What is being done about coronavirus.....

[Travelcat2]

kjbacon - Unfortunately, as Regent would likely say, if you booked and have a high-risk situation, it behooves you to get insurance (the type where you cancel for any reason).  That sounds harsh but the policy has been this way for a long time.  Whether you or I think that it is fair does not matter.   Also, people that book using certain credit card companies get travel insurance (the one we have is up to $10K/person which would not cover the entire fare but is better than nothing).  

 

To those threatening to not sail on Regent again I can only respond with what I've noticed over the past 16 years and that is that Regent does not respond to threats.  I recall vividly when some passengers actually did leave Regent for other luxury cruise lines.  It wasn't surprising that a few years later, most were back with Regent.  I also recall when Viking was hiring a lot of crew members from Regent (even officers).  While I will not give names, when one officer returned to Regent, the reason given was "I learned where I belong".  

 

We will all do what we feel we have to do in light of this crisis.  I was not criticizing anyone for deciding to cancel before Regent made a decision about your cruise.  I was only asking why you are doing it when it is likely that you would have received a full refund if Regent decided to cancel your cruise.  If the answer is that you are not yet in the penalty phase or are approaching the next level of penalties for cancelling, it makes more sense.    

 

Most of you should remember that it was only 2-3 weeks ago when people on this board were praising Regent for the steps they took to offer refunds (plus FCC) and/or taking care of passengers that booked with Regent Air and needed to change flights.  My point here is that when Regent is able to make a informed decision regarding April cruises (and eventually May and beyond) the same people that are threatening to leave Regent will be singing their praises once again.  Time will tell.  

[ronrick1943]

15 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

kjbacon - Unfortunately, as Regent would likely say, if you booked and have a high-risk situation, it behooves you to get insurance (the type where you cancel for any reason).  That sounds harsh but the policy has been this way for a long time.  Whether you or I think that it is fair does not matter.   Also, people that book using certain credit card companies get travel insurance (the one we have is up to $10K/person which would not cover the entire fare but is better than nothing).  

 

To those threatening to not sail on Regent again I can only respond with what I've noticed over the past 16 years and that is that Regent does not respond to threats.  I recall vividly when some passengers actually did leave Regent for other luxury cruise lines.  It wasn't surprising that a few years later, most were back with Regent.  I also recall when Viking was hiring a lot of crew members from Regent (even officers).  While I will not give names, when one officer returned to Regent, the reason given was "I learned where I belong".  

 

We will all do what we feel we have to do in light of this crisis.  I was not criticizing anyone for deciding to cancel before Regent made a decision about your cruise.  I was only asking why you are doing it when it is likely that you would have received a full refund if Regent decided to cancel your cruise.  If the answer is that you are not yet in the penalty phase or are approaching the next level of penalties for cancelling, it makes more sense.    

 

Most of you should remember that it was only 2-3 weeks ago when people on this board were praising Regent for the steps they took to offer refunds (plus FCC) and/or taking care of passengers that booked with Regent Air and needed to change flights.  My point here is that when Regent is able to make a informed decision regarding April cruises (and eventually May and beyond) the same people that are threatening to leave Regent will be singing their praises once again.  Time will tell.  

Although I agree with you, what Regent does, Regents does.  However one shouldn't knock another lines change in policy for what is happening now.  Viking has made a smart marketing move that they feel will help them long  term with their customer base.  To me it's a good market tool and Viking is taking full advantage of it.

[Pcardad]

Viking is basically owned/controlled by a single fellow and he is quite a good businessman...but Regent also makes good decisions. Time will tell. Either way, there is no point in discussing it here. Make your opinions know to Regent directly and then get on to more important things such as life, love and family.

[Travelcat2]

17 minutes ago, ronrick1943 said:

Although I agree with you, what Regent does, Regents does.  However one shouldn't knock another lines change in policy for what is happening now.  Viking has made a smart marketing move that they feel will help them long  term with their customer base.  To me it's a good market tool and Viking is taking full advantage of it.

