Captain_Morgan

1 minute ago, AndyMichelle said:

I wonder if India would still allow cruise ship crew home? 

With inevitable cancellations, where would they go? 

Andy 

Great question, although i'm sure they look at the risk assessment being lower for people entering (i.e. crew returning from afar) than a few thousand people descending upon them from a floating petri dish

not sure if India was on the cards, but as of now it can be taken off the list of consideration

for those who are wondering where they might end up....here's another option off the table

12 minutes ago, Clay Clayton said:

Wow, seems interesting that they would rather sail all but empty and eat all the air cancellation charges rather than have folks join you. How many of you will there be aboard?  We currently have 525 guests and it is feels very strange. I can only imagine what it will be like with so many less. 

We were on the Sea during the first cruise in the Caribbean post hurricane and if memory serves there were about 450 passengers onboard which felt really weird and almost like a ghost ship.  In retrospect we should have cancelled given the fact that San Juan was in a shambles, but due to prior engagements we didn't have the luxury of cancelling.

As for costs, this is going to be a massive hit to the bottom line and anyone who thinks Hagen is going to brush it off or under the rug cause he's worth a couple billion is really living on cloud cuckoo land....with all due respect.

Companies that run 'small' ships but charge higher fares might seem like they're raking in cash, but they're front-end loaded meaning people can pay their fare and quite easily spend virtually little to nothing onboard for the duration of the cruise.  The larger ships however are back-end loaded so even if someone pays a few hundred dollars per person to get onboard they will inevitably walk away having spent at least 3-4 times that amount in added expenses and when you multiply that by 3000 the math is simple!

Now, add cancelled airfares (some if not many in business or premium cabins), refunded cruise fares, compensation for those currently onboard and the bottom line is going to hurt as there's not a massive revenue stream onboard its not something that can be shrugged off.  

I'm not trying to be a harbinger of doom and gloom among all the happy shiny sentiments, but there's been examples in the past where cruise lines have suffered financial setbacks after a global event (i.e. Renaissance) and they never recovered...

38 minutes ago, Jim Avery said:

I think you are right.  There will be lots of ships looking for passengers.  I am as disturbed by this virus as anyone.  When we disembarked Viking Sun in LA January 4th, no one had heard of Coronavirus. Well, outside China maybe.  Viking has a large amount of backing/financing from China. Hence the big production in Shanghai on the Inaugural WC.  Will they honor the terms or will they look out for their own best interests?  Figuring out the Chinese is way above my pay grade.  Hoping for the best here..

Oh yes, the Shanghai / China connection is very much a part of the financial backing there which will undoubtedly have a knock on effect not only with Viking but the general economy re. supply lines, etc.  As you accurately point out though trying to figure out the Chinese requires a great deal more skill than any of us will ever have...

On a side note, i couldn't help but notice that the original remaining itinerary for the WC includes multiple ports/countries currently affected which would make me think they won't be too keen on accepting a ship regardless of whether or not there's no confirmed cases onboard.

Hearing from friends who have cancelled future cruises with other brands, which seems to be the trend for the moment, which i would think a few hundred less people on a mega-ship wouldn't seem like a lot but on smaller ships its going to be very noticeable in more ways than one!

6 minutes ago, Jim Avery said:

I think it is safe to say Viking are no longer making any money on this WC.  All the items you mentioned in addition  there would be a lot of "over budget" items like fuel burn, extra dockage where available, increased shipping costs for supplies.  Andy could speak more accurately to the extra incurred costs.  This will pass of course, like every epidemic in history has passed.  Cruise travel will take a big hit short term and some will fold or be absorbed and you might see some ship layups but it will come back.  As others have stated, Viking is in better shape than others so lets hope for a sooner rather than later solution to this problem.

Although i don't disagree with your assessment that the WC might be a bust financially due to the added changes and unforeseen added costs, I would argue that Viking is in a worse position than the major players because they don't have the backing and support of a larger corporation.  Add to the fact that Orion being repositioned to Alaska with presumed lost revenue from the cancelled itineraries and i think there's got to be an enormous number of Alaska/Caribbean/Norway cruises that need to be sold to make up for the shortfall...

