Has Regent become blasé towards its clients, or am I just not understanding?

[Travelcat2]

"And, although the subject of this thread is not as specific as it should have been, the first post made it crystal clear that the TS was discussing communication. Unfortunately, the subject of the thread opened it up to many possible off-topic posts. People could complain about food, service, itineraries, etc. but it was obvious to us that this was not poss'intent when she began this thread.

 

 

No matter how I twist this in my mind, I cannot imagine how changing one port in the Caribbean being an indicator that Regent does not care about their passengers.

 

 

LoonCall, all I can say is that I do not agree with your assessment of the situation. I could go on and on about it but, again, I do not believe that this would help the TS. However, if fizzy would like to start a thread regarding her Cuban cruise, I would be happy expand on what I have already posted. Also, IMO, it is not fair to hijack this thread with an unrelated subject - specific only to one or two posters."

 

 

It you read fizzy's initial post it was about communication or lack thereof. Fizzy clearly said he was surprised by the port changes when he went to look at excursions, I would take that to mean he wasn't notified by Regent ahead of time. Correct me if I'm wrong, fizzy. Threads evolve; and it's unfair to say this one was hijacked.

 

poss was not notified of changes by Regent. Additionally, when she called Regent, she was not given the correct information. This is completely different than what fizzy indicated. People on that cruise were advised about it right after Regent received approval to sail to Cuba. Therefore, IMO, there is no communication issue for fizzy but there is definitely one for poss. There were other people affected by the Cuba changed that chimed in about that cruise. Reports from that cruise were positive -- no one was complaining that they had to go to Cuba. Rather, people that booked this cruise early on were, for the most part, thrilled to be the first Regent cruisers to go to Cuba. Plus, top management of NCLH and Regent were onboard. It was a celebratory time for Regent -- I only wish that we had been able to be on that cruise.

 

Yes - threads evolve but not typically to a subject that was duly discussed a few months ago. Regent has had communication issues and almost anything that was posted that demonstrated those issues would have been on topic. Discussing a topic where Regent did communicate but the poster was not happy with what they said is a subject for a different thread (one where Cuba, China Vietnam, etc. can be discussed).

 

P.S. fizzy is a woman.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Travelcat2

[fizzy]

Hey travelcat2...Poss (the OP) started a thread and I was a contributor. Please stop creating scenarios for me. 2 ports were substituted and we sat for 2 days in Havana. We were not notified and at that point it was a done deal, It wasn't your cruise. If you think that going to Cuba is oh so wonderful, why aren't you proudly sailing into Havana harbor with your suitcases full of stuff instead of bragging on a public board that you have already been there illegally? Enough already concerning MY cruise.

[wishIweretravelling]

Pasting from the breadcrumb for this thread:

 

Has Regent become blasé towards its clients, or am I just not understanding?

That's the topic. It encompasses any number of experiences and specifics.

 

 

That being said, stubborn is as stubborn does. Fizzy, most people get your point.

[Travelcat2]

Pasting from the breadcrumb for this thread:

 

Has Regent become blasé towards its clients' date=' or am I just not understanding?[/color']

That's the topic. It encompasses any number of experiences and specifics.

 

 

That being said, stubborn is as stubborn does. Fizzy, most people get your point.

 

Agree - we got the point five months ago. I just find it unfortunate that poss' question has not really been discussed and she is the one that started this thread. If some people believe that Regent has become blasé towards its clients because they add a port, so be it. Now, what about not communicating changes to their Customer Service staff who ends up giving incorrect information to passengers?

[flossie009]

A quick analysis:

Of the 53 previous posts* on this thread:

13 have been specific to poss's whale issue

9 have been about general Regent communications

31 have been about the disputed "

off-topic

" issue (with 10 of these posts being from the poster who does not want the issue discussed on this thread)

*This analysis does not include posts deleted by the moderator

[LoonCall]

To fizzy: Since it has been brought to my attention, my apologies for using the incorrect pronoun when referring to you.

[clasater]

This song seems appropriate !

[Mjflowers]

IMO :D way to much time on CC and not enough enjoying their cruises. Money well spent? All day, morning, noon , and night. Wow.

[fizzy]

To fizzy: Since it has been brought to my attention, my apologies for using the incorrect pronoun when referring to you.

 

thanks LoonCall.......winky wink....and the song remains the same

[LoonCall]

Back at ya' fizzy ;)

 

Cute song, clasater.

[Travelcat2]

Hmmmmm, now someone can own a cruise and call it their own. How interesting! One forgets how many other people posted five months ago about that cruise and how the scenario has suddenly changed. And I do know at least one other couple that was on the cruise.

 

Please don't worry about "my" cruise. I'm enjoying every moment.:halo:

[Bigdogwon]

Let me clarify... The original booking was a killer price. We grabbed it. When the change to Cuba came on, the price shot up quite a bit and included the upcharge for paperwork. We had reserved very early in the game so if you jumped in when the Cuba deal was offered....you paid more and got the fees included.

