MoniMommy

59 minutes ago, denamo said:

 

The CDC sees the lines as the ones who need to be supporting passengers who become ill, not the US.  Much of this support is in medical resources that stretches and endangers current medical personnel and patients, as well as, puts communities in danger when a large group from the ships have to be tended to. This is stated in the order. The underlying theme is supporting ill passengers costs the US money.  I think it sticks in the craw of the government when they know these businesses intentionally avoid paying US taxes. 

 

Fortunately, the US has typically seen these Covid-19 situations as humanitarian efforts to work with the ships which was recently needed as those who had to port in Florida.  This order seems to put into place, we will no longer be doing that. They want the cruise lines to create a viable solution that doesn't cost the US.

 

My wish is all who read this, understand it's not said with a pessimistic tone toward the cruise lines.  Simply one view from reading between the lines of the CDC order.  Simplistic answer to your question....leads to the US having to rescue ill passengers at a financial burden to treat or help passengers get home, and the CDC says no more!

 

 

Makes perfect sense!

3 minutes ago, denamo said:

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the various cruise lines' board rooms!  Overall, I think the cruise lines desire is to keep cruisers safe in all ways. Best business practice is keeping passengers safe.   At the top of it all, they are businesses providing customers with an enjoyable vacation experience while making money. Not pessimism, just a simple fact.

 

As I always say to my husband....follow the money!  What the CDC has put into place with this order does appear to have a monetary concern. The cruise lines for many years have chosen to circumvent paying US taxes and abiding with US labor laws. Not bashing, just stating a fact. Obviously, haven't not cruised due to these practices.  Cruise lines are not the only corporations choosing these types business practices. 

 

Every cruise line at this point is juggling various types of concerns: safety, customer satisfaction, and keeping their companies in good financial standing.  As this thread has unfolded as an exercise in speculation and debate, which is not an issue, in the back of my mind is the lingering thought....follow the money! I believe the CDC is.  🙂

 

Where does the money lead you when you follow it? 

8 minutes ago, rimmit said:

 

Myself included. But bankruptcy sometimes causes companies to make poor decisions, and when restructuring debt, all those FCC's is gonna be a lot of owed debt that they could get rid of when filing for Chapter 11.

 

Ultimately, hopefully they don't file.... but it could be close based on their liquidity.  If they can't get up an running till a vaccine and that maybe at least 12 months at the fastest and another 6 months to get people vaccinated....  18 months of no income is a long time...

 

I have some FCC's that are stuck as FCC's, but I have requested all my FCC's from cancelled cruises to become refunds at this point just in case.  

In my humble opinion anyone that can convert a FCC to a refubd should take the money and run.

3 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

I was typing the reply above before I read yours.  Seems we are wondering similar things; but the insurance has zero impact on who arrives to get you off the ship.  Still, wouldn't leave the borders of the US without a travel insurance plan! 

Even when US, I get a plan. Paid $75 for our VA vacation. My kid had an accident and had to go to hospital. My copay was 150 which the insurance covered. If it had been a deductible, like I have now, rather than a copay the insurance would have paid that. For me vacation and vacation insurance go together.

1 minute ago, LMaxwell said:

I was typing the reply above before I read yours.  Seems we are wondering similar things; but the insurance has zero impact on who arrives to get you off the ship.  Still, wouldn't leave the borders of the US without a travel insurance plan! 

I see. The insurance medivacs from land. So if I'm sent to a hospital in the Bahamas my insurance could get me home for medical care. Cost of insurance will likely go up.

Just now, rimmit said:

 

They will file for Ch. 11.  The cruises will continue.  The question is if the FCC will still be honored if they file for Chapter 11 or not.  

Would think if they want to stay in operation they better not alienate customers which is what they would do by scrapping FCC. LOTS of customers out there with FCC.

1 minute ago, rimmit said:

Exactly.   Basically the CDC has said, “You can’t possibly come up with a plan that meets what we want.  You aren’t going anywhere till we can get a vaccine and make it semi safe to be on a cruise ship again.”

 

If large events like concerts and sports are likely canned till there is a vaccine, and that is on land, there is no way that cruise ships are getting the ok to be stranded out on the ocean.

