Should Regent/Oceania avoid dangerous waters?

[Travelcat2]

I just got done reading as much as I could find on the pirate ship that shot at the Nautica today (thankfully it missed). While I am not one to avoid places that are "reasonably safe", the incidents at sea are a bit concerning.

From what I understand, cruise ships go through these waters to avoid a long voyage around Africa. This makes sense. . . but, at what point should Regent make a decision to avoid these waters (or not)? Seabourn is cruising armed (as pictured on one of their threads this week). . . still, I would not want to be on a ship that is being shot at -- even if we are able to return fire. It feels strange to ask a question regarding pirates -- it sounds more like fiction than something that is currently happening.

Despite denials, I believe that someone at Regent does read this board. With recent events, the 2010 itineraries (that we have yet to see) may be a major topic of discussion in the coming week. Some input from their customers would probably help:)

[cruiseyguy]

If they start eliminating areas around the world's many trouble spots the remaining itineraries will likely be pretty boring.

[Travelcat2]

Half of me agrees. The other half probably won't book anything in that area for 2010.:confused:

[Caroldoll]

think of the great food they would get by taking a cruise ship, not to mention the jewelry, etc. Personally, we will avoid those areas. Life is short enough without putting yourself in harm's way intentionally. My opinion only.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Somewhere I read that one big issue is that this is how they get between Europe and Asia without going all the way around Africa. It's convenient for the itineraries. I suspect we'll see tighter security happening, but I admit if this continues, I would also think twice about this route.

[orchestrapal]

Mayb the current situation will convince the cruise lines to have more itinerarys from the USA besides the Caribbean. That would be a good thing or many of us. We are on Ft. Lauderdale to Southampton in May and would have love if had returned to the US.. All very safe.....:)

[mariners]

The world is constantly changing and part of the reason I choose Regent is because the itineraries take me to parts of the world that are not the same as the part of the world I live in the rest of the time. Hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones can happen; ships can be damaged by fishing nets; a bus on a shore excursion can catch on fire, etc. To me, it just makes the travel stories more interesting. One has a greater chance of being in a car accident on the way to the airport than to be present during a terrorist/pirate attack. I would not hesitate to book any itinerary that is offered through Regent and hope they continue to provide world wide options and cancel a port if necessary due to circumstances at the time of travel.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Right, I agree with you, but would you be accepting a booking at the Taj hotel anytime soon? I'm glad that when I go on these luxury cruises I don't often stay in their designated luxury hotels. Anyways, it looks like it will be quite a while before the Taj could re-open.

[crusinbanjo]

Right, I agree with you, but would you be accepting a booking at the Taj hotel anytime soon? I'm glad that when I go on these luxury cruises I don't often stay in their designated luxury hotels. Anyways, it looks like it will be quite a while before the Taj could re-open.

Looks like the Taj will be out of commission for some time to come, but I'll bet that when it does reopen security will be a whole lot tighter. Having said that, I would not have wanted to be there last week.

Terrorism will not likely stop just because we want to visit someplace. It is an ongoing fight that we, as a civilization, will have to win if we all want to "just get along" and be safe. The fact is that the way theses groups work, now days with cell phones and the internet, almost any location arround the world can be a target.

Looks, to me, like the international community has had just about enough of these Somali pirates. There have been far too many ships taken over this year and if a cruise ship were to be boarded there would be a very big outcry for the Pols to do something in a whole lot of countries.

I suspect you will see lots of action in the comming months to put these guys out of business for good.

For me, I personally would not hesitate to book anything the cruise lines offer. I do believe that they are completely aware of the risks and do not wish, nor can they afford, to put their passengers at a serious risk.

[OrpingtonT]

For me, I personally would not hesitate to book anything the cruise lines offer. I do believe that they are completely aware of the risks and do not wish, nor can they afford, to put their passengers at a serious risk.

I totally agree with you.

[Travelcat2]

I guess on some level I knew this would be more of a discussion on Mumbai. I am also watching the Mumbai, Bangkok (since it is still going on) and Hondurus news closely. My reason for this post was to discuss the waters in the area where pirates have taken over oil tankers and attempted a small attack on Oceania yesterday.

The pirate situation has been escalating in recent months. While I do not believe they could overtake a passenger cruise ship, they could certainly take out a few people when they fire at the ship. Cruise ships do have the option of going the long way and still visiting the ports that many of us like to visit.

