quote:

---

Originally posted by arosakulm:
I wonder what gives here?

---

Diverting a huge ocean liner from its "express crossing" in a fog to a canadian port, and then speeding extra knots to arrive earlier (or arriving late for both disembarking and incoming passengers) seems to me a costly affair.

Is this "included" in the "transatlantic crossing service" ???

I know travel insurance is obligatory when booking with Cunard. Is this part of it ? Often travel insurances have an upper limit, and this seems rather expensive.

And what if the passenger (not this one, but in general) has been silent about an existing condition when boarding the ship- than insurance companies won't see it as an "insurable risk" ?

I hope this passenger got the care he needed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johan:
This may be a cynical remark, as the situation of the sick passenger was clearly very serious,
but who is paying all this ?

Diverting a huge ocean liner from its "express crossing" in a fog to a canadian port, and then speeding extra knots to arrive earlier (or arriving late for both disembarking and incoming passengers) seems to me a costly affair.

Is this "included" in the "transatlantic crossing service" ???

I know travel insurance is obligatory when booking with Cunard. Is this part of it ? Often travel insurances have an upper limit, and this seems rather expensive.

And what if the passenger (not this one, but in general) has been silent about an existing condition when boarding the ship- than insurance companies won't see it as an "insurable risk" ?

I hope this passenger got the care he needed.

Johan

---

For travelling with a cargo ship you need an insurance covering such "deviations". I am not 100% sure, wheter this is included in a cruise fare, but I think so. Does anyone know about such an insurance for passenger ships?

For sure it is not a good idea to board a cruise ship without telling the cruise line about an existing health problem. But maybe there is also an insurance covering such an extra risk - does anyone have information on that? - I remember that some years ago, a friend of mine wanted to go to Alaska, but he had a heart problem, and they would have taken him only if he would have been payed for a helicopter "standing-by".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
(I guess cruise lines still would refuse to take a passenger with a "higher risk" (for reason) even with guaranteed financial compensation for any incident)

---

It is compulsory when booking from the UK to have insurance [this is in all the cruiselines' T&Cs]. If you don't take that offered by the cruiseline [which I assume would cover all eventualities], you have to provide the details of your own cover when booking, and it must be of a comparable status or better.

However when booking from the US, I gather from numerous postings elsewhere, that insurance is optional on most lines. Maybe all? I don't know; is it optional on Cunard?

If you can't get the insurance cover in the UK, then you can't go on the cruise, and yes people are regularly refused cover. Happened quite unnecessarily to an Aunt of mine. She had very mild dementia and was travelling with 2 companions, but the doc the insurance company sent her to, would not sign the insurance papers to say she was able to care 100% for herself if the companions both amazingly popped off together. [Her own Dr said it was ludicrous she couldn't go, but once declined you have little come back]. She was not allowed onboard.

In this days newspaper, under the heading "The Titanic of the 21st Century - -The Cursed Ocean Liner - 4th evacuation in 2 years time"
he describes the recent events : (shortened and translated) :
" a 73 year old american received internal bleeding during breakfast. The captain decided the situation was too serious and decided to make a 5hrs detour. Because of the fog, helicopters couldn't come, and a rubber boat came to pick up the man. He was lowered on a brancard with ropes. The passenger was anaesthesised. He received lots of water over him. The passengers applauded for the courage of the rescuers. The ship is sailing faster now to catch up the lost time"

The article is accompanied by a rather good pic of the QM2, and a smaller pic showing the brancard being lowered in a small boat.

The article goes on, stating the "dark history" of the ship
*the accident on the yard
*lots of seasickness
*an engine failure during the second crossing of the Atlantic : the ship floats during hours without power
*late departure because of a terrorist attack fear
*bad advertisement : the chairs can't stand the weight of the passengers
*fire security problems : too few smoke detectors, no fire alarm drill that succeeded
*high maintenance costs, and not a bad reputation

I gather the journalists home got lost in to the archives, and wrote up a lot of old stuff, still it is not good having a nickname as 'Titanic of the 21st century"

quote:

---

Originally posted by arosakulm:

A search and rescue spokesperson in Halifax declined to say what was wrong with the passenger but did say "If I was the passenger and had this condition, I would be wanting o see medical personnel".

I wonder what gives here?

---