Are our cruising days over? (merged topics re: health and age restrictions)

[RocketMan275]

14 hours ago, Journey99999 said:

My feelings (that I posted before)
 

Are your cruising days over? Yes
I don’t believe in age or health discrimination.
I’m in my fifties and will give my extra cash to venues, sites, destinations, etc. that appreciate all walks of life.

discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

 

"discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

 

This policy is based upon individual merit so it is not discrimination.  

 

You might as well argue that not issuing driver's licenses to the blind is discrimination.

Edited March 18, 2020 by RocketMan275

[Potstech]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

"discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

 

This policy is based upon individual merit so it is not discrimination.  

 

You might as well argue that not issuing driver's licenses to the blind is discrimination.

Post that all you want but saying only those over a certain AGE have to do or not do something when it does not apply to all is discrimination.  Even legal experts disagree on this. Which neither of us are.

[Ride-The-Waves]

28 minutes ago, Potstech said:

Post that all you want but saying only those over a certain AGE have to do or not do something when it does not apply to all is discrimination.  Even legal experts disagree on this. Which neither of us are.

Incorrect.  Public and private division based on age are made all the time.  In this instance limiting travel by those of a certain age is considered best for both them and the traveling public, and safest for all involved.  

[TwoMisfits]

19 minutes ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

Incorrect.  Public and private division based on age are made all the time.  In this instance limiting travel by those of a certain age is considered best for both them and the traveling public, and safest for all involved.  

 

If they had just announced the age limit with no exceptions, yes a winning case would be made for age discrimination.

 

But, by having the out of a doctor's note to prove health, the PP is right - they will likely win b/c it is no longer a blanket prohibition, but one based on safety.  This is now just like pregnant women past a certain point in a pregnancy and babies of a certain age can't cruise.  While there will almost certainly be a court case to resolve the issue, if the cruise industry goes this way, they will almost certainly win.

Edited March 18, 2020 by TwoMisfits

[Potstech]

Again none of us are legal experts so until the court cases are through the system then no one will know. Referring to the pregnancy point it applies to women of all ages not just a certain group.  But nice try

[TwoMisfits]

14 minutes ago, Potstech said:

Again none of us are legal experts so until the court cases are through the system then no one will know. Referring to the pregnancy point it applies to women of all ages not just a certain group.  But nice try

 

And babies?  It's a certainty the 70+ rule will win with the doc exception...it's just whether the cruise company wants to keep it.

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, Potstech said:

Post that all you want but saying only those over a certain AGE have to do or not do something when it does not apply to all is discrimination.  Even legal experts disagree on this. Which neither of us are.

I haven't been to law school but I have had training in what is allowable and what is not.  This isn't discrimination no matter how many times you misrepresent the law.

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, Potstech said:

Post that all you want but saying only those over a certain AGE have to do or not do something when it does not apply to all is discrimination.  Even legal experts disagree on this. Which neither of us are.

In many states, those over a certain age have to do a vision test before they can renew their driver's license.  

But, feel free to file your discrimination suit if you can find a lawyer that will take it.  I doubt that the only way a lawyer would take this case is on a fee basis, ie, not on contingency.  

[TYinPalmSprings]

48 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

If they had just announced the age limit with no exceptions, yes a winning case would be made for age discrimination.

 

But, by having the out of a doctor's note to prove health, the PP is right - they will likely win b/c it is no longer a blanket prohibition, but one based on safety.  This is now just like pregnant women past a certain point in a pregnancy and babies of a certain age can't cruise.  While there will almost certainly be a court case to resolve the issue, if the cruise industry goes this way, they will almost certainly win.

For whatever reason the cruise line changes it policy and refuses for you to board, they should refund your money..period. otherwise it is theft. like in any other industry.  An FCC is worthless. 

[TwoMisfits]

6 minutes ago, TYinPalmSprings said:

For whatever reason the cruise line changes it policy and refuses for you to board, they should refund your money..period. otherwise it is theft. like in any other industry.  An FCC is worthless. 

