Jump to content

Psoque

Members
  • Posts

    1,284
  • Joined

About Me

  • Location
    Fishers, Indiana
  • Interests
    travel, gardens, photography, entertaining
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
    Crystal
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call
    New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I did not gloss over the alternative. Actually I did not even bother to offer the alternative, which is for them to accept the loss from the Bahamas cruises. Or they can modify the cruises somehow, but do so in the way that does not negatively contribute to the outbreak. If they go out of business because of it, that would be a terrible thing, but in my opinion much better than the outbreak getting worse and prolonged because of it. I also think the Crystal brand will not go away easily, as long as the current owners of the brand destroys it. In regard to the fact that Crystal is not the only guilty party...I understand that but this is a Crystal Cruises thread. Also, regardless of what other cruise lines are doing or going to do, what Crystal is planning to do is wrong. Not everything that people want are good for the society. And I don't think it is necessary to explain (because I am sure you, especially you, actually know this) why cruises pose a very different risk to the population compared to hotel and airlines.
  2. Regardless of what may have been the reason for Crystal's decisions, Crystal is likely to benefit from the legal and political landscape unique to Florida. Nobody is being forced to sail out of Miami. And the fact of the matter is that it is completely insane, from a public health standpoint, to allow embarkation/disembarkation in Miami, where the coronavirus incidence and mortality are exploding right now. That's really the most important message I am trying to convey. So here's my understanding of what Crystal is doing: Crystal is having trouble filling its ship on a cruise out of Bahamas, for many reasons too long to list here. They are running out of money (I'm assuming). They can possibly sell more berths by embarking/disembarking both vaccinated and unvaccinated passengers in Miami, with a full knowledge that the cases in Miami and rest of Florida is exploding, and that it is so much easier for unvaccinated passengers to board, undetected, in Miami compared to Bahamas. Crystal also knows that even vaccinated people can contract and spread this disease, both during the after the cruise. I'm not a rocket scientist, but even it was clear to me that Crystal has made a conscious decision to act in a very irresponsible manner, fully under the knowledge that they can get away with this, at least initially. They are putting their survival as the only priority, regardless of what the consequences of this decision may be. Furthermore, I personally don't buy the argument that the "entire industry" needs to take action. That would be a wonderful thing, perhaps, but no action would ever happen if none of the individual corporations were interested in doing the right thing. And in the context of this particular discussion, Crystal is the only cruise line that is (as far as I know) planning to do this. I just screen shot the current coronavirus numbers (August 1, 2021) for US and Florida (Miami-Dade County data is not loading for me.)
  3. As far as I know, cruise lines are not allowed to require passengers to produce a proof of vaccination on embarkation in Florida. In stark contrast to, say Bahamas, State of Florida is banning any sort of "vaccine passport" to be issued/required upon embarkation. That's one thing. Another is that by creating an adverse cruising condition for unvaccinated passengers who are willing to make that status known to the cruise line, Crystal is, either intentionally or unintentionally encouraging unvaccinated people to book these cruises under the false pretense of being vaccinated. What I am saying that Crystal was never forced to relax its health policies and practices to cruise in Florida, they chose Florida, already knowing that they will have to relax them. There is a big difference between the two that Crystal is trying to make it unclear in their communication.
  4. In our case, we ordered it after we boarded. But if I remember correctly, there was an online interface to order flowers before you board. I am not sure if that's currently active, since I don't have an ocean cruise reservation with Crystal right now.
  5. I am not sure what the situation is onboard now, but in the past, we have been been able to do that.
  6. So what you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that any corporation can do whatever they wish, as long as it is legal. Okay then.
  7. I notice that most of the discussions of "risk" of coronavirus infection has been in regard to the risk to individual passengers. Of course that's an important factor to consider. However, we should also be concerned about what we should be doing to better contain this outbreak. I have a real problem with how Crystal took advantage of the possible legal loophole in Florida to load up its ship with more passengers (or at least that's what Crystal is hoping to do) in Miami. Actions like this can only make this outbreak worse and last even longer. I am afraid Crystal has clearly declared itself to be an enabler of this outbreak by making this decision to board both vaccinated and unvaccinated passengers in Miami.
  8. That's correct. My point is that by boarding in Miami, Crystal is incentivizing *more* people to board Crystal Serenity to board with a fabricated vaccination certificates with almost no legal consequences.
