Are our cruising days over? (merged topics re: health and age restrictions)

[DCGuy64]

22 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Having servers in the buffet is already being done by HAL, so it should not be that difficult or expensive to do.

What about when it takes 40 minutes to get your food, suggested by @Level six? Maybe not difficult or expensive, but sure as heck annoying. I know personally I wouldn't want to wait that long for a salad, I'd absolutely skip the buffet altogether and go to the main dining room. I think we need to balance health concerns with the reality of having 1,000s of people waiting in the buffet to be individually served by a few gloved servers. It's simply impractical.

[Italy52]

We presently have 3 cruises booked with Princess.  I am approaching 70 and my husband is 73; neither of us have any medical conditions.  My feeling is this:  I am happy to go to my doctor and submit a health form to Princess if need be.  However, I feel that the "form" requirement should be extended to a broader audience and not just limited to the "70" age group.  There are a lot of passengers who sail all the time that have underlying conditions that would make them vulnerable to an outbreak.  Somehow this policy just does not seem fair.

 

[npcl]

3 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

Over the last couple of months I have read tons of posts by people who say the cruise lines should have done a better job of protecting passengers from COVID-19, with a few posters advocating class-action lawsuits for negligence. Now that Carnival is putting in place restrictions to limit the possibility of an outbreak, I have to wonder 1. Whether those putting the blame on the industry will applaud this move and 2. Whether those same people will get angry because the new restrictions are too broad. Let's be clear: you can't have it both ways. If the cruise lines get blamed for not being cautious enough, you can't complain when they begin implementing restrictions. (and hopefully this will be only a temporary measure)

Neither because the new actions don't really do anything to solve the problem.  Just reduce the number of dead if an outbreak occurs on ship.  It is a action that says look we are doing something see how we are trying to keep you safe.

 

It was a knee jerk reaction to try and keep cruising.  It will be kept in place in the short term to try and get cruising again earlier than they should.

[Daniel A]

25 minutes ago, Italy52 said:

There are a lot of passengers who sail all the time that have underlying conditions that would make them vulnerable to an outbreak.  Somehow this policy just does not seem fair.

I wholeheartedly agree that it isn't fair.  The latest data on transmission and lethality is showing that certain racial and ethnic groups are disproportionately affected.  I doubt the CLIA will adopt additional boarding requirements for pax based on race and ethnicity, but they will based on age and disability.  If they were to continue this requirement, the only practical means would be to require Fit to Sail letters for all pax.  I don't think it would be practical.

 

22 minutes ago, npcl said:

It was a knee jerk reaction to try and keep cruising.  It will be kept in place in the short term to try and get cruising again earlier than they should.

👍

 

As far as lawsuits against the cruise lines, how does one prove they contracted Covid while on the cruise ship?  How do plaintiffs show they weren't exposed while on a port call and they aren't the ones who brought it on board?  Even if there was already virus onboard, any pax could have been exposed onshore and brought it on and still caused others to be infected.  We already know that Noro is spread through unsanitary practices of pax, has anyone ever heard of a successful lawsuit because one contracted Noro?

[mimip]

On 3/14/2020 at 7:23 AM, MadManOfBethesda said:

Of course it doesn't.  That's why the cruise lines are permitting all healthy 70+ year old people to continue to travel.  So where's the discrimination?

 

And if you're doctor agrees, he'll still be allowed to cruise. So what's the issue?

 

The issue is that my husband, who is in excellent health is 73 and has well controlled diabetes, will be refused boarding.  Celebrity’s Fit ToTravel Form specifically includes diabetes as a chronic illness, which would prevent his doctor from signing this form.  
Our March Ocean Viking was cancelled.  We have Alaska at the end of July (so far, Alaska cruises are cancelled through July 1st).  We have one booked to Quebec City in September and a Viking Ocean in November.  If these restrictions are not lifted, we won’t be able to take any of them!  It seems that these restrictions are too general. 😷
 

[susancruzs]

Initially I thought, no problem, early 70's, fairly healthy, no medications, why not still cruise?  However, I did cancel my Sky Baltic + TA (Aug.) and my Enchanted TA + Mediterranean for April 2021.  I started thinking about it, not as much age but traveling alone, far away places (which I've always done), but never with circumstances we've seen recently.   

