Cruise Org's Response to 100 Day Suspension

[Georgia_Peaches]

12 minutes ago, WrittenOnYourHeart said:

 

No, to be honest there are very few cruise embarkation points where I would WANT to spend more than one night. Miami and Seattle are the only two I can think of for me had I not already spent enough time in those that I've seen all I want to see.

 

Port Canaveral? Nope - I'll stay in Orlando so the PC area would get none of my money.

Ft Lauderdale? Nope - I love Miami, but BTDT already

New Orleans? Cannot stand that place and won't even look at cruises from there.

Tampa? Not interested in anything around there.

San Diego? Maybe a couple of days, but nowhere near the week I spend on cruises.

NY/NJ? I live here.

Boston? See San Diego's answer.

Baltimore? Nope - I lived in the DC area for several years.

 

So no. If I don't cruise, those embarkation points are NOT on the list of where I'd choose to vacation so rather than getting a day or so's worth of money from me, they'll get nothing.

Totally agree.  We were supposed to be on a cruise embarking in MIA yesterday.  Our pre-cruise stay was in a boutique hotel in South Beach.  I have no interest in going to South Beach on it's own.  However, I will spend a night or two there pre-cruise.  

[Georgia_Peaches]

1 minute ago, Iamcruzin said:

Compared to the overall unemployment at this time, the cruise industry accounts for so few.

Don't doubt that at all.  However, the jobless rate in the port areas is not the only thing that makes up the micro-economy that would be/is impacted...hotels, taxis, airlines, shops, liquor stores, grocery, etc.  it all adds up...

 

In the grand scheme, the jobless rate as a result of this pandemic is quite literally beyond my comprehension.

[Iamcruzin]

17 minutes ago, WrittenOnYourHeart said:

 

No, to be honest there are very few cruise embarkation points where I would WANT to spend more than one night. Miami and Seattle are the only two I can think of for me had I not already spent enough time in those that I've seen all I want to see.

 

Port Canaveral? Nope - I'll stay in Orlando so the PC area would get none of my money.

Ft Lauderdale? Nope - I love Miami, but BTDT already

New Orleans? Cannot stand that place and won't even look at cruises from there.

Tampa? Not interested in anything around there.

San Diego? Maybe a couple of days, but nowhere near the week I spend on cruises.

NY/NJ? I live here.

Boston? See San Diego's answer.

Baltimore? Nope - I lived in the DC area for several years.

 

So no. If I don't cruise, those embarkation points are NOT on the list of where I'd choose to vacation so rather than getting a day or so's worth of money from me, they'll get nothing.

You are just one opinion. Most of the places on the list have yearly tourism. Cruise terminals especially up North are seasonal. I can't speak of NJ but I can tell you first hand that NYC doesn't rely on cruise ships for tourism.

[WrittenOnYourHeart]

6 minutes ago, Iamcruzin said:

You are just one opinion. Most of the places on the list have yearly tourism. Cruise terminals especially up North are seasonal. I can't speak of NJ but I can tell you first hand that NYC doesn't rely on cruise ships for tourism.

 

As are you. There are at least 2 of us on here who share that opinion.

 

And I am aware that northern ports are seasonal, but I was trying to include all of the US ports I was aware of. I think some of the southern places that have grown up around ports might be surprised to find out that people aren't going there for the things they might have constructed to keep passengers entertained if the cruises aren't going out of there.

Edited April 12, 2020 by WrittenOnYourHeart

[MarLieb]

3 hours ago, C-Dragons said:

“While it’s easy to focus on cruising because of its high profile, the fact is cruising is neither the source or cause of the virus or its spread. What is different about the cruise industry is the very stringent reporting requirements applicable to vessels that do not apply to comparable venues on land where the spread of communicable disease is just as prevalent. It would be a false assumption to connect higher frequency and visibility in reporting to a higher frequency of infection.”

I agree, the last paragraph is significant. They are stating a fact that they are being singled out as being a predominant factor for the spread of the contagion, while the government doesn’t appear to be laying any blame on the Airlines. How did the virus get into our country? Mainly by passengers arriving on planes from different parts of the world. How did the virus get aboard the cruise ships? By passengers arriving via the same Airlines. What precautions have the airlines been required to put in place to help contain the spread of the virus aside from taking passenger's

temperatures and asking them where they've recently traveled? Are any passengers required to have a note from their Doctors saying they’re healthy to travel for hours in an enclosed space? It's hard to practice social distancing on an aircraft.

