Norwegian Unresponsive to the Coronavirus in Asia

[Lou33]

Here's a facebook page where somebody is posting a live video blog from the quarantined Diamond Princess.  Apparently each passenger is confined to their cabin for 14 days.  He's saying things that you will never hear on the news.  He's going to be quite famous by the time this is over.

 

https://www.facebook.com/david.abel.75

[Atgatsea]

9 hours ago, Norwegian Cruise Line said:

 

I wonder if the individual who uploaded NCL’s post read any of our statements and, if so, how they feel about NCL profiting from this public health emergency - which is exactly what they are doing by keeping monies paid by guests who have made a rational decision not to go for obvious reasons  - and whether they would be willing to provide their name and phone number so those of us who have been stonewalled can contact them to get some answers.  

[mrpotatohead]

After getting off the Jade today I am relieved to have made it off the ship. I honestly thought we might also have a sudden quarantine. After leaving Singapore a few weeks ago, going through Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam - then spending 5 days in Hong Kong with A Macau day trip thrown in, then going through Vietnam again back to Singapore- I think we have threaded the needle of risk without a lot of room to spare. Happy to hear the folks getting on the ship today are not going back to Hong Kong. Phew

[hamrag]

11 hours ago, Norwegian Cruise Line said:

The safety, security and well-being of our guests and crew is our number one priority. We have proactively implemented several preventative measures outlined below due to growing concerns regarding Coronavirus infections in China. We will continue to consult with The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and take appropriate additional action as needed. 

 

Policies currently in place include:

• Guests who have traveled from, visited or transited via airports in China, including Hong Kong and Macau, within 30 days of their voyage embarkation, regardless of nationality, will not be allowed to board any of our vessels. The standard incubation period recognized by the WHO and US CDC for this virus is 14 days.

• • Guests who are denied boarding will be issued a refund when they provide proof of travel.

 

• The recent Hong Kong port closure will result in itinerary modifications and we will share the revised itinerary as well as further details as they become available.

 

• Prior to the port closure in Hong Kong, we implemented non-touch temperature screenings for all passengers embarking from this destination and any guest who registered a body temperature of 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit or 38 degrees Celsius or higher, were not allowed to board. Guests on these voyages were also subject to temperature screenings when returning from shore excursions at ports of call.

• • Guests who were unable to sail due to a high temperature were advised to open a travel insurance claim with their insurance provider.

 

• For all guests, we will continue standard pre-boarding health reporting and evaluation. Any guests who appear symptomatic are subject to pre-boarding medical evaluations including but not limited to temperature checks as deemed necessary.

 

• Any guest who exhibits symptoms of any respiratory illness while on board will be subject to additional screening at our onboard Medical Center and may be subject to potential quarantine and disembarkation.

 

• We have implemented additional cleaning and disinfection protocols on board all voyages. These protocols will be enforced in addition to our already rigorous sanitization standards in place.

 

• Our crew members who have traveled from, visited or transited via airports in China, including Hong Kong and Macau within 30 days will not be allowed on board our ships.

 

• Singapore and the Philippines are not currently allowing Chinese nationals to disembark at their ports. Guests with a Chinese passport who are traveling on voyages that disembark in one of these regions will not be allowed on board our ships. If additional port restrictions are put into place we may have to modify this policy as needed.
  • Guests who are denied boarding due to this will be issued a refund.

 

The above measures will remain in effect until further notice and are subject to change at any time as we evaluate the situation and continue to consult with local health authorities as well as the WHO and US CDC.  

 

At this time, we have made a number of itinerary changes and none of our vessels are currently calling to ports in mainland China.  We also have the flexibility to alter our itineraries as needed to avoid areas of concern.....

 

Picking up on the title of this thread, which is Norwegian Unresponsive to the Coronavirus in Asia, the above statement is their clear and proactive response.....so how can they be accused of being unresponsive?

 

Clearly their response does not suit some passengers, but it is unreasonable to expect NCL to react to every particular whim that passengers have. Some have stated they are worried or frightened....if that is truly the case, and I were booked on one of the cruises in that area, then I'd cancel at the latest possible time (in case any 'appropriate additional action as needed' included an option to cancel with refund). What is the loss of a sum of money, which has been budgeted for your cruise, compared to protecting health if you truly are that worried? But to whine at NCL because they are not allowing passengers to cancel with a refund is, IMHO at least, most unreasonable.