Cruise ships currently have escorts in the area. Still, there was a "fishing boat" too near Seabourn last week and the boat yesterday thought it was close enough to fire on Oceania.

When we travel, we go where we want. Some thought we were crazy to go to Istanbul in October. . . . the security there is very good. We had to go through an x-ray machine (identical to those in the airport) when we entered the Ritz Carlton. 20 years ago we went to Athens a couple of months after a passenger cruise ship was taken hostage and one or two passengers were killed.

So, although we take calculated risks all the time, the thought of an attack at sea makes me a bit uncomfortable. Perhaps it's the fact that I have no idea what it takes to sink a passenger ship. Nor do I know what type of weapons have been used by the pirate terrorists.

Hopefully this will be solved soon. Apparently an armada of British ships are on the way to the area. For now, I think I'd take the long route.:confused:

[RachelG]

I wouldn't hesitate to go on one of these cruises if the cruise line felt it was sufficiently safe to sail there. They have a lot invested and aren't likely to take unnecessary risks. And I agree that we absolutely can't let these terrorists/pirates/extremists run our lives.
We flew to a football game 2 weeks after 9/11, flew to Europe a few months later, partly because the price was right, but also just to make a point of not letting these evil people control our lives.
Ironically, my husband was at the federal building in OKC a couple of days before McVeigh blew it up--and that is at home with a local terrorist, so he was actually probably in more danger there than in all our travels.

[yarlenna]

I wonder how long a cruise line would last if one of the ships were attacked at sea with deaths. Even "just" the lawsuits could sink the company. Boring is not that bad.

[Travelcat2]

Perhaps I am concerned after seeing the gun on Seabourn (the thread is "Live from Silver Spirit" page 10 -- half way down). While we wouldn't risk 1% of our lives to attend a "game", we are happy to risk "whatever" to take a cruise or land vacation in almost anywhere in the world. Everyone has their priorities (sorry if a football game leaves me questioning the priorities of some people -- while I am not judging, I am definitely scratching my head):confused:

The last poster seems to "get it". If only one person was killed by a sniper from a pirate ship, then what???????????

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Well, gee, let's remember the Achille Lauro. A cruise passenger *was* killed, although it was over 20 years ago. And the cruise line has changed names, but is still in business, MSC.

[see sic]

I think the odds are in your favor you WONT be part of, or involved
in, some sort of terrorist event on your vacation anywhere in the world.
But where exactly IS it safe anymore?

Heck! if you can get trampled to death standing in the doorway of a WalMart in Long Island New York like that poor employee did the day after Thanksgiving Day last friday, then you can get knocked off anywhere !!!

I for one would rather have my number come up while dining in the Compass Rose aboard the Mariner or Voyager rather than some group of idiots stepping on me to get at a $1000.00 TV marked down to $499.00.

Go and enjoy !!!

My thoughts, Randy

[Travelcat2]

I think the odds are in your favor you WONT be part of, or involved
in, some sort of terrorist event on your vacation anywhere in the world.
But where exactly IS it safe anymore?

Heck! if you can get trampled to death standing in the doorway of a WalMart in Long Island New York like that poor employee did the day after Thanksgiving Day last friday, then you can get knocked off anywhere !!!




Randy,
Your thoughts are interesting. However, standing in the doorway of a WalMart in Long Island New York...... or, taking a cruise in the waters where pirates have taken over numerous ships is placing yourself in harm's way. I would prefer avoiding the areas where there are problems . . . but, still visiting the same ports (or stores). It is kinda like our visit to Istanbul. . . there were bombings in September, however, we went in October and avoided the areas where there were problems. Other people may have chosen to visit that area --that is why we have choices.

[RachelG]

[quote=Travelcat2;17191349]Perhaps I am concerned after seeing the gun on Seabourn (the thread is "Live from Silver Spirit" page 10 -- half way down). While we wouldn't risk 1% of our lives to attend a "game", we are happy to risk "whatever" to take a cruise or land vacation in almost anywhere in the world. Everyone has their priorities (sorry if a football game leaves me questioning the priorities of some people -- while I am not judging, I am definitely scratching my head):confused:

LOL, Travelcat, obviously you are not from Oklahoma. Football is a major deal here. We would have driven to the game, but felt that we needed to support the airline industry and that we were probably safer then than we would have been a month earlier prior to the 9/11 attacks.
I don't advocate being foolish. I wouldn't vacation in Afghanistan or even Honduras right now (though the Honduras problems have been going on for quite a while--most people in the US weren't aware of it, but we have a good friend from there who warned us about it a couple of years ago).

