Zaandam and Rotterdam Situation (merged topics starting March 22, 2020)

[LMaxwell]

6 hours ago, sansterre said:

Good.  More people should be "bashing other countries for not allowing them to dock".

They docked in Chile on 3/14 two days after Princess halted operation and one day after CCL blanket stoppage of operations.  Why didn't they terminate there instead of sending guests on excursions ? Wouldn't that have been the prudent choice ? Your anger is misdirected 

[Sunshine3601]

I have cruised to panama but have not done a crossing thru the canal.  Does a pilot need to enter the ship?  How much contact is involved with ship crew and the passage?  Could this be the reason why they may be denied access?

[ducklite]

6 minutes ago, SY7DNEY CRUISER said:

I feel terribly sorry for the  passengers. Shuttered  from port to Port To Port

Four passenger dead And many more ill.

 

Given what seems to be the age of most people on that ship, it would seem likely that they would have had one or two deaths anyhow.  Still sad, but I wonder how many of the four deceased were non-Influenza or COVID-19 related.  

[Sunshine3601]

Did panama grant permission for Rotterdam to cross thru passage?  

[ducklite]

3 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

They docked in Chile on 3/14 two days after Princess halted operation and one day after CCL blanket stoppage of operations.  Why didn't they terminate there instead of sending guests on excursions ? Wouldn't that have been the prudent choice ? Your anger is misdirected 

I completely agree.  Almost every cruise line stopped taking on new passengers starting March 14, and began ending cruises early and getting into ports and guests off the ships and home as soon as possible.

[ducklite]

Just now, Sunshine3601 said:

Did panama grant permission for Rotterdam to cross thru passage?  

No.  Based on what I believe the translated meaning to be due to the illnesses on board.  The literal translation is due to "sanitary conditions."

[Walfam]

11 hours ago, DAllenTCY said:

Yet cruise ships seem to get the headlines in the evening news.

 

IMHO, Probably because it is more sensational journalism.  Drama.  Passengers are basically stuck (trapped) on a ship with no way to get home, and with no hope at the moment.  This is what sells and ups the media ratings.  .  

[Essiesmom]

13 minutes ago, Sunshine3601 said:

I have cruised to panama but have not done a crossing thru the canal.  Does a pilot need to enter the ship?  How much contact is involved with ship crew and the passage?  Could this be the reason why they may be denied access?

Pilot and about ten other line handlers.  It was detailed somewhere back on this thread.  Perhaps @BillB48can come along and detail it for us.  EM

Edited March 28, 2020 by Essiesmom

[YXU AC*SE]

7 minutes ago, ducklite said:

I completely agree.  Almost every cruise line stopped taking on new passengers starting March 14, and began ending cruises early and getting into ports and guests off the ships and home as soon as possible.

 

Recall well ...    that was Plan A  ...       Scott. 

 

From HAL:

Zaandam was sailing a South America voyage that departed Buenos Aires, Argentina, on March 7 and was originally scheduled to end in San Antonio, Chile, on March 21. However, due to global health concerns, Holland America Line made the decision to suspend its global cruise operations for 30 days and end its current cruises in progress as quickly as possible and return guests home. Despite previous confirmations that guests could disembark in Punta Arenas, Chile, for flights, we were not permitted to do so. No one has been off the ship since March 14 in Punta Arenas. 

 

[LEtue]

15 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

They docked in Chile on 3/14 two days after Princess halted operation and one day after CCL blanket stoppage of operations.  Why didn't they terminate there instead of sending guests on excursions ? Wouldn't that have been the prudent choice ? Your anger is misdirected 

👍

[TwoMisfits]

So, South American cruises may be the last ones ever to come back after this virus.  

 

I honestly think this ship will have a 2 week quarantine from the point of getting everyone tested (if they can separate healthy and not healthy on the ship) before it has any chance of porting.  So, it might be a long and hard continued trip for them.

 

Everyone knew about the virus by early March.  Yes, some were downplaying it...but we had also seen the Princess ship fiasco.  Anyone who chose to cruise, especially in a cruise that began and ended outside their home country, was gambling...and unfortunately, they lost on this one.

 

I wouldn't expect this ship to port to let passengers on land til Easter weekend.  Where is still anyone's guess...

