Who else just got canceled on Majestic to Alaska?

[caribill]

23 minutes ago, ceilidh1 said:

Why wouldn't they just make the policy "NO unvaccinated guests. No exceptions" rather than singling out children? I'm sure there is a reason, I just don't know what it is?

 

Because parents keep asking what about children that are under 12 for which there is no approved vaccine.

 

They need to say "No unvaccinated guests including no children under the age of 12."

 

Summertime is the time for family vacations, whether on Princess, Carnival, Disney or any other cruise line that normally allows children.

 

Carnival realized it would impossible on board to have different rules for children that are vaccinated and those that are too young to be vaccinated.

 

Disney, of course, caters to families with young children and is going the test cruise path. My guess is they will have the same rules for all people, vaccinated or not. For example, wearing of masks at shows.

[pms4104]

21 minutes ago, ceilidh1 said:

Why wouldn't they just make the policy "NO unvaccinated guests. No exceptions" rather than singling out children? I'm sure there is a reason, I just don't know what it is?

Perhaps Princess is having problems hiring kids' club staff?

[ceilidh1]

1 minute ago, caribill said:

 

Because parents keep asking what about children that are under 12 for which there is no approved vaccine.

 

They need to say "No unvaccinated guests including no children under the age of 12."

But is that what they are saying? From the notices posted here, it seems like they are saying "No guests under 12" - thus implying that over 12, unvaccinated (religious/medical) may be accommodated? If it was, indeed, "No unvaccinated guests including no children under the age of 12." that would make sense!

[ceilidh1]

3 minutes ago, pms4104 said:

Perhaps Princess is having problems hiring kids' club staff?

Given that it was only ever going to be 5% allowed, I doubt that would be the reason...but who knows?

[nocl]

23 minutes ago, ceilidh1 said:

Why wouldn't they just make the policy "NO unvaccinated guests. No exceptions" rather than singling out children? I'm sure there is a reason, I just don't know what it is?

I expect that trying to apply masking, testing, distancing rules to children, when their parents are not bound by similar restrictions would not be an easy task for the cruise lines. Especially since the CDC will be auditing rule compliance. Especially if the CDC is requiring the rules for unvaccinated on 95% cruises to be as strict as John Heald implied.

 

We do not know what criteria the cruise line is using for unvaccinated adults. They may be saying no to them as well.

 

Then comes the criteria on who goes and who doesn't if you have a large number of kids moved over from previous canceled cruises.

[ceilidh1]

1 minute ago, nocl said:

I expect that trying to apply masking, testing, distancing rules to children, when their parents are not bound by similar restrictions would not be an easy task for the cruise lines. Especially since the CDC will be auditing rule compliance. Especially if the CDC is requiring the rules for unvaccinated on 95% cruises to be as strict as John Heald implied.

 

We do not know what criteria the cruise line is using for unvaccinated adults. They may be saying no to them as well.

 

Then comes the criteria on who goes and who doesn't if you have a large number of kids moved over from previous canceled cruises.

Good points....

[caribill]

 

1 minute ago, ceilidh1 said:

Given that it was only ever going to be 5% allowed, I doubt that would be the reason...but who knows?

 

I can think of a couple of reasons.

 

First, the 95% rule is strict. Princess originally said they would stay above the 95% (but did not say by how much), but a last minute cancellation by vaccinated adults could mean the 95% rule could not be met and the ship could not sail.

 

Second, how to differentiate on board how families with children under age 12 would be treated compared to families with children 12 or older.

 

[addie19]

2 hours ago, ceilidh1 said:

Why wouldn't they just make the policy "NO unvaccinated guests. No exceptions" rather than singling out children? I'm sure there is a reason, I just don't know what it is?

No idea. 

 

My thoughts are maybe they want to never allow kids again? Cater only to 12 and up like some river cruise lines I've looked at elsewhere. 

 

[addie19]

1 hour ago, pms4104 said:

Perhaps Princess is having problems hiring kids' club staff?

Or they don't want to hire them/train them.

 

I was even expecting to be told that there wouldn't be a kids club offered for the Alaska cruises. And that I would have been ok with!

[Calif. Cruisers]

47 minutes ago, addie19 said:

Or they don't want to hire them/train them.

 

I was even expecting to be told that there wouldn't be a kids club offered for the Alaska cruises. And that I would have been ok with!

Us too- that was part of the benefit of having the whole family onboard was to spend time with the little one.  We weren't relying on kids club activities.  We are so used to wearing masks, no one would be bent out of shape having to wear them for times when we are in close proximity.  In reality it sounds like Princess didn't think this all through very well, and should have spent the last months anticipating how they might facilitate the return of children to cruising or just should not have made it possible in the first months.  The fact that they sold the cruises, took our money, and created the anticipation of getting to go and then took it back is a big factor in my disappointment.

