Tracking Cruising Restart: News and Updates

[_auroraborealis_]

RCCL has approval for a test cruise from Miami.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trav...-gets-cdc-approval-us-test-cruise/7438465002/

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Pretty big guideline update, but it requires 95% vaccination status, which still seems to be an issue with DCL unless they restrict kids.

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/...se-rules-for-fully-vaccinated-passengers.html

 

[Intr3pid]

Pretty big guideline update, but it requires 95% vaccination status, which still seems to be an issue with DCL unless they restrict kids.

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/...se-rules-for-fully-vaccinated-passengers.html

I think this is precisely what the issue has been with the onboard restrictions. The enforcement problem. No one wants to enforce mask mandates and social distancing when it's such a polarizing issue. It's either or. The cruise lines will either mandate masks/distancing or remove them entirely. Maybe by ship, by brand, or by port of departure.

There is no escaping the restrictions still - you have to either (A) vaccinate or (B) cruise with masks/social distancing in effect. I think the CDC is seeing the port and shoreside care agreements as a major win - and mitigating factor. They can rest easy with the vaccines doing the rest.

 

[HiStitch626]

I think the CDC is seeing the port and shoreside care agreements as a major win - and mitigating factor.

Are these the port and shoreside care agreements that Florida refuses to implement?

 

[Intr3pid]

Are these the port and shoreside care agreements that Florida refuses to implement?

No, Florida has been pushing back against the vaccination requirements.

Most of these agreements are business contracts - sometimes an extension of the existing port contracts. RCL secured one with PC last week:

https://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/...t-port-canaveral-so-it-can-start-test-cruises

 

[mevelandry]

Pretty big guideline update, but it requires 95% vaccination status, which still seems to be an issue with DCL unless they restrict kids.

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/...se-rules-for-fully-vaccinated-passengers.html

Is reduced capacity still a thing?

 

[HiStitch626]

No, Florida has been pushing back against the vaccination requirements.

Most of these agreements are business contracts - sometimes an extension of the existing port contracts. RCL secured one with PC last week:

They have been pushing back, which is why they told RCL that the state of Florida wasn't going to approve any health plans.

https://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/...oes-not-need-its-permission-cruise-ships-sail

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Florida has also said they will enforce their law about requiring vaccinated if RCCL on their approved cruise set to sail, which under CDC rule requires vaccines, requires vaccines.

Businesses requiring vaccinations will be fined upwards of $5000 per incident.

Florida has said they will enforce this on cruise lines.

so it is really a game of chicken between the RCCL cruise (not a test sailing) approved to go, and Florida. Florida want cruising up with zero restrictions, and I honestly don't think any of the cruise lines are all in on that themselves. The CDC has said test cruises, masks and distancing, OR vaccination.

 

[sullivan.kscott]

Florida has also said they will enforce their law about requiring vaccinated if RCCL on their approved cruise set to sail, which under CDC rule requires vaccines, requires vaccines.

Businesses requiring vaccinations will be fined upwards of $5000 per incident.

Florida has said they will enforce this on cruise lines.

so it is really a game of chicken between the RCCL cruise (not a test sailing) approved to go, and Florida. Florida want cruising up with zero restrictions, and I honestly don't think any of the cruise lines are all in on that themselves. The CDC has said test cruises, masks and distancing, OR vaccination.

Just curious on the "proof" part. What would it take for RCI (or any operator) to set up a website operated in another state, and require passengers to verify their vaccine status on that website some amount of time prior to sailing (say, 96hrs)? Then, if you show up to the terminal and haven't completed whatever steps necessary, you don't board. Or, mask and distance in the terminal and get vaccine proof at the threshold (the ship being in US waters and not FL jurisdiction(?)). No vaccine proof, immediately disembarked and hopefully they can find your luggage before sail away.

Again, this is likely to only be an issue for a few months, assuming we continue our current national trajectory and selectively reopen international travel. It's going to be an interesting game of chicken, for sure.

