New Zealand Explorer cruise perspective

[papaflamingo]

14 hours ago, Lonedaddy said:

Wow, this is pitiful come sail with us on cruises that aren't selling as compensation for our mistake.  I wonder what marketing genius thought this up.

 

Seems to be a pretty good variety of choices.  But what would you rather they do?  Offer you cruises that are sold out?  How would that work? 

I can see your post now "this is pitiful, come sail with us on cruises that are fully booked and have no cabins available." 😏

[Lonedaddy]

11 hours ago, papaflamingo said:

Seems to be a pretty good variety of choices.  But what would you rather they do?  Offer you cruises that are sold out?  How would that work? 

I can see your post now "this is pitiful, come sail with us on cruises that are fully booked and have no cabins available." 😏

Point is they should have offered more in FCC on any cruise with a longer time horizon.  As others have said you that is a short planning horizon.  

[Pcardad]

Typically, FCC need to be used on a booking made in 12 months and sailed within 24 months....is that not the case here?

 

[papaflamingo]

12 hours ago, Lonedaddy said:

Point is they should have offered more in FCC on any cruise with a longer time horizon.  As others have said you that is a short planning horizon.  

Just to be sure I fully understand, they gave a 60% refund of the cruise cost  for missing 4 out of 9 ports, PLUS 50% of another cruise on the list and you don't think that's enough?   What do you think ANY other cruise line would offer?  

If missing ports puts you into a position that you demand huge refunds, you should probably not cruise.  Ships miss ports all the time for a variety of reasons.  Their contract is specific so all offerings are over and above their contractual responsibilities.  

You used the air fare and travelled round trip, right? 

You spend the entire scheduled cruise on board using fuel, food, drink, and other luxury amenities, right?

You made over 50% of your ports, right? 

You are aware that contractually they owe you nothing, right?

So how much SHOULD you get?  

[pingpong1]

4 hours ago, papaflamingo said:

If missing ports puts you into a position that you demand huge refunds, you should probably not cruise.  Ships miss ports all the time for a variety of reasons.  Their contract is specific so all offerings are over and above their contractual responsibilities.  

"Papa" - I can actually "see" (and agree) with both sides of this discussion.

 

I know what the contract says and comes with the implicit/actual caveat of "conditions beyond Regent's control".  I think what "Lonedaddy" (and others) might be saying here is that (they - the affected passengers feel) that the missed ports and substantially changed cruise itinerary was not brought about by conditions or circumstances "beyond Regent's control".

 

They see to think and say that Regent (either purposely or inadvertently) did not meet the (foreseeable/published/promulgated) hull cleaning requirements/regime that was imposed by New Zealand's government.  And if I understand things correctly, this impacted more than just one Regent itinerary.  So "their belief" is that if the major cause of the disruption was primarily caused by Regent's own "non-compliance" with specific, published, and previously known New Zealand environmental requirements (and not just a random storm or an unexpected mechanical failure), then Regent might owe the affected passengers a bit more than what they're currently offering.

 

I'm in no position myself to judge whether Regent's offer was "enough/adequate/over-the-top/or subject to some future legal adjudication".  But Regent's future business is completely dependent on public relations and having a large enough following of "returning" and future customers.  I guess Regent will have to judge what the cost/benefits will be to the proper way of "handling" this.  It seems that at least for now, they've made that decision.  Best Regards.

[pappy1022]

Well said pingpong. This issue was totally controllable by Regent. All they had to do was comply with the laws in place. They didn’t, yet some will defend Regent no matter what the issue or circumstances. This would be a once in a lifetime cruise for me. I am not familiar with this itinerary to judge the value of each port or day at sea but I sense that the ports and/or activities missed may have been the major one’s for some passengers.  

[Lonedaddy]

15 hours ago, papaflamingo said:

Just to be sure I fully understand, they gave a 60% refund of the cruise cost  for missing 4 out of 9 ports, PLUS 50% of another cruise on the list and you don't think that's enough?   What do you think ANY other cruise line would offer?  

