Regent vs. Seabourn

[DaveFr]

As always the "free";) internet. I can't say exactly because it depends on a few things. If you don't spend a dime on wine, the spa or excursions the shortest would be 20 days. If however you do spend money on wine, the spa or excursions it could be as little as 7 days. For every $100 you spend on board (or via the website) you get a days credit.

 

The thing Regent does better here IMO is that they give you the credit at the start of the cruise you wouldve earned it on versus Seabourn where its available on the next cruise.

I was amazed that Seabourn would give an additional days credit for as little as $100 of onboard or website spending. I checked the Seabourn website and, unless the website is out of date, you have to spend $500 to get an additional days credit. (http://www.seabourn.com/pageByName/Simple.action?requestPage=seabourn.club&WT.ac=pnav_AboutSBNClub) So a person on a seven day cruise would have to spend $6500 to get some "free" internet on his or her next cruise.

 

20 - 69 Club points is the Silver level. At that level, you can choose one item from a list of benefits. The internet benefit is 120 minutes. It is 180 minutes from 70 to 139 Club points, 240 minutes from 140 to 249 Club points and unlimited internet for 250+ Club points. (See http://www.seabourn.com/assets//seabournclub/Seabourn_Club_Benefits_At_A_Glance_v5_140708.pdf) IMO, the Seabourn internet benefit pales in comparison with the internet benefits on Regent. As a practical matter, unless you sail in premium suites on Seabourn, you probably need over 200 nights on Seabourn before you get unlimited internet as compared to 75 nights on Regent. In addition anyone purchasing a Concierge Suite for seven nights on Regent gets more internet minutes than a Seabourn passenger with less than 140 Club points. A Concierge Suite for eight or more nights gets you more internet minutes than a passenger on Seabourn with less than 250 Club points.

 

I like the free Seabourn cruise after 140 or 250 actual days sailed. I've always wondered though what percentage of Seabourn passengers sail enough to get a free cruise? I don't care for the rule that moving to the next tier only takes place on the next cruise.

 

Both programs have their pluses and minuses.

[Emperor Norton]

I stand corrected. I agree with your dislike of when Seabourn awards the next level.

 

Sent via squirrels and a rotary phone

[Winner]

DaveFr wondered how many passengers took advantage of free cruises.

 

Originally on Seabourn's loyalty program a free 14 day cruise was rewarded after 140 paid sailing days (presently the free 14-day cruise is after cruising 250 days; only a 7-day cruise is available after 140 days).

 

The 14-day after 140 days expired in 2009; at least half the passengers aboard Pride's Norwegian fjords cruise Copenhagen-London Sept. 10-24, 2009 took advantage of their "free" cruise before the end of the year. it was quite a party since many of us had sailed together before. And we arrived in London at sunrise sailing under the Tower bridge!

Edited February 16, 2015 by Winner
spelling

[wripro]

But you still get a free seven day cruise after 140 days. No other line offers that.

[Travelcat2]

But you still get a free seven day cruise after 140 days. No other line offers that.

 

That definitely is a good benefit - no arguments. If Seabourn had changed that one policy, we would have given it a try and could have taken advantage of the benefit.

[Emperor Norton]

That definitely is a good benefit - no arguments. If Seabourn had changed that one policy, we would have given it a try and could have taken advantage of the benefit.

 

:confused: They still have the 7 and 14 day 'free' cruise.

 

Seabourn Club Milestone Awards feature a complimentary cruise of up to seven days when your Club account reaches 140 Redeemable Sailed Days, or a complimentary cruise of up to 14 days when 250 Redeemable Sailed Days is reached.

[lincslady]

That definitely is a good benefit - no arguments. If Seabourn had changed that one policy, we would have given it a try and could have taken advantage of the benefit.

 

Yes, I struggled to understand this too - then realised TC is referring to her hatred of onboard smoking in the 'one policy' comment! Obviously we should all remember this.;)

[Emperor Norton]

Yes, I struggled to understand this too - then realised TC is referring to her hatred of onboard smoking in the 'one policy' comment! Obviously we should all remember this.;)

 

Aaah.

[Travelcat2]

Yes -- that is what I meant. Trying not to bring the "s" word up too much ;) Note: I don't have a "hatred" for the policy -- it is something that does not work for us but obviously works for others.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Travelcat2

[Emperor Norton]

I can say on the wee sisters the policy has never bothered me. It seems to mostly live on the bigger sisters and specifically impacts those that spend a lot of time on their balconies (or are in a lounge after 8 - though now that a certain passenger is no longer sailing perhaps this will change for the better). I like balconies, but I spend almost zero time on them now.

 

Should probably clarify I rarely smoke. The last time I did so was to show another passenger on the Voyager how obnoxious cigar smoke was.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Emperor Norton

[Eddie-Annie]

The question is , which person is wrong , the smoker or the non smoker , what was first , the chicken or the egg?

