Carnival more class than Regent??? Say it isn't so, Joe!

[Shipless in Seattle]

I read yesterday that the passengers of the disabled 3 star Carnival Splendor are getting their money back AND a free cruise of equal value....all I get from Regent on my disabled 6 star Voyager 10/3 cruise is a refund and $1K FCC? Sad. Sad. Sad. I think those 6 stars are starting to tarnish. For Shame.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/stranded-carnival-cruise-san-diego-spam/story?id=12105715&page=2

[Travelcat2]

Not agreeing (or disagreeing) with you. . . . however, Carnival would have to give away a heck of a lot of cruises before it would equal the cost of one Regent cruise. The average cost of a 7 night cruise (same as the one that had the fire) rums about $800/person. Their suites are about $1,800/person.

 

The one area where I give Carnival the highest marks is communication. They kept the world advised as to what was going on.

[TahoeTraveler]

Not agreeing (or disagreeing) with you. . . . however, Carnival would have to give away a heck of a lot of cruises before it would equal the cost of one Regent cruise.

Not really. When you consider that the Carnival ship has approximately 3 - 5 times the number of passengers (depending on the ship), and their fares generally run a bit higher than what you quoted on most Mexican Riviera voyages (the average is certainly higher than $800 a person...that's closer to the fare for an inside or oceanview cabin, not a balcony), the dollar figure out of pocket for Carnival comes very close to what it would be for one Regent 7 day cruise. Regardless of the dollar figure, in today's economy, you cannot afford to alienate your customer base, and Carnival seems to have learned that lesson much better than Regent.

[Portolan]

Look, I can appreciate how disappointing it was for those on the cancelled Voyager cruises. On the other hand, you weren't captive for 3 days on a ship without air conditioning, hot food, working toilets, etc. I think Carnival had quite a bit more to offset.

[Threechicks]

This is not a criticism of either line, just the difference in the situations. Regent passengers didn't have to put up with no AC, no refrigeration, questionable toilet facilities, and no lighting. Nor did they have to live on spam and pop tarts for several days. As far as communication is concerned one of the passengers interviewed at the port of San Diego said that the crew denied there was a fire on board eventhough there was smoke in the cabins. Nothing was admitted until they arrived at the port.

[TahoeTraveler]

And how many passengers had to fly across the Atlantic (which is NOT fun, even if in Business Class) to get to their Carnival cruise, and then have to fly back (with less than desirable connections in some cases) a few days later? Yes, the circumstances are completely different. However, I'd be willing to bet the Voyager passengers felt just as crappy when they got home after their ordeal.

[Shipless in Seattle]

Look, I can appreciate how disappointing it was for those on the cancelled Voyager cruises. On the other hand, you weren't captive for 3 days on a ship without air conditioning, hot food, working toilets, etc. I think Carnival had quite a bit more to offset.

 

...so I needed to have tunneled through excrement to be entitled to better restitution? My vacation was just as wrecked. No, I wouldn't trade experiences with those on Splendor but I did pay a significant premium for what I thought was a 6 star line. We have given them a lot of our money over the years, but the loyalty seems to be irrelevant. This one event has alienated us as passengers for good. Unless something changes, we won't be boarding them ever again.

[Travelcat2]

...so I needed to have tunneled through excrement to be entitled to better restitution? My vacation was just as wrecked. No, I wouldn't trade experiences with those on Splendor but I did pay a significant premium for what I thought was a 6 star line. We have given them a lot of our money over the years, but the loyalty seems to be irrelevant. This one event has alienated us as passengers for good. Unless something changes, we won't be boarding them ever again.

 

It sounds like you did not take advantage of the longer substitute cruises at no additional cost. I think we would have done that -- even if we had no interest in sailing on Regent in the future. We also question loyalty. It does seem that all of the luxury lines are so focused on the younger demographic (young families, etc.) that they fail to recognize that the rest of us are still alive and will be spending our money for the foreseeable future. If the luxury cruise lines aren't interested in us, there will undoubtedly be alternative traveling companies that are (speaking for the baby boomer generation -- many of whom have yet to reach retirement age).

 

On the Carnival issue (and I do think they did an excellent job in some areas). . . I believe Regent would have made certain that their passengers were removed from the ship as soon as possible. Another ship could have pulled up next to the Splendor to remove passengers (although their luggage would probably would have to remain board).

 

Don't mean to be off topic . . . . but, without electricity, did that mean that the tenders could not operate? I assume they are on emergency generator power. As long as the tenders were functional, passengers could have been transferred to another ship via tenders).