If missing ports puts you into a position that you demand huge refunds, you should probably not cruise.  Ships miss ports all the time for a variety of reasons.  Their contract is specific so all offerings are over and above their contractual responsibilities.  

You used the air fare and travelled round trip, right? 

You spend the entire scheduled cruise on board using fuel, food, drink, and other luxury amenities, right?

You made over 50% of your ports, right? 

You are aware that contractually they owe you nothing, right?

So how much SHOULD you get?  

1) You were not in our shoes so you cannot comprehend all the intangible items that caused dissatisfaction

2) As Pingping eloquently stated, much was in regents' control

3) Regent assured people prior to boarding that everything was taken care of!  It wasn't and then the communication was horrible on what was happening.  So not exactly a relaxing cruise, especially having to go to destination services and stand in long lines to sort out the shore excursions.

4) Air was a big cost in the equation $7000pp

5) get your facts straight we missed Bay of islands Napier, Tasmania Geelong(great ocean road) and the Fjords (all are arguably some of the highlights of this cruise.  Malborne arrival was late so not a bust but not as planned either and some shore-ex like the one we were on were cancelled because the ship was a day late.  So more like 5 1/2 out of 9 ports and if you factor in the wow factor and weighted them it would be higher. 

6) Regent set a precedent on the last cruise refunding the total amount

And contractually they may owe nothing, but if you ever studied marketing once you lose a customer it costs X times more to replace them or get them back.   The refund is a cost of bad business decisions.

 

I have more currently on the books and trying a couple others - If they are as enjoyable, I may just cancel my regent ones and use the other lines, jury is still out on that one.  

[papaflamingo]

18 hours ago, pingpong1 said:

"Papa" - I can actually "see" (and agree) with both sides of this discussion.

 

I know what the contract says and comes with the implicit/actual caveat of "conditions beyond Regent's control".  I think what "Lonedaddy" (and others) might be saying here is that (they - the affected passengers feel) that the missed ports and substantially changed cruise itinerary was not brought about by conditions or circumstances "beyond Regent's control".

 

They see to think and say that Regent (either purposely or inadvertently) did not meet the (foreseeable/published/promulgated) hull cleaning requirements/regime that was imposed by New Zealand's government.  And if I understand things correctly, this impacted more than just one Regent itinerary.  So "their belief" is that if the major cause of the disruption was primarily caused by Regent's own "non-compliance" with specific, published, and previously known New Zealand environmental requirements (and not just a random storm or an unexpected mechanical failure), then Regent might owe the affected passengers a bit more than what they're currently offering.

 

I'm in no position myself to judge whether Regent's offer was "enough/adequate/over-the-top/or subject to some future legal adjudication".  But Regent's future business is completely dependent on public relations and having a large enough following of "returning" and future customers.  I guess Regent will have to judge what the cost/benefits will be to the proper way of "handling" this.  It seems that at least for now, they've made that decision.  Best Regards.

I guess I'm just tired of absurd conspiracy theories for everything that happens in the world.  The idea that Regent purposefully ignored NZ laws and acted in total bad faith to what.... grab some money... is ridiculous.  I'm not defending Regent, and personally I hope all the conspiracy theorists do leave for another company.  That way there'll be more cruises for me to book and likely better deals.  I'm not trying to talk anyone into sailing on Regent.  And truly couldn't care less who sails them.  What I don't want is the constant spreading false conspiracies without any evidence.   

