Alaskan Prime off to less than stellar start

[Travelcat2]

Is the Original poster the only person reading my answer? Did you ever think that some other reader who might, in the future, be in a similar position and would want this information?

 

 

Additionally, I am one of those people who often uses the forum search function to try and find answer to my questions before I post and then have to wait, hopefully, for a reply. I hope that information that I post would be useful in the future to someone else who might do the same.

 

 

Does this sufficiently address your question?

 

 

618/45

 

(54/3)

 

J

 

Thank you for the response and I agree that people do find answers by using the forum search function. I guess that you and I differ in terms of whether this constitutes an emergency.

[wishIweretravelling]

I am new at this (not yet sailed with Regent), but I have travelled most of my life (retired airline). Likely what happened was that the Fairmont overbooked and had to "walk" the Regent guests.

 

I can confirm this, having spent many years in the same position as Regent with respect to hotels. I was with a membership association that held many conferences, with attendance ranging from 50 to 3,000+, depending on the conference. We would contract for a block of rooms (or sometimes all the rooms), which the hotel would sell until the block was filled. Just like with airlines, they get a certain percentage of no-shows. Also, some people extend their stays, so rooms that the hotel thought would be available are not. So, pretty much every hotel gets into an oversold situation from time to time. As a result, sometimes, just like airlines, they have to "bump" someone. Unlike airlines, they can't just book them on the next flight, so, instead, they "walk" them to another hotel with availability, usually one that is close by.

 

So who gets walked if that becomes necessary? Well, Regent does have some limited say here. When an entity has a block of rooms at a hotel, and people will need to be walked from that block, the hotel will usually go to that entity's representative and ask who among those reserved into the block should they do their best NOT to walk? Of course, the first answer is always "everyone in my block." But, once reality is checked, the entity likely has a set of criteria for who is in the "must stay" category.

 

We always had a list of objective criteria (e.g., members of our board, speakers at the conference, honored guests, etc.) and would advise the hotel as to who meets those criteria. Outside the protected list, it was the hotel's choice whom to walk, but generally it wound up being the last to check in. I expect Regent has its own criteria, and my guess would be that the criteria would be things like level of suite reserved on the ship, loyalty program status, etc.

 

I'm not saying that it's acceptable to be walked to a lesser hotel without recompense. I'm just trying to explain how it works.

[Got2Cruise]

Wouldn’t you think Regent already knew that they’re group was being bumped? What concerns me is that the Regent Reps and transfer brought them to the Fairmount. I don’t want to start any debate but it’s reasonable to believe that Regent has a relationship with the hotels they book.

[Travelcat2]

Wouldn’t you think Regent already knew that they’re group was being bumped? What concerns me is that the Regent Reps and transfer brought them to the Fairmount. I don’t want to start any debate but it’s reasonable to believe that Regent has a relationship with the hotels they book.

 

Not arguing but wouldn't the fact that the Regent Reps transferred the passengers to the Fairmont Hotel be an indication that either they were not aware of the change or were notified too late to let their contracted Reps know about it.

 

I also assume that Regent has a relationship with the hotels they book (especially since Regent uses them frequently during Alaska season). However, it could take one misinformed person at the hotel to mess everything up. On the other hand, since Regent does state that you may be in a hotel other than the one stated, they could allow transfers if the hotel is overbooked. It will be interesting to learn what Regent says.

[ronrick1943]

Wouldn’t you think Regent already knew that they’re group was being bumped? What concerns me is that the Regent Reps and transfer brought them to the Fairmount. I don’t want to start any debate but it’s reasonable to believe that Regent has a relationship with the hotels they book.

 

I agree with you, a Regent Rep should have been on hand. Also Regent should have known this in advance. In most case's when your walked the hotel refunds your money for that night and pays for your room at the other hotel and any transfer cost. In any case with Regents power of purchases they should provide you with some type of credit for this. To me Regent made the purchase for your room and should have followed up.

[wishIweretravelling]

Wouldn’t you think Regent already knew that they’re group was being bumped? What concerns me is that the Regent Reps and transfer brought them to the Fairmount. I don’t want to start any debate but it’s reasonable to believe that Regent has a relationship with the hotels they book.

