Likelihood of Cunard updating vaccination requirements?

[neeuqdrazil]

I'm booked on the WB TA departing Southampton on 24 April, and the current 100% vaccinated passenger policy is set to expire for QM2 on 17 April. 

 

I've got another 3 weeks before my final payment is due, and I'm hopeful that they'll update the policy and extend the requirement for all passengers to be vaccinated, but I'm starting to have my doubts. (And if they don't extend it, I will be cancelling.) 

 

Has anyone heard rumblings about changes/extensions to the policy? 

[3rdGenCunarder]

I called a few weeks ago and was told there would be an update "next week," That would have been last week, and nothing changed. So I tried emailing to ask about this and have had no reply. The website keeps updating the "as of" date but doesn't seem to make any changes in what they say. 

 

Interestingly, all cruises show a little logo that says "all crew and passengers vaccinated," even cruises six months away or more.

 

My bet is that they will drop the vaccination requirement, but I would love to be wrong. 

 

[Jack E Dawson]

1 hour ago, neeuqdrazil said:

I'm booked on the WB TA departing Southampton on 24 April, and the current 100% vaccinated passenger policy is set to expire for QM2 on 17 April. 

 

 

We are on a WB TA departing May 8 and share your concerns. Please update if you become aware of changes. 

Thanks

Jack

[sogne]

24 minutes ago, Jack E Dawson said:

We are on a WB TA departing May 8 and share your concerns. Please update if you become aware of changes. 

Thanks

Jack

Since all European countries insist on vaccination Cunard will likely keep  current policy

[lissie]

I'm sure it will be extended  - not just Europe - they are planning an Alaskan season and Canada requires everyone on board to be vaccinated - plus I'm pretty sure you need to be vaccinated to fly to Canada to join the ship in the first place. 

[naturelovergirl]

When the CDC recently created the voluntary monitoring program for cruise lines to opt in, all of the major cruise lines opted in by the deadline.

This means that we, as consumers, can look on the CDC site and see which ships are in the “highly vaccinated” category or not.

I honestly think that Cunard will absolutely want to be in that category.

I believe they will maintain high standards for a number a reasons- including that cruises travel internationally…. They won’t want to limit themselves. 

[3rdGenCunarder]

The problem is, I'm a little more than 3 months out from my cruise. I've made final payment without clear information from Cunard. So yes, I could watch the CDC website, but that's information I'll get after I've already paid for the cruise. Cunard should keep their information at a pace with final payment dates.

[exlondoner]

From Cunard's point of view, it is very hard to think of a disadvantage in maintaining the vaccination requirements, given their passenger base.

[lissie]

13 hours ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

The problem is, I'm a little more than 3 months out from my cruise. I've made final payment without clear information from Cunard. So yes, I could watch the CDC website, but that's information I'll get after I've already paid for the cruise. Cunard should keep their information at a pace with final payment dates.

They want to have ships doing seasons in Canada, Australia, Nz, Japan in the next year or so. There is exactly zero chance that those countries will dropping a vaccine requirement for foreigners.  I suppose they could have different rules for different ships /itineraries - but why ? Far to complex to manage. 

[3rdGenCunarder]

10 hours ago, lissie said:

They want to have ships doing seasons in Canada, Australia, Nz, Japan in the next year or so. There is exactly zero chance that those countries will dropping a vaccine requirement for foreigners.  I suppose they could have different rules for different ships /itineraries - but why ? Far to complex to manage. 

 

I agree that there will be countries keeping the vaccination requirement, and I agree that different rules for different voyages would be crazy. Perhaps Cunard is letting the ports be the "bad guy" who says no to visitors. But Cunard needs to make their policies clearer.

 

Someone who isn't vaccinated could look at the website and see that Cunard's vaccine requirement will expire in April or May, so they might book a cruise for June. And then it turns out that the port requires vaccination, even if Cunard doesn't. The "fine print" always says the passenger is responsible for being up to date on all health and document requirements, so would Cunard just say "oops, your bad," or would they allow a change to a later cruise? Cunard is already awash in rebookings and FCCs. it would be in their own best interest to clearly state a policy and not leave people wondering.

[Victoria2]

24 minutes ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

I agree that there will be countries keeping the vaccination requirement, and I agree that different rules for different voyages would be crazy. Perhaps Cunard is letting the ports be the "bad guy" who says no to visitors. But Cunard needs to make their policies clearer.

 

Someone who isn't vaccinated could look at the website and see that Cunard's vaccine requirement will expire in April or May, so they might book a cruise for June. And then it turns out that the port requires vaccination, even if Cunard doesn't. The "fine print" always says the passenger is responsible for being up to date on all health and document requirements, so would Cunard just say "oops, your bad," or would they allow a change to a later cruise? Cunard is already awash in rebookings and FCCs. it would be in their own best interest to clearly state a policy and not leave people wondering.

Cunard use the word 'currently' when describing vaccination policy dates. The literal meaning is 'at this time' which leaves the door open to change.

One would hope  non vaccinated passengers would book aware this could change but if they do book and subsequently find they need the jabs, at what point does the cruise line have to take responsibility for something they might not have any control over, assuming it's the ports of call which still require vaccinated  tourists?

I speak as one who thinks masks in certain areas of the ship should remain and all guests including all children  should be vaccinated.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Victoria2

[exlondoner]

I assume P and O are in the same position. I rather suspect that Cunard have been distracted from their vaccine policy update by working out where they are going to go instead of St. Petersburg. They have never given the impression of being good at multi-tasking, and they got rid of many of their staff because of Covid.

[3rdGenCunarder]

1 hour ago, Victoria2 said:

Cunard use the word 'currently' when describing vaccination policy dates. The literal meaning is 'at this time' which leaves the door open to change.

