Just When We are all Excited About Alaska Cruises Starting Up, then it could all vanish

[HappyInVan]

5 hours ago, kazu said:

 

Many of those sailing to Alaska have already made final payment due to the time frame.

 

IMHO, Canada was right in banning cruising till 2022. Wait for the dust to settle.

 

For the eager beavers, all this excitement will add to the thrill of being first?

 

"A federal judge in Tampa will now decide whether to invalidate the CDC’s conditional sail order — a set of rules and recommendations cruise companies are using to get cruises restarted in the U.S. as soon as June 26. Even if the judge rules in DeSantis’ favor, a recently passed Florida law championed by DeSantis that bans companies from requiring patrons be vaccinated against COVID-19 will still prevent cruises from Florida to take place as planned."

 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/summer-cruises-florida-remain-uncertain-214836042.html

 

I wonder if Alaska regrets joining the lawsuit? 🙄

Edited June 4, 2021 by HappyInVan

[AKJonesy]

10 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

I wonder if Alaska regrets joining the lawsuit? 🙄

I guess we will see.  I hope the parties will do something to save face especially considering the impact on Alaska.  

[igraf]

16 hours ago, atexsix said:

Hard to believe the power of the entire congress and the President could be rendered null by the CDC, it's not what our leaders wanted.

 

Perhaps congress needs to get involved, I can't imagine the Alaska delegation would just sit by and let the season pass.

 

Do you really prefer that politicians have the final say in medical matters?

 

The CDC trumping the President is similar to a ship's doctor having authority over the captain in medical matters.  This is a well established practice and for good reason.

 

igraf

 

 

[idiebabe]

The Media stirs the Pot!  Same old, Same old!  They love hype!

 

Here's a video with NCL's President which was on 5/12 on GMA.  Norwegian Cruise Line CEO talks vaccine clash with Florida government | GMA (goodmorningamerica.com)

 

I highly doubt that Cruises won't be sailing this Summer in both Florida and AK!   The purpose of the Florida Lawsuit was to get the CDC off the pot and work with the Cruise Lines.   CDC just gave approval for Cruises to resume sailing from Port Canaveral.  Lots of festivities today with the new Mardi Gras pulling in escorted by two other Carnival Ships!   

 

[Christine Frances]

17 hours ago, atexsix said:

Hard to believe the power of the entire congress and the President could be rendered null by the CDC, it's not what our leaders wanted.

 

Perhaps congress needs to get involved, I can't imagine the Alaska delegation would just sit by and let the season pass.

shouldn’t the CDC be non political?   Isn’t their mandate to protect the US citizens?    Not to put business first?

[Mosaic]

All business include Cruise companies that are in Florida waters. According to DeSantis.

[Christine Frances]

1 hour ago, Mosaic said:

All business include Cruise companies that are in Florida waters. According to DeSantis.

Charleston would be an awesome alternative 💕 

[Oceansaway17]

19 hours ago, atexsix said:

Hard to believe the power of the entire congress and the President could be rendered null by the CDC, it's not what our leaders wanted.

 

Perhaps congress needs to get involved, I can't imagine the Alaska delegation would just sit by and let the season pass.

 

agree.  I want the voice of reason to rise and shine and fix this MESS.  I mean enough already.

FLA has theme parks but Alaska does not.  They really need some sort of season.  

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Oceansaway17 said:

 

agree.  I want the voice of reason to rise and shine and fix this MESS.  I mean enough already.

FLA has theme parks but Alaska does not.  They really need some sort of season.  

Currently in Alaska. Anchorage is kind of a ghost town, but down in Homer, a port town on the Kenai, things are quite busy.

[Daniel A]

On 6/3/2021 at 5:21 PM, ontheweb said:

Mediation and arbitration are two totally different processes. Arbitrators hear both sides and come to a binding decision. Mediators try to get the parties negotiating to the point that they can come to an agreement. They cannot force an agreement.

I think that the CDC may have backed out of mediation in order to make the statement that if Florida wins, that ends the Alaska season because the Alaska restoration law requires a Conditional Sailing Certificate.  This is clearly a maneuver to drive a wedge between the two states suing the CDC.  Nothing, nothing at all is preventing the CDC from issuing voluntary Conditional Sailing Certificates to the vessels identified in the Alaska law.  If Florida wins, it would remove the ability to mandate such a certificate but not the ability to issue voluntary ones.  It's legal theater on the part of the CDC.  They are out of control.

