KnowTheScore

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 8:10 PM, Harry Peterson said:

On a slightly different tack, the conclusion they may reach is that for the time being cruising will just have to go back to the pre-Carnival P&O days when quality was the priority, rather than price.

 

The product now is very different (Saturday night ITV audience targeted it seems from the CEO's recent comments) from the 'old' product, but it may well be that the old product is the only one that will make money if passenger numbers have to be reduced dramatically.

 

Much higher prices, of course, some dramatic refurbs needed, and a complete rethink about the product on offer.

 

I tend to agree and have said as much on another thread.   The entire business model and intended strategy they had, which was to create a fleet of mega ships with 5000+pax each and gain tons of profit from on-board spend, is now surely out of the window.  Simply not tenable unless the powers that be are simply going to relax all protocols in future and just ignore COVID-19 which seems unlikely. 

So yes I think Carnival will be forced to curb their greedy endeavours and once again allow individual cruise lines to be the wonderful entities that they were before Carnival got hold of them.   In fact it's entirely possible that we may see Carnival sell some of those lines to private companies who are prepared to run them as before for a smaller profit than the likes of Carnival would want.  That would imo be a wonderful result.

As others have also stated, I can't see a future for cruising (certainly not for me anyway) if passengers are mandated to wear masks throughout the holiday.   I still can not see how they can possible solve the problem of social distancing and lifts.  It's simply impossible.   You'd have to shut down the lifts and/or reserve them solely for the infirm and wheelchair/scooter users who would have to constantly queue up, 2m apart, for hours waiting for their turn to use the lift.   Everyone else would have to constantly use the stairs.  We'd sure get fitter but it would be a ball ache for those on higher decks.

The issues are all far too complicated and far reaching for there every to be a safe environment on a cruise ship when you think it all through.

Which therefore leads to 2 possibilities.

1.  Cruising as an industry will simply die a death completely or

2.  The authorities, realising that there is no real choice, will just give a green light to the cruise industry to carry on regardless knowing that environments can not be safe nor ever made safe and if people die then so be it.  Money over health.

Seems pretty obvious which option they will choose imo !

.

7 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

(3) Your travel insurance can be extended to cover any pre or post cruise travel . We always do that and I believe most travelers who have a need for insurance and understand what the insurance covers do that. I speak from many years of experience in both the insurance and travel industries.

Insurance companies are not going to insure people for COVID-19.  The costs would be astronomically high for them.   COVID-19 will be deemed "act of God" in small print.  That leaves travellers exposed and vulnerable.  The prospect of footing your own medical bills abroad and minimum 14 days isolation with related accommodation costs for spouses and then flights home and further 14 day quarantining on returning etc would simply be prohibitive to most people.  It's a stalemate.

Insurers might be prepared to insure people who can scientifically prove they have had the virus and lived through it and thus gained immunity.  That would however herald the introduction of public bagging and tagging, health certification and so on Orwellian 1984 style.   Insurers might also be prepared to insure people who have been vaccinated, but then that would largely come down to their knowledge of any vaccine and its proven (or not) efficacy.   Let's be real here.   If Influenza were more of a killer disease than it is, insurers would not insure people for all the associated costs based on them having had a Flu Shot as the science tells us that Flu shots are extremely ineffective (preventing only 1 person in 71 vaccinated from getting Flu).   So any COVID-19 vaccine is first going to have to be monitored and studied to prove its effectiveness imo before insurers will be happy to insure people on the basis of having been vaccinated.

There is a long road yet to iron out all such details imo

.

50 minutes ago, ducklite said:

This is where sailing on a ship where there are only 200-300 people makes a big difference.  Sun decks have space between loungers, meals are served during meal hours, regardless of what time people show up--which tends to range between waiting for the dining room to open to 45 minutes later.  Tables are already spaced out with the choice of dining alone or at a large table.  Even at embarkation people tend to show up anytime in the three or four hours prior to "all aboard."  

There are a number of lines with small ships like this, and they all seem to be profitable (under normal circumstances.)  I expect the biggest changes we'll see will be extra hand sanitizer stations around the ship, staff serving us at the buffets, and perhaps the medical center making face masks available to anyone who would like one.  

And how did people move from deck to deck on those ships?  

Jumping in crowded lifts?  which will no longer be appropriate.

Also I suspect that the smaller ships in fleets will have been propped up by the larger more profitable ships in the fleets.

Without the larger ships the ticket prices will soar on smaller ships and/or service and quality will be greatly reduced.

What we've had up to this point simply can no longer continue.  It will all have to drastically change.

