CDC

[TeeRick]

On 10/31/2020 at 11:31 AM, chengkp75 said:

I won't comment on any part of your political ideas, but will give my timeline of this.

 

In September, the CDC issued a "request for information", which is a pre-courser to changing federal regulations.  The other pre-courser is a time delay after the "request".  The CDC asked for a very long extension of the no sail order, hoping to get at least a month out of it, but knowing they wouldn't get the whole thing.  They got their month.  Now, the conditional sailing certificate contains virtually all the requirements of the no sail order, and since they have had the "request" period, and the time delay period, they can make any or all of these measures permanent.  All I see is that the cruise executives now know that the requirements of the no sail order will not be "going away" as they'd hoped, and so they need to pony up and start meeting them if they want to restart.  This is not a free pass to start cruising by any means.

chengkp75 I agree with your analysis of the situation.  

[phoenix_dream]

On 10/31/2020 at 11:32 AM, GeorgesGal said:

Personally, I'd be happy to fly to The Bahamas to start my cruise, thus avoiding the CDC 'conditional requirements'. 

By the way, in the documents they state that these conditions can be made permanent without further requests for information from the public or governmental entities.

 

Perhaps the cruise lines should be/could be looking into this scenario - not beginning cruises out of US ports.

They certainly could do this for the short term, with a handful of cruises.  But in the long run, that would just not be economically feasible.  There are no islands currently with the capability to handle this type of thing large scale, and few (if any at all) that would have the capacity (let alone the real-estate) to build it.  And we would be talking about huge infrastructure, well beyond cruise ports themselves - airport expansions, modifications with the major airlines for flights to these locations, hotels to accommodate passengers, transportation, restaurants, and the list goes on and on.  In the Caribbean this is just never going to happen.

[nocl]

7 minutes ago, phoenix_dream said:

They certainly could do this for the short term, with a handful of cruises.  But in the long run, that would just not be economically feasible.  There are no islands currently with the capability to handle this type of thing large scale, and few (if any at all) that would have the capacity (let alone the real-estate) to build it.  And we would be talking about huge infrastructure, well beyond cruise ports themselves - airport expansions, modifications with the major airlines for flights to these locations, hotels to accommodate passengers, transportation, restaurants, and the list goes on and on.  In the Caribbean this is just never going to happen.

Barbados is probably the best equipped since they are used to several European lines using the location to home port ships for Caribbean trips, including some to Cuba (thus the reason for starting in Barbados and not the US)

[Ken the cruiser]

Since any cruise ship that wants to port in the USA will now need to first be certified according to the new CDC Limited Sail Order, it will be interesting to see which ships Celebrity will select first, second and so on, to go through the process. My guess is ships currently anchored on either the east or west coast will be in the first tier since they are already here.

 

But, then there are those other Celebrity ships that are currently anchored in other distant locations that also have early 2021 itineraries that involve US ports. My guess is they would have to first sail to the US with no paying PAX. Of course, maybe CDC will somehow allow then to perform their CDC certification process while on a "no revenue" transoceanic cruise back to the US.

 

Should be interesting to see what decisions are made during the next few weeks.

Edited November 1, 2020 by Ken the cruiser

[RICCruisers]

The obvious choice of ships are Edge and Apex. They only need about 30% occupancy to break even. The older ships are more in the 50 - 60% range for break even. This is break even for that actual cruise. It does not include any allocation for debt service, corporate expenses etc... 

 

Before someone one asks for a source - it was from an interview or conference call months ago that  I believe Richard Fain participated in. I will go back and see if I can locate the actual post. 

Edited November 2, 2020 by RICCruisers

[RICCruisers]

24 minutes ago, RICCruisers said:

The obvious choice of ships are Edge and Apex. They only need about 30% occupancy to break even. The older ships are more in the 50 - 60% range for break even. This is break even for that actual cruise. It does not include any allocation for debt service, corporate expenses etc... 

 

Before someone one asks for a source - it was from an interview or conference call months ago that  I believe Richard Fain participated in. I will go back and see if I can locate the actual post. 

 

Update to previous post. -   It was actually Jason Liberty the CFO. The break even was on an EBITDA basis. See link below. I don’t see the 50-60% comment in this article. 

 

https://www.barrons.com/articles/royal-caribbean-ceo-sees-a-changed-industry-with-fewer-ships-and-passengers-initially-51590088201

[phoenix_dream]

6 hours ago, nocl said:

Barbados is probably the best equipped since they are used to several European lines using the location to home port ships for Caribbean trips, including some to Cuba (thus the reason for starting in Barbados and not the US)

I agree they are the best equipped for the reasons you state, but there is no way they could handle too many more ships than what they already do.  It is just not logistically possible.

