Requirement to use only the cruise lines excursions due to COVID.

[alandkate]

Has anyone been told that if they book a tour they can only book the tour through the cruise line because of COVID restrictions?

 

[Heidi13]

That is the current situation with Viking's cruises that currently sailing, or are about to sail, and are based in UK, Bermuda, Iceland and Malta.

[SuiteTraveler]

I don't see how that makes sense.  If a passenger is vaccinated for Covid-19, they cannot get Covid-19 nor can they give Covid-19 to anyone else, so it doesn't matter who they are around, where they go or what excursion they take.

[travelingman]

7 minutes ago, SuiteTraveler said:

I don't see how that makes sense.  If a passenger is vaccinated for Covid-19, they cannot get Covid-19 nor can they give Covid-19 to anyone else, so it doesn't matter who they are around, where they go or what excursion they take.

 

Everything I have read says you can still get Covid 19 after having the vaccine.  But you should not get as sick.

 

The requirement to only take the cruise excursions is to keep everyone in the "bubble".

Also the towns the excursions are in may require it also to protect their citizens.

 

Stan

[Heidi13]

23 minutes ago, SuiteTraveler said:

I don't see how that makes sense.  If a passenger is vaccinated for Covid-19, they cannot get Covid-19 nor can they give Covid-19 to anyone else, so it doesn't matter who they are around, where they go or what excursion they take.

 

This is inconsistent with the WHO message, which states vaccinated people have a reduced risk of contracting the disease and are less likely to infect others.

 

 

[ColeThornton]

32 minutes ago, SuiteTraveler said:

If a passenger is vaccinated for Covid-19, they cannot get Covid-19

 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html

[SuiteTraveler]

40 minutes ago, travelingman said:

 

Everything I have read says you can still get Covid 19 after having the vaccine.  But you should not get as sick.

 

The requirement to only take the cruise excursions is to keep everyone in the "bubble".

Also the towns the excursions are in may require it also to protect their citizens.

 

Stan

The known rate of people catching Covid-19 after being fully vaccinated per the CDC is less than .01 of 1 percent or 10,300 and those who had to be hospitalized or perished .003 of 1 percent or 3,000+. As of June 1, 2021 more than 135 million people in the US have been fully vaccinated with only 3016 breakthrough cases that required hospitalization or ended in death and in some cases those hospitalizations were for something else and Covid-19 was only found because the patient was tested as a matter of hospital policy.  The odds are incredibly slim that a fully vaccinated person at least 2 weeks out from final vaccination will catch Covid-19.  Also, in some of these breakthrough cases, it is believed the person caught Covid between shot 1 and shot 2 or shortly after shot 2 when they were not completely protected.  Therefore, forcing vaccinated people to only take cruise ship excursions is, in fact, a money grab.  From the perspective of the places involved, if they allow people to fly in by air to visit with proof of vaccination, there is no reason not to allow cruise passengers to visit with proof of vaccination.

Edited June 5, 2021 by SuiteTraveler

[cruisemom42]

4 hours ago, SuiteTraveler said:

Therefore, forcing vaccinated people to only take cruise ship excursions is, in fact, a money grab.  From the perspective of the places involved, if they allow people to fly in by air to visit with proof of vaccination, there is no reason not to allow cruise passengers to visit with proof of vaccination.

 

It is not down to the cruise line but rather to the ports visited.  

 

I too have been skeptical but am following several threads on Celebrity where cruising is just starting up from the Caribbean island of St. Martin. These are vaccinated sailings and initially the information provided at booking was that the ship did not require you to purchase excursions "except where mandated by the port".  

 

The instructions keep changing as the number of cases on various islands rise and fall, but Celebrity has had to both reorganize the order of port calls (to minimize the number of required COVID tests of passengers) and substitute some islands (apparently one decided they did not want cruise ships to call there).  As of right now I think only one island is allowing completely free touring of passengers. Two require ship tours. And one is allowing a "limited" type of private tours -- more info to come. And I say "more info" because Celebrity has yet to clarify what that means....

 

[SuiteTraveler]

22 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

It is not down to the cruise line but rather to the ports visited.  

 

I too have been skeptical but am following several threads on Celebrity where cruising is just starting up from the Caribbean island of St. Martin. These are vaccinated sailings and initially the information provided at booking was that the ship did not require you to purchase excursions "except where mandated by the port".  