1 hour ago, eff1dude said:

We’ve just had a phone call from Viking telling us that we won’t be able to join the cruise in Bali as they have made the decision to “relocate the ship from Asia”. They have offered full refund plus FCV and also offered to cover all of our airfares. 

We’re disappointed that we won’t be going on our vacation but couldn’t ask anymore of Viking. Hope everyone on board enjoys the rest of your cruise and we look forward to redeeming our cruise vouchers and perhaps meeting some of you in the not too distant future.

so if they’re relocating from Asia, where might they end up apart from Australia or India (albeit still considered South Asia)?

sounds to me like between refunds being offered, future cruise credits and repatriation flights this is going to cost them massively

23 minutes ago, cscurlock said:

To be honest the lack of communication here is the problem.  The passengers should be told the process on what is going to happen.  Considering we are well past the last ships outbreak a plan should have been drawn up on what will happen if someone gets it on a cruise ship.  So people and the cruise industry know what the risks are.  There should be an form you fill out saying, "I am ok with the risks'" after the medical questionnaire when boarding describing this process and it should be available on the cruise lines web site as well. Right now they don't even have a plan otherwise the crew and passengers would all know what is going to happen to them over the next month.

I think part of the issue is the hubris which is on display across the industry....much like the infamous notion of the banks being too big to fail...

I agree that the lack of communication is what makes any bad situation worse, but the lack of a plan for this sort of situation just magnifies the frustration as its not as if everyone (gov't and companies) haven't had a 'dress rehearsal' of sorts but it seems like a really bade case of deja vu!

38 minutes ago, gatour said:

Yea, right.  Prior to this, how many people who had norovirus symptoms would fill out the embarkation health form truthfully.  My dad was hard headed and he would have "just toughed it out" so as not to ruin his cruise.

What makes you think anything has changed re. Noro reporting?  If people were honest i guarantee there'd be a lot less reports of outbreaks on ships, and no doubt less people cruising but because people are filthy animals (actually i think animals are cleaner in a lot of respects) it means the illness continues to propagate.   Yes that's a harsh description but when you consider that Noro is avoidable if people follow basic sanitary practices.

1 hour ago, gatour said:

 

If the person did not go to the infirmary how would Princess or any cruise line know to investigate further.  I was on a cruise (different line) where I came down with a nasty cold, probably one of the worse once I have had as adult, never went to the infirmary, and walked off the ship with it.  They had no way to know that I had a cold.

What i'm referring to is that if the person was symptomatic onboard i find it hard to believe that in the current climate of hyper-sensitivity of coughing, sneezing, etc. that they didn't attend the medical centre given they were older and as such in the susceptible demographic.

Been wading through the posts and there's a lot of valid points being made, and rightfully so a lot of concern expressed as well for the current situation and future sailings, etc...

That said, and this is not meant to be disrespectful to those dealing with the situation onboard Grand or previously on Diamond but it seems clear that like any large company, profits drive all or most decisions.  If there were people who were symptomatic of a 'flu like' illness on a prior cruise, why was that not more strictly investigated?  Of course this is speculation and if we all knew the future we'd be making decisions accordingly but it seems to  me like the industry in general is too hasty to maintain their profit margins with timely departures/arrivals, etc. as opposed to using some due diligence to ensure the health and well  being of its passengers especially in such a climate where everyone with a sniffle is subconsciously seen as being contagious of something...

Plenty of comments about cleaning, fogging, etc. and as one post accurately described the measures in place in NY transit it would appear as those tasked with the job are just going through the motions with a spray and wipe approach.  Surely if a disinfectant of any kind is to be deemed effective then there needs to be contact time with the surface greater than a second or two?  We've all seen the mad dash that is turnaround day with the crew running around like headless chickens trying to make ready the ship for the next cruise which leads me to think that the hasty approach is no doubt a contributing factor to the current issues, hence the reason that cruises which are affected by outbreaks of Noro-virus tend to carry over in some way or another.

Hopefully this gets resolved with minimal damage,  but if the current numbers are accurate with 11 pax & 10 crew showing 'flu like' symptoms i'm certain that number will increase exponentially due to the close confines and varied onset times of symptoms.  Guess the positive is that they're at least going to be berthed in SFO as opposed to Japan as/when they're permitted entry.

12 hours ago, cruise-tanker said:

I really appreciate the fast reply. I've never used this site before and having someone respond is comforting. So I'm spilling my thoughts now. Viking says on their web site that they are doing all they can to ensure the people boarding are safe from the virus. Well, the people in California that recently came down with the virus were in China on a cruise ship and were quarantined. They were considered virus free and sent to the USA only to be infected after they arrived. Viking can not guarantee the passengers are free of the virus just because they check their passport and see if they have any temperature before they board. So once people board, the could show signs of the virus. Second, once we get to any of the ports, the people who are not on the ship could have the virus and contaminate the others. Third, once we try to get to the scheduled ports, they could be closed (ie. Venice) and that would be horrible. Forth, traveling in the air and walking the airports, could give us the virus. Bottom line, we are spending a ton of money to be subjected to this virus, change of ports, and possibly abandoned at any of the countries because we are infected. I plan on waiting until the first part of May to decide to use my "cancel at any time for any reason" Viking travel insurance. I'd love to hear from anyone else about this. We leave May 27 and the trip last until Jun 17. We have friends that are on the same ship, same general agenda for April that are going to cancel. We are canceling if there is not a significant change in the virus in the western Mediterranean cruise we booked. Comments????

Not to put too fine a point on it,  but this is the exact reason you've got the type of insurance you have...

You raise a lot of valid points as well, and don't be surprised if you get a lot of mixed replies on here as the  majority of people who post are staunch supporters of the cruise lines, and/or 'fearless' travelers (intended to be tongue in cheek) but at the end of the day you know what's best for your personal situation so if it doesn't feel right for you and you can get out of the trip with minimal 'damage' than it can't be worse than getting sick and being quarantined on a ship, or denied entry into ports...

Unfortunately we live in an age where hysteria is magnified by the idiots on TV and in certain political offices who speak out of their backsides to either try and minimize the severity of the unknown or to exacerbate it...either way, traveling internationally is a personal decision based on what's best for you and yours given the facts you have and the risk versus reward...

5 hours ago, Elle E Kaye said:

Ummm, I assure you that the next stop is neither Alaska or Sydney. We just sailed out of Port Chalmers/Dunedin and Christchurch is the next stop. According to crew, the current plan is to complete the last Auckland to Sydney cruise, then head to Vancouver. It sounds as if plans are a bit fluid.. pun may have intended. 😉

Off to the Chef’s Table!

Maybe they're trying to get a head start on securing berth space in Vancouver so as to avoid the same debacle as they had last year with the half tender / half berthed alongside turnaround...

Either way it sounds to me like they're flying by the seat of their pants, again not dissimilar to the reaction to having to change the now cancelled Cuba itineraries which seem to have been done in haste as well...

2 hours ago, budamom said:

I just did an online chat with a viking agent who said the ship is on its way to Alaska and will be sailing empty and that they are still working on the new itineraries.

No matter the company, sailing that long completely empty can't be good for the bottom line...

Thanks OP for confirming the rumors as I’d heard several months ago from a colleague who was working for VV as a third party contractor that Wendy was no longer the captain and this was while the ship was still in the yard.

i wasn’t given any specific information apart from the change, but it doesn’t bode well IMO for a company which spent so much time and hype about their female Captain only to quietly sail without someone with whom much publicity was made.

i have no dog in the fight as it were but I don’t see the niche that VV angles for as being sustainable given the lack of support from a larger, established cruise corporation and the fact that they seem to be more gloss than substance.  And for those who think Branson is bank rolling the operation I suggest a little homework on that angle...

as an aside, I had also heard there were many other reasonably high ranking officers who were swayed to VV with promises of various degrees which were never kept so this could very well be in part what’s happened with the now former Captain, who in fact was never really the Captain at all...

will be interesting to see how it shakes out in the end but starting a company with such hubris only leads to disappointment and I’m sure once the shiny gloss wears off all that will be left are those who’ve been drinking copious amounts of kool-aid...

