Peru closed for cruise ships!

[chaunceyb]

Peru is NOT closed to visitors, only cruise ship visitors.

PROMPERU-INFORMA-ENG-10DIC21.pdf

[Host Jazzbeau]

If Silversea found that they were unable to run the Machu Picchu extension, from their point of view Peru IS closed to travelers.  But aside from that, since Cruise Critic is a forum for cruisers what difference does this pedantic distinction make?

[Catlover54]

10 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

If Silversea found that they were unable to run the Machu Picchu extension, from their point of view Peru IS closed to travelers.  But aside from that, since Cruise Critic is a forum for cruisers what difference does this pedantic distinction make?

 

It is not a "pedantic distinction."  SS is known known for being an academic institution. It is a significant falsehood, regardless of what this forum is for, and even if it is not SS's fault.  They have repeated it twice now, several weeks apart to two different passenger sets, so it is not just a mistake due to rapidly changing circumstances. 

It makes a difference to passengers who may have had a cruise booked disembarking in Lima (e.g., the 1/3 FLL-Lima cruise) because they were counting on Machu Picchu afterwards.  That may even be the major reason they booked the cruise, because there are actually some people who cruise for itinerary, and not just the food in Atlantide and the shows. Some pax who think out of the box might, after being dumped off by SS in Guayquil under the new plan ,  consider salvaging their trip by adding on an independent short flight to Lima afterwards, independent of SS.  They could then also keep their previously independently booked return flights from Lima back to the U.S. or Europe, after seeing Machu Picchu, without having to rebook short notice and either have to fly in coach or lose money. The same is true for the reverse scenario (e.g., seeing Machu Picchu first via Lima, then hopping over to Guayaquol to catch the cruise to FLL).

 

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Catlover54
Typo

[les37b]

3 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

 

It is not a "pedantic distinction."  SS is known known for being an academic institution. It is a significant falsehood, regardless of what this forum is for, and even if it is not SS's fault.  They have repeated it twice now, several weeks apart to two different passenger sets, so it is not just a mistake due to rapidly changing circumstances. 

It makes a difference to passengers who may have had a cruise booked disembarking in Lima (e.g., the 1/3 FLL-Lima cruise) because they were counting on Machu Picchu afterwards.  That may even be the major reason they booked the cruise, because there are actually some people who cruise for itinerary, and not just the food in Atlantide and the shows. Some pax who think out of the box might, after being dumped off by SS in Guayquil under the new plan ,  consider salvaging their trip by adding on an independent short flight to Lima afterwards, independent of SS.  They could then also keep their previously independently booked return flights from Lima back to the U.S. or Europe, after seeing Machu Picchu, without having to rebook short notice and either have to fly in coach or lose money. The same is true for the reverse scenario (e.g., seeing Machu Picchu first via Lima, then hopping over to Guayaquol to catch the cruise to FLL).

 

 

 

Completely agree. I am on one of these cruises (or hope to be if the rapidly changing conditions don't stop me) and whilst I had no intention of adding Maccu Picchu to the cruise, I'm aware of many who will now be missing it because of misinformation who might otherwise have still taken advantage of their proximity. Many may still have chosen visit and fly onto Guayaquil had they know. In fact I am aware from reading posts in this thread that is exactly what "Doolz" is  doing. I am sure they will be amazed with knowing the misinformation is not relevant as this is a cruise forum. 

 

Exchanging information and correcting inaccurate data to coverup changes is information worth knowing. I'm at a loss how it could ever be considered pedantry, though think that's a little ironic.

 

It's bad enough trying to get our heads around all the rules and restrictions, without propping up "it's now too difficult for us to organise, so we'll say it's no longer legal to do so."  

 

I'm certainly grateful it's been posted  even though I'm on the cruise and won't be changing my booking because of it.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by les37b

[chaunceyb]

21 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

If Silversea found that they were unable to run the Machu Picchu extension, from their point of view Peru IS closed to travelers.  But aside from that, since Cruise Critic is a forum for cruisers what difference does this pedantic distinction make?

We are still doing Machu Picchu on our own and then flying to Ecuador to catch the ship on the 18th - all I have to say is that I hope the Whisper is a nice ship as our first 5 days are all sea days!

[chaunceyb]

11 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

 

It is not a "pedantic distinction."  SS is known known for being an academic institution. It is a significant falsehood, regardless of what this forum is for, and even if it is not SS's fault.  They have repeated it twice now, several weeks apart to two different passenger sets, so it is not just a mistake due to rapidly changing circumstances. 

It makes a difference to passengers who may have had a cruise booked disembarking in Lima (e.g., the 1/3 FLL-Lima cruise) because they were counting on Machu Picchu afterwards.  That may even be the major reason they booked the cruise, because there are actually some people who cruise for itinerary, and not just the food in Atlantide and the shows. Some pax who think out of the box might, after being dumped off by SS in Guayquil under the new plan ,  consider salvaging their trip by adding on an independent short flight to Lima afterwards, independent of SS.  They could then also keep their previously independently booked return flights from Lima back to the U.S. or Europe, after seeing Machu Picchu, without having to rebook short notice and either have to fly in coach or lose money. The same is true for the reverse scenario (e.g., seeing Machu Picchu first via Lima, then hopping over to Guayaquol to catch the cruise to FLL).

 

 

Well said! We are doing the "reverse scenario" and the Machu Picchu tour operator has been very nice to accommodate our one day earlier tour date.

[chaunceyb]

21 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

If Silversea found that they were unable to run the Machu Picchu extension, from their point of view Peru IS closed to travelers.  But aside from that, since Cruise Critic is a forum for cruisers what difference does this pedantic distinction make?

We are still doing Machu Picchu on our own, Peru is still open to foreign travelers! There are positives and negatives being on cruise ships. But we always do our own air and we are going to become very familiar with LATAM, Avianca, and Aerolineas Argentina after this trip! Also we can say we visited Columbia on this trip for an hour!