GrandmaAirplane

How about a cruise that just sails to BOTH of RC’s private destinations? Maybe even multiple day stays at one
Like: Miami/Sea Day/Labadee/2x sea days/Coco Cay/Coco Cay/Sea Day/Miami

Didn't CBC released news yesterday, there might be talks of closing the border for a year?

Nailed it +1
Not to worry, if there is something I'm told I am not allowed to participate in my curiosity is peeked! I don't like missing out, so yes make it special, I will be on my voom searching like crazy.
For me being of a certain age, a great deal of the concert venue shows are cover bands as the real one's are not performing anymore. The years march on...
I recently saw Dennis Deyoung with his entourage as well as Don Henley, Joe Jackson and Deacon Fry, oh my word I felt like a teenager again. But if your group was say a great Eagles cover I would be researched and in search of the promotions person on the ship, most likely booking before I left the one I was on. Just speaking for me for the love of music, the exposure would pay off big time,
Signed,
I miss my music!

Nailed it.  
If the band is concerned that these private events may limit their exposure, then they need to talk to their manager to make sure that their branding is at least obvious.  While Royal will have the venues marked as closed for a private event, there's no reason why the band can't attach a poster to that sign.  They may want to consider giving everyone that is part of a group an exclusive T-shirt, give them lanyards for their SeaPass cards that have a "VIP" pass attached with the band's name.  These little things will get noticed by other passengers and some of them will do a little bit of online research.
My question is that what does the band/booking agent want to gain from this?  A tribute band is a little bit different than a band that has their own original music that they are promoting.  

OK, I'll bite.  Here is the very short story.  My family & friends found ourselves on the 2012 Freedom charter by the High Seas Rally group - essentially a bunch of bikers.  They accounted for over 2200 passengers on that sailing.  I would have never booked that cruise had I known and now always check (as best as possible) to make sure I am not booking a partial chartered cruise.  The majority of the cruisers were smokers (muster was horrible), formal night attire was mostly leather (picture backgrounds catered to them), fireworks on the ship (thought this was against ship rules), pirate banners on balconies (thought this was against ship rules), and even sex in public!  You get the idea.  Anyway on the way down to dinner in an elevator with my family, a drunk Rally member jumped into our elevator with his wife.  She was in a wheelchair, so he was carrying both of their glasses of red wine.  At every floor we stopped at he proceeded to invite waiting people into our elevator - even though we were pretty full.  He was drunk and having his own fun.  Anyway, a guy on the elevator (not us) tried to get him to stop, but he was not having it.  When we reached the floor above where we were having dinner, he got out with his wife AND as the door was almost closed he threw both glasses of red wine at us!   My older sister is very proper and very well dressed.  Unfortunately, she got most of the red wine on her dress.  I was pissed so chased him down, got into a fight, and the captain had us both dropped off at the next stop in Jamaica.  My mistake, I should have summoned security.  Please learn from my mistake.  So far, I have...

Obviously all they have to do is snap their fingers and these smaller US ports will magically have the infrastructure to be able to support another cruiseline.  Royal can magically procure the contracts they need to provision the ship for every turnaround and ink new deals to accomplish this while they are cash-strapped.  Not going to happen during the pandemic -- even in a normal environment it takes a significant amount of time to start operating from a new port.  They've hinted about starting back on the West Coast, but likely were in the process of establishing the infrastructure and contracts and schedules and feasibility studies to determine if it can really happen.  It's a multi-year process before they even officially make an announcement.
Even with the established ports, cruising isn't a closed system.  It relies on a lot of external companies that provide services for them.  All of those systems have to come online and be operational and be able to fulfill their end of the contract for the cruises to happen.  We can blame the CDC all we want but if they give the go ahead too soon we could see what's happening in Florida where things were reopened and then the companies shut down again because of an outbreak.  I'd love to be optimistic, but they're better off waiting until they are sure that's not going to happen and everything is operating close to normal.

