JeffB

I've sailed on both of them, Summit after refurbishment that added cabins and Millennium before that. The are identical in terms of features and deck layouts. There may be some small differences that I'm not aware of between the two but they aren't show stoppers.

Really hard to say. Another important aspect of this FL case is that it was filed under Administrative Procedures and Agency Action. Also at play is that FL requested and received and expedited hearing in Merryday's court. FL lays out a strong case, IMO, that HHS/CDC didn't follow it's own notification of parties rules contained in applicable law. Under Agency Actions, FL claims the NSO was illegally implemented, most notably to it's extent and failure to notify and consult at each review and renewal. Same for the CSO - just a continuation of the claim I mention above. I don't think there is any question that the NSO and CSO did immense damage to FL's economy but that argument has more to do with establishing standing and harm. Even though it's a pretty impressive argument, it has littel to do with what Merryday has to sort out. Merryday will probably provide a narrow ruling on this one way or the other. I like FL's argument but things change in a PHE and there's that buggaboo of overlapping state and federal regulatory authority Merryday has to wade through. It's not out of the question that Merryday won't really rule in the sense of that word. He could write an opinion that faults congress for not clarifying this in existing law and says it's not clear. You guys need to fix that. OK, if he does that, and he might, what happens to the CSO? It could stand or he could enjoin it pending Congressional action or he could let it stand pending Congressional action. As I think this thing through, I could see Merryday granting FL the benefit of the doubt on the stregth of thier arguments, enjoin the CSO, sending the issue back to Congress to unwind the mess that the current law is in. We know how long that might take given the Biden Administration's hot-button issues. Restarting cruising from US ports is probably not among them.

It's important to remember that mediation reached an "impasse." The two sides couldn't agree on a settlement. To me, that signals FL is going for an all or nothing ruling. It also implies that FL's attorneys feel that HHS/CDC exceeded it's statutory authority with the NSO and subsequently with the CSO. My take is that in a PHE, HHS/CSO probably acted within the provisions of U.S.C 42, section 264 that deals with the VSP. But that is definitely debatable. The law is complex and there is overlapping federal and state regulatory authority. Merryday will rule on this. It's hard for me to imagine he'll deal with the CSO in parts. I think the state of FL already knows he won't and are very confident in their position - all or nothing. HHS/CDC lawyers haven't helped themselves with their recent motion that FL has called absurd. I think Merryday will agree with FL's position (because it's an end run and entirely absurd, IMO) but it's up in the air how he will rule. Good stuff.

FL's law suit moves forward. Here's what's happening today: First, Merryday approved entry into the court record of HHS's/CD's motion, "in light of changing circumstances ....." This is where HHS/CDC attorneys argue that (1) with Congress ratifying and the president signing into law the Alaska Cruising Bill, which contains a provision that Alaska sailings from Seattle must obtain a CSC, it follows that the CSO is now law. (2) If the CSO is enjoined, as FL has requested, the Alaska Sailing order will be voided and will essentially end any chance of an Aalskan cruising season in 2021. HHS/CDC has until 6/7 to supplement the motion but limits the supplement to only the single issue rasied in the motion itself Contained in that approval from Merryday is direction that FL has until June 9th to file a motion in response. We pretty much know what FL thinks of HHS's/CDC's position. "It's absurd, a delaying tactic and isn't a correct interpretation of the Alaska Sailing law." FL may add to that position in response. The hearing will continue on Thursday, 6/10 at 10am. Attorney's will present their arguments. What would be nice is that the court recorder's notes taken during the hearing were published. This way we may get a clue about how Merryday will rule based on the questions he asks the attorneys. At the first hearing they weren't (both sides get a chance to correct the record). I don't think we'll see the record of the court proceedings on June 10th in the public domain for a while. What bothered me last time around is that reporters either weren't present, it was not a public hearing or they were just lazy and didn't consider the issue as important to cover as we do. Maybe this time - the case is getting national press coverage. Every issue we are concerned about with the exception of vaccination policies, that is affecting cruise restarts, hinges on Merryday's ruling. If FL prevails, even in part, e.g., overly burdensome parts of the CSO, like the ancillary hoop jumping, is enjoined, a ruling like that will speed things up, clarify protocols for the cruise lines and, in turn, the cruise lines can release those protocols and procedures to us as well as firm up schedules. On vaccinations: It gets complicated but first, this is not a direct part of FL's lawsuit. There are indirect implications though. Let's say the 98/95% requirement is enjoined. IMO, RCL will benefit if they can cruise with unvaccinated kids and/or not require anyone to be vaccinated and be in compliance with FL's ban on them to enter a business/receive service. Lines that are already requiring guests to be vaccinated will probably change to recommend them. This to be in compliance with FL law and sail from FL ports. Alternatively, lines that want to require vaccinations to board could sail and challenge FL's law in court - IMO that law is illegal and unconstitutional as businesses, being ethically and morally bound, and in some circumstances, legally bound, to provide customers and employees a safe environment. That is well established in the law. It will be interesting to watch how all this unfolds. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/70/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