 

Often they don't know for sure until the first bump happens. They will know it's a possibility, but not the booking at which the possibility becomes reality. The hotel should have advised Regent at the point when it first happens. And, yes, a Regent rep should have turned up soon thereafter. Since we haven't heard back from the OP, we don't know if a Regent rep did appear once he was told that he'd be moved.

[pingpong1]

Ronrick (and others) - There's a lot of truth to parts of what each of you are saying. I guess my "bottom line" would be that for the OP, "the cruise" (meaning from the time they arrived in SFO - under Regent's "care" at the time of transfer from the airport - to the time they debark the ship) did NOT start out for them as a "luxury experience".....which is what's being promised in all the sales literature.

 

I know, I know......some of you have told me that the marketing materials are just advertising "fluff" and should not be relied upon....but the fares we're being charged are certainly NOT "fluff" and if you can't rely upon the company's own literature, what are you supposed to rely upon in making a financial determination on whether to buy the "advertised product", or not?

 

Ronrick, if the Fairmont felt it necessary or proper to "refund" anyone, wouldn't the refund (legally) go to Regent, since they are the hotel's actual "customer" (the entity who is paying them) and not the OP, who is the next level down on the "totem pole"?

 

Call me a pessimist, but I seriously doubt that Regent would even consider or feel any moral obligation (legally or ethically) of passing any compensation or refund they received along to the cruisers who were affected (by the inconvenience and disappointment), since it is technically correct that the cruiser did get "a room" for the night prior to the cruise; even if it was not at the hotel that they were led to believe (by Regent) that they would be staying at - at least a week before their trip began.

 

If given enough opportunity and advance knowledge (that they weren't going to be staying at the Fairmont), the customers might have opted to "back out" of Regent's pre-cruise hotel option, take the credit, and separately book their own pre-cruise hotel and transfer option (as RachelG and many of us prefer to do). But they were unable to make an informed decision for themselves if the company they're dealing with (Regent) does not provide them with all pertinent information to make an informed decision.

 

It is correct that when you first book with Regent, you don't necessarily and definitively know which pre-cruise hotel you're going to be staying at in the embarkation city. The hotels that Regent "uses" in each city are the topic of hundreds of posts on CC, but the "final/selected hotel" which Regent has picked for you is definitely "known and disclosed" when you receive your final sailing documents 2-4 weeks out from the cruise date. In this case, the OP's "actual selected hotel" wasn't known until they were transported from the airport and walked up to the reception desk at the Fairmont.

 

As we would say in the Navy, that is "totally UNSAT". Regards to all.

[Travelcat2]

The following is a part of Regent's "Terms and Conditions" as it relates to hotel cancellations, etc.

 

Free Hotel Package:Free Hotel Package includes Hotel to Pier transfers and is based on double occupancy – additional guests sharing a suite may purchase the hotel at an additional cost. If cancelling within 60 days, cancel penalties for double occupancy will apply and the hotel credit is not available. Hotel cannot be added to booking within 60 days of date of sailing. Hotel Package is capacity controlled and may not be available at time of booking."

 

So, according to the above, you may not be able to cancel or add a hotel closer than 60 days before the date of sailing.

 

As of two months ago, the last time we received "Final Documents" from Regent, there was still the clause (in our case), "Melia Resort or similar". So, until we arrived at the resort, we did not know definitively that we would be at that hotel. Although I am not happy with that statement, I likely could have called Regent to verify the hotel.

 

Another comment that I would like to make is about the "Regent Representatives" that pick you up at the airport, drop you off at the hotel and pick you up at the hotel and drop you off at the ship and the person at the hotel that is there is assist you. They are contractors that hold Regent signs today and maybe Carnival or Azamara signs tomorrow. They have specific instructions from Regent that they must follow and it seems as if they thought that they were going to the hotel that the TS (Thread Starter) was assigned by Regent. For the most part, they do a very good job but can be thrown when something out of the ordinary occurs.

 

To be clear, I am in no way defending Regent but rather am sharing what I have learned through personal experience. Agree with what the last poster stated about the fact that it unlikely that Regent will do anything about this incident since they always seem to have an "out" printed in the documents that you receive (in other words, they have great lawyers).

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Please let us know how it goes with the substitute hotel, and how you get treated up to and including board. Hopefully Mariner will be such a nice experience that it will take the sour taste away and not ruin your cruise.

