CDC only allowing 7 day cruises till Nov 2021

[Iamcruzin]

56 minutes ago, riffatsea said:

I don't understand this discussion at all?

How do you go on any cruise with virus cases on the rise all over the map?

Have you all decided you don't  care about getting sick and /or dying??

That's not even in question now. These die hard (and that may be the case in the end) CC members were willing to jump on a ship since the beginning of the pandemic. The reason being life is too short we need to live. Oh the irony of it all.

[nocl]

2 minutes ago, Iamcruzin said:

I never thought of that. It may also turn into a longer cruise if the ship is denied entry to port.

the document states that ageements must be in place for the ship to be able to return to its originating port. 

 

Though it is also clear that passenger travel, even home, may be restricted or delayed. It also says that non commercial travel will be used.

[riffatsea]

If you look at my signature you'll see 2 future cruises booked so of COURSE we want to cruise again some day!!

I am just not excited by this CDC announcement because it is NOT the CDC that is preventing us from cruising. The virus is the culprit.  Actually I might also say the other culprits are those folks who selfishly refuse to follow the health guidelines of distancing and wearing masks. They are the ones spreading sickness and preventing everyone from cruising!

 

Ask yourselves why Canada,New Zealand ,and places like Korea and JAPAN are doing better and the answer will be that citizens there follow rules

 

Thats it

Edited October 31, 2020 by riffatsea

[Iamcruzin]

1 minute ago, nocl said:

the document states that ageements must be in place for the ship to be able to return to its originating port. 

 

Though it is also clear that passenger travel, even home, may be restricted or delayed. It also says that non commercial travel will be used.

There is just too much red tape and restrictions for me to even consider a cruise.  Maybe if I was retired and lived in Florida I would think differently.

[caribill]

2 hours ago, riffatsea said:

I don't understand this discussion at all?

How do you go on any cruise with virus cases on the rise all over the map?

Have you all decided you don't  care about getting sick and /or dying??

 

If the CDC protocols are followed, the goal of the cruise lines is to make it less likely to catch the virus on a ship than if you stayed in your hometown.

 

The greater opportunity to catch the virus may be while traveling to/from the port than being on a cruise ship.

[caribill]

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.

[satxdiver]

1 hour ago, riffatsea said:

If you look at my signature you'll see 2 future cruises booked so of COURSE we want to cruise again some day!!

I am just not excited by this CDC announcement because it is NOT the CDC that is preventing us from cruising. The virus is the culprit.  Actually I might also say the other culprits are those folks who selfishly refuse to follow the health guidelines of distancing and wearing masks. They are the ones spreading sickness and preventing everyone from cruising!

 

Ask yourselves why Canada,New Zealand ,and places like Korea and JAPAN are doing better and the answer will be that citizens there follow rules

 

Thats it

 

Other countries even Canada is having a much less infection rate than the USA for the simple reason that their citizens follow health rules.  Until we do here in this country we will continue to have high rates of infection and be denied entry in other countries even our neighbor to the north.  Sad but true. 

[CineGraphic]

1 hour ago, jagoffee said:

Your graph may have had something to do with this. (Daily tests)

 

Sorry, I prefer logic over believing we only have more positive results because we have more tests.

[CineGraphic]

Duplicate post...please delete.

Edited October 31, 2020 by CineGraphic

[ontheweb]

46 minutes ago, CineGraphic said:

 

Sorry, I prefer logic over believing we only have more positive results because we have more tests.

Yes, and if we had less pregnancy tests the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions would decrease. Same logic.😒

[tert333]

Back to the original topic around 7 day cruises, one thing that the cruise lines may consider is using a Caribbean port as a base for one of their ships so they can have cruises greater than 7 days.  This would mean they would not touch the US, but could do the southern islands.    Not sure how that would affect getting provisions.   Assume they would be more expensive in the Caribbean than in Miami/Port Everglades.

 

Also, I wonder how they are going to deal with the Panama Canal cruises as they are all typically 10 to 14 days.  I guess they could probably do a 7 day partial panama canal transit, by avoiding most ports they normally stop in. 

