Major itinerary changes

[rallydave]

16 hours ago, forgap said:

you simply don’t know so it is a disservice to this board to speculate.  Why not wait for Regent to respond.  You are not their spokeswoman! 

Or are you?

[Jason OKeefe]

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 9:13 AM, makai 7 said:

We were just informed that our 2020 Bali to Shanghai cruise has been "enhanced" by changing it to a Bali to Tokyo cruise.   We don't consider this an enhancement. 

 

makai 7,

 

Apologies for this inconvenience and disruption to your travel plans. It was not our intention to disappoint you or any other guest booked on the two impacted voyages. Ultimately, there was a conflict that we were not able to resolve and it pushed us to alter the voyage itinerary. We attempted to enhance the two voyages with additional visits to Japan in good faith and due to overwhelming response to our 2019 and 2021 Japan programs. We remain hopeful that you'll have understanding since this voyage is one year out and that you retain flexibility in switching your voyages dates or the ability to cancel without any penalty. We hope you'll give the updated itineraries a closer look as well as the added land programs that complement the turn in Tokyo. Should you wish to discuss alternatives, our team is available to assist you or your travel advisor in finding a satisfactory solution. 

 

I apologize again for the inconvenience this has caused. 

[mrlevin]

Jason, what was the conflict?  Chinese government?  It is amazing how few itineraries include China in last few years.

 

Marc

[DaveFr]

29 minutes ago, mrlevin said:

Jason, what was the conflict?  Chinese government?  It is amazing how few itineraries include China in last few years.

 

Marc

Marc,

 

I wonder if the conflict has anything to do with the fact that the two 2020 cruises were scheduled originally to visit both Taiwan and China.  If so, I hope the problem is resolved before my 2021 Hong Kong to Tokyo cruise that also visits both countries.

 

Dave

Edited March 29, 2019 by DaveFr

[mrlevin]

We have done China and Taiwan on same cruise but that was a few years back.  In 2017 it was just China but we lost all of our Korean ports due to conflict with China.  There are too many sea days and too many repeats in that 26 day itinerary now.

 

See you in a couple of weeks.

 

Marc

[Jason OKeefe]

1 hour ago, mrlevin said:

Jason, what was the conflict?  Chinese government?  It is amazing how few itineraries include China in last few years.

 

Marc

 

Marc,

 

We want to be as transparent as possible. However, I would prefer to focus on accommodating impacted guests vs attempting to assess responsibility. There was a port conflict that we needed to resolve and we did our best to minimize the impacts as best we could.  It was not ideal and we remain hopeful that the majority of guests will have some understanding due to this voyage being a year away. It's not easy and understandably we have disappointed some people. We recognize not everyone will be happy with the itinerary changes, but we're going to do our best to mitigate the disappointment and willing to find other reasonable solutions should they have no interest in the revised voyage.

[GOARMY]

Have been following this Thread with interest, as previous Regent cruises have touched on all the Far East countries which are at play.  Last was February-March 2013 aboard Voyager.  It became, in the words of the Cruise Director, the "Passport Voyage".  Due to itinerary (and international politics), passengers spent a good deal of time queued-up to pick up Passports; presenting ourselves to whatever Country's Customs Officials were onboard; then returning Passports to Regent--to await repeating that experience usually two days later.  

 

That was because this cruise, which started at Hong Kong, touched subsequent ports-of-call in Okinawa (Japan),Taiwan, Republic of Korea, Japan proper at two ports, and China.  But, there were two, or three stops at Chinese ports (including two days at Shanghai) interlaced with visits to Taiwan and Japan.  Hence, back-and-forth Passport checks.  The cruise ended at the Port serving Beijing.  We were then bussed to a wonderful hotel in downtown Beijing for a three-day add-on visit.  About 1/3rd of guests did this "no-cost" extension.  Glad we had this experience. 

 

Only downside was the extreme air pollution experienced at Shanghai and Beijing.  And, of course, the again-extreme pollution of the Wan Po River Voyager traversed going to, docking while at, and when returning to the East China Sea. 

