On Voyager Now...Aft Cabin-VIBRATION!!!

[vrhiatt]

There have been lawsuits filed by hotels about negative comments on Trip Advisor. Rather than someone suing Regent, Regent could be doing the suing.

[cruiseluv]

What would be the basis of their lawsuit? That passengers have posted and warned other future passengers of vibration in their aft cabins? Interesting marketing strategy!

[Dolebludger]

I'm not too worried about being sued. I live in Oklahoma, and made the statement from Oklahoma, so that is where I would have to be sued. Here truth of a statement is an absolute defense.

[Dolebludger]

Seahorse:

 

Thank you. What readers here need to know (and check out if they wish) is that I am generally a Regent FAN! I certainly have no malice toward them. Most of my posts historically have read like Regent advertisments! Things like "If you can only take one cruise in you life, make it the Paul Gauguin." and "There is some vibration on the NAVIGATOR but it isn't all that bad and other positive things make up for it." No malice at all!

 

We who post here are "cruise enthusiasts" and we make up perhaps 5% of all who cruise. We communicate in cyberspace, so we know things the average cruiser does not. Every ship has some motion of some sort, and many will vibrate a bit is some areas at some limited times. We all have to accept that, and I do. But some of the Horizon and Seven Seas suites on my Voyager cruise were like riding a "mechanical bull" at a cowboy bar! And that is way over the line of reasonableness. What we have here is akin to the situation where a new car dealer sells a buyer a new car with only 10 miles on it, but "neglects" to tell the buyer that the car had been seriously wrecked in the dealer's lot, and extensively repaired. That is what we here call "constructive fraud". Although the car "may" be just fine for the next 30 years, it also may not, and the dealer knows this. So the dealer has a legal duty to warn the buyer about this before the sale.

 

Regent is in the exact position of that new car dealer. And depending on cruise boards and TA's who are in the know about this just doesn't cut it. Because the majority of potential cruisers are not informed about the situation. And it is Regent that has the duty of doing the informing.

[wripro]

Dolebludger,

 

I believe you are one hundred percent correct in stating that Regent should make people aware of this defect in their ship. That's what it is, plain and simple, a defect. One that will cause discomfort to many passengers who pay good money for what should be a defect free voyage. However, you can spout logic all day long with certain people to no avail because you are implying that there is a flaw in their beloved cruise line. Some people simply cannot accept that possibility. You could sooner disparage their children with less response. This is not unique to Regent. It happens on the Silversea board, as well as Crystal and Seabourn. My belief is that BECAUSE we love a particular cruise line, all the more reason to point out its flaws when appropriate so that they can be corrected, or at least addressed. If all we ever to is sing praises then let's just change the name of this board to Cruise Boosters instead of Cruise Critics.

[Admiral Horatio Nelson]

It's interesting to me how this type of discussion nearly always ends up talking about somebody getting sued. I think it's a sad sign of the times in the US.

 

I have worked on the Voyager and will do so again and have experienced the vibration, what is interesting is that the end of cruise critiques do not over state this issue, so whilst I appreciate it's there I am unsure as to how many people think it is a big issue, certainly one that requires the circling vultures er... I mean lawyers to swoop in!

[Dolebludger]

Admiral:

 

Ah, but you misunderstand me. I don't want Regent to be sued. Instead, I want to see Regent behave as a responsible corporation in this matter (as it does in other matters) and warn booking guests of the possibility of serious shaking in the affected stern suites. In other words, I want to see Regent AVOID being sued.

 

As far as the guest comment cards are concerned, it must be emphasized that the shaking (when and where it happens) effects only a relatively small number of suites very near or right on the stern. On my Voyager cruise my Horizon Suite and several other Horizon and Seven Seas suites I visited were shaking like heck. But not all Horizon and/or Seven Seas suites were doing so. In some, it was a mere moderate vibration, about which I would not have commented either. Why the problem was effecting some stern suites and not others is a mystery to me -- but I am not a ship engineer. And the mid-ship and bow suites were very smooth.

 

The Voyager has 350 or so suites. If only a small number have the shaking problem, you will not see many comments on the cards about it, because the vast majority of the guests did not experience it. Nobody has an explanation as to why some of the stern area suites have a serious problem and some do not on a given cruise. Nobody's talking -- and certainly not Regent! As a consumer, all I can do with the limited information I have is to avoid ALL suites near the stern, and advise others to do the same. Because I do not know exactly where in the stern area the shaking will strike next. And that is a shame, because those Horizon and Seven Seas suites are beautiful!

