Cruise Org's Response to 100 Day Suspension

[npcl]

8 minutes ago, MarLieb said:

 

Oh yes, I see it now.  It looks like CLIA really didn't follow through with the March "On Course" plan they came up with (I feel that is certainly evident with what transpired with the Zaandam) and then it sounds like they tried to backtrack a bit with the April 3 "Framework" plan.  I guess I understand now why they issued the order on April 4 that the cruise lines had to use private transportation for guests here on out and for this new order.  If CLIA had simply followed through with their "On Course" plan, perhaps this CDC order wouldn't have been necessary?

Or with some expansion of details.

 

What is clear is if the cruise lines start up, and there is a case of Covid-19 that ships and those passengers are not coming back to shore, it is the cruise line problem to manage, including probably off shore quarantine in a designated quarantine ship.

Edited April 13, 2020 by npcl

[MarLieb]

2 minutes ago, rimmit said:

The only way to fix the problem is for the cruise ship industry to become completely independent and not rely on any nation for medical support every time there is an outbreak on their ships.  We can fix the problem by not cruising if you truly want an answer to that question.

 

Cruise ships are being singled out simply because they are known hotbeds for spreading Covid.  Same as prisons and nursing homes and any other place where there is a high density population that has prolonged contact is being singled out.  

 

While airlines spread Covid around the globe I have yet to see a plane have an infection rate of 20% and have a sizable portion of those die.  No flight that I am aware of to this date has been found to be a Covid hotbed like a cruise ship.  This is even with known Covid + passengers.  If anything airlines are being unfairly punished more so than any other business given they have not been found to be a hotbed.  Did they allow the virus to seed the world quickly.  Absolutely,   but I am willing to bet the people traversing the NYC metro, has spread more cases than people on airplane flights at this point.  Yet the metro is still running.

 

I so agree with this.  And I honestly think, in the long run, it would just make passengers and crew safer if cruise lines had the capability to handle emergent situations independently.  Imagine how different things might have been, say, if the Zaandam (or HAL in general) had been able to handle their onboard situation more effectively.  Perhaps it wouldn't have mattered that Chile turned them away, that Panama initially refused to let them through the canal and that they had to negotiate for days with the US to dock.  Could lives have been saved? Maybe?  I just think in the long run we are all better off if the cruise lines can increase their ability to assist their own guests and crew.  I, for one, would feel safer cruising if I knew I were in safer hands on the ship and not at the mercy of the closest country to the ship should something unfortunate happen.

[MarLieb]

2 minutes ago, npcl said:

Or with some expansion of details.

 

What is clear is if the cruise lines start up, and their is a case of Covid-19 that ships and those passengers are not coming back to shore, it is the cruise line problem to manage, including probably off shore quarantine in a designated quarantine ship.

 

That is not a vacation I want to take!

[npcl]

13 minutes ago, rimmit said:

The only way to fix the problem is for the cruise ship industry to become completely independent and not rely on any nation for medical support every time there is an outbreak on their ships.  We can fix the problem by not cruising if you truly want an answer to that question.

 

Cruise ships are being singled out simply because they are known hotbeds for spreading Covid.  Same as prisons and nursing homes and any other place where there is a high density population that has prolonged contact is being singled out.  

 

While airlines spread Covid around the globe I have yet to see a plane have an infection rate of 20% and have a sizable portion of those die.  No flight that I am aware of to this date has been found to be a Covid hotbed like a cruise ship.  This is even with known Covid + passengers.  If anything airlines are being unfairly punished more so than any other business given they have not been found to be a hotbed.  Did they allow the virus to seed the world quickly.  Absolutely,   but I am willing to bet the people traversing the NYC metro, has spread more cases than people on airplane flights at this point.  Yet the metro is still running.

In many ways that is exactly what the CDC is asking for.  That if the cruise lines start up and load passengers from the US they must be prepared to manage the problem entirely themselves.  They must be prepared to separate the sick from the healthy on different ships, they must be prepared for full hospital level medical care. They must be able to handle quarantine. Those passengers approved to offload must have transport home without using any public transportation, as was done with Coral Princess. It will not be a matter of coming back to port and the government handling everything as with the Grand.

