Cruise Org's Response to 100 Day Suspension

[npcl]

4 hours ago, MarkWiltonM said:

 

How is this any different from large, "U.S." corporations like Google and Apple opening large hubs in cities such as Dublin that court them with favorable tax treatment?  The cruise industry is being picked on unfairly.  Cruise ships are large floating hotels with restaurants and entertainment venues.  Why not pick on Las Vegas? Disney World? Airlines?  Ever heard of Legionnaire's disease?  It can contaminate hot water tanks, hot tubs, and cooling towers of large air conditioners. It's often deadly and when it strikes it's usually a hotel.   

Last time I looked the casinos in Las Vegas were shutdown, so is Disney World, the Airlines in the US are now carrying fewer passengers per day than prior to the first flight of the 707.  So it is not just the cruise lines shut down. 

 

However, unlike the other venues the cruise lines are not inside the US.  They operate on the borders so they fall directly under the control of the powers of the CDC to limit spread.  The other venues are located inside of the US so they fall under the governors of the states they are located.  In a state the CDC can advise but has no direct authority.

 

The Federal government can restrict flights to/from the US, which they have done so.  The governors, such as the governor of hawaii, can require all arriving passengers on flight to a 14 day quarantine which Hawaii.   The other state have more travel by land than air inside the US..

 

Passenger air travel in the US is now around 100,000 per day, compared to the normal 2 million per day.

Edited April 13, 2020 by npcl

[Pushka]

7 hours ago, bEwAbG said:

If these were ocean liners being used solely as transportation, that might be relevant.  These are floating hotels taking people on vacation.  Airplanes serve many more functions.  Most flights are short in duration versus days or weeks long.  They therefore never get to the point of becoming sick wards that require so many government resources (federal, state, & local).  It's this last issue that has put cruise lines on the ropes because most governments, particularly the U.S. government, have insisted the industry come up with a way to plan for & pay for these situations going forward.  Basically, the industry shot itself in the foot by not voluntarily stopping cruises sooner, particularly when it was painfully obvious what was likely to (and did) happen.

This sums up the situation perfectly.  Cruises should have been stopped as soon as The Diamond Princess incident occurred. Flights may transport people with the virus but they don't spread the virus. There just isn't the same length of contact. We know from Ruby that with over 700 infections and 16 deaths, one as recently as yesterday,  that the ship, did not cause the virus but it sure as heck was the reason for its spread. 

[Pushka]

3 hours ago, rte said:

Here in New Zealand it was the airlines that were the main reason for infection which came very quick.

At least with cruising and proper reporting they were easy to send away. Put the blame where

it belongs on the airlines.Cruising it just an easy target

I understand  that NZ Govt is considering taking legal action against Carnival as it has been established that the Ruby Princess Cruise port stop resulted in several NZ'ers developing Covid. Australia has already commenced its criminal investigation into Ruby Princess. 

Edited April 13, 2020 by Pushka

[Iamcruzin]

21 minutes ago, npcl said:

Just about any time you are outside of your cabin you are passing within 6 feet of someone.  After spending a week on a cruise you will have passed within 6 feet of a good portion of everyone else on the same cruise.

Our local supermarkets have limited the amount of occupants able to shop at one time and have made the aisles one way (wish they would keep it that way when this is over). Even with that and placing markers on the floor and at the checkout line it's impossible to keep a 6ft distance even when you are conscience of it. I can't see this happening on a cruise ship. 

[Big_G]

No offense to the tax hawks on this site but...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/these-91-fortune-500-companies-didnt-pay-federal-taxes-in-2018.html

[npcl]

1 minute ago, Big_G said:

No offense to the tax hawks on this site but...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/these-91-fortune-500-companies-didnt-pay-federal-taxes-in-2018.html

For one year. There are years without profits, after all it is income tax, there are carried over credits from previous years, etc.

 

How about if you look at them over 10 years and then compare to the cruise lines for total taxes paid?

 

CCL does pay a little because of their resort properties and tour business in Alaska.

[Big_G]

2 hours ago, Pennstateman said:

No bailouts.  They should plan to have an emergency fund just like people do. If not, there are bankruptcy laws for that purpose.  Let them reorganize.  

 

Royal alone lost $20 BILLION of $28 BILLION in market cap since January. Combined, the three public traded companies have lost $750 MILLION. I don't see a rainy day fund covering that.

