Jump to content

What is being done about coronavirus.....


Travelcat2
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Birdie66 said:

I posted a short while ago re future cruise credit being offered by Regent on the voyager  1st of March cruise.  My travel agent suggested I try to obtain a copy of the offer to American guests as stated on this board they were offered a 100% FCC I referred this to the Regent office in Australia and they assured me the offer is 25% globally. I would be grateful if anyone could confirm this. The post I refer to was by SSRtown posted on Tuesday I apologise for not being proficient at navigating this forum, it is all new to me.

 

Welcome to CC. Sorry you found us at such an uncertain time.

 

You need to ask this question on the Roll Call for the Regent Voyager March 1st sailing. Several posters are talking about the 100% FCC offer for that sailing. 

 

If you go to Categories (in small line near the top of this page, I have a little house symbol at the beginning of the line) and click on that, then scroll  down to the Roll Calls Heading, you will find Regent Roll Calls. Click on it and you will find the ships listed, click on Voyager and find the thread for the March 1 sailing. It is near the top as there is recent conversation among people that are on that sailing. You can post on the roll call just like here. Maybe someone can help you with a copy of their offer from Regent for Americans and Canadians.

 

Sorry I am no good at posting the link to the Roll Call, the easy way to get there, but maybe someone else will do that for you.

 

Good Luck. 

 

 

Edited by cwn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, wishIweretravelling said:

Crew members with passports from China, Hong Kong or Macau will not be allowed on board our ships.

 

8 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

In terms of the crew, they are not "losing" their jobs. Rather, their vacations have been extended until it is safe for them to travel to embarkation ports.

 

Crew members holding passports from China, Hong Kong or Macau will be on "extended vacation", as you put it, for an indefinite period without pay

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DaveFr said:

If you cancel the March 1 cruise you get a 100% FCC.

This is not what all guests booked on the March 01 Voyager cruise are being told by their agents.

 

8 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

IF people in the U.S. are receiving more (not saying that they are), there is likely a very good reason.

I hope this is not the case and that it is the result of confused communications.

However, if it is the case then Regent need to share the "very good reason" with affected customers to avoid ill-feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, flossie009 said:

This is not what all guests booked on the March 01 Voyager cruise are being told by their agents.

 

I hope this is not the case and that it is the result of confused communications.

However, if it is the case then Regent need to share the "very good reason" with affected customers to avoid ill-feeling.

 

We are in Australia.  Yesterday we asked our TA for clarification of this issue and she then contacted Regent Australia who escalated it to Regent Head Office in the US.  We received advice from our TA this afternoon (Australian time) that Regent Australia has been advised by the US Office that "the offer of 100% FCC is not correct."

Our TA also said "'To compensate for the itinerary change the offer that Regent are giving is 25% FCC for any future cruise booked within 12 months for travel within 2 years.  If you cancelled you would get the 25% FCC for a future cruise plus a refund of the Port Taxes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flossie.... I always enjoy and value your posts. Many pages ago, I had wondered what the impact of all this would be having on the ship board crew.  Do you have any thoughts as to whether this would be the time where the Crew fund could come into play? I'm thinking that this might be a substantial amount of $$$ and it might be the ideal time to activate  and release some of the money to help subsidize crew members who are being impacted through no fault of their own. It would certainly be more on point than parties and raffles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2020 at 4:25 PM, SSRtown said:

UPDATE! March 1st AND Feb 12th sailings are both now eligible for the cancellation with 100% cruise fare applied as a FCC. No cash refunds. 

 

I just spoke to a Regent supervisor named Ryan and he gave me his blessing to post this on CC. RSSC folks just exited their meeting with this result and I was called only 5 minutes ago. It'll take some time to relay the news to all TAs, but Ryan said all passengers will be offered this. 

 

so not right for March 1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, flossie009 said:

 

 

Crew members holding passports from China, Hong Kong or Macau will be on "extended vacation", as you put it, for an indefinite period without pay

Exactly. Though I hope that they will get some compensation for having made themselves available.

As difficult as all this is for passengers, it does not mean a loss of livelihood. For many, if not most, crew members, even a temporary loss of a job can be devastating. Many of us, even if we can now afford Regent, went through periods of living paycheck to paycheck and know what that can mean even in our own prosperous society.