A new business model, a new cruise experience, a new proposition.   It remains to be seen what that will be and indeed whether anyone will be interested to pay £000s for it.

.

The entire nature of cruising is going to have to change.  People here are still thinking in terms of cruising as they have known it.

Those days are over.

What comes next will be completely different.   There's no way the cruise lines can operate as they were with say only half the cabins populate.   Not profitable.   So the entire cruising package and experience is likely to change imo.  Ships will become more like basic ferries, a mode of transport to get people to different places without flying.   The cruising business model was based on scale, on numbers, bums in cabins, rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em.   That is no longer going to be possible.

Numbers will have to come down vastly which means profits will come down which means in turn provision of service and quality will have to come down.

You will end up with varying types of cruise and ships.   There will at the top end be small hugely expensive ships that offer traditional service and quality but they will have only a few 100 passengers and they will each have to pay astronomical amounts for that privilege.  Think £10,000 a trip.   Then there will be less expensive ships again with only a few 100 passengers but which have massively reduced service and quality.  Might only have self-service buffets and no restaurants etc.

What we have had to date is no longer tenable.   You simply cannot keep social distance on normal cruise ships with 1000s of passengers nor is it possible to contain virus spread without "Diamond Princess" draconian measures which are of course unacceptable.  Cruising has to change completely from this point forward.

.

Britboys: "My main concern with P&O is that ultimately they could be more or less forced to 'pension off' Aurora as she is one of the more expensive ships for them to run (Oceana is not a favourite and I do not think she will be around much longer anyway).

Interesting times ahead..."

Again if they did that they would be massively biting the hand that feeds them.  It would be a catastrophic move.  They already ditched Oriana a firm favourite amongst traditional cruisers.   I really think it's time for them to rethink their entire strategy.  Decide what they want to be instead of trying to be all things to all people which is just a complete mess and always has been.

They should really have split the brand and properly created a cruise line for the younger generation and left P&O for the older traditionalists.   Then there would be no confusion and people would know what to expect and how to behave.  Bring back Ocean Village if they must, I don't really care just as long as they stop diluting the brand and provide a cruise service that the traditional cruisers want and will use on the types of ships that they love.

The strategy of maximising profits by making the fleet one full of 5000+ pax mega ships is clearly untenable now.  Such ships are never imo going to be able to provide safe environments in a COVID-19 type world.   Get back to traditional ships, accept less profits, deliver better service and gain a stronger customer base.

.

Social Distancing is impossible on a cruise ship. 

How could you even operate lifts/elevators?!    How could you organise the long queues of 100s of people waiting to get into a lift for their solitary trip in it?   How could you organise people going up and down staircases spread apart by 2m or more?

How would you get 1000s of people into areas for the compulsory muster drills?

How would you manage long queues of 1000s of people all coming down for their evening meal, all having to be 2m apart whilst queuing?    As an example, P&O's cruise ship Aurora is 270m long.   She takes about 1800 passengers.  Even if the ship were only half capacity with 900 people, and if those people are split across 2 dining sittings (abolishing freedom dining) then you have 450 a sitting and needing to queue 2m apart.   They would be queuing up and down the entire length of the ship twice every night !!!     Plus of course the restaurants wouldn't be able to seat them sitting 2m apart.

Theatres would have to be ripped apart probably reduce to 1/3rd or 1/4 of their current capacity.   People wouldn't be able to get to the shows as a result. 

Coffee bars would be largely pointless.  They can't cope as it is now with high volumes of passengers.  Removing most tables to leave the rest 2m apart would cripple the service and just make it pointless.

Most ships are designed with walkways down each side of the ship.  None of them are really wide enough to ensure social distancing as people walk in both directions.  So you'd have to implement a circular directional system with people only ever walking in one direction.

Many of the prom decks that are thin would be useless and out of action. 

Sun beds would have to be reduced in numbers to prevent crowding and the decks would have to be marked out with car park like spaces so people knew where to put them.  The current practice of passengers dropping sunbeds wherever they liked, blocking walkways and the like would have to cease.

No.   There's simply no way social distancing could ever be implemented on cruise ships unless the passenger compliment was utterly reduced to the point where it wouldn't be profitable for the cruise lines (unless ticket prices became 2-3 times what they currently are).

The only way forward realistically is to treat COVID-19 like Flu or Norovirus and just agree that everyone will take their chances.

If someone gets it, isolate them immediately, put them off the ship at the next port but let everyone else carry on normally.

Unfortunately every subsequent port will likely refuse entry to the ship from that point onward so you'll just be cruising at sea.

