Tracking Cruising Restart: News and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's a huge step in the right direction. Unsurprisingly, it does look like the social distancing requirements for the early revenue sailings will make the early US cruises look a lot like the UK cruises (e.g. much lower dining room, show, pool, etc. capacity which means that some sort of reservation system is probably necessary). It's unclear to me how well the simulated voyages will mimic conditions for Disney though since volunteer passengers must be 18+.
 
- Ship must visit each port with which it has the shoreside housing and medical care agreement

This is the one I am most concerned about. Alaska's argument in the case is that the small towns they visit can't possibly meet this requirement. I would guess many cruise ports have this issue. I am curious how robust these agreements will really need to be. Will the CDC really require a contract where capacity is reserved for enough passengers/crew, or is a contract just saying the hospital will provide the care it can in the even of an outbreak be enough to satisfy the CDC? I am starting to think the CDC will be a bit more lenient on what it actually requires there.

The CDC just lost a case on the eviction moratorium, which was a test of its authority. It won't be eager to push another case that could restrict its authority further. Therefore, it has a vested interest in getting cruising going again in some reasonable manner before it take another judicial blow.
 
Last edited:
For the restricted voyages, some dealbreakers for some:

1. Prohibit self-guided or independent exploration by passengers during port stops
2. As a best practice, limit shore excursions in foreign ports of call to countries listed as Level 1: COVID-19 Low
3. Six (6) feet of social distancing on board - particularly, in the dining areas and the theaters
4. Mask requirements on board in line with the health panel recommendations
 
This is the one I am most concerned about. Alaska's argument in the case is that the small towns they visit can't possibly meet this requirement. I would guess many cruise ports have this issue. I am curious how robust these agreements will really need to be. Will the CDC really require a contract where capacity is reserved for enough passengers/crew, or is a contract just saying the hospital will provide the care it can in the even of an outbreak be enough to satisfy the CDC? I am starting to think the CDC will be a bit more lenient on what it actually requires there.
If we are to include Alaska in this initial restart (summer 2021), we will have to do it in one of the following ways:

1. Sail out of Seattle but only do technical stops at Alaskan ports. It's a bit like the UK staycation, but the passengers will still pay the port fees and any states taxes.

2. Choose one or two ports in Alaska where such agreements can be secured in the next two months. I am thinking Juneau or Skagway, as they are the most popular and have at least some infrastructure.

3. Do one way cruises between Anchorage (which would have such infrastructure in place) and Seattle, with only technical stops along the way

All of these assume that Canada is on board with allowing a technical stop in Victoria.

But, I don't see CDC allowing for a lightly enforced agreement with a small Alaskan town. It will be a logistical calamity for both the town and the ship if an outbreak forces a quarantine of 2,000 guests in that spot.
 

If we are to include Alaska in this initial restart (summer 2021), we will have to do it in one of the following ways:

1. Sail out of Seattle but only do technical stops at Alaskan ports. It's a bit like the UK staycation, but the passengers will still pay the port fees and any states taxes.

2. Choose one or two ports in Alaska where such agreements can be secured in the next two months. I am thinking Juneau or Skagway, as they are the most popular and have at least some infrastructure.

3. Do one way cruises between Anchorage (which would have such infrastructure in place) and Seattle, with only technical stops along the way

I don't see CDC allowing for a lightly enforced agreement with a small Alaskan town. It will be a logistical calamity for both the town and the ship if an outbreak forces a quarantine of 2,000 guests in that spot.

Serious question - because I know nothing about Alaska cruising. How long would it take to get from one of the small ports to a major port if there was an outbreak? Is that an option?
 
Serious question - because I know nothing about Alaska cruising. How long would it take to get from one of the small ports to a major port if there was an outbreak? Is that an option?
Not long. Hours only sometimes if needed. But, the CDC technical instructions (as they currently stand) do require a shoreside agreement with every US port being visited. I guess there is this remote possibility of the ship stuck at the port if the most of the crew at helm (including the captain) falls to the virus.
 
At full speed the closest port to Skagway (northernmost port on the 7 day itinerary) is about 32 hours - and that's to Vancouver. Going on to Seattle, add another 7-ish hours. Anchorage, is 36-ish hours going north. The interesting thing is Juneau is landlocked by ice. I don't know if the Governor of AK or the Mayor of Juneau would welcome an infected ship into their home that can only be accessed by plane or ship. Dunno, that's for the politicians.
 
/
So this is now going to get VERY interesting

According to the new guidance for test cruises, all volunteers must be 18+.

So if DCL does test cruises, there won't be any kids onboard? How is that a test of real-cruise procedures?
 
For the restricted voyages, some dealbreakers for some:

1. Prohibit self-guided or independent exploration by passengers during port stops
2. As a best practice, limit shore excursions in foreign ports of call to countries listed as Level 1: COVID-19 Low
3. Six (6) feet of social distancing on board - particularly, in the dining areas and the theaters
4. Mask requirements on board in line with the health panel recommendations
I wonder how #1&2 works for private ports of call like CC. Will the CDC see it as a Bahamas stop or an extension of the ship?
 
Since my thread for Florida v. CDC was closed by the moderators when it got of the rails, I will post this small update here.

Texas just filed a Motion to Intervene in the case. I am reading the briefing now, but at first glance, I don't see anything new or interesting in it. In fact, it seems out of date already, as it mentions the yet-to-be-released guidance, which was released today, the same day this motion was filed.

