News on the Westerdam

[kazu]

I don’t think anyone has posted this?  This is HAL’s update on their FB page.

 

For those on the Feb. 29th sailing, they are currently assessing that cruise.  Here is their statement:

 

Westerdam Update: 
Guests on board Westerdam continue to be fully safe and secure. The ship is currently in a holding pattern off the coast of Japan, southeast of Okinawa, while we are working to finalize a new port of disembarkation.  

Please be assured that the ship is not in quarantine, and we have no reason to believe there are any cases of coronavirus on board despite media reports. The ship has sufficient fuel and food provisions to last until the end of the voyage. 

We are providing free internet and phone access for our guests and crew, so they can contact loved ones at home, though internet access in general has been challenging in the area.  We are making regular announcements on board.

We would like to thank everyone on board Westerdam for their patience and understanding during this extraordinary situation.

 
Also, announced earlier today was the cancellation of the Feb. 15 Westerdam cruise.  Guests and their travel advisors have been notified. We truly regret having to disappoint our guests. 

No additional cancellations of cruises beyond Feb. 15 have been announced at this time. However, we are assessing the impact of current port restrictions in Asia on Westerdam cruises departing Feb. 29 or later. We know booked guests are anxious to understand how their booked cruise may be impacted, and we will communicate as soon as new details become finalized.
The latest information will continue to be posted under the Travel Advisory section of our website at: http://*****/2vaqqs7

[iancal]

If only HAL had acted as prudently as some Governments and as prudently as some other cruise lines.  Hate to see them get so much bad PR.

 

 

[Mary229]

I can't say I am disgusted with HAL though they did show lethargic to bad judgement.  I am disgusted with the response of the international community.  I think Japan would do well to remember all of the international aid it received during its nuclear disaster.   People from all of the world rushed into that nightmare with heroic abandon.  

[HAL Sailer]

29 minutes ago, iancal said:

If only HAL had acted as prudently as some Governments and as prudently as some other cruise lines.  Hate to see them get so much bad PR.

 

On the CC Boards, I am currently following the voyages of Silverseas Spirit, Seaborne Ovation, Crystal Symphony, Diamond Princess, and our beloved Westerdam -- all turned away at various ports, still searching for ports that will accept them, and hoping to reach a welcoming port before those authorities change their minds. 

[Hlitner]

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Please think about what you post and avoid over-hyping the situation. Do you have ANY idea what it must have been like on a real plague ship in medieval times?  

 

Cots and hammocks everywhere there was room, or else sleeping on the deck. No bathing. Weevil-infested wheat, hard tack, meat preserved in salt and often rotten. No fresh fruits or vegetables for the most part. Rationed water. Plenty of rats and mice onboard. 

 

The ship's doctor was also the ship's barber and dentist.  And quarantine periods during the Black Plague were 40 days....

 

I'm pretty sure there was no internet, phone service, television, or toilets. Sailors did get a nice ration of wine or rum, though.

 

At any rate, from the reports we're getting from the Westerdam, it doesn't sound like onboard passengers consider themselves to be on a "medieval plague ship".  

 

 

Some things do not change.  The ship's doctor is still the ship's dentist!  Argh.  We have a friend who used to serve as the ship's dentist when he cruised.  He primarily treated the crew but would also handle passenger dental emergencies.  But now, we are not aware of ships with any dental care.  When DW had a dental emergency on a Princess ship we had to call a dentist in the next port and arrange our own dental care.

 

Hank

[rafinmd]

59 minutes ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

The unfortunate part is that the entire situation was completely avoidable if they had only sailed on to Manila from Vietnam and avoided Hong Kong, where they could have debarked and embarked passengers. Yes, of course that’s 20/20 hindsight, but it sure doesn’t seem to me that they had to be clairvoyant to figure out that the situation in Hong Kong was going to quickly get substantially worse,  considering this was the beginning of the outbreak.

 

And CERTAINLY kept 800-1100 people trying to get home from doing so and stranding 800 people in Hong Kong.  In hindsight there's a possibility that might have been better but I would have a hard time trying to identify any negligence on HAL's part.

 

Roy

[scubadawg]

I agree Roy. Hal would have been castigated on this board by those denied boarding their cruise and those unable to disembark. Hal cant win no matter what they do. This is the last position they want to be in, or to have their passengers in. The restrictions change hourly, how is any cruise line to judge and adjust to that?  They also probably dont have the staff to communicate, change flights for people, find new ports, change getting provisions to that new port work with each country as things change etc etc.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[bleacher04]

1 hour ago, Vict0riann said:

What's HCMC?

