Bad for Business?

[jtwind]

44 minutes ago, sfaaa said:

If I recall correctly re: Cuba excursions, cruise lines were just following US government rules. It was not a cruise line's  own internal policy.

 

 

No difference.  It was cruise line policy because the US told them that they had to make sure that cruisers followed certain criteria.

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, sfaaa said:

If I recall correctly re: Cuba excursions, cruise lines were just following US government rules. It was not a cruise line's  own internal policy.

 

 

Not exactly.

 

Some cruise lines correctly informed passengers that they could do tours on their own as long as they followed the US requirements. The US has (or had, at that time)  significant restrictions on which types of tour agencies/organizations you could book -- including verifying they had no government funding or ties -- and there were also humanitarian or "people to people" tour options.

 

Passengers on those lines were allowed to make their own arrangements as long as they filled out and turned in a form certifying that they were aware of the restrictions and planned to observe them, and also that the onus would be on them (the passengers) to keep any documentation, receipts, etc. in case the US government followed up with them/audited them in future.

 

Other cruise lines tried to "strong arm" passengers into believing that there was NO OTHER OPTION than booking through the ship, that those were the ONLY tours sanctioned by the US. And that was an outright lie. Sure, it was easier for the cruise lines to do it this way, but it was also intrinsically dishonest to claim that it was the only "legal" way open to US cruisers visiting Cuba.

 

[jtwind]

3 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Not exactly.

 

Some cruise lines correctly informed passengers that they could do tours on their own as long as they followed the US requirements. The US has (or had, at that time)  significant restrictions on which types of tour agencies/organizations you could book -- including verifying they had no government funding or ties -- and there were also humanitarian or "people to people" tour options.

 

Passengers on those lines were allowed to make their own arrangements as long as they filled out and turned in a form certifying that they were aware of the restrictions and planned to observe them, and also that the onus would be on them (the passengers) to keep any documentation, receipts, etc. in case the US government followed up with them/audited them in future.

 

Other cruise lines tried to "strong arm" passengers into believing that there was NO OTHER OPTION than booking through the ship, that those were the ONLY tours sanctioned by the US. And that was an outright lie. Sure, it was easier for the cruise lines to do it this way, but it was also intrinsically dishonest to claim that it was the only "legal" way open to US cruisers visiting Cuba.

 

 

Those other cruise lines made the rules, and told the passengers how it was going to be.  Passengers whined and complained, and bunches of them ended up getting off the ship and doing shore experiences that didn't conform to the rules set by the US.  Simple as that.

 

Some cruise lines told their passengers that they could go on any compliant excursion and some told their passengers that they would have to do an excursion provided by the cruise line.  The passengers knew that.

 

So are Merican tourists going to try to pull the same crap, and claim that the cruise lines are trying to "strong arm" passengers?

[cruisemom42]

4 minutes ago, jtwind said:

 

Those other cruise lines made the rules, and told the passengers how it was going to be.  Passengers whined and complained, and bunches of them ended up getting off the ship and doing shore experiences that didn't conform to the rules set by the US.  Simple as that.

 

Some cruise lines told their passengers that they could go on any compliant excursion and some told their passengers that they would have to do an excursion provided by the cruise line.  The passengers knew that.

 

So are Merican tourists going to try to pull the same crap, and claim that the cruise lines are trying to "strong arm" passengers?

 

It's one thing to tell passengers this is the way we are doing things and you must comply.

 

It's another thing altogether to tell passengers that what the cruise line offers is the "only legal option".  And that did happen on some cruise lines.

 

 

[cbr663]

11 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Restrictions on going ashore would be just one part.   If the COVID situation would require such group tours, it is also highly likely that mask wearing and social distancing (requiring higher fares to make operating at all feasible) on board would also be required.   It simply does not seem likely that any mass market ship would sail in that environment - except, perhaps,  to private island ports of call.

 

Interesting timing.  This is the article in the National Post in Canada Today:

 

WHO chief scientist not confident vaccines prevent transmission

 

"...chief scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan said the WHO hasn’t yet determined whether the approved vaccines being administered in Canada, the U.S. and Europe are effective at preventing transmission...

