Comparing Viking Ocean to Regent

[WesW]

Wendy:

 

FYI, today one of the smartest folks I know on Travel Insurance is being hosted by CC for a Q&A.  We have used The Trip Insurance store for our annual travel insurance multiple times.  For the Q&A on CC, Pls see this link:

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/forum/2441-qa-cruise-insurance-w-steve-dasseos-of-the-tripinsurancestorecom/

 

Also, here is a brief discussion about Travel Insurance for long cruises:

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2619222-insurance-for-long-cruises/

[Henk123]

Sorry Travelcat2 but there was a Readers choice contest and but Viking and Azamara are in.

The winners in the Best Ocean Cruise Line category

3. Viking Ocean Cruises

6. Azamara Club Cruises

 

The winners in the Best Cruise Ship for Dining category

4. Viking Sea - Viking Ocean Cruises

8. Azamara Journey - Azamara Club Cruises

 

So those lines must have something.

[Travelcat2]

1 hour ago, Henk123 said:

Sorry Travelcat2 but there was a Readers choice contest and but Viking and Azamara are in.

The winners in the Best Ocean Cruise Line category

3. Viking Ocean Cruises

6. Azamara Club Cruises

 

The winners in the Best Cruise Ship for Dining category

4. Viking Sea - Viking Ocean Cruises

8. Azamara Journey - Azamara Club Cruises

 

So those lines must have something.

 

It is truly a shame that some publications  and even CC consider some premium--plus or luxury-lite cruise line to be true luxury.  While I can speak about Viking Ocean, Azamara's parent company (RCI) considers their upper brands as follows:  Silverea - luxury Azamara - premium plus, Celebrity - premium.  If publications think that they know more than the company's owners, so be it.  

 

Also, many of us through the years have seen just how skewed polls are.  All it takes is for a cruise line to run a promotion IF you vote in certain poll and they end up #1.  

 

Not counting Hapag Lloyd and other foreign carriers, the most commonly recognized luxury cruise lines are (in alphabetical order)

 

Crystal

Regent

Seabourn

Silversea

Sea Dream Yacht Club

 

Note:  No matter how many times the CEO of NCLH. Frank Del Rio, says that Oceania is not a luxury cruise line, other people think that they know better.  Go figure.  

[flossie009]

@Henk123,

Which "Readers' Choice" are you referencing? cruisecritic? Conde Nast? Cruise Passenger? Porthole Magazine? ........... the list is endless.

Which lines came first & second in the poll to which you are referring.

 

I do not understand the discussion about the subtle differences between luxury, premium and other cruise line designations. Since there appears to be no independent classification rating for cruise lines the debate is seemingly pointless.

Luxury, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and for us a number of factors contribute to our experiencing a truly luxurious cruise; not least being the overall ambience on board - a very nebulous and personal component but so very important.

[clasater]

Very well stated Flossie !

We see beauty in Viking as well as Regent and have sailed them both more than once.

[Travelcat2]

34 minutes ago, flossie009 said:

@Henk123,

Which "Readers' Choice" are you referencing? cruisecritic? Conde Nast? Cruise Passenger? Porthole Magazine? ........... the list is endless.

Which lines came first & second in the poll to which you are referring.

 

I do not understand the discussion about the subtle differences between luxury, premium and other cruise line designations. Since there appears to be no independent classification rating for cruise lines the debate is seemingly pointless.

Luxury, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and for us a number of factors contribute to our experiencing a truly luxurious cruise; not least being the overall ambience on board - a very nebulous and personal component but so very important.

 

This has been discussed on the General board as well as on another thread (Azamara).  In my opinion, we definitely need classifications.   

 

Not sure who said that there were subtle differences between luxury and premium-plus/luxury-lite cruise lines as I feel there are major differences.  What has been your experiences with Regent vs. other cruise lines?

 

In any case, I do not find any discussion on CC to be "pointless".  There are subjects that some people are interested in and not others but they are not pointless (at least not by my definition).  