[Blackduck59]

8 minutes ago, rimmit said:

The only way to fix the problem is for the cruise ship industry to become completely independent and not rely on any nation for medical support every time there is an outbreak on their ships.  We can fix the problem by not cruising if you truly want an answer to that question.

 

Cruise ships are being singled out simply because they are known hotbeds for spreading Covid.  Same as prisons and nursing homes and any other place where there is a high density population that has prolonged contact is being singled out.  

 

While airlines spread Covid around the globe I have yet to see a plane have an infection rate of 20% and have a sizable portion of those die.  No flight that I am aware of to this date has been found to be a Covid hotbed like a cruise ship.  This is even with known Covid + passengers.  If anything airlines are being unfairly punished more so than any other business given they have not been found to be a hotbed.  Did they allow the virus to seed the world quickly.  Absolutely,   but I am willing to bet the people traversing the NYC metro, has spread more cases than people on airplane flights at this point.  Yet the metro is still running.

 

 A well reasoned argument thank you, I don't want this to turn into a back and forth so I will only reply this one time, and would appreciate if you did the same. I'm not sure "not cruising" is in the cards, nor do I believe it is the fix to the problem. What is the fix? frankly I don't know. Right now the only thing we can do to help with the problem is give this thing the appropriate amount of respect, socially distance, and self isolate. If you are able to work safely do so, if you can work from home do that. If you think that your age, race, build or diet makes you immune you're not.

I'm not sure that prolonged contact is required, just a little dab will do ya.

As you said this was spread around the world by plane, this we agree on and one or more unsuspecting passengers or crew brought it to several cruise ships which had well publicized outbreaks. Also some unwitting individual who could have been exposed in any number of ways, on an airplane, on a cruise ship or like you said on the NYC metro managed to spread this to nursing homes, hospitals, large gatherings at the beach; indeed carelessness helped in good measure, until it became clear this isn't "just another flu". (I use the quotes in a generic sense for what many people thought, not to imply you thought that) 

So how do we fix the problem? Do we drive the cruise industry out of business? Ground all aircraft? stop all mass transit? I know you are not suggesting that, neither am I. Right now the only thing that seems to be working is social distancing and self isolation and that only works if everyone tries to follow it. Good health to you and yours, be safe

[rte]

5 hours ago, Pushka said:

I understand  that NZ Govt is considering taking legal action against Carnival as it has been established that the Ruby Princess Cruise port stop resulted in several NZ'ers developing Covid. Australia has already commenced its criminal investigation into Ruby Princess. 

True or not Covid -19 arrived by air and we had no idea it was here until the infected fell sick.

Should we consider legal action against the airline?

[rte]

Im sure the increase in new Covid cases that have been reported in China due to overseas

travelers has not come from cruise ships.

Me thinks it might be the airplane again.

[Pushka]

27 minutes ago, rte said:

True or not Covid -19 arrived by air and we had no idea it was here until the infected fell sick.

Should we consider legal action against the airline?

Princess Diamond was infected when a local man boarded. Notwithstanding that, if people can't see how cruise ships spread the virus then I've got nothing more to say. Not my problem to convince anyone of anything. 

[Roger88]

12 minutes ago, Pushka said:

Princess Diamond was infected when a local man boarded. Notwithstanding that, if people can't see how cruise ships spread the virus then I've got nothing more to say. Not my problem to convince anyone of anything. 

Same here my friend. You can never know what may happena and you have to ancswer exclusively for your own deeds. The guy who boarded the ship was defienetly ill. I hope that he didnt know about it when he was boarding, but in any case it was him and only him responsible for a break out on board. So nothing to say here at the moment. Be careful 

[Pennstateman]

10 hours ago, Big_G said:

 

Royal alone lost $20 BILLION of $28 BILLION in market cap since January. Combined, the three public traded companies have lost $750 MILLION. I don't see a rainy day fund covering that.

Then their business model is flawed.  Let them file for bankruptcy.  That's why the laws exist

[hcat]

New DELTA Boarding procedure:

 

"(CNN) – Delta Airlines is changing how passengers board its planes. It’s the company’s latest effort to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus.

