another anti-cruise line story in newspaper today

[39august]

 My local paper carried a story from USA Today headlined " 12.000 crew still on cruise ships in US waters". The story tells of a room steward from Mauritiius who was on Solstice, then transferred to Voyager. After a long story about his and others problems with depression, stress, possible health issues, etc., buried toward the end of a long article is his statement: "I don't blame my employer, RC Group. I blame my home country of Mauritius" Just another story slanted against cruise lines, when conditions out of cruise lines' control have been the biggest factors in delayed repatriation of crew members. ""Shame on the big, bad cruise industry". 

[sptrout]

Below is a link directly to the USA Today article. The article is long by USA Today standards which tend to be shorter and more just the facts without a lot of detail. In any case, the cruise lines are still having considerable problems getting the last of their members home for a variety of reasons. Very difficult situation arranging travel for people from all over the world with many countries not even allowing pass-through air passengers.

 

Not really the cruise lines fault, but the buck stops with them and they are trapped in a situation that they cannot control.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2020/08/08/cruise-ships-us-have-12000-crew-members-amid-covid-19/5574288002/

[marieps]

The headline is wrong.  They are not in U.S. waters.  They're within a day's sail of U.S., as explained in the body of the story.  Another example of a headline writer not digesting the facts, or choosing (with an editor's blessing) to ignore them.   

[4774Papa]

8 minutes ago, marieps said:

The headline is wrong.  They are not in U.S. waters.  They're within a day's sail of U.S., as explained in the body of the story.  Another example of a headline writer not digesting the facts, or choosing (with an editor's blessing) to ignore them.   

Never been very impressed with USA Today anyway.

[mayleeman]

It is a cruise line problem because they recruit so much of their crews from 3rd world countries. We pax tend to not think of the logistics of crew travel, etc, because it is invisible to us, but the pandemic shows the possible impact when travel is drastically curtailed world wide.

Edited August 9, 2020 by mayleeman

[phoenix_dream]

15 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

It is a cruise line problem because they recruit so much of their crews from 3rd world countries. We pax tend to not think of the logistics of crew travel, etc, because it is invisible to us, but the pandemic shows the possible impact when travel is drastically curtailed world wide.

Disagree 100% with this thinking.  First of all, this is an unprecedented event that has never before happened in the history of cruising.  No business can ever prepare for 100% of all possible issues that may present themselves.  When in the history of cruising has travel been "drastically curtailed world wide"?  The answer is never.  The fact that the crew comes from third world countries is also completely and totally irrelevant.  A country's decision to not allow their citizens to repatriate does not depend on whether they are third world or whatever the opposite of that is.  If you recall, for a period of time early on the USA was not allowing it's citizens back into the country off cruise ships.  Are we a third world country?!  

[davekathy]

...🥱

[mayleeman]

@phoenix_dream I think you misunderstood my point. I was describing how the problem became a cruise line problem to solve, not saying it was the fault of the industry. The 3rd world issue became relevant to how far-flung the crews' countries of origin are, and with curtailed travel, how hard it would be to repatriate people all over to countries that would not have lots of existing travel connex that would meet the CDC rqmts that were imposed months ago. And if they can't get home, their being stranded becomes a cruise industry problem to solve. (Our resident maritime expert Chief Engineer has posted extensively about merchant crews as well, so it is better described as a maritime problem, I guess.)

 

If you read any crew posts about the lengthy trips many take to get home at the end of their contracts in normal conditions, it is easy to understand. The US crew members, as few as there are, were mostly among the first to get returned despite some official hurdles you mentioned. Phillipinos, not so fast.

 

But if my post upsets you so, try this approach: do you know any other industry that has had to house and feed and negotiate repatriation for thousands of employees, many unpaid or on reduced pay, for the past 5 months?

[WrittenOnYourHeart]

31 minutes ago, phoenix_dream said:

If you recall, for a period of time early on the USA was not allowing it's citizens back into the country off cruise ships. 

 

EXACTLY!! My sister works on another line and was on board for 146 days. On Monday or Tuesday this week the CDC relented and said that cleared crew could fly on commercial airlines. The line she works for managed to get her off in Florida (not Miami or Ft Lauderdale) with her being the only crew member leaving and putting her in a private car to get to the airport the previous week. Her ship (and the other one from that line in the Caribbean/Bahamas/Florida area are both "Code Green" but there were still issues without having her be the only one leaving the day she did.

[npcl]

5 hours ago, WrittenOnYourHeart said:

 

EXACTLY!! My sister works on another line and was on board for 146 days. On Monday or Tuesday this week the CDC relented and said that cleared crew could fly on commercial airlines. The line she works for managed to get her off in Florida (not Miami or Ft Lauderdale) with her being the only crew member leaving and putting her in a private car to get to the airport the previous week. Her ship (and the other one from that line in the Caribbean/Bahamas/Florida area are both "Code Green" but there were still issues without having her be the only one leaving the day she did.