[nocl]

16 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I think that the CDC may have backed out of mediation in order to make the statement that if Florida wins, that ends the Alaska season because the Alaska restoration law requires a Conditional Sailing Certificate.  This is clearly a maneuver to drive a wedge between the two states suing the CDC.  Nothing, nothing at all is preventing the CDC from issuing voluntary Conditional Sailing Certificates to the vessels identified in the Alaska law.  If Florida wins, it would remove the ability to mandate such a certificate but not the ability to issue voluntary ones.  It's legal theater on the part of the CDC.  They are out of control.

I never considered mediation to have any change. You are talking about Governmental agency authority at the border, vs a state. No way the CDC or for that matter the Justice Department going to mediate that away. The only mediation possible would be is minor changes to the CSO, not the entire question of if the CDC had the authority which is the basis of the Florida case.

 

Actually if Florida were to win, since the entire basis of the Florida case is that the CDC does not have the authority to regulate the cruise industry, any new CSO would be equally invalid.

 

The law was written to require compliance with the CSO to get some that objected the first time the law was attempted, including the Senator from Washington to drop the objection. Which they did after the CDC came out with the 95/98% vaccination alternative.

 

Basically if Florida were to win, the law would have to be rewritten and passed again. Which it might not, without the cruise lines having to comply with CDC oversite.

 

Of course by using the term Florida winning it would mean at least at the court of appeals level. Which it certainly go to.

Edited June 4, 2021 by nocl

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I think that the CDC may have backed out of mediation in order to make the statement that if Florida wins, that ends the Alaska season because the Alaska restoration law requires a Conditional Sailing Certificate.

No, neither side wanted mediation or was willing to compromise.  The state of Florida claimed, as the basis of their suit, that the CDC had no jurisdiction to control the cruise lines.  What compromise position is available on this?  The CDC knows that any compromise to Florida, undermines their ability to set any requirements for "free pratique", like the VSP, and actually a good portion of the ENOA (Electronic Notice of Arrival) that clears any ship (not just cruise ships) into the US.  And that, is a Constitutional issue, dealing with the commerce clause, so where is the compromise position in that?  This was not about the CSO being unreasonable, read the suit and see that Florida wants the CDC to have no jurisdiction whatsoever.

[Daniel A]

16 minutes ago, nocl said:

Actually if Florida were to win, since the entire basis of the Florida case is that the CDC does not have the authority to regulate the cruise industry, any new CSO would be equally invalid.

The CDC has the ability to issue certificates of compliance with their guidance without mandating such to permit a ship to sail.  The Alaska law does not require compliance with the CSO, only a "Conditional Sailing Certificate."  Nothing is preventing the CDC from issuing "Conditional Sailing Certificates" on a voluntary basis without making it a mandate to sail.  The CDC invented the whole framework in the first place, they can certainly adapt their own conditions for issuing a "Conditional Sailing Certificate."  The Coast Guard already does a similar voluntary inspection program where they issue a "Vessel Safety Check" decal.  Getting such a decal from the Coast Guard is suggested but not mandated.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Daniel A

[nocl]

3 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

The CDC has the ability to issue certificates of compliance with their guidance without mandating such to permit a ship to sail.  The Alaska law does not require compliance with the CSO, only a "Conditional Sailing Certificate."  Nothing is preventing the CDC from issuing "Conditional Sailing Certificates" on a voluntary basis without making it a mandate to sail.  The CDC invented the whole framework in the first place, they can certainly adapt their own conditions for issuing a "Conditional Sailing Certificate."  The Coast Guard already does a similar voluntary inspection program where they issue a "Vessel Safety Check" decal.  Getting such a decal from the Coast Guard is suggested but not mandatory.

. in that case the cruise lines could voluntarily comply with the CSO as written, as the law requires. no need for any other CSO. but would also take an agreement from each of the cruise lines for them to voluntarily agree to comply with all of the provisions of the existing CSO.

 

Even then the government would appeal because this is a constitutional law level case.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, Daniel A said:

The Coast Guard already does a similar voluntary inspection program where they issue a "Vessel Safety Check" decal.  Getting such a decal from the Coast Guard is suggested but not mandated.

