Iona Construction ?

[davecttr]

8 minutes ago, bee-ess said:

Any guesses on the date of Iona's maiden cruise ?

April 2021 to Norway?

[Son of Anarchy]

Depends on Gary Barlow's availability.

[molecrochip]

1 minute ago, davecttr said:

April 2021 to Norway?

I don't expect it to be that late. I believe it will be in 2020. It was due to be launched in 2020 and they will want to stick to that 'headline'.

 

I've always said that the recommencement of cruising will be one ship at a time. That said, P&O seem to be committing to Azura and Britannia heading to the Caribbean on 16 and 23 of October respectively. That in itself requires 2,600 crew to be brought to the UK to fully crew these ships.

 

I think it would be illogical to expect that P&O are going to bring another 1,700 crew to the UK in the same week to fully crew Iona as well.

[Bazrat]

18 minutes ago, Son of Anarchy said:

Depends on Gary Barlow's availability.

I think the ship would sail if Gary Barlow was available or not 🤪

[majortom10]

13 hours ago, ann141 said:

I agree.I saw the post on another website that stated that P and O had refused to take delivery of Iona but couldn t find any information to substantiate the claim.

I read about there being 2 fires on Odyssey of the Seas on RCL blog while being built at Meyer Werft and there is a video by Mr Tim Meyer of the sobering look at the German shipyard's operations. The article also said that Meyer Werft were also struggling with other issued including P&O Cruises refusing to take delivery of Iona which also has financial consequences on the shipyard. No reason was given why P&O had refused to take delivery.

[zap99]

53 minutes ago, Son of Anarchy said:

Depends on Gary Barlow's availability.

They will hold back Gary untill the end of August 2021. Just have a little patience 😁

[ann141]

1 hour ago, molecrochip said:

I don't expect it to be that late. I believe it will be in 2020. It was due to be launched in 2020 and they will want to stick to that 'headline'.

 

I've always said that the recommencement of cruising will be one ship at a time. That said, P&O seem to be committing to Azura and Britannia heading to the Caribbean on 16 and 23 of October respectively. That in itself requires 2,600 crew to be brought to the UK to fully crew these ships.

 

I think it would be illogical to expect that P&O are going to bring another 1,700 crew to the UK in the same week to fully crew Iona as well.

We are due to cruise on Arcadia on 18 October.Hopefully P and O will let us know if its not going to go ahead before our balance is due mid July!

[Britboys]

5 hours ago, majortom10 said:

I read about there being 2 fires on Odyssey of the Seas on RCL blog while being built at Meyer Werft and there is a video by Mr Tim Meyer of the sobering look at the German shipyard's operations. The article also said that Meyer Werft were also struggling with other issued including P&O Cruises refusing to take delivery of Iona which also has financial consequences on the shipyard. No reason was given why P&O had refused to take delivery.

That sounds like the blog I read but if it is, it is worth noting that the blog is not official and was based on a third party translating the German language. As I mentioned previously, I also saw another article talking about the same interview with Tim Meyer where the language was definitely more that acceptance was not guaranteed, rather than had been refused. Would P&O really be refusing to accept her before work is even completed? None of us can know the truth...

[No pager thank you]

6 hours ago, molecrochip said:

I've always said that the recommencement of cruising will be one ship at a time. That said, P&O seem to be committing to Azura and Britannia heading to the Caribbean on 16 and 23 of October respectively. That in itself requires 2,600 crew to be brought to the UK to fully crew these ships.

Based on what we know at the moment, I agree that an Iona Maiden at some time in late 2020 appears more likely than not. 

 

However, if we are struck with a seasonal flu pandemic and/or if the dreadful story coming out of China about a new swine flu mutation is correct then all bets are off, including Azura and Britannia.  Or a significant Covid-19 second wave of course.  Hopefully no to all of these!

 

On the face of it, the decision to prioritize Azura and Britannia over Iona appears strange as Iona is the larger vessel and I would imagine has the strongest bookings and strongest kudos.  Plus, I would perceive that it will be more difficult to convince passengers to travel to the other side of the world than to mainland Europe with "air / sea bridges."

