Interesting article/Miami Herald

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, PortFees45 said:

Yes, theft, as in illegally obtaining the proprietary materials in question. 

 

No crew member is committing theft by posting on social media about what's happening on the ship. 

That all depends on what is posted, and how.  If they take a photograph of a document distributed to the crew, that could entail proprietary information.  If they take a photo of "conditions onboard" and there just happens to be an NCL policy document on the wall in the background, that could be theft of proprietary information.  It all depends on the amount of damage done by the disclosure, and at least in Texas, that I've found,  that is the measure of whether it becomes a criminal case or civil.  But, hey, go on defending the crew to whom you have given your patronizing label of "cowering, frightened".

[npcl]

2 hours ago, Formula280SS said:

Sorry, not getting into the sand box.

 

Will stick with my own position.

 

CLIA reports for 2019, the Florida cruise industry impacts for 2019 accounted for 154,646 Total Employment Impact, $7,689,000,000 in Total Wage Impact and $8,485,000,000 in other Direct Expenditures.

 

https://cruising.org/-/media/research-updates/research/contribution-of-the-international-cruise-industry-to-the-us-economy-2018.pdf

 

Page 45

 

So, regarding the post, I still maintain that cruise ports in Florida will lead the way and that such ports are very important economic revenue sources for such ports' cities and the state of Florida.

You built the sandbox why not get in, unless you have no supporting references except the only one that you keep posting.

 

Formula280SS

Port of Miami is dead without Cruises.  Period.

 

Luckily, Florida is leading the US in phased, measured re-opening.

 

The cruise line business will be thoroughly phased and measured also, IMO.

 

It's too important.

 

As of 2018, PortMiami accounts for approximately 334,500 jobs and has an annual economic impact of $43 billion to the state of Florida.

 

or your comment about why cruise line execs would not sign the CDC required documents

 

Formula280SS

Sorry, but the US was requiring the cruise line management and governance to be criminally and civilly and personal liable for any crew member related spread of C19 upon transfer from US ports.  That's why they (all of the lines) left a couple weeks ago to task up at their private islands and plan for alternate way to get crew home.

 

And then thank me for agreeing with them when the information I posted was counter to your claim

 

Then you tried making the cruising impact on the state sound even better by stating that the numbers did not include pre and post visits and other related economic information, even though the document you referenced clearly stated that those impacts were included in their calculations.

 

 

[PortFees45]

8 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

That all depends on what is posted, and how.  If they take a photograph of a document distributed to the crew, that could entail proprietary information.  If they take a photo of "conditions onboard" and there just happens to be an NCL policy document on the wall in the background, that could be theft of proprietary information. 

No, it doesn't. There is nothing illegal about merely taking a photograph, whereas there are specific statutes criminalizing activities like hacking. Stick to your engines, Chief. 

[npcl]

25 minutes ago, PortFees45 said:

The Google case is inapplicable to the situation with the crew on these ships. No crew member faces any criminal exposure, in any jurisdiction, for publicly disclosing what is happening on the ships, period. NCL can fire them. NCL could even take civil action against them, but they are at no risk of prosecution from any "shore side authorities." It was a thuggish lie meant to frighten an already frightened and desperate group of vulnerable people into compliance to avoid more bad PR. It's one of the most disgusting things NCL has done, and whomever made the decision to relay that lie should be fired. 

The point is that you said he was wrong in that post 86, When what he in that post that you copied in your post 88 was absolutely correct.

 

Changing the terms for later posts does not change that in those posts he was correct and your response left a bit to be desired.

 

 

[npcl]

7 minutes ago, PortFees45 said:

No, it doesn't. There is nothing illegal about merely taking a photograph, whereas there are specific statutes criminalizing activities like hacking. Stick to your engines, Chief. 

Actually it depends upon what the photograph is off.

 

For example 

 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office refers to a trade secret as a type of intellectual property. This definition of trade secrets is in reference to the business ownership of a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that provides a competitive edge.

 

So if the picture taken reveals any information that can fall into that definition, which could includes such things as staffing, crew schedule, operational practices. It would not be a stretch for that to be considered to be intellectual property.

 

Theft of intellectual property does not need to involve hacking.

 

While I doubt anyone would care to prosecute, the items that can be defined as intellectual property is rather widely defined.

 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/03/26/prosecuting_ip_crimes_manual_2013.pdf

 

The justice department thinks it is enough of an issue to write a guide for US attorneys.

Edited May 22, 2020 by npcl

[npcl]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

But, again, my point is that no other crew, on any ships, from any country, traveling from any country are required to make more than a simple attestation of health on the ship at the time of clearing into the US, and no one is required to be tested before they leave the ship.  So, without any testing what so ever, and with only a simple statement by the Captain that no one on the ship has covid like symptoms, why are these crew allowed to  crew change?  How is their reporting or testing any better than the cruise ships.  Or do we believe that the cruise ships are currently "death ships" with crew getting sick and dying and the officers hiding them in the walk in refrigerators?

 

Those crew were landed because they were ill, but there are no reports that I've seen of current cases on the ships looking to disembark crew.

 

So, moving crew from one isolation ward (ship) to another isolation ward (ship), neither ship having any current cases is cause for concern?  Okay, then continue another 14 day isolation for those moved.  This is what we have done with crew who joined after the lockdown.  The crew that was onboard before that continued business as usual, since we had all been isolated together and no one was sick.  When new crew join, they have to eat separately, and wear masks, and keep distance for 14 days, and can then rejoin "general population".  The crew on the cruise ships are "somewhat isolated" mainly for the optics of the situation, and given that there are no passengers, it makes little sense to move everyone back to their crew cabins.  Really, after weeks or months of quarantine, where is the "potential" covid going to come from?  Why can US citizens move about the country taking commercial airlines without any time in quarantine if they are essential workers.  Why can international travelers make connections in US airports without any quarantine?  If you want to punish the cruise lines for possible or perceived poor performance during the early stages of the pandemic, fine, keep them from embarking passengers, but don't punish the crew.

So basically what you are saying is that even if the cruise lines were not cooperative with the CDC, even though there were cases of COVID-19 on board ships that the cruise lines were not transparent about.  That there was clearly cases where COVID-19 should have either been known or clearly suspect and after the CDC put up with several examples of such behavior and instituted the guidelines for 100 days.  That they should just drop the requirements because the individual crew members were not responsible for such behavior.  Basically rewarding the cruiselines.