I tend to believe what I see.  Regent DID clean the hulls on the first cruise. That's why it didn't do anything other than wander aimlessly at sea.  They had to hire a hull cleaning service that could do the cleaning at sea.  There was no dry dock in that part of the world available.  The company was advertised as approved by NZ which is why it took so many days until they could even get the hull cleaned.  I don't know for sure, but I imagine that they were certified as clean when they docked in Aukland.  Likely the NZ govt came out upon docking in Auckland and inspected the hull and found it insufficient, so they couldn't hit the highly sensitive ports.  Consistent with that, why would Regent pay what is likely a heavy cleaning fee knowing full well it won't help?  Why would Regent lie and risk pissing off nearly 2000 passengers?  They fully refunded the first cruise PLUS gave FCC, PLUS kept them on the ship using fuel, food, alcohol, etc. which is the majority of their cost of a cruise.  Why would they lose so much money when they simply could have pulled into Australia and disembarked everyone and tied up to a dock?  Nope, the conspiracies of purposeful lies doesn't seem to have any purpose or reason, so sorry, I don't buy it.  

As to a fair refund?  Well, we booked a cruise last summer specifically to see Greenland and Iceland.  Greenland was a no go for weather.  Since that was half the reason we booked it, do I get a 50% refund plus FCC?  Nope.  I got to see an extra Canadian port and and extra Icelandic port.  It was a great cruise even with the disappointment.  

Anyway, I do hope all the angry customers flee.  I would like the opportunity to book future cruises at a reduce rate to fill them up.  That actually works for me.  

[Lonedaddy]

55 minutes ago, papaflamingo said:

I guess I'm just tired of absurd conspiracy theories for everything that happens in the world.  The idea that Regent purposefully ignored NZ laws and acted in total bad faith to what.... grab some money... is ridiculous.  I'm not defending Regent, and personally I hope all the conspiracy theorists do leave for another company.  That way there'll be more cruises for me to book and likely better deals.  I'm not trying to talk anyone into sailing on Regent.  And truly couldn't care less who sails them.  What I don't want is the constant spreading false conspiracies without any evidence.   

I tend to believe what I see.  Regent DID clean the hulls on the first cruise. That's why it didn't do anything other than wander aimlessly at sea.  They had to hire a hull cleaning service that could do the cleaning at sea.  There was no dry dock in that part of the world available.  The company was advertised as approved by NZ which is why it took so many days until they could even get the hull cleaned.  I don't know for sure, but I imagine that they were certified as clean when they docked in Aukland.  Likely the NZ govt came out upon docking in Auckland and inspected the hull and found it insufficient, so they couldn't hit the highly sensitive ports.  Consistent with that, why would Regent pay what is likely a heavy cleaning fee knowing full well it won't help?  Why would Regent lie and risk pissing off nearly 2000 passengers?  They fully refunded the first cruise PLUS gave FCC, PLUS kept them on the ship using fuel, food, alcohol, etc. which is the majority of their cost of a cruise.  Why would they lose so much money when they simply could have pulled into Australia and disembarked everyone and tied up to a dock?  Nope, the conspiracies of purposeful lies doesn't seem to have any purpose or reason, so sorry, I don't buy it.  

As to a fair refund?  Well, we booked a cruise last summer specifically to see Greenland and Iceland.  Greenland was a no go for weather.  Since that was half the reason we booked it, do I get a 50% refund plus FCC?  Nope.  I got to see an extra Canadian port and and extra Icelandic port.  It was a great cruise even with the disappointment.  

Anyway, I do hope all the angry customers flee.  I would like the opportunity to book future cruises at a reduce rate to fill them up.  That actually works for me.  

Bingo for weather enough said and you didn’t travel 16 hrs to get there either enough said you are comparing apples to oranges.  And ***** are you talking about conspiracy theory’s I don’t think any one mentioned that nor that regent purposefully  deceived they just screwed up.and I doubt they will drop prices for you, if it goes that far they will be out of business.

[pappy1022]

The facts are pretty clear, Regent failed the inspection. Do I think they didn’t take action to clean the hull on purpose, no, so drop the conspiracy theory. That’s a defense people use when they have no other logical argument. You weren’t there and I wasn’t either. It’s Ok for a passenger to have a complaint about something Regent did or didn’t do well. Your example about missing ports for weather is not even a valid argument in this case. Weather is something Regent can’t control. Having a hull that passes inspection IS something they do control. Terms you used like “I imagine” and “I don’t know for sure” tells me that you don’t have the facts. Only 1 fact matters, they didn’t pass inspection and it was their responsibility to do so. 

