341
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Salamendacious@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Passengers who booked trips have been told refunds will be issued in monthly installments

...

Life at Sea Cruises' first three-year sailing was announced in March and promised passengers willing to fork out at least $29,999 per year

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] money_loo@1337lemmy.com 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

~~Is it just me or does 10k a year for full accommodations seem wildly cheap?~~

Fml I need coffee

[-] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 year ago

Even at $30k per year it was ridiculously cheap. I have a friend of a friend that was going to do this for his retirement. $2500 per month for a room and board that allows you to spend your life sailing from port to port is actually a great deal, and if/when you need more medical care you simply move back off of the ship. The idea was that passengers could just buy another ticket and keep sailing for as many years as they wanted.

I called this one.

  1. It sounded too good to be true. I had a feeling that they wouldn’t launch and if they did it’d be a floating Fyre Festival except with senior citizens who would not be able to escape.
  2. Cruise ships are Petri dishes as it is. The idea of a cruise consisting of mostly elderly people who stay on board and mingle with crowds in the various ports of call sounds like a death cruise. Just imagine a viral outbreak on that ship that was killing passengers, resulting in a lockdown.
  3. It was basically someone watching Wall-E and deciding that the dystopian part was actually a pretty idea.
[-] Krackalot@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 1 year ago
[-] scytale@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago

To be fair, 2.5k a month is what some people spend on rent+food+utilities. Assuming all food onboard is paid for, it's sounds like an ok deal for someone who actually wants to temporarily live on a cruise ship and has the income/savings to pay for all of it upfront.

[-] PhantomPhreak@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I agree. The only major difference I see, is you most likely have to at least pay for one year up front. I have heard of people doing exactly as you suggested, so it’s not really as crazy of an idea as it may sound.

If I could afford the upfront cost, I would definitely try it.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It does kinda sound like a fun way to spend 3 years, but it will probably suck. It’s not going to be a good room. You’re gonna get sick no matter what you do. And unless you actually have money leftover, you’re not going to be doing much in the ports. Also, you’ve got no storage for 3 years of souvenirs.

Oh and if you miss the boat, you’d have to fly to the next port to get back on.

[-] money_loo@1337lemmy.com 2 points 1 year ago

Thank you, that makes more sense.

[-] Fal@yiffit.net 16 points 1 year ago

Even 30k a year seems way cheap. Most of these "live at sea" "cruises" are orders of magnitude more expensive.

[-] money_loo@1337lemmy.com 3 points 1 year ago

I personally hate boats but yeah I could see people like my lil bro loving this sort of thing, he cruised at least once every couple years and loved it.

this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
341 points (96.0% liked)

News

23422 readers
3722 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS