Opt-Out for Included Excursions?

[Travelcat2]

[quote name='Longhorn1']TC and Basedow---well that's three of us! We're on a roll!:)[/quote]

Just on this thread we have the following posters (in addition to myself, Longhorn1 and Basedow) agree (at least in part) with either going back to the way it was or opting out:

Tallship
PaulaJK
Wendythe Wanderer
janisegn
Island Cruiser
Observer
ChatKat
Goofyisme
Poss

:D

I would expect people new to Regent, or, with only a couple of cruises to enjoy included excursions. We are not asking to to take them away -- just to allow opting out.

Regent could actually make money on this. How many people are booking excursions just because they are "free"? On our FLL to Rio cruise in January, we would only take one of the offered excursions if they were not included (and that one has a $79/person fee). We're taking some excursions simply because there is nothing better to do that day. Regent is therefore paying for excursions that we don't even care about. I know this is the case with others. The first indication is how many people don't show up or cancel at the last minute because something better comes up (like taking a nap or having a drink in the lounge).

[basedow]

I still think it's a work in progress as this has only been instituted within the last 18 months, I think. The only conclusion one can draw is that the excursions have been spotty, with some itineries chaotic and others fine.

I'm just saying that I have no quibbles with anything Regent has done before this included excursions experiment. As this is an important component of a cruise for us we need to consider whether Regent will work for us in the future.

I know Regent needs to attract new cruisers and I'm glad they are doing that. They also need to keep their loyal base, which they also know. So I see no reason to shut off debate about something pretty important to Regent.

[wripro]

Regent is making money on the included excursions. Lots of it. Remember that they contract the tour operators at a highly reduced price per capita. The more tours they book the cheaper per capita it is in each port. Now calculate how much extra they are charging everyone for their cruise. It more than covers their outlay. So free excursions are a money maker for them.

[basedow]

Haven't they always made money from the excursions? Why do you think they are making even more money?

[hondorner]

I wonder if anyone has calculated how much the fares have increased since the policy was introduced, and also how much of that increase they can attribute solely to included excursions?

Frankly, I was under the impression that the decision was marketing-driven. That is, it was determined that it would be an effective way to set themselves apart in a crowded market, and that it would be worth the extra cost to garner that market.

[Travelcat2]

I wonder if anyone has calculated how much the fares have increased since the policy was introduced, and also how much of that increase they can attribute solely to included excursions?

 

Frankly, I was under the impression that the decision was marketing-driven. That is, it was determined that it would be an effective way to set themselves apart in a crowded market, and that it would be worth the extra cost to garner that market.

 

This isn't going to a direct answer because I have not calculated the fare increases. I understood that the decision to include excursions was marketing-driven. And, it was effective in terms of $$$, but not so much in terms of keeping Regent a luxury cruise line (JMO). In 2010, fares on Regent have consistantly been higher than Silversea. Here is an example.

 

I am comparing a Caribbean cruise on the Voyager and on the Silver Spirit (new ship).

 

Lowest cabin on Spirit (312 sq. ft. - no balcony) Per diem: $373

(if you go up to Veranda level (376 sq. ft. w/balcony) Per diem: $413

Lowest cabin on Voyager (356 sq. ft. w/balcony) Per diem: $536

 

Silver Suite on Spirit (742 sq. ft.) Per diem: $617

Seven Seas Suite (approx. 627 sq. ft.) Per diem $916

 

This was as close as I could get to comparing apples and apples. . . . it does give a good idea of the price difference on this particular cruise. Both include airfare. Regent includes excursions.

[mariners]

I just checked our 2008 Cape Town to Fort Lauderdale cruise. Without the Seven Seas Society Discount or the onboard booking savings, our fare for a category E on the Navigator came to $9,850.00. The air was $1,400.00 and taxes came to $662.50. This gave a grand total of $11,912.49 and shore excursions were additional. The cruise was for 28 nights.

This year has a Cape Town to Fort Lauderdale cruise on the Mariner. Checking out Category E, the cost is $13,215.00 for 32 nights and includes all excursions. We spent more than this with our included excursions in 2008 and this cruise is for an additional 4 nights. Once again, a comparison of costs has to be done on an individual basis as I am aware that the cost of per diems on some cruises has increased. However, if one looks at the costs of many hotels/food in many of those locations, those costs, too, have increased quite dramatically.

I still feel like we got a great deal on our 2008 Cape Town to Fort Lauderdale cruise despite the fact that it cost more per diem than this current year's cruise. I'd like to read other people's cost breakdowns on different itineraries. This topic definitely shows the emotions that are behind cruising.

TC2, I was writing while you were posting.

[Travelcat2]

I just checked our 2008 Cape Town to Fort Lauderdale cruise. Without the Seven Seas Society Discount or the onboard booking savings, our fare for a category E on the Navigator came to $9,850.00. The air was $1,400.00 and taxes came to $662.50. This gave a grand total of $11,912.49 and shore excursions were additional. The cruise was for 28 nights.

This year has a Cape Town to Fort Lauderdale cruise on the Mariner. Checking out Category E, the cost is $13,215.00 for 32 nights and includes all excursions. We spent more than this with our included excursions in 2008 and this cruise is for an additional 4 nights. Once again, a comparison of costs has to be done on an individual basis as I am aware that the cost of per diems on some cruises has increased. However, if one looks at the costs of many hotels/food in many of those locations, those costs, too, have increased quite dramatically.

I still feel like we got a great deal on our 2008 Cape Town to Fort Lauderdale cruise despite the fact that it cost more per diem than this current year's cruise. I'd like to read other people's cost breakdowns on different itineraries. This topic definitely shows the emotions that are behind cruising.

TC2, I was writing while you were posting.

 

In all fairness to new cruisers, it is fair to calculate an onboard discount and Seven Seas Society Savings savings? I was taking two cruises without special savings (other than normal discounts -- 2 for 1, etc.) on two more similiar ships than the Navigator which typically has slightly lower per diem. Also, can you really compare a 32 night cruise to a 10 night cruise (and a portion of that was a crossing)? The prices for the longer cruises are always less for those people, unlike us, who have the time to take them.

 

You are right that each cruise is different. I have seen per diems on Seabourn as low as $285 (within the past month -- without airfare).

 

And, really not trying to argue here, due to the economy, luxury hotel costs have dropped in the past two years.

 

I agree wholeheartedly about the Cape Town cruise. When we saw the 2010 prices, we switched our cruise from 2010 to 2009 (which is how we ended up on your cruise).

[mariners]

TC2, I think I did not write my post clearly enough. This was not last year's cruise but the year before. I did not include any of the the society savings and strictly took the fares off the Regent website fares that I always print and keep in my files. Both cruises I described are the same itineraries which are Cape Town to Fort Lauderdale. This year's cruise has some different ports once in Brazil but each year has a few changes.

I cannot compare fares of cruises that you have taken as I don't have the data to back up anything I might think.

I don't look at any of this as arguments. It is simply people expressing opinions.

As I stated, I wish that I could take Seabourn up on the fabulous offers. I also wish that I could book Silversea, Oceania, etc. I absolutely love being on a ship and cruising is my passion. For me, it doesn't have to be on a Regent ship but, most of the time, Regent has been the winner on our itineraries.

[Travelcat2]

mariners: When you say that Regent has been the winner on your itineraries, you are no doubt taking your discounts and benefits into consideration. We also tend to choose itineraries where we will receive the maximum amount of benefits.

 

For comparison purposes, I took the Regent Voyager FLL to FLL 10 night cruise on 12/17 and the Silver Spirit Bridgetown to FLL 9 night cruise. While not identical -- not even the same month since Regent does not start their Caribbean itineraries until December, they were similiar enough to make a general comparison. We are actually on the Silver Spirit cruise -- definitely not an itinerary that we are interested in -- simply a trial to check out the differences (particularly smoking). The price was so reasonable we booked it -- even though we will be on the Mariner two months later.

 

To bring this back to the subject that I wandered off from, I could not see paying Regent's price on this itinerary and would not be interested in their excursions. The biggest benefit I will miss is free internet. However, even if I purchased the maximum minutes on Silversea, the cruise is still considerably less than Regent (plus, there is a $500 OBC that would pay for that as well as a couple of excursions if we were interested).

 

So, I guess the question to those who enjoy Regent is whether we will pay more to sail on Regent over another luxury line on repeat itineraries when we know that we will not utilize excursions? Note: For this comparison, I used the per diem's based on both itineraries being 9 nights. The Voyager is actually 10 nights so the actual cost would be a bit higher.

 

The Silver Spirit 9-night itinerary is $1,467/person less for a balcony suite ($1,107/person less for non-balcony suite) than the Voyager. The Silver Suite is $2,691/person less than the Voyager's Seven Seas Suite.

 

As a side note, if the smoking issue on Silversea is not acceptable, we will pay the extra for Regent. . . . just wish those darn excursions would go away. Otherwise, we will sail Regent when the discounts allow us to do so without feeling like we overpaid.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

I wonder if anyone has calculated how much the fares have increased since the policy was introduced, and also how much of that increase they can attribute solely to included excursions?

 

Well, I just happen to have dug up my invoice for our 2007 Voyager Western Caribbean trip, which is *identical* to the one we're taking this year. Both in December, both standard cabins. Difference is the air, since we booked our own this time.

 

2007, with free air included:$4651 total

2010, with air credit: $5650 total (the air credit is $1000)

 

These figures are with SSS savings. Note that the 2007 cruise was before RSSC went all-inclusive alcohol. Draw your own conclusions.