If the ship is code green according to the CDC critieria, than the CDC did not relent (which implies that they changed the standards) but instead that the cruise ship has met the criteria for allowing crew to fly commercial.

 

There was always the option of entering the US and flying charter.  Which is really less expensive then most people realize depending upon distance traveled.  Since the cost is directly related to one way flight time. You can pretty much get between any two points in the US for about $4-5,000.  So one would ask was 146 days on ship worth not occurring that expense..

Edited August 9, 2020 by npcl

[npcl]

I do not consider that the article was anti-cruise lines as much as it was a reminder that almost 5 months after the initial stoppage back in March there is still crew stuck on cruise ships.  In addition the article went beyond cruise ships to talk about those stuck for extended periods on other ships as well.

[Arizona Wildcat]

3 minutes ago, npcl said:

I do not consider that the article was anti-cruise lines as much as it was a reminder that almost 5 months after the initial stoppage back in March there is still crew stuck on cruise ships.  In addition the article went beyond cruise ships to talk about those stuck for extended periods on other ships as well.

Agree.  These are indeed unprecedented times and the cruise lines are still dealing with getting crew home.  Sure seems they could have found a way to get them back home.

If the lines - all ships - cannot repatriate crews after 5 months then how can they resume cruising.

[WrittenOnYourHeart]

18 minutes ago, npcl said:

If the ship is code green according to the CDC critieria, than the CDC did not relent (which implies that they changed the standards) but instead that the cruise ship has met the criteria for allowing crew to fly commercial.

 

There was always the option of entering the US and flying charter.  Which is really less expensive then most people realize depending upon distance traveled.  Since the cost is directly related to one way flight time. You can pretty much get between any two points in the US for about $4-5,000.  So one would ask was 146 days on ship worth not occurring that expense..

 

I was referring to the news earlier in the week that the CDC had said cruise line crew could now take commercial flights. So they DID relent.

 

Even after being declared Code Green, shoreside was still unable to get their crew on commercial flights. I'm sure if there was more than one person going anywhere close to where she was they would have chartered something. But that much for one person? WAY too much according to the cruise line.

[Georgia_Peaches]

I would venture to say that if there were something positive to report about cruising, it wouldn't be picked up by USA Today.

[npcl]

46 minutes ago, WrittenOnYourHeart said:

 

I was referring to the news earlier in the week that the CDC had said cruise line crew could now take commercial flights. So they DID relent.

 

Even after being declared Code Green, shoreside was still unable to get their crew on commercial flights. I'm sure if there was more than one person going anywhere close to where she was they would have chartered something. But that much for one person? WAY too much according to the cruise line.

According to the cruise line way to much.  But was it really compared to spending 146 days on ship.  There are a number of things that the cruise lines have considered to be too expensive. The 4-5k was actually a high end figure.  Used to charter a twin engine 8 passenger prop plane from California to east Texas for $1800.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/crew-disembarkations-commercial-travel.html

 

Actually what the CDC is allowing according to the web site posting as of August 7 is that same as they have been.  Might be more of the cruise line actually meeting the requirements than a change in CDC policy.

 

 CDC is allowing crew members to disembark from all cruise ships in U.S. waters with certain precautions. Cruise lines with complete and accurate response plans will be able to use commercial travel to disembark crew members from certain ships if the ships meet certain criteria set by CDC including that there have been no confirmed cases of COVID-19 or COVID-like illnesses on board the ship within the last 28 days.

 

(bolding mine)

Edited August 9, 2020 by npcl

[Vagabond Knight]

Just wondering... is it in the workers' contracts that it's the cruise lines' responsibility to get someone back to their home country?   I am not trying to be rude or inconsiderate, but I seriously have no idea and so I've been wondering is it's an actual "responsibility" to get them home or have the cruise ships been going out of their way to be humane and hospitable by keeping them onboard.  I know the workers must be "bored out of their gourd," as we used to say,  and I'm sure some want to go home.  However, as someone who used to commute an hour to work, I guess I'm trying to equate it to my own little world.  If a flood or earthquake or some weird natural disaster had occurred and shut down all production at my work location (and thus, eliminated all customer revenue) and blocked all the usual routes between work and my home (roads, bridges, etc.), is it my employer's responsibility to house and feed me without end until the the roads and bridges are restored and the work location has customers again?  I don't know how the agreements with the cruise line workers are written up, so I have no idea.  Are the cruise lines "being really nice" to keep all these workers onboard, or acting out of necessity, or ???

