Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
bouhunter

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

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Tampa Girl said:

 

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

Are we seeing different information? Info I am seeing shows guests were ashore and on excursions on 3/14 and HAL says basically the same. Am I misunderstanding ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

Are we seeing different information? Info I am seeing shows guests were ashore and on excursions on 3/14 and HAL says basically the same. Am I misunderstanding ? 

My understanding is they could go on excursions but not disembark/fly out. They couldn't stay behind. 

Edited by Wehwalt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Wehwalt said:

My understanding is they could go on excursions but not disembark/fly out. They couldn't stay behind. 

HAL accepted that and didn't look for an alternate plan to secure passage home; all speculation and guesswork at this point though. But they did try to basically continue operating the "cruise" after that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

HAL accepted that and didn't look for an alternate plan to secure passage home; all speculation and guesswork at this point though. But they did try to basically continue operating the "cruise" after that. 


Agreed.  HAL should have negotiated the ability to keep the ship in port and sent chartered planes to pick up the passengers in order to repatriate them.  I'm guessing the Chileans would have been fine having people go directly from the ship to the chartered planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rotterdam to the left and Zaandam to the right.  Four tenders out, no doubt moving passengers. They are .4 KM apart.  A rough job for the cimage.thumb.png.cc38aa1d5a212333f17272a20aa464f7.pngRotterdam to the left and Zaamdam to the right.  Four tenders out, no doubt moving passengers.  They are .4km apart. A tough day for the crews and probably quite upsetting for the passengers.  I hope the sea state is calm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Wehwalt said:

This will either be HAL's finest hour or a nail in its coffin and at this point, I wouldn't care to venture which.

I vote for Finest Hour.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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 

My understanding is that was the plan until Chile revoked the permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Three separate pilots (transit and lock), one or two Panama Canal Authority (PCA) inspectors, one fumigator (yellow fever/mosquitos), one (more than likely more than one at this time) health inspector(s), and two separate teams of roughly nineteen-twenty four (depending on the class/size of ship) PCA line handlers/canal workers (going to both forward and aft mooring decks to assist the "mules") 

 

No photo description available.

 

No photo description available.

 

No photo description available.

 

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did the Panama Canal in 1999, and I think the pilot had to board the ship.  Also, during the Gatun Locks, the outer decks were packed, and we were right next to the land.  The Ryndam seemed like a close fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, knittinggirl said:

We did the Panama Canal in 1999, and I think the pilot had to board the ship.  Also, during the Gatun Locks, the outer decks were packed, and we were right next to the land.  The Ryndam seemed like a close fit.

I've done it seven times. It's always a thrill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wehwalt said:

I've done it seven times. It's always a thrill.

One of my favorite cruises. Yes. I guess I didn't realize all those people came on.  But at times it did feel like threading a needle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ducklite said:


Agreed.  HAL should have negotiated the ability to keep the ship in port and sent chartered planes to pick up the passengers in order to repatriate them.  I'm guessing the Chileans would have been fine having people go directly from the ship to the chartered planes.

All speculation. If you have facts, please supply the source. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LMaxwell said:

Are we seeing different information? Info I am seeing shows guests were ashore and on excursions on 3/14 and HAL says basically the same. Am I misunderstanding ? 

 

Zaandam's original itinerary. The port call at Punta Arenas, Chile on March 14 was the last time anyone left Zaandam to go ashore. After the Chileans put a stop to disembarking her pax/crew at her original disembarkation port of San Antonio/Santiago de Chile, the other Chilean ports (Punta Arenas, Puerto Montt and Valparaiso) were also denied. She was ultimately given permission to anchor off Valparaiso for bunkering and supplies only, before heading north to her current position off Panama. Peru (March 16), Ecuador (March 16), Columbia (March 16) and Argentina (March 15) all closed their borders, denying entry to Zaandam. Now it's either a Panama Canal transit (if the Panamanians change their mind) or a northbound course to potentially U.S. ports (San Diego, L.A., Oakland) more than likely following the same guidelines as Grand Princess and her pax in Oakland on March 9.