 

The Passport situation was a minor distraction, given the overall positive aspects of that cruise.  The one time where politics came into play was at Inchon/Seoul.  Due to North Korea's lobbing missiles into the Sea of Japan (and one or two over Japan's Hokkaido Island), it became problematical as to whether the scheduled tour from Seoul to the DMZ would go on.  After some back-and-forth with shore officials, we got the go-ahead.   Would highly recommend this particular excursion, if given the opportunity.

 

To TS:  Yes, this is a major itinerary change.  But, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Our experience with Regent has been when changes occur--even major ones--it will do whatever possible to keep clients (us) happy.  Japan is certainly not China.  But, what a great country to visit.

 

GOARMY!

 

 

Granted:  major change in itToo bad that  

 

 

[UUNetBill]

57 minutes ago, Jason OKeefe said:

We recognize not everyone will be happy with the itinerary changes, but we're going to do our best to mitigate the disappointment and willing to find other reasonable solutions should they have no interest in the revised voyage.

 

6 minutes ago, GOARMY said:

To TS:  Yes, this is a major itinerary change.  But, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Our experience with Regent has been when changes occur--even major ones--it will do whatever possible to keep clients (us) happy.  Japan is certainly not China.  But, what a great country to visit.

 

GOARMY!

 

 

Granted:  major change in itToo bad that  

 

 

The one time we were in a similar situation we came REAL close to scrubbing the cruise and looking for something else.  But as it turned out, the revised itinerary, although not something I'd have probably chosen had I just seen it online turned out to be a fantastic experience.

 

My advice would be to take a week or two and research the revised itinerary and see if it's something you might enjoy after all.  It took us almost a week to accept our revised itinerary and within two weeks we were dripping with anticipation.  (YMMV if you've already spent a lot of time in the substituted ports, though.)

[DavidTheWonderer]

More vertiage about the cancellation of China stops. https://www.travelagentcentral.com/cruises/regent-cancels-china-calls-2020-itinerary-due-to-berthing-conflicts?fbclid=IwAR2VflsB8yeAfzsYZ0QgNHsNCKABi2MRNs0Pw81HS-ddLfaW1vMIzHm54HQ

[makai 7]

Jason:  thank you very much for your response.  We do appreciate that circumstances can cause a need for itinerary changes.  It was the lack of explanation that, after long careers in the corporate world, just seem like more corporate "speak" with no substance behind it.

The new Hong Kong to Tokyo itinerary truly was not to our liking, and we cancelled the cruise as there were no alternative options offered.  We still are considering the first leg, Bali to Hong Kong, and will discuss it with the on board cruise consultant (currently on the Voyager).

It is nice to have a human representative to work with, vs. reading an anonymous corporate memo.

[DeepFreeze63]

7 minutes ago, makai 7 said:

Jason:  thank you very much for your response.  We do appreciate that circumstances can cause a need for itinerary changes.  It was the lack of explanation that, after long careers in the corporate world, just seem like more corporate "speak" with no substance behind it.

The new Hong Kong to Tokyo itinerary truly was not to our liking, and we cancelled the cruise as there were no alternative options offered.  We still are considering the first leg, Bali to Hong Kong, and will discuss it with the on board cruise consultant (currently on the Voyager).

It is nice to have a human representative to work with, vs. reading an anonymous corporate memo.

 

Well said! Yes, thanks Jason for your response. I immediately cancelled 2 of my 5 booked Regent cruises in response to the Regent 'enhancement" E-mails. I probably would have anyway as the revised itineraries don't appeal to us. Perhaps a more informing Regent communication was in order.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

I personally would much rather go to Japan than China, in fact would avoid going to China, but that's just me.  I understand the disappointment, and it's lucky that the OP and others have the time to cancel without penalty and re-book.

 

I commend Regent for being as forthcoming as possible.  But I suspect that the "port conflict" might in fact be one between Taiwanese and mainland Chinese stops.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Wendy The Wanderer

[mrlevin]

Just too early to go to Japan; and too many sea days on trip down.  Radisson/Regent has been doing Asia for over 25 years and put together some great itineraries; this is just not one of them.

 

Marc

[CruisetheCs]

I'm curious what was actually communicated to people who were booked on the cruise.  Was the communication via direct email? Via a travel agent?  A written communication versus just an oral communication from a travel agent? Did it only say  something to the effect that "we have enhanced your cruise itinerary by changing it" or did it offer more explanation?