 

When I called to cancel, my TA told about a couple she had who were on a ship longer than expected, over 2 weeks with no ports, last 6 days confined to cabin, it does give one pause as to how you think about it.  I have to get more connected as I don't do an I pad, smart phone, I'm pretty much out of touch when I travel.  I do use the internet cafe on the ship, but I need to think about this, too.  Wandering alone in strange cities with no means of contact.  I've traveled overseas for 35+ years but times have changed.

[npcl]

1 hour ago, mimip said:

The issue is that my husband, who is in excellent health is 73 and has well controlled diabetes, will be refused boarding.  Celebrity’s Fit ToTravel Form specifically includes diabetes as a chronic illness, which would prevent his doctor from signing this form.  
Our March Ocean Viking was cancelled.  We have Alaska at the end of July (so far, Alaska cruises are cancelled through July 1st).  We have one booked to Quebec City in September and a Viking Ocean in November.  If these restrictions are not lifted, we won’t be able to take any of them!  It seems that these restrictions are too general. 😷
 

technically that is the reason for  out of providing a letter from your doctor, if you can get one.

[DaKa2002]

For us, both 70 or older, and one with a medical condition as currently listed, it means the end of cruising with any and all lines requiring such a note from a certified medical professional.  We will cruise together, or not at all.  I believe there are lots of folks, like us,  who will find they are no longer able to cruise.

 

[mimip]

On 3/15/2020 at 9:32 PM, Steelers36 said:

I find the RCL one problematic and the NCL one okay.  But that is me.  Perhaps when we return home from FL in early April after "snowbirding", I will print these off and ask our MD if she would sign either one assuming I was 70. 

 

ETA:  When I wrote "problematic" - I meant for a MD, not me personally.

 

Me too.  And since we have two cruises on Celebrity (August and September), final payments due mid April and mid May, I am concerned for my husband who is 73, healthy except for very controlled diabetes.  In good faith, our doctor could not sign Celebrity’s letter for him.

[mimip]

On 3/16/2020 at 9:29 AM, ontheweb said:

No, we have private insurance with Travel Guard, not cancel for any reason. At the moment we only have a refundable deposit, so nothing to lose monetarily if we cancel within the next month plus. Our TA even told us at the time we booked that the insurance would be refundable according to our state's law because we would be cancelling with nothing at stake.

 

Losing the money paid for the cruise plus EZ Air would be a bummer, but it is a cost we were willing to pay for the cruise. What we basically buy the insurance for is to prevent the possible catastrophic medical expenses that could occur.  Example---5 years ago on Memorial Day weekend, I broke my ankle at an air show at Jones Beach (maybe 150 miles give or take from home). I had some expenses (deductibles), but nothing terrible. But what if the same thing happened on our upcoming cruise and I broke my ankle in Norway. Huge expenses could pile up without travel insurance, and that would be a catastrophe unlike just losing the already budgeted for cruise fare.

 

Also from what I have read, the insurance from private companies provide more monetary coverage than those from the cruise lines.

We’ve always been told never to buy travel insurance from a cruise line, travel agency or tour company.  If they go under, you are out of luck.  It’s best to go to a site (don’t think I can name it) which has most insurance companies that offer travel insurance.  You pick their rating, the coverage you want and can compare companies.

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

What about when it takes 40 minutes to get your food, suggested by @Level six? Maybe not difficult or expensive, but sure as heck annoying. I know personally I wouldn't want to wait that long for a salad, I'd absolutely skip the buffet altogether and go to the main dining room. I think we need to balance health concerns with the reality of having 1,000s of people waiting in the buffet to be individually served by a few gloved servers. It's simply impractical.

We have been on a couple of HAL cruises, the last being the summer of 2018. I do not ever remember long waits on the buffet line. My DW has complained that they put too much of each ingredient she asks for in her salad.

