Voyager Cruises in Asia; Feb & March 2020

[Travelcat2]

16 hours ago, Pcardad said:

My FCC for the denied board of Feb 12 is time limited...book in 1 year, sail in 2.

 

It is becoming more and more obvious that what Regent passengers receive (or do not receive) is dependent upon the country where they live.  As always, Regent's lawyers protect them and Regent does the most that they can do for their passengers.

 

In terms of TA's, in this case only, I do not believe that TA's have any influence on what Regent is doing (and we have one of the top TA's that Regent works with -- they have won awards from Regent.)  And, as a Titanium Seven Seas Society member, I don't feel as if I have much influence with Regent either (not complaining - they treat us very well!)

Edited February 23, 2020 by Travelcat2

[flossie009]

On 2/22/2020 at 12:14 AM, Travelcat2 said:

Not necessarily.  Laws in the U.K. are very different.  For instance, as I understand it, if you make a deposit for a cruise and then cancel, you lose your deposit.  And, there is not an automatic "Business Class" booking on international flights out of the U.K.  Some passengers need to use economy air.  For  many countries,, there is no included air at all.  On the other hand, there are some "consumer laws" that are apparently better than ours.

 

It is true that in the UK we do have good regulations that protect consumers from default by travel operators and airlines.

However, it is wrong to imply that those laws are the reason that Regent UK, and other cruise-lines, take hefty non-refundable deposits and do not offer Business Class flights within their base pricing. Those are simply commercial & marketing decisions made by Regent for the UK market; nothing to do with the law.

 

I hope you do not mind me clarifying in order to ensure there is no confusion for CC members.

 

 

On 2/22/2020 at 12:14 AM, Travelcat2 said:

In my opinion, a 100% future cruise credit is more than fair - especially with the additional 25% FCC.

Sorry, but it is not at all fair to only offer FCCs when Regent's Contract (in all countries) requires them to make a refund after cancelling a cruise.

I hope that the TA who passed on this offer was incorrect in their understanding of what the Regent representative was saying.

Edited February 23, 2020 by flossie009

[flossie009]

11 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

It is becoming more and more obvious that what Regent passengers receive (or do not receive) is dependent upon the country where they live.

On what basis do you come to this conclusion?

If true, it is outrageous behaviour by the company. I sincerely hope that there is no foundation to this accusation against RSSC.

[Travelcat2]

flossie - first of all, I see no "outrageous behavior"  (sorry, my system autocorrects that word into American spelling) on the part of Regent.   And, I certainly do not mind you clarifying ........ however, saying that I am wrong, and accusing me of attacking Regent is, in my opinion, not a clarification.  

 

 I did not accuse Regent of anything.  The differences in what Regent passengers receive is likely based on many things.  For instance, Regent probably cannot get decent air contracts with carriers when they do not have enough guests to guarantee to the airlines in many countries.  Do we know the cost to Regent to have to abide by the consumer protection laws in some countries?  As I stated previously, whatever compensation Regent gives to their guests is likely more than required but is also possible that it is not the same for passengers in all countries.  Just looking at this thread, we have no idea how many people from South America, for instance, received since it is unlikely that they read CC.   For all you and I know, everyone in the world that was booked on these now cancelled cruises received the exact same thing.  

 

Keep in mind when you read my posts that I am giving my opinion (as indicated when I preference a sentence with  "as I understand it" or "to my knowledge", "likely", etc.).  I use these terms frequently (I've underlined them above to show the type of words that I am referring to).  

 

  Some of the information on this thread is incorrect but I believe that everyone has posted what they believe to be true.  For instance, when I posted (and you quoted) my response that a 100% FCC with an additional 25% FCC was a good deal.  That was based on what another poster said that is likely a misunderstanding on their part.  Actually, it is a good deal but apparently there is a requirement to refund the cruise fare rather than simply provide FCC's.  

 

This is a difficult and new situation for Regent and for the world and we are all learning from it - trying to assist each other in the best way we can.  

 

I want to stress again  that I find the way Regent is handling this crisis to be exemplary.  

[forgap]

8 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

flossie - first of all, I see no "outrageous behavior"  (sorry, my system autocorrects that word into American spelling) on the part of Regent.   And, I certainly do not mind you clarifying ........ however, saying that I am wrong, and accusing me of attacking Regent is, in my opinion, not a clarification.  