Possibly the only way forward is mandated swab testing of all passengers on a daily basis and especially before they go ashore and as they get back on board.  What a faff that will be, standing in huge long lines of 1000s of people in the hot sunshine waiting to get back on board but not being able to because you need to be swabbed and wait for the test to produce its results before you can board again !  And imagine if that test was positive?!!   You'd be moved to one side, treated like a leper and someone else would have to go into your cabin get all your stuff, cram it into cases and bring it to you.

I'm afraid to say the future of cruising as we know it looks extremely bleak at this point.   If not terminal.

.

My attitude to P&O hasn't changed and remains a negative one.

I had become utterly sick of the relentless cuts and reduction in . . .  well just about everything that Carnival have been making since they acquired P&O well before the COVID crisis.   Now, having witnessed the diabolical debacle of Carnival's management of the Diamond Princess and other ships I'd be fearful to step on any Carnival ship.

I'm also not the least bit of the same mind as those who blindly think a vaccine is going to be the saviour of all.  Vaccines take years and years to properly test to be sure they are safe.   The US Vaccine Injury Programme has already paid out over $4 billion in compensation to victims over the past few years.  Anyone claiming they have suddenly rushed out and fast tracked a vaccine will for me personally be treated with a very very long barge pole.  Each to their own of course.

I also see once again, that Carnival/P&O are making the same old blunder trying to pander to a younger market to get more bums in cabins and achieve more on-board revenue.   I noted quite wryly during the last financial recession of 2008/9 that what happened is that the youngsters become very strapped for cash, struggle to pay their mortgage and have to reel back and penny pinch.   The older traditional loyal cruising clientele on the other hand said "financial crisis? What financial crisis?"  as their pension payments were simply coming in like regular clockwork.   Very little if any changes for them.    And thus we saw that P&O and other cruise lines had in fact bitten the hand that fed them by largely ignoring that loyal customer base and making endless changes to service, quality, entertainment and all the rest to pander to a younger and more vibrant customer base.

Now here we are again in another global crisis.  You can even ignore the problems related to the virus and risks of catching it aboard.  What we have again is another financial recession and one that is predicted to be 3-4 times worse than that of 2008.

So again, who are really going to be the people with the loose cash to go on a cruise?   Answer, it remains the older, solid bread and butter customer base that has always been there but which the cruise line has been steadily annoying for years.

Will Carnival/P&O ever learn this lesson?

You can not afford to alienate that loyal solid customer base no matter how much you want to attract the raving "have it large" youngsters.  The next few years are going to be extremely difficult for P&O.   The youngsters they wanted are simply not going to cruise.  They will be financially strapped via job losses, employment uncertainty, massive price rises across the board, inflation and all the austerity we will see going forward.   The older traditional cruisers will still have their money, still be wanting to get out there and frankly will have the ultimate power to vote with their feet. 

My choice will be to stay clear of P&O and indeed other Carnival lines completely until and unless they cease the silly cutbacks and start gearing cruises around that loyal older customer base again.    I will be heading to Celebrity and others.

That said I won't be taking any cruise at all until the cruise industry (or any given cruise line) confirms in writing to me what protocols they would use if/when a passenger or crew member presents with COVID-19 on-board.   If the protocol remains to quarantine every single passenger then I'll say "so long and thanks for all the fish" to cruising completely.   Absolutely no way, no how that I will submit to being treated like cattle fodder like that.  Unacceptable.

The industry imo is still completely in turmoil as I don't believe it has even now, resolved that fundamental issue of the protocols that would have to be followed when someone gets Coronavirus on-board.  They are behoven to higher powers in this respect, the same powers that stopped the ships sailing in the first place. 

My other worry is that if they were already making so many cutbacks before Coronavirus hit us, then now they have lost $billions in revenue, what will the service and quality be like in the next few years as they try to rake it all back ?!!!!

.

2 minutes ago, zap99 said:

But will all that get us cruising again,?

Nope

Cruising is currently a non-starter unless and until the cruise lines can agree different protocols with WHO/CDC when dealing with on-board COVID-19 cases.   In this respect these global health authorities hold all the aces and have the cruise lines by the short and curlies.  The opportunity will imho be taken to get these huge off-shore based cruise line conglomerates to play ball and establish themselves in proper countries and to contribute proper taxes.  They will be squeezed imho.

Regardless, unless they change the "Diamond Princess" type protocols it's game over for the time being.

.

