Back to back bookings - any word yet if CDC will even allow them prior to Nov 1st?

[nocl]

2 hours ago, C-Dragons said:

 

   14 hours ago,  chengkp75 said: 

The cruise lines have known what these requirements have been since April, yet almost no work has been done to date on things like getting port agreements and private health care and quarantine facility contracts.  Their attitude, to me, has been, "if we wait this out, it will all  go away, and we can get back to business as usual".

Please cite your source for this.

I thought it was a pretty straightforward question. You state that the cruise lines have known the government requirements since April, but have done almost nothing. This is the X board, I'm not interested in what other lines have done. Please tell me how you know for a fact that X is not, and has not, done anything to comply with the government requirements.

Just because they are not telling the public, does not mean they are not actually working in these things.

Since it is almost impossible to prove a negative, after all no one tracks or announces no action.

 

Lets reverse the question where is any information, announcement, port announcement, heath company announcement, blog post, employee post, etc that indicates any action on the part of the cruise lines to meet the requirements prior to announcement of the Conditional Sailing Order which made it clear that they would not return to service out of the US until next November without having to comply.

 

This is after they spent substantial efforts in lobbying the WH, as well as to get public support from the ports in Florida.

 

On the other hand ships were moved out of US waters to avoid reporting to the CDC.  Company management did refuse to sign the documents allowing employees to fly out of the US, while telling their employees that it was the CDC's fault, until after the Miami Herald published a story about it.  They also stated that it too expensive to do charter flights out of the US, so they sailed to Barbados where the air port was closed and sent their people home by charter flights.  The major advantage in doing so was to avoid reporting health data to the CDC.  Of course Barbados required tests and there were quite a few positives.

[nocl]

4 hours ago, NutsAboutGolf said:

 

From tight crew quarters to pax crowding by design everywhere, the CDC rightly considers cruising a "super spreader".  Cruises have been called "floating petri dishes" for decades, there's a reference to the term in 1918 during WW1 when the US shipped troops to Europe and many died in transit due to a bad flu outbreak.  Simply the overall point being, if you're going to go on a vacation during the pandemic, you take on a higher risk of exposing yourself to the virus on a cruise compared to other vacation alternatives due to limitation of space.

More than just crew quarters.  Take all of the activities that are first to be restricted on land:

 

1. Theaters

2. Inside Dining

3. Bars and Lounges

4. Mass Gatherings

 

Cruise ships have them all and more.  Yet people still wonder why they are restricted in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries.

[nocl]

There is one things that should keep someone from trying to schedule a back to back on different cruise lines.  The requirements for tests to be taken and the results received prior to disembarkation.

 

As such the ability to determine when one will actually get off ship is pretty much restricted and the ability to easily get off one ship in time to board another with a different cruise line would be far more uncertain.

[NutsAboutGolf]

9 minutes ago, nocl said:

There is one things that should keep someone from trying to schedule a back to back on different cruise lines.  The requirements for tests to be taken and the results received prior to disembarkation.

 

As such the ability to determine when one will actually get off ship is pretty much restricted and the ability to easily get off one ship in time to board another with a different cruise line would be far more uncertain.

 

Here's a creative way to do this.  I would imagine X won't provide negative testing documentation that would be accepted as valid for another sailing.  If the second sailing requires a negative test say within 72 hours, you could order a test at home kit in advance of both sailings, take the test with you on sailing one and take the test 72 hours before sailing two.  The at home kits include a prepaid shipping label, perhaps you can bring prepaid packages to guest services but if not simply find a shipping pick up location on a port of call.  Even if excursions have to be booked through X, finding a UPS/FedEx pickup location is easy as most of businesses have one and many piers have drop boxes.

[C-Dragons]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

 

I have no source for this, as I've stated before to you, I am allowed, and I will post my opinions on the matter, based on my experience with shipping and cruise lines operations.

 

Thank you for clarifying that this was your opinion.

I never said that people aren’t allowed to post their opinions.

I normally add IMO to my posts when necessary and will ensure that I always do this going forward.

Edited November 28, 2020 by C-Dragons

[Cruise Raider]

11 hours ago, NutsAboutGolf said:

 

From tight crew quarters to pax crowding by design everywhere, the CDC rightly considers cruising a "super spreader".  Cruises have been called "floating petri dishes" for decades, there's a reference to the term in 1918 during WW1 when the US shipped troops to Europe and many died in transit due to a bad flu outbreak.  Simply the overall point being, if you're going to go on a vacation during the pandemic, you take on a higher risk of exposing yourself to the virus on a cruise compared to other vacation alternatives due to limitation of space.

 

I might have agreed with you early on during the pandemic but, with all the precautions we now have to take (we are under some pretty restrictive measures here in California), we are still demonstrating some pretty high positive test rates for CoVid and all while cruise ships are not operating.  I'm not sure our risk would be any higher by going on a cruise right now, with all their regulations than heading out to eat, if we were allowed to do so.  Now, that is if the numbers being reported and that they are used for returning us to the purple level reflect the true positivity rates.  ???  It's California, so you never know.  

[NutsAboutGolf]

5 minutes ago, Cruise Raider said:

 

I might have agreed with you early on during the pandemic but, with all the precautions we now have to take (we are under some pretty restrictive measures here in California), we are still demonstrating some pretty high positive test rates for CoVid and all while cruise ships are not operating.  I'm not sure our risk would be any higher by going on a cruise right now, with all their regulations than heading out to eat, if we were allowed to do so.  Now, that is if the numbers being reported and that they are used for returning us to the purple level reflect the true positivity rates.  ???  It's California, so you never know.  

 

Obviously take this as a grain of salt as I'm simply a stranger on the internet.  I'm friends with South Bay area cops, they say the main reason for the CA outdoor dining shutdown are there's minimal enforcement of social distancing/rules.  Sit on public bench to people watch at the pier in Hermosa Beach and you'll see people hugging everywhere.  I'm guessing the CDC is thinking the same with cruise ships as the average ship has indoor spaces that occupy an average of 90+% of the ship.  You're going to need to station a cruise employee at every place where there is a line to both social distance on the floor stickers and wear a mask/facial covering.

[LGW59]

1 hour ago, NutsAboutGolf said:

 

Obviously take this as a grain of salt as I'm simply a stranger on the internet.  I'm friends with South Bay area cops, they say the main reason for the CA outdoor dining shutdown are there's minimal enforcement of social distancing/rules.  Sit on public bench to people watch at the pier in Hermosa Beach and you'll see people hugging everywhere.  I'm guessing the CDC is thinking the same with cruise ships as the average ship has indoor spaces that occupy an average of 90+% of the ship.  You're going to need to station a cruise employee at every place where there is a line to both social distance on the floor stickers and wear a mask/facial covering.

meaning we will need a "stupid/selfish people" police on-board.  

[D C]

14 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The April revision of the No Sail Order set out the requirements for cruise ships to continue to obtain "pratique" (the clean bill of health that the CDC has to grant a ship to allow it entry into the US.  That document also stated that ships could receive "pratique", on a ship by ship basis, if they applied to the CDC and USCG, but that the requirements laid out in that document would need to be met, and that with that "pratique" they could then apply to the USCG for clearance to operate in US waters, even when the NSO was in effect.  Those same requirements are listed in the Conditional Sail Order as the requirements to obtain a "Conditional Sailing Certificate", and the CSO certificate is required to obtain "pratique" for operations in the US.  So, the CDC has not changed their requirements for resumption of cruising since the April NSO, but have made more requirements, in the form of the "simulated" cruises.

Oh please. 

If you're suggesting that the NO SAIL order was in-fact a "sure, you can sail as long as you meet these conditions (that won't be published for 6 months) order " you're the only person on the planet who could possibly interpret it as such. 

 

You realise that you're saying that cruising was never prohibited, right? That the rules to cruise were somehow known 6 months before they existed? 

[LGW59]

1 hour ago, D C said:

Oh please. 

If you're suggesting that the NO SAIL order was in-fact a "sure, you can sail as long as you meet these conditions (that won't be published for 6 months) order " you're the only person on the planet who could possibly interpret it as such. 

 

You realise that you're saying that cruising was never prohibited, right? That the rules to cruise were somehow known 6 months before they existed? 

any word yet, any word yet. Got Google, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Axios or any other damn news network.  Google it, repeat after me CDC....it is right there at your fingertips

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, D C said:

Oh please. 

If you're suggesting that the NO SAIL order was in-fact a "sure, you can sail as long as you meet these conditions (that won't be published for 6 months) order " you're the only person on the planet who could possibly interpret it as such. 

 

You realise that you're saying that cruising was never prohibited, right? That the rules to cruise were somehow known 6 months before they existed? 

Have you actually read the NSO and the CSO?  Please show me the difference in the requirements set out in the NSO that differ from the CSO.  The "rules to cruise" are listed in the CSO, and are taken almost intact from the NSO, if you would care to actually read it.

 

And, no, I'm not the only person on the planet who could interpret the NSO that way, I am however, one of the few people on CC who actually work in the industry, and have a knowledge of how both the industry and the CDC work.

[Cruise Raider]

16 hours ago, NutsAboutGolf said:

 

Obviously take this as a grain of salt as I'm simply a stranger on the internet.  I'm friends with South Bay area cops, they say the main reason for the CA outdoor dining shutdown are there's minimal enforcement of social distancing/rules.  Sit on public bench to people watch at the pier in Hermosa Beach and you'll see people hugging everywhere.  I'm guessing the CDC is thinking the same with cruise ships as the average ship has indoor spaces that occupy an average of 90+% of the ship.  You're going to need to station a cruise employee at every place where there is a line to both social distance on the floor stickers and wear a mask/facial covering.

 

Not meaning to beleaguer your point but, I was simply responding to your statement:

 

"Simply the overall point being, if you're going to go on a vacation during the pandemic, you take on a higher risk of exposing yourself to the virus on a cruise compared to other vacation alternatives due to limitation of space."

 

I think you've made my point for me that the virus still seems to be spreading, even in states with rather harsh restrictions.  We don't seem to be doing any better than those states that have very limited, if any, restrictions.  But, I do hear what you are saying that there is no enforcement of physical distancing rules, other than the signs we sometimes see on California roads declaring fines for not wearing a mask and the Gestapo with their bullhorns in places like Costco.  I believe it's rather hard for some to comply with these rules when the top dog here in this state (and other states and cities) gives mandates that he blatantly, himself, ignores.   

 

 

[Walker100]

On 11/23/2020 at 8:55 AM, NutsAboutGolf said:

 

Two different ships, right?  A travel agent simply reported Princess won't allow B2B on the same ship.  The other dynamic is how does the CDC plan to enforce this, it clearly doesn't trust the cruise line.  The cruise lines do report your sailing to the Dept of Homeland security so assuming the CDC cares enough to want to enforce this I would imagine they'd look at that list vs taking the cruise lines word that no one is allowed B2B cruises.  My best guess is we won't have to wait too long until we hear further B2B clarity from the CDC.