chengkp75

To the best of my knowledge, even those ships with a viewing room no longer open them.

I'm starting to suspect that this was a case similar to Texas, where only liquor with a state tax label on it (whether Michigan or Minnesota) can be sold while docked or within that state's waters, not a liquor licensing issue. Cruise ships get liquor that is "out of bond", meaning that no federal, state, or local liquor tax has been paid on it, and no import duty. Some states don't allow this out of bond liquor to be sold, and only liquor with a state tax seal on it can be sold, and the ship did not buy any of this taxed liquor.

First off, there is no package other than what a travel agent has cobbled together (unless you can show otherwise). As such, Cunard has no liability to accommodate passengers when they are not on Cunard ships. Could this cause problems for Cunard, if people cancel because they can't do the middle leg? Sure. Whose fault is that? The travel agent who sold the idea, not NCL's. That agent would likely find it difficult to make Cunard bookings in the future. Would the travel agent have problems? You betcha, but you know what? That travel agent should have disclosed the terms and agreements in the NCL ticket contract that state that NCL can cancel the cruise for any reason, and what, if any, compensation they will give for a cancelation. Otherwise, the travel agent is liable for selling a fraudulent product to their clients. NCL would have no liability to anyone, unless this was a contractual agreement between NCL and Cunard.

I have never heard of any foreign flag cruise ship needing a local liquor license in the US, whether docked or not. States can enforce the state liquor laws (not local ones) (especially if the vessel sails only within that state) on US flag vessels, but not foreign flag ships.

While it may be faster, unless the patient is ambulatory, and the seas outside the port are mirror calm, docking the ship is safer for the passenger, and probably presents less risk to the medical condition.

Anything magnetic would not likely be of value.

I think that the hull would be the only thing he catches

Has he ever traveled with this magnet before? Are you flying? If it is a rare earth magnet, he needs to check the restrictions on these magnets on airplanes.

And, since they have to make so much profit, is it wise for them to add to costs by making new port agreements, new agent contracts, finding new excursion and supply vendors, and at the same time alienating those vendors, suppliers, and governments where they currently cruise to? I don't think setting up a new itinerary including new ports is as simple as getting into your car and saying, "lets go to Florida instead of Michigan".

They can make a partial canal transit from the East because the Canal is a bigger draw than the Mexican Riviera. I know the lines dropped most of the Riviera years ago due to violence in the ports, and even if that has been cleared up, not sure there is a public perception that it has. Probably for one or two ships, but their fleet does not exclusively do longer cruises, nor do they want a reputation for higher prices than other lines, so I don't believe they rely entirely on the older demographic. Sure, they could do more Mexican ports, but can they fill the ships on a weekly basis doing this? I think their marketing department is smarter than both you and I put together on whether this is true or not, and since they don't do it, they have found it's not true. Just like all the folks looking for a repeal of the PVSA, the cruise lines have stated that they "don't see any benefit to the bottom line" if allowed to do these cruises, so they don't bother. Carnival started a one way cruise between Puerto Rico and the mainland US after PR got an exemption from PVSA (took 10 years of lobbying), but it only lasted less than two years due to low demand. There are many proposed itineraries that some might find interesting, but the cruise line is not about interesting, it is about making money, and if interesting doesn't make money, they go elsewhere.

That would not be real feasible, due to the nature of the canal. Either they would need to get special permission from the Canal Authority to turn the ship around between the Miraflores and Pedro Miguel locks (and I'm not sure that is feasible), and schedule the two lockings at Miraflores one right after the other, or they would need to transit all the way to the Gatun Lake anchorage, await traffic, and then return down the cut and the two locks. This second option would be traveling 90% of the canal both ways, and would likely be charged as two transits. From San Diego to Seattle would add about 3 days each way, without port stops, so you would be talking about a 14 day minimum cruise. The cruise lines know that there is a different demographic for cruises longer than 7 days, and the market share drops considerably. And, with that increase in size comes an increase in distance between ports, therefore more sailing time, longer cruises (with the diminished demographic) and more fuel costs, so costlier cruises. Are there "do-able" itineraries out there that aren't being done? Sure. Can the cruise lines sell enough tickets to make them profitable? Likely their marketing department has looked at what has shown interest, through focus groups, etc, and have decided they won't make money.

Lat to this party, but: Below the passenger decks, below the waterline, the ship is divided into watertight compartments. The ship is designed to be able to survive flooding of two adjacent watertight compartments and stay afloat. These watertight compartments (probably 10-15 on a ship this size), have doors at all the decks (most likely 3 decks) to allow traffic to pass through them while in port. The doors are closed the entire time the ship is at sea, unless the bridge gives an okay for a short term opening (the engineers pass through them all the time, opening and closing each time, or the provisions staff needs something from one of the walk in coolers). These doors are closed by hydraulics, and the hydraulics jam the door into a wedge shaped jam, which provides a watertight seal of the door. The automatic feature of these doors is that one switch on the bridge will close all the doors on the ship, and they cannot be overridden. You are conflating the "automatic fire doors" with the "automatic watertight doors". The fire doors in the passenger areas are "fire tight", but not "watertight". And, I don't know where you read this about ships not checking the operation of the doors, but they are tested every crew fire drill, which is weekly. So much for the vaunted Kevin Sheehan management.

Someone's anecdotal example of having brought one onboard is not a guarantee that it is allowed, especially as it is specifically called out as prohibited.

You can't just plug a cruise ship into an outlet for "shore power". A cruise ship needs 10,000 volt supply, even sitting at the dock, as the AC chillers require this. The infrastructure to provide about 6-8 megawatts of 10kv power is in the several million dollar range, for the port, let alone whether or not the ship has spent the $1 million or so to have a shore power installation built. This is why there are very, very few cruise ship shore power stations outside of California, where the law mandates it, and they wouldn't be at an unused Navy dock.

