Regent Seven Seas v. Seabourn: Philosophy, Pricing and Practice

Frank Del Rio, President and CEO of Prestige Cruise Holdings, owner of Regent Seven Seas, recently was interviewed by Travel Weekly Magazine. The article was about sales and marketing of Oceania and, to a much lesser extent, Regent.

There was an interesting exchange:

Q: With Regent, you chose to include shore excursions rather than lower prices. Did that stimulate sales?

A: Like nothing you've seen. It's one of the reasons why our business is stronger than most right now. This industry is one of lemmings. There is too much copying going on. Everyone lowers prices to stimulate sales. It works, but it hurts the travel agents. Every week I hear that half a dozen agencies are going out of business. We said, we don't want to hurt travel agents, and knocking $60 off our cruise won't motivate a sale the way it might at [a mass-market line]. Including shore excursions makes them commissionable.

I recently spoke with Mr. Del Rio at an Oceania event and let him know that I was not fond of the inclusive shore excursions. He questioned me as to why and I told him because it is not a luxury amenity. I explained that in the luxury market most people do not take cruise ship tours, but rather private tours. So, to my way of thinking, the inclusion not only doesn't add real value, it brings in a way of cruising that while positive for the cruise line's immediate bottom line is not necessarily so for the overall luxury cruise experience. (I offer complimentary Ensemble Travel tours on many of the cruises I book for clients. As a new alternative, I am able to offer a $150 per person onboard credit if they don't want to take the tours. This came about for the very same reason: Luxury clients tend not to take the group tours.)

There have been some recent articles on the internet about dissatisfaction on the Regent Voyager due to cutbacks in food quality (I struggle with the quality of the product, it may be the preparation or menu descriptions/marketing) and service. The issues with Regent Mariner being literally overrun with children with 125+ on its Alaska sailings may look positive to Regent's immediate bottom line, the negatives of poor service, an overwhelmed dining room, crowds and a very non-luxury experience...even at embarkation. (I will leave the Regent Navigator out of the mix...anxiously awaiting the major refit upcoming in January!)

Seabourn, on the other hand, has taken the approach which Mr. Del Rio has criticized: Seriously cutting its prices. I, too, believe that is the wrong thing to do as far as long term benefit. However, that is where we part company. As anyone who as recently been on Seabourn, including the new Seabourn Odyssey, will tell you, the service and cuisine is as good - or in the case of the Odyssey: better - than it was before the cut rate pricing.

The result I am seeing the most of is clients who were booked for 2 or 3 weeks in 2010 not looking to benefit from the reduced pricing, but rather to extend their cruise to 3 or 4 weeks for the same, or in some instances, less money. Yes, there are those that have never tried Seabourn that are coming onboard, but it is not with an expectation of anything other than it being more of a "privilege" than a "bargain"...event though the bargain has drawn them in.

So, if you believe getting more stuff equals more "value", Regent may be the way to go. However, if you are looking for more "value" in a true luxury experience, there is no question that Seabourn consistently provides that.

And if you still want some included tours...you never know, I just might be able to provide that for you as well.

Regent Seven Seas Navigator - Some Details on Her January 2010 Drydocking

There is no question that the Regent Seven Seas Navigator has been the ugly duckling of the fleet for some years now. She has had problems with vibration, air conditioning and plumbing, tired interior spaces and, to be sure, service issues as well.

Prestige Cruise Holdings, parent of Regent Seven Seas, has made a huge commitment to transform this ugly ducking into a beautiful ship both where it can be seen and where it can't. As has been explained to me, during the almost 30 day drydock "the Navigator will be refurbished from stem to stern and keel to mast".

Even in advance of the drydock Regent has undertaken an unexpected, but sorely needed, expedited repair and maintenance program on the ship so that some issues like plumbing, electrical and air conditioning works more consistently...and consistently throughout the ship.

During the drydock the problems with Navigator's electrical problems, inconsistent air conditioning and plumbing (from brown water, to leaks to even the occasional showerhead that falls off) will be fully addressed. What that actually means really cannot be fully stated because until things are well and truly opened up and examined they cannot be known.

For me these are huge issues that can do much to transform a tired ship into a classy one. I know this first hand. During an extended refit of the superyacht MSY Islander I had to address the very same issues and, when accomplished, she went from a laughing stock of the industry to a very successful charter yacht. A nice shower, comfortable room temperatures and lights that work go a long way to making guests receptive to the other good stuff onboard.

The Italian restaurant, Portofino, will be history with the space being transformed into the same sort of casual dining area, La Veranda, found on the Voyager and Mariner.

Prime 7, the very popular (if not truly to my taste) steakhouse will be installed. (I am not sure where at this point, but will let you know when I find out.)

