New Regent Protocols as of 1 June 2020

[Fredric22]

I think the cruise lines are smart enough to know that most people (maybe not all) are going to pay 1000s of dollars to be forced to wear masks on their vacation.  If that is indeed the requirement, cruise lines should prepare for a significant scale back of their business.  In my opinion, they would rather wait until drastic requirements are no longer needed before they resume sailing.  

[rcandkc]

15 minutes ago, Fredric22 said:

I think the cruise lines are smart enough to know that most people (maybe not all) are going to pay 1000s of dollars to be forced to wear masks on their vacation.  If that is indeed the requirement, cruise lines should prepare for a significant scale back of their business.  In my opinion, they would rather wait until drastic requirements are no longer needed before they resume sailing.  

I can see needing to wear one on tenders along with a little more space between passengers. 

[Got2Cruise]

Frequent hand washing! Guests in the past could not be trusted to wash their hands properly hence norovirus outbreaks. 

 

Social distancing. It is impossible to maintain social distancing on the pool deck or many of the lounges. 

 

 I think each family should consider the risks and make an educated decision based on their circumstances. 

 

I will always remember that every corporation is out to make a profit, their loyalty is to themselves. 

[Travelcat2]

Regent will likely remove some of the lounges by the pool for social distancing.  It appears that Regent has to make changes in order to be in compliance with new protocols.  It will likely be a challenge for Regent but they want to resume sailing.

 

There are some people that are concerned about cruising or flying to the port while others have less of a concern.  There is no right or wrong choice - it is a personal decision.  I'm still not understanding the issue with masks but certainly respect passengers that prefer to wait until they are not required before they cruise.  In November, if our cruise sails, whether required or not, we would wear a mask on tenders, in buses and on excursions (if distancing cannot be met).  

[SusieQft]

4 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

There is no right or wrong choice

Except in retrospect, there may be.

[Travelcat2]

27 minutes ago, SusieQft said:

Except in retrospect, there may be.

 

Would you elaborate?  My point was simply stating that it is fine to not want to cruise or wanting to cruise ASAP.  The ships will likely be cleaner and more sanitized than restaurants, hotels, markets, etc.

 

If you are thinking that those of us that want to cruise this year may regret it because someone might get sick, that concern will be there for a long time (even after the vaccine is developed - unless it is proven to be 100% effective which would be quite a miracle).  

 

Hopefully we will cruise in November - a time when the strictest protocols will likely be in effect since it is the time of year when many people get sick (colds, flu, etc.).  There is one protocol that I would still like to see and that is proof that you have had a flu shot.  While not nearly 100% effective, it is a start.  

[SusieQft]

12 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

Would you elaborate?

 

If one chooses to go on the cruise, and someone on the ship comes down with COVID-19, it will have some serious negative consequences.  These could include the person who made the choice getting sick, the itinerary being negatively impacted, the ship being quarantined, and almost certainly the person who made the choice to go being at least asked to self quarantine for 14 days once they get home.  In retrospect, that was a wrong decision.  Or conversely those who chose not to go could say in retrospect that they made the right decision.

 

If everything goes well and the trip is great, then in retrospect choosing to go was a right decision.  In this case, someone who chose not to go may or may not choose to apply a right/wrong label to their decision in retrospect.

 

IMO we have no way of knowing before the trip if going will be a good or bad decision.  In retrospect, we will know.  This is true of many decisions in life.

[pingpong1]

8 minutes ago, SusieQft said:

 

If one chooses to go on the cruise, and someone on the ship comes down with COVID-19, it will have some serious negative consequences.  These could include the person who made the choice getting sick, the itinerary being negatively impacted, the ship being quarantined, and almost certainly the person who made the choice to go being at least asked to self quarantine for 14 days once they get home.  In retrospect, that was a wrong decision.  Or conversely those who chose not to go could say in retrospect that they made the right decision.

 

If everything goes well and the trip is great, then in retrospect choosing to go was a right decision.  In this case, someone who chose not to go may or may not choose to apply a right/wrong label to their decision in retrospect.

 

IMO we have no way of knowing before the trip if going will be a good or bad decision.  In retrospect, we will know.  This is true of many decisions in life.

👍  Well Said, Susie!

[Ladys Mom]

Suzie, I understand your point of view.  But let us look at the history of Covid-19 on cruise ships.  To the best of our knowledge there were no cases on any Regent ships. There were only a couple of cases on any non-Carnival (the company) ships.  That suggests that prior to all of the stringent changes that are being proposed by NCL, the chances of getting the virus while on a Regent ship seem small, at least to me.  Now that NCL is aware of the hot spots around the world, on a daily basis, they will endeavor to avoid those ports even if it means a change of itinerary.

