Petronillus

You and your dad are in our thoughts and prayers. May he rest in peace, and may the loved ones he leaves behind find comfort and solace.

My understanding of the ADA is sketchy at best, but the little I know includes that the law requires the judge/decision-making authority to balance competing interests and burdens. What are the rights of the person who suffers from a deathly phobia of dogs and seeks out cruising as an environment where dogs will not be encountered? What are the rights of the person who suffers an incapacitating allergy to pet dander? I struggle to believe that the equities always fall in favor of the service dog's owner, no matter what.

In support/defense of the Step One Dance Company, I think their shows should be looked at as choreographed performances, ballets in other words. I suppose that if we had subscription tickets to a season of the New York Philharmonic and all they performed all season were the Beethoven symphonies, I'd complain about the lack of variety. But on the 28 days of our last cruise Step One performed each of their four shows twice. We saw all four once and a couple of them twice, and enjoyed them all. We had seen them previously in the ultra-high-tech setting of the pinnacle class World Stages, and were intrigued to see how effectively the shows worked in the smaller, proscenium space of the Westerdam. I don't see myself getting tired of them or their performances anytime soon. It also helped that the six dancers were all of a top-notch caliber. Previously, one couple has stood out as technically and artistically superior to the other two and the consistency of their skill levels and artistry this time did make a difference.

On our last cruise the six dancers of Step One Dance Company, in a chat session, said that HAL is exceptional in giving the performers single cabins -- which they liked a lot. Maybe that's one of the reasons other cruise lines have a fuller/wider range of entertainment.

On our most recent cruise, 28 days on the Westerdam, I wasn't every night for every set but I certainly did become one of the regulars. There is no "Music Walk" per se on Westerdam, and so Billboard Onboard and Rolling Stone are not in direct competition as on the pinnacle class ships. Our pianist at Billboard Onboard (BO???) was the marvelous Krista Meadows. She played three sets per night. The first two were programmed (a cycle of music of the 50s/60s/70s/80s/90s, Beatles, Country & Western, British Invasion, etc.) but it seemed that Krista herself selected the pieces and the order in which she played them. The third set was all requests. Right after the second set Krista distributed request slips and golf pencils, which she collected and formed a playlist out of on the spot. (Amazingly, Krista did not take the time between sets for any me-time; I found her diligence edifying.) Pieces she was unfamiliar with or she felt were not yet ready for prime time she would take back and prepare in anticipation of the next day's requests. I blithely kept requesting MacArthur Park not appreciating how difficult a piece it is. She didn't disappoint (although it took several days of work before she was satisfied with her arrangement). I can only hope that Krista sets the HAL standard for the new one-piano format at Billboard Onboard.

To each his/her own.

In further defense of "It depends . . ." The Spector case is an interesting and relevant precedent, but it does not settle the issue of whether foreign-flag vessels are subject to the Americans With Disabilities Act with respect to service animals. First, the Spector decision was a 6-3 opinion with a confusing welter of splintered plurality opinions and a characteristically penetrating dissent from Justice Scalia that the Chief Justice and Justice O'Connor joined and Justice Thomas joined in part. Second, the case presented the questions of whether, how, and to what degree do the barrier-removal and structural accessibility requirements of the ADA apply to foreign-flag vessels. Third, the bottom line (which is kind of thin and wavering, given the splintered rationales of 5/6 justices and the solid dissent of 3/4 justices) is (1) that the ADA applies to foreign-flag vessels while operating in U.S. territorial waters and (2) that the ADA does not address the "internal order" of a foreign-flag vessel (i.e., the vessel's operational policies, procedures, and practices) except to the extent the internal order impinges directly upon the health and welfare of Americans while in US territorial waters. Assuming (for the sake of argument) that under Spector the ADA requirements concerning service animals are also covered, it is conceivable that a cruise line could require that once the ship has entered into international waters (and the casino is opened!), all service animals be confined to quarters or kenneled (if kennels there be) at the passenger's expense. It would also be permissible that once the ship is in international waters those claiming to need a service animal could be required to prove their bona fides with evidence satisfactory to the captain or her/his designated officer. The cruise lines should not claim, "Our hands are tied by Spector." Given Justice Scalia's dissent, who knows if today's US Supreme Court would be inclined to extend Spector to service animals?

I've heard that dogs have owners and cats have staffs.

Is it lawful for the United States to claim jurisdiction over a foreign-flagged ship? How is it that HAL, whose ships are flagged in the Netherlands, must comply with the ADA (AMERICANS with Disabilities Act)? Is this a point of admiralty law? Is it that Holland America Line and its parent, Carnival Cruise Lines, are headquartered in the US and that CCL is listed on the NYSE?

Thanks for providing a balancing viewpoint. It reaffirms the old adage, that if sounds too good to be true, it likely isn't. I'm the guy who likens HAL to a good solid Buick. What you've described makes me think more of a Cadillac than a Beemer or a Merc.

As W. S. Gilbert was known to say, "If everybody's somebody then nobody's anybody."

Assuming that's a photo of you under your moniker, I surmise that your 50th birthday was 15-20 years in the future when you did the Avalon cruise. I'd appreciate it if you cleared a point of confusion for me (another one!): if you're using the same Buick standard I do, did Avalon exceed it? If so, was it closer to the BMW or the Buick? Do you think your experience with Avalon matched OP's with Scenic, as more fully amplified in her/his later posts? OP had me hooked at complimentary Pringles.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate that my personal frame of reference and standard of comparison (namely, David Dunbar Buick's eponymous automobile) might not work outside the US market. The standard you've described sounds higher than a Cadillac (top of the General Motors lines) and more like a Mercedes Maybach, which I can't afford and, blessedly, don't aspire to. I haven't started checking prices, but I'm bracing for "Too rich for my blood . . ." But for me it's the same for Neptune suites.

This is such a lovely thread! A lot is going on below the surface, and the exchanges are remarkably tender. DW & I have yet to do a river cruise, but it languishes somewhere on our to-do list. I had never before heard of Scenic, but based on this thread I will look at it closely. I have a standard of comparison that I'm not sure will translate effectively to Australia. I consider HAL to be a good solid Buick. It's not a Cadillac, much less a Lexus or BMW. But we are perfectly -- and I mean perfectly -- satisfied with a Buick. By that standard where does Scenic rank? Thanks to all!

I would add that you will be charged the usual daily pp crew appreciation gratuities applicable to suites.