How can the the Queens get back to cruising ?

[resistk]

34 minutes ago, oskidunker said:

None of this would be implemented, in my opinion. No cruising until a vaccine. Then cruise as normal with a few exceptions..buffet...a few othersz

 

Yes to continue in the near term would be back to near-normal operations as usual.  Where I live we can't even buy face masks!  I don't see how any of this is going come off. 

[ace2542]

3 hours ago, IB2 said:

It's not up to me to define it.  But the days when the cruise lines can take seriously ill passengers on board, many attached to various medical contraptions, leading to all-too-frequent medical evacuations, must be over.  To go travelling the world on a cruise ship, thousands of miles from home, must require a level of basic health and fitness.  That the Queen Mary 2 sailed back from Freemantle with nearly three hundred passengers who weren't fit enough even to be able to get on an aeroplane was patently absurd.

Most of those 300 passengers probably blagged it and got a few weeks more on the Queen Mary out of it. I might have done the same to be fair. Coming back from freemantle I would much rather be on QM2 free of corona than on a plane where I might catch it 😉

[majortom10]

1 hour ago, oskidunker said:

None of this would be implemented, in my opinion. No cruising until a vaccine. Then cruise as normal with a few exceptions..buffet...a few othersz

I do not think Carnival Corp never mind the subsidiary cruise lines and companies it owns could survive without cruising or any income if they have to wait for a vaccine to be available worldwide.

[Colin_Cameron]

7 minutes ago, majortom10 said:

...if they have to wait for a vaccine to be available worldwide.

Available, and administered to what percentage of the worlds population?

[IB2]

8 hours ago, resistk said:

 

Yes to continue in the near term would be back to near-normal operations as usual.  Where I live we can't even buy face masks!  I don't see how any of this is going come off. 

I think you overlook that cruising now needs permission, not just from governments but from port authorities and indeed its customer base, before it can resume operations, and underestimate the extent to which the industry lacks friends and has shown its current model to be unfit for purpose.  Changes are going to be demanded; it isn’t just going to be allowed to pick up where it left off.

[Solent Richard]

On 4/26/2020 at 6:36 AM, IB2 said:

 

 

... a requirement to be fit enough to fly home in extremis, and travel insurance as a compulsory requirement...

 

...walk-through temperature sensors as you embark....

 

Good morning Ventnor. (I can't see you today, it's raining cats and dogs  😁) 

 

You make two excellent points.

 

The first of course will be instigated by the cruise lines following the experience of Queen Mary 2 post Fremantle. 

 

The second of course was already  in operation during my last cruise -not Cunard - in MSC's Preziosa Yacht Club:  we disembarked in Barbados on 3rd March. 

 

Indeed, my review placed on Cruise Critic's MSC Page...

 

 

...has drawn some interesting comments regarding precautions onboard: including the blocking of some 500+ Italian passengers.

 

[navybankerteacher]

15 hours ago, Colin_Cameron said:

Available, and administered to what percentage of the worlds population?

Perhaps that percentage of the world’s population who want to cruise and are willing to do what is necessary to do so.

[IB2]

9 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Perhaps that percentage of the world’s population who want to cruise and are willing to do what is necessary to do so.

The cruise industry - thanks to its behaviour of offshoring and tax avoidance, is bottom of the priority list of almost every government right now.

 

The priority people for any successful vaccine will be those contributing to the economy by participating in the labour market.

 

The retired at leisure folks will have the lowest priority.

[navybankerteacher]

2 minutes ago, IB2 said:

The cruise industry - thanks to its behaviour of offshoring and tax avoidance, is bottom of the priority list of almost every government right now.

 

The priority people for any successful vaccine will be those contributing to the economy by participating in the labour market.

 

The retired at leisure folks will have the lowest priority.

Agreed - it is just that cruise lines should not be permitted to move disease transmitters about - and while there may be arguments against forcing people to get immunized against their will (as are often heard in the US), there is no valid argument against incentivizing by denial.

[exlondoner]

59 minutes ago, IB2 said:

The cruise industry - thanks to its behaviour of offshoring and tax avoidance, is bottom of the priority list of almost every government right now.

 

The priority people for any successful vaccine will be those contributing to the economy by participating in the labour market.

 

The retired at leisure folks will have the lowest priority.

 

I think you may underestimate the importance of the cruise market to some economies, for instance, Southampton, local to us both. Without it, a lot of people will be without jobs.

