Florida sues to reopen cruise ports

[nocl]

2 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

And the NCL proposal is for all people to be vaccinated.  So I am not sure what your issue is with cruising for an all vaccinated ship?  People who forge a document should be prosecuted.  

However NCL did not submit that in the form of a plan for the CDC to approve operating under the CSO.  They submitted it the context of releasing NCL from the CSO entirely in which case the CDC would have no authority to monitor or do anything at all including to take action if NCL changed their mind.  NCL still has not implemented any agreements with home ports in the US in any form to meet that requirement of the CSO.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, K.T.B. said:

 

I agree with you about the "freedom to cruise".  However, we do have a "Freedom of Movement".  

 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, reads:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

 

And that's all it says.  I've got into an argument with someone over this and the were unyielding in their opinion that we have a right to cruise.  They're wrong.  We have a right to travel, but the mode is entirely up to us. Flying is a privilege and not a right.  Cruising is a privilege and not a right.  Driving is a privilege and not a right.  Taking the train is a privilege and not a right.

 

And with every right we have in the US, there are some caveats.  For example, we have freedom of speech, but we cannot yell "fire" in a theater.  Same thing with travelling in that we have the freedom to do so, but every mode has their own rules that we must follow.  With flying and driving, we must wear a seat belt.  With flying, nowadays, you must wear a mask the entire time on the plane.  And with cruising, it appears the majority of the lines are going to possibly require passengers and crew be vaccinated. 

 

Here's hoping the CDC is willing to at least talking about changing the CSO.  So far, that doesn't appear to be the case.  Maybe they'll surprise me, who knows?  But if these cruises in the Bahamas that Celebrity is doing are highly successful, the CDC, IMO, won't have a leg to stand on in terms of preventing re-opening.  it will have been proven that cruising can be safe.  Fingers crossed!

What exactly would you expect them to change in the CSO itself.  The CSO simply requires in pretty general terms 

1. Approval of the safe crew movement requirements.  which the cruise lines have complied with for their ships in US waters according to the color code system. 

 

2. Make agreements with the ports concerning the handling and care of any cases that show up to make sure that medical resources and quarantine quarters are available to avoid any repeat of last spring.  Many of those details are up to the cruise line, the local port and the health authorities dealing with those ports.  Many here on CC have talked about wanting clarity and to make sure how things would be handled if a case shows up.  While some details are in the technical instructions there are really none in the CSO

 

3. Demonstration cruises.  The CSO pretty much limits it to the cruise lines must submit a plan on how such cruises will be conducted.  There are some basic requirements that are pretty much the same in the EU guidance.  The real detail would be in the plans submitted by the cruise lines to be reviewed and approved by the CDC.

 

4. Resuming of cruising out of US ports following the protocol submitted by the cruise lines, approved and monitored by the CDC to make sure of proper implementation.

 

So quote the exact sections you think should be removed or modified and lets discuss the merits of them.

[NMTraveller]

54 minutes ago, nocl said:

However NCL did not submit that in the form of a plan for the CDC to approve operating under the CSO.  They submitted it the context of releasing NCL from the CSO entirely in which case the CDC would have no authority to monitor or do anything at all including to take action if NCL changed their mind.  NCL still has not implemented any agreements with home ports in the US in any form to meet that requirement of the CSO.

It seems to me that the 100% vaccination requirement trumps anything in the CSO.  Also the medical grade air filtration is a huge improvement.

 

In this case NCL seems to have higher standards than the CDC.  The huge medical infrastructure, bureacracy, and other requirements in the CSO seem to be part of the pre vaccine days.  If the CDC wants to play they will take the 100% vaccine requirement and require some oversight plus some mitigation for the spread.  If they don't  want to play the ships will change home ports and the CDC will become irrelevant in the matter.  Oh the theater...  A Mexican standoff...

 

It is in both parties best interests to come to a resolution.

Edited April 24, 2021 by NMTraveller

[grandgeezer]

2 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

It seems to me that the 100% vaccination requirement trumps anything in the CSO.  Also the medical grade air filtration is a huge improvement.