[nocl]

Just saw where HAL is also going with no children under 12 for their Alaska cruises which are also taking place under th 95% protocol.

[azbirdmom]

36 minutes ago, nocl said:

Just saw where HAL is also going with no children under 12 for their Alaska cruises which are also taking place under th 95% protocol.

 

From the John Heald blog post it sounds like all of the companies under the Carnival Corp umbrella are implementing that policy.

[Celeste_SM]

I’ve been following this thread with interest as we have a family trip booked in December; three cabins, four adults and a 9 year old. We have long expected that the child would be the determining factor on whether we go or not. Looks like it will be a tough decision when final payment is due, depending on what Princess is saying policy will be by then. I know not to trust it will hold though.

 

I actually understand this decision. It sucks, and they should have made the call sooner. But Princess, in particular, is a cruise line that caters to older adults. It is not particularly kid friendly compared to other lines and many Princess cruisers actively dislike the presence of children on this ship. By eliminating kids, they make some of their core fans happy, and reduce the headaches of policing children’s mask wearing, distancing, etc. I agree with every point addie19 has posted, too.

 

I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed on a vaccine for kids.

[nocl]

2 hours ago, azbirdmom said:

 

From the John Heald blog post it sounds like all of the companies under the Carnival Corp umbrella are implementing that policy.

Will be interesting to see what ncl, celebrity and royal does on their Alaska cruises and if they also choose the 95% protocol.

[nocl]

1 minute ago, Celeste_SM said:

I’ve been following this thread with interest as we have a family trip booked in December; three cabins, four adults and a 9 year old. We have long expected that the child would be the determining factor on whether we go or not. Looks like it will be a tough decision when final payment is due, depending on what Princess is saying policy will be by then. I know not to trust it will hold though.

 

I actually understand this decision. It sucks, and they should have made the call sooner. But Princess, in particular, is a cruise line that caters to older adults. It is not particularly kid friendly compared to other lines and many Princess cruisers actively dislike the presence of children on this ship. By eliminating kids, they make some of their core fans happy, and reduce the headaches of policing children’s mask wearing, distancing, etc. I agree with every point addie19 has posted, too.

 

I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed on a vaccine for kids.

However CCL caters to families, and they are going with the same policy, announced almost at the same time.

[Celeste_SM]

And that what gives me hope that it is just a practical decision, not a statement about kids and cruising.

[MamaFej]

I'm glad to see the lines of Carnival Corp presenting a united front. Although it doesn't seem realistic, I wish that all of CLIA would do the same. Heck, I wish all lines, everywhere would do the same, not just for cruising, but for earthlings in general 

[azbirdmom]

21 hours ago, Celeste_SM said:

I’ve been following this thread with interest as we have a family trip booked in December; three cabins, four adults and a 9 year old. We have long expected that the child would be the determining factor on whether we go or not. Looks like it will be a tough decision when final payment is due, depending on what Princess is saying policy will be by then. I know not to trust it will hold though.

 

I actually understand this decision. It sucks, and they should have made the call sooner. But Princess, in particular, is a cruise line that caters to older adults. It is not particularly kid friendly compared to other lines and many Princess cruisers actively dislike the presence of children on this ship. By eliminating kids, they make some of their core fans happy, and reduce the headaches of policing children’s mask wearing, distancing, etc. I agree with every point addie19 has posted, too.

 

I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed on a vaccine for kids.

 

A lot can happen by then.  For one thing the CDC CSO is set to expire in November (if it isn't extended).  There are also clinical trials happening with children and we should be hearing soon about the status.  Hopefully they will be successful and will quickly submit and receive EUA so that children can be vaccinated.

 

As for eliminating kids from cruises, Princess does skew older currently.  But it is clear that they are trying to draw the younger folks.  They need to do so to stay viable as time goes on.  So I would not expect the decision that they made for the Alaska cruises to stick long term.

 

Hope it all works out for your family cruise!

[caribill]

7 hours ago, azbirdmom said:

 

As for eliminating kids from cruises, Princess does skew older currently. 

 

I have been on Princess cruises at holiday times when there were up to 600 kids on the cruise.

 

I have also been on a Princess cruise where the only child was the one year old daughter of the Captain.

[Coral]

I have been on ships with over 1000 kids.

