SS Future Re-Open Plan: Timing, Testing Needs??!!

[Tothesunset]

England is doing its own thing with nil cooperation with N Ireland, Scotland or Wales. 

[Daveywavey70]

1 hour ago, chrism23 said:

As of this moment no one knows whether having the disease affords immunity and if so how long that immunity lasts.  It is one of the many unknowns.

 

Agreed but out of the 37.8 million known cases, there are only a handful of people worldwide that have had the virus twice.

[Lois R]

1 hour ago, chrism23 said:

 

I see the need to briefly collate and restate some of the many issues made in this astounding thread just for the purpose of clarity and focus.  

 

1. There will probably not be a single vaccine that is 100 % effective in our life times.  There is a chance but not realistic enough to set our hope on or to plan for.  I realize no one wants to hear that, and I will be skewered for saying so, but among truly independent scientists not dependent on political considerations there is near consensus on this.  It won't be 'solved' like polio or small pox.  Right now, as all of us should realize,  this is a new and rapidly evolving virus.  More about it is being learned everyday.  Which makes it a moving target and harder to hit. As are viruses by their very nature, they are constantly mutating.  It also holds out the remote possibility that it will mutate into something far less dangerous.  The reverse could also be true. The best I think we can hope for is a combination of more than 1 vaccines and a combination of anti-virals as is the case with HIV that will afford near 100% protection.  Lord knows how long that will take.  Use the annual flu virus as an example, in any one year it is only 35-65% effective.  If a vaccine could be developed that made the virus far less severe and symptomatic, as with the flu vaccines,  that might be an issue that we would have to gamble with in the future. But the flu is still deadly.   

2. There cannot be such a thing as a vaccine or immunity passport.  As of this moment no one knows whether having the disease affords immunity and if so how long that immunity lasts.  It is one of the many unknowns.

3.  No one knows how long a individual remains positive and keeps on shedding the virus, that is being contagious, after initially contacting the disease.  This could be days or weeks.  This makes the whole issue of quarantines somewhat less than precise science.  My mother in law for a personal example remained positive and contagious for 6 weeks.  In the same vein no one hows  how long after contacting the virus an individual becomes symptomatic.  It could be days, weeks, or in case of asymptomatic infections, not at all.  

4. After much debate, both the CDC and the WHO have finally acknowledged that the disease can be spread in an aerosol form which makes group gatherings in confined spaces much more of a problem.  In its aerosol form the virus can linger much longer and travel farther, than the 6 feet, and a couple of minutes, that has thus far been thought as with droplets from a cough. This calls into question all of the social distancing mitigation criteria.  To protect against aerosol spread on a cruise ship is probably 99% impossible.  I cannot think of how it could be done. 

5.  As noted in the last few posts above, right now we are playing whack-a-mole with the virus, it is abating in one area while becoming more severe in others.  This has shown that temperature or seasonal changes are irrelevant.  This was mentioned  by Lois R. above.  For this reason I wish the whole world could become New Zealand, where they at least have shown the political will and determination to have a chance of taming this beast.  This is possible.

6.  The above 2 factors, when taken together, will make what happens this winter, especially in colder, densely populated areas like the Northeast United States , simply hell.  The best mitigation of all against the disease has been the ability to be outside, simple fresh air.  Now we are going inside.

 

All of this of course has been my opinion, but the vast majority of it is fact based.  Its goal was to provide a summary of where we are now.  Granted it is dire as hell.  But it does hold out hope that we might find a way out of this.  

 

 

 

Hey Chris, I hope that entire post was not because of what I posted...I wasn't trying to be a smarta$$......I know

nobody has all the answers. I was just pointing out that cases here in the US are going up.  I believe the science/data

and all I was trying to say was we are supposed to be going into a bad winter.