[npcl]

1 minute ago, Big_G said:

 

Royal alone lost $20 BILLION of $28 BILLION in market cap since January. Combined, the three public traded companies have lost $750 MILLION. I don't see a rainy day fund covering that.

Market cap has nothing to do with operations and expense.  All it impacts the ongoing aspects of a company is in their ability to raise money by selling equity.

 

Did you know that at the end of December RCL had a liability of 3,428 million of customers deposits received, but at the same time had 244 million in cash and equivalent on hand.  So if they hand to refund all of those deposits they will need 14 times the cash on hand just to refund the deposits.

 

A rainy day fund, they didn't even have a good weather fund.  Current Liabilities was 7,952 million compared to current assets of 1,162 million.   That is why they and the other cruise lines had to try and raise as much money as they could. Their entire business model is built around constant cash flow.

[Big_G]

43 minutes ago, npcl said:

For one year. There are years without profits, after all it is income tax, there are carried over credits from previous years, etc.

 

How about if you look at them over 10 years and then compare to the cruise lines for total taxes paid?

 

CCL does pay a little because of their resort properties and tour business in Alaska.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-the-18-companies-that-paid-no-taxes-over-8-years/

[MarLieb]

2 hours ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

I'd like to know what plane you have been on lately...spaced? maybe in business class. On a cruise ship it would not be that hard to stay 6 feet spacing, all you have to do is try. And I would say that it's true, transference does mostly happen aboard THE AIRPLANE. You do have one thing right, flying moved COVID 19 around the world quickly. Unfortunately cruise ships are a large target to scapegoat for their part in this pandemic. And BTW airplanes are great for moving people but as far as commerce and things, look to ships, trains and trucks. And with modern technology office workers can meet with office workers over the internet, so people don't need to move by air that much either. So are airplanes really more "Necessary"? 

This thread got ugly a few days back and posts were edited. Suffice to say IMO the cruise industry has received undo criticism and scrutiny while the largest contributor to the spread has had a pass because it is "necessary"

So as I have said before don't fix the blame, fix the problem. And what are we each willing to do to fix the problem?

 

Most commercial flights that are currently flying right now are actually being used to transfer cargo.  It is the fastest way to transport goods long distances.  That is why you are hearing stories of flights only carrying one or two passengers at the moment.  I asked my relative who works for the Port Authority and helps oversee operations at JFK why these flights are still operating (seemed like a waste of money to me).  He explained the reason they are still flying is 1) the airlines want to maintain their slots so they don't lose them and 2) the plane is mostly being used to transfer cargo at this point.

 

I do believe flights are necessary for many reasons, in this day and age, including the luxury of vacationing.  Unless a cruise is leaving from NY or NJ, I can't cruise unless I fly to the embarkation port area.  In that sense, the cruise lines are quite dependent on the airline industry to transfer their guests to the cruises.  The airline industry could certainly continue without the cruise lines but that certainly would not be true vice versa.  If the airlines tank or cease operations, the cruise lines are literally dead in the water.  I don't think sailings out of FL, for instance, could be filled with only residents of, say, FL, GA and other bordering states.

 

I'm not arguing that the virus wasn't spread via flights - I just don't think what the CDC is asking the cruise lines to do is unreasonable.  If the cruise lines can improve their onboard medical facilities and capabilities and come up with a plan to be more self-sufficient in times of medical distress or emergency, all cruise guests and crew would benefit from that.  I don't think any of us want to be stuck on a ship the way people were on ships like the Zaandam nor would I want to see my fellow cruisers and also crew members in that position in the future.  What can we all do?  This is probably a good time, IMHO, for people in all industries to reflect on what we could do better should something like this ever happen again.  And though the CDC didn't issue orders for airlines (at least that I am aware of) and didn't single them out per se, the worldwide travel bans and border closures certainly imply that this virus spreads via all methods of travel and the airline industry has been decimated.  

[npcl]

41 minutes ago, Big_G said:

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-the-18-companies-that-paid-no-taxes-over-8-years/

So your 91 of the fortune 500 is now down to 18. 

 

from your article

 

Among the roughly half of Fortune 500 companies that were consistently profitable between 2008 and 2015, the effective federal income tax rate was 21.2 percent over that eight-year period, according to a study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Eighteen of them, including General Electric (GE) and Priceline.com (PCLN), paid no federal income taxes during that time.  

