0_0

12 minutes ago, twangster said:

You are talking about an agency that, if it had the power, would have locked all of us in our homes from the start and still through today regardless of what that would have done to us.  

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin (1755)

Court ordered mediation just posted. Nothing yet on the injunction.

047123010614.pdf047123010546.pdf

June cancellation here as well. That's a negative on the 125% Cruise Planner Credit.

FWIW, I called in over the weekend for something else, and asked the rep if they knew a status, they said the credits are expected within the next few weeks.

Spent almost no extra money on almost all of my cruises. Self-exploration instead of excursions, buying things as they come up, etc. Trying to min/max your vacation before you start can get hectic. You'll have many more chances to experience everything cruising has to offer, so I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to take it all in on your first run through.

Only thing I consistently spent money on is the "soda only" packages because I was a 3-4/day minimum soda drinker so cost/benefit made sense. Now that I really don't drink soda, I went ahead with the coffee card because my fiancé and I are consistent latte/coffee drinkers. I know I'll use all the punches on the card and more. 

10 minutes ago, joshgates said:

I'm not disputing that, as I said, I find masks on a fully vaccinated cruise fairly absurd anyways.  My point is there's been no definition of "extended meal service" given so jumping to it meaning masking between bites or courses in the MDR is pointless.  I'd rather focus on the actual issues with it, not one that people made up based on their interpretation.  *shrugs* you do you though, long as I can get on the ship and they still stock gin for me to drink I'll tolerate the absurdity for awhile.

The cruise lines have been actively in talks with the CDC about these requirements. You can bet if Del Rio is saying that's the expectation it's not just his interpretation or a guess, it's likely they've told them it actually means just that in those calls.

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

While we know the public health benefit of shutting down the cruise lines was, in fact marginal, that's not at issue here .... at least I don't think it is, not in Judge Merryday's court room anyway. I certainly wish it were and this sort of thing, cost versus benefits analysis, has been sorely lacking since the SARS2 virus became a global pandemic and governments reacted to that in widely varying ways.

This is a great point. This is cited in one of the most recent filings, "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRAVEL ADVISORS".

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.42.1.pdf

16 minutes ago, mook1525 said:

Will there be any kind of outcome today? If so what time?

 

thanks

The hearing was scheduled for 9am today. It likely has already commenced and concluded. We don't really have a timeline on when the judge will produce any orders. It can be assumed all parties involved will want an expedient ruling, however to my knowledge there's no specific timeline applied to preliminary injunctions.

9 minutes ago, LovetoCruise87 said:

Right now there are 210 people on-line watching an empty cruise ship come into port. lol

When you check this site every day to see where/which ships are moving.

https://www.cruisemapper.com/

When you sit down at a nice restaurant and wish you could try everything on the menu without worrying you won't like it.

If you booked on the website or direct with them, give them a call if they do cancel your July cruise. I have to say, I have gotten excellent support and service from their travel advisors. If your experience is like mine, re-booking to Adventure of the Seas should be smooth.

This seems more like a legal CYA than anything else. With all the different countries cruise ships visit they want to make sure guests that are unhappy with additional restrictions, can't come back and sue them because the government where they stop or cruise from imposes additional lockdowns/rules/etc.

15 minutes ago, steverk said:

I don't have a list, nor do I have time to put one together at the moment, so I'm working from memory.

Hurtigruten, which operates an expedition cruise line and ferry service in Norway, had a significant outbreak on one of their ships. The later admitted they were not following their own protocols on the ship.

I don't remember if these others were before or after the NSO changed to the CSO, but there were a handful of others:

• A small expedition cruise line (uncruise perhaps?) tried to start in Alaska and had an immediate outbreak.
• More recently, there was a luxury line that was going to sail out of Barbados, but had an outbreak early on and had to cancel.

Wikipedia is not always the best/most reliable source but someone already put kind of list together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_on_cruise_ships

Beware some of the missing dates are from early last year. Check the reference/source and look at the dates of the cited articles of those with missing dates.

Exhibit from the Port of Miami economic impact study. These numbers are in ($1,000). So you're talking an economic impact of $4.4 Billion on the Port of Miami for shutting down the cruise industry according to this study. The article above from the maritime lawyers call their impact on Florida minimal. I would hardly call $4.4 Billion a "minimal" impact on the Florida state economy. 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.9.21.pdf

12 minutes ago, LovetoCruise87 said:

If the CDC were actually concerned with the science and the numbers of cases, deaths, and vaccinations, then they should really look at these facts:

 

1. The 7 day average of new cases in the United States has decreased from 68,917 a month ago to 38,135 as of yesterday, a 44% decrease

2. The 7 day average of deaths in the United States has decreases from 985 a month ago to 619 as of yesterday. a 37% decrease

3. The percentage of people in the US receiving at least one dose of vaccine on April 11 was 36.3% and fully vaccinated was 22.1%. As of yesterday those numbers were up to 46.7% at least one dose and 35.5% fully vaccinated. 