[pappy1022]

None of the quoted examples reflect conspiracy. Should Regent have known the rules, yes. Did they fail to pass inspection, yes. Was it under their control, yes. Was it their responsibility, yes. I am not in position to comment what the compensation should be. I do take exception to the comment about telling fellow cruisers on Regent to go cruise with some other cruise line if we don’t agree with Regent’s actions and stance on resolving this issue. 

[papaflamingo]

22 hours ago, pappy1022 said:

None of the quoted examples reflect conspiracy. Should Regent have known the rules, yes. Did they fail to pass inspection, yes. Was it under their control, yes. Was it their responsibility, yes. I am not in position to comment what the compensation should be. I do take exception to the comment about telling fellow cruisers on Regent to go cruise with some other cruise line if we don’t agree with Regent’s actions and stance on resolving this issue. 

Ok...whatever. 

Edited February 20, 2023 by papaflamingo

[pappy1022]

I didn’t say that Regent didn’t try. They did try. Whatever they did, didn’t work. That doesn’t relieve them from their responsibility. I certainly don’t look to chat boards to make me happy. Life is too short and too precious to find happiness in these insane debates. I’m done with this topic and won’t add any more comments. You are welcome to the last word since that seems to be important to you.

[papaflamingo]

4 minutes ago, pappy1022 said:

 Life is too short and too precious to find happiness in these insane debates.

Agree...  so I'll extend an olive branch.  Sorry this got heated.  We all have our opinions and that often gets in the way.  So I apologize for my part in the "insanity."  Hope to meet one day on a cruise and have a toast to happy cruising.  🍹😎

[pappy1022]

OK papa, we are good. I take responsibility for my part in this heated debate and apologize for my part in stirring the pot. I do have a pet peeve about people on this board who will defend Regent no matter what the situation is and no matter what another cruiser experienced that wasn’t up to expectations for a luxury cruise line like Regent. I gotta get better at controlling my thoughts and reactions when that happens. As you said, we all have opinions and we won’t always agree. If we always agreed the world would be boring. But there is a right way to disagree and we shouldn’t look to our politicians for advice on how to handle disagreement. 😀

[phillipahain]

On 1/31/2023 at 4:39 AM, Lonedaddy said:

FORGOT another missed port Tasmania - We lost ocean road (geelong), Tasmania, bay of islands, Napier and the sounds,  All some of the most scenic ports.  And total agree Gisborne and Timaru were a joke!  I am very angry about tasmania and geelong.    

Sympathise and agree Gisborne and Timaru are a joke .and missing what you did is gut wrenching ...similar issues on Seabourne Grand Pacific 65 day cruise ...so many excursions cancelled at last minute that were booked at start using OBC that could not be refunded ..,Seabourn attitude though is Dismissive and " you spent the OBC in the shop " which of course was on the very last day rather than loose it completely ..Seabourn ignored all contact and discussion on the issues ....so to Regents credit they have done something however when like us you cant redo the cruise it matters hugely ....it does seem theres been a lot of issues in NZ and Aus etc this year with cruises 

Edited February 21, 2023 by phillipahain
Info

[Csboughn]

On 2/18/2023 at 8:58 AM, papaflamingo said:

I guess I'm just tired of absurd conspiracy theories for everything that happens in the world.  The idea that Regent purposefully ignored NZ laws and acted in total bad faith to what.... grab some money... is ridiculous.  I'm not defending Regent, and personally I hope all the conspiracy theorists do leave for another company.  That way there'll be more cruises for me to book and likely better deals.  I'm not trying to talk anyone into sailing on Regent.  And truly couldn't care less who sails them.  What I don't want is the constant spreading false conspiracies without any evidence.   

