Tracking Cruising Restart: News and Updates

[brentm77]

Since this is a Disney forum, let's remember that (a) teenagers and tweens 12-15 are months away from being vaccinated (maybe this summer this will change) and (b) kids under the age of 12 probably won't be vaccinated until 2022 (testing has just begun). So the idea of a vaccination requirement for DCL fails in Florida on two counts.

So that takes back to: cruise lines had better have a plan in place to quarantine and care for people who are exposed and fall ill. That doesn't mean 15,000 hospital beds and 4,000 hotel rooms... but you have to have a plan that can be activated when the ship arrives in Port Canaveral. You can't have another situation like a year ago where the boat anchors off shore while everything is being argued.

Even if children aren't vaccinated, a ship full of vaccinated adults and crew would still be unlikely to have a significant outbreak. And Disney could opt to simply require vaccinations, even if that meant running adult-only cruises. In any case, nobody above was limiting their comments to only Disney cruises. If you want to argue it isn't heavy handed for Disney only, that changes the discussion.

As for hotel rooms, you aren't interpreting the technical guidance correctly. It is enough rooms for every passenger and every crew member, minus the crew members who test negative and can be kept on the ship in single-occupancy housing with their own bathroom. And when predicting how many negative crew members the ship may keep on board after and outbreak, the line is supposed to account for variants getting past the vaccine - meaning they must have a lot of rooms for crew members. And it isn't just when the ship is in port, the guidance says it is from the "day of embarkation through disembarkation." Think of a line like Carnival. Even running at reduced capacity, we are talking about thousands of empty rooms (hotels don't guarantee rooms that are in use), paid for by the cruise line, just in case and outbreak happens on every one of there U.S. ported ships at the same time.

By the way, here is another little nugget from the guidance: "Shoreside housing must provide separate ventilation systems for all travelers who are not part of the same household." Do most hotels even comply with that? As far as I know, most hotels have ventilation systems that are shared among rooms, right?

 

[brentm77]

DeSantis: Florida to Sue CDC, Feds Over Cruise Restrictions

The state of Florida will sue the federal government over the continued closure of the cruise ship industry, Gov. Ron DeSantis said Thursday.

"We have tens of thousands of Floridians... throughout the state who depend on the viability of the cruise industry for their livelihoods, their jobs, and their ability to feed their families," the governor said from Port of Miami, one of the busiest ports in the world.

"This shutdown is being imposed by the CDC and the federal government," DeSantis said.

He said he'd been talking with state Attorney General Ashley Moody since appearing at an event at Port Canaveral in which he called on the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to rescind sailing restrictions.

“We have one of our major industries that has been idled by the federal government for over a year, the cruise-line industry,” DeSantis said at the time. “We need to get these cruise lines operating again.”

Since then, the CDC and the federal government "have not taken sufficient action" to do so, he said Thursday.

https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando...rnment-over-cruise-restrictions-desantis-says

 

[DCLDVC1]

DeSantis: Florida to Sue CDC, Feds Over Cruise Restrictions



https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando...rnment-over-cruise-restrictions-desantis-says

Good luck with that.

 

[brentm77]

Good luck with that.

It looks like the complaint has been filed now. I will try to pull a copy and see what the legal theories are. A constitutional challenge will be an uphill battle, as the CDC has pretty wide discretion and would only need to show a rational basis for treating cruise lines differently. At least that is what I think the test would be without doing more research. I don't think that would be difficult burden for the CDC to meet, even though I think the CDC is being too heavy handed for fully-vaccinated cruises. If my initial reaction is correct, this is nothing more than an attempt to put some pressure on the CDC to negotiate more favorable requirements.

 

[JohnathanS]

Since this is a Disney forum, let's remember that (a) teenagers and tweens 12-15 are months away from being vaccinated (maybe this summer this will change) and (b) kids under the age of 12 probably won't be vaccinated until 2022 (testing has just begun). So the idea of a vaccination requirement for DCL fails in Florida on two counts.

So that takes back to: cruise lines had better have a plan in place to quarantine and care for people who are exposed and fall ill. That doesn't mean 15,000 hospital beds and 4,000 hotel rooms... but you have to have a plan that can be activated when the ship arrives in Port Canaveral. You can't have another situation like a year ago where the boat anchors off shore while everything is being argued.

Expanding on this, states who host cruise ships need to reach an agreement with cruise lines that they will allow ships to dock in the event of an outbreak. It won't just be up to the cruise industry; cities with cruise ports (both national and international) must have plans in place that allow ships to come in to port if they end up with Covid cases onboard (which is entirely likely at some point). Last year, one of the biggest issues was that ports turned the ships away.

 

[sullivan.kscott]

It looks like the complaint has been filed now. I will try to pull a copy and see what the legal theories are. A constitutional challenge will be an uphill battle, as the CDC has pretty wide discretion and would only need to show a rational basis for treating cruise lines differently. At least that is what I think the test would be without doing more research. I don't think that would be difficult burden for the CDC to meet, even though I think the CDC is being too heavy handed for fully-vaccinated cruises. If my initial reaction is correct, this is nothing more than an attempt to put some pressure on the CDC to negotiate more favorable requirements.

My thoughts exactly. Not likely to win outright, but this is definitely a push to more vocal public negotiating. Sports leagues do this court of public opinion posturing whenever there’s a strike/lockout. Up until now, cruising and the CDC have been discussing (or not) behind closed doors.

If this gets things moving, so be it. But I wouldn’t count on the suit itself to be successful.

 

[Intr3pid]

DeSantis: Florida to Sue CDC, Feds Over Cruise Restrictions



https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando...rnment-over-cruise-restrictions-desantis-says

I think this lawsuit is counter-productive at this juncture. NCL has just asked the CDC rather constructively for a re-opening. PortMiami has also voiced its support for a collaborative approach. Any pressure dialup should have waited until after the CDC's response to the NCL letter.

It's highly unlikely that the lawsuit will succeed. The only thing the CDC can lose in this fight is the public support. Suing them in a combative fashion actually helps their public support since most of the US population isn't cruisers. You are also asking the CDC to defend its position - which means it will have to do so now both for this lawsuit and in its response to the letter.

 

[brentm77]

I think this lawsuit is counter-productive at this juncture. NCL has just asked the CDC rather constructively for a re-opening. PortMiami has also voiced its support for a collaborative approach. Any pressure dialup should have waited until after the CDC's response to the NCL letter.

It's highly unlikely that the lawsuit will succeed. The only thing the CDC can lose in this fight is the public support. Suing them in a combative fashion actually helps their public support since most of the US population isn't cruisers. You are also asking the CDC to defend its position - which means it will have to do so now both for this lawsuit and in its response to the letter.

Fair points. Although I do suspect it will put some amount of pressure on the CDC. Like corporations, government agencies aren't particularly fond of time consuming and distracting lawsuits, even if they know they can win. But I do see the potential backfire effect, especially with public opinion.

 

[KevinFL]

I think this pushback by DeSantis (lawsuit) and Carnival (threatening to leave US ports) along with others will finally get the CDC to allow sailings to resume sooner than later. The timing of both pushing back together after a year of being idled puts the pressure on the CDC. Hotels, planes and resorts are full again and doing business. Cruise Lines are due.

I have been hedging and booking a cruise for every 4-6 months out because I think once ships are clear to sail in the US that prices will go up and room availability will be scarce.

 

[sullivan.kscott]

I think this lawsuit is counter-productive at this juncture. NCL has just asked the CDC rather constructively for a re-opening. PortMiami has also voiced its support for a collaborative approach. Any pressure dialup should have waited until after the CDC's response to the NCL letter.

It's highly unlikely that the lawsuit will succeed. The only thing the CDC can lose in this fight is the public support. Suing them in a combative fashion actually helps their public support since most of the US population isn't cruisers. You are also asking the CDC to defend its position - which means it will have to do so now both for this lawsuit and in its response to the letter.

Most Americans aren’t cruisers, but I actually think public opinion could be swayed in the industry’s favor by more reasonably tempered open action like what has been recently taken by NCL, Carnival, and CLIA’s open letter. Americans, as a whole, don’t want to see the personal economic devastation to all of the families affected by domestic ports being shuttered.

That said, DeSantis likely should have at least waited until the CDC responded to Norwegian. Let them make a case as to why a fully vaccinated, limited capacity ship shouldn’t be allowed to sail (assuming that is the response). The court of public opinion probably wouldn’t take kindly to that when hotels and theme parks have been open, on a spectrum, with limited interruption. I don’t fault him for trying to make a case for his constituents (all of the port employees and ancillary affected restaurants, hotels, taxi drivers, etc); I do think he jumped the gun in a time when the industry is starting to assert itself.

 

[JohnathanS]

Most Americans aren’t cruisers, but I actually think public opinion could be swayed in the industry’s favor by more reasonably tempered open action like what has been recently taken by NCL, Carnival, and CLIA’s open letter. Americans, as a whole, don’t want to see the personal economic devastation to all of the families affected by domestic ports being shuttered.

That said, DeSantis likely should have at least waited until the CDC responded to Norwegian. Let them make a case as to why a fully vaccinated, limited capacity ship shouldn’t be allowed to sail (assuming that is the response). The court of public opinion probably wouldn’t take kindly to that when hotels and theme parks have been open, on a spectrum, with limited interruption. I don’t fault him for trying to make a case for his constituents (all of the port employees and ancillary affected restaurants, hotels, taxi drivers, etc); I do think he jumped the gun in a time when the industry is starting to assert itself.

It will also be interesting to see if DeSantis means for his executive order to apply to the cruise industry. Most cruise lines are banking on requiring adults to be fully vaccinated. If DeSantis tries to extend the order to apply to the cruise industry, then re-opening cruises in Florida could be much more complicated.

 

[sullivan.kscott]

It will also be interesting to see if DeSantis means for his executive order to apply to the cruise industry. Most cruise lines are banking on requiring adults to be fully vaccinated. If DeSantis tries to extend the order to apply to the cruise industry, then re-opening cruises in Florida could be much more complicated.

True. Without trying to get dinged or go down that path, my understanding is that there is more federal control over a ship coming and going out of US waters. Otherwise cruising from FL would be going on now. The EO May stand for port side employees, but not in respect to the ships themselves.

 

[brentm77]

I have had a chance to review the complaint. For those who are interested, I tried to provide a succinct summary of the facts and legal theories below. For those who are not, please ignore this post. I know there is some aversion to legal stuff on these boards, even though this is extremely relevant to cruising and DCL, and relates to cruising reopening, the subject of this thread. If it isn't your cup of tea, you have been warned.

I would love it if someone who has more experience in government litigation could give an opinion. While I have extensive litigation experience, it isn't in this area of law.

The alleged facts from the state:

The state argues that in October 2020, the CDC said that cruising should resume sailing with the right precautions, because the benefit of opening outweighed the costs, but then it effectively just extended the cruising ban through its actions. The state outlines the history of the Conditional Sailing Order, and how it was made at a time when vaccines were unavailable and conditions were different. It quotes the CDC Director's congressional testimony on March 18, 2021, where he said he could not give a timeline for phase two of the order to proceed, arguing that, at the rate the CDC is moving, it will be at least November before cruising resumes. It then attacks the April 2 guidance as only being partially complete, not accounting for fully vaccinated ships, and treating the cruise industry differently than other travel industries.

Damages

For damages, it says the Florida ports will lose $420 million by July, and in 2019, Florida received $102.8 million in tax revenue from embarkations. 6,464 cruise industry employees have filed for unemployment. Cruise lines will move abroad if the order isn't lifted.

The legal theories are a bit different than I had guessed above:

1) The CDC exceeded its authority to lock down an entire industry for 1.5 years.

• The applicable regulation doesn't give the CDC the authority to suspend operation of cruise ships, much less every cruise ship in the country.
• The CDC can only act if it first determines a state's actions are insufficient to prevent the state-to-state, and foreign to U.S., spread of disease.
• The CDC's interpretation of the regulation for preventing spread is overlay broad, because the regulations lists illustrative examples of the types of things the CDC may do, and this action isn't of a similar nature.

2) Even if the CDC has the authority, its actions are arbitrary and capricious, and violate the Administrative Procedures Act (a federal law with specific technical requirements for the generation of regulations by federal agencies).