We may be thinking about vaccines the wrong way just like most, and even the experts, thought as the pandemic burst onto the scene that everything and everyone needs to be locked down. Well, that was wrong headed thinking for a number of reasons that have become more and more apparent as time passes and data gets refined....... not everyone needed to get locked down to mitigate the pandemic. Likewise, not everyone needs to get vaccinated to control the pandemic. SARS2 will never be eradicated and it is a fools errand to try to do that by vaccinating everyone. We are not trying to obtain zero risk of getting infected. We should be trying to control it so that we can medically deal with people who will get infected reducing the risk of serious illness and death. The data: Death rates and hospitalization rates have plummeted (regional exceptions pertain - I'll get to that). What that means is that the vaccines, even with a global average of around 30-40% receiving at least one jab, are more effective in preventing serious illness and death than experts thought they would be. Death rates in the US from COVID are very close to pre-SARS2 pandemic death rates experienced from seasonal influenza. New cases of COVID have decreased dramatically (regional exceptions). What this means is that vaccines slow, do not stop, transmission even at the low vaccination rates some regions, US states and countries are experiencing. It is important to remember that only a small portion of the word's population (3-5%) is at risk for serious illness or death. The rest may get flu like symptoms but can essentially go about life normally ...... that reality was completely lost early in the pandemic and catastrophic economic and social damage have been wrought because of that. As more people get vaccinated R0 (R naught) for that population trends well below 1.0. Remember that metric? It was king as a measure of "dire consequences" way back then when the virus was spreading rapidly. The media used it incessantly - above 1.0, the virus is spreading; below 1.0 it is receding and therefore controlled. I don't believe a single US state or county in the US has an R(0) > 1.0 - its not even reported any longer for that reason. Another less used metric these days, % positive, was also used to scare people. At it's height, some regions/states had % positives ranging from 10-20%. It's not scary anymore so the media doesn't report it. Below 5% is considered as an indicator that the virus is not spreading/is controlled; below 3% is ideal. In the US and EU, it's hard to find a sustained % positive > 5%. In fact, many US counties don't have any new cases or deaths and haven't for weeks Regional exceptions are occurring with the impact of disease burden in those regions varying. The primary underlying cause is a lack of vaccines and poor medical infrastructure in India, and countries in Asia and Latin America. We can't do much about that individually. Collective plans to deal with that are emerging. It will take time. Meanwhile populations in poor countries are going to suffer. In the US, vaccine hesitancy plays a part in what amounts to small scale local outbreaks with little to no impact on disease burden (hospitalizations and deaths). We can live with this and that is the point. My take is that at the point around 50-60% of any selected cohort becomes vaccinated, the virus will be controlled. Not eradicated but controlled to the extent that disease burden is nil. . IOW, we are already at the point where a return to normalcy in the US is underway. While vaccinating more people will help keep case numbers very low and the risk of serious illness and death right along with that, not getting that final 40% probably isn't all that necessary.

That's a legit question and one that is raised by the HHS/CDC attorneys in one of their filings. They claim just that. FL's reply in a subsequent filing calls that claim absurd. And, no, Congress did not intend to define the CSO as a law. As pointed out in a FL filing to make the CSO lawful would require separate legislative action. OTH, that the claim is made by HHS/CDC attorneys leaves it to Merryday to rule on that claim - legally I think it is weak not to mention it makes the CDC look foolish. Our collective view that if the PHE ends, the CSO ends is probably correct. Like @wordell1I don't see that happening in the short term though. The US will probably go along with the WHO and we're along way from the end of a global PHE.

