CDC's Color coding System for Cruise Ships

[harkinmr]

 

13 minutes ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

Let's start from the beginning: Why is it the CDC's responsibility to contain the risk all the way to the final destination? Rather than the CDC make rules to protect the US at the American end, and the destination nation make whatever rules are appropriate to protect their nation at the destination end? Once the leave the US to a nation that is willing to accept them, why is it the US's business anymore what happens then in some other country?

 

You keep saying it's the CDC's business because it's the CDC's business. It's a circular argument.

See my response to ontheweb above...and call your Congressman if you don't like the way it works.  

 

The cruise lines were going to take the easy way out if they could and the CDC knew it.  That's why things ended up the way they did.  You have infected/potentially infected crew or passengers then get them to where they need to go.  Period.  End of story.

[npcl]

5 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Not what I said.  You asked why the CDC has any control over connecting transportation.  Because the risk needs to be contained until the crew member reaches their final destination.  Why is that so hard to understand?  The cruise line is more than welcome to sail to the Philippines to drop off crew members, but once transport starts through the US it needs to be controlled.  It was the same reason why the infected cruise ships that docked in Fort Lauderdale had to have charter transport for all passengers to their final destination point.

What is not clear is what is the definition for "final destination"?  In the US the final destination is the persons residence.  It is less clear when it comes to a foreign country.  It that case it could mean when control is transferred to the country of residence.  I tend to lean towards arrival at the person country of residence.  There have been disembarkation of large groups of crew to the Philippines.  Until we know for sure we are assigning a level of control which may not actually exist. Since the Philippines have been placing crew in quarantine on arrival i expect  CDC guidelines end at arrival in home country.  The preliminary guidance does show that the cruise lines are responsible for notifying and coordinating with the health authorities in the country of residence.  What I believe the guideline is intended to prevent is the cruise lines to do charters for everyone to one country and then have them fly commercial to their home country, in effect dumping our problem on another country. Now in many regulations you will have a definitions section that would provide clarity to the interpretation, but there is not such a section in the interim guidance.  

 

Norwegian Joy	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	04/30/20	348	Philippines
Oceania Sirena	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	05/01/20	270	Philippines
Oceania Marina	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	05/01/20	9	Philippines
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	05/01/20	161	Philippines
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	05/07/20	2	Philippines
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	05/07/20	2	Philippines
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	05/07/20	187	Philippines
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	05/07/20	462	Philippines
Oceania Sirena	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	05/07/20	1	Philippines
Disney Wonder	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	05/08/20	3	Philippines
Liberty of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	05/13/20	349	Philippines
Liberty of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	05/20/20	93	Philippines
Celebrity Equinox	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	05/20/20	172	Philippines
Harmony of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	05/21/20	68	Philippines
Celebrity Eclipse	Celebrity Cruises	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	05/22/20	93	Philippines
Celebrity Millennium	Celebrity Cruises	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	05/22/20	227	Philippines
Celebrity Eclipse	Celebrity Cruises	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	06/01/20	184	Philippines

Edited June 14, 2020 by npcl

[chengkp75]

19 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Because, under the agreed upon rules, the cruise line is responsible for the crew all the way from their initial flight out of the US through and up until they arrive at their "final" destination.  

But, you fail to understand that the "rules" were not "agreed upon, they were mandated by the CDC with no input or agreement from the cruise lines, which is why HAL refused to sign the documents for so long.  The CDC, nor the US government have any jurisdiction, regardless of some perceived "public health mandate" for any type of transportation that originates outside the US, no more than the Philippine government could make requirements on how the US quarantines passengers that were on a flight that originated in Manila.  While the CDC could legally make  the requirement that a flight originating from the US had to be a charter flight, if that was a foreign charter company, once the plane left US airspace the CDC nor any US government agency had any more jurisdiction.  Even if it was a US charter company, once the crew member departed the plane in a foreign country, again all US government jurisdiction ends.  Period. 

