Paul Bogle

3 minutes ago, seaman11 said:

https://www.travelpulse.com/news/cruise/american-cruise-lines-plans-to-restart-operations-june-20.html

Have you booked?

In my post above I stated serology, which is the blood test for antibodies when I meant the test for active virus in the body. Please interpret my comments in that light.

According to the CDC as of May 22, total tests in the USA are over 13 million. The CDC doesn't readily identify these as serology tests or total test but let's assume these are serology tests alone. If these reflect one person getting one test once (which it doesn't because first responders need to be regular tested) that amounts to 4% of the US population.

We have a very long way to go to get to a testing and tracing regimen that will allow at-risk people to resume any sort of normal life.

Just now, Turtles06 said:

 

 

Or Quebec City.  Or Tortola.  Or any other port that is not in the United States.   😊

True True....but not offered frequently due to the time required. 

For example New York to Quebec City or Montreal is usually offered as a seven day one way itinerary though it can be enjoyed as a back to back.

We sailed roundtrip from NYC on an itinerary that made its last of five stops in Tortola but it was an 11 day itinerary.

Welcome aboard Outerdog. No antipedantites in here.

Or the Canadian maritimes.

6 minutes ago, don't-use-real-name said:

Is this cruise actually a BACK-TO-BACK or really two separate cruises.

For purposes of the PVSA it makes no difference. The act is interested in where you initially board the ship and where you permanently depart the ship. How the cruise is marketed is of no relevance. 

3 minutes ago, www3traveler said:

Vancouver, British Columbia and Victoria, British Columbia serve as a "foreign port of call" every season.

It is legal to take passengers from a USA port and drop them off in any foreign port and vice versa. What is not legal is to carry passengers from one USA port to a different USA port without stopping at a distant foreign port. This is why both cited itineraries in the original post are legal but doing both back to back is not.

The law requires a stop at a distant foreign port. In the western hemisphere only ports in South America and the ABC islands off the north coast of Venezuela qualify as distant foreign ports under the act.

It's actually the Passenger Vessel Services Act, the Jones act deals with cabotage and the coastwise trade.

For a ship to carry passengers between USA ports it must be built in the USA, owned by Americans, crewed by mostly Americans and be registered in the USA. Therefore it is illegal for the Jewel to board passengers in Seward and let them leave the ship permanently in Honolulu. The fact that you are booked on a b2b is not relevant.

You would be legal is to do the same itinerary but change ships in Vancouver Canada.

16 hours ago, npcl said:

Then you would not have had any problem with the FDA regulating it as a nicotine delivery device, requiring a script to get the liquid and its use limited only to those trying to stop smoking? That way it accomplishes what you say is the intent, without the unintended consequences of addicting another generation to nicotine.

 

After all I did not say ban completing only that they are not risk free. In response to your comment that FDA regulation would not make it any safer.

 

 

Nicotine gum, lozenges and patches are available over the counter. They do not require a doctor or a prescription. Inhalers require a prescription to be used as part of a cessation program. Vaping can be used for smoking cessation but as far as I know the majority of people who vape do so as a substitute for smoking tobacco not as a way to quit nicotine. With a 95% reduction in risk from substituting vape for smoke this seems like a public good to be encouraged. To make obtaining vape products more onerous than tobacco products and to only allow this for cessation purposes will incentivize continued tobacco use and forgo the public health benefits of smokers switching to vaping.

I want to bring this back to cruising since this is a cruising forum and we should not deviate to far from its purpose. In my view it would be much more pleasant to not be grossed out by that stench coming from the enclosed smoking area by the pools on the Breakaway ships. It would also be nice to not have to endure the less dreadful stench that permeates the areas above, below and around the casino. If those addicted to tobacco  were vaping in these areas instead, no offensive odor would be encountered. Perhaps one day we will live in a tobacco free world. Switching tobacco use to vaping will bring us all much closer to that goal.

Consider this idea: The Bahamas are ready for cruise ships to visit their ports, all of them. The Bahamian government invites NCL to start sailing a ship from Nassau. The ship is registered in the Bahamas. The airport in Nassau can handle a ship's worth of passengers....what's the problem?

The Bahamas are not ready for mass tourism from a floating petri dish.

19 minutes ago, seaman11 said:

Whenever the ships are ready these carrabean ports will welcome them.  Shouldnt be much of an argument. 