 

Unfortunately, it appears to be the case that the impact of Covid-19 is stronger at the moment in Central and South America, which may or may not create issues in the Caribbean - particularly those countries with less advanced economies and healthcare systems. 

 

To me, it doesn't feel a given yet that Azura and Britannia will be the first out of the blocks!   But it will be graduated.

[molecrochip]

5 hours ago, ann141 said:

We are due to cruise on Arcadia on 18 October.Hopefully P and O will let us know if its not going to go ahead before our balance is due mid July!

Admittedly, I didn't have smaller ships in mind when typing that. Crew on Arcadia is 1/2 that on Iona so not such an issue.

5 minutes ago, No pager thank you said:

Based on what we know at the moment, I agree that an Iona Maiden at some time in late 2020 appears more likely than not. 

 

However, if we are struck with a seasonal flu pandemic and/or if the dreadful story coming out of China about a new swine flu mutation is correct then all bets are off, including Azura and Britannia.  Or a significant Covid-19 second wave of course.  Hopefully no to all of these!

 

On the face of it, the decision to prioritize Azura and Britannia over Iona appears strange as Iona is the larger vessel and I would imagine has the strongest bookings and strongest kudos.  Plus, I would perceive that it will be more difficult to convince passengers to travel to the other side of the world than to mainland Europe with "air / sea bridges."

 

Unfortunately, it appears to be the case that the impact of Covid-19 is stronger at the moment in Central and South America, which may or may not create issues in the Caribbean - particularly those countries with less advanced economies and healthcare systems. 

 

To me, it doesn't feel a given yet that Azura and Britannia will be the first out of the blocks!   But it will be graduated.

Iona is larger vessel but Caribbean has been less affected that Europe. Numbers are really low. The benefit for P&O is that they can insist on charter aircraft only full of cruise passengers. Barbados already offers no-terminal arrival. You'd be in a bubble from getting on the plane in the UK until you get to the airport to come home. You will then be on a plane with cruise passengers.

 

With testing and controls in place, it will only be if you come into contact with other non cruise holiday makers that is a risk.

 

[No pager thank you]

15 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

You'd be in a bubble from getting on the plane in the UK until you get to the airport to come home. You will then be on a plane with cruise passengers.

 

With testing and controls in place, it will only be if you come into contact with other non cruise holiday makers that is a risk.

 

Beyond an asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic carrier bring on the chartered flight - which is essentially a low risk that can only be mitigated, not eliminated entirely, then such a bubble could, in principle, work, I agree. 

 

My assumption, could be mistaken, is that risks at ports could be mitigated by prevent independent excursions from the ship, to reduce the chance of contact between a "local" and "passenger" and thereby transmission between either local to passenger or passenger to local respectively.  This is in addition to the various on board restrictions to protect social distancing and hygiene.

 

The part I don't quite understand is why the Southampton departure, on let's say Iona for arguments sake, couldn't be managed similarly i.e. passengers travel down in coaches or in their household "bubbles" only with terminal free / contact light embarkation and via online check-in methods only upon arrival at Southampton.  The airport-style safety/security screening would take place in the terminal as normal prior to departure.

 

This method, matched up with the same type of onboard bubble, would be attractive to P&O as I would have thought it was just as easy to navigate with the "home" port? 

 

On the flip side, as the Spanish authorities appear lukewarm on cruise ships at the moment from my last reading, which makes the Canaries season hard to plan for in concrete terms, if the Caribbean are being more "welcoming" then that could indicate the preference for Azura and Britannia first?

[Adawn47]

6 hours ago, ann141 said:

We are due to cruise on Arcadia on 18 October.Hopefully P and O will let us know if its not going to go ahead before our balance is due mid July!

Same here Ann. We have until August 8th for our balance.

Avril 

[happy v]

So Iona maiden around the UK in October. I would be up for that, anyone else?

For Zapp...........I would go with or without Gary! 😃

[wowzz]

1 hour ago, No pager thank you said:

The part I don't quite understand is why the Southampton departure, on let's say Iona for arguments sake, couldn't be managed similarly i.e. passengers travel down in coaches or in their household "bubbles" only with terminal free / contact light embarkation and via online check-in methods only upon arrival at Southampton.  The airport-style safety/security screening would take place in the terminal as normal prior to departure.