All of the public spaces will receive new carpets and upholstery, marble and wood floors will be stripped and refinished (replaced where appropriate) and cabinetry will be French polished. The pool will even be re-tiled.

The suites, which I have always said are excellent, will remain as they are, but the soft goods will all be replaced.

(I will discuss the positive changes in service, but will do so in another post.)

If all of the foregoing is accomplished I would be more than thrilled. Navigator presently has too many quirks to make her attractive to me or able for me to recommend. When the transformation is completed - and assuming it is done with the same high quality Regent has been using under its new ownership (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) - Navigator will be an attractive alternative due to her modest size, nice suites, more appropriate public spaces and itineraries.

You just might want to start considering booking her for 2010...before the secret of her success is known to all.

Regent Seven Seas is Cleaning House...and Mark Conroy is Where?

It has always baffled me how Regent, a small cruise line with only three ships (and, for the time being a fourth on a charter) could require so many people and be so inaccessible and have so many "policies" and, therefore, inefficiencies.

Prestige Cruise Holdings has been working to take the General Motors approach out of Regent Seven Seas and I think it is coming down to, but has not yet taken, its final moves. It announced today that the sales force has been, in large part, asked to resign.

More specifically, Maggie Mantia (charter and incentive sales vice president) David Levene (Eastern regional director of field sales), Joyce Simon (Western regional director), Janet Ganch (Director of sales for Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia) and Rose Clarke (Director of on-board sales and loyalty, including the Seven Seas Society) have all departed. To me that says that a lot of inefficiencies are simply being cut out.

But to me that is not the news. What is it you ask?

The announcement was not made by Mark Conroy, its president. Rather it was made by Prestige Cruise Holdings, the parent of Regent Seven Seas. (I believe these moves were made while he is still in Europe "dealing" with the Voyager problems.) Therefore, I must ask the burning question, "When is a company president not a president?" I think we know the answer.

On March 4, 2009 I posted a rather scathing post that it was time for Mark Conroy to be fired: http://goldringtravel.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-it-time-for-mark-conroy-to-depart.html. It seems to me that I am not the only one who thinks it is time.

In fact, I think the negotiations are probably underway.

Regent Seas Seas Cruises Will Reduce, And Keep, Its Fleet At Three

Regent has confirmed that its new ship is now further from reality than it had been.  Granted with the present economy it is not surprising (and, to be sure, may well make some good economic sense), but there was so much "talk" about it by Regent that its now discussing the mothballing of the ship  is of worthy note.

The new ship was originally one of grandeur.  Then, after Regent was sold to Apollo Management and folded into Prestige Cruise Holdings, the new ship was no longer to a one-off, but rather a modification of the second of its new sister company's (Oceania Cruise Line) soon to be delivered ship...but with different public spaces and larger suites. 

That, of course, pushed to anticipated delivery date from 2009 (something I said would never happen anyway) to April 2010 at best.  In order for that date to be met, Regent (er, Prestige Cruise Holdings) would have to have exercised the option by September 2008; something that did not happen.

It is reported that Regent is focused on completing the refurbishment of the Mariner (having just finished the work on the Voyager) and then figuring out what type of work it may do on the Navigator in 2010.  According to Andrew Poulton, director of communications for Regent, until the cost of construction, currency exchange rates and the economy improve, plans are not going to move forward.  That, obviously, could mean a long wait for now.

Having its relationship with the Paul Gauguin ending at the end of this year, my guess is that Regent would have preferred a new ship and dumping Navigator, but that is not an option anymore.  So by the end of 2009, barring something unanticipated, Regent will be a three ship company...with nothing "exciting" on the hardware front expected until 2011. 

That may be a bit of a challenge for a luxury product.  Seabourn has been extremely successful with older hardware due to its superlative service and cuisine.  I am concerned, however, that Regent - which has been admitted struggling with inconsistent service and cuisine - may not be able to pull off such an accomplishment, even if it markedly improves because it must service 700+; not 200.  We shall see.

Postings on Cruise Message Boards and Blogs: The Difference Between Constructive Opinion and Personal Attacks

I have received a number of requests to comment on the post of someone ("Admiral Horatio Nelson" who says he is a former Regent Seven Seas Cruises employee) on Cruise Critic and Luxury Cruise Talk that were pulled.  I had said that I would post something, so here it is...

As many of you know I have very strong opinions on various topics and will not pull a punch when it comes to calling someone out for not telling the truth or if I think their perception is wrong or if they are cheerleading. 

What I won't do is engage in, or endorse, personal attacks against someone who has not posted their position or is not in the public eye...or deals with a situation not posted by someone.  To do so puts out possibly false or inaccurate information or violates someone's personal privacy.  That is, to my mind, far different from the Cruise Critic "You weren't there, so you are not allowed to comment" policy...especially when information from other sources is know.

