Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About Wonderingabout

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
  • Interests
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
    holland america
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It is amazing how everybody knows the truth about how to approach the Virus and and how different the truth is depending on the person. And it is amazing how anybody who does not follow the truth as he sees its is either foolish because he is too adverse to risks that don't exist. ie Foolish to hide in the basement. Or Foolish because not only does he risk infecting himself but risks infecting everybody else. ie Foolish not to be wearing a mask. (When and where depends on the opinion of the responder) ie. Foolish not to be wearing a particular type of mask. (Gaiter is okay, or gaiter is not okay, multi layered. cover the nose. N95 only.) The one constant in all the varying opinions is "follow the science" is the rule.. Amazing how science seems to vary from person to person. When we say follow the science we are presuming to say follow the facts BUT: Perhaps a better definition of the rule is "Follow the Scientists". Scientists are all over the board on the issue of the spread of the virus because they have their own opinions, hypothesis and theories. They are just as human as we are. We can pick the scientist or group of scientists that we like best or sounds the best and rely on him or her or them. Scientists that match our preconceived opinions, our natural inclinations are the ones we quote and accept as gospel However the best scientists are those who say different things at different times so they can be relied on to support different positions. Dr. Fauci is a good example. In March Masks are useless and in May Masks are necessary. AND NO the facts did not change rather he says he was lying in March but for a good cause. Or No we should not gather in large groups for Thanksgiving but no comment on protestors gathering in mass in cities and towns. AND NO the facts did not change rather he will not comment on protests group gathering which would be a political comment and might make him seem partisan and not a saint who is above politics whereas he sees nothing to lose on commenting on thanksgiving gatherings.
  2. Crystal Cruises, really any cruise line, has essentially three assets. 1. Customers- A customer base call it goodwill represented in part by the deposits it holds on repeat customers. A bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush. 2. Personnel - In particular hotel directors, restaurant director, cruise directors and others who supervise the personnel that come in contact with the customers because they are the primary conveyors and enforcers of the qualiity control of the ship. That is they know what makes the Customer happy and how to make the customer happy. The Ship's Captain and engineers and other who have a strong technical competence would be much easier to replace. These technical positions would be to a great extent interchangable with almost all the Cruise lines. But the Customer contact staff would understand what makes their cruise line unique, gives it an identification and keeps the customer coming back. While a slow transition of such staff is to be expected in any organization a sudden loss of that history would spell disaster for the cruise line. 3. Hard Assets - The least valuable asset of the cruiseline are its ships. Most likely the ships leased to Crystal are all encumbered by financial instruments. It is also most likely that the creditors who hold these encumbrances realize that in the current market that the ships are worth less than the liens. A potential acquirer of Crystal Cruises, would look first to see how secure the customer base is and have a plan for maintaining the customer base. Second the acquirer would be looking at the ability to retain the key customer relations personnel. The acquirer could always find another ship to lease particularly in this buyers market that could be modified to meet the criteria of the cruiseline. But because the end of the Covid 19 crisis is not yet determinable the value of the Customer base and personnel are also not determinable. The longer this shutdown goes on the more likely the Customer base shrinks and even more likely the key personnel will find different positions with other companies and not be available for any restart. The default to the creditors on the hard assets of the Company will not be determine whether Crystal survives but rather the erosion of the intangible assets, customer base and key personnel, will spell the difference on whether the Company survives under new ownership or old.
  3. The boards show a lot of concern about losing deposits. The risk is real but it is the last thing a cruise line would think not to honor. Nor would any financial creditor in his right mind force a cruise line to go back on the deposits. Although the customer deposits appear as a liability on a cruise line's balance sheet they are really a valuable intangible asset and perhaps the most valuable asset that the cruise line has. These deposits are probably the last thing they will write off in bankruptcy and what they will try to sell at a premium if they were to liquidate. The deposits represent customers. Most likely repeat customers. On the only Crystal cruise I have taken the repeat cruisers composed 80 to 90 percent of the passengers. As they would say they were Crystalized. How many would continue to cruise with Crystal if they lost their deposits? If Crystal does not honor its passenger deposits it loses not only that passenger for that cruise but also that customer for all the other repeat cruises in the future. The deposits even if for 100% of the cruise fare for one particular cruise is chickenfeed compared to the loss of the Customer permanently. I would guess that even if the Cruise Line were to liquidate and sell its name and rights to a completely new company with no obligation to honor the deposits, that that new cruise line would offer some compensation in the form of credits for a future cruise. While it would probably be no where near 100% of the value of the deposit, it would be something of value as the goodwill gesture would be expected to pay far greater dividends in Customer happiness than the dollar cost of the gesture. It is even likely that the ratio of the dollar value of the benefit offered to the total deposit will not only be greater than that given to any other unsecured creditor (they probably will get nothing) but also greater than the ration of dollar value to the secured creditor's investment..