[Travelcat2]

[quote=RachelG;17196938
LOL, Travelcat, obviously you are not from Oklahoma. Football is a major deal here. We would have driven to the game, but felt that we needed to support the airline industry and that we were probably safer then than we would have been a month earlier prior to the 9/11 attacks.

I don't advocate being foolish. I wouldn't vacation in Afghanistan or even Honduras right now (though the Honduras problems have been going on for quite a while--most people in the US weren't aware of it, but we have a good friend from there who warned us about it a couple of years ago).[/quote]

Sorry that I didn't get the football reference:confused: The Honduras situation is really interesting as we were there in March, 2007 and found it to be a lovely destination. There is an incredible beach where Regent holds bbq's. Sadly, this may not be on cruise itineraries in 2010.

Regarding Wendy's post. . . I'm really trying to understand your point. Yes, I was referring to the Achille Lauro when a passenger was killed 20 years ago and the ship was hijacked. It is nice to know that the cruise line is still in business. Do you recall the impact on cruising in that area after this event happened?

Right now there appears to problems in several places that could affect cruise schedules in 2009: Roatan, Honduras, Mumbai, Bangkok, the waters near the Suez Canal and Mexico. This could cause as much difficulty for the cruise industry as the economy.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Regarding Wendy's post. . . I'm really trying to understand your point. Yes, I was referring to the Achille Lauro when a passenger was killed 20 years ago and the ship was hijacked. It is nice to know that the cruise line is still in business. Do you recall the impact on cruising in that area after this event happened?

No, I don't specifically, although I seem to remember that there was a chill on cruising in the eastern Med for a while. I was just remarking on that fact that a passenger already had been killed, just not recently.

[Travelcat2]

No, I don't specifically, although I seem to remember that there was a chill on cruising in the eastern Med for a while. I was just remarking on that fact that a passenger already had been killed, just not recently.

Good point! I'm a bit surprised that SB continues to sail in the area given their incidents with the terrorists.

[Travelcat2]

Just read an article dated December 2nd and realized that the problems are occuring in the Gulf of Aden -- not the Suez Canal (not sure what I was thinking). It also pointed out the fact that there were 2 pirate ships chasing the Oceania ship. They were extremely fortunate to not get hit.

While SS, Regent and several other companies are considering a change in their routes, SB is not part of their list.

[crusinbanjo]

This was posted on the HAL board earlier today. So it looks like the pirates may be making more efforts to score a cruiseship. That is really scary!

The MV Athena of Classic International Cruises was able to avoid several boarding attempts by pirates in the Gulf of Aden yesterday according to "Melbourne News" which I googled. A 641 passenger cruise ship, the Athena is the refurbished Stockholm of Swedish America Lines. She is enroute from England to Australia. Approx. 400 of the passengers are Australians.

Here is a link to the story http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24749094-663,00.html

[jgn]

I totally agree with you.

What part of the world are you from?? We were on the Seabourn Sprit in Nov. 05 when it was attacked and at the "survivor" party we had at the end of that cruise we all wondered if Mombasa would be excluded from future cruises. Answer is, NO. They are still going down the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden today even though they are escorted by Navy vessels. So I would hope in future that cruise lines would avoid that part of the seas. My husband said all the pirates had to do was to threaten to kill one passenger if we didn't open our safes and hand over our money , etc. Fortunately, we had a Captain who was savvy and brave enough to fend them off with whatever weapon we had (LRADs) and we got out of there with no harm done to any of us.

[Travelcat2]

This was posted on the HAL board earlier today. So it looks like the pirates may be making more efforts to score a cruiseship. That is really scary!

The MV Athena of Classic International Cruises was able to avoid several boarding attempts by pirates in the Gulf of Aden yesterday according to "Melbourne News" which I googled. A 641 passenger cruise ship, the Athena is the refurbished Stockholm of Swedish America Lines. She is enroute from England to Australia. Approx. 400 of the passengers are Australians.

Here is a link to the story http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24749094-663,00.html

Thanks for the link. What an interesting article. I also read today that experts do not expect these attacks to lessen in the near future. Most cruise ships cannot really defend themselves (unless you are armed as SB is).