 

If you book after the date the policy is announced...no, then it would be a denied boarding (such as they do if folks lie about a baby's age).  Only if you booked prior to policy announcement would you have a shot at refunds.

[TYinPalmSprings]

1 minute ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

If you book after the date the policy is announced...no, then it would be a denied boarding (such as they do if folks lie about a baby's age).  Only if you booked prior to policy announcement would you have a shot at refunds.

 

1 minute ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

If you book after the date the policy is announced...no, then it would be a denied boarding (such as they do if folks lie about a baby's age).  Only if you booked prior to policy announcement would you have a shot at refunds.

You would be nuts if you were over 70 with diabetes, asthma etc, booked and paid for the cruise. Their "book with confidence"  only assures you a FCC. For those of us who are 70+ and booked and paid before this change, we are being offered worthless FCCs. Only if the cruise cancels do we have a chance to get our money back.

[hunt182644]

Have been following this post since the start, I may have missed a few posts. The one thing I have not seen is a doctors opinion on the over 70 rule proposed by RCI and Norwegian. I just returned from a doctor appointment, I showed two doctors the form. One commented on the diabetes that that would probably include half of the people that cruise over and under 70. Neither one would consent to signing something like this the way it is for fear of possible coming back on them. It was disagreed that it is poorly written, from what I have read the cruise industry was given two days to do something to protect passengers. This looks like a CYA that will probably not stand the test of time.

 As I stated before I am all for safety in these trying times but not really sure this is correct. Also if doctors refuse to sign this waiver well who knows. Perhaps the cruise industry is about to become extinct.

[npcl]

I would not get too upset about this rule.  It was generated in an attempt for the cruise lines to keep sailing. Now they have stopped, and it is unlikely that they will start up within the next 60-90 days (no matter what the cruise line says).  They will not be able to start cruising until the virus is a non-issue with ports, countries, airlines, etc.  When that happens there will no longer be any need for the rule.

 

Though I would not be surprised if the cruiselines do add a rule that states that one must be able and willing to fly home in case of an early ending or diversion of a cruise.

[Ride-The-Waves]

1 hour ago, hunt182644 said:

Have been following this post since the start, I may have missed a few posts. The one thing I have not seen is a doctors opinion on the over 70 rule proposed by RCI and Norwegian. I just returned from a doctor appointment, I showed two doctors the form. One commented on the diabetes that that would probably include half of the people that cruise over and under 70. Neither one would consent to signing something like this the way it is for fear of possible coming back on them. It was disagreed that it is poorly written, from what I have read the cruise industry was given two days to do something to protect passengers. This looks like a CYA that will probably not stand the test of time.

 As I stated before I am all for safety in these trying times but not really sure this is correct. Also if doctors refuse to sign this waiver well who knows. Perhaps the cruise industry is about to become extinct.

Seriously doubt if it will become "extinct" in our lifetimes.  It will change - for the better.  Maybe no more party cruises, drunk gonna lines round the pool at midnight, bar hopping, etc.  Ships designed to take people to interesting places in relative comfort, not "cruise ports."

[Elevatorman]

I really think that is very good sense. My main interest is protecting myself and my husband from getting a death sentence because our poor health made getting a virus deadly. I can’t imagine how a long quarantine might affect us and how worried our families would be.

I wouldn’t have the common sense to vacation a safer way, then yes maybe I need a TA or cruise company to read me the riot act.

[Potstech]

6 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

In many states, those over a certain age have to do a vision test before they can renew their driver's license.  

But, feel free to file your discrimination suit if you can find a lawyer that will take it.  I doubt that the only way a lawyer would take this case is on a fee basis, ie, not on contingency.  

Some lawyers will take any case as long as someone is willing to pay for it. Surely your "legal training" makes you aware of that.

[RocketMan275]

2 hours ago, Potstech said:

Some lawyers will take any case as long as someone is willing to pay for it. Surely your "legal training" makes you aware of that.

 

As I clearly stated: 

9 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

I doubt that the only way a lawyer would take this case is on a fee basis, ie, not on contingency.  

