Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About JimmyVWine

  • Rank
    3,000+ Club

About Me

  • Location
  • Interests
    Wine, Food, Travel
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, if it does, then debating the restart dates for cruising will be the least of anyone's concerns.
  2. And now Viking has suspended through the end of the year. (12/31 as opposed to 12/15).
  3. But what is the reason? Demonstrably greater negligence than other cruise lines? Willful disregard for the health and safety of the passengers and crew? Or was it geography? Of course Diamond (in and around China when China was ground zero) had more cases than a ship sailing around Ecuador and Chile. And the vicious spread was largely the result of keeping the infection on the ship and not letting people get off. Immediate evacuation of the ship would have driven Diamond's numbers way down, (while driving the on-shore numbers way up.) Was any of this the doing of Princess in a way that other cruise lines did it better, or would have done it better had their ship just sailed out of China? By the time other ships detected a problem on board, more effective protocols were in place that kept the numbers down. Nursing homes that were hit early fared far worse than nursing homes that are getting hit now. Were the early nursing homes more culpable, or just less aware and prepared for the situation they faced? I don't know that I trust PCL any more, or any less than any other cruise line. Which brings me to The OP's question. I think there are two levels of safety in our future. The first is when Covid-19 is "well-managed" (and you can insert your own definition of what that means.) In other words, the virus will be in our midst, but certain measures and strategies will be in place to decrease the risk of contraction. We are seeing that with airlines and Disney parks. I believe that the cruise industry will begin to sail when we reach a level of "well-managed" that satisfies a sufficient number of people. But using Disney as an example, they are operating at around 30% capacity because that is one of the major "well-managed" strategies that they can employ to keep people safe and get people accustomed to returning to the fold. But the cruise industry cannot operate on 30% capacity. So I don't know what "well-managed" is going to look like for cruising. But I guarantee that cruising will begin again at some point in time when defensive strategies will be necessary and employed such as masks, theater shows with one-third seating capacity, no Tables of 8 comprised of strangers, etc. The second level of safety is when Covid-19 is simply no longer a thing. When it is eradicated in the way that the Spanish Flu was, or small pox, or polio, or Swine Flu. I have no idea what will cause that to happen, (herd immunity after the 50,000,000 most vulnerable people die? An effective vaccine?) or when it will happen. But it will happen. I do not believe that the human race is sentenced to social distancing with masks for the next 5,000 years. Something is going to change. And when that comes to pass, we will be back to the way things were in 2019 (with perhaps a greater appreciation for sanitation and cleanliness.) I do not see myself getting back on a ship until we are at the second level of safety. But when we do achieve that state, I will definitely cruise again, and would consider PCL in exactly the same way I considered them for my last cruise in 2019.
  4. I find it difficult to believe that PCL extended their pause until 12/15 without knowing that all others were going to follow suit. It is far more likely that all cruise lines will align with PCL than it is that the other cruise lines start cruising in November leaving PCL in their wake. But yes, that is my opinion and you need not share it.
  5. Hapuna Matata is a wonderful phrase...if you have no worries in Hawaii. 😁
  6. Thanks for the photos. Honestly, in looking at the Mains, there is nothing there that I would pay $29 for. The vegetables served with the 3 ounces of scallops look like they came from a school lunch program. Seriously. That is what the galley prepares as a side? Birds-Eye frozen medley? And the steak looks like an MDR steak served with "Potatoes a la Afterthought."
  7. What this tells me is that U.S. citizens are a loooooong ways away from stepping foot on a cruise ship. Especially when the primary ports of departure are in FL and CA. The "solution", (if you will), is not policies and procedures that cruise lines can implement to assist in making cruising safer. The "solution" comes when Covid-19 is eradicated the way polio was. Cruising attracts those who are most at risk. According to CLIA, the average age is just under 50, and 51% of all cruisers are 50 or over. Trying to make adjustments for refunds, medical center visits, testing, etc. is never going to change the fact that an outbreak on a cruise ship will be far more devastating than an outbreak almost anywhere else, other than a nursing home. The cruise industry in general, and Princess in particular (after Diamond and Ruby headlines), is one outbreak away from extinction. They cannot afford to fail a second time. There is simply no margin for error here. Major League Baseball can shut down a second time, (and it may well happen with today's news) and still bounce back in the future. But if the cruise industry re-opens and is then forced to shut down a second time, it's over. O.V.E.R.
