Solvency of Cruise Lines

[Travelcat2]

7 hours ago, Pcardad said:

Regent has an unbroken history of taking care of its clients. I am not worried. 

 

Thank you again for being the voice of reason.  There is so much misinformation on the threads right now that it is astounding.  

 

Rallydave - I disagree completely with your theory about Regent contracts.  If the U.S. government or CLIA wants to change the rules, they can (and so can Regent in this case since they offer a refund to passengers).  

[SusieQft]

If the rules are changed, either by Regent or an outside mandate, in such a way that some people are disqualified from cruising for the foreseeable future (if there is such a thing), we should hope that Regent would offer those people a 100% cash refund.  I think if such a change in the rules occurs after final payment, they are morally obligated to do so.  And if it is true that Regent will always do the right thing, then there is nothing to worry about.

Edited April 9, 2020 by SusieQft

[rallydave]

6 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

Rallydave - I disagree completely with your theory about Regent contracts.  If the U.S. government or CLIA wants to change the rules, they can (and so can Regent in this case since they offer a refund to passengers).  

 

Not a theory, it is the law!!  A Contract is created between any cruise line and their customer whenever the cruise is booked.  The contract is between the customer and the cruise line and rule changes by the government, CLIA or any other entity other than the customer and cruise line are outside of the Contract.  The only changes that affect the Contract are those done by the cruise line or the customer.

 

Yes, Regent has offered refunds to the passengers when they cancelled cruises as they are legally obligated to.  So far when changes like the form or other boarding requirements are added there have not been any cruises to board so a non-issue so far and these additions have been posted to the website.  The problem is people's final payments are happening for non cancelled cruises and the rules have not yet been officially changed yet customers are required to make final payments without what new rules will affect their cruise nor being offered full refunds.

6 hours ago, SusieQft said:

I think if such a change in the rules occurs after final payment, they are morally obligated to do so. 

You are partially correct.  Changes at any time after the Contract is cousumated which is at booking and deposit made requires them to be provided to and agreed to.  This means anytime before or after final payment 

[rallydave]

7 hours ago, pingpong1 said:

This is "RallyDave's" point.  It appears that the "rules of the game" might be changed after the actual game (final payment) actually begins.

Thanks pingpong1  and would like to take your comment one step further.  The rule change anytime after the cruise is booked (contract is entered into) needs to be provided to people under contract as soon as it is changed and people need to be given time to cancel with a full cash refund or accept the changes.

[Pcardad]

Regent went beyond the contract with me. Have any of you ever heard of a single incident where Regent didn't go to at least 100% of their legal obligation (and usually it is beyond)?

[rallydave]

1 minute ago, Pcardad said:

Regent went beyond the contract with me. Have any of you ever heard of a single incident where Regent didn't go to at least 100% of their legal obligation (and usually it is beyond)?

Yes, have heard of this happening and witnessed myself.    While it is great that they usually go beyond their Contract, that does not change the need to consider the alternative when making difficult decisions to allow for the possibility they will again not adhere to their Contract..

 

I'll give you one recent example.  A cruise was cut short by one day because a port was scheduled to be too congested to take the Regent ship and Regent first tried to provide an OBC to account for that shortened cruise.  Only after an outcry by people on this board that the T's and C's clearly stated that a cash credit for that day needed to be provide was the offer changed to a credit and not OBC.  To be totally truthful the next cruise which was extended by one day did not get their fare increased.

[Pcardad]

8 hours ago, pingpong1 said:

Pcardad - I think that the concern many of us have is that by the time sailings DO "begin again" (sometime this summer?), there will be many people who will have already made their "final payments" (based on the way the "old/current payment rules" are written) and THEN they subsequently find out that under a "new screening regime" (and after final payments have been made - 6 months before the cruise) that new and more stringent screening rules (physical conditions) have been imposed that might limit (or deny) many of them to "now" board the ship.

 

Those "new boarding  rules" that might be imposed when cruising begins again, should be known BEFORE any of us are required to make our final payments.  Don't focus on what new rules might be implemented.  Focus instead on what might be improved/changed/modified by Regent, as to when and how far in advance those final payments are "due and payable" before the cruise starts - at least during a reasonable transition period.

 

This is "RallyDave's" point.  It appears that the "rules of the game" might be changed after the actual game (final payment) actually begins.

 

I booked a cruise under the old rules. I was denied boarding in Bali under the new rules. Regent refunded 100% of my fare, gave me the round trip airfare (business class) for free, I had 9 days in Bali and they gave me a HUGE FCC credit on top of it all.

 

I fit his scenario. I was turned away at the pier because of the new rules. Regent went above and beyond to make things right.

 

 

[Travelcat2]

If what has been stated were true, Regent (and other cruise lines) would be in big trouble as they have changed their cancellation rules (stated in the contract) and many times have changed itineraries substantially after final payment.  

