MarLieb

1 hour ago, cluso said:

It will be interesting to see what guidelines some countries might come up with reference to travelers entering their country.  Remember the good old days when some required you to present your vaccination/shot records...😷  I still have my little yellow booklet. 

I see lots of phone apps carrying a lot of our personal info on them in the near future . . . 

2 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

100 days from to day.

 

I've not read the two side-by-side, so I can't help you on changes.

So, should we expect to see these updated about every 7 days unless the industry comes up with a plan?  The orders always reference that the cruise lines need to come up with a plan within 7 days, but it appears no one has come up with anything satisfactory yet.  

58 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

Yes, published this morning.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/15/2020-07930/no-sail-order-and-suspension-of-further-embarkation-notice-of-modification-and-extension-and-other


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Thank you so much!  Do you happen to know if anything has changed from the last order?  I read through both and they sound the same.  Does this one re-set the clock on the 100 days?  I guess I'm just unclear as to the reason to re-publish.  Thank you!

I thought I had read somewhere that this order may be updated today?  Any news?

Perhaps they didn't get the memo.  You know - the CDC memo . . . 

No, I wouldn't care.  If it got to a point where I had to dispute a charge, I can't imagine ever wanting to sail on that line again.  But then again, I am not loyal to particular lines the way many here on cruise critic are and I understand the emotional attachment some may have after sailing many, many times with a particular cruise line.  

18 hours ago, smheese said:

Disney's website still says they are only cancelling cruises through mid May however my understanding is the CDC. no sail order supersedes that? Will cruises leaving port in June be cancelled? Specifically we are looking at Southern Caribbean. Also if Disney cancels the cruise and we are not able to rebook we do get a full refund, is that correct? (Do not have insurance on it, but I assume if THEY have to cancel, it would be refunded). Thank you for any info you can help with. 

Yes, if Disney cancels the cruise, they will offer you a refund.  For the cruises they have already cancelled, they have been offering guests the choice of 125% future cruise credit or 100% refund.  I'm not sure if they will continue with the cruise credit (I would suspect they will as they would like to hold onto the cash), but, yes, you would definitely be entitled to a refund.

1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

Too bad there isn't a similar law governing cruises. Changing a Maine/Canada cruise to a Maine/Bahamas cruise is definitely a significant change, but Celebrity views this as being no different than missing a port at the last minute because of bad weather.

Kind of OT, but I was thinking the same thing with sporting events!  We bought tickets to a G-League basketball game for March 28 which never happened because they "postponed" the season.  They are NOT offering refunds, saying the event is now TBA, so basically they are saying they can reschedule this game whenever they want and we have to go to that one or we lose all of our money.  We only buy tickets for dates we know we can go and if they reschedule this game for a school night or in a venue that is far from us, we are out hundreds of dollars.  It just doesn't seem right to me.  I think the law should apply here as well - we can accept the change or, perhaps accept a voucher to purchase tickets to a game (that will actually happen!) on a date that works for us or they should refund our money. 

17 minutes ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

While I agree with much of what you say, and I think there should be better Medical facilities, I'm not sure that what the CDC seems to want is possible. Keep in mind USS Theodore Roosevelt has quite a complete combat hospital on board and it wasn't able to cope with an outbreak of COVID 19 and had to evacuate crew in Guam.

I would like to see the hospital area on the ship expanded and perhaps also have say 4 or 5 ocean view staterooms left empty they could be altered to direct to outside air ventilation so if a patient presents with symptom there is a test immediately available and if positive there is an isolation room available. Veranda passengers could probably isolate in their staterooms. I understand that is probably too late and it would trigger a whole other bunch of problems. key pass cards would need to be checked to find out who the positive passenger dined with so they could be tested , and that would just be the start. As part of the standard medical requirements there should be enough test kits on board to test all passengers and crew at least once.

Many cruise companies have private islands and perhaps they should design and construct what could be re-purposed into an isolation hospital on short notice, I'm not sure what that looks like but I don't think it would be that hard.

Some really excellent points and suggestions.  What is happening on the aircraft carriers is truly heartbreaking.  

17 minutes ago, waterbug123 said:

 

But no one can say definitively that they were infected at work.  Could just as easily been at the grocery store on their day off.  Just playing the devil's advocate here...

 

 

That's fine, but you are one person and not necessarily representative of the population at large.  Many people might visit NYC for instance, same for Boston, New Orleans and Charleston, which was not on your list. 

