Tracking Cruising Restart: News and Updates

[DWillowBay]

Regarding the NCL plan submitted to the CDC, if you didn't get to see the CEO's interview with Jim Cramer today on CNBC, it's worth a look. He is being very reasonable and fact-based in his approach. But... do facts have anything to do with this...??? Anyway, it was a good interview and helps to know where the industry is from a CEO perspective. Just FYI.

 

[brentm77]

There seemed to be an idea from some that the cruise lines just weren't doing their part to comply with the CDC directive, but they kept saying we don't have the technical guidance from the CDC. It appears the cruise lines weren't bluffing. The guidance came out last Friday, and Norwegian gave notice of its intent to sail on Monday. Pretty impressive. They are clearly eager and should be in a good position with fully vaccinated ships (if the protection against variants holds).

 

[Intr3pid]

There seemed to be an idea from some that the cruise lines just weren't doing their part to comply with the CDC directive, but they kept saying we don't have the technical guidance from the CDC. It appears the cruise lines weren't bluffing. The guidance came out last Friday, and Norwegian gave notice of its intent to sail on Monday. Pretty impressive. They are clearly eager and should be in a good position with fully vaccinated ships (if the protection against variants holds).

If you read the letter carefully, they aren't following any old or new guidance. (The new guidance is little more than some administrative amendments anyways.)

As before, they want the CSO retracted - particularly now that everyone will be vaccinated:

"Norwegian trusts and is optimistic the CDC will agree that mandatory vaccination requirements eliminate the need for the CSO and therefore requests for the lifting of the order for Norwegian’s vessels, allowing them to cruise from U.S. ports starting July 4. "

 

[brentm77]

If you read the letter carefully, they aren't following any old or new guidance. (The new guidance is little more than some administrative amendments anyways.)

As before, they want the CSO retracted - particularly now that everyone will be vaccinated:

"Norwegian trusts and is optimistic the CDC will agree that mandatory vaccination requirements eliminate the need for the CSO and therefore requests for the lifting of the order for Norwegian’s vessels, allowing them to cruise from U.S. ports starting July 4. "

Darn. That's not what the news report I read said. It made it sound like Norwegian was attempting to comply with the technical guidance. That's discouraging.

I have had time to read a little more. If the CDC doesn't change its position, it sounds like the industry won't even attempt to sail. It looks like the CDC would prefer Americans fly to foreign ports to cruise. It seems short sighted to me, when fully vaccinated cruises, with other reasonable precautions, would be pretty low risk absent a variant getting around the vaccines. To avoid test cruises? Or do they not really exceed the requirements?

P.S. To make sure I wasn't crazy, I checked. This is what the Times articles said, giving me the impression they were meeting the requirements, when it said they "exceed" them. If they exceed them, why do they need to be excused from the order?

"Norwegian Cruise Line, one of the industry’s biggest operators, submitted a letter to the C.D.C. on Monday outlining its plan to resume cruises from U.S. ports in July, which included mandatory vaccination of all guests and crew. The company said that its vaccination requirement and multilayered health and safety protocols exceeded the agency’s Conditional Sailing Order requirements."

 

[sullivan.kscott]

Darn. That's not what the news report I read said. It made it sound like Norwegian was attempting to comply with the technical guidance. That's discouraging.

I have had time to read a little more. If the CDC doesn't change its position, it sounds like the industry won't even attempt to sail. It looks like the CDC would prefer Americans fly to foreign ports to cruise. It seems short sighted to me, when fully vaccinated cruises, with other reasonable precautions, would be pretty low risk absent a variant getting around the vaccines. To avoid test cruises? Or do they not really exceed the requirements?

P.S. To make sure I wasn't crazy, I checked. This is what the Times articles said, giving me the impression they were meeting the requirements, when it said they "exceed" them. If they exceed them, why do they need to be excused from the order?

"Norwegian Cruise Line, one of the industry’s biggest operators, submitted a letter to the C.D.C. on Monday outlining its plan to resume cruises from U.S. ports in July, which included mandatory vaccination of all guests and crew. The company said that its vaccination requirement and multilayered health and safety protocols exceeded the agency’s Conditional Sailing Order requirements."