[bev'sid]

TC and Basedow---well that's three of us! We're on a roll!:)

 

Just on this thread we have the following posters (in addition to myself, Longhorn1 and Basedow) agree (at least in part) with either going back to the way it was or opting out:

Tallship

PaulaJK

Wendythe Wanderer

janisegn

Island Cruiser

Observer

ChatKat

Goofyisme

Poss

 

:D

 

I would expect people new to Regent, or, with only a couple of cruises to enjoy included excursions. We are not asking to to take them away -- just to allow opting out.

 

 

 

I am amazed at this thread. Okay, I guess I am a "new" Regent cruiser, as we have only been cruising with this line since 2001... the Diamond, actually, at that point, and perhaps I am new to cruising in that I have only experienced 50 or so cruises, on a wide variety of lines...?

 

This must be true as I enjoy an all-inclusive environment, without a need to demand money back for any items that went unused by me.

 

I posted an opinion on the poll thread, but the thread was quickly deleted... is that because many of us disagreed?

 

It doesn't seem to matter to those very few (but very vocal), that very, very many of us enjoy an all-inclusive environment; we do not feel we should be reimbursed for those items in which we did not personally partake (be it excursions, buffet items, alcohol, dining venues, etc.), and we did NOT experience a 'cattle call' because there were others on the excursions besides ourselves.

 

In Santorini, for example, we enjoyed a wonderful Regent excursion that included a cooking class, visit to Fira BEFORE the crowds hit, and many other wonderful amenities... limited to a very few lucky cruisers. No crowd, although I do not begrudge others of enjoying the pleasure of excursions.

 

I agree with the poster who said basically, no worries - go to another cruise line if this one no longer serves your needs.

[Travelcat2]

byrds_eye_view: Since I started the poll, I would like to address your comments. I "reported" my poll to the Host of the luxury cruise critic boards, Host Dan. requesting that he please delete the poll. I did not feel it was phrased correctly and therefore would not provide an accurate result. He was kind enough to respond positively to my request.

 

Also, I just want repeat that there are many posters on CC that will not fully understand the request we are making of Regent. It is not about how many cruises a person has taken -- rather, about those who cruised on Regent in 2008 and early 2009 and then after June 2009 when these changes were taking place. There are Regent Titanium, Platinum and Gold Seven Seas Society Members who understand that Regent began offering excursions during a difficult economic time in order to keep their ships full. It was a good marketing move. . . however, as soon as this took effect, several itineraries became overbooked (summer of 2009) that required Regent to offer incentives to passengers to take other cruises. An additional negative for passengers was the fare increases that began in 2010.

 

It is the belief of some of us that "excursions" are not part of the onboard experience as they take place in the ports rather than on the ship and are provided by outside vendors. (just as passengers pay separately for the spa, casino and gift shop -- that are onboard vendors of Regent). Also, we are not asking that they change anything with those who choose to take advantage of "included" excursions with Regent vendors. It is the being forced to pay for these non-Regent excursions in our cruise fare that is a problem. Asking for an opt out option should not affect you or any other Regent customer who prefers that things remain as they are. It is for this reason that I am puzzled that some people are so upset by our request.

 

In summary -- I requested the poll to be pulled. . . . . and, if Regent were to give us the opt out option, you would still have your included excursions.

[rallydave]

byrds_eye_view: Since I started the poll, I would like to address your comments. I "reported" my poll to the Host of the luxury cruise critic boards, Host Dan. requesting that he please delete the poll. I did not feel it was phrased correctly and therefore would not provide an accurate result. He was kind enough to respond positively to my request.

 

Also, I just want repeat that there are many posters on CC that will not fully understand the request we are making of Regent. It is not about how many cruises a person has taken -- rather, about those who cruised on Regent in 2008 and early 2009 and then after June 2009 when these changes were taking place. There are Regent Titanium, Platinum and Gold Seven Seas Society Members who understand that Regent began offering excursions during a difficult economic time in order to keep their ships full. It was a good marketing move. . . however, as soon as this took effect, several itineraries became overbooked (summer of 2009) that required Regent to offer incentives to passengers to take other cruises. An additional negative for passengers was the fare increases that began in 2010.

 

It is the belief of some of us that "excursions" are not part of the on-board experience as they take place in the ports rather than on the ship and are provided by outside vendors. (just as passengers pay separately for the spa, casino and gift shop -- that are on-board vendors of Regent). Also, we are not asking that they change anything with those who choose to take advantage of "included" excursions with Regent vendors. It is the being forced to pay for these non-Regent excursions in our cruise fare that is a problem. Asking for an opt out option should not affect you or any other Regent customer who prefers that things remain as they are. It is for this reason that I am puzzled that some people are so upset by our request.

 

It's not a simple as some people are stating and if Regent allows this "opt out", for sure the costs will go up for those not opting out and the available excursions will be fewer, more costly, and more likely to be cancelled due to low reservations. So, in order to satisfy a minority of the passengers, the majority should be inconvenienced and be charged more??

 

In summary -- I requested the poll to be pulled. . . . . and, if Regent were to give us the opt out option, you would still have your included excursions.