[navybankerteacher]

6 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

 

I think you may underestimate the importance of the cruise market to some economies, for instance, Southampton, local to us both. Without it, a lot of people will be without jobs.

There seems so little common ground — there are many (including those who are determined to board the first ships to resume sailing -apparently  regardless of presence/absence of credible safety initiatives) and who actually believe that federal tax dollars should go to bail out the current cruise companies . And then there are those (the more sane, I believe, who couldn’t care less if the industry as a whole sank or swum) who can do without that form of recreation until it is proven at least as safe as staying at home.

 

If an industry cannot thrive in a rational world, those who depend upon it should seek other lines of work.   Think of all the buggy-whip manufacturers , farriers and ostlers who lost their livelihoods with the introduction of the automobile.

[exlondoner]

11 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

There seems so little common ground — there are many (including those who are determined to board the first ships to resume sailing -apparently  regardless of presence/absence of credible safety initiatives) and who actually believe that federal tax dollars should go to bail out the current cruise companies . And then there are those (the more sane, I believe, who couldn’t care less if the industry as a whole sank or swum) who can do without that form of recreation until it is proven at least as safe as staying at home.

 

If an industry cannot thrive in a rational world, those who depend upon it should seek other lines of work.   Think of all the buggy-whip manufacturers , farriers and ostlers who lost their livelihoods with the introduction of the automobile.

 

I'm not sure what rational has to do with it. If it were a case of rational, there would be no fashion industry and no beauty industry. Rationally nobody needs clothes in a particular style or to look Ina particular way. Farriers in rural U.K. do pretty well, I think, though the keeping of horses for leisure and sport is pretty much irrational too probably.

[navybankerteacher]

28 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

 

I'm not sure what rational has to do with it. If it were a case of rational, there would be no fashion industry and no beauty industry. Rationally nobody needs clothes in a particular style or to look Ina particular way. Farriers in rural U.K. do pretty well, I think, though the keeping of horses for leisure and sport is pretty much irrational too probably.

One key way to test for rationality in an activity  might be to look at the mortality rate of its participants.   Six inch stiletto heels, for example, strike me as incredibly stupid but if someone thinks they make her look her best (and she does not wear them so much that they cause shrinkage of her calf muscles or hammer toes) I would defer to her judgement without comment.

 

And, to the extent successful luring of a desireable mate depends on one’s appearance,  there are arguments in favor of the fashion and beauty industries.

Edited April 28, 2020 by navybankerteacher

[david,Mississauga]

On 4/27/2020 at 11:47 AM, IB2 said:

The biggest single improvement the industry could make is to stop taking passengers who are already seriously ill.  Whilst we can have every sympathy with those who have serious medical conditions, they should be in hospital, or at home near a hospital, not travelling the world on the seven seas, expecting the cruise ship to pick up the consequences when their health turns south. The frequent helicopter evacuations from cruise ships shouldn’t be happening.

 

Your suggested exclusion of pre-existing conditions would of course prevent anyone from travelling who is already seriously ill.

 

I don't know what travel insurance exclusions there are in other countries, but every policy I have puchased or looked at in Canada will cover pre-existing conditions with one qualification: stability.  It varies by policy, but the period when the insured must be stable is 90 days at best and 180 days at worst.

 

Of course, it is the insurer's definition of stable that counts, not one's doctor. Almost everyone I know who is over 65 has some health issue (high blood pressure being the most common) but most conditions are not too serious and are sufficiently stable for a holiday.

[resistk]

5 hours ago, exlondoner said:

 

I think you may underestimate the importance of the cruise market to some economies, for instance, Southampton, local to us both. Without it, a lot of people will be without jobs.

 

Southampton doesn't even have a first class hotel near the port - the old Harbour or DeVry whatever it is called now is pitiful;  the university and commercial port I think is far more important.

Edited April 28, 2020 by resistk

[lissie]

On 4/28/2020 at 10:04 AM, Colin_Cameron said:

Available, and administered to what percentage of the worlds population?

Administered to the patient who has to produce an official record of same. Same as yellow fever has been for decades 

[lissie]

11 hours ago, david,Mississauga said:

 

I don't know what travel insurance exclusions there are in other countries, but every policy I have puchased or looked at in Canada will cover pre-existing conditions with one qualification: stability.  It varies by policy, but the period when the insured must be stable is 90 days at best and 180 days at worst.

