NCL suing Florida over vaccine law.

[3kidsncats]

Just now, firefly333 said:

I am sure glad I dont have ncl stock, wasting money like this.

 

If they were going to sue seriously, they should have months ago ... not when their competition is cruising already out of florida. Ncl is trying to close the barn door after the horse left the barn. Too late to sue over this. Law suits take a long time. Just stupid timing. 

 

Well I wouldnt be buying ncl stock. Not smart mgmt.

Some would argue that opening up the business to massive penalties by disregarding the law and requiring vaccines is poor management.  They may have been watching to see if the whole FL v. CDC thing helped, allowing them to not have to deal with it.  It didn’t, so now they are making the next move

[3kidsncats]

4 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

Other lines have found ways to work around the law.  That's not the same as Florida not enforcing the law.  IMHO this is a bad decision by NCL.  When they lose this lawsuit, which is quite possible, they can't exactly just move forward with plan B after litigating that there is no plan B for them. They'll have to cancel another big round of cruises and wait for lessening restrictions to justify their restart.  

Not really— you’ve only found away around it IF the state does not try to access penalties, or, if they do, you sue them about it, and win.  It’s all about whether the government agency involved decides to pursue fines or not, and then how well the lawyers argue in court.

Edited July 13, 2021 by 3kidsncats

[jrapps]

2 hours ago, Tree_skier said:

So if you booked Norwegian thinking that you were going to get to cruise in August you may be sorely disappointed.

 

I'm curious to see if the same legal eagles who predicted that Florida had no case and the CDC would easily prevail in that lawsuit will now tell us how strong NCL's case is and Florida's law is now on death row.

I won't offer a legal prediction one way or the other, but this lawsuit is very different from the other one. While the state may point to other lines as examples that cruising can be done safely without requiring vaccines, the fact that every cruise line IS requiring vaccines outside of FL waters that argument down. If Royal thought that sailing without a vaccine requirement at all was the safest option, they wouldn't be required in TX.

 

Will be very interested to follow, not only to see what happens, but if an injunction is granted, I wonder if Royal and other lines begin to require vaccinations in FL as well.

 

I wonder how long this will take to play out 

[Tree_skier]

7 minutes ago, firefly333 said:

I am sure glad I dont have ncl stock, wasting money like this.

Down 4 1/3 % today and has been steadily declining for the last month.

[firefly333]

1 minute ago, 3kidsncats said:

Some would argue that opening up the business to massive penalties by disregarding the law and requiring vaccines is poor management.  They may have been watching to see if the whole FL v. CDC thing helped, allowing them to not have to deal with it.  It didn’t, so now they are making the next move

Knowing how long it takes for a lawsuit to be heard in court is my objection. Should have been filed long ago. It wouldnt change florida law short term. Cruises will continue out of florida.

 

Havent heard that horizon was fined for asking for vaccine cards have you? Surely if florida was going to fine then, or celebrity we would have heard. Your logic seems to just be anti florida tbh. Nothing to do with what's actually going on. Cruises are sailing. Celebrity is sailing out of florida. Then horizon and more will follow and not a peep about fines. 

 

It's clear you dont like florida butmthats not enough. 

[Tree_skier]

3 minutes ago, 3kidsncats said:

Not really— you’ve only found away around it IF the state does not try to access penalties, or, if they do, you sue them about it, and win.  It’s all about whether the government agency involved decides to pursue fines or not, and then how well the lawyers argue in court.

The ships are sailing... There are no issues...  There are no fines... Their work arounds are not being challenged by the state of Florida.  NCL is going to get embarrassed and put behind and even greater burden. This is a terrible gamble they didn't have to take.  If I was an NCL shareholder I'd be furious right now. 

[Tree_skier]

7 minutes ago, jrapps said:

I won't offer a legal prediction one way or the other, but this lawsuit is very different from the other one. While the state may point to other lines as examples that cruising can be done safely without requiring vaccines, the fact that every cruise line IS requiring vaccines outside of FL waters that argument down. If Royal thought that sailing without a vaccine requirement at all was the safest option, they wouldn't be required in TX.

 

Will be very interested to follow, not only to see what happens, but if an injunction is granted, I wonder if Royal and other lines begin to require vaccinations in FL as well.

 

I wonder how long this will take to play out 

The only reason they are requiring vaccines in other jurisdictions is because either those jurisdictions require it to depart from their port ie. Washington or because of the onerous restrictions of the CDC still in effect outside of Florida.  If NCL is going to hinge their arguments on the supposition that other cruise lines are requiring them in jurisdiction where they have to require them they are in worse shape than I thought.  