I tried to find a way to edit the Admiral's comments as they do have some interesting perspectives, but they are really far too engaged in personal attacks against people that simply have no way to respond and also could be inaccurate (one's perception is one thing, but the comments made go beyond that).  Reading them, they could simply be designed to inflict injury on Regent Seven Seas Cruises or the named employees, rather than to discuss facts or ways to improve various situations they may exist.

That said, what I will say is, as I read the Admiral's comments, he asserts that the handling of employees changed markedly from the days of Radisson Seven Seas Cruises and became one focused on stifling crew input and solidifying one's position rather than bettering the product.  These opinions are actually very common in a very corporate structured entity; as it feeds on preserving oneself rather than improving the company ala General Motors, Wall St., etc.

The interesting thing is that the Admiral seems to be complaining that Regent's operations are being transformed into a part, or mirror, of Oceania's.  As you all know I wrote about the Oceanification of Regent months ago.  Unfortunately, the Admiral seems to conclude this is a bad thing, but when the personal attacks are stripped away, there is no substance to back up the outrage. 

While I actually do agree that Mark Conroy seems to be devolving into nothing more than a figurehead and that all the hype he previously provided about improvements, the new ship, etc. all seemed to be swept aside by Prestige Cruise Holdings and most of "his" people have left or be asked to leave, I do not necessarily come to the same conclusion that Oceanification is a bad thing.  I must honestly state that my initial impression was that it was not a good thing, but when things kept getting worse at Regent - in my opinion - change to better efficiencies, performance, crew training, etc. even if similar/the same as Oceania's is a good option.

Regent, by many standards, has been backsliding.  Even the sanitized Cruise Critic forum has become rather regularly filled with the complaints I mentioned - and was battered for - a year ago.  It was the basis, in part, for Mark Conroy to write his open letter on Cruise Critic and Luxury Cruise Talk.  So is change a bad thing?  I think not.

As I have stated, and as the Admiral does, and as Mark Conroy notes, the crew needs to be better trained and better cared for.  If that means changing Human Resource personnel (and I would strongly assert those that created the problem which is admittedly so vast rarely can be a major part of the solution...part of the retraining, possibly; but not the solution) and other areas of management, shipboard controls, etc., so be it.

But when having this discussion we can be upset, and even bitter (from job issues or passenger letdowns), we need to be civil and respectful.

Silversea - Lost at Sea????

Every time I go to post something about Silversea Cruise Line, something else comes about that makes me shake my head. 

Not so long ago I posted about the Prince Albert II making a big play in Tahiti and French Polynesia.  Well, scratch that out.  That itinerary has been pulled.  It is not surprising in that it drew so little interest.  I, personally, found that a March sailing was literally wide open....and I mean WIDE open.  Obviously, either from a marketing, pricing or some external factor, people found the Paul Gauguin to be a better choice...if they even knew about the Silversea option.

Instead the Prince Albert II is. according to a Silversea announcement, heading to the Artic, but there is catch.  If you go to the Silversea website there are no itineraries.  That three month block of time is nowhere to be found.  On March 8, 2009 the ship is in Valparaiso, Chile and on June 1, 2009 it is in Hamburg, Germany.  Huh?

There may be good reason for this, but as a travel agent who specializes in luxury clientèle, I am very confident in saying that the appearance of chaos is not a good thing.  And, without question, this appears like chaos.

But then there is the whole discounted cruise issue and how that was handled.  Silversea announced that it was discounting its cruises through March by as much as 50% or more.  But then it was announced, to the public in places like Seatrade, that it was providing its travel agents with an unheard of 25% commission.  Doing the simple math:  A $10,000 brochure fare would really have a 20% early booking savings on it already, so it is a real $8,000 fare.  When that fare is reduced to 50%, it becomes a $5,000 fare.  When you then give a 25% commission, it becomes a $3,750 net fare rather than a much more significant one.  (I can't give you the exact amounts as commission information is supposed to be confidential, but know it is significantly more.)

This resulted in literally every one of my clients that showed any interest in a Silversea cruise afraid to book a cruise with it because it sounds like the line is starving for cash.  And being cash-starved in a credit-tight world is not a good thing.  Considering the last thing someone wants to worry about is whether their reduced expendable income is going to be lost (or, at a minimum, a credit card dispute tying up funds for weeks or months) or their getaway becoming a "get involved" or worrisome, the logic of Silversea's actions just escapes me.

I started to write, "I am assuming there is a plan in there somewhere", but then I thought again.  I must restate it as, "Is there a plan in there?" 