 

Frankly, I see a lawsuit against the US government, once the pandemic passes, filed by CLIA for compensation for the illegally "required" transportation costs.  And, they will win.

17 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Getting the crew to their final destination is the obligation of the cruise line whether it's direct or by connecting flight.  And I know you don't want to hear this, but that is the deal.  Cruise lines either accept it or don't get their crew members home using any US transportation.  Take it up with your Congressman if you don't like it!

You're correct that it is the lines' responsibility to repatriate their crew, but as you say, the CDC can only regulate "US transportation".  An inter-island ferry in the Philippines is in no way "US transportation", regardless of whether the first flight was from the US.  Like most US citizens, you seem to think that US laws and US protections extend anywhere in the world that is beneficial to you.  Sorry, after being in the maritime industry for 45 years, and traveled the world, that just isn't the case.

 

21 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

And I know you don't want to hear this, but that is the deal.

Yep, what I said is the deal.

[npcl]

11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

But, you fail to understand that the "rules" were not "agreed upon, they were mandated by the CDC with no input or agreement from the cruise lines, which is why HAL refused to sign the documents for so long.  The CDC, nor the US government have any jurisdiction, regardless of some perceived "public health mandate" for any type of transportation that originates outside the US, no more than the Philippine government could make requirements on how the US quarantines passengers that were on a flight that originated in Manila.  While the CDC could legally make  the requirement that a flight originating from the US had to be a charter flight, if that was a foreign charter company, once the plane left US airspace the CDC nor any US government agency had any more jurisdiction.  Even if it was a US charter company, once the crew member departed the plane in a foreign country, again all US government jurisdiction ends.  Period. 

 

Frankly, I see a lawsuit against the US government, once the pandemic passes, filed by CLIA for compensation for the illegally "required" transportation costs.  And, they will win.

You're correct that it is the lines' responsibility to repatriate their crew, but as you say, the CDC can only regulate "US transportation".  An inter-island ferry in the Philippines is in no way "US transportation", regardless of whether the first flight was from the US.  Like most US citizens, you seem to think that US laws and US protections extend anywhere in the world that is beneficial to you.  Sorry, after being in the maritime industry for 45 years, and traveled the world, that just isn't the case.

 

Yep, what I said is the deal.

I doubt they would win.  Such a structure is well within the powers granted to the CDC in a health emergency.

 

You do know that now ships that have gotten Green status can use commercial transportation.

 

As with the others you are making an assumption about the definition of final destination in the guideline.

 

The US could of done like most other countries and ban disembarkation of anyone not a US citizen.

 

Or like Canada who is allowing transfers of cargo ships crew, but still banning cruise ships.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2020 by npcl

[Daniel A]

If a cruise ship sails to Manila and meets the Philippines Government's entry requirements for crew disembarkation, the CDC has no business or authority to mandate that a Vietnamese crewman cannot use public transportation to get to Manila airport and catch a commercial flight to Vietnam and then commercial transportation to his residence.  Likewise, a crewmember who disembarked in a US port and met the CDC's requirements while travelling in the United States would no longer be regulated after leaving US waters or airspace.  But all this is just one example of "Bureaucrats Gone Wild" over reaching in response to the pandemic.

[Daniel A]

27 minutes ago, npcl said:

I doubt they would win.  Such a structure is well within the powers granted to the CDC in a health emergency.

 

Who possesses the ability to grant CDC bureaucrats the ability to arbitrarily regulate travel of non U.S. residents, travelling in non US operated transportation in foreign nations?

[npcl]

6 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

If a cruise ship sails to Manila and meets the Philippines Government's entry requirements for crew disembarkation, the CDC has no business or authority to mandate that a Vietnamese crewman cannot use public transportation to get to Manila airport and catch a commercial flight to Vietnam and then commercial transportation to his residence.  Likewise, a crewmember who disembarked in a US port and met the CDC's requirements while travelling in the United States would no longer be regulated after leaving US waters or airspace.  But all this is just one example of "Bureaucrats Gone Wild" over reaching in response to the pandemic.