 

We can post many things but there is no rule to say that what is posted is true.  This is why I have commented on things that are posted that may not be accurate.  I do not believe that we have a Maritime Attorney posting on this board (if I'm wrong, please speak up).  

 

As SusieQft posted, Regent is "morally" obligated to do refunds when a significant change takes place after final payment.  However, it has yet to be proven that they are "legally" obligated.  

 

Pcardad is the perfect example of a passenger that was caught up in rule changing.  He experienced it - lived it and came out with nothing but praise for Regent.  If anyone had a good reason to be angry with Regent, it is him.  

 

Pcardad - to answer the question that you posted above....... no "I have never heard of a single incident where Regent didn't go to at least 100% of their legal obligation (and usually it is beyond)?"  

[RJB]

On 4/3/2020 at 11:55 PM, BarbarianPaul said:

One other thing. I personally do think that by June we’ll be in recovery mode. But all it takes is one infected person to take a cruise when the ships start sailing again. The resulting additional infections, inevitable quarantine, port closure, and media coverage could cause enormous long term damage to this industry. And heaven forbid someone passes away.

 

If this happens, and, honestly, it doesn’t seem unlikely, who would ever want to board another cruise ship until there is a vaccine?

 

 

 

Not us !!!   Until we know that we will not be tossed off our ship halfway across the world and have to find our own way back we stay very close to home.

[BarbarianPaul]

26 minutes ago, RJB said:

Not us !!!   Until we know that we will not be tossed off our ship halfway across the world and have to find our own way back we stay very close to home.

I fear not us either. It’s very hard for me to figure out a way the cruise lines can offer true “reassurance” regarding passengers’  health and safety any time within the foreseeable future. We all watch the briefings. The economy will reignite soon I hope, but with no real magic bullet on the horizon how will the cruise lines participate?

[Gray Eagle02]

I just cancelled my March 2021 cruise Singapore to Dubai. We will eat the $3400 insurance policy. There is zero chance that we will take another cruise until a vaccine is widely available. And since we will be way down on the priority ( health care workers, very vulnerable— i.e. assisted living, nursing home residents, chronically ill people, etc—), I don’t think that will be anytime soon.

[bbtondo]

When cruise lines begin again I wonder if everyone will be given an "instant test" for Corona and an "instant test" to see if you have had it already. If there are tons of these tests available the lines would be able to control if anyone is sick before embarking.  This could also be done for crew  every few days.  

 

 

[flossie009]

Here is a reasonably balanced article, which some may find of interest:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52182509

[Dolebludger]

The problem with pre-embarkation testing as there aren’t tons of test kits currently available indeed, the shortage persists, especially kits of the quick result type. And what would a cruise line do with a guest who had flown half way around the world to get to the embarkation point and tested positive?

[mrlevin]

17 minutes ago, Dolebludger said:

And what would a cruise line do with a guest who had flown half way around the world to get to the embarkation point and tested positive?

 

Obviously, they can't put you right back on a plane to infect three hundred of your closest friends; that is why I think (for USA pax) the first cruises to start up will be Caribbean and Alaska and no more than seven days.

 

Marc

[Steve Q]

   19 minutes ago,  Dolebludger said: 

And what would a cruise line do with a guest who had flown half way around the world to get to the embarkation point and tested positive?

 

Obviously, they can't put you right back on a plane to infect three hundred of your closest friends; that is why I think (for USA pax) the first cruises to start up will be Caribbean and Alaska and no more than seven days.

 

Marc
 

 

Marc,

 

This sounds like a very likely scenario. I could see the cruise lines begin to implement a strategy similar to this. Alaska might be missed this year, but the Caribbean after the first of the year sounds plausible. 

[Dolebludger]

Marc, a good idea. But if a guest tested positive at embarkation in the US, could you even put that guest on a domestic flight and send him/her home?

[wcsdkqh]

It should be the responsibility of the travelers to have the test within 7 days of embarkation and provide the proof upon arrival at the port. By the time cruises resume tests will be plentiful and fast.

[Travelcat2]

A person can test negative 7 days prior to a cruise - be in contact with a person with the virus and could test positive the day of embarkation.  

 

Perhaps something could be developed for people that have tested positive that they could wear that would protect others (for the plane ride home). There does not seem to be any easy answer to this.  

 

Even when a vaccine is developed, if it is a live vaccine, many people will be unable to have it.  

 

 

[wcsdkqh]

Obviously, not perfect, but a test within 7 days is better than nothing and would keep an asymptotic person from being surprised at the dock when tested there.