 

No cruise lines are perfect. . . . there are a lot of lessons to be learned from both the Regent Voyager incidents and the Carnival Splendor.

[Shipless in Seattle]

It sounds like you did not take advantage of the longer substitute cruises at no additional cost.

 

We would have loved to take one of those! The 25 night Dubai-Cape Town was twice the price and ideal. The problem is we are in our 40's and still working. We can't vacation at will. The timing of all the offered cruises was over the next 4+ months. We could take the offer, but I wouldn't have employment when I got back. If you couldn't take one of them, it's $1K FCC which felt like an insult. Thus their "offer" is non-existent to us. If they had just given a couple weeks FCC to be used over the next couple years we would have been fine. The way it is, I unfortunately cannot and will not justify giving them more of my money again. Fortunately Seabourn (whom I haven't sailed) now has ships with balconies plus my favorite CD's Barry Hopkins and John Baron.

[azgkrudi]

We would have loved to take one of those! The 25 night Dubai-Cape Town was twice the price and ideal. The problem is we are in our 40's and still working. We can't vacation at will. The timing of all the offered cruises was over the next 4+ months. We could take the offer, but I wouldn't have employment when I got back. If you couldn't take one of them, it's $1K FCC which felt like an insult. Thus their "offer" is non-existent to us. If they had just given a couple weeks FCC to be used over the next couple years we would have been fine. The way it is, I unfortunately cannot and will not justify giving them more of my money again. Fortunately Seabourn (whom I haven't sailed) now has ships with balconies plus my favorite CD's Barry Hopkins and John Baron.

 

I must say, we are feeling the same way right about now. We started sailing with Silversea and no ship "issues" ever happened. (I think SS must laugh at this kind of thing by now???) Anyway, a few years ago we kind of made the "switch" to Regent, largely because of their returning guest amenities (free internet) and the more casual dress code. We were booked on the (highly anticipated, TA escorted) Fort Lauderdale to Reykjavik May 2009 cruise. On April 1st, 2009, we were made aware the cruise was not happening. So Regent gave us a $1500pp future cruise credit.

 

OK. So we book Navigator February 2010 (for husband's 40th birthday, would have been spent at Key West on Superbowl Sunday - how fun would that be!?): NOPE! Navigator is going into early drydock in November 2009 and completely changing your 2/2010 itinerary. End result: No cruise. $500 future cruise credit.

 

Fine. Let's take those credits and go with another fabulous TA-escorted cruise which is the absolute itinerary of our dreams: 10/3/2010 Voyager (our favorite ship to date), starts in Athens (our favorite city to date), goes to Israel and Egypt (husband has wanted to see Pyramids ever since he was BORN!)...but it wasn't meant to be.

 

Yes, we got a full refund for the 10/3 cruise. But as Shipless mentions, we should have gotten a refund AND a replacement cruise, to be used when we could actually use it. As soon as Capt. Sanguinetti uttered the words "The cruise has been cancelled" across our suites, after our less-than-desirable booking experiences were with Regent, I really expected a full refund plus a 14-day replacement cruise. Nope.

 

The replacement options Regent offered were fabulous, to say the least. But like Shipless, we are in our 40s and can't just take off "on a whim" as retired folks can. So bottom line is, we're eating up all our cruise credits and going on Voyager's Thanksgiving cruise. Not so sure we'll be returning anytime soon after. There are lots of other competitive luxury cruise lines.

[cwn]

It sounds like you did not take advantage of the longer substitute cruises at no additional cost........ It does seem that all of the luxury lines are so focused on the younger demographic (young families, etc.) that they fail to recognize that the rest of us are still alive and will be spending our money for the foreseeable future. If the luxury cruise lines aren't interested in us, there will undoubtedly be alternative traveling companies that are (speaking for the baby boomer generation -- many of whom have yet to reach retirement age).

Did I misunderstand...To me, sounds like by offerring replacement cruises that were only over the next 4? months, Regent was caterring to the older group...as newly retired we would have been tempted, but while my husband and I were working, that would have been impossible as we most always took all our allowed yearly vacation at one time ..to cruise.

 

On the Carnival issue (and I do think they did an excellent job in some areas). . . I believe Regent would have made certain that their passengers were removed from the ship as soon as possible. Another ship could have pulled up next to the Splendor to remove passengers (although their luggage would probably would have to remain board).