[chrism23]

I need to back off on some of my pessimism.   The entire science section of today's NY Times is devoted to the search for and nature of a vaccine.  The majority opinion expressed in these articles, by people a helluva lot smarter than I am,  feels that a vaccine will be found, deemed effective and start to be distributed sometime in 2021. This is one of those cases where I hope they are right and I am wrong.  There is consensus that this winter will be hard to bear.  That we need to keep up and increase mitigations, ie mask wearing, but there seems to be an emerging feeling that solutions are nearer than they appeared to be a few months ago.  I am perhaps guilty of ignoring the fact that science can now move as fast or faster than a virus.  But I need to throw in one negative caveat here.  For a vaccine to be certified as effective by the CDC is must be successful in at least 50% of the cases in which it is used.  The 50% figure doesn't make me jump up and down.  That is why I still think that a solution will entail many diverse elements, more than just one simple shot.  But as the Times articles show, that assembling a lot of moving pieces is becoming more feasible.  So I have hope.   

[chrism23]

1 hour ago, Lois R said:

Hey Chris, I hope that entire post was not because of what I posted...I wasn't trying to be a smarta$$......I know

nobody has all the answers. I was just pointing out that cases here in the US are going up.  I believe the science/data

and all I was trying to say was we are supposed to be going into a bad winter.

Not at all Lois.  My piece was brewing for awhile. I just needed to get it out.  Sorry I used something you said.  

[Lois R]

13 minutes ago, chrism23 said:

Not at all Lois.  My piece was brewing for awhile. I just needed to get it out.  Sorry I used something you said.  

Thank you for clarifying......yes, after quoting me, I was wondering about it. 

[chrism23]

22 minutes ago, chrism23 said:

 For a vaccine to be certified as effective by the CDC is must be successful in at least 50% of the cases 

I must correct myself, it is the FDA that provides certification and not the CDC.

[Roger88]

5 minutes ago, chrism23 said:

I must correct myself, it is the FDA that provides certification and not the CDC.

The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs. So its definitely them. I wonder if there other organization with such capacities 

[TLCOhio]

4 hours ago, chrism23 said:

I need to back off on some of my pessimism.   The entire science section of today's NY Times is devoted to the search for and nature of a vaccine.  The majority opinion expressed in these articles, by people a helluva lot smarter than I am,  feels that a vaccine will be found, deemed effective and start to be distributed sometime in 2021. This is one of those cases where I hope they are right and I am wrong.

 

Great to see that our New England friend has "fine-tuned" your pessimism based on the recent reporting in the New York Times.  My view is that some form of vaccines and improved treatments will be happening in the future.  When and how effectively they are development and approved will involve more time than some or many hope or expect.  It will happen.  Just, not fast and/or perfectly simple and easy.  It will be a "COMBINATION" of factors, medical tools, etc.  That's my best guess, speculation now.  I am realistic and not getting ready to pack my bags at any time soon.  

 

As to re-opening, something significant is happening in the financial markets today.  You can see below some of the morning through mid-afternoon drops for Royal Caribbean and the other two major cruise lines.  Wall Street sees some trends that they do not like or value.  I am sure there will be reporting later today or in the next few days.  

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

Norway Coast/Fjords/Arctic Circle cruise from Copenhagen, July 2010, to the top of Europe. Scenic visuals with key tips. Live/blog at 240,593 views.

www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1227923

 

From the Wall Street Journal charting at 2:24 pm today, there was a very strong and downward drop in the value for Royal Caribbean stock.  Dropping 12% is a a major downward movement.   Not sure exactly why!!  The other two major companies were down, so far today, about 7%.  Big drops that raise questions when the overall market was only down only a small amount.:

(Open your screen/viewer wider to see these visuals larger/better!)

[TLCOhio]

Might have found a potential answer as to the "WHY" for the big drop today for Royal Caribbean stock and the other two major cruise lines.  From this website and a writer who is often posting with the "Motley Fool" group, they had this headline: “Why Royal Caribbean, Carnival, and Norwegian Cruise Line Stocks Plunged Today” with these highlights: “Shares of Royal Caribbean sank on Tuesday after the cruise ship company said it was seeking to raise another $1 billion to fund its operations during the coronavirus pandemic.  Royal Caribbean has suffered heavy losses during the coronavirus crisis. In just the first six months of 2020, it generated a net loss of $3.1 billion.   Those losses are set to grow even larger in the coming months. Royal Caribbean said that while it hopes to resume voyages by Dec. 1, it could 'provide no assurance' that it will be able to restart its operations this year.  Against this backdrop, Royal Caribbean announced a $500 million share offering and a $500 million senior convertible notes sale. The capital raise will help the struggling company stay afloat for the time being, but it will further dilute shareholders, many of whom have suffered brutal losses over the past year.”

