Couple left at the dock in Papeete - PG leaves early

[cruiseluv]

I still don't understand why Regent would post a 2 AM departure date and then decide to leave at 10 PM.

 

It doesn't seem smart to me that they ( Regent)start making assumptions about passenger's behaviors regarding boarding time. If the passengers' boarding documents say the ships's departure is at 2AM there is nothing "strange" IMO if they decide to show up at 10PM ( 4 hours prior).

[Iamboatman]

I just returned from a cruise and saw this thread. As a very independent traveler, it is very disconcerting that such a thing could happen (assuming it did). I tend to make the most of my pre-cruise either by arriving days early or heading out on a tour or exploration with my luggage in tow. Other times I check in and then walk off the ship for a while.

 

What could have the rush possibly been anyway? Who was the captain making that call?

 

If it happened, I would gain great comfort in RSSC responding with something along the lines of "Boy, we blew this one. It will never happen again."

 

(Whatever they work out with the abused guests is another thing.)

[chick geek]

Boatman, that's exactly what I was just going to post. I'm sure Regent apologized to the couple, but what I wanted to hear was that they would never leave earlier than posted departure time. Real simple.

[chick geek]

And Canadagal - you're right. Who cares what the PAX were doing prior to departure time, that is irrelevant.

[canadagal]

Boatman, that's exactly what I was just going to post. I'm sure Regent apologized to the couple, but what I wanted to hear was that they would never leave earlier than posted departure time. Real simple.

 

Bingo! That's exactly what I would liked to have heard too......so we are all still left wondering if it will ever happen again. What does it matter if it happened 18 months ago or yesterday. People are looking for some sort of assurance that the ship will not leave hours before the posted departure time but none was forthcoming. Doesn't leave one with a good feeling!

 

Dreps, thanks for copying the reply from the other site.

 

Pat

[AtA]

I just returned from a cruise and saw this thread. As a very independent traveler, it is very disconcerting that such a thing could happen (assuming it did). I tend to make the most of my pre-cruise either by arriving days early or heading out on a tour or exploration with my luggage in tow. Other times I check in and then walk off the ship for a while.

 

What could have the rush possibly been anyway? Who was the captain making that call?

 

If it happened, I would gain great comfort in RSSC responding with something along the lines of "Boy, we blew this one. It will never happen again."

 

(Whatever they work out with the abused guests is another thing.)

why don't you folks read what dreps posted instead of still berating PG. They definitely blew it big time when it happened, but as the letter states they did apologize. and this incident happened in: NOVEMBER 2005

[AtA]

PS: I'm sure that Regent after that incident won't be leaving early again!

[canadagal]

Again, what difference does it make if it happened November 2005? I think we read Drep's copy correctly. The explanation from Mr. Poulton offered no assurances that steps had been taken to see that it doesn't happen again. Yes, they did blow it big time but those were all our words......not Regent's. The words they used were, error and assumption which looks like a fluff off. All people on this board and the other one were looking for was a statement giving an assurance that it wouldn't happen again.

It is not normal procedure to put in peoples flight itinerary if they are doing their own air travel so yes I do hope that Regent is more careful in the future and doesn't leave hours before the posted departure time but it would have gone a long way in the good PR department if someone would have issued a statement saying that.

Pat

[Goofyisme]

and this incident happened in: NOVEMBER 2005

 

And RSSC's reply in no way makes me comfortable that it won't happen again tomorrow. There is still no rational explanation for why the ship departed several hours early when not all booked passengers had arrived. They certainly don't have to wait beyond scheduled departure time, but unless all passengers have boarded they have no moral right to leave early.

 

Not a good thread to see as I start considering a PG cruise next year.

[Iamboatman]

Why am I being shot at???????????????

 

Your TA "just received" the response regarding that incident. I read the "just received" letter and it seemed to place some blame on the passenger. I left that alone, but now I will address that...since the shot was fired across MY bow.

 

What business is it of Regent what I do before I set foot on their ship? If they need me to check in by X and then be on board by Y, then say so. But don't even marginally suggest that Regent's failure to provide such advice is my fault or at my risk.

