Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About Cyrix400

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
  • Interests
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. RE comment by Mr Walker - post 15: "I think opening of our international borders to tourists, including cruisers is well down the governments list. I suggest that is good policy from a community safety position & also frankly good politics. Politics is politics, and despite avid cruisers & TA's 'vested interests', me included, there are few votes in cruiseships." The general feeling among many (including some politicians) is that there would be an outcry if cruising commenced BEFORE the remaining 40,000 or so citizens/ perm residents can get on the plane and come home
  2. Disappointing, but not unexpected health conclusion - from Cruise Weekly 24 Nov edition: "THE Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has updated its advice regarding cruising to Level 4, meaning it believes going on a cruise risks a “very high level of COVID-19”.The move comes despite the CDC’s recently issued Framework for Conditional Sailing (CW 01 Nov), a range of recommendations that would allow cruising to gradually resume under carefully controlled health and safety conditions:
  3. Some possibly hopeful precedent for the claimants here, in view the successful Scenic River Cruises case - based on the breach of consumer law - although it will no doubt take a few years to get any money - Scenic went all the way to the High Court.
  4. Australia NOT ready to sail - until............??? The latest cruise ship ban here does not, apparently, have an end date i.e it is not for a specific period, like 3 months or so.
  5. Thank you Kiwi_cruiser - you are very fast!!! A lot comments about the the report will no doubt be made in due course on the related RUBY PRINCESS - THE VERDICT etc thread.
  6. No cruising this year - from the latest cruiseweekly.com.au "P&O Cruises UK has extended its pause until 12 Nov, while also cancelling two long itineraries departing in Jan, while Holland America will not sail until at least 15 Dec"
  7. "RUBY PRINCESS - The Verdict - Report & Recommendations - YOUR COMMENTS" I have started this new thread in anticipation of the release of the Inquiry report - due to the govt on 14 August - and no doubt publicly available some time later. May I suggest that your comments, in due course, about the Inquiry findings & recommendations may be more conveniently made on the new thread. Thanks to everybody who took the time to respond & comment - and for over 16500 views of this thread.
  8. I would not get too excited with the preliminary views of the police and others (widely communicated at the time to the press - and claimed by the Princess to be completely unfounded at the Special Inquiry) - that a criminal offense MAY have been committed. From what we know so far from the Inquiry evidence , it is quite unlikely that a serious adverse finding against Princess would be made (even though things could have been done better by them, in a challenging and constantly changing environment). And no criminal charges are laid by our independent Director of Public P
  9. Somewhat surprised to still read this - the crew still stuck on board, the countries are being difficult. A longish article from USA Today - interesting points what the non-working crew does ( or cannot do) whilst waiting. "12,000 crew members still on cruise ships in US waters months after COVID-19 pandemic shut cruising down" https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2020/08/08/cruise-ships-us-have-12000-crew-members-amid-covid-19/5574288002/
  10. As I understand it, the 425 statements of so that were submitted by pax to the police - and NOT to the Inquiry - were obtained from the police by the Inquiry under its Special Powers - but they were kept confidential and NOT published as exhibits (as to not 'prejudice police investigation' - whatever it might be - and most likely a dead end, when the Director of Public Prosecutions gets hold of it. The statements/ submissions to the Inquiry - including when witnesses gave evidence - were published, except when the person sought otherwise. During the closing arguments of
  11. Background The NSW opposition has just woken up to the fact that the Commonwealth, which provided a long and comprehensive 'Voluntary Statement' to the Inquiry, felt that it was not constitutionally compelled by the State Inquiry to allow for one of its witnesses (Border Force - Dept of Agriculture) to give evidence. A storm in the teacup, it seems, as the Commissioner did not pursue to challenge the Federal position - and the witness was not that important anyway. (the old mistake about negative flu tests, not covid tests) The longish story is here with
  12. Exactly WHO and exactly WHEN the 'pratique' was granted to Ruby Princess on 19 March is a bit of a mistery - and the Commissioner was trying to get to the bottom of it - including what was the usual formal process involved in granting pratique. It seems that the verbal OK to disembark the ship was given by ABF after their usual non-health checks. This was because ABF saw that the on-line documentation previously supplied by Health NSW staff (in their role as Commonwealth appointed Human Biosecurity Officers) had determined that the ship was a low risk - and that Health was
  13. That is exactly what the Commissioner was indirectly suggesting - to avoid future confusion, clarify responsibilities and improve procedures between the Federal govt and the States. And to add to the confusion - the Human Bio Security Officers are State Health Officers - but appointed as such and trained by the Commonwealth - if this makes any sense- so they wear these two hats.
  14. Yes pretty technical - but here is my attempt to translate this gobblegook: - the press got very excited about a week ago, when they got hold of some documents which show the confusion by the Aust Border Force (ABF)staff when the Ruby Princess was cleared - the headlines screamed of the ABF 'mistake'. This related to the confusion by ABF (No negative tests for covid, only negative tests for the flu done on board for the pax of Ruby) - in light of this, the Commissioner sought further comment/ clarification about it from the Commonwealth The answer came back t
  15. Some more 'clarification' about ABF responsibility - in a different context. When about a week ago new media reports surfaced about the role of the Aust Border Force (ABF) in the disembarkation of the Ruby Princess, the Commissioner invited the Commonwealth to respond - and they did so, in a short further supplementary report of 3 August (exhibit 126). In essence - the ABF has NO responsibility for the human bio-security matters (i.e. pax sick or with symptoms). So the ball is passed back to NSW Health. The story in the press that ABF misinterpreted ne
  • Create New...