 

Not sure why you would state that many of us do not understand the request you are making. Possibly it is the few of you who do not understand those of us who are posting differing opinions?

 

Some of us will continue to believe that the reason for pulling the pole was because of the high resistance to the proposal. Also, the shore excursions are certainly part of the "Regent Experience". On board, on shore, it is the whole Regent experience many of us go for. In addition, while a minority number of people want the opt-out option and believe it is so simple to implement, there are business reasons and impacts to the majority of us that need to be considered.

 

For instance, depending on the number of people who opt-out, there would probably be fewer excursions offered in various ports. There have been other threads talking about how the larger ships with many passengers are able to offer more different excursions because more people are there to choose different excursions. Remember, Regent maxes out at 700 or 495 passengers not withstanding higher numbers during the summer. Say an excursion only has 20 takers because of the lower number of people opting in, the Regent costs would be spread over 20 people rather than the usual say 40 people on that tour thus doubling Regent's costs. Also, excursions are likely to be cancelled with fewer people using the "free" excursions inconveniencing many people. Maybe Regent doesn't want to advertise all inclusive if you want it or an option to make it non all inclusive?

 

Next thing you know, another group of passengers will want to opt out on something else such as liquor and this discussion will start all over again. Please remember, you can please some of the people some of the time but, you can't please all of the people all of the time!

 

Yes, a minority of the people want a change but, is that enough for Regent, who makes the ultimate decision, to change?? Seems like enough different positions have been stated and we will see if Regent responds. Until then, don't think the various people who have differing opinions will be swayed by continued discussions.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

I am amazed at this thread. Okay, I guess I am a "new" Regent cruiser, as we have only been cruising with this line since 2001... the Diamond, actually, at that point, and perhaps I am new to cruising in that I have only experienced 50 or so cruises, on a wide variety of lines...?

 

You are certainly not a newbie compared to me. I've been cruising on RSSC for 10 years now, one year more than you, but am just coming up on my 10th cruise!

 

I was on Diamond in 2004 and the excursions were wonderful. I have rarely experienced better-organized, reasonably-sized ship's excursions since then. I look back at that type of experience ashore fondly, and wish that Regent would maintain this standard.

 

I prefer to do ship's excursions, unless I'm cruising when like-minded friends. I would probably NOT opt out, but would choose excursions with an added cost if I thought they would involve smaller groups and/or an enhanced experience. But I agree with others here that an "opt out" option would not jeopardize anything for anybody. And if I did go on a cruise with friends, and wanted to share private guides, then it would be sensible to opt out.

 

Anybody with 50 cruises under their belt is not a newbie.

[bev'sid]

Well, since you responded with such a thorough answer (thank you BTW), I would like to try to address each of your comments.

 

 

Also, I just want repeat that there are many posters on CC that will not fully understand the request we are making of Regent. It is not about how many cruises a person has taken -- rather, about those who cruised on Regent in 2008 and early 2009 and then after June 2009 when these changes were taking place.

 

 

I am among these, and I, as many others, do understand.

 

 

There are Regent Titanium, Platinum and Gold Seven Seas Society Members who understand that Regent began offering excursions during a difficult economic time in order to keep their ships full. It was a good marketing move. . . .

 

I am one as well, and agree with this. It was a good marketing move, as well as an excellent addition (for some of us).

 

 

...however, as soon as this took effect, several itineraries became overbooked (summer of 2009) that required Regent to offer incentives to passengers to take other cruises.

 

This, IMO, is conjecture on your part. I was offered said incentives on 3 separate occasions in 2005, 2006, and 2008 (BEFORE included excursions). Over booking is standard practice in the cruise and travel industries.

 

 

... An additional negative for passengers was the fare increases that began in 2010.

 

Fare increases took place in the travel industry in 2010, regardless of individual agendas. 2009 was a year with extreme challenges and to quote Mark Conroy, "I am glad 2009 is OVER, and I don't want to see anything like it again."

 

I would not assume that said excursions are the sole reason for price increases, NOR would I assume the prices would recede if excursions were dropped. It is a complex business, and prices did not go up exclusively because of any one amenity.

 

 

It is the belief of some of us that "excursions" are not part of the onboard experience as they take place in the ports rather than on the ship and are provided by outside vendors. (just as passengers pay separately for the spa, casino and gift shop -- that are onboard vendors of Regent).

 

To distinguish between amenities that are offered on board vs. those offered on shore is dubious at best IMHO. We were on the PG in 2008. Many of the amenities enjoyed on shore were provided by our all-inclusive ship's environment. Equipment as well as some outings were included in the total experience (and price). Some local companies assisted in some of these included activities as well.

 

In Greece this last May, RSSC had several of their own tour guides on land who worked with them exclusively, and we enjoyed the interface between our ship and our shore experiences.