I am, to be sure, very concerned about the survival of Silversea.  Do I have firm evidence of financial
distress?  Absolutely NOT.  But I still have my opinion based upon the following series of events: 

     - Change from European to lesser trained and not all English-fluent Filipino staff;
     - Rotating chefs and reduction in food quality;
     - Announcement that Silversea wants over 50% of its passengers to be non-U.S. based;
     - Claims of passengers loads increasing by over 30% (a clear indication of empty ships, for you can't increase passenger loads if you have full ships and no new ones in operation);
     - Touting that there are many new passengers, so there should be no intimidation of feeling left out (Isn't that an admission of passenger not being satisfied, so the repeater numbers have declined?)
     - Sharp reductions in pricing through March 2009;
     - Publicly announcing 25% commissions to travel agents; and, without limitation,
     - Prince Albert II chaos.
     - (Note:  I have no solid information on this last one, but I have heard rumors of it:  Construction on the new ship has been slowed.)

I may criticize some aspects of other lines, as I just did with the Regent Seven Seas Prime 7 Steakhouse, but there is a big difference.  I have commended Apollo Management and Prestige Cruise Holdings for taking a much more fiscally responsible approach any effectively canning the new ship, not wasting money on the Navigator (which I believe will be leaving the fleet at the earliest possible time...which probably will be at least a couple of years away) and making upgrades (mechanical and in public spaces) on the Voyager and Mariner.  I also surmise that ending its relationship with the Paul Gauguin is based upon the net smaller returns since it had the added costs of chartering the vessel to deal with.  I also may not agree with Regent's pricing, but alas it is not "giving away the ship", but has focused on marketing (even making cold calls to past passengers).

So, there are ways to be aggressive in this slower market and there are ways to cut costs and expenses.  I see Apollo/Prestige Cruise Holdings/Regent's logic and await the results.  I hope someone can tell me what is going on at Silversea. 

I think it is important that Silvesea survives and flourishes.  Competition and Alternatives are both good and necessary...and they inspire Confidence in the marketplace.

Concerns: Apollo Management and Prestige Cruise Holding (NCL, Regent Seven Seas and Oceania)

I have hesitated to write about the effects of this poor economy on the cruise lines themselves because, in large part, we really don't know what the long term effects will be. While the issues of last minute discounts and more close-in bookings (ala post 9/11) on less than full ships are not beyond possibilities, the fact is that right now people who are cruising paid for their cruises before the bottom seemingly fell out and it is too early to really see what the next couple of months (post-election) has in store for us, the consumers and them, the industry.

Also, while some cruise lines are panicking, others are being creative and yet others are still figuring out what, if anything, should be done differently. So that too is not the focus on this post and speculating would not be fair or productive.

However, over the past three weeks there has been much in the industry news about NCL and Aker Shipyard having a "dispute" over Norwegian Cruise Line's new F3 ship. While Aker claims it has not stopped work on the first F3 (which is about 25% complete), it has been reported that they are now trying to sell the hull to other major cruise lines...and there is not much interest. Aker, though, has also stopped work on the second F3 ship.

Apollo and NCL have been silent claiming they do not discuss disputes or litigation. What has happened, however, is that their announcement of the new ship is not as clear in their taglines, mention of the F3 is all but absent from the NCL website, the F3 microsite has been buried (You you can still find it via http://www.f3.ncl.com/main.html.) and the person who was in charge of the PR for the F3, Susan Robison, has left NCL.

The word on the street is that Apollo has shut down the project as simply being too expensive. I think there probably is another, related, problem: Financing. Most entities like Apollo leverage their assets in order to obtain sufficient cash to improve products and then sell them off at a profit. If the product is losing value, or if a cash infusion will not increase its value, the desire to put money in drops. Banks and lenders - especially now - are not as willing to finance companies to put cash into a potentially unprofitable venture. Add to that the unexpected strength in the US dollar versus the Euro and some of the math turns upside down.

Here, the F3 ships have a radical - and unproven - interior design for a market that is being hit hard by the economic problems and, at least in the near future, probably are not going to be parting with as much cash on the holy grail of the mass market cruise business: onboard revenue. Add to that the downward pressure on pricing and the drop off in (long range) bookings, Apollo and its lenders have probably (my guess) said something along the lines of, "NCL's Hawaii plan seemed good, but we took a bath as it was unconventional and had unforeseen problems. NCL has lost over $350,000,000 in the last two years. Now we have a $1,000,000,000 (yes, one billion dollar) project which is now seeing cost increases (due to the loss in value of the Euro - the currency of the contract - as well as difficulties in creating the radical design elements) and we cannot assure a profit at higher prices with possible reductions in passenger loads...and NCL is bleeding cash flow as it is."

