Expect more Cancellations for rest of the year.

[ProgRockCruiser]

1 hour ago, fyree39 said:

Because you only see a younger crowd on Carnival. I mean, ALL the P/D parties are full of 20-somethings and kids.

Heh.

 

Funny thing is that I think that Carnival does indeed attract a younger age demographic, on average, but the average is still in the 50s from what someone posted here.  It just means that the average age on Princess or HAL is in the 60s, maybe!

 

I would venture that the 3 and 4 day cruises on Carnival do have an average age of somewhere in the 40s thanks to the college and post-college younger folks looking for a weekend getaway, whereas the 7 and 8 day cruises are therefore higher.

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

Young parting crowd, are you making the analogy to Florida versus retirement homes, that went well as we can see, LOL

It very well might have gone better if the young crowds were "parting", but instead they were partying!😉

[molly361]

On 7/24/2020 at 11:22 AM, richmke said:

 

IMHO, Carnival will restart before Princess. Carnival caters to a younger crowd where the risks of complications from a COVID infection are less. HAL will restart last with the oldest, and at highest risk, average passenger.

 

IMHO, I think Disney will open later too. Can't easily control the kids (keep masks on, don't touch everything, etc.). If one person has it, it will spread to all the passengers with kids in an enclosed cruise ship.

 

You would think if any brand would have extended their suspension based on demographics HAL would be the first

[K&RCurt]

5 hours ago, molly361 said:

You would think if any brand would have extended their suspension based on demographics HAL would be the first

 

You would think if logic were the main criteria.  But Princess also has the PR issue of being in the news for having "Corona Virus Ships."   They will wait for other lines to open sucessfully before they start, jut to not be "that" cruiseline again.

[MsTabbyKats]

Unless the statistics are wrong, the recent higher covid infection rate has switched to the partying crowd because they were partying.  So you'd be safer with a group of old people who spend a lot of time being stationary and go to bed early.

 

 

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

6 hours ago, molly361 said:

You would think if any brand would have extended their suspension based on demographics HAL would be the first

Interestingly, Seabourn - whose demographic is "serious $$$" - many months ago canceled everything through mid-October.

An awful lot more honest approach than the Ponzi Scheme that other lines have done: Collect deposits, cancel cruises at the last minute & project an unrealistic re-start date, collect new deposits, cancel those cruises too, repeat cycle, repeat cycle.

I agree that HAL seems the obvious choice to cancel first. But it's definitely pulling in its horns: HAL has already dumped nearly 30% of its fleet this year.

 

If there actually is a second coronavirus wave that kills the 20-21 winter/spring season, my money is on HAL either getting the ax from Carnival corporate ... or else putting its whole fleet into long-term parking.

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

8 minutes ago, MsTabbyKats said:

Unless the statistics are wrong, the recent higher covid infection rate has switched to the partying crowd because they were partying.  So you'd be safer with a group of old people who spend a lot of time being stationary and go to bed early.

 

 

MsTabbyKats - yes, I see that point.

From CCL's Legal Department, though, the thinking might be that widespread infections on a shipload of seniors/elderly will lead to horrific hospitalization rates and probably several deaths ...but among younger and healthier cruisers, deaths will be few (if any) and hospitalizations will be bad but not as severe.

 

[MsTabbyKats]

1 hour ago, EscapeFromConnecticut said:

MsTabbyKats - yes, I see that point.

From CCL's Legal Department, though, the thinking might be that widespread infections on a shipload of seniors/elderly will lead to horrific hospitalization rates and probably several deaths ...but among younger and healthier cruisers, deaths will be few (if any) and hospitalizations will be bad but not as severe.

 

 That may also be the thinking on this forum but I would hope that their lawyers know that "discrimination based on age" is illegal.

I could something like "each passenger much provide proof of a physical within the last 12 months".

 

  

 

 

 

 

[MsTabbyKats]

1 hour ago, EscapeFromConnecticut said:

Interestingly, Seabourn - whose demographic is "serious $$$" - many months ago canceled everything through mid-October.

An awful lot more honest approach than the Ponzi Scheme that other lines have done: Collect deposits, cancel cruises at the last minute & project an unrealistic re-start date, collect new deposits, cancel those cruises too, repeat cycle, repeat cycle.