 

 

Also, we are not asking that they change anything with those who choose to take advantage of "included" excursions with Regent vendors. It is the being forced to pay for these non-Regent excursions in our cruise fare that is a problem.

 

 

This statement baffles me. Are you making a distinction between those excursions contracted by Regent?

 

Anyway...I understand that we all would like the best deal possible -- but for some of us, an all-inclusive environment IS the best deal. I have no doubt there is an average expense in place for Regent that only works if many opt out, as they already are doing at any given time.

 

We never felt like we had paid for an excursion per day, no more than we feel we had paid to eat everything on the buffet table. We did partake of many Regent excursions (excellent BTW), and often opted for a private tour on our own without a thought of being reimbursed for our choices that day!!

 

I did NOT experience a large group or cattle call on any of my RSSC cruises. Does that lead one to assume I am not used to luxury, but am accostomed to larger ships and grateful for my crumbs? lol I hope not -- maybe I was just lucky. We all have our opinions and I enjoy reading others'.

 

 

Asking for an opt out option should not affect you or any other Regent customer who prefers that things remain as they are. It is for this reason that I am puzzled that some people are so upset by our request...to give us the opt out option, you would still have your included excursions.

 

Of course it would affect EVERYONE if Regent changes their offerings. No offense intended, but it seems a bit short sighted to think they would give money back to one person and it would not affect another. This is a business first and foremost.

 

Perhaps the reason some of us are "upset" is because it seems that rather than seeing that there is another way to look at things, perhaps you assume we are just uninformed. :confused:

[bev'sid]

...I was on Diamond in 2004 and the excursions were wonderful. I have rarely experienced better-organized, reasonably-sized ship's excursions since then. I look back at that type of experience ashore fondly, and wish that Regent would maintain this standard.

 

 

Yes, those were wonderful excursions. I have to say, did experience a few like that on Regent in May, particularly in Santorini and Kusadasi. They were both fairly small due to logistics and did have a surcharge, but were really reminiscent of the ones you mention.

 

I do feel like opting out would affect the whole system though, and I would prefer instead even more options like the unique excursions that we enjoyed. Yes, there were a few larger ones, but we were still divided into half-full buses for our on shore Regent experiences...and those "snacks" in port became a favorite topic onboard as we met many more fellow travellers this way than we ever have before.

[rallydave]

Excellent response byrds eye view; couldn't have said it better. While we don't have 50 cruises under my belt, we have cruised over 15 times on main stream as well as Luxury cruises including our first on Regent last August to the Baltic. We enjoyed the cruise so much, we did something we have never done before and that was to book our cruise for this Sept. while on board. The included excursions were almost all excellent and while we sometimes had to wait 10 or 15 minutes (ship was full) before heading for our transportation, that was a small price to pay for what we considered excellent excursions that had we chosen private tours would have cost us literally thousands more. Also NEVER felt like we were herded like cattle and that on a full port intensive Baltic cruise

 

You are absolutely correct about allowing people to opt out creating many issues for Regent and passengers including an increase is cruise costs which amazingly is one of the reasons for this thread in the beginning so while this opt out may solve perceived excursion issues, it will exacerbate the increase in cruise pricing. Once again, a solution for the minority that will cause several issues for the majority.

 

Again, thanks for your response and support.

[Travelcat2]

I would like to respond to a few comments, but, first have a question. Why are Regent per diems higher than Silversea and Seabourn?

 

Since I do not have the expertise in responding to multiple quotes in one post, I'll do it the old fashioned way.

 

Byrds Eye View, you "understand" my comment while Rallydave does not simply because you have been through all of the various changes on Radisson/Regent, while Rallydave has not. A side note here, for the benefit of Rallydave and other newbies to Regent. . . . the second half of 2009, when the excursions were implemented, was sort of a dry run for Regent. They were working out the bugs, selecting vendors, etc. Regent had to absorb all of the money expended for the "free" excursions. Fares did not increase at all when this was implemented. From all reports, Regent was using extra buses so the tours remained small. Obviously, this changed in 2010. Many of us noted that excursions that had been "free" now had a small cost and many offered in 2009 had been eliminated. My statement that some people do not understand was not meant as a negative. How could someone understand a process that they were not a part of?

 

The overbooking I was referring to was Alaska, 2009. I will save you all from hearing about that again.

 

The 2010 fares did increase on all luxury lines, however, based on a few comparisons I have done, Regent's fares increased by a higher percentage. For that reason, we took three cruises in 2009, are doing one in 2010 (and one on another line) and two in 2011 (maybe one on another line).

 

I did not explain the "vendors" very well, nor do I feel I could explain it better now. Briefly, outside vendors are not typically included in all-exclusive luxury cruises (spa, gift shop, excursions). The one exception has been airlines -- a benefit, provided by an outside vendor, that one can opt out of. Does this affect all passengers?. . . . I suppose it does. Could excursions be done the same way? Why not? Does it affect the contract that Regent has with the airlines because less people are flying with Regent Air? Only Regent knows the answer to that.