 

I actually think that is what the cruise lines were trying to get the CDC to do when they initially refused to sign the certifications for anyone, at least until the Miami Herald released its article.  It also seems to be the approach that they are taking with Caribbean countries like Jamaica, Haiti, Grenada.

 

It is unfortunate that the crew is stuck in the middle.  But they can blame a good portion on that on the transparency of their employers.  Even if the CDC let the crew come ashore, how many could actually get flights to their home country since many are closed?  For that matter are many are still stuck on ships even after the ships arrive by their home countries?

 

Yet blame the CDC.

 

How about the location where the ships are registered such as the Bahamas and Bermuda, I see them being even less cooperative at this time than the US.  At least the  US has a policy defined by which they can be disembarked, they just have to follow the rules and the responsibility of the cruise line no longer stops at the gang plank.

[Formula280SS]

26 minutes ago, npcl said:

You built the sandbox why not get in, unless you have no supporting references except the only one that you keep posting.

 

Formula280SS

Port of Miami is dead without Cruises.  Period.

 

Luckily, Florida is leading the US in phased, measured re-opening.

 

The cruise line business will be thoroughly phased and measured also, IMO.

 

It's too important.

 

As of 2018, PortMiami accounts for approximately 334,500 jobs and has an annual economic impact of $43 billion to the state of Florida.

 

or your comment about why cruise line execs would not sign the CDC required documents

 

Formula280SS

Sorry, but the US was requiring the cruise line management and governance to be criminally and civilly and personal liable for any crew member related spread of C19 upon transfer from US ports.  That's why they (all of the lines) left a couple weeks ago to task up at their private islands and plan for alternate way to get crew home.

 

And then thank me for agreeing with them when the information I posted was counter to your claim

 

Then you tried making the cruising impact on the state sound even better by stating that the numbers did not include pre and post visits and other related economic information, even though the document you referenced clearly stated that those impacts were included in their calculations.

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, PortFees45 said:

No, it doesn't. There is nothing illegal about merely taking a photograph, whereas there are specific statutes criminalizing activities like hacking. Stick to your engines, Chief. 

 

23 minutes ago, npcl said:

The point is that you said he was wrong in that post 86, When what he in that post that you copied in your post 88 was absolutely correct.

 

Changing the terms for later posts does not change that in those posts he was correct and your response left a bit to be desired.

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, npcl said:

Actually it depends upon what the photograph is off.

 

For example 

 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office refers to a trade secret as a type of intellectual property. This definition of trade secrets is in reference to the business ownership of a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that provides a competitive edge.

 

So if the picture taken reveals any information that can fall into that definition, which could includes such things as staffing, crew schedule, operational practices. It would not be a stretch for that to be considered to be intellectual property.

 

Theft of intellectual property does not need to involve hacking.

 

While I doubt anyone would care to prosecute, the items that can be defined as intellectual property is rather widely defined.

 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/03/26/prosecuting_ip_crimes_manual_2013.pdf

 

The justice department thinks it is enough of an issue to write a guide for US attorneys.

 

1 minute ago, npcl said:

So basically what you are saying is that even if the cruise lines were not cooperative with the CDC, even though there were cases of COVID-19 on board ships that the cruise lines were not transparent about.  That there was clearly cases where COVID-19 should have either been known or clearly suspect and after the CDC put up with several examples of such behavior and instituted the guidelines for 100 days.  That they should just drop the requirements because the individual crew members were not responsible for such behavior.  Basically rewarding the cruiselines.

 

I actually think that is what the cruise lines were trying to get the CDC to do when they initially refused to sign the certifications for anyone, at least until the Miami Herald released its article.  It also seems to be the approach that they are taking with Caribbean countries like Jamaica, Haiti, Grenada.

 

It is unfortunate that the crew is stuck in the middle.  But they can blame a good portion on that on the transparency of their employers.  Even if the CDC let the crew come ashore, how many could actually get flights to their home country since many are closed?  For that matter are many are still stuck on ships even after the ships arrive by their home countries?

 

Yet blame the CDC.

 

How about the location where the ships are registered such as the Bahamas and Bermuda, I see them being even less cooperative at this time than the US.  At least the  US has a policy defined by which they can be disembarked, they just have to follow the rules and the responsibility of the cruise line no longer stops at the gang plank.

 

You're a piece of work, or don't work, or work for someone, who absolutely hates NCL.

 

 

[npcl]

Nope do not hate NCLH.

 

I do care about honesty and accuracy in discussions.

 

I also do care about ethical behavior of companies.

 

The funny things is that you accuse me of hating NCLH, yet part of the discussion is me raising points against someone arguing against the cruise lines concerning trade secrets.

Edited May 22, 2020 by npcl

[npcl]

5 minutes ago, Formula280SS said:

 

 

 

 

 

You're a piece of work, or don't work, or work for someone, who absolutely hates NCL.

 

 

 

So you have proven you can cut and past my posts, yet I have not seen anything to support your previous posts or where mine are in error

 

Formula280SS

Port of Miami is dead without Cruises.  Period.

 

Luckily, Florida is leading the US in phased, measured re-opening.

 

The cruise line business will be thoroughly phased and measured also, IMO.

 

It's too important.

 

As of 2018, PortMiami accounts for approximately 334,500 jobs and has an annual economic impact of $43 billion to the state of Florida.

 

or your comment about why cruise line execs would not sign the CDC required documents

 

Formula280SS

Sorry, but the US was requiring the cruise line management and governance to be criminally and civilly and personal liable for any crew member related spread of C19 upon transfer from US ports.  That's why they (all of the lines) left a couple weeks ago to task up at their private islands and plan for alternate way to get crew home.

 

And then thank me for agreeing with them when the information I posted was counter to your claim

 

Then you tried making the cruising impact on the state sound even better by stating that the numbers did not include pre and post visits and other related economic information, even though the document you referenced clearly stated that those impacts were included in their calculations.

 

 

This is fun I think I will go back through any of your other posts and see what other errors I can find.