 

When your lawyer will only take the case on a 'fee' basis, you can be very certain he thinks your case isn't a winner.  He's not willing to risk investing resources that he'll not recover.

 

Otherwise, he would accept the case on a 'contingency' basis where he's willing to gamble his resources for a piece of the pie.  But, to do that, he needs some confidence in winning the case.

 

It doesn't take "legal training" to understand the above.  Only common sense and some experience with those of the legal profession.

[Porky55]

On 3/14/2020 at 8:31 AM, WmFCoyote said:

Effective Monday, March 16, 2020, any person age 70 or older must present written verification from a qualified physician certifying that the person has no severe, chronic medical condition and is fit to travel and in good health. Additionally, any person with a severe, chronic medical condition, including those specified by the CDC – i.e. chronic heart, lung, liver, or kidney disease, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, or cancer – will be unable to sail.

Could someone please tell me WHERE ON THE PRINCESS SITE this notification is??
I have just spent thirty minutes going through every News notice, Health notice, Passenger notice and be blowed if I can find anything like it!!
Surely Princess themselves would notify those sailing with them?

I am very confused??

Edited March 19, 2020 by Porky55

[Potstech]

Not a requirement on Princess.  YET.

[Potstech]

3 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

 

As I clearly stated: 

 

When your lawyer will only take the case on a 'fee' basis, you can be very certain he thinks your case isn't a winner.  He's not willing to risk investing resources that he'll not recover.

 

Otherwise, he would accept the case on a 'contingency' basis where he's willing to gamble his resources for a piece of the pie.  But, to do that, he needs some confidence in winning the case.

 

It doesn't take "legal training" to understand the above.  Only common sense and some experience with those of the legal profession.

You are the one using your "legal training" as a reason to say others have no case. Now it your "legal experience" to try and do the same. 

[Thrak]

1 hour ago, Porky55 said:

Could someone please tell me WHERE ON THE PRINCESS SITE this notification is??
I have just spent thirty minutes going through every News notice, Health notice, Passenger notice and be blowed if I can find anything like it!!
Surely Princess themselves would notify those sailing with them?

I am very confused??

 

It is nowhere on the Princess site. At this point in time it doesn't apply to Princess.

[caribill]

You do not jhave to be an elderly person to be adversely affected.

 

From the New York Times:

 

American adults of all ages — not just those in their 70s, 80s and 90s — are being seriously sickened by the coronavirus, according to a report on nearly 2,500 cases in the United States.

 

The report, issued Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that — as in other countries — the oldest patients were at greatest risk of becoming seriously ill or dying. But of the 508 coronavirus patients known to have been hospitalized in the United States, 38 percent were notably younger — between 20 and 54. And nearly half of the 121 sickest patients studied — those who were admitted to intensive care units — were adults under 65.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/world/coronavirus-news.html#link-45a34ca0

[Porky55]

1 hour ago, Potstech said:

Not a requirement on Princess.  YET

Thank you - so this has all been generated by a TA doing some butt covering??? 🤔

Very interesting ....

 

[Porky55]

7 minutes ago, caribill said:

You do not jhave to be an elderly person to be adversely affected.

 

From the New York Times:

 

American adults of all ages — not just those in their 70s, 80s and 90s — are being seriously sickened by the coronavirus, according to a report on nearly 2,500 cases in the United States.

 

The report, issued Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that — as in other countries — the oldest patients were at greatest risk of becoming seriously ill or dying. But of the 508 coronavirus patients known to have been hospitalized in the United States, 38 percent were notably younger — between 20 and 54. And nearly half of the 121 sickest patients studied — those who were admitted to intensive care units — were adults under 65.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/world/coronavirus-news.html#link-45a34ca0

Australia’s stats backs yours up - so the requirements for over 70’s is ridiculous:

 

Edited March 19, 2020 by Porky55

[Ride-The-Waves]

This is the "new normal" folks.  Get used to it.  Governments and medical professionals believe that this new coronavirus and social distancing and travel "restrictions" will be around for at least 18 months.  And, things will change after that to preclude this occurring again.  NEW NORMAL!