 

Don't you think it would be better for Regent (as a business matter) to come clean with the information as to exactly which suites may have this problem and which will not (or in which it is unlikely)?

[Bick]

Dole,

 

I think your comments are spot-on and I thank you. It's absolutely incumbent upon the cruise line to disclose on-going defects.

 

We just booked an Athens - Venice trip next May, and I'm glad this issue is being discussed. From what I've read here, we're fortunate that our suite is 7th deck in the 720 area. Do you know if there is much vibration / shaking in that area? Our only other experience was w/ RCCL, and we didn't feel a thing.

[cruiseluv]

Bick,

 

 

Cabin 720 is forward of mid-ship. You will not have a problem.

[gillianrose]

Bick,

 

 

Cabin 720 is forward of mid-ship. You will not have a problem.

 

 

I am curious, though, if one has a cabin that is forward and wants to do a trans-Pacific or a trans-Atlantic, will there not then be perhaps sometimes rather pronounced "pitching", a type of motion that causes some folks seasickness?

[Admiral Horatio Nelson]

Admiral:

 

Ah, but you misunderstand me. I don't want Regent to be sued. Instead, I want to see Regent behave as a responsible corporation in this matter (as it does in other matters) and warn booking guests of the possibility of serious shaking in the affected stern suites. In other words, I want to see Regent AVOID being sued.

 

Don't you think it would be better for Regent (as a business matter) to come clean with the information as to exactly which suites may have this problem and which will not (or in which it is unlikely)?

 

It would be interesting to see if Regent are aware of this issue and if it is even seen as an issue. I'm joining the ship very soon, I may take it up with the Captain and others who might affect decisions about this, I am in no way anyone of any 'importance', I can only bring it to people's attention. It would be great if I could get in one post the cabins which are affected.

 

I think it's tricky for any company to deal with this, I can only imagine how telling people "You might get vibrations in this suite," could affect the overall name of the ship. However I can understand the guests point of view as well.

[Dolebludger]

Bick:

 

I would not forsee that the location of suite 720 will cause any undue problem. We actually found the Voyager rode VERY WELL, with the notable exception of certain suites on or near the stern. For the most stable cruise ride possible, one of course wants to book right in the middle of the ship and as low as possible. But I don't think suite 720's deviation from this "perfect location" is enough to cause any significant problems. Indeed, I'd book 720 in a heartbeat.

 

Please note, however, that if you hit unusually rough seas, you will have an unusually rough ride regardless of suite location. Things such as these are, of course, nothing a cruise line can be expected to fix or warn about -- just mother nature doing her thing.

 

Admiral:

 

Good reply: I think there are several things Regent could do. I agree that it would be unfair and inaccurate for the reputation of the whole ship to be ruined just because a few suites shake and are unsuitable, even though I've found the problem in those few suites to be horrible. Expecially true, as most of the remainder of the ship is the smoothest we've been on. That's why I have tried to emphasize what a good ride the rest of the ship provides. Determining what suites are impacted, warning booking guests, and downgrading their price category is one answer. Another answer might be the reverse of what they did on the Paul Gauguin (PG). In recent years, the lounge area on deck 7 on the PG stern developed a significant vibration (though not as serious as the Voyger stern problem). Some of us were a bit worried when this part of the pG was converted to suites -- and rather premium ones at that. But, as I am repeated told, the additional structure for the suite conversion added to the structure, and the vibration problem in this part of the PG (now suites) is gone. Maybe additional structural beefing-up on the Voyager stern? Or the opposite -- convert the effected areas into public rooms where no guests would have to be when things really "got shakin'".

[freddie]

I have deferred posting on this topic, as the last thing (or maybe the second to last thing) anyone needs is for another member of our sharkish profession to give an observation. However, I do, in fact, have direct experience with the issue at issue. My partner & I were in cabin 877 for a couple of weeks on a marvelous Norwegian fjords cruise on Voyager. That cabin is on the stern, on the starboard side. Other than our having to be sure that none of the glasses in the little bar shelf were touching (and therefore in danger of making a clinking noise when vibrating slightly), we had no vibration problems whatsoever. I cannot speak for how this would have gone down on the port side, which is much more affected by the damaged pod. It is likely much worse on that side than on the starboard side.