It's not just the FL lawsuit. It is a host of pressures from various quarters on the HHS/CDC. What is frustrating to me is that given the CSO's absurdity that these "smart" people with in the CDC haven't figured out a graceful way to back out of it. While the whole issue of the HHS's/CDC's approach to the pandemic has been questioned, it's absurd approach to the cruise industry and the risk of outbreaks on cruise ships is so obviously flawed, it stuns me that congressional inquiry and action isn't ongoing. When I think about it, nothing new, actually. On multiple issues not related to cruising legislative action from the federal level gets mired in politics and other priorities. It's easier for politicians to punt to the courts and hope a federal judge sorts this out. In case you haven't noticed for over a decade, this has been the modus operandi of our elected officials. It's not a good thing.

The "clown show" serves to demonstrate how big government fosters bureaucratic incompetence. While I have no doubt the CDC employs very smart people, the organization itself is so large and so unwieldy that it is simply not agile enough to effectively deal with the risk of SARS2 on a cruise ship. At this point, the CSO has been overcome by events - namely vaccine effectiveness. The complexity of it is unnecessary. If you can understand what's in the CDC's web site that deals with cruise ships, I want to talk to you. It is enormously and unnecessarily complicated, spread out over dozens of pages - a patch work project of utter confusion and contradiction. I'd argue parts of of the CSO - when you can locate them - are decent - I don't have a problem with those parts. Expanding the VSP, for example, to increase measures to mitigate airborne viruses like SARS2 are useful. The entire process involved in getting the Conditional Sailing Certificate is absurd. It is here that as vaccine became widely available and distributed that many requirements of the CSO could have been eliminated but, Nope. As posted above, what we've seen is glacial incrementalism - much of it adding more layers of complexity, some of it contradictory and creating confusion - in response to oral arguments presented in FL's law suit. This is our CDC. Shameful.

I can't wait for this to be over ....... I'm sick of everything and anything that has to do with the pandemic. The cruise lines seem to have done a good job preparing for any outcome in FL's law suit.

I've had some time to digest what has transpired - limited to what the public can view on the Court's docket. I'll try to summarize. I note that Matt has written a piece on the front page that covers some of this. I'll try to contextualize it in a time line from the court's docket starting when the case was referred to mediation: Merryday punted the law suit to mediation. President Biden signed into law a bill that allowed cruise ships to skip the Jones act which requires foreign flagged vessels departing from US ports to make a port call in a foreign port. As it applies to Alaska cruising, that would be a Canadian port. There is a provision in the Alaska bill that states cruise ships cruising under the enacted law to Alaska must obtain a Conditional Sailing Certificate from the CDC. Today, Alaska has asked to join the FL law suit as an intervener -the entry into a lawsuit by a third party into an existing civil case who was not named as an original party but has a personal stake in the outcome. You'll recall that Texas also filed as an intervener early on and joined the law suit as a claimant. Alaska's argument contained in it's filing today questions what the provision in the Alaska bill for the CSC actually means and CDC's authority to require compliance with the CSO anyway. HHS's/CDC's lawyers filed a response claiming that since Biden signed the Alaska Cruising bill into law , including the provision that Ships sailing to Alaska must obtain a CSC, that ipso-facto makes the CSC law and if the CSO is enjoined the Alaska cruise season will be effectively ended. The Sun Sentinel reported this evening as I posted above - mediation appears to have ended. Alaska's filing neatly out points out how the CDC has issued updates to their guidance almost weekly in response to the litigation and trying to keep ahead of it. Certainly that's their right but it does make them out to be the clown show we have come to know that it is. I still hold that FL will not prevail but it seems to me their chances of winning their case have improved because of the CDC's unjustifiable delays in issuing guidance (pointed out in the Alaska filing) and, in general, their clown show trying to update guidance based on arguments that have been made during litigation. It's helped that Alaska has entered into FL's law suit along with Texas. Anyway, it's gotten complicated and hard to follow. I'm not sure I've got the time line straight and put all today' s news into context, but I tried. I've listed in order the filings that explain in greater detail what I posted above. I have no idea when Merryday will rule but I don't think it will be long. It's going to be a cluster for the cruise lines if the CSO is ruled unenforceable. That it might be, might explain why the cruise lines appear to have been holding back on restarts, the ships that might restart are only a few and guidance on what to expect on board has been sparse. We've all speculated that behind the scenes they know a lot more about what's going on than we do. Alaska files as an intervener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/68/state-of-florida-v-becerra/ Florida explains their position on the above request and the CDC's response: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/69/state-of-florida-v-becerra/ CDC's bewildering claim that when Biden signed the Alaska bill into law it made the CSO a law: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804600/67/state-of-florida-v-becerra/

Article in the evening edition of the Sun Sentinel reports mediation has ended without an agreement. Few details but back to Court and Merryday it appears.

