Passengers annoyed with Regent : Tokyo to Vancouver 2021

[1985rz1]

We cancelled.

[mrstanley]

Sorry to read that you cancelled. Regent doesn't care since they have a waitlist. Wait until those people find out about the one

less night... I wonder if they were offered the $500 OBC. I don't blame anyone for cancelling. We really want to do this cruise and hope there are no more changes to it before we make final payment next year. The money I'm owed would help pay for hotel rooms while in Japan prior to the cruise.

[Travelcat2]

12 hours ago, FlyerTalker said:

Let's see if we can distill it down to the basics.

 

• Regent offered a cruise with a particular itinerary
• Folks bought that itinerary
• Regent changed the itinerary
• Regent made an offer for their estimate of adequate compensation
• Folks don't like the offer made
• Folks don't like the option to cancel
• Folks want Regent to change their offer.
• Folks don't want either the offer, nor do they want to cancel
• Folks are demanding a change to the offer

So let me add my projected next line:

 

• Regent isn't going to change that offer, so take your choice - irrespective of what you otherwise want

 

 

Thank you for saying what I really wanted to say but couldn't find the right words.  Interestingly, no one complains when Regent extends the cruise by one day and does not charge passengers.

 

Lastly, while I'm not sure if the price of this cruise has gone up during Regent's frequent price increases (it likely has) people on the waitlist (that are probably thrilled to have cleared) are paying more than some people on this board.  

[forgap]

11 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

Interestingly, no one complains when Regent extends the cruise by one day and does not charge passengers.

Of course no one complains about a free day.  I can’t quite see the relevance here as we are loosing a day and not getting adequately compensated.  That is what this discussion is about.   Sure we have the option to cancel.  But, Regent needs to weigh the fact that we also may jump ship.   So, Regent also has a choice: compensate us at the per diem rate or loose hundreds of thousands of dollars in future bookings.  

[1985rz1]

1 hour ago, mrstanley said:

Sorry to read that you cancelled. Regent doesn't care since they have a waitlist. Wait until those people find out about the one

less night... I wonder if they were offered the $500 OBC. I don't blame anyone for cancelling. We really want to do this cruise and hope there are no more changes to it before we make final payment next year. The money I'm owed would help pay for hotel rooms while in Japan prior to the cruise.

We aware that Regent won't care, given the demand for this itinerary, but for us,  it was a matter of principle.  We also know that a similar (and slightly better) itinerary is offered by (shudder) Viking Ocean (although waitlisted).

[mrlevin]

12 hours ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

So let me add my projected next line:

 

• Regent isn't going to change that offer, so take your choice - irrespective of what you otherwise want

 

 

My opinion is that Regent just screwed up; somebody in finance did not realize that the price on this cruise had been raised and that most of passengers booked at a lower price.  I believe Regent will realize their error and fix this for those already booked.

 

Just my two cents (based on almost 30 cruises with Regent with some screwups along the way),

 

Marc 

[BBWC]

Marc,

I would like to believe that, but it has been a number of days and Regent has been reminded by both guests and TAs that this is the case. However, there has been total silence on their part.

[Travelcat2]

Too late to edit my last post.  I was wondering how many people affected by this change would be okay if they had to add another day to the itinerary and charged you for it.

[Fogfog]

16 hours ago, GOARMY said:

I now have a dog in this "fight".  We were wait-listed for several months--for several category suites to "afford" a better chance of getting onboard.   Our TA (who books many, many Regent cruises) advised there is a long waiting list for this particular segment.  

This PM, TA advised we are now onboard for this 18-day segment.  Not the suite location we would have preferred--but it is likely some options will open up during the nearly 19 months before Tokyo to put us closer (and lower on the ship) to where we would prefer to rest in the north Pacific. 

 

So, someone, for whatever reason, did exercise the option to cancel.  Whatever.  

 

GOARMY!

 

 

 

We were moved off the waitlist as well--- though don't like the stateroom position and may not take it. Not confident that we should take it to "get on the ship" and then work on moving. 

 

I am confused by the posts saying they are out funds $$$$ when you can walk with a full refund right now, yes?

Going to guess that the fares quoted right now are higher than the ones who booked early.