I completely see your point, but, I suppose, the airlines response to that is their ability to even carry passengers was significantly diminished with the travel bans from China and Europe, the borders with Canada and Mexico closing to non-essential travel and state governors asking people to self-quarantine for 14 days if they arrive from out-of-state.  Particularly with the travel bans - that was a pretty significant precaution that was taken.  Although the CDC never released a document (to my knowledge anyway) singling out the airlines, that industry has been completely devastated by the pandemic.  I happened to be on Delta's website this morning and they mention on the site that, in an attempt to social distance, they are now leaving the middle seat open on their aircrafts.  Personally, that still wouldn't make me comfortable enough to fly right now!  I always got the sense that the orders aimed at the cruise industry had more to do with the US government not wanting to take on the role and expense of evacuating people anymore and would like the industry to become more self-sufficient with improved medical capabilities and the ability to evacuate guests and crews themselves by deploying other ships - at least that's how I read the CDC order.  I understand they don't want to be singled out, but I'm not sure what else the CDC could have done if they want the cruise lines to expand their own capabilities to help guests in a medical situation.

[MarLieb]

2 hours ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

@C-Dragons we seem to be on the same page so let me pose this to you...and anyone else who cares to chime in.

 

DH and I just returned from our walk where we thoroughly discussed the world's problems.  Unfortunately, we haven't solved any yet but on the topic of cruising, I mentioned the 100 suspension and DH said, "Well I wonder how long it will take Cozumel or Nassau to build a cruise terminal that Americans (and others) could fly to in lieu of US ports?"  Obviously, they need capital to support such infrastructure needs and it will take time (which was my response to him), but it did make me go hmmm.  Will popular Caribbean ports of call entertain the notion of someday becoming their own cruise embarkation port?  Maybe this should be a new thread...but curious all the same...

 

This was on my mind, as well, after the CDC order was released.  I remember looking at a cruise on a smaller line (I think it may have been Seabourne?) that embarked and disembarked from St. Maarten (if I recall).  I almost pulled the trigger but when I priced out my "all-in" (flights, pre-cruise stay, etc.) it just wasn't as cost effective as doing something out of a US port.  Could this be a golden opportunity for Caribbean ports?  Maybe?!  As a previous poster noted, though, I think it might significantly reduce the amount of US guests on the cruises.  Only speaking for myself (I live in the NYC metro area), it's SO much easier to fly to a US port than to fly internationally to get on a cruise.

[C-Dragons]

2 hours ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

@C-Dragons we seem to be on the same page so let me pose this to you...and anyone else who cares to chime in.

 

DH and I just returned from our walk where we thoroughly discussed the world's problems.  Unfortunately, we haven't solved any yet but on the topic of cruising, I mentioned the 100 suspension and DH said, "Well I wonder how long it will take Cozumel or Nassau to build a cruise terminal that Americans (and others) could fly to in lieu of US ports?"  Obviously, they need capital to support such infrastructure needs and it will take time (which was my response to him), but it did make me go hmmm.  Will popular Caribbean ports of call entertain the notion of someday becoming their own cruise embarkation port?  Maybe this should be a new thread...but curious all the same...

Perhaps you are correct. This might be better as the topic of another thread..?

[Fouremco]

13 minutes ago, Iamcruzin said:

You are just one opinion.

No, there are many of who wouldn't go near these ports if the cruise lines ceased to embark there. In all the years of land holidays before we started cruising, not once did we spend our time visiting a US cruise embarkation port. Out get-away-from-winter sojourns were to AI's or similar throughout the Caribbean, the exception being Hawaii. 

[Georgia_Peaches]

4 minutes ago, MarLieb said:

 

This was on my mind, as well, after the CDC order was released.  I remember looking at a cruise on a smaller line (I think it may have been Seabourne?) that embarked and disembarked from St. Maarten (if I recall).  I almost pulled the trigger but when I priced out my "all-in" (flights, pre-cruise stay, etc.) it just wasn't as cost effective as doing something out of a US port.  Could this be a golden opportunity for Caribbean ports?  Maybe?!  As a previous poster noted, though, I think it might significantly reduce the amount of US guests on the cruises.  Only speaking for myself (I live in the NYC metro area), it's SO much easier to fly to a US port than to fly internationally to get on a cruise.