Not quite. The regulating document - the Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) - is a CDC program authorized under U.S.C. 42, Section 264. This document is the basis for the CSO. Regulatory authority for safety and infection control measures rests within it. Regulatory authority extends from the end of international waters and up to "the waters edge." Between those two points, federal jurisdiction exists. Beyond it - on the land side - there is a mix of overlapping federal and state jurisdiction. Our interests lie in what goes on within and who has authority over things on cruise ships and cruise terminals. The VSP's and CDC's regulatory authority applies to a cruise from the point at which the ship leaves international waters including when it is tied up at a cruise terminal. WIthin that well defined space, IMO, the CDC is within it's authority to regulate cruise ship sanitation and infection control. i.e., the NSO and CSO are both lawful. Regulatory authority within the cruise terminal belongs, IMO, to the state. Both of these opinions of mine are not without debate and FL's law suit against HHS/CDC, is, in part, about getting a ruling from the federal court on the extent and content of the CSO/VSP.

There's a lot to unpack here. First, I'm not a lawyer versed in applicable maritime, state and local or constitutional law. I have friends who are. As well, I find the law interesting so, I read a lot to try and understand it. Second, my reading has led me to conclude that what the CDC has done in issuing the NSO and then the CSO was legal, given existing law as I interpret it and my understanding of the PHE. I could be entirely wrong. That is because here are so many applicable precendential court outcomes, so much applicable law bearing on what exact authority the CDC actually has that it is very difficult to sort out. The laws are complex and overlapping. Questions of state v. federal authority are present and complicated. Lawyers are trained in law school how to sort it out. It's not easy. If mediation fails and this goes back to Merryday, it's going to be a tough call for him. But Federal judges are appointed because they are good at sticking to the law, not getting tied up in knots over often highly emotional aspects of a case they are hearing. Since I think the law favors the government (CDC/HHS) in this particular case, even though the impact of the NSO was harmful on many levels, the CDC acted within it's authority. Even though the CSO is overly burdensome and potentially discriminatory, the CDC acted within it's authority. Therefore, the government will prevail. I believe that Congress recognizes that the law, as it currently stands in this matter, gives too much authority to HHS/CDC to make policy during a public health emergency - this authority should properly rest with Congress. That's water under the bridge. I think in the aftermath of the pandemic, it will change. I'm almost sure that it will and new provisions in the law for appropriate oversight and limitations to what the HHS/CDC can do in a future PHE will emerge

After reading the details about Spain's announcement, it brings to mind the question regarding how different countries have gone about initially shuttering and now re-opening. Obviously lots has been learned about SARS2. It is more transmissible than it's brother SARS and has a predilection to produce serious life threatening illness in people over 70, it kills a high percentage of people over 80 that become infected. But it doesn't produce much of anything in people under 40 and usually only the sniffles in kids. Of course there are exceptions - if obesity and/or co-morbid medical conditions (among others) are present that predisposes to more serious illness from infection with SARS2. Some Public Health services, IMO, were slow to pick-up on this. The response to the pandemic was generally a butcher's knife when a scalpel would have avoided some of the horrendous economic and social costs produced by probably unnecessary and draconian mitigation measures to start But that's hindsight. Going forward it seems to me that re-openings are occurring more rapidly in countries that have paid attention to the data - especially regarding the effectiveness of vaccines in the real world. Recognition that SARS2 doesn't seriously impact a large portion of the human race by some countries who took this into account and didn't shut down schools and most businesses or social life was entirely missed by others including the US. The key was and remains recognizing that to avoid catastrophic outcomes from SARS2, assiduously protect the vulnerable and then aggressively vaccinate this cohort when vaccines are available. The rest can mostly go about business as usual. The US has been, IMO, too quick to the butcher knife and too slow to re-open, with politics getting into every aspect of pandemic management to a fault. That has happened other places but the US's CDC, prior to the current SAR2 pandemic was the worlds leading expert on infectious disease, has performed poorly. It still tends to by hyper-cautious, to a fault, in its recommendations and, in particular, to assumed regulatory authority under the PHE. Anyway, the world is coming out of this and we'll cruise again, with fits and starts. Halleluiah.

???? Just don't ask RCL. I suspect it's a mistake. Take it and run. ?