So we are being offered a shortened cruise than what we wait-listed for/chose--and at a higher rate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BBWC]

According to the ticket contract (written by Regent), they owe both: a proportional refund for a shortened cruise, and no increase in fare for a lengthened cruise. They only upheld one part of the bargain, no increase in fares for the second cruise, and are using our money to fund it. Essentially, they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is what people are upset about.

[forgap]

38 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

Too late to edit my last post.  I was wondering how many people affected by this change would be okay if they had to add another day to the itinerary and charged you for it.

The issue is that they added another day to the Vancouver to Vancouver cruise and didn’t charge for it.  They took a day from our cruise and threw us a bone.

 

[DaveFr]

44 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

Too late to edit my last post.  I was wondering how many people affected by this change would be okay if they had to add another day to the itinerary and charged you for it.

Jackie, with all due respect, the point you are trying to make is moot.  In Section 4F of the Ticket Contract (written by Regent) Regent expressly states that if the cruise is lengthened, passengers will not be charged any additional Cruise Fare.  So the situation you hypothesize about could never occur.

 

Dave

[Travelcat2]

3 minutes ago, forgap said:

The issue is that they added another day to the Vancouver to Vancouver cruise and didn’t charge for it.  They took a day from our cruise and threw us a bone.

 

 

I understand but asked the question because, if the cruise were extended by one day and Regent charged passengers for 1 extra day onboard (which, depending upon the suite and itinerary could be $1,000+/person) would this be acceptable to you?  

 

It is definitely frustrating, however, if Regent decided to reimburse everyone for the one day, then it should be expected that passengers would be charged if the itinerary was lengthened.  While neither situation happens often, it does happen and could happen more as issues erupt in various parts of the world (whether it be from political unrest or simply too many ships that not be accommodated by the ports).  

 

[Travelcat2]

1 minute ago, DaveFr said:

Jackie, with all due respect, the point you are trying to make is moot.  In Section 4F of the Ticket Contract (written by Regent) Regent expressly states that if the cruise is lengthened, passengers will not be charged any additional Cruise Fare.  So the situation you hypothesize about could never occur.

 

Dave

 

I was posting when you were.  Thank you for looking at the Ticket Contract.  Since they do not charge passengers for a cruise that is lengthened, I cannot see why passengers should expect money back if it is shortened by one day (that needs to be in the contract as well as it does not seem right if passengers have it both ways).  

 

As I posted above, it would be surprising if this did not happen more.  As a Captain once said when he changed our itinerary so that we would not be in Santorini with 8 other ships...... the ports do not get bigger but more and more ships/people keep arriving.  In my opinion, there will be a breaking point that will affect all cruise ships.  I would be surprised with all of the articles and discussion in the cruise industry about overtourism, if some Regent itineraries for 2021 are not changed due to restrictions that cities put on their ports.  Some ports really cannot handle all of the tourists.  

 

During the summer in Vancouver, for instance, they run out of places to dock, likely do not have the ability to have people tender, the cruise terminal can be so packed that it takes three hours to get through and the traffic for miles around the cruise terminal is crazy.  

[rallydave]

Following is a cut a paste of section 4f of the cruise contract which verifies that a proportionate porting of the cruise fare will be provided by shortening the cruise and that no additional charges can be added if the cruise is lengthened.  They do have the option per the below to transfer the passengers to another ship however at this point that will not happen and should it be Regent's choice that would be fine and the passengers would get their full 19 day cruise and no refund.

 

Hopefully Regent will follow their own contract.

 

f. If the Cruise is shortened or terminated, (for reasons other than mechanical failures of the Ship), We will, at Our option, either make a proportionate refund of the Cruise Fare or We will transfer You to another Ship or the port of final destination by other means. If the scheduled length of the Cruise is increased, You will have no responsibility for the cost of the additional Cruise Fare and We will have no responsibility to pay or compensate You in any manner, including any direct or consequential damages. In either of the above circumstances, Our responsibility ends once We return You to the point of origination as booked and ticketed by Us.

[forgap]

I suspect the loophole in 4 F is that this is in the ticket contract and we do not have a contract with Regent until payment in full.  I’m no lawyer.....