 

I don’t believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on,” Swaminathan said.

The top three vaccines — Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca — have been found in large trials to prevent recipients from becoming sick or seriously ill, but researchers are still trying to determine whether the vaccines prevent the virus from spreading from the recipient to others.

 

Even if people have received the vaccine, countries still need to assume that they should adhere to public health measures such as social distancing. If a vaccine recipient wants to travel, he should still be required to quarantine..."

 

I personally don't see the vaccine as the saviour for the cruise industry.  Can't see ports welcoming cruise passengers to their shores when these passengers can spread the infection.

[jtwind]

41 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

It's one thing to tell passengers this is the way we are doing things and you must comply.

 

It's another thing altogether to tell passengers that what the cruise line offers is the "only legal option".  And that did happen on some cruise lines.

 

 

And the problem was that people couldn't be trusted to do compliant excursions.  So, lesson learned.  If you give passengers a list of do's and don'ts, there are going to be a lot of people doing the don'ts.

[cruisemom42]

Just now, jtwind said:

And the problem was that people couldn't be trusted to do compliant excursions.  So, lesson learned.  If you give passengers a list of do's and don'ts, there are going to be a lot of people doing the don'ts.

 

Is there info that you can point me to regarding this?  What liability would the cruise line have if the passengers signed something saying they were aware of the requirements and agreeing to follow them?

[bonsai3s]

We still look forward to cruising again...someday.  We will decide if the ship's shore excursion is of good value...otherwise, we will stay onboard.  We have done DIY for many years...hopefully, it will be an option again when we cruise.

[mom says]

1 hour ago, cbr663 said:

 

I personally don't see the vaccine as the saviour for the cruise industry.  Can't see ports welcoming cruise passengers to their shores when these passengers can spread the infection.

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 

Edited December 31, 2020 by mom says

[sfaaa]

1 hour ago, cbr663 said:

 

Interesting timing.  This is the article in the National Post in Canada Today:

 

WHO chief scientist not confident vaccines prevent transmission

 

"...chief scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan said the WHO hasn’t yet determined whether the approved vaccines being administered in Canada, the U.S. and Europe are effective at preventing transmission...

 

I don’t believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on,” Swaminathan said.

The top three vaccines — Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca — have been found in large trials to prevent recipients from becoming sick or seriously ill, but researchers are still trying to determine whether the vaccines prevent the virus from spreading from the recipient to others.

 

Even if people have received the vaccine, countries still need to assume that they should adhere to public health measures such as social distancing. If a vaccine recipient wants to travel, he should still be required to quarantine..."

 

I personally don't see the vaccine as the saviour for the cruise industry.  Can't see ports welcoming cruise passengers to their shores when these passengers can spread the infection.

I wouldn't listen to WHO given it is keen to play world politics half the time. 

[ReneeFLL]

On 12/29/2020 at 8:19 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?

This is when they were trying to create a bubble for the passengers. Since the vaccine is out I don’t think this will be in place when cruises start. 
 

[dogs4fun]

9 hours ago, ReneeFLL said:

This is when they were trying to create a bubble for the passengers. Since the vaccine is out I don’t think this will be in place when cruises start. 
 

I hope you are right. I won’t be interested in cruising in Europe if DIY shore excursions are not an option - land visits will be an attractive alternative.

[jtwind]

13 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Is there info that you can point me to regarding this?  What liability would the cruise line have if the passengers signed something saying they were aware of the requirements and agreeing to follow them?

 

Yes.  It was all over Tripadvisor's Cuba forum.  People were presenting a form to the cruise ship saying that they were going to go by the rules.  Several 'travel experts' on Tripadvisor were telling people that it was ok to present the form and then not to abide by the rules because they wouldn't get caught (disgusting way of thinking).

 

In Cuba, some cruise lines had an honor system in place to minimize cruiser $ going to the communist government via shore visits.  Many lied and cheated the system.  In the end, Trump closed down cruising to cut down on cash going to the Communist party.

