Jump to content

No Sail Order Lifted


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, voljeep said:

is the 7 day order for cruises that have paying customers, or all cruises - seems like repositioning cruises over 7 days with crew only would almost have to be allowed given where these ships currently are

of course if the ships are going one way outside of US waters the rules of both the originating and receiving  country would apply.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MissP22 said:

Wow, does that sound like a fun cruise. 

I'm assuming that people had to actually pay for that experience. 

Did they have to wear a mask all the time except between bites of food? 😅

😒 hmmmm,  I thought one of the side effects of living in sunny Florida was a bright positive and bubbly attitude... 

Edited by c-boy
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

You made an interesting point.  However, the drunk driver example is quite different from government enforcing a legal mandate to wear a mask.  In order for a drunk driver to be removed from the road and convicted of a law violation, scientific evidence of intoxication is required.  When it is clearly established using scientific evidence that a driver is endangering the public due to a specific level of intoxication SCOTUS agrees that the overriding public need would take precedence.  What is still prohibited is limiting a person's civil rights arising from a mere concern that a person may have a dangerous contagion.  The mere fact that a person is not wearing a mask does not in itself give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the individual is infected and endangering public health and safety.  It is estimated that 3.3 million Americans have active Covid disease.  That number represents about 1% of the population of the US.  Therefore, someone not wearing a mask is about 99% likely to be Covid free and thus does not represent a clear and present danger to others.  The mere fact that a person is not wearing a mask is not enough to make a determination that he/she actually presents a risk to others.

 

That said, I am not against people wearing masks, I always wear one whenever I am out in public.  Being in close proximity to another person who is not wearing a mask certainly makes me uncomfortable and I will not remain near such an individual.  Before Covid-19 showed up, I wouldn't sit next to a person who was hacking and coughing even though he/she may just have seasonal allergies.  As individuals we can certainly make decisions regarding how we interact with people not wearing a mask, but I do not believe the government has the ability to dictate the conduct of the entire population when only 1% of that population presents the risk. 

 

Stay well and please wear a mask.

*snicker*;

 

You must be joking. The 'breathalizer' does not prove you are going to injure someone, it proves you are violating the law. After all, even before the drunk driver laws, not EVERY person who drove drunk wrecked and caused mayhem. The legal authority was to correct significant risk, not certainty. Just like the self-centered idiots who believe that they have 'rights' without RESPONSIBILITIES when wearing no mask and putting OTHERS at risk, drunk drivers have the same fantasies. Luckily, we have government, and they need to be responsible too. 

 

New example:

 

Early in WW2, the German air force began night bombing of London and other British cities. The government ask people to not have lights at night, to foil the bombers. Do you imagine someone saying "Hey, I can risk my life and turn on my lights, they are mine!"? But wait, the bombers are not that accurate, so some will surely find your neighbors .....so, no way! 

 

'Rights' without responsibility is just anarchy, which I must remind you the folk who mostly argue against masks are often declaiming against, accusing protestors of being 'anarchists'. 

 

Reminder of the REAL point. Liberty /> Responsibility. Period!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Princess statement about the CDC order:

 

October 30, 2020 5:30PM PT

Princess Cruises will continue to work with the CDC on an eventual return to guest cruise operations. We are evaluating the CDC’s new order that sets out the conditions under which cruising can resume, but there are a significant number of requirements that must be evaluated in the context of our plans to resume operations. We ask for your patience as we complete our review. We are committed to communicating more details as soon as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess that the Princess management team is hard at work in Santa Clarita. There is not only a lot to review, but a lot of application materials to prepare, not to mention significant changes in ship deployment, itinerary planning and financial analysis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

I would guess that the Princess management team is hard at work in Santa Clarita. There is not only a lot to review, but a lot of application materials to prepare, not to mention significant changes in ship deployment, itinerary planning and financial analysis.

I expect it is 50/50 if they move to restart in line with the order vs staying shutdown and lobbying to try and get them changed, similarly as when the cruiselines refused to sign the crew documents for repatriation through the US, claiming that charter flights were too expensive, while some of them went to Barbados and sent crew home through the shutdown airport, via charter flights.

 

They tried to get the rules changed then with out success. Eventually they signed the documents.  Though for most ships they just moved them outside of US waters.

Edited by nocl
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

I would guess that the Princess management team is hard at work in Santa Clarita. There is not only a lot to review, but a lot of application materials to prepare, not to mention significant changes in ship deployment, itinerary planning and financial analysis.

I would imagine that has been going on for quite some time - way before 'yesterdays news' 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, generichandle said:

New example:

 

Early in WW2, the German air force began night bombing of London and other British cities. The government ask people to not have lights at night, to foil the bombers. Do you imagine someone saying "Hey, I can risk my life and turn on my lights, they are mine!"? But wait, the bombers are not that accurate, so some will surely find your neighbors .....so, no way! 

 

Actually people could still have lights at night they couldn't show outside your home.  So people could turn on their lights and just have black out curtains in their windows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nocl said:

I expect it is 50/50 if they move to restart in line with the order vs staying shutdown and lobbying to try and get them changed, similarly as when the cruiselines refused to sign the crew documents for repatriation through the US, claiming that charter flights were too expensive, while some of them went to Barbados and sent crew home through the shutdown airport, via charter flights.

 

They tried to get the rules changed then with out success. Eventually they signed the documents.  Though for most ships they just moved them outside of US waters.

agreed - Princess didn't seem too happy

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GonzoWCS said:

Well let's get it started folks!  Step-by-step, eyes wide open, but always forward!

 

Cheers

Agreed! Better than a cruise to nowhere and most cruises are 7 nights or less 

11 minutes ago, voljeep said:

I would imagine that has been going on for quite some time - way before 'yesterdays news' 

Evidenced by a boatload of new cruises in California at under 7 nights, up to 6 alternatives from just SF

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NavArch64 said:

Is the Princess management team working today in Santa Clarita?

 

Not sure when this was posted, but here is what is on Princess home page today:

——————-

Princess Cruises will continue to work with the CDC on an eventual return to guest cruise operations. We are evaluating the CDC’s new order that sets out the conditions under which cruising can resume, but there are a significant number of requirements that must be evaluated in the context of our plans to resume operations. We ask for your patience as we complete our review. We are committed to communicating more details as soon as possible.

 

————————

We have a 12/26 cruise booked. Best case our payment goes to our May cruise to Canary Islands. More likely it goes to our January, 2022 SA cruise. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the cruise lines & our safety prior to the masses being inoculated  with the up coming vaccines  .We wear both N95 rated masks & clear shields .The clear shields & masks are available on amazon.com  .The shields make us feel a lot better when we also have masks on as well .we are both 81 with undekying medical conditions 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2020 at 9:42 PM, phabric said:

How are they going to decide who cruises with a smaller occupancy? - local people, first booked, cancel the cruise and you have to rebook?

 

I've seen the theory that since virtually every scheduled cruise will require significant modifications in itinerary (which posts will even accept cruise ships now?), home port, even what ship it will be, and to avoid the decision of who gets to cruise with reduced occupancy, they'll just cancel all cruises in the near future and start booking the new cruises which will be sailing. That way they can limit the numbers.

 

Alternately, maybe it isn't even a problem. Maybe no cruise currently is booked over 50%, or whatever reduced capacity they are aiming for. Demand is obviously way down, an perhaps they stopped taking bookings once any cruise approached 50% (or whatever number).

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

I've seen the theory that since virtually every scheduled cruise will require significant modifications in itinerary (which posts will even accept cruise ships now?), home port, even what ship it will be, and to avoid the decision of who gets to cruise with reduced occupancy, they'll just cancel all cruises in the near future and start booking the new cruises which will be sailing. That way they can limit the numbers.

 

Alternately, maybe it isn't even a problem. Maybe no cruise currently is booked over 50%, or whatever reduced capacity they are aiming for. Demand is obviously way down, an perhaps they stopped taking bookings once any cruise approached 50% (or whatever number).

Where did you see this theory? I'm wondering bc a number of us were given OBC to rebook within a restricted time period (in my case, 600 OBC to rebook TA by October 31st)

Edited by Ombud
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the government require you to wear masks? They require you to wear clothes in public and that’s not really seen as a violation of rights. 
The death rate for those who have gotten COVID is approx 2.5% (230k out of 9 million). If you extrapolate that for herd immunity you are looking at 7 million deaths.

The  Spanish Flu of last century originated in Kansas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, awhcruiser said:

What about cruises to Hawaii from Cali?  Can't get there and back in only seven days.

Until the CDC eliminates the current limit of 7 days, then those types of cruises will not happen.  The main thing is hopefully things progress so that the 7 day limit is eliminated by the time that the spring Eastern TA cruises can happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ombud said:

Where did you see this theory? I'm wondering bc a number of us were given OBC to rebook within a restricted time period (in my case, 600 OBC to rebook TA by October 31st)

 

A YouTube cruise channel:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42t-zQad4wQ

 

(I'm not claiming he's right or anything. It's just a theory I had seen.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, umuva said:

Can the government require you to wear masks? They require you to wear clothes in public and that’s not really seen as a violation of rights. 
The death rate for those who have gotten COVID is approx 2.5% (230k out of 9 million). If you extrapolate that for herd immunity you are looking at 7 million deaths.

The  Spanish Flu of last century originated in Kansas.

There are no federal laws either for or against nudity, except to the extent that it may be protected under the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Local laws will take precedence when the question of nudity relates to federal lands, such as federal parks, beaches, and other facilities.

There is no way to tell what the death rate is since we have no idea how many people have gotten Covid.  People who have no symptoms and have not gotten tested or people who had mild symptoms and never got tested are not part of the equation giving an incorrect number to work with.  Also, you can not extrapolate that number not only because it is flawed but because at first more people were dying and as we have found better ways to treat Covid more people are being saved.

They are not sure where the Spanish Flu originated.  It was first reported in the US in Kansas at Fort Riley.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2020 at 9:42 PM, phabric said:

How are they going to decide who cruises with a smaller occupancy? - local people, first booked, cancel the cruise and you have to rebook?

 

16 hours ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

I've seen the theory that since virtually every scheduled cruise will require significant modifications in itinerary (which posts will even accept cruise ships now?), home port, even what ship it will be, and to avoid the decision of who gets to cruise with reduced occupancy, they'll just cancel all cruises in the near future and start booking the new cruises which will be sailing. That way they can limit the numbers.

 

Alternately, maybe it isn't even a problem. Maybe no cruise currently is booked over 50%, or whatever reduced capacity they are aiming for. Demand is obviously way down, an perhaps they stopped taking bookings once any cruise approached 50% (or whatever number).

I had these concerns before my April 2021twenty eight day cruise was cancelled due to the transfer of our ship to P&O.  I think if Princess needs to reduce PAX in order to comply with regs then this would be a situation similar to airline overbookings.  Probably the first step would be move over offers to entice volunteers maybe offered based on earliest bookings getting the first offers.  They might also do move over offers based on eliminating the PAX paying the least amount (i.e. inside cabins).  If they don't get enough volunteers then they would probably bump passengers.  I can't realistically imagine Princess bumping a booking paying for a minisuite in order to retain a booking for an inside cabin.

 

Time will tell.

Link to post
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
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com
      • 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
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...