How About a Cruise With No Ports for Safety

[Hlitner]

35 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I'm not aware that the Port Authority ever closed down the cruise ports.  To get a clarification straight from the horse's mouth, you could call or e-mail one of the folling:

 

Rado Saragih                   212-435-4259                  rsaragih@panynj.gov

Andrew Sharo                 212-435-4250                  asharo@panynj.gov

Nick Raspanti                  212-435-2796                  nraspanti@panynj.gov

Francis Caponi                212-435-4229                  fcaponi@panynj.gov

Nichol Polidoro               212-435-4264                  npolidoro@panynj.gov

 

Nobody can answer your question this far in advance.  You are probably aware that there will be no cruises in or out of a USA port until at least September 15.  .  But even that is a huge question mark because there is still no guarantee that the CDC will not simply continue to extend their "no-cruise" order which currently expires in late July.  If folks would think realistically they would realize that nothing will change between now and September 15 or even between now and the end of 2021 when it comes to COVID-19.   I suspect the CLIA decided to voluntarily suspend all cruises through Sept 15 in order to preempt what they assumed would be an adverse decision from the CDC.  At some point the CDC will likely issue detailed health requirements for ships that call at any USA Port.  Your question about the Port of NY likely depends more on the CDC then the Port Authority although they would certainly have the ability to close down the port even if the Feds were to allow cruising.  I would add that many of the cruises that move in and out of NYC in the Fall are also involved in Canada-NE itineraries that have all been cancelled.

 

While many cruise lovers are trying to look on the positive side there really is little reason to be optimistic about the near-future for cruise ships.  There really is no effective way to mitigate COVID-19 on a mass market ship.  And there must be some kind of protocol to what they would do if they get one or more COVID-19 cases onboard.  The reality is that there is simply no way to guarantee that one or more passengers/crew are not carrying the COVID-19 virus when they board a ship.  And when passengers go ashore at any port the risk is suddenly increased.  At this point there are more questions then answers.  

 

Perhaps the question we should all be asking is "will cruising be able to restart before there is a safe/effective COVID-19 vaccine?  And then there is the related question of what happens if there is no vaccine for 3-5 years (the norm for new vaccines) or possibly never a vaccine.

 

Hank

[voljeep]

while it is not cruising - there is an "event" tonight where 19K people will be in an arena for hours, no mask required, no social distancing required ... but you need to sign a waiver to be admitted, and hand sanitizer will be provided 

 

why can't cruising provide that same opportunity ?

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

Your question about the Port of NY likely depends more on the CDC then the Port Authority although they would certainly have the ability to close down the port even if the Feds were to allow cruising.  

I'm not sure that a US locality can close an international port.  I think that power rests solely with the Federal Government.  I think that the main reason "ports are closed" is because of the CDC's ban on cruise ships.  With the exception of passenger ships, the Port of NY and NJ is open for business.

[Hlitner]

13 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I'm not sure that a US locality can close an international port.  I think that power rests solely with the Federal Government.  I think that the main reason "ports are closed" is because of the CDC's ban on cruise ships.  With the exception of passenger ships, the Port of NY and NJ is open for business.

The local authorities can, indeed, close the ports in their jurisdiction.  This recently happened in south Florida when neither the Port of Miami or Port Everglades would accept any ships.  It was finally resolved when the local commissioners voted to allow two HAL ships dock under very tight restrictions.  We have other examples such as ports that were closed by local labor union strikes and the issues around California imposing their own environmental regulations (which dictated the type of fuel a ship must burn),  In the case of California the restrictions were imposed by the State government....not the locals.

 

Hank

[Charles4515]

I'm not sure that a US locality can close an international port.  I think that power rests solely with the Federal Government.  I think that the main reason "ports are closed" is because of the CDC's ban on cruise ships.  With the exception of passenger ships, the Port of NY and NJ is open for business.