[TinaLee]

Both of my kids started cruising with Princess when they were 5 and 13, respectively. The older child went off to college, et cetera, but the younger one sailed with us at least once a year through her college undergrad years. When she did her transatlantic honeymoon cruise after grad school, she sailed as Elite, as Princess gave her all of her accumulated cruises/days once she was an adult. They still sail Princess (they live in Miami), and I have a 4-year-old granddaughter we can't wait to get on a ship, so I wouldn't say Princess skews completely away from young adult/teen/kids. The younger chose a Med cruise for her graduation present and the older chose Alaska for her graduation trip. I think the vaccination availability for younger kids will be here sooner rather than later, but I can also see it being an issue with a younger child having to wear a mask while Mom, Dad, Mimi, Poppy, and the "big kids" don't have to wear one. More easily explained to a 9-year-old than a 4-year-old for sure! I'm not sure how many of the issues with Alaska fall to them combining cruises, i.e. the Emerald Princess passengers who have been booked for ages and those of us who jumped the minute we heard the news that we could actually go to Alaska this summer. Since there would have been no limitations when the Emerald folks booked, I'm sure they were over the 5% threshold when they moved them over. I still think everyone who gets cancelled and doesn't find out until after final payment (no matter the circumstance) gets a raw deal, especially when it appears this issue would have been known before that final payment date. Best of luck to OP. 

 

[Cruise Raider]

On 6/14/2021 at 6:27 PM, pms4104 said:

But they can't ask for proof, or even an explanation, of health issues that MAY exempt someone a Covid vaccine.

 

I believe you might have to get a doctor's note that you are exempt from the vaccine.  Princess will easily be able to identify these passengers via their medallion.  Now, whether or not you choose to leave that in your room or not will be another issue.  

 

[HaveDogWillTravel]

This is what I asked my Princess vacation planner 

 

So if I were asking you to book me a cabin and said I could not get vaccinated for health or religious reasons your answer would be that you could not book me?

 

You wouldn't check to see if there are less than 5% booked without vaccines?  

 

IOW  since John Chernesky gave out that nfo to all those travel agents Princess has changed the rules to 100% vaccinated and not 95%?

 

And this was his reply

 

The 100% applies only to these Alaska bookings, not future bookings. If we were on the phone and you told me you wanted to book Alaska for THIS year but would not be vaccinated I would NOT make the booking and I would transfer you to Customer Relations.

 

If this was a cruise for later this year – NOT Alaska – then I would make the booking and notate the reservation that you would not be vaccinated. This way the company can make sure we are staying at that minimum 95% threshold.

 

Now he won't really know what happens when an unvaccinated PAX gets transferred to customer relations but he clearly believes they will not be permitted to sail this year to Alaska and that moving forward we will be at 95%. That's really encouraging

[dreaminofcruisin]

2 minutes ago, HaveDogWillTravel said:

 

If this was a cruise for later this year – NOT Alaska – then I would make the booking and notate the reservation that you would not be vaccinated. This way the company can make sure we are staying at that minimum 95% threshold.

 

Gotta love when someone tells you they are going to 'notate the reservation'....so what does that mean exactly? They are going to attach a sticky note? Seems like it should always go to Customer Service to me..... 

[Cruise Raider]

On 6/14/2021 at 6:33 PM, PescadoAmarillo said:

Boy, have they.
 

While I sympathize with the OP, we booked our August 8 cruise because, and only because it was being promoted as a fully vaccinated cruise. We knew there were no guarantees about the status of crew vaccinations, but guests needed to have their final shot at least two weeks prior to the start of their cruise. Then, after we booked, we heard SVP John Chernesky say in his Alaska video, available on YoutTube, that exceptions were going to be considered on a case by case basis. That is NOT a fully vaccinated cruise. 
 

I realize that we will be around unvaccinated people at the airport, on the plane, in ports, perhaps crew members, and our risk will never be zero. But this was a bait and switch of the highest order. 

 

Maybe this has changed again.  I've read they are now selling these cruises at full capacity and perhaps they can do that if everyone is fully vaccinated.  I know a lot of cabins just opened up on the July 25th sailing.  I'm sure it was a tough decision to make .... a reduced capacity with 5% unvaccinated people or full capacity with a 100% vaccinated rate.  With the first option, you risk ticking off a lot of families but with the second option, you can make a lot more money and dramatically decrease the risk of a mini outbreak.  Perhaps Alaska stepped in and demanded a fully vaccinated passenger load as was stated on the Princess website.  

Either way, I did read that they were selling these cruises at full capacity, which makes sense if they require only fully vaccinated passengers and crew.  Just a guess on my part but like I mentioned, a large number of cabins just became available on their first sailing out so it does appear they no longer have a capacity limit.  Stay tuned for more changes as we still have 5 weeks to go.