 

 

We booked the same itinerary that you did, we had locked in a great price and when RSSC changed for Cuba the price went way up in one week I believe it sold out soon after.

[Travelcat2]

In order to find FACTUAL information about these Cuba cruises, I used the search button and found quite a few things (can't link them all here but they can easily be found). Here is Roll Call for fizzy's cruise http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2434493&highlight=Cuba . I noticed that she posted - post #21.

 

There are quite a few reviews for April, 2017 - a few of them were about the Cuban itineraries. Hopefully some of you that are the most vocal on this thread will read them and draw your own conclusions as to how upset people were about Cuba being added to the itinerary.

 

BTW, the new itineraries were announced on Cruise Critic in December, 2016 (from an article - December 7, 2016 in Cruise Industry news). While I do not have first hand knowledge of when Regent notified guests, anyone on CC would have known about this change at least 4 months prior to the cruise.

[LoonCall]

Host Dan: At the risk of getting myself shut down but I'm going to ask if we can get a "virtual" vaudeville hook for this board?

[flossie009]

The following thread may be of interest as it discusses the "off-topic" (disputed) complaint made by fizzy:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2429884&page=2

 

On page 2 of this thread a number of posters complain about Regent's total lack of communication with booked customers regarding the autocratic decision to change itinerary.

 

Very much on-topic, methinks :*

[mariners]

After researching threads as TC2 suggested to do, the thread

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2429884

 

 

that began on December 7th, 2016, is an interesting read. Cruise industry news came out with the information about Cuba before passengers on the cruise had been notified of the change to Cuba. If you read posts #29 by fizzy, #30 by TC2, #31by Marq, #32 by RachelG, and #33 by the cleave, one can certainly understand the issues that changing the cruise to include Cuba created. It also documents the delay in getting the information out from Regent to passengers.

 

 

In the past, which is over 7 years ago, Regent changed a couple of itineraries we had booked. Not only did they make us "whole" if we chose not to sail on the new itineraries, but they ensured that they kept us sailing with them by going above and beyond what we would have expected.

 

 

TC2, I think that if you can take a step back and "be fizzy", you would understand why, for her, Regent needed to step up to the plate. (This is not about all of the passengers who were happy.)

 

 

In this instance, there is no insurance that would cover the loss of flights, hotels, etc. If, as you appear to say, all or many of the other passengers were happy with the change and many/some passengers paid more money for the cruise, why wouldn't Regent make things right for those passengers who were not happy with the change? This was not a changed "port"; it was a changed itinerary.

 

 

Now, to try and emphasize how a change in itinerary can matter. You stated on the other thread that your DH could not go to North Korea. Imagine if your Japan and China cruise was changed to skip either Japan or China and go to North Korea instead. Regent didn't inform you or your TA of the change before it was published as well as posted on CC. - How would you feel? What would you expect? It's about "you" and how you feel when you have to cancel the cruise. It's not about all of those other passengers who might be happy with the change.

 

 

IMO, fizzy's issues were as a result of Regent's lack of communication and lack of timely communication. As well, because Cuba was the change in itinerary, she should have got every penny she had spent back and made "whole".

 

 

To the OP, fizzy, and others who are/were directly affected by the issues, I hope that Regent uses these comments to help them improve their onshore service(s).

[mariners]

Flossie009, we must have been typing at the same time.

[flossie009]

Flossie009, we must have been typing at the same time.

Great minds ..............

and you put the argument so much better than me

[Travelcat2]

After researching threads as TC2 suggested to do, the thread

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2429884

 

 

that began on December 7th, 2016, is an interesting read. Cruise industry news came out with the information about Cuba before passengers on the cruise had been notified of the change to Cuba. If you read posts #29 by fizzy, #30 by TC2, #31by Marq, #32 by RachelG, and #33 by the cleave, one can certainly understand the issues that changing the cruise to include Cuba created. It also documents the delay in getting the information out from Regent to passengers.

 

 

In the past, which is over 7 years ago, Regent changed a couple of itineraries we had booked. Not only did they make us "whole" if we chose not to sail on the new itineraries, but they ensured that they kept us sailing with them by going above and beyond what we would have expected.

 

 

TC2, I think that if you can take a step back and "be fizzy", you would understand why, for her, Regent needed to step up to the plate. (This is not about all of the passengers who were happy.)

 

 

In this instance, there is no insurance that would cover the loss of flights, hotels, etc. If, as you appear to say, all or many of the other passengers were happy with the change and many/some passengers paid more money for the cruise, why wouldn't Regent make things right for those passengers who were not happy with the change? This was not a changed "port"; it was a changed itinerary.

 

 

Now, to try and emphasize how a change in itinerary can matter. You stated on the other thread that your DH could not go to North Korea. Imagine if your Japan and China cruise was changed to skip either Japan or China and go to North Korea instead. Regent didn't inform you or your TA of the change before it was published as well as posted on CC. - How would you feel? What would you expect? It's about "you" and how you feel when you have to cancel the cruise. It's not about all of those other passengers who might be happy with the change.