 

In this case NCL seems to have higher standards than the CDC.  The huge medical infrastructure, bureacracy, and other requirements in the CSO seem to be part of the pre vaccine days.  If the CDC wants to play they will take the 100% vaccine requirement and require some oversight plus some mitigation for the spread.  If they don't  want to play the ships will change home ports and the CDC will become irrelevant in the matter.  Oh the theater...  A Mexican standoff...

 

It is in both parties best interests to come to a resolution.

Cruise lines leaving the U.S. forever is laughable. Where they all going to go?? The cost, and time for the interstructure that has to be added is massive. I can't believe the public would enjoy the lack of quality ports, etc., offered by ships not being able to stop in the U.S., the CDC will relelevant. The people, near ports, and I think there are a lot of them will disappear unless you can get the locals in St. Maartens, or Nassau to pick up the slack.

If they had any real viable options, it wouldn't have taken over a year to come up with them. The lines aren't going anywhere, either this will eventually be settled or they will run out of money and go belly up, their choice.

[NMTraveller]

8 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

Cruise lines leaving the U.S. forever is laughable. Where they all going to go?? The cost, and time for the interstructure that has to be added is massive. I can't believe the public would enjoy the lack of quality ports, etc., offered by ships not being able to stop in the U.S., the CDC will relelevant. The people, near ports, and I think there are a lot of them will disappear unless you can get the locals in St. Maartens, or Nassau to pick up the slack.

If they had any real viable options, it wouldn't have taken over a year to come up with them. The lines aren't going anywhere, either this will eventually be settled or they will run out of money and go belly up, their choice.

I never said forever or all ships.  Just until the CDC figures out that NCL offered them a better offer than they had asked for in the first place.

 

There really weren't any viable options before the vaccine.  Now there are.

The order expires in November.  They will be back by then.

 

I wonder how long the cruise lines will wait before they start moving more ships outside of the US for the summer and fall?

Edited April 24, 2021 by NMTraveller

[Blackduck59]

I don't think the CDC really cares, their mandate is to protect the health of all residents of the United States. If the cruise lines want to get back to work they ALL have to make a plan together. Then they ALL have to make a proposal to the CDC with solutions to the concerns that the CDC has. Then the CDC will look at the proposal and point out any concerns they feel need to be addressed. Once the rules are established then the cruise companies follow them and the CDC enforces them (or would enforcement be someone else's job) And then the hard part comes the passengers have to ALL follow the rules, not just say they were vaccinated and maybe weren't and promise they will abide by the cruise contract and then claim they didn't understand the contract when they signed it.

Just because NCL made some noise doesn't mean they presented a proposal to the CDC and I doubt the CDC will waste it's time one cruise line at a time.

[nocl]

3 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

It seems to me that the 100% vaccination requirement trumps anything in the CSO.  Also the medical grade air filtration is a huge improvement.

 

In this case NCL seems to have higher standards than the CDC.  The huge medical infrastructure, bureacracy, and other requirements in the CSO seem to be part of the pre vaccine days.  If the CDC wants to play they will take the 100% vaccine requirement and require some oversight plus some mitigation for the spread.  If they don't  want to play the ships will change home ports and the CDC will become irrelevant in the matter.  Oh the theater...  A Mexican standoff...

 

It is in both parties best interests to come to a resolution.

The requirements are not for huge medical infrastructure.  The requirements are for the cruise lines to come to agreement with each port on what is needed in way of quarters for potential quarantine, treatments, and transportation.  That could be as little as one room and an agreement with a medical center to accept and treat passengers.  It would only be huge if the local port considers the risk to be huge.  If the cruise lines commit to full vaccination then both they and the ports should consider the risks to be small and the costs correspondingly small.

 

I do not think the CDC really cares if the cruise lines change ports as long as it is with the understanding that if they were to have a problem it is for the cruise lines and their new ports to deal with, not a US port.  Then the testing prior to flying home does come into play.

 

So list the exact portions of the CSO that you consider to be obsolete.  