Although all those on  buses will be mingling with hundreds of people at the motorway services, as will those of us who drive down. Plus, of course, many of us stay in hotels pre-cruise,  with yet more interaction with other people. Seems to me the bubble will have been well and truly pricked long before embarkation.  

[No pager thank you]

44 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Although all those on  buses will be mingling with hundreds of people at the motorway services, as will those of us who drive down. Plus, of course, many of us stay in hotels pre-cruise,  with yet more interaction with other people. Seems to me the bubble will have been well and truly pricked long before embarkation.  

Yes, in the same way as the passengers going on fly cruises to the Caribbean are.  

 

The point I was trying to make, although in fairness didn't say it explicitly, is that a "travel bubble" is just as credible/developable (or burstable) if you either jet off to Barbados on a chartered flight (with 12 hours in close confinement) or choose to trek down to Southampton via either your own, or any arranged means. 

 

The risk feels similar, as it is based on the virus circulation conditions in this country, as much as the receiving destinations.

 

Therefore, why start cruising from the other side of the world on smaller ships, if a phased approach is to be deployed and the prevailing risk is considered (by P&O) as acceptable?

 

The only reason I can see is that the Caribbean nations may wish to invite cruise ship tourism back, possibly because the virus has impacted less in some of those countries, whereas the Spanish authorities seem to be more wary. 

 

If this wasn't true, then you would most likely want your largest ship heading the return, for commercial reasons?

[wowzz]

1 minute ago, No pager thank you said:

Yes, in the same way as the passengers going on fly cruises to the Caribbean are.  

 

The point I was trying to make, although in fairness didn't say it explicitly, is that a "travel bubble" is just as credible/developable (or burstable) if you either jet off to Barbados on a chartered flight (with 12 hours in close confinement) or choose to trek down to Southampton via either your own, or any arranged means. 

 

The risk feels similar, as it is based on the virus circulation conditions in this country, as much as the receiving destinations.

 

Therefore, why start cruising from the other side of the world on smaller ships, if a phased approach is to be deployed and the prevailing risk is considered (by P&O) as acceptable?

 

The only reason I can see is that the Caribbean nations may wish to invite cruise ship tourism back, possibly because the virus has impacted less in some of those countries, whereas the Spanish authorities seem to be more wary. 

 

If this wasn't true, then you would most likely want your largest ship heading the return, for commercial reasons?

I see what you are saying. Seems perfectly rational to me.

[zap99]

2 hours ago, happy v said:

So Iona maiden around the UK in October. I would be up for that, anyone else?

For Zapp...........I would go with or without Gary! 😃

Ok, count us in as long as Eric and Ern aren't in the Limelight club.😂

[molecrochip]

10 hours ago, No pager thank you said:

The only reason I can see is that the Caribbean nations may wish to invite cruise ship tourism back, possibly because the virus has impacted less in some of those countries, whereas the Spanish authorities seem to be more wary. 

 

Most of the Caribbean islands are still impacted financially from the bad hurricane season in 2017. They wont want to lose more visitors. Whereas Spain, well.... I don't get it. Considerably more people arrive by plane than by cruise ship.

[Adawn47]

4 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

 

Most of the Caribbean islands are still impacted financially from the bad hurricane season in 2017. They wont want to lose more visitors. Whereas Spain, well.... I don't get it. Considerably more people arrive by plane than by cruise ship.

Exactly the point I made on another thread. I'm glad someone else thinks the same. I thought I was a majority of one 😉

Avril 

[wowzz]

15 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

Exactly the point I made on another thread. I'm glad someone else thinks the same. I thought I was a majority of one 😉

Avril 

The main difference is that if you have 3000 infected people from a cruise ship suddenly descending on a place like Cartagena, the consequences are dramatically different compared to 200 people on an easyJet flight.

[Adawn47]

8 minutes ago, wowzz said:

The main difference is that if you have 3000 infected people from a cruise ship suddenly descending on a place like Cartagena, the consequences are dramatically different compared to 200 people on an easyJet flight.