 

I do agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  However, the most beautiful suite that we have ever had the pleasure to sail in was on Oceania's Riviera - it was in keeping with the beauty of the ship but there is no way I would consider Oceania a luxury cruise line.  They are a premium plus/luxury lite cruise line that has two absolutely gorgeous ships.  And, their direct competition is Viking Ocean and Azamara while Regent's direct competition is reportedly Crystal, Seabourn and Silversea.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Travelcat2

[Henk123]

1 hour ago, flossie009 said:

Which "Readers' Choice" are you referencing? cruisecritic? Conde Nast? Cruise Passenger? Porthole Magazine? ........... the list is endless.

USA Today "10 Best Readers’ Choice Travel Awards" : https://www.10best.com/awards/travel/

 

My part in this post was more that Travelcat2 is very helpfull with question but react very heavy on negative Regent review almost always that it is a fault of the poster itself and even in this post that Azamara and Viking is .......... .

And yes every compagnie has it pro and contras and even that is subjective.

 

[Travelcat2]

10 minutes ago, Henk123 said:

USA Today "10 Best Readers’ Choice Travel Awards" : https://www.10best.com/awards/travel/

 

My part in this post was more that Travelcat2 is very helpfull with question but react very heavy on negative Regent review almost always that it is a fault of the poster itself and even in this post that Azamara and Viking is .......... .

And yes every compagnie has it pro and contras and even that is subjective.

 

 

I accept negative reviews but will respond to the poster if they experienced something out of the ordinary so that they are aware that it is not typical.  Even I have written less than positive things about Regent.  

 

Not sure why you equate Azamara and Viking not being luxury cruise lines with negative reviews about Regent.  Even if Azamara and Viking were luxury cruise lines, it does not diminish Regent or any other luxury cruise line.  

 

My comments about Azamara, Viking and Oceania is simply to help someone new to cruising with classifications.  If I were a new cruiser I would likely never heard of Azamara and only would think that Viking was a river cruise line (and not a luxury one at that).  Again, my point is that cruisers need a starting point.  While I do not like to compare cruise lines to hotels, I must say that hotels do a better job of classifying themselves.  Whether it be a Motel 6, Comfort Inn, Marriott, Holiday Inn or a luxury hotel, there are places (like AAA) to go where you can read the ratings and learn about the amenities of each hotel.  All that cruisers have is Berlitz (I may have the publication incorrect) that is not written by someone in the U.S. and has a different view than many in the U.S.

 

Note:  Not knocking travel writers from other countries but the majority of the passengers on Regent are from the U.S. with Canada, Australia and the U.K. pretty far behind in terms of numbers of passengers on each cruise.  If we were discussing Hapag Lloyd, a German travel writer would likely have a better insight than a travel writer in the U.S. 

[DaveFr]

1 hour ago, Henk123 said:

USA Today "10 Best Readers’ Choice Travel Awards" : https://www.10best.com/awards/travel/

 

 

And the winner for the second year in a row is Carnival!!!!  Enough said.

 

Dave

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by DaveFr

[Travelcat2]

1 hour ago, DaveFr said:

And the winner for the second year in a row is Carnival!!!!  Enough said.

 

Dave

 

 

Bravo!!!!!

[CruisetheCs]

I don’t understand this frequent theme in various threads that one can’t or shouldn’t compare cruises on “luxury” cruise lines to cruises on other lines. My impression is that the topic most often seems to pop up when someone says something on a “non-luxury” line is better than something on Regent.  

 

It is difficult to know what purpose the discussion serves other than to divert threads away from actual points of comparison to some theoretical discussion of classification systems (just look at the total lines of text devoted to this topic in various threads).

 

If there is a real interest in how cruise lines are or should  be classified, then why not start a thread on that topic so posters can continue to make actual comparisons of facets of the cruises lines on threads such as this.

 

 

[Travelcat2]

Comparing apples and oranges will always be difficult.  While it is easy to compare luxury cruise lines (even if a person prefers another cruise line to Regent), the same cannot be said when comparing non-luxury cruise lines with Crystal Regent, Seabourn and Silversea.  

