Azura Latest News

[joeecco]

1 hour ago, molecrochip said:

I am assured not.

 

Oceana was sent for a three month lay-up at Newcastle. No unloading was done. The crew only found out she was being sold when she was called back from Newcastle. All unloading was done in Southampton.

 

I’m being told that the shipyard has cancelled her dry dock, which was due to be this weekend, due to new Covid restrictions. It’s been in the diary since November.

 

This puts Azura 9 months past her dry dock requirement (a bit like an MOT on your car). I believe a cautious view is being taken here by laying her up. The time scale I’ve heard for Newcastle is 3 months but then you’d probably not intentionally send a ship there for less time.

 

Finally, Azura is 10 years old. I’d be amazed if there is a cruise line out there with deep enough pockets to buy her in the current climate. Most ships that have sold have been 20 years old+. At that age they are still worth £5m - £50m. These were smaller ships. Azura must still be worth £100s of million.

3 months takes her up to around the time she should be starting to reposition to the Med if her season is going ahead as planned, unless the rumours you heard before Moley are starting to come true? 

[terrierjohn]

2 hours ago, wowzz said:

The use of cruise lines as hospital ships was discussed in the early days of the pandemic,  and dismissed as being totally impractical. And, as we know from the Nightingale hospital debacle, regardless of what you do to increase the number of available medical beds, the key critical factor is lack of trained medical staff. 

I do note that some hotels are being requisitioned for patient recuperation, where only supervisory  nursing staff would be needed, so cruise ships could equally fill that need, but with lots of available hotels it seems unlikely

[molecrochip]

4 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I do note that some hotels are being requisitioned for patient recuperation, where only supervisory  nursing staff would be needed, so cruise ships could equally fill that need, but with lots of available hotels it seems unlikely

The location is also really unhelpful for that. 
 

Could be a vaccine centre - suitable parking nearby but unlikely.

[molecrochip]

35 minutes ago, joeecco said:

3 months takes her up to around the time she should be starting to reposition to the Med if her season is going ahead as planned, unless the rumours you heard before Moley are starting to come true? 

So, we know her summer season isnt starting on time but her cruises from May onwards are still there to book.

[tring]

6 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

 

Could be a vaccine centre - suitable parking nearby but unlikely.

Interesting thought though, with the upgraded ventilation and lots of individual rooms near the entrance she could be useful.

 

You have previously mentioned Azura was the most likely to sail first, so presumably that and the start date could be changed considerably.  I assume she will not take on passengers without an "MOT".

Edited January 13, 2021 by tring

[tring]

9 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

The location is also really unhelpful for that. 
 

Could be a vaccine centre - suitable parking nearby but unlikely.

Any  idea why the decision to cancel dry dock.  Perhaps possible the quarantining staff have turned up cases of the new variant, hence dry dock cancellation or are they just not taking a ship from the UK.

 

Have just heard Fred has cancelled more cruises - until mid May I think.

[joeecco]

19 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

So, we know her summer season isnt starting on time but her cruises from May onwards are still there to book.

Are they working towards achieving this now then since the vaccine news instead of pulling her back to cover Aurora or Arcadia itinerary’s? 

[molecrochip]

I believe it was shipyard in Spain that pulled dry dock due to local restrictions.

 

Azura cannot legally sail with paying passengers until she has her five year dry dock checks. (Unless a Covid easement is put in place but this is unlikely).

 

As for which sailings happen, in early December, post lockdown, post vaccine start, I heard yesterday as restart announcement day. Obviously, this new variant and further lockdown make this a bad time to do such a positive announcement. Also U.K. gov will not announce the relaxing of cruising restrictions until they know this new variant is under control.

 

So, everything’s back up in the air. That said, the underlying positivity driven by the vaccination program remains.
 

Cruise lines can cope with passengers getting Covid like they do with the flu or norovirus. What they cannot deal with is mass intensive care or high risk cases leading to fatalities. The vaccine should help take the mass of these later cases out of the equation. Cruise lines can then restart knowing they can deal with the mild, plus odd, severe case. 
 

