danv3

They definitely could choose to enforce this strictly. Given their strong anti-cruise bias, it wouldn't be a huge surprise.

How do you make everyone happy? You don't. You choose the customer who is the most profitable and make that person happy (as long as you believe there are enough other people who feel the same way). X must think there are more than enough Customer A's out there. And X also knows that some Customer B's will gripe but still end up booking a cruise.

Went once on Majesty myself and would absolutely go again. So different from the other Caribbean ports.

On my last cruise there was a guest under cabin arrest for disorderly/violent conduct at a bar one night. He got to spend most of his cruise in an inside stateroom by himself with a security guard outside the door 24/7.

An aft cabin is never the wrong answer IMO.

Some interesting points: No cruises longer than 7 days Cruiselines must conduct testing at embarkation and disembarkation (it doesn't appear that a test at home before departure would count)

Sure they could, once the no sail order is lifted. Right now the CDC recommends against travel to virtually the entire world (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/map-and-travel-notices.html) yet international flights still depart the US daily. If the White House pressures/forces CDC to end the no sail order, cruises would be treated the same as other travel: not prohibited, but not recommended.

Nothing new. Posted in March and "reviewed" a few days ago. Not sure anything has changed. Arguably, this could be a sign that cruises are going to be allowed to proceed before too long, just against CDC advice.

Inauguration Day (should be the 20th though, error on my part).

It's pretty hard to discuss this without getting into politics, because the very question being asked is to what extent should political actors (the WH) have influence over the decisions of an agency that you'd expect to be fairly independent on matters within its competence (CDC). However, those who are eager to cruise should be very concerned by some of the language used by the Representative leading the investigation: " 'These ships shouldn’t leave port until we know passengers and crew will be safe and the ships won’t again become global vectors of disease,' Maloney said in a releas

If Royal Caribbean made false statements to you to induce you go on the cruise and you suffered harm as a result, then yeah, you probably should consider suing. If there's evidence that bookings weren't as strong as RCG was saying in February, they could have a problem. Likely, since COVID didn't really blow up until March, the statements in February were true when made, and this lawsuit ends up getting dismissed. But this is different from just "I'm mad that I lost money in the market! RCG should have done something!" The plaintiffs have alleged specific purportedly false statement

I don't know that this lawsuit is a winner, but I think it's more serious than some of the prior posters. One big tell is that the plaintiffs seem to have a legitimate firm representing them. This is not some random ambulance chaser in south Florida. It's a large, NYC-based securities litigation firm. Also, the real thrust of the complaint is some fairly rosy comments from early February: 42. During the call, Royal Caribbean’s executives explained that the positive trend in booking came from North America and Europe, where the pandemic was not yet concentrated. Despite significa

Yeah, dress code debates are very much a pre-COVID relic. I would be very surprised if cruise lines even pretend to have formal nights when they restart in 2021.

November and December cruises (from two ports only) "remain in place for the time being..." Seems like Carnival is starting to signal to its guests that 2020 cruises are done.

Correct. Assuming the T&C say what the article indicates, this case should be dismissed and refiled in England.