FiredogCruiser

18 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

I wasn’t around back in the 1930s so I can’t comment on how things were back then. But as a big airplane buff who spent over 20 years in the Air Force, I feel confident saying blimps would not have remained competitive with planes as a means for transportation very long, if at all. 
 

I also completely disagree with your comment that cursing may be eliminated. I don’t see that happening in any situation. There is no doubt cruising as we know it is going to change, cruises will likely become more expensive for numerous reasons, a cruise line(s) might go out of business, etc., but there is no way the cruising industry is going to disappear. 

I agree with you that cruising in some fashion will continue. I am beginning to think however, that a change in marketing will have to come from the industry to focus away from attracting so many first time cruisers, and concentrating on ever larger ships.

I believe that to some degree a portion of the business will become more focused upon what some refer to as a more traditional experience. Smaller ships, varied itineraries, a higher degree of service (IE: less emphases on attracting the largest number of the lowest common denominator) which will result in higher prices, coupled to a greater value. I think the premium brands might actually be the first to recover, as the large mega ship experiences become harder to sell. I think that coming out of all this, attracting the first time cruiser will be a much harder sell than attracting experienced cruisers who would be willing to pay perhaps a bit more for a perceived greater value.

I believe this revised marketing approach could be aided by port cities limiting the degree of population expansion they are willing to expose themselves to on turn around days. They have proven themselves unprepared to handle the numbers, so rather than gear up they will limit exposure. I think its pretty clear that the ships, in spite of their difficulties, were as well, if not better prepared, than many port cities. New York, San Francisco and Ft. Lauderdale as specific examples.

Just a guess, but I would think the Fantasy and Spirit class ships will be the first to resume sailing because:

a. They are smaller, and would be at higher full rates in a reduced market

b. As someone else pointed out they are available to more drive to ports

c. Not all ports will come back on line at the same time due to lack of shore side preparedness. Smaller ships therefore would have more flexibility to construct itineraries around available open ports.

d. I believe a certain portion of the cruising public will gravitate towards smaller ships with less people and more public space per passenger. One of the reasons the Spirit class was my favorite before this crises.

e. Smaller ships require fewer crew to fully staff

2 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

Having two kids in Police services, would love to hear more on unprepared

Having two kids in public safety you should be well aware of the preparedness problems I would think. A post here is to small to go into everything, but I will try to make a few points.

1. Staffing. While there is no longer an accepted staffing criteria for police departments (I wonder why), how many departments utilize the ICMA staffing program to determine adequate levels of staffing, and then actually staff to that level, which averages 2.5/1000?

How many fire departments are staffed to NFPA standards 1710 and 1720

How many EMS organizations are staffed to meet EMS guidelines for pandemic influenza?

How many emergency management agencies at either the municipal or county level are adequately staffed to provide the planning required by state and federal (in my case PEMA and FEMA) directives. (In my case, our county EMA operation has had a planning position cut from the budget the last three years in a row. A position that would be responsible for planning and coordination between competing agencies for situations like pandemic response.

2. Enforcement. How much code enforcement is being left due to lack of staffing. (Not enough firefighters in the budget, cut code enforcement positions.)

How often are known standards either ignored, or worse deliberately dismantled. Example; the cases of New York and California dismantling their medical stockpiles for budgetary considerations. New York actually auctioned off approximately 500 ventilators because they decided they couldn't afford to maintain them. California's Gov. Brown purposely dismantled their state's stockpile for the same reason. Both states then blames the federal government for not providing them instant replenishment of their inventories. Where was the enforcement of standards?

3. Equipment: Adjusted for inflation, how many public safety providers are seeing an increase in budgets allowing them to maintain staffing and equipment standards, let alone add new new technology at adequate deployment levels.

How much response equipment has been taken out of service nationally due to staffing reductions?

How much response equipment has exceeded its expected life cycle, and kept in service due to lack of funding to replace it?

4. Political support: How much support is public safety getting from elected officials, especially in our larger municipalities. Can anyone say that law enforcement officers are being adequately supported in New York City?

How much more emphasis is placed on supporting those with grievances against public safety, as opposed to supporting those who provide public safety services. (Black lives matter versus Blue lives matter for example.)