[nocl]

41 minutes ago, phoenix_dream said:

I agree they are the best equipped for the reasons you state, but there is no way they could handle too many more ships than what they already do.  It is just not logistically possible.

They can dock 3 in their cruise terminal.

[Fouremco]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

They can dock 3 in their cruise terminal.

As I've been in port with 5 ships docked at Prince George Wharf, I thought I'd do a quick search. According to Cruise Mapper, "Nassau cruise terminal is at Prince George Wharf, located on island's northern coast. The port has capacity to handle up to 7 cruise vessels simultaneously." https://www.cruisemapper.com/ports/nassau-port-27

Edited November 2, 2020 by Fouremco

[Luckiestmanonearth]

18 hours ago, phoenix_dream said:

They certainly could do this for the short term, with a handful of cruises.  But in the long run, that would just not be economically feasible.  There are no islands currently with the capability to handle this type of thing large scale, and few (if any at all) that would have the capacity (let alone the real-estate) to build it.  And we would be talking about huge infrastructure, well beyond cruise ports themselves - airport expansions, modifications with the major airlines for flights to these locations, hotels to accommodate passengers, transportation, restaurants, and the list goes on and on.  In the Caribbean this is just never going to happen.

I concur with your assessment .  Interestingly, most of the islands have had relatively low cases as they shut the borders early .  We were on the March 8 to 15th Celebrity Edge sailing and we were the last cruise to stop at St Maarten before they shut it down .  I think we were also the last ones on the Edge before she closed down.

[Luckiestmanonearth]

On 10/31/2020 at 5:36 PM, mnocket said:

 

 When has this not been true?

 

By that rationale, you must distrust every action from the CDC to the FBI, IRS, State Dept., etc.   This is a pretty weak argument.  If you hate Trump, just say so and move on..... or better yet, find a political forum to post to.

This is far from a political statement .  And now seems Norwegian is realizing that we are nowhere close to cruising and issued its own decree for delayed sailings into 2021.

 

The CDC announcement had one intention was to drive unrealistic hope for someone’s personal gains.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Luckiestmanonearth

[Arizona Wildcat]

On 11/2/2020 at 1:18 PM, Luckiestmanonearth said:

This is far from a political statement .  And now seems Norwegian is realizing that we are nowhere close to cruising and issued its own decree for delayed sailings into 2021.

 

The CDC announcement had one intention was to drive unrealistic hope for someone’s personal gains.

I read the CDC guidelines as setting a realistic parameter for resuming sailing.  The guidelines are not yet rules.  

To get a full crew on board with the required quarantine will take at least 30 days.  The quarantine on board followed by a couple weeks of training and you MIGHT be able to do trail cruises starting in January.  Real cruises maybe in February.

The CDC doesn't seem to give unrealistic hope but a plan to resume some cruising in a pandemic that will not be over any time soon.

[mnocket]

17 hours ago, Arizona Wildcat said:

I read the CDC guidelines as setting a realistic parameter for resuming sailing.  The guidelines are not yet rules.  

To get a full crew on board with the required quarantine will take at least 30 days.  The quarantine on board followed by a couple weeks of training and you MIGHT be able to do trail cruises starting in January.  Real cruises maybe in February.

The CDC doesn't seem to give unrealistic hope but a plan to resume some cruising in a pandemic that will not be over any time soon.

 

I'm glad the CDC changed approach (Whitehouse influence?) and stopped banning cruising and instead started telling cruise lines what they needed to do in order to resume cruising.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, mnocket said:

 

I'm glad the CDC changed approach (Whitehouse influence?) and stopped banning cruising and instead started telling cruise lines what they needed to do in order to resume cruising.

The requirements in the Conditional Sail order are virtually the same as the requirements that were listed in the no sail order, that stated these were the requirements to obtain pratique.  Had the cruise lines met these requirements at any time before Oct 31st, they could have applied for pratique to restart sailing.

[cruisemom42]

38 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The requirements in the Conditional Sail order are virtually the same as the requirements that were listed in the no sail order, that stated these were the requirements to obtain pratique.  Had the cruise lines met these requirements at any time before Oct 31st, they could have applied for pratique to restart sailing.

 

It still amazes me how few people understand this. The "path" has been laid out for quite a long time. The cruise lines just baulked.

[Arizona Wildcat]

4 hours ago, mnocket said:

 

I'm glad the CDC changed approach (Whitehouse influence?) and stopped banning cruising and instead started telling cruise lines what they needed to do in order to resume cruising.

As others said - the cruiselines took many months to come up with a plan.  The CDC pretty much told the industry what they needed to do months ago.

The requirements to sail with coronavirus cases at their current level will be very limiting.  Getting ports to agree to accept an unknown number of infected passengers varies from pretty easy - like Miami - to almost impossible in many foreign ports where ICU beds are almost nonexistent - like Jamacia with about 50 or less in TOTAL.

Till there is a reasonably effective vaccine, a couple billion vaccinated and COVID cases dropping to low numbers; cruising cannot return to anything near precovid numbers.

[hcat]

7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The requirements in the Conditional Sail order are virtually the same as the requirements that were listed in the no sail order, that stated these were the requirements to obtain pratique.  Had the cruise lines met these requirements at any time before Oct 31st, they could have applied for pratique to restart sailing.

Do you think cruise lines can meet all these conditions? Sooner, later, never?

 

[cruisemom42]

2 hours ago, hcat said:

Do you think cruise lines can meet all these conditions? Sooner, later, never?

 

 

Is the CDC's framework significantly more stringent than what the European lines that have started sailings in Med have to observe?

 

I couldn't say definitively, as I'm not sure I have seen the actual regulatory requirements/guidelines but only what the cruise lines themselves have released about what they are doing. But it seems as though they are doing many of the same things that the CDC is requiring of ships that want to sail from the US -- so theoretically it should not be impossible...

 

 

[nocl]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Is the CDC's framework significantly more stringent than what the European lines that have started sailings in Med have to observe?

 

I couldn't say definitively, as I'm not sure I have seen the actual regulatory requirements/guidelines but only what the cruise lines themselves have released about what they are doing. But it seems as though they are doing many of the same things that the CDC is requiring of ships that want to sail from the US -- so theoretically it should not be impossible...

 

 

This link is for the general EU guidance document.  Have not found the specifics for Italy and Germany.  It is more general than the CDC document, but it could easily end up at the same place as the CDC framework

 

http:// https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-cruise-guidance-27-07-2020.pdf

 

Note that this was publish in July and a lot as changed about knowledge of COVID transmission since then.  It mentions health screening, not testing, yet MSC and Costa are both testing passengers before boarding.

 

I expect in the detailed plans more will be the same than will be different.

Edited November 5, 2020 by nocl

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, hcat said:

Do you think cruise lines can meet all these conditions? Sooner, later, never?

 

I think they can, but it will require a lot of money, and maybe some time as well.  The most onerous as far as cost and time to arrange will be the privately contracted shoreside services (medical facility, transportation services, quarantine facility).  This is the biggest difference I see, along with the simulated cruises, from the European requirements.  The EU is allowing the lines to make agreements with the local health care system for treatment and quarantine, while the US is requiring private facilities.

[hcat]

Maybe in Port Everglades they could take some space  within the new EDGE terminal and contract out for  an onsite  test and triage facility.  Seems  like there's wasted space there,  just a thought.

[Crazy planning mom]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

I think they can, but it will require a lot of money, and maybe some time as well.  The most onerous as far as cost and time to arrange will be the privately contracted shoreside services (medical facility, transportation services, quarantine facility).  This is the biggest difference I see, along with the simulated cruises, from the European requirements.  The EU is allowing the lines to make agreements with the local health care system for treatment and quarantine, while the US is requiring private facilities.

MSC has been sailing in Europe since July but even after several months sailing, it’s just 2 ships.  Do you think something similar could happen here.  For example, only the Edge and Apex sail for Celebrity until the vaccine is widely available and some of the requirements are waived?

[chengkp75]

48 minutes ago, Crazy planning mom said:

MSC has been sailing in Europe since July but even after several months sailing, it’s just 2 ships.  Do you think something similar could happen here.  For example, only the Edge and Apex sail for Celebrity until the vaccine is widely available and some of the requirements are waived?

With a vaccine, and I don't even want to get into whether or when one will be available, some of the requirements may be deleted, like masks and distancing, and reduced capacity, but I feel that the onerous ones like the private contracted facilities will become permanent.

[TeeRick]

1 hour ago, hcat said:

Maybe in Port Everglades they could take some space  within the new EDGE terminal and contract out for  an onsite  test and triage facility.  Seems  like there's wasted space there,  just a thought.

I am thinking that in ports like Fort Lauderdale with so many cruise lines, the major lines could set up and share a private facility there.  Instead of each one investing in one and managing their own.  Maybe CDC would go for this?

[chengkp75]

33 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

I am thinking that in ports like Fort Lauderdale with so many cruise lines, the major lines could set up and share a private facility there.  Instead of each one investing in one and managing their own.  Maybe CDC would go for this?

That depends on the number of beds the CDC requires per hundred passengers, and then which ships and what capacity they sail at.  CDC tends to be a worst case scenario planner.

Edited November 5, 2020 by chengkp75