 

While I agree entirely (or partially - we sharks don't like to commit to anything in too extreme a fashion, for fear of not being able to change our position as the needs may dictate) that Regent should have some sort of disclosure about possible vibration in certain cabins, the discussion of class action suits and "constructive fraud" gives me the heebie-jeebies. Like Richard, I am a retired corporate in-house lawyer (although not from a benighted state like Oklahoma - OK, OK, pardon the slam, no flaming required). I, too, worked diligently to protect my company from risk of legal action, while still keeping the company in the active market place.

 

But I, along with most corporate attorneys I know, am enormously weary of the dreadful U.S. tendency to "find someone to sue" or "find someone to blame" for everything that might go awry.

 

I am not posting this to invite further debate from Richard or anyone else, as most of the posters have made their positions quite clear. Responsible TA's, one of which I have the good fortune to have, tell their clients about the possible vibration problems on Voyager and let them make their booking decisions fully-informed.

 

Should RSSC have a disclaimer about the possible vibration problem in the port aft cabins? - Yes.

 

Should we talk about suing RSSC regarding the matter? - Puleezze!! Go back to watching the saga of Paris Hilton's jail adventure.

 

Cheers, Fred

 

PS - For those who think that I am one of the Regent "crazies", please know that our last cruise was on Hapag Lloyd (Antarctica on the Hanseatic) and we are booked on the Silver Whisper from Dubai to Athens next spring.

[Dolebludger]

freddie:

 

I actually agree with you as to all you posted. Not all of the stern suites on the Voyager seem to be effected by the shaking. I personally experienced this. But we don't know which ones are or are not effected. But Regent does! I don't want Regent to be sued either. Indeed, they settled my claim well with me, as far as money is concerned. But I may never be able to cruise that particular itinerary again, and perhaps enjoy it this time. But my TA went to bat for me, and I accepted Regent's offer, and my dispute is over. Period.

 

I had read some posts that made me believe, for a time, that the problem was solved, and I said "Thank God!" Now, more reliable posters are complaining about the identical problem, so it is not solved. And, we've got a bit more than "constructive fraud" (failure to disclose) here. On another active thread, one poster called Regent and asked them about the shaking problem on the stern suites on the Voyager, and they denied any knowlege of such a problem. From personal experience, I know that they know, and they know well. So now we've got active fraud. And from a corporation of the quality of Regent, this just makes me sick.

 

Like you, I was (before retirement) a corporate attorney specializing in lawsuit avoidance. I look at this situation with absolute shock, that Regent cannot see that they are walking into a legal and public relations nightmare, which they should be working to avoid. Personally, I WANT them to take action to avoid it. But as a mere customer, I can't protect a corporation from its own stupidity.

[Travelcat2]

Bick,

 

 

Cabin 720 is forward of mid-ship. You will not have a problem.

 

 

I want to assume that you have been forward of mid-ship on the Voyager in rough seas cruising at a high rate of speed and did not feel vibration in this particular cabin. If this is not case, how would you know this to be true?

 

When a person who has worked on the Voyager (Admiral Nelson) posts on CruiseCritic, the odds of their statements being truthful is far more likely than anything I could say. Although "forward of mid-ship" does not have vibration, according to people who have worked on the Voyager, the possibility of feeling the seas (i.e. seasickness) is a bit more prevalent in this area.

 

As far as Dolebludger's statements regarding the Voyager....... exactly what should Regent post and where? That the Voyager "may" sometimes experience vibration in suite #xxxxx and suite #xxxxx, etc. Or, those in suites #xxxxxx will experience severe (mild or moderate?) vibration.

 

Without being any more argumentative than I have been, perhaps United Airlines, American Airlines, Thai Airlines, Singapore Airlines, Air Tahiti Nui, etc. should make statements that severe/moderate/mild vibration will be felt in the back of the plane...... on the other hand, there may be zero vibration -- it kinda just depends.

 

We have been on the Voyager -- we have been on the Navigator. Both ships are wonderful -- great service -- great food, amazing suites. Although we felt more vibration on the Voyager than on the Navigator -- we booked our next cruise on the Voyager. Note: I do suffer from seasickness -- need to wear an electronic wrist band which is a pain in many ways -- however, I would never go on these boards and frighten passengers away from Regent. It is a good thing that this is being discussed -- but, hopefully we can put it in perspective rather than making this sound like something that will end up in court!

[Bick]

Cat,

 

Being one of those that tries to keep our company out of courts, I would appreciate hearing what Dole has to say if I were in the cruise lines' shoes.