5. Priorities: Far too much public money goes to non-profit staffing of a multitude of agencies that would be much better spent supporting under staffed and under-equipped public safety providers. We have tax payer supported advocacy agencies for just about every type of 'victim' from children's advocacy, to planned parenthood's abortion clinics, to supporting arts at a higher priority than public safety. (Explain the reason behind the priority of the Kennedy Center's special grant of $25M, and then watching them law off their people, while others are begging for the feds to replace their auctioned off ventilators.)

I could go on for pages, citing standards and recommended guidelines that have been in place for years, but I hope this brief response makes my point.

2 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

The port cities were under heavy duress fighting their own battles with Covid. I was fairly critical of them at the time, but I can understand the view[lint (don’t agree but understand).  

Public safety has not been a priority in this country for quite some time. The public simply doesn't care until something happens, then they start screaming for the federal government to bail them out. Always the same. Look at the lack of respect for police officers. Look at the nationwide crises in fire service manpower. Look at budget cuts to adequate equipment. For instance the age of ambulances still in service, and the cost to replace them to meet current state and federal specs. Look at the cities and states that refused to maintain adequate stock piles of recommended medical equipment, while at the same time promoting one give away freebee after another from needles for drug users, to cell phones for illegals. Now that we got caught, unprepared, lets blame the federal government for not bailing us out faster, and make the cruise lines responsible for our shortcomings going forward. The mentality in this county is utterly amazing.

8 minutes ago, beachbum53 said:

 

I would imagine that the CDC will take all of that into consideration, and that there will be some sort of alternate anti-virus medicine for those that can't (or won't) get a shot.  

Remembering the mandatory polio vaccinations that were required years ago. Worked to stop polio. Maybe same thing here.

Makes me wonder how many seasonal flu fatalities are those who chose not to get an annual flu shot.

10 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

What would the 24 hour delay achieve?

It would give more time to allow for rooms to be completed before passengers embark. I know of any number of cruisers who feel that the rules are not applicable to them, and who go through doors before 1:30 p.m. and go into rooms that are not yet finished being cleaned to drop off carry ons. I have heard people brag about it on just about every cruise I have been on. Don't understand it, but it happens a lot.

It would also provide more time for sanitizing all food distribution areas. Same for all of the public rest rooms, allowing for deeper cleaning.

With staff reductions that have taken place, and the larger ships now, I think the extra time would be well spent.

20 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

Looks to be for future travelers during pandemic

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/22745-cdc-releases-strict-guidelines-for-returning-cruise-passengers.html

I believe this is an admission of just how poorly prepared port cities are to handle these emergency situations. As ships have gotten bigger, emergency operations plans have not kept pace, despite pandemic guide lines updates after SARS. Ports have liked the money spent by pre and post cruise travelers purchasing thousands of rooms, meals, fuel and flights around the cruising industry, but have been reluctant to invest in the people, plans and equipment to protect those same travelers when something happens.

Given the number of virus issues surrounding cruising for a number of years, and coupled with the SARS pandemic experience, and the resulting pandemic guide lines that were subsequently issued there is no excuse for the degree of unpreparedness we have seen in a multitude of port cities.

States like New York, where they actually auctioned off what they labeled as excess ventilators need to be held accountable, but probably won't be.

Wondering about a minimum 24 hour turn around to allow for better cleaning and prep between sailings.

22 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

I respect that you may have some experience in this field, but I do not see in your long response where you have any experience in major U.S. ports, and you don't appear to have any experience in vessel traffic safety at all.  Have you any hands-on experience in USCG led initiatives like Ports, Waterways and Coastal Security (PWCS)?  Are you even aware how often USCG boards commercial vessels and discusses security plans?  Are you aware how often port security and safety plans are discussed and revised between federal, state and local officials?  If you did, you would never make the claim "Municipalities spend untold numbers of dollars in advertising to get vacationers to spend their money in their communities, but little to none in planning to insure they have the capability to protect those they attract to their community"  as you did in an earlier post.

 

I do have hands-on experience in PWCS, port and vessel safety, and through my career, I have been involved at the local, state, and federal levels....and all in coastal, port communities....and I'm telling you that your statement is completely wrong.   