 

So lets see from the article you referenced the companies that were consistently profitable between 2008 and 2015 the effective tax rate was 21.2%.  The cruise lines were consistently profitable and certainly large enough to be in the fortune 500 but their tax rate was basically 0%.

 

 

Lets group the 18 listed  into appropriate catgories

 

14 of your 18 are regulated Utility Companies. That are under the control of the appropriate state agencies dealing with their pricing, profits, rates, capital investment etc.  I am certainly not surprised to see them on the list

Pepco

Wisconsin Energy

PG&E

First Energy

Amos Energy 

NiSource

American Electric Power

Duke Energy

NextEra Energy

Xcel Energy

Ameren

CMS Energy

Sempra Energy

Eversource Energy

 

So now we are down to 4.  That period was certainly not the best for any of the 3  companies listed below. I could if you want to continue the discussion I can research and provide details on why the 4 of the fortune 500 that were not utilities that did not pay taxes if you really want to know. I suspect that you really don't care.

 

Ryder System

International Paper

General Electric

 

If I recall correctly Priceline ran without profit for a number of years as it was building its business.  I suspect that it did build up a number of loss credits.

 

Priceline.com

 

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by npcl

[npcl]

1 minute ago, MarLieb said:

 

Most commercial flights that are currently flying right now are actually being used to transfer cargo.  It is the fastest way to transport goods long distances.  That is why you are hearing stories of flights only carrying one or two passengers at the moment.  I asked my relative who works for the Port Authority and helps oversee operations at JFK why these flights are still operating (seemed like a waste of money to me).  He explained the reason they are still flying is 1) the airlines want to maintain their slots so they don't lose them and 2) the plane is mostly being used to transfer cargo at this point.

 

I do believe flights are necessary for many reasons, in this day and age, including the luxury of vacationing.  Unless a cruise is leaving from NY or NJ, I can't cruise unless I fly to the embarkation port area.  In that sense, the cruise lines are quite dependent on the airline industry to transfer their guests to the cruises.  The airline industry could certainly continue without the cruise lines but that certainly would not be true vice versa.  If the airlines tank or cease operations, the cruise lines are literally dead in the water.  I don't think sailings out of FL, for instance, could be filled with only residents of, say, FL, GA and other bordering states.

 

I'm not arguing that the virus wasn't spread via flights - I just don't think what the CDC is asking the cruise lines to do is unreasonable.  If the cruise lines can improve their onboard medical facilities and capabilities and come up with a plan to be more self-sufficient in times of medical distress or emergency, all cruise guests and crew would benefit from that.  I don't think any of us want to be stuck on a ship the way people were on ships like the Zaandam nor would I want to see my fellow cruisers and also crew members in that position in the future.  What can we all do?  This is probably a good time, IMHO, for people in all industries to reflect on what we could do better should something like this ever happen again.  And though the CDC didn't issue orders for airlines (at least that I am aware of) and didn't single them out per se, the worldwide travel bans and border closures certainly imply that this virus spreads via all methods of travel and the airline industry has been decimated.  

Plus the airlines are legally bound to fly certain routes and to mantain at least a minimal service level to specific cities. In many case they are running what is known as ghost flights with no passengers just due to legal requirements and in the case of Europe maintain their landing rights.

[Pushka]

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-13/coronavirus-spells-the-end-of-the-line-for-cruise-ships/12141140

[npcl]

4 minutes ago, Pushka said:

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-13/coronavirus-spells-the-end-of-the-line-for-cruise-ships/12141140

One thing that the article misses is that CCL is incorporated in Panama AND in England.  It is two corporations, run together, but listed on both US and London exchanges.

 

Funny how many news sources miss the England Incorporation.

[npcl]

13 minutes ago, MarLieb said:

 

Most commercial flights that are currently flying right now are actually being used to transfer cargo.  It is the fastest way to transport goods long distances.  That is why you are hearing stories of flights only carrying one or two passengers at the moment.  I asked my relative who works for the Port Authority and helps oversee operations at JFK why these flights are still operating (seemed like a waste of money to me).  He explained the reason they are still flying is 1) the airlines want to maintain their slots so they don't lose them and 2) the plane is mostly being used to transfer cargo at this point.