 

I also get that no one can predict weather. The assumption here is that under fairly normal conditions, the vibrations / shaking in the aft section is unacceptable to a lot of those who've experienced it. Frankly, if I'm shelling out $25k for a cruise, I'd want to know this as well. If this were a Carnival line, I doubt much would be mentioned about it.

 

Do you know if the seas in the Adriatic / Eastern Med are normally particularly rough in late May that we'd experience motion sickness in near the bow?

[Travelcat2]

Cat,

 

Being one of those that tries to keep our company out of courts, I would appreciate hearing what Dole has to say if I were in the cruise lines' shoes.

 

I also get that no one can predict weather. The assumption here is that under fairly normal conditions, the vibrations / shaking in the aft section is unacceptable to a lot of those who've experienced it. Frankly, if I'm shelling out $25k for a cruise, I'd want to know this as well. If this were a Carnival line, I doubt much would be mentioned about it.

 

Do you know if the seas in the Adriatic / Eastern Med are normally particularly rough in late May that we'd experience motion sickness in near the bow?

 

You're right -- I absolutely do not know if I'd experience motion sickness near the bow in the Adriatic / Eastern Med....... however, Admiral Nelson has worked on the Voyager and I have no reason to question his statements. Being an avid reader of CruiseCritic, I appreciate learning as much as possible about the ships, ports, etc.

 

I also probably would have been upset if I were in an aft cabin on the Voyager and was in the midst of the heavy vibration. Thanks to CruiseCritic, I was aware of the possible problem and booked mid-ship. On the other hand, it would have helped to know that booking a suite under the pool deck was noisy. Could I really expect my TA or Regent to give me a warning about everything?

 

Initially I thought it was a great idea for Regent to warn passengers of possible vibration in some parts of the ship. However, the more I thought about it, the more I questioned how it would be phrased. Then I questioned warnings in hotels about rooms in noisy areas, flights that are extremely bumpy (international flights in Business/First class are easily 1/2 the price of a Regent cruise). So, I suppose I could not see where to draw the line.

 

Also, I realize that many people that are new to cruising or perhaps just thinking about doing their first luxury cruise would read posts with an over emphasis on vibration and not read about the extraordinary service, accommodations, dining, etc. Somehow I'd like to see a balance. Fortunately, I am aware of the vibration and book our suite with that in mind -- however, I also know how great Regent is and am willing to spend an almost rediculous amount of money to dine in a restaurant that is vibrating all over the place. Perhaps we are just unusual:confused:

[Dolebludger]

All:

 

We are getting two situations wrongfully intertwined here. Rough seas will cause any ship to pitch and roll, under any circumstances. Even the best and most stable ship will do this in rough seas. And, of course, it is not the cruise line's responsibility to guarantee good weather and smooth seas, as these are "Acts of God" that cannot be predicted or guaranteed by anyone. I have encountered rough seas on some of my many Regent cruises, and have not made any complaint about this, because it is totally out of the cruise line's control.

 

In contrast, the kind of shaking I have mentioned in the stern suites on the Voyager is actually WORSE in calm seas, to my experience. Perhaps it is because the ship cruises faster in calm seas. Perhaps it is because the impact of waves in high seas "breaks up" the "vibration and shaking pattern." But it is clear to me that the problems on the Voyager's stern are NOT due to rough seas, but are due to problems in the propulsion system, which is located right below the stern suites.

 

I do NOT believe that any cruise line has a duty to warn guests that they will have a rough ride if the cruise encounters rough seas. Does the maker of your car have a duty to warn you that it will ride rough if you drive it over rough roads? No. But I do believe that a cruise line has a duty to warn guests (booking premium suites) that they will shake in CALM SEAS due to a defective propulsion system.

 

Bick:

 

You can read what I have posted above. Most of my legal career was spent trying to keep my clients out of court. There is no duty to warn that bad weather or rough seas will produce a rough ride on a ship. There is a rule of law that can be summarized as "you don't have to warn about things that any idiot should know." But if you have a defective propulsion system on your ship that will cause more serious shaking in calm seas than in rough seas, I contend that there is a duty to warn booking guests.

 

To make matters worse, there is another thread on this topic on this board right now, on which one poster states that he/she called Regent and asked about stern suite vibration problems (which are different from rough seas problems). He/she states that Regent denied any knowlege of such a problem. If this is true, Regent has moved from a "faliure to disclose" situation into an "active fraud" situation, as I am personally aware that Regent knows full well of this problem. As a retired attorney that worked to keep clients out of court, I would advise Regent to admit to which stern suites have the problem (which I'll guarantee they know) and warn booking guests about them. Yes, they will probably have to discount these suites. But they are worth less if they shake like a "buckin' bronc", aren't they? And then, if I were Regent's attorney (which I am not) I would advise them to bring a big suit against whoever built that ship because (as to a small percentage of suites on the stern) it is a lemon.

