Back to back bookings - any word yet if CDC will even allow them prior to Nov 1st?

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, NutsAboutGolf said:

 

Are there any other agencies who can determine if two different sailings on different lines are booked back to back?

Not until afterwards.  Even catching PVSA violations is up to the cruise lines' compliance departments, to preclude fines from CBP afterwards.

[NutsAboutGolf]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not until afterwards.  Even catching PVSA violations is up to the cruise lines' compliance departments, to preclude fines from CBP afterwards.

 

Thanks, I looked up the PVSA fine amount, according to CCL it's $798 (as of 2019).  I'd imagine if an US agency wants to charge consecutive sailing fines, odds are it'll be at least $798.

[chengkp75]

51 minutes ago, NutsAboutGolf said:

 

Thanks, I looked up the PVSA fine amount, according to CCL it's $798 (as of 2019).  I'd imagine if an US agency wants to charge consecutive sailing fines, odds are it'll be at least $798.

They won't have to do that, all they will do is if the cruise line allows a passenger onboard for more than 7 days, the ship's Conditional Sail Certificate will be revoked, resulting in a much, much larger fine than $800.

[davekathy]

Our concern is RC possibly will say no B2B. So, pick one of the 7 day legs and the other will be a no go. Seven days is too short., at least for us. We'll have to just wait it out and see what RCG decides. Final payment is due 4 December to the TA. 

[C-Dragons]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I see this charge all the time here on CC, and I for one, don't know this, and would like someone to explain to me why you feel the CDC hates the cruise industry.  I also don't know that they only dropped the NSO because they couldn't renew it.  The use of the "request for information" and the one month extension they got in September, met the requirements for the NSO requirements to become permanent in the future, so personally, I feel that the CDC got everything they wanted.

 

If the CDC hated the cruise industry, all they had to do was rescind the VSP a couple of decades ago, and revert to what they are mandated to do, board and inspect every foreign flag ship, every single time it enters the US, including crew and passenger health interviews.  This time consuming, costly, and annoying to passengers procedure would have driven the cruise lines away from the US long ago.

I don't think the CDC “hates” the cruise industry, but do believe they are working to delay their return to service.

Ever since the fiasco with Princess in the beginning of the Covid crisis where ships were not allowed to disembark passengers and held them on board, news outlets began calling cruise ships “floating Petri dishes”. That derogatory term is still bandied about today reinforcing a negative view of the industry.

Senator Blumenthal from CT and Rep. Matsui from California are also very negative about cruising and don't believe that cruise ships should return to sailing until the pandemic is over. They asked the CDC to respond to their concerns, and their request to reinstate the no sail order by today Nov. 27.

If the CDC acquiesces, this could be disastrous for the cruise lines. No one will worry be worrying about B2B's.

Edited November 27, 2020 by C-Dragons

[C-Dragons]

2 minutes ago, C-Dragons said:

Duplicate 

Edited November 27, 2020 by C-Dragons

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, C-Dragons said:

I don't think the CDC “hates” the cruise industry, but do believe they are working to delay their return to service.

Ever since the fiasco with Princess in the beginning of the Covid crisis where ships were not allowed to disembark passengers and held them on board, news outlets began calling cruise ships “floating Petri dishes”. That derogatory term is still bandied about today reinforcing a negative view of the industry to flourish.

Senator Blumenthal from CT and Rep. Matsui from California are also very negative about cruising and don't believe that cruise ships should return to sailing until the pandemic is over. They asked the CDC to respond to their concerns, and their request to reinstate the no sail order by today Nov. 27.

If the CDC acquiesces, this could be disastrous for the cruise lines. No one will worry be worrying about B2B's.

The CDC's position has not changed since the NSO was originally issued.  The CSO contains all of the requirements of the NSO.  While the quarantines early in the pandemic were not handled correctly (mainly due to improper crew training, and lack of protocols within the company), a traditional vessel quarantine does not allow an "infected" ship to disembark anyone into the country.

 

The two legislators have no real  standing with CDC, and I doubt that their "request" will have any traction whatsoever.  A reinstatement of the NSO would likely result in a court case, since the CSO contains all of the same requirements, so I seriously doubt that the CDC, regardless of whichever administration they are acting under, would want to go down that rabbit hole, since the cruise lines haven't been all that keen on meeting the requirements, and are only now acknowledging that these requirements won't go away, and so a lot of work still remains prior to the cruise lines restarting.

[LGW59]

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The CDC's position has not changed since the NSO was originally issued.  The CSO contains all of the requirements of the NSO.  While the quarantines early in the pandemic were not handled correctly (mainly due to improper crew training, and lack of protocols within the company), a traditional vessel quarantine does not allow an "infected" ship to disembark anyone into the country.