[mimip]

 

On 3/18/2020 at 11:12 AM, RocketMan275 said:

I haven't been to law school but I have had training in what is allowable and what is not.  This isn't discrimination no matter how many times you misrepresent the law.

Unfortunately, it is discrimination, as those under 70 are not required to submit a doctor’s letters, even though they may fit the criteria (diabetes, asthma, heart issues,

cancer, etc,).  If the cruise lines want to be serious about this, all cruisers should have to submit a signed letter.

[ontheweb]

20 minutes ago, mimip said:

We’ve always been told never to buy travel insurance from a cruise line, travel agency or tour company.  If they go under, you are out of luck.  It’s best to go to a site (don’t think I can name it) which has most insurance companies that offer travel insurance.  You pick their rating, the coverage you want and can compare companies.

We bought the insurance through our TA so he gets a commission (paying the same price as if we were on the Travel Guard website). The charge is straight through to the insurance company, the same as the charge was straight through to Princess. The TA was just a middleman.

[RocketMan275]

Just now, mimip said:

 

Unfortunately, it is discrimination, as those under 70 are not required to submit a doctor’s letters, even though they may fit the criteria (diabetes, asthma, heart issues,

cancer, etc,).  If the cruise lines want to be serious about this, all cruisers should have to submit a signed letter.

No, it isn't discrimination as long as there is a rational reason for differences in treatment.

If you doubt this, then explain why those over a certain age, in some states, are required to pass an eye exam or even take a driving test with a qualified examiner.  

[Daniel A]

35 minutes ago, mimip said:

 

Unfortunately, it is discrimination, as those under 70 are not required to submit a doctor’s letters, even though they may fit the criteria (diabetes, asthma, heart issues,

cancer, etc,).  If the cruise lines want to be serious about this, all cruisers should have to submit a signed letter.

 

32 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

No, it isn't discrimination as long as there is a rational reason for differences in treatment.

If you doubt this, then explain why those over a certain age, in some states, are required to pass an eye exam or even take a driving test with a qualified examiner.  

It most definitely is discrimination no matter how you look at it.  Whether or not it is illegal discrimination is another matter.  What could possibly be the rational behind requiring additional documentation from a 70 year old in good health but not requiring the same from a 25 year old who could have asthma or diabetes or be HIV positive with a compromised immune system?  In most states, it would clearly be illegal to even ask about one's HIV status.  The only difference here is the age of the individual - not whether they would be at increased risk.  Also it is interesting to note that CLIA's proposal only covered embarkations from US ports.  No letter would be needed if you're getting on the same ship at age 70 in Barcelona.  But again, it really doesn't matter because nobody is getting on any ships in the near future anyway.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Daniel A

[Jaxweb]

5 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

What about when it takes 40 minutes to get your food, suggested by @Level six? Maybe not difficult or expensive, but sure as heck annoying. I know personally I wouldn't want to wait that long for a salad, I'd absolutely skip the buffet altogether and go to the main dining room. I think we need to balance health concerns with the reality of having 1,000s of people waiting in the buffet to be individually served by a few gloved servers. It's simply impractical.

Really, so what?

They will have to reduce the amount of passengers and increase serving staff. They will need to increase charges to pay for it. Fewer people will cruise at increased costs. 

The cruise line will have to figure out the logistics of serving people and not cut corners for convenience while there is no vaccine nor reliable and effective treatment for a very contagious and often deadly disease.

There are more important things than cruising at all much less eating at a buffet on a cruise in the most convenient way possible. 
 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Jaxweb

[mimip]

57 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

No, it isn't discrimination as long as there is a rational reason for differences in treatment.

If you doubt this, then explain why those over a certain age, in some states, are required to pass an eye exam or even take a driving test with a qualified examiner.  

You are comparing apples and oranges.  It just doesn’t work.  And there is no rational reason for this age discrimination, if those younger have the same chronic diseases.