Do you or anyone here participate in the discussions concerning actual disembarkation of crew members?

 

The CDC is requiring notification and coordination with national regulatory authorities.  So do you know that once they land in the country of residence that control in effect does not pass to that country?  Seems to me that the requirement to coordinate with the receiving country does make a great deal of sense and does not constitute bureaucrats gone wild.  But instead a reasonable approach to make sure that the destination country is both notified and has input into the process.

 

Seems to me that a lot of assumptions are being made, when none of us are part of the process and the details of such travel outside of the US have not been released by either the CDC or the cruise lines.

 

[npcl]

14 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Who possesses the ability to grant CDC bureaucrats the ability to arbitrarily regulate travel of non U.S. residents, travelling in non US operated transportation in foreign nations?

Who says that they are?  Do you know for sure or are you making assumptions about the term final destination without knowing the definition as it exists in the document.

 

Take the Philippines for example.  Those that have been transferred back into the country  (atleast those that have been reported on) were put into quarantine upon arrival.  Clearly the CDC did not have control or dictated policy after those flights arrived.

 

As I have stated earlier it is my expectation based upon some news reports of the transfers, such as the Philippines,  as well as the requirement for notification to the health authorities in those countries, that the final destination, for outside of the US is when control transitions to the country of residence and their health authorities.

 

As a person that has written regulations before, you write the regulation based upon the tightest control, in this case US citizens that must be delivered to their actual residence.  And deal with less strict cases in execution.  Much easier to do that than to try the other way around.

 

In every case that I have found involving transfers the country of residence has dictated what happens once the person has arrived in their home country.  Have not seen a single newspaper or online report of a jurisdictional conflict between the CDC and any other country concerning travel of their citizens outside of the US, where that other country has allowed travel to occur at all.

Edited June 14, 2020 by npcl

[rkacruiser]

Cutting through all of the "legalese" and the finger pointing that is going on and will continue for months, years ahead if this pandemic is ever brought under control:  something rather important has been lost as to the re-patronizing of the crew members to their homes, their humanity.

 

These men and women have been treated as pieces on a chess board.  The requirements to get these men and women home who are not and have not been ill with the virus,  whether they come from the CDC or worse from their home countries, have been onerous and inhumane to these people.  They have become pawns in a "game" that seems to have no rules other than the "rules of one day" and may then be different from the "rules of the next day".  

 

"Laws are made to be broken" and regulations can be changed in the face of the need to do so.  That time arrived this Winter/Spring.  Like the Groundhog, the bureaucrats seemed to arise as well.  

 

My opinion:  there will be no reason for any governmental authority in any country that has dealt with the pandemic to "pat themselves on the back" and say "what a good job we all did".  

Edited June 14, 2020 by rkacruiser

[npcl]

5 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

Cutting through all of the "legalese" and the finger pointing that is going on and will continue for months, years ahead if this pandemic is ever brought under control:  something rather important has been lost as to the re-patronizing of the crew members to their homes, their humanity.

 

These men and women have been treated as pieces on a chess board.  The requirements to get these men and women home who are not and have not been ill with the virus,  whether they come from the CDC or worse from their home countries, have been onerous and inhumane to these people.

 

"Laws are made to be broken" and regulations can be changed in the face of the need to do so.  That time arrived this Winter/Spring.  Like the Groundhog, the bureaucrats seemed to arise as well.  

The US and the CDC has been one of the few countries that have put in place a system for transfer.  Most countries have not accepted any crew, not from that country.  Most countries have banned cruise ships from docking entirely.  Many countries have denied crew flight home.  Even when the crew have been taken home by ship, most countries are requiring full testing before they offload, or quarantine or both.

 

As far as not being ill, you have still had crew members from cruise ships testing positive as of late May (have not seen any articles for June, but there were reports of positive tests in crew being offloaded in Caribbean countries such as St Vincent in late May).