 

 

1.  When is the last time you were on a plane?  If it was before everything started shutting down with the virus, people on planes were most certainly NOT spaced very well.  Most sit shoulder to shoulder, withe rows in front of them and behind them a mere couple of feet away.  Not to mention the way they crown together in the boarding line, the TSA line, the check-in line and so forth. 

2.  There is absolutely no way you can say definitively that people got infected only after reaching their destination. 

 

 

That all sounds well and good but leads to questions such as:

How much more prepared do you expect a ship to be?  How many doctors do you want on staff?  How many nurses?  How many additional specialized and/or medical support positions do you want staffed?  How much more ship real estate do you taken up by those people's cabins?  How many additional exam rooms?  Isolation areas for pax infected with anything contagious?  Operating rooms?  Expensive diagnostic and treatment equipment?  And so on.   It sounds good, but to really prepare a ship to not have to offload people to land-based medical facilities is an expensive undertaking!  How much more are you willing to pay in cruise fare to make that happen?  And would you expect a place like, say Disney World and other similar places, to also be completely self supporting as far as medical?    I'm just trying to point out that it's not as simple as saying cruise ships should be better prepared to assist guests with their medical needs.

I am only advocating for what is in the CDC order.  I didn't come up with my suggestion out of thin air.  I never said it was a simple or inexpensive undertaking.  If it were, we wouldn't be seeing pushback from CLIA.  They, obviously, do not want to comply because it is complicated and expensive. 

Based on the CDC order, I expect the cruise lines to comply, otherwise they will not be utilizing US ports.  All of your posed questions need to be negotiated and agreed upon by CLIA/cruise lines and the CDC.  Once that is done and the cruise lines have the go-ahead from the CDC, I'm good to go.  I would expect cruises prices to rise if they have to amp up their medical facilities and evacuation procedures.  We will then see if the market can bear the costs and guests will continue sailing.  If not, it may be that the massive cruise ship business model will not work in our current climate.  It appears Australia will be taking even stricter measures as it relates to cruise lines, so CLIA and the cruise lines have a lot of work on their hands to figure out how they will proceed and survive from here.  These are certainly not rules I came up with.  I am, however, on the side of the CDC.  I, personally, don't want to see another Grand Princess/Ruby Princess/Zaandam, etc.  What a horrible, tragic, scary situation for all involved. 

I expect Disney World and other similar places to also comply with any government orders that relate to their operations.  Currently all Disney parks are closed due to government orders.  Guests who get sick in Disney theme parks do not require massive, government-backed, evacuation efforts.  If they do require medical assistance beyond what is offered at the resort and need to be transported to a medical facility, the guest is responsible for all costs.  No one is trapped in a theme park for days on end requiring acute medical care.  A ship, traveling from, say Chile to the US (in the case of the Zaandam), is another matter entirely.   The CDC is saying, precisely, that "cruise ships should be better prepared to assist guests with their medical needs."  The truth of the matter is, CLIA and the cruise lines have to comply or they aren't sailing in and out of the US anymore and, once they do comply, guests and crew will be in a much safer position to sail once again.  Yes, expensive and complicated - definitely no argument there.

2 minutes ago, npcl said:

Or with some expansion of details.

 

What is clear is if the cruise lines start up, and their is a case of Covid-19 that ships and those passengers are not coming back to shore, it is the cruise line problem to manage, including probably off shore quarantine in a designated quarantine ship.

That is not a vacation I want to take!

2 minutes ago, rimmit said:

The only way to fix the problem is for the cruise ship industry to become completely independent and not rely on any nation for medical support every time there is an outbreak on their ships.  We can fix the problem by not cruising if you truly want an answer to that question.

 

Cruise ships are being singled out simply because they are known hotbeds for spreading Covid.  Same as prisons and nursing homes and any other place where there is a high density population that has prolonged contact is being singled out.  

 

While airlines spread Covid around the globe I have yet to see a plane have an infection rate of 20% and have a sizable portion of those die.  No flight that I am aware of to this date has been found to be a Covid hotbed like a cruise ship.  This is even with known Covid + passengers.  If anything airlines are being unfairly punished more so than any other business given they have not been found to be a hotbed.  Did they allow the virus to seed the world quickly.  Absolutely,   but I am willing to bet the people traversing the NYC metro, has spread more cases than people on airplane flights at this point.  Yet the metro is still running.