I agree with you, Carnival did a good job. But the Splendor had 3500 passengers. Most tenders are crowded to uncomfortable with 100 people so that would have been about 35 tender trips and what ship/s could have picked up 3500 people in less time and get to San Diego than it took the Splendor to get to San Diego. Plus the elevators were not working..some people were probably very hard pressed having to deal with the stairs. This summer on our Carnival cruise with our GSs there were a good number older/disabled passengers.

 

Don't mean to be off topic . . . . but, without electricity, did that mean that the tenders could not operate? I assume they are on emergency generator power. As long as the tenders were functional, passengers could have been transferred to another ship via tenders).

Pretty sure that tenders can be lower by hand or have emergency power. This is a case, I would bet, where the size of the ship and lack of damage to other parts of the ship did a lot in determinding how the problem was best handled.

 

No cruise lines are perfect. . . . there are a lot of lessons to be learned from both the Regent Voyager incidents and the Carnival Splendor.

 

Given what was done for us on our only nearly "ruined" cruise vacation..just the last two days when we also ate and slept on the deck due to the lost of electric power, I think that maybe Regent needs to rethink the replacement cruise/FCC offerd. I can see why some are upset over the Voyager cruise to nowhere and feel unfairly treated.

[cruzndiz]

my 2 cents...... I also give Kudos to Carnival on their very generous refund WITH additional future complimentary cruise. But you can't fairly compare this to Regent's situation.

 

Carnival - a mass market cruiseline - makes ALL of its profit on sales onboard (kind of the same way I will practically give away games of bowling to get people in the building, knowing that they will spend $$$ in the bar, restaurant, arcade, etc. once they are there) so giving someone a complimentary cruise fare is not costing them as much as it does Regent who pretty much doesn't make any more money once you are onboard.

 

Again, I think it's wonderful what Carnival has done for its guests, I just wouldn't reasonably expect Regent to do the same

[Travelcat2]

I definitely flip-flop on this subject. I guess that cruzndiz is right. . . . you cannot really compare Carnival and Regent. In terms of the number of people on board, I have no idea what that even looks like. Guess I assumed (incorrectly?) that there would be 5-7 times more tenders than Regent has since they do go to tender ports and have to get their guests into port and back to the ship in a reasonable length of time.

 

It was surprising to learn that Regent did not do much more for the passengers on the October 3rd cruise than they do for cruises that are cancelled in advance. It also does not make sense that Regent does not have open communication with their passengers -- especially in situations when a cruise is cancelled and there are 700 people on the ship. It can make one scratch their heads. . . . but, none of us have walked a mile in their shoes. . . . in many ways Regent is quite generous to their customers (and that isn't communicated either).

[Wendy The Wanderer]

I think one big difference is the fact that they were just down the coast of Mexico, not in Athens. Yes, they had to refund airfares, but most pax would have been from North America.

 

Sounds like these folks were in a pretty awful situation, thank god they were close to home! The fact that a US military aircraft carrier had to do emergency provisioning is both indicative of the perilous conditions and a bit farcical. Imagine this happening in the Mediterranean? Spam for lunch?

[alexandra cruiser]

had fire and lost power,,,,same conditions,,no ac,lights ,flush toilets,etccc......had barbq at 10 30 for dinner on deck....cabins dark and hot all nite,,,with no balcony or windows,,,,and we got NOTHING as far as discounts or refunds,,,,needless to say,,not the luxury experience I was planning...can happen on any ship and all deal with it differently it seems...but won t go on that line again......:mad:

[Shipless in Seattle]

my 2 cents...... I also give Kudos to Carnival on their very generous refund WITH additional future complimentary cruise. But you can't fairly compare this to Regent's situation.

 

I just wouldn't reasonably expect Regent to do the same

 

Again I have to reiterate what I said before: Carnival's guests' vacations were ruined; Regent's guests' vacations were ruined. The honorable thing for both lines to do is step up to the plate and offer ALL passengers affected reasonable restitution.

 

Regent offered this to SOME guests in terms of cruises that were more than twice the price of what we paid for our cruise. They did not offer this to ALL guests because lots of us cannot take the time off so quickly. It seems Regent cares MORE about its very wealthy and/or retired group than those of us still working with less flexibility.

[bev'sid]

Look, I can appreciate how disappointing it was for those on the cancelled Voyager cruises. On the other hand, you weren't captive for 3 days on a ship without air conditioning, hot food, working toilets, etc. I think Carnival had quite a bit more to offset.

 

 

I think you said it all here...just the lack of toilets alone for all of those days is on a different level than what the Voyager passengers endured.