 

I do believe flights are necessary for many reasons, in this day and age, including the luxury of vacationing.  Unless a cruise is leaving from NY or NJ, I can't cruise unless I fly to the embarkation port area.  In that sense, the cruise lines are quite dependent on the airline industry to transfer their guests to the cruises.  The airline industry could certainly continue without the cruise lines but that certainly would not be true vice versa.  If the airlines tank or cease operations, the cruise lines are literally dead in the water.  I don't think sailings out of FL, for instance, could be filled with only residents of, say, FL, GA and other bordering states.

 

I'm not arguing that the virus wasn't spread via flights - I just don't think what the CDC is asking the cruise lines to do is unreasonable.  If the cruise lines can improve their onboard medical facilities and capabilities and come up with a plan to be more self-sufficient in times of medical distress or emergency, all cruise guests and crew would benefit from that.  I don't think any of us want to be stuck on a ship the way people were on ships like the Zaandam nor would I want to see my fellow cruisers and also crew members in that position in the future.  What can we all do?  This is probably a good time, IMHO, for people in all industries to reflect on what we could do better should something like this ever happen again.  And though the CDC didn't issue orders for airlines (at least that I am aware of) and didn't single them out per se, the worldwide travel bans and border closures certainly imply that this virus spreads via all methods of travel and the airline industry has been decimated.  

If you read the CDC document most of what they are asking for was either committed to by the CLIA or is an expansion on the framework the CLIA put forward.  Look at the section Critical Need for Further Cooperation and Response Planning of the CDC April 9 document.  Most of the items the CDC are requiring came from the CLIA drafted response plan in March or their April 3 "Framework for Cruise Industry Care for Crew and Other Persons on board while Ships remain Idle during Covid-19 Pandemic"

 

Interesting that the CLIA did not mention that during their response. It appears that the CLIA put forth a plan and then did not live up to it.

[Blackduck59]

19 minutes ago, MarLieb said:

 

Most commercial flights that are currently flying right now are actually being used to transfer cargo.  It is the fastest way to transport goods long distances.  That is why you are hearing stories of flights only carrying one or two passengers at the moment.  I asked my relative who works for the Port Authority and helps oversee operations at JFK why these flights are still operating (seemed like a waste of money to me).  He explained the reason they are still flying is 1) the airlines want to maintain their slots so they don't lose them and 2) the plane is mostly being used to transfer cargo at this point.

 

I do believe flights are necessary for many reasons, in this day and age, including the luxury of vacationing.  Unless a cruise is leaving from NY or NJ, I can't cruise unless I fly to the embarkation port area.  In that sense, the cruise lines are quite dependent on the airline industry to transfer their guests to the cruises.  The airline industry could certainly continue without the cruise lines but that certainly would not be true vice versa.  If the airlines tank or cease operations, the cruise lines are literally dead in the water.  I don't think sailings out of FL, for instance, could be filled with only residents of, say, FL, GA and other bordering states.

 

I'm not arguing that the virus wasn't spread via flights - I just don't think what the CDC is asking the cruise lines to do is unreasonable.  If the cruise lines can improve their onboard medical facilities and capabilities and come up with a plan to be more self-sufficient in times of medical distress or emergency, all cruise guests and crew would benefit from that.  I don't think any of us want to be stuck on a ship the way people were on ships like the Zaandam nor would I want to see my fellow cruisers and also crew members in that position in the future.  What can we all do?  This is probably a good time, IMHO, for people in all industries to reflect on what we could do better should something like this ever happen again.  And though the CDC didn't issue orders for airlines (at least that I am aware of) and didn't single them out per se, the worldwide travel bans and border closures certainly imply that this virus spreads via all methods of travel and the airline industry has been decimated.  

 

Why oh why did you choose to quote me, you couldn't make your point without doing that? Please do pay attention to the last line. Rest assured the airlines are flying freight because that is basically the only way they can make money. And the entire gist of my post was that cruise ships are a convenient target while airplanes are deemed necessary. Unless they are flying medical supplies the freight will get to the destination by other means; ships, trains and trucks come to mind. So please in future feel free to make your point, just leave me out.