28 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I am also getting extremely annoyed at the repeated requests for the govt to apologise for the lack of PPE leading to NHS deaths. Believe the govt or not I am certain that no one involved with the efforts to provide PPE has done anything other than their best to try and source all that is needed. So why on earth should they have any need to apologise.

They need to apologise, not for their effort in currently doing what they can, but for putting the entire country in the situation in the first place where PPE stocks were run down over the past few years, having drastically reduced the budget for PPE stockpiles.   The government have had established plans for emergency responses since 2013.  You can freely download that document.  It outlines the preparedness requirements and associated protocols for national emergencies such as earthquakes, terrorist events and virus outbreaks.  The document mandates that adequate equipment MUST be maintained for emergency response workers which include police, fire services, ambulance crews, health workers and so on.

Successive past governments have allowed emergency stockpiles of PPE to dwindle, they have allowed stocks to go out of date and as a result got caught with their trousers down when the virus broke out.   Consequently the NHS has been critically short of PPE.  It's worse than this though.  The government should have mandated the wearing of surgical/flimsy masks by the public when they are out and about.  That would have MASSIVELY stemmed the spread of the virus.   They couldn't do so because they hadn't even got enough masks for the NHS let alone enough to hand them out to the public.

The value of government PPE stockpiles fell by over 40% in the past 6 years.   The Guardian reported that:

"Analysis of official financial data suggests £325m was wiped off the value of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) emergency stockpile, reducing it from £831m in 2013 under the Conservative-led coalition government to £506m by March last year."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/revealed-value-of-uk-pandemic-stockpile-fell-by-40-in-six-years

Goodness know how many cases would have been prevented if we had all been issued with masks to wear when we are out and about at supermarkets, shops and garages?!!  How many deaths would have been prevented.   This is not a fault of the existing government, it is the legacy left by previous successive governments (May, Cameron etc).

It is nothing short of a tragedy and a complete and utter scandal and there MUST come a reckoning when this is all over.

.

I'd take the best Crow's Nest which is imho that on Aurora (best ship in the fleet)

Set on 3 different levels so everyone gets a great view.   Arcadia's is nice too but all set on one level.

I'd take Arcadia's rear with it's expansive decking and seating out back.

I'd take Aurora's wide teak prom deck and most definitely bring back the wooden steamer chairs there and insist on afternoon tea being wheeled round it on a trolley as before.

A covered pool up top for sure

I'd incorporate an upper rear outdoor restaurant eating area as per Aurora's old Pennant Grill.

I'd ditch any Glass House and bring back Café Bordeaux instead.

I'd take the 3 deck atriums from either Ventura or Azura

I'd take the Raffles bar/café from Aurora and double it's size so people never struggled to get a morning coffee.

I'd bring back large dedicated libraries where people can have a quiet sit and read of a paper or book.

I'd ditch a full half of the stupid shops on-board which are over-priced same old same old fare.  I'd use the space instead for things that provided entertainment or service to passengers like libraries, proper cyber-centres, proper games rooms (for playing cards and board games) and so on.

I would have a typical large theatre at front and a properly tiered seating venue at rear with a large dance floor and cinema screen.

I would incorporate a decadent Andersons bar (as per Aurora/Oriana) and make it twice as big.

I'd incorporate a friendly pub area as per the one on Arcadia.

Of course my underlying ethos and model here would be to deliver extensive service and facilities to customers rather than to use every last square inch of ship space to generate Increased On-Board Revenue, so it's a total fantasy in Carnival terms.

.

Thus far in the thread no-one has addressed the single biggest problem with P&O or any other cruise line trying or hoping to attract customers back.   The fact is that business very quickly and initially dropped off as a result of the Diamond Princess debacle and all the other ships who followed the same protocols.

There are literally 10s of 1000s of people who would HAPPILY jump on a ship and take their chance with SARS-COV-2 or indeed Norovirus or any other virus.   They look after their health, eat the right foods, maintain a strong immune system and so on.  

However . . . .   these people WILL NOT jump back on board while ever the cruise lines persist in operating the same draconian protocols when a passenger or crew member presents with the virus.  Those protocols saw cruise lines quarantine EVERYBODY to their cabins for 2 weeks whether inside, outside or balconies.  As I said 4 months ago, that is not acceptable.

That kind of protocol will NEVER be acceptable and unless and until P&O/Carnival can agree with the WHO and CDC and other health authorities on a different protocol, then cruising is simply dead in the water.

To attract people back on ships P&O absolutely MUST put to paper, contractually, a set of protocols that GUARANTEE to customers that if there is one case of COVID-19 on-board, that the rest of the passengers will be allowed to carry on enjoying their holiday regardless.   That the infected person is immediately removed from the ship and quarantined at the nearest port.