It almost feels like they're (NCL) saying they exceed them to a point that makes the CSO moot. Making the letter public also makes it seem like they're making a strong-armed negotiation, hoping that the CDC will "meet in the middle" where NCL can prove via test sailings and such the proof of concept. My opinion is that somewhere between NCL and the RCI summer Caribbean sailings is where we'll end up for US cruises, but not until the 12-15 year olds are approved at minimum. DCL is clearly willing to sail as they're showing in the UK, but when they restart their previously announced sailing is anyone's guess. Also, under the current environment, I wonder if they'll bother repositioning an empty Magic for her fall/winter sailings from the US hoping for a "normal" EBTA. Or, if they'd just leave her berthed in the UK for amended British Isles sailings. Is that even feasible in the winter months?

 

[brentm77]

Darn. That's not what the news report I read said. It made it sound like Norwegian was attempting to comply with the technical guidance. That's discouraging.

I have had time to read a little more. If the CDC doesn't change its position, it sounds like the industry won't even attempt to sail. It looks like the CDC would prefer Americans fly to foreign ports to cruise. It seems short sighted to me, when fully vaccinated cruises, with other reasonable precautions, would be pretty low risk absent a variant getting around the vaccines. To avoid test cruises? Or do they not really exceed the requirements?

P.S. To make sure I wasn't crazy, I checked. This is what the Times articles said, giving me the impression they were meeting the requirements, when it said they "exceed" them. If they exceed them, why do they need to be excused from the order?

"Norwegian Cruise Line, one of the industry’s biggest operators, submitted a letter to the C.D.C. on Monday outlining its plan to resume cruises from U.S. ports in July, which included mandatory vaccination of all guests and crew. The company said that its vaccination requirement and multilayered health and safety protocols exceeded the agency’s Conditional Sailing Order requirements."

The more I look at the newly updated technical requirements, the more I am confused. Can someone enlighten me?

On the one hand, we have Norwegian saying their plan exceeds the requirements Conditional Sailing Order requirements. Yet, they are asking for the requirements to be lifted so they can sail this July. Then we have this comment from Port Canaveral:

"Captain John Murray, Port Canaveral CEO, issued a statement criticizing them, 'We’re disappointed that this guidance for the cruise industry appears to be nothing more than an incremental step in a far-reaching process to resume passenger sailings in the U.S. with no definitive or target start date.'

Is that the issue? That the updated guidelines don't have an actual path to a start date? Are the cruise lines still missing some piece to the puzzle that would allow them to sail even if the exceed the requirements? Or, do they just not want to do the test sailing and approval part of the order because it is time consuming? I can't imagine it is just not wanting to do the time consuming part, as billions are on the line, and I would think they would begin that process anyway while pushing for the order to be lifted.

I wish I had more time to dig into this issue, but I don't. So I am hoping some of you smart folks have it figured out.

 

[brentm77]

It almost feels like they're (NCL) saying they exceed them to a point that makes the CSO moot. Making the letter public also makes it seem like they're making a strong-armed negotiation, hoping that the CDC will "meet in the middle" where NCL can prove via test sailings and such the proof of concept. My opinion is that somewhere between NCL and the RCI summer Caribbean sailings is where we'll end up for US cruises, but not until the 12-15 year olds are approved at minimum. DCL is clearly willing to sail as they're showing in the UK, but when they restart their previously announced sailing is anyone's guess. Also, under the current environment, I wonder if they'll bother repositioning an empty Magic for her fall/winter sailings from the US hoping for a "normal" EBTA. Or, if they'd just leave her berthed in the UK for amended British Isles sailings. Is that even feasible in the winter months?

Looks like we posted our most recent comments at nearly the same time, so I didn't see your comment before posting again. Just for clarification, even if they are made moot, and they are going to meet the requirements and do the test sail anyway, why not just comply with the CSO?

 

[sullivan.kscott]

Looks like we posted our most recent comments at nearly the same time, so I didn't see your comment before posting again. Just for clarification, even if they are made moot, and they are going to meet the requirements and do the test sail anyway, why not just comply with the CSO?

I don't disagree. Or, at least show that they can operate within the CSO by a certain date while also exceeding the requirements.

 

[brentm77]

The more I look at the newly updated technical requirements, the more I am confused. Can someone enlighten me?

On the one hand, we have Norwegian saying their plan exceeds the requirements Conditional Sailing Order requirements. Yet, they are asking for the requirements to be lifted so they can sail this July. Then we have this comment from Port Canaveral:

"Captain John Murray, Port Canaveral CEO, issued a statement criticizing them, 'We’re disappointed that this guidance for the cruise industry appears to be nothing more than an incremental step in a far-reaching process to resume passenger sailings in the U.S. with no definitive or target start date.'