Regent announced that the Voyager's around the world voyage in January 2010 will not include the Middle East or the Mediterrean. This is either a coincidence. . . or, they have the intelligence to realize that putting their ships and passengers in harms way is just wrong.

[cruzndiz]

One of the biggest problems we (as consumers) face is the lightning fast speed with which incorrect information is disseminated to the masses.... check THIS out for latest info:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24750386-12377,00.html

[Travelcat2]

One of the biggest problems we (as consumers) face is the lightning fast speed with which incorrect information is disseminated to the masses.... check THIS out for latest info:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24750386-12377,00.html


Wow -- thank you for for the updated story!

[Host Dan]

But the question is.... Is this un unbiased story or propaganda??? (You can ALWAYS believe the media!) ;)

Host Dan

[larry1365]

Regent announced that the Voyager's around the world voyage in January 2010 will not include the Middle East or the Mediterrean. This is either a coincidence. . . or, they have the intelligence to realize that putting their ships and passengers in harms way is just wrong.


Travelcat2 --

Ref Voyager's 2010 World Cruise.

I happen to know that this specific routing was being mapped out last spring. Therefore I don’t think inferences should be drawn that the current pirate situation off Somalia is the driver to skip the Red Sea/Suez Canal/Med route back to the U.S.

Rather, I believe it was more a factor of offering a varied itinerary to RSSC passengers who are interested in long voyages, as well as to those who want to visit different ports on its various segments.

Larry

[JaneBP]

Interesting article in todays Salon.com newsletter

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/03/pirates/index.html

[Travelcat2]

When I referred to "experts" expecting these attacks to continue, I think I should give the source (don't think CC would want me to link it). It is an article by Gene Sloan in yesterday's USA Today Cruise Log. The article was entitled "Cruise industry releases statement on piracy". The cruise industry source was "Cruise Lines International Association".

Larry1365 -- yes, I did read on another board that this was the case. Since the acts of piracy have been increasing over the past year, I still wonder if this did not play a little part in it. In any case, it is good to hear that the Voyager, it's crew and passengers will be on an itinerary that does not include this troubled area.

[PaulaJK]

I can't claim great comfort from the details of these pirate deterring devices and maneuvers detailed in the Salon article. I don't mean that they couldn't be successful but I seriously question why cruise lines would subject their vessel, crew & pax to these waters with the ever increasing frequency of pirate attacks. Also, I'm confused as to why there is such reluctance to meet attacks and terrorism with agression...gun fire vs water canons.

[larry1365]

[quote=Travelcat2;17221067
Larry1365 -- yes, I did read on another board that this was the case. Since the acts of piracy have been increasing over the past year, I still wonder if this did not play a little part in it. In any case, it is good to hear that the Voyager, it's crew and passengers will be on an itinerary that does not include this troubled area.[/quote]

TravelCat2 --

Remember, my discussion above was regarding the 2010 World Cruise.

We are booked on Voyager's 2009 WC and it is scheduled to visit Sri Lanka, Mumbai and go through the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea.

It will be interesting to see if RSSC makes any route changes before these spring 2009 transits or tells us what general defensive measures they are taking.

Larry

[ridojar]

In both incidents involving cruise ships, they were successful in coming up to speed and out running the "pirates". Ergo, when sailing through troubled waters maintain flank speed and maintain a security watch topside, ala air marshals on flights.

[Travelcat2]

Larry1365: I obviously skipped 2009 completely:confused: I wonder if they will make changes next year.

When I began this thread I was unsure if I was for or against avoiding the area. I remain hopeful that the ports can be reached by taking the longer route, however, I think ships should avoid Aden, etc. My DH watched an interview with a "pirate" the other night. These are young men from a country that has been in chaos since 1991. By pirating ships, they have become extremely wealthy and have obtained high powered weapons. Every time they miss a ship (like Nautica), they learn more on how to do it better next time. If passenger ships continue to pass through their waters (with or without an escort), it seems like just a matter of time before one is captured. JMO

[Host Dan]

Why don't the cruise lines traveling in these dangerous waters have Sea Marshalls aboard?

Host Dan

[Travelcat2]

Why don't the cruise lines traveling in these dangerous waters have Sea Marshalls aboard?