 

In terms of my poll, Rallydave, I had to laugh that you think it was removed because there was something wrong with it. I have had posts removed over the years and have no problem admitting to it. However, this was definitely not one of them.

 

Including excursions has another element to it in terms of how it affects passengers. Many of us go on Regent to have the luxury Regent experience. Since including excursions and air are every itinerary, they have put themselves in competition with Disney, HAL, etc. (this has been posted by several people). People coming from mainstream love Regent -- the service, the small ships, etc. So, as much as I talk about high fares, passengers are finding that when you deduct the cost of excursions (especially in Alaska), airfare, drinks and tips, the cost is quite competitive with non-luxury lines. So, who is Regent marketing to? Just a question. . . .

[rallydave]

Excellent response byrds eye view; couldn't have said it better. While we don't have 50 cruises under my belt, we have cruised over 15 times on main stream as well as Luxury cruises including our first on Regent last August to the Baltic. We enjoyed the cruise so much, we did something we have never done before and that was to book our cruise for this Sept. while on board. The included excursions were almost all excellent and while we sometimes had to wait 10 or 15 minutes (ship was full) before heading for our transportation, that was a small price to pay for what we considered excellent excursions that had we chosen private tours would have cost us literally thousands more. Also NEVER felt like we were herded like cattle and that on a full port intensive Baltic cruise

 

You are absolutely correct about allowing people to opt out creating many issues for Regent and passengers including an increase is cruise costs which amazingly is one of the reasons for this thread in the beginning so while this opt out may solve perceived excursion issues, it will exacerbate the increase in cruise pricing. Once again, a solution for the minority that will cause several issues for the majority.

 

Again, thanks for your response and support.

 

I would like to respond to a few comments, but, first have a question. Why are Regent per diems higher than Silversea and Seabourn?

 

Since I do not have the expertise in responding to multiple quotes in one post, I'll do it the old fashioned way.

 

Byrds Eye View, you "understand" my comment while Rallydave does not simply because you have been through all of the various changes on Radisson/Regent, while Rallydave has not.

 

I totally understand most of you comments including these. One does not need to have been there to understand things as you most certainly must understand based on many of your comments on things such as cruise lines you have not cruised with!

 

A side note here, for the benefit of Rallydave and other newbies to Regent. . . . the second half of 2009, when the excursions were implemented, was sort of a dry run for Regent. They were working out the bugs, selecting vendors, etc. Regent had to absorb all of the money expended for the "free" excursions. Fares did not increase at all when this was implemented. From all reports, Regent was using extra buses so the tours remained small. Obviously, this changed in 2010. Many of us noted that excursions that had been "free" now had a small cost and many offered in 2009 had been eliminated. My statement that some people do not understand was not meant as a negative. How could someone understand a process that they were not a part of?

 

You are repeating that one must be part of a process to understand it. Again, not true as you must be aware of based on your comments in regards to processes you are not part of such as "Regent had to absorb all that money expended for "free" excursions. In addition to your postings on CC are you also working in the Regent Accounting Dept? If Regent did "absorb" those costs, that would normally mean their margins were high enough to still make a profit. There is a great example of not being a part of a process yet you appear to know all about Regent's books?

The overbooking I was referring to was Alaska, 2009. I will save you all from hearing about that again.

 

Yes, we are all very much aware of the overbooking on Mariner in Alaska.

 

The 2010 fares did increase on all luxury lines, however, based on a few comparisons I have done, Regent's fares increased by a higher percentage. For that reason, we took three cruises in 2009, are doing one in 2010 (and one on another line) and two in 2011 (maybe one on another line).

 

Sound like you did your homework here and my own question is what is the difference in the percentage increase? We also don't know if the increases were in fact for Excursions or other reasons. Without an insight into Regen's books, none of us can know the answer to that?

 

I did not explain the "vendors" very well, nor do I feel I could explain it better now. Briefly, outside vendors are not typically included in all-exclusive luxury cruises (spa, gift shop, excursions). The one exception has been airlines -- a benefit, provided by an outside vendor, that one can opt out of. Does this affect all passengers?. . . . I suppose it does. Could excursions be done the same way? Why not? Does it affect the contract that Regent has with the airlines because less people are flying with Regent Air? Only Regent knows the answer to that.

 

Have already explained several times that opting out WILL affect the passengers who don't opt out with increased costs, reduced excursions and more confusion. As far as airlines, Regent probably makes money whether or not the passenger uses their own air. Probably the same thing with opting out of excursions so the opt out people will probably not incur the savings they expect while those who don't opt out will probably pay more so it is probably a lose/lose for the passenger and a win/win for Regent. And, why if you don't feel you can explain it better, did you try to do just that?

 

In terms of my poll, Rallydave, I had to laugh that you think it was removed because there was something wrong with it. I have had posts removed over the years and have no problem admitting to it. However, this was definitely not one of them.