While that "magic" is playing out, the operationally pretty solid Oceania, through Apollo's Prestige Cruise Holdings (separate from NCL) is working hard to clean up the issues at Regent by increasing efficiencies on many levels and revamping the luxury line's ships from hardware to software to crew. We have seen the previously greatly publicized talk of a new ship for Regent being, quite obviously, pushed to the back...see the parallel here!...and, in its place, a $40,000,000 refurbishment of the Voyager and Mariner; leaving the Navigator for another day (if there is another day for that ship!) and there being talk on the street and some publications of the end of its relationship with the Paul Gauguin. Now, there is talk of the Voyager and Mariner refurbishments being scaled back as well.

I am not so sure these fiscally stringent moves are a bad thing. The concept of growth through huge increases in inventory has a great flaw: Not enough buyers of that inventory (i.e. cruise passengers). That, added to the cost of creating that additional inventory, can destroy a positive bottom line. So, Apollo and Prestige Cruise Holdings may just be saying that we would rather utilize what we have and utilize it well, possibly generating smaller profits, than growing ourselves (and our debt) right out of business.

I much prefer a higher quality product from a profitable cruise line than a less quality product from a cruise line trying to find its way out of a problem it created which, inevitably, would cause the passengers to pay more to get less.

It is going to be interesting to see how all this plays out.

Report: Regent Seven Seas to Cease Operating Paul Gauguin in 2009 - UPDATED- Renovations Announced

A reliable travel industry source is reporting this morning that Regent Seven Seas will be announcing that it is ceasing operating the Paul Gauguin at the end of 2009.

While I have heard this sort of news previously - believing it to be more of a negotiating tactic than anything else - the fact is that Grand Circle Travel owns the ship and with the departure of Princess Cruise Lines from French Polynesia it really has the market cornered. (True, Star Flyer is there and Silversea is offering its Prince Albert II for a limited period of time, but they put little dent in the year round market that Regent had tapped.) Therefore, it is not surprising that GCT may want the ship for itself.

When one considers the high cost of chartering, the high cost of airfares, the high cost of operations, etc. in French Polynesia, Prestige Cruise Holdings may have decided that in this economy it had better consolidate and focus on its core product.

UPDATE: In an apparent consistent twist, today (October 16, 2008) Paul Gauguin Shipping Limited, not Regent Seven Seas Cruises, announced a $6,000,000 renovation of the ship. It will include the conversion of 26 Category D oceanview staterooms into balcony staterooms (done on the exterior, so the staterooms remain the same size), modifying Le Grill (the poolside dining area) and Le Veranda's (the alternative restaurant) al fresco dining area, recarpeting and upgrading the public areas/internet cafe and "refreshing" the staterooms (whatever that means). The work is to be completed during the late January - early February 2009 drydock in Brisbane, Australia.

Also, on October 10,2008 PGSL announced it has a new Executive VP of Sales, Roy Grimsland. "He will be responsible for driving product sales of the five-plus star, 332-passenger Paul Gauguin." Interestingly, Mr. Grimsland worked for Radisson Seven Seas "where he launched and drove sales of Paul Gauguin for seven years" according to Cruise Industry News.

I will update this as information becomes available.

A Rose By Any Other Name: Cheerleading (Yuk!) - Calling It Like It Is Would Be Nice! UPDATED

On the last night of my Seabourn Spirit cruise, after enjoying much interplay with the waitstaff, it was time for dessert.  The menus were passed out, the orders taken and then it was my turn.  I asked for strawberry shortcake.  The waiter was stunned as there was none on the menu.  He offered this, he suggested that, asked if I saw it during tea in the Horizon Lounge, etc., but playing with him, I rejected them all.   He just looked at me.  I then let him off the hook.  I said, "You can't say 'No', can you?"  He then gave a big smile, knowing I "got him".  But then our desserts seemed to be a just a bit delayed and everyone at the table started to blame me, claiming Seabourn must be trying somehow to make strawberry shortcake appear out of thin air.  So I let the waiter know not to try such a thing.

On my cruise I never had a meal that disappointed, but more than a couple that amazed.  I never had a lapse in service...except one morning a poached egg was briefly forgotten.  My room stewardess was sweet and efficient.  The word "No" was never heard.  And even with my lost luggage I had a tailored suit and a tuxedo almost instantly.

On the Cruise Critic board there is a discussion of a present cruise on the Regent Seven Seas Voyager (which, ironically, arrived in Istanbul the same day I disembarked the Seabourn Spirit).  The particular poster - who spent much time attacking me when I posted there - claimed she would call it like it is.  To be fair, in part she has.  You can find it here:  http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?p=16573296 .

She has complained about the lesser food quality in Signatures, that many do not like Latitudes, that various service lapses occurred in the Veranda at lunch, etc.  She also commented about how two years ago the ship was in need of a face lift as worn interiors and linens were present, but now things are much better.  She also expressed concern about how Regent was changing the itinerary, but did not tell the passengers where they were going; later claiming Regent was extraordinary because the newly chosen ports were wonderful (apparently ignoring the some folks actually choose cruises because of the ports!).  She even claimed Regent was wonderful because she was forced to overnight in Athens because Regent couldn't arrange flights so the put her up in a nice hotel.  Huh?  And she noted that the word "No" was heard more than once.