I had a very similar experience with Celebrity in that on a refunded booking, I received 4 credits to the card the original booking was charged to. None of these included fees and taxes - these were refunded separately in a 5th credit!!! I was not dealing with any OBC's or advance payments for tours or services. I was able to obtain an explanation from a very well informed CSR - he explained refunds are divided, as @Matt notes above, by line item (except the fees and taxes that are usually refunded separately). This is a company accounting method that divides your payment for the cruise between several lines - you never see these; I think your TA can see them by going on to the reservation system that you don't have access to. He gets lots of calls on this so, he's gotten good at explaining them. He used a calculator to demonstrate how I received a full refund on my original fare. Refunds of a cancelled cruise that has had an FCC applied to it as a partial payment, as I understand it, will not be refunded, @Traveler's post not withstanding (???) It goes into your account and has to be used before it expires so, check carefully on the expiration date if this is the case for you.

No. Cruising is back! Here are the details:

I've said this multiple times when discussing the pandemic because there are others who have really suffered but I've lost two years that I will never get back of cruising and going to Michigan football games with my son - we are both graduates continuing a long family tradition on both sides. Yeah, first world problems! But this is a huge deal for me at my age. Losing two years of cruising, something similar to loosing chunks of heart and soul, to the shut down of life sucks when you know there aren't many years of that left. We have a routine. The first thing we say when walking into the Grand Foyer is, "honey, I'm home." We go from there. I liked the post that said, the first thing I'm going to do is ..... tip a crew member! Fantastic. I think I'll bring a stack of bills and each crew member I encounter is going to get one until I run one

It could but if memory serves, Merryday said you guys sitting down at the mediation table have until June 7th to get an agreement or send it back to me. As well, the District Court in Tampa is operating under a requested (by FL) and approved expedited hearing for a timely injunction voiding the CSO. I don't think Merryday can sit on this until November. I think he'll rule within days of this thing getting kicked back to him. Barring a settlemt at mediation and regardless of Merryday's ruling, if he ends up making one, one way or the other, there will be an appeal. If Merryday grants FL's request for an injunction it will take effect immediately, the CSO is done pending a ruling on appeal to reverse Merryday's ruling. After a successful appeal to reverse, it would be reinstated. I'd expect all of that to get resolved in a month. If Merryday rules in favor of the feds, the CSO stands along with affirmation that the feds have jurisdiction in the matters at hand. FL will appeal but the CSO will remain in place. The Desantis ban on businesses requiring vaccination to enter/receive services is doomed. To be more accurate it is doomed when it will undoubtedly be challenged as unlawful citing the FL law suit outcome as precedential.

My Two Cents: Cruise ships, in limited numbers, will start sailing in July, certainly, I would think by January 2022 barring any major pandemic setbacks in the US. Celebrity wins the poll position and starts June 26th - maybe. I'll get to that. I'm not keeping track but counting on my fingers and toes, I think there will be around a dozen sailings from US ports in July (some of them test cruises) alone and this number will gradually increase through December. I believe more than 1/2 of RCL's fleet will be sailing by January from US ports. You'll sail in January, 2022. Given RCL's choice of a hybrid passenger manifest, there will be the expected, not fun-inducing mitigation measures in place until ....... I'll get to that. That will keep you feeling nervous about your cruse. Don't be. On the Desantis ban on businesses requiring vaccination to enter/receive services wrt to cruise ships: Big time politics are now involved in FL complicating already complicated maritime laws and PHE derived jurisdiction involving the CDC where state and federal authority overlaps. 31d are left to sort this out. If FL loses it's law suit v. CDC/HHS, federal jurisdiction in all matters pertaining to ship safety and sanitation - the basis of the CSO - will be affirmed and the CSO regarded as lawful. To that end, the CDC recommends vaccinations for passengers to board a cruise ship and the Desantis ban will run afoul of the fed's authority to set reasonable safety and health standards aboard cruise ships operating in US waters (up to the water's edge). The authority of a cruise line to require vaccination for passengers to sail will be affirmed. OTH, if FL prevails v. HHS/CDC, state jurisdiction over the matters in question will be affirmed. Desantis will create a carve out for the cruise industry, claim victory (see the Sun Sentinel article), everyone will be happy and ships will be able to start sailing from FL and TX ports, probably others. TBH I think FL looses. I think the PHE in the US will end before December 31st. If that happens, it will be up to the cruise lines to determine what SARS2 related health and safety standards they want to sail with, not the CDC. Of course, the Vessel Safety Program and foreign ports they wish to visit will regulate that to an extent. The CDC is a player within that for US ports only. Their powers to regulate in US ports, though, are limited and regulation falls back to congress, where it should be, in that case, I believe. The bottom line, IMO, is that a lot hinges on the outcome of the FL law suit. I'm watching this, along with others here, closely. It is possible that resolution of the kerfuffel between Desantis and the cruise lines over requiring vaccinations to cruise from FL ports could be resolved before FL's law suit v HHS/CDC is resolved. That would be nice but for reasons already discussed, Desantis is not going to publicly back down before he's got a reading on his law suit. There's also the possibility, although I think it's unlikely, that mediation will produce an agreement between the CDC and FL. Depending on the details of the agreement, that could change things but it would seem to me more in a positive direction.