 

The instructions keep changing as the number of cases on various islands rise and fall, but Celebrity has had to both reorganize the order of port calls (to minimize the number of required COVID tests of passengers) and substitute some islands (apparently one decided they did not want cruise ships to call there).  As of right now I think only one island is allowing completely free touring of passengers. Two require ship tours. And one is allowing a "limited" type of private tours -- more info to come. And I say "more info" because Celebrity has yet to clarify what that means....

 

And you don't think that the cruise lines have major pull with island governments on this decision considering the billions of dollars in revenue the islands get from the cruise industry?  IMO, this is clearly an opportunity for cruise lines to force cruisers to use only the tour companies the cruise lines choose do business with and put smaller tour companies out of business, at least for the cruising industry.  

[ldubs]

19 minutes ago, SuiteTraveler said:

And you don't think that the cruise lines have major pull with island governments on this decision considering the billions of dollars in revenue the islands get from the cruise industry?  IMO, this is clearly an opportunity for cruise lines to force cruisers to use only the tour companies the cruise lines choose do business with and put smaller tour companies out of business, at least for the cruising industry.  

 

Let me get this straight.  Cruise lines are threatening local island governments that they will pull the business if the locals don't require ship-only excursions.  This is being done because the cruise lines want  to eliminate small tour companies.  Where do you come up with this stuff? 

 

By the way, if ship-only excursions are required,  it might occur that the cruise lines will need more tour capacity ashore.   Those smaller tour operatives that you claim are purposely being forced out of business may be needed by the mean ol cruise lines.   

[SuiteTraveler]

53 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

Let me get this straight.  Cruise lines are threatening local island governments that they will pull the business if the locals don't require ship-only excursions.  This is being done because the cruise lines want  to eliminate small tour companies.  Where do you come up with this stuff? 

 

By the way, if ship-only excursions are required,  it might occur that the cruise lines will need more tour capacity ashore.   Those smaller tour operatives that you claim are purposely being forced out of business may be needed by the mean ol cruise lines.   

 

I didn't say anything about any threats, but I do think most people recognize that a billion dollar industry that accounts for a large percentage of the money made on some Caribbean Islands IS going to have some clout in negotiations.

 

Did you know that this "cruise in a bubble" with passengers having to buy all shore excursions from the cruise line was started by MSC in Europe?  MSC took it so seriously they even refused reboarding to a group who wandered from an excursion off the ship.  https://www.msccruises.com/en-gl/cruise-with-confidence.aspx

 

So, in point of fact, this model has already been working for MSC.

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/ab/agents/variation-a/news/5570/?source=132706&taparam=ECCGoogleUS_Kdsa-1173260422203_A121932335469&supai=522452169963&supsn=g&supmbl=&suppos=&supap1=13161954185&supap2=121932335469&supdev=c&suprnd=2991175379659253693&supmob=dsa-1173260422203&suplp=&gclid=Cj0KCQjwweyFBhDvARIsAA67M73AIMqv3nHJ63_nsh_0C9yOoagZ4NIsBFoSPsieuVc8phrxASsahgIaAhRNEALw_wcB

 

11.3 million people cruised in the Caribbean in 2018 -  the last year I could find data for.  34.3% stay onboard the ship.  That means a whopping 65.7% or 7,424,100 do get off the ship, times 5 times during a 7 day cruise in the Caribbean. Average ship shore excursion costs $125 but if you own the market, you could increase that to whatever you think you could get.  Just using $125 an excursion I get nearly half a billion dollars. Now tell me how the cruise industry would not want to make THAT money by compelling guests to only use the cruise line's shore excursions or not be allowed to go ashore?  And that half a billion is just the possible profits from Caribbean sailings.  Do you seriously believe that a billion dollar industry would waste a business opportunity like this?   

 

And yes, the ships will need more tour capacity onshore and therefore make even more money.  If the ships control 100% of the tours, they control how much profit they make from the tours. They can sell tours for whatever price they think they can get.  They are trying to use people's ignorance and fear about Covid breakthrough cases (which are such a tiny number they are less than .01% -  only10,000 people out of 137,000,000 people fully vaccinated in the US) against them by claiming if they went with a private shore excursion or went on their own they could get Covid so they need to stay "in the bubble" to be safe and prevent catching Covid-19 and giving it to others.  It's so obvious what they are trying to do.