I so agree with this.  And I honestly think, in the long run, it would just make passengers and crew safer if cruise lines had the capability to handle emergent situations independently.  Imagine how different things might have been, say, if the Zaandam (or HAL in general) had been able to handle their onboard situation more effectively.  Perhaps it wouldn't have mattered that Chile turned them away, that Panama initially refused to let them through the canal and that they had to negotiate for days with the US to dock.  Could lives have been saved? Maybe?  I just think in the long run we are all better off if the cruise lines can increase their ability to assist their own guests and crew.  I, for one, would feel safer cruising if I knew I were in safer hands on the ship and not at the mercy of the closest country to the ship should something unfortunate happen.

9 minutes ago, npcl said:

Read page for of the CDC document where they reference those documents.  I do not have the CLIA's documents, only the CDC reference to them.  They reference key elements of what the CLIA said that was in their plan.

 

To me it reads like a lot of what they are asking for in their plan to be provide in 7 days are either elements from the CLIA's own plan and framework, or a request for an expansion of part of that framework.  It appears the idea of the cruise lines providing 5 ships to hold affected passengers off shore.

 

Take a look at page 4 of the CDC document and let me know what you think

 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/No-Sail-Order-Cruise-Ships_Extension_4-9-20-encrypted.pdf

Oh yes, I see it now.  It looks like CLIA really didn't follow through with the March "On Course" plan they came up with (I feel that is certainly evident with what transpired with the Zaandam) and then it sounds like they tried to backtrack a bit with the April 3 "Framework" plan.  I guess I understand now why they issued the order on April 4 that the cruise lines had to use private transportation for guests here on out and for this new order.  If CLIA had simply followed through with their "On Course" plan, perhaps this CDC order wouldn't have been necessary?

3 minutes ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

Why oh why did you choose to quote me, you couldn't make your point without doing that? Please do pay attention to the last line. Rest assured the airlines are flying freight because that is basically the only way they can make money. And the entire gist of my post was that cruise ships are a convenient target while airplanes are deemed necessary. Unless they are flying medical supplies the freight will get to the destination by other means; ships, trains and trucks come to mind. So please in future feel free to make your point, just leave me out.

I did pay attention to your last line.  You asked a reasonable question - I answered in a positive manner.  Yes, you are correct.  Many people dislike the cruise industry for a variety of reasons.  That is not a new phenomenon, at least not here in the US.  Recent events could very well be a good excuse for those people to pile on or for those in our legislature who have been trying for years to crack down on the industry to finally get their shot.  

8 minutes ago, npcl said:

10 minutes ago, npcl said:

If you read the CDC document most of what they are asking for was either committed to by the CLIA or is an expansion on the framework the CLIA put forward.  Look at the section Critical Need for Further Cooperation and Response Planning of the CDC April 9 document.  Most of the items the CDC are requiring came from the CLIA drafted response plan in March or their April 3 "Framework for Cruise Industry Care for Crew and Other Persons on board while Ships remain Idle during Covid-19 Pandemic"

 

Interesting that the CLIA did not mention that during their response. It appears that the CLIA put forth a plan and then did not live up to it.

 

I wasn't able to find the CLIA plan from March or April 3, but you are saying CLIA is basically pushing back on the framework they themselves drafted?!

2 hours ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

I'd like to know what plane you have been on lately...spaced? maybe in business class. On a cruise ship it would not be that hard to stay 6 feet spacing, all you have to do is try. And I would say that it's true, transference does mostly happen aboard THE AIRPLANE. You do have one thing right, flying moved COVID 19 around the world quickly. Unfortunately cruise ships are a large target to scapegoat for their part in this pandemic. And BTW airplanes are great for moving people but as far as commerce and things, look to ships, trains and trucks. And with modern technology office workers can meet with office workers over the internet, so people don't need to move by air that much either. So are airplanes really more "Necessary"? 

This thread got ugly a few days back and posts were edited. Suffice to say IMO the cruise industry has received undo criticism and scrutiny while the largest contributor to the spread has had a pass because it is "necessary"

So as I have said before don't fix the blame, fix the problem. And what are we each willing to do to fix the problem?