[rallydave]

2 minutes ago, forgap said:

I suspect the loophole in 4 F is that this is in the ticket contract and we do not have a contract with Regent until payment in full.  I’m no lawyer.....

 

Good try forgap, below s a link to the ticket contract as well as a cut and paste from the contract clearly stating you are bound to the contract upon booking the cruise so no to the loophole you found.  There may be a loophole but, haven't found it yet.  Perhaps there is a lawyer reading this message who can comment on what we have found.

 

https://www.rssc.com › hostedfiles › legal › USTicketContractJanuary2015

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION
Upon booking the Cruise, You agree to be bound by all of the terms and conditions which follow, including specifically those regarding your rights to sue, claims subject to a binding arbitration, governing law, forum and jurisdiction. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, this Ticket Contract constitutes the entire agreement between You and Carrier and supersedes all other agreements, oral, implied or written. In the event of a direct conflict between a provision of this contract and a provision of the Cruise Industry Passenger Bill of Rights (PBOR) in effect at the time of booking, the PBOR controls. Any alteration to any term of this Ticket Contract must be in writing and signed by Carrier. Except as provided in Clause 27 below, should any provision of this Ticket Contract be unenforceable, contrary to or invalid by virtue of the law of the jurisdiction in which this Ticket Contract is sought to be enforced or be so held by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision(s) shall be deemed to be severed from the Ticket Contract and of no effect and all remaining provisions herein shall be in full force and effect and constitute the Ticket Contract. You agree that, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, and in Clause 10(a), any and all disputes whatsoever arising out or relating to this Ticket Contract or Your cruise, as well as the interpretation, applicability, and enforcement of this Ticket Contract shall be governed exclusively by the general maritime law of the United States, without regard to choice of law rules, which replaces, supersedes and preempts any provision of law of any state or nation to the contrary.

[DaveFr]

20 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

I was posting when you were.  Thank you for looking at the Ticket Contract.  Since they do not charge passengers for a cruise that is lengthened, I cannot see why passengers should expect money back if it is shortened by one day (that needs to be in the contract as well as it does not seem right if passengers have it both ways).  

 

As I posted above, it would be surprising if this did not happen more.  As a Captain once said when he changed our itinerary so that we would not be in Santorini with 8 other ships...... the ports do not get bigger but more and more ships/people keep arriving.  In my opinion, there will be a breaking point that will affect all cruise ships.  I would be surprised with all of the articles and discussion in the cruise industry about overtourism, if some Regent itineraries for 2021 are not changed due to restrictions that cities put on their ports.  Some ports really cannot handle all of the tourists.  

 

During the summer in Vancouver, for instance, they run out of places to dock, likely do not have the ability to have people tender, the cruise terminal can be so packed that it takes three hours to get through and the traffic for miles around the cruise terminal is crazy.  

Jackie, as rallydave's quote of Section 4F of the Ticket Contract (written by Regent) shows, Regent has given itself three options when a cruise is shortened for non-mechanical reasons.  It can refund a proportionate share of the cruise fare or it can put passengers on another ship or it can get passengers to the final port (Vancouver here) by "other means."  For the Tokyo to Vancouver cruise, Regent is not putting passengers on another ship nor is it getting passengers to Vancouver by other means.  So its only option is to refund a "proportionate" share of the cruise fare paid by each passenger.  Since it appears that the lowest fare, minus the air credit, paid by any passenger was $9999, a $250 shipboard credit, that is probably non-refundable, is nowhere near proportionate.  In addition, it could be argued that since the per diem for a 18 night cruise is higher than for a 19 night cruise, Regent is not protecting the cruise fare previously booked as it states in its letter to passengers set forth earlier in this thread.

 

Regent's ticket contract obligates it to refund a proportionate share of the cruise fare.  It is not doing so now.  It is not unreasonable for passengers to expect that Regent will abide by the terms of its ticket contract  I hope that this is simply a mistake and that Regent will see the light and do the right thing by its passengers.

 

Dave

[ronrick1943]

On 9/26/2019 at 9:26 AM, rcandkc said:

Why credit back after final payment.  Just adjust final payment for all those booked before the itinerary change.  Lots simpler. 