Then she claims, "The Voyager is just as amazing as it was two years ago. Regent['s]...food (IMO) is wonderful. The suites are incredible... The service is almost always perfect..." Then the finale, from someone who has never been on Seabourn, "If you want a crew member to remember your name, perhaps Seabourn is the right ship for you." 

UPDATE:  There is another Cruise Critic thread discussing the Regent Voyager cruise the week prior (http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?s=626f200d7f9d7be0c83e968631fad7f1&t=855098) and you would think they swapped out ships.  Notably inconsistent service in the main dining room, speciality restaurant and causal dining venue; poor tours (with refunds given); dirty carpets, etc...and one poster claiming it was now time to try Seabourn and another declaring a preference for Silversea.  It makes me wonder if Regent has improved, but more importantly, if it is so inconsistent that I should be willing to risk my money not knowing what product is going to turn up.

I am a strange sort, I guess.  If a waiter forgets my poached egg once, it doesn't bother me.  When the waiters are standing around ignoring me, it would most definitely get my attention.  If the food, no less in the specialty restaurants, is not good, it is not a wonderful thing.  If ports are changed without notice because of poor planning on the line's part (rather than weather, for example), I would tend to be a bit miffed.  If the tours have not been thoroughly check out BEFORE they are offered to the guests and are not as advertised (and this has happend to me on Regent), I would be furious.  If the interiors and linens on my prior cruise were worn, I would not claim the "improved" version this year is "just as good".  If I was forced to overnight from a major city like Athens I would be angry.  And if I heard "No" I would know I wasn't on Seabourn.

So when I was roundly criticized on Cruise Critic by some posters that I was too hard on Regent and that I was somehow trying to gain Seabourn business, I was puzzled and frustrated.  Now I read that the service on Regent is improved - but still has serious lapses, the interiors are better cared for, the food in is inconsistent and the advertised ports and tour descriptions are not honored.  Every person has there own standards as to what makes their cruise great, but a person's ability to have a good time in spite of a cruise line's failures does not warrant rave reviews of the line.

Now more than ever, I am pleased that I can provide my readers with accurate information and not have to deal with that sort of misrepresentative cheerleading. 

Regent is now working to correct many of the errors and poor decisions of the past few years.  There is a lot of work to be done.  This, I am sure, is made harder by the present financial condition of the world and the manner in which Regent was acquired.  But to me, it sounds like Regent is better than it was two years ago...but it has a long way to go before it can worry about the little things like remembering a guest's name.

Regent Seven Seas Announces Major Upgrades to Two Ships

Regent Seven Seas Cruises announced that the refurbishments it has been contemplating will commence in December 2008 with the dry-dock of Seven Seas Voyager, followed by Seven Seas Mariner in January 2009.  (The Seven Seas Navigator will not have any of the upgrades until the first half of 2010 and details of those upgrades will be announced later.) 

In addition to the scheduled technical work (like fixing the Voyager's bottom damages and vibration issues and the Mariner's pod being replaced), the press release announces that "almost every area of the ships will be refurbished", with public rooms being substantially redesigned with new furniture, using "sumptuous materials" such as leathers, suede, and mahogany, along with warm color schemes and rich fabrics offset by marble and granite accents. In other words, the Voyager and Mariner will be transformed from rather bland and blue spaces to more appropriate upscale and elegant ones.  For me this is very good news, indeed!

The highlights of the refurbishment program for Seven Seas Voyager and Seven Seas Mariner include:

1.  The creation of a new alternative dining concept and venue - a steakhouse named Prime Seven -that will replace the current "Asian-fusion" Latitudes restaurants.

2.  The redesign of lounges and public rooms to create more spacious areas for relaxation

3.  The creation of elegant new lounge and dining areas around the Pool Grill

4.  New carpeting, wallpaper, upholstery, light fixtures, and drapes in most public areas and guest suite accommodations

5.  More casual dining options with the addition of pizza ovens and ice-cream bars

6.  The creation of an extended coffee and snack bar area on Seven Seas Voyager, similar to the very popular Coffee Connection on Seven Seas Mariner

I think each and every one of the announced changes are improvements that were necessary and are very positive. 

BUT - and isn't there always - if you look carefully at the announcement, don't expect $20 million dollars to be thrown at the interiors of each ship.  There are some VERY expensive technical repairs and upgrades that are going to be eating up a good portion of the improvement funds.