Most commercial flights that are currently flying right now are actually being used to transfer cargo.  It is the fastest way to transport goods long distances.  That is why you are hearing stories of flights only carrying one or two passengers at the moment.  I asked my relative who works for the Port Authority and helps oversee operations at JFK why these flights are still operating (seemed like a waste of money to me).  He explained the reason they are still flying is 1) the airlines want to maintain their slots so they don't lose them and 2) the plane is mostly being used to transfer cargo at this point.

I do believe flights are necessary for many reasons, in this day and age, including the luxury of vacationing.  Unless a cruise is leaving from NY or NJ, I can't cruise unless I fly to the embarkation port area.  In that sense, the cruise lines are quite dependent on the airline industry to transfer their guests to the cruises.  The airline industry could certainly continue without the cruise lines but that certainly would not be true vice versa.  If the airlines tank or cease operations, the cruise lines are literally dead in the water.  I don't think sailings out of FL, for instance, could be filled with only residents of, say, FL, GA and other bordering states.

I'm not arguing that the virus wasn't spread via flights - I just don't think what the CDC is asking the cruise lines to do is unreasonable.  If the cruise lines can improve their onboard medical facilities and capabilities and come up with a plan to be more self-sufficient in times of medical distress or emergency, all cruise guests and crew would benefit from that.  I don't think any of us want to be stuck on a ship the way people were on ships like the Zaandam nor would I want to see my fellow cruisers and also crew members in that position in the future.  What can we all do?  This is probably a good time, IMHO, for people in all industries to reflect on what we could do better should something like this ever happen again.  And though the CDC didn't issue orders for airlines (at least that I am aware of) and didn't single them out per se, the worldwide travel bans and border closures certainly imply that this virus spreads via all methods of travel and the airline industry has been decimated.  

2 hours ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

@C-Dragons we seem to be on the same page so let me pose this to you...and anyone else who cares to chime in.

 

DH and I just returned from our walk where we thoroughly discussed the world's problems.  Unfortunately, we haven't solved any yet but on the topic of cruising, I mentioned the 100 suspension and DH said, "Well I wonder how long it will take Cozumel or Nassau to build a cruise terminal that Americans (and others) could fly to in lieu of US ports?"  Obviously, they need capital to support such infrastructure needs and it will take time (which was my response to him), but it did make me go hmmm.  Will popular Caribbean ports of call entertain the notion of someday becoming their own cruise embarkation port?  Maybe this should be a new thread...but curious all the same...

This was on my mind, as well, after the CDC order was released.  I remember looking at a cruise on a smaller line (I think it may have been Seabourne?) that embarked and disembarked from St. Maarten (if I recall).  I almost pulled the trigger but when I priced out my "all-in" (flights, pre-cruise stay, etc.) it just wasn't as cost effective as doing something out of a US port.  Could this be a golden opportunity for Caribbean ports?  Maybe?!  As a previous poster noted, though, I think it might significantly reduce the amount of US guests on the cruises.  Only speaking for myself (I live in the NYC metro area), it's SO much easier to fly to a US port than to fly internationally to get on a cruise.

3 hours ago, C-Dragons said:

“While it’s easy to focus on cruising because of its high profile, the fact is cruising is neither the source or cause of the virus or its spread. What is different about the cruise industry is the very stringent reporting requirements applicable to vessels that do not apply to comparable venues on land where the spread of communicable disease is just as prevalent. It would be a false assumption to connect higher frequency and visibility in reporting to a higher frequency of infection.”

I agree, the last paragraph is significant. They are stating a fact that they are being singled out as being a predominant factor for the spread of the contagion, while the government doesn’t appear to be laying any blame on the Airlines. How did the virus get into our country? Mainly by passengers arriving on planes from different parts of the world. How did the virus get aboard the cruise ships? By passengers arriving via the same Airlines. What precautions have the airlines been required to put in place to help contain the spread of the virus aside from taking passenger's

temperatures and asking them where they've recently traveled? Are any passengers required to have a note from their Doctors saying they’re healthy to travel for hours in an enclosed space? It's hard to practice social distancing on an aircraft.