  8. I doubt that the wine has been removed from the ships as long as the ships continue to be occupied and have whatever power is necessary for daily life onboard. The only reason to move the wine would be if all power were being cut off and the storage conditions would change. Moving all of the wine off of a ship is not worth the effort and there is far more risk of damage, loss and theft during the moving and re-stocking. Best to leave it be, as long as it can maintain a reasonable temperature. Remember that not all of the ships have been in Princess-controlled ports this whole time, and some have just been stationed wherever it was convenient for the time being. So it isn't as if Princess had a safe, secure, trustworthy (and perhaps most importantly) free place to store the wine. If they had to rent wine storage space for all that wine, it would be costly, assuming they could even find suitable storage in the first place. Bulk wine storage is kind of a niche market that you don't find everywhere. Now, for ships re-positioned at Port Everglades, they could probably find free, safe storage for their inventory if they wanted to. But the time, effort and risk of moving the wine still comes into play. Champagne in the refrigerator is a risk, but does not spell surefire doom. The issue is with the cork, and not the wine itself. (Wine can be frozen and thawed with no detectable loss of quality, though I don't recommend it beyond conducting an experiment. The wine might be fine. The bottles? Not so much.) But corks vary greatly. A really good, high quality cork can withstand a spell in the fridge and Dom is using high quality (expensive) corks that won't shrink too much from the lack of humidity in the refrigerator. But an $18 bottle of bubbly with a $0.12 cork? No telling how that might shrink in a dry environment. That said, even high quality corks can fail, so the fridge is usually not your best option for long term storage.
  9. I'm pretty much in the same place. My view on masks is NOT political whatsoever. I wear one routinely when I leave my house, but that is for life's necessities like going to the grocery store. When it comes to my company returning its employees back in to the office, or me going on a cruise, or me going to Disney World, I do not want to do any of those things if wearing a mask, or converting hallways into one-way streets, or wearing gloves, or scanning around in a 360 degree circle making sure my distancing is proper is part of the work-around solution. I can't really have fun if 70% of my waking hours is spent trying to comply with rules. And I'm not arguing against the rules. I get it. I agree with them. I just don't find them to be compatible with my vacation spending. I will wait until the rules are no longer needed. Rooting hard for the Oxford vaccine to be the solution!
  10. Frustrating? Sure. Ridiculous? Can't blame Princess. Right thing to do. We are not in a better place now than we were 3 months ago and PCL has nothing to do with that. They are reacting to the situation, not causing it.
  11. 1. That photo showed 6 people. There are 1,039 other crew members on board. 2. We don't know if those 6 on deck have tested negative. 3. Passengers with Inside Cabins are allowed out on deck for limited periods of time each day. I assume that the same would apply to crew members who are quarantined in their tiny quarters. 4. This could be a photo of quarantined crew members who are "enjoying" their fresh air allotment. Or it could be a photo of crew members who have been released from quarantined status. Or it could be a photo of crew members who were never subject to a quarantine protocol because no crew members were ever quarantined. Bottom line is that this photo in no way demonstrates what the situation with the crew is, one way or the other.
  12. Do we know this to be true? Obviously there are crew members who are out and about preparing and delivering food and maintaining the essential operations of the ship. (I assume, (or at least hope) that these people have tested negative.) But do we know for sure that "non-essential" crew members are not in quarantine? Not saying you are wrong. But I haven't heard or seen anything that addresses this so I can't cite to a source. Seems to me that the folks who work in the gift shop who could have come in contact with an infected person either on this cruise or the one before it have just as much reason and need to be quarantined as anyone else, and since no one is visiting the gift shops, why not initiate preventive measures. Of course, confining them to their quarters would be pretty much like putting someone in a prison cell. But I'm not sure what the alternative is. If I were in charge, I would test the crew members first, and get the sick ones off the ship and then allow the healthy ones to run the ship. But until they tested negative, they'd be quarantined same as the guests. While it is true that from a public relations standpoint, the "passengers come first." But in reality, if you want to nip this in the bud, it is the crew that has to be proven healthy as they are the "constants" that will come in contact with wave after wave of guests from now into the foreseeable future.
  13. The lifeboats are never lowered unless the crew is doing safety drills which isn’t common enough to worry about. Having the lifeboats directly below you is not an issue at all. Won’t ruin your view and won’t cause noise.
  14. There are differences between the 6 and the 6S. So it is possible for you both to be right.
  • Create New...