 

 

[Wehwalt]

31 minutes ago, ducklite said:

It's quite possible that there is a slight gap in translation and the typical American usage of the word sanitary.  "Sanitary" also means "free from infectious disease."   In Spanish speaking Panama, that could easily mean that they are refusing passage because the ship is not free from infectious disease.  

It could be. Of course, the ship had infectious disease Wednesday, too, when according to reports there was permission to transit the Canal. Still wondering why Panama would have changed its mind.

[Tampa Girl]

15 hours ago, Niagarawine said:

This ship should not have sailed. It was two days before Trump declared the thirty day moratorium on cruise ships. Passengers should have been cancelled and even if not should have decided to stay off ships particularly in view of the Princess ships issues ,especially on two of their ships. We have Canadian demanding to get off a few days ago but why did they embark?  Inking stopped sailing and gVe full refund. That’s what should have happened.

 

Holland America announced (not Trump) a 30-day suspension on March 13th.  The ship had sailed on March 7th.  The virus at that time had been primarily found in Asia, although the first U.S. case had emerged in Seattle.  There was no reason at that time to believe that the virus would spread so exponentially to South America.  Following your logic, American businesses should also have closed down in anticipation of the spread of COVID.19.  Monday-morning quarterbacking is useless at this stage.  And certainly not as a basis for refusing humanitarian help.   

[Sunshine3601]

15 minutes ago, ducklite said:

No.  Based on what I believe the translated meaning to be due to the illnesses on board.  The literal translation is due to "sanitary conditions."

But the rotterdam is supposed to have healthy passengers where zaandam has the I'll passengers.  But we all know you could feel fine and still be positive for covid 

[ducklite]

7 minutes ago, YXU AC*SE said:

 

Recall well ...    that was Plan A  ...       Scott. 

 

From HAL:

Zaandam was sailing a South America voyage that departed Buenos Aires, Argentina, on March 7 and was originally scheduled to end in San Antonio, Chile, on March 21. However, due to global health concerns, Holland America Line made the decision to suspend its global cruise operations for 30 days and end its current cruises in progress as quickly as possible and return guests home. Despite previous confirmations that guests could disembark in Punta Arenas, Chile, for flights, we were not permitted to do so. No one has been off the ship since March 14 in Punta Arenas. 

 

So were they off the ship in Punta Arenas or not?   This indicates they were off the ship in Punta Arenas.

[ducklite]

6 minutes ago, Wehwalt said:

It could be. Of course, the ship had infectious disease Wednesday, too, when according to reports there was permission to transit the Canal. Still wondering why Panama would have changed its mind.

The numbers were lower and it wasn't confirmed as COVID-19?  Or perhaps they never actually had permission to transit.  Everything I've read was that HAL was "seeking permission," not that they had gained it.

[WonderMan3]

8 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

So, South American cruises may be the last ones ever to come back after this virus.  

 

I honestly think this ship will have a 2 week quarantine from the point of getting everyone tested (if they can separate healthy and not healthy on the ship) before it has any chance of porting.  So, it might be a long and hard continued trip for them.

 

Everyone knew about the virus by early March.  Yes, some were downplaying it...but we had also seen the Princess ship fiasco.  Anyone who chose to cruise, especially in a cruise that began and ended outside their home country, was gambling...and unfortunately, they lost on this one.

 

I wouldn't expect this ship to port to let passengers on land til Easter weekend.  Where is still anyone's guess...

 

 

 

Exactly. Diamond Princess had already had its issues in February and the Grand Princess debacle began on March 4th according to notices on the Princess website which was two days before this cruise departed.

[Tampa Girl]

15 hours ago, LMaxwell said:

That's impossible to know for me or for you; but we do know that the decision was made to halt sailings on 3/13 and on 3/14 the Zaandam made a port of call and continued operating their scheduled itinerary.  Why the decision was made not to terminate the voyage and send people home on 3/14 simply given the unprecedented pause the industry had announced is baffling; no one had a crystal ball on 3/14 but to think the cruise would have run regularly to 3/21 doesn't make sense either.  There were, and still are, ships at sea unfortunately being denied entry at all ports and the situations have no clear play book.  I would agree that the result of Chiles decisions are indeed hardships and high costs; but they did not cause it 

 

If this ship went to Antarctica, it would have been in Antarctica around March 14th.   The ship may have been trying to find a Chilean port, i.e. Ushaiwa, to disembark the passengers, finding one in Puerto Arenas (I think this was the port).  Unfortunately, that port then refused the ship.  My point is that on this particular cruise, as well as most other cruises, ports are simply not that convenient for disembarkation.  They can't just "pull over and park."  Once one port has denied entry, it is likely that other ports in that country will do so.