Local authorities can close a port. The governor of Maryland ordered the Baltimore cruise port closed. Ports are under the jurisdiction of state and local governments. The federal government controls the harbors but their jurisdiction stops at the waters edge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Daniel A]

6 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

The local authorities can, indeed, close the ports in their jurisdiction.  This recently happened in south Florida when neither the Port of Miami or Port Everglades would accept any ships.  It was finally resolved when the local commissioners voted to allow two HAL ships dock under very tight restrictions.  We have other examples such as ports that were closed by local labor union strikes and the issues around California imposing their own environmental regulations (which dictated the type of fuel a ship must burn),  In the case of California the restrictions were imposed by the State government....not the locals.

 

Hank

I'm not looking to argue with you about this as it's really a tangential point, but I was under the impression that it was the US Coast Guard that closed the ports at the request of the local port commission.  Coast Guard was definitely part of the Unified Command Structure then.

[Hlitner]

19 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I'm not looking to argue with you about this as it's really a tangential point, but I was under the impression that it was the US Coast Guard that closed the ports at the request of the local port commission.  Coast Guard was definitely part of the Unified Command Structure then.

Yes, a Unified Command was formed (for Port Everglades) which consisted of Federal, State and Local authorities. But the deal required concurrent approval from all parties.  When the last two HAL ships needed to dock it was the local commissioners that were the final decision makers.  Perhaps it was best expressed by Broward County Commissioner Bogan who said it’s not up to the governor, but to Broward commissioners and the unified command, whether or not the ships are allowed to dock at Port Everglades. He said they are waiting for a more detailed plan from Holland America and Carnival before they determine what to do.

 

And yes, the Coast Guard had to approve the deal but so did the County Commissioners (hence a unified command that required concurrent approval.   The point was that the Country Commissioners along with the Sheriff Department had the ultimate power over the port while the Coast Guard controls the waters.  As I recall the political part of all that surrounded the Zaandam was when the Broward County Commissioners made it clear that the Governor did not have the power to make a decision.   The delays in getting docking permission may well have played a part in at least one of the fatalities on that ship.  A very sad situation. 

 

I recall listening to an interesting news report which talked about how the Coast Guard had control over what ships could enter the port, the port authorities had control over who could dock, the CBP had control of who could disembark the ship, and the Broward County Sheriffs Department had control over who could enter and leave the port.    Go figure. 

 

Hank

[WAMarathoner]

2 hours ago, voljeep said:

while it is not cruising - there is an "event" tonight where 19K people will be in an arena for hours, no mask required, no social distancing required ... but you need to sign a waiver to be admitted, and hand sanitizer will be provided 

 

why can't cruising provide that same opportunity ?

I like that.  It lets people take responsibility for their own actions.

[memoak]

2 hours ago, voljeep said:

while it is not cruising - there is an "event" tonight where 19K people will be in an arena for hours, no mask required, no social distancing required ... but you need to sign a waiver to be admitted, and hand sanitizer will be provided 

 

why can't cruising provide that same opportunity ?

And 6 people who were on the advance team for that event have just tested positive. Feel like coming on board now. Also clicking a waiver box on line is not going to be worth a dime in court

[Daniel A]

13 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

Local authorities can close a port. The governor of Maryland ordered the Baltimore cruise port closed. Ports are under the jurisdiction of state and local governments. The federal government controls the harbors but their jurisdiction stops at the waters edge.

I think we are discussing apples and oranges.  My point is that the locality cannot close the Port itself.  In early March the governor closed the Cruise Ship Terminal which belongs to the state through the Maryland Port Administration.  The Port of Baltimore remained open and continued to receive foreign cargo ships from Asia.  I don't believe the cargo terminals are owned by the Port Administration.  "An earlier version of the article said Ports America operated Dundalk Marine Terminal as part of a public-private partnership with the Maryland Port Administration. Ports America is a public operator of the terminal, but there is no partnership with the Port Administration. "

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, Daniel A said:

What if a cruise line had charter aircraft or vessels taking PAX from Ft Lauderdale to Freeport, Bahamas and the cruise to nowhere would start and end in Freeport?  For that matter would the cruise to nowhere be able to begin in Freeport and end in Ft Lauderdale or vice-versa? 