 

Full story at:

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/why-royal-caribbean-carnival-and-norwegian-cruise-line-stocks-plunged-today-2020-10-13

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

Sydney to NZ/Auckland Adventure, live/blog 2014 sampling/details with many exciting visuals and key highlights.  On page 23, post #571, see a complete index for all of the pictures, postings.  Now at 231,160 views.

www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1974139

[TLCOhio]

From the final, closing bell at the New York Stock Exchange this afternoon, Royal Caribbean was down 13.2%.  Big drop!!  The other two major cruises lines dropped right around 8% below their previous stock market values earlier this morning.  

 

From a Wall Street Journal-related website this afternoon, they had this headline: “Cruise stocks lead S&P 500’s losers after Royal Caribbean’s $1 billion in stock, debt offerings” with this sub-head: "Royal Caribbean’s stock suffering biggest selloff in 3 months, paces S&P 500 losers."

 

Here are more of their story highlights: “Shares of cruise companies took a beating Tuesday, with Royal Caribbean Group hit the hardest after announcing a total of $1 billion worth of public stock and private convertible debt offerings, and providing a bookings update.  Trading volume jumped to 14.8 million shares, or more than double the full-day average of about 6.2 million shares, according to FactSet.  The stock’s selloff also weighed on Royal Caribbean’s peers. The company said it had also commenced a private offering of $500 million in senior convertible notes, due 2023, and has granted the underwriters options to buy up to an additional $75 million worth of the notes. Royal plans to use the proceeds to pay off its 2.650% senior notes due 2020.  Royal’s stock has tumbled 54.6% year to date, while Norwegian’s stock has plunged 71.3% and Carnival shares have plummeted 72.2%. The S&P 500 has gained 8.6% this year.”

 

Full story at:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cruise-stocks-lead-s-p-500s-losers-after-royal-caribbeans-1-billion-in-stock-debt-offerings-11602605180

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

Venice: Loving It & Why??!!  Is one of your future desires or past favorites? See these many visual samples for its great history and architecture.  This posting is now at 88,820 views.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1278226

[tgh]

A Tad o/t , but just wanted to say a big thank you to all the contributors to this thread.

The quality of the continuing discussion makes the thread prescribed reading

 

[TLCOhio]

20 hours ago, tgh said:

A Tad o/t , but just wanted to say a big thank you to all the contributors to this thread.

The quality of the continuing discussion makes the thread prescribed reading

 

Appreciate the nice comments and follow-up from above from tgh, in Brisbane, Australia, regarding the excellent quality of discussions related to this changing and evolving thread.  Yes, keep up the great sharing!!  As to TheRampantSnail and TTS, I will let others in the UK sort out the various "politics" and situations there in your areas.  

 

Today, the stock value for Royal Caribbean has continued downwards.  But, for RCCL, plus Carnival and NCL, it is at a more "modest/average" rate along the lines of the slow drop of the overall market.  Right now, mid-afternoon, RCCL and the overall Dow Jones averages were down about 0.7%.  

 

From the Wall Street Journal this morning, they had two different headlines from press releases that details more comprehensively the financial announcements yesterday: “Royal Caribbean Group announces pricing of $500 million senior convertible notes offering” and "Royal Caribbean Group announces pricing of offering of 8,333,333 shares of common stock" with some of these highlights: “Royal Caribbean Group today announced that it has priced its previously announced private offering of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 2.875% Convertible Senior Notes due 2023. In connection with the offering of the Convertible Notes, the Company granted certain of the initial purchasers of the Convertible Notes a 13-day option to purchase up to an additional $75 million aggregate principal amount of the Convertible Notes.”

 

If you are waiting for a refund and/or hoping that Royal Caribbean has the "CASH" to continue operations, these added moneys helps to "FUEL" this future during the coming months (and maybe much longer).