 

I think your discussion with FSHAGAN would have some good ammunition

 

 

[Formula280SS]

2 minutes ago, npcl said:

This is fun I think I will go back through any of your other posts and see what other errors I can find.

 

 

What a child.

 

[npcl]

16 minutes ago, Formula280SS said:

 

 

What a child.

 

Self portrait of yourself

 

Reduced to calling names now.  Oh that right you started that a few posts ago.

Edited May 22, 2020 by npcl

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, npcl said:

Basically rewarding the cruiselines.

I would think that stopping all cruise ships from doing business in the US is not exactly rewarding them.  I think that either extending the no sail order, or making even more stringent requirements for operations with passengers, which I would hate to see for the industry, would be far more of a punishment than forcing crew members to remain on vessels subject to restrictions on their freedom of movement.  This is punishment of the crew now, not the cruise lines.

 

1 hour ago, npcl said:

Even if the CDC let the crew come ashore, how many could actually get flights to their home country since many are closed?  For that matter are many are still stuck on ships even after the ships arrive by their home countries?

So, the CDC can justify its discriminatory actions based on the actions of other countries?  Actually, as I've said, the IMO is working with, and getting a lot of cooperation with member nations, which represent the vast majority of cruise ship crew, to opening any current restrictions on returning ship crew.  If the crew cannot get a flight out, then they cannot land in the US, since they have only crew visas, which require bonded escort from the ship to the airport for the first available flight out.  So, even if the CDC were to waive the requirement for non-public transportation for cruise ship crews, they would not be "dumping" ill crew who could not get flights out.  Then, of course, even if the cruise line wanted to use a charter flight, and that home country would not allow the crew to get off the plane, then the CDC guideline is meaningless, since the crew member could not travel in the first place.  But what about countries that allow their citizens  to return?

 

As for Bahamas and Bermuda, both countries have essentially stopped all entry into the country, regardless of nature, stopping all international flights and stopping all but essential shipping.  Not really the case in the US is it?

 

Whether or not the cruise lines were at fault in the early stages or not, and I don't know enough to say one way or another, even at that time, the crew were blameless, yet they are the ones who are bearing the burden and discrimination.  If a company files a fraudulent tax return, do we punish the employees by attaching their wages to cover the company's shortages?

[npcl]

25 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I would think that stopping all cruise ships from doing business in the US is not exactly rewarding them.  I think that either extending the no sail order, or making even more stringent requirements for operations with passengers, which I would hate to see for the industry, would be far more of a punishment than forcing crew members to remain on vessels subject to restrictions on their freedom of movement.  This is punishment of the crew now, not the cruise lines.

 

So, the CDC can justify its discriminatory actions based on the actions of other countries?  Actually, as I've said, the IMO is working with, and getting a lot of cooperation with member nations, which represent the vast majority of cruise ship crew, to opening any current restrictions on returning ship crew.  If the crew cannot get a flight out, then they cannot land in the US, since they have only crew visas, which require bonded escort from the ship to the airport for the first available flight out.  So, even if the CDC were to waive the requirement for non-public transportation for cruise ship crews, they would not be "dumping" ill crew who could not get flights out.  Then, of course, even if the cruise line wanted to use a charter flight, and that home country would not allow the crew to get off the plane, then the CDC guideline is meaningless, since the crew member could not travel in the first place.  But what about countries that allow their citizens  to return?

 

As for Bahamas and Bermuda, both countries have essentially stopped all entry into the country, regardless of nature, stopping all international flights and stopping all but essential shipping.  Not really the case in the US is it?

 

Whether or not the cruise lines were at fault in the early stages or not, and I don't know enough to say one way or another, even at that time, the crew were blameless, yet they are the ones who are bearing the burden and discrimination.  If a company files a fraudulent tax return, do we punish the employees by attaching their wages to cover the company's shortages?

No but if an employee is working for a fraudulent company, and found not at fault in the fraud the government doesn't say they are not at fault so lets keep the company operating so they don't lose their job.  They may not have been at fault but they still lose their job.  If they are at fault then yes claw back provisions exist. Not only wages but assets. Just ask Enron or World com employees on that one.

 

So the US is at fault because they are less restrictive than other countries, because they have provided a mechanism by which they can be repatriated, but because it is not as loose as all other ships, which by the way have relatively small crews, they are at fault.  

 

Are not the Bahamas and Bermuda the very places where those ships are registered.  Tey they are not willing to help.  what a surprise.

 

On the cargo ships.  How likely is it that a captain is going to be wrong when he signs the certification?

 

How many cases have turned up getting off cargo ships? Has Cargo ships been determined to be an at risk class?

 

Have any captains said that they have crew members with flu like symptoms while having them exit the ship?

 

If as you say, it is baseless discrimination, then someone should file a law suite, but I don't that anyone will because I suspect that the CDC could provide sufficient documentation to justify the action.

Edited May 22, 2020 by npcl

[npcl]

35 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I would think that stopping all cruise ships from doing business in the US is not exactly rewarding them.  I think that either extending the no sail order, or making even more stringent requirements for operations with passengers, which I would hate to see for the industry, would be far more of a punishment than forcing crew members to remain on vessels subject to restrictions on their freedom of movement.  This is punishment of the crew now, not the cruise lines.

 

So, the CDC can justify its discriminatory actions based on the actions of other countries?  Actually, as I've said, the IMO is working with, and getting a lot of cooperation with member nations, which represent the vast majority of cruise ship crew, to opening any current restrictions on returning ship crew.  If the crew cannot get a flight out, then they cannot land in the US, since they have only crew visas, which require bonded escort from the ship to the airport for the first available flight out.  So, even if the CDC were to waive the requirement for non-public transportation for cruise ship crews, they would not be "dumping" ill crew who could not get flights out.  Then, of course, even if the cruise line wanted to use a charter flight, and that home country would not allow the crew to get off the plane, then the CDC guideline is meaningless, since the crew member could not travel in the first place.  But what about countries that allow their citizens  to return?

 

As for Bahamas and Bermuda, both countries have essentially stopped all entry into the country, regardless of nature, stopping all international flights and stopping all but essential shipping.  Not really the case in the US is it?