[3kidsncats]

14 minutes ago, firefly333 said:

Knowing how long it takes for a lawsuit to be heard in court is my objection. Should have been filed long ago. It wouldnt change florida law short term. Cruises will continue out of florida.

 

Havent heard that horizon was fined for asking for vaccine cards have you? Surely if florida was going to fine then, or celebrity we would have heard. Your logic seems to just be anti florida tbh. Nothing to do with what's actually going on. Cruises are sailing. Celebrity is sailing out of florida. Then horizon and more will follow and not a peep about fines. 

 

It's clear you dont like florida butmthats not enough. 

Lawsuits don’t always go on forever.  And an injunction could allow cruising in the short term.  
 

And yes, that was sort of my point, that they have not been enforcing the law, because as far as we know, fines are not being levied.  There isn’t really a work around if the ships are requiring vaccines to sail, and the CDC lost their fight regarding the CSO. It’s my understanding that the limited exclusion was related to any federal health requirements. The work around seems to be that the government of Florida is choosing not to push it.  
 

My logic is not remotely anti-Florida and I like Florida just fine.  I don’t like wearing a mask, and don’t choose to sail with unvaccinated adults.  So Royal’s sailings out of FL are not of interest to me.  I don’t sail Carnival or Celebrity, so what they are offering out of any port is not something I’m looking at booking.  I might consider NCL out of Florida, but am already booked with them elsewhere—   I am happily sailing out of the Bahamas, San Pedro, and NYC, with fully (12 and older) vaccinated, maskless cruises.  

Edited July 13, 2021 by 3kidsncats

[3kidsncats]

9 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

The ships are sailing... There are no issues...  There are no fines... Their work arounds are not being challenged by the state of Florida.  NCL is going to get embarrassed and put behind and even greater burden. This is a terrible gamble they didn't have to take.  If I was an NCL shareholder I'd be furious right now. 

Yes, exactly.  Florida is not enforcing their law.

[Tree_skier]

1 minute ago, 3kidsncats said:

Yes, exactly.  Florida is not enforcing their law.

I would argue your interpretation. The processes the lines who are sailing  are using don't violate the law.  NCL is saying they can't successfully operate like Royal, Carnival, Princess and Celebrity.  I think that that is a losing argument.

[3kidsncats]

5 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

The only reason they are requiring vaccines in other jurisdictions is because either those jurisdictions require it to depart from their port ie. Washington or because of the onerous restrictions of the CDC still in effect outside of Florida.  If NCL is going to hinge their arguments on the supposition that other cruise lines are requiring them in jurisdiction where they have to require them they are in worse shape than I thought.  

I think cruise lines are requiring vaccines outside of Florida because they believe it is the safest way to get their businesses operational again.  They really don’t want major outbreaks on their ships, even if the majority of it comes after people disembark.  It’s not a winning strategy, to sail unvaccinated cruises.

[3kidsncats]

2 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

I would argue your interpretation. The processes the lines who are sailing  are using don't violate the law.  NCL is saying they can't successfully operate like Royal, Carnival, Princess and Celebrity.  I think that that is a losing argument.

I would argue yours.  I believe the state of Florida really doesn’t want to destroy cruising in the state, so they are choosing to go with the flimsy work around theory rather than enforce the law.

[Mikew0805]

4 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

I would argue your interpretation. The processes the lines who are sailing  are using don't violate the law.  NCL is saying they can't successfully operate like Royal, Carnival, Princess and Celebrity.  I think that that is a losing argument.

I agree. They are not violating the law (no matter how much I disagree with law) by asking people to volunteer to provide the info. Those who choose not to volunteer, have different requirements and plenty of extra fees. No violation of the law. 

 

 

[Tree_skier]

12 minutes ago, 3kidsncats said:

I would argue yours.  I believe the state of Florida really doesn’t want to destroy cruising in the state, so they are choosing to go with the flimsy work around theory rather than enforce the law.

My theory is what is actually happening.  Your theory is supposition based on what you think is best practices in a field you have no expertise in.  

Edited July 13, 2021 by Tree_skier

[3kidsncats]

1 minute ago, Mikew0805 said:

I agree. They are not violating the law (no matter how much I disagree with law) by asking people to volunteer to provide the info. Those who choose not to volunteer, have different requirements and plenty of extra fees. No violation of the law. 

