Regent / Voyager - First Timer with a negative experience. Is this the norm?

[QuestionEverything]

16 hours ago, PhD-iva said:

Thx for this. Just to add one other issue due to code red, the Bridge instructors were not able to incorporate playing cards into their lectures

I was told there was no duplicate or organized social bridge games during the Code Red. At some point during the cruise, Code red was lifted, and my understanding was that normal Bridge practices resumed. By then I was involved with other stuff.

I really enjoyed the cruise, especially the 2 days in the Antarctic. I felt like there were reasons other than weather explaining why the captain canceled several ports. I am very suspicious because I have read extensively on the Oceania forum about a new NCLH corporate policy to reduce ship cruising speed.
The captain reduced our time in the Antarctic ocean by one day, and canceled Puerto Arenas three days prior to our scheduled arrival. He announced it to us three days prior to our scheduled arrival. That makes no sense, in addition, to canceling the Falkland, which does happen more frequently. We probably were cruising at a very slow speed, making corporate happy. 
I had a great cruise, and I booked two additional reservations while on board. Just hope I have enough money to make final payment.🤔

Thanks for this post. The NCLH policy applies to Oceania and NCL and their boards have been noting the skipped, shortened port situation.

Oceania is the worst for skipped ports, hence we have cancelled them. Experienced far too many situations that were debatable. Also, the corporate/management on Oceania ships is arrogant and minimal communication - a situation which I will not pay for.

It is more difficult for cruise lines to lie about ports because AIS ship tracking technology allows a cruise customer to monitor ship traffic and weather and observe if other competing cruise line ships dock or not.

I say this because I have spent time on Great Lake cargo ships and many, many hours on the Bridge. Seen amazing docking situations. With a cruise ship, a good ship and captain and azipod can minimize weather to a great extent.

It is very clear to me that the cruise lines are deliberately minimizing ports as a way to save $. They think they can get away with it because of strong passenger demand, well time will tell. 

We have not decided if we will cruise any further, we are booked on numerous high end escorted tours as we are destination focused. Between the downgrading, cost and missed ports, cruising has fallen significantly in our travel options.

[Pcardad]

7 minutes ago, QuestionEverything said:

Thanks for this post. The NCLH policy applies to Oceania and NCL and their boards have been noting the skipped, shortened port situation.

Oceania is the worst for skipped ports, hence we have cancelled them. Experienced far too many situations that were debatable. Also, the corporate/management on Oceania ships is arrogant and minimal communication - a situation which I will not pay for.

It is more difficult for cruise lines to lie about ports because AIS ship tracking technology allows a cruise customer to monitor ship traffic and weather and observe if other competing cruise line ships dock or not.

I say this because I have spent time on Great Lake cargo ships and many, many hours on the Bridge. Seen amazing docking situations. With a cruise ship, a good ship and captain and azipod can minimize weather to a great extent.

It is very clear to me that the cruise lines are deliberately minimizing ports as a way to save $. They think they can get away with it because of strong passenger demand, well time will tell. 

We have not decided if we will cruise any further, we are booked on numerous high end escorted tours as we are destination focused. Between the downgrading, cost and missed ports, cruising has fallen significantly in our travel options.

In order to save money by "skipping ports" they would need to cancel the port with enough notice (months) that they get their money back for the port reservation.

However, if you look on the port schedules for the ports, the ships are still scheduled to dock.

 

So if they are NOT cancelling and recovering their money, how are they saving money?

[PhD-iva]

13 minutes ago, QuestionEverything said:

Thanks for this post. The NCLH policy applies to Oceania and NCL and their boards have been noting the skipped, shortened port situation.

Oceania is the worst for skipped ports, hence we have cancelled them. Experienced far too many situations that were debatable. Also, the corporate/management on Oceania ships is arrogant and minimal communication - a situation which I will not pay for.

It is more difficult for cruise lines to lie about ports because AIS ship tracking technology allows a cruise customer to monitor ship traffic and weather and observe if other competing cruise line ships dock or not.