 

The CDC now allows commercial travel for those crew from ships rated as green.  However, still restrictions in many countries even for commercial air.  Those are the ships that are considered to be COVID-19 free.

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, harkinmr said:

Yep.  I do see a difference.   And it's not just US citizen cruise passengers that were coming off the Fort Lauderdale ships now was it?  Getting the crew to their final destination is the obligation of the cruise line whether it's direct or by connecting flight.  And I know you don't want to hear this, but that is the deal.  Cruise lines either accept it or don't get their crew members home using any US transportation.  Take it up with your Congressman if you don't like it!

I'll defer to the other posters that say it is overreach. 

 

Doesn't the CDC have enough on their plates than to regulate what occurs after crew members reach their home country?

 

And yes, the cruise lines accepted the deal, but did they have a real choice when dealing with inflexible bureaucrats?

 

I now see they were mandated. This is not exactly you made the deal, now live by it.

Edited June 14, 2020 by ontheweb
added last paragraph

[rkacruiser]

Regardless of the explanations for what has taken place with these crew members, can not one agree that what they have experienced is inhumane?

 

 

[npcl]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

I'll defer to the other posters that say it is overreach. 

 

Doesn't the CDC have enough on their plates than to regulate what occurs after crew members reach their home country?

 

And yes, the cruise lines accepted the deal, but did they have a real choice when dealing with inflexible bureaucrats?

 

I now see they were mandated. This is not exactly you made the deal, now live by it.

What proof do you have that the CDC is regulating what is happening after they reach their home countries?

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

Regardless of the explanations for what has taken place with these crew members, can not one agree that what they have experienced is inhumane?

 

 

While I feel that the CDC has prolonged the restrictions on travel far beyond what was necessary, and has punished the crew more than the cruise lines, I would hardly say that the treatment is "inhumane".  According to latest reports, the number of crew on cruise ships off the US has dropped from 80-100,000 to 40,000, and we don't know how many of these remaining either are essential crew or who are fine with staying onboard as their contracts had just started when the ships went to lockdown.  At the same time, other merchant mariners stuck on their ships have increased from 100,000 to nearly 200,000.

 

I will disagree with the idea that the CDC requirements were "written" to say that non-public transportation was to be used at all times to the crew member's home (not just home city), but that it was "meant" to only apply to US based segments of that transportation.  The same clause was used for passengers and crew, and as applied to US citizens did mean all transportation, and the same attestation required to be signed by the cruise line executives said that they agreed that the non-public transportation would be from dock to door.  If everyone knew it was a hollow threat to require non-public transportation all the way home, why did the cruise lines dig in their heels for so long?  Regardless of whether or not the CDC could regulate travel outside the US, that is what they required the cruise line to legally agree to.  As stated, it says "to final destination", not "first destination outside the US", when there could be any number of countries they could have flown charter flights to and then made transfers to commercial airlines, if that had been the "intent" of the requirement.

[ontheweb]

11 hours ago, npcl said:

What proof do you have that the CDC is regulating what is happening after they reach their home countries?

I will defer to the answer that chegkp75 has already provided in the post just before this one. 

 

What other interpretation can you have of "door to door"?

[mo&fran]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

While I feel that the CDC has prolonged the restrictions on travel far beyond what was necessary, and has punished the crew more than the cruise lines, I would hardly say that the treatment is "inhumane".  According to latest reports, the number of crew on cruise ships off the US has dropped from 80-100,000 to 40,000, and we don't know how many of these remaining either are essential crew or who are fine with staying onboard as their contracts had just started when the ships went to lockdown.  At the same time, other merchant mariners stuck on their ships have increased from 100,000 to nearly 200,000.