Is that the issue? That the updated guidelines don't have an actual path to a start date? Are the cruise lines still missing some piece to the puzzle that would allow them to sail even if the exceed the requirements? Or, do they just not want to do the test sailing and approval part of the order because it is time consuming? I can't imagine it is just not wanting to do the time consuming part, as billions are on the line, and I would think they would begin that process anyway while pushing for the order to be lifted.

I wish I had more time to dig into this issue, but I don't. So I am hoping some of you smart folks have it figured out.

OK, I think I figured out the answer to my question based on this news report:

"While today's guidance from the CDC was a positive step forward for the industry, missing from it were detailed, actionable plans for the long-awaited test cruises that are seen as the key benchmark for the restart of cruse operations."

In other words, the industry is saying, they still don't have what they need to do test cruises. Hence the need to lift the order if they want to actually sail this summer from the U.S. and not just foreign ports.

 

[Intr3pid]

There is really no reason to defer to just the cruise line CEOs to see what's actually going on - vs look at the CSO itself. It's bit like believing a politician under scrutiny complain about a lack of a fair trial. Do we really expect them to say anything different?

The real issue is that the CSO is heavy handed. It has a clear path to a restart, but going down that path is way more difficult (or costlier) than playing the waiting game. This article below brings out the heavy handed nature of it:

https://cruiseradio.net/inside-the-cdcs-second-round-of-cruise-guidelines/
The notion that the cruise lines have somehow done more than what the CDC is requiring is just not true. Maybe so at the ship level with all the health protocols - but running a cruise ship ecosystem is much more than managing people on board.

Moreover, the CSO has plenty in it to be implemented before any additional guidance may be needed. That's partly why I feel the CDC hasn't bothered to provide any updates - if only for a lack of action on the part of the cruise lines to following the CSO as is. And it's really unfortunate since the agency thinks that the industry already "flouted" a lot of rules back in spring/summer 2020.

 

[brentm77]

There is really no reason to defer to just the cruise line CEOs to see what's actually going on - vs look at the CSO itself. It's bit like believing a politician under scrutiny complain about a lack of a fair trial. Do we really expect them to say anything different?

The real issue is that the CSO is heavy handed. It has a clear path to a restart, but going down that path is way more difficult (or costlier) than playing the waiting game. This article below brings out the heavy handed nature of it:

https://cruiseradio.net/inside-the-cdcs-second-round-of-cruise-guidelines/
The notion that the cruise lines have somehow done more than what the CDC is requiring is just not true. Maybe so at the ship level with all the health protocols - but running a cruise ship ecosystem is much more than managing people on board.

Moreover, the CSO has plenty in it to be implemented before any additional guidance may be needed. That's partly why I feel the CDC hasn't bothered to provide any updates - if only for a lack of action on the part of the cruise lines to following the CSO as is. And it's really unfortunate since the agency thinks that the industry already "flouted" a lot of rules back in spring/summer 2020.

I get what you are saying, and you make a good point about the source, but looking at the CSO, it doesn't have the technical guidance for the test sailings yet.

In any case, I don't disagree that they could star the other steps now. But honestly, after reading the article you linked to and skimming the CSO, I am not sure I blame them. As you said, it's heavy handed. Some of the requirements seem very difficult to comply with - such as getting a local hospital to agree to take sick passengers. That alone might not be possible. How many local hospitals would be willing to guarantee they would take a ship full of COVID patients? And they have to have redundant facilities agree to keeping reserved capacity. I can't image a hospital's policies would even allow that.

Finding a way to not have disembarking and embarking passengers share the same gangway or terminal within 12 hours means not having cruises leave the same day they return in some terminals - which adds cost if you have to have a ship sit at the terminal overnight, and miss a day of cruising.

Then they must have hotel rooms under contract, possibly for every passenger and crew member, that they may never use. Having negotiated many hotel contracts for large groups, I can assure you this would be very very costly. One cruise line might be required to have tens of thousands of rooms on contract all the time.

Frankly, after reading more, I can see why they are fighting back so hard. Some of the measures don't seem all that helpful either (the gangway one in particular). With all of that, sailing a reduced-capacity ship at a profit seems unlikely. I think I would look at foreign port options instead if I were a CEO, while simultaneously attempting to get the CDC to recognize the much lower risk of a fully vaccinated ship and possibly less costly measures.

