JeffB

All of these announcements this week are easy to group together, conflate intent and meaning and think RCG is getting close to a restart. For my own peace of mind, this is my list of what is known: There's a lawful CSO. RCG appears to be complying with its provisions and has communicated intent to start test cruises. FL's request filed with the federal district Court to enjoin the CSO has been assigned to mediation. Congress passed a bill temporarily suspending portions of the Jones Act which will temporarily suspend requirements for cruise ships enroute to Alaska from a US port to stop in Canadian ports. It's not the law yet. FL has stated it will not participate in 2A requirements of the CSO regarding coordination with local health authorities. No permission from us is required to sail from FL ports. I'm not confident that the CSO's requirement for contracts between service providers who would deal with infected crew/pax e.g. hospitals, local hotels for quarantine, etc. Are covered by the Rivkes letter. IOW, there are indicators things are moving toward a restart but not much has changed in terms of known start dates. Still all speculative and tentative.

Mark me as confused. The CSO stipulates two options between cruise lines and port service providers to meet the CDC's requirement to obtain contracts for such services: (1) negotiate contracts (I assume legally binding) (2) obtain letters from these service providers saying they won't negotiate contracts. The Rivkes letter does not address this. It simply says from a public health standpoint, RCG does not need to seek permission to sail. That's a ways from saying no contracts required. Moreover, the state PH director has no say regarding how RCG and port service providers interact.

Officials within the CDC are so hugely invested in their 15 month old narrative, mostly at odds with emerging pandemic and vaccine data, that it's not hard to understand why the CSO hasn't been ended.

This.....and more. A good example of government overreaction to case counts, probably out of context, is Singapore's imposition of stricter mitigation measures on Quantum. What was the disease burden? Likely quite low but governments base line goal in some cases appears to be eradication rather than control. What's going on in Australia is another example of a PH policy goal that appears to accept near eradication, zero deaths, zero serious illness. None of those PH goals IMO are realistically achievable. So, yes, a "shift" is necessary. TBH, that's going to be hard. 15+ months of hammering our brains with images of death and suffering, narratives of "dire consequences" isn't going to go away. It's baked into the minds of policy makers. I'm just not seeing the shift that's needed with PH officials who are likely to carry the pandemic trauma for years with that trauma influencing the issuance of bad PH policy in the future. I am seeing authors and scientists writing about a post pandemic world with the next virus pandemic just out of sight for now and the necessity of living with that, controlling it but not locking down to the extent of it for SARS2. That's encouraging but that's a long way from convincing governments to act rationally in the face of a fading SARS2 pandemic and the next viral threat that will most certainly come.

I think many of us commenting on restarts, when or if that actually happens, have concluded that terminating the PHE declarations, both federal and state, are key to limiting CDC's unlawful authority to impose policy. No one here, anyway, and growing numbers elsewhere, are asserting that the CDC's PH guidance is sound. Quite the opposite and especially as it pertains to its negative impact on state's efforts to return to normalcy. Government officials and the public are fed up with the confusing often contradictory CDC guidance. All of the authority in the CDC's guidance, both the appearance that it is lawful and when it might actually be lawful, goes away with an end to federal and state declared PHEs. And to be clear while the CDC issues only guidance, under the PHE that guidance gives life to every lawful pandemic mitigation measure still unnecessarily in place, including the CSO. It also gives rise to the COVID fear monkey narrative that is driving unnecessary risk averse human behaviors. Having said that, this mornings news is filled with announcements of lock downs in Asia due to rising new cases. It reminds that COVID outbreaks are going to happen going forward and be disruptive to mobility and travel until vaccines are more widely available globally. It brings up the question if cruising restarts from US and European ports, resumes soon in Asia, what happens in the middle of a cruise itinerary when health authorities controlling the next ports, close them? I suppose one adjusts but this circumstance is likely to be a big problem for cruise lines and cruisers alike. While in the short term we all want the CSO to go away and cruising from US and foreign port's to resume ASAP, there will be times going forward, even as the pandemic fades when there may be no place to go.

I just can't imagine this isn't happening as we speak. The CDC seems to be on Congress's s### list.

Just speculation but Norwegian knew this bill was going to pass days before it actually did. The cruise lines know stuff we don't. I suspect that applies to the status of the CSO. Lots of things happening this week.

That was quick. The bill relieving the requirement to stop in Vancouver per Jones Act just passed.

Huge on a lot of levels. Sort of shifts the politics of this in Washington in favor of a restart quickly. A positive for eliminating the CSO or easing it considerably.

Of course it is. Did you read FL's filing from yesterday? It's the first time I've seen FL's position allege the CSO is unlawful. It strips away 264a's assumed authority under which the CSO was undertaken. It's a very strong legal position that I've not seen unwrapped. I take it as an indicator. That's all.

