Bad for Business?

[jtwind]

20 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

So lying to people in order to force compliance is bad?  Sounds like our public health "experts" should hear that.

Re Cuba:  The cruise line did not lie.  They made a very clear policy.

 

Try this analogy.  Let's say that folks from the US are allowed to fly to Mexico and do as they please.  At the same time, a cruise ship making stops in Mexico can have a policy that no one will be allowed to go ashore in Mexico unless they have a cruise line excursion.  There will be people showing up at the gangway pointing out that folks from the US are allowed to freely travel within Mexico.  'You can't hold us hostage' and 'this is MY vacation' will be heard.

[Charles4515]

33 minutes ago, jtwind said:

Re Cuba:  The cruise line did not lie.  They made a very clear policy.

 

Try this analogy.  Let's say that folks from the US are allowed to fly to Mexico and do as they please.  At the same time, a cruise ship making stops in Mexico can have a policy that no one will be allowed to go ashore in Mexico unless they have a cruise line excursion.  There will be people showing up at the gangway pointing out that folks from the US are allowed to freely travel within Mexico.  'You can't hold us hostage' and 'this is MY vacation' will be heard.

 

As far as Cuba the US government policy is only enforcable if US citizens self honor the policy. You can choose to comply or not.  Count me in with the group that would not as I don't agree with the travel restrictions. We should be free to travel to Cuba like everyone else in the world. 

[jtwind]

18 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

As far as Cuba the US government policy is only enforcable if US citizens self honor the policy. You can choose to comply or not.  Count me in with the group that would not as I don't agree with the travel restrictions. We should be free to travel to Cuba like everyone else in the world. 

And people may make up more reasons to get off the cruise ships with future excursion restriction policies.  That's my point.  'Can't tell me what to do'.

 

And no, you weren't allowed to choose whether you wanted to comply or not.  You had to make a pledge in the form of signing a form.  Again, my point.  You can't trust all passengers to comply with rules.  So cruise lines would be crazy to allow DIY excursions with limitations.

[Flatbush Flyer]

8 minutes ago, jtwind said:

......You can't trust all passengers to comply with rules.  So cruise lines would be crazy to allow DIY excursions with limitations.

 Covid's terrible effects on all of us  (including "deniers") are a steep price to pay. Nonetheless, the sliver of its silver lining for RESPONSIBLE cruisers is that many of the deniers,who would attempt to find every opportunity to complain about and/or avoid the tour restrictions, mandatory masks, social distancing, constant handwashing, food service limits, etc., will stop cruising.

[jtwind]

17 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

 Covid's terrible effects on all of us  (including "deniers") are a steep price to pay. Nonetheless, the sliver of its silver lining for RESPONSIBLE cruisers is that many of the deniers,who would attempt to find every opportunity to complain about and/or avoid the tour restrictions, mandatory masks, social distancing, constant handwashing, food service limits, etc., will stop cruising.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened in Cuba.  People simply decided that they didn't agree with the rules, so the rules didn't apply to them.  They knew the rules before booking and boarded knowing that they were planning on breaking the rules.  The cruise ships were given the responsibility to enforce the rules, and didn't.  

 

The lesson was that rules won't stop the deniers from doing what they want to do.  All of the burden will be on the cruise ships to enforce the rules.  Trying to enforce excursion rules will be impossible if they are out of the sight of crew members.

 

I would hope that something like a DIY masked taxi ride to a beach would be allowed.  But some would just sign a form saying that's what they're doing, just so they can go hang out maskless in a crowded bar.

[Hlitner]

40 minutes ago, jtwind said:

And people may make up more reasons to get off the cruise ships with future excursion restriction policies.  That's my point.  'Can't tell me what to do'.

 

And no, you weren't allowed to choose whether you wanted to comply or not.  You had to make a pledge in the form of signing a form.  Again, my point.  You can't trust all passengers to comply with rules.  So cruise lines would be crazy to allow DIY excursions with limitations.

It is very difficult to predict the near and further future in the travel world.  But I remain convinced that the only solution that will allow cruising to successfully restart is a 100% mandatory vaccination policy.  Anything less comes with many problems as has already been found with the few European and Asian cruises that have had over 165 instances of COVID despite lots of precautions and testing.

