boatseller

1 hour ago, Ashland said:

I thought it (specialty restaurant venue) was for suites only and a certain area of the MDR was set up for D and above.

Maybe this sailing, things were a little mixed togeather.  There were some Pinnacles...noticing...they were sent to the Diamond Lounge instead of wherever they were supposed to be.

I saw guests in Giovanni's at a non-dinner seating and I'm pretty sure the host said it was for the Diamond whatever meal it was at that time.

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, I read your response, did you read mine?  Because you are involving ships of another nation, you enter into international law, so much of the being "very good" at things by politicians goes out the window, and that is why there are specialty lawyers for maritime law.  How do you "carve out" a cruise ship based on having cabins assigned or not calling at US ports more than a given number of times, when the international definition of a passenger vessel is so succinct?  Since you can't parse out different types of passenger vessels, when dealing with foreign ships, any change to what is allowed for a cruise ship is allowed to a dinner cruise or ferry.  As I've said, SOLAS does not allow the US to impose stricter regulations on foreign ships than SOLAS allows, so under your plan, a cruise ship could do domestic voyages and not meet USCG regulations, but if Alaska Marine Highway were to reflag under Panama, it either could not do its intended routes, or it would not be afforded the same allowances as the Panamanian flag cruise ship?

 

Oh, and you may want to check your atlas.  Miami to Los Angeles, via the Panama Canal is 4500 miles (not counting a stop in Cartagena), while San Diego to Honolulu is 2200 miles.

 

And, of course there is the response of bringing Amtrak into the picture.  Since the PVSA does not affect rail traffic, it is facetious to discuss, but it would be similar to allowing the Canadian National Railway to operate passenger trains in the US, without US oversight.  Not sure how Amtrak would compete under those circumstances, do you?   Please stick to apples to apples comparisons.

Ok, I'm sorry, you're just not getting it.  I can't make it any simpler or clearer.  They don't need to change the definition of a any vessel type and I never said they did.  So yes, I read your response, but you're responding with irrelevancy.

Foreign flagged ships are prevented from transporting passengers between coastwise ports solely by PVSA, not SOLAS or any other law or treaty.  The relevant sections of the PVSA are about cabotage, not safety or tarrifs or duties or anything else.  It's just protectionism as intended.

Congress can change, amend, strike any of this on a whim or with enough...facilitation.  They did exactly that with ATRA.

Do you know how?  They simple deemed that the ship made a 'foreign' call by...wait for it...ready...this is big...sending an email to Canada!  That's right, you can now visit Canada by email*.  Congress did this at their descretion and I don't see Norway raising a stink about it.

So they just deem Vancouver or Victoria as non-nearby ports, voila!, problem solved.  

Again, in as simple terms as I can put it, the cabotage rules in the PVSA are a 155 year old anachronism that's silly and should be revisited and modernized.  Cruising from Honolulu to San Diego is no threat to US jobs or industry.  The best test, let someone seriously propose it and see if the airlines object.

*Technically, the way I read it, only the foreign crew visits Canada by email but whatever....

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Not sure what you mean by the "passenger restriction", yet not allow one way cruises?  

 

No, I am arguing for the law because it still does what it was intended to do.

 

Actually, a lot of it isn't, since it involves international commerce.  As noted, if Congress were to "redefine" what a passenger vessel is, then they would repudiate SOLAS.  Also, SOLAS specifically says that a nation cannot enforce stricter regulations on another nation's vessels, only on vessels of their own flag.

 

Big difference in that the Concordia was registered under the Italian International Registry, which is an "open" registry.  This works similarly to flags of convenience that nearly all cruise ships sail under, where the taxation, certification, and crewing are covered by more lenient legislation than Italian national registry vessels operate under.  The crew on Italian national register ships must be exclusively Italian, while under international registry, only 6 officers need be Italian.  The purpose of the international registry is to allow ships to operate as if they were under flags of convenience, but to bring the registration fees to the flag country (Italy).  So, the safety regulations that Italian flag ships operate under were not on the Concordia, since it was international registry.  Those safety regulations that Italy can set on their own flag ships is what the USCG does for US ships, and is the only "protectionism" (protecting the safety of US citizens, our waterways, and ports) that the PVSA provides.

 

So, because I put forth legal reasoning as to why the act should not be amended or repealed, I'm "criticizing", but you are "discussing"?  Interesting.  Discussion requires two points of view, and I didn't dismiss your points out of hand, I gave reasons why and obstacles to amending the act.  