 

I did not think that I was criticizing Viking's change in policy - sorry if it came across that way.  I did (do) feel that posting what other cruise lines are doing is interesting but not relevant to what Regent is doing.  As Pcardad just posted, Viking is "basically owned/controlled by a single fellow" (somewhat like Regent and Silversea  used to be). I remember when Regent was family-owned and, while they did a lot for their passengers, they let their ships fall into disrepair (some will argue this point but some of the soft items on Radisson/Regent were threadbare - carpets that were stained and were not replaced for way too long.  Silversea's failings under private ownership is legendary and off-topic so I won't even go there.  

 

Paul - I would be happy to debate your post on an appropriate thread.  IMHO, this is not the place.   There are also threads that can be searched comparing Regent and Viking in terms of what they offer and whether or not Viking is a luxury or premium-plus cruise line.  Sorry to have to disagree with you since we have agreed so often in the past!

 

Pcardad - agree that we need to look at what is really important "life, love and family".

[lesliebe]

When we opted to 'self insure' it was months before this situation...who ever heard of quarantine, skipping ports and possible cancellations ONCE YOU WERE ON BOAT.  How do we get our input to Regent?  I would like to do that.

 

Some of Regent's passangers are on the younger side of the demographics.....they have jobs to go back to in order to pay for the cruise!  My mother is 86........do I think SHE should be going........well it is up to her.

 

IMO as airlines and other cruise lines start to offer OPTIONS, any carrier that does not do that will lose MY business, as well as that of others.  Personal for all of us, and NOONE deserves to be judged.

[CruisetheCs]

2 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

I am truly trying to understand posters perspectives (except for those discussing Viking as it is not a luxury cruise line).  

 

 

What does this mean?  What does a cruise line classification system have to do with understanding someone's perspectives?  

 

In this case Viking did the right thing and posters are commenting favorably.  That's what happens when companies respond with good decisions and good communication.  

[Pcardad]

1.844.4REGENT

[Travelcat2]

45 minutes ago, CruisetheCs said:

 

What does this mean?  What does a cruise line classification system have to do with understanding someone's perspectives?  

 

 

45 minutes ago, CruisetheCs said:

2 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

I am truly trying to understand posters perspectives (except for those discussing Viking as it is not a luxury cruise line).  

 

I thought that it was clear but I'll rephrase.  Posters are cancelling cruises and taking penalties rather than waiting to learn what Regent plans to do.  I am trying to understand those posters reasoning.  After some more recent comments, I likely did not need to add "except for those discussing Viking.........".  I was stating that the perspectives that I was hoping to receive clarification on did not include posts that were giving their perspectives of Viking.  Perhaps my mixing the classification system of a cruise line into the mix is due to what is consistently discussed on the Luxury Board (not a great excuse but posters were saying how great Viking is and, IMHO, this does nothing to solve the issues that "some" people are having with Regent.).  There is also the point that people that want to leave Regent for Viking is curious at the least.  I believe that some factual comparisons need to take place before jumping ship (pun intended).  If a luxury cruiser wants to leave Regent, I would understand if they were discussing Crystal, Silversea or Seabourn.   

 

Do not disagree that Viking's owner did something which is admirable but do wonder what NCLH stockholders would think if their cruise lines did the same (that was a rhetorical question).  I believe that everyone would be happy if we could cancel when we want to (for any reason) but that is not reality for many publicly held companies.  They simply cannot do anything that they want.

 

To repeat - my DH and I are both "targets" of this virus but choose to go on Splendor next week.  If I had any issues with Regent, I would contact my TA.  If you choose to contact Regent, keep in mind that, based on what I read on CC somewhere, they are running 10 days behind on responding to emails and are likely backed up with phone calls as well. And, if your question is whether or not your cruise will be cancelled, there is likely no answer ....... yet.   So, my advice remains to check with your TA first.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Travelcat2

[kjbacon]

1 hour ago, Travelcat2 said:

kjbacon - Unfortunately, as Regent would likely say, if you booked and have a high-risk situation, it behooves you to get insurance (the type where you cancel for any reason).  That sounds harsh but the policy has been this way for a long time.  Whether you or I think that it is fair does not matter.   Also, people that book using certain credit card companies get travel insurance (the one we have is up to $10K/person which would not cover the entire fare but is better than nothing).  

