Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Fouremco

Members
  • Content Count

    9,830
  • Joined

About Fouremco

  • Rank
    5,000+ Club

About Me

  • Location
    Canada's Capital

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Most are up in price, but some posters have identified cruises that are actually cheaper. There is also some debate as to whether cruise lines might drop prices at some point to attract customers back. Of course, there is also some question as to whether Celebrity would still be around to let you use the FCCs. Bottom line is there is no way that I would ever use this as an investment opportunity, I was just thinking out loud. 🤷🏼‍♂️
  2. Well, I tried a dummy booking and took it as part as the final step before backing away, but I'll take your TA's word that I wouldn't have been able to complete it.
  3. Let's see, $8400 invested for a month or so before Celebrity cancels. With 125% FCC, that's a $2100 profit, not bad.
  4. While I agree that things are fluid and details have to be dealt with in time, these are two major issues. Without them being addressed, we have no idea what the new normal might look like. IMO, there's not much sense in flagging that onboard activities will have reduced capacity when we have no idea of the extent to which the ship's passenger capacity will be reduced, if in fact it will be reduced at all.
  5. Very strange. I've no idea why they would continue to show suites as available but block the rest. Oh well, the website is always a little bit wonky.
  6. Based on the deck plans and not personal experience I'd say definitely. There is no wall shown in the hallway between 10217 and 10226, and there would be no useful purpose that I can think of for having one.
  7. Two major points that haven't been addressed: the action plan should someone (crew or passenger) come down with COVID-19; and their intention with respect to a reduced passenger load. Some of the other points need fleshing out, but the lack of any information on these two issues leaves a lot to be desired.
  8. The ban was made on March 13. Last week was simply an extension, not a new ban. Canadian ports were still in Celebrity's and other lines' plans for a restart until the extension was announced. At this point, you can choose to ignore the facts and believe what you want.
  9. So what you are saying is that, even before March 13, when the Canadian government first announced the ban, the cruise lines had already decided that they weren't going to be cruising in Canadian waters. Sorry, that's just wrong.
  10. The last figure that I read for Halifax was $172 million. I imagine that a similar amount would apply to all of the other ports of call in the Maritimes. For the Province of Quebec, the total is over $1 billion. The higher amount is because, in addition to the other ports of call in the province, Montreal and Quebec City are embarkation/disembarkation ports with an active pre- and post-cruise following.
  11. You might want to do a little bit of research before making such erroneous comments. The cruise lines were still sailing when Canada placed the ban on cruise ships on March 13, the same date that restrictions were placed on international air travel and Canadians were advised to not travel abroad. All of the measures, including the closure of the ports, were specifically introduced to protect the health of Canadians. Last week the ban was extended as there has not been any significant reduction in the threat posed by COVID-19. While you claim that the cruise lines were never going to sail anyway, the Canadian government will continue to govern who enters our country, not leave it to the cruise lines to decide. You might also want to note that as soon as the extension was announced, Celebrity removed a number of Alaskan and New England - Canada itineraries from its website.
  12. Well said. At both the provincial and federal levels, the political leaders have listened to their respective medical experts. No one is saying that everything is sweetness and light. Quebec, and more specifically Montreal, have suffered greatly. A significant number of Quebec residents travelled to the US and to Europe during the first week of March and brought the virus back with them immediately before travel restrictions were recommended and then enforced. Had the school March break been a couple of weeks later, or had the threat posed by international travel been fully realized a couple of weeks earlier, things would be very different.
  13. I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, my cynical side suspects that cruise lines might not consider passenger and crew health and safety equally. A passenger-free repo is far from perfect, for obvious reasons, but would offer a potential solution for the cruise lines should they not be obliged to provide equal protection to crew members.
  14. I'm not sure that the SOLAS requirements would allow this type of approach. Maybe our resident expert @chengkp75 could chime in.
×
×
  • Create New...