 

Of course, YMMV, and that is absolutely fine, so be kind to me!😉

[MoniMommy]

Wow! The previous poster must be from NCL. While some are reasonably worried about catching the virus, many have travel problems. How do they get flights to ports and back home when arrival and departure ports have changed and may even change more. Wanting to be able to get a flight is not a whim. Also the response has not been proactive. It's been reactive. Do the least possible to accommodate guests. It's really the port closures that are driving the response rather than concern for passengers or crew. But I do agree it's a business, not a charity. Number 1 concern is profit. In the end their decisions may backfire and cause a loss of profit.

[ziggyuk]

50 minutes ago, MoniMommy said:

Wow! The previous poster must be from NCL. While some are reasonably worried about catching the virus, many have travel problems. How do they get flights to ports and back home when arrival and departure ports have changed and may even change more. Wanting to be able to get a flight is not a whim. Also the response has not been proactive. It's been reactive. Do the least possible to accommodate guests. It's really the port closures that are driving the response rather than concern for passengers or crew. But I do agree it's a business, not a charity. Number 1 concern is profit. In the end their decisions may backfire and cause a loss of profit.

 

I'm sorry but I have to agree with @hamrag, the situation is ever changing and NCL are adjusting based on government, CDC and WHO advice. I don't see why they should pull have out of Hong Kong while the advice is that it's safe, now Hong Kong has closed the port there is no choice but is Singapore really any safer.

 

 

Travel insurance covers you if your flights are cancelled and you can't get to the region, as much as people say (correctly) the outbreak is not covered by insurance, if you can't get to the region you are still covered. If fights have to be changed the line have said they will cover reasonable costs, those costs will always be reasonable if it's all that's available and you're not upgrading the flight.

 

Things will change with time and governments will probably make more countries "essential travel only", but while they remain clear there is little that can be done.

 

NCL would have really got egg in their face if they pulled out of Hong Kong in favour of Singapore (which has higher virus levels) and then Singapore closed the port and Hong Kong remained open. I can only say they have judged it well and reacted accordingly.

 

I personally don't see how passengers are any better off traveling from Singapore, I would personally rather be travelling from Hong Kong.

Edited February 6, 2020 by ziggyuk

[Georgia_Peaches]

1 hour ago, hamrag said:

Picking up on the title of this thread, which is Norwegian Unresponsive to the Coronavirus in Asia, the above statement is their clear and proactive response.....so how can they be accused of being unresponsive?

Well the OP started the thread on Monday after several days of no response from NCL.  The post from NCL didn't come until Wednesday so from the OP's perspective, at the time of posting, NCL had been unresponsive.  

 

Although I certainly agree about all the moving parts and this being an impossible situation, compared to other major cruise lines who responded and reported changes to itineraries and even offered full refunds to those who wanted to cancel (Viking), I can see how one could view NCL as slow to respond.  And some may even see it as unresponsive.

[hamrag]

17 minutes ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

Well the OP started the thread on Monday after several days of no response from NCL.  The post from NCL didn't come until Wednesday so from the OP's perspective, at the time of posting, NCL had been unresponsive.....

 

Not quite true! The OP posted the following, to start the thread:

'We have been asking NCL for a cruise credit or future rebooking for next year, but so far they have been totally unresponsive to the situation. Right now, they are still saying we will be penalized the full cost of the cruise if we don't sail, even though we could fall ill, be quarantined, miss ports and or possibly be stranded in China for weeks or months.'

 

So, NCL were responsive by saying the OP 'will be penalised the full cost of the cruise if we don't sail.....'

 

Clearly not the response desired, but responsive nevertheless! 😉

[luv2kroooz]

1 hour ago, MoniMommy said:

Wow! The previous poster must be from NCL. While some are reasonably worried about catching the virus, many have travel problems. How do they get flights to ports and back home when arrival and departure ports have changed and may even change more. Wanting to be able to get a flight is not a whim. Also the response has not been proactive. It's been reactive. Do the least possible to accommodate guests. It's really the port closures that are driving the response rather than concern for passengers or crew. But I do agree it's a business, not a charity. Number 1 concern is profit. In the end their decisions may backfire and cause a loss of profit.