  9. I think that the negative consequences of using a fabricated vaccination certificates is much less dire now that one can board the ship in Miami, in stark contrast to Bahamas, in many different ways.
  10. I don't disagree with what Keith posted. He was clever to avoid what we all know are the real reasons some of us are very concerning about this decision. But I still think, very strongly, that this decision to sail out of Miami was made by Crystal purely from a short-term business perspective, with no respect for the consequences of this decision from a public health perspective. Also with such an onerous requirement, it will further incentivize more unvaccinated people to lie about their vaccination status to board Crystal Serenity, since, after all, there is no way for Crystal to verify this, and as far as I know, there is no legal penalty for boarding a cruise ship with a fabricated vaccination certificate, especially in Florida. I understand that Crystal, and many other travel-related companies, are truly struggling to survive right now. But that fact alone does not make this particular decision any less irresponsible.
  11. If Crystal is somehow being "forced" to add Miami to the itinerary, Crystal should make the reasons behind it clear to all current and prospective customers. This has not been done, and that's one of the reasons I find this whole situation very problematic. But in my opinion, the whole situation was poorly thought out and half baked even before this week, and regardless of how it was possibly "unavoidable" does not make the current set of decisions acceptable in any stretch of imagination. In my perspective, Crystal is putting its financial survival ahead of everything, including the health and safety of everyone, not just those who are booking their cruises.
  12. Whether some of the passengers "feel comfortable" about this new arrangement regarding embarkation in Miami and intentionally boarding unvaccinated passengers onboard or not, this decision by Crystal, in my personal and professional opinion, clearly irresponsible and highly problematic. This opinion is mainly based on the fact that the number of new cases, mainly among the unvaccinated, in Florida is extremely high right now. As I mentioned earlier, the summer cruises on Serenity and Symphony could be the "make it or break it" attempt at its survival for Crystal, and that might be the reason these poorly thought out decisions were made in this manner. But that does not justify what they are doing. Also, Crystal is not fooling anyone when it said the change to allow unvaccinated passengers was somehow forced to them by the State of Florida. That is entirely false. Obviously, I am not trying to defend what Florida and its governor has been doing to politicize this outbreak, but the fact is that Crystal is the one who chose to add Miami as an embarkation point. Nobody forced Crystal to do this. This whole situation is utterly embarrassing for Crystal.
  13. False positive results are possible, it is exceeding rarer than false negative results on these tests.
  14. I am certainly in support of being compliant with dress codes during cruises, but personally, I am not bothered by people who fail to comply with them. I just don't think it is worth my time to worry about what others are doing, as long as it does not affect my safety and/or well-being. I certainly do not feel that I am paying Crystal to make sure my fellow guests are going to behave in a way I want them to. I would go further to say that if non-compliance of dress codes can only bother you if you allow it to bother you. Furthermore, I do not feel that my willingness to comply with the dress code makes me a higher class of a human being.
  15. I think many of us never believed much of what we read about Crystal (or any other company that relies on a certain amount of "speculative investment" on the part of the consumer), whether the information came from Crystal or elsewhere. However, I am convinced that the information coming directly from Crystal always has been less than clear and straightforward for many years, and this has gotten even worse in the past year. Some call it good business practice, but to some of us, the way Crystal communicates with their customers has not been very effective. This was especially true whey Crystal decided to announce the cancellations of all cruises on Crystal Bach and Crystal Mahler for the abbreviated 2021 season. Instead of just saying that, Crystal kept sending poorly constructed memos about cancellations of "select sailing" of Bach and Mahler every 4-5 days, and removing the previous announcements every time, making it sound like these cancellations are affecting just "select sailings" on these boats, when this was actually a piece-by-piece announcement of something more. They are small things but when Crystal takes this kind of approach to everything they put out, it sends a rather negative message to some of us. Furthermore, the response yesterday regarding this true or untrue story about the possible sale of the river boats was clearly not definitive enough, and the content of the memo (intentionally??) left a few questions unanswered. For example, Crystal should have said if the boats are on sale or not, or at least say whether Crystal has any intentions, at this time, to sell these boats. It would have been even better if Crystal said something more substantial about why both Crystal Bach and Crystal Mahler is not going to be deployed this year. Whether this was either intentional or just poor communication, the result is the same: It keeps some of us wondering what Crystal is really up to.
×
×
  • Create New...