intr3pid

10 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

42CFR71.21 requires the Master of any vessel wishing to enter a US port, to report the death or illness of any passenger or crew, to the closest quarantine station to the port wishing to be entered.  The 20 US quarantine stations are set up under the CDC, and then notify the USCG whether pratique has been issued for the vessel, before the USCG issues the clearance to enter port. 

 

The ship I am currently sitting on does exclusively coastwise US trade, and we have to send in a report of health every port, to get a USCG clearance, even if it is from one port in one state to another port in the same state.  We do this every week.

No, this isn't applicable.

"The provisions of this part contain the regulations to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease from foreign countries into the States or territories (also known as possessions) of the United States. Regulations pertaining to preventing the interstate spread of communicable diseases are contained in 21 CFR parts 1240 and 1250 and 42 CFR part 70."

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2013-title42-vol1/xml/CFR-2013-title42-vol1-part71.xml

Is there something else?  You aren't suggesting that the Staten Island Ferry has to submit a pratique to CDC on every crossing?

BTW, the ship you are on is flagged where?

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Now we come to the important part.  One aspect of obtaining clearance to enter a US port is to have a "clean bill of health" or "free pratique" as mentioned above.  This "pratique" comes from, wait for it, the CDC. 

Alright, so which law would this fall under?  Can you point to the specifics?  It would be very interesting to explore the details.

2 hours ago, princeton123211 said:

You are making some very broad conclusions about me based on very little information. I'm actually in the aviation space and we have been navigating our way through this just like everyone else both at the government level as well as how we deal with the traveling public. I actually have quite a bit of experience on it helping to stand back up a business that took a significant hit in the beginning of the pandemic. 

 

The argument you are making is very academic: "is it lawful?" and "is this under the CDC's purview?". I would argue that it doesn't matter-- the CDC guidance is correct in that it is most likely not safe to travel in the close quarters of cruise ships right now. Cruise ships are petri dishes in good times (norovirus anyone?) and we do not have nearly the understanding we need to create a clean, safe environment aboard these vessels at the moment.

 

On top of all that-- cruising is not necessary. It's a pleasure holiday. We were forced to quickly create protocols in the aviation industry because it is necessary-- you cant apply the same test to a cruise ship. It doesn't serve the same purpose. No one needs to cruise. 

 

You also have to consider the long term effects of being the first one back-- what happens if there is a major breakout onboard one of your ships? What long term damage have you done to your brand? Disney waited a whole month after Universal reopened in Florida-- a lot of the reason being to let them be the guinea pig in case it went south. The NCL CEO can be as hot to trot as he wants-- but does he really want to be the one with his face plastered all over the news cycle as the one who got everyone sick?

 

Going back to your original post about border controls around the US State of Hawaii, NCL and Pride of America face incredible hurdles to return to cruising that even other ships in other places don't-- you cant even travel to Hawaii until Oct 15th without 2 weeks of enforced quarantine and who knows if that will be extended like it has been by the Governor. Even when thats over, people still have to fly at least 6 hours from the mainland to join the ship-- something that there won't be a ton of appetite for right away. 

 

You're sooner going to be cruising out of Florida than out of Hawaii and I don't think either will be back soon. 

 

 

We are all experts about something in our own minds.  With all due respect, your CV doesn't impress me much - your posts reveal much more. 

95% of your last past doesn't contribute much to the topic of this thread.  "Is cruising necessary?"  "What are the long-term effects of being the first one to return?"  "Do people want to fly for 6 hours?"  There are dozens of other threads in which you can discuss these issues.

Now, do you understand why CDC cannot do anything about the opening of Disney World or Universal in Florida?  Do you understand why CDC cannot stop a university from holding in-person classes?  Do you understand why CDC can't enforce social distancing, say, in the bars in Texas?  And, then, do you understand why CDC is still able to control how cruise ships operate?  Unless you can show you can grasp these concepts, there isn't much for us to discuss here. 

55 minutes ago, princeton123211 said:

Thats an absolutely ridiculous thing to say-- you contend that cruising during the pandemic was safe the whole time and the CDC just arbitrarily decided to curtail it with their no sail order?

Your post here is just as misinformed as the one above (#3).  #3 above shows you have no understanding of how CDC's authority is defined - or what it can or cannot do inside a state. 

And, now, in this post, you are jumping to conclusions that seem to exist only in your own mind.

I would recommend doing your research first.  Read CDC's detailed account of the cruise ship response back from July.  Pages 7 onwards of:

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/No-Sail-Order-Cruise-Ships-Second-Extension_07_16_2020-p.pdf

It is clear that the ships took CDC's early guidance and concerns without much seriousness leading to the NSO being extended in July.  They had used the Washington lobbying firms (Brownstein, Crestview) with little success.   Only with the new NSO extension did the operators start to understand the gravity of the situation - being that they would really have to go through the CDC.  They started putting together these healthy sail panels and recruiting all sorts of healthcare executives. 

Fast forward to September, and the cruise lines may have found a way to start some cruising safely.  (Well, they have already started in Europe.)  BUT - absolutely no relationship or communication with the CDC.  The CDC doesn't owe them anything.  The cruise lines have to melt the ice.

So, it's only in the last month or so that they have recruited government relations executives.  CDC isn't budging anyways until after the elections - no need to open a new can of worms at this juncture - but the cruise lines still need to lay the groundwork today.

Not much above is relevant to this thread - the least of which being whether it's safe to cruise or not - but if you are somehow crediting the new bill with cruise ship lobbying, you have very little understanding of how abysmal that effort has been in the past.

On 9/18/2020 at 7:11 PM, princeton123211 said:

I would say it looks like cruise lines have really good lobbyists more than states have eager Senators...

If they had really brought their A-game to lobbying, we wouldn't have been in this predicament with the CDC in the first place.

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

To complicate things just  a bit the CDC does not normally have authority over the POA with regard to it its vessel sanitation program, which is in place to specifically for the prevention of the introduction of disease into the US from a foreign country. As POA does not sail in foreign waters or visit foreign ports it is not regulated by the CDC in this regard. Nor does POA travel from state to state, which would also permit the CDC to impose quarantine restrictions on her. POA never leaves Hawaii so is subject state regulation.

 

The process of allowing a ship to enter a port when certified to be free of disease is called a granting of free pratique. The CDC No Sail Order specifically references what cruise ships must do to in order to be given free pratique , so it may very well be that POA is not subject to the No Sail Order. But, I could also argue that the public health emergency declared that permitted the CDC to impose the No Sail Order, if liberally interpreted, allows the CDC to regulate POA when it normally does not. 

 

About the only way we'll get a definitive answer is if Hawaii OKs the POA to resume sailing, but the CDC says "no dice" and the issue is resolved by the courts.

We have seen the governors take issue with the administration's potential meddling in the state lockdown matters.  I say potential because a confrontation never came to pass, and I sense the administration realized they didn't have a case - despite a national emergency.

Florida senators have pushed for a new cruising restart bill this week, so it looks states are willing to work with the cruise lines.  Florida obviously has much more at stake than Hawaii.  Hawaii has been more conservative all around but is also hemorrhaging more jobs.

Here is an overview of what the federal law allows CDC to do:

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html

As I understand it, CDC's jurisdiction is at the US border or between US states.  NCL's Pride of America (PoA) sails wholly inside Hawaiian waters - that is, inside the state.  If Hawaii allows PoA to sail, can CDC force a stoppage?

I haven't sailed PoA yet. Do you go through any border controls or customs on this itinerary?

Of course, NCL might not want to run afoul of the agency, but FDR (the CEO) is also getting a little impatient...

Do a 10-nighter from Barcelona to Venice stopping in all your key Western Med ports and a couple of Eastern Meds too.

There is so much to see in Europe in the summer that you can't do just a quick 7-nighter unless combining with a longer land-based tour.

On our cruise trip to Europe, we spent 7 weeks, doing 4 cruises in all 4 corners - incl. Baltic and Norway - and still maybe saw just half of what had on our list!

3 hours ago, MagnoliaBlossom said:

UNCLE!!! Okay, we’re staying on extra days- prior plans thrown to the wind. Thank you all for your above and beyond the call of duty information and photos ( oh those photos!)

 

Now, since I’ve become a blatant information beggar - what hotel do you recommend in Rey? Since all the tours are long, I’m thinking a place with its own restaurant and one near pick up spots for the tour busses. After long days of touring' we‘ll be ready for an adult beverage and a bite to eat before crashing.

 

Thanks,

MB

 

 

80 past cruises

Upcoming:

NCL Breakaway 1/10/2021 Western Caribbean

CCL Dream 5/16/2021 Western Caribbean

NCL Star 6/27/2021 - Scotland, Norway & Iceland

CCL Dream 10/23/2021 - Eastern Caribbean

 

 

Hotels are where you budget will have to stretch.  Anything comfortable, and you are looking $500+ a room per night at least in the tourist areas.  These hotels have to earn their whole year worth of overhead in just a few months...

This isn't any new debt issue - just a listing of their $750 million debt offering from July on this Bermudan exchange.  I assume it's designed to let the bonds trade internationally on a tax-advantaged basis.

None of the big three are going anywhere.  There's too much cruising demand pent up, and the investors and their banks know it.

10 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

I am not sure what ship they are on but the only cruise I can see that fits the description is Regent's Seven Seas Explorer which leaves Singapore on 20 December this year, not 2021.

I doubt this cruise will happen.

No, that's one year too early.  It's Norwegian Spirit followed by Cunard QE.  That's about 30 nights altogether, and it would be nice to get off the ships for a few days in the middle.

21 hours ago, Aus Traveller said:

Why do the cruise? I suggest it would be better to go to central Australia for a few days to visit Uluru and Kings Canyon then go to the Reef.

So, the first cruise - the 17-nighter - is pretty much the Indonesian and Queensland itineraries sewn together with those two sea days in between.  If it was just Queensland, we would do pretty much what you suggest.

Good points everyone - makes it more interesting to plan DIY. 

The two days at sea are followed by daily stops in Cooktown, Yorkeys Knob, and Airlie Beach.  All three, I gather, are tender ports.  Our initial plan would be to visit Uluru in a way to arrive in Cairns by the evening of the second sea day.  Then, do a GBR pontoon or reef tour on our own while the ship is in Cooktown.  This would give us all of the Yorkeys day to make it back to the ship (and even do the Skyrail/rainforest in the morning). 

We will have the key cards like everyone else, so returning to the ship should be OK.  The weather is the big unknown.  We are talking mid December.  Looks like it's the start of the stinger / wet season.  Will have to keep it in mind very very much.

In the US, there is this Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA) which, among other things, prevents a cruise itinerary from starting and ending in a different port.  We are talking one-way cruises.  For instance, you can't do a New York to Miami cruise -- unless you visit a distant foreign port somewhere in between. 

PVSA also prevents cruises to nowhere.  A ship has to visit a 'nearby' foreign port in between for a closed-loop itinerary.

I see several one-way Australian itineraries marketed by cruise ships -- one-way domestically, that is.  Cunard, for example, has one-way trips between Sydney and Melbourne, and between Adelaide and Melbourne.  Cruises to nowhere are also a staple in the Australian market.

My question is, does Australia have a version of PVSA or another set of cabotage restrictions for passengers?

Here is a bit of the background. 

We have booked back-to-back cruises for December 2021 with the first ship sailing from Singapore to Sydney and the second one proceeding to NZ from Sydney.  The first itinerary has a stop in Darwin followed by two days at sea before arriving in Cairns. 

We would love to get off the ship in Darwin, fly to ASP/AYQ, tour Ayers rock, and re-join the ship in Cairns.  The ship would then take us from Cairns to Sydney, and this is the part not allowed under the US laws.  (Or, you could pay $800pp to 'flout' it.)

I will eventually deal with the the cruise line on this topic next year - once we know where the world stands at that time - but I am looking to do a bit of planning now.  Evidently, the ships can't stop you from disembarking early, but they can still disallow re-joining.  That's where knowing the rules can help my discussion with them.  If they have a boilerplate 'no, can't do' answer, I will push for an explanation.

Any thoughts?

The holiday cruises tend to have a bit younger crowd.  If you sail in January or February instead, you will be among familiar demographics.

You might gain some water weight since the food onboard is full of condiments - read sodium. 

1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

If Celebrity does in fact still visit Cruise Critic, I suggest that they'd read negative posts written in a thoughtful, constructive and tempered manner. Rants? Not at all.

Well, if we have all made it to 19 pages of this 'rant', let's cut Celebrity some slack.

2 hours ago, Fouremco said:

Does Celebrity come to Cruise Critic to make ridiculous rants?

Does Celebrity come to CruiseCritic to read rants?  Most definitely.

Could the apologists' 18-page bumping of this thread all but seal the deal that Celebrity should act and possibly over-compensate?  Yup.

Is there any real downside to ranting anonymously on a public forum?   You decide.

22 minutes ago, omeinv said:

Den,

 

I'm absolutely certain the OP will not accept any future cruise credit.  They made it clear they will NEVER sail Celebrity again.  It's clear from all of their posts the "principle" is the driving force in all their decisions.  The fact you would even raise this question makes me think you are a jaded, cynical, skeptical person.  For shame!

 

Harris

Denver, CO

The way I see it they got what they wanted.  Cynical or not.

It's the apologists who still can't see the irony.

On 1/23/2020 at 2:47 AM, drsel said:

Thanks. Even Princess and Holland America have the cheapest rate for Canadian residents.

US residents have to pay 10% more, while those residing outside North America pay 20% more.

Very unfair and discriminatory in my humble opinion

 

 

 

Many more Canadians visit the Disney parks (or Florida) for vacations, and they do it several times a year.  It makes sense to give them a discount to fill your ships.  How many Argentinians are going to make the trek to come out even with a discount?

You can use a service such as LuggageFree.com.  Pretty sure they can deliver at the very least to the port if not the ship.

https://www.luggagefree.com/learn-more/ship-to-a-cruise/

6 hours ago, jimzgoldfinch said:

This is latest on the cruise referred to by OP 

https://www.celebritycruises.com/content/dam/celebrity/pdf/ML-3-14-20-Itinerary-Modification-Guest-Letter.pdf

So, after all, they changed the remaining two itineraries in just a day since I flagged the issue. 

Amen to 40% of this thread foretelling the seemingly insurmountable odds...

3 minutes ago, txflood33 said:

 

you are correct that sometimes a one port change can be done quickly. Sometimes it becomes an extra sea day and you may never know why.

 

You are also correct that the Millennium only had a few more sailings to be fixed. However, the Millennium is not the only ship over there trying to get into a port. I know Holland had some cruises out there. I would assume there are also some cargo ships out there. Also, the days for stops are switching. The stop in Taipei on the 3/14 trip was day 3. Now it will end up being 11 or 12. Just because a boat can get into a port on one day doesn't mean they can get in the next. I'm not positive, but I guess how many dock workers that will be on hand may affect it. I won't even pretend I know the labor laws/union rules in Taiwan

Princess too has a lot of ships currently in Southeast Asia, and so do RCL, AIDA, and Costa (though the cruise terminals aren't shared with any container traffic).  Winter is a busy time in Asia.  And it is a dynamic situation, I agree.

The real priority issue - nevertheless - for all airlines and cruise ships is the embarkation/debarkation in HK/China.  If you are asking passengers to pass through these ports, you are risking their re-entries into their own countries.  Or asking them to be subjected to a mandatory two-week quarantine.  I would think these bans aren't going away anytime soon.

1 minute ago, Fouremco said:

I suggest that you give the latter a try! 

Why?  I like your approach better!

5 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

Oh, did you think that only one itinerary needed to be modified and it only involved one port? 

 

SMH

Well, considering only two more Millennium sailings left in this season - one in each of February and March - still involving HK/China, I had a choice.  I could sit here, shake my head, and type first. 

Or, I could think.