[cruisemom42]

43 minutes ago, tert333 said:

Back to the original topic around 7 day cruises, one thing that the cruise lines may consider is using a Caribbean port as a base for one of their ships so they can have cruises greater than 7 days.  This would mean they would not touch the US, but could do the southern islands.    Not sure how that would affect getting provisions.   Assume they would be more expensive in the Caribbean than in Miami/Port Everglades.

 

 

I don't think that would be a very viable option. Without making use of the "closed loop" cruise exception, every passenger would have to have a US passport. Not to mention the extra cost of flying to/from the embarkation and disembarkation port(s). Plus, I would suspect that cruises themselves are going to have to sail at a limited capacity to ensure appropriate social distancing requirements are met, meaning that cruise prices are also likely to be higher.

 

How many average Caribbean cruisers on mass market lines are going to be willing -- or able -- to add all of those costs on top of their basic cruise fare?

 

 

 

[d9704011]

6 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

Without making use of the "closed loop" cruise exception, every passenger would have to have a US passport.

I suppose you’re thinking of US citizens?  Canadian (and other non-American) cruisers would already have passports that would permit this although I can’t see it happening for a variety of travel, logistical and cost reasons even if the destination ports will welcome cruise ships.

Edited October 31, 2020 by d9704011

[cruisemom42]

1 minute ago, d9704011 said:

I suppose you’re thinking of US citizens?  Canadian cruisers would already have passports that would permit this although I can’t see it happening for a variety of travel, logistical and cost reasons even of the destination ports will welcome cruise ships.

 

Yes, my assumption was based on US passengers wanting to cruise, sorry. Should've been more specific.

[CruzinNoony]

So, what about the 2 sailings July 2021 on the Crown R/T out of LA that are 14 days?  We are booked on one of those and will be really disappointed if they are cancelled.  

[caribill]

44 minutes ago, CruzinNoony said:

So, what about the 2 sailings July 2021 on the Crown R/T out of LA that are 14 days?  We are booked on one of those and will be really disappointed if they are cancelled.  

 

The 7 day limit is for now. Hopefully this will change once cruise ships are proved to be safe for travel and hopefully that will be before your cruise.

[lx200gps]

3 hours ago, satxdiver said:

 

Other countries even Canada is having a much less infection rate than the USA for the simple reason that their citizens follow health rules.  Until we do here in this country we will continue to have high rates of infection and be denied entry in other countries even our neighbor to the north.  Sad but true. 

 

Speaking as a Canadian, thanks a bunch for the kind words, but you're a bit too generous ;o). Locally here, police just handed out EIGHTY THREE $1000 fines to a bunch of college students for throwing a party up in cottage country, facilitated through social media. Luckily, locals reported them immediately, and the police stepped in. The number of fines would have been higher, but some of them ran away before police could catch them.

[tert333]

I don't think it would be a stretch to have caribbean cruising starting in a port outside of the mainland  US.  Celebrity has been doing cruises leaving from San Juan for a number of years.   I assume they have been able to find passengers to fill the cruiseship.   They use the Summit which is about the same size as the Island Princess.

 

Since they will not be able to have 10 day cruises from San Juan, The Bahamas may be an option.  If Bahamas is not an option, maybe there are others such as Cancun or Barbados.  I think there are a number of people who would who would be willing to incur the extra costs. 

 

I would think that the cruiselines are going to be looking for other options, if the CDC is not going to allow cruises longer than 7 days. 

 

PS>  Being Canadian, I assumed that most people that travel has passports.   Did not realize there is a high percentage of Americans that cruise would not have a passport. 

[muffydawg]

With so many requirements Princess must meet to resume cruising including securing crew and provisions, and the restrictive  "Rules"  we are reevaluating our decision to sail in April 2021. The overall value of paying the equivalent of a first class plane ticket for economy class service is our conundrum.

 

Will the shops in Charlotte Amalie be open? Will the casino, buffets, specialty restaurants, shops on board ship be open? Will the perks of paying for a premium cabin vanish ? Will everything we enjoy and are willing to pay a premium for be in place by the time final payment is due in February?