How ever close that they may be to a plan, I bet that they will hold off on releasing it until they see how the theme park re-openings go. Any serious epidemiologist on the joint panel will be watching what happens in Florida closely in the next few weeks.
I’m sure that they will be keeping a close eye on this for other reasons too: to see what the guest response will be; and, to see if any future infection hotspots has a finger pointed to what the media would be glad to blame on “the corporate greed of having re-opened too soon”.
The media would love to get attention from blasting Disney... and would twitch with pleasure to do the same with cruise lines.

Makes sense - shorter itineraries, focus on the Bahamas (now a “cruising economic zone”), close to the piggy-back Orlando travel market.

I'm all for it, and anyone who gets caught ignoring new health standards should get a warning, and then if there is another violation should be confined to their room or dropped off at the next port.

I cut most of your post to save space, but I'd "like" it twice if I could.

Since I work in a supermarket, I wear a mask at work.  I even started wearing one before they were mandatory.  They really aren't that big of a deal.

While I'm all about freedoms and have plenty of concerns with government overreach, mask/face covering usage is simply not the hill to die on.



 

I think masks are controversial because they are new to most people in the West. 
In the US the CDC flip flopped on masks.  Initially in early 2020 they said masks were not needed unless you were in contact with someone known to be infected.  I wonder to this day if they took that position due to the shortage of masks so that people wouldn't hoard masks like toilet paper and prevent healthcare workers from being able to get masks.  In doing so they ignored science themselves and that is where they went off the rails.  Later they flipped and said masks were beneficial. 
Anytime an agency like the CDC does a 180 it's going to fuel controversy.  
My personal believe is that masks are part of the solution but not the entire solution.  The virus is still out there, it hasn't changed in how it spreads so easily since the first cases eight months ago.  If a mask in public places gives me a 17% better chance avoiding spreading the virus that's good enough for me.  Does it solve everything?  No.  Do I need to wear a mask in my living room with family who aren't known to be infected?  No.  If a family member was known to be infected you bet I'd be wearing a mask around my home and they would be wearing one too.  If my mask isn't perfect maybe my chances of transmission drop to 10%.  That's still enough for me to wear a mask.  
In my past I have driven a car in situations where I probably shouldn't have due to drinking alcohol.  Over the years I've never killed anyone doing so, never even got in an accident of any kind.  Yet the awareness that I could kill someone despite feeling invincible caused me to change my ways.  Just take an Uber.  Could be the best $15 I ever spent.  It's a pain sometimes but probably the best thing to mitigate the horrible possibility that would come from taking a life in a DUI accident. 
Wearing a mask follows this logic.  Of course if I felt sick I wouldn't go out and risk spreading it.  The science tells us that you can be infected and contagious without knowing it.  I don't ever want to be in a position to know I passed it along and caused someone else to die but I still need to go shopping and do things in public.  When this is all said and done I want to be able to look back and know I did everything I could to not be part of the problem.  So I wear a mask when shopping.  My mask procedure isn't perfect but it's something I can do to be part of the solution.  When others see me wear my mask it reinforces that they should too.  That is when it is even more effective.  Lead by example, motivate others without overtly calling them out, shaming them or confronting their choice not to wear a mask.  Let my adult children see me do it so I lead by example.  
The virus hasn't changed in eight months with respect to ease of transmission.  We need much of society to open, we need commerce.  With the virus basically unchanged masks are a means to allow society to reopen in some limited ways that will improve our economy while reducing the chances of spread.   
If wearing masks outside of my cabin on a ship proves to be an effective mitigation that allows cruising to resume I will wear a mask on a cruise and proudly sport my mask tan lines.  It may be the step that saves the cruise lines so it's totally worth it but we need everyone to get on board.  If it's required to cruise it needs to be enforced and there should be ramifications for those that said they would do it but choose not to.  If you won't wear a mask on a cruise I respect your choice not to sail for that reason but don't board a ship knowing you intend to violate the mask policy.  That's just not cool.