Its with us to stay, so the ideological idea of a Covid free cruise, is on par with a ordinary cold free cruise. We adapt.

[Captain_Morgan]

Although this may come across as an inflammatory comment, it is not intentionally meant to be, but I am of the mind that there should be a requirement for proof of vaccination prior to being allowed to board a ship (at least in the UK).  

As I say, this will no doubt upset some of the 'younger' cruisers who may have to wait a little longer to get their jab but when you consider its been nearly a year since any of us cruised, is waiting a few more months for your turn to get the jab (and hopefully some peace of mind) before stepping foot on a ship that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things?

Sure some might say this is unfair to mandate a vaccination as a pre-requisite to spend money in a capitalist system, but I believe strongly in the strength of the majority (herd) especially when it comes to the means and ability to fend off illness and although the vaccine is not going to be the 'silver bullet' I would rather know those around me in a close-knit environment have taken every precaution possible to keep themselves and others safe.

[terrierjohn]

Re Captain morgans post

If it were legal to require a valid vaccination certificate prior to cruising, then once the over 50s have been vaccinated it might be sensible just to apply the restriction to over 50s.  As most under 50s are only likely to suffer mild symptoms, there could be no need for them to have been vaccinated.

However I doubt either proposal would be deemed acceptable.

[wowzz]

I too don't see how any cruise line can specify that only those that have been vaccinated can cruise.  It is totally discriminatory,  especially when the vast majority of those under 50 will not be given the option of being vaccinated. 

The need to provide a negative test prior to travel, has already been decreed by most cruise lines,  and hopefully in the coming months the new 30  minute test will become much more accurate, allowing it to be used in conjunction with the  current 24 hour test.

 

[tring]

19 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

Re Captain morgans post

If it were legal to require a valid vaccination certificate prior to cruising, then once the over 50s have been vaccinated it might be sensible just to apply the restriction to over 50s.  As most under 50s are only likely to suffer mild symptoms, there could be no need for them to have been vaccinated.

However I doubt either proposal would be deemed acceptable.

 

I also see thew appeal of this, though also suspect it will not happen.  The point though is that it would also have to include those who are considered clinically vulnerable and would also have been offered a vaccine as they are the ones who tend to get really ill anyway - it seems to be that even those in the older age group who get very ill also have other risks or vulnerability.

 

I do suspect that insurance may have a word to say on this though, in that they may not insure any vulnerable people who have not been vaccinated (but offered the vaccine) and could make it a condition of insurance policies.  It is standard practice now for insurance companies to make it conditional that people insured have had the recommended injections, or medication like anti malarials, for any country visited.  Given pax have to have insurance for a cruise, that could have a real effect.  There is always the possibility some will still go anyway and not let on they are not covered, but if they subsequently get seriously ill they could be left with a very large, uninsured bill if the insurance company check with their medical record that they were vaccinated before paying up.  Insurance companies often do require access to health records, so quite possible as I see it, but I am not an expert on insurance.

[MrsNobby]

I am just reading this thread for the first time and all I can say is thanks for cheering me up.  I haven't giggled so much in ages. 

 

Can I suggest that people get more reliable sources or check the facts carefully before posting. 

 

Oh well why let the truth get in the way of a good thread. 

 

Off to the real world now, still laughing. 

[Captain_Morgan]

I don't want to contribute too much to the thread drift, but I don't think this is a case of legality given in this case P&O is a private company which could write into their terms of carriage that proof of vaccination be presented prior to embarkation, etc.

Would it be a good PR move?  I'm sure the jury is out on that one as there will be opponents and proponents of both sides which is normal.

 

Back to the topic at hand of Azura moving to Newcastle, I don't think its going to result in the same fate as Oceana simply because it would make less than zero sense to offload that much tonnage (i.e. usable inside space) when the requirements for social distancing and cabins with balconies is going to be at the forefront of any restart, not to mention the relative 'youth' of the vessel as compared to the older tonnage on the books would mean it was likely never in consideration to be 'retired' in favor of the likes of Gala2.