Great news @FionaMG. You're going cruising and you don't have to drive to Barcelona. Book your air now.

Just to be clear, @JeffB didn't write what's in the Sun Sentinel article. I think Ron Desantis has stepped in it on his ban. Not only is it stupid, while he can make the case it's lawful, it is patently obvious it isn't. BTW, The Miami Herald is the worst newspaper in America. ?

This is a great article in this mornings Sun Sentinel (Paywalled) that does a good job of explaining the positions of the two sides involving the Desantis Vaccine Passport ban. One of the legal comments is from Jim Welker - well known around here as an anti-cruise quack. The last few paragraphs in the article point out the political ramifications for Desantis. It seems resolution between Desantis and Celebrity could rest on the outcome of mediation now underway to settle the FL lawsuit against HHS/CDC: Cruise lines prepare to sail, but DeSantis clash looms By Ron Hurtibise South Florida Sun Sentinel The restart of cruising in Florida could have been smooth sailing. After a suspension lasting more than a year, all of the major cruise lines could have been gearing up for voyages out of Florida ports this summer with 95% vaccinated passengers and crew. Ship crew members, shuttle drivers, baggage handlers, food service providers, gift shop owners and thousands of others who depend on the cruise industry to put food on their tables could have headed into the Memorial Day weekend confident they’d soon be going back to work. Celebrity Cruises could have been preparing for a voyage out of Fort Lauderdale without having to worry that Florida’s governor will fine the company for violating his “vaccine passport” ban or use his authority to prevent passengers from boarding. Instead, uncertainty reigns, thanks to DeSantis’ decision to file a lawsuit challenging the CDC’s authority to dictate how and whether cruise ships can operate in the state. The two sides have been ordered into mediation, but legal experts say the dispute could linger long past the summer. Fort Lauderdale could become a flashpoint in the conflict as early as next month. Just one cruise line — Royal Caribbean Group-owned Celebrity Cruises — has announced that it’s been approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to depart Port Everglades in June. The ship would be the first to sail from the Broward County port since March 2020. Travel agents and other industry professionals remain hopeful. They say they’re confident compromise can be reached in a way that allows everyone to claim victory. The cruise industry is too important to Florida’s economy, they say, for DeSantis to indefinitely block what they view as the most-obvious and sensible path to safely resuming operations. How did we get here? It’s been a busy couple of months. Back in April, DeSantis stood with cruise industry leaders who were calling on the CDC to provide clear guidelines to allow cruising to resume from the state by summer. The CDC was not communicating with the cruise lines, they said, leaving them confused and in limbo, unable to plan their next moves.But when the CDC finally responded by telling cruise lines they could skip required “test cruises” and get back to business by ensuring vaccination of 95% of passengers and crew members, DeSantis balked. Such a requirement would violate his executive order, later enacted into state law, barring businesses from requiring that their customers be vaccinated, DeSantis said. The governor’s refusal to exempt cruise lines from his “vaccine passport” ban blocked the cruise industry’s clearest and fastest path back to operation .So instead of ordering provisions for midnight buffets, cruise lines are announcing diverging paths forward. Royal Caribbean Group seems to be hedging its bets by announcing plans for two of its brands to move forward under separate paths offered by the CDC. Under a plan outlined on May 24 for its Royal Caribbean International brand, its 3,934-passenger Freedom of the Seas will embark upon a test cruise, or simulated cruise, for two nights out of Port Miami on June 20 with volunteer passengers. Specific activities have not been announced, but CDC guidelines call for such voyages to demonstrate effectiveness of cruise lines’ new procedures for getting passengers on and off ships, testing passengers for symptoms, safe in-cabin quarantining of symptomatic passengers, as well as food service, recreational activities and port calls. Developed prior to vaccine availability, cruises operated under these procedures won’t require proof of vaccination and therefore won’t violate DeSantis’ “vaccine passport” ban. But guests will be required to wear masks and practice social distancing in most areas outside their staterooms. On May 26, Royal Caribbean Group’s luxury brand, Celebrity Cruises, announced its plan, cleared by the CDC, to sail from Port Everglades on June 26 with fully vaccinated passengers. Under revised CDC guidance for sailings with at least 95% of passengers and crew vaccinated, masks won’t be required and distancing requirements will be relaxed. Threats of fines DeSantis’ office immediately declared the plan would violate state law. Companies would be subject to a $5,000 fine for every passenger ordered to show proof of vaccination, a spokesperson said. DeSantis press secretary Christina Pushaw blamed the CDC, saying it “has no legal authority to set any sort of requirements to cruise.” Echoing the state’s legal argument, she added, “The CDC went on record admitting that the federal government chose not to make a legal requirement for vaccine passports. Now they provide coercive ‘guidance’ In the absence of any federal law or congressional authorization. In short, the CDC is pushing cruise ships to violate Florida law, in order to comply with CDC ‘guidance’ that is not legally binding.” A Royal Caribbean Group spokeswoman characterized the diverging approaches to its two brands’ resumption plans as tailored to different types of passengers. While Celebrity Cruises is a luxury brand that attracts adults who are more likely to be vaccinated, Royal Caribbean International ships typically sail with a larger percentage of children and would be less likely to meet the 95% vaccination threshold required to avoid test cruises, said Tracy Quann, global chief communications officer for the parent company. Then there’s Norwegian Cruise Line, which had to back off plans announced in April to resume