Unless that happens, very very few people will ever step on board again.

The virus is not going away.  There will always be a risk that it keeps cropping up in every country in the world just like Flu.

We simply can not operate a holiday business model that mandates quarantining of all passengers when one person goes down with a virus.

The protocols have to change simple as.

More than that too.   You cannot operate a cruise line if every country and every port of call is going to refuse entry to a ship if there is someone on board presenting with COVID-19.    That will just result in cruises becoming constant holidays at sea never stopping anywhere.   Fine if they advertise it as such and adjust the prices very dramatically downward as a result.

We are a LONG way off cruising ever going back to normal.   Not because people are afraid to catch the virus (the majority are not) but because they fear the totally unacceptable treatment they would be exposed to if someone got the virus.

Something has to give, and it has to give soon, otherwise it's game over for cruising.

.

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2020 at 1:15 PM, tert333 said:

 I have been trying to get my head around what will it take to get cruises started again.  Below is a summary of what I see as the issues.  Not sure what the answers are to many.

 

1. Getting People to take cruises again.    I think this may be the easiest of the group.  People have a tendency to have short memories.  Most people who have taken cruises, enjoyed them and will take a cruise again if the cruises have convinced the authorities that they are safe.

I totally disagree sadly.  Getting people back on ships (in normal numbers) will be extremely difficult for probably the next 2 years imho.  It's not a question of whether people think they are "safe", it never was.  It's simply a question of what protocols the cruise lines are forced to follow if/when there is a COVID-19 case on-board.  The draconian and disastrous measures of the Diamond Princess were a wake-up call for all and will continue to be so.   I'd love to cruise again but I absolutely won't if the cruise lines are going to either :

1.  Quarantine every passenger in their cabins when there is ONE case of COVID-19 on-board

2.  Cancel the cruise and send everybody home via flights if there is ONE case of COVID-19 on-board

Many people cruise because they refuse to fly at all.  Therefore threatening to dump people in foreign ports and force them to fly home is not going to be a welcome protocol.

The future of cruising IS NOT dependent on flattening a curve of COVID-19 spread.   It is totally dependent on what type of protocols cruise lines are going to be forced to follow from this point on for years to come.  

Coronavirus isn't going away.  It will be with us just like Influenza is always with us imho.  Just like Influenza they will eventually produce a vaccine and some people will routinely go and get it.    We will always have the risk that a passenger or crew member on a ship may get Influenza or COVID-19.   What we have to do is find ways to deal with that without disrupting the entire cruise for everyone else.  Unless that happens, there will never be the audience for cruising that previously existed.    I would also not be surprised if there are older vulnerable people who have already decided that they will never cruise again because of the risk to their health and life, however small that is.   They will opt for a different holiday.

Quote

1. Getting Governments to agree to restart cruises.   While the cruiselines made the decision to cancel cruises, I believe the governments would have shut them down, if the cruiselines did not do it.   There will be intense pressure for the cruiselines to prove to the authorities that they can contain an outbreak.   This includes insuring that they check passengers for illness when they board and then manage the sick people during the cruise to prevent the spread.  

There's the rub.  Have you seen the way people are being tested abroad?  Long thin flexible sticks with a pad at the end stuck up into the nose and right through into the nasal cavity.   I can't imagine many really want to go through that and I dread to think what additional check-in time that will create at embarkation.

Furthermore, the potential exists for any passenger or crew member to acquire COVID-19 at any port on the itinerary.  So if you are going to check people at embarkation you are also going to have to check everyone as they come back to the ship at each port.   To not do so would render the initial checks at embarkation a complete farce.   How long do those tests take to produce a result?  Some order of minutes I would think so again what will that do to the process of returning to ship?   Fancy standing in 40 degree heat in huge queues on the dock side waiting to be tested and let on-board?!

Quote

1. Many people are talking that there could be a resurgence next year of the coronvirus.   Nobody knows for sure, but this provides more arguments into the cruiselines must show that they can manage issues like this going forward.  This too me is the biggest issue and I am not sure what the answer is.

I agree with you here.  I also can't currently see a solution other than so many constant medical checks that people just won't want the bother and will choose an alternative holiday.   Some will cruise with the intention of never getting off the ship to avoid constant testing which in turn will reduce revenue from excursions.

