Wehwalt

"or in the judgment of the Captain is advisable for any reason." It covers them. I suspect they wanted to make it more explicit, and whether or not this thread had anything to do with it is speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised. Why wouldn't they?

This language from paragraph 4 has been there from before the change: Carrier may without liability for refund, payment, compensation or credit, except as provided herein, disembark or refuse to embark You, confine You in a stateroom, quarantine You, restrain You, change Your accommodations or disembark You at any time if, in the sole opinion of Carrier, the Captain or any doctor, You or any minor or other person in Your care during the Cruise, Cruisetour, and/or Land Trip(s), are unfit for any reason for the Cruise, Cruisetour, and/or Land Trip(s), or Your presence might be detrimental to Your health, comfort or safety or that of any other person, or in the judgment of the Captain is advisable for any reason. "For any reason" covers a lot. For whatever reason, they made it explicit.

That is the tightrope they have to walk. After all, Holland has immense power over its passengers. Covid proved that. They can change your cabin, yes, but doing so may offend you as a customer, especially since you may have paid extra to select that cabin.

No, actually the cruise line is offering passage according to the conditions of its contract. That contract allows Holland to change your room. One of the terms and conditions of the contract is that the contract is the complete understanding between you and HAL. So you being told you'd have a certain cabin is not part of the contract.

According to Monday's program (for Civitavecchia), the Crow's Nest Bar is open until 10 pm.

DW went up to the Crow's Nest on the Oosterdam an hour or so ago (a little after three) to get us coffee to go. She relates that most of it is curtained off and you can't even walk fully around the bar and there are rows of chairs behind the curtains. I also heard that Parke West has a considerable group on board. Possibly the Crow's Nest closure is part of the reason why the Captain opened the bow in Villefrance yesterday. I did not hear if he has done the same today in Livorno.

We have been informed from President's Club members that there are a number of people with 1400 days who have not been invited because some portion of those nights were as travel agent representatives, lecturers, or similar. However, those people are still well taken care of.

Despite the presence of the ten-euro round trip shuttle, the two of us took Uber from the cruise terminal to downtown for 8.97 going (thank you Carolina) and 7.94 returning (thank you Fahim). Also we received some taxes and fees back on our ship account. Do you know anything about that?

We are on the ship and have a port balcony so it's been shaded almost all the time. Really, on a TA I would not consider a balcony on the sunny side.

There's also threads on the Celebrity board, and also RCCI, where it was met with the same suspicions you and I mentioned. Also Jamaica as a port of call.

Also Celebrity, RCCI (where it was met with a great deal of suspicion) and Jamaica port of call.

The OP posted almost identically to the Holland America and Carnival boards. The motivation to do such is uncertain, but may have to do with the 21st century connotations of the word "plantation", which are negative. I could be wrong. But I would take care.

A question to those who may know--what happens to service dogs in the event of an evacuation?

No one is following anyone around. That was something invented by one poster and used to label anyone who disagreed with them, even changing their post after they have been replied to. You and another poster have somewhat gleefully leapt upon what no one ever proposed to do. Check the thread. It's something invented by people who have taken a most definite position in this thread. And that position is not mine. I welcome well-informed discussion based on the law as it applies to cruise ships, as we were given by a greatly respected cruiser much earlier in this thread. Instead, we are given posts by some here which don't really seem intended to inform, but to disinform, not to forward the debate but to shut it down, posts in anger, not in sense. Too bad.

On Oosterdam at present they will not make the drinks in the travel mugs but prepare them in the paper cups and give them to us to pour into the mugs, which seems something of a waste. Unless you tell them very specifically, they will put tops on the paper cups too.

Regarding the power, while having no outlet and only one USB port by the bed is a bit inconvenient, especially given our recent memories of the Zuiderdam, the number of outlets on the vanity is more than sufficient because we utilize one of the European outlet for my laptop with an adapter, and the other 220V outlet is occupied by the power converter we brought for use in Europe. We had an excellent view of the helicopters departure from our balcony.

Given the associations of the word "plantation", and the unforgiving nature of social media, I don't use that word unless I have to. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/27/company-renames-plantation-rum-after-criticism-over-slavery-link

And it tends to be exhibited everywhere they go. No need to follow, the show is coming to you.

Probably that it would be more sanitary for the crew to pick up the "evidence" and dispose of it ...

I also appreciate it very much, but I fear you generate more heat than light here. An illustration, I think, of how high emotions run on the issue. Thanks again.

Thanks, I think. I had hoped for something informed and informative when you claimed legal issues might be involved. I'm somewhat disappointed. As for your implications, those sounds like assumptions. We all know about assumptions.

Can you refer me to any cases, statutes or regulations on the matter, with specific reference to cruise ships?

Pending presentation of satisfactory evidence to a ship's officer. That may not be the law, perhaps, but it's hardly poochaphobic.

Quite so. I regret that there was a need felt to characterize people who have made their perspectives very clear, deeming them anti-dog or as having a dog phobia.

Well, that brings up the emotional support boa constrictor, Squeeze, again: all he wants to do is hug. But seriously, if the regulations under the ADA that deal with this issue are reconsidered, I'm sure that the views of the 33 states that the internet tells me have banned fraudulently presenting pets as service animals will be taken into account.