 

If one assume a 100% vaccination compliance standard on ships, then shore visits do not need any kind of special restrictions assuming the host country allows for visits.   The only caveat is whether those vaccinated can possibly spread COVID to others, while being under no real risk to themselves or others who have been vaccinated.  And this is the big remaining question vis-a-vis vaccines that will not be answered for a few more months.

 

I do agree that there are always passengers (and others) who flaunt the rules.  That is another reason why mandatory vaccinations will be a necessity for International Travel and cruises....at least for next few years.  For those of us who have traveled for a long time (decades) there is nothing new to mandatory vaccinations.   If you are old enough there was a time that Smallpox vaccinations were required for most travel and Yellow Fever vaccinations are still mandated by a few countries.  The future of COVID is actually pretty simple.  Those who get vaccinated will be protected and go on with their lives.  Most of those who do not get vaccinated (for whatever reason) will eventually get sick (and hopefully recover).  As more folks get vaccinated and others recover there will be fewer COVID cases but this virus is not going completely away anytime soon.  And do not get me started on so-called herd immunity which is more of a myth then reality.  Herd immunity sounds good in principle but rarely works in practice.   In fact, it has never happened.  I used to think that Smallpox was a great example of herd immunity, but that is not really true.  Smallpox was essentially eradicated (after thousands of years).  But if that virus ever came back those who have not been vaccinated would be in a very bad place.

 

Hank 

 

Hank 

[Charles4515]

42 minutes ago, jtwind said:

Unfortunately, that's not what happened in Cuba.  People simply decided that they didn't agree with the rules, so the rules didn't apply to them.  They knew the rules before booking and boarded knowing that they were planning on breaking the rules.  The cruise ships were given the responsibility to enforce the rules, and didn't.  

 

The lesson was that rules won't stop the deniers from doing what they want to do.  All of the burden will be on the cruise ships to enforce the rules.  Trying to enforce excursion rules will be impossible if they are out of the sight of crew members.

 

I would hope that something like a DIY masked taxi ride to a beach would be allowed.  But some would just sign a form saying that's what they're doing, just so they can go hang out maskless in a crowded bar.

 

The Cuba rule has nothing to do with catching or spreading a plague. I would 100% comply with Covid rules. A rule that is political and based on a false premise .....nope. 

 

So will there be passengers who break the excursion rules that are based on preventing Covid infection. Probably.......that is why vaccination should be required. No vaccination certificate, no boarding.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Charles4515

[Sea42]

We have not taken a ship excursion since our first cruise. If that were a requirement for cruising we would be very unlikely to take a cruise.

For one thing, ship excursions would have to be much smaller for us to consider them. I can see this being the case for health considerations. So that's a maybe.

The other thing we would need is for ship excursions to be much more realistically priced. I don't see that happening.

We currently have a New Zealand/Australia cruise booked for 2022. If my 2 concerns about ship excursions were not addressed and DIY outings were not allowed, we would switch our plans to a land based trip.

Of course, that is all dependent on us being allowed entry into either country at that time. It's all a wait and see situation right now.

[sfaaa]

4 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

No vaccination certificate, no boarding.

I second this. 

[cbr663]

On 12/30/2020 at 10:20 PM, mom says said:

As has been pointed out many times on other vaccine threads here, you are making a common mistake in how you are interpreting what the scientists are saying. They are NOT saying that vaccine recipients can still transmit the virus. And they are NOT saying that they can't.  What they are saying is that they don't know,  yet,   one way or the other. Because none of the trials,  to date, were set up to measure post vaccination transmission. Mostly because such measurements are very difficult to do. Only time will tell what we can expect with regard to transmissibility.

 

However, since that question can't be answered yet, it is an area of concern for countries regarding international travel. It's common sense, and prudence on their part to maintain various entry restrictions until the majority of their own populations have been vaccinated and the global infection rates have substantially decreased 

Like you, I simply provided my opinion on the issue.  I don't think there was any need for such a patronizing response.

[pris993]

On 12/29/2020 at 9:01 PM, clo said:

Rest assured, I'll be looking/reading this. Plenty. Thanks so much.

We actually picked up a private taxi at the port and did a day trip to and from Gdnask without any problem at all.  Only did 2 ship tours in St Petersburg when we did the Baltics.  

[Nic6318]

Hi

 

I have read of this most of thread and just want to respond to the main thrust about what's "bad for business". 