 

Saigon

 

I've emailed Sailingdutchy, as I'm sure you have, but have not heard anything since last Friday.  Will let you know if I do.

 

[BarbarianPaul]

1 hour ago, rafinmd said:

And CERTAINLY kept 800-1100 people trying to get home from doing so and stranding 800 people in Hong Kong.  In hindsight there's a possibility that might have been better but I would have a hard time trying to identify any negligence on HAL's part.

 

Roy

No. For the passengers who were going to embark in Hong Kong, they could have flown them to Manila to board, and for the passengers who were going to disembark in Hong Kong, they could have had them stay on board and flown them home from Manila. I don’t believe this kind of action is unprecedented.
 

I’m sure this scenario was also discussed, but it would have cost them more money. Of course hindsight is 20/20, and I understand why it might not seem fair to blame them for not taking the most cautious approach possible. But considering the outbreak was a bad one, not completely understood, and obviously getting worse, and that things were clearly going to get worse in Hong Kong, and that you can never be too cautious when it comes to the safety and well being of 2000 people, perhaps their mistake was an avoidable one.

[rafinmd]

5 minutes ago, BarbarianPaul said:

No. For the passengers who were going to embark in Hong Kong, they could have flown them to Manila to board, and for the passengers who were going to disembark in Hong Kong, they could have had them stay on board and flown them home from Manila. I don’t believe this kind of action is unprecedented.
 

I’m sure this scenario was also discussed, but it would have cost them more money. Of course hindsight is 20/20, and I understand why it might not seem fair to blame them for not taking the most cautious approach possible. But considering the outbreak was a bad one, not completely understood, and obviously getting worse, and that things were clearly going to get worse in Hong Kong, and that you can never be too cautious when it comes to the safety and well being of 2000 people, perhaps their mistake was an avoidable one.

Sounds to me like any excuse to bash HAL will flourish here.

[3rdGenCunarder]

1 hour ago, rafinmd said:

And CERTAINLY kept 800-1100 people trying to get home from doing so and stranding 800 people in Hong Kong.  In hindsight there's a possibility that might have been better but I would have a hard time trying to identify any negligence on HAL's part.

 

Roy

 

Just want to clarify that Roy was responding to BarbarianPaul, not me. Quote process hiccupped, I guess. 

 

1 hour ago, scubadawg said:

I agree Roy. Hal would have been castigated on this board by those denied boarding their cruise and those unable to disembark. Hal cant win no matter what they do. This is the last position they want to be in, or to have their passengers in. The restrictions change hourly, how is any cruise line to judge and adjust to that?  They also probably dont have the staff to communicate, change flights for people, find new ports, change getting provisions to that new port work with each country as things change etc etc.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

I agree with both of you. At the time HAL had to make decisions about ports, there were still flights to/from Hong Kong. HAL (or Princess) can only work with the information they have at hand. Remember, a week ago some health experts in the US were saying we should be more worried about flu than corona. Didn't WHO initially say not to be too alarmist? A week ago, the situation didn't look anything like it does now. 

 

[BarbarianPaul]

11 minutes ago, rafinmd said:

Sounds to me like any excuse to bash HAL will flourish here.

I actually think HAL is a great cruise line, and will no doubt sail with them in the future. The vibe on their ships is laid back and relaxing, and the itineraries are always more interesting. And I guess the situation on the Westerdam is far better than what’s happening on the Diamond Princess. And of course it’s not entirely their fault!

 

But I don’t agree with their decision to dock in Hong Kong. That destination represented an elevated possibility that the Westerdam passengers could be exposed to the virus, and that was known at the time the decision was made.

 

 

[gilboman]

27 minutes ago, BarbarianPaul said:

No. For the passengers who were going to embark in Hong Kong, they could have flown them to Manila to board, and for the passengers who were going to disembark in Hong Kong, they could have had them stay on board and flown them home from Manila. I don’t believe this kind of action is unprecedented.
 

I’m sure this scenario was also discussed, but it would have cost them more money. Of course hindsight is 20/20, and I understand why it might not seem fair to blame them for not taking the most cautious approach possible. But considering the outbreak was a bad one, not completely understood, and obviously getting worse, and that things were clearly going to get worse in Hong Kong, and that you can never be too cautious when it comes to the safety and well being of 2000 people, perhaps their mistake was an avoidable one.

how would flying them prevented it? corona virus is in singapore, japan etc and hkg has fewer cases than many of other places in asia

 

even europe is like at 28 cases? so don't dock in any ports for pickup pax?

Edited February 7, 2020 by gilboman

[gilboman]

3 hours ago, BarbarianPaul said:

Unless they’ve tested virtually everyone on board, Holland America can’t be sure, since the incubation period is two weeks, and eight hundred passengers were boarded only 6 days ago. And let’s not forget the other 600-700 back to back passengers from the previous cruise from Singapore who ventured off the ship on various excursions who might have been exposed in Hong Kong. It’s entirely possible almost any one of the 1455 passengers could have the virus but is currently asymptomatic.

 

If Holland America’s statement had any credibility, why are they being refused debarkation virtually everywhere?

 

This entire situation is a real black mark and, the longer it drags on, terrible publicity for Holland America. And what happens when they finally find a port of entry, but are told the ship must be quarantined for two weeks before anyone is allowed to debark? That’s the next shoe to drop.

 

The unfortunate part is that the entire situation was completely avoidable if they had only sailed on to Manila from Vietnam and avoided Hong Kong, where they could have debarked and embarked passengers. Yes, of course that’s 20/20 hindsight, but it sure doesn’t seem to me that they had to be clairvoyant to figure out that the situation in Hong Kong was going to quickly get substantially worse,  considering this was the beginning of the outbreak.

 

 

no cruiseline or ship can be sure except the diamond princess as there's corona virus in europe, north america and throughout asia as well. there is possiiblity of corona virus carrier from cruises departing in any part of the world. at time of embarkation, hkg had (and still do) fewer cases than japan/singapore and europe for example 

[npcl]

2 hours ago, iancal said:

If only HAL had acted as prudently as some Governments and as prudently as some other cruise lines.  Hate to see them get so much bad PR.

 

 

Actually they did act prudently.  One needs to look back at when the cruise left and what was known at that time.  The US travel restrictions were only put in place a week ago.  At the time the ship left Hong Kong there were not any restrictions in place on Hong Kong.

 

At that time other cruise lines where shifting plans to Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore from mainland Chinese ports.  A week later Macau and Hong Kong are now on the restricted list for some countries. though the US has not applied the same ban to Hong Kong as it applied to mainland China.

 

One of the issues with cruises, unlike planes,  is that they last many days.  During an outbreak a lot can change during a week or in the case of this cruise two.

[npcl]

42 minutes ago, BarbarianPaul said:

No. For the passengers who were going to embark in Hong Kong, they could have flown them to Manila to board, and for the passengers who were going to disembark in Hong Kong, they could have had them stay on board and flown them home from Manila. I don’t believe this kind of action is unprecedented.
 

I’m sure this scenario was also discussed, but it would have cost them more money. Of course hindsight is 20/20, and I understand why it might not seem fair to blame them for not taking the most cautious approach possible. But considering the outbreak was a bad one, not completely understood, and obviously getting worse, and that things were clearly going to get worse in Hong Kong, and that you can never be too cautious when it comes to the safety and well being of 2000 people, perhaps their mistake was an avoidable one.

Even today Hong Kong has fewer reported cases than Singapore, the same number as Thailand and Japan, and only one more that South Korea, so the issue with how the ship is treated is based upon the decisions of governments, not due to a massive outbreak there.  One can expect the the number of cases on the Diamond Princess is a major impact on the willingness of the Japanese government to let the ship land.

[BarbarianPaul]

8 minutes ago, gilboman said:

no cruiseline or ship can be sure except the diamond princess as there's corona virus in europe, north america and throughout asia as well. there is possiiblity of corona virus carrier from cruises departing in any part of the world. at time of embarkation, hkg had (and still do) fewer cases than japan/singapore and europe for example 

I’m not sure about your figures, and Hong Kong is by far the closest to the epicenter.

 

But you’re right that flying those embarking passengers from Hong Kong to Manila would have been pointless. They would have already had an elevated chance of being exposed to the virus. Perhaps they shouldn’t have been allowed to board at all,  been refunded the cost of the cruise and airfare plus a future cruise credit, and sent home. The Westerdam would have been half full, granted, but it could have continued their cruise. And the passengers who were going to debark in Hong Kong could have left in Manila. 
 

Maybe it’s wrong to think that all these scenarios could have been either instituted or anticipated. And maybe it’s wrong to assign Holland America any blame at all. But when it comes to passenger safety, can you ever be too cautious? 

[gatour]

The Philippines President ordered banning cruise ships docking from Sunday on-ward.  Based how he behaves, I imagine if the Westerdam had headed earlier to Manila, the order would have come sooner and not allow inbound air flights that included the passengers out of Hong Kong.

 

Okinawa is an US base in Japan.  I am guessing that there are negations between Japan and the US in getting the ship docked at Okinawa.  Japan can repatriate their nationals.  US can repatriate their nationals.  Other countries are probably involved for their nationals.