I agree that HAL seems the obvious choice to cancel first. But it's definitely pulling in its horns: HAL has already dumped nearly 30% of its fleet this year.

 

If there actually is a second coronavirus wave that kills the 20-21 winter/spring season, my money is on HAL either getting the ax from Carnival corporate ... or else putting its whole fleet into long-term parking.

And I see your point on this one.  HAL does have "a reputation" and it may be the easiest way for Carnival to cut back.

[welldone60]

We have one cruise booked for 2/27/21. We will wait and see on that one but will not book another until cruises resume for a period of time. 

[ontheweb]

55 minutes ago, MsTabbyKats said:

 That may also be the thinking on this forum but I would hope that their lawyers know that "discrimination based on age" is illegal.

I could something like "each passenger much provide proof of a physical within the last 12 months".

 

  

 

 

 

 

There are too many on this forum who do not consider it discrimination because they say there is a "rational reason" for it. I have pointed out several times to these people that the death rate is also much higher for non-whites from this virus but no one would dare to use this as a "rational reason" to treat non-whites differently.

[N7786W Flyer]

Relative to cancellations, has anyone seen the below?  On it, Carnival Magic sailings from FLL and MIA between now and March 13, 2021 are cancelled.  John Heald is denying that the document is accurate, but I have my doubts. 

 

Not sure where the document originated, but it appears it came from the Carnival website.  However, when checking the website, the verbiage related to the Magic has been changed.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by N7786W Flyer

[BlerkOne]

This is what I see

 

• Carnival Magic Ft. Lauderdale and Miami sailings through and including September 30, 2020

 

 

• Carnival Magic Transatlantic & Barcelona sailings April 10, 2021 through and including May 3, 2021

[Eli_6]

Anyone want to guess when Carnival will pull the plug on the October bookings?  I have an October booking that I got a delay on making the final payment on.  I would like that $600 OBC and not to lose my deposit, but I also am not giving them the $3k to pay off the balance on a cruise that I know won't sail.  

[RocketMan275]

5 hours ago, ontheweb said:

There are too many on this forum who do not consider it discrimination because they say there is a "rational reason" for it. I have pointed out several times to these people that the death rate is also much higher for non-whites from this virus but no one would dare to use this as a "rational reason" to treat non-whites differently.

And, I'm one of those who do not consider it discrimination.  I would suggest you might want to check with an attorney who has some experience in this area.  Your analogy is flawed.  Yes, there is a difference between whites and non-whites but the difference is small compared to the difference between the elderly and those of a younger age.  That is why no one would suggest that it is rational to treat non-whites differently.  And, I would also point out that age is commonly used as a discriminate.  Try getting a driver's license if you are below sixteen.  Many states require an eye exam for those over a certain age.  The military has an age cutoff for new recruits.  None of those are considered to be discriminatory by the courts.

[Eli_6]

What is this law that prohibits age discrimination in who your customers are? Not being snarky.  I just have not heard of it.  There is the ADEA and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Those prevent age discrimination in hiring and prevent age discrimination related to organizations that receive federal funding, but we all know Carnival isn't getting federal funding from the US government. Although, to be honest, regardless of what the law is, I highly doubt that ANY cruise line is going to prohibit passengers over 70 or with pre-existing conditions unless it is on a short-term basis.  That's a huge portion of their customers.   

[BlerkOne]

Foreign flagged ships are exempt from many US laws and I would think any that could possibly relate to age.

[Cruiseboy06]

28 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Foreign flagged ships are exempt from many US laws and I would think any that could possibly relate to age.

 

1 hour ago, Eli_6 said:

Anyone want to guess when Carnival will pull the plug on the October bookings?  I have an October booking that I got a delay on making the final payment on.  I would like that $600 OBC and not to lose my deposit, but I also am not giving them the $3k to pay off the balance on a cruise that I know won't sail.  

I'm guessing that they will cancel October, and beyond cruises in mid August or sooner...

[MsTabbyKats]

1 hour ago, Eli_6 said:

What is this law that prohibits age discrimination in who your customers are? Not being snarky.  I just have not heard of it.  There is the ADEA and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Those prevent age discrimination in hiring and prevent age discrimination related to organizations that receive federal funding, but we all know Carnival isn't getting federal funding from the US government. Although, to be honest, regardless of what the law is, I highly doubt that ANY cruise line is going to prohibit passengers over 70 or with pre-existing conditions unless it is on a short-term basis.  That's a huge portion of their customers.   