 

Now how about that assurance it won't happen again...which was absent from the "just received" letter that tries to excuse the inexcusable?

[bennett2005]

A whole lot of jibber jabber about ancient history.

[Iamboatman]

A whole lot of jibber jabber about ancient history.

 

One who knows history learns from its errors. One who ignores history is damned to repeat them.

[Dreps]

I agree that the fact it happened 18 months ago isn't important in and of itself EXCEPT that we can be pretty sure it hasn't happened since that time, and I think it is unlikely that it will happen again. This once incident wouldn't keep me from booking Regent cruises, given the very positive experiences I've had on the ones I've taken.

[Iamboatman]

I agree that the fact it happened 18 months ago isn't important in and of itself EXCEPT that we can be pretty sure it hasn't happened since that time, and I think it is unlikely that it will happen again. This once incident wouldn't keep me from booking Regent cruises, given the very positive experiences I've had on the ones I've taken.

 

I would agree with that. There are always some issue or problem, but this one is pretty much unheard of. My concern is that guest services didn't to a mea culpa, but tried to say "We really weren't totally at fault."

 

The answer for all who read this board is, at worst, check-in and then venture out or let the port agent or Regent know of your plans. It isn't a perfect solution, but better than, shall we say, being left standing at the dock.

[jtl513]

The letter in post #25 states:

typically we would not expect them to arrive that late at night, several hours after the main embarkation had taken place.

 

(Andrew Poulton, Director of Public Relations for Regent Seven Seas)

so what time were the pax supposed to be on board? When was the lifeboat muster? When a ship is sailing at 2:30AM I wouldn't expect a muster at 1:45am and on on-board time of 1:30am. :confused:

[A J Theodore]

There is another disturbing dimension to this.

RSSC has consistently stated in its travel brochures and has its in-house reservations staff state to callers that an itinerary will be changed only for reasons of weather or circumstances beyond its control. In neither the original article nor in the subsequent statement from RSSC is there any mention of any such justification for the change in the sailing (and this is certainly not the first or only instance in which RSSC has changed an itinerary or schedule without apparent justification).

Why does RSSC think that this couple is not entitled to rely on the published schedule and rely on this representation?

[chick geek]

Just recd this email from Regent:

 

 

"The incident referred to in the Washington Post and online in your chat boards did in fact happen, although the article looks like it was written back in November of 2005 when it all occurred. After the incident, the guests received many apologies from Regent, as well as reimbursement for all out-of-pocket expenses, joining with the ship the next day, and additional compensation offers.

This certainly is a very rare occurrence, and steps for the ship to follow are in place to ensure this does not happen again. We do take responsibility for the mistake, and do not blame the guests.

There is no good excuse for what happened except that an incorrect assumption was made. The ship was scheduled to leave at 2:30 a.m. because of a late night flight from New York that arrives quite late. On that occasion, that flight was cancelled, and a decision was made to leave the pier. It was assumed these guests were on that flight and that was why they were not on the ship at 10:00 p.m. with the rest of the guests. As stated, it was an incorrect assumption that we have admitted to, and there is a specific protocol now for our crew to follow.

If guests are arriving at an unusual hour to the ship because of their independently-arranged flight or tour schedule (in this case the guests arrived at the pier after 10 p.m.), it can be a good idea to let Regent know. This is often done either through guests' travel professionals or by calling our Reservations Center if guests are booked directly through Regent.

We do hope this clarifies the situation to you. Rest assured that all steps are being made to ensure guests will enjoy a grand voyage on all of our ships. We look forward to seeing you aboard Paul Gauguin in the summer—it will truly be a trip you will never forget.

Warm Regards,

Regent"

[Iamboatman]

Perfect!

 

The End.:)

[Pincus]

Just recd this email from Regent:

 

 

"The incident referred to in the Washington Post and online in your chat boards did in fact happen, although the article looks like it was written back in November of 2005 when it all occurred. After the incident, the guests received many apologies from Regent, as well as reimbursement for all out-of-pocket expenses, joining with the ship the next day, and additional compensation offers.