 

 

For Royal’s sailings, yes.  But I believe other lines are requiring vaccinations of all passengers.  Plus, even Royal’s protocol violates the law, because it is altering the service unvaccinated guests receive.  Certain venues and show times are not available to them.  I’m pretty sure that is a component of the law, that you can’t restrict or alter service due to vaccine status.

[Tree_skier]

8 minutes ago, 3kidsncats said:

I think cruise lines are requiring vaccines outside of Florida because they believe it is the safest way to get their businesses operational again.

You do realize that every single one of your post includes some variation of " I think". If that were the case why don't they require it for their quantum cruise out of Singapore. 

[3kidsncats]

2 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

My theory is what is actually happening.  Your theory is supposition based on what you think is best practices in a field you have expertise in.  

Yes, what is actually happening is that Florida is not enforcing their law.  Celebrity is requiring all passengers be vaccinated, correct? What magic loophole are they using to negate the law?

[CSHS1979]

1 minute ago, 3kidsncats said:

For Royal’s sailings, yes.  But I believe other lines are requiring vaccinations of all passengers.  Plus, even Royal’s protocol violates the law, because it is altering the service unvaccinated guests receive.  Certain venues and show times are not available to them.  I’m pretty sure that is a component of the law, that you can’t restrict or alter service due to vaccine status.

 

Most of those restrictions don't happen while they are in Florida waters is my simple understanding 

[3kidsncats]

1 minute ago, Tree_skier said:

You do realize that every single one of your post includes some variation of " I think". If that were the case why don't they require it for their quantum cruise out of Singapore. 

I’m using “I think” because I’m voicing my opinion.  Pretty sure that is allowed here.

[Tippyton]

2 hours ago, time4u2go said:

Good for NCL.  I hope they win.

Why?  What greater good is gained?

 

- The Forgotten 20

[jrapps]

28 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

NCL is going to get embarrassed and put behind and even greater burden. This is a terrible gamble they didn't have to take.  If I was an NCL shareholder I'd be furious right now

You seem to have a lot strong opinions here, but don't seem willing to allow others to have contrary opinions. NCL believes it is doing the best for their business. If they were to prevail (and I'm not saying they will) shareholders might celebrate the fact that they can sail at higher occupancies. With a fully vaccinated cruise they could be sailing at 100% capacity while Royal is still at 30% to 50%

 

22 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

The only reason they are requiring vaccines in other jurisdictions is because either those jurisdictions require it to depart from their port ie. Washington or because of the onerous restrictions of the CDC still in effect outside of Florida.

There is no requirement for vaccines out of Texas yet all the cruise lines are doing it anyway. They could have chosen to go the test cruise route just like in Florida but they didn't. And at the time that Royal, NCL, and all the other cruise lines set their initial vaccine requirements and protocols the CSO was still very much in effect everywhere so I don't think the CDCs rules inside vs outside FL played a factor here

 

9 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

My theory is what is actually happening.  Your theory is supposition based on what you think is best practices in a field you have expertise in. 

Again you seem to think that your opinion is the only one that has merit. Let's all play nice in the sandbox together before the thread gets shut down.

[time4u2go]

8 minutes ago, Tippyton said:

Why?  What greater good is gained?

 

- The Forgotten 20

Those wishing to cruise on a completely vaccinated ship out of Florida would be able to.

[Tippyton]

One thing that has been demonstrated, yet again, is that when left to a free and open marketplace, businesses will do what is necessary to optimize their business model, without interference from a government that has no clue how to make a dishonest dollar, let alone an honest one .

 

- The Forgotten 20

Edited July 14, 2021 by Tippyton

[time4u2go]

1 minute ago, Tippyton said:

One thing that has been demonstrated, yet again, is that when left to a free and open marketplace, businesses will do what is necessary to optimize their business model, without interference from a government that has no clue how to make a dishonest dollar, let alone an honest one .

Exactly. That's another reason I hope NCL prevails. Let the free market work it out. 

[Mikew0805]

21 minutes ago, 3kidsncats said:

For Royal’s sailings, yes.  But I believe other lines are requiring vaccinations of all passengers.  Plus, even Royal’s protocol violates the law, because it is altering the service unvaccinated guests receive.  Certain venues and show times are not available to them.  I’m pretty sure that is a component of the law, that you can’t restrict or alter service due to vaccine status.

That is not correct. You might be mis-interpreting "service from the business." The service from this particular business is the cruise, and that is not being infringed. Nothing in the law states that they cannot make it more expensive or more of a hassle, or that every aspect of that business be available to them. That is the law... black and white.

 

https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EO-21-81.pdf

Edited July 14, 2021 by Mikew0805
correct a spelling error