Would also like to add the number of fully vaccinated people is higher than can be reported. Locations that didn't schedule both doses together have had issues reporting the second stick, and those who had to reschedule their second also have issues reporting in.

13 minutes ago, Phoenix said:

I'll just ask you this, then why haven't they done so already? As always, agree to disagree. Have a terrific day!

I'm assuming it's a genuine fear of retaliation. The cruise lines have no current leverage against the CDC. So their choice is to play nice as they can trying to get them to ease restrictions. With the exception of Del Rio, none of the CEOs are publicly stating their opinions in the way they really should.

1 hour ago, danv3 said:

The issue of standing is a big one for Florida to overcome. If a cruise line had joined the lawsuit, that would have really helped.  

Alaska joining the lawsuit does help with this. Cruising revenue is a MUCH bigger part of their GDP. Last estimate I read was about 5%. Also helps that multiple states have joined because it becomes an issue that's bigger than Florida and the CDCs response is really laser focused on stating specifically Florida doesn't have the standing. But multiple states experiencing harm from this order changes the narrative substantially.

48 minutes ago, Craig 01020 said:

Who is going to enforce all the onerous "requirements" while on the ship? The same folks who enforce the "don't hog lounge chair" rules???

The CDC put into their operations manual that they can monitor cruises remotely or in person. So they've allowed themselves to tap into video monitoring of cruises and determine if there is too much non-compliance, at that point the CDC could forcefully end the cruise. 

JeffB, I agree with all you've said. I would state further that the lack of action on the CDC's part is a dereliction of duty to the citizens of the US. The protocols they just now released should've been released last year. This would have given the operators a chance to meet or exceed those guidelines in a reasonable amount of time or execute before the vaccinations were even developed.

I'm slightly less confident in Florida's case after finding law that directly applies to their oversight on vessels, however I still feel like this moratorium judgement sets a good stage for them to have a shot at getting their preliminary injunction through.

Basically removed my previous post due to finding this. Looks grim. CDC might just be able to apply whatever ridiculous "sanitary" measures to vessels they desire.

42 U.S.C. § 269

https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-42-the-public-health-and-welfare/chapter-6a-public-health-service/subchapter-ii-general-powers-and-duties/part-g-quarantine-and-inspection/section-269-bills-of-health

The application for conditional sail says otherwise and cruise lines have to sign their name to doing all the "requirements".

IMO, here's a few of the most relevant paragraphs from the judgement.

Page 11
Section264(a) provides the Secretary with general rulemaking authority to “make and enforce such regulations,” id.§ 264(a)(emphasis added),that “in his judgment are necessary” to combat the international or interstate spread of communicable disease, id. But this broad grant of rulemaking authority in the first sentence of§ 264(a)is tethered to—and narrowed by—thesecondsentence. It states: “For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations,” id.(emphasis added), the Secretary“ may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination [and] destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings.” Id.

Excerpt from Page 13 of the judgement.

"The Department’s interpretation goes too far. The first sentence of§ 264(a)is the starting point in assessing the scope of the Secretary’s delegated authority. But it is not the ending point. While it is true that Congress granted the Secretary broad authority to protect the public health, it also prescribed clear means by which the Secretary could achieve that purpose. See Colo. River Indian Tribes v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 466 F.3d 134, 139 (D.C. Cir.2006).And those means place concrete limits on the steps the Department can take to prevent the interstate and international spread of disease. See supra at 11. To interpret the Act otherwise would ignore its text and structure."

Page 14 excerpt

"An overly expansive reading of the statute that extends an early unlimited grant of legislative power to the Secretary would raise serious constitutional concerns, as other courts have found. See, e.g., Skyworks,2021 WL 911720, at*9(noting that such a reading would raise doubts as to “whether Congress violated the Constitution by granting such abroad delegation of power unbounded by clear limitations or principles.”);Tiger Lily,992F.3d at523(same);id.(“[W]e cannot read the Public Health Service Act to grant the CDC power to insert itself into the landlord-tenant relationship without some clear, unequivocal textual evidence of Congress’s intent to do so”);Terkel, 2021 WL 742877, at *4–6(holding that the CDC’s eviction moratorium exceeds the federal government’s power under the Commerce Clause).Congress did not express a clear intent to grant the Secretary such sweeping authority."

11 minutes ago, nate91 said:

The CDC has been slowly making things "better" with these updates to the NSO, then the CSO. However, the "better" has been in such small increments, it's like a student who got a 3% on a test. They then raised their grade to a 4%, and a few months later, the grade is at a 5%. Is it better? Yes. Are they passing the class? Nope.

At this rate, May 12th (or a few days after) will tell us whether or not we'll have 2021 cruises (and potentially whether cruise lines will exist in 2022).

Consumers are not going to get vaccinated to cruise, then go on a vacation that treats them as if they haven't been vaccinated and restricts them to the level the CDC is expecting. Cancellations will mount quickly if these requirements remain for fully vaccinated passengers.