I tend to believe what I see.  Regent DID clean the hulls on the first cruise. That's why it didn't do anything other than wander aimlessly at sea.  They had to hire a hull cleaning service that could do the cleaning at sea.  There was no dry dock in that part of the world available.  The company was advertised as approved by NZ which is why it took so many days until they could even get the hull cleaned.  I don't know for sure, but I imagine that they were certified as clean when they docked in Aukland.  Likely the NZ govt came out upon docking in Auckland and inspected the hull and found it insufficient, so they couldn't hit the highly sensitive ports.  Consistent with that, why would Regent pay what is likely a heavy cleaning fee knowing full well it won't help?  Why would Regent lie and risk pissing off nearly 2000 passengers?  They fully refunded the first cruise PLUS gave FCC, PLUS kept them on the ship using fuel, food, alcohol, etc. which is the majority of their cost of a cruise.  Why would they lose so much money when they simply could have pulled into Australia and disembarked everyone and tied up to a dock?  Nope, the conspiracies of purposeful lies doesn't seem to have any purpose or reason, so sorry, I don't buy it.  

As to a fair refund?  Well, we booked a cruise last summer specifically to see Greenland and Iceland.  Greenland was a no go for weather.  Since that was half the reason we booked it, do I get a 50% refund plus FCC?  Nope.  I got to see an extra Canadian port and and extra Icelandic port.  It was a great cruise even with the disappointment.  

Anyway, I do hope all the angry customers flee.  I would like the opportunity to book future cruises at a reduce rate to fill them up.  That actually works for me.  

One big item your missing is there are NO approved/recommended/certified companies to perform in-water cleanings.  This is very clear on the NZ MPI website.  Regent knew this and tried, unsuccessfully, to comply.  Regent also knew prior to boarding passengers in Sydney, and again in Auckland of this and boarded anyway.  I was told before I left home that the hull would be Clean prior to my cruise (call was while ship was in Adelaide).  I was also told when I boarded that “the ship is 100% cleared.”  

[Lonedaddy]

On 2/23/2023 at 7:12 PM, Csboughn said:

One big item your missing is there are NO approved/recommended/certified companies to perform in-water cleanings.  This is very clear on the NZ MPI website.  Regent knew this and tried, unsuccessfully, to comply.  Regent also knew prior to boarding passengers in Sydney, and again in Auckland of this and boarded anyway.  I was told before I left home that the hull would be Clean prior to my cruise (call was while ship was in Adelaide).  I was also told when I boarded that “the ship is 100% cleared.”  

From what I am reading it appears the NZ govt. put in a program (like many governments do) without clear procedures for approval.  The fact that there are no approved companies is a big red flag and allow the cleaning management to be done by the vessel and then subject to some other inspection is doomed to failure.    In US states that require car inspections, it is done by an inspection station approved by the state government many of these are done by repair shops and dealers bring the car to the standards for inspection.  Why hasn't the Govt of NZ set that up with certified companies?  Seems like the NZ process is a prime ground for corruption.  

[Csboughn]

6 hours ago, Lonedaddy said:

From what I am reading it appears the NZ govt. put in a program (like many governments do) without clear procedures for approval.  The fact that there are no approved companies is a big red flag and allow the cleaning management to be done by the vessel and then subject to some other inspection is doomed to failure.    In US states that require car inspections, it is done by an inspection station approved by the state government many of these are done by repair shops and dealers bring the car to the standards for inspection.  Why hasn't the Govt of NZ set that up with certified companies?  Seems like the NZ process is a prime ground for corruption.  