[SWFLAOK]

We had a major change to our itinerary for this summer, and it definitely had nothing to do with anything that's being discussed here. We had booked for an anniversary trip in June of 2019 and had booked it in the summer of 2018. We had booked a 12 night trip on June 3 from Barcelona to Venice on the Voyager. We were later notified that the trip had been changed to "Turkish Treasures"  from Athens to Venice, with most ports in Greece and Turkey. This was not what we wanted at all. Rather than lose our down payment, we rebooked for a similar (but with different ports) cruise from Barcelona to Venice on July 2nd. We won't be there for our anniversary, and it will be hotter than June. We aren't happy about it.

Why was it changed (along with other trips before and after it), we have no idea, but we're sure it had nothing to do with trade issues with China.

[makai 7]

CruiseTheCs- to answer your question...We recieved an email forwarded to us from our TA. 

Below is a portion of the email.  It went on to discuss changes to pre and post cruise extensions, and options for cancellation.  There was no further explanation. 

 

 

IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR CRUISE ITINERARY  SEVEN SEAS VOYAGER® DEPARTING FEBRUARY 12, 2020   Dear Valued Guest and Travel Partner,    We would like to inform you of an exciting itinerary enhancement to your voyage aboard Seven Seas Voyager’s February 12, 2020, 30-night Asia itinerary, Temples & Towers, sailing Bali (Benoa), Indonesia to Shanghai, China.   The last segment of your voyage has been modified and will now conclude in Tokyo, Japan. The original disembarkation port of Shanghai, China has been updated and the sailing will now disembark from Tokyo, Japan. In addition, port calls to Kagoshima, Japan and Osaka, Japan have been added and calls to Kyoto and Nagasaki, Japan were subsequently removed.

[CruisetheCs]

6 hours ago, makai 7 said:

CruiseTheCs- to answer your question...We recieved an email forwarded to us from our TA. 

Below is a portion of the email.  It went on to discuss changes to pre and post cruise extensions, and options for cancellation.  There was no further explanation. 

 

 

IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR CRUISE ITINERARY  SEVEN SEAS VOYAGER® DEPARTING FEBRUARY 12, 2020   Dear Valued Guest and Travel Partner,    We would like to inform you of an exciting itinerary enhancement to your voyage aboard Seven Seas Voyager’s February 12, 2020, 30-night Asia itinerary, Temples & Towers, sailing Bali (Benoa), Indonesia to Shanghai, China.   The last segment of your voyage has been modified and will now conclude in Tokyo, Japan. The original disembarkation port of Shanghai, China has been updated and the sailing will now disembark from Tokyo, Japan. In addition, port calls to Kagoshima, Japan and Osaka, Japan have been added and calls to Kyoto and Nagasaki, Japan were subsequently removed.

 

Makai 7,  you are getting an "exciting itinerary enhancement", apparently out of the goodness of Regent's heart, and you still prefer the original itinerary? What do you not understand about "exciting"?

 

In a more serious vein, this has to be one of the most inept corporate communication pieces I have seen.  It fails to acknowledge those customers who will not be pleased with the changes. There is no apology for changes.  It fails to provide any explanation or rationale for the change.  It fails to provide any information about a recourse for those who do not like the altered itinerary.

 

When customers are paying thousands of dollars for a product they at least deserve to be treated with respectful communication rather than a tone-deaf propaganda email that sounds like it was dreamed up by some vacation-club sales department.  

 

Though seeing the hype that the marketing and communications department has produced over these past years, I suppose I should not be surprised by this latest bit

 

 

 

 

[Travelcat2]

In my opinion, many people will be happy to go to Japan.  Cruises that stop in Japanese ports have been selling out quickly and they are not inexpensive cruises.  For those that do not care for the new itinerary, there is more than enough time to cancel or change to another itinerary.

 

It isn't as if Regent made this change because they had nothing better to do - it was brought about by issues in the Chinese ports (and I do not see why they would need to go into detail on Cruise Critic where competitors could read about the problem(s).  

 

As has been said on CC before, if you have your heart set on a particular port, it may be better to fly there and do a land vacation.  When you cruise, we are not guaranteed to visit any of the ports that are listed (due to weather, port problems, unrest in the port, etc.).  It is actually good news that Regent decided to make the change so far in advance.