[MrsNobby]

30 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

Rather than just troll the thread, maybe you’d like to explain which bits your comments refer too.

 

Likewise if you have alternative information then perhaps share it.

 

Who's trolling? I'm still smiling. 

 

Dry dock has been cancelled for months and North Shields has been pencilled in as a likely berth for a while. 

 

As for needing a hospital ship up here we have a fair few first class hospitals of our own Thanks Very Much. 

 

[tring]

30 minutes ago, MrsNobby said:

 

Who's trolling? I'm still smiling. 

 

Dry dock has been cancelled for months and North Shields has been pencilled in as a likely berth for a while. 

 

As for needing a hospital ship up here we have a fair few first class hospitals of our own Thanks Very Much. 

 

 

If you check back through previous posts by Molecrochip, he clearly has very good knowledge of Carnival Corporation and how things are going in the company.  Some of his posts do mention things that he suspects or are rumoured rather than be a source of fact, but they are all well thought out posts from a perspective of a good knowledge of what is true (some of which he has not been at liberty to share the full details of with us).  Regards comments by the rest of us, yes there is speculation, and a response to that by Molecrochip has very often given an idea of whether that has any chance of having any truth in it.  It is called a conversation.

 

Hence, yes we all do take good heed of his posts and rightly so as well.  You have no need to be here or even read if you do not wish to.  In fact the details given were not as you have stated since there was no indication given of Azura being pencilled in to anywhere and also no indication of when the dry dock may eventually take place, and the thought of use as a hospital ship was dismissed by Molecrochip, with good reasons given.  Hence you have mentioned three things, none of which were posted on this thread to begin with, but appear to be figments of your imagination.

Edited January 13, 2021 by tring

[MrsNobby]

13 minutes ago, tring said:

 

If you check back through previous posts by Molecrochip, he clearly has very good knowledge of Carnival Corporation and how things are going in the company.  Some of his posts do mention things that he suspects or are rumoured rather than be a source of fact, but they are all well thought out posts from a perspective of a good knowledge of what is true (some of which he has not been at liberty to share the full details of with us).  Regards comments by the rest of us, yes there is speculation, and a response to that by Molecrochip has very often given an idea of whether that has any chance of having any truth in it.  It is called a conversation.

 

Hence, yes we all do take good heed of his posts and rightly so as well.  You have no need to be here or even read if you do not wish to.  In fact the details given were not as you have stated since their was no indication given of Azura being pencilled in to anywhere and also no indication of when the dry dock may take place, and the thought of use as a hospital ship was dismissed by Molecrochip, with good reasons given.  Hence you have mentioned three things, none of which were posted on the thread, but appear to be figments of your imagination.

Still smiling. 

[jaydee6969]

Live stream from Southampton, if you would like to see her depart.

 

 

[tring]

20 minutes ago, jaydee6969 said:

Live stream from Southampton, if you would like to see her depart.

 

 

 

So sad to see her sailing off into the dark, with a crew who will not see passengers for some time to come and thinking about other past crew, in their home countries not knowing when they may be able to secure their next contract.

[DS_Dean]

Carnival just announced another ship is expected to leave the Corporation, and now Azura heads to Newcastle... it is all very Oceana indeed! 🤯

 

...

 

But no. There is no way Azura would be departing for reasons made in this thread - youth, tonnage etc. I had always thought Azura or Ventura would be first to return to cruising on the P&O side. I don't think they would want to risk bad press if it goes wrong on their "flagships" ships like Britannia / Iona. Arcadia / Aurora too small with with social distancing seemed to put Azura and Ventura in prime position for first ships to sail in my mind. I speak merely as guess work on my part - I have no actual knowledge 😄

 

Azura's now overlapped "MOT" as it were, maybe puts her on the back foot. In comparison to Azura are any other ships coming close to an MOT/ Mandatory Dry Dock?

[Adawn47]

3 hours ago, MrsNobby said:

Still smiling. 