 

I will disagree with the idea that the CDC requirements were "written" to say that non-public transportation was to be used at all times to the crew member's home (not just home city), but that it was "meant" to only apply to US based segments of that transportation.  The same clause was used for passengers and crew, and as applied to US citizens did mean all transportation, and the same attestation required to be signed by the cruise line executives said that they agreed that the non-public transportation would be from dock to door.  If everyone knew it was a hollow threat to require non-public transportation all the way home, why did the cruise lines dig in their heels for so long?  Regardless of whether or not the CDC could regulate travel outside the US, that is what they required the cruise line to legally agree to.  As stated, it says "to final destination", not "first destination outside the US", when there could be any number of countries they could have flown charter flights to and then made transfers to commercial airlines, if that had been the "intent" of the requirement.

Just saw this posted.  

https://www.wptv.com/coronavirus/report-40-000-cruise-ship-workers-still-trapped-at-sea

Can they not be getting paid?

 

[npcl]

14 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

Regardless of the explanations for what has taken place with these crew members, can not one agree that what they have experienced is inhumane?

 

 

There are a number of things related to this outbreak where people could be treated better.

 

Besides the crew on cruise ships

The people that could not get back to their home countries

Families with members in two different countries

the people that lost their jobs

the business owners losing their businesses

renters and home owners that will probably lose their homes

those that died or spent weeks in intensive care

cruise line crew are one of many group suffering.

 

People here seem to blame the CDC for their treatment, yet how many other countries are allowing even what the CDC has. Most have totally banned ships. Most that allow crew off, are only allowing their citizens off.

 

As far as the treatment how much also rests on the cruise lines themselves?  If the cruise lines had actively embraced testing, instead of hiding behind flu like conditions and only testing when required by national health authorities.  If they had been more willing to take responsibility, instead of sticking with the approach that their responsibility ended once people were off of the gangway.  When CDC did provide a method for allowing crew disembarkation, the response from the cruise lines were that it was too difficult or expensive.  They in some cases they would not sign the forms.  Yet once they realized that the CDC would no cave, they did sign and over 8500 crew have disembarked via the US method.

 

How many crew are still sitting on ships in Manila harbor?  Waiting for tests so they can leave in  their home countries.  That is certainly not due to the CDC.

[npcl]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

While I feel that the CDC has prolonged the restrictions on travel far beyond what was necessary, and has punished the crew more than the cruise lines, I would hardly say that the treatment is "inhumane".  According to latest reports, the number of crew on cruise ships off the US has dropped from 80-100,000 to 40,000, and we don't know how many of these remaining either are essential crew or who are fine with staying onboard as their contracts had just started when the ships went to lockdown.  At the same time, other merchant mariners stuck on their ships have increased from 100,000 to nearly 200,000.

 

I will disagree with the idea that the CDC requirements were "written" to say that non-public transportation was to be used at all times to the crew member's home (not just home city), but that it was "meant" to only apply to US based segments of that transportation.  The same clause was used for passengers and crew, and as applied to US citizens did mean all transportation, and the same attestation required to be signed by the cruise line executives said that they agreed that the non-public transportation would be from dock to door.  If everyone knew it was a hollow threat to require non-public transportation all the way home, why did the cruise lines dig in their heels for so long?  Regardless of whether or not the CDC could regulate travel outside the US, that is what they required the cruise line to legally agree to.  As stated, it says "to final destination", not "first destination outside the US", when there could be any number of countries they could have flown charter flights to and then made transfers to commercial airlines, if that had been the "intent" of the requirement.

Can you point to one place where it is documented that actual travel has been directed inside of the home country, that was not in accordance with or directed by that country?

 

Did the rules apply to travel in the Philippines from the countries quarantine center after their stay in quarantine?  Or did the requirements put in place by the Philippines health authorities take over once they were inside of the country.

 

Find me one article, anything that says that the CDC was enforcing rules inside of a foreign country, once the travelers arrived in their home country?  Just one?  Clearly if the CDC was trying to enforce US rules it would make the press some where.  I can point to numerous examples where the home country has taken over once the person has arrived in country.

 

Can you say for sure that once people have arrived in their home country that they were not able to take commercial transportation?  Surely you know crew from NCL.  They were one  of the major users of disembarkation from the US.  Do you have any contacts inside of the company that could provide actual details on what was done once travelers arrived in their home countries?  If the CDC rules still apply or if the requirements are determined by that country.