I don't even see this in the news yet, so you heard it here first folks. ;)
 
Last edited:
Since my thread for Florida v. CDC was closed by the moderators when it got of the rails, I will post this small update here.

Texas just filed a Motion to Intervene in the case. I am reading the briefing now, but at first glance, I don't see anything new or interesting in it.

Why would they have done it then do you think..? Is it a way to take sides in the case?
 
Why would they have done it then do you think..? Is it a way to take sides in the case?

It's a tactical move to put more pressure on the CDC and get political points. As the CDC is protected by sovereign immunity, they won't get damages.

It's relatively inexpensive to intervene in a case like this one. Their motion looks called-in, without much more than repeating what was already said.
 
I wonder how #1&2 works for private ports of call like CC. Will the CDC see it as a Bahamas stop or an extension of the ship?
It looks like they are differentiating between port-of-call excursions and 'private-island' excursions. #1 and #2 apply to those for the ports of calls - with no such mention for the stops at the private islands.

"Private-island shore excursions if any are planned during restricted passenger voyages. The following measures must be observed on the private island:
  • Only one ship can port at the island at any one time.
  • A routine screening testing protocol must be implemented for island staff who are expected to interact with volunteer passengers or crew.
  • Mask use and social distancing must be observed on the island."
 
It looks like they are differentiating between port-of-call excursions and 'private-island' excursions. #1 and #2 apply to those for the ports of calls - with no such mention for the stops at the private islands.

"Private-island shore excursions if any are planned during restricted passenger voyages. The following measures must be observed on the private island:
  • Only one ship can port at the island at any one time.
  • A routine screening testing protocol must be implemented for island staff who are expected to interact with volunteer passengers or crew.
  • Mask use and social distancing must be observed on the island."
Thanks. I was quick-scanning the CDC document waiting for carry out and missed that section entirely.
 
And it looks like we now have a preliminary number for the 'threshold' - that is, the number of infections beyond which the sailing will have to be terminated immediately.

-----------------------------

"CDC ... may require them to immediately end a simulated voyage and take other actions to protect the health and safety of volunteer passengers and crew if a threshold of COVID-19 cases is met or exceeded during the simulation.

During simulated voyages, this threshold is met when 1.5% of COVID-19 cases is detected in passengers or 1.0% of COVID-19 cases is detected in crew.

This threshold may be modified for future simulated voyages or restricted passenger voyages based on lessons learned from simulated voyages or restricted passenger voyages, the evolution of the pandemic, or other factors
."

-----------------------------

So, for a ship with 2.000 guests on board, an outbreak among 30 or more will force the termination of the sailing, The ship will then have to make a beeline to the port with which it has the shoreside agreement and begin medical care/quarantine procedures.
 
And it looks like we now have a preliminary number for the 'threshold' - that is, the number of infections beyond which the sailing will have to be terminated immediately.

-----------------------------

"CDC ... may require them to immediately end a simulated voyage and take other actions to protect the health and safety of volunteer passengers and crew if a threshold of COVID-19 cases is met or exceeded during the simulation.

During simulated voyages, this threshold is met when 1.5% of COVID-19 cases is detected in passengers or 1.0% of COVID-19 cases is detected in crew.

This threshold may be modified for future simulated voyages or restricted passenger voyages based on lessons learned from simulated voyages or restricted passenger voyages, the evolution of the pandemic, or other factors
."

-----------------------------

So, for a ship with 2.000 guests on board, an outbreak among 30 or more will force the termination of the sailing, The ship will then have to make a beeline to the port with which it has the shoreside agreement and begin medical care/quarantine procedures.
That sounds low at first glance, but actually makes sense. If, for example, a county of 100k people had 1500 cases in a week, that would be major cause for concern in that county.
I guess they could skirt that with 1.4% of passengers and 0.9% of crew? Makes sense that we’re seeing all of the lines working diligently to vaccinate their crew. The chances of a crew outbreak being the reason for cruise interruption will be minuscule.
 
3. Do one way cruises between Anchorage (which would have such infrastructure in place) and Seattle, with only technical stops along the way
I think the PVSA would prevent the one way cruise between US ports, since they won't be able to include a stop at a distant foreign port
 
I think the PVSA would prevent the one way cruise between US ports, since they won't be able to include a stop at a distant foreign port
That's right. Make it more like a roundtrip cruise from Anchorage with a technical stop in Prince Rupert.
 
It looks like they are differentiating between port-of-call excursions and 'private-island' excursions. #1 and #2 apply to those for the ports of calls - with no such mention for the stops at the private islands.

"Private-island shore excursions if any are planned during restricted passenger voyages. The following measures must be observed on the private island:
  • Only one ship can port at the island at any one time.
  • A routine screening testing protocol must be implemented for island staff who are expected to interact with volunteer passengers or crew.
  • Mask use and social distancing must be observed on the island."
Just a question. If DCL were to go the vaccinated route instead of test sailings, I wonder why the mask requirement on the private island since it would be completely outdoors and the CDC’s own recommendations that were just released do not require masks outdoors among fully vaccinated people?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GET UP TO A $1000 SHIPBOARD CREDIT AND AN EXCLUSIVE GIFT!

If you make your Disney Cruise Line reservation with Dreams Unlimited Travel you’ll receive these incredible shipboard credits to spend on your cruise!


PixFuture Display Ad Tag

























DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top