 

Whether or not the cruise lines were at fault in the early stages or not, and I don't know enough to say one way or another, even at that time, the crew were blameless, yet they are the ones who are bearing the burden and discrimination.  If a company files a fraudulent tax return, do we punish the employees by attaching their wages to cover the company's shortages?

Here is a list of all of the crew repatriated following the process NCL seems to be using it quite a bit.

 

 

 

Cruise Ship Crew Member Disembarkations Approved by CDC (April 15, 2020 – Present)

Vessel Name	Cruise line	Parent Company	Date Submitted	Number of Crew Affected	Country of Repatriation
Scarlet Lady	Virgin Voyages	Virgin Cruises Intermediate Limited	4/23/2020	2	United States
Grand Celebration	Bahamas Paradise Cruise Lines	Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line	4/24/2020	27	Honduras
Caribbean Princess	Princess Cruises	Carnival Corporation	4/25/2020	13	Argentina
Caribbean Princess	Princess Cruises	Carnival Corporation	4/25/2020	181	Peru
Seven Seas Mariner	Regent Seven Seas Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	4/25/2020	5	United States
Coral Princess	Princess Cruises	Carnival Corporation	4/27/2020	4	Ecuador
Scarlet Lady	Virgin Voyages	Virgin Cruises Intermediate Limited	4/28/2020	6	United States
Liberty of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	4/29/2020	1	United States
Norwegian Joy	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	4/30/2020	348	Philippines
Oceania Sirena	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/1/2020	270	Philippines
Oceania Marina	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/1/2020	9	Philippines
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/1/2020	161	Philippines
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/1/2020	6	Dominican Republic
Carnival Fantasy	Carnival Cruise Lines	Carnival Corporation	5/2/2020	198	Peru
Carnival Fantasy	Carnival Cruise Lines	Carnival Corporation	5/3/2020	1	United States
Disney Fantasy	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/2/2020	34	Various Non-U.S.
Disney Dream	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/2/2020	26	Various Non-U.S.
Disney Magic	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/2/2020	15	Various Non-U.S.
Disney Magic	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/2/2020	3	United States
Disney Wonder	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/2/2020	3	United States
Disney Dream	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/4/2020	409	Various Non-U.S.
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/4/2020	89	St. Lucia
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/4/2020	69	St. Lucia
Oceania Marina	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/4/2020	1	St. Lucia
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/4/2020	2	United States
Norwegian Gem	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/4/2020	1	Greece
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/4/2020	45	Indonesia
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/4/2020	215	Indonesia
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/4/2020	5	Various Non-U.S.
Oceania Marina	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/4/2020	39	Various Non-U.S.
Oceania Sirena	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/4/2020	19	Various Non-U.S.
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/4/2020	78	Various Non-U.S.
Disney Fantasy	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/4/2020	479	United Kingdom
Disney Magic	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/4/2020	139	Various Non-U.S.
Disney Magic	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/4/2020	4	United States
Norwegian Joy	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/5/2020	151	Indonesia
Symphony of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/5/2020	6	United States
Celebrity Reflection	Celebrity Cruises	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/5/2020	4	United States
Harmony of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/5/2020	3	United States
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/5/2020	87	Indonesia
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/5/2020	496	Indonesia
Oceania Marina	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/5/2020	15	Indonesia
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/6/2020	68	Honduras
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/6/2020	131	Honduras
Oceania Marina	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/6/2020	117	Honduras
Oceania Sirena	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/6/2020	40	Honduras
Carnival Fantasy	Carnival Cruise Lines	Carnival Corporation	5/5/2020	2	United States
Mariner of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/6/2020	1	United States
Koningsdam	Holland America Line	Carnival Corporation	5/6/2020	38	United States
Koningsdam	Holland America Line	Carnival Corporation	5/6/2020	21	Canada
Celebrity Summit	Celebrity Cruises	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/6/2020	1	United States
Disney Dream	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/6/2020	75	Various Non-U.S.
Emerald Princess	Princess Cruises	Carnival Corporation	5/6/2020	70	United States
Emerald Princess	Princess Cruises	Carnival Corporation	5/6/2020	54	Canada
Celebrity Infinity	Celebrity Cruises	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/7/2020	2	United States
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/7/2020	2	Philippines
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/7/2020	2	Philippines
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/7/2020	187	Philippines
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/7/2020	462	Philippines
Oceania Sirena	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/7/2020	1	Philippines
Disney Wonder	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/8/2020	3	Philippines
Liberty of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/8/2020	2	United States
Carnival Fantasy	Carnival Cruise Lines	Carnival Corporation	5/8/2020	132	Peru
Carnival Fantasy	Carnival Cruise Lines	Carnival Corporation	5/8/2020	130	Peru
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/8/2020	56	Argentina
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/8/2020	45	Argentina
Oceania Marina	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/8/2020	2	Argentina
Oceania Sirena	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/8/2020	3	Argentina
Norwegian Joy	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/8/2020	14	Argentina
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/8/2020	1	Canada
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/9/2020	76	South Africa
Carnival Fantasy	Carnival Cruise Lines	Carnival Corporation	5/11/2020	92	Ecuador
Carnival Fantasy	Carnival Cruise Lines	Carnival Corporation	5/11/2020	28	Brazil
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/11/2020	86	Brazil
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/11/2020	72	Brazil
Oceania Sirena	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/11/2020	1	Brazil
Oceania Marina	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/11/2020	8	Brazil
Carnival Fantasy	Carnival Cruise Lines	Carnival Corporation	5/11/2020	20	Argentina
Carnival Fantasy	Carnival Cruise Lines	Carnival Corporation	5/11/2020	11	Uruguay
Disney Fantasy	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/11/2020	14	Mexico
Scarlet Lady	Virgin Voyages	Virgin Cruises Intermediate Limited	5/11/2020	38	Bulgaria
Scarlet Lady	Virgin Voyages	Virgin Cruises Intermediate Limited	5/11/2020	1	United States
Celebrity Edge	Celebrity Cruises	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/12/2020	16	United States
Vision of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/12/2020	63	United States
Disney Wonder	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/12/2020	24	Indonesia
Disney Wonder	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/12/2020	1	United States
Disney Fantasy	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/12/2020	81	Honduras
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/12/2020	191	Zimbabwe
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/12/2020	1	Bolivia
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/12/2020	1	Bolivia
Liberty of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/13/2020	349	Philippines
Empress Of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/13/2020	73	United Kingdom
Celebrity Reflection	Celebrity Cruises	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/13/2020	43	United Kingdom
Empress Of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/13/2020	7	United States
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/13/2020	6	United States
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/13/2020	5	United States
Oceania Marina	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/13/2020	1	United States
Oceania Sirena	Oceania Cruises	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/13/2020	2	United States
Oasis of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/15/2020	1	United States
Norwegian Escape	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/15/2020	1	United States
Disney Dream	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/16/2020	1	United States
Scarlet Lady	Virgin Voyages	Virgin Cruises Intermediate Limited	5/18/2020	9	South Africa
Scarlet Lady	Virgin Voyages	Virgin Cruises Intermediate Limited	5/18/2020	23	Jamaica
Scarlet Lady	Virgin Voyages	Virgin Cruises Intermediate Limited	5/18/2020	1	United States
Disney Dream	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/19/2020	13	South Africa
Scarlet Lady	Virgin Voyages	Virgin Cruises Intermediate Limited	5/19/2020	1	United States
Celebrity Eclipse	Celebrity Cruises	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/18/2020	4	Romania
Celebrity Millennium	Celebrity Cruises	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/18/2020	2	Romania
Celebrity Eclipse	Celebrity Cruises	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/18/2020	11	Ukraine
Celebrity Millennium	Celebrity Cruises	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/18/2020	7	Ukraine
Liberty of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/20/2020	93	Philippines
Celebrity Equinox	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/20/2020	172	Philippines
Grand Celebration	Bahamas Paradise Cruise Lines	Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line	5/20/2020	1	Peru
Norwegian Epic	Norwegian Cruise Line	Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings	5/21/2020	1	Bolivia
Harmony of the Seas	Royal Caribbean International	Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	5/21/2020	68	Philippines
Disney Wonder	Disney Cruise Line	Walt Disney Company	5/20/2020	3	United States