 

There are numerous reasons why the cruise lines would not like to agree with the CDC process:

 

1. It creates a precedent of the cruise lines having to take responsibility for crew and passengers after they leave the ship

2. It requires that medical information be provided to the CDC concerning the status of passengers and crew in a way that was not required prior to the outbreak

3. It does have additional costs

4. It creates a precedent of additional requirements for ship board operation that was not present prior to the outbreak

 

Yet in the end the cruise lines did sign the documents they have sent over 8500 crew home.  Most of which have either been tested or placed in quarantine upon arrival.  

 

The cruise lines are also now also now doing response plans in conjunction with the CDC, that allow for commercial transportation.

 

 

[npcl]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I will defer to the answer that chegkp75 has already provided in the post just before this one. 

 

What other interpretation can you have of "door to door"?

where in the guidance does it say "door to door".   Not in the attestation form, not in the guidance, not in the federal registry notice.

 

Note paragraph 2 of the attestation form itself

 

[For U.S. citizens or lawful permanent resident crew members only] The cruise ship operator must notify federal, state, and local public-health authorities with jurisdiction for the port of disembarkation as well as for the final US destination of each disembarking crew member. The cruise ship operator must provide to the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (email eocevent349@cdc.gov) the notifications to local and state health authorities as well as the responses from those authorities clearly stating that they have no objections to the planned disembarkation and travel.

 

You notice that the requirement for notification at the FINAL US destination of health authorities.  You notice there is not a similar requirement for the FINAL location in foreign countries.  Only  that the health authorities must be notified at the national level.

 

o _______________________________ has notified the respective national public health authorities and has adhered to any testing requirements of receiving countries for repatriated or transferred crew (for non-U.S. citizens or non-lawful permanent resident crew members only).

 

[npcl]

I have sent a letter to the CDC asking for specifics on the guidance and the requirements for travel once someone has arrived in their home country.  It may take a few days for a response, but once I have their official answer I will post it.

 

If I do not get a response I will file an FOI request.

Edited June 15, 2020 by npcl

[chengkp75]

29 minutes ago, npcl said:

I have sent a letter to the CDC asking for specifics on the guidance and the requirements for travel once someone has arrived in their home country.  It may take a few days for a response, but once I have their official answer I will post it.

 

If I do not get a response I will file an FOI request.

Funny, you quote the paragraph that refers to US citizens and Green Card holders, which mentions notifications to state and local authorities, showing the intent that this applies to those residing in the US.

 

However, the paragraph before that:

 

"1. The cruise ship operator must transport those disembarking directly to non-commercial transportation, which includes industry-chartered private transport, industry-chartered private flights, or personal vehicles (no rental cars, taxis, or ride-share services). Cruise line operators must further guarantee noncommercial transportation to their respective homes or new duty stations consistent with all applicable laws and guidance. Those include, but are not limited to, national, federal, state, and local public-health guidance as well as state and local stay-at-home orders."

 

Note that this does not include the term "final destination" but the term "home", and mentions "national" requirements, meaning it is intended for those residing in other countries, and specifies "noncommercial transportation" to their home.  Now, whether or not the CDC has any jurisdiction in requiring noncommercial transportation outside the US, they are requiring an attestation that the operator will do this, and if found that they knowingly and willingly contravened this, they are liable for the criminal penalties.

 

Also, in the listing of requirements to be included in the attestation are:

 

"In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1001, I do hereby certify that the following conditions are true as of the date of disembarkation:

 

o _______________________________ has ensured/will ensure that disembarking crew members:

 will not stay overnight in a hotel before the flight or at any point until they reach their final destination

 will not use public transportation (including taxis or ride-share services) to get to the airport/charter flight

 will not enter the public airport terminal

 will not take commercial aircraft after an initial charter flight

 will not have a transportation layover exceeding 8 hours

 will have no interaction with the public during their travel home or to their new duty station (e.g., rental car companies, restaurants, other public areas, etc.)"