I agree this is what should be done.  What if you had a reservation at a hotel for a few nights, they told we are cancelling one night however you still need to pay for the full reservation?  Would you? This is the same thing. Regent should give each passenger one full night credit that they paid (no matter what the price is today).  Pretty simple Regent, it's called customer service.  No one should have to ask for this. 

[forgap]

I believe many of us booked on this cruise have a legitimate complaint against Regent.  They appear to have not followed their own ticket contract and have now circled the wagons.   Because the cruise is waitlisted, i think Regent thinks it can get away with their “offer” of OBC.   It is also cavalier for a company to basically say ”take it or leave it” to their most loyal customers who booked a highly anticipated cruise years in advance.

 

[mom0f3]

I agree, and we sent an email to Jason Montague stating this.   If they are willing to alienate their most loyal customers over what is a small amount of money considering what we spend over the years, I suppose that is their business decision.   Too bad.  

[FlyerTalker]

1 hour ago, mom0f3 said:

I agree, and we sent an email to Jason Montague stating this.   If they are willing to alienate their most loyal customers over what is a small amount of money considering what we spend over the years, I suppose that is their business decision.   Too bad.  

 

I truly doubt that folks will have been "loyal" to Regent for price reasons.  And they have been sticking with Regent because it's the cruiseline that gives them the product that fits their wishes.

 

So for all the bluster that hints (or more) at leaving for greener pastures, two questions - why haven't you left before and will you really like what you find elsewhere?  How happy will you be with the smaller cabin sizes and higher passenger count on Crystal?  How about the dress codes and much smaller ships on Silversea?  You get my drift.

[Fogfog]

As many who are upset-- and I understand the per day expense vs $250 issue-- I suspect most will not cancel...

AND I suspect Regent will do something for those who booked early. That in the end they will...

 

In the letter is says the price is protected... and honestly I am sure the offer we got coming off the waitlist--that we are paying more than others for the same stateroom and a shorter cruise

 

For those of us who were wait listed--we asked to be on a wait list for a specific product-days etc--So its not different than those who secured their room with a deposit--except that we are being asked to pay EVEN MORE for less.

And I highly suspect there will NOT be any OBC or goodwill gesture for us and those coming off the waitlist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[forgap]

10 minutes ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

I truly doubt that folks will have been "loyal" to Regent for price reasons.  And they have been sticking with Regent because it's the cruiseline that gives them the product that fits their wishes.

 

So for all the bluster that hints (or more) at leaving for greener pastures, two questions - why haven't you left before and will you really like what you find elsewhere?  How happy will you be with the smaller cabin sizes and higher passenger count on Crystal?  How about the dress codes and much smaller ships on Silversea?  You get my drift.

You raise an interesting point.   I liken it to a relationship that’s going south.  You have gone from infatuation to love.  After many years and some episodes of “for better or for worse”, you start to speak up about things that just aren't right.  This is where I am now.   Will these issues lead to separation?  Perhaps.  Will my new relationships work out?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  As in all relationships, it takes respect on both sides and a willingness to want to work it out.  

 

I think that those of us who have expressed our points of view here, via our TA, and via email to Regent Executives, have tried to work it out.  I’m not quite ready to jump ship, but I’ve been thinking about it.  And, on the relationship breakup scale, thinking about it is the first step.  

[Travelcat2]

39 minutes ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

I truly doubt that folks will have been "loyal" to Regent for price reasons.  And they have been sticking with Regent because it's the cruiseline that gives them the product that fits their wishes.

 

So for all the bluster that hints (or more) at leaving for greener pastures, two questions - why haven't you left before and will you really like what you find elsewhere?  How happy will you be with the smaller cabin sizes and higher passenger count on Crystal?  How about the dress codes and much smaller ships on Silversea?  You get my drift.

 

Glad that you brought up this point.  Those of us that have been sailing Radisson/Regent for a long time have had issues that could have severed our relationship with Regent.  Instead of severing the relationship, we tried another luxury line - just for comparison purposes and learned that the grass is not greener on the other side.  We know of others that actually left Regent - only to return.  My point is that people that feel Regent is not being fair in this case (and perhaps they are not) and that you are losing money,  is it worth it to you to spend thousands of dollars on a different cruise line that you may not like?