 

Full stories at:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/royal-caribbean-group-announces-pricing-of-500-million-senior-convertible-notes-offering-01602644020?tesla=y

https://www.wsj.com/articles/royal-caribbean-group-announces-pricing-of-offering-of-8-333-333-shares-of-common-stock-01602643900?tesla=y

Or, you can go to: 

www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/royal-caribbean-group-announces-pricing-of-500-million-senior-convertible-notes-offering-301151723.html

www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/royal-caribbean-group-announces-pricing-of-offering-of-8-333-333-shares-of-common-stock-301151721.html

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

Amazon River-Caribbean 2015 adventure live/blog starting in Barbados. Many visuals from this amazing river and Caribbean Islands (Dutch ABC's, St. Barts, Dominica, Grenada, San Juan, etc.).  Now at 67,519 views:

www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2157696

[CruiserFromMaine]

I watched a presentation this afternoon hosted by our TA and featuring Mark Conroy. 

 

A few highlights:

-Hoping to start Caribbean cruises in December, probably late December.

-The Moon will come over to Ft. Lauderdale empty this fall. Well, it’ll have a crew...

-The 2021 World Cruise isn’t officially canceled yet but Mark is not optimistic given the number of parts that are closed to cruise ships.

-The 2022 WC was announced, sort of. Bookings open early November. No Australia or NZ. Leaves Florida, down the west coast of South America to Antarctica, then to Africa, through the Suez and Med, then end in Copenhagen. I hope I remember that right.

-Some cruises, for example, an Alaskan cruise in June, will depart and return on a Thursday to avoid weekend cruise ship congestion in port.

-Masks will be required when social distancing is difficult, such as on elevators, but not always required. Mark did say that if you do not like to wear a mask, you should wait to cruise.

-Testing will be multiple times before embarking. Not sure what happens if you test positive at the port. 

-All crew will get a vaccine once it’s available. They won’t require pax to have it.

-They will require pax to take their shore excursions through Silversea for the time being. They will try to arrange some “after hours” excursions to reduce crowding at the sites.

-You can dine with other pax if you choose. Dining tables will be separated for social distancing. Mark didn’t discuss the buffet.

-Mark apologized for the delay in processing refunds.

-FCC are moving to 100% for everything. Not 125% or even 110%.

 

It was nice to hear about cruising resuming, even if not ideal. At this point, it’s not reasonable to expect the switch to flip back on the way it flipped off back in March.

 

I’ll try to answer other questions.

[Observer]

2 minutes ago, CruiserFromMaine said:

-FCC are moving to 100% for everything. Not 125% or even 110%.

 

 

Very helpful/interesting report.  Thanks!

 

I know that some people have been (perhaps quite reasonably!) upset by the way reductions were implemented in the past.  I do not mean to engage that issue.

 

But is it not a positive sign that their need to retain cash is not so acute that they must offer high "interest" rates (10%/25%) through FCC's to entice people not to request cash refunds?  Am I missing something in this "analysis"?

[alexandria]

33 minutes ago, Observer said:

 

Very helpful/interesting report.  Thanks!

 

I know that some people have been (perhaps quite reasonably!) upset by the way reductions were implemented in the past.  I do not mean to engage that issue.

 

But is it not a positive sign that their need to retain cash is not so acute that they must offer high "interest" rates (10%/25%) through FCC's to entice people not to request cash refunds?  Am I missing something in this "analysis"?

 

That is certainly a possibility, but the recent move by RCCL to raise $1 billion in cash by offering $500 million in common stock and $500 million in senior convertible notes does not signal that. 

 

Considering that the 125% FCC and 110% FCC doesn't do much to reduce their bottom line for each sailing (after all, the slightly upgraded stateroom category you could get with the added FCC costs Silversea nothing extra and even booking a slightly longer (or more exotic) itinerary doesn't add much to the per stateroom cost incurred by Silversea.  On the other hand, Silversea committed to paying double commissions to travel agents whose clients accept FCC in lieu of a cash refund.  One commission for the original (now cancelled) sailing and an additional commission for the sailing purchased with FCC.  That double commission expense is much more significant than the cost of providing the increased FCC to passengers. 