No doubt embarking from a port in Florida is more cost effective for us as well.  Heck, depending on the port, sometimes we just drive.  Port Canaveral is about 6.5 hours away and Tampa isn't a bad drive either.  It's the MIA and FLL embarkations that prompt us to fly.  But perhaps it is an opportunity for other Caribbean ports to capitalize on this terrible circumstance.  Time will certainly tell.

[rte]

4 hours ago, bEwAbG said:

If these were ocean liners being used solely as transportation, that might be relevant.  These are floating hotels taking people on vacation.  Airplanes serve many more functions.  Most flights are short in duration versus days or weeks long.  They therefore never get to the point of becoming sick wards that require so many government resources (federal, state, & local).  It's this last issue that has put cruise lines on the ropes because most governments, particularly the U.S. government, have insisted the industry come up with a way to plan for & pay for these situations going forward.  Basically, the industry shot itself in the foot by not voluntarily stopping cruises sooner, particularly when it was painfully obvious what was likely to (and did) happen.

Here in New Zealand it was the airlines that were the main reason for infection which came very quick.

At least with cruising and proper reporting they were easy to send away. Put the blame where

it belongs on the airlines.Cruising it just an easy target

[Baron Barracuda]

3 hours ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

@C-Dragons we seem to be on the same page so let me pose this to you...and anyone else who cares to chime in.

 

DH and I just returned from our walk where we thoroughly discussed the world's problems.  Unfortunately, we haven't solved any yet but on the topic of cruising, I mentioned the 100 suspension and DH said, "Well I wonder how long it will take Cozumel or Nassau to build a cruise terminal that Americans (and others) could fly to in lieu of US ports?"  Obviously, they need capital to support such infrastructure needs and it will take time (which was my response to him), but it did make me go hmmm.  Will popular Caribbean ports of call entertain the notion of someday becoming their own cruise embarkation port?  Maybe this should be a new thread...but curious all the same...

Have to believe Cozumel, Nassau and every other port in the Caribbean with sub-standard healthcare facilities is scared to death of Corona carrying cruisers descending upon them.  A number of Caribbean ports turned cruise ships away weeks before the US ban.

[Baron Barracuda]

WDW just furloughed 43k employees.  Accumulated Orlando theme park, hotel, restaurant, car rental, and airline jobs makes makes the cruise line shutdown pale in insignificance.  And unlike most cruise line employees these people pay US taxes and vote.

[sakigemcam]

I do think they buried the lead by putting the last paragraph, which mentioned air travel and theme parks, last. I am tired of cruise  lines getting so much negative media coverage vis a vis the virus vs airlines and theme parks. As a household of journalists we understand why it gets the coverage it does, because it's visual, intriguing, dramatic. If I hear "petri dish" one more time....

 

Regardless of revenues, taxes and where paid, impact on employment, etc - anyplace that's closely packed should share the blame for spreading the virus. I don't know how I'm going to deal with getting on an elevator when we're allowed to go back to our 22-story office building. I won't be taking the stairs to 19.  If there were a way to do it, which there is not, comparing the % of travelers infected on planes to travelers infected on cruises would be interesting. As I've said on other threads, the one time I had noro it came from a  plane, no cruise in sight. 

[Blackduck59]

2 hours ago, Iamcruzin said:

🤣🤣....I thought to myself as I read it, think how much more money would go to locals if cruising went away. They would spend full week in a hotel or resort instead of one night and they would be touring the area eating at restaurants and supporting venues by spending more money overall. Now it's one night at Motel 6 with free breakfast and free shuttle to the cruise terminal.

 

Or they could just skip Florida or any other port and simply fly to the Caribbean for a week at a lovely all inclusive. It's a double edged sword. Or fly somewhere else  say Vancouver for that Alaska Cruise or Hawaii or even Mexico. Cruise ships are big business and they inject more into the local economy than people think. I dare say that local vendors in Vancouver and Seattle are feeling the pinch even at the loss of the few ships that Home port there. Seattle was expecting some $500,000.00 in revenue this season and Vancouver even more not counting the pre and post cruise commerce. So I think rather than filling up motel six and the other local venues people will just skip Florida and go direct. Cruising is VERY important to the economy of Florida and any other state that hosts cruise ships. Whether they pay taxes or not.

