other luxury lines do/don't do - I think this would be a nice, easy way to help Regent differentiate themselves from the competition. Forewarned is forearmed.

 

But you're 100% correct - ain't gonna happen. :rolleyes:

[Suite Travels]

In defense of ChatCat, she has many cruises on Regent. I think she has found her cruise line that suits her best and knows the differences between Crystal and Regent.

[newlondon]

I actually was going to include you as well, but you are not as snide as she is. Neither of you travel on Regent anymore so why not let it go?

[Travelcat2]

Several comments: UU that's why we consider Tauck the best. They try never to leave their clients unhappy.

I am astonished that most posters don't understand that tide charts are calculated using the movements of the moon in particular coordinated with the relative positions of the earth and the sun. Gravitational forces are well known and can be forecast accurately well into the future.

Lastly, and Dan please don't delete, Chatcat, why do you consistently post critical comments on this board since you have migrated to Crystal as is shown in your cruise plans and history?

 

As you know, there are several fairly regular posters that have not sailed Regent in a long time (in some cases it has been years) and remain quite critical of Regent. While everyone can post, unless you have sailed on Regent fairly recently (last couple of years or so) you really have not experienced what Regent is now (as opposed to a long time ago). Things do change and even though we sail on Regent at least a couple of times a year, I do see the differences and try to report on them.

 

I finally understand what tide charts are (I was aware of tides -- just not charts that are accurate very far in advance). This is an interesting subject but I don't believe that any of us truly understand the reason(s) for the changes. I give full credit to Regent for notifying passengers before final payment (can you imagine the outcry/outrage if passengers were notified two months from now?).

 

Should "iffy" ports be taken off of the itinerary? There is one port in the South Pacific (cannot recall the port name) that is on many itineraries (different cruise lines as well as Regent) but ships are rarely able to tender and go ashore. St. Barths and even Santorini can have difficulty with ships tendering in. Should they be dropped from itineraries? IMO, this subject goes beyond port time changes in Myanmar - it extends to all of the ports that have the same or similar issues.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Travelcat2

[Suite Travels]

As a boater with a six pack captains license and have owned four holes in the waters, tide charts are called tide tables and depths are referred to as charts. Just a simple correction on the verbiage.

 

Tide tables are done well in advance as they do consider lunar affects. What cannot be determined in advance is weather or floods or drought which can cancel a port stop but how would any cruise line know this in advance? Answer: They don't just like we don't know when a hurricane or typhoon will be in the way of a port. To use tide tables as an excuse is pretty lame and I too would be disappointed if that is the excuse that was given.

 

Bravo to those that understand this and not buying the tide table excuse. This is one area of the world we would love to visit.