 

The two legislators have no real  standing with CDC, and I doubt that their "request" will have any traction whatsoever.  A reinstatement of the NSO would likely result in a court case, since the CSO contains all of the same requirements, so I seriously doubt that the CDC, regardless of whichever administration they are acting under, would want to go down that rabbit hole, since the cruise lines haven't been all that keen on meeting the requirements, and are only now acknowledging that these requirements won't go away, and so a lot of work still remains prior to the cruise lines restarting.

"since the cruise lines haven't been all that keen on meeting the requirements"

 

chengkp75 - Are you referring to the changes they will need make?  Why are the cruise lines reluctant to do this, if you know?  They take a beating every time any outbreaks happen on ships, I would think they would want to do everything in their power to avoid a huge PR nightmare.  Thanks in advance

[SeaHunt]

44 minutes ago, davekathy said:

Our concern is RC possibly will say no B2B. So, pick one of the 7 day legs and the other will be a no go. Seven days is too short., at least for us.  

 

Or you'll have to pick one of the 7 days to cruise and then use the other 7 to quarantine LOL 😊

 

"Passengers who decide to travel should take the following steps to protect others after their return from a cruise ship or river cruise voyage:

• Get tested 3-5 days after travel AND stay home for 7 days after travel.
  • Even if you test negative, stay home for the full 7 days.
  • If your test is positive, isolate yourself to protect others from getting infected.
• If you don’t get tested, it’s safest to stay home for 14 days after travel.
• Avoid being around people who are at increased risk for severe illness for 14 days, whether you get tested or not.
• Follow state and local recommendations or requirements after you return from travel

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/returning-cruise-voyages.html

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, LGW59 said:

"since the cruise lines haven't been all that keen on meeting the requirements"

 

chengkp75 - Are you referring to the changes they will need make?  Why are the cruise lines reluctant to do this, if you know?  They take a beating every time any outbreaks happen on ships, I would think they would want to do everything in their power to avoid a huge PR nightmare.  Thanks in advance

The cruise lines have known what these requirements have been since April, yet almost no work has been done to date on things like getting port agreements and private health care and quarantine facility contracts.  Their attitude, to me, has been, "if we wait this out, it will all  go away, and we can get back to business as usual".

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, SeaHunt said:

 

Or you'll have to pick one of the 7 days to cruise and then use the other 7 to quarantine LOL 😊

 

"Passengers who decide to travel should take the following steps to protect others after their return from a cruise ship or river cruise voyage:

• Get tested 3-5 days after travel AND stay home for 7 days after travel.
  • Even if you test negative, stay home for the full 7 days.
  • If your test is positive, isolate yourself to protect others from getting infected.
• If you don’t get tested, it’s safest to stay home for 14 days after travel.
• Avoid being around people who are at increased risk for severe illness for 14 days, whether you get tested or not.
• Follow state and local recommendations or requirements after you return from travel

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/returning-cruise-voyages.html

This is  a travel "advisory", which is not mandatory.

[C-Dragons]

32 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The cruise lines have known what these requirements have been since April, yet almost no work has been done to date on things like getting port agreements and private health care and quarantine facility contracts.  Their attitude, to me, has been, "if we wait this out, it will all  go away, and we can get back to business as usual".

Please cite your source for this.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, C-Dragons said:

Please cite your source for this.

Source for what part of that statement?  The fact that the  cruise lines knew the requirements?  That is easy, just read the NSO and the CSO, and the requirements are virtually the same.  The fact that virtually nothing has been done?  The fact that even the Healthy Sail panel recommended that the lines make private arrangements tells me that up until that time, nothing had been done regarding these requirements.  Also, Carnival's Mr. Donald mentioned that it was premature to discuss protocols until such time as the requirements were known, during the NSO period, showed that they were hoping the NSO requirements would go away.  They didn't, and now they have to meet the same requirements in the CSO.

[LGW59]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Source for what part of that statement?  The fact that the  cruise lines knew the requirements?  That is easy, just read the NSO and the CSO, and the requirements are virtually the same.  The fact that virtually nothing has been done?  The fact that even the Healthy Sail panel recommended that the lines make private arrangements tells me that up until that time, nothing had been done regarding these requirements.  Also, Carnival's Mr. Donald mentioned that it was premature to discuss protocols until such time as the requirements were known, during the NSO period, showed that they were hoping the NSO requirements would go away.  They didn't, and now they have to meet the same requirements in the CSO.

Without getting into vaccine, once they accept the needs of what has to be done for real cruising to begin, how much time do you think it may take to get each ship to the point it can be cleared to sail?

[chengkp75]

43 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

Without getting into vaccine, once they accept the needs of what has to be done for real cruising to begin, how much time do you think it may take to get each ship to the point it can be cleared to sail?