 

So, after seeing that, do we really think that cruise lines could set up rules for cruisers in order to minimize exposures, and people would follow them?

[cruisemom42]

31 minutes ago, jtwind said:

 

Yes.  It was all over Tripadvisor's Cuba forum.  People were presenting a form to the cruise ship saying that they were going to go by the rules.  Several 'travel experts' on Tripadvisor were telling people that it was ok to present the form and then not to abide by the rules because they wouldn't get caught (disgusting way of thinking).

 

In Cuba, some cruise lines had an honor system in place to minimize cruiser $ going to the communist government via shore visits.  Many lied and cheated the system.  In the end, Trump closed down cruising to cut down on cash going to the Communist party.

 

So, after seeing that, do we really think that cruise lines could set up rules for cruisers in order to minimize exposures, and people would follow them?

 

Trump did not just close down cruising to Cuba, he basically rolled back the clock on the loosening of restrictions by Obama -- including far more than the ability to cruise there under the "People to people" initiative. And he did not do it because cruisers were abusing the system but because he disagreed with Obama's position (and wanted to make his south Florida supporters happy).

 

My standpoint, as someone who cruises to travel and see places (not to kick back by the pool with a pina colada) is that we should not allow cruise lines to dictate the policies by which passengers are allowed to get off the ship. That is the province of the local government.  If the local government wants to require a visa, I am fine with that. If the local government says I have to have a local guide and cannot wander on my own, then I will abide by it. Until recently this is what the cruise lines have traditionally done.

 

But for a cruise line to tell people that they cannot get off the ship except on one of the cruise line's own tours when there is no local regulation requiring it is wrong and IMO it SHOULD be contested.

 

Now I would never personally get on board a ship with such requirements and try to incite disobedience, and it is unlikely that I would even personally disobey. However, I WOULD boycott such a line and I would use whatever influence I might have (via posts on forums, contacting officials, etc.) to have such a policy changed.

 

I have been cruising since the 1970s -- since way before cruise lines realized that shore excursions were a huge profit center. I have witnessed more and more egregious "creep" in terms of both the cost of excursions and the messaging that attempts to scare passengers about missing the ship. More recently, I have seen complete misinformation provided about requirements -- for example, several cruise lines prominently mention that you cannot get off the ship in Russia without either obtaining a visa on your own OR taking a ship tour. They repeatedly omit to mention that you can also book a private tour through a vetted agency that also obtains the needed coverage.  

 

So please don't try to tell me some sob story about passengers "abusing" a policy. There was never any policy saying passengers had to take a cruise tour, and there was never any liability to the cruise lines involved so long as they had a record of informing the passenger of the consequences.

 

 

[jtwind]

12 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Trump did not just close down cruising to Cuba, he basically rolled back the clock on the loosening of restrictions by Obama -- including far more than the ability to cruise there under the "People to people" initiative. And he did not do it because cruisers were abusing the system but because he disagreed with Obama's position (and wanted to make his south Florida supporters happy).

 

 

So please don't try to tell me some sob story about passengers "abusing" a policy. There was never any policy saying passengers had to take a cruise tour, and there was never any liability to the cruise lines involved so long as they had a record of informing the passenger of the consequences.

 

 

 

Passenger's abused the policies in Cuba and we can expect they'd do the same with any coronavirus restrictions.  Read some of the trip reports on Tripadvisor.  They pledged to do one thing, and did another.

 

The start of major cruise lines to Cuba started under Trump (2017).  And as much as I hate to admit it, it was changes by the Trump administration that allowed self-guided trips for support of the Cuban people, which is when we went.  That doesn't sound like someone who was disagreeing with Obama's position.  (Again, I hate to say it.)

 

 

[cruisemom42]

13 minutes ago, jtwind said:

The start of major cruise lines to Cuba started under Trump (2017).  And as much as I hate to admit it, it was changes by the Trump administration that allowed self-guided trips for support of the Cuban people, which is when we went.  That doesn't sound like someone who was disagreeing with Obama's position.  (Again, I hate to say it.)