This certainly is a very rare occurrence, and steps for the ship to follow are in place to ensure this does not happen again. We do take responsibility for the mistake, and do not blame the guests.

There is no good excuse for what happened except that an incorrect assumption was made. The ship was scheduled to leave at 2:30 a.m. because of a late night flight from New York that arrives quite late. On that occasion, that flight was cancelled, and a decision was made to leave the pier. It was assumed these guests were on that flight and that was why they were not on the ship at 10:00 p.m. with the rest of the guests. As stated, it was an incorrect assumption that we have admitted to, and there is a specific protocol now for our crew to follow.

If guests are arriving at an unusual hour to the ship because of their independently-arranged flight or tour schedule (in this case the guests arrived at the pier after 10 p.m.), it can be a good idea to let Regent know. This is often done either through guests' travel professionals or by calling our Reservations Center if guests are booked directly through Regent.

We do hope this clarifies the situation to you. Rest assured that all steps are being made to ensure guests will enjoy a grand voyage on all of our ships. We look forward to seeing you aboard Paul Gauguin in the summer—it will truly be a trip you will never forget.

Warm Regards,

Regent"

 

 

Asked and answered! Thanks, Regent, for responding to this query.

 

Looking forward to being on one of your ships soon.

 

Pincus

[canadagal]

Bravo! That's the Regent I know and thanks for posting the reply so quickly Chic Geek. The only thing that bothers me is that it was not signed by anyone........and only says Regent. That is really strange.

 

Pat

[A J Theodore]

The following is a copy of a letter sent to Regent requesting further clarification of policies to avoid unfortunate situations like this in the future. I will post any response received:

 

This is to request a little information about the situation of the passengers who missed the Paul Gauguin in Tahiti late in 2005 when the ship sailed sevral hours earlier than scheduled. This was the subject of an article in the Washington Post of this past Sunday, April 8, and has been the subject of many posts on cruise-related message boards. Regent has provided letters to several posters on those boards explaining some of what happened and providing assurances of operational policies to attempt to avoid this in the future.

At this point however - and recognizing that Regent has forthrightly indicated that it was a mistake to have sailed early - Regent has not stated the reason why the ship sailed early or the policies that it has put in place to ensure that such an incident does not happen again.

First, Regent's consistent advertising is that its ships will change itinerary only for reasons of weather or other circumstances beyond Regent's control. If so, what were the weather conditions or other circumstances beyond Regent's control that caused the early sailing? If there was neither a "weather" nor "other circumstance" compelling the early sailing why did this happen and on what basis did Regent elect to act counter to the the published representations of this policy?

Second, in light of that policy, why is there any need for any new policies and procedures? Your advertising and cruise documents clearly indicate the date and time of sailing and the time of boarding. Why shouldn't your passengers be entitled to rely on those documents?

Third, what is being done to ensure that RSSC ships adhere to their published schedules except in cases of weather or other circumstances beyond your control? What will be done to ensure that future passengers do not get "left at the dock?"

Thank you very much for your prompt response to these concerns.

Sincerely,

A J Theodore

[canadagal]

A J Theodore: I will be curious to see if your reply is actually signed by someone and lists their title or reply contact. The other email received by Chic Geek is just signed Regent......which in itself is very unprofessional and opens up other speculation as to why no one signed it.

Pat

[KLG]

Yesterday the Washington Post printed a clarification in its COGO column saying that when they reported this incident the previous week, they should have noted that it took place in November 2005. (I agree.)

 

Karen

[cinder10]

Annie I like your style!!! You have a postive attitude, whatever happened, happened....and belive me I have been on the pG twice, hard to imagine this...but things do happen....RSSC in my opinion does whatever they can, I will be very interested in the answer here.

[chick geek]

cinder10 - This had nothing to do with positive attitude or whatever happened happened or RSSC does whatever they can. No carrier should leave before posted departure time for all the reasons stated prior. The answer you are waiting for was already given as I copied the email I recd from Regent in the post before. I feel along with others that it was an appropriate response and like most others on this board, will continue to enjoy Regent cruises. Please do not mix up customer attitude with appropriate Regent policy that should have been reaffirmed - which it finally was.