 

Now I have seen that NCL is saying they won't require guests to stay in the bubble and they can go anywhere they want onshore because NCL will require 100% vaccinations.  https://www.travelandleisure.com/cruises/norwegian-cruise-line-no-more-controlled-shore-excursions. It will be interesting to see what other cruise lines do or if this decision gets rescinded.  So far RCCL is saying the guests must use ship tours.  

[ldubs]

10 minutes ago, SuiteTraveler said:

 

I didn't say anything about any threats, but I do think most people recognize that a billion dollar industry that accounts for a large percentage of the money made on some Caribbean Islands IS going to have some clout in negotiations.

 

Did you know that this "cruise in a bubble" with passengers having to buy all shore excursions from the cruise line was started by MSC in Europe?  MSC took it so seriously they even refused reboarding to a group who wandered from an excursion off the ship.  https://www.msccruises.com/en-gl/cruise-with-confidence.aspx

 

So, in point of fact, this model has already been working for MSC.

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/ab/agents/variation-a/news/5570/?source=132706&taparam=ECCGoogleUS_Kdsa-1173260422203_A121932335469&supai=522452169963&supsn=g&supmbl=&suppos=&supap1=13161954185&supap2=121932335469&supdev=c&suprnd=2991175379659253693&supmob=dsa-1173260422203&suplp=&gclid=Cj0KCQjwweyFBhDvARIsAA67M73AIMqv3nHJ63_nsh_0C9yOoagZ4NIsBFoSPsieuVc8phrxASsahgIaAhRNEALw_wcB

 

11.3 million people cruised in the Caribbean in 2018 -  the last year I could find data for.  34.3% stay onboard the ship.  That means a whopping 65.7% or 7,424,100 do get off the ship, times 5 times during a 7 day cruise in the Caribbean. Average ship shore excursion costs $125 but if you own the market, you could increase that to whatever you think you could get.  Just using $125 an excursion I get nearly half a billion dollars. Now tell me how the cruise industry would not want to make THAT money by compelling guests to only use the cruise line's shore excursions or not be allowed to go ashore?  And that half a billion is just the possible profits from Caribbean sailings.  Do you seriously believe that a billion dollar industry would waste a business opportunity like this?   

 

And yes, the ships will need more tour capacity onshore and therefore make even more money.  If the ships control 100% of the tours, they control how much profit they make from the tours. They can sell tours for whatever price they think they can get.  They are trying to use people's ignorance and fear about Covid breakthrough cases (which are such a tiny number they are less than .01% -  only10,000 people out of 137,000,000 people fully vaccinated in the US) against them by claiming if they went with a private shore excursion or went on their own they could get Covid so they need to stay "in the bubble" to be safe and prevent catching Covid-19 and giving it to others.  It's so obvious what they are trying to do.

 

Now I have seen that NCL is saying they won't require guests to stay in the bubble and they can go anywhere they want onshore because NCL will require 100% vaccinations.  https://www.travelandleisure.com/cruises/norwegian-cruise-line-no-more-controlled-shore-excursions. It will be interesting to see what other cruise lines do or if this decision gets rescinded.  So far RCCL is saying the guests must use ship tours.  

 

One sided negotiations, according to you, that are aimed at secretly getting rid of small tour operators.  And now additionally, to act in collusion as a monopoly and raise prices on all shore excursions. 

 

I don't think I was specifically aware that MSC started the ship-only excursions.  Does it occur that instead of a conspiracy to take over the cruise tour business, they took this step as part of a plan that might allow them to safely re-open cruising during a pandemic? 

 

 

[SuiteTraveler]

7 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

One sided negotiations, according to you, that are aimed at secretly getting rid of small tour operators.  And now additionally, to act in collusion as a monopoly and raise prices on all shore excursions. 

 

I don't think I was specifically aware that MSC started the ship-only excursions.  Does it occur that instead of a conspiracy to take over the cruise tour business, they took this step as part of a plan that might allow them to safely re-open cruising during a pandemic? 