 

If you re-read my post, you will see that I believe it was removed because you asked Host Dan to remove it. What I don't believe is because it was due to confusion on the way it was written but, it was because the results you were receiving did not support your position.

 

Including excursions has another element to it in terms of how it affects passengers. Many of us go on Regent to have the luxury Regent experience. Since including excursions and air are every itinerary, they have put themselves in competition with Disney, HAL, etc. (this has been posted by several people). People coming from mainstream love Regent -- the service, the small ships, etc. So, as much as I talk about high fares, passengers are finding that when you deduct the cost of excursions (especially in Alaska), airfare, drinks and tips, the cost is quite competitive with non-luxury lines. So, who is Regent marketing to? Just a question. . . .

 

Don't know how you can say that including air and excursions puts them in competition with Disney, HAL, etc?? Believe that these lines along with most other cruise lines DO NOT incude excursions nor air. These items along with service, food, small ships, etc. set Regent apart from most cruise lines, Luxury, mainstream, others.

[bev'sid]

Why are Regent per diems higher than Silversea and Seabourn?

 

I'm personally not convinced that they are, ALL things considered, but...let's say for the sake of discussion, that they are. I prefer the informal, yet lux atmosphere and relaxed, pleasant service on Regent, so I don't mind paying more for that.

 

 

Including excursions has another element to it in terms of how it affects passengers. Many of us go on Regent to have the luxury Regent experience. Since including excursions and air are every itinerary, they have put themselves in competition with Disney, HAL, etc. (this has been posted by several people).

 

People coming from mainstream love Regent -- the service, the small ships, etc. So, as much as I talk about high fares, passengers are finding that when you deduct the cost of excursions (especially in Alaska), airfare, drinks and tips, the cost is quite competitive with non-luxury lines. So, who is Regent marketing to? Just a question. . . .

 

 

I'd like to address this too if I may (plz forgive the multi-quotes; it's not anything technical really (copy/paste) but it makes it easier for me. :]

 

I have always maintained that the price of most cruises ends up being almost the same across the board. If you look carefully at any cruise line company (what's included/what's not), and factor that in, they are ALL similar, and always have been. One could take a mass market line such as Carnival, and end up paying extra for everything from a bottle of water, to a specialty restaurant, and believe me, the prices become comparable to all other options, particularly if you like to drink & eat. lol If price were the only differential, but price is not everything, I think we can all agree on that.

 

But you stated you seek to have the Regent luxury experience. That's exactly what many of us have stated; all-inclusiveness adds to a luxury environment for us. Rather than feeling we have had to pay for items we may not use, we enjoy the luxury of choosing to partake in offered excursions OR NOT.

 

I believe Regent is marketing to anyone who will enjoy the specific product that they offer (people from mainstream, loyal past customers, those new to cruising, young & old). I wonder if there are past guests who did not like the inclusion of alcohol and gratuities as they were added over time? We used to pay for items in the lounges and tip the servers (as was customary at the time). I don't drink alcohol, but I do love my water & Perrier!! :)

[bev'sid]

...

You are absolutely correct about allowing people to opt out creating many issues for Regent and passengers including an increase is cruise costs, which amazingly is one of the reasons for this thread in the beginning so while this opt out may solve perceived excursion issues, it will exacerbate the increase in cruise pricing. Once again, a solution for the minority that will cause several issues for the majority.

 

Yes, I agree, it would most definitely change pricing for everyone, not to mention the lux experience would be lessened for some of us. I can't see how that is any different than a group of people asking RSSC to change the alcohol policy back to what it was in the recent past before it was modified to be more inclusive (surcharges on some of that as well), or credit them for what they did not consume. :(

 

My guess is it felt still "fluid" to some as an amenity, because the decision to include excursions is recent and came at a time of low sales, and they possibly felt it could be removed now. I'm not in agreement with that (was it really a bad move? are sales really UP that much?), but I can sort of follow the reasoning now.

 

I think a lot of us felt that we were a bit of a silent majority for a moment there, lol, but it has been an interesting & insightful (albeit frustrating at times!) discussion, I believe.

[Travelcat2]

I suppose we just view things differently. And, in some cases with Rallydave, he just missed my point completely. Just three things and I'm done. I do not expect Regent to change excursions in the near future -- just giving my opinion on the subject.

 

1. Competition with Hal, Disney, etc.

 

If an Alaska cruise is $3,600 for the least expensive suite for one person.

Then deduct airfare -- $585.00 (as per Yapta website -- r/t United JFK/YVR)

Then deduct drinks -- clueless as to cost -- cokes are around $4.

For an adult, call it $500, then deduct tips and excursions. The result will

equal or be less than some mainstream cruise lines. That was my point...

When you level out the field, Regent is priced the same as non-luxury

lines.