I say this because I have spent time on Great Lake cargo ships and many, many hours on the Bridge. Seen amazing docking situations. With a cruise ship, a good ship and captain and azipod can minimize weather to a great extent.

It is very clear to me that the cruise lines are deliberately minimizing ports as a way to save $. They think they can get away with it because of strong passenger demand, well time will tell. 

We have not decided if we will cruise any further, we are booked on numerous high end escorted tours as we are destination focused. Between the downgrading, cost and missed ports, cruising has fallen significantly in our travel options.

Two questions:

Are you saying the “reduce cruising speed” policy only applies to O & NCL cruiselines? If so, please explain your sources or your reasons…

Which high end tour companies have you booked with? This shouldn’t violate any CC policies if you don’t include TA names….

Thx!

[PhD-iva]

10 minutes ago, Pcardad said:

In order to save money by "skipping ports" they would need to cancel the port with enough notice (months) that they get their money back for the port reservation.

However, if you look on the port schedules for the ports, the ships are still scheduled to dock.

 

So if they are NOT cancelling and recovering their money, how are they saving money?

I think the savings comes from fuel savings by reducing cruising speed. Also increases “virtue signaling “.

Also, a rumor spread onboard that by giving 3 days notice, Regent received refunds of tours cancelled…..

Edited February 25 by PhD-iva
Edit

[pappy1022]

But, if they slow the speed of the ship, that saves money. And if you slow down the ship, you have to make up time. Missing ports makes up time. I don’t know if this is the case but it’s a logical conclusion without any specific information from Regent. Sometimes when you don’t think the customer will like the truth you come up with a generic excuse.

[Pcardad]

17 minutes ago, pappy1022 said:

But, if they slow the speed of the ship, that saves money. And if you slow down the ship, you have to make up time. Missing ports makes up time. I don’t know if this is the case but it’s a logical conclusion without any specific information from Regent. Sometimes when you don’t think the customer will like the truth you come up with a generic excuse.

This is basically accusing NCLH of fraud....by cancelling ports with no reason and not telling the guests, eating the port charges, and hoping to make up that lost cost in reduced fuel savings. You feel this is the most likely scenario?

Edited February 25 by Pcardad

[OskiBear]

44 minutes ago, Pcardad said:

This is basically accusing NCLH of fraud....by cancelling ports with no reason and not telling the guests, eating the port charges, and hoping to make up that lost cost in reduced fuel savings. You feel this is the most likely scenario?

 

Isn't that what happened with Norwegian Star?

[Henk123]

That's the same as real allin cruiseline will stay longer in port or do overnights. If you are not onboard you dont use "free" drinks.

Other line will gladly have you onboard and do a lot of poolgames and so on. They like you to spend money.

[QuestionEverything]

Much great analysis here. Thanks to all.

Since we are merely guests, we do not have access to corporate communication and or decisions.

There appears to be a plethora of port arrival certainty issues lately - is this deliberate or weather/issue related?

None of us will know. But we are rightly entitled to our opinions indeed.

What I do know is that Oceania announced awhile ago reducing 1 hr per port for "environmental" reasons, Total Bull. They announced it but there was 0 analysis posted to support their position.

It does not matter. For those that cruise for the ports, like me, this is a serious issue, maybe not for those who cruise for the ship experience.

Suffice it to say, cruising is under review by many, for many reasons indeed.

What ever travel you choose, hoping you have a great time. 

Life is short, you are not guaranteed your next breath, live it up!

 

 

 

[pappy1022]

7 hours ago, Pcardad said:

This is basically accusing NCLH of fraud....by cancelling ports with no reason and not telling the guests, eating the port charges, and hoping to make up that lost cost in reduced fuel savings. You feel this is the most likely scenario?

That’s quite a jump. It is suspicious though.

[QuestionEverything]

14 hours ago, pappy1022 said:

That’s quite a jump. It is suspicious though.

Well said.