I for one do not want to wait until there is a vaccine that they are willing to give to people over 70.  I suspect we will be the bottom of the queue.  I would rather take my chances with masks, gloves, hand sanitizer, and wipes, and see the world.  Staying cooped up in one's house, no matter how nice, is not the way I want to spend my active senior years.

[SusieQft]

Ladys Mom, I am trying very hard to agree with you but I just can't.  Certainly the sanitation protocols on the ship and the lower passenger count will affect the risk, which could weigh in Regent's favor.  Itinerary decisions also helped Regent avoid the first wave.  For example, Regent denied boarding to anyone who had traveled through Hong Kong (even after Regent itself had routed them that way) instead of having a turnaround day in Hong Kong.  But now the whole world is infected, so that strategy will no longer work.  All passengers from everywhere or traveling through anywhere would have to be denied boarding, which is the strategy so far.

 

Since the virus is so often asymptomatic, there really is no absolutely certain way to keep it off the ship.  Maybe it could be done by nasal swab testing everyone and then adding at least a week of quarantine with only other ship passengers and then testing again before boarding, and then not having any shore excursions.  Of course, something similar would have to be done for the crew.  They would not have to worry about being able to do social distancing, because not many (maybe not anyone) would agree to those terms.

 

I am not proposing anything that extreme, but IMO the idea that Regent is not susceptible is just not realistic.

[Travelcat2]

2 hours ago, SusieQft said:

 

If one chooses to go on the cruise, and someone on the ship comes down with COVID-19, it will have some serious negative consequences.  These could include the person who made the choice getting sick, the itinerary being negatively impacted, the ship being quarantined, and almost certainly the person who made the choice to go being at least asked to self quarantine for 14 days once they get home.  In retrospect, that was a wrong decision.  Or conversely those who chose not to go could say in retrospect that they made the right decision.

 

If everything goes well and the trip is great, then in retrospect choosing to go was a right decision.  In this case, someone who chose not to go may or may not choose to apply a right/wrong label to their decision in retrospect.

 

IMO we have no way of knowing before the trip if going will be a good or bad decision.  In retrospect, we will know.  This is true of many decisions in life.

 

Thank you for your response.  Still, one could cruise in November 2020, March, 2021, November 2021 or any other date and still not know if they will get sick. We have a choice. We can stay home or do road trips (where you still can get the virus if you are going into restaurants) or go on a cruise where extraordinary steps are being taken to avoid anyone getting sick.

 

I still feel that there is no right or wrong way of thinking about the situation.  I don't want to tell anyone that they should be cruising nor do I want anyone to tell me that I should not be cruising.  It is a personal decision.  

[Steve Q]

Below is an interesting article about the CDC grading system.

Several former ship doctors recommend that future cruises operate at 50% capacity and sail within 500 miles of land. Many Caribbean and Mexican Riviera would seem to qualify for winter cruises.

 

 https://apple.news/AXcPQCA6JTXei3J94yLXC9A

[Wendy The Wanderer]

And the elephant in the room flaps its ears again.  Can you imagine what prices are going to be like at 50% capacity?

[ronrick1943]

7 hours ago, SusieQft said:

 

If one chooses to go on the cruise, and someone on the ship comes down with COVID-19, it will have some serious negative consequences.  These could include the person who made the choice getting sick, the itinerary being negatively impacted, the ship being quarantined, and almost certainly the person who made the choice to go being at least asked to self quarantine for 14 days once they get home.  In retrospect, that was a wrong decision.  Or conversely those who chose not to go could say in retrospect that they made the right decision.

 

If everything goes well and the trip is great, then in retrospect choosing to go was a right decision.  In this case, someone who chose not to go may or may not choose to apply a right/wrong label to their decision in retrospect.

 

IMO we have no way of knowing before the trip if going will be a good or bad decision.  In retrospect, we will know.  This is true of many decisions in life.

I agree, if it's a great cruise and no one sick, you made the right choice----on the other hand if you get sick it wasn't the best choice.  But it's a personal choice one should think about and how comfortable they will be if and when they cruise.

 

[pappy1022]

I just read the article that Steve posted. These are some of the snippets that made me go, wow this is going to take a long time to get back to anything near normal. I'm thinking 2022 for my next cruise. The comparison to long term care facilities, prisons and meat packing plants shows how the CDC views the cruise industry. 

 

"The industry is hoping to resume cruises — with passengers on them — as early as this summer. But the plans now being finalized don’t apply to passenger cruises. Cetron said the CDC has not begun to review plans for how to safely operate cruises prior to development of a vaccine. Cetron described the cruise companies’ task of protecting future passengers and crew members from COVID-19 as “herculean,” and compared the risk of infection on cruise ships to meat packing plants, long-term care facilities, and prisons. If a line ever wants to get back to full density on board, bringing on board people who are at risk of dying of COVID, they have to be able to control COVID on these ships when their occupancy is 90% less. It will be this plan on steroids.”