 

3/7/2020 Sat BUENOS AIRES
3/8/2020 Sun Buenos Aires
3/9/2020 Mon Montevideo
3/10/2020 Tue At Sea (South Atlantic Ocean)
3/11/2020 Wed At Sea
3/12/2020 Thu Port Stanley
3/13/2020 Fri Scenic cruising Strait of Magellan
3/14/2020 Sat Punta Arenas
3/15/2020 Sun Ushuaia
3/16/2020 Mon Scenic cruising Cape Horn 
3/17/2020 Tue Scenic cruising Sarmiento Channel
3/18/2020 Wed Scenic cruising Chilean Fjords
3/19/2020 Thu Puerto Montt
3/20/2020 Fri At Sea (South Pacific Ocean)
3/21/2020 Sat SAN ANTONIO (SANTIAGO)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Aquahound said:

 

That's actually an exaggeration.  Depending on the ship, it's about a third to half that number. 

It is Not an exaggeration.  It is fact on several ships.  Not all ships.  Horrible to think about or argue about.  Stay Well and noone needs to think about this conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there needs to be a FAQ thread for this situation which only includes the facts (and quotes from the HAL blog) since there is a lot of misinformation floating around on this one.  Here are some things that could be included:

1.  The ship was on a 14 day cruise departing Buenos Aires, Argentina on 3/7, with stops in Montevideo, Uruguay; Stanley, Falkland Islands; and Punta Arenas, Chile as well as Ushuia, Argentina and Puerto, Montt, Chile; ending in San Antonio, Argentina on 3/21.  (The ship did not go to Antarctica.)  Here is an itinerary I found online:

https://www.icruise.com/itineraries/14-night-south-america-passage-cruise_zaandam_3-7-2020.html

2.  The ship made port calls in Montevideo and Stanley before operations were halted on 3/13--The ship was at sea on that date.  The ship then made a port call in Punta Arenas (I do not know if passengers were able to tour or not so that is not a fact.)  Passengers were not allowed to stay in Punta Arenas.  From the Holland America blog:  "Despite a positive outlook for disembarking Zaandam guests today at Punta Arenas, Chile, we were not allowed to do so by local authorities. Therefore, the ship departed the port this evening and is now en route to San Antonio, Chile, for a service call to take on fuel and other provisions. Our Seattle headquarters and the ship are working with several governments and embassies on options for where to disembark guests."

3.  The ship did not stop in Ushaia or Puerto Montt.

4.  The ship was allowed to take on fuel and provisions off of Valparaiso, Chile.  From the blog, "The ship departed Valparaiso, Chile, today and is sailing north with the intention of arriving at Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on March 30 where guests will disembark. Holland America Line is in the process of finalizing the necessary permissions to transit the Panama Canal on March 27."

5.  Permission was denied for the ship to transit the Panama Canal.  It is necessary for 3 pilots and numerous line handlers, and various inspectors to board the ship in the course of the transit.  The Panama Canal remained open to other traffic.

6.  Medical supplies and personnel were transferred from the Rotterdam to the Zaandam off Panama.  Some passengers deemed healthy were transferred to the Rotterdam.

 

It is important to note that it is not possible to disembark a ship with around 2,000 people onboard somewhere in the middle of the ocean--a port that will accept it must be found.  Yes, it would have been a good idea for the cruise to have been canceled.  But, at the time it sailed, and especially considering most passengers left home 2 or 3 days earlier to get there, the situation did not seem that dire, especially in South America where the 1st cases in Argentina and Chile were on 3/3.  Things went downhill after that.  But, once it sailed, it had to find a place to disembark which it is still trying to do.  As was reported in an earlier thread by bob brown, his Hurtigurten cruise (very small ship) found itself in a similar situation but was allowed to disembark in Stanley, Falkland Islands and the guests departed on chartered flights.  Not sure this would have been allowed with a larger ship. 

 

Sorry, just my 2 cents and hopefully the moderators will create an FAQ for this because it seems like we are going around in circles.  We took this same cruise and the following one that ended in Ft. Lauderdale just last year so I am following this thread with great interest.  We probably would have been on this one, as well, except my husband had accepted an assignment on a sister cruise line ship instead (that one was to depart on 3/15 and was canceled on 3/13).  He is not a HAL employee.  Some of this has probably been posted while I was writing this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Copper10-8 said:

 

Zaandam's original itinerary. The port call at Punta Arenas, Chile on March 14 was the last time anyone left Zaandam to go ashore. After the Chileans put a stop to disembarking her pax/crew at her original disembarkation port of San Antonio/Santiago de Chile, the other Chilean ports (Punta Arenas, Puerto Montt and Valparaiso) were also denied. She was ultimately given permission to anchor off Valparaiso for bunkering and supplies only, before heading north to her current position off Panama. Peru (March 16), Ecuador (March 16), Columbia (March 16) and Argentina (March 15) all closed their borders, denying entry to Zaandam. Now it's either a Panama Canal transit (if the Panamanians change their mind) or a northbound course to potentially U.S. ports (San Diego, L.A., Oakland) more than likely following the same guidelines as Grand Princess and her pax in Oakland on March 9.

