WesKinetic

So just thinking ahead to best/worst case scenarios (and I mean that purely in a "fastest vs. slowest" sense, not a value judgment of what I personally want to see happen), here's what I've come up with, but I'm sure I'm missing something. 

Fastest:
1. Court sides with FL, rules the CSO invalid.
2. Either cruise lines opt not to require vaccines or some kind of compromise is reached on Florida's vaccine requirement.
3. At that point, cruising (at least out of Florida) could theoretically start as soon as the cruise lines are ready to go.

Slowest:
1. Court sides with CDC, CSO remains in place. 
2. CDC slowly approves test cruises. 
3. Cruise lines say they still plan to require vaccines for those eligible.
4. Florida digs its heels in and files suit to prohibit vaccine requirement.
5. Cruises are put on hold until a court ruling on Florida's case. 
6. Whichever way the court rules, things remain on hold pending appeal. 
7. Supreme Court ultimately rules in Florida's favor.
8. Cruise lines have to come up with new on-board protocols before they are finally ready to resume cruising.
 

Love him or hate him, DeSantis deserves credit for finally getting CDC off of high center. But his rhetoric on the vaccine law has kind of painted Florida into a corner. It was Florida's suit that finally moved CDC to (slowly) start taking action, and they're to be commended for that. But, ironically, they could win their suit against the CDC but then have a court fight over their vaccine law grind the process to a halt. I hope it doesn't come to that and that cooler heads will prevail. But I'm not optimistic about that anytime politics gets involved. 

8 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Nice loophole attempt, it might work, but I would imagine Florida could easily refute their assertion that the mention of an artifact of an entity does not tacitly ratify that entity.

Agreed. I think it's one of those legal tactics where you throw every argument you have at the wall and see what sticks. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. Will be interesting to see FL's official response. 

I'd started a lengthy legal reply, but @Matt's article sums it up really well. Basically, The Alaska Tourism Restoration Act requires the Alaskan cruise ships to have a valid Conditional Sailing Certificate from CDC before being allowed to sail. So the CDC argues, by requiring such a certificate, Congress has provided recognition and tacit approval of the larger CSO. By default, that would also make it the holding law for other cruises. Florida disagrees with that interpretation. 

While I have my own opinion on required vaccines and such, I'm just ready for AN answer, one way or the other, so cruise lines know what they have to work with. Required vaccines? Sure. Masks in public areas? Eh, not my favorite, but I'll suck it up. Mandatory hokey pokey before entering Windjammer? Put my right foot in and shake it all about, baby. I'm just ready to get on a ship again. 

Give a big hug and a big tip to the first bartender I see, and then head to the helipad with a drink in hand. 

14 minutes ago, UNCFanatik said:

So every ship sailing in July needs a test cruise first? Seriously, that seems redundant and how will cruises actually resume in Alaska and Florida in July and early August? 
 

I was always under the assumption that test cruises would be good for all ships fleet wide to resume revenue sailings. Wow! If test cruises are required for every ship then Royal needs to come out with a communication to its July and August customers that have fully paid. 53 days away from my sailing and I hope I am wrong again but I am just not seeing the math working for Symphony of the Seas to complete test cruise before July 17 when the ship is currently in dry dock in Cadiz 

It's complicated, but the short version is that each ship is basically treated like its own entity for regulatory purposes. Even pre-COVID, every ship has its own safety and health inspections it must pass. For right or wrong, the CDC is treating this process the same way. 

What I'm going to be curious about is what comes next? If this two-nighter is successful, does the CDC then say, "OK, you're good to go"? Or (and I think this is the more likely scenario) do they use the two-nighter to make sure RCL has the proper procedures in place and then say, "OK, now let's do a couple of five or seven night tests" before they allow actual sailing to begin.

5 hours ago, LizzyBee23 said:

They published it yesterday (outbreak onboard ship before cruises even began!!1!). Wherever there are humans, there will be SARS-nCoV-2 (and maybe COVID) from now on.

Agreed. Just like how you're more likely to catch norovirus or other such disease on land, but that's not how the media covers it on the rare occasions there is an outbreak of some kind on a ship. If/when someone catches COVID on a cruise, it's invariably going to be spun as some kind of super-spreader event. 

It's not accurate. It's not fair. But it's the reality of the modern media and something the cruise lines know all too well they have to factor into whatever protocols they end up putting in place. 

In addition to what's mentioned above, there are a whole lot of people with FCCs they've gotten over the last 15 months burning a hole in their pockets. People are looking to get cruises booked and spend those. 

6 hours ago, JeffB said:

So cruise lines look at this and evaluate the costs of the 3% chance that an unvaccinated kid  causes an outbreak on a cruise and you have your answer to the question you ask. From a political POV, it would be catastrophic. The visuals would be very bad for business. Here, the lines are being as risk averse in this analysis as the CDC is too many of thiers. But this is the era we are living in where being reasonable about COVID isn't something that we see a lot of.    

I think you hit the nail on the head. IMHO, this is the key thing the cruise lines are looking at. We can debate COVID numbers and vaccine efficacy until we’re blue in the face. But we all know that some journalist out there already has their “Pandemic on the High Seas” article written and is just waiting on the name of a ship to plug in. The first time there is a COVID transmission on a ship, it will make for sensationalistic international headlines. As unfair as that might be, it’s reality. So I think the cruise lines are really looking at how best to minimize the chance of that PR nightmare coming to pass and requiring vaccines seems the best and simplest way. 