Seriously. They used the word proactive when NCL has been radio silent for weeks while everyone else was making alternative plans. Had the Hong Kong port remained open, we'd have heard nothing from NCL. They were reacting to the port closure,nothing more.

 

And when they finally had something to say, they botched it posting incorrect departure days and times with confusing language that just complicated things and required further correction. What is a reasonable change fee, anyway?  I don't see this with other cruiselines or airlines. I simply dont. I acknowledge the situation is fluid, but press releases are typically clear, accurate, timely and to the point.

Edited February 6, 2020 by blcruising

[Georgia_Peaches]

Just now, hamrag said:

 

Not quite true! The OP posted the following, to start the thread:

'We have been asking NCL for a cruise credit or future rebooking for next year, but so far they have been totally unresponsive to the situation. Right now, they are still saying we will be penalized the full cost of the cruise if we don't sail, even though we could fall ill, be quarantined, miss ports and or possibly be stranded in China for weeks or months.'

 

So, NCL were responsive by saying the OP 'will be penalised the full cost of the cruise if we don't sail.....'

 

Clearly not the response desired, but responsive nevertheless! 😉

Excellent point!  It's been so long since I read the original post, and this thread has taken so many directions, I overlooked that detail.  

[hamrag]

4 minutes ago, blcruising said:

Seriously. They used the word proactive when NCL has been radio silent for weeks while everyone else was making alternative plans. Had the Hong Kong port remained open, we'd have heard nothing from NCL. They were reacting to the port closure,nothing more.

 

Seriously....read their statement again, pay particular attention to the vast majority of the bullet points under the heading 

Policies currently in place include:

 

Neither of us can possibly know how NCL would have reacted if HK had not closed their port, but the policies currently in place are certainly proactive....in order to protect passenger safety, security and well being. They are consulting with local health authorities as well as the WHO and US CDC....let's trust them to do so, rather than trying to be 'health experts', and if anything changes the current position may alter!    

[luv2kroooz]

21 minutes ago, hamrag said:

 

Seriously....read their statement again, pay particular attention to the vast majority of the bullet points under the heading 

Policies currently in place include:

 

Neither of us can possibly know how NCL would have reacted if HK had not closed their port, but the policies currently in place are certainly proactive....in order to protect passenger safety, security and well being. They are consulting with local health authorities as well as the WHO and US CDC....let's trust them to do so, rather than trying to be 'health experts', and if anything changes the current position may alter!    

Considering the cruise in question was scheduled to depart Singapore for Hong Kong yesterday and they continued to market the sailing with no itinerary changes until Hong Kong closed the port, I think we can agree that any changes to the debarkation port would have had to have been made after the cruise had started. That behavior is reactive.

 

Of course, the onboard policies are proactive and I believe they are trying to prevent the spread onboard; they could have guaranteed that they did not contribute to further cases by cancelling cruises like many other lines have done, but that is water under the bridge at this point. That ship has sailed.....literally.

 

I also don't like the idea of not refunding money of someone who is concerned they could get sick by sailing to an area with elevated cases of Coronavirus, and then stating that if they exhibit signs of sickness onboard, they are subject to being debarked from the ship. 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by blcruising

[Atgatsea]

13 hours ago, Norwegian Cruise Line said:

 

Why is NCL still marketing the 2/17 Jade itinerary as leaving from Hong Kong on ncl.com?

Edited February 6, 2020 by Atgatsea

[Atgatsea]

31 minutes ago, hamrag said:

 

Seriously....read their statement again, pay particular attention to the vast majority of the bullet points under the heading 

Policies currently in place include:

 

Neither of us can possibly know how NCL would have reacted if HK had not closed their port, but the policies currently in place are certainly proactive....in order to protect passenger safety, security and well being. They are consulting with local health authorities as well as the WHO and US CDC....let's trust them to do so, rather than trying to be 'health experts', and if anything changes the current position may alter!    

Actually, we can see how NCL is reacting after the HK port is closed...by continuing to try to capitalize off of this public health emergency.  I just checked NCL.com and as of the time of this post, they are still marketing the 2/17 Jade cruise as departing from Hong Kong which is clearly false and acting in bad faith.  Why have they not changed their website?  Is it to lure in unsuspecting customers who see HK advertised and then get blindsided with a changed and significantly-diminished  itinerary?  There is a clear pattern of greedy, uncaring, and potentially unethical albeit legal - per the verbiage in their slick contracts - behavior by this company and their executives.  And as for unresponsive...I submitted a help desk inquiry through their pre-cruise online submission portal.  The automated response I received said they aim to respond within 48 hours and it has been significantly longer than 48 hours.  How is that for anything but unscrupulous, uncaring, and unresponsive?

[SeaShark]

29 minutes ago, blcruising said:

I also don't like the idea of not refunding money of someone who is concerned they could get sick by sailing to an area with elevated cases of Coronavirus, and then stating that if they exhibit signs of sickness onboard, they are subject to being debarked from the ship. 

 

 

But how is that any different from any other sailing or any other day??

 

I have a Panama Canal cruise scheduled for April. I am concerned that I might get sick while on the cruise. Whether it be coronavirus, the flu, or something else...doesn't matter, I don't want to get sick. I also realize that if I do get sick, I could be quarantined or even debarked. Does the fact that I am concerned somehow give me a free pass around Norwegian's cancellation policies? 

[luv2kroooz]

15 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

But how is that any different from any other sailing or any other day??

 

I have a Panama Canal cruise scheduled for April. I am concerned that I might get sick while on the cruise. Whether it be coronavirus, the flu, or something else...doesn't matter, I don't want to get sick. I also realize that if I do get sick, I could be quarantined or even debarked. Does the fact that I am concerned somehow give me a free pass around Norwegian's cancellation policies? 

Seashark, we talked about this yesterday.

 

The difference here is that there is a known elevated risk in the area in and around where Norwegian Jade is sailing. There are increased concerns about sailing to Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, etc because there have been known cases from these areas due to their geographic location to China. Your stated concern about contracting Coronavirus in Panama may be unwarranted. I haven't seen any indication that the virus has presented itself in Panama.

 

Just like flying, there is an elevated risk of flying planes to Hong Kong, China, etc, which is why most operators have cancelled travel to that area or where they havent, they've abandoned the normal cancellation policies providing latitude to their customers.

 

Every cruiseline has the same cancellation policies for the most part, but they've chosen to relax them in light of the current situation. Every cruiseline and airline are well within their legal rights to give no one a free pass. But they have chosen to do so because it was the prudent thing to do as it relates to Coronavirus, well, everyone has except for Norwegian Cruise Line and I believe Holland America.

Edited February 6, 2020 by blcruising

[dcipjr]

51 minutes ago, Atgatsea said:

Why is NCL still marketing the 2/17 Jade itinerary as leaving from Hong Kong on ncl.com?

 

Hanlon's Razor applies: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

 

Frequent visitors to CC know that technical issues are not uncommon on NCL's website. I would imagine changing a sailing's origination port is probably not something they do often, and the system may be having issues making that change.

 

I don't suspect anything nefarious is going on here. But that's not to say NCL couldn't be handling this better. It would not be unreasonable to hide the sailing from the website, and I don't think it would be unreasonable to cancel the sailings outright, rather than risk a quarantine and illness to passengers and crew. 

[luv2kroooz]

1 hour ago, Atgatsea said:

Why is NCL still marketing the 2/17 Jade itinerary as leaving from Hong Kong on ncl.com?

I would imagine the interest in sailing that itinerary is about zero. Just about every stateroom category available. I see some TA websites are already updated, so they have apparently communicated the change. But agree they should get the offering updated promptly on NCL dot com

Edited February 6, 2020 by blcruising

[SeaShark]

1 hour ago, blcruising said:

Seashark, we talked about this yesterday.

 

The difference here is that there is a known elevated risk in the area in and around where Norwegian Jade is sailing. There are increased concerns about sailing to Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, etc because there have been known cases from these areas due to their geographic location to China. Your stated concern about contracting Coronavirus in Panama may be unwarranted. I haven't seen any indication that the virus has presented itself in Panama.

 

Just like flying, there is an elevated risk of flying planes to Hong Kong, China, etc, which is why most operators have cancelled travel to that area or where they havent, they've abandoned the normal cancellation policies providing latitude to their customers.