 

Why would ACL river cruises not be affected?  They are passenger vessels.  And ACL has other vessels, not river cruises, 6 of which are geared up for the Alaska season right now.  UnCruise vessels still carry more than 12 passengers, so they are passenger vessels.  Why could they not reflag out of US and receive the fiscal benefits that the larger ships would get under your plan?  Exemptions to the PVSA are granted either to specific ships for a specific time, or for a specific itinerary (like to/from Puerto Rico), but these indefinite term route exemptions only last until a coastwise qualified (US flag) vessel starts to operate on the route.  So, since both UnCruise and ACL are US flag "passenger vessels", and since they operate between Washington state and Alaska, there could be no "non-specific" exemption allowed.

OMG, did you even read my response?

I never mentioned anything about redefining a passenger vessel.  Again, you're just arguing for the law because of the law.

Yes, you're critizing.  Maybe explain why allowing perhaps 200 guests a season to sail HNL-SAN (or similar itineraries) threatens thousands of American jobs.  Politicians are very good at targeted exemptions.

Let me state it very simply, 155 years later, it's silly that guests can't take a luxury cruise from Honolulu to San Diego but can take one from Miami to Los Angeles, the only difference being Cartagena is a 'distant' port while Vancouver is not.  This despite the travel distance being pretty close.  Those Panama Canal cruises haven't caused mass layoffs at American Cruise Lines, have they?

Ok, here's another option, just declare Vancouver or Victoria distant ports for a season or two and see what happens.  Oh no!  Will Amtrak have to suspend the Coast Starlight?

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

 Costa Concordia.  Carnival Splendor.  Carnival Triumph.  Freedom of the Seas.

 

The ATRA was passed because it gave specific ships (not a "class" of ships like many propose, a passenger capacity limit), on a specific route, for a specific time period, exemptions, is much more acceptable than a blanket exemption for all time.

 

And your proposal runs into several problems, like most arguments against the PVSA.  First, according to SOLAS, which the US is signatory to, and which requires that the US pass the exact wording of SOLAS into US law, a "passenger vessel" is any vessel that carries "more than 12 people for hire", so whether it is a cruise ship or a dinner cruise from Miami, it is a "passenger vessel", and therefore any modification to the PVSA would include all "passenger vessels", and since this action involves more than the US (the flag state of the ships create a state of international commerce), then international law will take precedence over US law.  

 

Now, in your blanket exemption, are the cruises "deemed" to be foreign voyages, as the ATRA does (which has not been challenged in court, and is on pretty dicey ground), or are they "domestic" voyages?  If they are domestic voyages, then the foreign workers need H2B work visas (or you get State and Homeland arguing against the exemption), and these visas require that the worker get paid US wages, be covered by US labor laws, and pay US taxes.  Then there is the conundrum of whether the USCG can apply their stricter regulations on foreign ships if those foreign ships are doing domestic voyages, or whether we allow the ships to operate under SOLAS, and then the US flag fleet (all types of ships) would sue to remove USCG regulations.  Next is the duty free status of the ships.  Currently, foreign ships that bring in spare parts and supplies from overseas do not pay any customs duty on these items, as they are considered to be "in bond" in transit from overseas to the foreign ship.  This includes all liquor purchased for use onboard the ship.  Domestic voyages do not receive this duty free status.  So, unless you are prepared to pay 2-3 times the current cruise price (and I'm being conservative, as the US Maritime Administration estimates that a cargo ship with a crew of 20-25 costs 3 times as much to operate (day to day expenses) than a foreign ship, and that crew cost is 5 times a foreign crew, so multiply that 25 crew by the number of crew on a cruise ship, and see how cruise fares will increase.

 

Finally, under your "blanket exemption", American Cruise Lines, UnCruise, and Alaska Adventure cruises could reflag to foreign flag, losing those hundreds of US citizen jobs.

So, thanks for the thoughtful response, but you seem to be arguing for the law because of the law.

That ATRA was passed means PVSA can be redefined.  Also, I'm only suggesting that the passenger restriction be lifted, not that Norwegian Encore can sail one-way cruises between New York and Miami. 

Foreign (just not Distent) Ports, sure keep it.  The ships are already sailing those itineraries.  It's just the through Passengers that needs an exemption to allow something that just wasn't a thing 155 years ago and had no economic downside today.  

Instead of just critizing, maybe add another requirement.  Good heavens.  These used to be called discussion boards for a reason.  ACL river cruises wouldn't be affected.  UniCruise larges ship has a capacity of a whopping 86, I'm sure the WA delegation can get a non-specific (but totally specific) provision added.

Also, everything you mentioned is at the discretion of Congress.

" Costa Concordia.  Carnival Splendor.  Carnival Triumph.  Freedom of the Seas."  All irrelevant except....

Consta Condodia was an entirely Italian affair, shipyard, registration, company, captain, departure port.  It'd be like Pride of America running aground on Molokini.  Protectionism didn't save them.

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

You're not wrong just because it is the law, you're wrong because the law still today provides for the safety of US citizens on passenger vessels operating domestically in the US.  Yes, some things in life have changed in 155 years, but some things remain the same, substituting burning/exploding steamboats 155 years ago for sinking ferries around the world today.  And, the hundreds of thousands of US citizens supported by the PVSA fleet, and the benefit to the US economy and tax roles from the PVSA fleet argue against changing the act.

No, I meant some here say we're wrong to call something stupid just because it's the law.  Same situation with the CCCP...er CDCP.

The relative ease with which the Alaska exemption was granted suggests a lot of things in the PVSA wouldn't survive reauthorization.  14+ day luxury cruises were not part of the debate in 1886.

And let's be realistic, a cruise ship built in Europe and managed by a company based in Florida (I can hit 4 with a frisbee from my houses) or Europe or Hong Kong aren't randomly capsizing or exploding or running aground.

Reasonable blanket exemption: voyages longer than 4 nights where each guest is assigned a cabin on ships without vehicle or cargo capacity that do not call on the same US port more than 12 times in a 12 month period.

Hmm....

CDC out of the blue relaxes restrictions....

The next day, Florida wins an injunction....

It's just a PR move so they can claim they were going to do this anyway.  They're in retreat mode.  I recall somone saying it was Florida that held all the cards...

On 6/17/2021 at 8:38 PM, Iamcruzin said:

And ignore the fact they are still supposed to be wearing a mask in public.  If they don't want to protect themselves why should it be my job to protect them?

Winner!  Winner!

It's not your job or anyone elses.  They made their choice, I respect that.  But it also means I'm under no obligation to change my behavior it the slightest bit to accommodate them.

38 minutes ago, soremekun said:

That's just stupid.  

My comment is not directed at you, @Ourusualbeach.

100%, completely, totally stupid.

Now just waiting for those to argue we're wrong just becasue it's the law.  The original PVSA is 155 years old...I think a few things in life have changed since then.

5 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

You are only provided hard copy results. No email. The medical company asks for a few details (address, phone, email) to create a record for the test. 

This was one of the loopiest processes ever.  Yes, hard copy only to the stateroom.

If you try to log in to the portal, it will say No Results, even after receiving the email.  

And no, you don't have to go to Singapore to pick them up.  

On 6/16/2021 at 10:47 AM, canwegonow said:

@BirdTravels thank you so much for all of your time and those amazing photos! We will be on the August 14 sailing, and we're a party of 3. I'm wondering how that will be accommodated in the theaters as all the seats seem to be in groups of 2. Are folks seating themselves or being seated by staff in the theaters? 

 

Hopefully by the time we sail the rules will have been relaxed, but if not I don't want to make others uncomfortable by sitting "too close" with our group.

My party had an odd number heading into the ice show so I...wait for it...sat next to a stranger.  Neither of us cared, but if all the seats weren't blocked, there could have been 10 seats between us....

15 minutes ago, The sea calls my name said:

I don't do Beverage packages. I am very curious if the price of drinks has escalated.  Can you give me an idea what beer, Wine and cocktails (like Mojitos) are running?  Thanks.

Sorry I posted before I saw the cocktail price list.  Still curious about wine by the glass.  $13 sounds close to what it was last time I sailed in December 2019

 

$7.49 for most beers and $13 is a good average for menu wines. 

FEI, I posted the new drink menu to Instagram.  #adventureoftheseas 

8 minutes ago, BirdTravels said:

Unfortunately, the changes in testing protocols are the result of COVID cases on MCS and Celebrity this week. The rapid test for this week’s cruise will be a mess. Supposedly each passenger got a unique code to register and test. We’re supposed to get results via email which automatically updates our seapass to “cleared to sail”. 

If that works as well as the Cruise Planner, we'll just swim to Coco Cay.

9 minutes ago, harkinmr said:

Actually it wasn’t until someone from the Governor’s office foolishly put out a statement that there was in fact an impasse, an obvious falsehood. It may seem like drama to you, but federal judges (actually any judge) do not look kindly on violations of court rules. That he chose to take anyone to task on it publicly makes that very clear. 

Like I said, drama much.  Nothing happening is an impasse.  No one complains when the media speculates about hung juries.  1 out if 5 Federal Bureaucrats can probably recognize that.

4 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

 I am also disheartened that people cannot understand that if their choice has possible affects on people around them, then it is not just a personal choice.

This pipe dream is why Venezuelans are starving.  The sooner you realize that, the sooner you won't be disheartened.

7 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Believe me, it is not drama, it is the law, and Judges take it very seriously.  Neither side, nor you know that there is an impasse.  The Mediator has information from both sides that no one else knows.  Sometimes you have to let things settle down and approach it differently at a different time, it is part of the skill of a Mediator.  Also, the laws and rules surrounding the Mediation process are usually very strictly enforced to maintain the success of the process.  The mediation is not over until the Mediator says it is.

Srsl?  When nothing happens, they're not square dancing. Seems nothing was actually leaked.  Nothing is an impass.

12 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

This not the same, and it doesn't matter who is president.  It is sad that we are able to determine someone's medical choices based on their political views.  In reality one has nothing to do with the other.

No.  I am being blocked from making choices.   I would board AotS tomorrow even if Royal suddenly announced no protocols, no tests and we're filling every open stateroom with unvax'd guests. 

I'm more worried about noro than the ccv.

6 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Saying ANYTHING about what happens in a mediation is against their mediation agreement (which the parties must agree to), the law, and the attorney's ethical obligations.  The only one allowed to say anything is the Mediator, and they can only say that the case settled or declare an impasse.  The Mediator is the only one that can make that decision, so yes, this would be a big deal in any case.

Drama much?  An impass is readily visible even to the casual observer.

5 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

Yes, that is the safest choice, they are taking the safest choice that involves actually sailing.  This is not nonsense, it's common sense.  Take reasonable precautions for now, and change them as the spread decreases. Not to mention that if a few cases show up on a couple of more ships, they are likely to be shut down again.  One of the main purposes of the CDC that no one has questioned is to stop contagious diseases from coming in over the boarder, like being brought back on a cruise ship.  And before you say it, a cruise ship is very different from an airplane.  You have multiple long term contacts with many more people than any airplane.

You're right, it's not nonsense.  It's destructive. 

The reaction has caused far more societal damage than the virus.  It time to end it all.

"stop contagious diseases from coming in over the boarder"

Yeah, that ship sailed a year and a half ago.  Preventing 2 asymptomatic vax'd persons from reentering the country is not just dumb, it's endangerment.   The best care in the world is in the US and they're being blocked from that.   Who ever made that decision should be in prison.

4 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

That is the "if I don't see it it must not exist" thinking.  Most of us realize that this is not true when we are toddlers.  The virus will exist, spread and mutate whether you want it to are not.  Unfortunately the tests that are widely available are not quotative, so they do not determine if the infection is such that it is contagious.  Based on that, a cruise line has decided to make the safer decision.  It has nothing to do with politics, big pharma  or any other perceived boogey man.  I would rather they err on the side of caution than stick their head in the sand.

The side of caution is not sailing at all.  Nothing will stop the virus.  It time to end all this nonsense  

9 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Yes, so resolute that he got chastised by the Judge yesterday for breaking confidentiality of the mediation.

 

Don't be surprised if cruises continue from FL with non vaccinated people on board, if cruise lines make this passengers test Daily. How would that be for a deterrent!

Oh please...the impass isn't some super super secret. 

Either way, this is just Royal.  Some cruise line is going to say enough!  If you're vax'd, we're not going to bother you with any thing. 

And by the way folks, this anti-data nonsense is exactly why Governor DeSantis is so resolute in the battle against the Center for Dumb Cruise Protocols. 

4 minutes ago, jrapps said:

Turning 50 people away at the port is not a story. 

Unless big pharma gets concerned people start to think the vax isn't effective which is what this decision suggests. 

9 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

RC just changed the rules again for Bahamas cruises. Anyone July 19 and later needs a PCR test, at your own expense.

 

It makes zero sense to be making the rules more strict as time goes on

+1. At this rate, it will never end and cruising will never return because they're setting themselves up for inevitable failure. 

Denying people boarding because the vax is working is even dumber than the CDC...oh, I wonder what ex-bureaucrat they hired...

The only solution is to end all testing.