Passengers will now board planes from the back to the front and fliers will have to wait until their row is called.

The idea is to have people interact less while getting to their seats.

Delta says the change will stay in place at least through May 31.

First class passengers and diamond medallion members will be able........."

 

This is temporary, but will measures like this really help? I think that like the cruise ships, airlines will need to do more.  They seem to be  more regulated so hopefully they will.

[C-Dragons]

9 hours ago, npcl said:

No one for them to ask Congress will not agree.

 

The airlines for Comparison all had more in cash than their liability for advance ticket sales.  The cruise lines all had less than 1/10  in cash.

The airlines all had more cash..? Oh really. Then why did they insist that passengers would only receive vouchers for credit on future flights instead of refunds when they started canceling flights?

The DOT finally had to step in and give them a directive to give passengers refunds if they asked for them. The DOT also said that they would give the airlines a chance to make things right before they started prosecuting them.

[waterbug123]

21 hours ago, hcat said:

 

TSA workers and airline employees have been stricken as well as pax.  

 

But no one can say definitively that they were infected at work.  Could just as easily been at the grocery store on their day off.  Just playing the devil's advocate here...

 

18 hours ago, WrittenOnYourHeart said:

 

No, to be honest there are very few cruise embarkation points where I would WANT to spend more than one night. Miami and Seattle are the only two I can think of for me had I not already spent enough time in those that I've seen all I want to see.

 

Port Canaveral? Nope - I'll stay in Orlando so the PC area would get none of my money.

Ft Lauderdale? Nope - I love Miami, but BTDT already

New Orleans? Cannot stand that place and won't even look at cruises from there.

Tampa? Not interested in anything around there.

San Diego? Maybe a couple of days, but nowhere near the week I spend on cruises.

NY/NJ? I live here.

Boston? See San Diego's answer.

Baltimore? Nope - I lived in the DC area for several years.

 

 

That's fine, but you are one person and not necessarily representative of the population at large.  Many people might visit NYC for instance, same for Boston, New Orleans and Charleston, which was not on your list. 

 

15 hours ago, az_tchr said:

There is one big difference between airlines and cruises.  People are spaced on a plane and there for a short length of time.  The transferring of the disease almost exclusively happened after reaching their destination.

 

 

1.  When is the last time you were on a plane?  If it was before everything started shutting down with the virus, people on planes were most certainly NOT spaced very well.  Most sit shoulder to shoulder, withe rows in front of them and behind them a mere couple of feet away.  Not to mention the way they crown together in the boarding line, the TSA line, the check-in line and so forth. 

2.  There is absolutely no way you can say definitively that people got infected only after reaching their destination. 

 

11 hours ago, MarLieb said:

 

 I just think in the long run we are all better off if the cruise lines can increase their ability to assist their own guests and crew.  I, for one, would feel safer cruising if I knew I were in safer hands on the ship and not at the mercy of the closest country to the ship should something unfortunate happen.

 

That all sounds well and good but leads to questions such as:

How much more prepared do you expect a ship to be?  How many doctors do you want on staff?  How many nurses?  How many additional specialized and/or medical support positions do you want staffed?  How much more ship real estate do you taken up by those people's cabins?  How many additional exam rooms?  Isolation areas for pax infected with anything contagious?  Operating rooms?  Expensive diagnostic and treatment equipment?  And so on.   It sounds good, but to really prepare a ship to not have to offload people to land-based medical facilities is an expensive undertaking!  How much more are you willing to pay in cruise fare to make that happen?  And would you expect a place like, say Disney World and other similar places, to also be completely self supporting as far as medical?    I'm just trying to point out that it's not as simple as saying cruise ships should be better prepared to assist guests with their medical needs.

[MarLieb]

17 minutes ago, waterbug123 said:

 

But no one can say definitively that they were infected at work.  Could just as easily been at the grocery store on their day off.  Just playing the devil's advocate here...

 

 

That's fine, but you are one person and not necessarily representative of the population at large.  Many people might visit NYC for instance, same for Boston, New Orleans and Charleston, which was not on your list. 