 

The cruise lines do not want agreements, but they were certainly willing last spring to offload passengers on the US, with the government dealing with the quarantines, and other issues.  When they were sailing from out of US waters into US waters to offload sick crew members into US hospitals.

 

The cruise lines did not want to deal with the requirements for crew transport through the US refusing to sign the documents required while telling their crew members that the CDC would not let them.  Yet after weeks of stalling they did sign the documents (pretty much after a series of articles by the Miami newspaper published the reason why).

Edited April 24, 2021 by nocl

[nocl]

5 minutes ago, Blackduck59 said:

I don't think the CDC really cares, their mandate is to protect the health of all residents of the United States. If the cruise lines want to get back to work they ALL have to make a plan together. Then they ALL have to make a proposal to the CDC with solutions to the concerns that the CDC has. Then the CDC will look at the proposal and point out any concerns they feel need to be addressed. Once the rules are established then the cruise companies follow them and the CDC enforces them (or would enforcement be someone else's job) And then the hard part comes the passengers have to ALL follow the rules, not just say they were vaccinated and maybe weren't and promise they will abide by the cruise contract and then claim they didn't understand the contract when they signed it.

Just because NCL made some noise doesn't mean they presented a proposal to the CDC and I doubt the CDC will waste it's time one cruise line at a time.

The CDC will address each cruise line and each ship for that matter whenever they actually submit a plan.

 

The problem is that the plan requires the cruise lines to commit to a plan and execute it as approved, with any deviations requiring approval.  Not the way cruise lines are used to operating. Even now try and lock down the cruise lines on what the protocol will be for any particular cruise.

[harkinmr]

4 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

It seems to me that the 100% vaccination requirement trumps anything in the CSO.  Also the medical grade air filtration is a huge improvement.

 

In this case NCL seems to have higher standards than the CDC.  The huge medical infrastructure, bureacracy, and other requirements in the CSO seem to be part of the pre vaccine days.  If the CDC wants to play they will take the 100% vaccine requirement and require some oversight plus some mitigation for the spread.  If they don't  want to play the ships will change home ports and the CDC will become irrelevant in the matter.  Oh the theater...  A Mexican standoff...

 

It is in both parties best interests to come to a resolution.

You are right.  It is in both parties interests to come to a resolution, but let's face it the cruise lines have the most to lose if it's not, right?  NCL did "propose" that they would have 100% vaccinated cruises and would implement their SailSafe protocols.  But they want to do that without any further restrictions or oversight by the CDC.  If there is no plan that has been approved for a restart, with CDC oversight on its implementation, then NCL can turn around and change that plan in a heartbeat.  THAT is what the CDC is not going to allow.

 

 

[harkinmr]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

The CDC will address each cruise line and each ship for that matter whenever they actually submit a plan.

 

The problem is that the plan requires the cruise lines to commit to a plan and execute it as approved, with any deviations requiring approval.  Not the way cruise lines are used to operating. Even now try and lock down the cruise lines on what the protocol will be for any particular cruise.

Sorry nocl.  It appears I stepped on your post. 😞

Edited April 25, 2021 by harkinmr

[NMTraveller]

5 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

You are right.  It is in both parties interests to come to a resolution, but let's face it the cruise lines have the most to lose if it's not, right?  

 

 

I don't know about that.  If the CDC loses and the cruise lines sail outside of the USA the CDC loses relevance and regulatory authority over them.  Yet you still have all of the Americans coming back from their cruises without CDC oversight and just a test to come back in.

Edited April 25, 2021 by NMTraveller

[harkinmr]

Just now, NMTraveller said:

I don't know about that.  If the CDC loses and the cruise lines sail outside of the USA the CDC loses relevance and regulatory authority over them.  Yet you still have all of the Americans coming back from their cruises without any CDC oversight.

Hardly.  The CDC is not going to lose any relevance whatsoever.  None of the cruise lines is going to be able to sail their full fleets from other North America ports.  It is not practical and will be far too expensive long-term.  It really is an empty threat to say that you're going to move on from US ports.  The US is too important a player in the cruise game and a significant part of total revenues for the major cruise lines.