 

3/7/2020 Sat BUENOS AIRES
3/8/2020 Sun Buenos Aires
3/9/2020 Mon Montevideo
3/10/2020 Tue At Sea (South Atlantic Ocean)
3/11/2020 Wed At Sea
3/12/2020 Thu Port Stanley
3/13/2020 Fri Scenic cruising Strait of Magellan
3/14/2020 Sat Punta Arenas
3/15/2020 Sun Ushuaia
3/16/2020 Mon Scenic cruising Cape Horn 
3/17/2020 Tue Scenic cruising Sarmiento Channel
3/18/2020 Wed Scenic cruising Chilean Fjords
3/19/2020 Thu Puerto Montt
3/20/2020 Fri At Sea (South Pacific Ocean)
3/21/2020 Sat SAN ANTONIO (SANTIAGO)

Original Zaandam Itinerary  (thank you for posting!)

Now we have something accurate to go by.  

Also:  borders of S.A. countries closed Mar. 15 and 16.

I remember reading on another thread that people were packed and ready to disembark on 3/19 when they arrived Puerto Montt.  

The Ushuaia port 3/15 was omitted as Argentina closed their border that day.  Then all the other countries on the west coast of S.A. closed their borders.  Then people on the Zaandam became ill.

 

Edited by sansterre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I elected to follow this topic because I was interested in real time details of the situation on the ship in question.   Sadly it has turned into something else.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sansterre said:

Thank you for this post - perhaps the most valuable one of all on this thread of 26 pages as it explains what was going on in South America from March 15 to March 25. (Manilla closed their airport on or about March 15 so I understand your comment about folks camping out at Santiago's airport).

I the above case, you returned to Punta Arenas, Argentina March 15 (if I did the math right).  The same day that the Zaandam left for Puerto Montt, Chile.

Note:  Some posters have mixed up these two ports.  Clearly, they are in two different countries, several days apart by way of of the Cape of Good Hope and several days by cruise ship.

Next I will repost the Zaandam's schedule (thank you Copper 10-8) so everyone can see that Zaandam and HAL are not at fault.  (We were on the Eurodam returning from Hawaii  on Mar. 18 so I remember this time well.)  Should Chile have been more helpful to the Zaandam?  IMO, yes.

 

 

Punta Arenas is in Chile, too.  You might be confusing it with Ushuaia, which is in Argentina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, mcmarya said:

I think there needs to be a FAQ thread for this situation which only includes the facts (and quotes from the HAL blog) since there is a lot of misinformation floating around on this one.  Here are some things that could be included:

1.  The ship was on a 14 day cruise departing Buenos Aires, Argentina on 3/7, with stops in Montevideo, Uruguay; Stanley, Falkland Islands; and Punta Arenas, Chile as well as Ushuia, Argentina and Puerto, Montt, Chile; ending in San Antonio, Argentina on 3/21.  (The ship did not go to Antarctica.)  Here is an itinerary I found online:

https://www.icruise.com/itineraries/14-night-south-america-passage-cruise_zaandam_3-7-2020.html

2.  The ship made port calls in Montevideo and Stanley before operations were halted on 3/13--The ship was at sea on that date.  The ship then made a port call in Punta Arenas (I do not know if passengers were able to tour or not so that is not a fact.)  Passengers were not allowed to stay in Punta Arenas.  From the Holland America blog:  "Despite a positive outlook for disembarking Zaandam guests today at Punta Arenas, Chile, we were not allowed to do so by local authorities. Therefore, the ship departed the port this evening and is now en route to San Antonio, Chile, for a service call to take on fuel and other provisions. Our Seattle headquarters and the ship are working with several governments and embassies on options for where to disembark guests."