 

Carnival had no choice at all but to refund the money to passengers so miserable, with no escape. JMHO

[Travelcat2]

Again I have to reiterate what I said before: Carnival's guests' vacations were ruined; Regent's guests' vacations were ruined. The honorable thing for both lines to do is step up to the plate and offer ALL passengers affected reasonable restitution.

 

Regent offered this to SOME guests in terms of cruises that were more than twice the price of what we paid for our cruise. They did not offer this to ALL guests because lots of us cannot take the time off so quickly. It seems Regent cares MORE about its very wealthy and/or retired group than those of us still working with less flexibility.

 

Just had to give my opinion on your comment about which guests Regent caters to because it is the opposite of yours. Luxury lines have verbally stated that they are going after the younger demographic. Some Regent loyalists/long time customers feel that the recent changes (super all-inclusivity for instance) is something that many of their repeat customers would rather not have. We feel like we are paying for excursions that we don't want since we have been to these destinations more than once. While we are not leaving Regent, we will board the Silver Spirit tomorrow -- simply because it is less money for a larger suite and they do not include excursions. We paid for the excursion we wanted with OBC.

 

Sorry, off topic. It is unfortunate that the written word does not have a personality. Words on CC seem so much harsher than they are meant some times. Really not upset with your views at all. . . simply find it interesting that perceptions can be so different. There is a lesson to be learned by Regent from this thread. . . .. they just need to read it:)

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Hey TC, will you be reporting while on board? And if so, on what forum?

 

In any case, bon voyage, have a great time.

[Travelcat2]

Hey TC, will you be reporting while on board? And if so, on what forum?

 

In any case, bon voyage, have a great time.

 

What, me pay for internet?:eek: I will try to post a little (depends if the connection speed is reasonable). Any posting I do will be on this board. I don't want to do a thread where it sounds like one is fighting the other. May just title it "Regent and Silversea".

 

Just hope to get out of here on time as "our" friends flight was delayed until 2:45 a.m. this morning. They had one long wait in the lounge (hmmm, wonder if they make chocolate martini's in the Air Canada lounge).

 

Oops, off topic again. . . .

[azgkrudi]

Again I have to reiterate what I said before: Carnival's guests' vacations were ruined; Regent's guests' vacations were ruined. The honorable thing for both lines to do is step up to the plate and offer ALL passengers affected reasonable restitution.

 

Regent offered this to SOME guests in terms of cruises that were more than twice the price of what we paid for our cruise. They did not offer this to ALL guests because lots of us cannot take the time off so quickly. It seems Regent cares MORE about its very wealthy and/or retired group than those of us still working with less flexibility.

 

I agree. And the more I think about it, the more it upsets me that Regent didn't even seem to THINK about this scenario!? After all, we are the "younger", "working" crowd who strive for a simple 2 weeks of vacation out of a year, and we "vote" with our dollars while placing trust in a luxury cruise line for that precious time off.

 

Again, to be fair, no matter who we were - retired, working, or whatnot - those of us on the 10/3 sailing should have been given a full refund plus a comp of 14 nights (which is what the 10/3 sailing was) on Regent for the future, to be used within a reasonable period of time (i.e., 18 to 24 months) that would allow for scheduling time off from work. THIS would have made me feel "whole".

[cwn]

What, me pay for internet?:eek: I will try to post a little (depends if the connection speed is reasonable). Any posting I do will be on this board. I don't want to do a thread where it sounds like one is fighting the other. May just title it "Regent and Silversea".

 

Just hope to get out of here on time as "our" friends flight was delayed until 2:45 a.m. this morning. They had one long wait in the lounge (hmmm, wonder if they make chocolate martini's in the Air Canada lounge).

 

Oops, off topic again. . . .

 

Hope your flight goes smoothly and that the cruise is great...can't remember where you are going.

 

Paying for Internet is a pain...it is alway so nice when it is free perk!

[worlds2sea]

Just want to weigh in with my two cents worth (okay maybe five cents :)) as one of those on the Regent cruise to nowhere of Oct 3....

 

As to Regent's offer of replacement cruises - not only was the short time-limit to use it problematic for those of us who still work, but the biggest issue was the offer didn't come till after we were ousted off the ship and as such had already had to make other arrangements as to what to do with the rest of our vacation time. While on board there was absolutely NO indication given that there would be any offer of anything other than a refund and getting us home. Had we known we could have chosen to postpone our vacation and take advantage of the offer but such was not the case.

 

As to communication on board, kudos to Carnival, sounds like they did a pretty good job keeping their passengers informed. Sadly this was not the case on Regent. The fact that there was also no internet left us figuratively in the dark as to what to do next. In addition, the absence of any management presence, either the captain or the GM, only added to negative guest perception. While I understand they were busy, a few moments spent on public relations would have gone a long way in at least sending the message that they actually cared. Having been affiliated with the hospitality industry for a long time it has been my experience that guest perception is huge in terms of guest satisfaction.