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I live near a port community, albeit a Great Lakes port with a currently unused cruise ship terminal, and have taken part in USCG led exercise initiatives with shore side emergency services provider agencies, health care providers and regulatory agencies. It is very interesting to see the differences between a USCG led exercise initiative, and say a county emergency management led initiative. We do have cruise ships on the great lakes, calling on lake port cities during the season. They are, as you are aware, much smaller than the ocean going cruise ships, although can be just as densely housed. What started this was thread was reaction to a county led inquiry and initiative, where the USCG was put on the hot seat, not the result of the USCG action so far as I am aware.

The problem I see is a lack of coordination between the multitude of agencies, coupled with a lack of manpower and resources necessary to immediately mitigate. Too many chiefs, not enough indians, to few horses. NIMS/ICS it wasn't. Too many thought to be in charge, and the potential for out of control problems were shoreside lack of resources, both manpower and equipment, and coordination between emergency services providers, heath care facilities and regulatory agencies with competing agendas.

As someone who used to do, and review on a municipal basis, large event plans, I would have the same concerns about a terrorist attack on a sporting event, or any other gathering that greatly increases the population on a temporary basis. It is one reason why some municipalities limit the size of allowable events.

17 hours ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

That’s quite a claim. Please provide your source ref municipalities not have a plan to ensure safety. 

I have been involved with public safety in one form or fashion at the municipal, county and state levels for many years. I have seen any number of so called emergency operations plans, and been a part of literally hundreds of 'exercises'. In my opinion most of the plans look good on paper, but are clearly not able to be fully implemented for any number of reasons. One is lack of resources. Most do not have nearly enough personnel able to be mobilized to fully implement the plan, needing to rely on outside assistance to function. Worse yet, I have seldom seen an entire plan actually exercised. Most exercises are table top where you sit in a room and simulate what you would do in an actual situation, immediately dispatching resources that are not actually available. It is an academic experience rather than applied. In addition, every hands on exercise I have ever witnessed or taken part in only exercised one aspect of what would be required in an actual event. Those that attempted to do an entire event situation did so on a scaled basis, one crew supposedly simulating what any number would actually be required to do. The size and scope of hands on exercises, in my opinion, have been significantly cut in size and duration primarily due to the personnel and costs involved. Our country has an emergency management system that is built from the local municipality to the county to the state to the federal levels. The initial response, and therefore planning, is a municipal responsibility. When their resources are not sufficient for the task, you go up the chain requesting assistance. A common misconception within the media and public is that when an incident occurs, that county, state and federal assistance and direction is immediately available to overcome local shortcomings. Municipalities spend enormous amounts of money attempting to attract tourist dollars, and in the case of cruising, port cities in addition to the passenger dollars are after the overhead producing jobs involved with restocking food, drink, fuel and other consumable supplies. Large amounts of money have been spend on enlarging port terminals to handle ships carrying the equivalent of a small towns population, and getting bigger all the time. We have seen other viruses impact ship populations to a significant degree. We have had federal and state guidance regarding pandemic response planning for a number of years. Yet as we have seen in places like New York and California, they were under prepared to handle this latest crises. Stockpiles of needed equipment were allowed to be depleted and not replenished due to other spending priorities. New York had the opportunity to replenish and increase their ventilator inventory in 2015 and declined to do so. Gov. Brown in California allowed their stockpile to be depleted from where it had been, again due to cost. In both cases, attempts were made to blame the feds for not instant response to overcome their poor planning and readiness. What my original post pointed out was that when this is over, plans need to be vastly improved. This situation will happen again. And those port communities who want the economic benefit of bringing thousands of people weekly to their communities must do a better job of planning for how to protect those people. Saying we are not prepared, and wanting to refuse assistance to people in need is not an option in my opinion. And I refuse to spend my hard earned money in communities who want me to come and spend my money there, but then attempt to tell me I'm on my own if something happens. and then refuse to accept any responsibility and blame others if criticism is generated. We have a public safety crises in this country, and have had long before this latest virus hit. Lets address it instead of ignoring it then looking for who to blame when we opt not to assist people in need. 

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

 

Little to no planning?  Where in the World did you hear this? 

Authorities from the USCG, and state and local agencies have comprehensive plans in place to respond to major incidents at the ports, including incidents of mass casualties on ships.  They meet regularly, and routinely conduct tabletop and physical drills.  Daily, they expend money and assets to keep cruisers safe.  Ever see those USCG and local LE and fire boats escorting ships and floating around the harbor?  Ever notice how many CBP and local Sheriff's deputies are assigned to the ports?  That's but a mere fraction of the effort to keep people safe.  