 

 

You seem to think that the cruise lines are not in business for the money nor that they would choose to take advantage of an unusual situation such as Covid-19 to find a way to make more money to make up for all the money they lost in 2020.  On that, we must simply disagree. My belief is that all businesses are in business to make money and they will take advantage of any reasonable risk business opportunity that comes their way to make more money because they can. Of course MSC has been successful in the shipping industry since 1970, so I'm not the least bit surprised this idea started with them.  And, as I recall, when one cruise line is successful with something that makes more money, (like specialty restaurants, for example), other cruise lines will soon follow.  

[cruisemom42]

I'm not so into conspiracy theories that I would buy a cruise line making these last minute changes in their plans in order to confuse and make passengers unhappy -- having to change their timing of testing requirements for passengers literally a day or two before travel, having to rearrange ports at the last minute, having to communicate to thousands of passengers when many were already enroute....

 

Why?  If it was their "evil ulterior motive" as you seem to believe, why wouldn't they just mandate it from the outset? Why throw passenger testing plans and ship schedule into chaos at the last moment?  I'll tell you why -- because Barbados would not play ball with the cruise line and allow vaccinated passengers to enter without a test and without quarantine.

 

I'm also not so sanguine as to believe that cruise lines are not in it for a profit, or that they wouldn't be quite happy to require passengers to take their tours indefinitely. However, I also realize that many ports would NOT be happy with such arrangements and many passengers would look elsewhere for travel opportunities. There's such a thing as killing the goose that lays the golden eggs...

 

MSC (and a few other lines) were using the "bubble" idea pre-vaccination. I never thought the idea made a lot of sense from an infection POV, but it does certainly make contact tracing a lot easier and for some reason seemed to reassure local authorities.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by cruisemom42

[ldubs]

25 minutes ago, SuiteTraveler said:

You seem to think that the cruise lines are not in business for the money nor that they would choose to take advantage of an unusual situation such as Covid-19 to find a way to make more money to make up for all the money they lost in 2020.  On that, we must simply disagree. My belief is that all businesses are in business to make money and they will take advantage of any reasonable risk business opportunity that comes their way to make more money because they can. Of course MSC has been successful in the shipping industry since 1970, so I'm not the least bit surprised this idea started with them.  And, as I recall, when one cruise line is successful with something that makes more money, (like specialty restaurants, for example), other cruise lines will soon follow.  

 

On the contrary I am a capitalist at heart.     But your secret conspiracy theory of cruise lines purposely promoting false COVID fears in order to have a monopoly over ship-only excursions is pretty far fetched.   What is much more likely is the cruse lines would have returned to business as normal if they had been allowed to do so.   Sorry, I'm tired of baseless conspiracy theories.   I just don't buy into the specific conspiracy theory motivation you propose.    

[Donald]

America seems to have cornered the market on conspiracy theories.

Any updates on the Jewish Space Lasers?

[jtwind]

23 hours ago, travelingman said:

The requirement to only take the cruise excursions is to keep everyone in the "bubble".

That's what Viking is saying.  Their way of forming a bubble is flawed, though, as it relies on pre-boarding tests that won't show positives if the exposure occurs within 48 of the test.  So, everyone will have been on an unsupervised excursion before they get on the ship.

[jtwind]

On 6/5/2021 at 11:07 AM, alandkate said:

Has anyone been told that if they book a tour they can only book the tour through the cruise line because of COVID restrictions?

 

Yes.  It's just really hard to find out if this rule is being pushed by the cruise line to protect its passengers or by the local governments to protect their citizens.

[SuiteTraveler]

16 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

On the contrary I am a capitalist at heart.     But your secret conspiracy theory of cruise lines purposely promoting false COVID fears in order to have a monopoly over ship-only excursions is pretty far fetched.   What is much more likely is the cruse lines would have returned to business as normal if they had been allowed to do so.   Sorry, I'm tired of baseless conspiracy theories.   I just don't buy into the specific conspiracy theory motivation you propose.    

You clearly don't understand what a conspiracy theory is.    The definition of a conspiracy theory is "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event."  There is no covert organization here nor is there any circumstance or event the cruise lines are responsible for here.  A business making a business decision that favors the business is NOT a conspiracy theory.