 

Every cruiseline has the same cancellation policies for the most part, but they've chosen to relax them in light of the current situation. Every cruiseline and airline are well within their legal rights to give no one a free pass. But they have chosen to do so because it was the prudent thing to do as it relates to Coronavirus, well, everyone has except for Norwegian Cruise Line and I believe Holland America.

 

You fail to understand...it has nothing to do with coronavirus...I'm concerned about ANY illness. NO ILLNESS IS ACCEPTABLE. Get it?

 

Because of the enclosed space, cruising itself offers an elevated risk of illness. 

 

Still doesn't give me a free pass on the cancellation policies.

[GA Dave]

Okay, switching gears a little bit here.  Based on how everyone here is reacting to this whole situation and cruises, maybe you can tell me how you feel about this.  My wife was called in for jury duty here this week for our county court.  She said there were about 200 people stuffed into the jury room on Tuesday morning, many sneezing and coughing.  I also have been summoned for next week to serve on a jury at our US District Court.  If this virus is as contagious as everyone is saying, and can be passed from a person not yet displaying symptoms to others, should they not be closing the courts?  It seems really irresponsible for a government that has issued a state of emergency to force hundreds of people into tight quarters while this virus is growing.

Thoughts?

[luv2kroooz]

11 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

You fail to understand...it has nothing to do with coronavirus...I'm concerned about ANY illness. NO ILLNESS IS ACCEPTABLE. Get it?

 

Because of the enclosed space, cruising itself offers an elevated risk of illness. 

 

Still doesn't give me a free pass on the cancellation policies.

Oh, I see. I think that is an extreme position but I'll engage on it. If you are that concerned about getting sick with flu, then you might consider a different vacation option.

 

Business have to have cancellation policies in place for this very reason. Otherwise, people could just call up and say they were sick. I support the need for NCL to have the policy, and I certainly don't support the abuse of the policy by passengers. I believe it would have been wise for NCL to relax that policy for Feb 6 and Feb 17 Jade departures for the previously stated reasons.

Edited February 6, 2020 by blcruising

[luv2kroooz]

2 minutes ago, GA Dave said:

Okay, switching gears a little bit here.  Based on how everyone here is reacting to this whole situation and cruises, maybe you can tell me how you feel about this.  My wife was called in for jury duty here this week for our county court.  She said there were about 200 people stuffed into the jury room on Tuesday morning, many sneezing and coughing.  I also have been summoned for next week to serve on a jury at our US District Court.  If this virus is as contagious as everyone is saying, and can be passed from a person not yet displaying symptoms to others, should they not be closing the courts?  It seems really irresponsible for a government that has issued a state of emergency to force hundreds of people into tight quarters while this virus is growing.

Thoughts?

Your profile indicates you live in Savannah. I have seen no reports of Coronavirus near or around Savannah. I would carry on with my daily business and exercise good hygiene like I do every day.

[patfred]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2020 at 10:46 AM, david_sobe said:

I think some are over reacting. First of all with all the precautions the cruise lines are taking, the ships could be some of the safest places to avoid the virus.  Not sure why some are telling the OP to file an insurance claim when insurance will not pay anything on hypothetical circumstances.  If you are so terrified then cancel the cruise and think of it as one of life's lessons.  Otherwise go and have a fantastic cruise.  NCL sells an insurance program for just these reasons.  You can cancel for any reason and book another time with credit.

The flu virus kills 50,000 people every year but you don't see people cancelling cruises because of that.  Not one person has caught this virus from being on a cruise ship.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by patfred

[SeaShark]

1 hour ago, blcruising said:

Oh, I see. I think that is an extreme position but I'll engage on it. If you are that concerned about getting sick with flu, then you might consider a different vacation option.

 

Business have to have cancellation policies in place for this very reason. Otherwise, people could just call up and say they were sick. I support the need for NCL to have the policy, and I certainly don't support the abuse of the policy by passengers. I believe it would have been wise for NCL to relax that policy for Feb 6 and Feb 17 Jade departures for the previously stated reasons.

 

Now you're arguing the opposite side...it isn't people calling and claiming to be sick, its people cancelling because they don't want to be sick (trust me, it is different). 

 

I just don't think not wanting to be sick (because, lets face it, who WANTS to be sick) is a reason to circumvent the cancellation policies.

[ziggyuk]

I have just read on FB, a passenger onboard the Crystal Symphony says they have been denied entry to Manilla.