 

 

1.  When is the last time you were on a plane?  If it was before everything started shutting down with the virus, people on planes were most certainly NOT spaced very well.  Most sit shoulder to shoulder, withe rows in front of them and behind them a mere couple of feet away.  Not to mention the way they crown together in the boarding line, the TSA line, the check-in line and so forth. 

2.  There is absolutely no way you can say definitively that people got infected only after reaching their destination. 

 

 

That all sounds well and good but leads to questions such as:

How much more prepared do you expect a ship to be?  How many doctors do you want on staff?  How many nurses?  How many additional specialized and/or medical support positions do you want staffed?  How much more ship real estate do you taken up by those people's cabins?  How many additional exam rooms?  Isolation areas for pax infected with anything contagious?  Operating rooms?  Expensive diagnostic and treatment equipment?  And so on.   It sounds good, but to really prepare a ship to not have to offload people to land-based medical facilities is an expensive undertaking!  How much more are you willing to pay in cruise fare to make that happen?  And would you expect a place like, say Disney World and other similar places, to also be completely self supporting as far as medical?    I'm just trying to point out that it's not as simple as saying cruise ships should be better prepared to assist guests with their medical needs.

 

I am only advocating for what is in the CDC order.  I didn't come up with my suggestion out of thin air.  I never said it was a simple or inexpensive undertaking.  If it were, we wouldn't be seeing pushback from CLIA.  They, obviously, do not want to comply because it is complicated and expensive. 

 

Based on the CDC order, I expect the cruise lines to comply, otherwise they will not be utilizing US ports.  All of your posed questions need to be negotiated and agreed upon by CLIA/cruise lines and the CDC.  Once that is done and the cruise lines have the go-ahead from the CDC, I'm good to go.  I would expect cruises prices to rise if they have to amp up their medical facilities and evacuation procedures.  We will then see if the market can bear the costs and guests will continue sailing.  If not, it may be that the massive cruise ship business model will not work in our current climate.  It appears Australia will be taking even stricter measures as it relates to cruise lines, so CLIA and the cruise lines have a lot of work on their hands to figure out how they will proceed and survive from here.  These are certainly not rules I came up with.  I am, however, on the side of the CDC.  I, personally, don't want to see another Grand Princess/Ruby Princess/Zaandam, etc.  What a horrible, tragic, scary situation for all involved. 

 

I expect Disney World and other similar places to also comply with any government orders that relate to their operations.  Currently all Disney parks are closed due to government orders.  Guests who get sick in Disney theme parks do not require massive, government-backed, evacuation efforts.  If they do require medical assistance beyond what is offered at the resort and need to be transported to a medical facility, the guest is responsible for all costs.  No one is trapped in a theme park for days on end requiring acute medical care.  A ship, traveling from, say Chile to the US (in the case of the Zaandam), is another matter entirely.   The CDC is saying, precisely, that "cruise ships should be better prepared to assist guests with their medical needs."  The truth of the matter is, CLIA and the cruise lines have to comply or they aren't sailing in and out of the US anymore and, once they do comply, guests and crew will be in a much safer position to sail once again.  Yes, expensive and complicated - definitely no argument there.

[LMaxwell]

20 hours ago, Iamcruzin said:

🤣🤣....I thought to myself as I read it, think how much more money would go to locals if cruising went away. They would spend full week in a hotel or resort instead of one night and they would be touring the area eating at restaurants and supporting venues by spending more money overall. Now it's one night at Motel 6 with free breakfast and free shuttle to the cruise terminal.

To be fair, I couldn't imagine a fun family vacation for 5 or 7 days in Miami; and I live only 45 minutes from there. Overpriced, overcrowded, full of scammers. Maybe if you are ready to drop some $$$$$$$$$$$$$ for a beach resort it's alright. 

[Blackduck59]

3 minutes ago, MarLieb said:

 

I am only advocating for what is in the CDC order.  I didn't come up with my suggestion out of thin air.  I never said it was a simple or inexpensive undertaking.  If it were, we wouldn't be seeing pushback from CLIA.  They, obviously, do not want to comply because it is complicated and expensive. 

