CDC inspections of Explorer: good news, bad news

[DaveFr]

I saw a post on another forum noting that the poster had canceled a cruise on the Explorer this year because of a bad CDC sanitation inspection. I checked the CDC website and found that the Explorer has been inspected twice since December 2016.

 

The bad news is that the Explorer only received a score of 86 in its December inspection. A score of 86 years is only one point above a not satisfactory rating. (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/InspectionQueryTool/InspectionDetailReport.aspx?ColI=MTg3ODA0NTE%3d-0THs9N3N8B8%3d)

 

The good news is that the ship was re-inspected in March and received a score of 96. (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/InspectionQueryTool/InspectionDetailReport.aspx?ColI=MTkzMDAyMzI%3d-FKp9O7ttS0I%3d)

 

I hope Regent learns from this experience and allows enough time to build Explorer II to allow the ship to be fully ready for prime time before its first cruise. Maybe Regent should hire former CDC sanitation inspectors to perform an inspection prior to the first sailing of the ship. This might help avoid any more low scores like the Explorer experienced in December.

[easyboy]

Maybe Regent should hire former CDC sanitation inspectors to perform an inspection prior to the first sailing of the ship. This might help avoid any more low scores like the Explorer experienced in December.

Good point and I totally agree.

 

 

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Forums mobile app

[UUNetBill]

Wow. A lot of those write-ups were marking issues - most were potable water lines not properly marked, but the one that bothered me was the one that WAS marked as potable water but was, in fact, technical water. :o

 

I probably shouldn't have read the entire report...now I need to keep tabs on this website as well, and compare against other ships and cruise lines.

 

Glad to see they climbed 10 points in just three months, though. Kind of glad I waited until April to sail on her!

Edited May 31, 2017 by UUNetBill
added a line

[mrlevin]

Entire fleet scored quite poorly; looking at the ships that scored 100 made me wonder why no Regent ships made that list that included both Carnival and Crystal ships.

 

Marc

[Travelcat2]

I am not concerned whatsoever with the scores as most of them have no effect on passengers. We sailed on Silversea's Shadow right after it failed an inspection. It was probably the cleanest ship that we have ever sailed on (and their problems were definitely worse than Regent's). No one is perfect - no cruise ship is perfect. If someone wants to cancel over this and perhaps sail on Carnival or Crystal - go for it!

[JPR]

Yes, this is only very good news fit current and near future cruisers on Explorer!

[ronrick1943]

No I disagree, the score is important and Regent has no excuse for a low score. It can look clean but that doesn't mean it is. It's very important or they wouldn't have them.

Rick

[ronrick1943]

Sorry forgot, if the score wasn't important the score wouldn't have gone up to 96.

Rick

[Caroldoll]

Frankly, I AM worried. I can still cancel my December two segments. Thinking. When is the next inspection?

[Travelcat2]

According to Bill who read the report, the score was not abut cleanliness. IMO, the more people that read the report, the more they will understand the basis of the report. I'll try to read it tomorrow. In the meantime, the more people that cancel, the more room for the rest of us.

[flossie009]

Having read the CDC reports, we are very glad that we left it until this year before sailing on Explorer.

 

Apart from the very disturbing potable water pipe marking issues highlighted by Bill, there were also a lot of basic hygiene and cleanliness issues; in particular it appears that dishwashing was not being carried out thoroughly.

 

Regent's own management and inspections were obviously not sufficient in the early months and it is very worrying to see that the corrective action report was not signed-off by Regent until 3 months after the first inspection, and that a few items were noted as still not corrected during the second CDC inspection.

[Paul&Shark]

Having read the CDC reports, we are very glad that we left it until this year before sailing on Explorer.

 

Apart from the very disturbing potable water pipe marking issues highlighted by Bill, there were also a lot of basic hygiene and cleanliness issues; in particular it appears that dishwashing was not being carried out thoroughly.

 

Regent's own management and inspections were obviously not sufficient in the early months and it is very worrying to see that the corrective action report was not signed-off by Regent until 3 months after the first inspection, and that a few items were noted as still not corrected during the second CDC inspection.

 

Agree completely!

[UUNetBill]

According to Bill who read the report, the score was not abut cleanliness. IMO, the more people that read the report, the more they will understand the basis of the report. I'll try to read it tomorrow. In the meantime, the more people that cancel, the more room for the rest of us.

 

TC - actually, many write-ups were about cleanliness, it's just that it appeared to me that the overall score was pulled down by water line marking issues, which is part of the problems you'd expect with a new build (although these items should have been identified and corrected prior to sailing with passengers, IMO). That said, after looking at the latest report and comparing it to other ships, I most definitely would NOT cancel a cruise based solely on the report. I'm sure the ship's galley is as clean, if not cleaner, than most land-based restaurants, especially in some of the ports we visit...

 

Having read the CDC reports, we are very glad that we left it until this year before sailing on Explorer.

 

Apart from the very disturbing potable water pipe marking issues highlighted by Bill, there were also a lot of basic hygiene and cleanliness issues; in particular it appears that dishwashing was not being carried out thoroughly.

 

Regent's own management and inspections were obviously not sufficient in the early months and it is very worrying to see that the corrective action report was not signed-off by Regent until 3 months after the first inspection, and that a few items were noted as still not corrected during the second CDC inspection.

Flossie - repeat write-ups are definitely a concern (unless there were operational reasons for not correcting them up to CDC standards - I'm sure there were workarounds in place) but I wouldn't read too much into a 3-month delay in signing off the corrective action report - I'm sure it's more of a regulatory thing than an issue with not fixing the deficiencies.

 

On a side note, I glanced over the summary report and saw several ships at the 100 level, but the only cruise line I saw that had 100 ratings across the board was Disney. Hell, if Disney can do it across their fleet, there's no reason at all why Regent can't.

 

Also, looking at the other luxury lines shows the following scores across the fleets:

 

Crystal: 99, 93

Seabourn: 93, 96, 96, 97, 98

Silversea: 88, 89, 97, 98, 99

Regent: 91, 92, 96, 96

 

Looks to me like Regent is right in line with the other lines. I guess if cleanliness is your number one priority, you'd need to stick with Disney. Or Seabourn for luxury lines.

[flossie009]

On a side note, I glanced over the summary report and saw several ships at the 100 level, but the only cruise line I saw that had 100 ratings across the board was Disney. Hell, if Disney can do it across their fleet, there's no reason at all why Regent can't.

Very surprised that Disney scored 100..................I thought they had a big mouse problem on their ships ;p;p;p

[ronrick1943]

Very surprised that Disney scored 100..................I thought they had a big mouse problem on their ships ;p;p;p

 

Now that was a good one. Every ship should try to get 100 - that should always be the goal period.

[UUNetBill]

Very surprised that Disney scored 100..................I thought they had a big mouse problem on their ships ;p;p;p

Bwahahahaha!

 

Just remember, they're the happiest ships on earth...er, water...well, you know what I mean...

[DreamflightPat]

According to Bill who read the report, the score was not abut cleanliness. IMO, the more people that read the report, the more they will understand the basis of the report. I'll try to read it tomorrow. In the meantime, the more people that cancel, the more room for the rest of us.

 

Why waste our time when you haven't yet read the report?

[Travelcat2]

Why waste our time when you haven't yet read the report?

 

Not sure what your point is. My point is that all of us should read the report (which obviously most posters have not done).

 

Bill, thank you for your insight into the report and thanks to Dave for linking the website. As usual, some of the issues are quite minor - such as the one I copied and pasted below. Regent missed a "phrase" but the explanation went into things that were not even an issue. Other items did need correcting. We were on the Explorer in July and November and did not see anything other than a very clean ship. While Mariner was going through gastrointestinal issues with passengers, this was to the case on Explorer.