 

If someone wants to start a thread on this topic - go for it.  I’ve already participated on a thread regarding this topic on the Luxury board.  I would enjoy seeing a comparison of Seabourn and Carnival for instance.  

 

 

[BarbarianPaul]

5 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

I accept negative reviews but will respond to the poster if they experienced something out of the ordinary so that they are aware that it is not typical.  Even I have written less than positive things about Regent.  

 

Not sure why you equate Azamara and Viking not being luxury cruise lines with negative reviews about Regent.  Even if Azamara and Viking were luxury cruise lines, it does not diminish Regent or any other luxury cruise line.  

 

My comments about Azamara, Viking and Oceania is simply to help someone new to cruising with classifications.  If I were a new cruiser I would likely never heard of Azamara and only would think that Viking was a river cruise line (and not a luxury one at that).  Again, my point is that cruisers need a starting point.  While I do not like to compare cruise lines to hotels, I must say that hotels do a better job of classifying themselves.  Whether it be a Motel 6, Comfort Inn, Marriott, Holiday Inn or a luxury hotel, there are places (like AAA) to go where you can read the ratings and learn about the amenities of each hotel.  All that cruisers have is Berlitz (I may have the publication incorrect) that is not written by someone in the U.S. and has a different view than many in the U.S.

 

Note:  Not knocking travel writers from other countries but the majority of the passengers on Regent are from the U.S. with Canada, Australia and the U.K. pretty far behind in terms of numbers of passengers on each cruise.  If we were discussing Hapag Lloyd, a German travel writer would likely have a better insight than a travel writer in the U.S. 

Jackie—

 

The problem with your reasoning is that there are aspects of the premium plus and luxury lite cruise lines that surpass Regent. And these are not small issues. No one beats Regent’s food, but Viking’s spa is vastly superior, HA’s itineraries are more unique and creative, Celebrity’s entertainment and enrichment are better, etc. So unless comparisons are made, someone might automatically assume (as I did, frankly) that the additional cost for a luxury line is justified by an assumed guarantee that everything will be better. And that’s just not the case.

[CruisetheCs]

1 hour ago, Travelcat2 said:

Comparing apples and oranges will always be difficult.  While it is easy to compare luxury cruise lines (even if a person prefers another cruise line to Regent), the same cannot be said when comparing non-luxury cruise lines with Crystal Regent, Seabourn and Silversea.  

 

If someone wants to start a thread on this topic - go for it.  I’ve already participated on a thread regarding this topic on the Luxury board.  I would enjoy seeing a comparison of Seabourn and Carnival for instance.  

 

 

 

Actually,  I wouldn't feel all that challenged in comparing apples and oranges. 

 

But leaving that aside, let’s just imagine for an instant that apples and oranges both have bathrooms, cabins, boarding procedures, service personnel, dining venues, entertainment, lecturers, buffets, internet access, costs, excursions, carpeting, ambiance, or whatever.  Now, what if luxury cruise lines and non-luxury cruise lines also were to share most of those same attributes.  

 

Somehow, comparisons of such attributes seem fairly simple and reasonable to me. 

[Travelcat2]

Paul, I always appreciate your perspective and much of what you say is true.  There are things about NCL that is better than Regent (sorry cannot say the same about Celebrity -  perhaps it was only the ship that we were on) and some things about Oceania’s new ships that are a bit better than Regent.  However, this does not make NCL or Oceania luxury cruise lines.

 

CruisetheC’s - if you want to take the time to make those comparison, I’d love to read it.  However, I would ask that you make comparisons of ships that you have been on when you describe ambiance, service and food as this is not as easy to compare as suite size.    The reason I say this is that I have made comments about Seabourn and Crystal that were factual (suite size, dining times, smoking policies, etc.) because I have no idea of the ambiance of those two cruise lines (yet - we will be on one of those cruise lines later this year).