Quote

1. Getting Cruiseports to take cruiseships.  This is linked with the second problem.   This is a double edged sword.  Most of the cruiseports need the tourism revenue for them to thrive.   Taking the caribbean islands, for example, many of them have grown due to toursim.   Their economies will struggle without the revenue.   However, they do not have the infrastructure to support a large coronavirus outbreak.  The cruiselines have to convince them that they can effectively manage and outbreak will be a challenge.

Also agree.   As we have seen there is little point spending £1000s on a cruise only to have all the ports turn you away.

This is NOT simply a problem of cruise lines making agreements with port authorities the problem is far wider.  You now have populations of real ordinary people who hate cruise ships and see them as germ carriers and they don't want us to be there.  At some ports locals were hurling bottles and other projectiles at passengers.  The Costa Smerelda early in the outbreak saw the Italian port authority at Civitavecchia starting to let passengers disembark until the local major rushed down in his car and put a quick stop to that.   Ports like Dubrovnik and Venice already have locals greatly against cruise ships as those local people don't benefit from the port berthing fees.  Their lives are disrupted by the constant stream of 1000s of cruise ship passengers and now they will all look at each ship coming in and be fearful that it is carrying a killer virus.  So there is a battle of hearts and minds to be won by the industry which concerns real local people rather than port authorities.

Quote

1. I believe that once we have a vaccine, it will improve.  We are some time away before this happens.   Interested to see how some of the current treatments for the coronavirus proceed.   Hopefully, we hear positive results soon!

The vaccine route will take years to both accomplish and rollout and get significant numbers of people to take up.

What is needed imo is good anti-viral treatment for those who do get the virus.   Remember that statistically the number of COVID-19 cases in the world is absolutely tiny.   The UK has seen some 579 deaths from COVID-19 yet there are 67 million people in the country.   All the deaths are tragic but those numbers are in reality tiny.   Do we want to be vaccinating 67 million people to save those 579 or would it be better to have a good anti-viral treatment just for the 579?  I'd rather it were the latter.

Either way though the core problem for the cruise industry remains, which is how they are forced to deal with any COVID-19 cases on-board.  Until that is solved in such a way that it doesn't disrupt the cruise for all other passengers with draconian measures, I think cruising is a dead duck personally. 

I feel so sorry for all those hard working crew members now whose livelihoods depend on their cruise jobs.

As cruising inevitably grinds to a halt what will all those sterling men and women now do?   Will there be enough jobs elsewhere for such large quantities of people?

This could be devastating for those people.  :-(

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2020 at 8:15 PM, crystalspin said:

Our resident Chief Engineer (of cruise ships) has said that very little air is recirculated and that what is, is heavily filtered.

 

Covid19 is spread by droplets that as far as can be known, are not carried through air ducts, anyway.

There are some alternative views about such as this:

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2020/Q1/cruise-ship-ac-systems-could-promote-rapid-coronavirus-spread,-prof-says.html

"“It’s standard practice for the air conditioning systems of cruise ships to mix outside air with inside air to save energy. The problem is that these systems can’t filter out particles smaller than 5,000 nanometers. If the coronavirus is about the same size as SARS, which is 120 nanometers in diameter, then the air conditioning system would be carrying the virus to every cabin."

6 hours ago, Cee_Jay said:

End of the cruise industry?  That will not happen. What might well happen is some dramatic ( as in size) consolidation. Some lines will go bust.

Yep I agree a number of lines will go bust and others may have to drastically reduce prices for a sustained period to attract people.

6 hours ago, Cee_Jay said:

Some people need to take a step back and look at the overall effect, put personal feelings to one side and look at the numbers both of the virus and the cruise industry as it is now.  There was a thread about overcapacity, which I think started before the virus took off,  there sure as hell is overcapacity now !

The numbers relating to the virus are immaterial in regards to the impact to the cruise sector.   The single most damaging thing for cruise lines is the mandated protocols for responding to virus cases on-board.  Nothing more, nothing less.

While ever they insist on quarantining every passenger when 1 person gets the virus then the entire industry is going to be up the swanny.  Few will want to spend £000s running the risk of being confined to their cabins for 2 weeks even when they don't have the virus or any symptoms.  

The cruise sector HAS to agree a different set of protocols with the CDC/WHO otherwise they will continue to lose $billions in business simple as.

10 hours ago, ontheweb said:

And this should include crew as well as passengers. On the ship outside of California, 19 of the 21 cases were members of the crew and only 2 were passengers.

should be obvious to most that the crews on ships are a significant risk to us all because:

1)  They are in constant contact with many 1000s of passengers cruise on cruise on cruise

2)  They are travelling constantly from port to port around the world often having a short period of shore time in many of those ports.

