WpgCruise

5 hours ago, detwings said:

I saw this today.  I cannot believe the CDC would extend and penalize the cruise industry but let the airlines fly.  Southwest is starting traditional boarding again with no social distancing.  The CDC is trying to bankrupt the cruise industry it looks like.

 

I didn't know the CDC had regularity authority over the airlines.  

41 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

And any reasonable individual will make the decision they are most comfortable with, without worry of ridicule from a person who has a differing view

I agree.

Too many seem to be spending too much energy on telling others what to do.

On 10/1/2020 at 12:38 PM, tennis said:

If you do decide to cruise then you should be responsible for any of the outcomes. If you are not comfortable with any possible negative outcomes then don’t cruise.  But why someone would insist that adults who want to cruise and will be responsible for themselves should be prevented from cruising sounds like life when I lived in the Soviet Union.  No one is insisting that anyone else take a cruise.

 

(Bolding Mine)

And here lies the problem.  If you want to assume the risk, I agree, that's on you.  Where I have a concern is if you become infected, the consequences are not yours alone.  You now pass the risk to those you potentially infect before your diagnosis. You pass the risk if you don't properly isolate.  You also take resources from the health care system. and these health care resource requirements could be significant and long term. 

It isn't all about a single person, it's about all of us together. The question should be what can we do to make this better for everyone.

An interesting article regarding the present health of the few cruise ships in U.S. waters that have to comply with CDC reporting requirements. Ships not in U.S. waters do not have to report to the CDC so who knows their conditions?  

Assuming it is factual, my concern is that if the cruise lines can't keep their ships healthy when only crew are on board, how will they manager to get back to providing a safe environment to passengers?

https://www.axios.com/cdc-covid-19-cruise-ship-thousands-cases-us-7f942f86-a56d-44bd-a010-5b5d52cf6d96.html

1 hour ago, voljeep said:

gonna be a cold-ass winter for all the K-nuck snowbirds who can't drive down to the USA / FLORIDA, eh ?

No problem. Flights are available and there will be lots of late model cars from estate sales.

We'll make it work, no worries.

3 minutes ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

I wonder if it's the same for Americans who own property in Canada.  A few weeks ago someone posted that a Florida couple was recently arrested in Canada for not following quarantine in their property in Canada.  

 

Actually in that specific case the couple have joint citizenship which is how they were able to enter Canada.  Citizens can enter (return to ) Canada but they must self quarantine for 14 days, and these folks did not, hence their consequences.

15 minutes ago, livingonthebeach said:

  As an owner of US property, not sure the US can tell me not to enter my property or what to do with it.  Not sure about the Bahamas.

 

The port at CocCay is maintained by RCL not by the Bahamian government.  Again, the contract RCL signed with the Bahamas would answer the question. 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=1418

To address your point, here's another example.  I a Canadian own property in Phoenix but the U.s. has closed its border to Canadians for non essential travel.  The U.S has stopped me from accessing my property as has the Bahamian government stopped RCL from accessing theirs.

1 hour ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

 

 

Canadians and EU citizens are allowed in the Bahamas but they would have to get to Palm Beach first which doesn't look promising as the Canadian border is closed to all except essential travel.  

Can you expand on this please?  I don't understand why Canadians and E.U. citizens would need to connect through Palm Beach to get to the Bahamas.

I've flown direct from Toronto to Nassau  many times and seen European airlines at the gate in Nassau 

21 minutes ago, Elaine5715 said:

The outbreak onboard ships  was nowhere close to even one infected nursing home that was fully staffed by trained medical personnel and yet nursing homes are not under threat.  

Diamond Princess 712 Covid 19 infections.

Not sure which fully staffed nursing home exceeded  that number.

Until people get their heads around this pandemic and take mitigation seriously it's only going to get worse.  There is as Sweden proved no herd immunity, there is no guarantee that Covid survivors don't get it again, there is no magic pill or vacine rolling out tomorrow.

A cruise is a vacation, hardly a primary focus for any regulatory body. 

But for those who gotta cruise, it looks like lots of European options are opening, but who knows if they will accept U.S. customers based on current trends.

3 hours ago, Himself said:

  The cruise industry gets a bad rap, from the Fourth Estate.

Perhaps this is because the cruise industry conducts itself in a manner that results in a negative image.

Practices such as discharge of waste in environmentally sensative areas.

Non compliance with court ordered remedial plans.

Failure to acuratly and fully disclose health issues of crew and passengers

Failure to meet contract obligations on the repatriation of crew.

Maybe the fourth estate isn't digging in as deeply as they should on the cruise industry?

6 hours ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 I would cancel and get a refund.  There will be deals when all of this gets sorted out.     I would take my money now and wait for future sales when sailing actually resumes.

