A slight course correction
Given their fairness in all matters concerning cruise industry health and safety matters, I imagine I will soon be seeing a public apology from our friends at the major network news organizations and the decision-makers at our most respected newspapers concerning the issue of norovirus on cruise ships.
You see, the only judge we can trust on matters of public health, the research arm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has issued new findings based on 4,318 outbreaks of the disease between 2009 and 2012. It looked at the cause of 161,253 illnesses before issuing its latest report.
And guess what? It appears that the 24-hour news machines may have gone a bit overboard in placing the blame for the norovirus outbreaks at the feet of the cruise industry.
So here, in summary, is the research: 99% of the reported cases of norovirus occurred on land. Seventy percent of outbreaks from contaminated food were traced to infected food workers. And of those, 54% involved food workers touching "ready to eat" foods: for example, raw fruits and vegetables for salads or sandwiches.
Restaurant food preparation was most often the culprit in food contamination-related outbreaks. The CDC identified a major cause of the outbreaks as food handlers who do not stay home for 48 hours when they are feeling ill. That raises the distinct possibility that a significant portion of the 1% of norovirus outbreaks that actually did take place on cruise ships were brought aboard by passengers.
Whoops, CNN. Perhaps your reporters should spend more time in land-based kitchens and institutional food service lines. That might shed more light on this important public health subject. In fact, to protect our families from food-borne illnesses, it might not be a bad idea if we all spent more time at sea, away from the land-based food handlers in restaurants responsible for 99% of this illness. At least in the kitchens aboard the worldwide fleet, we know that many eyes are watching, and they employ certified food safety inspectors. I'm not sure about my local taqueria.
What? Some guests are worth more than others?
When Azamara Cruises and the luxury consortium Virtuoso announced a new commission plan that pays more for guests who book higher-priced accommodations and those who spend more onboard, we waited for other lines to copy this idea. Mostly, what we have heard to date has been silence, some of which has to be attributed to the logistical accounting challenges a larger cruise line might face implementing "worth-based" commissions.
But the airlines have shown no such hesitancy. In February, Delta announced it would tie frequent flyer miles to the price paid for a ticket. United has followed, announcing that its frequent flyer program, too, will base the miles it awards on the price the customer pays. Destination will not figure in the process.
As you might imagine, there are a great many rules, exceptions and indecipherable ramifications to the new programs. Bulk fares and so-called opaque fares will not count. Any United ticket reading "016" or beyond will be issued under the new system.
All eyes are now on American. But the merger with US Airways will have them preoccupied for a while.
The really big picture, of course, is that we are moving toward a revolutionary business concept that sectors of our industry seem to have just discovered: Some passengers are worth more to us than others.
Now I wonder how long will it be before retail sellers design programs and rewards to recognize that assigning a "net business worth" to every client might be a worthwhile endeavor. We used to sell anything to anyone. Who, I wonder, will be the last to turn off that light?
After you tour the castle
Many visitors to Prague this summer will, unfortunately, miss seeing the most important cultural collection in the city. It turns out that Prague's Toy Museum is now featuring an entire floor dedicated to the Barbie doll in all her splendor. The collection is quite impressive, much of it from the 1950s when Barbie burst forth in fashions posited as an affirmation of womanhood. The great irony is that none of that was permitted in Eastern Europe, and Barbie dolls were not allowed to be sold publicly there until 1989. I just love it when another country identifies a true American cultural icon, then places it on a pedestal we ourselves would be too embarrassed to design.
The missing single cabins
You have surely seen analyses of airline seating yields seeming to demonstrate clearly that by simply adding in two or three seats, an aircraft with average load factors can go from loss to profit. Seating design is crucial to airline profitability, and if an airline goes belly-up, none of its flyers will have any legroom at all.
Less discussed is the lack of single cabins on cruise ships. It is a major industry problem, and most current tonnage reflects an antiquated view of best berthing practices. If you are running a cruise line, a lack of single cabins will produce two specific problems:
First, you will need to charge single occupancy at 100% to simply obtain projected revenue goals. Anything less seriously dilutes yield.
Second, onboard staff and talent that cannot be housed in crew quarters are then placed as singles in cabins for two, seriously diluting revenue. Onboard entertainers, cruise consultants, lecturers, etc., are not considered crew. In many cases, their contracts stipulate that they will occupy a standard passenger cabin, resulting in significant loss of revenue. In the luxury category, single cabins are almost nonexistent. Look for the newest ship designs to address the problem.
Advice you need to share with clients
I've been asking travel agents what foods they tell their clients to avoid when traveling abroad. The answers have been so disappointing (the most frequent response has been "avoid spicy food") that I thought I would share some advice from a source who is a high-level department head at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The NIH regularly treats returning travelers, many fairly well-to-do Americans, who have eaten sushi, ceviche or other forms of raw fish in their travels. As a general rule, we should advise clients to try the local food, add spice if they like, but absolutely avoid anything raw. Ordering raw fish in an unknown restaurant is potentially dangerous outside certain prefectures in Japan.
The other area of dining overseas that requires familiarization is the consumption of shellfish, specifically clams, oysters and mussels, which, it turns out, increase our clients' chances of intestinal problems by up to 20 times if eaten during their travels. A surprising percentage of Europe's shellfish come from bays and lakes that are seriously polluted.
Food-avoidance consulting is tricky. I still can't figure out if beef, chicken or fish is the healthiest option for our clients in specific countries around the world. You might say, "I shouldn't worry about it," and you're probably right. But it does keep me up some nights. I never want a case of client food poisoning on my conscience.
Senior Contributing Editor Richard Bruce Turen was named a Superstar Generalist in Conde Nast Traveler's most recent list of Top Travel Specialists. He is the owner of luxury vacation firm Churchill & Turen and also owns and edits TravelTruth.com. Contact him at rturen@travelweekly.com.