 

HAL has been put between a rock and hardplace.  Different countries made decisions at the most inopportune times for Westerdam as opposed to the other cruise ships.

[gilboman]

24 minutes ago, BarbarianPaul said:

I’m not sure about your figures, and Hong Kong is by far the closest to the epicenter.

 

But you’re right that flying those embarking passengers from Hong Kong to Manila would have been pointless. They would have already had an elevated chance of being exposed to the virus. Perhaps they shouldn’t have been allowed to board at all,  been refunded the cost of the cruise and airfare plus a future cruise credit, and sent home. The Westerdam would have been half full, granted, but it could have continued their cruise. And the passengers who were going to debark in Hong Kong could have left in Manila. 
 

Maybe it’s wrong to think that all these scenarios could have been either instituted or anticipated. And maybe it’s wrong to assign Holland America any blame at all. But when it comes to passenger safety, can you ever be too cautious? 

I'm going by reported cases of Corona Virus and not distance from wuhan. E.g., japan and singapore had (and still do) have more cases than in hong kong and europe has more as well 

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/countries-confirmed-cases-coronavirus-200125070959786.html

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3049606/coronavirus-doctors-death-becomes-catalyst-freedom-speech

 

as for cautious, most cautious would be to cancel all cruises around the world as corona virus is all around the world. if hkg at the time with ~15/16 cases and Japan was at around 26 at the time, should japan have and be banned and ports cancelled as well? as for now, what about Europe with 29? north america with 17? Taiwan with 16, Australia with ~14?

Edited February 7, 2020 by gilboman

[BarbarianPaul]

5 minutes ago, gilboman said:

I'm going by reported cases of Corona Virus and not distance from wuhan. E.g., japan and singapore had (and still do) have more cases than in hong kong and europe has more as well 

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/countries-confirmed-cases-coronavirus-200125070959786.html

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3049606/coronavirus-doctors-death-becomes-catalyst-freedom-speech

 

 

You're right, but personally I still don't feel like embarking so many passengers from Hong Kong was a good idea, and clearly the governments of Guam, the Philippines, Japan, and all the other countries contacted by HA for potentially disembarking passengers on the Westerdam feel the same way. The proximity to China and population density need to be taken into account as well. And the local Hong Kong government had declared an official state of emergency days before the Westerdam was to dock, and closed virtually every museum and tourist attraction in the city. Is that a place you really want to dock your ship??

 

In any event, instead of arguing, lets just pray the Westerdam finds a place to dock, and all its passengers get safely returned home. But its certainly a possibility that whoever lets them in will also want everyone on board to get tested, and that might mean some kind of Diamond Princess-esque quarantine.

 

 

[Vict0riann]

2 hours ago, bleacher04 said:

 

Saigon

 

I've emailed Sailingdutchy, as I'm sure you have, but have not heard anything since last Friday.  Will let you know if I do.

 

Haha.  I thought it was a typo and he meant HMC!  Actually the port for HCMC is Phu My and I seem to remember it's about 3 hours away in a bus?

 

I did email again.  I imagine  the internet is very busy!!  And I wonder if perhaps they are not advertising that they are giving internet away - just to those who complain....

Edited February 7, 2020 by Vict0riann

[zonacruiser25]

I am grateful that family situations prevented us from booking cruises this winter/spring.  I wish all those at sea today safe and healthy passage.  A situation like this is amazingly difficult to manage and it is a no win situation.   Prayers for all those that are currently pawns in the chess game and I hope it can all be resolved quickly and safely!

[bleacher04]

26 minutes ago, Vict0riann said:

Haha.  I thought it was a typo and he meant HMC!  Actually the port for HCMC is Phu My and I seem to remember it's about 3 hours away in a bus?

 

I did email again.  I imagine  the internet is very busy!!  And I wonder if perhaps they are not advertising that they are giving internet away - just to those who complain....

 

LOL Ann, my brain saw "Half Moon Cay" for HCMC the first time too 🙂  We were just there in November, Phu My port is about 90-120 minutes from Saigon (and the airport).

 

Satellite internet on the ship gets slower as the number of users increase, so I would bet it is crawling most of the time right now on the Westerdam.

 

[Moparop]

Today’s update, as seen on Facebook 

[WyKnott]

An account from two passengers on board Westerdam.

 

"Initially we were supposed to complete our cruise in Shanghai, which was then switched to Tokyo, so everyone was requested to alter their travel plans to fly home from there. Holland America has only offered $250 of compensation for flight changes. At this moment, unsure of where we are headed, we are being advised to change flight plans again, but we don’t know where we are headed!"