You are right that no line would have already complied with the above. So when Norwegian says they have exceeded the requirements, they aren't talking about the port requirements and they are misleading the public.

 

[Starwind]

OK, I think I figured out the answer to my question based on this news report:

"While today's guidance from the CDC was a positive step forward for the industry, missing from it were detailed, actionable plans for the long-awaited test cruises that are seen as the key benchmark for the restart of cruse operations."

In other words, the industry is saying, they still don't have what they need to do test cruises. Hence the need to lift the order if they want to actually sail this summer from the U.S. and not just foreign ports.

I wonder if some of the issue is the lack of very technical specificity in the CSO order.

For example, in some parts of existing CDC guidance related to vessel sanitation there are things like X widget can't be closer than Y distance from Z widget and things like that. You see some of the evidence of the level of the technical specification, whether they are things like measurements or not quite so specific but still pretty detailed, when you read the vessel inspection reports and learn about the things that went wrong, or if you read the guidance itself. Similar to public health guidance and codes for land-based places like restaurants. They can get pretty detailed.

The CSO doesn't get into that level of detail.

And I am wondering if THAT is what the cruise lines are meaning when they say they haven't gotten the technical information that they need.

So, for example, they want the CDC to tell them the minimum number of times per hour that a staterooms air is required to be refreshed. They want to be told the minimum MERV rating for the HVAC filters [or that HEPA is required for certain locations and if so, which specific ones]. They want to be told the minimum height/dimensions that the plexiglass separating serving staff from guests in the buffets-converted-to-cafeteria-style restaurants has to be, likewise at other crew-guest interaction points, like at the guest services desk. etc etc

And then things like, "X people sick per YYY is considered an outbreak where you must do ABC actions", and reporting thresholds. They have the concept of defined-by-CDC thresholds in the norovirus guidance.

Now, I am guessing... but it would make sense that when they say "technical guidance" they are asking for detailed things like that...

SW

 

[OKW Lover]

Finding a way to not have disembarking and embarking passengers share the same gangway or terminal within 12 hours means not having cruises leave the same day they return in some terminals - which adds cost if you have to have a ship sit at the terminal overnight, and miss a day of cruising.

That does seem problematic. I'm sure they could get around some of it by using separate gangways. But the part about not using the same terminal would be difficult. I wonder if the fact that boarding is on the upper level of the terminal while departing passengers are on the lower level, which prevents intermixing, would be adequate.

 

[Intr3pid]

I get what you are saying, and you make a good point about the source, but looking at the CSO, it doesn't have the technical guidance for the test sailings yet.

In any case, I don't disagree that they could star the other steps now. But honestly, after reading the article you linked to and skimming the CSO, I am not sure I blame them. As you said, it's heavy handed. Some of the requirements seem very difficult to comply with - such as getting a local hospital to agree to take sick passengers. That alone might not be possible. How many local hospitals would be willing to guarantee they would take a ship full of COVID patients? And they have to have redundant facilities agree to keeping reserved capacity. I can't image a hospital's policies would even allow that.

Finding a way to not have disembarking and embarking passengers share the same gangway or terminal within 12 hours means not having cruises leave the same day they return in some terminals - which adds cost if you have to have a ship sit at the terminal overnight, and miss a day of cruising.

Then they must have hotel rooms under contract, possibly for every passenger and crew member, that they may never use. Having negotiated many hotel contracts for large groups, I can assure you this would be very very costly. One cruise line might be required to have tens of thousands of rooms on contract all the time.

Frankly, after reading more, I can see why they are fighting back so hard. Some of the measures don't seem all that helpful either (the gangway one in particular). With all of that, sailing a reduced-capacity ship at a profit seems unlikely. I think I would look at foreign port options instead if I were a CEO, while simultaneously attempting to get the CDC to recognize the much lower risk of a fully vaccinated ship and possibly less costly measures.

You are right that no line would have already complied with the above. So when Norwegian says they have exceeded the requirements, they aren't talking about the port requirements and they are misleading the public.

I agree it's a tall order - though not impossible. The requirements are similar to what MSC negotiated with the Italian government last year. They secured nearby hotel capacity for quarantines and re-did their terminals to allow testing and distancing. The difference, of course, is in the relative size. It's one thing to run a cruise per week out of Italy and quite another to handle several ships a day in Florida.