[Pcardad]

These ships break-even (exclusive of debt servicing, etc) around 1/3 occupancy. That would be my target for the first couple of cruises. It isn't about making money at this point, it is about establishing procedures and proving that cruises can be run safely.

[Fredric22]

1 hour ago, pappy1022 said:

I just read the article that Steve posted. These are some of the snippets that made me go, wow this is going to take a long time to get back to anything near normal. I'm thinking 2022 for my next cruise. The comparison to long term care facilities, prisons and meat packing plants shows how the CDC views the cruise industry. 

 

"The industry is hoping to resume cruises — with passengers on them — as early as this summer. But the plans now being finalized don’t apply to passenger cruises. Cetron said the CDC has not begun to review plans for how to safely operate cruises prior to development of a vaccine. Cetron described the cruise companies’ task of protecting future passengers and crew members from COVID-19 as “herculean,” and compared the risk of infection on cruise ships to meat packing plants, long-term care facilities, and prisons. If a line ever wants to get back to full density on board, bringing on board people who are at risk of dying of COVID, they have to be able to control COVID on these ships when their occupancy is 90% less. It will be this plan on steroids.”

CDC once again showing their strong negative bias towards cruising.  So many more ways this virus is spreading in the US right now.  The CDC should be ashamed of themselves about how they handled this from the beginning.  The CDC needs to learn how to come up with REASONABLE safety measures that mitigate risk while allowing the economy to return to supporting our society.  I sincerely hope there is a leadership change at the CDC soon, otherwise, I do fear that the cruise industry is going to be a victim (at least in the short term) of the CDC. 

[pappy1022]

3 hours ago, Pcardad said:

These ships break-even (exclusive of debt servicing, etc) around 1/3 occupancy. That would be my target for the first couple of cruises. It isn't about making money at this point, it is about establishing procedures and proving that cruises can be run safely.

Given all of the money that Regent borrowed to stay afloat, debt interest is a significant expense every month and that directly impacts profitability and cash flow. I agree that it would be wise to start slow, learn and improve the processes and prove that a safe environment is attainable. Regent will need to ramp up quickly after that to cover all costs.  The CDC and other cruise lines will have a significant impact on Regent success. Who knows where the CDC is going with their rules and regulations, They seem to change their minds a lot. The other risk is that another significant COVID-19 incident on any cruise line will bring everything to a halt again.

[CruisetheCs]

5 hours ago, Fredric22 said:

CDC once again showing their strong negative bias towards cruising.  So many more ways this virus is spreading in the US right now.  The CDC should be ashamed of themselves about how they handled this from the beginning.  The CDC needs to learn how to come up with REASONABLE safety measures that mitigate risk while allowing the economy to return to supporting our society.  I sincerely hope there is a leadership change at the CDC soon, otherwise, I do fear that the cruise industry is going to be a victim (at least in the short term) of the CDC. 

 

There is an interesting, lengthy article in the NYT today about the CDC  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/us/cdc-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage  There are some interesting links within the article, too.

 

The article contains a lot of criticism of the CDC and the White House.  The article points to many problems including computer systems, supply problems, White House interference, lack of coordination, etc.  Of course the virus is spreading in so many more ways than cruising at this point because the cruise ships are not carrying passengers.  

 

I don't see how the CDC and cruise ships are going to come up with a protocol that will encourage lots of passengers to start cruising again in the near future.  Each country will likely invoke guidelines so there is going to have to be agreement among cruise ships and multiple countries/agencies.  Also, I think the cruise lines are going to be wary of blame and/or lawsuits if they don't have widely approved and medically sound guidelines to follow.  

 

And if the cruise lines don't enforce guidelines, there will be more problems.  Enforcing some guidelines among passengers who are paying thousands of dollars for a vacation seems likely to ensure conflicts among staff, those who strictly follow guidelines, those who loosely follow guidelines, and those who simply don't follow guidelines.  Imagine the various party's reaction with someone walking around the pool deck with their mask down below their nose (assuming that masks are required).  And if there are distancing rules, you know some people will regularly not observe them just as some people don't observe rules about reserving lounge chairs.   And imagine how these kinds of scenes might impact your enjoyment of the cruise if you feel that someone is placing others health at risk.

 

 

[mrstanley]

GOARMY:  We are also on the Tokyo to Vancouver cruise 2021.

 

Booked our flight to Tokyo as we use FFP.

Prior to virus issues we wanted to spend time in Japan on our own before the cruise.

Decided to plan doing that when we booked the flight. Final payment is due in November... we will decide what to do at that time. I’m not interested in making final payment and then winding up with a FCC if I decide to cancel . I would not be able to get a cash refund after that date.