Wow, never thought I'd see a recreational boating safety check equated to the ability to control whether a vessel is healthy enough to enter the US.  Boating decals are for US owned boats, not foreign vessels, and are uninspected vessels to the USCG (meaning that they have no jurisdiction over the boat).

 

So, you propose that the CDC grant "free pratique" on a "voluntary" basis to some ships?  That is almost as laughable as the state of Florida's assertion that the cruise lines will "self-regulate".  We've seen how the cruise lines "self-regulate" over the decades.

[broberts]

22 hours ago, atexsix said:

Hard to believe the power of the entire congress and the President could be rendered null by the CDC, it's not what our leaders wanted.

 

Perhaps congress needs to get involved, I can't imagine the Alaska delegation would just sit by and let the season pass.

 

I was under the impression that the legislation actually enshrines the CDC jurisdiction in this matter.

[Daniel A]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

So, you propose that the CDC grant "free pratique" on a "voluntary" basis to some ships?  That is almost as laughable as the state of Florida's assertion that the cruise lines will "self-regulate".  We've seen how the cruise lines "self-regulate" over the decades.

No, I propose that the CDC not punish Alaska because it joined the Florida lawsuit.  The CDC was all set to issue Conditional Sailing Certificates to the vessels identified in the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act.  Now, they are threatening to refuse to issue any kind of Conditional Sailing Certificate to those particular vessels if Florida is successful.  That is the very definition of being "capricious."

 

The State of Florida never claimed that the CDC "had no jurisdiction to control the cruise lines" as you claimed.  The relief that Florida is asking for in their filing is: 

For these reasons, Florida asks the Court to:

a) Hold unlawful and set aside the Conditional Sailing Order.

b) Issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Conditional Sailing Order.

c) Postpone the effective date of the Conditional Sailing Order. 

d) Declare unlawful the Conditional Sailing Order.

e) Declare that the cruise industry may open with reasonable safety protocols.

f) Award Florida costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

g) Award such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

 

The Florida lawsuit is merely stating that the CDC went overboard (no pun intended) in promulgating the overreaching CSO without sufficient legal basis and procedures by shutting down an entire industry.  A court declaring the CSO to be invalid does not invalidate other proper regulatory authority the CDC may posses. 

[chengkp75]

From Florida's Complaint:

 

"9. The CDC does not have the authority to issue year-and-a-half-long nationwide lockdowns of entire industries. And even if it did, its actions here are arbitrary and capricious and otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).

 

10. Florida asks this Court to set aside the CDC’s unlawful actions and hold that cruises should be allowed to operate with reasonable safety protocols."

 

The CDC is the sole federal agency authorized to set requirements for 'free pratique", and so therefore, if they feel that shutting down the industry, is the best thing to do, they in fact do  have the authority to issue a lock down.  Whether the science supports the requirements of the CSO, the issuance of the CSO  is within their legal authority.

[harkinmr]

23 hours ago, atexsix said:

Hard to believe the power of the entire congress and the President could be rendered null by the CDC, it's not what our leaders wanted.

 

Perhaps congress needs to get involved, I can't imagine the Alaska delegation would just sit by and let the season pass.

Not by the CDC.  By the court if it grants injunctive relief and the CSO goes poof.  That's not going to happen, but it really is a reasonable argument.  The Alaska legislation effectively ratified the CSO, and if the CSO is eliminated, the premise of the legislation and waiver of the PVSA goes away.  Good luck getting the Senate and the House to pass alternative legislation in time for the Alaska season.

[AmazedByCruising]

47 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

We've seen how the cruise lines "self-regulate" over the decades.

 

I guess you refer to environmental issues? If so, that's because the average cruiser doesn't care that much, and if even if they do, feel comfort in a useless ban on plastic straws and leaflets all over the place bragging about how much the company saved on water in a previous year. 

 

Yet the ships are extremely good at self-regulating when it comes to offering decent food, nice music and clean cabins. No laws required, just a need to sell cruises to people that won't buy them if the food is lousy.

 

They will self regulate when clients insist on a safe journey without a chance of suddenly being locked up in their state room and all the other horrors they remember from last year. I guess most of the potential passengers want to hear that to be able to board they must be fully vaccinated and tested. 

