Israel Next week Voyager

[PhD-iva]

On the rollcall for Oceania Riviera 29 November sailing, Sailor Jack just posted this:

“Just got a call from our TA - she said that she has been notified by Oceana that we can cancel this cruise and receive full credit for another Oceana cruise.  Our Canadian friends have not received the same offer as of yet.”

post 427

 

 

[cwn]

1 hour ago, PhD-iva said:

On the rollcall for Oceania Riviera 29 November sailing, Sailor Jack just posted this:

“Just got a call from our TA - she said that she has been notified by Oceana that we can cancel this cruise and receive full credit for another Oceana cruise.  Our Canadian friends have not received the same offer as of yet.”

post 427

 

 

Wow, they must be afraid the conflict is going to spread to the Suez Canal and Red Sea area. It is really sad there is so much discord in the world. Let’s 🙏 that is not the case! But todays news was not at all comforting.😟.

[Golf Mad Girl]

5 hours ago, labonnevie said:

Update to my previous post, I am happy to report I was wrong. The cruise ship schedule for Santorini does NOT show another ship in port on November 14th! How nice would that be!

yesssssss😊

[roninman]

12 hours ago, papaflamingo said:

Why is Regent responsible to take a gigantic financial hit because of a  war that breaks out in Israel?  

Why is a customer responsible to take a gigantic financial hit because of a war that breaks out in Israel?

 

Because it does seem like a certain amount of customers have been disappointed in their expenditure one way or another, but the cruise line gets to keep the money anyway.   Does this relationship maybe seem a little one-sided, with the weaker party sometimes finding itself making excuses as to how the stronger party is justified in its position?  In this case, we cannnot call it Stockholm Syndrome.  Perhaps Oslo?

 

 

[roninman]

34 minutes ago, roninman said:

 

Because it does seem like a certain amount of customers have been disappointed in their expenditure one way or another, but the cruise line gets to keep the money anyway.

Just to expand... no one is begrudging customers who willingly took this cruise anyway.   Hopefully all their concerns are alleviated, and they enjoy it to the maximum.     They deserve to enjoy themselves, they spent so much and faced so many last minute changes.

 

But then on the other hand, why begrudge those who would have preferred things had been handled differently, perhaps more equitably, as other cruise lines have reportedly done?  

 

[papaflamingo]

55 minutes ago, roninman said:

Why is a customer responsible to take a gigantic financial hit because of a war that breaks out in Israel?

 

Because it does seem like a certain amount of customers have been disappointed in their expenditure one way or another, but the cruise line gets to keep the money anyway.   Does this relationship maybe seem a little one-sided, with the weaker party sometimes finding itself making excuses as to how the stronger party is justified in its position?  In this case, we cannnot call it Stockholm Syndrome.  Perhaps Oslo?

 

 

The customer isn't responsible for the war that broke out, nor is the cruise line.  When you book a cruise you have until final payment date to cancel with very little penalty. Then there is a sliding scale as to amount of refund you get as the cruise approaches.  The cruise sailed.  There were no cancelled days, ports were substituted, they managed to get the passengers to an embarkation point.  Tell me then, just because they had to cancel ports due to civil unrest beyond their control, why they are responsible?  EVERYONE knows that once final payment has passed you've agreed to pay for the cruise no matter what happens, other than a cancellation by the cruise line.  That's what Travel Insurance is for.  You are unhappy because the ports you want to visit are no longer available, at no fault of either you or the cruise line, but you didn't get Travel Insurance with "cancel for any reason," and your Travel Insurance won't cover the cancellation because.... the cruise didn't cancel, you don't want to go now, so you want someone else to take the financial hit,  the cruise line.  Sorry, but that's not how it works.  

Something no one has mentioned..the Travel Insurance companies, the actual companies that DO take the risk, aren't paying out either... and you know why? Because the cruise wasn't cancelled.  

Sorry but that's the risk we all assume when we book a cruise.  That's the nature of the industry and it isn't going to change.  And the cruise line doesn't "get to keep the money," they, in fact, are still providing a full cruise with full port stops and full service.  They only "get to keep the money" if you decide not to go.  It's no more "one sided" than any other industry.  

[papaflamingo]

13 hours ago, Lrob said:

No feathers ruffled. All points of view welcome. I agree about the ports bit. My issue is not with missing ports. Been there and done that so I get it. It is with the generalized uncertainty/ instability in the travel route that must be taken as this is a world cruise to get to Dubai. Through the Suez, Down the Red Sea and up the Straight of Hormuz. The Voyager was never going this route. 
 

I have been to many of these places on land so I am not fussed about the normal general ME uncertainty. This is a bit more than anyone could reasonably have expected. My note on the Greek ports was an aside. It was not meant as a reason to allow changing the cruise. I can see how the comment did distract from my point. 