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by npcl

[chengkp75]

42 minutes ago, npcl said:

On the cargo ships.  How likely is it that a captain is going to be wrong when he signs the certification?

Probably more likely than a cruise ship Captain who has a Medical department onboard.

 

43 minutes ago, npcl said:

How many cases have turned up getting off cargo ships? Has Cargo ships been determined to be an at risk class?

Who knows, since there is no testing and no tracking.  Has anyone got data on covid cases among long distance truck drivers, who have also been classified as essential, and who as far as I can find, are not subject to any more stringent testing or tracing than the average citizen, even if they have been delivering to covid hotspots.  CDC guidelines say that truckers should follow state and local guidelines when they return home.

 

44 minutes ago, npcl said:

Have any captains said that they have crew members with flu like symptoms while having them exit the ship?

You would have to ask the USCG about that, as they get the attestation of health, and the limit on symptoms is the past 14 days, all of which the cruise ship crews have passed.

 

51 minutes ago, npcl said:

If as you say, it is baseless discrimination, then someone should file a law suite, but I don't that anyone will because I suspect that the CDC could provide sufficient documentation to justify the action.

Sure, they could provide documentation of probable fault by the cruise lines.  But, again, why punish the crew.  If the Master now makes an attestation of health and wishes to enter the US to disembark crew, and the CDC does not feel that the Master is trustworthy enough to risk civil and criminal charges as well as potential loss of license for falsifying an attestation, then bring the ship to the dock, quarantine it (no one off), and screen all crew who wish to disembark and who can have flights home.  Even that is more than other ships have to go through, and would protect any possible infection during the transit to the airport and to the commercial airline.  Who is more harmed the longer this goes on, the crew or the cruise line?   We both know the answer to that one, and it isn't pretty.

[npcl]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Probably more likely than a cruise ship Captain who has a Medical department onboard.

 

Who knows, since there is no testing and no tracking.  Has anyone got data on covid cases among long distance truck drivers, who have also been classified as essential, and who as far as I can find, are not subject to any more stringent testing or tracing than the average citizen, even if they have been delivering to covid hotspots.  CDC guidelines say that truckers should follow state and local guidelines when they return home.

 

You would have to ask the USCG about that, as they get the attestation of health, and the limit on symptoms is the past 14 days, all of which the cruise ship crews have passed.

 

Sure, they could provide documentation of probable fault by the cruise lines.  But, again, why punish the crew.  If the Master now makes an attestation of health and wishes to enter the US to disembark crew, and the CDC does not feel that the Master is trustworthy enough to risk civil and criminal charges as well as potential loss of license for falsifying an attestation, then bring the ship to the dock, quarantine it (no one off), and screen all crew who wish to disembark and who can have flights home.  Even that is more than other ships have to go through, and would protect any possible infection during the transit to the airport and to the commercial airline.  Who is more harmed the longer this goes on, the crew or the cruise line?   We both know the answer to that one, and it isn't pretty.

All of the people on the list I posted seem to have made it out just fine with the rules.

 

If the cruise line can get them there by commercial flights they could get them there by charter.  

 

I notice that you  pick and choose what you respond to and don't quote any of the comment about the cruise lines actions dealing with their repatriation efforts and the issues with Grenada (made an agreement about quarantine), Jamaica (sailed a ship into Jamaican waters to offload while no date had been set and negotiations were ongoing about the crew), Haiti (where they offloaded crew at Labadee  and by passed Haitian quarantine requirements.).

 

So onerous behavior by the cruise line is fine. No penalty or tighter regulations allowed because it will impact the crew.  Which seems to be exactly what they were counting on when the tighter restrictions were first put into place and the execs would not sign.  That when they would not sign they were telling the crew that the CDC would not let them leave (as documented in the Miami Herald story).

 

The new rules were put into place in the Federal Register  only 35 days ago. Prior to that they were no additional restrictions.  But the cruise lines did not seem to be in any hurry to repatriate prior to the new rules being put into place.

 

By the way do any of the cargo ships carry a crew larger than 250.  Even cruise ships that carry less than 250 passengers are exempt from the increased restrictions.

 

 

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, npcl said:

If the cruise line can get them there by commercial flights they could get them there by charter.

Except that the people listed did not go by commercial flight, since that is not allowed, only by charter.