[NMTraveller]

6 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Hardly.  The CDC is not going to lose any relevance whatsoever.  None of the cruise lines is going to be able to sail their full fleets from other North America ports.  It is not practical and will be far too expensive long-term.  It really is an empty threat to say that you're going to move on from US ports.  The US is too important a player in the cruise game and a significant part of total revenues for the major cruise lines.

What other places of American life do they have regulatory authority over?  Airports?  They lost the battle to Covid test everyone getting on and off a plane.  They have a mask mandate, but it is loosely enforced.  At some point in time the elected officials will say it is time to get the economy back on track.  That is when the microphone will be taken away .

Edited April 25, 2021 by NMTraveller

[harkinmr]

21 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

What other places of American life do they have regulatory authority over?  Airports?  They lost the battle to Covid test everyone getting on and off a plane.  They have a mask mandate, but it is loosely enforced.  At some point in time the elected officials will say it is time to get the economy back on track.  That is when the microphone will be taken away.

I think we've had this "other places in American life" and CDC authority discussion before haven't we?  Not going to revisit it.  Elected officials are already on the case and, so far, have only created a lot of noise.  The Senate and House bills to demand a restart to cruising are dead in the water.  The lawsuits are unlikely to get anywhere.  Anyone hoping that somehow all of the political noise is going to dramatically change things is not being realistic.  It's great for the politicians, but not for cruisers.  It just bogs down the process even more.

Edited April 25, 2021 by harkinmr

[NMTraveller]

23 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

I think we've had this "other places in American life" and CDC authority discussion before haven't we.  Not going to revisit it.  Elected officials are already on the case and, so far, have only created a lot of noise.  The Senate and House bills to demand a restart to cruising are dead in the water.  The lawsuits are unlikely to get anywhere.  Anyone hoping that somehow all of the political noise is going to dramatically change things is not being realistic.  It's great for the politicians, but not for cruisers.  It just bogs down the process even more.

So you think that if the POTUS went up to Walensky and said let the ships sail she would give him the cruise lines have not filled out their paperwork properly excuse?  At some point in time the numbers will go down and the heat will be turned up on the CDC to start opening up the economy.  Right now it is a low roar but will get louder and louder as the numbers go down.  It will be tougher to ask for trillions more in stimulus from taxpayers vs. opening up the economy.

 

The only way that the CDC is effective is through voluntary compliance, not the I am taking my ball and going home.  Our own governor relented before the state legislature took away some of her powers.

 

I do think that this would be yet another lost case in court if it ever goes.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by NMTraveller

[nocl]

28 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

I don't know about that.  If the CDC loses and the cruise lines sail outside of the USA the CDC loses relevance and regulatory authority over them.  Yet you still have all of the Americans coming back from their cruises without CDC oversight and just a test to come back in.

The biggest issue is that if they do not come to agreement with the CDC, then the cruise lines know that if any problem comes up it is up to them and the port they are sailing from to deal with any issues and that sailing to a US port to deal with it is not an option.

 

Also if any of the passengers do test positive they will not be able to board a plane and return to the US for at least 10 days.

[harkinmr]

7 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

So you think that if the POTUS went up to Walensky and said let the ships sail she would give him the cruise lines have not filled out their paperwork properly excuse?  At some point in time the numbers will go down and the heat will be turned up on the CDC to start opening up the economy.  Right now it is a low roar but will get louder and louder as the numbers go down.  It will be tougher to ask for trillions more in stimulus from taxpayers vs. opening up the economy.

 

The only way that the CDC is effective is through voluntary compliance, not the I am taking my ball and going home.

 

I do think that this would be yet another lost case in court if it ever goes.

 

 

Ok, I'll humor you on this one, but this is the last. Biden is not going to impose his will on Dr. Walensky, even if he was inclined to do so.  He is a firm believer in allowing the CDC to do their job. The last president interfered on a regular basis through his HHS Secretary and other political appointees and caused nothing but discord and made the pandemic response worse.  His administration stepped into the CDC/cruise line battle last Fall and we ended up with worse than the no sail order.  The CSO resulted from that interference.