 

Bold is mine.  So, they are restricting subsequent flights, not just the initial flight.  And they are restricting contact with the public through to their "homes" even in foreign countries.

[npcl]

41 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Funny, you quote the paragraph that refers to US citizens and Green Card holders, which mentions notifications to state and local authorities, showing the intent that this applies to those residing in the US.

 

However, the paragraph before that:

 

"1. The cruise ship operator must transport those disembarking directly to non-commercial transportation, which includes industry-chartered private transport, industry-chartered private flights, or personal vehicles (no rental cars, taxis, or ride-share services). Cruise line operators must further guarantee noncommercial transportation to their respective homes or new duty stations consistent with all applicable laws and guidance. Those include, but are not limited to, national, federal, state, and local public-health guidance as well as state and local stay-at-home orders."

 

Note that this does not include the term "final destination" but the term "home", and mentions "national" requirements, meaning it is intended for those residing in other countries, and specifies "noncommercial transportation" to their home.  Now, whether or not the CDC has any jurisdiction in requiring noncommercial transportation outside the US, they are requiring an attestation that the operator will do this, and if found that they knowingly and willingly contravened this, they are liable for the criminal penalties.

 

Also, in the listing of requirements to be included in the attestation are:

 

"In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1001, I do hereby certify that the following conditions are true as of the date of disembarkation:

 

o _______________________________ has ensured/will ensure that disembarking crew members:

 will not stay overnight in a hotel before the flight or at any point until they reach their final destination

 will not use public transportation (including taxis or ride-share services) to get to the airport/charter flight

 will not enter the public airport terminal

 will not take commercial aircraft after an initial charter flight

 will not have a transportation layover exceeding 8 hours

 will have no interaction with the public during their travel home or to their new duty station (e.g., rental car companies, restaurants, other public areas, etc.)"

 

Bold is mine.  So, they are restricting subsequent flights, not just the initial flight.  And they are restricting contact with the public through to their "homes" even in foreign countries.

Again we will see when I get a response from the CDC on their interpretation on the regulations and how they apply outside of their jurisdiction.

 

Clearly the CDC would not want transfers in violation of national law.  Including any travel restrictions.

 

Unfortunately the preliminary document does not include a definition.

 

At this point, without any actual reports of actual trips, exactly what they are requiring is your interpretation of the document. 

 

I again ask for any documentation, news reports, reports for crew members, that support your interpretation.  With your back ground at NCL, who has used the CDC system to send people home to foreign countries is their no one you can contact that has either returned home under the system, or been involved in setting up such trips outside of the US?

 

Show me one report, one case, one crew member that indicates that the rules are being enforced once they reach their home country and that the CDC rules are over riding local national rules.  Clearly there is plenty of reports in the media that say that crew are not being transferred directly to their homes for self quarantine in accordance with the CDC stated process.

 

Keep in mind when this was written was during the final days of cruise line disembarkation of passengers and some people on CC mentioned that they had a charter flight from the port to Atlanta and then took commercial flights from there.  Clearly the rules were written to prevent that.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by npcl

[npcl]

Looks like the "door to door" rules don't apply once crew members land in the UK.  Looks to me that they are in the PUBLIC area of Heathrow, yet they took a chartered flight from Miami.  So if interpretations are correct how can they be in the public area of the airport, if all of the CDC rules apply as some people state.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8336759/Families-hug-loved-ones-Heathrow-Airport-cruise-ship-crew-arrive-home-Miami.html

 

The chartered flight from Miami only carried British passport holders.

They were driven directly to the flight after leaving the cruise ship to avoid coming into contact with other passengers at Miami Airport.

 

The article does mention that the cruise line was providing bus travel to 3 main cities.  Clearly all of the CDC rules are not in force. Such as  will not enter the public airport terminal

 

Families hug their loved ones at Heathrow Airport as cruise ship crew arrive home from Miami to emotional reunions after being marooned at sea for more than TWO months

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by npcl

[Daniel A]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Funny, you quote the paragraph that refers to US citizens and Green Card holders, which mentions notifications to state and local authorities, showing the intent that this applies to those residing in the US.