[msmillie]

The following is a part of Regent's "Terms and Conditions" as it relates to hotel cancellations, etc.

 

 

To be clear, I am in no way defending Regent but rather am sharing what I have learned through personal experience. Agree with what the last poster stated about the fact that it unlikely that Regent will do anything about this incident since they always seem to have an "out" printed in the documents that you receive (in other words, they have great lawyers).

The free hotel package is not free, it is included in the cost of the cruise. These cruisers were promised accommodations that they did not receive. I talked to several passengers onboard the Mariner, they told me that they were left stranded at the Fairmont for four to five hours, and that they were not assisted with moving their luggage to a different hotel, one passenger said they were offered $10.00 to pay for a taxi to get across the street to the Stanford Hotel. They were told to return to the Fairmont for breakfast, The above quote states, “that it is unlikely that Regent will do anything about the incident,” Well it is my opinion that Regent should do something to compensate these passengers for their stress and inconvenience and to develop procedures to adequately assist passengers in the future.

[Travelcat2]

The free hotel package is not free, it is included in the cost of the cruise. These cruisers were promised accommodations that they did not receive. I talked to several passengers onboard the Mariner, they told me that they were left stranded at the Fairmont for four to five hours, and that they were not assisted with moving their luggage to a different hotel, one passenger said they were offered $10.00 to pay for a taxi to get across the street to the Stanford Hotel. They were told to return to the Fairmont for breakfast, The above quote states, “that it is unlikely that Regent will do anything about the incident,” Well it is my opinion that Regent should do something to compensate these passengers for their stress and inconvenience and to develop procedures to adequately assist passengers in the future.

 

I don't believe that I or anyone else indicated that the hotel package was "free". I was agreeing with another poster when I posted that it is unlikely that Regent will do anything about the incident. As indicated, my opinion is based on the legal terminology in the Regent contract I do not feel that the situation was handled correctly and do feel that some OBC's or minimal cruise credit should be offered for the inconvenience as they most certainly could not win a case based on "stress and inconvenience".

[pingpong1]

TC - I think we actually "kind of agree" on this (hey - doesn't happen very often!)) Legally, and as is usually the case, Regent is probably "protected" from any liability, "unforeseen circumstances", or claim for "financial damages".

 

But as a public relations matter and for the good of the corporate image......It would seem that some OBC's or perhaps a reasonable "credit" toward a future cruise for those affected passengers would go a long way to restore some goodwill and burnish a tarnished "first impression". Through her contacts, MsMillie was able to add a few more details to this unfortunate experience. I wonder just how many people got "bumped" to another hotel and had to somehow get their stuff over to the alternate lodging? No company can say that this was a "good outcome".

 

For Regent corporate, the matter should not "stop" here. Could this potentially (and really) happen again to others with little or no notice? Probably - at least where this particular property is involved. Is there anything that Regent could do in the future (when negotiating lodging contracts) to ensure that their customers would not be "bumped" to another hotel at the last minute and on such short notice? In the business world, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "problem with no solution". Provisions and safeguards can be written into any contract if there is the corporate will to do so. Regards

[ronrick1943]

Pingong, I do agree with you-I was just stating a fact about being walk at a hotel. On the Regent part they can do something or not...To me it's called "INTEGRITY", they have it or they don't.

[Onkel_Ken]

I talked to several passengers onboard the Mariner, they told me that they were left stranded at the Fairmont for four to five hours, and that they were not assisted with moving their luggage to a different hotel, one passenger said they were offered $10.00 to pay for a taxi to get across the street to the Stanford Hotel. They were told to return to the Fairmont for breakfast

 

I would be sure to go to the Fairmont to get some breakfast rather than pay extra for it at the Stanford if it is being offered at the Fairmont as part of the Regent included package. Unless the Fairmont was just wanting breakfast business rather than providing included breakfast that might not be available at the Stanford.