 

[Henk123]

Why not go back to the post topic:  "Comparing Regent with Viking" with the always subjective feelings from people being on both cruiselines. For me that is importent because we are looking/doubting for a Amazone cruise and Regent and Viking have one we try to compare. Regent we know and Vinking we don't know.

And please stop reacting with words as IMO you are wrong if it is something negative abouth the one or the other.

 

[forgap]

7 hours ago, CruisetheCs said:

 

Actually,  I wouldn't feel all that challenged in comparing apples and oranges. 

 

But leaving that aside, let’s just imagine for an instant that apples and oranges both have bathrooms, cabins, boarding procedures, service personnel, dining venues, entertainment, lecturers, buffets, internet access, costs, excursions, carpeting, ambiance, or whatever.  Now, what if luxury cruise lines and non-luxury cruise lines also were to share most of those same attributes.  

 

Somehow, comparisons of such attributes seem fairly simple and reasonable to me. 

Well said.  I am  completely bored with the whole luxury, premium, non luxury discussion.  Enough already!

[fizzy]

10 hours ago, CruisetheCs said:

I don’t understand this frequent theme in various threads that one can’t or shouldn’t compare cruises on “luxury” cruise lines to cruises on other lines. My impression is that the topic most often seems to pop up when someone says something on a “non-luxury” line is better than something on Regent.  

 

It is difficult to know what purpose the discussion serves other than to divert threads away from actual points of comparison to some theoretical discussion of classification systems (just look at the total lines of text devoted to this topic in various threads).

 

If there is a real interest in how cruise lines are or should  be classified, then why not start a thread on that topic so posters can continue to make actual comparisons of facets of the cruises lines on threads such as this.

 

 

This is a splendid idea for a variety of reasons. It could certainly keep things on topic and demonstrate that the word "luxury" means different things to different people and can be just as subjective as opinions on food.  .Despite the often negative comments about the Navigator......we like the comfort, ambience and general vibe of the ship and that translates (to us) as luxury over glitz and marble all over the place.  It doesn't always have to turn into a defense of Regent. We also sail on Silversea and find them more similar than different to Regent. If someone wants to make a comment, it should stand as is without an argument and be recognized as someone's valid opinion.

[BarbarianPaul]

10 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

Paul, I always appreciate your perspective and much of what you say is true.  There are things about NCL that is better than Regent (sorry cannot say the same about Celebrity -  perhaps it was only the ship that we were on) and some things about Oceania’s new ships that are a bit better than Regent.  However, this does not make NCL or Oceania luxury cruise lines.

 

CruisetheC’s - if you want to take the time to make those comparison, I’d love to read it.  However, I would ask that you make comparisons of ships that you have been on when you describe ambiance, service and food as this is not as easy to compare as suite size.    The reason I say this is that I have made comments about Seabourn and Crystal that were factual (suite size, dining times, smoking policies, etc.) because I have no idea of the ambiance of those two cruise lines (yet - we will be on one of those cruise lines later this year).

 

 

But Jackie, I’m not saying the cruise lines who’s features I’m comparing fit your definition of luxury cruise lines. I’m just saying comparisons are perfectly valid, and even necessary, when comparing attributes they all share, especially when those attributes might actually surpass Regent. CruisetheC’s is saying the same thing...only better!

 

It appears to me that your definition of luxury lines is based on services (excursions, airfare, etc.) and goods (dining, etc.) included in the cruise fare. But with specialty restaurants offering high end food and drink, and included suite amenities, as well as excursions and such available on all the ships, it’s meaningless to me whether all of this is paid for before or during the cruise.

 

In my opinion, the meals we’ve had in the Tuscan Grill on the Celebrity Constellation surpass the offerings in the Explorer’s Prime 7. And the actual physical space on top of the ship way more appealing and dramatic. Why are comparisons between the two invalid because one steak house is on a premium plus cruise line, the other luxury? And if these comparisons are not invalid, others aren’t either.

 

Whether you’ll ever admit it or not, your way of thinking is becoming increasingly outdated, and, dare I say, a tad alienating.  But, of course, the great thing about CC is the wonderful diversity of opinions!