3.  The ship did not stop in Ushaia or Puerto Montt.

4.  The ship was allowed to take on fuel and provisions off of Valparaiso, Chile.  From the blog, "The ship departed Valparaiso, Chile, today and is sailing north with the intention of arriving at Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on March 30 where guests will disembark. Holland America Line is in the process of finalizing the necessary permissions to transit the Panama Canal on March 27."

5.  Permission was denied for the ship to transit the Panama Canal.  It is necessary for 3 pilots and numerous line handlers, and various inspectors to board the ship in the course of the transit.  The Panama Canal remained open to other traffic.

6.  Medical supplies and personnel were transferred from the Rotterdam to the Zaandam off Panama.  Some passengers deemed healthy were transferred to the Rotterdam.

 

It is important to note that it is not possible to disembark a ship with around 2,000 people onboard somewhere in the middle of the ocean--a port that will accept it must be found.  Yes, it would have been a good idea for the cruise to have been canceled.  But, at the time it sailed, and especially considering most passengers left home 2 or 3 days earlier to get there, the situation did not seem that dire, especially in South America where the 1st cases in Argentina and Chile were on 3/3.  Things went downhill after that.  But, once it sailed, it had to find a place to disembark which it is still trying to do.  As was reported in an earlier thread by bob brown, his Hurtigurten cruise (very small ship) found itself in a similar situation but was allowed to disembark in Stanley, Falkland Islands and the guests departed on chartered flights.  Not sure this would have been allowed with a larger ship. 

 

Sorry, just my 2 cents and hopefully the moderators will create an FAQ for this because it seems like we are going around in circles.  We took this same cruise and the following one that ended in Ft. Lauderdale just last year so I am following this thread with great interest.  We probably would have been on this one, as well, except my husband had accepted an assignment on a sister cruise line ship instead (that one was to depart on 3/15 and was canceled on 3/13).  He is not a HAL employee.  Some of this has probably been posted while I was writing this!

and the best post of the entire thread  - thank you mcmarya!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, DaveSJ711 said:

 

Punta Arenas is in Chile, too.  You might be confusing it with Ushuaia, which is in Argentina.

Yes, you are right.  My bad.  I was thinking of how they directed the ship to the Falklands.

Thanks DaveSJ711

Edited by sansterre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, hubbards said:

I elected to follow this topic because I was interested in real time details of the situation on the ship in question.   Sadly it has turned into something else.  

 

👍👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2020 at 1:03 PM, LauraS said:

The title of this topic is "Flu" on Zaandam.  Please limit conversation to that so this convo can remain open.


Thank you,

 

LauraS

 

As a reminder, this is a ship at sea (actually now 2 ships), with passengers onboard, and families and friends at home who may be seeking or sharing information about the ships' status.

 

We request that members please move discussions about other topics (such as different choices which the cruise line might or might not have been able to make 2-3 weeks ago, Amazon home delivery availability, magazine articles about different ships still with passengers onboard, etc.) to another appropriate thread, or to our Floataway Lounge if they are not cruise related. 

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Zaandam anchored at Stanley on 12 March 2020IMG_2732.JPG


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dockman said:

thank you...so my brother/wife were ready to transfer to rotterdam but they told them no due to cpap...he told them he was glad to leave it behind as not all that necessary...they said they had to check with cdc...i have not heard back yet...do u think as long as he leaves machine behind that it is likely they got onto the rotterdam?

 

thank u for your info / opinions that  u can share with me...

 

A few years ago, I had booked an overnight flight to Europe and emailed a question regarding whether CPAP was a "free" carry-on item.  They said it was, but I decided not to take it anyway.  They had marked my file that I was travelling with a CPAP and when I went to check in, they denied me boarding because I didn't have it with me and the captain would not risk me falling asleep on the flight and dying on his watch.  So it is possible that is their rationale behind not accepting people for transfer who are prepared to leave their CPAP behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sunshine3601 said:

It is Not an exaggeration.  It is fact on several ships.  Not all ships.  Horrible to think about or argue about.  Stay Well and noone needs to think about this conversation.

 

Your numbers are an exaggeration, not the fact morgues exist.  I have never seen a cruise ship morgue that can hold 10-12.  I've seen a capacity of 2 on the low end and maybe 6 on the high end.  

 

Edited by Aquahound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...