Princess Test Cruises ?

[LACruiser88]

2 hours ago, wowzz said:

But all the cruises starting in the UK this summer will do so without any test cruises having taken place. Why would test cruises therefore be needed when cruises from the US commence?

With the changing CDC guidelines and vaccination rates, I do not see the cruise lines having to do test cruises in the US.  Time will tell...

[SeaHunt]

2 hours ago, LACruiser88 said:

With the changing CDC guidelines and vaccination rates, I do not see the cruise lines having to do test cruises in the US.  Time will tell...

 

Royal's CEO Richard Fain agrees with you 😉

 

"One of the prerequisites for the CDC’s plan to allow cruises to resume was that each line would have to conduct ‘test cruises’ that would demonstrate the efficacy of ship-board health measures. But Fain argues that test cruises have already taken place.

 

“The Royal Caribbean Group has now carried over 100,000 guests on over 150 cruises, during the pandemic. Out of the 100,000 guests, we’ve only had 10 people test positive for the COVID virus,” Fain said. “And all of them have been handled smoothly, and without undue disruption of other guest cruisers and without undue burdens on the communities and governments involved.”

 

https://cruiseradio.net/royal-caribbeans-fain-says-sailing-from-u-s-could-begin-in-july/

[Earthworm Jim]

22 hours ago, Denmal said:

With all the new CDC rules and guidance, I have yet to see if you can volunteer for the test cruises .  Has anyone heard or seen anything on this ?  I would volunteer for sure, I am fully vaccinated and would love to 'test' a cruise for free...

 

But will they want fully vaccinated passengers? If they are not planning on requiring vaccinations 9as far as I know that's yet to be determined) they might want a more realistic test with at least some unvaccinated passengers.

[Daniel A]

21 minutes ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

But will they want fully vaccinated passengers? If they are not planning on requiring vaccinations 9as far as I know that's yet to be determined) they might want a more realistic test with at least some unvaccinated passengers.

Agreed, I said something similar in post #16.  If they want the test cruises to accurately test Covid emergency procedures then they probably will want some people who can catch Covid.  Otherwise, by the cruise line only permitting fully vaccinated PAX and crew, the CDC may look at it as the cruise line "putting their finger on the scale."

[nocl]

5 hours ago, wowzz said:

But all the cruises starting in the UK this summer will do so without any test cruises having taken place. Why would test cruises therefore be needed when cruises from the US commence?

And in any case, would not the lessons learnt from the  UK cruises be more than sufficient to negate the  need for any test cruises?   

Maybe.  Of course the cruise lines have not reached that stage of the process in the US because they have not completed any port agreements.

 

I believe MSC is engaged with the FDA using their protocols and experience during their EU sailings.

 

But other than that the cruises are primarily complaining about CDC requirements, sending in high level outlines and requesting to be released from the requirements of the CSO. No sign of any them actually trying to meet the requirements such as negotiating port agreements.

 

Part of the CDC's requirements was the US ending up the port of last resort when countries closed down to cruise ships and a number of ships from far outside of US waters headed for US ports to offload.  Leaving the US to foot the bill so to speak.

[nocl]

53 minutes ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

But will they want fully vaccinated passengers? If they are not planning on requiring vaccinations 9as far as I know that's yet to be determined) they might want a more realistic test with at least some unvaccinated passengers.

The CDC has strongly recommended that all crew and passengers be vaccinated.  Being an Agency of the US government they cannot require vaccination, but they can approve the requirement if a cruise line submits it as part of their plan.

[Daniel A]

42 minutes ago, nocl said:

Maybe.  Of course the cruise lines have not reached that stage of the process in the US because they have not completed any port agreements.

 

No sign of any them actually trying to meet the requirements such as negotiating port agreements.

Isn't it just as possible that the negotiations are stalled by the various health and port authorities not being willing to commit themselves to a legally binding written agreement?  Why is it always the cruise lines who are at fault?  Isn't this somewhat akin to blaming the victim?

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

Isn't it just as possible that the negotiations are stalled by the various health and port authorities not being willing to commit themselves to a legally binding written agreement?  Why is it always the cruise lines who are at fault?  Isn't this somewhat akin to blaming the victim?