• The CDC didn't account for vaccines when it issued it's year-long order through November 2021, and it hasn't properly considered developments since.
• The CDC is ignoring successful foreign cruises or other lessons on how businesses can operate safely.
• The CDC hasn't addressed measures taken by ships (and states) and explained how they are inadequate, which is a prerequisite to its action.
• The CDC hasn't explained different treatment for cruising vs other industries - caselaw says the CDC must provide a reasoned explanation for treating similar situations differently.
• The CDC has failed to actually provide the four-phase framework to return passengers to cruising as required by its order.
• The APA required the CDC to provide notice and receive comments, which it didn't. The CDC is improperly using the "good cause" exception to avoid that step, especially this long after the pandemic started.

3) Violation of the U.S. Constitution's legislative power

• The Conditional Sailing Order constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of lawmaking by the executive branch - giving the CDC power to determine the rights of millions of citizens and the survival of countless businesses.

What the Sate Wants
The state wants the court to hold the Conditional Sailing Order unlawful, and a preliminary and permanent injunction, preventing the CDC from enforcing it, allowing the cruising industry to open with reasonable protocols.

My 2-Cent Opinion
On its face, the complaint is well written and lays out colorable legal claims. However, I would like to have the benefit of the answer, since I only have a rudimentary understanding of the case law in this area. In any case, I still think Florida has an uphill battle, because the nature of the pandemic will make a court sympathetic to giving the CDC broad authority, and courts (even conservative ones) naturally favor government actors anyway. Getting a preliminary injunction is almost certain not to happen. On the other hand, I do think the case may have more legs than I originally thought, and the conservative Supreme Court would almost certainly favor Florida should the case proceed that far.

 

[Sykes]

On the other hand, I do think the case may have more legs than I originally thought, and the conservative Supreme Court would almost certainly favor Florida should the case proceed that far.

It's worth noting that unless the trajectory of the pandemic changes significantly, ships will likely be sailing mostly free and clear by the time it makes its way up to the Supreme Court, and the current SC seems to have a habit of dismissing cases as moot even when they present novel legal questions.

 

[Weedy]

https://www.wesh.com/article/florida-cruise-industry-lawsuit/36063885

 

[Intr3pid]

I have had a chance to review the complaint. For those who are interested, I tried to provide a succinct summary of the facts and legal theories below. For those who are not, please ignore this post. I know there is some aversion to legal stuff on these boards, even though this is extremely relevant to cruising and DCL, and relates to cruising reopening, the subject of this thread. If it isn't your cup of tea, you have been warned.

I would love it if someone who has more experience in government litigation could give an opinion. While I have extensive litigation experience, it isn't in this area of law.

The alleged facts from the state:

The state argues that in October 2020, the CDC said that cruising should resume sailing with the right precautions, because the benefit of opening outweighed the costs, but then it effectively just extended the cruising ban through its actions. The state outlines the history of the Conditional Sailing Order, and how it was made at a time when vaccines were unavailable and conditions were different. It quotes the CDC Director's congressional testimony on March 18, 2021, where he said he could not give a timeline for phase two of the order to proceed, arguing that, at the rate the CDC is moving, it will be at least November before cruising resumes. It then attacks the April 2 guidance as only being partially complete, not accounting for fully vaccinated ships, and treating the cruise industry differently than other travel industries.

Damages

For damages, it says the Florida ports will lose $420 million by July, and in 2019, Florida received $102.8 million in tax revenue from embarkations. 6,464 cruise industry employees have filed for unemployment. Cruise lines will move abroad if the order isn't lifted.

The legal theories are a bit different than I had guessed above:

1) The CDC exceeded its authority to lock down an entire industry for 1.5 years.

• The applicable regulation doesn't give the CDC the authority to suspend operation of cruise ships, much less every cruise ship in the country.
• The CDC can only act if it first determines a state's actions are insufficient to prevent the state-to-state, and foreign to U.S., spread of disease.
• The CDC's interpretation of the regulation for preventing spread is overlay broad, because the regulations lists illustrative examples of the types of things the CDC may do, and this action isn't of a similar nature.

2) Even if the CDC has the authority, its actions are arbitrary and capricious, and violate the Administrative Procedures Act (a federal law with specific technical requirements for the generation of regulations by federal agencies).