We are concerned about the flight from the USA to get there. 

[Dolebludger]

Many who give the matter some thought will be more concerned about the flights to get to and from a Regent cruise than being aboard a Regent ship, once cruises and flights are again available. We have always found Regent cruises to be very uncrowded. Not so on airlines — not even now. 
 

This is a very informative thread so thanks all! I hope when FDR speaks of reducing passenger capacity, he is speaking of NCL (which needs this) and not Regent (which really doesn’t). 

[GOARMY]

mrstanley:

 

We continue in a "holding pattern" re: April 2021 Tokyo-Vancouver, B.C. Explorer cruise.  At this point, we plan to use FF Miles to get from SEATAC to Tokyo.  But--as others have posted--airlines have demonstrated a habit of canceling flights and changing schedules at an increasing rate due to COVID-19.  That particularly relates to United Airlines--which previously had a  N/S SEATAC to Tokyo segment.  Now, only Japan Airlines offers this.

 

We may decide to utilize Regent air (through our TA) for that aspect as a hedge against a last-minute schedule change. 

 

But again--no vaccine; no cruise. 

 

Plan B may be switching to the September, 2021 reverse itinerary; or seeing what 2020 might bring.  Have been to Japan on several previous Regent cruises, but never to Tokyo.  Really-looking forward to the cherry blossoms as part of a pre-stay experience.  But, yet-again:  health and safety come first, given our age(s). 

 

So, as usual, equivocation as to decision-making.  That is part of the new reality. 

 

GOARMY!

 

 

[Kwaj girl]

On 6/1/2020 at 7:41 PM, Travelcat2 said:

Frank Del Rio has already said (more than once) that if masks are required on land when they resume cruising, they will be required on the ship.

 

That will be interesting to see....especially in the lounges before dinner as well as during meals.  Makes you wonder how you'll eat and drink while wearing a mask.  Constant donning and doffing of a mask will kinda defeat the purpose, no?

[Travelcat2]

I really believe that passengers will understand before they board a Regent ship what the protocols are and I hope that Regent has passengers sign a document acknowledging that understanding.  There will be no arguments amongst passengers or staff.  This is not on the same level of not hogging a chaise lounge or even guests wearing inapproporiate clothing.  There are lives at stake and cruise lines will take it seriously.  

 

I suspect that if a cruise line is found to be in violation of protocols, that they will cease sailing unless or until they prove that they will be followed.  I’m not sure if the CDC can fine cruise lines but if they can, now would be the time to do so.  I hope that there are regular, unannounced inspections of cruise ships to insure that protocols are being followed.

 

IMO, Regent ships need to lessen capacity - just as huge cruise ships do.  Some ships are easier to have social distancing than others.  If you look at how crowded restaurants can become on Navigator, you might draw the same conclusion as I do .......... there needs to be less passengers on that ship that ships like Mariner.

 

There are a couple of political comments that I won’t address out of respect for CC.  What will or will not happen in the government and/or the CDC will happen - no matter what we post on CC.  

 

Someone addressed (from an article) that protocols for passenger ships has not been addressed as yet.  According to the CEO of NCLH, this is not true.  Regent, Oceania and NCL have been working with the CDC and the doctor that they hired for a while now and I believe that the protocols unveiled this week will be pretty close to what we will see when we board a Regent ship this year.

[Travelcat2]

On 6/2/2020 at 2:40 PM, Ladys Mom said:

Suzie, I understand your point of view.  But let us look at the history of Covid-19 on cruise ships.  To the best of our knowledge there were no cases on any Regent ships. There were only a couple of cases on any non-Carnival (the company) ships.  That suggests that prior to all of the stringent changes that are being proposed by NCL, the chances of getting the virus while on a Regent ship seem small, at least to me.  Now that NCL is aware of the hot spots around the world, on a daily basis, they will endeavor to avoid those ports even if it means a change of itinerary.

I for one do not want to wait until there is a vaccine that they are willing to give to people over 70.  I suspect we will be the bottom of the queue.  I would rather take my chances with masks, gloves, hand sanitizer, and wipes, and see the world.  Staying cooped up in one's house, no matter how nice, is not the way I want to spend my active senior years.

 

Agree with everything that you posted.  There will be people that agree and others that disagree with our view which is ok.  That is what I meant that there is no right or wrong decision.  If someone does not want to cruise until there is a vaccine - that is fine as well.  We are entitled to our decisions and should not be criticized.  Not everyone perceives “safety” in the same way

 

As you noted, one can spend all their time in their home and be pretty much guaranteed to not become sick.  For you and I, this is not the way that we want to live or lives.  We have our masks, gloves, eye protection, hand sanitizer, and wipes ready to go!🛳️