its cruises from Florida on July 4 with 100% vaccinations. In a shareholder meeting in early May, CEO Frank Del Rio reiterated the company’s commitment to sailing with fully vaccinated ships and threatened to move Florida-based ships to other states or ports in the Caribbean if DeSantis refuses to relax his vaccine passport ban. “Everyone wants to operate in Florida,” he said. “It’s a very lucrative market. It’s a close drive market. But it’s an issue. We can’t ignore it. We hope everyone is pushing in the same direction. We want to resume cruising in the safest possible manner.” Staying above the fray, Carnival Corp. has announced a “possible restart plan” to resume sailing sometime in July from PortMiami and Galveston, Texas, but has not revealed whether it will require passengers on those voyages to be vaccinated as will be required on Alaska cruises offered by three Carnival Corp. brands beginning in July. “We have not made a decision company-wide concerning mandating vaccinations at this point,” Carnival Corp. spokesman Roger Frizzell said. He added that simulated cruises are planned in coordination with the CDC, though the company has not publicly announced specific dates, ships or itineraries. Frizzell suggested that the world’s largest cruise company has the flexibility to please more than one master. “We are currently offering different options on our initial sailings for each of the different ships tied to our nine brands, each evolving its protocol over time with the latest advancements in science and medicine, as well as updates in regulations,” he said. “For now, we continue to work closely with the CDC, our medical and science experts and our port cities as well as the destinations we visit.” Is compromise possible? Travel industry officials say they are hopeful that compromise can be reached either in the mediation sessions between the state and the CDC or in talks between cruise lines and the state. “It’s clear all parties want to work together to get cruising going again from the U.S.,” said Brad Tolkin, co-chairman and CEO of travel agency World Travel Holdings, based in Wilmington, Massachusetts, with an office in Fort Lauderdale. “The recent developments have been incredibly encouraging and there is every reason to believe that common ground will be found to allow for cruise lines to operate.” Celebrity Cruises vice president Dondra Ritzenhaler told travel agents last week that Celebrity was talking with DeSantis and top officials of Carnival Corp. and Norwegian Cruise Line and was close to announcing a solution that would allow cruise ships to proceed with vaccination requirements, according to an article posted by CruiseCritic.com, a consumer-focused travel website. “We’re ironing out a statement that indicates how cruising will be different from the rest of the state,” Ritzenhaler was quoted as saying. “What we’re working through is how we word it to where people in Florida will not have to show vaccination proof to go to Walmart and Target, but how cruising is different and what the CDC is requiring.” No backing down But DeSantis spokeswoman Pushaw on Thursday said it would be up to the cruise lines to develop solutions that don’t include vaccination requirements. “The ban on vaccine passports is not going to be lifted,” she said, “but in general, the law doesn’t stop private companies from taking other measures to protect against COVID-19.” Legal experts voiced differing views on how the impasse would be resolved. Dawn Meyers, partner and team manager of law firm Berger Singerman’s government and regulatory team, said she finds it difficult to imagine a workable solution emerging if DeSantis refuses to compromise on his opposition to vaccine requirements. “I’m not sure where the mediated middle ground could be,” Meyers said. “Could the cruise lines, for example, let unvaccinated passengers on board but limit their access to certain activities and/or parts of the ships?” Chris Gray Faust, CruiseCritic.com’s managing editor, said CDC guidelines allow ships that sail with a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated guests to set aside areas only accessible to vaccinated passengers “similar to what we’re seeing at larger venues such as sports arenas.” Jim Walker, a Miami-based maritime law attorney, said that while the federal court would likely find that the CDC has authority over cruise ships’ health and sanitation issues, cruise industry leaders will persuade DeSantis to approve a “carve out” that will enable cruise lines to ask passengers about their vaccination status. He says fortunes of DeSantis and the cruise lines are too closely tied to imagine DeSantis actually issuing fines or cruise lines suing the state. Noting that Norwegian CEO Del Rio is a close political supporter of DeSantis, Walker said, “I see a resolution where the cruise lines make certain that their guests are vaccinated without incident and the ships sail from Florida ports with Del Rio and DeSantis both claiming victory.” DeSantis is not going to compromise in his fight against the CDC or his opposition to cruise lines’ vaccination requirements, says Bob Jarvis, a Nova Southeastern University law professor whose areas of interest include admiralty and maritime law. DeSantis, Jarvis said, is counting on Donald Trump’s political base to boost his prospects as a 2024 presidential candidate and can claim victory whether the CDC ultimately prevails in the lawsuit or backs down as part of a mediated settlement. “If he wins, he can say to his base, ‘I stared down the federal government.’ If he loses and the lawsuit goes on [through appeal] and the cruise lines don’t get to sail with vaccinated passengers, he gets to say, ‘This is another example of the federal government running amok and you have to vote for me as president because I would never have allowed the CDC to do what it did.’ So he can’t lose.” DeSantis won’t hesitate to send state troopers to Port Everglades to block passengers from boarding their Celebrity Cruises ship next month, Jarvis said. “I think he would love it. What a tremendous photo opportunity to show he’s committed to an open economy and will not bend.” DeSantis spokeswoman Pushaw did not respond when asked if DeSantis would prevent passengers from boarding ships that require proof of vaccinations. Ron Hurtibise covers consumer issues, insurance, travel and many other business matters. He can be reached at [email protected] or 954-356-4071