The rest of us are predominantly living and staying in one country

I wonder if the crew are having most shore leaving cancelled in the current climate though?

2 hours ago, cruisenewbie1976 said:

 

You're not seriously saying that this quarantine situation will go on indefinitely?

Yes, I totally agree that the virus could be something that we have to live with. But they will have created a vaccine and it'll be no different to flu.

People still get Flu every year in their 1000s despite any vaccine.  So what are you suggesting?   You'll still always have the risk that some people will get COVID-19 and when they do, well it's currently cruise over for everyone else.   So why would today's situation be any different to this time next year?

They have to make a decision to either let the virus run and people deal with it as they do with Flu (with all the casualties that comes with it) or to keep going with the existing rigorous quarantining process, in which case the cruise industry is stuffed.

2 hours ago, FredT said:

certain cruise lines are HEMORRHAGING money at this point, and are doing anything in their power to avoid giving back anyone's deposits.    I would not be surprised if there are a number of airline bankruptcy's  in the near future, and even a few cruise lines.  

Seems likely to me too Fred.  There is only one solution for the cruise industry which is to find a way to relax the awful quarantining protocols currently being used on the ships.  When someone gets Norovirus they are isolated for 2-3 days and everyone else just carries on.  If more people come down with it, they too are quarantined for 2-3 days whilst everyone else just carries on.  If the number of cases rises significantly then the ship implements certain protocols, removes salt/pepper pots, removes menu holders, maybe removes self-service in the buffet and starts extensive regular cleaning of hand rails and so on.

Something similar needs to happen with COVID-19.   If there's a case then quarantine that person or indeed get them off the ship completely.  Let everyone else carry on.  Any additional cases, again quarantine the victims or remove them from ship and let everyone else carry on.   This is the only way it's ever going to work.   Same as with Norovirus.  Otherwise it's going to be game over for the cruise industry imho.

13 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I totally disagree, from all the information given out by health officials, once you have had Covig19 your immune system should give you protection from re infection, and even if it mutated you will have the same protection as you currently have from normal flu. 

The reason for the current concerns is entirely due to it being a novel virus, next year it will just be a standard flu virus.

If you follow through your thinking though it means you need EVERYONE to have caught the virus to then be safe on a cruise ship.  Until that is the case, you still have the major problem that when just ONE person gets the virus on-board then everyone else gets quarantined which = game over for that cruise.

Also worth noting that various people have already been confirmed having caught the virus twice I believe.

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2020 at 12:22 PM, cruisenewbie1976 said:

 

Slightly pessimistic there.  With the current situation there was only one way the share price was going to go.  Once the worst of it has blown over, the price will recover.  There's absolutely no reason to suggest that Carnival Corp won't survive this, unless you're expecting every cruise line to go out of business.  

I'd be amazed if Carnival don't remove the dividend for a period of time until they recover from the substantial losses from this situation.  I also don't any longer share the views of those who think this is all a short term blip which will "blow over" and see the Carnival SP rise back up to £30 levels.

What we have here is a total game changer of a virus and it's completely down to how cruise lines are forced to react to cases of COVID-19 on-board.   We all cruise very happily knowing that there may be Norovirus on a ship.  That's because if someone gets it, ONLY THAT PERSON gets quarantined in order to stop further spread.   With COVID-19 it's completely different, because EVERY PASSENGER gets quarantined if just one person gets the virus.  It is this single damning situation that will ensure that the cruising industry loses an absolute ton of business going forward for a great deal of time and possibly indefinitely.

This virus is not going to go away imho.  It will keep spreading and be as habitual as Influenza.   We will all have to come to terms with the fact that it's going to be permanently with us and may even mutate as Influenza does.

This means that for years to come, anyone cruising is going to have to run the risk that someone on the ship gets the virus resulting in everybody being quarantined and thus destroying their cruise.   That situation is imho going to permanently be the proverbial albatross around the neck of the cruise industry.

There is only one way to avoid that on-going disastrous situation and that is to agree with the CDC/WHO a different set of response protocols that do NOT result in every passenger being quarantined.  It's a simple binary decision.   If they insist on quarantining everyone when there is a confirmed case on-board, then many people will simply no longer cruise at all.  If they find an alternative response protocol that leaves passengers free to enjoy their cruise then all will be well.

The ball is very much in their court.

However I can't see them resolving this in the near future.  This problem will persist throughout 2020 imho and into 2021 so I expect the Carnival SP to continue it's southward tend and stay suppressed for quite a while.  Just my opinion.