I'm not being snarky but:  There was a bakery that refused to bake a "gay themed cake"....and the "gay client" won the case based on discrimination.  What bakery gets federal funding?

We can make a list:

seniors,  ethnic minorities, people with BMIs above 25, people with underlying conditions

Refuse bookings to all the above and just about nobody will be left.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

And, I'm one of those who do not consider it discrimination.  I would suggest you might want to check with an attorney who has some experience in this area.  Your analogy is flawed.  Yes, there is a difference between whites and non-whites but the difference is small compared to the difference between the elderly and those of a younger age.  That is why no one would suggest that it is rational to treat non-whites differently.  And, I would also point out that age is commonly used as a discriminate.  Try getting a driver's license if you are below sixteen.  Many states require an eye exam for those over a certain age.  The military has an age cutoff for new recruits.  None of those are considered to be discriminatory by the courts.

Yes, you are someone who always excuses discrimination based on age because it is "rational".

 

And once upon a time it was considered rational to discriminate against women in hiring because men had to support a family while women had husbands to do that.

 

And I suppose all segregation laws were somehow rationalized. I know in 1963, I was told by a teenager from Jackson, Mississippi that the Blacks got the better schools so they would not complain. (I did not believe him, but that was the rationale.

 

As for eye tests, my state requires them of everyone for driver's license; makes more sense to me than discriminating by age.

 

And you mentioned the military. Until recently several jobs were denied to women, and I'm sure they had rational reasons for that, but somehow they became no longer rational. And the Commander In Chief is 73 years old. I wonder what the average age is of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I would bet it is not young.

[samiam0403]

5 hours ago, N7786W Flyer said:

Relative to cancellations, has anyone seen the below?  On it, Carnival Magic sailings from FLL and MIA between now and March 13, 2021 are cancelled.  John Heald is denying that the document is accurate, but I have my doubts. 

 

Not sure where the document originated, but it appears it came from the Carnival website.  However, when checking the website, the verbiage related to the Magic has been changed.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

This is what I see

 

• Carnival Magic Ft. Lauderdale and Miami sailings through and including September 30, 2020

 

 

• Carnival Magic Transatlantic & Barcelona sailings April 10, 2021 through and including May 3, 2021

 

Just did a search looking to see if my 3 May Magic transatlantic was cancelled (based on it not showing up on any online TA website), and found this thread. I just booked it on a casino offer on 8 July, and it's still showing up on my cruise planner. Oddly, a Google search directed me to this article (that was published 6 July - 2 days before I booked): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/carnival-cruise-line-sets-ship-delivery-changes-and-related-deployment-plans-301088807.html

 

Guess I'll be calling the casino department tomorrow to ask why they booked me on a cancelled cruise. 😕

[Eli_6]

22 minutes ago, MsTabbyKats said:

I'm not being snarky but:  There was a bakery that refused to bake a "gay themed cake"....and the "gay client" won the case based on discrimination.  What bakery gets federal funding?

We can make a list:

seniors,  ethnic minorities, people with BMIs above 25, people with underlying conditions

Refuse bookings to all the above and just about nobody will be left.

1) No, the BAKER won the case. It went all the way up to SCOTUS and SCOTUS ruled AGAINST the gay couple. The case is Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

 

2)  The law that was allegedly violated was a Colorado state law. Colorado state law would unequivocally not apply to any cruise ships. It would have to be a federal law. Even then, not all federal law would apply. For example, we know US labor laws don't apply to them. That's why their crew is predominately from foreign countries and they can violate the FLSA both with respect to pay and overtime.  

 

3) There are no federal laws that I am aware of that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age that would apply to Carnival. There are numerous laws that deal with racial discrimination, disability discrimination, etc. (e.g. the ADA) that place restrictions on places open to the public that do not cover age.   

 

4) Overweight people and several other groups you mentioned are not protected classes at all. You can't just sue for discrimination. That's not a cause of action unless there is a law that protects a class of people. 

 

[Stick93]

4 minutes ago, Eli_6 said:

1) No, the BAKER won the case. It went all the way up to SCOTUS and SCOTUS ruled AGAINST the gay couple. The case is Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

 

2)  The law that was allegedly violated was a Colorado state law. Colorado state law would unequivocally not apply to any cruise ships. It would have to be a federal law. Even then, not all federal law would apply. For example, we know US labor laws don't apply to them. That's why their crew is predominately from foreign countries and they can violate the FLSA both with respect to pay and overtime.  