[Dolebludger]

TC2 and all,

 

It is correct that a person can go from negative to positive testing in 7 days, especially if that person is subjected to crowded airports and airlines during that time. These are not crowded places right now, but if they return to conditions pre-pandemic, they will be. Indeed. In China a dog tested positive! Now the dog never became symptomatic as apparently dogs don’t get ill from exposure. But the exposure of a dog, or person, will cause a positive result and the probability of spreading the disease. I suggest that cruise lines are getting a “bad rap” when some single them out as the cause of spread of the virus. The virus spreads in crowded conditions, and we have been in more crowded conditions in getting to the port than the condition on even the worst cruise we’ve been on. (certainly not Regent).
 

A vaccine that all are able to take would end the problem of COVID 19 and travel. If there were even a medical cure or treatment for it, it would ease the minds of many. But we don’t have these, and development seems slow. I’m afraid it will be a long time before we feel like booking a Regent cruise, even though the onboard conditions are uncrowded and not conducive to spread of any disease.

[rallydave]

16 minutes ago, Dolebludger said:

TC2 and all,

 

It is correct that a person can go from negative to positive testing in 7 days, especially if that person is subjected to crowded airports and airlines during that time. These are not crowded places right now, but if they return to conditions pre-pandemic, they will be. Indeed. In China a dog tested positive! Now the dog never became symptomatic as apparently dogs don’t get ill from exposure. But the exposure of a dog, or person, will cause a positive result and the probability of spreading the disease. I suggest that cruise lines are getting a “bad rap” when some single them out as the cause of spread of the virus. The virus spreads in crowded conditions, and we have been in more crowded conditions in getting to the port than the condition on even the worst cruise we’ve been on. (certainly not Regent).
 

A vaccine that all are able to take would end the problem of COVID 19 and travel. If there were even a medical cure or treatment for it, it would ease the minds of many. But we don’t have these, and development seems slow. I’m afraid it will be a long time before we feel like booking a Regent cruise, even though the onboard conditions are uncrowded and not conducive to spread of any disease.

Folks,  Where did all this talk about having to take a Coronavirus test to board come from.  Yesterday Wendy provided the details from the Regent website saying what will cause denial of boarding and nothing close to a virus test.  What should be of concern are the third bullet and a portion of the last bullet.

The 30 day not having traveled thru a quarantine or containment zone will only happen in quite a few months and then 30 days more  The concerning portion of the last bullet is people who appear symptomatic.  Just who is going to make that determination and what qualifications will they have.  And, what about people who just flew a red eye into the embarkation port and haven't slept in many hours.

 

Don't really believe any cruise line will have virus tests at embarkation.  Can you imagine people in full PPE you have to walk thru to the ship and just because someone tests negative, they could be positive in a day or more.  Suggest discussion of the below information which is very current.

 

  On 4/8/2020 at 11:19 AM, Wendy The Wanderer said:

Denial of boarding will occur in the following cases:

• [transit through China, yadda yadda...]
• [people who've contacted people who've been in China, yadda yadda]
• Guests who have traveled from, visited or transited via airports in identified COVID-19 quarantine or containment zones within 30 days of their voyage embarkation, regardless of nationality. Travel companions of these guests who share the same suite will also be denied boarding.
• [temperature on boarding]
• [covid-19 exposure, blah blah]
• All persons who have reported on the Pre-Embarkation Public Health Questionnaire or who appear symptomatic, are feeling unwell, are exhibiting flu-like symptoms, exhibit difficulty breathing or have chronic pulmonary or respiratory conditions.

[Dolebludger]

Yes, Dave, this thread may have gone a bit off the rails. But the ability for us to book a cruise without interruption is part of the issue of the line’s solvency. And the ability to take a cruise without unreasonable health risk is part of the topic also. The sad part of the whole matter is that crowded conditions do cause the spread of COVID 19 and many other diseases. And I know of no crowded conditions on any Regent ship.  I would take a Regent cruise as soon as one is going, if I could get to the port without being in a crowd to get there. But I can’t quite afford that cruise, plus a private jet charter to get to the port! 
 

We really don’t know what rules Regent will put in place to ensure the health of guests, at that unknown time when it sail again.i only hope they work, and don’t cause impossible situations.

[RJ2002]

Steering back to the subject of this thread, here's some encouraging analysis on the financial stability of the three big holding companies.

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cruise-stocks-rally-to-extend-recent-rocket-ride-instinet-analyst-sees-turning-point-in-q1-2021-2020-04-08?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

 

Instinet analyst Harry Curtis said based on his new cash burn and recovery forecasts for the cruise industry through 2023, he believes all three companies have enough liquidity and borrowing capacity to survive near-zero revenue through the first quarter of 2021. "Many times we've been asked about bankruptcy, and we believe it to be low," Curtis wrote in a note to clients. He expects a "modest" recovery for the industry to begin in the second half of 2020, with the first quarter of 2021 the possible "turning point." 

[Dolebludger]

May be correct. I hope so.