 

The problem with this incident is we're dealing with a highly contagious infectious disease that we only just learned about a couple months ago, are are still learning about today.   

Ah, thanks. That explains wanting to deny passengers and crew access to the port. And here I thought they were afraid and didn't know what to do, because they were asking for a plan. Silly me.

After this situation is over, I think what needs to be done is a complete assessment by port municipalities relative to their emergency operations plans for dealing with cruise ship populations. Municipalities spend untold numbers of dollars in advertising to get vacationers to spend their money in their communities, but little to none in planning to insure they have the capability to protect those they attract to their community. And even in those cases where impressive plans might exist, one could question how well exercised they are. Anything more than an occational table top? When you host, and actually market,  facilities that can draw thousands at a time, you have a responsibility not only to your residents, but to the people you attract to be able to adequately service them during an emergency. Abandoning, or attempting to abandon, those in need because you do not have a well exercised plan of operation in my opinion borders on criminal, and cannot be blamed on the cruise ship lines or crews.

2 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

 

https://www.porteverglades.net/zaandam-update/

 

If you want to operate on facts and have an open mind, you may consider what Broward County is asking for.  It's not for me to convince you to spend money in Florida.  But I think for adults to have a discussion you have to do it on the basis of facts 

Why? Did they, or did they not, want to deny access to medical attention to passengers and crew? I can, and do make decisions on how to spend my money any way I want to.

10 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

 

 Florida has simply asked Carnival Corp for a Plan on how to handle the evacuation. Not sure why so many people think that's unreasonable; none will explain it.  Your money, your vote. 

If Ft. Lauderdale is willing to abandon me in the middle of a medical emergency, to float endlessly at sea, I am more than willing to abandon Ft. Lauderdale, and spend my hard earned money in a community where I would feel I would be taken care of should something beyond my control occur. They have made it plain to me they want my money, not me. Okay, as you state, my money, my vote where and how to spend it. Since the cruise industry is not receiving any support in the stimulus bill, I see no reason from them to continue to support ports that refuse to allow them to care for their passengers and crew.

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

While I won't comment on the veracity or otherwise of elected officials involved with this, or whether the facts they presented are correct or not, I'll mention the law.

 

Ships are required to submit ENOA (electronic notice of arrival) to the USCG, and this includes a statement of health for the ship (the ship is requesting "free pratique", or the right to dock without quarantine).  This statement of health includes both crew and passengers, for a passenger vessel.  This must be submitted to the USCG at least 72 hours prior to arrival in US waters, and must be updated at regular intervals, or whenever a change occurs.  It is then up to the USCG COTP to notify CBP and CDC of any health issues onboard the ship in question.

 

As for notifying the CDC directly, for respiratory illness I believe it is a "recommendation" for ships to do so, but I don't believe it is mandatory (I would have to double check that), but of course in today's environment, it would be foolish not to.

 

Now, as far as a ship arriving in port with ill people, there isn't a whole lot to stop the ship from entering the "port environs" (like anchoring) and having to remain in a "quarantine anchorage", but of course the US is also required to lend aid to evacuated injured/ill crew from all vessels in the area under UNCLOS.

 

Until I hear a statement from the USCG directly, I will withhold judgement on this, and would like to have a link to the allegation that Celebrity covered up illnesses, as I haven't heard about this.

For years, Ft. Lauderdale has encouraged people to fly into their airport, stay at their hotels, eat at their restaurants, rent cars from their vendors, buy gas from their fueling stations, shop at their retail outlets, and cruise from their port. Now I see that should I have cruised from there, and a pandemic experience occur while on board, they would not let me return to port for medical attention, because I am not a Floridian. Well, okay. As someone who has cruised from there in the past, I will never fly into Ft. Lauderdale again. I will never book another hotel room there. I will never patronize another restaurant there, spend a dime there, or book another cruise through that port. Ever! End of discussion. Princess, I advise you to find another port for future cruises when this crises is over.

3 hours ago, elphin said:

According to the Carnival website the ship cannot be booked before March 2021.  I am wondering if its delivery is being delayed again?  Work in Finland has ground to a halt as a result of the virus so this seems very possible.  If delivery is being delayed why doesn't Carnival tell us straight rather than leaving cruisers to find out by deduction?