 

To those threatening to not sail on Regent again I can only respond with what I've noticed over the past 16 years and that is that Regent does not respond to threats.  I recall vividly when some passengers actually did leave Regent for other luxury cruise lines.  It wasn't surprising that a few years later, most were back with Regent.  I also recall when Viking was hiring a lot of crew members from Regent (even officers).  While I will not give names, when one officer returned to Regent, the reason given was "I learned where I belong".  
 

 

 

 Jackie,

 

I never said the cancellation fee was unfair. Was simply answering your bewilderment as to why someone would cancel and lose 50%. The lives of my mother-in-law, daughter, and unborn grandchild are worth 100% of the cruise fare to me.

 

Regent and Viking both make a good product, we sail both but more so on Regent. You shouldn’t need to put down Viking to bolster Regent. There is no denying that this recent move on the part of Viking is most impressive and has nothing to do if one is 5.5 and the other a 6.0 rating.

 

Karen

[Travelcat2]

3 minutes ago, kjbacon said:

 

 

 Jackie,

 

I never said the cancellation fee was unfair. Was simply answering your bewilderment as to why someone would cancel and lose 50%. The lives of my mother-in-law, daughter, and unborn grandchild are worth 100% of the cruise fare to me.

 

Regent and Viking both make a good product, we sail both but more so on Regent. You shouldn’t need to put down Viking to bolster Regent. There is no denying that this recent move on the part of Viking is most impressive and has nothing to do if one is 5.5 and the other a 6.0 rating.

 

Karen

 

Karen,

 

Now that I understand that you were at the 50% penalty point, it makes perfect sense.  Also agree about the lives of your mother-in-law, daughter and unborn grandchild.  

 

I want to reiterate that my intent was not to put Viking down - only questioning their "classification".  We enjoy other cruise lines as well (Silversea for instance).  I did research Viking Ocean and found it lacked in some areas. The only "5.5" cruise line that we have been on is Oceania.  While two of their ships are "almost" as beautiful as Explorer, it is evident to me why even the CEO of NCLH calls Oceania a "Luxury Light" or "Premium Plus" cruise line. Again, think that this discussion would work better on another thread.  

 

Jackie

[Pcardad]

I feel left out. As long as the sheets are clean and I don't have to make my own drinks I consider it luxury.

[gnomie1]

2 hours ago, ronrick1943 said:

Although I agree with you, what Regent does, Regents does.  However one shouldn't knock another lines change in policy for what is happening now.  Viking has made a smart marketing move that they feel will help them long  term with their customer base.  To me it's a good market tool and Viking is taking full advantage of it.

As one can imagine, the effect of Covid-19 has overtaken the business world and people scramble to make adjustments to ensure the health and safety of not only their employees, but also their customer base. My inbox is overflowing from various sources outlining how businesses are handling the situation and since late last night, I have received no fewer than six narratives which specifically mention the decision of Viking and applauding the flexibility provided to passengers - many of the comments mentioned that one would need a very large advertising budget  to achieve the level of goodwill that will be generated and it was a very smart marketing move. Viking is benefiting from copious amount of free POSITIVE publicity - in the short term, it will affect revenue, but in the long run may prove to be a very profitable business decision.

[Kiwifromkiev]

3 hours ago, lesliebe said:

When we opted to 'self insure' it was months before this situation...who ever heard of quarantine, skipping ports and possible cancellations ONCE YOU WERE ON BOAT.  How do we get our input to Regent?  I would like to do that.

 

Some of Regent's passangers are on the younger side of the demographics.....they have jobs to go back to in order to pay for the cruise!  My mother is 86........do I think SHE should be going........well it is up to her.

 

IMO as airlines and other cruise lines start to offer OPTIONS, any carrier that does not do that will lose MY business, as well as that of others.  Personal for all of us, and NOONE deserves to be judged.

Respectfully - the point of any insurance - you pay your premiums and hope that you never need to make a claim! so self-insurance should take that into account.

 

Having said that, even having the insurance may not help in times like this. E.g. even if Regent offers FCC for next cruises - this is not an "event" defined for most insurance policies. As such, one (like us) needs to weigh in the cost of air travel (it is very expensive to travel to Europe from NZ). If people go for FCC in most cases (unless the policy is CFAR which usually has a $$ limit too ), other "bits" of travel may not be covered.