Normal restart timing from warm layup to operation would be 4-6 weeks.  Travel restrictions on crew may add 2-4 weeks to that.  Physical changes to the ship (medical center changes, etc) will  depend on whether the required materials have been pre-ordered or not, but would be 2-4 weeks, during which operational changes would be implemented and practiced, though maybe another 2-3 weeks needed.  Then the "simulated" cruises, and then any remediation of non-conformities found in the "simulated" cruise, followed by another simulated cruise, requiring a few weeks.  I really don't see any revenue cruises before April.

[Arizona Wildcat]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Normal restart timing from warm layup to operation would be 4-6 weeks.  Travel restrictions on crew may add 2-4 weeks to that.  Physical changes to the ship (medical center changes, etc) will  depend on whether the required materials have been pre-ordered or not, but would be 2-4 weeks, during which operational changes would be implemented and practiced, though maybe another 2-3 weeks needed.  Then the "simulated" cruises, and then any remediation of non-conformities found in the "simulated" cruise, followed by another simulated cruise, requiring a few weeks.  I really don't see any revenue cruises before April.

Agree April is the earliest.  The just is guidelines unless I missed something.  Also wonder why the cruiselines have not announced any port agreements.  Putting your head into the sand will not make the problem go away.  Unless the cruiselines don't get proactive it will be July before cruises resume in any frequency.

[D C]

12 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The cruise lines have known what these requirements have been since April, yet almost no work has been done to date on things like getting port agreements and private health care and quarantine facility contracts.  Their attitude, to me, has been, "if we wait this out, it will all  go away, and we can get back to business as usual".

What document published in April lays out the stipulations for the resumption of cruising? 

[chengkp75]

13 minutes ago, D C said:

What document published in April lays out the stipulations for the resumption of cruising? 

The April revision of the No Sail Order set out the requirements for cruise ships to continue to obtain "pratique" (the clean bill of health that the CDC has to grant a ship to allow it entry into the US.  That document also stated that ships could receive "pratique", on a ship by ship basis, if they applied to the CDC and USCG, but that the requirements laid out in that document would need to be met, and that with that "pratique" they could then apply to the USCG for clearance to operate in US waters, even when the NSO was in effect.  Those same requirements are listed in the Conditional Sail Order as the requirements to obtain a "Conditional Sailing Certificate", and the CSO certificate is required to obtain "pratique" for operations in the US.  So, the CDC has not changed their requirements for resumption of cruising since the April NSO, but have made more requirements, in the form of the "simulated" cruises.

[NutsAboutGolf]

14 hours ago, C-Dragons said:

I don't think the CDC “hates” the cruise industry, but do believe they are working to delay their return to service.

Ever since the fiasco with Princess in the beginning of the Covid crisis where ships were not allowed to disembark passengers and held them on board, news outlets began calling cruise ships “floating Petri dishes”.

 

From tight crew quarters to pax crowding by design everywhere, the CDC rightly considers cruising a "super spreader".  Cruises have been called "floating petri dishes" for decades, there's a reference to the term in 1918 during WW1 when the US shipped troops to Europe and many died in transit due to a bad flu outbreak.  Simply the overall point being, if you're going to go on a vacation during the pandemic, you take on a higher risk of exposing yourself to the virus on a cruise compared to other vacation alternatives due to limitation of space.

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, Arizona Wildcat said:

Agree April is the earliest.  The just is guidelines unless I missed something.  Also wonder why the cruiselines have not announced any port agreements.  Putting your head into the sand will not make the problem go away.  Unless the cruiselines don't get proactive it will be July before cruises resume in any frequency.

Port agreements will require the lines to work together, since the ports will have to set the limits on the number of cruise ships per day allowed, and also the number of cruise ships allowed per week in a given port will affect the amount of health care facilities, transportation services, and quarantine facilities that the CDC will require the cruise lines to contract for.  And, to me, this is going to be essentially new health care capacity, since it will need to be guaranteed at any time, meaning it will need to likely sit vacant much of the time.

[bouhunter]

12 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 I really don't see any revenue cruises before April.

And even then it will likely be 1-2 ships on short cruises for at least a few weeks.   Cancellations of most scheduled cruises could easily go on into summer 2021.

[C-Dragons]

 

   14 hours ago,  chengkp75 said: 

The cruise lines have known what these requirements have been since April, yet almost no work has been done to date on things like getting port agreements and private health care and quarantine facility contracts.  Their attitude, to me, has been, "if we wait this out, it will all  go away, and we can get back to business as usual".

Please cite your source for this.