 

So I wonder if this is an effort by Silversea to reduce its commission expenses by providing no incentive to take FCC expecting that many Silversea loyalists will still rebook even with the cash refund but Silversea will pay only one commission rather than two. 

 

It is pure speculation on my part, but considering RCCL''s current efforts to raise $1 billion in cash, it doesn't sound like the reduction to 100% FCC reflects a position of good financial health and strong cash flow.  I suspect it is more likely an effort to reduce actual cash expenses and liabilities.

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by alexandria

[UKCruiseJeff]

Perhaps it is much simpler than that.

 

For each month we move forward there are very few fresh bookings but the number of people on cruises that are being left to be cancelled diminish. So the candidates for FCC is also reducing. 

 

At the same time as uncertainties increase (the virus; how much is the FCC loading actually going to be worth on cruises that have increased in price etc ....) then the  percentage of those on cancelled cruises likely to take FCC instead of a refund also diminishes. 

 

Also, when planning a restart you want your customers to believe that you anticipate high demand to justify high initial  prices rather than you showing that you lack confidence and anticipate low demand and will offer discounts.  So overall there is a point where the advantages of not offering FCC loadings is outwheighed by the advantages of not offering them.  

 

As the future survival seems more and more challenging. you need to signal more and more confidence for all sorts of reasons.

 

Jeff 🙂

[Stumblefoot]

1 hour ago, Observer said:

...is it not a positive sign that their need to retain cash is not so acute that they must offer high "interest" rates (10%/25%) through FCC's to entice people not to request cash refunds?

I thought along the same line as you.  They must feel pretty confident they are going to start cruising again, because most rational people will not accept a 100% FCC in lieu of a 100% cash refund.

[CruiserFromMaine]

Chrism23, I’m just reporting what Mark Conroy said re December. He didn’t go into the details. I don’t know the as-built HVAC characteristics of the Moon but they might be up to Covid 19 standards. I don’t know enough about immigration policies to comment. I am not interested in flying to Florida in December either but enough people are already there that it might work. 
 

I forgot to add in my report that Silversea will hold at least 10% of cabins for quarantine purposes. Mark did not say that this meant they’d sail at 90% capacity, I don’t recall him commenting on this either way. 

[Lois R]

Sailing in 2 months? I would not hold my breath no matter what Mark Conroy is saying.  

[Randyk47]

58 minutes ago, Lois R said:

Sailing in 2 months? I would not hold my breath no matter what Mark Conroy is saying.  

I agree.  Not to be a continued downer but the news almost world wide is not positive.  Latest estimates of an approved and safe vaccine by April 2021 makes me think it will be mid to late 2021 before we really turn the corner and even that doesn’t mean an immediate and full return of cruising as we knew it.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Randyk47

[brimary]

2 hours ago, Lois R said:

Sailing in 2 months? I would not hold my breath no matter what Mark Conroy is saying.  

 

Substitute 2 months for 2 Years . Carry on breathing as normal as Mark Conroy statements can be super optimistic and unreliable.

[Lois R]

57 minutes ago, brimary said:

 

Substitute 2 months for 2 Years . Carry on breathing as normal as Mark Conroy statements can be super optimistic and unreliable.

I hope it is less than 2 years! I have a deposit down for an Oct 2021 cruise and hoping it will sail.

[mrlevin]

Over 30,000,000 people live within eight hour drive of Port Canaveral; that is a lot of potential passengers that do not need to take a flight.  If cruising can start in Europe no reason it can't start here.

 

Marc

Edited October 15, 2020 by mrlevin

[Lois R]

22 minutes ago, mrlevin said:

Over 30,000,000 people live within eight hour drive of Port Canaveral; that is a lot of potential passengers that do not need to take a flight.  If cruising can start in Europe no reason it can't start here.

 

Marc

What time frame are you referring to though? It can't start here anytime "soon" with the way things are going........

looks like cases are going up worse now than they were back in the spring.........60,000 a day recently.😲