[MarLieb]

8 minutes ago, npcl said:

10 minutes ago, npcl said:

If you read the CDC document most of what they are asking for was either committed to by the CLIA or is an expansion on the framework the CLIA put forward.  Look at the section Critical Need for Further Cooperation and Response Planning of the CDC April 9 document.  Most of the items the CDC are requiring came from the CLIA drafted response plan in March or their April 3 "Framework for Cruise Industry Care for Crew and Other Persons on board while Ships remain Idle during Covid-19 Pandemic"

 

Interesting that the CLIA did not mention that during their response. It appears that the CLIA put forth a plan and then did not live up to it.

 

 

I wasn't able to find the CLIA plan from March or April 3, but you are saying CLIA is basically pushing back on the framework they themselves drafted?!

[npcl]

14 minutes ago, MarLieb said:

 

I wasn't able to find the CLIA plan from March or April 3, but you are saying CLIA is basically pushing back on the framework they themselves drafted?!

Read page for of the CDC document where they reference those documents.  I do not have the CLIA's documents, only the CDC reference to them.  They reference key elements of what the CLIA said that was in their plan.

 

To me it reads like a lot of what they are asking for in their plan to be provide in 7 days are either elements from the CLIA's own plan and framework, or a request for an expansion of part of that framework.  It appears the idea of the cruise lines providing 5 ships to hold affected passengers off shore for example.

 

Take a look at page 4 of the CDC document and let me know what you think

 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/No-Sail-Order-Cruise-Ships_Extension_4-9-20-encrypted.pdf

Edited April 13, 2020 by npcl

[MarLieb]

3 minutes ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

Why oh why did you choose to quote me, you couldn't make your point without doing that? Please do pay attention to the last line. Rest assured the airlines are flying freight because that is basically the only way they can make money. And the entire gist of my post was that cruise ships are a convenient target while airplanes are deemed necessary. Unless they are flying medical supplies the freight will get to the destination by other means; ships, trains and trucks come to mind. So please in future feel free to make your point, just leave me out.

I did pay attention to your last line.  You asked a reasonable question - I answered in a positive manner.  Yes, you are correct.  Many people dislike the cruise industry for a variety of reasons.  That is not a new phenomenon, at least not here in the US.  Recent events could very well be a good excuse for those people to pile on or for those in our legislature who have been trying for years to crack down on the industry to finally get their shot.  

[Big_G]

43 minutes ago, npcl said:

So your 91 of the fortune 500 is now down to 18. 

 

from your article

 

Among the roughly half of Fortune 500 companies that were consistently profitable between 2008 and 2015, the effective federal income tax rate was 21.2 percent over that eight-year period, according to a study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Eighteen of them, including General Electric (GE) and Priceline.com (PCLN), paid no federal income taxes during that time.  

 

So lets see from the article you referenced the companies that were consistently profitable between 2008 and 2015 the effective tax rate was 21.2%.  The cruise lines were consistently profitable and certainly large enough to be in the fortune 500 but their tax rate was basically 0%.

 

 

Lets group the 18 listed  into appropriate catgories

 

14 of your 18 are regulated Utility Companies. That are under the control of the appropriate state agencies dealing with their pricing, profits, rates, capital investment etc.  I am certainly not surprised to see them on the list

Pepco

Wisconsin Energy

PG&E

First Energy

Amos Energy 

NiSource

American Electric Power

Duke Energy

NextEra Energy

Xcel Energy

Ameren

CMS Energy

Sempra Energy

Eversource Energy

 

So now we are down to 4.  That period was certainly not the best for any of the 3  companies listed below. I could if you want to continue the discussion I can research and provide details on why the 4 of the fortune 500 that were not utilities that did not pay taxes if you really want to know. I suspect that you really don't care.

 

Ryder System

International Paper

General Electric

 

If I recall correctly Priceline ran without profit for a number of years as it was building its business.  I suspect that it did build up a number of loss credits.

 

Priceline.com

 

 

 

I don't begrudge these companies not paying taxes as well as those corporations that off shore profits. They're just using the tax code as written. The point is that using whether these companies pay corporate income tax to determine whether they're eligible for assistance from the US is arbitrary given they're direct and indirect contribution to the US economy.

[npcl]

Just now, Big_G said:

 

I don't begrudge these companies not paying taxes as well as those corporations that off shore profits. They're just using the tax code as written. The point is that using whether these companies pay corporate income tax to determine whether they're eligible for assistance from the US is arbitrary given they're direct and indirect contribution to the US economy.

However, the number of companies that don't pay tax for any extended period of time is pretty small even by your own document.