 

My point is that no matter what else might happen, first of all there "has to be a business". The whole discussion seems to skip the part that right now, there is no business. 

 

I don't understand. Is it because the cruise line stocks are doing so well? With an industry that has an uncertain future and will continue to lose money until "something" changes. We don't know the when and what needs to happen for anything to change. At this point, everything is still speculative. You know, " a wing and a prayer". 

 

The reality is that even if/when cruises are allowed to resume, the industry still might fail because they will be facing the same competitive forces that have always been there. Just as the OP pointed out, there will be many irritating issues that the industry will have to sort out. So, if/when cruising does get to restart, it only makes sense to believe that it won't be the same experience that it had been in the past. At this time, questioning every little thing that could be an "irritant", is just further "speculating" on road blocks that lie ahead for the industry. All these little things are "telltales" that maybe now (or in fact the last several months, if you were looking and not wishing) is not a good time to book a cruise. 

 

It is sad, because I love cruising and I want the industry to succeed, but I cannot bring myself to book and pay for a product when I don't know what that product will be, or if in fact there will be a product when I am ready to take delivery . 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Nic6318

[ontheweb]

On 12/29/2020 at 10:10 PM, clo said:

Thanks for that. And I will. Later on. But I really appreciate your input.

BTW, did you find and read my cruise review?

 

If so any comments? Since my e-mail address in there is still current, you can if you wish answer by e-mail. (Put clo in the header so I recognize it as not spam.)

[cruisemom42]

3 hours ago, Nic6318 said:

Hi

 

I have read of this most of thread and just want to respond to the main thrust about what's "bad for business". 

 

My point is that no matter what else might happen, first of all there "has to be a business". The whole discussion seems to skip the part that right now, there is no business. 

 

I don't understand. Is it because the cruise line stocks are doing so well? With an industry that has an uncertain future and will continue to lose money until "something" changes. We don't know the when and what needs to happen for anything to change. At this point, everything is still speculative. You know, " a wing and a prayer". 

 

The reality is that even if/when cruises are allowed to resume, the industry still might fail because they will be facing the same competitive forces that have always been there. Just as the OP pointed out, there will be many irritating issues that the industry will have to sort out. So, if/when cruising does get to restart, it only makes sense to believe that it won't be the same experience that it had been in the past. At this time, questioning every little thing that could be an "irritant", is just further "speculating" on road blocks that lie ahead for the industry. All these little things are "telltales" that maybe now (or in fact the last several months, if you were looking and not wishing) is not a good time to book a cruise. 

 

It is sad, because I love cruising and I want the industry to succeed, but I cannot bring myself to book and pay for a product when I don't know what that product will be, or if in fact there will be a product when I am ready to take delivery . 

 

You summarize most of the (IMO) valid points that people have to consider when thinking about cruising -- or any kind of travel -- in the near future. 

 

I believe that cruise lines are banking on both a pent-up demand for travel once cruising starts up again and on a number of dedicated repeat (dare I say hard-core?) customers who will be willing to put up with whatever changes are necessary initially just to get back on a ship. I read it here every day, so I have to believe these people aren't lying when they say they don't care if the experience is different (or diminished) as long as they can sit on a balcony and look at the water.

 

(I also fully expect to read a lot of negative reviews after people get back from these early cruises stating that the experience wasn't what they expected or that it was different or lessened. Some people seem to only learn by experiencing something; they don't seem able to accurately anticipate!)

 

Having cruised for longer than most people, I have seen the industry ring a number of changes in reaction to changing circumstances (e.g., consolidation, competition, profit maximization, passenger segmentation, etc.), but they have never had to deal with a challenge of this magnitude. I am willing to understand and forgive that the cruising experience may have to change initially in order to get cruising started again. However, I wouldn't want to be a guinea pig on one of these start-up cruises, and I would not be happy with some of the changes.

 

What concerns me more is that cruise lines are going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. They do not want to give up their (finely tuned) profitability, yet they are going to HAVE to make changes in order to sail sooner rather than later; these changes will impact profitability. For example, how much will it cost to test ALL passengers twice per voyage, not to mention regular crew testing?  How much space will they have to give up onboard ship to beefing up their medical resources?  How will they make up for possible initial reductions in passenger numbers in order to accommodate social distancing?  How many additional staff will they have to hire to deal with the need for more intensive cleaning, less ability for passengers to "self-serve" food, etc.?