[harkinmr]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

No, I propose that the CDC not punish Alaska because it joined the Florida lawsuit.  The CDC was all set to issue Conditional Sailing Certificates to the vessels identified in the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act.  Now, they are threatening to refuse to issue any kind of Conditional Sailing Certificate to those particular vessels if Florida is successful.  That is the very definition of being "capricious."

 

The State of Florida never claimed that the CDC "had no jurisdiction to control the cruise lines" as you claimed.  The relief that Florida is asking for in their filing is: 

For these reasons, Florida asks the Court to:

a) Hold unlawful and set aside the Conditional Sailing Order.

b) Issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Conditional Sailing Order.

c) Postpone the effective date of the Conditional Sailing Order. 

d) Declare unlawful the Conditional Sailing Order.

e) Declare that the cruise industry may open with reasonable safety protocols.

f) Award Florida costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

g) Award such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

 

The Florida lawsuit is merely stating that the CDC went overboard (no pun intended) in promulgating the overreaching CSO without sufficient legal basis and procedures by shutting down an entire industry.  A court declaring the CSO to be invalid does not invalidate other proper regulatory authority the CDC may posses. 

You are missing the point of the Florida lawsuit.  The lawsuit calls for the CSO to go away. The Conditional Sailing Order is the pretext for the Alaska cruise waiver under the PVSA.  It's not the CDC doing this, and the CDC is not "punishing" Alaska.  Either the government was playing five dimensional chess by pre-planning the ratification of the CSO in the legislation (which I doubt) or Congress made a huge error in incorporating the CSO in the legislation.  Frankly, I think it was done intentionally in order to "ease" the legislation through.  No need to worry though.  The court is highly likely to deny injunctive relief to Florida.  The case will go to trial and cruising will be well underway before there is a resolution.

Edited June 5, 2021 by harkinmr

[atexsix]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I think that the CDC may have backed out of mediation in order to make the statement that if Florida wins, that ends the Alaska season because the Alaska restoration law requires a Conditional Sailing Certificate.  This is clearly a maneuver to drive a wedge between the two states suing the CDC.  Nothing, nothing at all is preventing the CDC from issuing voluntary Conditional Sailing Certificates to the vessels identified in the Alaska law.  If Florida wins, it would remove the ability to mandate such a certificate but not the ability to issue voluntary ones.  It's legal theater on the part of the CDC.  They are out of control.

Completely agree.  The timing is too coincidental.  And it was picked up almost immediately by Associated Press, normally cruise news doesn't hit national for a couple of days, if at all.

[atexsix]

50 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Not by the CDC.  By the court if it grants injunctive relief and the CSO goes poof.  That's not going to happen, but it really is a reasonable argument.  The Alaska legislation effectively ratified the CSO, and if the CSO is eliminated, the premise of the legislation and waiver of the PVSA goes away.  Good luck getting the Senate and the House to pass alternative legislation in time for the Alaska season.

I don't disagree with that, but the notion of hundreds of politicians that voted for something just throwing their hands up and walking away because of a technicality in the law is something I'm finding difficult to believe.  Nobody thought the PVSA would ever be modified, yet it was done, and surprisingly fast.    

[harkinmr]

3 minutes ago, atexsix said:

I don't disagree with that, but the notion of hundreds of politicians that voted for something just throwing their hands up and walking away because of a technicality in the law is something I'm finding difficult to believe.  Nobody thought the PVSA would ever be modified, yet it was done, and surprisingly fast.    

The PVSA was not modified in any way.  An "exemption" was made for certain ships for a restricted period of time based on compliance with the CSO.  It's not a "technicality".  It was a driving element of the legislation, likely needed to get everyone on board to pass the legislation.  Probably not so easy saying that it would not require compliance with federal law, including the CSO.

[broberts]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

No, I propose that the CDC not punish Alaska because it joined the Florida lawsuit.  The CDC was all set to issue Conditional Sailing Certificates to the vessels identified in the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act.  Now, they are threatening to refuse to issue any kind of Conditional Sailing Certificate to those particular vessels if Florida is successful.  That is the very definition of being "capricious."

 

 

Don't personify the CDC. Suggesting it would act they way you would in similar circumstances is nonsensical.