Host Dan

Wouldn't it take quite a few Sea Marshall's to defend a ship from all sides? Do you happen to know if Seabourn has multiple guns on board and who"man's" it (what position he/or she holds)? The recent picture on the Spirit made it appear that it is coming out of the side of the ship. Somehow they seem more prepared to protect their ship than Nautica with it's strong hoses and ear piercing noise.

[Jayayeff]

Wouldn't it take quite a few Sea Marshall's to defend a ship from all sides? Do you happen to know if Seabourn has multiple guns on board and who"man's" it (what position he/or she holds)? The recent picture on the Spirit made it appear that it is coming out of the side of the ship. Somehow they seem more prepared to protect their ship than Nautica with it's strong hoses and ear piercing noise.

They are not Seabourn's own weaponry - the arms were brought aboard, along with the operators to man them from a French naval vessel that was an escort for the convoy. Once clear of the 'danger zone' both the weapons and the operators returned to the naval vessel.....

My question would be if cruise lines have the option to transit these waters as part of an armed naval escorted convoy (as the Seabourn Spirit did) why do some choose to go it alone and put themselves and their passengers at risk.....This to me seems to be a more realistic response to the issue than the cruise lines trying to re-route their ships. It's not just a case of missing the odd port or two which could be accommodated into an itinerary - to re-route would involve adding weeks to a voyage which is obviously impossible to do...

[Travelcat2]

They are not Seabourn's own weaponry - the arms were brought aboard, along with the operators to man them from a French naval vessel that was an escort for the convoy. Once clear of the 'danger zone' both the weapons and the operators returned to the naval vessel.....

My question would be if cruise lines have the option to transit these waters as part of an armed naval escorted convoy (as the Seabourn Spirit did) why do some choose to go it alone and put themselves and their passengers at risk.....This to me seems to be a more realistic response to the issue than the cruise lines trying to re-route their ships. It's not just a case of missing the odd port or two which could be accommodated into an itinerary - to re-route would involve adding weeks to a voyage which is obviously impossible to do...

Thank you for the explanation -- it really helps to understand exactly how much the armed naval escorted convoys can do. This should be mandatory for passenger ships.

[JaneBP]

I liked that in appreciation to the armed French naval guards on board the Spirit for the transit as well as the naval vessel, the passengers pooled their resources.

They sent the ship 80 bottles of champagne.

[Travelcat2]

I liked that in appreciation to the armed French naval guards on board the Spirit for the transit as well as the naval vessel, the passengers pooled their resources.

They sent the ship 80 bottles of champagne.

That was a lovely thing to do! I wonder what the cost to Seabourn was to have that much protection. I'm sure it is worth whatever was paid. . . just hope that cruise ships are not going to try to save money by taking attempting to navigate the waters on their own.

[crusinbanjo]

[quote=crusinbanjo;17183233]
Looks, to me, like the international community has had just about enough of these Somali pirates. There have been far too many ships taken over this year and if a cruise ship were to be boarded there would be a very big outcry for the Pols to do something in a whole lot of countries.

I suspect you will see lots of action in the comming months to put these guys out of business for good.

quote]


Well, as predicted...... ......I heard on the BBC this morning that the European Community has assembled a Naval Task force to start patroling the seas off of Somalia. Their rules of engagement are being discussed at this time, but looks like they will have authority to fire on and destroy suspected pirate ships. What they do with the pirates themselves is still in discussions. At least it is a step in the right direction!

[see sic]

I know. Any captured Somali pirates can be brought to the USA and given a position on Capital Hill. I mean, whether you are a Somali pirate or a US Congressman or Senator, you all have the same job experience----stealing money from the innocent and giving it all to the wrong people. The similarity in duties is striking!!!

[crusinbanjo]

I know. Any captured Somali pirates can be brought to the USA and given a position on Capital Hill. I mean, whether you are a Somali pirate or a US Congressman or Senator, you all have the same job experience----stealing money from the innocent and giving it all to the wrong people. The similarity in duties is striking!!!

HA HA.... ...that is a good observation. Perhaps we can convert Gitmo into what visitor center where they become accustomed to how "IT" is done in the States before they start their new positions.

On a more serious note: Apparently the cruise lines are beginning to take seriously the Priate situation and are looking for ways to keep passengers safe. This was posted on one of the other boards and seemed appropriate for this disscussion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_on_re_eu/piracy