 

They will either raise prices OR cut quality further (e.g., spend less per day on passenger food and entertainment). Personally, I'd rather see the former than the latter. However, they may do both. Based on history, while the cruise lines may roll back some of the unpleasant social measure eventually (e.g., masking, distancing), it is unlikely that they will restore food quality or entertainment, as they will have successfully proved that people will sail without them.

 

Requiring passengers to take only ship tours provides a happy win-win for the cruise line -- they appear concerned about passenger safety and at the same time, they are making more money out of the situation. I think it will be a profit center that the lines may be reluctant to give up, long after there is a need for it. At least, that's what I am a bit afraid of...

 

 

 

[ontheweb]

28 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

You summarize most of the (IMO) valid points that people have to consider when thinking about cruising -- or any kind of travel -- in the near future. 

 

I believe that cruise lines are banking on both a pent-up demand for travel once cruising starts up again and on a number of dedicated repeat (dare I say hard-core?) customers who will be willing to put up with whatever changes are necessary initially just to get back on a ship. I read it here every day, so I have to believe these people aren't lying when they say they don't care if the experience is different (or diminished) as long as they can sit on a balcony and look at the water.

 

(I also fully expect to read a lot of negative reviews after people get back from these early cruises stating that the experience wasn't what they expected or that it was different or lessened. Some people seem to only learn by experiencing something; they don't seem able to accurately anticipate!)

 

Having cruised for longer than most people, I have seen the industry ring a number of changes in reaction to changing circumstances (e.g., consolidation, competition, profit maximization, passenger segmentation, etc.), but they have never had to deal with a challenge of this magnitude. I am willing to understand and forgive that the cruising experience may have to change initially in order to get cruising started again. However, I wouldn't want to be a guinea pig on one of these start-up cruises, and I would not be happy with some of the change

 

Requiring passengers to take only ship tours provides a happy win-win for the cruise line -- they appear concerned about passenger safety and at the same time, they are making more money out of the situation. I think it will be a profit center that the lines may be reluctant to give up, long after there is a need for it. At least, that's what I am a bit afraid of...

 

 

 

You are not alone. I believe I have said the same thing a few times on these boards.

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

You are not alone. I believe I have said the same thing a few times on these boards.

 

Indeed you have. 

 

Now if only we had a crystal ball to know how it all will go down in 2021 and beyond....

[jtwind]

If we're all lucky, those who enjoy and are willing to do cruises to nowhere or cruises with very limited shore excursions, will help keep the industry afloat, so that it will be easier to get back to the type of cruising we had all become used, to once the virus is under control.

[Charles4515]

2 hours ago, jtwind said:

If we're all lucky, those who enjoy and are willing to do cruises to nowhere or cruises with very limited shore excursions, will help keep the industry afloat, so that it will be easier to get back to the type of cruising we had all become used, to once the virus is under control.

 

I will book cruises when the virus is under control. I will book when cruises can be done right.  I won't book cruises to keep the industry afloat.

[cruisemom42]

21 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

I will book cruises when the virus is under control. I will book when cruises can be done right.  I won't book cruises to keep the industry afloat.

 

Exactly. I am the customer. It is up to the cruise lines to attract my business; not my job to keep them afloat.

 

However, other customers may be willing to accept a different threshold.

[rae.lef]

On 12/29/2020 at 7:19 PM, travisschmittdds said:

A new cruise line policy of not allowing passengers off the cruise ship unless participating in a cruise sponsored shore excursion seems very problematic.  You want to get off the boat and just wander around a bit, not allowed.  
 

I understand the rationale for safety. However, most people want some level of freedom during vacation while using good judgement.

 

I feel many potential cruise customers will not chose to cruise if this policy stands...a traditional land vacation will be more attractive.

 

I’m curious...What are your thoughts?

I certainly hope not... I for one could never afford to purchase an excursion at every port. This would end cruising for me 💯 

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, rae.lef said:

I certainly hope not... I for one could never afford to purchase an excursion at every port. This would end cruising for me 💯 

And in addition, the cruise line excursions are way, way overpriced.

[Flatbush Flyer]

5 hours ago, ontheweb said:

And in addition, the cruise line excursions are way, way overpriced.