[navybankerteacher]

48 minutes ago, SuiteTraveler said:

You clearly don't understand what a conspiracy theory is.    The definition of a conspiracy theory is "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event."  There is no covert organization here nor is there any circumstance or event the cruise lines are responsible for here.  A business making a business decision that favors the business is NOT a conspiracy theory.

Actually,  a conspiracy theory does not necessarily have to involve a covert organization - merely a relatively powerful group engineering a not fully understood situation for their own benefit.  The notion that the lines had quietly orchestrated the requirement for such group tours without disclosing their part, would be seen as a conspiracy theory.  You should look to more than one source for your definitions.

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, SuiteTraveler said:

You clearly don't understand what a conspiracy theory is.    The definition of a conspiracy theory is "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event."  There is no covert organization here nor is there any circumstance or event the cruise lines are responsible for here.  A business making a business decision that favors the business is NOT a conspiracy theory.

 

OK, if not a conspiracy theory let's call it unfounded claims of sinister manipulation by cruise lines.   

 

I do agree with your last two sentences and am glad to see some back peddling from the earlier claims.     

[SuiteTraveler]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Actually,  a conspiracy theory does not necessarily have to involve a covert organization - merely a relatively powerful group engineering a not fully understood situation for their own benefit.  The notion that the lines had quietly orchestrated the requirement for such group tours without disclosing their part, would be seen as a conspiracy theory.  You should look to more than one source for your definitions.

 

So, in this case, for what I described to be a conspiracy theory, it would have to involve a secret organization within the cruise industry manipulating things for the good of the industry which is not what I said at all.  This is what I wrote:

  

"And you don't think that the cruise lines have major pull with island governments on this decision considering the billions of dollars in revenue the islands get from the cruise industry?  IMO, this is clearly an opportunity for cruise lines to force cruisers to use only the tour companies the cruise lines choose do business with and put smaller tour companies out of business, at least for the cruising industry.  "

 

Everything I stated was as an opportunity for each of the cruise lines, not some covert group.  

 

BTW, with Gov. DeSantos not allowing cruise lines to ask passengers if they were vaccinated and Caribbean Islands refusing to admit guests from cruise ships for private tours or on their own unless all are vaccinated, what do you think the cruise lines will decide to do?  Will they choose to cruise from another state where they can ask passengers if they were vaccinated?  Is there enough capacity for most Caribbean cruises to sail out of NOLA or Charlotte or Baltimore?  OR will they follow MSC's model that is successfully being followed by several other cruise Iines in Europe and require ship tours only? OR will they do something completely different?  What do you think is most likely to happen?

[SuiteTraveler]

17 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

OK, if not a conspiracy theory let's call it unfounded claims of sinister manipulation by cruise lines.   

 

I do agree with your last two sentences and am glad to see some back peddling from the earlier claims.     

 

 

You can only call it "unfounded claims" if it was not really happening already.  But it is happening with MSC, Costa and now we're hearing Viking is planning to do this as well. 

[cruisemom42]

39 minutes ago, SuiteTraveler said:

You can only call it "unfounded claims" if it was not really happening already.  But it is happening with MSC, Costa and now we're hearing Viking is planning to do this as well. 

 

Just because it is 'happening' does not necessarily support your statement that cruise lines are only doing it to increase their revenues. There could be other reasons, as I already stated. Initially in Europe the cruises were for unvaccinated passengers and the countries involved agreed only if there was good contact tracing; hence the concept of the "bubble excursion".   And Celebrity has already come up against this in the Caribbean where infection rates are still high and islands are changing their demands, even for a sailing of vaccinated passengers.

 

 

[ldubs]

1 minute ago, SuiteTraveler said:

 

 

You can only call it "unfounded claims" if it was not really happening already.  But it is happening with MSC, Costa and now we're hearing Viking is planning to do this as well. 

 

Ship-only excursions are happening.   Do you not understand it is the non-facts about why they are happening that I don't accept.   I can understand and likely even agree to an argument that ship-only excursions are not necessary in a vaccinated world.   What I don't buy is that island governments are so unduly influenced by cruise lines that they are being manipulated to create unneeded pandemic regulations solely to enrich the cruise lines.   And, as you claim,  this is all part of the cruise line's planning to force out competing tour guides so they can gain a monopoly on shore excursions.   This is what I challenge.  If this isn't what you intended to say, then we are wasting ink.