Of course a cruise to nowhere could start and end in Freeport, that would be a decision of the Bahamas, and would have nothing to do with the US, since the cruise never entered the US.  They would not need charter aircraft if the Bahamas airports are open.  A vessel carrying less than 250 passengers could ferry passengers from the US to the Bahamas for a cruise to nowhere.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

I'm not sure that a US locality can close an international port.  I think that power rests solely with the Federal Government.  I think that the main reason "ports are closed" is because of the CDC's ban on cruise ships.  With the exception of passenger ships, the Port of NY and NJ is open for business.

The port area on land is in the jurisdiction of the state, and therefore a local port authority, and they can set rules regarding what ship traffic they will handle (i.e. will they load/discharge cargo/passengers).  The navigable waters of the port (and all of the US) are under the jurisdiction of the USCG, whose "Captain of the Port" has jurisdiction over allowing ships to enter or leave port, and CBP has jurisdiction over clearing the ship through customs and immigrations.  The cruise ships are not operating in the US, because the USCG and CDC have not granted them "free pratique", or a "clean bill of health" that is required to enter port.

[Daniel A]

13 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Of course a cruise to nowhere could start and end in Freeport, that would be a decision of the Bahamas, and would have nothing to do with the US, since the cruise never entered the US.  They would not need charter aircraft if the Bahamas airports are open.  A vessel carrying less than 250 passengers could ferry passengers from the US to the Bahamas for a cruise to nowhere.

And the same vessel could return the PAX to the US Port after disembarking the cruise to nowhere in Freeport?

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

And the same vessel could return the PAX to the US Port after disembarking the cruise to nowhere in Freeport?

Well, it would need to be one vessel to  make the trip from US to Freeport, and then a different vessel doing the cruise to nowhere, but then the first vessel could transport pax back from the Bahamas.

[Daniel A]

17 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, it would need to be one vessel to  make the trip from US to Freeport, and then a different vessel doing the cruise to nowhere, but then the first vessel could transport pax back from the Bahamas.

So it would be doable if somebody had the will.

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

So it would be doable if somebody had the will.

And if the Bahamas was agreeable to setting up a major customs and immigration station for embarkation/disembarkation at the port, and there would need to be  a major upgrade to the terminal for check in, and baggage handling.

[npcl]

6 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I'm not sure that a US locality can close an international port.  I think that power rests solely with the Federal Government.  I think that the main reason "ports are closed" is because of the CDC's ban on cruise ships.  With the exception of passenger ships, the Port of NY and NJ is open for business.

Considering that the Port of NY is run by the the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a local agency, one would certainly expect that they could close the ports.  Also the Health authority and both the local and state level would also have the authority to shutdown ports and airports in a declared health emergency if they so chose.

 

The CDC, who is limited by law, to have enforcement authority in very specific cases  1. at the US boarders, 2. can also utilize enforcement authority at state lines, if they determine insufficient action is being taken by local authorities.  Even in the no sail order part of the justification, even at the national boarder, was insufficient action being taken by local authorities.

 

On the other hand local and state authorities have very broad authority under the public health regulations.

[Shmoo here]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

A vessel carrying less than 250 passengers could ferry passengers from the US to the Bahamas for a cruise to nowhere.

Actually, that would be a ferry with less than 250 people (including crew), from what I've read.

[chipmaster]

On 5/23/2020 at 2:54 PM, cruzsnooze said:

Who would join me on a 5 or 7 days cruise out of San Pedro that would have to stop for a few hours in Ensenada but no one disembarks. All safety measures like temperature before boarding and other CDC guidelines being followed. The caveat would be no chance of picking up any virus (not already on the ship) at ports and hopefully no one who embarked was ill.  RCL is talking about a quarantine section of rooms on their ship just in case and only allowing 50% passenger capacity. Buffet would not be self serve and seating at all venues would have social distancing. Under the right conditions I would venue back. The biggie for me would be no ports to pick up any virus. 

 

All the ingredients for a superspreader event, might as well go to Las Vegas get better room, food, entertainment.

 

The ports aren't the issue it's the fellow passengers you are breathing their exhaled air!!! There would be a few thousand, and California cases are exploding right now, not to mention someone might be coming from Tulsa too!