.

1 hour ago, Harry Peterson said:

Going by this news report - though I fully accept that figures on this virus can be interpreted in any number of different ways!

 

On Tuesday (March 5), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, said during a news conference that about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 patients around the world have died. In a Chinese analysis of more than 72,000 case records, 2.3% of those confirmed or suspected (based on symptoms and exposure) to have the virus died. Patients above 80 years of age had an alarmingly high fatality rate of 14.8%. Patients ages 70 to 79 years had a fatality rate of 8%. In Italy, where the death toll from the virus stood at 52 as of March 4, the fatalities were all in people over age 60.

Yep.  Every figure there is based on KNOWN cases and so is massively overstated.   There will be 1000s of people who have the virus and don't even know it, 1000s who have it and the symptoms are so mild they don't bat an eyelid and just treat it the same as any normal cold / flu virus and will never report it to anyone.   I would be hugely surprised if the ACTUAL mortality rates were not somewhere between 0.01% and 0.5%

11 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

Sea Bands = Placebo effect

 

Stugeron Tablets = No sea sickness. Available from all chemists and cheap. Take one at night and one in the morning if rough seas are predicted. We have been in numerous heavy seas (inc force 12) and Stugeron has saved us every time. Prior to discovering them (thanks to this forum) I was unwell in rough seas. Now I quite enjoy them. 

Another +1 from me

The wrist bands are total kidology and may help you convince yourself that you are ok in a light swell but once you hit real swells of many meters and storm force 8-12 winds then you'll really suffer.

I've used Stugerons for many years and they simply make everything very bearable.  It's just not worth suffering and ruining your holiday.   It's vital however that you take sea-sick meds correctly, which is generally taking the first tablets BEFORE you sail and then at regular intervals from then on.   If you wait until you are feeling sick and then try to take them you will find they don't work.

Always check the Metoffice shipping forecast before you sail to see if the sea is going to be light, moderate, rough or very rough and take Stugerons accordingly.   Do the same at ports you visit.

The only down side is that Stugerons make you sleepy but it's manageable.

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2020 at 4:15 PM, Ilovemygarden said:

Because prices are plummeting (and the current situation re Coronavirus) I phoned my TA yesterday and asked for a price to upgrade from an inside cabin to a balcony. I was quoted in excess of £900 although a balcony cabin now costs what I paid for an inside. I was prepared for a few hundred more but not that much! I am due to sail in April so have paid the final balance. She was adamant and said I should wait and see if I could pay for an upgrade after boarding. Has anyone been successful doing that?  

Hi

Yes we have upgraded on-board a few times.   We always arrive at Southampton early (11am-11.30am) and find ourselves on-board pretty quickly  The VERY first thing we do is go straight to reception and ask to be placed on the list if any upgrades become possible due to any passengers not turning up.  Often they haven't even established that list so we end up first in the list.

Statistically with 1000s of passengers per ship there will always be some people who don't turn up due to illnesses or deaths in the family or other reasons.   So it makes sense to try for an upgrade if you want one.

When we have done this we have been in balcony cabins and putting ourselves on the upgrade list for mini-suites.

We have been successful at least twice, possibly more and we've only paid about £400 to do so.

When we have placed ourselves on the list we then don't unpack our suitcases and simply wait to see what happens.

The ship needs to set sail before they know where any empty cabins are so if you get an upgrade you don't tend to find out until late evening or even the next morning.   So we just unpack clothes for that evening's dinner and for the next day and leave everything else packed.  Then if the upgrade is acceptable we just wheel the cases to the new cabin.

You can unpack if you want to and then if you get an upgrade the staff will come with clothes rails and move everything for you.

If you are willing to pay a little extra for an upgrade then this is definitely worth a try. 

11 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

Not over 80, I hope, where the death rate is 14.8%.  Probably just as likely to contract it in the US though. 

The death rate is surely not what is being reported because that is simply based on the number of deaths against the number of KNOWN cases.  The actual number of cases is far far higher than the known cases.  So the actual death rate is really tiny.

1 hour ago, Pale Gail Sails said:

I am interested in knowing how and why people decided to try different cruise lines.  . . .. What made you decide to try, or switch to a different cruise line?

For me it was the take-over of a long standing and great cruise line by a huge American cruise company which promptly set about making endless cuts and drastically changed the nature of the brand turning it from a semi-formal cruise line to a very informal cruise line.   Stuck it for some years but finally had enough of the cuts.  Now booked on a different cruise line (for 2021) for the first time in 15 years.