Because they are willing to exclaim publicly that it is the CDC's fault.  They are willing to post when they submit a letter.  They are willing to say that CDC is non-responsive when they do not get a reply to a letter requesting they be dropped from the CSO and allowed to cruise in two weeks.

 

So the cruise lines certainly do not seem to be bashful with the media.

 

Yet not a word about not being able to complete port agreements.  For that matter not a word about even negotiating with the ports.  Also if I recall correctly didn't the ports have a meeting a few weeks back where they called for cruising to return.  That does not point to the problem being with port negotiations.

 

It is not blaming the victim. They are a regulated industry, that does not want to follow what is requested for them to return to business.  They are perfectly willing to paint themselves as the victim.  But they are now more the victim than an oil industry that has to follow environmental regulations to keep operating.

 

Show me any sign that they are moving to implement any portion  of the CDC requirements.  Show me any place where they have submitted a detailed plan for consideration by the CDC (no outlines and the safe sail committee report are not plans).  Show me where they have submitted anything without a request that they be dropped from the CSO based.  Not modification, not an alternative proposal for modification under CDC oversight, there request have all been to be dropped from the CSO.

 

In the meantime they have been doing their lobbying effort to put pressure on the CDC, to paint themselves as the victim.  Why not they have been successful for years following that game plan when dealing with government requirements (such as increased fees in Caribbean ports) why do anything differently today.

 

But nothing shows any sign that they are seriously working to do anything under CDC oversight.

 

The only one that has submitted something that might be a plan is MSC.  It is reported that they have sent in their protocols used in Europe and the results from the cruises using those protocols.

[Earthworm Jim]

2 hours ago, nocl said:

The CDC has strongly recommended that all crew and passengers be vaccinated.  Being an Agency of the US government they cannot require vaccination, but they can approve the requirement if a cruise line submits it as part of their plan.

 

I meant for the purpose of the test cruises. Carnival Corp. has thus far been less gung-ho on requiring fully vaccinated passengers than Royal Caribbean Group and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, so it as at least plausible that they may not require vaccinations. That being the case, you'd think they'd want a mix of the vaccinated and unvaccinated for their test cruises.

 

But perhaps not. If the test cruise is aimed more at working out the logistics of whatever new protocols are implemented rather than to evaluate their effectiveness at preventing Covid infections, maybe they'd prefer vaccinated passengers for the lower risk they present.

[nocl]

47 minutes ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

I meant for the purpose of the test cruises. Carnival Corp. has thus far been less gung-ho on requiring fully vaccinated passengers than Royal Caribbean Group and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, so it as at least plausible that they may not require vaccinations. That being the case, you'd think they'd want a mix of the vaccinated and unvaccinated for their test cruises.

 

But perhaps not. If the test cruise is aimed more at working out the logistics of whatever new protocols are implemented rather than to evaluate their effectiveness at preventing Covid infections, maybe they'd prefer vaccinated passengers for the lower risk they present.

The CEO of RCL Fain has stated that the policy concerning vaccination for cruising leaving from the US has not been decided.  So NCL is the only one that seems to be committed to. 

 

I am pretty sure that the test cruises are to demonstrate proper implementation of the agreed upon plans and protocol, not a trial to see if anyone catches Covid.  

Edited April 16, 2021 by nocl

[Daniel A]

55 minutes ago, nocl said:

I am pretty sure that the test cruises are to demonstrate proper implementation of the agreed upon plans and protocol, not a trial to see if anyone catches Covid.  

Wouldn't that mean the bureaucrats at CDC are more interested in process rather than results?  What is the point of the whole exercise - to see if the cruise industry complies with mandates or is it to make sure cruises are as safe as reasonably possible?  Has CDC lost sight of the forest from the trees?

[Redwing55]

29 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Wouldn't that mean the bureaucrats at CDC are more interested in process rather than results?  What is the point of the whole exercise - to see if the cruise industry complies with mandates or is it to make sure cruises are as safe as reasonably possible?  Has CDC lost sight of the forest from the trees?