Edited June 21, 2020 by chipmaster

[caribill]

14 hours ago, voljeep said:

while it is not cruising - there is an "event" tonight where 19K people will be in an arena for hours, no mask required, no social distancing required ... but you need to sign a waiver to be admitted, and hand sanitizer will be provided 

 

why can't cruising provide that same opportunity ?

 

 

Maybe because the convention center is not seeking a port to dock at to disembark passengers.

[Daniel A]

11 hours ago, npcl said:

Considering that the Port of NY is run by the the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a local agency, one would certainly expect that they could close the ports.  Also the Health authority and both the local and state level would also have the authority to shutdown ports and airports in a declared health emergency if they so chose.

 

The CDC, who is limited by law, to have enforcement authority in very specific cases  1. at the US boarders, 2. can also utilize enforcement authority at state lines, if they determine insufficient action is being taken by local authorities.  Even in the no sail order part of the justification, even at the national boarder, was insufficient action being taken by local authorities.

 

On the other hand local and state authorities have very broad authority under the public health regulations.

PANYNJ Does not "run" New York Harbor.  The Port Authority operates some infrastructure that facilitate some operations around the port but they have no control over the port itself.  The Port Authority operates the tunnels, some bridges, World Trade Center, Newark, LaGuardia and JFK airports (plus another one which is 75 miles away from New York Harbor.)  The US government has sole control of the waters encompassing New York Harbor.  All in all, there is a myriad of agencies and levels of governments that regulate activities at the Port of New York.

[wolfie11]

46 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

The US government has sole control of the waters encompassing New York Harbor.

Is this an exception for New York Harbor? I was under the impression that navigable waters were within the state's jurisdiction.

[Roberto256]

18 hours ago, memoak said:

And 6 people who were on the advance team for that event have just tested positive.

 

This is clearly the result of too much testing.

 

I remember when I was about six, in school.

Some teacher said 'marriage is the prime cause of divorce'.

My little six year old mind spun on that for a minute ... oh yeah!

 

Testing is the prime cause of positive results!

 

[Daniel A]

47 minutes ago, wolfie11 said:

Is this an exception for New York Harbor? I was under the impression that navigable waters were within the state's jurisdiction.

So, you made me spend a little time doing some research after reading your post.  🙂  A very  simple explanation is that it is actually the Secretary of the Army who ultimately has regulatory authority over the navigable waters of the US!  Chapter 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations covers all of this and it's very complex so please excuse me if I oversimplify.  Navigable Waters are US territorial waters, waters subject to ebb and flow of tide, and waters used as a 'highway' in foreign or interstate commerce.  The US Army Corps of Engineers has ultimate jurisdiction over navigable waters and the Coast Guard would enforce the regulations promulgated by the Corps of Engineers.  State control of navigable waters would be limited to those bodies of water contained wholly within the borders of the state and not connected to any body of water used in foreign or interstate commerce.  Sorry, I didn't mean to get this deep into the weeds but I did. 🙄  I hope this would satisfactorily answer your question that no, it is not an exception for NY Harbor, it is consistent with 33 CFR.

[Charles4515]

So, you made me spend a little time doing some research after reading your post.  [emoji846]  A very  simple explanation is that it is actually the Secretary of the Army who ultimately has regulatory authority over the navigable waters of the US!  Chapter 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations covers all of this and it's very complex so please excuse me if I oversimplify.  Navigable Waters are US territorial waters, waters subject to ebb and flow of tide, and waters used as a 'highway' in foreign or interstate commerce.  The US Army Corps of Engineers has ultimate jurisdiction over navigable waters and the Coast Guard would enforce the regulations promulgated by the Corps of Engineers.  State control of navigable waters would be limited to those bodies of water contained wholly within the borders of the state and not connected to any body of water used in foreign or interstate commerce.  Sorry, I didn't mean to get this deep into the weeds but I did. [emoji849]  I hope this would satisfactorily answer your question that no, it is not an exception for NY Harbor, it is consistent with 33 CFR.

 

Control over the navigable waters. The port authority does control the port.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro