Captain_Morgan

8 hours ago, id est said:

Totally agree!

Nice to see more constructive comments from people living in denial....

51 minutes ago, DrKoob said:

This is a photo from 2019. Please!

Sorry to burst your bubble of denial, but this was posted 2 days ago on LinkedIn by Mukran Port...feel free to google it for yourself unless you too are still living in 2019

While scrolling through another site just the other day I came across a post from the port in Mukran, which at first glance I didn't pay much attention to as it was seemingly another innocuous post about a port being thankful that a ship is there, etc.  But when I scrolled back it dawned on me that those in the photo were, for lack of a better term captured in what can only be described as reckless and irresponsible behavior.

I know the Viking loyalists who think the company is without fault will see nothing wrong with this photo and will convince themselves and others that all is perfectly normal and I am nothing but a troll (whatever helps spin the counter narrative I suppose 🙄) , but in this current time of a global pandemic I would have expected to see at the very least someone wearing a mask, and at a stretch a little social distancing?  The two women pictured I can only guess are representatives of the port, neither of whom are wearing masks, and one could argue that the angle from which the photo was taken might not accurately show the distance between them and the crew; however, the semantics and small details that people are surely to point out does not take away from the fact that the optics of this IMO are not particularly positive given Germany by last count had in excess of 30K cases per day recently and Viking are seemingly posing for a photo op despite it all.

As I say, you can put your head in the sand and pretend everything is normal for whatever reason you choose in order to self-justify but as they say a picture tells a thousand words and this one, although as part of the original post was meant to be part of something positive (giving gifts of chocolate to the crew) comes across as pretty tone deaf.

I think its reasonably safe to say that any crew member who gets vaccinated will have done so in accordance with whatever protocols are in place for their country.

Given the scale and scope of the virus, there are far too many truly vulnerable people who IMO are a higher priority to receive a vaccination than a cruise ship employee as despite what some politicians in Florida have tried to suggest, the cruise industry is not that important in the larger scheme of things.

When you also take into consideration the fact that any resumption of cruising will still include social distancing, mask wearing, etc. these are all mitigating factors much like a vaccine so the cruise lines will surely look at the fact their passenger base being vaccinated and their crew being masked is an acceptable step in the right direction until such time that everyone can be jabbed.

20 hours ago, molecrochip said:

Its worth noting that with P&O aiming at the younger dynamic its felt they are less accepting of 2 days dodgy weather around Biscay and are more accepting of flying. 

When I first read this sentence I thought it would end by saying P&O are less accepting of 2 day dodgy cruises to Zeebrugge or Guernsey, but I guess those are too lucrative when it comes to bar sales?

I'm all for a changing demographic onboard, but the more of those 'weekender' cruises that are offered, the more P&O turns into Carnival Cruises which does nothing for their long term branding and supposed storied history in the industry.

It will be interesting to see what a restart looks like as part of me thinks they're going to offer deep discounts on very short trips to get people out, which typically lends itself to a specific crowd or do they charge a higher price due to limited occupancy?  Somehow I think option #1 will be preferred because even 50% occupancy on Britannia at £56 per person, per night = nearly £100k in fares alone...

15 hours ago, Eastporter said:

My concerns are what happens if a passenger or a companion test positive.   Is he left at the current Port to quarantine on his own and experience the potential vagaries of the local medical system (hopefully not in SPB)?   Or does he continue onboard in some sort of quarantine?   Can the onboard staff handle a Covid patient?   How does he eventually get home?   What happens at the end of the voyage?   

 

How will Viking answer these questions?   I haven’t seen the answers yet. 

I agree 100% with your entire post but thought the above is the most poignant in this instance as it remains to be seen how they plan on dealing with situations that arise onboard.  

I've seen articles and heard from people with specific knowledge of the situation whereby pax and crew on Costa ships sailing to/from Italy have been landed to a local COVID centre (hospital?) as a result of having tested positive during onboard testing, which may be fine if they are Italian citizens/residents as I believe they (Costa) are only catering to 'local' passengers but how does Viking plan on dealing with an American or Canadian or British passenger who tests positive onboard in a foreign country?  

So far all that has been said from Viking is that they've spent what can be assumed to be an enormous amount of money on technology and drafted plans to say how they will go about creating their bubble but as you very clearly stated, bubbles leak and when they do the true measure is how the situation is handled, not focusing on all the things which were put in place to prevent the occurrence which seemingly failed.

4 hours ago, Porcupine 52 said:

Sure don't know the answer.  But it seems like we are going to have many cruise lines go broke unless they can get started.  Maybe it is the survival of the fittest in the cruise industry.  It seems like Viking is trying some thing to get back cruising.  Will it work?  Who knows.  I have some friends that work in a college that does daily testing.  Like you said the only thing is does is to have a quicker shutdown when it is detected.  

No doubt about it that the industry is suffering, but to date we've seen nothing but optics and spin from a line which is standing still and putting out more advertising to no doubt bolster confidence which ultimately equals future cruise deposits.  I don't mean that as a slight, but when you see the lines which have restarted (TUI, MSC, Costa, Aida) none of them have labs onboard, none of them have banged the drum about what they're going to do to this extent and so far they all seem to be ticking over just fine albeit I'm sure they've had isolated cases onboard as its virtually inevitable at this point based on the level of spread seen around the world.

As I've said before, I think these efforts are going to be redundant in a short period of time due in large part to seemingly effective vaccines which I hope beyond hope get rolled out in short order.  Ultimately if there was so much effort being put in to a return to service with such high praise, why have cruises been cancelled again until the Spring?  Clearly Hagen & Co. are hedging their bets that enough of the Viking passenger base will have been vaccinated by the Spring that there might be a glimmer of hope that will allow them to cruise before the Summer, most likely in Europe on cruises to a very select few sympathetic ports or to nowhere at all which I don't think will be the case given the focus on tours, etc.

35 minutes ago, Porcupine 52 said:

So is the answer to shut down all cruising until 2022 or try your best and open up later this year with a lab and testing and maybe some of your passengers having the vaccine?  Not sure what the answer is?

Good question....but with that said, I fail to see how having a lab onboard will prevent COVID from occurring if its brought onboard, goes undetected, and then spreads.  Kind of like closing the gate after the horse has bolted...

59 minutes ago, OnTheJourney said:

Although, in all fairness, there's really only so much the cruise industry can control. Their main focus almost has to be primarily centered on what happens once onboard. If some guy who KNOWS he has a fever and might even be covid-positive decides to pop a few ibuprofen two hours before he gets to pier check-in so as to clear embarkation, the cruise line can't do much about it. Even onboard, yeah, you're supposed to do the daily testing, but what will they do about those who don't follow through with it? Sorta like the old formal night / dressing up "requirement" - noone ever got thrown overboard a ship for not wearing a suit and tie. Self-responsibility and conscientiousness is still a big part of the overall picture. 

I agree completely!  Sadly we still see people lying like cheap rugs when it comes to the embarkation health declarations for Noro-virus so why should anyone think this will be any different?  When you consider that the testing is not full proof in detecting cases, I can nearly 100% certain that people will slip beneath the radar so to speak and there will be issues until the vaccine is in place for enough people to at the very least prevent serious side effects.

1 hour ago, TayanaLorna said:

Press coverage regarding the virus test on Sea Dream said it was Rapid Test but i don't know if it was a Rapid-PCR test.  Not all rapid tests can detect the virus within the first days of exposure. Sea Dream did not require masks once on board nor did they test everyone daily. I would hope that Viking requires masks and does daily testing for the first few days of the cruise until they are fairly satisfied that no one became infected in transit or on a pre cruise.  

I believe (and stand to be corrected) that the rapid tests being done on site were antigen tests and not PCR tests whereby the former can be done in a rapid format (ie. 15 minutes) using saliva whereas the latter has to be done in a lab setting with more sophisticated equipment and is much more accurate.

3 hours ago, OnTheJourney said:

So, there ya go. Tor is probably right - safer on board the ship in some respects than being in and around one's hometown assuming, again, that people follow the rules.

Of course he's going to say that, just like a used car salesman will tell you the vehicle in question was only ever driven by a "little old lady, too and from church, once a week, etc..." 😆

Point being that its in his best interest to provide the most positive and favourable viewpoint of being on his ships whereas the reality (or concern) should be less about the level of cleanliness onboard and more about the status of people coming on!  I recall watching an interview with Arnold Donald (President of Carnival Corp) who said in his opinion being on the ships was safer than going to eat in a local restaurant, or shopping in a local store....but of course what he failed to mention is you don't tend to spend multiple days in relatively close proximity with hundreds of strangers in said restaurant so context is very important.

At the end of the day, the ship should be relatively sterile or at the very least 'COVID free' and its only when someone carrying the virus enters that the game changes...

12 minutes ago, OnTheJourney said:

 

CM...good post. Would they seriously want to do a cruise on April Fool's Day anyway ?!?  In theory, as you alluded to, it all sounds good, and surely the video is very polished and professionally done - and makes a good case for the precautions enacted; however, as we move out of the Holiday season and into the New Year, the inevitable Christmas gatherings and who knows what else could have a huge impact on increasing cases. As you say, how far along will we be with the vaccinations?

OTJ...thanks, I wasn't trying to be inflammatory as some might think but really I just try to look at things in a pragmatic way as opposed to the 'Viking can do no wrong' lens...

As for sailing on April Fool's Day, I agree it would be a bit of a questionable one regardless of whether you're superstitious or not but in all honesty I think this is just another rough date for them to extend the current situation until as its literally so dynamic and changing regularly.

I'm of the mind that going through the motions of retro-fitting ships with all the fancy bits and pieces would be fine if you were planning on sailing in the immediate future as they are mitigating measures to try and prevent the illness from taking root; however, when you consider the number of variables involved and the facts that the presumed best practices (testing, etc.) have proven to be no more of a preventive measure than simply not cruising it begs the question why such a huge investment in soon to be obsolete technologies?  

I'm not suggesting the vaccine will be a 'silver bullet' but based on the science being shared it sure has shown to be a much better approach with respect to preventing serious illness (i.e. the need to be ventilated) so as much as the efforts are appreciated and the production value high, how does making a video outlining the daily testing, mask wearing, tour bubbles, etc etc etc prevent the spread of illness onboard???  

Someone has spent a lot of time and effort to create a very nice graphic which is nothing more than 

'a plan on paper only' which hasn't been trialed and at present serves as nothing more than a means to conjur up confidence from future cruisers (who are currently acting as creditors by way of future cruise deposits).

As has been seen with the likes of SeaDream who claimed to have a robust strategy in place with pre-travel PCR, pre-boarding antigen testing in the port, and of course vastly reduced numbers of persons onboard; none of which could stop an outbreak onboard.  

Also, just recently a cruise to nowhere from Singapore on RCCL has resulted in at least one confirmed case onboard which has caused the cruise to be cancelled despite yet again supposedly robust protocols between the port and the cruise line.

It's all well and good to say there are fancy HVAC filters in place and a lab onboard to detect cases, but how much of this will be relatively redundant by the time cruising resumes and a large number of the demographic coveted by Viking will hopefully have been vaccinated?  Furthermore, how many countries will accept the results from this onboard lab as being absolute and without flaw?  We actually heard from some of the crew currentluy onboard Viking Sea who we keep in touch with, especially around the holidays and they said they were in lockdown recently in Trieste for an extended duration due to false-positive cases onboard as found by their onboard testing regime (not the much hyped lab which is obviously only on Star at present), which ironically the Italian health authourites apparently didn't recognize as being valid.

Lets be honest with ourselves here, does anyone actually believe Viking (or any other line with a majority North American clientele) will be cruising on 01 April 2021??  When you consider the majority of their passenger base is from the US where there is no apparent slow-down of transmission I find it difficult to imagine that they will be in a position to sail until vaccines are rolled out for a majority of their passenger base.

On 12/1/2020 at 9:49 PM, Jim Avery said:

A bit over 7% if memory serves.  Don't have the article in front of me. 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/carnival-corporation--plc-announces-closing-of-1-450-million-7-625-senior-unsecured-notes-due-2026-and-500-million-7-625-senior-unsecured-notes-due-2026--301180671.html

1 hour ago, Cienfuegos said:

China is very conscious of its rise as a world power, so projecting its wealth and sophistication isn't unexpected. Viking is a widely respected, extremely competent player, and the Chinese government will learn a great deal from them.

 

The Viking decision is, in one sense, a strong vote of confidence in Viking.

 

 

 

 

It will be interesting to see how it shakes out as I can think of a couple major players (Princess & NCL) who sent supposedly purpose built ships (Majestic Princess & Norwegian Joy) for the Chinese market to be stationed there, albeit not under Chinese control / flag and both were sent packing with their tail between their legs.  Yes, both of those ships mentioned are behemoths in comparison but both were literally brand new and if you're comparing apples to apples when it comes to competence and reputation, both Princess and NCL have many years more experience in the realm of ocean cruising than Viking.

If China wants to show it's wealth I wonder when they go after the likes of Crystal (technically already owned by a Chinese firm) who last I saw/read was having some major financial issues.

Again, the choice for christening Sun in Shanghai and appointing the VP of China Merchant Bank Financial Leasing as the godmother go hand in hand, as does this move which is clear as the nose on anyone's face.   Question now is, which ship follows...

Crown Princess was the first of this class which is effectively a Princess Grand Class with an extra deck.  There were 5 total built off the same spec with brand specific changes built in the following order:

Crown Princess

Ventura

Emerald Princess

Azura

Ruby Princess

Personally I find Princess' decor is gaudy with too much brass and 'bling' whereas at least with P&O its a little more bespoke by comparison.

As for the Royal Class, again the Princess offerings are very shiny and bright with a sweeping atrium that feels wide open in comparison to Britannia which seemed a little more enclosed.

Looks like the Chinese are calling in their marker for their investment in the Sun, which of course will no doubt serve as a cash infusion of sorts as well that Viking (like every other line) is likely in desperate need of...

Wonder which one will be next as I can't see them stopping at just one...

As has been mentioned numerous times, testing is not the 'silver bullet' to resumption of cruising as you can be tested daily and still be an asymptomatic spreader as has been shown across America and other parts of the world.

Testing is definitely a large part of the equation to controlling the spread, but what happens when there is an outbreak onboard because no test is 100% accurate and then you've got to back track on all of the close contacts, etc. to try and get on top of the situation.

As it relates to SeaDream, sure its a lot easier to lockdown a ship with 60 passengers onboard after 7 confirmed positive cases onboard, but if there is an outbreak of the same 10% or more on any ship returning to service that could result in another cruising catastrophe that all of the resources put in place to make it appear that it is a safe environment wont count for a thing.

To be expected, albeit disappointing as with an entire season in the Caribbean scrubbed and Cunard already cancelled into the Spring it only makes sense that seasonal itineraries will be re-evaluated moving forward as well.

Suffice it to say, cruising is likely to look a whole lot different than it did when we last sailed

1 minute ago, joeecco said:

We don’t even know that’s for sure haha. 
I think it’s almost certain that she was having some sort of work done, be it maintenance or refit because surely cash stripped P&O wouldn’t be paying for a ship to berth for that length of time. 

True, but I think the technical aspect (ie. anchor issues and recovery) seems more plausible as I did happen to notice a utility vessel in the vicinity of Azura yesterday on AIS but didn't pay too much attention as there always seems to be tugs and the like nearby when vessels are at Ocean Terminal.

As for the amount of time spent in port, maybe ABP is giving them a 'hometown discount' 😆

13 hours ago, joeecco said:

So do we have absolute confirmation that all her upgrades have been done and when do we get to see them? Brilliant news!

Sounds like the only 'upgrade' we know about for sure is the recovered anchor

Plenty of guesses afoot, but perhaps now she's on 46 we'll be blessed with another of those videos from you know who with a ship as the backdrop....😒

Perhaps there's a technical issue they're trying to sort out as well, hence the fact she's been in port so long with minimal movement apart from the game of 'musical chairs'...

At this point its all one big guess after another as its all we have to go on, even Molecrochip's post wasn't definitive and absolute about refit work being done, just a guess which I think many have taken as being fact based on previous accuracy of information as it relates to press releases, etc.

Not meant to be inflammatory, just trying to keep feet on the ground here...

6 hours ago, mercury7289 said:

Maybe a question needs to be asked why the change in the mask regulation, however this is secondary, the main question is how did Covid break though the protocols?

Everyone in the industry will want the answer, and so do guests.

I think its safe to say that their so-called protocols were mere window dressing and nothing else.  A PCR test done 72hrs prior to travel only indicates whether or not you're positive/negative at the time of the test but what about the time leading up to the day of travel?  Likely these people took their test, got a negative result and failed to remain self-isolated or in a 'safe' space during the time leading up to their departure to Barbados.  Of course they could have very well contracted the virus en route, which again despite the on-site testing prior to embarkation clearly did not pick it up as the bug had not as yet incubated to the point of detection.  Add to the fact that the on-site testing from what I understand is likely to be an Antigen test as opposed to a PCR test which is less accurate so there is an opening for false negative results.

At the end of the day, even those companies currently cruising have had positive cases onboard with the difference being how they've handled both the cases and the dissemination of information.  There is absolutely no way (and I await the critics of this statement) that a single case will just remain a single case in a densely populated environment because by the time the carrier is either symptomatic or 'not feeling well' they've likely transmitted it to multiple people.

6 hours ago, Cienfuegos said:

I hope that Viking cuts a deal with UK authorities to consider passengers as "in transit" and thus outside the traditional arrivals rules.

 

Arrive, pass through border controls, get on the bus, get on the ship. 

My understanding is this is exactly what happened with Sea Dream in Barbados and look how that ended up?  Somehow I find it much more difficult to believe that the UK Gov't will be swayed by a private enterprise to allow potentially infected people to simply transit for the sake of take a holiday when the country is experiencing their own outbreaks and subsequent lockdown.

I know there's been a lot of speculation about reducing the self-isolation period from 14 to 7 days when travelling through specific travel corridors but that has just been an idea floated about and not confirmed and when you consider the UK is much less reliant on tourism than the likes of Barbados, what would the incentive for the UK be to allow this?