And, BTW, I do understand why Regent is doing this. They have nothing but bad choices in all this. It seems like they're trying to make the best of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, flossie009 said:

 

 

Crew members holding passports from China, Hong Kong or Macau will be on "extended vacation", as you put it, for an indefinite period without pay

 

Surely that would depend on how long ago they were home?  If they've been working on one or other the ships for three or four months, or otherwise not at home, why would they have to be laid off?   I can understand if they've actually visited those places, recently, but really, this smacks of the kind of racism that's as endemic as the virus at this point.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wendy The Wanderer said:

 

Surely that would depend on how long ago they were home?  If they've been working on one or other the ships for three or four months, or otherwise not at home, why would they have to be laid off?   I can understand if they've actually visited those places, recently, but really, this smacks of the kind of racism that's as endemic as the virus at this point.

Don't believe home comes into play for this issue.  From what the letters appear to say those with the unacceptable passports/documentation are not being allowed to board the ships.  To me this means those starting a new contract or coming back from a vacation at home are those not being allowed to board.

 

Based on this interpretation, these people will have been off for a month or more and are now coming back to work therefore they were and will not have been working before this "forced vacation" without pay. thus they will be hurting for pay as they were expecting to start/restart work and thus getting paychecks, etc.

 

Don't see how this can smack of racism as ships are saying the same thing to passengers boarding with the same passports and it is a nationality restriction, not based on race but, where their documents show them as residents.  To stop an epidemic like this people have to be isolated such that they don't travel and infest people in outher countries/ships/planes, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, rallydave said:

Don't see how this can smack of racism as ships are saying the same thing to passengers boarding with the same passports and it is a nationality restriction, not based on race but, where their documents show them as residents.  To stop an epidemic like this people have to be isolated such that they don't travel and infest people in outher countries/ships/planes, etc.

 

Yes, if what you say above is true.  That their passports actually *show* that they've been to their country of residence within a specified amount of time.  Let me give you a counter-example:  many permanent residents of Canada still have a Chinese or Hong Kong passport.  They may have not been to those places for years--should they be denied boarding?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wendy The Wanderer said:

 

Yes, if what you say above is true.  That their passports actually *show* that they've been to their country of residence within a specified amount of time.  Let me give you a counter-example:  many permanent residents of Canada still have a Chinese or Hong Kong passport.  They may have not been to those places for years--should they be denied boarding?

Good points Wendy but, just the fact they have one of the three areas passport is enough to keep the crew and passengers off the ship.  What you say about Canadians with Chinese or Hong Kong passports is true and sure Canada is not isolated with that.

 

Problem i see is that passports are not always stamped plus if stamped often difficult to read plus would extend the time to board significantly with the agents needing to go thru every page looking for the stamp and the date.  Don't believe there is a significant problem with the blanket denial vs the time/effort plus a good chance to miss someone with a recent arrival/departure from one of the problem areas so that banning based on passport issuance seems to be a fair compromise and better to be a bit more restrictive to protect the passengers on board.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rallydave said:

Good points Wendy but, just the fact they have one of the three areas passport is enough to keep the crew and passengers off the ship.  What you say about Canadians with Chinese or Hong Kong passports is true and sure Canada is not isolated with that.

 

Problem i see is that passports are not always stamped plus if stamped often difficult to read plus would extend the time to board significantly with the agents needing to go thru every page looking for the stamp and the date.  Don't believe there is a significant problem with the blanket denial vs the time/effort plus a good chance to miss someone with a recent arrival/departure from one of the problem areas so that banning based on passport issuance seems to be a fair compromise and better to be a bit more restrictive to protect the passengers on board.

 

Surely not a big deal with modern passport scanning?  They really don't have to go through every page, but maybe that's different with Chinese passports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow - a lot alleged information - wish we could post facts.  While I do not not want to stir the pot further, if Regent is racist, so are the airlines and most countries in the world because they all want to control and eventually stop the spread of this deadly disease.  It would not matter if this were happening in any other country - the same measures would be taken.

 

Wendy, in the opinion of many, the #1 priority is stopping the virus.  If this means that people in Canada that hold passports from China or Hong Kong need to prove that they have not left the country, so be it.  People in all countries need to comply with the restrictions - whether we agree with them or not (or if it changes our plans or not).  There are people in most countries that hold these passports - just as there are people in China that live there but hold U.S. passports.  This isn't a one size fits all situation.

