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

[broberts]

Just now, Daniel A said:

Yes, the agency promulgating the standard can do so within the agency's statutory limits.  This means since they promulgated the CSO, they are just as capable of promulgating a voluntary certificate as well.  A standard is not necessarily a "regulation or a statute" which is what you asked.

 

As long as the CSO is legal and in existence, there is no barrier to the CDC issuing the Conditional Sailing Certificates.  The CDC is trying to claim that if the CSO isn't legal, then they would have no ability to come up with an alternate Conditional Sailing Certificate.  I do not believe that to be the case.

 

In general, government operations should always seek voluntary cooperation from the governed.  There is no need to hammer the governed into compliance if they are willingly doing what the government wants in the first place.

 

If the judge rules that the CSO is outside the jurisdiction of the CDC would that not call into question the ability of the CDC to formulate any sort of sail order?

[Daniel A]

1 minute ago, broberts said:

 

If the judge rules that the CSO is outside the jurisdiction of the CDC would that not call into question the ability of the CDC to formulate any sort of sail order?

I think you are confusing the Conditional Sail Order with a Conditional Sailing Certificate.  The Alaska Tourism Recovery Act requires the ships sailing from Seattle to Alaska to acquire and maintain a "Conditional Sailing Certificate."  Nowhere does the law mention the term Conditional Sail Order.  There's no reason why the CDC couldn't come up with a Conditional Sailing Certificate which would be issued because a ship is complying with recommendations from the CDC.  It's could be like a CDC  "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval."  It would meet the requirements of the Alaska tourism law without needing the enforcement powers of the existing Conditional Sail Order.  I also do not believe the court would necessarily throw out the entire CSO to begin with.  The court could just enjoin specific parts of the order as well.

 

I am surprised at the number of posts on this thread which are so dead set against an alternative which could possibly save the Alaska cruising season if the court were to permit an injunction.  Go figure.  I wonder if it isn't motivated by a desire to bash the Executive who brought the lawsuit in the first place.

[Mosaic]

It is not about saving the Alaska cruise season, but rather safe cruising.

[Aardvaark]

Or, if this is true, we have another way.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/royal-caribbean-reverses-vaccination-mandate-for-passengers-on-cruises-departing-from-ports-in-florida-and-texas-as-tension-over-vaccine-passports-intensifies/ar-AAKK5uZ

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

In general, government operations should always seek voluntary cooperation from the governed.  There is no need to hammer the governed into compliance if they are willingly doing what the government wants in the first place.

Given this statement, and the fact that the requirements for sailing were issued back in April, 2020, do you feel that it was the CDC or the cruise lines that stalled sailing for so long?  Your statement shows that typically government does not need to issue "technical instructions" on how to meet the mandated requirements, so why have the cruise lines waited so long to comply?

[broberts]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

I think you are confusing the Conditional Sail Order with a Conditional Sailing Certificate.  The Alaska Tourism Recovery Act requires the ships sailing from Seattle to Alaska to acquire and maintain a "Conditional Sailing Certificate."  Nowhere does the law mention the term Conditional Sail Order.  There's no reason why the CDC couldn't come up with a Conditional Sailing Certificate which would be issued because a ship is complying with recommendations from the CDC.  It's could be like a CDC  "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval."  It would meet the requirements of the Alaska tourism law without needing the enforcement powers of the existing Conditional Sail Order.  I also do not believe the court would necessarily throw out the entire CSO to begin with.  The court could just enjoin specific parts of the order as well.

 

I am surprised at the number of posts on this thread which are so dead set against an alternative which could possibly save the Alaska cruising season if the court were to permit an injunction.  Go figure.  I wonder if it isn't motivated by a desire to bash the Executive who brought the lawsuit in the first place.

 

Perhaps it's just people that don't have your clarity of vision. 😏

[nocl]

7 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Yes, they do.  I have been involved in having both NGO and GO meeting voluntary accreditation and certifications.  The agency promulgates a standard and advises they will issue a certification for voluntary compliance with that standard.  One example of a voluntary federal program is the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians.  That program was instituted at the mere 'suggestion' of Lyndon Johnson.  EMT's are not required to participate in National Registry in order to conduct emergency medical care in the US.  

 

The CDC would be able to promulgate a set of standards for how a ship can get a certificate conditioned on the ship maintaining voluntary compliance with the standard (such as requiring the 95/98 standard and/or increased sanitation standards etc.) They would not need to have the entire CSO in order to accomplish this - if they had the will to do it.  As long as the ship had that certification, it would meet the statutory requirement in the ATRA.

usually when a law references a specific regulation or law such as the Alaska cruise season law does, invalidating that law, which a florida win would do, invalidates that law.

 

The law does not say any requirements of the CDC, but instead specifically the existing CSO.

 

Invalidate that and the law would have to be passed in a new form without that reference.

[Daniel A]

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

The law does not say any requirements of the CDC, but instead specifically the existing CSO.

Invalidate that and the law would have to be passed in a new form without that reference.

The Alaska Tourism Recovery Act does not reference the "existing Conditional Sail Order" at all.  It merely states the ship needs a Conditional Sailing Certificate issued by the CDC.  My point all along is that the CDC does not need the CSO in order to devise and issue Conditional Sailing Certificates.  I really don't know specifically where you saw the words "existing CSO," it's not there.

[harkinmr]

6 hours ago, Daniel A said:

 

 

In general, government operations should always seek voluntary cooperation from the governed.  There is no need to hammer the governed into compliance if they are willingly doing what the government wants in the first place.

And that's a big old "if", isn't it?  The government, both federal and state, is accustomed to mandating compliance with any law or regulation, with various levels of penalties for not doing so.  Very rarely, if ever, has any private business "volunteered" to comply with a regulation.  It's the carrot and stick theory that works best, and we all know that the stick is intended to hurt.  Voluntary compliance by the cruise lines is an absurd premise. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by harkinmr

[harkinmr]

6 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I think you are confusing the Conditional Sail Order with a Conditional Sailing Certificate.  The Alaska Tourism Recovery Act requires the ships sailing from Seattle to Alaska to acquire and maintain a "Conditional Sailing Certificate."  Nowhere does the law mention the term Conditional Sail Order.  There's no reason why the CDC couldn't come up with a Conditional Sailing Certificate which would be issued because a ship is complying with recommendations from the CDC.  It's could be like a CDC  "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval."  It would meet the requirements of the Alaska tourism law without needing the enforcement powers of the existing Conditional Sail Order.  I also do not believe the court would necessarily throw out the entire CSO to begin with.  The court could just enjoin specific parts of the order as well.

 

I am surprised at the number of posts on this thread which are so dead set against an alternative which could possibly save the Alaska cruising season if the court were to permit an injunction.  Go figure.  I wonder if it isn't motivated by a desire to bash the Executive who brought the lawsuit in the first place.

The "Conditional Sailing Certificate" is defined and referenced within the Conditional Sail Order.  See the section entitled: General Prohibition on a Cruise Ship Operator Commencing or Continuing Passenger Operations Without a COVID-19 Conditional Sailing Certificate.  The Conditional Sailing Certificate is specifically referenced in the Alaska legislation. You cannot have one without the other.  It is very obvious that the legislation contemplated compliance with the Order and all other CDC rules and regulations.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/CDC-Conditional-Sail-Order_10_30_2020-p.pdf

 

From the ATRA:

 

"(a) DEFINITION OF COVERED CRUISE SHIP.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In this section, the term ‘‘covered cruise ship’’ means a vessel included on the list under paragraph (2) that— (A) has been issued, operates in accordance with, and retains a COVID–19 Conditional Sailing Certificate of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and (B) operates in accordance with any restrictions or guidance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention associated with such Certificate, including any such restrictions or guidance issued after the date of enactment of this Act."

 

And as far as a desire to "bash the Executive who brought the lawsuit", it is very clear that there is a significant desire to "bash" the CDC at the same time.  There is no conspiracy on the part of the CDC to eliminate Alaska cruises.  The CDC has raised a logical argument that without the Conditional Sail Order in place, there will be no Conditional Sailing Certificate.  This would result in a failure of the exemption provided by the PVSA and a resulting need to amend the legislation.  I hardly think the CDC has any vested interest one way or the other in seeing such a failure.  But I am sure folks will find a way to manufacture one.

 

The injunctive relief sought by the State of Florida is a long shot at best given the failure of the mediation.  This will be a non-issue in the long run and Alaska sailings will begin once a Certificate is granted.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by harkinmr

[POA1]

23 hours ago, harkinmr said:

The mediation ended because there was no resolution.  Likely because Florida would not back away from its demand that the CSO be lifted. 

Do you have a source for this? Just curious if you posted speculation or if you know something for sure and can cite it. Thanks!

[POA1]

11 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

No, its not, until July 1. The law has been passed, but not yet enacted. Florida is currently operating under an Executive Order.

It's an EO back-stopping a passed law by elected representatives. As such, it will have the full force of the law. Challenges will likely be moot.

[harkinmr]

22 minutes ago, POA1 said:

Do you have a source for this? Just curious if you posted speculation or if you know something for sure and can cite it. Thanks!

I don't know any more than anyone else what happened during the mediation.  That is confidential at this point.  It's my speculation (which is why I said "likely"), just as others have speculated that the CDC did something or said something nefarious to crater the mediation.  The text you posted was my response to just such a claim.  The mediation was ordered by the judge based on a lawsuit brought by the State of Florida.  It was/is Florida's obligation to prove their claim.  The mediation offered an opportunity for the sides to reconcile their desires, which, I firmly believe were not reconcilable.  Florida was not going to be amenable to anything other than a complete dismissal of the CSO and, of course, the CDC was not going to give any ground on the CSO, nor were they obliged to.  Now the CDC has been granted the ability to file a supplemental brief concerning its claims that the Alaska legislation ratifies the CSO and therefore, in light of that ratification, the substantial progress in the restart and the failure of the State to substantiate its claims, injunctive relief should be denied and/or the case should be dismissed.  I believe that the injunction will be denied at this stage.  The case will likely go to trial, which will be a long and cumbersome process and the lawsuit will likely be moot by the time it is resolved, if at all.