 

Fairmont Buffet

 

*FULL BREAKFAST BUFFET $35

Scrambled Eggs|Omelet Station House-Baked Pastries|Muffins|Sticky Buns|Waffles Selection of Sausages|Thick-Cut Bacon|Potatoes Assorted Cereals |Seasonal Fruit|Oatmeal Local Cheeses|Artisan Cured Meats|Smoked Salmon Yogurt Parfaits

 

 

*CONTINENTAL BUFFET $28

House-Baked Pastries|Muffins|Seasonal Fruit Local Cheeses|Artisan Cured Meats|Smoked Salmon

Assorted Cereals|Oatmeal

[ronrick1943]

One would think that the original poster would have posted what / how Regent handled this. If not this should be closed.

[Travelcat2]

One would think that the original poster would have posted what / how Regent handled this. If not this should be closed.

 

In my opinion, there is no reason to close this thread. All input is enlightening and helps us understand what can (and could) happen when you travel - whether it be by air or with Regent. In our case, the more we thought about it, the more we recalled situations that required patience and a heck of a lot of waiting while things were figured out (not only with Regent).

[CruisetheCs]

Pingong, I do agree with you-I was just stating a fact about being walk at a hotel. On the Regent part they can do something or not...To me it's called "INTEGRITY", they have it or they don't.

I agree. Regent has a choice of acting in accord with its luxury image that it is forever emphasizing or not. And yes it is about integrity.

 

A luxury operation with a competent marketing and communications division wouldn't let this service failure be out on CC for two days with no response. This is a ridiculous communications failure that should never happen in todays corporate world.

 

Regent could easily respond to this incident by clarifying what happened and how it intends to take care of the problem, etc,. Instead management lets threads like this go on and on, only making the corporate image worse with continuing negative publicity. That is just stupid for any company to do, let alone an operation that bills itself as a "luxury" cruise line.

[Travelcat2]

I agree. Regent has a choice of acting in accord with its luxury image that it is forever emphasizing or not. And yes it is about integrity.

 

A luxury operation with a competent marketing and communications division wouldn't let this service failure be out on CC for two days with no response. This is a ridiculous communications failure that should never happen in todays corporate world.

 

Regent could easily respond to this incident by clarifying what happened and how it intends to take care of the problem, etc,. Instead management lets threads like this go on and on, only making the corporate image worse with continuing negative publicity. That is just stupid for any company to do, let alone an operation that bills itself as a "luxury" cruise line.

 

Kindly let us know exactly how you know that there was no response from Regent in two days given the fact that the TS has not returned to this thread (and Regent was closed until today -- unless there were a true emergency). Are you expecting Regent to tell the public (Cruise Critic members) the details of this error? In my opinion, the only explanation that is needed or expected is to those that were affected.

 

I understand that you feel that Regent is "stupid" and is "making the corporate image worse with continuing negative publicity" which is certainly your right (and if you no longer cruised with Regent it would definitely be understandable), but not all of us feel this way!

 

Do you feel the same way about airlines that delay flights, cancel flights and could cause one to miss their cruise? When we had long delays on a Regent India itinerary (from Agra to Mumbai) that caused hours of waiting we were upset - we were frustrated but understood that what was occurring was out of the control of ourselves or Regent.

[CruisetheCs]

Kindly let us know exactly how you know that there was no response from Regent in two days given the fact that the TS has not returned to this thread (and Regent was closed until today -- unless there were a true emergency). Are you expecting Regent to tell the public (Cruise Critic members) the details of this error? In my opinion, the only explanation that is needed or expected is to those that were affected.

 

I understand that you feel that Regent is "stupid" and is "making the corporate image worse with continuing negative publicity" which is certainly your right (and if you no longer cruised with Regent it would definitely be understandable), but not all of us feel this way!

 

Do you feel the same way about airlines that delay flights, cancel flights and could cause one to miss their cruise? When we had long delays on a Regent India itinerary (from Agra to Mumbai) that caused hours of waiting we were upset - we were frustrated but understood that what was occurring was out of the control of ourselves or Regent.

You kindly made my point with your post. No one on this thread knows how Regent responded to this problem. In fact no one knows what actually happened or who was responsible for the screw-up. Regent may have made a fabulous offer of a refund of some type, or a deep discount on a cruise, or Regent may have said some one is working on a resolution, or Regent may have just said "things happen." Or Regent may have called on the lawyers you mentioned in a previous post and they simply said we never promised your a rose garden.

 

A functioning marketing/communications department would jump on this problem and post something on CC or the website or somewhere that is visible. It would not let a thread about a screw-up like this go on and on nor would it rely on the Regent guest(s) to post something.