I knew mask were going to be the sore spot, which is why even if I could cruise this year, I wouldn't feel comfortable. If people thought the CDC would have ease the restriction early, they would have only done so if mask were at 90% or higher. For every sane, kind and respectful person on a cruise there are three more who don't wash hands, save loungers that they never use, crowds on others and touches Windjammer food with their filthy hands.
I know a lot of people want RCCI to be more transparent but I get where they are coming from. If they release even probable protocol, people will take it as the truth. They will then get mad if/when the CDC contradicts it. Just look at this post, people where upset until another user pointed out this was not but an opinion. However, I don't doubt that a quarantine is in the picture if we want cruising back soon.

I don't see Royal using a person's zip or postal code to ban people from cruising.   Royal hasn't offered a company policy on the matter.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Now that I've answered I'm going to be lengthy in my response because I think you've touched upon an important area:  Listening to a snippet of an answer during a question and answer session and then deriving company policy from it. 
There was a Q&A session during an investor call where this "drive market" idea originated.
Keep in mind calls with investors are standard when a company is publicly traded.  They occur on a periodic basis and they give investors an opportunity to understand how the executives of a company are managing the company with respect to the money the investors have placed into the company.  
These calls tend to open with various company executives making statements then they move into a Q&A where someone can ask a question.  On the spot someone from Royal answers the question.  They have a split second to consider the question and say something.  However when listening to the answer we need to keep in mind the purpose of the call - it's a call with investors.  This wasn't a call with the the CDC.  This wasn't a call with a government task force on the virus.  Everything on these calls is centric to investors of the company.  
Executives aren't given the questions beforehand.  They have no idea what questions will be asked during the Q&A portion of the investor call.  However based on these answers some people are turning these comments into official company policy or extrapolating positions from the answers.  Before people do so they should consider the context and overall flow of the Q&A session. 
The answer that ports will be driveable is a good example.  In a call with an investors a question was asked.  Let's look at the question:
Felicia Hendrix
Jason, just getting back to the liquidity question. It seems like so many companies across different sectors, not just cruise are assessing the market as much as they can, given that the window is open now. So, some may view your decision to wait as risky. So, I'm just wondering, should we read into the fact that you haven't secured any incremental liquidity on top of what you've already done that you feel more optimistic than others regarding the recovery? And then, also, can you just help us understand how you're thinking about your rollup? You're mentioning that -- you did mention that you're starting to see demand for fourth quarter. So, just wondering how we should think about the amount of capacity that you'll roll out as the industry opens. I bolded the last sentence because that's the part of the question that creates the answer involving drive markets.
Jason Liberty is the company Chief Financial Officer.  He's the money person.  Here is his response:
Jason Liberty
Yes. So, I'll take the first one. I think, the way that you would read it is, I don't think we're overly optimistic. I think we are being -- looking at the reality of the situation. And when we kind of evaluate our different Return to Service plans and different scenarios; that was the emphasis for us raising the capital all that we did this past week. So, again, I think we have to see how things play out. And I think that we have a lot of good quality brands, quality assets. And I think that we would evaluate the markets if we see circumstances change outside of the different scenarios that we're evaluating. So, I won’t read into it at all that we're optimistic. I think, I would read into it that we think we've taken the actions on the capital raising side based off of what we currently think. And we also think that there's more opportunity for us to do, on the cost and capital side to further reduce our burn rate. Clearly his answer is financial in nature but from a cruiser perspective there isn't much of interest there.  Richard Fain decides to jump in an add something addressing the last part of the question.
Richard Fain
And, Felicia, this is Richard, and I'll just comment on the process of returning to service. I think, we don't expect that this is going to be that someday somebody blows a horn and all the ships start operating right away. We think that it will be a gradual start, a little bit like societies in -- is opening up gradually. And so, we would imagine that we would start with -- smaller with fewer shifts and more likely to be more drive markets in the beginning, and they would then evolve and grow from there. I also think, coming back to the earlier question that such being differences between what's happening in different countries, what's happening in the local society with different mix of where the ships are and where they're going. So, I also think that you'll see that high degree of variability depending on what area of the world you're talking about. But to answer your second question, we see that as a slow and gradual thing, not suddenly a lot of ships coming back in the market. I've bolded the answer that so many people are using to interpret and glean policy from.  
"...and more likely to be drive markets in the beginning"
From an investor perspective they are indicating where they think the majority of their customers will come from in the restart phase of cruising.  This lets investors know not to expect the entire market of consumers that existed before the virus to be available to consume the product during the initial restart.  Basically investors should expect fewer consumers which will translate into lower revenue.
When you look at the overall answer it gives you context to understand what the he thinks will occur as cruising resumes from an investment perspective.
Some people took this to mean that Royal was going to develop new cruise ports and sail from new coastal cities so that more people can drive to a ship.  People offered Charleston, SC or Norfolk, VA as the cities that Royal will move into to support this official company plan to develop new drive markets.  Many other cities were offered as potential drive markets.
Some people took this to mean that flying to a cruise won't be allowed by policy.
I don't see either viewpoint in the ten words within the answer.  This wasn't a policy statement.  It's ten words off the top of his head inside of two full paragraphs of an answer.
The ten words within the answer doesn't equate to a company policy.  
His real answer is summarized in his last sentence:
"But to answer your second question, we see that as a slow and gradual thing, not suddenly a lot of ships coming back in the market." - nothing in that to derive policy from, it's simple.  Investors should not expect full past revenue once cruising resumes.   Revenue will be lower initially and increase slowly from there.
Royal has never stated a company policy or offered an official methodology for their return to cruising.  Royal has no idea if I or anyone else will drive to a port or fly on plane if that guest doesn't book airfare through Royal.  They don't know if I have a second home in Florida where I spend my winters.  Nor do they care.  
So to answer your question, I don't see Royal using a person's zip or postal code to ban people from cruising but Royal hasn't said anything officially on the matter.