Edited June 6, 2021 by harkinmr

[harkinmr]

8 minutes ago, POA1 said:

It's an EO back-stopping a passed law by elected representatives. As such, it will have the full force of the law. Challenges will likely be moot.

Do you honestly believe that any legislation, federal or state, is beyond legal challenge?

[nocl]

7 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I think you are confusing the Conditional Sail Order with a Conditional Sailing Certificate.  The Alaska Tourism Recovery Act requires the ships sailing from Seattle to Alaska to acquire and maintain a "Conditional Sailing Certificate."  Nowhere does the law mention the term Conditional Sail Order.  There's no reason why the CDC couldn't come up with a Conditional Sailing Certificate which would be issued because a ship is complying with recommendations from the CDC.  It's could be like a CDC  "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval."  It would meet the requirements of the Alaska tourism law without needing the enforcement powers of the existing Conditional Sail Order.  I also do not believe the court would necessarily throw out the entire CSO to begin with.  The court could just enjoin specific parts of the order as well.

 

I am surprised at the number of posts on this thread which are so dead set against an alternative which could possibly save the Alaska cruising season if the court were to permit an injunction.  Go figure.  I wonder if it isn't motivated by a desire to bash the Executive who brought the lawsuit in the first place.

Except the co fictional sailing certificate is defined in the CSO.

 

If the cruise lines want to earn one by voluntarily following the rules to earn one, it would be simple do what is defined in the CSO.

 

The law was written with the view that the cruise lines would need to comply with the CDCs rules. Based upon the CSO at the time the law was passed. Invalidate that oversight then those that objected to the law on the first vote would have probably continued to object.

 

There are many that want the Alaska season to go forward. The disagreement is with your arguement.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, POA1 said:

Do you have a source for this? Just curious if you posted speculation or if you know something for sure and can cite it. Thanks!

The only way a court ordered mediation can end is by the mediator. Neither party can withdraw, until a compromise is reached or the mediator decides that mediation has failed. 

 

If a party would withdraw prior to a determination of the moderator, it would be contempt of court.

 

The moderator determined that moderation had failed. At which point either party could make new filings, which the CDC did.

 

It was very unlikely that moderation would work because the major element of the case was that either the CDC did or did not have the authority to regulate the cruise industry entering american ports. Not exactly a question open to compromise.

 

before one goes down the grand conspiracy route, I would point out that the judge ordered mediation on May 18th. The Alaska law was signed on May 23rd. Normally one can not enter new filings on a case during mediation. So the first opportunity for the CDC to update its filings about the potential impact of the case, upon the new law

was the day after the mediator ruled that mediation had failed.

 

[Donald]

Look on the positive side.

If you ever have legal problems, there are hundreds of legal experts on Cruise Critic who are more than happy to give you free advice.

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, nocl said:

The only way a court ordered mediation can end is by the mediator. Neither party can withdraw, until a compromise is reached or the mediator decides that mediation has failed. 

 

If a party would withdraw prior to a determination of the moderator, it would be contempt of court.

 

The moderator determined that moderation had failed. At which point either party could make new filings, which the CDC did.

 

It was very unlikely that moderation would work because the major element of the case was that either the CDC did or did not have the authority to regulate the cruise industry entering american ports. Not exactly a question open to compromise.

 

before one goes down the grand conspiracy route, I would point out that the judge ordered mediation on May 18th. The Alaska law was signed on May 23rd. Normally one can not enter new filings on a case during mediation. So the first opportunity for the CDC to update its filings about the potential impact of the case, upon the new law

was the day after the mediator ruled that mediation had failed.

 

That makes so much more sense than the wild speculation that the CDC intentionally sabotaged the mediation with their threat to stop Alaska cruises.

 

And one of the problems with having that kind of baseless speculation posted is that people read it, believe it, and remember it. As an example there was baseless speculation on the cc boards that Carnival Corporation would end shareholder OBC or maybe double the amount of stock required back when the stock reached its lowest point. Never happened, and never made sense, but still much later you see an occasional post asking if the credit still exists because they remember reading posts about its demise, forgetting they were only speculation.

[Daniel A]

My thanks to @chengkp75 and @nocl for engaging in a thoughtful discussion of the issue without feeling the need to resort to derision of a different viewpoint.  In the long run, I don't believe the Alaska Cruise season is in any danger of being curtailed.

[JRG]

11 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

In the long run, I don't believe the Alaska Cruise season is in any danger of being curtailed.

 

It's really not about the long run though (makes it sound like a cliche)

 

Think short run (on this thread)   

 

 

[nocl]

44 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

My thanks to @chengkp75 and @nocl for engaging in a thoughtful discussion of the issue without feeling the need to resort to derision of a different viewpoint.  In the long run, I don't believe the Alaska Cruise season is in any danger of being curtailed.

I agree that the risk to the Alaska cruise season is minimal.

 

In Seward at the moment. As with Homer, Seward is very busy with tourists to the degree no parking to be found near the port where the tour boats depart from.