 

If the ship skipped Egypt and Jordan ports due to safety that would not be my gripe. I can always stay on the boat if I wish to anyway. I do agree that is always the risk of cruising. I knew when booking that Israel is hit or miss. No issue with that. My point was that given the current circumstances, the travel route itself will not be so enjoyable for me. Others mileage may vary,  but I suspect I am not alone.

 

Of course this isn’t Regent’s fault. I also never suggested they should compensate airfare as that would be unreasonable under the circumstances. I also never suggested a refund - again that would be unreasonable. I haven’t even hinted at a partial refund. Simply suggesting to rebook on another cruise. I understand contracts and I know what I am getting into when I sign one. By the right thing I simply mean a compromise they do not have to make for long term goodwill in an understanding of this unusual situation. It is done all the time in many businesses relationships.

 

I hope you don’t get flamed! If you do I will give you my fire extinguisher. Many valid points to be made on both sides of the argument. 

I appreciate your offer of the "fire extinguishers, may take you up on it. 😎

If you have the ability to switch to a totally different cruise, it's the same as letting you cancel and get a refund. The ship is still sailing, ports have been substituted, etc.  If everyone switches cruises for free, it takes cabins out of inventory and leaves cabins empty on the current cruise.  Money that can never be recovered.  It would be a HUGE loss to the cruise line.  Again.. why should they have to accept that loss?  Ports are canceled or changed all the time.  Just because you might not have cared in the past doesn't mean others don't.  As I said earlier, last year we booked a cruise with a segment to specifically see Greenland.  Greenland cancelled for weather.  Should we have been given a chance to change cruises?  And what about those who boarded Voyager in Athens, before the unrest?  How do you give someone the option to change a cruise they're already on?  

I'm as sorry as anyone this happened.  We were supposed to board in Athens and it was our "bucket list" to see Israel and Egypt.  But I got Covid on the day we were leaving for Athens and, obviously, couldn't go.  So visiting Israel and Egypt may never happen now (getting old).  So I get it.  I know I will never get a chance to see Greenland.  That's how it goes.  

[mrlevin]

10 hours ago, rallydave said:

Seems to me a fair compromise for both the passengers and regent would be for regent to come up with the price that the new Greek island cruise would be thrn subtract that number from the price people payed for the Israel Egypt  cruise and refund that difference for each passenger. 
 

Regdnt would cover the cruise they are providing and the passengers would be paying for the actual cruise they are taking. 

I wish Regent had done this when they canceled St Petersburg from our Baltic itinerary; prices "were" much lower for trips that did not include St Pete.

[zak477]

Papaflamingo & all others too: All valid points. I also agree with all the comments. I agree that cancelled ports can be the norm when sailing. Over the years we have had many cancellations and added sea days.  Yes, I understand my contract with Regent. But this time, I think that maybe, just maybe, the itinerary cancellation is a bit different that a single port cancellation due to high winds &/or rough seas.  As of this writing, I looked up the Navigator on the Regent website and they now post 7 different categories available or guaranteed ! Last month the availability was all waitlisted !  Seems as if many are cancelling even after full payment. 

That is truly disheartening. We are still planning to go of course but not with as much enthusiasm was before.  Let us hope and pray that the region deescalating quickly and not intensify. 

 

 

[mrlevin]

Zak, truly only five categories open, E and F guarantees are for those that don't want to pay D prices.

 

Your real issue won't be Luxor or Jordan; to me the only real concern is Strait of Hormuz if Iran gets active.  They would have to change debarkation port to Mumbai.  

 

I did this itinerary on Voyager in 2017 and loved it and never were planning to go to Israel or Cairo; you will have a great time.

[zak477]

mrlevin, But my only point was that all categories were "waitlisted" a month ago. Now even guarantees are open for purchase. So yes, there are 7 categories that are available to purchase. At this late date, opening are rare.

Oh I do hope we still can enjoy this long awaited cruise. Thanks. 

[roninman]

3 hours ago, papaflamingo said:

It's no more "one sided" than any other industry.  

I can't think of many industries where a corporation gets to unilaterally substitute, at its own whim, one product or service with another, and customers are then routinely lectured that it's their own fault if they had preferred a different outcome.

 

That being said, your points, and very valid counterpoints and examples of competitive cruise lines who took a more even-handed approach to pleasing their customers, have already been covered in great detail in this thread, and at this point it's getting repetitious.   The cruise is underway, hopefully people on it are enjoying themselves to the max.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by roninman

[Pcardad]

By all accounts they are having a great time...with over 600 on board.

[kathy49]

23 minutes ago, Pcardad said:

By all accounts they are having a great time...with over 600 on board.