 

We have a few months to see what decision Princess makes. 

[Mary229]

The November 2021 date is the provision that makes me question the entire document. Reasonably it should have stated 3 - 4 month review periods to adjust for advances in protocols and vaccine distribution.  Regardless what you may think of the vaccine if we do have a USA sanctioned vaccine I don’t see how a single USA agency could ignore that vaccine and create regulations as if it did not exist.    This is not about anyone’s scientific conjectures or beliefs instead this comment is about what will hold up in court

[nocl]

41 minutes ago, lx200gps said:

 

Speaking as a Canadian, thanks a bunch for the kind words, but you're a bit too generous ;o). Locally here, police just handed out EIGHTY THREE $1000 fines to a bunch of college students for throwing a party up in cottage country, facilitated through social media. Luckily, locals reported them immediately, and the police stepped in. The number of fines would have been higher, but some of them ran away before police could catch them.

One thing nice about Canada, once they set rules, they back them up with substantial fines.  In the US a rule might be set, but no fines, so no worry over violating.

[nocl]

3 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

The November 2021 date is the provision that makes me question the entire document. Reasonably it should have stated 3 - 4 month review periods to adjust for advances in protocols and vaccine distribution.  Regardless what you may think of the vaccine if we do have a USA sanctioned vaccine I don’t see how a single USA agency could ignore that vaccine and create regulations as if it did not exist.    This is not about anyone’s scientific conjectures or beliefs instead this comment is about what will hold up in court

As of now approved vaccines do not exist.  Once they are approved the impact will depend upon the efficacy, and the uptake. It will take time, after they are approved, to determine how the vaccines, will impact the infection rates.

 

As such the document is written with the information that is available, and does not assume what might or might not happen in the future for which there is currently no way to estimate. If the vaccines have a dramatic enough impact to change the spread than they can always update once that data becomes available.

 

Basing a regulation on data that does not exist makes it easy for a court to rule that it is arbitrary and subject to being ruled against.

[Mary229]

5 minutes ago, nocl said:

As of now approved vaccines do not exist.  Once they are approved the impact will depend upon the efficacy, and the uptake. It will take time, after they are approved, to determine how the vaccines, will impact the infection rates.

 

As such the document is written with the information that is available, and does not assume what might or might not happen in the future for which there is currently no way to estimate. If the vaccines have a dramatic enough impact to change the spread than they can always update once that data becomes available.

 

Basing a regulation on data that does not exist makes it easy for a court to rule that it is arbitrary and subject to being ruled against.

I was speaking specifically about the length of the term of the order.  It is unrealistic for an order.  I clearly said it should have been created with the ability to readjust.   It would have been far better and legally viable to state the order as they did the bans with periodic adjustments 

Edited October 31, 2020 by Mary229

[nocl]

6 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

I was speaking specifically about the length of the term of the order.  It is unrealistic for an order.  I clearly said it should have been created with the ability to readjust.   It would have been far better and legally viable to state the order as they did the bans with periodic adjustments 

There is always the ability to readjust, and order can be changed, and regulation can be changed..   This way the cruise lines know what the rules are for an extended period.  Much easier to loosen when the cruise lines have planned for restrictions than to only know what the rules are for a short period.  Without the length no way cruise lines could reopen.  It will take them 3 months just to get up and running. If they did what you propose by the time they prepare for the set of rules it would expire and then who knows how the next set would change.

[Mary229]

3 minutes ago, nocl said:

There is always the ability to readjust, and order can be changed, and regulation can be changed..   This way the cruise lines know what the rules are for an extended period.  Much easier to loosen when the cruise lines have planned for restrictions than to only know what the rules are for a short period.  Without the length no way cruise lines could reopen.  It will take them 3 months just to get up and running. If they did what you propose by the time they prepare for the set of rules it would expire and then who knows how the next set would change.

We will have to agree to disagree.  I think that single provision will cause them legal and political problems.