Every time the CDC releases guidance the cruise lines get closer to homeporting outside the US. If the CDC continues on this path without intervention from the Federal Court hearing Florida's (Alaska, Texas) case it's a guarentee they will choose to homeport the majority of their ships outside the US/CDC jurisdiction for the foreseeable future.

16 minutes ago, alamode123 said:

So if they choose the vaccinate option, what is needed by the cruise industry?

Here's a link to another post listing specific impactful changes required regardless of vaccination levels present for passengers and crew.

Essentially the CDC is trying to have it both ways. Force cruise lines to implement protocols that should've been used to run the industry when there were NO vaccines, AND force them to carry fully vaccinated passengers to sail during the summer season or lose that revenue to lost time executing the test sailings.

My understanding is that skipping the simulated voyages still requires cruise lines to follow these requirements in what's being called "Restricted Voyages" under the CSO. It is also my understanding that these are required even if the cruise lines meet the 95/98% vaccination requirement.

IMO, some of these are not possible (at least not with a full ship), and others essentially diminish the cruise experience to the point of it not being worth it. If you travelled to a city where 95%+ of the people were vaccinated and you still had to do these things I think we'd all call that absolutely ridiculous. Even the CDC estimates that if 70% of the population was vaccinated Covid would likely no longer be a threat. 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/covid19-operations-manual-cso.html

I'll call out the ones I believe are the most impactful here from the various "requirements" sections. Quotes from CDC site are in plain text. My opinion is Italicized 

• While the Order permits temporarily removing a mask for brief periods of time while eating or drinking, removal of the mask for extended meal service or beverage consumption would constitute a violation of this Order.
  (This means wearing a mask the whole time you're in the MDR and not currently eating)
• Ensure bathers wear masks while congregating outside of recreational water facilities (RWFs) and while seated on the pool deck area. Masks do not need to be worn in the water, e.g., in RWFs or while swimming in the ocean. A wet cloth mask can make it difficult to breathe and likely will not work correctly. This means it is particularly important for bathers to maintain social distancing of at least 6 feet (2 meters) when in the water with others who are not traveling companions or part of the same family.
• Reduce the bather load for each facility to meet social distancing When social distancing of at least 6 feet (2 meters) between bathers is not possible, such as in small whirlpool spas, RWFs should be used by the same family or traveling companions only. This can be accomplished by close monitoring.
  (Social distancing in pools and hot tubs mean very few people will be able to use these facilities at the same time)
• Place seating area items located in or around RWFs, such as tables, chairs, loungers, sun beds, and poufs, 6 feet (2 meters) apart from each other to adhere to social distancing These items can be grouped together for families and traveling companions.
  (Again significantly reduces available capacity)
• Elevators and Stairwells, Limit capacity, provide floor markings, and provide marked queuing areas to eliminate congregation
  (Elevators were difficult to get before, with limited 6ft distancing or only 1 party/each, impossible)
• Change restaurant and bar layouts to ensure that all customer parties remain at least 6 feet (2 meters) apart (such as removing tables, stools, and chairs or marking any that are not for use). Limit seating capacity to allow for social distancing of at least 6 feet (2 meters).
• Eliminate self-service food and drink options, such as self-service buffets, salad bars, and beverage stations.
  (I assume you'll need an attendant for any self service like freestyle or soft serve. Or they'll be closed)
• Prohibit self-guided or independent exploration by passengers during port stops.
  
  Ensure all shore excursion tour companies facilitate social distancing to allow for at least 6 feet (2 meters) between individuals who are not traveling companions or part of the same family, mask wearing, cleaning and disinfection, and other COVID-19 public health measures throughout the tour.
  
  Restrict passenger attendance so that proper social distancing of at least 6 feet (2 meters) between individuals who are not traveling companions or part of the same family, and risk mitigation protocols can be met.
  (This one takes the cake. Can't get off the ship without paying for an excursion, and the excursion can't bring parties within 6 feet of each other. Since when does the CDC control what a person does when they get off an airplane or any other conveyance for that matter in a foreign country?)

TLDR: The CDC requirement are still ridiculous, and laughable. It's as if they really don't believe the vaccines are effective. That's what these rules really suggest.

Most other threads are discussing and wondering the same thing. IMO, the cruise lines are waiting for the outcome of the Florida hearing next Wednesday (5/12/21). Once the judge's ruling is done they will have their available paths set and will be able to make final decisions. Otherwise it's premature to announce certain decisions/plans only for them to possibly change next week.

I only watched the last 4 min. What I gleaned from his comments:

-Cruise lines have been able to operate safely overseas, without vaccines, for a year.
-He sees requiring any kind of vaccine for passengers as a condition to re-open the cruise industry to be unnecessary.
-He also states that the message being sent by the CDC is conflicted in that they are telling people who are fully vaccinated to restrict themselves in similar ways to unvaccinated people. In his opinion this is conveying the message that vaccines don't work and you aren't protected by getting it. This message is driving the demand down for the vaccine which he believes is not in the countries (or Florida's) best interest.