 

What you are failing to recognize is what I have repeated a few times.  The parties ARE working together at this point.  The CSO is NOT going to disappear no matter how much the cruise lines and various politicians want it to.  If the cruise lines want to start from the US in mid-Summer then GET ON WITH IT and work out a plan to proceed with the CDC.  

 

I'm out.

[nocl]

Just now, NMTraveller said:

So you think that if the POTUS went up to Walensky and said let the ships sail she would give him the cruise lines have not filled out their paperwork properly excuse?  At some point in time the numbers will go down and the heat will be turned up on the CDC to start opening up the economy.  Right now it is a low roar but will get louder and louder as the numbers go down.  It will be tougher to ask for trillions more in stimulus from taxpayers vs. opening up the economy.

 

I do think that this would be yet another lost case in court if it ever goes.

 

 

At this time I expect that the POTUS is more on the side of the CDC than the side of the cruise lines.

 

Note that when the senators in Florida made their little bill a Senator from Washington wrote the CDC asking that the CSO be left in place.  Considering that Washington is one of the states impacted.  If their Senator was one the CDC side, just imagine the lack of support from those states not impacted.  The Congress members from all of the other states have been rather noticeable by their lack of support for any of the bills, either last year or this year, to over ride CDC authority.

 

I think you over estimate the impact and the numbers of the members of the  cruising public that think that the cruise lines should be allowed to sail without CDC oversite.

 

I doubt that the CDC would lose.  First of all any of the cases that over turned any restrictions were in state courts, or were based upon religious freedom.  Neither applies in this situation.

 

Unlike the other businesses referenced in the law suit which are located inside of the US and are under control of local and state health control agencies, the cruise lines are not.  The airlines are under control of the FAA and have strict treaty arrangements with other countries, which the cruise lines have no similar situation.  So when it comes to jurisdiction there is no similarity between the cruise lines and the entities the case compares them to.

 

There is plenty of documentation and evidence showing the impact of air born infection on cruise ships so that can be demonstrated.

 

Case law concerning ships, quarantines and federal authority is also well documented.

 

Last but not least there is an avenue for compliance for the cruise lines to start sailing that they have not taken action to comply with.  Courts tend not to look favorably on companies that have an avenue but take no action to comply.

 

That is probably why the state filed, and the cruise lines have not.  Also the cruise lines have not joined the case.  If there was a high probability of success would not the organization that claim to be impacted not join the case.

 

 

[Oville]

18 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

 

 

I do think that this would be yet another lost case in court if it ever goes.

 

 

What other cases are you referring to?  Also, how many Americans cruised per year pre-Covid?

[markeb]

8 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

So you think that if the POTUS went up to Walensky and said let the ships sail she would give him the cruise lines have not filled out their paperwork properly excuse?  At some point in time the numbers will go down and the heat will be turned up on the CDC to start opening up the economy.  Right now it is a low roar but will get louder and louder as the numbers go down.  It will be tougher to ask for trillions more in stimulus from taxpayers vs. opening up the economy.

 

The only way that the CDC is effective is through voluntary compliance, not the I am taking my ball and going home.

 

I do think that this would be yet another lost case in court if it ever goes.

 

 

 

I guess I've spent too much of my life in government and inside the Beltway. The complete lack of understanding of how the interagency process actually works surprises me in some way, but it probably shouldn't.

 

There is a White House COVID19 Coordinator, charged by executive order with coordinating executive branch policy and actions on COVID. The CDC has the subject matter expertise and the the authorities to regulate the cruise ship industry. If the White House wasn't on board with the CDC's actions, there would be a new CDC director, either through resignation or the HHS Secretary would replace them. Period.