 

 I did not accuse Regent of anything.  The differences in what Regent passengers receive is likely based on many things.  For instance, Regent probably cannot get decent air contracts with carriers when they do not have enough guests to guarantee to the airlines in many countries.  Do we know the cost to Regent to have to abide by the consumer protection laws in some countries?  As I stated previously, whatever compensation Regent gives to their guests is likely more than required but is also possible that it is not the same for passengers in all countries.  Just looking at this thread, we have no idea how many people from South America, for instance, received since it is unlikely that they read CC.   For all you and I know, everyone in the world that was booked on these now cancelled cruises received the exact same thing.  

 

Keep in mind when you read my posts that I am giving my opinion (as indicated when I preference a sentence with  "as I understand it" or "to my knowledge", "likely", etc.).  I use these terms frequently (I've underlined them above to show the type of words that I am referring to).  

 

  Some of the information on this thread is incorrect but I believe that everyone has posted what they believe to be true.  For instance, when I posted (and you quoted) my response that a 100% FCC with an additional 25% FCC was a good deal.  That was based on what another poster said that is likely a misunderstanding on their part.  Actually, it is a good deal but apparently there is a requirement to refund the cruise fare rather than simply provide FCC's.  

 

This is a difficult and new situation for Regent and for the world and we are all learning from it - trying to assist each other in the best way we can.  

 

I want to stress again  that I find the way Regent is handling this crisis to be exemplary.  

Didn’t you say you had decided to limit your posts?  
 

[rallydave]

4 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

Actually, it is a good deal but apparently there is a requirement to refund the cruise fare rather than simply provide FCC's.  

 

This is a difficult and new situation for Regent and for the world and we are all learning from it - trying to assist each other in the best way we can.  

 

I want to stress again  that I find the way Regent is handling this crisis to be exemplary.  

First of all giving a full credit is NOT apparently, I clearly quoted this FACT from the US Regent Ticket Contract earlier in theis thread so it is a fact backed up by a quote from the Ticket Contract.

 

And, if NOT following the Contract between Regent and their customers like they are doing in some cases for this unfortunate situation and after Regent did exactly the identical thing a few months ago when a cruise was cut short and after an uproar on this board Regent changed the FCC to a refund for the full day the cruise was cut short, would hate to find out what would be less than exemplary  

[Wendy The Wanderer]

I understood all this just to mean that travel regulations vary between North America and across the pond.  We know that deposits are handled different, I just assumed that in some places, the FCC supplementary compensation might vary.  This would account for some people saying that had to book their FCC cruise within the year, others saying that they must *take* their FCC cruise this year.  Am I wrong?  This is nothing to do with Regent, per se, but to do with the industry regulations of the pertinent country.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Wendy The Wanderer

[Travelcat2]

2 minutes ago, rallydave said:

First of all giving a full credit is NOT apparently, I clearly quoted this FACT from the US Regent Ticket Contract earlier in theis thread so it is a fact backed up by a quote from the Ticket Contract.

 

And, if NOT following the Contract between Regent and their customers like they are doing in some cases for this unfortunate situation and after Regent did exactly the identical thing a few months ago when a cruise was cut short and after an uproar on this board Regent changed the FCC to a refund for the full day the cruise was cut short, would hate to find out what would be less than exemplary  

 

rallydave - no need to shout - I get it.  As I just said, we are learning a lot from this situation (which is unlike any other "situation" that we have seen in our 16 years sailing on Regent).    This is not like when the WC was cancelled due to the fishing net in the pod or getting stuck in South America or Australia.  This is an international crisis.  

 

Admittedly I did not know that Regent could not give a full credit when they cancel the cruise in advance of embarkation. I likely did not read or pay attention to posts based on the Regent Ticket Contract because they typically go above and beyond what it says.  Regent is not required to do most of what they do for their passengers in these situations.

[Travelcat2]

4 minutes ago, Wendy The Wanderer said:

I understood all this just to mean that travel regulations vary between North America and across the pond.  We know that deposits are handled different, I just assumed that in some places, the FCC supplementary compensation might vary.  This would account for some people saying that had to book their FCC cruise within the year, others saying that they must *take* their FCC cruise this year.  Am I wrong?  This is nothing to do with Regent, per se, but to do with the industry regulations of the pertinent country.

 

Agree!  The only way we would know what the travel regulations are in the world is if there was one place that we could access the information.  Having this resource is unlikely to happen.

[rallydave]

7 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

rallydave - no need to shout - I get it.  As I just said, we are learning a lot from this situation (which is unlike any other "situation" that we have seen in our 16 years sailing on Regent).    This is not like when the WC was cancelled due to the fishing net in the pod or getting stuck in South America or Australia.  This is an international crisis.

Not talking about the situations you mentioned, Was talking about a cruise that was recently, think it was about a month or so ago that was shortened by a day and Regent offered a FCC for the day even though like in this Coronavirus situation Regent is canceling complete cruises. and in some cases appears to be giving FCC for the paid cruise and the minimum Regent contractually is obligated to give is a full refund for the days shortened and the complete cancellation.

 

Believe it to be almost completely disingenuous to say Regent  typically goes above and beyond in these situations when in both these recent cases they have not even followed what they are contractually obligated to do.

[Travelcat2]

1 hour ago, rallydave said:

Not talking about the situations you mentioned, Was talking about a cruise that was recently, think it was about a month or so ago that was shortened by a day and Regent offered a FCC for the day even though like in this Coronavirus situation Regent is canceling complete cruises. and in some cases appears to be giving FCC for the paid cruise and the minimum Regent contractually is obligated to give is a full refund for the days shortened and the complete cancellation.

 

Believe it to be almost completely disingenuous to say Regent  typically goes above and beyond in these situations when in both these recent cases they have not even followed what they are contractually obligated to do.

 

You just posted that "............ and after Regent did exactly the identical thing a few months ago when a cruise was cut short and after an uproar on this board Regent changed the FCC to a refund for the full day the cruise was cut short, would hate to find out what would be less than exemplary". Now you state that you were talking about a cruise related to the Coronavirus which was obviously not "a few months ago".   A bit confusing.

 

According to what has been posted by Regent cruisers, a cruise line only has to refund if the cruise is cancelled before passengers embark for the cruise.   Not sure that this includes cutting back a cruise by one day as this is not the same as cancelling a cruise.

 

If it were not off topic, I could write pages of instances where Regent has gone above and beyond what they are contractually obligated to do.  They are not contractually obligated to rebook flights for people that did not book air through Regent but they have done it more than once.  I wish that we could start a thread of all of the things that have been done for passengers that are above and beyond what is required.  The only negative to that is that there could an uproar if someone received something that another person did not receive.  

 

Perhaps people will state exactly what they received from Regent for the cancellation and also state the country they reside in.  This may be the only way that we can get factual information.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Travelcat2

[pdaniel]

Rallydave-  It’s ok to underline and use bold print.  Obviously, it’s not ok to use caps for emphasis.

 

travelcat-  “The only negative to that is that there could an uproar if someone received something that another person did not receive.“.    You mean like free cruises?

 

Also, isn’t it a bit out of line to say that people in South America do not read cruise critic?

[rallydave]

18 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

According to what has been posted by Regent cruisers, a cruise line only has to refund if the cruise is cancelled before passengers embark for the cruise.   Not sure that this includes cutting back a cruise by one day as this is not the same as cancelling a cruise.

As far as refunding for shortening a cruise it is  the same as for canceling before a cruise starts in that a prorated refund shall be provided.  Both cases require a refund vs a FCC.

 

Would really help if you actually read the Contract, the Cruise ticked , etc. which spell out the terms and conditions of all of these situations rather than ignoring them  while making up your own solutions..

 

As for the day cut short, and Regent eventually changing the FCC to a pro-rata refund don't remember exactly when it was other than this year with the cruise cut short by a single day with the following cruise increased by a single day.  Might have been from the Coronavirus or not but, really doesn't matter as it was the change to following the rules from only giving a FCC.

[BBWC]

Don’t want to belabor an old topic but wanted to set the record straight about the situation Dave mentioned. The cruise was cut short by a day due to congestion at the port of Vancouver. Regent initially offered only OBC (not FCC) plus one night hotel as compensation. After it was pointed out that this was contrary to contractual terms, they did offer FCC for the one day of cruise lost. While it was FCC, it could be used to offset the price of that particular cruise, so it was effectively a refund.

[Travelcat2]

12 minutes ago, rallydave said:

As far as refunding for shortening a cruise it is  the same as for canceling before a cruise starts in that a prorated refund shall be provided.  Both cases require a refund vs a FCC.

 

Would really help if you actually read the Contract, the Cruise ticked , etc. which spell out the terms and conditions of all of these situations rather than ignoring them  while making up your own solutions..

 

As for the day cut short, and Regent eventually changing the FCC to a pro-rata refund don't remember exactly when it was other than this year with the cruise cut short by a single day with the following cruise increased by a single day.  Might have been from the Coronavirus or not but, really doesn't matter as it was the change to following the rules from only giving a FCC.

 

This back and forth posting is not helping anyone.  I am not "making up solutions".    I am stating the obvious ........ none of us know what the laws are for different countries.  All we know (and no - I don't want to read the contract since Regent is likely doing more than is required and it is only for the U.S. and probably Canada) is what affected people have been kind enough to share with us. My suggestion of having posters indicate what they are receiving from Regent is the only factual way that I can come up for those that choose to share this information with other posters.