One of many factors that will define when the ships will be ready is when the ports are ready. You have the issue backwards.

2 minutes ago, npcl said:

If the FDA had regulated them as a nicotine delivery device they would have been, like other such devices, prescription for helping people to stop smoking, as the manufacturers claim, while instead they were being marketed with all kinds of flavors aimed at non-smokers.  Now we are getting the net generation hooked on nicotine.

Vaping is a replacement therapy for tobacco addiction. It is fair to point out vaping probably isn't risk free. To ignore the low risk of vaping in comparison to tobacco is disingenuous. At the height of the hysteria around vaping in 2018, out of 11 million vapers, 530 had resulted in hospitalization from vaping. That same year nearly 500,000 died from tobacco use. The subsequent proposals have all aimed at making vaping more difficult. For those addicted to nicotine, a relatively benign substance not much different than caffeine, this will benefit tobacco companies and taxing authorities but lead to more death.

To bring this back to cruising it would be as if the CDC demanded drink packages be banned as a condition of restarting cruises on the grounds that drink packages are inherently dangerous to passengers' health.

26 minutes ago, npcl said:

As far as vaping they should have been defined as nicotine delivery devices and under FDA regulations from the start, instead of waiting until the health problems started to arise.

The health problems associated with vaping came from private parties adulterating vaping products for purpose of drug consumption. The primary manufacturers of vaping products who would follow FDA regulations were not the source of the tainted products. FDA regulation will do nothing to make vaping safer.

I think the Bahamas will allow cruise ships to call on their private islands as soon as ships are ready to take passengers. Nassau and Freeport are a different question.

This is a good idea once NCL is closer to actually cruising. Given this week's announcement they are still in the cancelling phase of things.

3 minutes ago, tallnthensome said:

This I am in total agreement with. They won’t sail cruises more than 7 days . Less chance of infection and certainly less chance of someone dying onboard and making the news happening in 7 days. You won’t see longer cruisers like 15 days and over for a while I would  guess. 

I think this is right but for the opposite reason. I think the cruise lines will exercise extreme caution when boarding passengers, taking temperatures and requiring doctors letters etc. The problem is that infected people can be a-symptomatic for a week or more. Keeping itineraries shorter than a week makes an outbreak onboard less likely. It doesn't do much to reduce likelihood of infection.

There are already cruise lines that operate this way. They are the luxury brands. The mass market ships cannot make money sailing half full. It's possible some ships might sail half full initially as cruising comes back but it is not a viable business model for these ships.

The virus isn't effecting areas equally. It is a benefit to all of us to have local authorities who understand the situation in their areas make these decisions.

We are learning more about how this virus transmits, who is at substantial risk of serious illness and how illness can be mitigated. We cannot stay locked down for a year or more. We have many lessons to learn. Reopening in some jurisdictions is a vital part of that learning.

Cruising will still be one of the last large businesses to restart due to the many challenges we have discussed.

If you have high confidence in HNCL weathering this storm perhaps you should toss what you would spend in cruise fares into NHCL stock. If NCL is sailing to Alaska in the summer of 2021 their stock will likely have tripled from the current $10 to $11. You can sell the stock and easily pay the fares with plenty of cash left over. If NCL goes bust you are out the same amount of money either way.

15 minutes ago, hftmrock said:

 

not looking for an apology.. just lets realize it went too far (on both sides in my opinion) and lets move forward with a healthy debate

 

its all good my friend.

My feelings exactly

On 5/1/2020 at 5:06 PM, vpearlkc said:

 

Get up to speed even the president has quit talking about hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir is the new great hope.

There will be many more new great hopes in reducing severity of covid19. The on patent drugs will probably be most used but their effectiveness will likely be marginal compared to the off patent drugs.

If I understand this correctly NCL crew cease being paid when their contracts expire. That seems tautological. Crew members who find themselves with expired contracts find themselves in a predicament: they are free to go home at company expense per their contract but due to covid19 the company cannot provide the usual travel arrangements.

Are crew on expired contracts being held onboard against their will by NCL?

I doubt that.

Are crew on expired contracts required to perform regular duties as it they were on contract but are not getting paid?

I doubt that too.

15 minutes ago, seaman11 said:

I find your act of hostility shallow and pedantic , good day to you sir. 

and good day to you.