I think FL has hardened its position if the filing yesterday in responce to HHS memo is an indicator. I think they think they can win, will not settle at mediation and press for Merryday to rule. If the CSO is immediately enjoined before mid June, sailings will start in July......lines have been preparing for that. At worst, the CSO will be significantly less burdensome out of mediation.

Thanks @twangsterfor that. For those that haven't made their way through the link, it is beyond question that the CSO is unlawful on multiple grounds. I stand corrected. What I find strange is that this is a rejoinder and additional complaint to the first filing. Not sure why they added this ..... possibly to argue that mediation isn't an option for FL. The court must enjoin the CSO to provide the relief FL, et. al. seek.

Yet the cruise lines are pressing ahead in what appears to me to be an acceptance that they will have to comply with all or part of it. That's because in all likelihood their legal teams have told them the CSO is lawful. None of the lines has alleged it is not lawful in any forum. Judge Merryday did not rule it was unlawful. People can be "ticked" that he punted to mediation but there's probably good reasons why he did that ...... one of them being the thing is lawful as awful and burdensome as it si FL is an exception and the grounds for their claim does not question CDC's legal authority to regulate. It questions the administrative process and procedures the CDC failed to follow in implementing the NSO and CSO. The ATSA's Amicus makes a case that the CDC could have imposed fewer, less onerous regulations, achieved the same PH benefits and not nearly bankrupted the cruise lines. It may appear to be "unworkable" to some, it does not appear to be for the cruise lines, Delrio's bitch about it notwithstanding. Lines that take a positive view of it and make an effort are more likely to start revenue sailings in July from US ports than lines that dig in their heels. I hear a lot of huffing and puffing about the CSO from multiple sources. I have not heard a credible legally based argument that invalidates it in its entirety. I don't care how stupid, inconsistent and contradictory it is. If it's lawful, and I think most of it is, none of that matters. It's gas bag, echo chamber, key stroke wasting hot air. The only part that might be on shaky legal grounds are the elements that the CDC is imposing regulations past the waters edge (e.g., the shore based service providers). Even that may be legal in the broadest application of the CDC's role to regulate sanitation and safety aboard commercial vessels sailing in US waters/porting in US ports. People who take the position that the CSO is unlawful can do better than that to support their positions.

I'm pretty sure that one of the updates qualified the shore agreements requirement by saying that a signed letter from a port authority or service provider that they won't negotiate contracts with a cruise line absolve the cruise line of meeting that requirement. This suggests to me that some ports may be unwilling to enter into contracts like this - makes perfect sense because they present potential for all kinds of problems. A hand shake to provide services worked fine in the past, no need to go all legal here.

I think that is correct. I've read the order several times. It's not entirely clear when the parties are to assemble and begin the process. The June1st date, appears to be a meet and assemble NLT than June 1st. Of course I wanted to interpret that as the mediation must be complete by June 1sr. I think as you say, it's the former. I think the CSO is lawful. That's because there's clarity with regard to U.S.C. 42 and sections of it that specify CDC's role in regulating sanitation and safety aboard vessels sailing in US waters/entering US ports. Where it gets murky is past the water's edge. Here there is overlapping authority between the feds and the state of FL. Why is this important? Because the FL case rests on the claim that the CSO is unlawful. (I think the parts of the CSO that could be unlawful involve imposing regulations on what goes on in the ports cruise terminals. Merryday punted on that). Sending the case to mediation suggests that Merryday thought the CSO was mostly lawful but also thinks the CDC could have taken steps that could have avoided what amounts to the shut-down of the cruise lines and by extension harm in the form of economic damage to FL (Alsaka and Texas). IOW, "Excessive Regulation." It is the Amicus brief from ASTA that raises the question: could have the CDC taken less burdensome steps to achieve their objectives. That's' not an objective question settled in the law. The question is properly framed like this: Regulation is excessive when it does not accomplish its objective, or when the cost of accomplishing the objective through regulation is excessive, or when there is an alternative to regulation that is less costly. While that's not in the law, it is implied in it. Judge Merryday's job is to apply the law. If he writes an opinion on this case (and I'm not sure that will happen) this is going to come up. IOW, it's mostly lawful but the CSO imposes excessive regulations and there were alternatives that would have been less costly (The Amicus's point). That will be the central focus in mediation, IMO. To me it will be very interesting to see how the CDC argues it's case for the CSO to stand as it is and what it believes is the fundamental basis for the CSO. IOW, they won't negotiate because they think they are (mostly) on solid legal ground. A delay tactic? I don't think it is. First, sending the case to mediation is the courts decision not the CDC's. Second, I think for the CDC, mediation now becomes a forum for them to establish the CDC's authority to do exactly what they did with the CSO. I'm not optimistic that the parties will settle. What does this mean? First, I'm of the opinion that there are activities going on behind the scenes, out of public view, to get cruising started from US ports by July 1st. These will result in a face saving, off the record easing of the technical details in the CSO that make that doable for the cruise lines ..... who BTW have been moving toward that goal for at least the last 30d with the tacit approval of CDC principals. There may be one issue the CDC could yield on and that is the CDC's onerous requirement for cruise lines to have contracts in place with service agencies ashore. That's probably unlawful. That means little to us although the removal of it, including the recent crap, touted as easing, that in lieu of contracts, cruise lines provide letters from such agencies stating that they won't negotiate contracts, removes obstacles to July One restart. We're getting there. Painfully and slowly. If you booked cruises out of Caribbean ports or from Athens in July, you're ahead of the game. By August, at the latest, this is all going to be sorted out for sailing from US ports. July is possible from US ports but, at this point, I'd rather have a bird in hand ......

