Oh Oh......Passengers forced to stay on board in Russia!

Passengers on Silversea were forced to stay onboard and not allowed to disembark despite being cleared in the Siberia area.

Supposedly, the order came from Moscow.

Here is the link. http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=5930

Well I wonder if this will impact St Petersburg as well. While it will hurt cruise passengers it will hurt their local economy more if they want to play this game.

Thank you for the link.

I was thinking the same thing as Kirk and wondering if St Petersburg will be impacted.

Barring the details that might reveal there was some unknown issue this reminds me of the Cold War days. Just to be difficult and poke at each other the Russians would do something like close down access to East Berlin and the Allies would retaliate by closing Russian access to West Berlin. This would go on for a couple of days to as long as a week and then everything would calm down and return to normal. Unfortunately it's this kind of muscle flexing that keeps us personally from considering Russian ports not to mention a potential outright bar by my wife's work.

If the Russians start randomly playing this game I can see the cruise lines cutting Russia from their list of stops. Refunding a shipload of shore excursion payments would cost a fortune. There would also be the usual bunch of passengers who would blame the cruise line for their not being able to disembark and demands for compensation would start.

Seeing as St. Petersburg is the highlight of any Baltic cruise, it would be a bitter disappointment to arrive and have to stay on the ship. We went back to St. Petersburg for a second look last year because the places we saw were so breathtaking the first time we just had to do it again. It is so sad to think that politics can deprive people of the pleasure of seeing places that really belong to the whole world in a sense. They don't really, of course, but I am sure you know what I mean.

It's interesting that they (the Russians) decided to carry this out with a ship of less than 100 passengers and a relatively obscure port.

I agree that if this happened in St. Petersburg with a ship of 2500+ passengers, there would probably be a lot more publicity and pushback.

For some reason I'm getting the mental image of the big bully pushing the little kid in the schoolyard.

Otherwise, that itinerary sounds fabulous!

I think it is pretty far-fetched to assume the Russians are playing some sort of "game".

Does anybody really believe that Putin, or one of his minions in Moscow, ordered a whole 85 people be denied landing in a port in Siberia as some sort of punishment to Americans? Really?

Well I wonder if this will impact St Petersburg as well. While it will hurt cruise passengers it will hurt their local economy more if they want to play this game.

I believe cruise lines would suffer much more than the St Petersburg economy if their ships were to abandon Russian ports of call. Baltic cruises are a huge success profit wise. The only aspect of the St Petersburg economy that would suffer are a few tour agencies.

The ship made and will be making calls in Kamchatka, so there's no basis to read anything into St. Pete's.

I think it is pretty far-fetched to assume the Russians are playing some sort of "game".

 

Does anybody really believe that Putin, or one of his minions in Moscow, ordered a whole 85 people be denied landing in a port in Siberia as some sort of punishment to Americans? Really?

Testing the waters by starting small?

Maybe, but I really don't think so.

Actually, I think to believe that this incident was anything more than some operational problem is ridiculous.

Testing the waters by starting small?

Could be that, could be a mistake by the cruise line with some paperwork detail, could be an over zealous local official, or any number of circumstances. On the surface it doesn't make much sense to pick on a small Italian owned cruise line in a relatively minor port just to prove a point. Just makes what is often a hard decision a bit harder.

This was quite deliberate. They make their political statement without destroying the St Petersburg cash cow.

igraf

It's interesting that they (the Russians) decided to carry this out with a ship of less than 100 passengers and a relatively obscure port.

 

I agree that if this happened in St. Petersburg with a ship of 2500+ passengers, there would probably be a lot more publicity and pushback.

I recall that in 2008 ships going to Kamchatka were not allowed to disembark passengers and the ships were detained in port by the Russians. Particularly impacted was a Princess ship that tried to port there shortly before the 2008 Grand Asia cruise. At the time it was suspected as payback for the U.S. position during troubles in Georgia (not the state in the U.S. But the Georgia near Russia).

As a result on the 2008 Grand Asia we spent ten consecutive days at sea on our way to Japan and we were given an extra port in northern Japan - a nice substitution but it didn't really answer the impact of ten consecutive days at sea.

St. Petersburg was never impacted - I think St. Peterburg is a big cash cow and the Russians would be hesitant to impact there but rather make small statements elsewhere at more remote locations - let us see if they actually get to disembark the next time they port at Kamchatka - then we might know.

I think it is pretty far-fetched to assume the Russians are playing some sort of "game".

 

Does anybody really believe that Putin, or one of his minions in Moscow, ordered a whole 85 people be denied landing in a port in Siberia as some sort of punishment to Americans? Really?

Exactly.

I'd be more worried about the spy base in the process of being reopened in Cuba.

Maybe, but I really don't think so.

 

Actually, I think to believe that this incident was anything more than some operational problem is ridiculous.

A year ago, the suggestion that Russia might make a wholesale grab for Crimea would also have seemed ridiculous. Look how that turned out. :(

Believe whatever you want but to me this does not bode well for cruise ships doing these kind of itineraries.:( Thanks for the link Kazu.

Thanks for the link.

Whatever happens with any cruise line is done with the safety of passengers and crew in mind.

I believe cruise lines would suffer much more than the St Petersburg economy if their ships were to abandon Russian ports of call. Baltic cruises are a huge success profit wise. The only aspect of the St Petersburg economy that would suffer are a few tour agencies.

It would affect more than a few tour agencies...

When we were there, we stopped at the obligatory souvenir shops, two days of lunches, entrance fees, and then there were the bribes that the tour guide paid to the guards at the Peter & Paul fortress. That was the only bribe I saw, there could have been more for all I know.

It would affect more than a few tour agencies...

 

When we were there, we stopped at the obligatory souvenir shops, two days of lunches, entrance fees, and then there were the bribes that the tour guide paid to the guards at the Peter & Paul fortress. That was the only bribe I saw, there could have been more for all I know.

Russia's money on the grand scale comes from oil, not tourism. They are basically a "$2 trillion gas station" (not my quote). People that say "don't spend money in Putin's Russia" - yeah, Putin really doesn't care. People that run restaurants, stores, tour agencies - they will certainly be affected. Again, Putin doesn't care. Not to mention that any business in Russia that hopes to survive past their first year keeps 2 sets of books for tax purposes, so the business might not be paying taxes on most of that income anyway but use the money to stay above water.

Thanks for the link. This is worth paying attention to what will happen next.

What the couple had was a contract for wedding amenities and photography. They didn't receive what they bargained for. So they get the cost associated with taking new photographs back. RCL offered to re-take and refunded the ENTIRE cost of the wedding. That's all they're entitled to. If RCL wants to be really nice, they could have offered them a small OBC, etc. While I understand people have emotions, etc., this is a contract matter - nothing more - nothing less.

What the couple had was a contract for wedding amenities and photography. They didn't receive what they bargained for. So they get the cost associated with taking new photographs back. RCL offered to re-take and refunded the ENTIRE cost of the wedding. That's all they're entitled to. If RCL wants to be really nice, they could have offered them a small OBC, etc. While I understand people have emotions, etc., this is a contract matter - nothing more - nothing less.

Wrong thread...

Thanks for the link.

Keith