I may be overgeneralizing, but I find that typical with regulatory agencies.  My career involved working with environmental agencies to write rules and regulations.  Being from industry, there were times of distrust, but if one fosters a good rep, they will respect you.  That being said, many a time we would offer rational regulations focused on outcomes.  We felt results were more important than defining technologies and procedures.  Some at the agencies felt we were trying to scam them or write loopholes.  In fact it was better for all since it's the destination that is important..not the path.  Going down a path that is twice as long (inefficient) or goes the wrong way does little good.  At times the agencies wouldn't care where the path lead to as long as the regulated stayed on the path.  Pretty ridiculous in my eyes.  For example, they would want page after page of data to be recorded and or reported.  Now with chemical processing,  data may not always correlate to a specific emission (say temperature is the data.)  But the agency would still try to require a specific piece of data point be met and reported.  We explained that the temperature is just that.  Other items and conditions could render that required temperature inappropriate to be used.  New technologies have a habit of changing those things. I mean, wouldn't all want more efficient controls to be used.  So we would try to convince the agency that what we are asking is better for all.. not a means to a loophole.

 

Industry would present outcome type regs and at times the agencies would accept them.. win/win.

 

This needs to be practiced here.  This is especially true with new regulated situations when proven solutions are still being developed.  Such is clearly the case with this virus.  

 

And, yes, this may have changed through the years, but many a time, many of those in the government agencies had little experience with how things really operate.  Some may have phd's and be scientific geniuses, but when it came to practical applications, the cupboards were pretty empty.  And it was the career long ones that were the worst.  And if they had an agenda.. oh my.  Here's hoping that more sane heads prevail somehow.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

Wouldn't that mean the bureaucrats at CDC are more interested in process rather than results?  What is the point of the whole exercise - to see if the cruise industry complies with mandates or is it to make sure cruises are as safe as reasonably possible?  Has CDC lost sight of the forest from the trees?

To make sure that the cruise lines actually train the crew and implement the procedures that they commit to.

 

 They see both the forest and the trees.  Accepting a plan, but not actually testing the plan to make sure it operates as expected turns it into a check the box exercise which is not what the CDC is asking for.  They are asking for a properly designed plan.  One that is tested to make sure it operates as projected (for example can they execute the required number of tests during embarkation and disembarkation), do the crew members know the rules concerning distancing and actually enforce them, etc., how does the crew react if there is a problem, etc.

 

Testing the plan, checking to make sure it is actually implemented is how one knows that the plan works and is being followed.

[trbarton]

There is a new roadblock to test cruises or any cruising.  Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal and California's Doris Matsui wrote to the CDC's director urging her to reject calls to open the cruise industry for business, saying a "premature resumption of cruise ship operations ... could threaten public safety and increase the spread of the coronavirus."  So any cruising is now a political matter. 
 

Interesting to see what happens. 
 

Tom🤔

[caribill]

16 hours ago, wowzz said:

 

And in any case, would not the lessons learnt from the  UK cruises be more than sufficient to negate the  need for any test cruises?   

 

Possibly, but waiting for lessons learned from the UK cruises means no USA cruising until those lessons can be learned and examined. 

 

That would definitely mean on USA cruises during this summer.

[caribill]

4 hours ago, nocl said:

 They are asking for a properly designed plan.  One that is tested to make sure it operates as projected (for example can they execute the required number of tests during embarkation and disembarkation), do the crew members know the rules concerning distancing and actually enforce them, etc., how does the crew react if there is a problem, etc.

 

Testing the plan, checking to make sure it is actually implemented is how one knows that the plan works and is being followed.

 

And to do it properly, it must be done for every ship, not just one or two.

 

That is the only way to be sure every crew knows what they need to and practice what they know.

[nocl]

13 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

And to do it properly, it must be done for every ship, not just one or two.

 

That is the only way to be sure every crew knows what they need to and practice what they know.

bingo

[Roberto256]

18 hours ago, JF - retired RRT said:

I can almost (99%) guarantee that all crew will be vaccinated.

I hope you're right.

 

But, in countries like Ukraine, they don't expect to start vaccinating citizens until 2022.

 

Princess will either have to get all crew from 'rich' countries which have gotten to the front of the vaccine line,

or handle vaccinating crew themselves.

 

[Daniel A]

10 hours ago, nocl said:

Testing the plan, checking to make sure it is actually implemented is how one knows that the plan works and is being followed.

This is what I  mean not seeing the forest from the trees.  Don't you see that you are focused on the process, not the result?  Yes, I agree that testing the plan to make sure it works is how one knows if the plan works...  IMHO, seeing real world results demonstrating a lack of contagion onboard ships while following a plan even if it is someone else's plan, is how we know if something is working.

[Roberto256]

On 4/16/2021 at 9:02 AM, wowzz said:

But all the cruises starting in the UK this summer will do so without any test cruises having taken place. Why would test cruises therefore be needed when cruises from the US commence?

And in any case, would not the lessons learnt from the  UK cruises be more than sufficient to negate the  need for any test cruises?   

Why?  Because of the US's self-aggrandizing view of the world?

 

I would think anything that needs to be learned, could be learned with cruises in the UK.

 

If all goes well with no ports, Princess can then get some experience with passengers disembarking

in a port of call.

 

And, while these UK cruises are occuring, Princess can work towards getting more crew vaccinated,

for starting more ships.

 

I think it will be interesting how/where princess gets vaccinated crew for the UK cruises.

(assuming they do)

 

 

[nocl]

3 hours ago, Daniel A said:

This is what I  mean not seeing the forest from the trees.  Don't you see that you are focused on the process, not the result?  Yes, I agree that testing the plan to make sure it works is how one knows if the plan works...  IMHO, seeing real world results demonstrating a lack of contagion onboard ships while following a plan even if it is someone else's plan, is how we know if something is working.

Yes, but they have not submitted their plan or anyone else's plan. 

 

The only cruise line that seems to be even trying is MSC where word has it that they have submitted their EU protocols and the corresponding health information. Still trying to get confirmation on exactly what they have submitted.  In there cases they would have the ability to submit a substantial protfolia of information including protocols, crew training and health information.  They also sailed from a country with mid level Covid activity.

 

   None of the other lines that normally sail from the US do not really have a similar level.  Royal has sailed in Singapore but from a country with almost no COVID and on out and back cruises that stop at no other ports. The subsidiaries of RCL and CCL that have been sailing in Europe do not normally sail in the US and have substantial differences from the US lines.  Unlike MSC which would use the same ships, crew, etc in the US as they would us in Europe.  The best RCL and CCL could do would be transfer the experience and then modify it to fit the lines here.  Not nearly as good as with MSC. So while they can certainly submit that as part of their submission they would still need to demonstrate training and implementation.  But of course they would actually need to submit them to the CDC.

 

If you read the CDC order the requirements for protocols for the ships themselves are not rigid and tightly defined.  They are actually quite similar to the level of requirements in the EU documents. They talk about the type of actions needed, but do not say how they must be done and the combinations that must be used. The actually shipboard procedures used by MSC for example would slot very nicely into the CDC order requirements.

 

The places where there are clear differences are in the interface between the ship and shore.  There the CDC does have specific requirements.  The need for passenger testing before and after the cruise (in some cases the EU lines actually go beyond this and test during the cruise) Action to be taken in case of a positive result involving quarantine and transportation.  

 

I expect this come from the US and CDC experience at the start of the pandemic (experience that was pretty unique to the US (though I am sure Japan with Diamond Princess and Australia with Ruby Princess can relate.  Note they are not open to cruise ships and not even considering doing so at this time).  That experience is the US being the port of last resort where ships came when ports all over were turning away cruise ships.  When here there was debate about letting the Grand Princess dock on the west coast (even though it sailed from there) and the HAL ship in Florida.  Even after the passengers disembarked there were still numerous cases among the crew.  Ships still doing emergency evacuations to Florida hospitals.  That is why the port agreements are there. They are to make sure that such events do not happen again.  That there are agreements and plans in place to deal with any similar events.  

 

As a side note since one is somewhat limited in what is available in the media I have reached out to some reporters that have reported on the cruise industry during the pandemic and have asked the same questions were are debating here, to see if they are willing to provide any information.