There is an argument for thinking long term. The vaccines will help you now - this summer - but what about when boosters are needed or when the next virus arrives? These changes (or investments) will mean you get up and running quickly versus having to wait for enough of the population to get vaccinated.

I wonder if some of the issue is the lack of very technical specificity in the CSO order.

For example, in some parts of existing CDC guidance related to vessel sanitation there are things like X widget can't be closer than Y distance from Z widget and things like that. You see some of the evidence of the level of the technical specification, whether they are things like measurements or not quite so specific but still pretty detailed, when you read the vessel inspection reports and learn about the things that went wrong, or if you read the guidance itself. Similar to public health guidance and codes for land-based places like restaurants. They can get pretty detailed.

The CSO doesn't get into that level of detail.

And I am wondering if THAT is what the cruise lines are meaning when they say they haven't gotten the technical information that they need.

So, for example, they want the CDC to tell them the minimum number of times per hour that a staterooms air is required to be refreshed. They want to be told the minimum MERV rating for the HVAC filters [or that HEPA is required for certain locations and if so, which specific ones]. They want to be told the minimum height/dimensions that the plexiglass separating serving staff from guests in the buffets-converted-to-cafeteria-style restaurants has to be, likewise at other crew-guest interaction points, like at the guest services desk. etc etc

And then things like, "X people sick per YYY is considered an outbreak where you must do ABC actions", and reporting thresholds. They have the concept of defined-by-CDC thresholds in the norovirus guidance.

Now, I am guessing... but it would make sense that when they say "technical guidance" they are asking for detailed things like that...

SW

There is indeed technical detail implied in several parts of the CSO. A lot of it is ship specific. The threshold as an example would be a function of your ship capacity, installed equipment, staff size, etc. There probably won't be one size fits all.

I expect that once a cruise line submits a restart plan for its ship, the CDC will provide feedback on the adequacy of it. And let's hope most of the plan details were already hashed out by the health panels set up by the cruise lines.

 

[Intr3pid]

Carnival is saying that it won't be able to comply with regulations requiring vaccination of guests - and may have to homeport outside the US in the interim if needed:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/07/car...at-record-pace-watching-us-rules-closely.html
"Carnival said it could shift its home ports to those outside of the U.S. if it is unable to comply with CDC protocols. The company said, for example, that it wouldn’t be able to comply with meeting a requirement that all passengers are vaccinated."

This is partly emanating from a significant portion of their guests being families - like DCL.

 

[Husker Mike]

I get what you are saying, and you make a good point about the source, but looking at the CSO, it doesn't have the technical guidance for the test sailings yet.

In any case, I don't disagree that they could star the other steps now. But honestly, after reading the article you linked to and skimming the CSO, I am not sure I blame them. As you said, it's heavy handed. Some of the requirements seem very difficult to comply with - such as getting a local hospital to agree to take sick passengers. That alone might not be possible. How many local hospitals would be willing to guarantee they would take a ship full of COVID patients? And they have to have redundant facilities agree to keeping reserved capacity. I can't image a hospital's policies would even allow that.

Finding a way to not have disembarking and embarking passengers share the same gangway or terminal within 12 hours means not having cruises leave the same day they return in some terminals - which adds cost if you have to have a ship sit at the terminal overnight, and miss a day of cruising.

Then they must have hotel rooms under contract, possibly for every passenger and crew member, that they may never use. Having negotiated many hotel contracts for large groups, I can assure you this would be very very costly. One cruise line might be required to have tens of thousands of rooms on contract all the time.

Frankly, after reading more, I can see why they are fighting back so hard. Some of the measures don't seem all that helpful either (the gangway one in particular). With all of that, sailing a reduced-capacity ship at a profit seems unlikely. I think I would look at foreign port options instead if I were a CEO, while simultaneously attempting to get the CDC to recognize the much lower risk of a fully vaccinated ship and possibly less costly measures.

You are right that no line would have already complied with the above. So when Norwegian says they have exceeded the requirements, they aren't talking about the port requirements and they are misleading the public.

It's not heavy-handed... it's about being prepared for every contingency.

Hospital facilities ready to take care of sick passengers?
Quarantine facilities ready to take care of exposed passengers?

Let's be serious here. How can you POSSIBLY restart cruises and not have arrangements in place to handle these situations in advance. In Disney's case, the quarantine situation is pretty easy because they already have tens of thousands of hotel rooms...and many aren't in use anyway due to the pandemic.

As far as hospital capacity goes, many local government set up temporary hospital facilities in convention centers and arenas last spring. Again, local governments that want to get cruising back in place can help put together these contingency plans.

I'm not sure how anybody could agree to a restart plan that didn't address these possibilities. Now, does Disney need to have 4000 empty hospital rooms ready? Clearly that's not necessary, but there needs to be some sort of plans in place to handle the possibility.

The only part that I think needs adjusting is the gangway issue. Science has made it pretty clear that "deep cleaning" isn't really necessary, so I think the cruise lines should push back on that part. But that's not enough to say the whole thing is onerous.

 

[Husker Mike]

Carnival is saying that it won't be able to comply with regulations requiring vaccination of guests - and may have to homeport outside the US in the interim if needed:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/07/car...at-record-pace-watching-us-rules-closely.html
"Carnival said it could shift its home ports to those outside of the U.S. if it is unable to comply with CDC protocols. The company said, for example, that it wouldn’t be able to comply with meeting a requirement that all passengers are vaccinated."

This is partly emanating from a significant portion of their guests being families - like DCL.

Florida's governor has also made it clear that no cruise ship could dock in the state of Florida with a vaccination requirement.

 

[brentm77]

It's not heavy-handed... it's about being prepared for every contingency.

Hospital facilities ready to take care of sick passengers?
Quarantine facilities ready to take care of exposed passengers?

Let's be serious here. How can you POSSIBLY restart cruises and not have arrangements in place to handle these situations in advance. In Disney's case, the quarantine situation is pretty easy because they already have tens of thousands of hotel rooms...and many aren't in use anyway due to the pandemic.

As far as hospital capacity goes, many local government set up temporary hospital facilities in convention centers and arenas last spring. Again, local governments that want to get cruising back in place can help put together these contingency plans.

I'm not sure how anybody could agree to a restart plan that didn't address these possibilities. Now, does Disney need to have 4000 empty hospital rooms ready? Clearly that's not necessary, but there needs to be some sort of plans in place to handle the possibility.

The only part that I think needs adjusting is the gangway issue. Science has made it pretty clear that "deep cleaning" isn't really necessary, so I think the cruise lines should push back on that part. But that's not enough to say the whole thing is onerous.

Several other countries/regions have restarted cruising without these arrangements, and after months of sailings and 400,000 passengers, there hasn't been a single instance where any of this backup stuff would have been helpful. Furthermore, if you have fully vaccinated cruises, and regular testing, there is a near-zero chance you would have a large outbreak on the ship.

Local governments aren't going to spend the money to have empty hospital capacity for cruise ships, which would be more than just tents. It would be equipment, supplies, and even stand-by medical personnel. And they are required to have this setup with two different hospitals for each person. They also need to contract with emergency transport to be on standby and ready to transport passengers. It would be many many millions of dollars to have that ready for each cruise line (they can't pool resources - they each must have separate agreements with hospitals). No government is going to pick up that bill.

Even if Disney has the excess rooms, where does that leave the majority of cruise lines? Do you know what it would cost to have 10K plus hotel rooms on reserve every day of the year? I don't think it is realistic for the large lines.

Let me ask you this - if it's not heavy handed, do you think cruise lines are walking away from millions in revenue just to stick it to the CDC? Of course not. They are internally evaluating if they can comply and deciding they can't, because either the revenue would not exceed the cost or compliance is simply unrealistic. It's may be both. I am really not sure what the point of this debate is, when the cruise line's actions says it all. If compliance was a viable path, at least one of the lines would be moving forward with it. They aren't going to walk away from millions in revenue to prove some moral point against the CDC.

I think ultimately it comes down to whether you think cruising should resume or not. If you think it should, there should be more realistic and obtainable precautionary measures. Putting in place measures that have effectively just continued the no-sail order isn't very helpful to the end goal. If you want to argue that sailing is simply too dangerous to do it in a manner that isn't cost-prohibitive, then that's another debate, and a position that I don't agree with. Not to mention that the CDC will simply be pushing Americans to fly to foreign ports to sail if they dig into this position.

 

[brentm77]

Florida's governor has also made it clear that no cruise ship could dock in the state of Florida with a vaccination requirement.

That's almost certainly not enforceable for cruise ships. And I suspect, as part of negotiations, he would give on that issue for cruise ships if it meant resuming cruising.

 

[Husker Mike]

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.