@smokeybanditUpon further review, I think you may be right. I might have been a little overly hopeful and this is more narrow in scope than how I initially read it.   Still, one more obstacle is out of the way, so another baby step. 

C'mon, CDC, let's do something already!

8 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Actually this is Florida saying "We don't feel that these shore agreements are necessary"

You may be right (I'm not a Florida attorney). I was looking at the language where they say "Nothing in state law stands in the way of cruise ship operations." But, the more I read that, I can see how that is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. 

I'm just hoping for a path forward soon. While I have my personal feelings, I think it's a lot less important what hoops the cruise lines have to jump through than it is that they finally KNOW and have clear guidance about what hoops they're going to have to jump through. 

For the first time, I'm now cautiously optimistic cruises might actually happen this summer. If Florida has said "we're not going to hold you up," it signals they're not going to try to enforce their vaccine passport rule if the cruise lines want to require vaccinations. Regardless of your feeling about that law, it could have resulted in another drawn out court battle between the state, the feds and the cruise lines. By acknowledging they don't have the authority to enforce that on cruise lines and clearing away that concern, now we're just waiting on a final thumbs up from CDC.

Still, the waiting game continues . . . 

[Edit: upon further review, I might have been a little overly hopeful and this is more narrow in scope than how I initially read it.  Still, the more obstacles that start coming down, the better.]

1 hour ago, Vancity Cruiser said:

This is probably the biggest thing for me as well. My job requires me available for calls and emails at all times (often answering emails while on vacation) but when on a cruise my phone goes in the safe as soon as the cabin is available and I truly disconnect!

 

Sigh.............I really miss disconnecting

A cruise is the one time I don't have to worry about the inevitable "I know you're on vacation, but . . . " texts.  

Very intentionally not getting the internet package. In the normal world, I'm pretty much connected and on call 24/7. So one of the best moments of my cruise vacations is turning on that "I am out of the office and will not be checking email" notification. 

For that X% off award, I believe you have to book through RCL and have them apply. But for most of the other rewards (onboard credit, casino credit, etc.), when you redeem it in the game, you will get an email with a confirmation number. You just have to forward that info on to an RCL email address they give you and confirm your name, sail date, etc. The credit will then show up in your onboard account. 

3 hours ago, RBRSKI said:

What if the CDC and Royal gave passengers options?

People with vaccine would follow xyz

People who choose not to get the vaccine would have to follow xyz.

People would lose their minds if this happened!

My wife and I were actually talking about just that the other day. I can see a scenario where they say, in order to cruise, you must either show proof of vaccination or have a negative PCR test within 72 hours or something like that. 

Australia's COVID restrictions were much harsher than anything the CDC or states ever put in place. They're currently averaging less than 30 new cases per day. Adjusted for population, that would be the equivalent of 394 new cases per day in the United States, as compared with the 60,000 new cases the US actually had yesterday. So using the Australia photo to critique CDC policies is apples-to-oranges. 

That said, @mattymay's point is very valid for Australia--it seems really bizarre why they would allow an event like in that photo but not allowing cruising. 

6 hours ago, LovetoCruise87 said:

One other thing that I just read in an article. A maritime lawyer in Miami said that DeSantis may not have the jurisdiction needed to either prohibit cruise lines from enforcing a vaccine mandate or bring cruises back. So it makes sense that since we know that he does not have the power to allowing cruising to start back in the state, he would not have the authority to keep cruise lines from enforcing a vaccine mandate.
 

This is correct. It's extremely complicated, but the short version is that foreign-flagged cruise ships fall under federal jurisdiction. So the state regulations wouldn't apply. 

Privately, I'm sure the cruise lines are hoping the federal government will be the "bad cop" and require vaccines instead of doing through cruise line policies. That said, the lines are keenly aware of what is at stake of any negative publicity from someone catching COVID on a cruise. (Think about every time you hear a story about a norovirus outbreak on a ship and then multiply that times a million.) So they're going to want as many vaccinated passengers, one way or another, as possible. The cruise industry's margin for error is extremely slim. 

@KristiZ Perfect. Exactly what I needed to know. Thanks!

I am currently scheduled on a 10-night cruise over Christmas and New Year's (fingers crossed it actually happens). There is currently a pretty good price on the UDP, but in the fine print it says "Holiday Celebration Dinners are not included with this package." But I can't find any information about what that actually entails. Is it a certain menu or certain restaurants on holidays that would be ineligible? Or does that mean you can't use the UDP at all on those holidays?

Just booked a Labadee cabana for a Christmas cruise. It's not much, but it's nice --for the first time in a long time--to have a glimmer of hope that cruise might actually happen.  

I never knew this was something I needed until this exact moment.  That would be a lot of fun. 

Only one right now (Christmas 2021), but just trying to pin down dates and itineraries for spring break and summer 2022. 

The joys of headline writers trying to come up with clickbait. They misspelled "99.999% of fully vaccinated Floridians were not infected and there were zero cases of serious disease or deaths."

1 hour ago, Linda R said:

I have 2 weeks in December also, in a suite.  I REALLY hope it happens.  Can't wait.  Been too long.  Have couple other cruises before that but am sure they will be cancelled.  I do think December will be a go.

I think there will be cruises by December. The wild card for us is will they allow cruises longer than 7 nights. 

Not holding out high hopes it will actually happen, but next one booked is 12/24/21 -- 10 night on Vision of the Seas out of FLL.