 

A sad theory has found its way into this topic, and that is that a corporation should be virtually immune from suits, regardless of what it does. While there may be too many frivolous suits these days, this theory of corporate immunity is just false. Guests shell out $20,000 or more per week for cruises in these affected suites. If they aren't even livable due to shaking, they should be warned, period. Regent should not depend on TAs or posts on this board. Too few of its guests read this board. Many TAs handle so many lines that they don't know of specific and serious problems of every ship on which they book guests. Regent should warn, and should inform those who inquire, of the situation -- period.

 

I have no axe to grind. We had the Voyager stern suite problem. My wife became ill. We settled for a future cruise credit, and my wife's onboard medical bills were paid by Regent's travel insurance. But we, and our TA, had to fight like heck for this settlement. I suspect not all who were impacted got the same deal. And I am eager to see what the OP receives for her ordeal.

[Travelcat2]

There have been so many posts -- however, I don't recall the vibration being blamed on rough seas. When I refer to condition of the sea, I refer to the issue of cross currents. If eliminating the vibration on the Voyager was as simple as going slower (as Dolebludger suggested in an earlier post), they no doubt would go slower (just as the Mariner has done to prevent further damage to it's pod while the new one is being built).

 

Regent has an excellent reputation (check the Better Business Bureau) and has not had success through fraud.

 

As "Freddie" so eloquently stated: "Should we talk about suing RSSC regarding the matter? - Puleezze!! Go back to watching the saga of Paris Hilton's jail adventure."

[Dolebludger]

Oh, common, TravelCat:

 

And take $20,000 or so of your spare change and book a weeks cruise in one of the Voyager's stern suites with your significant other -- which you have yet to do. Then report back on what you experienced.

 

Where do you come off in thinking that lawsuits are NEVER appropriate?

 

Book the Voyager cruise I have suggested. It will change your mind.

[Travelcat2]

Oh, common, TravelCat:

 

And take $20,000 or so of your spare change and book a weeks cruise in one of the Voyager's stern suites with your significant other -- which you have yet to do. Then report back on what you experienced.

 

Where do you come off in thinking that lawsuits are NEVER appropriate?

 

Book the Voyager cruise I have suggested. It will change your mind.

 

I learned from your mistakes -- no need make this one. Again, hopefully for the last time, I am not arguing the fact that there can be vibration on the Voyager. I have felt it. . . and, I've repeated this numerous times in this thread.

 

Side note. . . prior to booking the Navigator last year, I read horrendous posts regarding the vibration. According to posters, you could not sit in the theater and watch the show because the vibration was so loud -- even the performers had difficulty performing, etc. I have no doubt that these posters were 100% honest about their experience. However, as stated in my review of the Navigator in March 2007, I walked all over the ship in an attempt to find the vibration (found a little in a restaurant and an elevator). My experience was just as truthful as the others -- just different.

 

So, where do I come off thinking that lawsuits are "NEVER" appropriate? I'm absolutely certain that I NEVER said that. It has been my experience, however, that when I have had a problem with a company (yes -- even had a small issue with a Regent excursion) -- writing a polite letter with verifiable statements about the problem and what you think would be a fair resolution has always worked for me. So, you're right that I have not sued anyone -- but, would do so if it were necessary.

[cruiseluv]

I want to assume that you have been forward of mid-ship on the Voyager in rough seas cruising at a high rate of speed and did not feel vibration in this particular cabin. If this is not case, how would you know this to be true?

 

When a person who has worked on the Voyager (Admiral Nelson) posts on CruiseCritic, the odds of their statements being truthful is far more likely than anything I could say. Although "forward of mid-ship" does not have vibration, according to people who have worked on the Voyager, the possibility of feeling the seas (i.e. seasickness) is a bit more prevalent in this area.

 

 

My response was to Bick's question which was prompted by comments of vibration so it was mainly addressing that he/she will not have THAT problem. Cabin 720 is not even forward, it's slightly forward of center.

 

And yes, to answer your question, I have been quite forward, although in Navigator not on Voyager. We encountered bad weather the first night and I remember a lot of rocking and rolling, but it felt like that in other areas of the ship as well!