[Iamcruzin]

1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

No, there are many of who wouldn't go near these ports if the cruise lines ceased to embark there. In all the years of land holidays before we started cruising, not once did we spend our time visiting a US cruise embarkation port. Out get-away-from-winter sojourns were to AI's or similar throughout the Caribbean, the exception being Hawaii. 

I am referring to the cities. Nobody vacations at cruise terminals or airports. What do these cruise terminal areas do Mid week when the cruises ships are at sea?  Florida beaches attract spring breakers, South Beach Miami is a tourist area.  Most of the cities are tourist cities. Many like myself fly in the same day and only use Uber. My son has a land trip to LA in June which I'm sure will be canceled. Not everyone cruises and Florida is a destination on it's own. If cruising came to an end there would be a greater demand for vacation resorts. I would bet that the majority sailing from Florida live there and don't spend a dime on hotels and restaurants. All of the European Cities are also destination cities. Many times you have to travel hours from the cruise terminal for a hit and run visit to the main attraction.

[Fouremco]

1 minute ago, Iamcruzin said:

I am referring to the cities. Nobody vacations at cruise terminals or airports.

In common English parlance, port refers to the town or city, not just to the docks. I was clearly talking about the cities.

[Iamcruzin]

2 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

In common English parlance, port refers to the town or city, not just to the docks. I was clearly talking about the cities.

Most of the Cities are destination cities on their own.

[az_tchr]

1 hour ago, rte said:

Here in New Zealand it was the airlines that were the main reason for infection which came very quick.

At least with cruising and proper reporting they were easy to send away. Put the blame where

it belongs on the airlines.Cruising it just an easy target

There is one big difference between airlines and cruises.  People are spaced on a plane and there for a short length of time.  The transferring of the disease almost exclusively happened after reaching their destination.

On a ship people are in close proximity for a week or more.  Transference mostly happens on board.

I totally agree that people flying moved covid19 quickly around the World.  The big difference is planes are necessary for commerce of people and things.  Cruise ships are not.

[Fouremco]

3 hours ago, Iamcruzin said:

🤣🤣....I thought to myself as I read it, think how much more money would go to locals if cruising went away. They would spend full week in a hotel or resort instead of one night and they would be touring the area eating at restaurants and supporting venues by spending more money overall. Now it's one night at Motel 6 with free breakfast and free shuttle to the cruise terminal.

 

22 minutes ago, Iamcruzin said:

Most of the Cities are destination cities on their own.

The point that @downsmead, @WrittenOnYourHeart , @Blackduck59 and I were making was that eliminating cruises from these embarkation ports would not necessarily result in previous cruise passengers returning to these ports in the future for a week's holiday as you suggest. No one is denying that these cities attract tourists, just that you shouldn't count on an increase in tourism dollars as a result of eliminating cruises.

[Pennstateman]

No bailouts.  They should plan to have an emergency fund just like people do. If not, there are bankruptcy laws for that purpose.  Let them reorganize.  

[Blackduck59]

13 minutes ago, az_tchr said:

There is one big difference between airlines and cruises.  People are spaced on a plane and there for a short length of time.  The transferring of the disease almost exclusively happened after reaching their destination.

On a ship people are in close proximity for a week or more.  Transference mostly happens on board.

I totally agree that people flying moved covid19 quickly around the World.  The big difference is planes are necessary for commerce of people and things.  Cruise ships are not.

 

I'd like to know what plane you have been on lately...spaced? maybe in business class. On a cruise ship it would not be that hard to stay 6 feet spacing, all you have to do is try. And I would say that it's true, transference does mostly happen aboard THE AIRPLANE. You do have one thing right, flying moved COVID 19 around the world quickly. Unfortunately cruise ships are a large target to scapegoat for their part in this pandemic. And BTW airplanes are great for moving people but as far as commerce and things, look to ships, trains and trucks. And with modern technology office workers can meet with office workers over the internet, so people don't need to move by air that much either. So are airplanes really more "Necessary"? 