Also, if you look at what is being done in an overall feel of the ship, there is much more in the way of soft goods rather than physical changes in the ships that is going to be happening.  That is probably the most efficient use of an improvement budget and I look forward to seeing what will be happening in the next few months as far as the release of any details. 
I hope, but have no information that it will be happening, that part of the renovation of the public spaces will create changes in the main dining rooms, the Compass Rose, to improve seating (to eliminate waits for tables), improve service (with better flow and distribution of work) and menu (with higher quality food and menu items.)

With the focus by many on new ships and Regent's plans for a new ship either on hold or delayed, this signals to me an improvement in its offered product that is very welcome.

I will keep you posted.

Regent Seven Seas, Please Listen: Luxury Is Really About Service

I guess with a bit of irony I commented in my post this morning that Regent's trumpeting $40,000,000 of hardware upgrades on the Voyager and Mariner was good news, but there needs to be a significant improvement in the service department.

I was just taking a look over at the Cruise Critic boards and saw a new thread today speaking of services misses that were, quite disappointingly, similar to that which I have experienced over the past few years.  And the services misses were not from one person, but quite a few. 

Problems with wine stewards that can't be bothered and pour what they have in their hand; simple dining requests that are given a "NO" rather than making it magically happen; being told to wait for tea service rather than providing a few minutes early; leaving a passenger struggling on the dock with luggage; being rushed through dinner, etc., etc., etc.  

What makes me believe that things are not improving is that the people complaining did so with the qualification that it did not ruin their cruise, but that the level of service was simply inferior to most cruise lines and did not warrant the premium pricing. 

I do not want to beat a dead horse, but it just baffles me how Prestige Cruise Holdings is throwing money at hardware, but history shows that it is service, service and service that really makes the difference...not just in getting new passengers, but in keeping them and building loyalty.

Seabourn Brings Technical and Marine Operations In House...What's With V.Ships?

In 2006 Seabourn contracted with V.Ships to operate its technical and marine operations on its three ships. This created a good bit of upset with the non-hotel crew and officers and, quite frankly, puzzled me. Well, obviously Seabourn was not happy with the V.Ship operations and/or costs. (Neither was Prestige Cruise Holdings re: Oceania and Regent who will take back its operations when its contract with V.Ships expires in November.)

Seabourn has finished the process of receiving the regulatory approvals to move the operations in house. While, as with Prestige Cruise Holdings, the politic thing to state is that with a larger stable of ships (three on the way) the efficiencies make in house the way to go, Larry Rapp, Vice President of Fleet Operations, made a couple of comments that - at least to me - make it clear that V.Ship was not going a good enough job either in communications or performance.

He stated that this significant change will result in closer oversight of the maintenance and safety. ‘That is not to imply that there were any shortcomings in the past... However, we are expected to comply in detail not only to all relevant statutory requirements, but also to Carnival standards as well. Having our operation in house makes achieving that standard far more efficient.’ Mr. Rapp also commented that was a desire for direct control of marine and technical matters.

Those comments indicates to me that there were probably some "discussions" by Seabourn about certain things not being good enough and V.Ship asserting it complied with the required statutory standards so it was "good enough". I have no information that was, in fact, the case; it just seems to me to be the obvious conclusion...especially when the relationship ended so quickly.

Reading further between the lines, it seems to me that V.Ship took on huge responsibilities and, as short term profit was its motivation, it utilized its contracted for control over the technical and operational matters in order to create an immediate profit center for itself (hence the application of the minimum standards required) rather than a long term relationship based upon exceeding those minimum performance standards (coupled with excellent communication) that ultimately would have grown its operations...and therefore its long term profits.

I also think it is interesting that V.Ship personnel have migrated to both Seabourn and PCH. This makes me believe V.Ship had the talent pool and that the conflicts arose on the financial side of things.

One other interesting point: As Seabourn and PCH literally are "jumping V.Ships" (sorry!), Silversea is on the gangway about to sign up with V.Ship not only for its technical and marine operations, but for V.Ships to oversea its new build operations; migrating some of its staff over to V.Ship. Interesting.

New Regent Seven Seas Ship Delayed Until 2012...At Least.

On Monday, Prestige Cruise Holdings announced its plans for the new Oceania Marina...and some interesting insight into the future for any Regent newbuild(s).

According to Seatrade, PCH has entered into a deal for potentially five (5) ships to be built by Fincantieri...all with the same hull; three for Oceania and two for Regent. While there has been a firm commitment for two Oceania ships, not so for Regent.

Robin Lindsay, Executive Vice President for Vessel Operations characterizes the Regent order as "semi-firm" and is dependent on financing. Lindsay was quotes as saying ‘We hope by the end of the year we will arrange financing to sign a firm contract.’ If that schedule holds, the Regent ship will be delivered in April 2012.