 

 

IMO, fizzy's issues were as a result of Regent's lack of communication and lack of timely communication. As well, because Cuba was the change in itinerary, she should have got every penny she had spent back and made "whole".

 

 

To the OP, fizzy, and others who are/were directly affected by the issues, I hope that Regent uses these comments to help them improve their onshore service(s).

 

Hi mariners - think you have me mixed up with someone else as I haven't mentioned North Korea in any post (but it sure the heck would be an interesting topic).

 

Actually, we have been in Fizzy's shoes and, as is typical for us, went with the flow. A change in ports has affected our experience on Regent but we realize that these things happen. Unless I am incorrect, the only times Regent makes a person "whole" is when there is a problem with their ships. Even during the sad sailing in Australia a 2-3 years ago when a member of the dance team passed away onboard and the ship had to stay an extra day or two in port and then missed several other ports, I do not believe (but not 100% sure) that the passengers were made whole but did receive either some compensation or a large future cruise credit. The Australia sailing is what I think of when someone discusses a missed port or two.

 

Just thought about the Mariner sailing last year when there was a mechanical issue and the ship had to stay in a port (not a great port) for 2-3 days. If anyone was on that sailing, we would be interested in knowing if you were made whole or if Regent compensated you in other ways. Thanks!

 

So, mariners, I understand what you are saying and even agree with most of it. As mentioned much earlier in this thread, Regent definitely has a communication issue that needs to be dealt with. In the case mentioned by fizzy, if the majority of passengers were happy, what were they to do with a handful that were not? Wish that we could have received compensation for our "cruise from hell" where passengers, crew and even officers were sick. It severely impacted the Christmas/New Year's cruise.

 

For me, it is difficult to relive what happened 5 months ago. Regent may have changed some things because it is apparent from posters living in Canada that Regent could not communicate the issue in Canadian waters before final payment was made since the ban happened after final payment. What they did not correct is the fact that Customer Service does not know what is going on due to the lack of communication. We receive changes from Regent through our TA frequently (including port changes - or even if the times we will be in port changes). So, is the communication 100% Regent's issue? Or, does the TA get the information and not pass it on to their customers? We do not hear directly from Regent - only through our TA. I have learned not to call Customer Service due to their lack of knowledge. This should not be the case.

 

Appreciate your input. Just one question, do you feel that a refund should have been in order only because the port was Cuba?

 

PS - just read your link and found it very interesting. Apparently it was Marq that mentioned North Korea. And, I did see where someone on the new "Cuban" cruise was offered another cruise that was 10 nights with an upgrade. So, those passengers that were able to change their schedule were offered something better than what they had. I wonder how Marq's issue was handled. In any case, thanks for the link.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Travelcat2

[LoonCall]

You either can't or won't understand the issue TC, which is unfathomable to me. This was not an emergency mechanical situation, it was not a heartbreaking sudden death, nor was it a Code Red.

Regent chose to change an itinerary adding a port that is very controversial for a lot of people and then failed to communicate those changes to paid customers. I'm sure there were some cruisers who were thrilled with the change and others who were not. Flossie wasn't happy with the change. She clearly said it would not have been her choice. Can't you let her have her opinion and leave it at that rather than argue every point about a cruise that you were not on and didn't affect you?

[nigelc]

Hey travelcat2...Poss (the OP) started a thread and I was a contributor. Please stop creating scenarios for me. 2 ports were substituted and we sat for 2 days in Havana. We were not notified and at that point it was a done deal, It wasn't your cruise. If you think that going to Cuba is oh so wonderful, why aren't you proudly sailing into Havana harbor with your suitcases full of stuff instead of bragging on a public board that you have already been there illegally? Enough already concerning MY cruise.

 

 

Lol - very well said.

[Travelcat2]

You either can't or won't understand the issue TC, which is unfathomable to me. This was not an emergency mechanical situation, it was not a heartbreaking sudden death, nor was it a Code Red.

Regent chose to change an itinerary adding a port that is very controversial for a lot of people and then failed to communicate those changes to paid customers. I'm sure there were some cruisers who were thrilled with the change and others who were not. Flossie wasn't happy with the change. She clearly said it would not have been her choice. Can't you let her have her opinion and leave it at that rather than argue every point about a cruise that you were not on and didn't affect you?

 

It did not affect you either but you continue to stick up for the one person that was upset by this cruise and choose not to take the other cruise that was offered. It is indeed unfathomable to me as well!:mad:

[LoonCall]

Fizzy COULD NOT take the other cruise as in she had no other option available to her.

 

And I don't know if I'm sticking up for her or not I just hate to see people get bashed for no good reason.

[PaulaJK]

Mariners

 

I have great respect for your post/summary.Paula

[Kwaj girl]

With regards to 'being made whole' - we were on the full Circle South America cruise last year (2016) that spent 4 days in lovely Santos. Regent compensated us with (I think) about 25% of our fare for the segment where this occurred. We applied it (with the FCC while still onboard the Mariner) toward our December 2016 Africa voyage. Worked for us, though there were still folks complaining about the level of compensation. We thought it was appropriate, IOP.