Just saw this. As far as RC is concerned, our cruise leaving Venice on 10/3/20, is still a go. Not for us though. Too many uncertainties still. We are going to move it till next year, which brings us to the Ravenna situation. I have asked myself, if the original cruise was leaving from Ravenna and not Venice, would we still be excited? Hell yes! It's still a cruise! Depending on the shuttle situation we might keep our original plan of spending two nights in Venice on the front end and taking the shuttle from the airport to the port in Ravenna. Lots to think about, but we now have another year to plan. Things could be worse and have been for so many others. 
 
Happy cruising!

I’ll put in a very unpopular opinion:
Your optimism, JeffB, although based on educated assumptions, is flawed in its implicit belief that people will be rational, reasoned and responsible. Too many cruise guests simply won’t “behave”: they will defy recommendations to maintain even basic hygiene and “masking or distancing” requirements, aimed at preventing the spread of infection; some will lie; and quite a few simply will not care. Enough of them don’t even believe that there is any issue around this “flu” (that it’s all hyped “fake news”) - just listening to interviews with the Tulsa rally attendees made me shake my head.
Communities will be playing whack-a-mole with cyclical flare-ups of this virus for *at least* another year or two - at least until an effective vaccine is developed (and adopted) - or better yet - an effective treatment protocol is found to properly deal with the more severe cases, as well as dealing with the persistent effects of the “milder” cases.
What has clearly emerged is that tourism played a big role in this virus’ spread across the globe. Many countries will not be very quick to welcome back unrestrained tourism, or permit their citizens to travel without conditions in the short-term. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some yo-yo action, forward and backward between phases, in some’s efforts in reopening to tourism. The emphasis on regional “bubbles” for unrestrained travel is going to greatly complicate the future market for cruises. Reduced numbers of available flights and routes, well into 2021, will also have an impact. I am certain that analysts within the cruise lines and CLIA are taking all of this into account, beyond just dealing with the CDC.
The majority of cruisers are itinerary motivated. The average cruiser will chose a cruise vacation based on all the perks of cruises (versus a land-based vacation), which the new protocols will severely restrict (such as buffets, pools, activities, entertainment venues, etc.). People in forums like this one are neither the majority nor the “average” cruiser - we’re the keeners. FCC and “Lift and Shift” were the only ways to keep the majority of existing 2020-21 cruise reservations on the books into 2021, and prevented a fatal cash flow hemorrhage.
As well, travel insurance and cruise contract “fine print” will unfortunately not be kind to cruisers going forward. Guests hoping for relief should Covid-19 interfere with their new vacation plans or, worse yet, get their vacation interrupted/complicated because of a flare up, are likely to be left holding the bag.
The cruise companies know their market$, so I am 100% certain that the CDC is no more than just another factor in the business decisions that they are forced to make right now.