That's just looking at a worse case scenario wowzz. I mean, what's  the likelihood  of 3,000 infected passengers arriving en masse on a cruise ship. Let's be reasonable here. Are you seriously comparing one large ship against one small plane? Not fair averages, but we'll work with them. 15 planes a day into Spain, from all over Europe is not an unreasonable number, and assuming by your hypothesis, everyone is infected that’s 3,000 people. What cruise company is going to let 3,000 covid  infected passengers on board? I'm trying to understand your reasoning behind this, but at the moment  it escapes me. I'm pretty  sure you'll soon enlighten me😉

Avril 

[wowzz]

5 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

That's just looking at a worse case scenario wowzz. I mean, what's  the likelihood  of 3,000 infected passengers arriving en masse on a cruise ship. Let's be reasonable here. Are you seriously comparing one large ship against one small plane? Not fair averages, but we'll work with them. 15 planes a day into Spain, from all over Europe is not an unreasonable number, and assuming by your hypothesis, everyone is infected that’s 3,000 people. What cruise company is going to let 3,000 covid  infected passengers on board? I'm trying to understand your reasoning behind this, but at the moment  it escapes me. I'm pretty  sure you'll soon enlighten me😉

Avril 

My reasoning is that one infected person on a cruise ship will quickly pass on the virus to hundreds of other people,  due to the close proximity to other passengers and crew. So whilst there may only be a few infected people at the start of the cruise, by the end of the first week , hundreds could be infected.

Passengers coming by air will be wearing masks the whole time, and will be on an aircraft with air conditioning for a few hours. The chances of infection are therefore significantly reduced.

I suppose the question is: given the choice between being in close confinement with 3000 people for 14 days, or 200 people for 6 hours, which would you choose? 

  

[terrierjohn]

1 hour ago, wowzz said:

The main difference is that if you have 3000 infected people from a cruise ship suddenly descending on a place like Cartagena, the consequences are dramatically different compared to 200 people on an easyJet flight.

But you are just as unlikely to get a full ship load with the virus as 20 plane loads all with the virus.  Plus I would hope that new procedures on the ship will reduce the transmission, if it does get aboard. Anyway I am still convinced that Spain will lift its embargo in time for a Q4 restart.

[Adawn47]

2 minutes ago, wowzz said:

My reasoning is that one infected person on a cruise ship will quickly pass on the virus to hundreds of other people,  due to the close proximity to other passengers and crew. So whilst there may only be a few infected people at the start of the cruise, by the end of the first week , hundreds could be infected.

Passengers coming by air will be wearing masks the whole time, and will be on an aircraft with air conditioning for a few hours. The chances of infection are therefore significantly reduced.

I suppose the question is: given the choice between being in close confinement with 3000 people for 14 days, or 200 people for 6 hours, which would you choose? 

  

 

3 minutes ago, wowzz said:

My reasoning is that one infected person on a cruise ship will quickly pass on the virus to hundreds of other people,  due to the close proximity to other passengers and crew. So whilst there may only be a few infected people at the start of the cruise, by the end of the first week , hundreds could be infected.

Passengers coming by air will be wearing masks the whole time, and will be on an aircraft with air conditioning for a few hours. The chances of infection are therefore significantly reduced.

I suppose the question is: given the choice between being in close confinement with 3000 people for 14 days, or 200 people for 6 hours, which would you choose? 

  

You're  assuming again that only airports will be monitoring and using infection prevention measures. So will cruise ships. Flights are leaving again for the continent and as seen on the media not everyone on the flights or in the terminals are using masks, there is also no social distancing whatsoever. Cruise ships and terminals however,  are having to conform to new rules and put more health and hygiene measures in place including masks and social distancing. On a flight you are confined for x number hours. On a ship you can  walk around  easily avoiding people if necessary and spend a lot of time outside. So to answer your question wowzz. I would feel safer on a 14 night cruise.

Avril 

[wowzz]

13 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

On a flight you are confined for x number hours.

With far better air condition and purification than on a cruise ship.

But, at the end of the day, it is a personal choice, although presently most world governments seem to be taking the same approach as me. (Which in itself is not necessarily a recommendation - just a reflection of perceived risks)