 

8 hours ago, npcl said:

So onerous behavior by the cruise line is fine. No penalty or tighter regulations allowed because it will impact the crew.

Please show me where I say that onerous behavior by the cruise line is fine.  So, removing the ability to conduct their business operations is not a penalty?  Requiring multi-million dollar changes to their infrastructure is not a penalty?  If you want to impose more penalties on the cruise line, go ahead, but don't impact the crew doing it, certainly not by treating them differently than you do any other crew, even if the shipowner of that other vessel might make the same violations.

8 hours ago, npcl said:

issues with Grenada (made an agreement about quarantine), Jamaica (sailed a ship into Jamaican waters to offload while no date had been set and negotiations were ongoing about the crew), Haiti (where they offloaded crew at Labadee  and by passed Haitian quarantine requirements.)

I have heard one side, in the media, of the problems with Grenada.  I have not heard the cruise line's side of the story, nor have I seen the agreement to determine exactly how and to what extent the cruise line did not abide by the agreement.  Sailing a ship into Jamaican waters with no "date set" or "negotiations ongoing" is nothing special.  This is simply a ship entering a nation's waters and requesting "pratique" or a health clearance.  This happens every time a ship enters a nation's waters, and just because the Jamaican authorities have not granted pratique, as is their prerogative, does not make this a nefarious practice.  The ship can sit at anchor in Jamaican waters forever, so long as no one goes ashore or goes out to the ship.

Again, for Haiti, I don't know all sides of the matter, but if the crew were allowed into Haiti from the Labadee compound, that is their problem, could there have been an agreement that Haitian crew would quarantine in the closed compound of Labadee?  I really don't know.

9 hours ago, npcl said:

By the way do any of the cargo ships carry a crew larger than 250.  Even cruise ships that carry less than 250 passengers are exempt from the increased restrictions.

 

Even if they had a crew of 1000, they would be exempt, since the order clearly states that it applies to "non-cargo" vessels.

8 hours ago, npcl said:

The new rules were put into place in the Federal Register  only 35 days ago. Prior to that they were no additional restrictions.  But the cruise lines did not seem to be in any hurry to repatriate prior to the new rules being put into place

Gee, could this have been because the lines felt that they didn't need to mass repatriate the crew, as they were hoping to resume operations sooner?  Maybe because there was a ban on international flights to the home countries?

 

11 hours ago, npcl said:

No but if an employee is working for a fraudulent company, and found not at fault in the fraud the government doesn't say they are not at fault so lets keep the company operating so they don't lose their job. 

I'm not saying to "let the company keep operating", I'm saying the government does not lock up the employees until the company makes good on its infractions, which is what the US government has done with the cruise ship crew.

 

Sorry, I'll leave the discussion here, with the simple question:  how are 1000 cruise ship crew on a ship with no passengers, and no interaction with shoreside to potentially introduce covid for over a month, any more dangerous to the public health system of the US than the 172 cargo vessels, calling at US ports, every single day, whose crew have not been in any formal quarantine, but are allowed freedom to travel?  Punish the cruise lines all you want, keep them from sailing from the US forever if you want, don't hold the crew hostage.

 

In my opinion, and only my opinion, the cruise ship crew are now safer than the anti-mask and anti-shutdown people, and many of the "essential workers" allowed freedom to travel in the US, given their lack of contact over the last months.  I frankly feel they are more at risk of contracting covid while in the US airports than they are at present.  I felt that leaving my ship, where we had been in a "low outside contact" mode, but with "business as usual" among our crew (like a large family in quarantine together), that I was at far more risk of infection when I entered the travel industry than at any time during the previous 2.5 months.

[Formula280SS]

38 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Except that the people listed did not go by commercial flight, since that is not allowed, only by charter.

 

Please show me where I say that onerous behavior by the cruise line is fine.  So, removing the ability to conduct their business operations is not a penalty?  Requiring multi-million dollar changes to their infrastructure is not a penalty?  If you want to impose more penalties on the cruise line, go ahead, but don't impact the crew doing it, certainly not by treating them differently than you do any other crew, even if the shipowner of that other vessel might make the same violations.

 

I have heard one side, in the media, of the problems with Grenada.  I have not heard the cruise line's side of the story, nor have I seen the agreement to determine exactly how and to what extent the cruise line did not abide by the agreement.  Sailing a ship into Jamaican waters with no "date set" or "negotiations ongoing" is nothing special.  This is simply a ship entering a nation's waters and requesting "pratique" or a health clearance.  This happens every time a ship enters a nation's waters, and just because the Jamaican authorities have not granted pratique, as is their prerogative, does not make this a nefarious practice.  The ship can sit at anchor in Jamaican waters forever, so long as no one goes ashore or goes out to the ship.

 

Again, for Haiti, I don't know all sides of the matter, but if the crew were allowed into Haiti from the Labadee compound, that is their problem, could there have been an agreement that Haitian crew would quarantine in the closed compound of Labadee?  I really don't know.

 

Even if they had a crew of 1000, they would be exempt, since the order clearly states that it applies to "non-cargo" vessels.

 

Gee, could this have been because the lines felt that they didn't need to mass repatriate the crew, as they were hoping to resume operations sooner?  Maybe because there was a ban on international flights to the home countries?

 

I'm not saying to "let the company keep operating", I'm saying the government does not lock up the employees until the company makes good on its infractions, which is what the US government has done with the cruise ship crew.

 

Sorry, I'll leave the discussion here, with the simple question:  how are 1000 cruise ship crew on a ship with no passengers, and no interaction with shoreside to potentially introduce covid for over a month, any more dangerous to the public health system of the US than the 172 cargo vessels, calling at US ports, every single day, whose crew have not been in any formal quarantine, but are allowed freedom to travel?  Punish the cruise lines all you want, keep them from sailing from the US forever if you want, don't hold the crew hostage.

 

In my opinion, and only my opinion, the cruise ship crew are now safer than the anti-mask and anti-shutdown people, and many of the "essential workers" allowed freedom to travel in the US, given their lack of contact over the last months.  I frankly feel they are more at risk of contracting covid while in the US airports than they are at present.  I felt that leaving my ship, where we had been in a "low outside contact" mode, but with "business as usual" among our crew (like a large family in quarantine together), that I was at far more risk of infection when I entered the travel industry than at any time during the previous 2.5 months.