@JeffB Considering Fain has mumbled/walked back over the Aug 1st start date, hence him saying "when they return things will be...." I would raise my August to maybe 23% but no higher.
I personally want to be proven wrong but too much evidence says to the contrary....like a CEO or other top executive making vague statements. I want cruises to start asap so all the kinks can be worked out by the time I feel comfortable enough to step on a ship. Where you lose me is your belief that Trump plays a part and that I somehow  believe they haven't developed protocols. I stated that if it was "business only" based they haven't implemented any from a financial aspect. I have no doubt these past few months they have been at the drawing board. Why spend money, when A) you are already one of the cleanest, and B) they aren't approving said protocols. I can easily assume they haven't because they released their COVID protocols early on in the beginning of the year when cases started to appear. Listening to Fain he talks of blue ribbon panels and other stuff but vaguely...he also makes it seem like he is waiting until the CDC gives them a green light.
I don't think anyone in government has the "best interest" of people or businesses not associated with them. This is why governments and such need to stay out of business, create committees and arbitrary rules, but stay in your lane.  Had Trump and the government had such interest, we wouldn't have had to rush openings, beg to reopen or have so many failing businesses. I am sorry but Trump only cares about optics, he wants business to thrive so he can say he brought the USA back from economic extinction. Trump mentioned CCL and the cruise industry once or twice, in the beginning. They got no incentives and have been hung out to dry. Nobody is lobbying for them but themselves. While the amount of jobs the cruises industry provides might not be nothing to sneeze at, they are still international companies.
As far as lawsuits goes, didn't say anything about whether the person has a chance at winning. Just that a person could sue. We all should be familiar with guilty until proven innocent, it happens all the time in life and even on this board. People don't read the cruise contract or choose wrong, then they post how RCCI is a fraud or nefarious etc. Now someone who doesn't know better think ill of RCCI. A lawsuit whether it is frivolous or not, hurts a company's image and people often reply with their wallet. Think about all the companies issuing BLM statements and firing people who have had racist issues in their past. We, I am a black woman, make up only 13% of the population....yet every company is trying to prove they aren't racist. So imagine a person suing for neglect because of COVID, the average person is going to go "boooooo no cruises, they wrong"...I mean that's what I read any time an article is posted about cruise lines.

I like your optimist view, though I think it is close to being maybe 60% spot on. I would like to slightly counter with a realist, not pessimist or negative view.....
Late August with a miracle, September 1st at 50% chance but middle September at 85% probability.
So far based off of information, no plans have been approved. So as a business, they want to avoid any extra debts and focus on profitability. Do we really believe any of the cruise lines have spent money on protocols that haven't been approved? Do you think those protocols can be made in 40 days or less? How about 30 or 6? Also ships need to be reposition.....would RCCI just waste resources on a prayer? August 1st is 43 days away with nothing from the CDC indicating a lift in the ban or approval of plans. A nearby casino got word they could open in May but took almost 30 days to get their protocol in place; they open on the 20th. Theme parks have been announcing weeks or even a month before opening, including their protocols in the announcement. I cannot see RCCI not including the protocols in their "welcome back" announcement, nor can I see the "welcome back" announcement happening in less than 30 days before sailing.
While it is true that the media and the government have turn COVID into something ....using fear tactics, down/up playing the risk, falsifying numbers. Just one case on a ship can turn into a fustercluck. So far cruise lines seem to be the only thing left by which people can sue for COVID, I doubt this is a small thing to a business that is currently in the midst of bad publicity. Public opinion is not on the cruises side: do you err on the side of caution and put as much in place to avoid that, or do you risk future income by rolling the dice? I am starting to think that until countries allow international travel, with little to no quarantine, there will not be any cruises. In the beginning many of the lines secured capital to last them awhile, I don't see RCCI rushing into things for the sake of.....or just because one port is waiting. Also many countries have to carefully consider whether they want to risk everything for their tourist economy. Sick people can put a burden on a weak infrastructure. So allowing tourist to fly in and stay at resorts is different than hosting multiple ships, full of 1000s of people, a day.