At the end of the day, the issue on Ventura was mechanical and the ship was unable to physically complete the itinerary it was scheduled for, and as such i'd believe this was the (obvious) reason that compensation was given.

As it relates to the current cruise whereby Oceana is facing adverse weather conditions outside of the control of the company and as such the itinerary is altered, there is still a service being offered/supplied despite the lack of ports being called upon per the original itinerary.

I'm almost certain there's a clause in the passage contract which no doubt states that an itinerary may be altered due to weather, etc. followed by a lot of similar legalese which removes and/or limits liability unless the company wishes to offer a 'good will' gesture.

1 hour ago, gfs1ram said:

It's not only Dubai and surrounding area, what about the current troubles in Hong Kong ??

 

I have not read or researched Cruise ships no longer calling at Hong Kong but the Port is regularly used by Cunard

and the current unrest/riots must be of concern.

 

Like previous posters I trust Cunard and they will not put passengers or their ships at risk. UK Foreign Office guidance will always prevail.

 

With the Turkey and the Black Sea area's already 'no go' areas, sadly the world of Cruising could get a whole lot smaller.

Very good point re. Hong Kong as I've not heard nor looked into cruise ship traffic there although when i saw the protesters overtake the airport not long ago it did give me pause!  That said, the protesters in HK seemed to do their worst on weekends which i find quite civilized (sarcasm intended) although of course it could all change in an instant much the same as anything in the world...

If i'm not mistaken, didn't QM2 do the route via the Atlantic and down to South Africa and then across to Australia last year and then finish up through Asia, Middle East, Med?  Wonder why the change in direction this year?

2 hours ago, princeton123211 said:

She's also one of the fastest commercial ships out there so theres that. Pirates go after cargo/tanker ships with low slung decks that are slow and have as little crew/passengers onboard as possible. QM2's nearest accessible deck to the water is prohibitively high, she's extremely fast for a girl her size, and she's full of thousands of people-- not really a good target.

 

Hostile foreign governments, in all likelihood, wouldn't fire on a passenger ship like that because it would start a war. Firing on lightly crewed tankers doesn't warrant the same response.

 

she’s no doubt fast through the water with a high freeboard which is why the concept of modern day piracy was not mentioned in my original post, although it's no doubt been the topic of choice when discussing the area in question over recent years...

my concern is less about a deliberate attack and more about collateral damage, or even a claim of mistaken identity.   If the sister company removes a vessel from the area entirely for the whole winter season, months in advance I’d be surprised if they’re not paying close attention to any and all company vessels due to transit...

1 hour ago, BigMac1953 said:

Cunard, for many years has had a close relationship with the Royal Navy. It is not unknown for the ships to be used for exercises especially when heading for dry dock without pax.

 

It's also not unknown for SBS operatives to join the ships in pirate waters.

 

There is no way any Cunard ship is going to be allowed to sail unescorted in dangerous waters.

I have no doubt that the military is in close consultation, but I have a hard time envisioning a full navy escort through the areas in question, not to mention the fact that any armed personnel onboard would surely do little to thwart an act of aggression coming from a land based source

5 minutes ago, newjoisey said:

Could be a great money making on board excursion.......manning deck guns to repel pirates ....i'm in  

If only that were the case, but the truth of the matter is the issue is less about pirates and more about missiles and hostile governments... 

Let me preface this by acknowledging that the upcoming World Cruise onboard QM2 is still months away (departing Southampton January 10, 2020) and anything can change between now and then....

That being said, I can't help but notice the current itinerary has the ship transiting the Red Sea where an Iranian oil tanker was recently fired upon, and of course the overnight stop in Dubai despite the entire winter itinerary for P&O's Oceana being altered to remove it from the area.  

I completely acknowledge that anything can happen anywhere in the world at any time, but what are the thoughts when comparing the total alteration of a ship's itinerary due to the tensions in the region, yet keeping arguably one of the most famous ships in the world transiting a high tension area (Red Sea & Bab el Mandeb) as well as the Straits of Hormuz?

Not meant to be inflammatory, just thinking aloud and interested in mixed opinions

reports have suggested end of September as being the effective date from which the current ban takes effect meaning all ships larger than 1000 gross tons will be re routed with the majority ending up at the cargo pier mentioned in the following story

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49276730?fbclid=IwAR0S0Mfa4gTFj42HmpN7FzNwkt2sGHZHiDQ1EXNcYLyqpSqTB6WVjzsPtAM

*Caveat - this is playing devil's advocate

*How many small vessels transit the grand canal on a daily basis, every day, all day, all year?  Now, how many 'large' cruise ships transit the same waterway, at a considerably slower speed, for a limited number of hours per day during a small window of time each year?  Given that thought, which is likely to cause more of a continuous/long term issue, and which is easier to vilify as being the root of all the problems?  As i say, playing devil's advocate but in my humble opinion its silly to say cruise ships are the cause of a deteriorating land mass built in a lagoon...

I'm not a big fan of Venice as a cruise destination as its simply too small a place for so many people, much the same as many of the islands in the Caribbean which are overrun with tourists, especially on those days when there are multiple ships in port.  I'm a definite believer though that Venice (and to a lesser extent the islands in the Caribbean) are wanting to have their cake and eat it as they're happy for the money to flow in via the industry (regardless of whether its a case of people buying pizza or coffee) but then complain about the same industry bringing in the revenue.  I'm under no illusion that the lack of ships in the grand canal will have a negative impact on the bottom line for Venice (or the cruise industry) as if anything it will generate more revenues through the use of buses, taxis, tours, etc...

Been a good while since I've been to those ports; however, I can offer the following:

St John's, Newfoundland - ship should dock more or less 'in town' with a short walk to the city centre; can't comment on the presence of HOHO buses

Cornerbrook, Newfoundland - very small town, not much to see/do apart from whatever is being offered onboard by way of tours although there might be some local options you could source on your own, but i'd imagine they're limited due to the size of the town

Charlottetown, PEI - never been but its a provincial capital so i'd presume there should be plenty to see/do

Halifax, Nova Scotia - ship should dock adjacent to or very near to a local indoor market which is nice to look around if that's of interest.  There is a nice waterfront causeway which leads to the city centre; easy to get to the city for a look around, etc.  You could also visit Citadel Hill either on your own or as part of a ship/local tour; google is likely a good option here

St John, New Brunswick - been far too many years since i've been so can't offer much insight although i'm sure a visit to the Bay of Fundy is going to be the highlight for most

Sydney, Nova Scotia - very small town on the island of Cape Breton, the highlight is the giant violin

hope that helps even if just a little bit

23 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

To strike a more positive note, we’ve got two cruises still booked with P&O for next year - and none of this will make the slightest difference.

 

We’ve got excellent opening day prices, decent OBC, shareholder OBC on top of that, and I’m hoping the refit’s going to sort out the problems on Azura.

 

The chances of meeting these ruffians are remote.  I’ll be fast asleep!

We're looking at taking Azura in the Med....what problems are you referring to and when is the refit planned?

1 hour ago, Esprit said:

We were aboard Emerald Princess in the Caribbean during the 2010 World Cup. I witnessed a brawl between the USA and Ghanaian supporters mid afternoon after USA lost. The funniest thing I've ever seen as the brawlers kept slipping over around the pool area trying to throw punches. Security were soon all over them.

 I remember this well....and if memory serves it was a powder-keg atmosphere from the beginning given that the pool deck below the big screen was clearly divided between the supporters of the respective teams.  Then, a young lady on the side supporting Ghana ended up in the pool and it all kicked off.  

Although alcohol was no doubt flowing at the time, and could be considered a contributing factor it goes without saying that the stage was set for a possible disaster long before the opening kick off due to the clearly divided crowd and tense atmosphere.  As they say, hindsight is 20/20 but i'm a firm believer that if companies (or cruise lines in this case) implement deterrents ahead of time there is a less likely chance of things getting out of hand, and this of course starts with responsible service and general awareness onboard/engagement beyond pouring and pandering...just my 2 cent