This thread got ugly a few days back and posts were edited. Suffice to say IMO the cruise industry has received undo criticism and scrutiny while the largest contributor to the spread has had a pass because it is "necessary"

So as I have said before don't fix the blame, fix the problem. And what are we each willing to do to fix the problem?

[Pennstateman]

5 hours ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

@C-Dragons we seem to be on the same page so let me pose this to you...and anyone else who cares to chime in.

 

DH and I just returned from our walk where we thoroughly discussed the world's problems.  Unfortunately, we haven't solved any yet but on the topic of cruising, I mentioned the 100 suspension and DH said, "Well I wonder how long it will take Cozumel or Nassau to build a cruise terminal that Americans (and others) could fly to in lieu of US ports?"  Obviously, they need capital to support such infrastructure needs and it will take time (which was my response to him), but it did make me go hmmm.  Will popular Caribbean ports of call entertain the notion of someday becoming their own cruise embarkation port?  Maybe this should be a new thread...but curious all the same...

How long would it take those places to develop ports? Decades.  Maybe .

Edited April 12, 2020 by Pennstateman

[tiggy85]

7 hours ago, bEwAbG said:

If these were ocean liners being used solely as transportation, that might be relevant.  These are floating hotels taking people on vacation.  Airplanes serve many more functions.  Most flights are short in duration versus days or weeks long.  They therefore never get to the point of becoming sick wards that require so many government resources (federal, state, & local).  It's this last issue that has put cruise lines on the ropes because most governments, particularly the U.S. government, have insisted the industry come up with a way to plan for & pay for these situations going forward.  Basically, the industry shot itself in the foot by not voluntarily stopping cruises sooner, particularly when it was painfully obvious what was likely to (and did) happen.

👏🏽👏🏽 This post is exactly what I was and have been thinking. 

[npcl]

If one looks at the 100 ships that were cruising in/out of US ports just before the suspension 20 out of the 100 had Covid-19 cases confirmed on board either prior to the end of the cruise or among the crew after the passengers left (meaning that it was present on the ship during its last cruise) at that time on March 13 there were 2,183 confirmed cases in the US, but 20% of the cruises ships around the US had it on board.

 

How do you think that cruise ships can keep it off with 505,979 active cases in the US today (confirmed minus resolved)?

 

Cruise ships might not be the cause, but unfortunately there is no way to execute the only way to prevent spread - distancing, on a cruise ship Not unless you keep people in their rooms or reduce the passenger load to so low of a level that the cruise would not sail anyway.

[npcl]

50 minutes ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

I'd like to know what plane you have been on lately...spaced? maybe in business class. On a cruise ship it would not be that hard to stay 6 feet spacing, all you have to do is try. And I would say that it's true, transference does mostly happen aboard THE AIRPLANE. You do have one thing right, flying moved COVID 19 around the world quickly. Unfortunately cruise ships are a large target to scapegoat for their part in this pandemic. And BTW airplanes are great for moving people but as far as commerce and things, look to ships, trains and trucks. And with modern technology office workers can meet with office workers over the internet, so people don't need to move by air that much either. So are airplanes really more "Necessary"? 

This thread got ugly a few days back and posts were edited. Suffice to say IMO the cruise industry has received undo criticism and scrutiny while the largest contributor to the spread has had a pass because it is "necessary"

So as I have said before don't fix the blame, fix the problem. And what are we each willing to do to fix the problem?

Would it be that easy? The passages are not even 6 feet wide sooner or later you will pass someone there. Avoiding all elevators? How about stairwells? The tables are not six feet apart in the dining rooms or in the buffet.  The seats in the lounges and the coffee area are certainly closer than 6 feet and often full. How about the lines to get on and get off the ship?  Are you 6 feet apart on tenders going to those ports?

 

How about the crew?  Their spaces are even more crowded.  If they get it and are in the group that spread it while asymptomatic are you going to be 6 feet away from your server? How about your room steward going in and out of your cabin?

 

Just about any time you are outside of your cabin you are passing within 6 feet of someone.  After spending a week on a cruise you will have passed within 6 feet of a good portion of everyone else on the same cruise.