[Pcardad]

For what its worth...Cancel for any Reason can be used - just don't name the reason. It can be purchased up until the date the final payment is made through Allianz (and possibly others) and it covers (I think) 80%. Don't quote me (I don't work for them nor am I trying to sell it to you) but if it helps anyone then good news.

 

Best of luck and, as my grandmother used to say, "I would spend everything for one more day of being with my family". Smart lady...I wish I was more like her.

[BarbarianPaul]

4 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

I did not think that I was criticizing Viking's change in policy - sorry if it came across that way.  I did (do) feel that posting what other cruise lines are doing is interesting but not relevant to what Regent is doing.  As Pcardad just posted, Viking is "basically owned/controlled by a single fellow" (somewhat like Regent and Silversea  used to be). I remember when Regent was family-owned and, while they did a lot for their passengers, they let their ships fall into disrepair (some will argue this point but some of the soft items on Radisson/Regent were threadbare - carpets that were stained and were not replaced for way too long.  Silversea's failings under private ownership is legendary and off-topic so I won't even go there.  

 

Paul - I would be happy to debate your post on an appropriate thread.  IMHO, this is not the place.   There are also threads that can be searched comparing Regent and Viking in terms of what they offer and whether or not Viking is a luxury or premium-plus cruise line.  Sorry to have to disagree with you since we have agreed so often in the past!

 

Pcardad - agree that we need to look at what is really important "life, love and family".

Jackie...

 

I didn’t really intend to compare Viking vs. Regent (though still happy to debate!) in a general sense, only in the way both lines have so far dealt with this particular challenge. And of course it’s relevant on this thread, because if you’re going to have a discussion on what Regent is doing, what they’re not doing has to be part of it as well. And, parse it as you may, Regent’s response is, alas, inferior to Viking’s. 
 

Arguably, Regent is the gold standard of cruising. I’d expect their strategy in this to represent the gold standard as well. 

[Kiwifromkiev]

4 minutes ago, Pcardad said:

For what its worth...Cancel for any Reason can be used - just don't name the reason. It can be purchased up until the date the final payment is made through Allianz (and possibly others) and it covers (I think) 80%. Don't quote me (I don't work for them nor am I trying to sell it to you) but if it helps anyone then good news.

 

Best of luck and, as my grandmother used to say, "I would spend everything for one more day of being with my family". Smart lady...I wish I was more like her.

I can only comment for what I see in NZ, however as part of my work, I do see a lot of international Insurance policies (albeit predominantly business related, not travel). It is common that after a particular event this event is no longer covered unless the policy have been purchased prior to the event.

[Pcardad]

If you do not state the reason (and you are not required to) the policy remains in effect. Cancel for any Reason does not require a reason or, if it does, simply saying that you do not want to travel is sufficient. This info is based on a telephone call with Allianz yesterday. Your experience may differ...I am not an expert...just sharing my personal experience.

[greykitty]

To the posters noting that Viking has earned so many plaudits for their actions, I agree.  I mentioned earlier my neighbor had received the Viking letter.  He's a retired captain for one of the US major air carriers and they have quite an alumni network.  One person tells another and so on....

 

For those of a certain age, you may recall the Chicago Tylenol tragedy.  Johnson & Johnson's  handling of the event became the gold standard of how to deal with a business crisis - because they did the right thing, not the cheap, immediate savings, option.  Became a case study for years after, and no doubt kept J&J viable in the immediate aftermath of an incident that could have driven them out of  business, if handled badly.  More than that, their actions made J&J a hero to many frightened consumers at that time. 

 

My pilot friend and I were thinking there are some similarities, and that Viking comes out just looking so good.

[Kiwifromkiev]

10 minutes ago, Pcardad said:

If you do not state the reason (and you are not required to) the policy remains in effect. Cancel for any Reason does not require a reason or, if it does, simply saying that you do not want to travel is sufficient. This info is based on a telephone call with Allianz yesterday. Your experience may differ...I am not an expert...just sharing my personal experience.

I understand and appreciate your comments (even if there is a difference between the countries). Presumably, this only works if you already have a policy in place? I can't see insurance willingly increasing policies right now? 

[Pcardad]

You can buy this policy anytime before you make your final payment. But please verify for yourself...I am just trying to help people with a possible option. 