 

Amen, again thanks so much for the years contributing so much reliable information based on your years of experience.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Formula280SS

[npcl]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Except that the people listed did not go by commercial flight, since that is not allowed, only by charter.

 

Please show me where I say that onerous behavior by the cruise line is fine.  So, removing the ability to conduct their business operations is not a penalty?  Requiring multi-million dollar changes to their infrastructure is not a penalty?  If you want to impose more penalties on the cruise line, go ahead, but don't impact the crew doing it, certainly not by treating them differently than you do any other crew, even if the shipowner of that other vessel might make the same violations.

I have heard one side, in the media, of the problems with Grenada.  I have not heard the cruise line's side of the story, nor have I seen the agreement to determine exactly how and to what extent the cruise line did not abide by the agreement.  Sailing a ship into Jamaican waters with no "date set" or "negotiations ongoing" is nothing special.  This is simply a ship entering a nation's waters and requesting "pratique" or a health clearance.  This happens every time a ship enters a nation's waters, and just because the Jamaican authorities have not granted pratique, as is their prerogative, does not make this a nefarious practice.  The ship can sit at anchor in Jamaican waters forever, so long as no one goes ashore or goes out to the ship.

Again, for Haiti, I don't know all sides of the matter, but if the crew were allowed into Haiti from the Labadee compound, that is their problem, could there have been an agreement that Haitian crew would quarantine in the closed compound of Labadee?  I really don't know.

Even if they had a crew of 1000, they would be exempt, since the order clearly states that it applies to "non-cargo" vessels.

Gee, could this have been because the lines felt that they didn't need to mass repatriate the crew, as they were hoping to resume operations sooner?  Maybe because there was a ban on international flights to the home countries?

 

I'm not saying to "let the company keep operating", I'm saying the government does not lock up the employees until the company makes good on its infractions, which is what the US government has done with the cruise ship crew.

 

Sorry, I'll leave the discussion here, with the simple question:  how are 1000 cruise ship crew on a ship with no passengers, and no interaction with shoreside to potentially introduce covid for over a month, any more dangerous to the public health system of the US than the 172 cargo vessels, calling at US ports, every single day, whose crew have not been in any formal quarantine, but are allowed freedom to travel?  Punish the cruise lines all you want, keep them from sailing from the US forever if you want, don't hold the crew hostage.

 

In my opinion, and only my opinion, the cruise ship crew are now safer than the anti-mask and anti-shutdown people, and many of the "essential workers" allowed freedom to travel in the US, given their lack of contact over the last months.  I frankly feel they are more at risk of contracting covid while in the US airports than they are at present.  I felt that leaving my ship, where we had been in a "low outside contact" mode, but with "business as usual" among our crew (like a large family in quarantine together), that I was at far more risk of infection when I entered the travel industry than at any time during the previous 2.5 months.

As far as Jamaica I will see if I can find the comments from the government where they certainly seemed to indicate that they found it to be unusual.  Unfortunately while I cannot find the exact article with the quotation I have found several others that gave an indication including the phrase cruise industry is ‘forcing the hand’ of the Government and that would be an indication of bad faith.

 

I will keep looking for the source that quoted the term entering without permission.

 

A couple of stories about the interaction

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article242834881.html

 

https://www.loopjamaica.com/content/govt-denies-claim-monetary-request-quarantine-ship-workers

 

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20200517/1044-ship-workers-coming-government-totally-unprepared

We would have to do our own assessment in protection of the general population," Tufton said, insisting that it was “rather unfortunate” that the government was being surprised in this manner.

According to the health minister, it appears that the cruise industry is ‘forcing the hand’ of the Government and that would be an indication of bad faith.

 

Consider the following:

 

The virus can last in the body for extended periods of time.  There have been documented cases of people still testing positive weeks after initial exposure.  For that matter mean time to death after symptom on set is 14 days with a span of 2 to 42 days.  If has only been 38 days since the regulations have been put into place.  We know from reports that there were cases of COVID-19 on ships after the regulations have been put into place.  How many we do not know, because the cruise lines are not actively testing. There have, according to newspaper reports from crew, stated no COVID on board, its the common cold, flu like symptoms.  Clearly this virus does have asymptomatic cases, clearly it can last for long periods of time.

 

They may be low risk, they may be lower risk than as you say those that refuse to comply with even the basic safety measures.  But the cruise lines are  apparently are not willing to do testing and be cooperative in dealing with the CDC to the point where CDC is willing to relax the rules.  Even though the rules were put in place with a 100 day limit.  There is nothing stopping the cDC from relaxing them, if the cruise lines put forward a plan that meets their requirements.

 

So why haven't  the cruise lines actively start testing? The tests are available now.  Provide medical records. Prove to the CDC that they are really clear and ask for commercial access in exchange. 

 

I suspect that they will not because

1. They do not want the true numbers of how much COVID-19 was actually on board to be made public, bad PR.  (you have situations like the Zaandam where they reported hundreds of passengers and crew with flu like symptoms, yet only a small number were tested resulting in the report of 9 COVID-19 cases)

 

2. They do not want to establish a precedent by agreeing to provide that level of data to a national regulatory authority.

 

It in no accident that the only true counts we have of COVID-19 on cruise ships is cases where the national authorities bacse aware and forced testing (Grand, Diamond, Ruby) or contact tracing and testing after disembarkation.

 

As a result of the posturing the crew is stuck in the middle.  But at least in the US there is a mechanism by which they can be repatriated.  How many other countries are allowing non-citizen crew to come ashore and get flown out by standard commercial air?  For that matter let there own citizen crew members access public transportation and wander around with out quarantine, when they get there.  For that matter if they even let them into the country.

 

Yes it might be unfair.  Unfortunately they work for companies that put public relations ahead of transparency.  That have demonstrated several instances of not being forthcoming and truthful to both passengers and crew. Companies that have been willing to use the very nature of the maritime industry to separate themselves as much as possible from over sight of national regulatory authorities.

 

We do not have access to detailed information of why the CDC has acted the way it has.  Only that the action is unique in the history of the agency.  This is from an agency that only has enforcement authority at the national borders and between states.  An agency that is primarily consultative in nature.  Yet some things have apparently happened that they did take action and used the enforcement authority in way it has never been used before.  It will be interesting to see if further information on the reason why (beyond what is in the federal register notice itself) from either the USCG or from the CDC ever sees the light of day.

 

You and I will not agree on this. But I do respect both your position, as well as your passion for the welfare of other mariners.

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by npcl

[npcl]

The Jamaican government certainly is quoted as using the term "serious departure from good maritime practices"

 

 

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/No_approval_given_for_any_vessel_to_disembark_passengers_at_any_Jamaican_port_%26%238211;_Health_Minister?profile=1228

 

Given the state and nature of the discussions, there was no reason to believe that a ship could be on its way to Jamaica without the knowledge and consent of the Government of Jamaica.

 

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20200518/high-seas-stand-govt-hints-accommodating-ship-workers-offers-no

 

If it is true that the ship intends to sail into Jamaican waters without formal approval or even courtesy of notice, while discussions are still ongoing, then this would represent a serious departure from good maritime practices, a serious breach of good faith, and the cooperative nature of the dialogue we have been having on this matter,” Holness said in a statement late last night.

“Indeed, this would not be in the spirit of the good relations Jamaica has had with RCCL over the years.”

Edited May 23, 2020 by npcl

[chengkp75]

15 minutes ago, npcl said:

The Jamaican government certainly is quoted as using the term "serious departure from good maritime practices"

 

 

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/No_approval_given_for_any_vessel_to_disembark_passengers_at_any_Jamaican_port_%26%238211;_Health_Minister?profile=1228

 

Given the state and nature of the discussions, there was no reason to believe that a ship could be on its way to Jamaica without the knowledge and consent of the Government of Jamaica.

 

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20200518/high-seas-stand-govt-hints-accommodating-ship-workers-offers-no

 

If it is true that the ship intends to sail into Jamaican waters without formal approval or even courtesy of notice, while discussions are still ongoing, then this would represent a serious departure from good maritime practices, a serious breach of good faith, and the cooperative nature of the dialogue we have been having on this matter,” Holness said in a statement late last night.

“Indeed, this would not be in the spirit of the good relations Jamaica has had with RCCL over the years.”

It all depends on what the time frame of the "notice of arrival", if Jamaica has one, is.  While the US requires a 72 hour notice of entry into either US waters or a US port (if the ship has already been in US waters), that is not widely adopted by other countries.  As far as I read in these articles, at the time they were written, the ship had not actually entered Jamaican waters, so if there is only a 24 hour notice of arrival time frame, the ship could still be within the law, despite what the Prime Minister says.  The UK, for instance, from whom Jamaica derives much of their law, only requires inbound clearance notification by the ship's Master within 3 hours of the ship reaching its berth (so, up to 3 hours after docking), or 24 hours after entering port limits if remaining at anchor.  So, it is very likely that the ship does not in fact need to notify the Jamaican government until at the earliest when it arrives at the 12 mile limit.

 

As for the Health Minister, he has correctly stated that he has not granted pratique, and that a ship cannot dock or disembark anyone without pratique.  He makes no mention of whether a ship can remain at anchor without pratique, as is common maritime practice (the essence of quarantine).  As far as "not knowing a ship is coming to Jamaica", that simply isn't true.  While ships will notify port agents to notify port authorities of a ship's proposed port call, it does not have be any time in advance (except as noted, if a notice of arrival is required), it is just that docking is first come, first docked.  I'm sure there are tramp freighters that may not notify the Jamaican authorities any in advance, if their cargo is not time critical, they are actually looking for the best port to discharge, and they don't mind waiting at anchor.  A ship on the high seas does not have to tell anyone where it is, or where it is going.

[Outerdog]

2 hours ago, npcl said:

<snip>

 

 

ncpl, I'm curious, and you do not have to answer if you do not wish to, obviously... but what are your qualifications in regards to maritime practices? chengkp's qualifications are very well established on the forum and generally accepted by most members.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Outerdog said:

 

ncpl, I'm curious, and you do not have to answer if you do not wish to, obviously... but what are your qualifications in regards to maritime practices? chengkp's qualifications are very well established on the forum and generally accepted by most members.

Don't worry, I can have a rational discussion with him, unlike the unhinged tin foil hat poster on the HAL executive thread.

[npcl]

1 hour ago, Outerdog said:

 

ncpl, I'm curious, and you do not have to answer if you do not wish to, obviously... but what are your qualifications in regards to maritime practices? chengkp's qualifications are very well established on the forum and generally accepted by most members.

I am not presenting myself as maritime expert. Nor has this discussion dealt around the legalities of maritime law or maritime practices (though you can point out any places where there are any places where they have) It has been primarily a discussion about the fairness of the CDC's restrictions which chengkp75 has presented very well that he feels are unfair. Especially since cargo ships are not bound by the same restrictions.

 

I have primarily focused on reasons why the CDC has stated that they have put them into place and potential reasons concerning the behavior of cruise lines both inside  and outside the US and in dealing with Caribbean governments during the repatriation process.

 

As far as I can see the only place where maritime practices have been discussed has been concerning the ships arrival into Jamaica.  In which case I referenced the articles that presented the comments from the head of the Jamaican government who indicated that If it is true that the ship intends to sail into Jamaican waters without formal approval or even courtesy of notice, while discussions are still ongoing, then this would represent a serious departure from good maritime practices.

 

Other than that small portion of the discussion which is related to have the cruise lines been dealing fairly with other governments,  most of the rest is a debate about fairness and if the CDC should maintain their restrictions as currently written concerning the disembarkation of crew and/or passengers from cruise ships over 250.  Which is not really related to maritime practices.

 

Did that answer your question?

 

On the side of public health I did spend 10 years as a consultant working inside of the  US FDA that did involve working with the CDC and the WHO, as well as Health Canada, the EMEA and the Japanese MHW.

Edited May 23, 2020 by npcl

[npcl]

56 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Don't worry, I can have a rational discussion with him, unlike the unhinged tin foil hat poster on the HAL executive thread.

Some times we have been on the same side.  Some times opposing views.

 

Over 7000 crew, according to the table from the CDC have been sent home using the current restrictions.  So they certainly do not prevent the cruise lines from doing so if they are so inclined.