• The CDC didn't account for vaccines when it issued it's year-long order through November 2021, and it hasn't properly considered developments since.
• The CDC is ignoring successful foreign cruises or other lessons on how businesses can operate safely.
• The CDC hasn't addressed measures taken by ships (and states) and explained how they are inadequate, which is a prerequisite to its action.
• The CDC hasn't explained different treatment for cruising vs other industries - caselaw says the CDC must provide a reasoned explanation for treating similar situations differently.
• The CDC has failed to actually provide the four-phase framework to return passengers to cruising as required by its order.
• The APA required the CDC to provide notice and receive comments, which it didn't. The CDC is improperly using the "good cause" exception to avoid that step, especially this long after the pandemic started.

3) Violation of the U.S. Constitution's legislative power

• The Conditional Sailing Order constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of lawmaking by the executive branch - giving the CDC power to determine the rights of millions of citizens and the survival of countless businesses.

What the Sate Wants
The state wants the court to hold the Conditional Sailing Order unlawful, and a preliminary and permanent injunction, preventing the CDC from enforcing it, allowing the cruising industry to open with reasonable protocols.

My 2-Cent Opinion
On its face, the complaint is well written and lays out colorable legal claims. However, I would like to have the benefit of the answer, since I only have a rudimentary understanding of the case law in this area. In any case, I still think Florida has an uphill battle, because the nature of the pandemic will make a court sympathetic to giving the CDC broad authority, and courts (even conservative ones) naturally favor government actors anyway. Getting a preliminary injunction is almost certain not to happen. On the other hand, I do think the case may have more legs than I originally thought, and the conservative Supreme Court would almost certainly favor Florida should the case proceed that far.

Good work. See if you can dig up the lawsuits being filed against the CDC's eviction moratorium late last year. While the arguments and the industry were different, there was a common thread on the CDC exceeding its authority or legislative power.

https://aoausa.com/cdc-being-sued-o...by-the-editors-of-the-rental-housing-journal/

 

[Intr3pid]

Most Americans aren’t cruisers, but I actually think public opinion could be swayed in the industry’s favor by more reasonably tempered open action like what has been recently taken by NCL, Carnival, and CLIA’s open letter. Americans, as a whole, don’t want to see the personal economic devastation to all of the families affected by domestic ports being shuttered.

That said, DeSantis likely should have at least waited until the CDC responded to Norwegian. Let them make a case as to why a fully vaccinated, limited capacity ship shouldn’t be allowed to sail (assuming that is the response). The court of public opinion probably wouldn’t take kindly to that when hotels and theme parks have been open, on a spectrum, with limited interruption. I don’t fault him for trying to make a case for his constituents (all of the port employees and ancillary affected restaurants, hotels, taxi drivers, etc); I do think he jumped the gun in a time when the industry is starting to assert itself.

I agree. The public doesn't like to wake up to the smell of napalm in the morning, and a lawsuit while all the CEOs are also making noise makes it difficult to see who's the bad guy here. You also have a new president and a new CDC director, and they will have each other's backing this early in the game.

Maybe the only upside of this lawsuit is the possible effect on the career scientists at the CDC - who don't like to be dragged out into the mud and may feel they need to get it off their back with more urgency.

 

[mcd2745]

Any pressure dialup should have waited until after the CDC's response to the NCL letter.

That said, DeSantis likely should have at least waited until the CDC responded to Norwegian.

The problem with that is, given everything we've seen from the CDC the last year-plus suggests that their response to NCL's letter/proposals probably won't come for several months.

 

[DCLDVC1]

There probably isn't much sympathy for the cruise lines from the non-cruising public when they find out the NCL CEO raked in $36 million in compensation last year.

https://cruiseradio.net/what-shutdown-norwegian-cruise-ceo-scores-36-million-payday-in-2020/

 

[ShuckyDarn1955]

There probably isn't much sympathy for the cruise lines from the non-cruising public when they find out the NCL CEO raked in $36 million in compensation last year.

https://cruiseradio.net/what-shutdown-norwegian-cruise-ceo-scores-36-million-payday-in-2020/

Possibly, but that is about the same amount the top 5 or so QBs in the NFL made last year...different to me because the CEO is responsible for thousands of employees and passengers most years. Just a different perspective.