[BarbarianPaul]

1 hour ago, greykitty said:

To the posters noting that Viking has earned so many plaudits for their actions, I agree.  I mentioned earlier my neighbor had received the Viking letter.  He's a retired captain for one of the US major air carriers and they have quite an alumni network.  One person tells another and so on....

 

For those of a certain age, you may recall the Chicago Tylenol tragedy.  Johnson & Johnson's  handling of the event became the gold standard of how to deal with a business crisis - because they did the right thing, not the cheap, immediate savings, option.  Became a case study for years after, and no doubt kept J&J viable in the immediate aftermath of an incident that could have driven them out of  business, if handled badly.  More than that, their actions made J&J a hero to many frightened consumers at that time. 

 

My pilot friend and I were thinking there are some similarities, and that Viking comes out just looking so good.

You’re right. I’m sure this was a hard, and certainly expensive, call to make. It took some courage I think. As well as heart and backbone.

[Travelcat2]

6 hours ago, lesliebe said:

When we opted to 'self insure' it was months before this situation...who ever heard of quarantine, skipping ports and possible cancellations ONCE YOU WERE ON BOAT.  How do we get our input to Regent?  I would like to do that.

 

Some of Regent's passangers are on the younger side of the demographics.....they have jobs to go back to in order to pay for the cruise!  My mother is 86........do I think SHE should be going........well it is up to her.

 

IMO as airlines and other cruise lines start to offer OPTIONS, any carrier that does not do that will lose MY business, as well as that of others.  Personal for all of us, and NOONE deserves to be judged.

 

I doubt if there is anything that you can say to Regent about their "SHIPS" that they do not already know.  For years I have advised people that really want to visit a specific port to not cruise as there are so many reasons that the port(s) can be cancelled.  IF you were on a Regent "SHIP", and it was determined that the balance of the cruise should be cancelled, IF you brooked Regent Air, they will rebook all of your flights, even put you up in a hotel if necessary.  They would get you home, and you would receive a partial refund.  

 

In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason why your mother should not be going on a cruise (depending upon the itinerary). However, since you self-insured, you likely were aware that there are risks to doing so.  

 

Regent is offering options for cruises that the WHO deems to be at risk (i.e. China, Hong Kong, Iran, parts of Italy, etc.).  No one is judging you.  Those of us that have sailed Regent for years are simply trying to let you know how Regent will take care of their passengers, to the best of their ability.

[Travelcat2]

5 minutes ago, BarbarianPaul said:

You’re right. I’m sure this was a hard, and certainly expensive, call to make. It took some courage I think. As well as heart and backbone.

 

I am not putting down what Viking is doing.  However, they are not refunding cruises (in addition to FCC's) the way that Regent is.  They are giving a FCC.  While, on the surface, there is nothing wrong with that, some people may not want to cruise on any cruise line given what they saw on the Diamond Princess.

[Travelcat2]

Was just reading a Regent Facebook change from a person that sails both Regent and Viking Ocean.  They brought up a really good point that I forgot about:

 

"We are customers of both and Viking’s final payment policy is the most ridiculously onerous one we have ever encountered....we are on a Viking cruise in September 2021 for which we had to make the final payment in December 2019. Yep, ALL monies due 20 months before the cruise. By comparison, Regent’s final payments are due 90-120 days before a cruise. Viking’s final payment policy undoubtedly created a situation for Viking where NO ONE in their right mind would book a cruise with them in the next year and a half unless their cancellation policy was relaxed. Regent’s final payment/cancellation timelines and policies are far less onerous than Viking’s and that may be why they have not made any changes at this point.

This is not an argument as to whether Viking is right and Regent is wrong or vice versa. Rather, it’s just info that I think may be driving marketing decisions these companies are making in this environment.

[BarbarianPaul]

11 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

I am not putting down what Viking is doing.  However, they are not refunding cruises (in addition to FCC's) the way that Regent is.  They are giving a FCC.  While, on the surface, there is nothing wrong with that, some people may not want to cruise on any cruise line given what they saw on the Diamond Princess.

I know it’s hard to admit, but Viking’s reaction truly deserves nothing but plaudits, not nitpicking.