 

"

Item No.: 16Site: Buffet-Hot Food BuffetViolation: The public health consumer advisory above the hamburgers was cut off and missing the phrase 'especially if you have certain medical conditions'. This was corrected.Recommendation: If an animal food such as beef, eggs, fish, lamb, milk, pork, poultry, or shellfish that is raw, undercooked, or not otherwise processed to eliminate pathogens is offered in a ready-to-eat form or as a raw ingredient in another ready-to-eat food, ensure the consumer is informed by way of disclosure using menu advisories, placards, or other easily visible written means of the significantly increased risk to certain especially vulnerable consumers eating such foods in raw or undercooked form. Locate the advisory at the outlets where these types of food are served. Ensure that raw shell egg preparations are not used in uncooked products as described in section 7.3.3.2.3. Ensure that disclosure is made by one of the two following methods: (1) On a sign describing the animal-derived foods (e.g., ?oysters on the half-shell,? ?hamburgers,? ?steaks,? or ?eggs?); AND that they can be cooked to order and may be served raw or undercooked; AND a statement indicating that consuming raw or undercooked meats, seafood, shellfish, eggs, milk, poultry may increase your risk for foodborne illness, especially if you have certain medical conditions. Ensure the advisory is posted at the specific station where the food is served raw, undercooked, or cooked to order OR (2) On a menu using an asterisk at the animal-derived foods requiring disclosure and a footnote with a statement indicating that consuming raw or undercooked meats, seafood, shellfish, eggs, milk, or poultry may increase your risk for foodborne illness, especially if you have certain medical conditions.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Travelcat2

[flossie009]

Not sure what your point is. My point is that all of us should read the report (which obviously most posters have not done).

It appears that most of the posters on this thread had read one or both of the Explorer reports...............and they read them before posting.

 

As usual, some of the issues are quite minor. ............................While Mariner was going through gastrointestinal issues with passengers, this was to the case on Explorer.

I just hope that Regent management do not share this type of complacent attitude .......................and do not wait for an outbreak of illness before action is taken.

[LoonCall]

What is troubling me after reading the report and the CDC website is that Voyager hasn't been inspected since 2010:eek:

Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

[Travelcat2]

It appears that most of the posters on this thread had read one or both of the Explorer reports...............and they read them before posting.

 

 

I just hope that Regent management do not share this type of complacent attitude .......................and do not wait for an outbreak of illness before action is taken.

 

Your "take" on who has read or not read the report and mine differ. In any case, I saw no need to say that reading posts (whether or not you read the report) is a waste of time. I had no reason to doubt what Bill posted and he gave a good overview of the report. Now, having read it, my posts would be the same.

 

Regent is definitely not complacent - as evidenced by the latest score. If anyone wants another reason to bash Regent, check out the Navigator's scores from around 3 years ago. It is interesting that she has been sailing as usual and no one brings this up. IMO, if the people that scrutinize and rate ships went through most restaurants on land, a good percentage of them would be shut down.

[ronrick1943]

Flossie009 said: I just hope that Regent management do not share this type of complacent attitude .......................and do not wait for an outbreak of illness before action is taken.

 

I couldn't agree more with you, it's important to all and saying it isn't is just wrong. All companies that get graded should always want the highest score they can get. If not it's down hill for them.........Rick

[Travelcat2]

Flossie009 said: I just hope that Regent management do not share this type of complacent attitude .......................and do not wait for an outbreak of illness before action is taken.

 

I couldn't agree more with you, it's important to all and saying it isn't is just wrong. All companies that get graded should always want the highest score they can get. If not it's down hill for them.........Rick

 

Rick, no one is saying that a cruise line should be complacent (at least that isn't what I am saying). I'm just trying to put it into perspective. I did a quick look at Oceania and NCL since they are Regent's sister companies. While Oceania's Marina received a "100" score, the Insignia received an "88" and the Regatta a "84". Then I checked out the other luxury cruise lines. Seabourn's Pride s scored an "89" while the Crystal Serenity scored an "87". The biggest surprise to me was the high scores for Silversea's ships. After making the newspapers with gross stories after they failed an inspection just a few years ago (right before we sailed on the Shadow), the scores are quite high.

 

The lesson seems to be that cruise lines can come back from even a failing score. This is definitely evidenced by Silversea and I have no doubt that the Explorer (as well as Regent's other ships) will maintain high scores.

[mrlevin]

What is troubling me after reading the report and the CDC website is that Voyager hasn't been inspected since 2010:eek:

Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

 

It could be because Voyager hasn't been in North America since 2010.

 

Marc