 

 

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 3/28/2019 at 5:12 PM, forgap said:

TC - you simply don’t know so it is a disservice to this board to speculate.  Why not wait for Regent to respond.  You are not their spokeswoman! 

 

Well, that's rude.  Particularly in light of Bill's statement that in the past he has gotten 0 explanation for a complete itinerary overhaul.  So if he had followed the advice to wait until Regent responded then, he would still be waiting.  Reasonable speculation is all we have or are likely to have.  So no, it doesn't do a disservice to the board.  TC made it clear she was speculating, never claimed to have a definitive answer, and never claimed to be speaking for Regent.

Plus, knowing what the real, actual reason for the change has 0 effect.  It is what it is and why it is what it is is really of little practical import, so speculation can do no harm.

Well I see the spokesperson spoke.  Do you know more than you did before?

Edited March 31, 2019 by Toofarfromthesea

[forgap]

2 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Well, that's rude.  Particularly in light of Bill's statement that in the past he has gotten 0 explanation for a complete itinerary overhaul.  So if he had followed the advice to wait until Regent responded then, he would still be waiting.  Reasonable speculation is all we have or are likely to have.  So no, it doesn't do a disservice to the board.  TC made it clear she was speculating, never claimed to have a definitive answer, and never claimed to be speaking for Regent.

Plus, knowing what the real, actual reason for the change has 0 effect.  It is what it is and why it is what it is is really of little practical import, so speculation can do no harm.

Well I see the spokesperson spoke.  Do you know more than you did before?

Actually, yes.  

[CruisetheCs]

6 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

In my opinion, many people will be happy to go to Japan.  Cruises that stop in Japanese ports have been selling out quickly and they are not inexpensive cruises.  For those that do not care for the new itinerary, there is more than enough time to cancel or change to another itinerary.

 

 

Neither you nor I know how many people prefer the new or old itinerary.  My issue is not whether booked guests prefer to go to Japan or stick with the original itinerary.  My point had to do with the film-flam, superficial way the change was communicated. 

 

In contrast to the hype about the itinerary change in the email that Regent sent out, Mr. OKeefe's post on CC takes on an entirely different tone.  He acknowledges the downside of the changes and says that Regent will try to mitigate problems created by change (See below).  If the information provided by Mr. OKeefe had simply been put into the email communication to guests it might have helped alleviate some of the dismay that some travelers felt.  And at least it would have sounded respectful of guests who had carefully chosen the original itinerary.  Guests signed up for a high-end expensive cruise should not have to search the internet or turn to CC for actual answers and options about a changed cruise that they are on.

 

 I would hope that the communications and marketing department would send out a new email that apologizes for the terse, hyperbolic communication and includes the information shared by Mr. OKeefe here on CC.  

 

 

On 3/29/2019 at 12:45 PM, Jason OKeefe said:

 

Marc,

 

We want to be as transparent as possible. However, I would prefer to focus on accommodating impacted guests vs attempting to assess responsibility. There was a port conflict that we needed to resolve and we did our best to minimize the impacts as best we could.  It was not ideal and we remain hopeful that the majority of guests will have some understanding due to this voyage being a year away. It's not easy and understandably we have disappointed some people. We recognize not everyone will be happy with the itinerary changes, but we're going to do our best to mitigate the disappointment and willing to find other reasonable solutions should they have no interest in the revised voyage.

 

 

[CBWIR]

6 hours ago, CruisetheCs said:

 

Neither you nor I know how many people prefer the new or old itinerary.  My issue is not whether booked guests prefer to go to Japan or stick with the original itinerary.  My point had to do with the film-flam, superficial way the change was communicated. 

 

In contrast to the hype about the itinerary change in the email that Regent sent out, Mr. OKeefe's post on CC takes on an entirely different tone.  He acknowledges the downside of the changes and says that Regent will try to mitigate problems created by change (See below).  If the information provided by Mr. OKeefe had simply been put into the email communication to guests it might have helped alleviate some of the dismay that some travelers felt.  And at least it would have sounded respectful of guests who had carefully chosen the original itinerary.  Guests signed up for a high-end expensive cruise should not have to search the internet or turn to CC for actual answers and options about a changed cruise that they are on.