 

Would be nice if they actually generated an article or two on what is the actual cruise line status concerning restarting and their activities to make that happen.

 

 

[nocl]

4 hours ago, Daniel A said:

This is what I  mean not seeing the forest from the trees.  Don't you see that you are focused on the process, not the result?  Yes, I agree that testing the plan to make sure it works is how one knows if the plan works...  IMHO, seeing real world results demonstrating a lack of contagion onboard ships while following a plan even if it is someone else's plan, is how we know if something is working.

Where the real difference between the two side is much simpler.  The cruise lines are saying trust us we do not need (or want) over sight.  The CDC is saying to sail we need to approve what you are doing and it must include the shoreside agreements.  That in a nut shell is the real difference

[wowzz]

59 minutes ago, Roberto256 said:

think it will be interesting how/where princess gets vaccinated crew for the UK cruises.

(assuming they do)

The crew won't be vaccinated for UK cruuses.

[OccasionalSanta]

On 4/15/2021 at 5:51 PM, CineGraphic said:

 

This, from a man who wears a fake beard. lol.

Interesting observation. However the fake beard is done at my discretion and does not hinder breathing. 

[ontheweb]

6 hours ago, nocl said:

Yes, but they have not submitted their plan or anyone else's plan. 

 

The only cruise line that seems to be even trying is MSC where word has it that they have submitted their EU protocols and the corresponding health information. Still trying to get confirmation on exactly what they have submitted.  In there cases they would have the ability to submit a substantial protfolia of information including protocols, crew training and health information.  They also sailed from a country with mid level Covid activity.

 

   None of the other lines that normally sail from the US do not really have a similar level.  Royal has sailed in Singapore but from a country with almost no COVID and on out and back cruises that stop at no other ports. The subsidiaries of RCL and CCL that have been sailing in Europe do not normally sail in the US and have substantial differences from the US lines.  Unlike MSC which would use the same ships, crew, etc in the US as they would us in Europe.  The best RCL and CCL could do would be transfer the experience and then modify it to fit the lines here.  Not nearly as good as with MSC. So while they can certainly submit that as part of their submission they would still need to demonstrate training and implementation.  But of course they would actually need to submit them to the CDC.

 

If you read the CDC order the requirements for protocols for the ships themselves are not rigid and tightly defined.  They are actually quite similar to the level of requirements in the EU documents. They talk about the type of actions needed, but do not say how they must be done and the combinations that must be used. The actually shipboard procedures used by MSC for example would slot very nicely into the CDC order requirements.

 

The places where there are clear differences are in the interface between the ship and shore.  There the CDC does have specific requirements.  The need for passenger testing before and after the cruise (in some cases the EU lines actually go beyond this and test during the cruise) Action to be taken in case of a positive result involving quarantine and transportation.  

 

I expect this come from the US and CDC experience at the start of the pandemic (experience that was pretty unique to the US (though I am sure Japan with Diamond Princess and Australia with Ruby Princess can relate.  Note they are not open to cruise ships and not even considering doing so at this time).  That experience is the US being the port of last resort where ships came when ports all over were turning away cruise ships.  When here there was debate about letting the Grand Princess dock on the west coast (even though it sailed from there) and the HAL ship in Florida.  Even after the passengers disembarked there were still numerous cases among the crew.  Ships still doing emergency evacuations to Florida hospitals.  That is why the port agreements are there. They are to make sure that such events do not happen again.  That there are agreements and plans in place to deal with any similar events.  

 

As a side note since one is somewhat limited in what is available in the media I have reached out to some reporters that have reported on the cruise industry during the pandemic and have asked the same questions were are debating here, to see if they are willing to provide any information.

 

Would be nice if they actually generated an article or two on what is the actual cruise line status concerning restarting and their activities to make that happen.

 

 

I hope you do get that information and you are able to share it with the rest of us who read these boards.

 

There seem to be two sets of thoughts. Some see the CDC as unyielding and obstinate, while others see the cruise lines as lobbying instead of seriously trying to address the requirements laid out by the CDC.