 

2. Having experiernce with a ship/cruise line vs. reading about it.

 

The fact that I write about Seabourn, Silversea and Crystal seems to

upset some people since I have not cruised with them. If you read any

of the posts where I refer to these other cruise lines, I state facts such

as Crystal has set seating in the main dining room, the Seabourn triplets

do not have balconies, Silversea charges for some restaurants, or when I

quote the size of the suites. Anyone can look up this information. The

reason I keep this information handy is to help those people who either

do not know where to look or do not have the time to do so.

 

In terms of being a Regent passenger during the changes that have

occurred -- specifically excursions, it is a different story. Many of us

took part in meetings (townhall and small groups) with Regent executives

regarding what we want in terms of a new ship, itineraries, etc. We knew

what Regent was like before the included excursions, what they were like

in 2009 and what they are like now (three very different scenarios). So,

I stand by my statement that, IMO, to fully understand the impact of the

included excursions, it helps to have experienced it during these times.

 

I'm not even going to go into my third point other than to say that some people understand where a person is coming from when they post and others do not (whether you agree with the person or not). IMO, it is much better to state your own opinion rather than dispute the opinion of others. I respect the fact that byrds eye view is a long time Regent cruiser and prefers things the way they are. I also respect the views of the many new Regent cruisers who are enjoying the benefits of Regent. I'm just trying to get another viewpoint out there.

[ChatKat in Ca.]

I don't think it's hard to compare Regent's AI fare to those of other lines.

 

Let's Say Regent's Fare for a week is $7000.00

Air, Beverages, Tours and Tips included. Telephone, Laundry, and Internet included for SSS Members.

 

Mass Market Line: 4500.00 Fare - (Mini Suite/Ouside/Balcony

Add Air - Coach/Europe 2000.00

Tips $25 per day 175.00

Soft Drinks 2x 6.00

1 Bottle of Wine/Dinner 400.00

Before/After Dinner Drinks 150.00

Airport Transfers 150.00

Specialty Restaurantx2 100.00

6 Excursions @100.00 ea 600.00

 

I didn't include Spa or some other minor things. These are actual numbers for us.

[rallydave]

I suppose we just view things differently. And, in some cases with Rallydave, he just missed my point completely. Just three things and I'm done. I do not expect Regent to change excursions in the near future -- just giving my opinion on the subject.

 

For the umpteeth time, I do not miss your point. I actually read and comprehend the total posts of all unlike some who either don't read what is written by others and/or don't understand the written words and how they apply.

 

1. Competition with Hal, Disney, etc.

 

If an Alaska cruise is $3,600 for the least expensive suite for one person.

Then deduct airfare -- $585.00 (as per Yapta website -- r/t United JFK/YVR)

Then deduct drinks -- clueless as to cost -- cokes are around $4.

For an adult, call it $500, then deduct tips and excursions. The result will

equal or be less than some mainstream cruise lines. That was my point...

When you level out the field, Regent is priced the same as non-luxury

lines.

 

So, you have conclusively proved that Regent hasn't raised their rates excessivly or excessivly for the included excursions. Only way to see if the excursions have added excessive costs is to compare the total costs less what you did above, de-escalate for inflation and then find a comparible Regent crusis from the past before included excursions and compare. Mariners above proved with their comparison that the 2010 Cape Town to Ft Lauderdale crusise is actually less expensive than the 2008 same cruise without excursions making the excursion issue, at least for that cruise a moot issue.

 

2. Having experiernce with a ship/cruise line vs. reading about it.

 

The fact that I write about Seabourn, Silversea and Crystal seems to

upset some people since I have not cruised with them. If you read any

of the posts where I refer to these other cruise lines, I state facts such

as Crystal has set seating in the main dining room, the Seabourn triplets

do not have balconies, Silversea charges for some restaurants, or when I

quote the size of the suites. Anyone can look up this information. The

reason I keep this information handy is to help those people who either

do not know where to look or do not have the time to do so.

 

In terms of being a Regent passenger during the changes that have

occurred -- specifically excursions, it is a different story. Many of us

took part in meetings (townhall and small groups) with Regent executives

regarding what we want in terms of a new ship, itineraries, etc. We knew

what Regent was like before the included excursions, what they were like

in 2009 and what they are like now (three very different scenarios). So,

I stand by my statement that, IMO, to fully understand the impact of the

included excursions, it helps to have experienced it during these times.

 

I'm not even going to go into my third point other than to say that some people understand where a person is coming from when they post and others do not (whether you agree with the person or not). IMO, it is much better to state your own opinion rather than dispute the opinion of others. I respect the fact that byrds eye view is a long time Regent cruiser and prefers things the way they are. I also respect the views of the many new Regent cruisers who are enjoying the benefits of Regent. I'm just trying to get another viewpoint out there.

 

Agree with the last paragraph except when the poster is incorrect regarding facts (not opinions), it is incumbant on others to point out factual errors otherwise others make take incorrect fact into account erroneously. Also believe most of us understand where most posters are coming from and sometimes the same opinion gets really old after it is reinforced numerous times.