 

It is entirely possible there is a plausible reason for not allowing bookings before March next year perhaps all sailings are sold out?  Therefore treat this post as mere speculation.

I don't think anyone can do anything except speculate at this point, since no one knows what the various government mandates will be, or when. I don't know how Carnival, or anyone else for that matter, could plan without knowing if ports will be open, airlines flying, hotels functioning and local transportation operating. I'm sure they are waiting for information just like everyone else is. However, it is reasonable to assume that no matter when the go ahead is given it is going to take some time to ramp up. Logistics on supplying ships for one thing. Reprogramming is another, and done on the fly, will result in higher than normal glitches.

My major concern is not running out of gin before the stay at home order expires. Drink doesn't solve the problem, but you don't seem to care as much.

5 hours ago, cltcruiser said:

There are plenty of US citizens working on Carnival ships. 
 

Also, I believe all of the port cities would vehemently argue with you that there is a compelling reason to keep the ships going out of there. 
 

It’s a sticky issue without easy answers. 

One of the things I enjoy doing on a turn around day on a B2B is to watch the port activity. I get up early and watch the many semi trucks arrive, driven by Teamsters who make good money, and staging by port stevedores, who also make good money. I watch them loading the weekly consumable supplies, and it is interesting how they are staged in order to be loaded by type of item. Having worked in materials management and logistics for over 40 years I find it to be a well oiled operation. I am told the cruise port stevedores are full time port employees, and most of the cruise ship turn around activity is done on weekends, which equates to overtime for many of them.

On the last turnaround day, I estimated over $300,000.00 worth of consumable supplies were staged for loading. In addition to that, I read the average fuel consumption to be approximately 250 tons per day, as I watched the fuel barge arrive for refueling. All of that was being delivered from the port area. With two ships home porting at that facility and turning around almost on a weekly basis, that one dock generates millions of dollars in American supplied goods and services every year. And I am confident that milk and dairy products, etc. are not being imported for loading onto the ship. The same for most of the beer, hard liquor, and sodas loaded by the skid. Perhaps half of the wine is imported, but is distributed domestically.

If you take the number of suppliers involved, and the distribution, transportation and labor involved times the number of ships restocking domestically every week, the monetary value is enormous and well work sustaining, regardless of the nationality of the crew members.

As for taxes, every cruise passenger generates money for every port they enter or leave. Don't worry, government is making money off the cruise industry. Now as for other means of transportation, how much does the cruise industry cost the government in direct to industry costs? Especially when compared to airlines (airports, for example) or trucking (highways for example) Post are primarily costed by freight, imports and exports of goods.

So in my opinion targeting the cruise industry is misguided. They provide a valuable service, and spend vast amounts of money with domestic businesses, and far less cost to government than other industries.

Have enjoyed a cove on the Dream twice, for all the points listed above. Great location for watching pier runners too!

I hope this drop doesn't impact the annual renewal of the OBC program or dividend distribution. I'm quite sure it is impacting profits.

On 1/29/2020 at 4:44 PM, pacruise804 said:

 

I grew up near where you live and still think Presque Isle is beautiful, but in a different way than Caribbean beaches.  Beaches appeal to me in different ways, but almost never about "travel" rather as "vacation."  If I am traveling then I want to learn about the history, people, architecture, etc., but if I am on vacation I just want to either relax or have fun - make sense?

 

While the beaches are similar, there are nuances for each.  Some are great for soft sand and swimming while others are better for snorkeling.  Unless I'm getting a brief nap I'd rather be in the water than on the beach, but I can certainly relate to escaping the cold of winter to a beautiful stretch of sun and sand 🙂 

 

OP - I've only done Cozumel of the beaches you list and it was an NCL excursion.  Beautiful beach with hammocks in the water😎. I think it was Passion Island.

You make a good point. Maybe having grown up so close to Presque Isle has tempered any enthusiasm for beaches in other parts of the world. I can go to Presque Isle any time, 12 months of the year and find and appreciate it. From beaches, to biking, to marathons, to picnics and so forth there is so much to do there, that I don't need to travel to the Caribbean to experience what I can find at home, so I am looking for different things, while still considering it a vacation. To me though, the learning experiences of different places is relaxing and fun. Different strokes I guess. That said however, on our last journey cruise to the Caribbean last November, it seemed to me as though there were more people interested in making the ship their destination. Of course there was an extremely high number of P/D's on board, who had been there many times before, as we had. 