 

3) There are no federal laws that I am aware of that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age that would apply to Carnival. There are numerous laws that deal with racial discrimination, disability discrimination, etc. (e.g. the ADA) that place restrictions on places open to the public that do not cover age.   

 

4) Overweight people and several other groups you mentioned are not protected classes at all. You can't just sue for discrimination. That's not a cause of action unless there is a law that protects a class of people. 

 

This is the greatest post I have ever read on CC. Full of stuff that just might show up on a trivia question when we get back on the ship- 

[RocketMan275]

38 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, you are someone who always excuses discrimination based on age because it is "rational".

 

And once upon a time it was considered rational to discriminate against women in hiring because men had to support a family while women had husbands to do that.

 

And I suppose all segregation laws were somehow rationalized. I know in 1963, I was told by a teenager from Jackson, Mississippi that the Blacks got the better schools so they would not complain. (I did not believe him, but that was the rationale.

 

As for eye tests, my state requires them of everyone for driver's license; makes more sense to me than discriminating by age.

 

And you mentioned the military. Until recently several jobs were denied to women, and I'm sure they had rational reasons for that, but somehow they became no longer rational. And the Commander In Chief is 73 years old. I wonder what the average age is of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I would bet it is not young.

That's very nice but  you're dodging the points I made.  It doesn't matter what your state requires for eye tests.  What matters is the fact that multiple states do require eye tests past a certain age.  You also failed to address whether a state can deny a drivers license for those under a certain age.  (BTW, are you aware that all states/jurisdictions forbid the sale of liquor to those under a certain age.) Those laws have been challenged and declared not to be discrimination.

 

But, more to the point, if you were to 'google' "justifying discrimination" you would find many articles similar to this one: 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/justifying-discrimination/#:~:text=The Equality Actsays discrimination can,if discrimination can be justified.

 

I'll excerpt a few paragraphs:

 

"The law which says you mustn’t be discriminated against is called the Equality Act 2010. Discrimination which is against the Equality Act is unlawful. This means you can take action in the civil courts."

"But sometimes people are allowed to discriminate against you if they have a good enough reason for doing so. They would need to be able to prove this in court, if necessary. This is known in legal terms as objective justification. If discrimination is justified, it doesn’t count as unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act."

"The Equality Actsays discrimination can be justified if the person who's discriminating against you can show it’s a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. If necessary, it's the courts which will decide if discrimination can be justified."

"A legitimate aim is the reason behind the discrimination. This reason must not be discriminatory in itself and it must be a genuine or real reason."

"Here are examples of legitimate aims:"

• "the health, safety and welfare of individuals"
• "running an efficient service"
• "requirements of a business"
• "desire to make profit."

Clearly the cruise lines could make a reasonable argument that these policies are justified on the basis of "the health, safety, and welfare of individuals".  Whether the courts would decide for the lines is another matter but there is certainly reason to believe they could.

 

You may not like the law.  You may prefer that the law was something that it isn't.  But, the law isn't on your side.

[MsTabbyKats]

5 minutes ago, Eli_6 said:

1) No, the BAKER won the case. It went all the way up to SCOTUS and SCOTUS ruled AGAINST the gay couple. The case is Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

 

2)  The law that was allegedly violated was a Colorado state law. Colorado state law would unequivocally not apply to any cruise ships. It would have to be a federal law. Even then, not all federal law would apply. For example, we know US labor laws don't apply to them. That's why their crew is predominately from foreign countries and they can violate the FLSA both with respect to pay and overtime.  

 

3) There are no federal laws that I am aware of that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age that would apply to Carnival. There are numerous laws that deal with racial discrimination, disability discrimination, etc. (e.g. the ADA) that place restrictions on places open to the public that do not cover age.   

 

4) Overweight people and several other groups you mentioned are not protected classes at all. You can't just sue for discrimination. That's not a cause of action unless there is a law that protects a class of people. 

 

Hmmm....I guess I stopped following the bakery case after the original ruling.  I think there was one here too (will check it tomorrow).

 

However, this is 2020. It seems it's ok to sue for discrimination about things that happened a few hundred years ago.