Are you sure it's not indigestion? Gaviscon could help.

 

[joeecco]

8 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

Are you sure it's not indigestion? Gaviscon could help.

 

Oh my goodness, that made me laugh out loud 😂 Best line I’ve seen for months! 

[Jack McGowan]

3 hours ago, DS_Dean said:

Carnival just announced another ship is expected to leave the Corporation, and now Azura heads to Newcastle... it is all very Oceana indeed! 🤯

 

...

 

But no. There is no way Azura would be departing for reasons made in this thread - youth, tonnage etc. I had always thought Azura or Ventura would be first to return to cruising on the P&O side. I don't think they would want to risk bad press if it goes wrong on their "flagships" ships like Britannia / Iona. Arcadia / Aurora too small with with social distancing seemed to put Azura and Ventura in prime position for first ships to sail in my mind. I speak merely as guess work on my part - I have no actual knowledge 😄

 

Azura's now overlapped "MOT" as it were, maybe puts her on the back foot. In comparison to Azura are any other ships coming close to an MOT/ Mandatory Dry Dock?

Could it also depend on when the restart happens? E.g: if it is in the middle of summer could be Azura but still colder months maybe Ventura (covered pool area etc)... I don’t know just a thought. 
 

I agree Ventura & Azura seem the most likely to startup first... wouldn’t be surprised if Iona was last. 

[DM6045]

4 hours ago, DS_Dean said:

Carnival just announced another ship is expected to leave the Corporation, and now Azura heads to Newcastle... it is all very Oceana indeed! 🤯

 

...

 

But no. There is no way Azura would be departing for reasons made in this thread - youth, tonnage etc. I had always thought Azura or Ventura would be first to return to cruising on the P&O side. I don't think they would want to risk bad press if it goes wrong on their "flagships" ships like Britannia / Iona. Arcadia / Aurora too small with with social distancing seemed to put Azura and Ventura in prime position for first ships to sail in my mind. I speak merely as guess work on my part - I have no actual knowledge 😄

 

Azura's now overlapped "MOT" as it were, maybe puts her on the back foot. In comparison to Azura are any other ships coming close to an MOT/ Mandatory Dry Dock?

 In regards to Aurora being too small for social distancing she has by far the highest space per passenger ratio in the whole fleet  also she has more square footage of public areas in total compared to Ventura/ Azura so the way I see it she is surely the safest... however In my opinion she will be the one affected by the latest Carnival Cull if P&O are targeted by it, for the very reasons listed above mean she’s the most unprofitable and carnival don’t like high space - low profit 

 

I find it quite interesting that in a post covid world most people think that the bigger newer ships are safer even though they carry disproportionately larger passenger numbers (and fewer public areas to accommodate them in) compared to their smaller fleet mates.

[Captain_Morgan]

10 hours ago, DM6045 said:

 In regards to Aurora being too small for social distancing she has by far the highest space per passenger ratio in the whole fleet  also she has more square footage of public areas in total compared to Ventura/ Azura so the way I see it she is surely the safest... however In my opinion she will be the one affected by the latest Carnival Cull if P&O are targeted by it, for the very reasons listed above mean she’s the most unprofitable and carnival don’t like high space - low profit 

 

I find it quite interesting that in a post covid world most people think that the bigger newer ships are safer even though they carry disproportionately larger passenger numbers (and fewer public areas to accommodate them in) compared to their smaller fleet mates.

 

Very good points, but at the end of the day the restart of any brand will be driven by maximizing the generation of £/$/€ which I think is something we can all agree.  Based on that rationale, having Ventura/Britannia/Azura operating even at 50% capacity equates to a larger income generation than the likes of Aurora/Arcadia operating at 50% capacity based on a simple 1 person = £1 ratio (monetary figure used strictly for example and clearly doesn't represent the actual fare being charged 😆).  I agree as well with points made that despite her size Iona is likely to be kept tucked away until a more grand restart can be had for her as she is very much the new flagship of the brand thus my inclusion of Britannia as one of those I think being first to resume service.