[Travelcat2]

A functioning marketing/communications department would jump on this problem and post something on CC or the website or somewhere that is visible. It would not let a thread about a screw-up like this go on and on nor would it rely on the Regent guest(s) to post something.

 

I truly would like to know why you or other posters think that Regent has some sort of obligation to report what is going on with policies, problems or cruises with Cruise Critic (or any other board). After all, CC only represents about 5% of Regent customers and they are not a part of Regent. When a CC member asks a general question, many times Regent will pop in and answer the question but, In my opinion, they have no responsibility tell us anything. As said earlier, my feeling is that passengers affected by changes or anything else are the ones that Regent should be keeping in the loop - not us.

 

I understand that we are curious and sometimes go on and on about things that have fairly easy answers but why should this be Regent's problem? Either the TS will or will not let us know what is going on. The TS came to us for comments and it would seem that the ball is in their court.

[jctdlt]

On an interesting side note. We are on this cruise and pickup at the airport was wonderful. Upon arriving at the Fairmont we were told the room was not ready. But for an extra $100 we could have a bay view room with a king bed. We declined. But this tells you there were rooms available. We got our room at about 3 pm after waiting about four hours. But this is normal. We were early. I would have thought the Fairmont would have used the $100 extra rooms for Regent customers. But again don’t know whole situation.

 

On our first sea day. Weather has been beautiful. Went to compass rose tonight and had lobster. Was tough and not up to Regent’s standards. Hope it gets better.

 

Astoria tomorrow!

[CruisetheCs]

I truly would like to know why you or other posters think that Regent has some sort of obligation to report what is going on with policies, problems or cruises with Cruise Critic (or any other board). After all, CC only represents about 5% of Regent customers and they are not a part of Regent. When a CC member asks a general question, many times Regent will pop in and answer the question but, In my opinion, they have no responsibility tell us anything. As said earlier, my feeling is that passengers affected by changes or anything else are the ones that Regent should be keeping in the loop - not us.

 

I understand that we are curious and sometimes go on and on about things that have fairly easy answers but why should this be Regent's problem? Either the TS will or will not let us know what is going on. The TS came to us for comments and it would seem that the ball is in their court.

I didn't use the words "obligation" or "responsibility". Those are your words. When bad publicity is out on a major visible website such as CC, and a company lets the service failure be repeated over and over--as it is in this thread--probably for days, that is a communication failure. Bad publicity is a problem for any company, deserved or undeserved. Any elementary marketing/communication course would offer multiple ways for a company to respond to public criticism.

 

Every post on this thread including yours and mine, in some manner keeps the image of an unresolved customer service problem alive. If that is the image by which the company wants to be defined, then fine. But if Regent wants to be defined as a luxury cruise line, then it can take some meaningful action that fits that image.

[Travelcat2]

I didn't use the words "obligation" or "responsibility". Those are your words. When bad publicity is out on a major visible website such as CC, and a company lets the service failure be repeated over and over--as it is in this thread--probably for days, that is a communication failure. Bad publicity is a problem for any company, deserved or undeserved. Any elementary marketing/communication course would offer multiple ways for a company to respond to public criticism.

 

Every post on this thread including yours and mine, in some manner keeps the image of an unresolved customer service problem alive. If that is the image by which the company wants to be defined, then fine. But if Regent wants to be defined as a luxury cruise line, then it can take some meaningful action that fits that image.

 

We obviously disagree which is fine. There are already two different experiences posted from passengers on the same cruise so we really don't know what actually occurred. On one hand we read that people waited for several hours and then read that one poster was early and had to wait hours for that reason.

 

If Regent had to respond to every alleged complaint on CC, it would be a full time job. And, as I posted recently, not everything posted on CC is completely accurate.

[Guest ccpm]

as I posted recently, not everything posted on CC is completely accurate.

 

Indeed not and that would include your own posts

[fizzy]

The OP is under no obligation to report back at this point as to how things are getting sorted out but it does sound like their first impressions have been a bust. CC can be a valuable marketing tool for all cruise lines. There have been so many times over the years that this forum could have been used effectively and to Regent's advantage to clarify something or explain company policy before it flows, yet again, into mention of Regent lawyers.