  4. Sounds like a Chapter 11 bankruptcy without the court. The Financial Creditors could probably take them to court and have a formal chapter 11 bankruptcy declared but they no doubt legitimately fear the attendant risks and costs if they did so.
  5. "There is sooooo much contradictory Information out there that I believe NOTHING from any side. Case in point: The state of MD classifies positivity different than JHU. In one case (the state site) MD is below the 5% positivity rate, in the other (JHU) they are not and this comes down to how and how often they classify the testing. Also, hospitals are reimbursed more if they classify the cause of death as CV 19. My son’s best friends grandpa who was in hospice for stage4 cancer and given 2 weeks to live, after being in a nursing home, died of “covid”. He did not die of covid, he was going to die and had covid when he passed. By classifing is as CV 19 the hospital got paid more." "No influenza deaths? In an entire country for four months? Why do I have the sneaky suspicion that ordinary influenza deaths somehow (??) were labeled as Covid deaths." Cause of Death is not very consistent on a death certificate. I have been reviewing about 40 death certificates per year as part of an audit for over twenty-five years. In my geographic area, at least, I have never once recalled seeing the cause of death as being influenza. I have seen causes of death for what appear to be the same reason called different things depending on the doctor completing the death certificate. If each doctor is given his freedom to describe the cause of death not only will the same cause be described differently by different doctors the cause may be completely different depending on the doctor. A heart attack that leads to renal failure might be called renal failure by one doctor and cardiac arrest by another doctor. I have seen failure to thrive and dementia as causes of death. But not influenza. No doubt the flu has been a contributing factor in the death of the elderly on the certificates I have examined (I do not think the population is unique) but the Doctors enter another cause that they believe is more pertinent. A government wanting to show a high death rate due to a disease such as covid 19, might require the doctor to list Covid 19 as the cause of death regardless of other variables. See the increase in Covid 19 deaths after Coumo issued new directives for reporting deaths in New York. Another government might want to keep the record of deaths by Covid 19 to a minimum and therefore request (order) that the Physician not use Covid 19 as a cause of death unless there were no other variables. I suspect China may be such a country. No problem for the deceased as he is dead no matter what the cause put on the Death certificate but it does create problems or talking points for people who rely on the statistics to support their talking point. Ie which jurisdiction is doing a better job of handling the disease?
  6. Thinking outside the box. The projection of deaths in the United States by the experts in mid March ie Fauci etal was 200,000 Dead . This was prior to the recommendation to wear masks or the requirement to wear masks indoors, or to wear masks outdoors when near people, or to wear surgical masks and not scarfs or kerchiefs, or to wear double layered surgical masks. Last week the projection was 200,000 to 300,000 Dead. It seems the projection has changed very little even as the suggested protocols have changed continually. What the changing protocols have been effective at is pitting people against each other. It is creating a blame game. Let us for the moment ignore the economic and social effects that the current protocols have on our society and look at the Covid 19 as purely a medical issue. The Covid 19 Virus came out of Pandora's box when it arrived at a meat market or a virus research lab in Wuhan and all our wishing and hoping is not going to put it back in the box. A Vaccine is not a cure, it is a preventative which works ideally for most, never for all and with negative effects for a few. But vaccines are relatively recent, the first being Edward Jenner's small pox vaccine in 1796. A measles vaccine had to wait until the second half of the 20th century to be used. But Measles which devastates a population without childhood immunity ie see Rome in the 2nd Century AD or the American Indian in the 19th century was not devastating to most European populations. This is because it was a disease that becomes more virulent the older the victim and while most children acquired the disease and suffered from the disease, they survived the disease and acquired an immunity to the disease. Based on current statistics it appears that for almost all young people the effects of the Covid 19 Virus are far less than Measles as to be almost non-existent and perhaps the proper protocol for dealing with the virus is to let the young people get the disease and develop their immunity. That is have the younger members of the society develop the herd immunity. Rather than quickly quarantining the child who tests positive for the Virus he or she should be allowed to spread the disease among his or her peers. This would accelerate the spread to the younger population and subsequently after their immunity kicks in, limit their ability to spread it to the older population. In the interim the older population would need to be quarantined from the younger population but this could be very limited time if the spread among the younger population was rapid even by artificially accelerating the spread to the young. This is counter-intuitive thinking but maybe this is the proper solution. A vaccine is itself a counter-intuitive solution to the Virus problem. A Vaccine works by infecting you with the disease that you are trying to avoid. Imagine yourself in 1796 being told that by voluntarily infecting yourself with a disease you are preventing that disease. The age of the cut off and who allows the cutoff could be done at the individual and family level rather than at the State Government level, with each person assuming the risks he or she is willing to take. We have current statistics which give general odds of dying from the disease based on age and preexisting medical conditions. The young and those willing to take the risks of dying or suffering permanent complications from the disease would be the ones to get the Herd immunity. While those not willing to take the risks could remain at whatever level of self quarantine they wish ie N95 Masks, cloth masks , stay at home, social distancing at 6 feet, social distancing at 10 feet. This would not be unique as anti-vaxers already use the herd immunity of the majority to protect themselves from measles and other similar diseases. It would be a win-win as the risk to the more fearful would go down and the freedom to the less fearful would go up.