I completely see your point, but, I suppose, the airlines response to that is their ability to even carry passengers was significantly diminished with the travel bans from China and Europe, the borders with Canada and Mexico closing to non-essential travel and state governors asking people to self-quarantine for 14 days if they arrive from out-of-state.  Particularly with the travel bans - that was a pretty significant precaution that was taken.  Although the CDC never released a document (to my knowledge anyway) singling out the airlines, that industry has been completely devastated by the pandemic.  I happened to be on Delta's website this morning and they mention on the site that, in an attempt to social distance, they are now leaving the middle seat open on their aircrafts.  Personally, that still wouldn't make me comfortable enough to fly right now!  I always got the sense that the orders aimed at the cruise industry had more to do with the US government not wanting to take on the role and expense of evacuating people anymore and would like the industry to become more self-sufficient with improved medical capabilities and the ability to evacuate guests and crews themselves by deploying other ships - at least that's how I read the CDC order.  I understand they don't want to be singled out, but I'm not sure what else the CDC could have done if they want the cruise lines to expand their own capabilities to help guests in a medical situation.

1 hour ago, waterbug123 said:

 

Actually, it's about a lot more than just whether or not other countries let them embark/disembark.  If cruises cannot operate out of the US, that means a HUGE % of cruise pax must fly internationally to a port to embark.  That's going to eliminate a lot of cruisers and/or cause a lot of them to cruise a lot less often.

 

I was thinking the same thing.  I know a lot of US citizens do not travel with passports on closed-loop cruises and that would certainly have to change and then there is the cost to fly internationally, etc.  It would definitely change the cruising landscape.

2 hours ago, WrittenOnYourHeart said:

 

And what's to say they are not doing just that? It IS possible to have multiple groups working on different things at the same time.

 

(Just to note: I don't know if they are or they aren't. But I do know that most companies/corporations/organizations are quite adept at having multiple groups working on different things at the same time.)

I know - I was kind of kidding when I wrote that!  I would suspect their PR department is not working on the actual plan needed by the CDC.  🙂

1 minute ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

Don't you just love it when two CC members can have a civilized conversation without name calling and insults...thank you for your explanation.  I totally get that perspective. ☺️

🙂 

8 minutes ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

Not that I disagree with much of what you said, respectfully, tell that to all the businesses and workers currently out of a job as a result of the cruise industry halt.  It's a micro-economy that supports many American jobs.  

I totally agree with you.  I just meant, as a whole, if you look at the cruise industry impact on the whole US economy, it's not very big.  If you look at how it impacts individual US citizens who rely on cruises to make their living, yes, it could be devastating and I certainly feel for them.  I'm sorry if my comment sounded crass.  I was definitely commenting on the macro-level. 

5 hours ago, pms4104 said:

The good news is that these folks will be home with their families ...

 

The bad news is that they have no idea when they will sail again, if ever ...

 

I hope they will be safe and healthy in their home countries ...

 

And they can find suitable emplkyment to support themselves and their families ...

 

Good on Princess for taking on this responsibility

 

This question has been lingering in my mind for quite a while.  With all of the crew, deservedly, going home (and hopefully staying healthy and safe with their families), how will the cruise lines ramp up and sail again?  It seems most lines have only cancelled most cruises through mid-May.  I feel like there is no way they can sail the crew home and then be up and running in May - am I missing something?

19 minutes ago, hcat said:

Wonder how much cruise lines pay in port fees?

Seems  like a  small amount on our invoices but it must add up to quite alot...

 

Don't know enough about the organization to comment on their positions...assume it is a trade organization that promotes inerests of its members and deal with issues in common????

That is correct - it's a trade organization - CLIA, Cruise Lines International Association

The time and effort it took to write this statement should have been put into the writing of the new plan they need to come up with in the next 7 days to comply with the CDC's directive.  I agree with everyone who has posted above.  The cruise industry has zero leverage here.  They need the US.  The US doesn't need them.  If they were US companies paying taxes, it would probably be a different story.  If they do not wish to comply, nothing is stopping them from continuing to operate by embarking and disembarking elsewhere (well, that is, of course, if other countries don't impose similar orders).  I really don't see the purpose of this statement.  I can't imagine it will make a difference to the US authorities.  I also saw no mention in the CDC order which implied cruise ships weren't clean.  If I recall, it mostly referenced what they required the industry to do to improve their medical facilities and capabilities onboard and to have other ships in place to serve in evacuations if need be so they would stop being so reliant government resources to bail them out.  The cruise lines became high profile recently because they became SO reliant on the US, Japan and Australia, for instance, to, quite literally, rescue their passengers.  What other industry requires this level of assistance?  And for an industry that isn't paying US taxes?!