@twangster Yesterday in the posts I made in the wrong thread (reposted above) in response you said this: I'm particularly interested in your view that the CSO is unlawful. Why do you think that?

I made a huge mistake yesterday by not realizing a new thread had been added and then posted my take on Merryday's order to take FL's case to mediation in the wrong thread. I moved the three posts I made yesterday afternoon here. A lot of what's here in my re-post has already been said. There are links to the orders and some nuanced thoughts on how Mediation will go.

...... one more thing. If you look at the form attached to the order for Mediation, you'll see there are a bunch of options for the mediator. One of them is the parties couldn't agree on a settlement. If that happens it's back in Merryday's lap and he will be pissed. That probably helps FL's case. Merryday is a conservative appointed by George Bush. I'd suspect he doesn't like the idea of big government rolling over states.

I think there are compelling arguments that FL got screwed. Was it unlawful? That's the rub. The law here, as I have been able to understand it is, really murky with a lot of overlap of jurisdiction and potential contradictions. I don't think Merryday wanted anything to do with the fall-out if he ruled in FL's favor. The fall-out would have been a comprehensive review of a ton of maritime law as well as serious questions regarding the extent of PHE's - another mess that he'd rather have congressional hearings, after the fact - sort out and I feel pretty confident it will at least be discussed. So what might the outcome of mediation be? Obviously we're biased. Its hard for me to separate my personal views of the mess the CDC has made for the cruise lines and itself. Their reputation for reliable PH guidance has unquestionably taken a huge hit without even considering what they've done to cruise lines. Most people don't even know about this other than cruise ships aren't cruising. The general view, I suspect, garnered from misleading stories from the CDC and augmented by the MSM, is that this is a good thing. Yeah for the CDC. I think FL has leverage here because of the foregoing. The CDC can't be ass-holes and just sit there stone faced and not negotiate a settlement. A settlement clearly involves making the CSO workable. The road map for that is the Safe-to-Sail Panel's excellent provisions for infection control when it comes to SARS2. FL also can present the arguement that there is a record of cruise ships sailing elsewhere without the imposition of the CDC's ridiculous, complex and burdensome CSO. Instead, FL can argue, just cancel the CSO (or update to parallel) and use the Safe-To_sail Panels protocols and procedures. They work! The ASTA Amicus Brief isn't addressed in the order for Mediation but, I think Merryday punted to lead counsel for mediation on that motion and whether to allow it to be included or not. I think it's pertinent to FL's calim but what do I know. The problem for FL is linking the relief they are seeking for damages sustained to the CSO being effectively changed. i.e., was the economic damage suffered and continues to suffered by the state a result of a faulty, potentially unlawful NSO/CSO? The ASTA Amicus argues there were other options. Obviously we agree. We might think that is an easy legal hill to climb. It's probably not due to my first paragraph above. HHS is going to argue strongly that it has the authority to regulate cruise ship safety wrt infection control and sanitation. There's no where in the law that says they have to check with whomever to determine what the benefits of the PH actions they take versus the economic costs of whatever they decide to do. It's a public health emergency we're dealing with here. They will say," what is too high of an an economic cost when the benefits are lives saved?" I've actually seen this analysis and not only is it hard to do, its painful to read. Makes you think.

Judge Merryday has assigned the case to mediation. Not unexpected on my behalf actually. This isn't an easy out for the CDC. Lead counsel for mediation is assigned by and operates under the supervision of Judge Merryday. I've read a couple of his opinions in unrelated cases. He's a hard ass and in the two cases I looked at, he knows the law and applies it. Deadline for conclusion of the mediation is 1 June. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.51.0_19.pdf