So much for those summer cruise. We're looking at Fall 2021 at the earliest. Will the cruise lines last that long?

3 minutes ago, Jobeth66 said:

 

Very, very true.  Which is why I think the no-sail will stand as long as the CDC keeps extending it - the lines are never going to be able to live up to the requirements to get waivers.  Obviously, someone higher up in the government could come down and remove all these precautions and restrictions, but it only takes one outbreak on one ship to do a lot of damage.

If the requirements are waived, cruises will have very little sympathy from the general population when (not if) there is an outbreak.

2 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

 

I do not believe the Coast Guard is denying Americans access to health care; that said though this is why they are requiring the cruise lines to have these plans in place.  

 

Tax payer dollars have paid for every single USCG rescue, escort, inspection...the cruise lines aren't billed for rescues or armed escorts in and out of ports. That's tax payer money. Keeping tax payers secure. 

This is especially important since they don't pay to the federal government. After the pandemic if Royal is still around, I wanr to know that I can use my vacation insurance policy to get medivaced home if necessary. Hopefully that doesn't change.

The evacuation part seems easy. Passengers can have insurance. It can be required. 

1 minute ago, rimmit said:

 

You are using a transitive property in this situation so if you want to make it transitive, passengers are being denied a lot more than access to just healthcare (which in the US is a privilege, not a right)  by being blocked from entering a country.  You are also being denied access to your home, your car, your kids, etc. by being denied from being allowed back in the country.  

 

However, the point is at this point if you chose to go on a ship, despite all the warnings and everything that has happened, it's basically go at your own risk, no country whether it be the US, Chile, Australia wants anything to do with cruise ships, and that's even if the cruise ships were allowed to operate, which is just not happening for a LOOONG time.

I can't see cruises resuming until there is a vaccine or effective treatment. I think this order is just to make sure that cruise lines don't try to start up again any time soon. No way they can comply with all of this.

  Is this for the foreseeable future even after the pandemic ends? If this is how it will be post pandemic it will be the end of cruising for me and I will have to forfeit my $900 FCC. If I am critically ill, I want to be medivaced to a US hospital. This is why I always purchase insurance. I am healthy, and don't expect to need it, but if I do I want to be taken care of in my own country. If there aren't enough ventilators or other necessary medicine and equipment, who gets treated first?  suite guest? or casino high rollers? No thank you. If you see a flaw in my logic, please tell me because I really LOVE crusing. Perhaps you can explain why I'm overreacting and put my mind at ease thereby saving our $900.

3 hours ago, BND said:

I think we'll see that once a vaccine is available that people will need to prove they are immune before they will be allowed to cruise.  Not so much because the cruiselines will push that, but more that other countries will, just like for some other vaccines/countries.  The other option will be a treatment that works well and quickly.  What amazes me however is the posts I've seen on a few fb pages by people who think the vaccine is either a conspiracy to "track people" or will be dangerous because it's being pushed through.  So, conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers will have major problems with the idea.  

I believe in vaccines. My children and I both have the recommended vaccines and get the fly shot. However, there are several instances of dangerous side effects being reported once a drug becomes widely used. A vaccine is a drug. A quick vaccine which Has not had time to follow recipients for a few years to see possible adverse reactions makes me nervous. Especially when I am at low risk for complications if I do get the virus.

It actually makes me feel a little safer to know that cruise lines themselves can't decide when it's safe. Not that I have an overriding faith in the government, but its good to know that they are accountable to someone other than shareholders when deciding when to sail again.

This is interesting because I didn't realize there was an actual no sail order. I knew they couldn't sail obviously but didn't realize it was an actual government order. I remember reading somewhere in the contract that they were not responsible for government orders. I remember thinking if this was a way for them not to provide refunds. But so far they are promising refunds.

1 minute ago, mugtech said:

Damn.  Read the title, thought we were having a good old fashioned argument about the last plastic straw.  Turns out just to be another boring insurance thread.  We now return to our regular program.

I hate paper straws

9 minutes ago, nbsjcruiser said:

I posted this the other day in another thread : Guess I wasn't too far off when I said to DW the other day that if cruise lines decided to open tomorrow and start cruising out of FLL, there'd be a lineup of morons as far as the eye could see waiting to get on a ship.
 