Prudent advice given the O.P's circumstances.

And just what has HAL done recently that would make you think they are not foolish?

I have seen few strategies put forward that can only be attributed to  this site implimented by HAL.

4 minutes ago, YXU AC*SE said:

I guess we can't rewrite 'Come From Away', can we .... ?           Scott.   

Sadly "Because I helped You Yesterday" is no reason for someone to pay it forward today.

It's a different world we live in, and those we thought we could depend on are no longer there for us.

I hope I'm never so miserable that I will turn away someone in need.

2 hours ago, seapals2 said:

Has the government of the Bahamas really got to wait for a critically ill passenger to die before acting in the only humanitarian way acceptable.  They have benefitted by millions from the cruise industry in the past.  

1)   I suspect the Islands which have turned away the ship do not have the medical resources to manage an influx of at least 40 critically ill people, plus the so far un-diagnosed, but infected from this ship.   

2)  Providing the limited resources they do have  to the Braemar will result in less for their own people. I suspect medical supply shortages to treat COVID-19 patients will be evident in First World countries and even more dire in the undeveloped Caribbean. A country with limited resources can not seriously be expected  to somehow manage to quarantine, and support some 1,200 passengers and crew while providing the medical care necessary?

3)  It's well documented the cruise ship passengers spend minimal amounts on Caribbean islands. The revenue from the port fees collected barely covers the infrastructure costs incurred in building the ports.To suggest the government of the Bahamas "Owes" a cruise line anything should perhaps be reconsidered.

4)  The best and only option is for the ship to disembark it's passengers and crew in a country with the medical capacity to support the ill people, while minimizing the risk to the host population. 

We were on a B2B with Celebrity a while back with the turn around port being Port Everglades.  The process was to leave the ship, walk through one terminal, wave our passport at a CBSA agent then trek down the road to another terminal,  process through security then re-board. Except the ship had shifted during our trek so we had to wait for the ship to be re-positioned before we could re-board. The whole process took a couple of hours.  We would have been better off to take a tour, and be out of the B2B process all togeher.

Both the cruise line and CBSA  say the other is responsible for the process, I suspect it's a bit of finger pointing from both. When all is said and done I think it's CBSA who determines the agents available and hence the final process.

The lesson learned for me is to ask, ask and ask again "what will be the process". If it's more than I can physically manage then I'll ask for support.  

On 12/2/2019 at 10:22 AM, sanger727 said:

 

I don't think it's quite as black and white as you are making it.

We can agree to differ. I think it is black and white.

You either have ethics and morals or you don't. The employer expects payment for product.

If the employee "gives" the product away for free, or in return of a tip or bribe, this is stealing from the employer.

10 hours ago, bbwex said:

  Just look up the fire on the Star Princess -- 1 person killed, well over 100 cabins damaged.  See the images below.  That was from a cigarette, 

 

 

 

Improper cigarette disposal was never proven as the cause of the fire. No cause has been determined only supposition as stated in the final report as to cause.

Here's a link to the final report.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c706ae5274a4290000097/Star_Princess.pdf

Page 39 2.3.2 reads "In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is considered that the most likely source of ignition was a discarded cigarette end."

IMHO we weaken the argument for restricting smoking when incorrect statements are made regarding incidents such as the Star Princess fire.  Proponents for continued smoking on ships  simply point out the incorrect statements, which bolster their argument to resist change.

6 hours ago, phoenix_dream said:

I am one of the unlucky ones on the cancelled 14 night Silhouette cruise next January.  Many of us are really not happy with how Celebrity is handling the options being offered us as compensation.  

What would the O.P. or any of the unlucky ones consider to be fair compensation ?

IF IT SHOULD BE

If it should be I grow frail and weak

And pain prevents my peaceful sleep.

Then you must do what must be done

When this last battle can't be won.

You will be sad, I understand.

Selfishness might stay your hand.

But on this day, more than the rest.

Your love and friendship take the test.

We've had so many happy years

That what's to come should hold no fears.

You'd not want me to suffer.

So, when the time comes, please let me go.

Take me where my needs they'll tend.

Only stay with me until the end.

Hold me firm and speak to me

Until my eyes no longer see.

I know, in time, you too will see

It is a kindness that you do for me.

Although my tail its last has waved.

From pain and suffering I've been saved.

Do not grieve it should be you

Who must decide this thing to do.

We've been so close, we two, these years.

Don't let your heart hold any tears.

Anonymous

4 minutes ago, A2Mich said:

 

I don’t think anyone meant they were rushing ahead of someone that actually needs the accessible stall.  They merely stated IF the accessible stall wasn’t already in use.

But therein lies the problem.  While the handicapped facility is being used by the non handicapped, it is unavailable for the handicapped.  Same concept as taking a handicapped parking spot.  While the non handicapped is there, it isn't available for the intended use.