 

You can Google the executive order. It's dated January 21st. Whatever happens next will come out of the White House, directly or indirectly. Atlanta will implement within their authorities. If Dr. Walensky believes her best public health advice isn't being followed, she has the option of resigning and making that fact obvious, or being replaced. That hasn't happened so the suggestion the POTUS isn't supporting her is ludicrous. What is most likely happening is a whole series of options within the space of best practices across Transportation, HHS, DHS (CBP mostly) and others were offered up  in early February, agencies have written implementing documents, and sometime after 100 days those actions will be announced. Likely along with a whole lot of other actions not involving cruising.

 

The only low roar is on Cruise Critic and a meow from three Senators and a few Representatives that couldn't even get the fourth Senator to sign on. The court case will likely begin and end as to whether the states even have standing since the injured parties are private corporations and their employees. If last fall into January is any indication, they don't.

 

You can demonize the CDC all you want, but if they didn't have the support of POTUS, the Director would be out of work.

[NMTraveller]

9 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Ok, I'll humor you on this one, but this is the last. Biden is not going to impose his will on Dr. Walensky, even if he was inclined to do so.  He is a firm believer in allowing the CDC to do their job. The last president interfered on a regular basis through his HHS Secretary and other political appointees and caused nothing but discord and made the pandemic response worse.  His administration stepped into the CDC/cruise line battle last Fall and we ended up with worse than the no sail order.  The CSO resulted from that interference.

 

If Walensky is running the show then why were Covid tests not required at airports before the vaccinations started rolling in?  They talked about it.  

 

You know the CDCs risk stance on the issue for unvaccinated travelers.  I claim that it was politics.

Edited April 25, 2021 by NMTraveller

[LGW59]

56 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

What other places of American life do they have regulatory authority over?  Airports?  They lost the battle to Covid test everyone getting on and off a plane.  They have a mask mandate, but it is loosely enforced.  At some point in time the elected officials will say it is time to get the economy back on track.  That is when the microphone will be taken away .

The economy IS getting back on track, it started late last year and has continued into this spring.  Cruise jobs are important to those who work in the industry, of course, but they are a mere blip on the total US economy, a microblip. 

Edited April 25, 2021 by LGW59

[NMTraveller]

10 minutes ago, markeb said:

You can demonize the CDC all you want, but if they didn't have the support of POTUS, the Director would be out of work.

Walensky has the support of the POTUS.  My suggestion that she gets a little political reality check from time to time I do not think is all that far out of line.  Perhaps you can answer this question?

 

If Walensky is running the show then why were Covid tests not required at airports before the vaccinations started rolling in?  They talked about it.  

 

You know the CDCs risk stance on the issue for unvaccinated travelers.  I claim that it was politics and elected official oversight.

Edited April 25, 2021 by NMTraveller

[markeb]

9 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

If Walensky is running the show then why were Covid tests not required at airports before the vaccinations started rolling in?  They talked about it.  

 

 

I really don't know. I suspect ultimately the TSA and airlines felt it was unworkable, and  people could get in a car and drive across state lines without being tested. The CDC, like pretty much all federal agencies, derives a lot of its authority from the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution, so it would only apply to interstate and international travel; not all travelers at an airport are traveling interstate (people fly from Sacramento to San Diego and Houston to Amarillo). And if we're talking before vaccines started rolling out, we're talking Dr. Redfield; vaccinations started before she was named Director in late January.

 

If memory serves, testing of US bound air travelers (different but related question) began in the previous administration and continued under the current administration.

Edited April 25, 2021 by markeb

[harkinmr]

47 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

I really don't know. I suspect ultimately the TSA and airlines felt it was unworkable, and  people could get in a car and drive across state lines without being tested. The CDC, like pretty much all federal agencies, derives a lot of its authority from the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution, so it would only apply to interstate and international travel; not all travelers at an airport are traveling interstate (people fly from Sacramento to San Diego and Houston to Amarillo). And if we're talking before vaccines started rolling out, we're talking Dr. Redfield; vaccinations started before she was named Director in late January.

 

If memory serves, testing of US bound air travelers (different but related question) began in the previous administration and continued under the current administration.

It’s interesting because the way many people talk on these boards you would think that the CDC didn’t exist under the prior administration.  That it’s just a troublesome  agency created by the current one to pick on the cruise lines. 🙄