Marc--

Not that it is important, but I disagree that people believe the concept of personal responsibility is equally embraced by both parties, at least from what I hear and read from one of the parties. However, this is not the right (pun intended) forum for this discussion.

On your second point, in this specific case, I don't know how the Diamond cancellation compensation compares to other "similar" cases. I think there may be enough differences in similar cases to make them all effectively different, to the cruise line as well as the passengers. For RSSC, The Diamond loss of profits and the total payout in compensation may be one of the largest "hits" any cruise line, certainly a small line, has taken on. After all, we're not talking about cancelling a single or even a back to back cruise for mechanical reasons, we're talking five/six? months of cruises affecting maybe 5,000 plus passengers. I guess that sometimes the individual compensation offered is affected by the total payout involved. Of course, this may be little of little solace to the passengers who may feel that RSSC should have done more.

Here's an interesting question. Would you compensate the passengers the same for a single cancelled two-for-one cruise as you would for a single 20% discounted and cancelled cruise, all other things being equal? I think this can be argued from different vantage points.

Lastly, I am concerned about the financial hit RSSC has taken. RSSC will soon have 14% (about) fewer berths and this situation will continue for the next two and a half years.

I also believe that Carlson was planning to do an equity carve out (if they weren't they should have been) and spin RSSC out as an IPO. If true, the loss of the Diamond could have an effect on the IPO, or at least its timing. I could just never accept the stated reasons for the name change to Regent Seven Seas Cruises given the expense of re-branding. However, if an IPO was in the offing, the name change would make alot of sense ...

Have a good day!

Bill