  7. We all know the truth even if it is different for everyone. But it becomes difficult to justify the truth once we try to explain it. If the point is explained as above (not to pick on Vince but to use as an example) then why do some of the experts say you are not using your face mask properly if they can see your nose. Presuming you cover your nose when you sneeze and do not speak through your nose (which is the overwhelming norm) under the above logic then need to cover your nose would be very minimal not critical as some of the experts say. If we look closer at what not just us with our uneducated opinions but scientists and infectious disease experts are saying we find lapses in their logic. This is the reason why so many are taking different takes on the virus and how it should be handled. Some say listen to the scientists. How dare you question or challenge the experts. But their mantra often comes as though they have substituted the scientists and doctors to take the place of the shamans, priests and witchdoctors of more primitive times. It takes the burden of thinking for yourself away. Religion is based upon faith and perhaps human psyches exist on faith as much as anything else. Perhaps reliance (faith) in proclaimed experts, even when they are no closer to knowing the truth than we are, is what we do to exist in a more secular world with its secular religion.
  8. I must admit that everything related to this Virus and our reaction to it is contradictory by each individual at the same time. I obviously do not have the magic bullet for how to handle the Virus. Certainly science is confused. Should we let it run wild and go for herd immunity as long as the hospitals do not get overwhelmed which seems to have been the idea at the beginning or should we quarantine everybody as if they are under house arrest except without the tracking electronic ankle bracelets until the virus goes away or a vaccine is found. Even politics have become self contradictory. Its not just that if the US enacts travel restrictions to foreign countries it is xenophobic while a the same time if other countries enact similar travel restrictions it is wise policy. Or if Florida restricts travel from New York it is bad but if New York restricts travel from Florida it is good or do I have that backwards? But people who have argued for the past three years that the President is an autocrat now are arguing that the problem with handling the Virus in the U.S is that we lack an autocrat in the White House who will tell us what to do and enforce that we do it. I must admit to some confusion. It is as though we are thinking with our emotions and will not let the lack of consistency in our logic get in the way of our opinions.
  9. Maybe she did not like wearing a commerbund.
  10. That business plan might work but I would expect if that is done it will be with the Carnival Cruise line Brand as it competes with Royal Caribbean which is already doing this. There is no need for one of CCLs other lines to follow suit as that would be too redundant and CCL would be better off just closing down that division. General Motors tried multiple brands making the same car in the 1980s and 1990s without any success.
  11. Some of the wishes posted here are contradictory and I must admit to contradictory thinking as well. Some people love the addition of BB King bands (personally I love the music) while others find it to be too loud (personally I can not stay in the same room where the band is playing because I cannot hear myself think) But most of the wishes to be fulfilled are going to cost money. Most of the things that the posters wish to have back went away to save money and would cost money if reinstituted. It may be that rather than raise cruise fare that HAL absorb these costs by reducing its profit. We may wish that that is what HAL would do but that is the most wishful thinking of all. Therefore to get our wishes granted we will need to accept much higher fares but then there would be a decrease in potential passengers who would could afford or be willing to pay these higher fares. HAL would need to adjust its fleet size to match reduced demand at the higher price point. These would include both the number and size of the ships. Azamara in the RCL brand and Oceania in the NCL brand are example of the higher price point level size. HAL would need to sell off the newer ships like the New Statendam and Konigsdam because: 1. Their size would be way in excess demand at the new higher price point 2. They probably have the highest mortgages in the fleet on them and would result in the most benefit on the balance sheet if they were removed. 3. They are likely to bring a better price on the market because of their condition than the older ships. Even the most previous generation of ships in the 2,000 passenger level ie Westerdam would need to be considered for sale or extensive refurbishment to reduce the passenger level in these ships to correspond with the demand at the potential new price point. By: 1. Increasing the number of neptune suites 2. reducing the number of interior cabins 3 Bringing the occupancy down to closer to 1,200 to 1,500 passengers . Whether our wishes relate to the quality of the food, the quality of the entertainment, the amenities that are not add on charges, or the number of staff to passenger ratio will determine our willingness to sail with HAL. We will determine whether HAL has met these wishes ( or since we will be paying for it, these demands ) so as to justify our paying the higher cruise fares.