I think the different reactions here reflect the difference in cruisers. This is a luxury cruise line where many cruisers have visited ports multiple times and care less about the ports than the ship experience and service offered, But there are some who maybe are more interested in seeing some spots in the world on a luxury ship where ports are important, By all accounts this is a very different cruise...usually a much less expensive cruise and for some this may represent the one cruise for the year or next years and a major investment.  Very different perspectives. Many here seem to be much more about the shipboard experience and don't care about the rest so the ships will be relatively full.

 

Those heading out in the next month/months at least have a good lead time to make a decision as to whether cruising in some of these waters will be relaxing for them or whether postponing is better. It appears Regent gives then no options. Maybe some are getting options not sure.

 

I can only cite Celebrity who seems to be offering for future cruises options to take FCC 100% to change to different cruise or 90%FCC to leave the credit with Celebrity for a date in the future. That seems really fair. They will operate the cruises  most probably with very altered itinerary and this gives those who counted on seeing Holy Lands and Egypt a chance to do so in the future or go on a different cruise now.

 

This is said with full understanding that legally they have to refund nothing or allow changes.

 

 

[papaflamingo]

3 hours ago, roninman said:

I can't think of many industries where a corporation gets to unilaterally substitute, at its own whim, one product or service with another, and customers are then routinely lectured that it's their own fault if they had preferred a different outcome.

 

That being said, your points, and very valid counterpoints and examples of competitive cruise lines who took a more even-handed approach to pleasing their customers, have already been covered in great detail in this thread, and at this point it's getting repetitious.   The cruise is underway, hopefully people on it are enjoying themselves to the max.

 

 

They didn't "unilaterally substitute...one product or service."  The airlines changes times and aircraft all the time on their routes. If you only want to fly on a 777 in a "suite" and they substitute a 767 and fully reclining seat, and you choose not to go, you lose your money if on a non refundable rate.  If you get to the gate and they have an equipment substitution you can't say "gee, send me home, give me a full refund, and thousands of future credit" just because you don't like the seat configuration or type of aircraft.  If a situation arises and the aircraft is delayed beyond the control of the airlines and you miss a meeting, guess what.... you're out of luck.  If your flight is delayed and you miss the cruise, the airline doesn't pay for the missed cruise.  These are just the ways the industries work.  And the same can be said about most travel or leisure services.  Be it an amusement park like Disney and you show up and it's pouring rain or your favorite ride breaks down, to hotels that have to move you to a sister hotel due to some reason.  Happens all the time.  That's what travel insurance is for. 

Edited October 19, 2023 by papaflamingo

[roninman]

2 hours ago, papaflamingo said:

They didn't "unilaterally substitute...one product or service."

Actually, that's 100% exactly what they did.   

 

Or, per your analogies:  If you book a flight to Dallas and the airplane decides to fly to Orlando instead, you will get a refund.  Or if you show up with your ticket to Paris Disney and they tell you they decided you have to travel to Cedar Point instead, they'll owe you a refund.    If you show up at a Hilton in Vegas and they tell you no, they decided to book you instead at a hotel in Reno, you can expect a refund.

 

And once again, if you buy cancel for any reason insurance for $5000 for a $23,000 cruise and decide to pull the string because you see other cruise lines, but not yours, cancelling visits to sketchy places where you have a real concern, you'll typically get 75% back- assuming such insurance is even available in your geography.  So you're still out 11k, and the cruise line still gets the 23k.  Insurance is hardly a panacea.

 

Bottom line, other cruise lines stepped up and listened to their customers, quickly offering guidance and refund and credit.  Good for them!  They could have simply waved a contract in their customers' faces.

 

Bottomer line, please read the several hundred previous replies on this string.  This topic has really been done.   Why some feel compelled to wag their finger at folks who have real concerns about their own safety and their own pocketbook is beyond me.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by roninman

[papaflamingo]

11 minutes ago, roninman said:

Actually, that's 100% exactly what they did.   

 

Or, per your analogies:  If you book a flight to Dallas and the airplane decides to fly to Orlando instead, you will get a refund.  Or if you show up with your ticket to Paris Disney and they tell you they decided you have to travel to Cedar Point instead, they'll owe you a refund.    If you show up at a Hilton in Vegas and they tell you no, they decided to book you instead at a hotel in Reno, you can expect a refund.

 

And once again, if you buy cancel for any reason insurance for $5000 for a $23,000 cruise and decide to pull the string because you see other cruise lines, but not yours, cancelling visits to sketchy places where you have a real concern, you'll typically get 75% back- assuming such insurance is even available in your geography.  So you're still out 11k, and the cruise line still gets the 23k.  Insurance is hardly a panacea.

 

Bottom line, other cruise lines stepped up and listened to their customers, quickly offering guidance and refund and credit.  Good for them!  They could have simply waved a contract in their customers' faces.