 

Keep in mind that new "rules" are being implemented as the situation evolves.  Health checks are now required and there are bans on cruisers that live in certain areas of the world.  Should the virus continue to spread (hopefully it won't), other rules could be put into place.  

 

Let's stop arguing and allow affected passengers share their information.

 

P.S.  Thank you BBWC!  In addition to giving us the instance where a cruise was cut short by one day, you opened our eyes to how Regent made a FCC as good as a refund!

 

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Travelcat2

[flossie009]

16 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

It is becoming more and more obvious that what Regent passengers receive (or do not receive) is dependent upon the country where they live.

 

3 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

For all you and I know, everyone in the world that was booked on these now cancelled cruises received the exact same thing.  

I agree with the statement immediately above. That it was why it came as such a shock to see the previous post stating that Regent is differentiating the compensation based on country of residence.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Travelcat2 said:

Perhaps people will state exactly what they received from Regent for the cancellation and also state the country they reside in.

 

31 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

Let's stop arguing and allow affected passengers share their information.

I agree ................. but didn't you previously post that guests should not share the offers they receive? 🤨 

Edited February 23, 2020 by flossie009

[rallydave]

18 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

Let's stop arguing and allow affected passengers share their information.

Who's arguing??  I'm simply setting the record straight as to what the contractual terms are so that affected passengers are able to get at least the minimum their contracts allow, so I am sharing those facts and not speculating.

 

Sharing information about certain people getting more than the contract calls out is nice however without specifics doesn't help anyone.  And, in order to know people are getting more than the contract allows requires knowledge of what is included in the contract.

[flossie009]

3 hours ago, Wendy The Wanderer said:

This is nothing to do with Regent, per se, but to do with the industry regulations of the pertinent country.

I do not believe that the compensation (in these cases FCC) has anything to do with industry regulations.

It is the company's choice as to what they offer and I sincerely hope that Regent is not differentiating between guests for the same cancelled cruise - on the basis of country or anything else.

Compensation should be fair & equitable. 

[Travelcat2]

12 minutes ago, flossie009 said:

 

 

I agree ................. but didn't you previously post that guests should not share offers of compensation? 🤨 

 

Yes - I have posted this frequently over the years and still believe it (look at this thread as an example of misinformation, true information, questionable information, etc.). I thought about it and it is not like "upsells" where someone pays $2,000 for a suite that someone else paid $1,500 for.  These are all variable situations - based on your current suite category, length of cruise, etc.  The current situation should be more straightforward.  

 

Since there are hundreds of passengers affected by the cancellations and it is possible that there will be more (hope not), and with aforementioned misinformation being posted, it could help put this part of the situation to bed.  

 

rallydave - what I wrong with someone posting:

 

Received refund plus 25% FCC (from Canada)

Received refund plus 25% FCC (from the U.K.)

Received refund (plus FCC - not stating percentage due to a private situation - from Italy)

 

Not sure what type of response there would be as some people do not want to share information.  I am a perfect example of that.  I should never had shared information that I was on the Explorer for the christening as some posters won't let that go - even after 3 1/2 years.  Although my reasoning was solid (being able to share information, photos, etc.), the wrath from some posters made the time and effort that I put into it a waste of time.  I learned from that mistake and will not share information in the future!

 

 

 

 

[rallydave]

7 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

rallydave - what I wrong with someone posting:

 

Received refund plus 25% FCC (from Canada)

Received refund plus 25% FCC (from the U.K.)

Received refund (plus FCC - not stating percentage due to a private situation - from Italy)

 

Have no idea why you asked me about this but, nothing wrong with that and people have been posting information like that for several weeks without question.

 

travelcat, what is wrong with reading the specifics of the cruise contract, ticket contract etc. so that you can read in black and white what the cruise line is obligated to provide such that you don't erroneously say as you did recently that the FCC was a good deal.

4 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

 For instance, when I posted (and you quoted) my response that a 100% FCC with an additional 25% FCC was a good deal.

 Obviously based on the cruise ticket it is NOT a good deal as it is less than the minimum contractual requirement.