The skipping of ports is a well discussed item on many of the boards, it seems to be happening more often and or more cruisers are fed up and reporting it. 

What is obvious to me is Oceania's overt, published decision to take an hour off each port is for their benefit, not the customer, and certainly not the "environment".

The more the cruise lines reduce the product offering, the less likely I am to patronize them - this includes airlines, restaurants, hotels etc.

 

[Pcardad]

3 minutes ago, QuestionEverything said:

Well said.

The skipping of ports is a well discussed item on many of the boards, it seems to be happening more often and or more cruisers are fed up and reporting it. 

What is obvious to me is Oceania's overt, published decision to take an hour off each port is for their benefit, not the customer, and certainly not the "environment".

The more the cruise lines reduce the product offering, the less likely I am to patronize them - this includes airlines, restaurants, hotels etc.

 

I see this across the board on all major cruise lines. I think they would lose more than they would save by forfeiting the port fees just to save a bit of fuel......plus the PR risk is off the chart. The math doesn't add up. To be clear, shaving an hour off a port to once in a while is a coincidence...shaving it off most runs is evidence. I will find out.

[QuestionEverything]

Just now, Pcardad said:

I see this across the board on all major cruise lines. I think they would lose more than they would save by forfeiting the port fees just to save a bit of fuel......plus the PR risk is off the chart. The math doesn't add up. To be clear, shaving an hour off a port to once in a while is a coincidence...shaving it off most runs is evidence. I will find out.

Hi Pcardad.

Oceania publicly advertised they were removing 1 hr in each port for the "environment". It certainly was the case on my August voyage from Iceland to New York - I had the original times and experienced the reduced times. 

The reasons - who knows, what I do know it is anti consumer and sufficient that I will not book Oceania again.

[Pcardad]

9 minutes ago, QuestionEverything said:

Hi Pcardad.

Oceania publicly advertised they were removing 1 hr in each port for the "environment". It certainly was the case on my August voyage from Iceland to New York - I had the original times and experienced the reduced times. 

The reasons - who knows, what I do know it is anti consumer and sufficient that I will not book Oceania again.

There is a lot of pressure for cruise ships to shut down and take port power while in port but not all are able to do so. It is possible that the ones that cannot, must limit their visits in certain ports.

[flossie009]

1 hour ago, QuestionEverything said:

What is obvious to me is Oceania's overt, published decision to take an hour off each port is for their benefit, not the customer, and certainly not the "environment".

Slowing a cruise ship's speed between port stops will definitely reduce emissions (as well as saving fuel costs)

[Breckski]

We've missed ports and had schedule changes in Norway/North Sea.  This was on a Viking cruise so a midsize ship.  Does the size or type of ship have a significant impact on missed ports - especially in areas like the North Sea and the Drake?

[KenzSailing]

Wow, this thread should be titled "The X-Files at Sea."

[Pcardad]

4 minutes ago, KenzSailing said:

Wow, this thread should be titled "The X-Files at Sea."

Where are the flat-earthers and the contrail conspiracy people?

[pappy1022]

It all could be a moot point if Regent and others would be forthcoming and tell us the truth. You can make fun of the multiple people on this board who have experienced head scratching excuses but the fact that people are expressing issues means where there is smoke, there is fire.

[Pcardad]

3 minutes ago, pappy1022 said:

It all could be a moot point if Regent and others would be forthcoming and tell us the truth. You can make fun of the multiple people on this board who have experienced head scratching excuses but the fact that people are expressing issues means where there is smoke, there is fire.

I was making fun of flat-earthers and contrail conspiracy theorists...not people here as no one here has identified as such. I simply don't see facts that indicate Regent is lying or committing fraud. They have provided information that some people do not believe and they have refused to provide as much information as some people would like....neither is lying or committing fraud.