 

Are you sure about that? What I have read is that cruise travel to Cuba resumed in May 2016. They restarted as a result of the Obama policy change. The Trump administration just didn't get around to rolling it back right away -- not until 2019.

 

https://apnews.com/article/67c721daee8143d4a2e6ee8c401bf215

 

Also the Trump administration's own explanation of the policy changes, released by the White House, explicitly say this: "Among other changes, travel for non-academic educational purposes will be limited to group travel. The self-directed, individual travel permitted by the Obama administration will be prohibited."

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/fact-sheet-cuba-policy/

 

 

[jtwind]

2 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Are you sure about that? What I have read is that cruise travel to Cuba resumed in May 2016. They restarted as a result of the Obama policy change. The Trump administration just didn't get around to rolling it back right away -- not until 2019.

 

https://apnews.com/article/67c721daee8143d4a2e6ee8c401bf215

 

Also the Trump administration's own explanation of the policy changes, released by the White House, explicitly say this: "Among other changes, travel for non-academic educational purposes will be limited to group travel. The self-directed, individual travel permitted by the Obama administration will be prohibited."

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/fact-sheet-cuba-policy/

 

 

I just came back to amend my post.  You are correct. 2016.

 

Again, the bottom line, with relevance to this thread, is that people on cruise ships routinely made pledges to do one thing, and did another.  That gives a good reason for cruise ships to only allow excursions provided by the ship.  If what happened in Cuba is any indication, folks will break rules, and either bunches of people will get sick on the ship, or countries will ban cruise ships, or both.

 

As far as Cuba goes, they banned self-directed people to people for plane arrivals.  It would be a little bit of a chore to reconstruct the order of events, but we were waiting for the ability to do self-guided support of the Cuban people trip for air arrivals.  We were following things very, very closely.  We kept in touch with several agencies.  Suddenly, in mid 2018, what we wanted to do was allowed.  (It took 3 months for us to get the required visas because of the recent US/Cuba embassy closing situation.)

[Toofarfromthesea]

16 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

It's one thing to tell passengers this is the way we are doing things and you must comply.

 

It's another thing altogether to tell passengers that what the cruise line offers is the "only legal option".  And that did happen on some cruise lines.

 

 

 

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

[Toofarfromthesea]

16 hours ago, cbr663 said:

 

Interesting timing.  This is the article in the National Post in Canada Today:

 

WHO chief scientist not confident vaccines prevent transmission

 

"...chief scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan said the WHO hasn’t yet determined whether the approved vaccines being administered in Canada, the U.S. and Europe are effective at preventing transmission...

 

I don’t believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on,” Swaminathan said.

The top three vaccines — Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca — have been found in large trials to prevent recipients from becoming sick or seriously ill, but researchers are still trying to determine whether the vaccines prevent the virus from spreading from the recipient to others.

 

Even if people have received the vaccine, countries still need to assume that they should adhere to public health measures such as social distancing. If a vaccine recipient wants to travel, he should still be required to quarantine..."

 

I personally don't see the vaccine as the saviour for the cruise industry.  Can't see ports welcoming cruise passengers to their shores when these passengers can spread the infection.

 

At the very start, when all the chatter on the boards was vaccine, vaccine, vaccine, I opined that the key would not be a vaccine, it would be effective treatments.   I am still of the same opinion. 

Especially now when many people in the health field are adopting a wait and see posture about getting the vaccine, even in places where they would be first in line.  Who knew that so many nurses and nursing home workers were anti-vaxxers.  It turns out that it is hard to have the accelerated vaccine development bad-mouthed by politicians for ten months, and then turn on a dime to insist everyone should get it.  Particularly when we are now warned that the vaccine may not stop transmission.

[evandbob]

Here's what will be bad for the cruise business:

 

1)  Cruise Lines are lax in enforcing health guidelines.

 

2)  An outbreak on a mass line ship happens again

 

3)  Cruise visitors in port infect local populations.

 

4) Crew on cruise ships have epidemic that a line tries to keep quiet

 

5) Cruisers riot over strict enforcement of health guidelines

 

6)  Cruisers present phony vax certificates during boarding process and wind up infecting other cruisers and crew staff.