 

Bottomer line, please read the several hundred previous replies on this string.  This topic has really been done.   Why some feel compelled to wag their finger at folks who have real concerns about their own safety and their own pocketbook is beyond me.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok...we can go around and around but if you read the contract that YOU agreed to, you'll find that the cruise line has every right to change the itinerary.  If you're not happy, and you believe that "other cruise lines stepped up" then by all means you should cruise other cruise lines. That only makes sense.  No one should book a cruise on a line they don't trust or like. 

By the way... as to my analogies, if your flight to a hub is delayed for weather and you miss your flight to your final destination then you sleep in the airport or get a hotel at your expense.  The airlines won't pay for it. Also, hotels "walk" people frequently to other hotels with no refund, you get a room at the new hotel for the same price.  And if a Disney ride breaks, you don't get a discount just because it's the only ride you wanted to go on... similar to a port cancelling.  You get use of the other rides, just like you visit the other ports.  

Anyway, probably beat this dead horse enough.  Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  I wish you luck in your future cruise endeavors. 

[Lrob]

I understand both sides. But the information a few posts up is new to me.

 

When NCL Holdings Oceania passengers on Riviera on the same route at the end of November are permitted to move their bookings to another cruise, but Regent passengers cannot . . . Well that one just feels bad.

I know O and R are different operations and they can have different policies . . . just saying.

 

With the activity in the Red Sea today, I think some hard decisions are coming for us. We are beginning to think about taking a big financial loss. When the ground war starts the heat may even go up further - we are set to fly out in 15 days. 
 

I do hope for safety and peace for all of those humans in Gaza and Israel who would love the luxury of having this problem. That is not lost on me.
 

 

 

[kathy49]

38 minutes ago, Lrob said:

I understand both sides. But the information a few posts up is new to me.

 

When NCL Holdings Oceania passengers on Riviera on the same route at the end of November are permitted to move their bookings to another cruise, but Regent passengers cannot . . . Well that one just feels bad.

I know O and R are different operations and they can have different policies . . . just saying.

 

With the activity in the Red Sea today, I think some hard decisions are coming for us. We are beginning to think about taking a big financial loss. When the ground war starts the heat may even go up further - we are set to fly out in 15 days. 
 

I do hope for safety and peace for all of those humans in Gaza and Israel who would love the luxury of having this problem. That is not lost on me.
 

 

 

They will change itineraries further.....most consider this will be a  "regional"  war and so much already happening and things are just starting. Just wrong in my books that you cannot postpone or change your plans.

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by kathy49
add word

[asnaleah]

We are booked for May/June 2024, final payment due Jan 1. I will be checking on updated itineraries.

[Lynne&Barry]

We are booked on the Splendor April 29, Rome to Athens.  After reading this thread I think we will cancel before final payment is due.  There is too much uncertainty overseas, and after final payment our options don’t look good.

[cwn]

3 minutes ago, Lynne&Barry said:

We are booked on the Splendor April 29, Rome to Athens.  After reading this thread I think we will cancel before final payment is due.  There is too much uncertainty overseas, and after final payment our options don’t look good.

That is your option, if you are uncomfortable with the current situation.

We have done this in the past. For us things improved and if we had stayed the course it would have been fine. You never know though. We had a good time on our new choice and we didn’t have to stress.

[CrushIt]

4 hours ago, kathy49 said:

They will change itineraries further.....most consider this will be a  "regional"  war and so much already happening and things are just starting. Just wrong in my books that you cannot postpone or change your plans.

 

We’ve not cruised with Oceania. Following this thread, It’s hard to believe that they and Regent are part of the same parent company. We decided not to go on the cruise and what we are learning is that Regent will do whatever it legally can to keep your money. They will put together an itinerary and point to the contract language, even if the cruise is one that you would not have signed up for in the beginning.

And, to make the insult worse, they are blessing us with a 25% FCC. And it looks as though it’s not based on the total cruise package, but some portion of it (probably the cruise, minus the air). I’m not a long-time cruiser. But, I wonder if they are making decisions thinking that their loyal customer base is willing to forgive and forget, as long as they get to go on A CRUISE TO SOMEWHERE with the service that they enjoy. That’s great for those passengers and I sincerely hope they are enjoying the ride. That’s just not us.

[giustot]

11 hours ago, papaflamingo said:

 If you only want to fly on a 777 in a "suite" and they substitute a 767 and fully reclining seat, and you choose not to go, you lose your money if on a non refundable rate. 

In no way is substituting a Greek Isles cruise for a Holy Land cruise, and forcing passengers to take it or lose all of their money, comparable to an airline equipment change.

[Golf Mad Girl]

Gosh I would love to hear about something other than Regent bashing.  Does anyone know about other issues that might be interesting on this thread?

We are going unless cancelled its what we have decided and happy with this discussion. Anyone else want to talk about the Nov 10th departure???????