Correct. It is my understanding that federal jurisdiction in a port that has an established port authority, commission or director who answers to the county within which the port is located (e.g., Broward for PEV and Miami Dade for POM, Tampa, Jacksonville and Canaveral), overlaps the authority of the governing source. To the extent that federal law exists to do that, e.g., trucking, warehousing, OSHA, the feds have jurisdiction. But, basically, the ports are run by the port authority, commission or director either elected through or designated by the county. I think we we would agree that the feds can tell employees of PEV for example that when they're in a warehouse OSHA standards apply, driving a truck within the port, federal regs for operation of that truck apply, but the port authority basically runs the place and the feds have no say in how that is done. I don't think it is clear ..... yet, because this is one of claims in the FL lawsuit v. HHS/CDC whether the CSO mandates that involve embarkation and debarkation protocols and procedures inside the cruise terminal are legal. I believe this sort of regulation is correctly assigned to the port authority. commission or director when one exists.

Sorry if I'm telling you something you already know but I'd recommend booking through whatever RCL calls their air booking system that is linked to your cruise. I did that for my Celebrity Apex cruise out of Athens. If for some reason it gets cancelled, I get a full refund for air, pronto. How do I know this? When I cancelled my air from Miami FL to Amsterdam, it was refunded in about two weeks. I had a cruise booked in October of 2020, Translant from Barcelona to Fort Lauderdale and booked air separately with TAP. No voucher, no refund ..... along with 100s of others, complaining about TAP loudly, in the same boat when TAP stopped flying. I figure I'm out that money. It's why I'm booking through Flights by Celebrity. The rates are often subsidized to get passengers to book the cruise. That was the case Miami to Athens. Great price and decent connections. I'm not a United or American fan - that's what I'm booked on - because they tend to cancel flights for lots of different reasons all inconveniently. No concern about paying passengers and these itineraries may not hold up. Fingers crossed