 

Hopefully none of these will become a reality!

[shipgeeks]

To respond to the original question, we would be more (not less) likely to cruise on ships that enforce the bubble concept by only allowing ship excursions, assuming current/near future conditions. It has worked well in the Med.  (And btw, the excursions offered there have been quite varied, not just packed bus tours, and very inexpensive.)

However, I think the debate is much ado about nothing, considering how different the entirety of cruising will be, once it begins, and then continues.

[Hlitner]

21 hours ago, cbr663 said:

 

Interesting timing.  This is the article in the National Post in Canada Today:

 

WHO chief scientist not confident vaccines prevent transmission

 

"...chief scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan said the WHO hasn’t yet determined whether the approved vaccines being administered in Canada, the U.S. and Europe are effective at preventing transmission...

 

I don’t believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on,” Swaminathan said.

The top three vaccines — Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca — have been found in large trials to prevent recipients from becoming sick or seriously ill, but researchers are still trying to determine whether the vaccines prevent the virus from spreading from the recipient to others.

 

Even if people have received the vaccine, countries still need to assume that they should adhere to public health measures such as social distancing. If a vaccine recipient wants to travel, he should still be required to quarantine..."

 

I personally don't see the vaccine as the saviour for the cruise industry.  Can't see ports welcoming cruise passengers to their shores when these passengers can spread the infection.

This is what I would call very old news.  Many authorities, including Pfizer and Moderna's own folks have been stressing (for many weeks) that they do not know whether a vaccinated person can still spread COVID.  The vaccines do not prevent folks from being infected with COVID but do prevent folks from getting sick.  The drug companies are currently doing follow-up studies to determine if there can be spread.   The last time I looked at the issue the experts expect to have some study results during the first quarter of 2021.

 

Some of us here on CC have also talked about the spread issue.  That is one of the reasons why I have advocated that cruise lines must adopt a 100% vaccination policy (all souls aboard must have proof of vaccination) in order for cruises to be safe.   With everyone vaccinated the risk of spread would be very slight.  That still leaves the issue of ports.   Keep in mind that we will likely know the answer to the spread issue before any cruises resume in North America.

 

Hank

[2wheelin]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

This is what I would call very old news.  Many authorities, including Pfizer and Moderna's own folks have been stressing (for many weeks) that they do not know whether a vaccinated person can still spread COVID.  The vaccines do not prevent folks from being infected with COVID but do prevent folks from getting sick.  The drug companies are currently doing follow-up studies to determine if there can be spread.   The last time I looked at the issue the experts expect to have some study results during the first quarter of 2021.

 

Some of us here on CC have also talked about the spread issue.  That is one of the reasons why I have advocated that cruise lines must adopt a 100% vaccination policy (all souls aboard must have proof of vaccination) in order for cruises to be safe.   With everyone vaccinated the risk of spread would be very slight.  That still leaves the issue of ports.   Keep in mind that we will likely know the answer to the spread issue before any cruises resume in North America.

 

Hank

Or it could be said that IF vaccinated folk can still become infected and can still spread the virus, everyone on the ship could become infected and pass the virus to anyone. This would include everyone at any port and everyone they come in contact with on the way home and once at home. This would just give the ship a false a sense of security about the spread if people do not get sick—-on the ship. Good argument for mask wearing and distancing even when everyone is vaccinated.

[ldubs]

On 12/30/2020 at 6:24 PM, bonsai3s said:

We still look forward to cruising again...someday.  We will decide if the ship's shore excursion is of good value...otherwise, we will stay onboard.  We have done DIY for many years...hopefully, it will be an option again when we cruise.

 

I'm kinda in the same boat (haha) with regards to the mandatory ship sponsored excursions.  We also enjoy DIY but If the mandatory tours sound OK we will likely take the cruise -- why not.   However, I think staying on board would be a deal breaker.  That is just a personal preference thing.  

[jtwind]

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?

Only allowing cruise sponsored shore excursions may be bad for business, but not doing so will be terrible for business.