 

Based on the CDC order, I expect the cruise lines to comply, otherwise they will not be utilizing US ports.  All of your posed questions need to be negotiated and agreed upon by CLIA/cruise lines and the CDC.  Once that is done and the cruise lines have the go-ahead from the CDC, I'm good to go.  I would expect cruises prices to rise if they have to amp up their medical facilities and evacuation procedures.  We will then see if the market can bear the costs and guests will continue sailing.  If not, it may be that the massive cruise ship business model will not work in our current climate.  It appears Australia will be taking even stricter measures as it relates to cruise lines, so CLIA and the cruise lines have a lot of work on their hands to figure out how they will proceed and survive from here.  These are certainly not rules I came up with.  I am, however, on the side of the CDC.  I, personally, don't want to see another Grand Princess/Ruby Princess/Zaandam, etc.  What a horrible, tragic, scary situation for all involved. 

 

I expect Disney World and other similar places to also comply with any government orders that relate to their operations.  Currently all Disney parks are closed due to government orders.  Guests who get sick in Disney theme parks do not require massive, government-backed, evacuation efforts.  If they do require medical assistance beyond what is offered at the resort and need to be transported to a medical facility, the guest is responsible for all costs.  No one is trapped in a theme park for days on end requiring acute medical care.  A ship, traveling from, say Chile to the US (in the case of the Zaandam), is another matter entirely.   The CDC is saying, precisely, that "cruise ships should be better prepared to assist guests with their medical needs."  The truth of the matter is, CLIA and the cruise lines have to comply or they aren't sailing in and out of the US anymore and, once they do comply, guests and crew will be in a much safer position to sail once again.  Yes, expensive and complicated - definitely no argument there.

 

While I agree with much of what you say, and I think there should be better Medical facilities, I'm not sure that what the CDC seems to want is possible. Keep in mind USS Theodore Roosevelt has quite a complete combat hospital on board and it wasn't able to cope with an outbreak of COVID 19 and had to evacuate crew in Guam.

I would like to see the hospital area on the ship expanded and perhaps also have say 4 or 5 ocean view staterooms left empty they could be altered to direct to outside air ventilation so if a patient presents with symptom there is a test immediately available and if positive there is an isolation room available. Veranda passengers could probably isolate in their staterooms. I understand that is probably too late and it would trigger a whole other bunch of problems. key pass cards would need to be checked to find out who the positive passenger dined with so they could be tested , and that would just be the start. As part of the standard medical requirements there should be enough test kits on board to test all passengers and crew at least once.

Many cruise companies have private islands and perhaps they should design and construct what could be re-purposed into an isolation hospital on short notice, I'm not sure what that looks like but I don't think it would be that hard.

[Iamcruzin]

2 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

To be fair, I couldn't imagine a fun family vacation for 5 or 7 days in Miami; and I live only 45 minutes from there. Overpriced, overcrowded, full of scammers. Maybe if you are ready to drop some $$$$$$$$$$$$$ for a beach resort it's alright. 

Floridians would definitely have to find another vacation resource. 

[rimmit]

12 hours ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

 A well reasoned argument thank you, I don't want this to turn into a back and forth so I will only reply this one time, and would appreciate if you did the same. 

I would PM you but that is not allowed on CC.  I am confused why you don’t want to have a discussion on a forum.  That is the point of the forums.  To discuss topics and hear multiple sides of the argument.  
 

As long as people are civilized and aren’t name calling or saying things out of spite or hatred there is nothing wrong with having a discussion.  
 

I find the discussions very informative and welcome different opinions, some of which are very well throughout and well informed. 

[MarLieb]

17 minutes ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

While I agree with much of what you say, and I think there should be better Medical facilities, I'm not sure that what the CDC seems to want is possible. Keep in mind USS Theodore Roosevelt has quite a complete combat hospital on board and it wasn't able to cope with an outbreak of COVID 19 and had to evacuate crew in Guam.

I would like to see the hospital area on the ship expanded and perhaps also have say 4 or 5 ocean view staterooms left empty they could be altered to direct to outside air ventilation so if a patient presents with symptom there is a test immediately available and if positive there is an isolation room available. Veranda passengers could probably isolate in their staterooms. I understand that is probably too late and it would trigger a whole other bunch of problems. key pass cards would need to be checked to find out who the positive passenger dined with so they could be tested , and that would just be the start. As part of the standard medical requirements there should be enough test kits on board to test all passengers and crew at least once.