 

As to those comparing the severity of customers' experiences on the two cancelled cruises, in my opinion, I think that is missing the point. I don't think anyone disagrees that being stranded in the dark eating Spam sandwiches is worse, but this should not be about a competition as to who had it worse and thus is more deserving. I think what it should be about is it being reasonable for a customer to have an expectation for a cruiseline, any cruiseline, to acknowledge the disappointment, imposition and financial cost to its customers when a cruise is cancelled after passengers are on board, and to ensure that restitution is equitable and available for all its customers.

 

I apologize if this is long but just know how incredibly frustrated and disappointed I am by this whole episode. Not only did I travel halfway around the world to have my long-awaited cruise cancelled after I got onboard and unpacked, but now I am out 100,000 FF miles, several thousand dollars in unreimbursed expenses to say nothing of the endless hours spent trying to cancel post-cruise hotels, cars, tours, rescheduling, filing paperwork, claims etc. My thoughts go out to those who were on the Splendor, I am so glad they got back safely and yes, I do think that they were in a much more uncomfortable situation, but as Shipless said, the bottom line is both our vacations were ruined. At least Carnival understands that.

[cwn]

my 2 cents...... I also give Kudos to Carnival on their very generous refund WITH additional future complimentary cruise. But you can't fairly compare this to Regent's situation.

 

Carnival - a mass market cruiseline - makes ALL of its profit on sales onboard (kind of the same way I will practically give away games of bowling to get people in the building, knowing that they will spend $$$ in the bar, restaurant, arcade, etc. once they are there) so giving someone a complimentary cruise fare is not costing them as much as it does Regent who pretty much doesn't make any more money once you are onboard.

 

Again, I think it's wonderful what Carnival has done for its guests, I just wouldn't reasonably expect Regent to do the same

 

That is true about Carnival and other big lines making a lot of their profits on the on board sales. We did recieve a future free cruise of the same lenght from NCL when we lost power back in the late 90's and had same types of problems as the Splendor. The cruise was almost over so we only got 25% refund and some OBC for the cruise we were on.

 

Since I haven't yet cruised on Regent, I probably shouldn't comment but.. I will.

 

A full refund for the canceled cruise is the least I would expect. What ever they had to do get me back home or to some other area to spend my scheduled vacation until my return flight home once I had to leave the ship would also be nice and probably expected. To make me want to try another crusie with them...I would expect some sort of discount on a future cruise, but I would also expect it to have the same value for all the passengers. From what I am reading I don't think Regent did this.

 

If our up coming cruise in Jan were to be canceled like Voyager's was, I would expect all the passengers to be treated fairly. They should have made the offered free cruises for ones over the next year at least. I understand why those cruises were offered..to help fill those ships, but it wasn't a fair offer. To be fair to all their guests, they should have offered a % off on any cruise up to a certian lenght, say, for the next year. It does sound unfair that some got pretty much a free cruise and some got $1000 FCC when I am not sure there are cabins for $1000 on Regent.

 

Hopefully this was just a crazy once in a life time thing for Regent, but seems like there has been a lot of crazy problems for many cruise lines the past two years...some are handling it well some not so well.

[Travelcat2]

Ideally there would be a written policy regarding cancelled cruises. I don't believe that it is possible to include every possible scenario in document. The October 3rd cruise was particularly interesting in that it never left the dock, but, passengers received their suite and other Regent ammenities for up to 3 days on the ship. Some were given a hotel room for a night. All (I think) were given transportation home. So, as the above poster suggested, a percentage off a future cruise for one year sounds fair.

 

There is no reason that I can think of for Carnival and Regent to treat their customers the same. I wonder if Carnival Corporation would have treated their Seabourn customers to a free cruise? Would they have made flight arrangements for everyone? There are so many unknowns in play here.

 

As a side note, it has been in the news today that no one on the Carnival Splendor ate Spam (nor was it ordered by the cruise line for their passengers). It was apparently a substitute product . . . . . one that Carnival did not feed their passengers.

 

I do believe that all passengers affected by cancellations go through a lot. It is not easy to plan a trip for years -- perhaps it is a special occasion (like the honeymooners on the Splendor). No amount of money or free cruises can make up for that. IMO, both Carnival and Regent did the best they could do in a difficult situation. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Celebrity and the way they handled their recent breakdown.