 

I have not disputed other people's assertions, just offering my opinion about if Bick would have or not vibration on Cabin 720.

[Iamboatman]

The law regarding notice is pretty simple (generally). One need not warn or advise as to matters which are, or should be, common knowledge...such as a ship is subject to the movements caused by the seas, wind and weather. However, where there is a defect or MATERIAL condition which would not otherwise be known, there is a duty to warn or advise.

 

There are warnings for things that a non-seafarer would not normally consider such as watching out for watertight thresholds, holding handrails even if the seas appear calm, etc. because common knowledge of the inexperienced would not make these things apparent.

 

Warnings for obstructed views came about not because of any maritime issues, but rather consumer issues: Not getting what you paid for. Oceanview does not equal View of Orange Life Boat or Steel Plating. These sort of consumer rights warning are a relatively new thing in the cruise industry; not because they don't exist, but because the concept simply wasn't applied. (It took quite a while for them to even be applied to land based industry.)

 

Florida consumer fraud laws are not terribly strong compared to other states, such as New Jersey. (I am an active member of the Florida and New Jersey Bars.) Also, the penalties under Florida law are not that strong. So while a claim might be very viable in one state it may not be in another; and the award of attorneys fees are similarly different. (And I think it is clear that no single passenger is going to foot the bill on a lawsuit on this subject...especially considering the amount of a possible award and the cost of proving the problem, including experts.)

 

As far as lawsuit aversion, there are people that just don't like to sue for anything...just as there are people that sue for anything, regardless of merit. There is no "right" or "wrong" as our court system is fundamentally different from say the UK where the loser almost always pays the other side's costs and attorney's fees. The US system functions on the concept of ready access to the courts without that sort of sword dangling over a litigant's head. It is not, ever, in our system of justice an individual's opinion an appropriate litmus test as to whether a particular lawsuit is proper.

 

Hopefully, and this is an argument I regularly make in court, attorneys must act as "gatekeepers", as officers of the court, to make sure meritless suits are not brought. In New Jersey we have Rule 1:4-8 which provides for sanctions against the attorney if he brings a frivolous lawsuit. Florida has no similar rule or statute, but in this case the weak consumer protection laws sort of mitigate the issue.

 

As there will probably never be an issue of a serious personal injury from breaking a foot (or worse) on a threshold or falling down a set of stairs, but rather anger, disappointment and sleeplessness due to "excessive" vibration, I think the weak consumer laws in Florida (and none on the high seas) practically relegates this issue to one of marketing.

 

Regent has chosen its marketing which is deal with the problem on a case by case basis...if it comes up. I can speculate as to why it has chosen this method, but in the end it obviously is a financial one, probably based upon the fact that the issue may make a lot of noise on this board and possibly some other fairly public places, but the VAST majority do not know of the issue and could care less about the issue. Call it a "tempest in a teapot"...it is irrelevant except for those in the teapot.

 

Hence, if you are lucky enough to know about the issue or have a TA that knows about the issue AND you actually were considering those few suites, you can avoid the issue. If you weren't so fortunate, Regent will deal with the issue on a case by case basis. For the vast majority, marketing acknowledging the problem might well scare off more passengers and cost Regent more of them than necessary.

 

I am not defending the position (I believe disclosure is appropriate, as I posted long ago), but simply acknowledging the logic and reasonable rationale of it.

[Dolebludger]

Boatman:

 

I pretty much agree with your analysis. Individual suits would not be cost-effective. Too few people effected to justify a class action. Regent did settle with me, but only after my TA did a lot of haggling in my behalf.

 

I don't want to see any suits at all. I just want Regent to either warn or fix. In this regard, is there any kind of information network among TAs where news of problems of this type is shared? If so, the word on this should be gotten out.

 

There was another thread on this board about this as of yesterday entitled "Voyager Vibration", which has disappeared today. I got email notification of a post on that thread that asked me a very valid question. As that thread is gone, I'll answer here. I had said that the ride problems in our Horizon suite had made my wife sick. The question was "how can vibration make one sick?" Here's the answer. Vibration (as we usually use the term) probably can't. But what we experienced was not "vibration" in the usual sense. It was a significant shaking on a horizontal plane. THAT can make one sick.

[crusinbanjo]

Thank goodness............I changed my aft cabin to a mid-ship yesterday:D

 

We are looking at a Voyager trip in Jan, We'll be sure to book a midship cabin:eek: