Social Distancing - will ships have to rearrange or even close venues? And who regulates this?

[aungrl]

3 minutes ago, lenquixote66 said:

Why would you want to know that ?

It seems like a really flexible and employee-friendly company.

[lenquixote66]

4 minutes ago, aungrl said:

It seems like a really flexible and employee-friendly company.

The woman who hired me had a boy friend who had a son with the same physical appearance as me and he convinced her to hire me. Eight years later she was fired and replaced by a guy who told all the men working there that they must be clean shaven.

Every guy but me shaved.I said that I was hired with long hair and a long beard and I was not shaving.

[ilikeanswers]

59 minutes ago, lenquixote66 said:

The woman who hired me had a boy friend who had a son with the same physical appearance as me and he convinced her to hire me. Eight years later she was fired and replaced by a guy who told all the men working there that they must be clean shaven.

Every guy but me shaved.I said that I was hired with long hair and a long beard and I was not shaving.

 

I wouldn't mind knowing at least which industry, I am pretty sure it will not give away your ID😉. 

[ldubs]

11 hours ago, lenquixote66 said:

I am sure we all have very special life moments.When I was in my 20’s I began keeping a journal about my wife to that time .I added to it for about 10 years .That will be for my grand kids to read after I leave the planet.

 

Hey, might be a movie some day!  

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, aungrl said:

Can you tell us the name of the company?

 

Obviously he can, but he won't. And there is really no compelling reason for him to do so.

[aungrl]

58 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Obviously he can, but he won't. And there is really no compelling reason for him to do so.

Guess I should have phrased it more clearly...."would you be willing to share?"  I thought it was a nice story, and since many companies aren't as flexible/accommodating, it made me curious as to who it might have been.  It was an innocent question, posed in an entirely positive way - sort of surprised it seems to have been misunderstood.

[sverigecruiser]

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2020 at 4:44 PM, happy cruzer said:

 

 

I do hope there is a plan for when a ship does have the virus onboard to redock in it's home port whether FLA or TX.  That may be the weakest part of the reopening plan.

 

I think this is necessary when cruises starts again. They must be sure that they can dock somewhere even if they have virus onboard.

[ducklite]

On 5/9/2020 at 8:48 PM, Elaine5715 said:

The CDC does not control the cruise industry

Actually when it comes to health matters, the CDC has a great deal of control over any ship that sails in US waters or calls at US ports.  

[ontheweb]

31 minutes ago, ducklite said:

Actually when it comes to health matters, the CDC has a great deal of control over any ship that sails in US waters or calls at US ports.  

This becomes even more true  when they get the cooperation of the Coast Guard.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, aungrl said:

Guess I should have phrased it more clearly...."would you be willing to share?"  I thought it was a nice story, and since many companies aren't as flexible/accommodating, it made me curious as to who it might have been.  It was an innocent question, posed in an entirely positive way - sort of surprised it seems to have been misunderstood.

It did seem like an innocent question until you persisted in wanting to know after it became clear that Lenny was not willing to answer the question.

[Hlitner]

On 5/11/2020 at 10:44 AM, happy cruzer said:

 

I do hope there is a plan for when a ship does have the virus onboard to redock in it's home port whether FLA or TX.  That may be the weakest part of the reopening plan.

That is not always a practical solution.  First, you must assume that the "home port" would even allow the ship to dock.  As we recently learned, decisions on docking can involve many parties including local politicians, Coast Guard,  Port Authorities, and even national governments.  And keep in mind that ships go all over the world and could be 10,000 miles from its "home port."   We do think that there must be some kind of accepted protocol for one somebody gets a respiratory illness (including COVID-19) but there does not seem to be any current accepted solution that is acceptable to anyone!  

 

Lets also not ignore facts.  Cruise operations have been ceased for about 2 months and yet there are still 10s of thousands of crew trapped on ships around the world.   While most of these crew members are healthy and have literally been quarentined for weeks and months, they are still not being allowed back into many countries and/or face many restrictions.  It is in this atmosphere that Carnival (and others) hope to restart the cruise industry.   Also keep in mind that the crew on ships comes from all over the world and the ability to move those folks via international airlines is very restricted due to the ceasation or most flights.  

 

The situation for the cruise industry is very depressing for those of us who love to cruise.  At the risk of sounding too darn negative I just do not see any short term solution.  And lets consider what will happen once any ship gets a single case of COVID-19!  That is inevitable but nobody wants to even talk about its impact.  Will that first case again shut down the cruise industry?  For how long?

 

Hank

[aungrl]

1 minute ago, ontheweb said:

It did seem like an innocent question until you persisted in wanting to know after it became clear that Lenny was not willing to answer the question.

I don't think I did persist, did I?  I only asked once, and then he asked why I wanted to know.  My response then was only intended to clarify that it was innocent - plus I thought it would be rude just to ignore his question.  I think I'm  not very good at reading between the lines about what is okay and not so okay to post!

[ontheweb]

9 minutes ago, aungrl said:

I don't think I did persist, did I?  I only asked once, and then he asked why I wanted to know.  My response then was only intended to clarify that it was innocent - plus I thought it would be rude just to ignore his question.  I think I'm  not very good at reading between the lines about what is okay and not so okay to post!

Maybe Lenny would be the better one to respond, but "why would you want to know" sounds more like a rhetorical question than a question looking for an answer.

[clo]

1 hour ago, ducklite said:

Actually when it comes to health matters, the CDC has a great deal of control over any ship that sails in US waters or calls at US ports.  

Question. Does that mean that certain ships with the 'corporation' wouldn't have to abide by the rules if they don't sail in " US waters or calls at US ports"? Are there any ships in the "Big Three" that don't sail/call here? 

[lenquixote66]

12 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I wouldn't mind knowing at least which industry, I am pretty sure it will not give away your ID😉. 

Health Insurance

[happy cruzer]

So my comment about hoping there was a plan for a ship to return to its homeport was in reference to Carnival Cruises announcement of sailing in August from two port in FLA and Galveston.  I so think there is a possibility to have a plan or protocol in place.  The experts could make a plan.  Just my superficial musing, comes up with Carnival depositing a large amount in a trust that the port could have if needed.  Then the port can plan how  and who to quarantine on shore.  Testing could be used to let some cruisers leave quickly and others more slowly.  Some port area will be the trial and plans from the experts might mitigate the risk.  JMHO

[lenquixote66]

9 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

Hey, might be a movie some day!  

Possibly .I have had an interesting life .😀

[chengkp75]

18 minutes ago, clo said:

Question. Does that mean that certain ships with the 'corporation' wouldn't have to abide by the rules if they don't sail in " US waters or calls at US ports"? Are there any ships in the "Big Three" that don't sail/call here? 

Yes, ships based in Asia and Europe.  The CDC no sail order clearly states that it applies only to ships falling under its jurisdiction, meaning within US territorial waters.  The world wide shutdown of cruise ship operations was voluntary, but driven of course by restrictions placed by countries around the world, not just because the CDC set some requirements.  As I've said in other threads, while the CDC has made financially onerous conditions on crew changes for cruise ships, most ports around the world don't allow crew changes at all, regardless of whether the company wanted to use charter flights and private ground transportation.  This extends to merchant ship crews, where at least the USCG has informed port facilities that crew, regardless of vessel flag, are not to be restricted in movement, since mariners are considered to be essential workers, except that some US mariners, employed by the US government, have been restricted in US ports, so for the most part, the US is doing better than other countries in allowing crew to get home.

[ducklite]

1 hour ago, clo said:

Question. Does that mean that certain ships with the 'corporation' wouldn't have to abide by the rules if they don't sail in " US waters or calls at US ports"? Are there any ships in the "Big Three" that don't sail/call here? 

It's my understanding that if even one ship makes a single port call in US waters, the entire line needs to abide by restrictions placed on them by the CDC.  Of course they could choose to not call on US ports, but that would include several in the Caribbean and on a trans-Pacific route.  I imagine that Canadian, many European, and some Asian countries will fall right in behind the CDC as well.  

Mass market ships are going to either have to sail half full or have staggered meal seatings.  Can't wait to hear that they are doing MDR dining in four shifts, 4:00-5:00 5:30-6:30, 7:00- 8:00, and 8:30-9:30.  I expect the buffet is a thing of the past, Breakfast will also be in shifts which might conflict with shore excursions if they don't start at 5:00 am, and cabins will be assigned boarding times that will be inflexible.

[clo]

1 minute ago, ducklite said:

It's my understanding that if even one ship makes a single port call in US waters, the entire line needs to abide by restrictions placed on them by the CDC.  Of course they could choose to not call on US ports, but that would include several in the Caribbean and on a trans-Pacific route.  I imagine that Canadian, many European, and some Asian countries will fall right in behind the CDC as well.  

Mass market ships are going to either have to sail half full or have staggered meal seatings.  Can't wait to hear that they are doing MDR dining in four shifts, 4:00-5:00 5:30-6:30, 7:00- 8:00, and 8:30-9:30.  I expect the buffet is a thing of the past, Breakfast will also be in shifts which might conflict with shore excursions if they don't start at 5:00 am, and cabins will be assigned boarding times that will be inflexible.

This is just what I was looking for. Something's got to change and it can't be just masks and hand sanitizers.

[chengkp75]

41 minutes ago, ducklite said:

It's my understanding that if even one ship makes a single port call in US waters, the entire line needs to abide by restrictions placed on them by the CDC.  Of course they could choose to not call on US ports, but that would include several in the Caribbean and on a trans-Pacific route.  I imagine that Canadian, many European, and some Asian countries will fall right in behind the CDC as well.  

No, as I said, the CDC has no jurisdiction outside the US, and so the order only applies to those ships, not the lines, that are in US waters. Just like the USPH/CDC Vessel Sanitation Plan applies only to those ships of a given company that actually call at US ports.  And, the "no sail" order does not say that ships cannot sail, it says they are limited in the "operations" they can perform in US waters, and notably does not include "leaving port" in those operations under limitations.

Edited May 13, 2020 by chengkp75

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

  And, the "no sail" order does not say that ships cannot sail, it says they are limited in the "operations" they can perform in US waters, and notably does not include "leaving port" in those operations under limitations.

Chief,  I interpret the CDC's order differently.  I believe the order can be reasonably interpreted as including leaving port as one of the prohibited (without prior approval) operations.  Note for example the prohibition of "moving to anchor". That having been said, they appear to be routinely giving permission for ships to leave port and then reenter the same or a different port as I've observed numerous ships doing so.

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/15/2020-07930/no-sail-order-and-suspension-of-further-embarkation-notice-of-modification-and-extension-and-other

 

“Operations” for purposes of this Order means any action by a cruise ship operator to bring or cause a cruise ship to be brought into or transit in or between any international, interstate, or intrastate waterways (e.g., shifting berths, moving to anchor, discharging waste, making port, or embarking or disembarking passengers or crew) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

[chengkp75]

Note that in your quote there is the term "making port", which means entering port.  If they wanted to limit leaving port, they would have said "making or leaving port".  Going to anchor is different than "leaving port", as the anchorage will still be within US jurisdiction.  And, yes, ships have been conducting "operations" as defined in the no sail order after its implementation, as each of these "operations" (bunkering, storing) do not involve personnel joining/leaving the ship, and so the submission of the request for that operation is studied and allowed.

[ducklite]

Not the CDC, but the cruise lines should require proof of travel insurance with a minimum $500K in medical coverage including medical evacuation insurance to board any ship moving forward.   

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Note that in your quote there is the term "making port", which means entering port.  If they wanted to limit leaving port, they would have said "making or leaving port".  Going to anchor is different than "leaving port", as the anchorage will still be within US jurisdiction.  And, yes, ships have been conducting "operations" as defined in the no sail order after its implementation, as each of these "operations" (bunkering, storing) do not involve personnel joining/leaving the ship, and so the submission of the request for that operation is studied and allowed.

Chief, not to belabor this, but also in my quote is " bring or cause a cruise ship to be brought into or transit in or between any international, interstate, or intrastate waterways...subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. " 

 

I apologize for the following pedantry...The actions given in parentheses in the full quote are preceded by "e.g.", which means "for example"...it doesn't mean the list is all that is or may be prohibited. It that were the case, they would have used "i.e." , not "e.g."

 

Would not leaving a US port for any destination port or anchorage require "transit in or between any international, interstate or intrastate waterways" ? 

 

It's moot regardless...numerous cruise ships have been given permission to move from one location to another. Three NCL ships are now berthed in Norfolk, VA, having formerly been berthed or anchored elsewhere. Three NCLH ships just docked in Oakland, CA after being berthed or anchored elsewhere.

 

The point of the order in this regard is to require permission for movement, not to absolutely bar movement.

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by njhorseman