Many cruise companies have private islands and perhaps they should design and construct what could be re-purposed into an isolation hospital on short notice, I'm not sure what that looks like but I don't think it would be that hard.

 

Some really excellent points and suggestions.  What is happening on the aircraft carriers is truly heartbreaking.  

[Blackduck59]

3 minutes ago, rimmit said:

I would PM you but that is not allowed on CC.  I am confused why you don’t want to have a discussion on a forum.  That is the point of the forums.  To discuss topics and hear multiple sides of the argument.  
 

As long as people are civilized and aren’t name calling or saying things out of spite or hatred there is nothing wrong with having a discussion.  
 

I find the discussions very informative and welcome different opinions, some of which are very well throughout and well informed. 

 

I am not opposed to discussion at all I welcome it but have found many times that discussion turns into a rehash of the same argument back and forth with little said that is different. There were 2 threads that devolved into name calling and personal attacks which were subsequently deleted and there seems to be some people who don't understand the concept of healthy debate. Some people have quoted me and then took that opinion in their comment changing a word and saying they "fixed it" for me. No my opinion doesn't need to be "fixed" isn't that kinda like "if I want your opinion I'll give it to you"? I am happy to listen to counter points and I may agree or disagree, just as you may agree or disagree with me. I just find sometimes on forums...not specifically here but in general often a thread turns into 2 or 3 people in a p*****g contest. That doesn't work for me.

[npcl]

4 hours ago, C-Dragons said:

The airlines all had more cash..? Oh really. Then why did they insist that passengers would only receive vouchers for credit on future flights instead of refunds when they started canceling flights?

The DOT finally had to step in and give them a directive to give passengers refunds if they asked for them. The DOT also said that they would give the airlines a chance to make things right before they started prosecuting them.

You can confirm their cash position by looking up their last annual 10K or quarterly 10Q filings to the SEC.  All publicly available using edgar.  They tried it for the same reason that cruise lines have delayed canceling cruises and have made offers to try and get people to take FCCs instead of refunds.  To preserve what cash they have.  Of course the question depends if the flight was canceled by the airline, then by law they had to refund, you just had to know not to accept the voucher.  If canceled by the individual then they are legally entitled to give credit vouchers.  

 

If they canceled and they forced a voucher on you you should contact them now and get it converted to a refund.

 

This is not going to be over in a few weeks.  This going to last months.  Airlines will probably be half the size when this is over compared to what they were when it started.  Most older planes will never fly again.

 

For another comparison when United canceled one of my flights I asked for a refund and received it back on my credit card in 5 days.

I canceled cruises on two different lines before the penalty period (one August, One October) on March 4th.  Have not seen either of those refunds yet.

Edited April 13, 2020 by npcl

[npcl]

37 minutes ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

While I agree with much of what you say, and I think there should be better Medical facilities, I'm not sure that what the CDC seems to want is possible. Keep in mind USS Theodore Roosevelt has quite a complete combat hospital on board and it wasn't able to cope with an outbreak of COVID 19 and had to evacuate crew in Guam.

I would like to see the hospital area on the ship expanded and perhaps also have say 4 or 5 ocean view staterooms left empty they could be altered to direct to outside air ventilation so if a patient presents with symptom there is a test immediately available and if positive there is an isolation room available. Veranda passengers could probably isolate in their staterooms. I understand that is probably too late and it would trigger a whole other bunch of problems. key pass cards would need to be checked to find out who the positive passenger dined with so they could be tested , and that would just be the start. As part of the standard medical requirements there should be enough test kits on board to test all passengers and crew at least once.

Many cruise companies have private islands and perhaps they should design and construct what could be re-purposed into an isolation hospital on short notice, I'm not sure what that looks like but I don't think it would be that hard.

Certainly the cruise lines have to take responsibility and do more to provide care.  While they can certainly do so when cases come up, not much they can do to prevent spread of a URI.