One would hope  non vaccinated passengers would book aware this could change but if they do book and subsequently find they need the jabs, at what point does the cruise line have to take responsibility for something they might not have any control over, assuming it's the ports of call which still require vaccinated  tourists?

I speak as one who thinks masks in certain areas of the ship should remain and all guests including all children  should be vaccinated.

 

Because port rules do change suddenly, I think Cunard should keep the vaccination requirement. It just makes things simpler all around. And as a vaccinated passenger, I'd like to know that people around me are also vaccinated. 

 

[mcloaked]

I would be very surprised if Cunard drops vaccination requirements - after all the majority of people who are fully vaccinated and boosted, find that if they are infected that their symptoms are mostly mild enough that isolating and taking normal pain killers will get them through. On the other hand unvaccinated people, and anyone not having had a booster is effectively unvaccinated when it comes to Omicron, and means that some fraction of people who are not triple jabbed will become severely ill if infected.and need hospital treatment which could cause significant problems for operating any cruise where there are significant numbers of unvaccinated passengers.  So it would be really surprising if Cunard did not extend the dates to require only fully vaccinated passengers on board when the current end date approaches.

[Victoria2]

25 minutes ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

Because port rules do change suddenly, I think Cunard should keep the vaccination requirement. It just makes things simpler all around. And as a vaccinated passenger, I'd like to know that people around me are also vaccinated. 

 

I totally agree.

[john watson]

If a change is made it seems likely to me that they will insist on three jabs for general passengers as this requirement is coming in under certain conditions.  The other issue is that children under five are not vaccinated and older than this have fewer jabs than adults generally speaking.  Children are not a bit sector of the Cunard passenger base.  In terms of risk going about your normal lives wherever you live your exposure might be significantly greater than a group that all had a negative covid test prior to boarding whereas this is not a requirement to enter a supermarket locally.

 

Regards John

Edited March 6, 2022 by john watson

[Darwould]

My concern is that Cunard has not updated their A to Z countries testing  requirement list since Feb 22 and countries such as Barbados have made significant changes to cruisers testing requirements for independent touring since then.  And they haven't updated others like Curaco on their list at all. 

[exlondoner]

5 minutes ago, Darwould said:

My concern is that Cunard has not updated their A to Z countries testing  requirement list since Feb 22 and countries such as Barbados have made significant changes to cruisers testing requirements for independent touring since then.  And they haven't updated others like Curaco on their list at all. 

 

Thats very poor.

[3rdGenCunarder]

1 hour ago, Darwould said:

My concern is that Cunard has not updated their A to Z countries testing  requirement list since Feb 22 and countries such as Barbados have made significant changes to cruisers testing requirements for independent touring since then.  And they haven't updated others like Curaco on their list at all. 

 

Thinking about the quality of Cunard's website, I wonder if it's better this way. Yes, you have to do your own research, but at least you'll have the "official" info from each country. 

 

[lissie]

1 hour ago, Darwould said:

My concern is that Cunard has not updated their A to Z countries testing  requirement list since Feb 22 and countries such as Barbados have made significant changes to cruisers testing requirements for independent touring since then.  And they haven't updated others like Curaco on their list at all. 

 Iwould trust absolutely nothing on their website - they can't even manage to have ability to purchase shore excursions consistently available. The website is clearly a very low priority for Cunard and it totally shows. Use the direct sources for countries rules don't reply on 3rd parties like Cunard

[neeuqdrazil]

Just got off the phone with Cunard (13 minutes from dialling to being done the convo, which I think might be a new record), and the agent I spoke to indicated that they're expecting updates to roll out by 'the end of this week', although given 3rdGenCunarder's experience, that may or may not actually happen. 

 

I also explicitly told the agent that if it isn't updated to extend the requirement for full vaccination, I will be cancelling. I doubt it will make a difference, but can't hurt to tell them. 

[sogne]

Canada has just published it's protocols for cruise ships namely all crew & pax fully vaccinated and pcr tests 72 h before  or LFT 24 h before arrival.  Along with Europe and the Far East/Australia/NZ requiring same l would hope Cunard will have no choice but to extend their current policy. As for the website words fail me. 

[Cdogg]

My deadline for paying or canceling is in about three weeks.

I am likely to cancel (along with the other family traveling with us) if the vaccination policy is dropped.

It is risky to be running a ship across the Atlantic, with no quick bailout, with COVID. There is also a recent example of a problem with transatlantic sailing - involving being turned around by destination ports.

https://www.ladbible.com/news/cruise-ship-forced-to-turn-around-to-uk-because-of-covid19-cases-20220306

I suggest people sharing this concern contact Cunard via phone or the Cunard vacation planner (the one who emails you) and tell them what you think. I am uncertain which way Cunard will go. The current momentum in the industry seems to be to stay with vaccination through most of 2022. However, I would not be surprised if quite a few Cunard customers are mildly anti vax or perhaps Cunard hope current positive trends continue.

 

It is also odd that by leaving the policy as written today (expiring in April or May) means people have booked thinking after these dates they can board without vaccination. I am not sure how happy they will be if the vaccination policy is extended - and clearly the time window for getting fully vaccinated is about to close for the first sailings after the currently listed end date.

[2BACRUISER]

We dont sail on QV until August but i would very much prefer it if the MUST be vaccinated mandate remains in place, although for a lot of people the effectiveness of the booster given over the winter will be starting to wain in its place 'herd' immunity should be stronger. I think many passengers would prefer this for peace of mind. 

[exlondoner]

9 hours ago, Cdogg said:

However, I would not be surprised if quite a few Cunard customers are mildly anti vax..

 

 

As you have stated this, I think it is important to be clear. Do you have any evidence for this or is it simply a vague feeling?