I’ve read the NZ MPI website and it seems they have lots of advice and suggestions for how to comply. Issue is, once your hull is fouled, how do you come into compliance.  From what I read, the NZ government believes you’ve gotta haul it out of the water. Regent knew these requirements and thought they could become compliant with in water cleanings.  According to Explorers General Manager and confirmed by the Staff Captain, the knew they weren’t in compliance since the ship was in Phuket.  They actually tried in-water cleanings 7 times.  My issue is since Regent knew, why weren’t passengers informed before the boarded in Sydney and again in Auckland?  
 

from the NZ MPI website:  Currently, in-water cleaning of international vessels is not allowed in New Zealand. This means that there are no approved providers of in-water cleaning services for international vessels at this time.

 

 

[Pcardad]

1 hour ago, Csboughn said:

I’ve read the NZ MPI website and it seems they have lots of advice and suggestions for how to comply. Issue is, once your hull is fouled, how do you come into compliance.  From what I read, the NZ government believes you’ve gotta haul it out of the water. Regent knew these requirements and thought they could become compliant with in water cleanings.  According to Explorers General Manager and confirmed by the Staff Captain, the knew they weren’t in compliance since the ship was in Phuket.  They actually tried in-water cleanings 7 times.  My issue is since Regent knew, why weren’t passengers informed before the boarded in Sydney and again in Auckland?  
 

from the NZ MPI website:  Currently, in-water cleaning of international vessels is not allowed in New Zealand. This means that there are no approved providers of in-water cleaning services for international vessels at this time.

 

 

That means you cannot do a compliant cleaning in NZ waters, not that "...the NZ government believes you’ve gotta haul it out of the water." You can be compliant with in-waters cleanings - you just need to have it cleaned before entering NZ waters.

 

[Csboughn]

17 minutes ago, Pcardad said:

That means you cannot do a compliant cleaning in NZ waters, not that "...the NZ government believes you’ve gotta haul it out of the water." You can be compliant with in-waters cleanings - you just need to have it cleaned before entering NZ m

17 minutes ago, Pcardad said:

That means you cannot do a compliant cleaning in NZ waters, not that "...the NZ government believes you’ve gotta haul it out of the water." You can be compliant with in-waters cleanings - you just need to have it cleaned before entering NZ waters.

 

My point is there are no “approved” cleaners for in-water cleanings. Maybe you can find someone to do it elsewhere. Hell Regent tried 7 times to do it.  The only approved cleaners that NZ recognizes on its website, do out of water cleanings. 

[Lonedaddy]

Companies may need to keep their ships in that region year-round.  Might be a good use for navigator just sail NZ NOV-APR and then Northern Australia Indonesia and the pacific islands the rest of the year.  Smaller easier hull to clean also.  Larger companies with more ships might better be able to do this.

[irishwitchy]

It will be very interesting to see what happens next year with New Zealand and the cruise lines.  They won’t be able to say,  we didn’t know, thought it was all good,  New Zealand is picking on us, etc. 

[Csboughn]

5 hours ago, irishwitchy said:

It will be very interesting to see what happens next year with New Zealand and the cruise lines.  They won’t be able to say,  we didn’t know, thought it was all good,  New Zealand is picking on us, etc. 

I can’t believe they’re saying it now. Regulations have been in place since 2018. 

[Glauriebee]

Regent knew they were not in compliance when we boarded in Auckland. It is not the passengers fault or problem to solve. We were set adrift near Bay of Islands with ONE count it, one, cleaning boat and ONE diver in the water. Honestly, the Explorer is huge. And they had one boat and one diver/scrubber (there were two, but they went one at a time). The ship floated for days prior to our cruise. And sadly, for days during ours, too. Refueling needs brought us into one terrible port, which we left early, as soon as the tank was full. Regent knew we were heading back out for more cleaning.
This debacle is not our responsibility, but is their responsibility, both contractually and morally. A total refund, please, like the prior cruise received. We will then feel that the company shouldered their part. How would they even OFFER a cruise to New Zealand without fully understanding what their “Biofoul regulations” were. 
Other lines offer a “cruise to nowhere”. Now it seems, Regent does, too. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Glauriebee