 

As far as the aircraft carrier. The medical facilities are designed for handling combat casualties efficiently, infectious disease not so much. It is the same reason why the hospital ships are being used for non-covid cases, off loading them from shore side hospitals.  They are designed for traumatic injuries, not infectious disease.  In both cases crew quarters are very crowded (think stacked bunks fitted in tight quarters.  Far far more dense than crew ship quarters.

 

In a war time setting, the approach would be to let it burn through, accept the casualties and hope enough of the crew could function to operate the ship as it did so.  In peace time  you still had the tendency to operate that way leading to the Captain's letter.

[C-Dragons]

44 minutes ago, npcl said:

They tried it for the same reason that cruise lines have delayed canceling cruises and have made offers to try and get people to take FCCs instead of refunds.  To preserve what cash they have.  Of course the question depends if the flight was canceled by the airline, then by law they had to refund, you just had to know not to accept the voucher.  If canceled by the individual then they are legally entitled to give credit vouchers.  

 

If they canceled and they forced a voucher on you you should contact them now and get it converted to a refund.

AA did not cancel my flights but I did receive a full refund on my non-refundable tickets.

For those who are not aware, the airlines are required to refund tickets not only for flights canceled by the carrier but also for any significant changes made to departure, arrival and/or connecting times

 

Going forward, I am not following this thread anymore.

Edited April 13, 2020 by C-Dragons

[npcl]

5 hours ago, hcat said:

New DELTA Boarding procedure:

 

"(CNN) – Delta Airlines is changing how passengers board its planes. It’s the company’s latest effort to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus.

Passengers will now board planes from the back to the front and fliers will have to wait until their row is called.

The idea is to have people interact less while getting to their seats.

Delta says the change will stay in place at least through May 31.

First class passengers and diamond medallion members will be able........."

 

This is temporary, but will measures like this really help? I think that like the cruise ships, airlines will need to do more.  They seem to be  more regulated so hopefully they will.

There have been a large number of studies dealing with air flow on air craft.  You can look up and find numerous studies that show the particle spread.  Modern aircraft use HEPA filters, so the problem is the close proximity to an infected person.

 

Air flow diagrams show those at risk are those 1 row in front, and two rows behind an infected person.  One can help mitigate by taking the air vent turning it to maximum and pointing directly at their face area.  That flows filtered are over their face and would air from potential infected passengers around them.  

 

If I had to fly today what I would do is:

 

1. wear a mask (airlines should require everyone to do so on board a plane, same with any kind of local transit as well)

2. do not eat or drink anything on board the plane (don't care if I brought it on board. Basically if it means moving the mask, touching the drink or food container, it is not going to happen)

3. Sanitize all surfaces that I would come in contact with.  Table , arm rests, etc.

4. Use the seat map and try and find a seat separate from other passengers if possible

5. Not talk with other passengers or crew.  Certainly avoid having the crew from bending close to ask for a drink order.

(one of the greatest risk factors for crew is being in close proximity to passengers, and talking to them about what drink they want.  That puts them in a close space, with the individual talking which will tend to expel virus)

6. If I had to go the the rest room.  Avoid touching other seat backs.  Any surface I touch, do not use my hands but instead use a sanitizing wipe between my hands and the surface.

 

By doing those thing I feel I can mitigate risk a great deal.

 

In my county they are still contact tracing all cases (we have 46 to date,  new ones at a rate of 1 or 2 per day, about the same rate as old cases resolve, most things shutdown, mask required on mass transit, etc.)  We had three different flights come into our airport in early March before things really shutdown and had passengers that were later identified as having Covid-19. The county has traced and monitored all of the passengers from those flights.  At the end of the monitoring period there were 0 new cases out of the 227 passengers on those flight. This is not to say that you cannot catch it on a flight, only to point out that even if there is someone on a flight it is not a certainty that they will infect other passengers on board.

[npcl]

12 minutes ago, C-Dragons said:

AA did not cancel my flights but I did receive a full refund on my non-refundable tickets.

For those who are not aware, the airlines are required to refund tickets not only for flights canceled by the carrier but also for any significant changes made to departure, arrival and/or connecting times

 

Going forward, I am not following this thread anymore.

A significant change as far as the law goes is the same as a cancellation.  One can either accept the change or request a refund.