Here's some stuff I've learned over the last 20+y of cruising: TAs have evolved with the evolution of the mechanics of booking by the cruise lines. It used to be much easier to find value in a cruise fare on your own or with the help of a TA than it is now. Much easier to compare apples to apples than it is now. The airlines did it first with computer programs that adjusted fares based on demand (dynamic pricing), every other travel & leisure related industry, including cruising, followed. It's harder now to shop fares independently and score a great price. That's not to say TAs can do it better than you can independently. What they have access to that you don't is "group rates." Travel agencies are basically consolidators. They are outlets that cruise lines provide discounted, groups of cabins. I'm told the better an agency is in selling cabins, the more price grouped cabins the cruise lines give them. Pricing can get complicated here with lower prices when demand for a particular cabin category is low and high when it's high. For example, it's not unusual to find a balcony stateroom cheaper than an OV or inside cabin when working with an agency that has gotten group rates from the cruise line. It's very much demand priced on the cruise lines end. You'll see it as what appears to be a good deal from a TA. There are what are called "Big Box" travel agencies, Costco, for example. TAs that work for them are on salary and probably a small commission thrown in. Smaller agencies, MEI for example, are, as I understand it, commission only. Here's how that plays out: Costco may offer a booking incentive in the form of a cabin credit or specialty dining credit. Let's say that RCL has given a group cabin rate for a 7n cruise of $800pp. It's offered to you for $1200. The agency pockets $400 or it may "give back" a $150 OBC and pockets $250. For salaried TAs the company pays that. For independent type TAs that comes out of the TAs pocket. The trade off for you is that while you may get a fat OBC to book with a "Big Box" agency, the service you get from an independent is almost universally better. So, for new cruisers using an independent TA like MEI have the benefit of excellent service (and I can personally attest to that) in finding the right cruise line, itinerary and cabin for you based on your schedule and budget. As one gains experience in cruising and has a flexible schedule, you can shop for cabin pricing with perks from a smaller agency, larger agencies or independent TAs. They're out there. Where a TA comes in handy is after booking changes you may want. Tell the TA, the TA is the one on hold with the cruise line CSR. Have a problem or want to add something to your cruise? Contact the TA. They'll take care of it. During the pandemic, having a TA has been invaluable for me. One of the reasons for that is they know who to talk to at line X,Y,Z and they also know what the response should be to a particular question. It's not unusual for you to call and get a CSR that doesn't have the current info. Hang up and call again and you might get a different answer. TAs KNOW! A downside of the TA route, for example, is that you can't just call the cruise line to find out when you'll get your refund that you asked for. Only the TA that you booked through can do that. Out of the 7 cruises I've had changes to (9 if you count an initial booking changed twice by the cruise line) during the pandemic, two of them had issues (long story!): one missing refund and one missing an FCC voucher. This got quickly resolved by the TA who knew who to call at the cruise line via a conference call between the three of us. Took 5 minutes. Within 3d I had my FCC voucher and in a week all my refunds back to my credit card. Good show.

I'd offer the CSO is a result of sheer bureaucratic incompetence and leadership. Throw in a penchant within the HHS organization for ultra-conservativism with regard to facts and the science, poor leadership and an unjustifiable view of the risk of disease spread aboard a cruise ship, you've got the CSO - a laughable document but not an unexpected one all things considered.

Yeah, that employees are taking it in the chin from uninformed idiots is disturbing. But I blame the Feds for terrible messaging and not recognizing that they need to end the PHE, by my measures, completely appropriate. Things would improve dramatically if they did. The problem is they have boxed themselves into a corner with the Biden administration's hyper-cautious approach to a return to some level of normalcy. TBH, this had to have came from Fauci who, from the beginning, has been one of the greatest, don't take a position for fear you may look bad if challenged, practitioners of all time. It was a mistake to exalt this guy and let him out of the cage Trump put him in .... and don't get me wrong, I'm not a Trump supporter. But I'm not a fan of Anthony Fauci and despite his elevation to some kind of super-hero status who was hog-tied by Trump, he's done way more damage with both his advice to Biden if the messaging from the feds is an indicator of that and his awful PH messaging since the pandemic began than he has done good. Truth be know, he deserves our opprobrium not our applause.

She inherited it from Robert Redfield her predecessor. It's hard to trace how the CSO came to be but it was issued months before this poor woman got saddled with it. What would have been nice if she used her background and bona fides (she has an impressive resume) to say something like, look, the CSO is behind the times and the science, we're going to collaborate with the cruise industry to develop something that is going to allow that great industry to get back to sailing, she would have won my heart and mind. Instead she's bumbled through the politics of this thing and inappropriately latched on to the BS that sees cruise ships as "petri dishes" for the spread of disease.

She'll survive but not unscathed. The Peter Principle applies here. She is out of her depth. She came from the position of Infection Control Director at a large hospital ..... large meaning a whole lot smaller than the 10K CDC employees who are very likely as difficult to get going in one direction as herding cats. Still, no sympathy from me. She had an opportunity to really stand up and stand out. Instead she's really been awful, publicly anyway. No one is leaking anything untoward about her.... yet.