[Kiwifromkiev]

I have read the last few messages regarding what is "fair" and what is not and whether the company can differentiate their refunds depending on a country of residence. This prompted me to read the contract. First and foremost, it appears that there is a high chance that RSSC CAN differentiate IF their contracts vary in different countries. This appears to be the case. I live in New Zealand and our website only shows Australia/NZ T&Cs. In accordance with these T&Cs, tilted "Regent Seven Seas Cruises® Australia Ticket Contract" (bolded by me), Para 4 (a) states

If We cancel the Cruise or CruiseTour before it has started, We will refund the full Cruise Fare or CruiseTour Fare that We have actually received (less any air or accommodation charges incurred).

 

This is clearly what residents of Australia and New Zealand (as we are services by RSSC Australia) are entitled to. There are different entitlements in the event the cruise is shortened due to a mechanical failure or changes to itinerary. 

The other argument in support of different contracts is that offers differ greatly between the regions. Not only in relation to air or not, but pricing and extras as well. That said, the only way they offer can differ, if the Contracts are different.

 

Therefore, I urge EVERYONE affected - go to RSSC website and read the contract applicable to your country of residence.  The contracts are easy to locate if you go into FAQ and select "pricing" option and then "Do you have a standard cancellation policy". To me this is the minimum what you are entitled to, and anything else would be RSSC's goodwill. If your contact states "refund" than I would be insisting that's what I want. If the contract states something like "refund in cash or equivalent of" than this would cover FCC, however I do not believe that 10 months to use is a reasonable term.

The bottom line - READ your ticketing contract!

[flossie009]

1 hour ago, Travelcat2 said:

Perhaps people will state exactly what they received from Regent for the cancellation and also state the country they reside in.  This may be the only way that we can get factual information.

IMO, the easiest way to achieve clarity would be for RSSC to publish on their website the principles of the refunds and compensatory FCCs (including time limits) that they are offering guests on each cancelled, curtailed or re-routed cruise. (Crystal has shown this openness).

For the cruise-only fares, the refunds and FCC compensation should be common across all countries. There may be differences in how guests costs related to air, hotels and other extras are handled and I would not expect these claims or payments to be shared publicly.

[rallydave]

37 minutes ago, Kiwifromkiev said:

Australia Ticket Contract" (bolded by me), Para 4 (a) states

If We cancel the Cruise or CruiseTour before it has started, We will refund the full Cruise Fare or CruiseTour Fare that We have actually received

Exactly same wording as US terms as expected. After all would anyone except anything less than a full refund if you purchase and pay in advance or deposit for ANY product or service that the seller did not deliver not due to anything on your part?

 

would expect the wording to be identical worldwide as no gov regulations would have any effect other than to require the refund. 

Edited February 23, 2020 by rallydave

[Kiwifromkiev]

11 minutes ago, rallydave said:

Exactly same wording as US terms as expected. After all would anyone except anything less than a full refund if you purchase and pay in advance or deposit for ANY product or service that the seller did no deliver not due to anything on your part?

 

 

In some cases the wording of cancellation is ... strange, I've seen it (nothing to do with cruises though). It may be the case with different prices (the most common example is the prepaid fares for hotels).

 

[Travelcat2]

1 hour ago, rallydave said:

Have no idea why you asked me about this but, nothing wrong with that and people have been posting information like that for several weeks without question.

 

travelcat, what is wrong with reading the specifics of the cruise contract, ticket contract etc. so that you can read in black and white what the cruise line is obligated to provide such that you don't erroneously say as you did recently that the FCC was a good deal.

 Obviously based on the cruise ticket it is NOT a good deal as it is less than the minimum contractual requirement.

 

Actually, what has been posted for a few weeks has been questioned.  In fact, one poster (the one that said they will receive a 100% FCC plus a 25% FCC) has been questioned more than once.  

 

Each of us has their own ideas as to what is acceptable or what is a good deal for them.  We would have no issue whatsoever with a 125% FCC.  This would reimburse us for all expenses (including air that may not be refundable if you booked your own air) and the money would just go into booking another cruise.  This, for us, is a good deal.  The refund plus 25% FCC is also a good deal as you could do the same thing.  In my opinion, the only people that can determine if they are satisfied with what is offered is the person receiving the compensation.  

 

Although I am saying this tongue in cheek, why would anyone bother to read the legal jargon when people on this thread are stating what it says?  BTW, I have read every word of the contract but do not have a photographic memory.  Whatever I was looking up only pertained to a question that I had at the time.  

 

Finally, I do understand that the refund portion of the contract is likely the same.  I wonder about the additional FCC.  I also assume that the deposit portion of the cruise fare is also included in the refund - even if you are from another country.  

 

Going back to a question that I already answered, none of this back and forth discussion would be going on if people did not feel the need to share what they have or will be getting as the result of the cancelled cruises.  Stating that Regent is obliged to give a refund is enough information for most of us.