  12. I wrote the previous post mostly as a humorous take on the virus, fear and its effect on cruising. But as I think more about it there is a serious side to our pooh poohing the studies' results. 1. Threats of death from stroke, heart attacks, cancer and no doubt other diseases increase with smoking. But these are chronic results of smoking over long periods of time. There is little if any evidence that smoking over short-term periods result in an lasting negative results. In fact many anti smoking ads tout that stopping smoking can reverse or at least halt the chronic effects of smoking. " It is never too late to quit smoking" But Covid 19 and its effects are immediate, real and deadly. 2. If these studies as indicated show smoking reduce hospitalizations due to Covid 19 by 85% to 98% then by not pushing smoking as a short -term therapeutic response to the Virus, atleast to the elderly, we are in our political correctness condemning people to death. We are literally killing people because we have such an aversion to smoking. 3. Considering that most people who die of the disease are over 60, the detriments of the chronic diseases are likely not to be important even if they become addicted to smoking. These people will likely die of something else before the effects of smoking kills them. It is the reverse of the teenager who starts smoking and is likely to die of the effects of smoking before something else kills him. 4. The costs to our society, including our social relationships with other people because of masks, social distancing and the costs to our economy because of mandated shutdowns The cost to our health because of delayed or undiagnosed or untreated illness due to the lock down and limited access to other medical care versus the cost to the society by pushing smoking is too vast to quantify whether from an economic, moral or mental health point. I would like to say that I have never smoked, I do not like being in a smokey environment but I do have an open mind to people that do smoke and an open mind to the idea that logic should supersede political correctness or whatever we want call our obsession with smoking.
  13. Since evidence indicates that smokers are far less susceptible to the covid 19 virus. Will cruising be reserved only for smokers and if you are a non-smoker you will be refused permission to board. Perhaps you will be required to show your cigarettes and lighter prior to embarking. April 29, 2020 - Today in the world of coronavirus news: Few of those hospitalized with the coronavirus are smokers, and researchers are trying to understand why, according to VICE. One hypothesis is that nicotine, which has anti-inflammatory properties, may interfere with the way that COVID-19 causes an overreaction of the immune system. The hypothesis comes from Konstantinos Farsalinos, a cardiologist in Greece who focuses on tobacco-use reduction. Farsalinos noticed that few COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized in China were smokers, though about half of men in the country smoke. Farsalinos and colleagues wrote a new paper available as a preprint and scheduled to be published in Internal and Emergency Medicine. They found that among 13 studies in China with nearly 6,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the rate of smokers ranged from 1.4% to 12.6%. No studies recorded e-cigarette use. “The results were remarkably consistent across all studies and were recently verified in the first case series of COVID-19 cases in the U.S.,” the authors wrote, calling for an “urgent investigation.” “We all know that smoking is obviously bad for you,” Raymond Niaura of New York University told VICE. Niaura co-authored the paper with Farsalinos. “It follows logically that smokers would be way worse off. I would think that too. But I've been surprised: That's not the story we're necessarily seeing.”
  14. The presumption is that we can not get back to normal until we have a cure. The normal being no need for social distancing or face masks or the other current restrictions on socializing. The cure being a vaccine. But then if Covid 19 is like the Flu a vaccine one year might not be effective the next year as the virus mutates. We may never have a cure. Certainly we will never have any absolute guarantees. In that case we will always be in the "new normal". I do not believe there needs to be a cure to get back to normal "old normal". The problem is not the actual virus so much as the risk of death caused by the virus. The risk has to be one that the passengers and the world are willing to accept. Therefore the need is not for a 100% cure but for a therapy that reduces the risk of death from the disease to an acceptable level. On a cruise ship there is always the risk of norovirus but it was not enough of a deterrent to keep enough people from cruising that cruise ships were not profitable. But certainly some people avoided taking a cruise because they did not want to risk the norovirus. However people seldom die from the Norovirus they just get sick. Also flu can spread through a ship and people die from it but again not in anything close to the mortality rate that Covid 19 has. My point is people are willing to act in certain ways with the risk of getting sick but would not act in the same way with the risk of dying. Therefore the solution is developing therapies for people who get the virus which will keep them from dying. If you knew that there was a risk of contracting the Virus but that the Ship has a simple way for diagnosing the disease and an effective treatment on board the ship (ie Remdesivir if it works) that you could take and would reduce the risk of dying from the virus to a miniscule level like the flu mortality level, then enough people would likely go back to cruising and assume the risks, without any need for social distancing or face masks or the other current restrictions on socializing. The key is not to eliminate the virus but to eliminate the fear of dying from the virus. 5%
  15. Smart guy indeed Look deeper into the article on his investment and note that he does not give NCL the $400 million until they get at least an additional $1 billion from other investors.
  • Create New...