[susancruzs]

🙂 Don't bring the buffet into it, people love their buffets!  I've been on a ship for 30 days, never once setting foot in the buffet area, or elevators either.  Two places in terms of health, I can do without.  Back on topic, I'm a healthy, soon to be 73 person and I don't think of it as age discrimination at all, not in the least.  I don't have a chronic illness, no meds, occasionally for seasonal sinus issues.  I know I'm very fortunate to reach this age without health issues.  I can understand why the cruise lines might go this route.  Senior centers around here that run bus trips do the same thing.

[mimip]

3 hours ago, npcl said:

technically that is the reason for  out of providing a letter from your doctor, if you can get one.

 

15 minutes ago, mimip said:

You are comparing apples and oranges.  It just doesn’t work.  And there is no rational reason for this age discrimination, if those younger have the same chronic diseases.

Not looking for an out...except maybe Alaska 7/31.  We love cruising but don’t want to make final payments on two of them if we can’t go.  What good are FCC if you can’t use them?

[Tedferg]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

No, it isn't discrimination as long as there is a rational reason for differences in treatment.

If you doubt this, then explain why those over a certain age, in some states, are required to pass an eye exam or even take a driving test with a qualified examiner.  

I believe there is statistical data to show that eyesight deteriorates with age and requiring an eye test is a simple precaution. This does not compare with requiring EVERYONE over 70 to have a fit-to-sail letter, which it seems most doctors would not sign. Also driving tests, not necessarily renewals, require young and old to be able to read the chart and so catch young people who need corrective lenses. The Fit-to-Sail requirement does not catch the 25 year old with severe asthma.

[WmFCoyote]

I have diabetes, a recognized result of having been exposed to Agent Orange in the 1968 - 1971 period of my life while serving in S E Asia. It is controlled thru medication (A1C under 6 and Fasting BS average 102). I am also over 70 years old so it is possible that PCL might require a "Fit to Cruise" letter which my doctor will find impossible to sign as the diabetes is a fact and my age will never be less.

I am scheduled to sail on a RT cruise from LA to Alaska on 16 May which we have made final payment. If I cancel I will get a FCC which I might never be able to use. Only if PCL cancels will I (fingers crossed) be able to get my funds refunded. So, the only thing I can do is wait and hope PCL gets off the pot and announces that the cruise is canceled. At this point in time I can not see us booking another cruise with Princess. If there are other options, I surly would like to hear them.

[subaru94]

Its interesting in regards to this medical letter, although I don't think Princess are doing it, when it comes to cruising it has always been known that ships cater for people who have health, dietary issues, young or old.  This virus is temporary and things will go back to normal after.

[Daniel A]

18 minutes ago, WmFCoyote said:

I am scheduled to sail on a RT cruise from LA to Alaska on 16 May which we have made final payment. If I cancel I will get a FCC which I might never be able to use. Only if PCL cancels will I (fingers crossed) be able to get my funds refunded. So, the only thing I can do is wait and hope PCL gets off the pot and announces that the cruise is canceled. At this point in time I can not see us booking another cruise with Princess. If there are other options, I surly would like to hear them.

 

I have diabetes, a recognized result of having been exposed to Agent Orange in the 1968 - 1971 period of my life while serving in S E Asia.

Carnival has cancelled all Alaska cruises until after June 30.  That date coincides with the ban on cruise ships entering any Canadian ports until July 1.  I don't see how Princess can go to Alaska next month so your chances are very good that you'll be hearing from Princess.

Thank you for your service.  ✌️ 

[jotjot]

Wow! and to think how lucky I was growing up in Brooklyn to only worry about getting polio or TB.

 

[ontheweb]

14 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

No, it isn't discrimination as long as there is a rational reason for differences in treatment.

If you doubt this, then explain why those over a certain age, in some states, are required to pass an eye exam or even take a driving test with a qualified examiner.  

I have read that people of color die at a higher rate than white people. Would you also maintain that it would not be discrimination if the letters were required only for non-whites? And also males seem to die at a higher rate (might be connected to more willing to take risky behavior). Would a letter requirement only for males meet your test for non-discrimination?

 

And my state requires everyone applying for a driver's license or renewal to pass an eye test. No discrimination by age.