 

Speaking of crew, none of us know whether crew members from China or Hong Kong are getting paid - we are making assumptions.  We also need to consider the fact (and this is a fact) that people in China cannot get on an airplane and fly to wherever they want. So, there is no way for these crew members to even get to a ship (and getting home for crew members going to these countries is an issue as well).  We all feel badly for the people that this is affecting - both healthwise and financially.  China is having difficulty getting mail and products out of the country.  The impact is worldwide.  

 

In terms of Regent, I continue to applaud their decisions and know that they are working long hours to accommodate both passengers and crew.  What stuns me is the lack of information from SOME TA's to their clients..  I find it sad that a poster was asked by a TA to go to Cruise Critic and get a copy of a letter that they were sent.  This to be is mind boggling!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wendy The Wanderer said:

 

Surely not a big deal with modern passport scanning?  They really don't have to go through every page, but maybe that's different with Chinese passports.

Not sure I understand your scanning comment.  When checking in for a cruise there is no scanning of the passport and sincerely doubt that the clerks at checkin can tell where a passenger had been in the past x number of days.  And, when going thru immigration, my experience is that the passport is put on a scanner that then connects with the country of the passport to get information about the passenger available in the countries data base which probably would not include information about every entry/leaving of other countries.  For instance leaving the US no passport is scanned and we don't go thru immigration.

 

Pretty sure the only way to know for sure if someone entered a specific country and the date of entry is to physically look at each page of the book looking for the appropriate stamp and some are in the language of the country entered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

If this means that people in Canada that hold passports from China or Hong Kong need to prove that they have not left the country, so be it.

If they were asked to prove they haven't left the country that would be fine and not unreasonable but if I remember correctly what the letter said is that they are not allowed to board period.  That doesn't seem reasaonble to me. People are being discriminated against for solely having a passport from a specific country NO matter where they actually live. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 1982CruzStart said:

If they were asked to prove they haven't left the country that would be fine and not unreasonable but if I remember correctly what the letter said is that they are not allowed to board period.  That doesn't seem reasaonble to me. People are being discriminated against for solely having a passport from a specific country NO matter where they actually live. 

How do you propose someone prove they haven't left a particular country especially to a clerk checking you in to board a cruise ship??  Almost impossible to prove you didn't do something like leave a country especially the US or Canada where I am sure leaving the US there is no immigration and believe the same for Canada as well as other countries??

 

May not be fair but, alos not fair is an epidemic that is sweeping the globe.  This may be a good example of where not being fair to a few is more than fair for the vast majority.

 

Remember, the Princess ship under quarantine in Japan was infected by a single person who got on then got off and now what, over 100 people are infected.

Edited by rallydave
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Wendy The Wanderer said:

Let me give you a counter-example:  many permanent residents of Canada still have a Chinese or Hong Kong passport.  They may have not been to those places for years--should they be denied boarding?

 

10 minutes ago, 1982CruzStart said:

If they were asked to prove they haven't left the country that would be fine and not unreasonable but if I remember correctly what the letter said is that they are not allowed to board period.

 

Regent's Policy Statement includes the following two paragraphs:

  • Guests who hold a Chinese, Hong Kong or Macau passport, regardless of residency, will not be allowed to board any of our ships on voyages between February 8 and April 8, 2020. 
  • Crew members with passports from China, Hong Kong or Macau will not be allowed on board our ships.

These provisions are in addition to the more general travel restrictions:

  • Guests who have traveled from, visited or transited via airports in China, Hong Kong or Macau within 30 days of their voyage embarkation, regardless of nationality, will not be allowed to board any of our ships. 
  • Our crew members who have traveled from, visited or transited via airports in China, including Hong Kong and Macau, within 30 days will not be allowed to board our ships. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 1982CruzStart said:

If they were asked to prove they haven't left the country that would be fine and not unreasonable but if I remember correctly what the letter said is that they are not allowed to board period.  That doesn't seem reasaonble to me. People are being discriminated against for solely having a passport from a specific country NO matter where they actually live. 

 

I understand your point and you are correct about the letter.  However, I still feel that everyone in the world needs to follow protocol.  IF it isn't possible to check everyone's information and give them a "pass" to board a flight or a ship, then they will be unable to travel.  This won't be in place forever ...... just until the illness is controlled or eradicated.  I strongly feel that "people" are not being discriminated against but rather, where people live or have visited (regardless of race) is - and  I believe that this is the correct action.  

 

I suppose that the hundreds of thousands of Chinese that still carry passports from their home country will be affected for no reason - even if they have not been to China in a long time.  Still, this is not discrimination against any race.  All of this is being done for our safety.  Reports on the news last night said that 60% of the world's population could get the coronavirus if it is not controlled.  That number is pretty scary!

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Emma Chisit said:

 

We are in Australia.  Yesterday we asked our TA for clarification of this issue and she then contacted Regent Australia who escalated it to Regent Head Office in the US.  We received advice from our TA this afternoon (Australian time) that Regent Australia has been advised by the US Office that "the offer of 100% FCC is not correct."

 

Our TA also said "'To compensate for the itinerary change the offer that Regent are giving is 25% FCC for any future cruise booked within 12 months for travel within 2 years.  If you cancelled you would get the 25% FCC for a future cruise plus a refund of the Port Taxes."

 

 

Thank you for posting this.  Another good reason why posters may want to hold off on posting what they are receiving.  Information seems to be flying around - some relevant to our particular cruise and some not - some true and some not true.  Stick with information from Regent or your TA (if your TA does not have answers, they can get answers from Regent Corporate in Miami).  

 

P.S.  As an aside, I am waiting for my new passport (last one filled up) so when I board Splendor next month, it will show that I have not been anywhere!  I would have to take my cancelled passport in order to prove where we have been.

Edited by Travelcat2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how this "protocol" wasn't followed during the H1N1 epidemic in 2009, which was, I believe, centred in the US.  The world did not restrict travel then as they are doing now, from China.

 

But point taken about scanning passports.  I was only making the point that the immigration authorities in most countries know from passport scans where and when people have travelled.  Harder, I concede, for cruise ship personnel.

 

We'll see what happens as this epidemic moves around. The more that happens, the worse news for the cruise lines, for sure.  Let's hope a certain person is right, and it'll go away when it warms up in spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just passports from those places. It's people who have been there/transited through there in the given time frame. So, if they changed planes in Hong Kong to get to an assignment, they are out. If they worked on a ship that called there, they are out.

 

Again, this is not meant as a criticism. Let's just show a little compassion for crew.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protocols have changed since 2009-2010.  

 

Here is what the CDC has to says about that pandemic:  https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html

 

There is also information from WHO (World Health Organization).  The deaths in the U.S. were approximately what they are this year from the flu but it did kill a lot of people around the world.

 

Had this pandemic been in the U.S., and we could not fly, cruise, go to public places, etc.. we would have followed the protocol - just as people in China are doing now.  

 

I did find (and promptly lost) the protocols from 2009.  This link addresses some of the protocols:  https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/guidance/cruiseships.htm

 

Whether a pandemic happens in the U.S., Tahiti, China or anywhere else in the world, the newest protocols need to be followed if there is any chance of eradicating the virus.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, flossie009 said:

 

 

Regent's Policy Statement includes the following two paragraphs:

  • Guests who hold a Chinese, Hong Kong or Macau passport, regardless of residency, will not be allowed to board any of our ships on voyages between February 8 and April 8, 2020. 
  • Crew members with passports from China, Hong Kong or Macau will not be allowed on board our ships.

These provisions are in addition to the more general travel restrictions:

  • Guests who have traveled from, visited or transited via airports in China, Hong Kong or Macau within 30 days of their voyage embarkation, regardless of nationality, will not be allowed to board any of our ships. 
  • Our crew members who have traveled from, visited or transited via airports in China, including Hong Kong and Macau, within 30 days will not be allowed to board our ships. 

 

I understand the public health concerns about individuals who have travelled through areas where the epidemic is uncontrolled.  But I don't understand what the mere possession of a particular passport has to do with infection control.  If crew members with a Chinese passport haven't been in China since the time the epidemic began (or whatever time public health authorities stipulate) then why would they be banned from the ship?

 

This seems like a devastating hardship for the involved crew members who have no reason to be thought more likely infectious than any of the other crew or passengers.

 

 Is there some public health recommendation that supports this?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...