Royal Caribbean CEO seeks cruise fan support in comments to CDC

[cruiseej]

The President & CEO of Silversea parent Royal Caribbean took the unusual step of taking to social media to encourage cruise fans to submit pro-cruising comments to the CDC by Monday's deadline on feedback about returning to cruising. Apparently an anti-cruise group has been flooding the CDC with comments about continuing the cruise ban, which prompted Michael Bayley to post on his Facebook page encouraging passionate cruisers to submit their views to the CDC.

 

 

 

He did not name the anti-cruise group, but it is apparently a group called Stand.Earth. The group's website has explicit instructions to members to submit anti-cruise messages to the CDC before the comment period expires on September 21, including such points as air pollution, the type of fuel cruise ships use, and "multiple reports" of health issues on ships that have resumed cruises.

 

The CDC has said it will use these comments in formulating a new policy for cruise ships. According to the CDC website, "this information may be used to inform future public health guidance and preventative measures relating to travel on cruise ships."

 

The CDC comment page is a simple form with a single large block for a comment. Here's the  link in clickable form, if you're motivated to submit a comment: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=CDC-2020-0087-0001  Submissions can be anonymous if you don't want to include your name. 

 

[alexandria]

Per Mr. Bayley's request, following release of their Healthy Sail Panel recommendations, I posted a comment to the CDC comment page as follows:

 

"Regarding the recommendations of the RCCL Healthy Sail Panel, I observed that the recommendations concerning air ventilation systems, a key area when addressing  COVID which is largely spread by airborne particles, are couched in language such as "given the constraints of ship age and ventilation type" and even recommendations for MERV13 filters are "should" rather than "shall".  Clearly, the cruise line is interested in their bottom line first, passenger safety second.  Most of their recommendations impose very little in the way of cost or burden and instead shift much of that to the cruise passenger.

 

For example, I noted that there are a number of circumstances that the panel recommends should result in a denial of boarding, including mandatory denial of boarding to an entire group if one of that group has tested positive for COVID.  The panel appears to make no distinction concerning what contact, if any, other members of the party had with the COVID positive passenger prior to arrival at the pier.  What if, for example, the COVID positive passenger traveled separately from a different geographical location and even arrived at the pier separately from the other members of the party?  

 

More troubling is the observation concerning the provisions of contracts of passage.  Note that RCCL does not address any concerns about repatriation of passengers denied boarding by RCCL and instead points to the contract of passage, which provides in relevant part that the cruise line "shall not be liable to any Passenger for any refund, payment, compensation or credit of any kind for such denial of boarding."  It is clear therefore that RCCL and its subsidiaries (Celebrity, Azamara and Silversea) contemplate leaving such passengers stranded on the pier to find their own way back to their homes, leaving them without any refund or compensation for a cruise that can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

 

That posture of the cruise line alone should prevent resumption of cruising until COVID precautions are widely agreed by the experts to be no longer necessary from a public health standpoint.  Otherwise, hundreds if not thousands of US citizens could find themselves essentially abandoned in a foreign port, burdening the resources of local authorities and the US State Department while the cruise line reaps a windfall from the unearned cruise fares paid by those passengers denied boarding."

 

I'm pretty sure that isn't the type of comment he was hoping cruise fans would post, but I found the recommendations of the RCCL panel underwhelming from a health standpoint as well as overly deferential to the finances and concerns of the cruise line.

[TLCOhio]

Excellent above posting by our Philadelphia neighbor and a smart follow-up by alexandria.  Some of the anti-cruising posting to the CDC by those "environmentalists" will be seen for what it is.  Glad that alexandria was honest in her post to the CDC.  

 

Great point about "hundreds if not thousands of US citizens could find themselves essentially abandoned in a foreign port, burdening the resources of local authorities and the US State Department while the cruise line reaps a windfall from the unearned cruise fares paid by those passengers denied boarding".

 

Most cruise ship veterans are savvy and experienced.  They will expect and demand solid and honest answers before paying in full for future cruises.  

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

Sydney to NZ/Auckland Adventure, live/blog 2014 sampling/details with many exciting visuals and key highlights.  On page 23, post #571, see a complete index for all of the pictures, postings.  Now at 230,991 views.

www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1974139