 

On Regent you only sniff smoke when passing the casino or the connoisseur club, that' s correct and that's it while on the Seabourn ships you get a smoke smell almost everywhere in public areas even in to our cabin, I guess it came through the ventilation system .

In some lounges , the joke is that one can smoke " only " on the right side of the lounge but the aircon or "open door" wind blows the smoke towards the non smoking passengers area on the left side , which person feels offended and will leave the lounge , the smoker ? no way maybe the reason that more people drop Seabourn and get replaced by heavy smokers.

When sailing 2.5 weeks on the H.L. Hanseatic in Antarctica -only the smokers have been occupying the observation lounge all the time ,doors have been closed due to the cold weather , result , no way for the non smokers to have a drink without catching the thick second hands smoke , beside the fact that both are fine luxury cruise lines , we decide that we will never go back on these ships as long as they don't change the smoking policy.

Eddie

[Travelcat2]

Eddie, I don't think one is right or wrong. It is legal to smoke but some people are negatively affected by being around second-hand smoke. Most countries in the world have put some kind of smoking restrictions in place but insure that there are places for smokers to go. IMO, having smoking on balconies is almost the worst place Seabourn could have chosen as it can affect so many non-smokers.

 

In any event, smokers have less and less places where they can go to have a cigarette. Seabourn management probably has a good reason to have the most lenient smoking policy of the luxury cruise ships -- it draws more customers to them. If I smoked, I would most likely look at Seabourn. From what I read, Seabourn is a great product -- it is just one that we won't be sailing on.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Travelcat2

[lincslady]

We have just received the snazzy brochure for the new Regent ship. Some very nice interiors - however, two things surprised me. First, the 'entry level' suites are much smaller than Seabourn's, 219 sq. ft. against 297. These do strike me as pretty small for a real luxury ship. The other thing is the huge number of different suite types, with differing perks or amenities, and the correspondingly huge difference in prices. Seabourn, to me, is much more 'classless' with most suites being the same size, and with no extras like butlers, early bookings for restaurants, etc. etc. On Seabourn the way to get more extras, like internet use and laundry, is to be a loyal customer and come back often. This is the way I prefer, but we all have our own ideas of course.

[Travelcat2]

Does Seabourn have butlers for everyone as Silversea does or do they not have butlers at all?

 

I can see why some people feel that this is a "class" system. I see it as different benefits - depending upon the suite level you book. As many know, I detest when a cruise line has special areas for top suite passengers that others or not allowed -- restaurants for these same people. Obviously there are people on Seabourn, Silversea, Crystal and Regent that have larger or smaller suites which gives them amenities within the confines of their suite. However, once they walk outside of the suite, no one knows (or cares) what suite you are in. You are treated the same throughout the ship.

 

While I do not like the fact that some people can book excursions or dining reservations early (not only "concierge level but the thousands and thousands of us that were grandfathered under the previous policy), this is a benefit that is not "visible" to other passengers.

 

Based on your comment about the small suites on the Explorer, I tend to agree. However, if the yare priced in a way that single passengers can afford them, then I am all for it.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Travelcat2

[wripro]

TC2

 

Yet on Oceania you saw it as a class system when some passengers received benefits others did not. It's a class system no matter what you call it when those who pay more get more benefits. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, there is not, but that's what it is.

 

And on Seabourn no one has a butler, You do not need one.

[Travelcat2]

TC2

 

Yet on Oceania you saw it as a class system when some passengers received benefits others did not. It's a class system no matter what you call it when those who pay more get more benefits. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, there is not, but that's what it is.

 

And on Seabourn no one has a butler, You do not need one.

 

Not sure why we are agreeing on a couple of things today but I agree about Oceania -- to a point. I think the difficulty is with definitions. In order to differentiate between the systems on mainstream cruise lines, Oceania and luxury cruise lines, I need to use a different word. If I used the word "class" - someone could envision separate areas where only the upper class (for lack of a better word) could visit. IMO, this is very different than paying different amounts of money for larger cabins that may come with a butler and other amenities. Hope this makes sense.

 

Agree that no one "needs" a butler. However, in order to analyze this a bit deeper, we would need to know more information. I do not know how many suites a steward/stewardess has to take care of on Regent or Seabourn. I do know that there are two assigned to each suite on Regent. Perhaps Seabourn has more of them which would enable them to give better service. I am now interested in knowing how many suites each steward(ess) is assigned to. I will ask when I am on the Mariner in April. On Regent, while a butler may not be necessary, passengers have a direct line to their butler (when they are on break, the call goes to the butler on duty). Their duties are not the same as the steward(ess).

 

In any case, I would not base a decision on which cruise line to sail based on butlers but on overall service.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Travelcat2