 

[jerry557]

I pulled the court docket this morning to get the details. The judge ordered that the parties mediate by June 1. He is hoping the parties can reach a resolution so he doesn't need to make a ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction. I do think it is a sign he is at least sympathetic to Florida's position, as I think many judges would have simply denied the preliminary injunction motion (which is by far the most common result). But, I am sure the biggest reason for forcing mediation is a sense that the parties could reach a resolution given recent developments from the CDC.

I am hopeful that Florida will mediate in good faith and the parties can agree on a path forward that helps the cruise lines a bit, but I have my doubts given the political optics of the case. In a perfect world, in my humble opinion, Florida would cave on allowing vaccination requirements on ships leaving its ports, and the CDC would drop some of the harsher requirements.

Mediation is not uncommon in civil cases especially if 2 parties haven’t really talked much. Which is the case here. The CDC seemed to be simply ignoring Florida’s demands and ignoring the cruise lines. So the judge is basically ordering both sides to talk. If the CDC continues to ignore the issue or neither side can agree, then the judge will go further.

What complicates it is the new Florida law that goes into effect July 1st that bans vaccine verification. Both the governor and the legislature is pretty adamant that they are not going to budge on that. So that could be an impasse. And it could get messy legally.

One issue is that the CDC has no legal authority to overrule a state law. Yet the federal government claims jurisdiction over maritime matters. Yet still, the federal government doesn’t mandate any vaccine themselves nor is the CDC absolutely saying 100% of a ship must be vaccinated. So that’s going to be a court battle there.

 

[brentm77]

One issue is that the CDC has no legal authority to overrule a state law.

I respectfully disagree. First, the supremacy clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the right to supersede state law in any areas the federal government is given authority by the Constitution. One of those areas, among others that are applicable here, is interstate commerce and control of national borders. Second, federal law specifically grants the CDC authority to control infectious disease from both entering the country and moving between states. The law says that if the CDC determines a state is not taking sufficient action to stop the spread of disease, it has jurisdiction. In this case, the CDC has argued that Florida has not taken sufficient action, thereby giving it authority to control cruise ships, which can spread disease. If it the CDC is right (an issue the court will decide), it can supersede a state law (or executive orders) that says ships can't require vaccinations.

As for your comments on mediation, I agree that it isn't uncommon for parties to be ordered to mediate. But I do think it was unexpected in this case, where many judges would have simply denied the preliminary injunction. The judge was merely kicking the can down the road, in my opinion. He likely saw things were changing quickly and that this case was becoming less and less important with time. And the CDC keeps making it event less important with every move, as it makes less stringent guidelines and cruise lines are getting closer to sailing.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

I truly believe few cruise lines think going to business as usual without a vaccine requirement is a good idea. I have little doubt their legal counsels, insurance carriers and PR teams think it a disaster of an idea.

 

[Intr3pid]

They have been pushing back, which is why they told RCL that the state of Florida wasn't going to approve any health plans.

https://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/...oes-not-need-its-permission-cruise-ships-sail

By pushing back, I mean filing lawsuits or passing laws prohibiting it. They haven't done anything like that against the port agreements.

 

[Intr3pid]

RCL's test cruises are attracting thousands of volunteers:

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/royal-caribbean-cdc-trial-cruises-covid/index.html

 

[Trera]

RCL's test cruises are attracting thousands of volunteers:

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/royal-caribbean-cdc-trial-cruises-covid/index.html

so will DCLs initial cruises

 

[brentm77]

Small update on Florida v. CDC. There isn't word yet on what happened at mediation, but it doesn't look like a resolution was reached based on today's filing from the CDC. The CDC filed a motion to supplement its reply to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. It wants to add the argument that The Alaska Tourism Restoration Act effectively treated the Conditional Sailing Order ("CSO") as valid, which was the same as ratifying the CSO, and that ratification by Congress is a way of making it valid, undercutting Florida's argument that the CDC exceeded its authority. It also wants to point out developments that make the injunction less needed, saying:

"As of June 1, 2021, the CDC has approved port agreements covering 22 vessels at 5 ports of call (and is reviewing agreements for 6 additional vessels); has approved or provisionally approved 4 requests to conduct simulated voyages (with 6 more requests under review); and has received and provisionally approved 2 conditional sailing certificates for highly vaccinated cruises."