[Wuzzle10]

On 2/13/2024 at 5:47 PM, OskiBear said:

Relatively experienced cruiser here and we are currently on Voyager (Buenos Aires to Santiago) with an extraordinarily disappointing voyage. I’m not usually one to complain about little things and I tend to roll with things, but some less than optimal things have so far combined to make this journey one that is leaving a very bad taste and impression of Regent. So far:

 

1.     Embarkation – I had read about the issue with the terminal in Buenos Aires in advance so expected a bit of a “shuffle.” However, we were given a specific time to arrive at the alternate terminal at which point we were instructed to simply sit and wait an hour for a bus to shuttle us to the original terminal. It seemed a very poorly managed process with everyone waiting for a long time without really much coordination.

2.     Skipping Ports – we arrived at Stanley, Falkland Islands and the captain informed us it was too windy to disembark, so we sailed away. We then turned around to disembark a passenger with a medical issue before sailing away. We later found out other ships had arrived Stanley with no issues. On our second of three scheduled days cruising through the Antarctic Peninsula, the Captain announced that we were hightailing it out of there because of anticipated winds in the Drake Passage, cutting that part of the journey short by one day. Prior to arriving Ushuaia, the Captain informed us he would be skipping Punta Arenas because of weather – this was announced three days in advance of even arriving at the port. Currently, everyone is aware that Holland America Oosterdam (that we saw in port in Ushuaia yesterday) is currently docked in Punta Arenas while we are skipping the port.

3.     Captain – not sure how much of the port skipping attributable to the captain’s or Regent’s decision, but the whole situation has been very poorly handled. The captain is very cavalier in his announcements. There have been no apologies for the deviations from schedule and he’s just been generally flippant and dismissive of the diminished experience of the paying passengers. I overheard a passenger inquiring and he because defensive and borderline hostile.

4.     Overall, the ship is old and tired. During the first night of rougher seas, our cabin not only creaked, but sounded as if it was going to explode.

5.     Food has been okay and service, while slow, has been very pleasant and staff have all been wonderful.

6.  Internet - this has been abysmal. There's a router outside our cabin but no service unless I sit on the floor at the. The signal doesn't extend to the rest of the cabin. It's really slow in general and has actually constantly gone down ("satellite" problem). We just did a transatlantic crossing on QM2 in November and the internet was fine the entire journey across the Atlantic. Why is it so bad on Voyager? 

 

So, is this par for the course for Regent? Or Voyager? Or this Captain?

January 2023 we were on Explorer, first time with Regent, they advertise it as the most luxurious ship etc, didn’t find this, to many niggles, we had booked Voyager to South Pacific  in 2025, we have cancelled it, just got back from a Seabourn cruise on Ovation and we couldn’t fault it. 
Our Regent cruise had been our most expensive holiday , it was not worth it, memorable for all the wrong reasons 

[PhD-iva]

6 hours ago, Pcardad said:

....neither is lying or committing fraud.

Just to point out, you are the only one suggesting fraud. No one else.

Spin? Maybe. Virtue signaling? Perhaps.

Am suspicious, that’s all.

[Pcardad]

6 minutes ago, PhD-iva said:

Just to point out, you are the only one suggesting fraud. No one else.

Spin? Maybe. Virtue signaling? Perhaps.

Am suspicious, that’s all.

I didn't suggest fraud.....I am questioning the leaps others are making with their comments and conclusions. However, if Regent is screwing people over they deserve whatever they get.

 

PS - I have no idea what "virtue signaling" even is.

[PhD-iva]

On 2/25/2024 at 8:31 AM, Pcardad said:

This is basically accusing NCLH of fraud....by cancelling ports with no reason and not telling the guests, eating the port charges, and hoping to make up that lost cost in reduced fuel savings. You feel this is the most likely scenario?

Just a reminder……..

[KenzSailing]

7 hours ago, pappy1022 said:

It all could be a moot point if Regent and others would be forthcoming and tell us the truth. You can make fun of the multiple people on this board who have experienced head scratching excuses but the fact that people are expressing issues means where there is smoke, there is fire.

 

The repetition of conjecture is not synonymous with fact.

 

If social media has taught us anything, it's that sometimes where there's smoke...there's a smoke machine.