[YXU AC*SE]

14 minutes ago, ducklite said:

So were they off the ship in Punta Arenas or not?   This indicates they were off the ship in Punta Arenas.

 

No one could mean crew (not just pax)  ...   but it is abundantly clear that Chile didn't want ~1400 pax transiting inland from PUQ-Ibáñez to SCL-Santiago or CCP-Concepción for onward connections.    Scott. 

[Tampa Girl]

5 hours ago, Wehwalt said:

That is the one I was referring to. I wonder if any new information came to the attention of the Panamanian authorities between Wednesday and Friday to cause them to change their minds.

 

Probably HAL's blog which revealed the four deaths.  It was published about the same time as the Panamanian authorities said "No."

[Tampa Girl]

32 minutes ago, ducklite said:

So were they off the ship in Punta Arenas or not?   This indicates they were off the ship in Punta Arenas.

 

It clearly said that they were not allowed to disembark.  The ship was in Punta Arenas, however.  

[iancal]

I am not so sure that Panama did change their decision.  Their Gov’t , to my knowledge, was silent publically.
 

HAL’s press releases may have given the impression that transit had been agreed by indicating that it was HAL’s plan.   It could be that Panama has said no all along.

Edited March 28, 2020 by iancal

[Wehwalt]

15 minutes ago, iancal said:

I am not so sure that Panama did change their decision.  Their Gov’t , to my knowledge, was silent publically.
 

HAL’s press releases may have given the impression that transit had been agreed by indicating that it was HAL’s plan.   It could be that Panama has said no all along.

49 minutes ago, ducklite said:

The numbers were lower and it wasn't confirmed as COVID-19?  Or perhaps they never actually had permission to transit.  Everything I've read was that HAL was "seeking permission," not that they had gained it.

This article which I previously posted says otherwise.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/passengers-die-aboard-cruise-ship-stranded-panama-200327190914188.html

 

"On Wednesday, Panama's Health Minister Rosario Turner had said the Zaandam would be allowed to pass through the canal.

But on Friday morning, Panama's seaway administrator Ricaurte Vasquez said the health ministry had denied access to the liner."

Edited March 28, 2020 by Wehwalt

[BillB48]

1 hour ago, Sunshine3601 said:

I have cruised to panama but have not done a crossing thru the canal.  Does a pilot need to enter the ship?  How much contact is involved with ship crew and the passage?  Could this be the reason why they may be denied access?

 

The pilot would enter the ship at about the same point passengers would tender off the ship when not docked.  They are then taken to the bridge by a crew member.  At a point near the locks the Canal would then also board Canal seamen to handle the cables from the mules, normally the Canal seamen disembark after the ship clears the locks and then another group is placed aboard to handle the locks on the other side of the Isthmus.  A ship the size of the Zandam would probably use 14 to 16 Canal seamen and at least two pilots.  Also from what I can tell from pictures to bridge is totally enclosed, so they would in contact with the bridge crew for the transit.

 

Just a side... the R'dam and the Z'dam according to marine traffic are anchored in the anchorage that is normally used for vessels with hazardous cargo.

[LMaxwell]

1 hour ago, YXU AC*SE said:

 

Recall well ...    that was Plan A  ...       Scott. 

 

From HAL:

Zaandam was sailing a South America voyage that departed Buenos Aires, Argentina, on March 7 and was originally scheduled to end in San Antonio, Chile, on March 21. However, due to global health concerns, Holland America Line made the decision to suspend its global cruise operations for 30 days and end its current cruises in progress as quickly as possible and return guests home. Despite previous confirmations that guests could disembark in Punta Arenas, Chile, for flights, we were not permitted to do so. No one has been off the ship since March 14 in Punta Arenas. 

 

They tried to make those plans after departing a regularly scheduled port of call. Again no crytsal balm for the future but clearly by 3/14 time was of the essence and any attempt to continue running the itinerary should have been abandoned.  Other ships halted itineraries and diverted for nearest ports.  I simply don't understand what the decision process was on 3/14 when they had opportunity to terminate. They then spent 8 days after that being denied port entry before symptoms appeared onboard.