 

However, the paragraph before that:

 

"1. The cruise ship operator must transport those disembarking directly to non-commercial transportation, which includes industry-chartered private transport, industry-chartered private flights, or personal vehicles (no rental cars, taxis, or ride-share services). Cruise line operators must further guarantee noncommercial transportation to their respective homes or new duty stations consistent with all applicable laws and guidance. Those include, but are not limited to, national, federal, state, and local public-health guidance as well as state and local stay-at-home orders."

 

chengkp75-

 

It's not worth it.  NPCL only quoted the paragraph that solely referred to notifications, not the transportation paragraph because quoting the applicable paragraph would not have helped his point. 

 

An old trick in debate is when you see you are on a the losing end of a proposition, question the definition of words.  I guess the real answer is "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is..."

 

You know what CDC is doing and so do a lot of others on this board (ad populum).  That's good enough for me.  Thanks for pitching in.  Enjoy your shore leave.

[npcl]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

chengkp75-

 

It's not worth it.  NPCL only quoted the paragraph that solely referred to notifications, not the transportation paragraph because quoting the applicable paragraph would not have helped his point. 

 

An old trick in debate is when you see you are on a the losing end of a proposition, question the definition of words.  I guess the real answer is "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is..."

 

You know what CDC is doing and so do a lot of others on this board (ad populum).  That's good enough for me.  Thanks for pitching in.  Enjoy your shore leave.

I will make the same challenge to you.  Show me a documented case of the CDC rules over riding local national decisions.  I have shown two cases, very clearly where all of the CDC rules are not being followed outside the US.  

 

If the interpretation some of you of the stated policy is correct then that the cruise lines must follow the CDC rules outside of the US then clearly they must be followed every where.

 

On the other hand my interpretation that the to residence applies to the US, and that once a person lands in their home countries those rules that over,  all I have to do is show some cases where the CDC rules have not been followed  once the crew has arrived in their home country.

 

If you read my post where I quoted that paragraph you will notice the context of that paragraph which was that the difference in treatment of notification between destinations inside the US and outside of the US.  That inside the US where there is agreement that the requirements are to the travelers home address  the CDC requires notification of the LOCAL office.

For international they only require notification at the national level.

 

[For U.S. citizens or lawful permanent resident crew members only] The cruise ship operator must notify federal, state, and local public-health authorities with jurisdiction for the port of disembarkation as well as for the final US destination of each disembarking crew member. The cruise ship operator must provide to the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (email eocevent349@cdc.gov) the notifications to local and state health authorities as well as the responses from those authorities clearly stating that they have no objections to the planned disembarkation and travel.

 

You notice that the requirement for notification at the FINAL US destination of health authorities.  You notice there is not a similar requirement for the FINAL location in foreign countries.  Only  that the health authorities must be notified at the national level.

 

o _______________________________ has notified the respective national public health authorities and has adhered to any testing requirements of receiving countries for repatriated or transferred crew (for non-U.S. citizens or non-lawful permanent resident crew members only).

 

 

I have provided references to cases where the CDC rules were not followed.  All those on the other side have offered interpretation of the posted guidance and forms.  That makes it an interpretation issue, where definitions and meanings are important.

 

So again I make the challenge that if I am incorrect show any article or other first hand documentation that supports your position that the CDC rules must be followed by the cruise lines for travel in a crew members home country, beyond what the home country requires.  I have asked the same question several times. Clearly if what some of you are saying is true, that the CDC rules must be fully followed once the crew members arrive in their home countries.  Then you should be able to find examples of posting of crew indicating that they had to take private transport all of the way home.  Or even articles saying that.  

 

It is also a tactic is debate that if one does not have facts to support their case they turn to trying to disparage the other sides arguement.

Edited June 15, 2020 by npcl