I worked a summer season in a coastal resort near Ravenna in the distant past. It's a looong way from Venice, as the transfer time testifies.
In case it might be helpful for anyone travelling independently and not able or willing to avail themselves of the shuttle services, there are several international airports closer to Ravenna than Venice Marco Polo.
The closest is Rimini at a distance of 34 miles. It is mostly a tourist gateway to the Adriatic coast, so the majority of flights will be European low-costs but it might work for some, especially Brits.
Next is Bologna at a distance of 46 miles, followed by Florence at 65 miles. These two will undoubtedly offer a wider range of "proper" international flights, so may work better for anyone coming from the States.
As a caveat, I have to say I don't know how easy (or difficult) it is to get from any of these airports to Ravenna. Things will certainly be very different from the days when I guided coach-loads of package holidaymakers up and down the coast too many years ago to mention! 

I would go a step further and actually have it sent to their special services department before arriving at the terminal. 
The terminal staff aren’t well trained in these kind of issues and the simple phrase of “just check my file, it’s already in there” may get you to the cruise equivalent of “level 2 support” even quicker. 

@WAAAYTOOO
That is my point.  Look at it.  This forum has maybe 1% of 1% of all cruisers.  
Yet, here you go.  2 of us are not the "norm/avg" when it comes to body temps.  
You could have a 99.6 and they will say you are good to go.  However, for me that would really be a 102 degree temp since my body is 3 degrees higher than yours.  
It is just down right ridiculous.  I am not lying nor exaggerating, I really feel like I am going to take not only a notarized letter from my doc, but an ear thermometer too. 
Caveat, I believe that is all BS!  I keep thinking Covid is like the chicken pox.  You can be contagious without showing symptons for days.  I get on the ship with perfect temp...sea day day 2.  Port day day 3.  Still good.  Sea day day 4 (they don't check), port day 5, come back and my temp is high. UHHHH...I just spent 5 days where I went to the Balloon drop, ate in the MDR for lunch, used my Thermal pass, played trivia in Schooners...etc, etc, etc.  So what good is doing these checks if .we know that there is a lag time from exposure to symptomatic, and on top of that some people are a-symptomatic. 
I might actually cancel my cruise, because of the thought of port days.  I can't even fathom how long it will take standing outside waiting to board at a port like OSJ in May when they have to fore head scan every single passenger on Symphony.   Seriously, think about how long that line will be.  
 

Also, if yours are anything like the ones my mom gets a trade shows, the stress of possibly being denied boarding would make it even worse. 

Yes. Currently out in Vegas for employees if you pop on the scan you can either turn around or sit down for 15 minutes and go through again. If after that you are still above the threshold they give you secondary screening. 
if there’s not a million false positives when it’s 110 degrees in Vegas we should survive coming back from the beach in Nassau. 

I was thinking more of the possibility of an American Administration that isn’t exactly into globalization and may continue international travel bans we’ll into the latter parts of this year. You in the UK may be set to get into Spain, but may have more trouble being admitted into the US. 

I hope you are right!  I would think every effort will be made for the president's cruise to happen. On the other hand, Spain may be doing great but do they really want a bunch of Americans and Brits showing up??

Just guessing, but if I were a betting man, I’d guess that Allure’s Europe season gets cancelled and that the trans-Atlantic comes back empty. Knowing how crazy governments are right now, telling the CDC that a ship is coming back with 6,000 guests that have been potentially exposed in Spain probably won’t go over well.