 

 I would hope that the communications and marketing department would send out a new email that apologizes for the terse, hyperbolic communication and includes the information shared by Mr. OKeefe here on CC.  

 

 

 

 

Post #41 states that what you read is a portion of the email that was received. Have you read the entire email? Or can someone post the entire email?

[DeepFreeze63]

18 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

In my opinion, many people will be happy to go to Japan.  Cruises that stop in Japanese ports have been selling out quickly and they are not inexpensive cruises.  For those that do not care for the new itinerary, there is more than enough time to cancel or change to another itinerary.

 

It isn't as if Regent made this change because they had nothing better to do - it was brought about by issues in the Chinese ports (and I do not see why they would need to go into detail on Cruise Critic where competitors could read about the problem(s).  

 

As has been said on CC before, if you have your heart set on a particular port, it may be better to fly there and do a land vacation.  When you cruise, we are not guaranteed to visit any of the ports that are listed (due to weather, port problems, unrest in the port, etc.).  It is actually good news that Regent decided to make the change so far in advance.

 

 

Yes many people will be happy to go to Japan. We leave in 3 weeks for Tokyo to Vancouver. I expect to love Japan.That's why I booked the Hong Kong to Shanghai in 2020; it had a wonderful itinerary for southern Japan. As noted in Post #36 above, my cancelation of the two booked cruises (HK to SHA and SHA to HK) was due to the "exciting enhancements" Email from Regent.

The first leg (the pictorial for the original itinerary is still up on the Regent website) was enhanced by:

1) trading an overnight in a great city (Shanghai) for disembarkation in a great city (Tokyo). As Regent notes in all their marketing blurbs, overnights are great inclusions on a cruise.

2) trading morning arrival and overnight in Kobe with easy access to wonderful Kyoto for afternoon arrival and overnight in Osaka with much farther access to wonderful Kyoto.

3) trading Nagasaki for Kagoshima!

The second leg (the pictorial for the original itinerary is still up on the Regent website) was enhanced by:

1) adding a sea day instead of the overnight in Hong Kong

2) repeating a small Japanese island from the 1st leg.

 

I think that it is absurd to believe that NCL's competitors would learn of any significant Regent problem via CC (or by Emails to their customers)!

 

In my opinion,  changes in disembarkation/embarkation ports are far more significant than those changes necessitated by weather or "etc." when underway. Therefore I expected a more thoughtful and respectful notice from Regent

 

 "It is actually good news that Regent decided to make the change so far in advance" - I agree. Are you suggesting that Regent might have done otherwise?

[CruisetheCs]

6 hours ago, CBWIR said:

Post #41 states that what you read is a portion of the email that was received. Have you read the entire email? Or can someone post the entire email?

 

I have not read the entire email.  But post #41(below) seems clear about the content.   Makai 7 says there was no further explanation for the change. 

 

On 3/31/2019 at 3:19 AM, makai 7 said:

CruiseTheCs- to answer your question...We recieved an email forwarded to us from our TA. 

Below is a portion of the email.  It went on to discuss changes to pre and post cruise extensions, and options for cancellation.  There was no further explanation. 

 

 

IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR CRUISE ITINERARY  SEVEN SEAS VOYAGER® DEPARTING FEBRUARY 12, 2020   Dear Valued Guest and Travel Partner,    We would like to inform you of an exciting itinerary enhancement to your voyage aboard Seven Seas Voyager’s February 12, 2020, 30-night Asia itinerary, Temples & Towers, sailing Bali (Benoa), Indonesia to Shanghai, China.   The last segment of your voyage has been modified and will now conclude in Tokyo, Japan. The original disembarkation port of Shanghai, China has been updated and the sailing will now disembark from Tokyo, Japan. In addition, port calls to Kagoshima, Japan and Osaka, Japan have been added and calls to Kyoto and Nagasaki, Japan were subsequently removed.

 

[Wendy The Wanderer]

1 hour ago, DeepFreeze63 said:

"It is actually good news that Regent decided to make the change so far in advance" - I agree. Are you suggesting that Regent might have done otherwise?

 

I suspect what was meant was that these changes could have come about closer to the cruise, necessitating a lot more disappointed passengers perhaps.