I thought it was a pretty straightforward question. You state that the cruise lines have known the government requirements since April, but have done almost nothing. This is the X board, I'm not interested in what other lines have done. Please tell me how you know for a fact that X is not, and has not, done anything to comply with the government requirements.

Just because they are not telling the public, does not mean they are not actually working in these things.

Edited November 28, 2020 by C-Dragons

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, C-Dragons said:

 

   14 hours ago,  chengkp75 said: 

The cruise lines have known what these requirements have been since April, yet almost no work has been done to date on things like getting port agreements and private health care and quarantine facility contracts.  Their attitude, to me, has been, "if we wait this out, it will all  go away, and we can get back to business as usual".

Please cite your source for this.

I thought it was a pretty straightforward question. You state that the cruise lines have known the government requirements since April, but have done almost nothing. This is the X board, I'm not interested in what other lines have done. Please tell me how you know for a fact that X is not, and has not, done anything to comply with the government requirements.

Just because they are not telling the public, does not mean they are not actually working in these things.

If RCG had done anything towards the requirements, would they have waited until September and hired an advisory board (Healthy Sail Panel) to make recommendations that closely follow the requirements of the NSO and CSO?  Given the publicity that they made over the Panel's report, which was merely a framework of recommendations and not specific protocols or procedures, if they had made any further advances, don't you think they would have announced this as well?  As they have complained about inaction by the CDC in response to the Panel's recommendations, if they had made even more advances, and submitted those to the CDC, don't you think they would have announced those as well, at the very least to get some court of public opinion further in their favor?  So, perhaps from September, when both the Panel's report came out, and the CDC issued the requirements for the CSO certificate, they likely have started to work on meeting the requirements, since they now know the requirements won't go away, but they wasted the time from April to September, at least, in waiting and hoping that the requirements and the pandemic would go away.

 

I have no source for this, as I've stated before to you, I am allowed, and I will post my opinions on the matter, based on my experience with shipping and cruise lines operations.  Do I ask your "source" for your opinion that the CDC is "working to delay their return to service"?  No, that is your opinion, and I have served to protect your right to post that opinion, just as I am allowed to post my opinion.  I also can debate your opinion, as I did in my post reply, without asking what information you used to form that opinion.

 

My entire time on CC has seen me support the cruise lines in the face of severe criticism, when I don't feel that criticism is warranted, and other times castigate the lines when their actions warrant it.  I know that many times both of these positions anger many of the cruise line faithful, but I just don't let emotion cloud my reasoning, and present my opinion based on as much research and personal and professional experience as possible.

[nocl]

16 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Source for what part of that statement?  The fact that the  cruise lines knew the requirements?  That is easy, just read the NSO and the CSO, and the requirements are virtually the same.  The fact that virtually nothing has been done?  The fact that even the Healthy Sail panel recommended that the lines make private arrangements tells me that up until that time, nothing had been done regarding these requirements.  Also, Carnival's Mr. Donald mentioned that it was premature to discuss protocols until such time as the requirements were known, during the NSO period, showed that they were hoping the NSO requirements would go away.  They didn't, and now they have to meet the same requirements in the CSO.

In addition they moved ships out of US waters to avoid having to report information to the CDC.

[nocl]

On 11/26/2020 at 8:59 PM, LeeW said:

Interesting comments, Chief.  Especially the must/shall stuff that I spent 20 years writing into government research contracts.  One word was often worth over $100K.  As a government scientist I cringe every time these clowns tell us to follow the(ir) science.  But they do get lots of funding that way.

 

We do know that the CDC hates the cruise industry and only dropped the Do Not Sail order because the President wouldn't let them renew it.  So they stuck in a bunch of vague requirements designed to make it very hard for the industry.  We know that the cruise lines can't offer to sell a cruise over 7 days before November but a B2B isn't (and I am fully aware of PVSA rules).  Latest advisary makes it clear they don't want people to sail at all - the cruise industry is the only non-country designated as Level 4.  I don't think they are really trying to limit exposure to short periods - they don't want any exposure and they want to continue their current high level of funding/importance.

 

I do know that Royal allowed us to book a 7/7 B2B for April two days ago.  Hope it goes but booked as replacement for a cancelled Princess Panama 19 day cruise and both new cruises could still be cancelled.  Personally we feel much safer onboard than in Walmart.  Have been on many cruises that had Noro and we didn't get it, so are confident cruise lines do a good job of sanitation (wash hands, don't touch face is important).  And switching to a new batch of customers seems more likely to increase the chance of an infection, not decrease the risk. Maybe they should make the crew stay no more than 7 days on a ship?  Makes as much sense.

I guess that all of the other countries that have even tighter restrictions on cruise line sailings such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.  must also hate cruise lines.

 

It is not just the CDC that is concerned about transmission rates on cruise ships.