Finally, it makes another interesting argument - if the injunction is granted, it will effectively end Alaska cruising this summer, since the The Alaska Tourism Restoration Act only benefits ships operating under the CSO, which would no longer be in place if the injunction is granted. Without the new law, lines would need to stop in Canada, which isn't allowed this summer.

These are good arguments in my opinion. I will be very surprised if the judge grants the injunction.

 

[belle032]

Small update on Florida v. CDC. There isn't word yet on what happened at mediation, but it doesn't look like a resolution was reached based on today's filing from the CDC. The CDC filed a motion to supplement its reply to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. It wants to add the argument that The Alaska Tourism Restoration Act effectively treated the Conditional Sailing Order ("CSO") as valid, which was the same as ratifying the CSO, and that ratification by Congress is a way of making it valid, undercutting Florida's argument that the CDC exceeded its authority. It also wants to point out developments that make the injunction less needed, saying:

"As of June 1, 2021, the CDC has approved port agreements covering 22 vessels at 5 ports of call (and is reviewing agreements for 6 additional vessels); has approved or provisionally approved 4 requests to conduct simulated voyages (with 6 more requests under review); and has received and provisionally approved 2 conditional sailing certificates for highly vaccinated cruises."

Finally, it makes another interesting argument - if the injunction is granted, it will effectively end Alaska cruising this summer, since the The Alaska Tourism Restoration Act only benefits ships operating under the CSO, which would no longer be in place if the injunction is granted. Without the new law, lines would need to stop in Canada, which isn't allowed this summer.

These are good arguments in my opinion. I will be very surprised if the judge grants the injunction.

Just learned about this! As someone who is trying to book Alaska (again!) for this September on a fully vaccinated ship, I will be furious if Florida ruins my plans because of what I now consider just politics at this point. Stop saying you support cruises returning, but impede them from actually returning every chance they get. Good lord, it always has to be Florida doesn't it?

 

[Princess Merida]

So wait if the injunction is granted Alaska doesn’t sail, but everywhere else does? If the injunction isn’t granted Alaska sails, but nowhere else does? Is this correct assuming you cannot ask for proof of vaccine in FL and TX?

 

[JWG]

This is another example of political grandstanding simply harming the common good and not being common sense. This is not at all meant to be a R vs D thing, but FL is actively working against private enterprise (which you would assume DeSantis would be for) and hurting the travel industry that FL relies on. While cruising may not be of significant benefit to FL comparatively to in state theme parks and such, who goes to FL on those 3 or 4 day cruises and doesn't spend time elsewhere in the state? I don't get the end game.

 

[jrapps]

So wait if the injunction is granted Alaska doesn’t sail, but everywhere else does? If the injunction isn’t granted Alaska sails, but nowhere else does? Is this correct assuming you cannot ask for proof of vaccine in FL and TX?

If the injunction is granted (and not re-instated immediately on appeal) then congress will need to re-pass the law with new language. Most likely, cruising in Alaska will not happen.

If the injunction is denied, cruising still goes ahead everywhere. All states (even FL and TX) can proceed and comply with CDC rules, including test cruises. At this point, what is holding the lines up the most is a lack of crew, that is why the test cruises aren't even being scheduled for 1-2 months out from now. Some cruise lines (like Celebrity) are even choosing to ignore the FL law and require vaccines anyway. so I don't expect that denying the injunction will have much if any impact on cruising.