Someone responded  almost immediately with: "we would". You cannot fathom the stupidity in that response. Mind you, they'd be the first one interviewed on TV whining and crying that the mean old cruise ship is letting them suffer needlessly and they'd be begging for help.

 

 

I really don't know when I will cruise even after they open. What would make you feel uts safe to go? Just curious as I really have no idea. 

1 hour ago, ARandomTraveler said:

The comment about raising kids was a figure of speech. I’m not against supporting people, but I am against people trying to blame a big corporation for their personal decisions. People had options to secure their money but chose not to, and I’m against “making them whole” when they signed a contract agreeing that they’d be willing to forfeit their money to an FCC with an expiration date.

 

As for my own kid- I’m proud to have raised a hard working, very successful kid who takes ownership of her success and accepts consequences for her actions (or inactions). Sure, she’s won numerous school awards, but she’s also won over 5 national awards, 2 of them for community service based activities she spearheaded on behalf of other people.
 

She’s won 2 international awards, and, as a junior in high school, became an internationally published researcher. She’s one of only 150 National Coke Scholars (a national merit based scholarship awarded to 150 of the United state’s top students, which you probably know about since you also have kids). In March, she was admitted to Harvard, Princeton, Columbia AND Stanford Universities (among several other schools). I’d say I’ve done a pretty good job.

 

The cruise we were to take in June was in celebration of her graduation, which she is no longer getting, neither is she getting the vacation, but she hasn’t complained about it even once. We’re not greedy people, we work hard, and I teach my kid that life isn’t always fair, but she should do everything in her power to do the best she can to give herself options, and she’s done pretty dang good with that lesson. And - we (or rather I) bought insurance because I knew we might have to cancel and I wasn’t willing to get that money back in the form of a credit. I may only get 75% of my money back, but that’s what I signed up for. And I’m certainly not setting an example for my kid that we should blame someone else for losing 25% or that anyone owes us anything more than we signed up for.

I am fine with agreeing to disagree. I was raised to believe that to whom much is given much is expected. So of course I will never take the side of large corporation who doesn't pay taxes. You take their side. That's your right.. I am glad you had the cancel for any reason insurance. That wasn't an option for me.  The real sad thing is those who may have crossed paths with an infected passenger and got very sick or died. They had no choice. Cruise lines could have chose to cancel earlier but they didn't want to give refunds. I had insurance, booked a refundable deposit, and have canceled. You will always let the billionaires off the hook. I never will. Glad we are able to disagree. 

16 minutes ago, ARandomTraveler said:

The fact that people are saying it’s not fair that they can’t get their money back, or that their FCC’s are expiring before they can use them etc, are, in essence, expecting the cruiseline to put them in a better position because they don’t like those options. But those are the options they signed up for when they signed a contract.
 

That’s what I mean when I say people are expecting someone else (the cruiseline) to take on their (the customer’s) portion of the burden. 

Yes, and that's why the cruise lines are able to greedily keep their customers money. That's not in dispute.  I understand greed is considered good businesses in most companies.

10 minutes ago, ARandomTraveler said:

I’ll defer to philosophical differences as well. I don’t think the cruiseline bears responsibility for individuals choosing to get on a cruise during a pandemic. It’s easy to point fingers and place blame on someone else so people don’t have to accept consequences of their own choices, my philosophy is people need to take responsibility for their own choices and actions. I guess you raise your kids differently. 

How do you know I have kids and why the need to insert them. My philosophy is people 1st. Yours seems to be ompanies and their profits first. I'm happy we live in a country where we can disagree and have different ideas. Many people did choose to not go during the pandemic. The cruise line was able to keep their money and profit while sailing during the pandemic.  I have no idea how you raise your children and you have no idea how I raise mine or if I have them. Do you raise your children to be judgemental and greedy? I assume not. Why would you assume I raise mine not to be responsible for their own actions?  My oldest won the school citizenship award 2 years in a row. So I must be doing something right. Your child may have won similar awards.  Just as I don't know you, you don't know me.  Hope you and your family stay well.

50 minutes ago, ARandomTraveler said:

I’m not saying that cruise lines don’t have to bear any responsibility. I think they are very likely dealing with that responsibility right now, just like everyone else.