 

 

[Travelcat2]

Paul, while I do to want to continue this debate but I need to say that I have not given my opinion of what I believe luxury is.  It Is not baed on inclusions alone - that is for sure.  I mentioned those amenities as part of a comparison of price. 

 

Since this thread is suppose to be about Viking Ocean, I went to their website for a moment and learned that their veranda rooms/cabins/staterooms/suites are 270 sq. ft. including the balcony!  They have 8 categories of suites of this size so one can assume that this makes up most of the ship.  

 

So, if I am becoming outdated and people want tiny suites on large ships, so be it.  As you know, for comparison purposes (and for fun) we are trying other cruise lines for short (7 night) cruises.  This has given me a greater perspective.  The best non-Regent meal that we've had to date is on NCL (it was also the most fun that we've had on a cruise ship).  The best suite was on Oceania.  Alternatively, the worst food we have had at sea is a tie between NCL and Celebrity (sorry - we did not care for Tuscan Grill on Celebrity).  The worst suite was Celebrity (not size - layout and functionality).*. 

 

 

*Note:  We were on an older ship (Celebrity Infinity) that was beautiful on the inside and horrible on the outside (including their dirty tenders - one that looked as if a can of paint was splattered on it).  I have no doubt that Celebrity has some nicer ships than what we were on but I can only report on what we personally experienced.

 

[SedonaJoel]

The various categories the cruise lines use are only for market positioning.  We've done 75 cruises on Oceania, Regent and Viking (including 25 on Renaissance).  We are currently on the Azamara Pursuit heading for Antarctica.  I select cruise lines based on suite availability and itinerary.  We generally travel in Owners (or equivalent).  Our favorite was Oceania but we got bored with their lack of new itineraries.  This year we ae doing 3 Viking cruises and 2 Azamara cruises.

 

As far as trip cancellation insurance Chase Sapphire Reserve (CSR) has the best policy.  If you charge any portion of your cruise to CSR you get $20,000 worth of coverage,  My wife also has a CSR card so we split expensive trips on multiple cards.  We've had to cancel 3 cruises for medical reasons and have been paid in full for all cancellation fees.  As far as medical coverage we use GEOBlueInsurance.com  - cost for multi-trip medical is only $235/yr.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

20 hours ago, clasater said:

Very well stated Flossie !

We see beauty in Viking as well as Regent and have sailed them both more than once.

 

And could you give me more details?  What "beauty" did you see in Viking? We like Regent because it's a known quantity for us, great dining, excellent service, friendly and comfortable; but enjoy Mariner specifically because of the nice Coffee Connection, other pleasant public spaces, the layout of Compass Rose, etc

[Henk123]

2 hours ago, SedonaJoel said:

The various categories the cruise lines use are only for market positioning.  We've done 75 cruises on Oceania, Regent and Viking (including 25 on Renaissance).  We are currently on the Azamara Pursuit heading for Antarctica.  I select cruise lines based on suite availability and itinerary.  We generally travel in Owners (or equivalent).  Our favorite was Oceania but we got bored with their lack of new itineraries.  This year we ae doing 3 Viking cruises and 2 Azamara cruises.

You are the MAN😁

Please tell us/me your feeling or differance between Regent/Viking/Azamara. I know Regent and Azama. So that compare I can make and see if you have the same feeling. Based on that I can use your compare to Viking.

[SedonaJoel]

Send me an email and I'll give you my opinions.

 

joel dot gilgoff at gmail.com

[MalbecWine]

Nobody can comment on a luxury line i.e. Crystal if you have not sailed on them and nobody should comment about Viking as well which seems to beat out all the categories.  They must be doing something right.

We have a 24 day cruise on the Explorer this year and I am biting my tongue and hoping for the best as our previous Regent cruises did not come close to our Crystal experiences.  The Explorer looks wonderful and glossy but that is not why we cruise.  Service, food, entertainment and crew should be the hallmarks of any luxury line.  We booked the MS on the Explorer which appears to be beautiful but in the end it’s the other services that matter.