For those of you who also read the Cruise Critic message boards, I "did the math" many months ago and asserted that Regent would not have a new ship until 2012 and the usual suspect(s) flamed me for being so "anti-Regent". Alas, there is a big difference between being realistic and negative. The fact is that it will be AT LEAST FOUR YEARS before Regent will have a new ship...and that is dependent on financing; something that is much harder to obtain these days.

But we need to look further into this information...and into our crystal balls...to try and understand what this means.

The concept is that Oceania and Regent will share the same ships to a great extent. Not only hull forms, but engines, systems, etc. The main difference is that the Regent ships - if built - are in theory going to have 450 or less cabins versus the 629 on the Oceania ones.

But when Frank Del Rio discussed the Oceania Marina on Monday he made the ships sound incredibly similar to the current Regent Seven Seas product: luxury, space, cuisine and options. He told Seatrade the Marina will abandon the English country decor for a more modern "transitional and eclectic" one, have large cabins, marble or granite baths, seven dining venues and an internet connected laptop. (As an aside, my guess as to the last item is that in 4 years this will be an antiquated concept...something I said about the move to put ethernet wiring in new homes back in the '90s.)

One thing I find telling, however, is that PCH is not using pod propulsion. This technology has been shown to be more fuel efficient and provides better maneuverability. The reason given for going with propellers: the technology is not proven. Huh? Pods are being installed on vessel after vessel and even the earlier pods are now being retrofitted so that the former problems are just that. Reality check: Pods are a lot more expensive and omitting them can save significant dollars in construction costs...though increased operating costs will exceed that short term financial "solution"...especially on larger ships.

So with Oceania significantly improving its product to be very similar to what Regent and the luxury lines are offering today - save drinks and gratuities included and, possibly, a higher level of cuisine, are we looking at really nothing more than paying for more real estate on Regent...keeping in mind that Regent will be increasing its passenger counts on the new ships; not reducing them to afford a more personalized level of service.

To be fair, I do not know if the crew counts and design have been worked so that this is adjusted to some extent, but I cannot see how 900 passengers can be treated to the same intimate, luxury experience, as 450 or less can be on, for example, the new Seabourn Odyssey and her two sisters that will be sailing by the time the single new Regent ship MAY be delivered...or the new Silversea ship, etc.

I guess we shall see what the plan is when, in fact, there is a defined plan.

Regent, Oceania and Information

One the best things I have found from my brief time blogging (don't let all the posts fool the new visitors, I've only been doing this a short time) is that there is a really great mix of people reading this blog. And the result is that I am getting some great input, interesting insights and information as well as different perspectives. Hopefully as this little part of the internet develops we can get into a higher level of discussion and, therefore information, than is not found elsewhere.

Now, what the heck does this have to do with Regent and Oceania? Possibly a lot. Here is a bit of perspective as explained to me. Regent and Oceania obviously have much in common: Both use good quality food, hotel supplies, marine services, etc. There is an economy of scale that clearly makes sense to utilize. (Said in plain language, if you give a vendor more business you can get better pricing due to the increased volume.) This is actually a similar concept that I explained is why Seabourn is able to push forward as part of the large Carnival Corp. behemoth...and if it is good for the goose it should well be good for the gander.

The other concept is that nobody does everything the best way possible. Everybody does something better than the next guy. There is apparently a systemic "look see" going on between Oceania and Regent as to who does what which way and what works better...so that the better approach, or possibly a blending of approaches...can be utilized by both (possibly in variations?).

Both concepts make sense and is consistent with what I have read and reported. The difference may be one of perspective, to wit: Is the approach being used to better each individually or (here's that word again) blend them. I am told it is definitely the former.

Now, me being me (and we know that is part realist and part skeptic) I understand the concept of keeping Regent and Oceania separate entities from the "product" side, but I remain concerned about there being too much homogeny...especially because once you take away the included alcohol and gratuities from Regent, Oceania is looking very similar...other than the suites (but new ships are coming, so I am anxious to see the details on this point!).

On the other hand, the hardware of Oceania and Regent are sufficiently different today that they are different products. For me, I would take a bill for drinks and gratuities with an awesome itinerary (and Oceania has much stronger itineraries...and isn't cruising about going places?) over a very expensive cruise just because it is more inclusive with larger suites.

Does this sound a bit confused about where things are and where they are going? Do I sound a bit non-committal? Yes and Yes. I think what I am getting at is that the concept at Prestige Cruise Holdings may be to keep 'em separate, but practically speaking Regent and Oceania may be far more similar than different; and as the cruise market shakes out with this troubling economy, and if the pricing is not outrageously different, the choice may ultimately be "itinerary vs. suite accommodation". I say this noting I think the "inclusive vs. pay as you go" is generally more hype than anything else.

I am told that in the coming weeks and months there will be some good news from PCH in the coming weeks and months. That may give us even more info...and insight. I have more thoughts, but that'll do it for now.