 

Of course, it is the insurer's definition of stable that counts, not one's doctor. Almost everyone I know who is over 65 has some health issue (high blood pressure being the most common) but most conditions are not too serious and are sufficiently stable for a holiday.

Gawd I want to move to Canada!  The ONLY pre-existing conditions covered automatically in NZ are things like asthma (onset under 60) high blood pressure (but no cardiac issues) and similar "simple" things. As soon as you have anything that relates to major organs (lungs, heart), joint replacements, diabetets, joint replacements, organ replacements etc etc - its a lottery if you will get insurance. My partner has afib and a valve replacement - his specialist is very happy with his progress. He can get expensive insurance for most of  the world - but nothing for North America. Once he his 70 in 2 more years - its going to be even more difficult. Many of us have to travel without insurance or not travel.   This is nothing to do with cruising - just travel in general. 

[IB2]

13 hours ago, david,Mississauga said:

 

I don't know what travel insurance exclusions there are in other countries, but every policy I have puchased or looked at in Canada will cover pre-existing conditions with one qualification: stability.  It varies by policy, but the period when the insured must be stable is 90 days at best and 180 days at worst.

 

Of course, it is the insurer's definition of stable that counts, not one's doctor. Almost everyone I know who is over 65 has some health issue (high blood pressure being the most common) but most conditions are not too serious and are sufficiently stable for a holiday.

My current policy, they are only concerned about conditions for which you have received treatment or ongoing investigation during the past twelve months.  Declaring these brings them into cover but you have to pay an extra premium.  A couple of years ago I had a back operation and had to pay an extra £70 for the annual travel policy for the year following.  This year I haven’t had to pay anything extra as I haven’t had any medical treatment or tests.

[LadyL1]

10 hours ago, resistk said:

 

Southampton doesn't even have a first class hotel near the port - the old Harbour or DeVry whatever it is called now is pitiful;  the university and commercial port I think is far more important.

If the  the world is ever back to normal, perhaps you should look at the Southampton Harbour Hotel. It has been open a few years now.

Roll on to the days when we can safely cruise again!

 

[exlondoner]

12 hours ago, resistk said:

 

Southampton doesn't even have a first class hotel near the port - the old Harbour or DeVry whatever it is called now is pitiful;  the university and commercial port I think is far more important.

 

What about the Southampton Harbour Hotel?

 

I'm sure the commercial (freight) port is vastly more important to the national economy. However, the usual estimate is that the passenger port brings £2m a ship on average into the local economy, which is clearly hugely important to those of us who live in the area.

[exlondoner]

2 hours ago, LadyL1 said:

If the  the world is ever back to normal, perhaps you should look at the Southampton Harbour Hotel. It has been open a few years now.

Roll on to the days when we can safely cruise again!

 

 

Sorry I hadn't read this when I posted the above. But I agree.

[resistk]

5 hours ago, LadyL1 said:

If the  the world is ever back to normal, perhaps you should look at the Southampton Harbour Hotel. It has been open a few years now.

Roll on to the days when we can safely cruise again!

 

 

Wow!  I never knew.  Been avoiding staying in Soton for years because the hotels were terrible. 

[Ray66]

There are no real luxury hotels in Southampton. We've stayed at the new Harbour Hotel and had a bad experience. It's vastly overpriced. We stayed at the Ageas Bowl last year and had a better room for less money.

 

The real luxury hotels are out of town such as Chewton Glen.

[Pennbank]

It all depends what one wants from the Hotel  in Southampton and if you wish to Travel on to your Cruise ship.  Do you want inclusive car parking whilst away , a Boutique Hotel or a Cheap Basic. Southampton has them all, from  Leonardo Royal Hotel Grand Harbour,   not the same company  as  The Harbour Hotel Ocean Village , The Holiday Inn, The Pig in The Wall, Ennio's and The White Star Tavern. ? All different 

[tacticalbanjo]

16 hours ago, resistk said:

 

Southampton doesn't even have a first class hotel near the port - the old Harbour or DeVry whatever it is called now is pitiful;  the university and commercial port I think is far more important.

 

The cruise industry doesn't just generate jobs in the hospitality industry. Some of my family have jobs which are reliant on the cruise ship trade. Only one is in hospitality. The others work for a business which supply various specialised items to all kinds of ships. But a lot of their business is conducted with cruise ships so if the cruise ships can't sail there will have to be redundancies not just in that company but at their suppliers too. Each industry that can't recover from this will leave ripples across the economy.