 

The issue here is that people want someone else to take on their portion of the burden because they don’t like the consequences of their choices, or the terms of contracts that they signed.

 

Sounds to me like a lot of people’s parents raised them without consequences and it shows 😏

I have not heard anyone say that. But of course I have not read every post.  I wish cruise lines had taken some cooperate responsibly. They would still cruise now if they could. And sadly some would hop right on and sail if cruises were sailing.

36 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

I guess these "greedy cruise lines" that care about profits should be providing wonderful cruise experiences to passengers without regard for their revenue.

 

By gosh, that is a great idea! Let's make every cruise line just spend and spend, returning money whenever a passenger has a whim, while not letting them enforce any agreements their customers make--especially the ones that the customers signed to get cheap fares! Then, for entertainment we can read about them as they go out of business, fire their crews, and sell the ships for scrap! 

 

I wonder how many people saying the cruises should have been cancelled in late February would have lit this forum up if they had?

Its interesting the way you compare canceling because of a Pandemic to a whim. I hope everyone takes this seriously and stays safe. Although there are many who feel its not, it is serious. There's a real person with loved ones behind the death statistics. Stay well everone!

1 hour ago, broberts said:

 

Pandemic was a foreseeable disaster. The current one is not the first. Surely cruise lines took gambles by not planning for them. Yet some seem to think that mega corporations should bear no responsibility for poor planning.

Well put!!

1 hour ago, ARandomTraveler said:

It does only cover 75%, that’s true. But I’m super content with my 75% cash refund and was willing to lose 25% of my vacation investment in the event that I decided I didn’t want to take my vacation. That’s the risk I took when I decided I wanted to travel and spend that much of my money on something so far in advance. I feel like if was a fair trade and I’m happy with it.
 

I think a lot of people on here complaining would be happy to get 75% of their cash back right now, and be able to wipe their hands of it and walk away mostly unscathed. 
 

The cruiseline has their own options for how to handle the losses - self insuring (meaning they have the money in the bank to cover their expenses and are willing to accept losses), or they can use options like issuing FCC’s instead of cash in order to conserve cash-on-hand, bankruptcy etc. And they’re utilizing those options.
 

You can’t get upset now just because you didn’t think about the consequences of booking an expensive vacation with money you weren’t willing to lose. You took a gamble. Granted, the odds were in your favor that you would win, but unfortunately you lost... but you took the gamble.

 

You could have chosen to book a land vacation at a hotel that didn’t require money up front, or you could have booked the cruise only at the very last minute when you knew for sure you’d be able to go with no issues, or you could have stayed home. You chose to book a trip ahead of time, with money you weren’t willing to lose, without proper insurance coverage (or knowing that you couldn’t buy any) and now you’re upset because it didn’t work in your favor. Sorry 🤷‍♂️

I'm not upset. I never pay more than 2500 for ANY vacation.   I didn't personally loose any money. (Well, I hope not. Still waiting on my refundable deposit refund) I am just stating the fact that cancel for any reason in not an option for all AND that the greedy cruise lines gave passengers the option of loosening their money or cruising during an emergent pandemic. By doing so they jepodized the lives of not just passengers who chose to cruise by crew and non cruisers who crossed paths with them. I am sure you think they too should take personal responsibility. Indeed,, I think your argument is Sorry. But like I said philosophical differences.

1 hour ago, MoniMommy said:

Yes there is no dispute that the greedy cruise lines made people choose between health and looseing money by not going. 

2 minutes ago, ARandomTraveler said:

Nobody made anybody do anything. People made their own choices, nobody blackmailed them or held a gun to their heads. People who felt compelled to cruise because they couldn’t get their money back did that to themselves by not buying cancel for any reason insurance (except of course New Yorkers). 
 

It sucks for people who are learning these lessons the hard way. It’s not that I don’t understand their disappointment and frustration of not being able to get a refund. However- the fact remains that it’s still their own fault for choosing to take the gamble, or for not educating themselves on insurance before they handed over such large chunks of money that they didn’t want to lose. 

Let me rephrase. The only choice passengers were given by the greedy cruise lines was to go at the risk of health or stay home and loose their money. The unwittingly and unwilling souls who happened to cross paths with an infected cruiser had no choice.