Expensive? Perhaps.

Overpriced? Not necessarily.

 

Five points worth considering:

 

1) The assurance and insurance requirements (as well as legal and performance expectations) imposed on tour providers by cruise lines are generally much more stringent and controlled than may be those of many "mom/pop" operations. And that costs money.

Like so much else in life, the proof of a service entity's knowledge/skill is often found when "the sh*t hits the fan."

 

2) Some cruise lines do have included and/or packaged excursions that can lower the retail prices significantly. Our preferred line offers a number (dependent on itinerary length) of <$200 tours as an included cruise perk. And that number of tours can then be counted against a minimum purchased tours requirement to secure a 25% discount. FWIW, we often mix that program with some private tours (where going private makes a real/unique difference- e.g., Maohe Nui in Bora Bora or Sicily with Mario).

 

3) In some far flung destinations, the best (perhaps even all) of the best tour operators are under contract to cruise lines and travel companies. Who's to know which taxi driver holding a home made sign will be a great tour guide. And, perhaps most importantly, do they meet the country's licensure requirements?

 

4) In a post-Covid world, only the strongest of tour operations will have survived and they will be scrambling to secure cruise line/travel company contracts. Sadly, many great independent operations will have folded.

 

5) Not all cruise lines rely solely on large busses. We've often arrived at an attraction or antiquity on our preferred line's tour as a group of <16 with a dedicated guide when another line has relied on a 40 person bus.

 

As aforementioned, we mix ship and private as appropriate. But, it's point #4 that may make that option no longer viable for the foreseeable future.

[Ride-The-Waves]

On 12/30/2020 at 12:00 AM, cruisemom42 said:

 

I have my doubts about these statements.

 

I'm certain that the CDC "framework" is mute on the point of whether ships should require passengers to take ship excursions only. I have read it carefully. So we cannot blame them.

 

I have not been able to find anything online regarding the requirements of the European countries visited during the brief season there this summer and fall -- no indication that this is a requirement of those specific countries. I believe they were more concerned with keeping passengers to those nationalities allowed -- e.g., some ships only sailed from Italy, with Italian passengers, and visited Italian ports, with one or two exceptions.

 

Also, I do not see how a country could "require" passengers from cruise ships to only travel on cruise-sponsored excursions assuming that they are otherwise open for tourism. What I mean is:  I can't see a country being willing to welcome US cruise passengers as long as they are on ship excursions only, IF their borders are otherwise closed to US. And if their borders ARE open to US tourists, how could they possibly mandate that cruise passengers (but not other tourists) have to stay within a "bubble"?

Israel does this exactly pre-pandemic.  Stopped in Eilat on a small ship and all those deserting the ship had to be on approved tours.  People were randomly selected for "interviews" by local authorities before disembarking for the tour buses.  We were traveling with a retired librarian from California and she was grilled by locals authorities.  The ships also moved across the bay for the next day's visit to Aqaba and Israelis required everyone to be on board before movement.

[SelectSys]

2 hours ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

Israel does this exactly pre-pandemic.  Stopped in Eilat on a small ship and all those deserting the ship had to be on approved tours.  People were randomly selected for "interviews" by local authorities before disembarking for the tour buses.  We were traveling with a retired librarian from California and she was grilled by locals authorities.  The ships also moved across the bay for the next day's visit to Aqaba and Israelis required everyone to be on board before movement.

 

Are you really sure about this?  I understand the security interviews and I have no first hand experience, but looking on line suggests that passengers are free to move about on their own after clearing security.

 

Here is an old thread on the subject: https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g293977-i1733-k7261390-Ashdod_Security_for_Cruise_Passengers-Israel.html

 

"Whilst we chose to do the tour the cruise organised there was nothing to stop others doing their own thing - a private tour or visiting family etc."

 

I really can't see why entering by cruise ship would be different than entering via another approved entry such as at the airport.  

[clo]

On 1/2/2021 at 10:16 AM, jtwind said:

If we're all lucky, those who enjoy and are willing to do cruises to nowhere or cruises with very limited shore excursions, will help keep the industry afloat, so that it will be easier to get back to the type of cruising we had all become used, to once the virus is under control.

I've little doubt that CLIA and the cruise lines have very exact demographics about their cruisers, specifically the repeat ones.