Apparently in this country we reward failure, not success. Any successful company will find itself a target sooner or later. Biggest get hit the hardest!

The last one we went to was on the Elation when it was doing 5 day cruises out of NOLA. Right after that cruise they changed the rules to only P/D allowed. I read John Heald's column regularly and he will on occasion list the number of passengers in each category. On the shorter 'booze' cruises more blue and red. On the longer ones, especially 'journey' cruises they have huge numbers of P/D's. Enough that they even forgo the extra money from the Faster to the Fun program because they cannot get enough rooms ready to handle the P/D's. I've even seen them delay access to the rooms for all because of the number of P/D's.

We have done 3 journey cruises so far, latest in November, and each time the percentage of P/D's has increased. We did the 7 day Bermuda cruise the week before. Completely different demographic on that cruise from the journey cruise. As a result of that B2B experience, I doubt we will do any more less than 7 day cruises on Carnival. We have one 7 day currently booked for the MG next January, but that might be the last, and stick to journeys after that. We have done H/A and several Princess cruises, and I see where H/A just appointed a brand ambassador. With Carnival's ever expanding push to cater to new to cruising first and second timers, perhaps its time to move up, staying within the Carnival family of companies.

I don't understand the fascination with beaches. Having been to most of the islands, many several times, I find one beach pretty much like another. There is so much more to experience in my humble opinion. The architecture, food, people and customs, history, wildlife, agriculture, economies, is so much more stimulating than simply lying around on a beach. To me travel is about experiencing as much as possible about other places and people. Learning about the world we live in is fascinating and fun.

On 1/19/2020 at 1:36 PM, Gari said:

Hi All,

 

I decided to do my first Back to Back trip on the Pride in February.  I'm super excited and a little unsure of the experience as I have never done one before and I am doing it solo.  I'd love any suggestions or advice folks have but in particular I am hoping to know the following

 

1.) Can I bring 2 bottles of wine one for each leg (I would be more than happy for them to hold my second bottle for week two but not sure if that would be possible)

2.) I have the same cabin for both legs so I want to confirm I can leave everything in my room between including the Safe???  I don't travel with that many valuable or cash but should I take that stuff with me for the transfer

3.) How long should I expect it to take to "get back on when we get back to Baltimore?"  Will I be ahead of the wedding parties etc or will I have to wait to board?

4.) What else do I need to be aware of?

 

Help/suggestions/advice is appreciated

1.) Yes you can. We just did a B2B on the Pride in October/November. You should have both boarding passes available when going through security in Baltimore though. We had to have the security girl call a Carnival supervisor over to prevent confiscating two of our four bottles. Once the Carnival supervisor cleared us, I then had to take off my belt, and be subjected to a wand search, as the security girl was upset at being proven wrong. Keep in mind the security screeners at the port are not Carnival employees.

2.) Yes, so long as you make sure you book the same cabin for both legs. We did and had no problem. We let our room steward know the day we boarded that we were doing a B2B and would be there for the next 21 days. We tipped him $20.00 that first day and told him what we wanted for a cleaning schedule, request robes and ice, and a cord for C-pack machine and he took excellent care of us the entire trip.

3.) We were given instructions the night before on where and what time to meet. Unfortunately, we had to wait quite a while before they took us off and back on, because they had to clear the ship first, and had difficulty in getting stragglers off the ship. We waited over an hour after our reporting time. Once the ship was cleared, we walked off the ship, through customs, showed our passport and sign & sale card and walked right back on the ship. Took a couple minutes to walk down the ramp, a couple minutes to go through customs, and a couple minutes to walk back up the ramp. Maybe ten minutes total once we were given the okay. There were only seven of us doing a B2B that day, and none opted to take an in-transit pass to visit Baltimore.

4.) They provided us with free drinks while waiting, and apologized for the delay caused by the stragglers. They took a group picture of the B2Bers, and provided us with a print of it prior to the end of the second leg.

Interfacing with the CD is not something we cruise for. That said, a good CD can certainly enhance the experience.