 

The key element is that they are not incorporated in the US.  Companies that lose money are eligible as long as they are US companies which the cruise lines are not. 

[Big_G]

1 hour ago, npcl said:

Market cap has nothing to do with operations and expense.  All it impacts the ongoing aspects of a company is in their ability to raise money by selling equity.

 

Did you know that at the end of December RCL had a liability of 3,428 million of customers deposits received, but at the same time had 244 million in cash and equivalent on hand.  So if they hand to refund all of those deposits they will need 14 times the cash on hand just to refund the deposits.

 

A rainy day fund, they didn't even have a good weather fund.  Current Liabilities was 7,952 million compared to current assets of 1,162 million.   That is why they and the other cruise lines had to try and raise as much money as they could. Their entire business model is built around constant cash flow.

 

Sorry but no corporation anticipated a complete shutdown by the government. Under normal circumstances the cash on hand would've been suffice and we still don't know how many like me took the cash. They've already raised cash so I'm not sure they'll even ask for a bailout. Time will tell.

[rimmit]

3 hours ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

I'd like to know what plane you have been on lately...spaced? maybe in business class. On a cruise ship it would not be that hard to stay 6 feet spacing, all you have to do is try. And I would say that it's true, transference does mostly happen aboard THE AIRPLANE. You do have one thing right, flying moved COVID 19 around the world quickly. Unfortunately cruise ships are a large target to scapegoat for their part in this pandemic. And BTW airplanes are great for moving people but as far as commerce and things, look to ships, trains and trucks. And with modern technology office workers can meet with office workers over the internet, so people don't need to move by air that much either. So are airplanes really more "Necessary"? 

This thread got ugly a few days back and posts were edited. Suffice to say IMO the cruise industry has received undo criticism and scrutiny while the largest contributor to the spread has had a pass because it is "necessary"

So as I have said before don't fix the blame, fix the problem. And what are we each willing to do to fix the problem?

The only way to fix the problem is for the cruise ship industry to become completely independent and not rely on any nation for medical support every time there is an outbreak on their ships.  We can fix the problem by not cruising if you truly want an answer to that question.

 

Cruise ships are being singled out simply because they are known hotbeds for spreading Covid.  Same as prisons and nursing homes and any other place where there is a high density population that has prolonged contact is being singled out.  

 

While airlines spread Covid around the globe I have yet to see a plane have an infection rate of 20% and have a sizable portion of those die.  No flight that I am aware of to this date has been found to be a Covid hotbed like a cruise ship.  This is even with known Covid + passengers.  If anything airlines are being unfairly punished more so than any other business given they have not been found to be a hotbed.  Did they allow the virus to seed the world quickly.  Absolutely,   but I am willing to bet the people traversing the NYC metro, has spread more cases than people on airplane flights at this point.  Yet the metro is still running.

[MarLieb]

9 minutes ago, npcl said:

Read page for of the CDC document where they reference those documents.  I do not have the CLIA's documents, only the CDC reference to them.  They reference key elements of what the CLIA said that was in their plan.

 

To me it reads like a lot of what they are asking for in their plan to be provide in 7 days are either elements from the CLIA's own plan and framework, or a request for an expansion of part of that framework.  It appears the idea of the cruise lines providing 5 ships to hold affected passengers off shore.

 

Take a look at page 4 of the CDC document and let me know what you think

 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/No-Sail-Order-Cruise-Ships_Extension_4-9-20-encrypted.pdf

 

Oh yes, I see it now.  It looks like CLIA really didn't follow through with the March "On Course" plan they came up with (I feel that is certainly evident with what transpired with the Zaandam) and then it sounds like they tried to backtrack a bit with the April 3 "Framework" plan.  I guess I understand now why they issued the order on April 4 that the cruise lines had to use private transportation for guests here on out and for this new order.  If CLIA had simply followed through with their "On Course" plan, perhaps this CDC order wouldn't have been necessary?

[npcl]

8 minutes ago, Big_G said:

 

Sorry but no corporation anticipated a complete shutdown by the government. Under normal circumstances the cash on hand would've been suffice and we still don't know how many like me took the cash. They've already raised cash so I'm not sure they'll even ask for a bailout. Time will tell.

No one for them to ask Congress will not agree.

 

The airlines for Comparison all had more in cash than their liability for advance ticket sales.  The cruise lines all had less than 1/10  in cash.