[markeb]

11 minutes ago, SunsetPoint said:

Just wondering... is it in the workers' contracts that it's the cruise lines' responsibility to get someone back to their home country?   I am not trying to be rude or inconsiderate, but I seriously have no idea and so I've been wondering is it's an actual "responsibility" to get them home or have the cruise ships been going out of their way to be humane and hospitable by keeping them onboard.  I know the workers must be "bored out of their gourd," as we used to say,  and I'm sure some want to go home.  However, as someone who used to commute an hour to work, I guess I'm trying to equate it to my own little world.  If a flood or earthquake or some weird natural disaster had occurred and shut down all production at my work location (and thus, eliminated all customer revenue) and blocked all the usual routes between work and my home (roads, bridges, etc.), is it my employer's responsibility to house and feed me without end until the the roads and bridges are restored and the work location has customers again?  I don't know how the agreements with the cruise line workers are written up, so I have no idea.  Are the cruise lines "being really nice" to keep all these workers onboard, or acting out of necessity, or ???

 

They're on travel contracts. Princess actually has a really good FAQ page on employment that popped up on Google; RCI/X probably has the same information for potential employees, but yes, their contracts include transportation from the nearest airport to the beginning and end port(s) of their contract and home again. I'd actually say that's pretty typical of most international companies, and even civilian employees of the federal government, at least when international travel is involved. It's not commuting. 

 

Obviously, the current situation isn't exactly typical.

[mayleeman]

@SunsetPoint I would guess that the cruiseline has an additional ongoing responsibility beyond even the contract to take care of anyone on board until they can be safely and lawfully disembarked. 

[Vagabond Knight]

2 hours ago, markeb said:

Obviously, the current situation isn't exactly typical.

 

Boy, is THAT an understatement!  The cruise lines (and pretty much everyone else) are dealing with unprecedented scenarios, and even six months of hindsight still isn't very clear.  😵

[mayleeman]

5 hours ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

I would venture to say that if there were something positive to report about cruising, it wouldn't be picked up by USA Today.

I found your comment amusing (ironic?) because my own interest in cruising started from an article in USA Today about Royal C trying to pick a name for their new megaship (Oasis). I think it had the results of a poll. I had no idea ships had gotten so big, and I was fascinated by the details about the new one.

[chengkp75]

First, with regards to the number of crew, the USA Today article says the 12,000 crew are spread across 57 ships.  With a minimum manning of 150 per ship, that means that 8500 of those 12,000 are required to be there, and not "stranded".

 

As for repatriation costs, by law (the Maritime Labor Convention of 2006, introduced by the IMO and subsequently added as law by all signatory nations of the IMO), the cruise line has to pay for repatriation of crew, provided they don't quit before their contract is up, or they are not fired for cause.  If the repatriation is delayed, as is the case these days, the line is responsible for "maintenance and cure" (room, board, and health care) for the crew until such time as repatriation is made.

[excitedofharpenden]

9 hours ago, markeb said:

 

They're on travel contracts. Princess actually has a really good FAQ page on employment that popped up on Google; RCI/X probably has the same information for potential employees, but yes, their contracts include transportation from the nearest airport to the beginning and end port(s) of their contract and home again. I'd actually say that's pretty typical of most international companies, and even civilian employees of the federal government, at least when international travel is involved. It's not commuting. 

 

Obviously, the current situation isn't exactly typical.

My understanding is that the crew have to pay to get to their contract start point and the cruiseline pay to get them home. 

 

Phil 

[chengkp75]

No, most lines pay for travel to the ship, and all must pay for travel home.

 

I will add to my post above, that if the crew member's national laws, or collective bargaining agreement requires it, that in the case of a delayed repatriation, that normal base pay is maintained from the time the crew member's contract ends until the time they reach home.

Edited August 10, 2020 by chengkp75

[pete_coach]

14 hours ago, npcl said:

I do not consider that the article was anti-cruise lines as much as it was a reminder that almost 5 months after the initial stoppage back in March there is still crew stuck on cruise ships.  In addition the article went beyond cruise ships to talk about those stuck for extended periods on other ships as well.

I think this needs to be put in perspective.

Apparently there are 57 cruise ships plying the waters around the US. There are approx 12,000 crew onboard them (apparently only 200 are American).

With those numbers, that puts about 210 crew average on each ship.That includes officers, engineering crew, cabin and kitchen crews, enough to keep the ship operating.

I suspect that the majority of the crews are there voluntarily. At least they have an income as opposed to sitting at their home with nothing.

I do not think the article is anti cruise line nor anti whatever country, I think the story needs to be put in perspective.

[Algebralovr]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

No, most lines pay for travel to the ship, and all must pay for travel home.

 

I will add to my post above, that if the crew member's national laws, or collective bargaining agreement requires it, that in the case of a delayed repatriation, that normal base pay is maintained from the time the crew member's contract ends until the time they reach home.

Thanks for reminding folks of this. 

We all need to keep in mind that their normal base pay is much less than they actually take home most of the time during cruising.  Often their guaranteed pay is only around what, $100/week plus room and board?  Then they receive all the gratuities we all pay, which brings the pay way up.  At least, that is the case for room stewards, wait staff, etc.   The service side people who are paid out of gratuities.