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

There are exemptions for all crew for emergency situations, and even drills, get serious.  However, I don't believe that being an elevator monitor would qualify as an "emergency duty".  But for normal circumstances, no, there is no exception for the Captain, because if the Captain is working too many hours, and not getting sufficient rest, his judgement can become impaired, which is why the work/rest hour limitations were instituted in the first place.

There is an old saying along the lines of "I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand" 

No matter how it is explained that the idea of a dedicated handicapped access elevator (s) is not practical, some simply will continue to argue. Such is the nature of people. Is it a great idea, sure !  But in life we have to accept that we don't always get everything we want.  

I was born with spina bifida and know full well mobility challenges.  I've lived with them every day of my life.  When I have to wait for an elevator on a cruise ship, it's not a problem. I'm on a cruise, there is no place I have to be that a few more minutes will matter and in the grand scheme of things in my opinion, and my opinion only, there's a lot more important things to fight for than dedicated elevator access.

When we spend our resources sniping at the little things, how can we be expected to be taken seriously when we fight for the important issues?

19 hours ago, cle-guy said:

My real issue was with them having ZERO concern for fixing in advance an issue they know exists.  Why would a company that calls itself a Luxury line, would not address in advance a known issue to resolve it is the point.  As another poster said, why don't people have authority to do something.  They could have made those phone calls as easily (actually far easier) than myself or my travel agent to eventually end up in the same position, but with a satisfied guest, not a dumbfounded one.  

The issue for me is summarized above,  ZERO concern,  no interest in fixing the problem to the customers satisfaction, and not prepared to find a solution.   

Celebrity years ago was a Premium cruise line but have demonstrated time and time again they are not prepared to manage to customer expectations.  This rush to compete in the mass market has seen some long time clients move their business to the boutique lines at a comparable price point, and a better service level. As long as Celebrity can continue to attract new to the brand clients, at a faster rate than the current run off, they have no incentive to provide better service.

Celebrities business model has shifted to the mass market and while in the short term it may provide the required ROE, the competition is snapping at their heels. 

I hope the O.P. can put the frustration of their experience behind them, and enjoy the rest of the cruise.  

Quote

 

 

I’ll put this out there as food for thought as to why the H.A.L. Board and Roll Calls may not be as active as others.

I don’t think the changes to the format is a significant impact, given the  continued volume of posts on Cruise Critic Boards such as Celebrity, Royal Caribbean, N.C.L. to name others I follow.

Instead I suspect the decline in H.A.L. Cruise Critic postings from new and existing members is simply resignation. People ask a question or post an opinion and are denigrated by the regulars who seem to do their best to run off new members. This carries over to Roll Calls as perhaps people would prefer not to associate with bullies who appear to be give the impression they are interested in discussing how much they know, Mariner status, their posting numbers on Cruise Critic, and how much better things were in the good old days.

I challenge some of those who are blaming the change of Cruise Critic format for the decline in participation to actually read their own posts, and those of some of the other long time posters.   Try and put yourselves in others position and ask yourself if you are the type of person people reading your posts would want associate with on a vacation ?

Perhaps rather than telling Cruise Critic to change, some should look in the mirror and ask if perhaps they are a part of the reason for people not posting on Cruise Critic or participating in Roll Calls.

There is an old saying along the lines of “Misery Loves Company” and if a newcomer to the H.A.L. Board follows the threads I can understand why they might just as soon not participate in a discussion or Roll Call with many frequent long time posters.

Just some food for thought for whatever use can be made of it.

17 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

 

 

There does no need to be probable

cause nor is a warrant necessary. 

 

 

 

 

So true.  Some people appear to be under the impression they have "Rights" that require due process before a search is conducted at U.S. entry points.  I would suggest they educate themselves so that they understand exactly what their "Rights" are and also what responsibilities they have when presenting themselves for entry. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol have extraordinarily authority, and while ignorance may indeed be bliss, the last thing I'm going to do is beak off to armed people in authority in a foreign country (or even my own to be honest) without knowing what I'm talking about. 

Bottom line, when any of us present ourselves for entry into any country we are subjecting ourselves and property with us to the laws of that country.

I am surprised frankly at the number of people posting about the O.P.'s experience who report along the line of "I've never heard of this".  While not an every day occurrence it certainly happens.   

18 minutes ago, Trickie Dickie said:

 I am from Winnipeg as well! 😄

 My surprise was that the land of the free didn’t feel so free to me 😄 as I was barefoot in a Royal Caribbean bathrobe in the hallway under guard. 

 

I see you're a fellow "Pegger"  

But look at the bright side, you've got a good story to tell about your cruise.🤣