100 shares.

Having used Sysco for years on the ships, I know their order forms. You can specify something like "sliced pepperoni" and get generic, or if you specify a specific brand, they will buy that and charge you an upcharge for it. This is what is called "pasteurized egg product", and is what is almost universally used in the food service industry, not "powdered eggs" that most complain about in the ship's buffet line. These are used for scrambled eggs, omelets, hollandaise sauces, etc. The eggs are shelled, scrambled, an emulsifier is added to keep it from separating, and then pasteurized, so that it can be served in a raw condition (like hollandaise, cheesecake, eggnog, etc).

To the best of my knowledge, Sysco does not "make" anything, they are a wholesaler and distributor. They do sell prepared products, but those are bought from "partners" who produce them.

Why? The stock price is based on what someone is willing to pay another shareholder for that stock. If there are assets, but no confidence that a shareholder would get anything out of a liquidation, then there might be no buyers at any price. Share price drops to zero. Share price is not determined by company assets, but by investor confidence that they will get a return on their investment. And, you said that the company would be bankrupt if the share price went to zero, which it wouldn't necessarily. I agree that if the company went bankrupt, there would be no assets left, after liquidation, but you know what? Even if the share price is zero, and the company goes into liquidation, and there is any shareholder equity left over after paying the creditors, the shareholders would get some of the assets. Assets and share price are not conjoined.

Andy; When I started out, oh those many years ago, the USCG inspectors were all retired merchant ship Captains and Chiefs, with a sprinkling of very senior USCG Warrant Officers (almost all had over 20 years in the CG, the majority in marine inspection). You used to have one deck and one engine inspector, now there are about 6 or so, and each one is only "qualified" to inspect certain things. I've seen a marked downturn in competence of ABS surveyors as well. DNV has impressed me for the most part, during my time with NCL.

And that has dropped from $8.9 billion in 9 months, or about $200k/month. That's about 3 years of cash, provided fuel costs (and they don't control these with futures contracts) don't drive them to spend much faster. Revenues have been dropping the last few months, so the cash flow out will increase. Those 90 ships are valued at $38 billion, with a long term debt against them of $28 billion. That $7 billion in cash is balanced against current liabilities of $12.9 billion. So, of that $8.4 billion in shareholder equity that ledges1 posted, all of that is from the equity in the ships. Don't kid yourself that Carnival is in a good place.

Hate to pick nits, but Allagash is 7.5 miles from the cruise terminal, while the Bear is only 2.5. And, the Bear carries several Allagash brews, including the flagship White. I know one of the brewers at Allagash, and he would be laughing at the "pilgrimage" label. I'm very spoiled, as my sons in Boston bring the craft brews from there, and most of the hundreds of brews made in New England are for sale here in Portland. I am very encouraged by the trend in New England breweries to experiment outside the IPA genre, as it is getting a little old, and I prefer a "malty" beer over a "hoppy" one.

Hate to disagree with you after approving of your previous posts on this thread, but here goes. All of SOLAS has been incorporated into USC, as is required of all signatory nations. However, SOLAS also states that the only time a signatory nation can impose stricter regulations on ships is for ships of its own flag. As "Port State Control" agency for the US, the USCG is only allowed to ensure that SOLAS requirements are met, not any more restrictive USCG requirements. So, no, the USCG cannot enforce the "enhancements" in the USC. As for the cruise line that doesn't wish to call on US ports, I would suspect that is more to do with the USPH VSP sanitation program, and its strict requirements, than any problem with USCG inspections. And, while I agree that enforcement is different in different countries (one of the reasons for using flags of convenience), if a flag state does not wish to have a maritime inspection service of its own, it is allowed under SOLAS to delegate that authority to a classification society, who have many surveyors, all around the globe, not just in the flag nation. Now, again, I will agree that enforcement is variable depending on the class society, they generally do the "easy stuff" like SOLAS compliance well. And, just to be fair, while I believe US flag vessels to be among the safest in the world, I have seen a drastic reduction in competency in USCG inspectors over the last 3 decades, as you find young inspectors with no knowledge of merchant ship operations or equipment. And, the USCG is desperately trying to get out of the marine inspection business, as their funding and focus moves more towards border security and drug interdiction, and are more and more leaning on the same class societies as other nations to inspect the ships. The USCG has also looked at outsourcing licensing US mariners, to of all things, the maritime unions! As an example of how a USCG inspector had no clue what he was looking at, on a twin screw, twin rudder RO/RO ship, the engine inspector asked me "why are the two steering gears so far apart?" I had to explain that there were in fact 4 steering motors, and there were two on each rudder, and those rudders had to be that far apart. In the same inspection, the deck inspectors tested the two steering motors on the starboard rudder, and none on the port rudder, and when I questioned this, they said "they'd seen all they need". This was nearly 30 years ago, and it hasn't gotten better.

Yes, if a majority vote cannot force bankruptcy, the only thing that could force on is if the company can no longer meet it's debts, and the creditors file for involuntary bankruptcy. If there are 12 or more unsecured creditors, and their claims total more than $15,775 (don't ask me why that number), then they can file a petition for bankruptcy.

I'll add to the ancient history. If you look closely at the various "listing" ships, you'll see that as the ship lists more and more, more of the ship below the waterline is now above the waterline. This would not be the case in reality, just in a depiction by someone using "cut and paste". If you look at where the waterline is on the upright ship, at the centerline, and then rotate the ship around this point, you will see that before the ship reaches 45*, the main deck will submerge at the "down" side of the ship, and then water will enter the ship through the non-watertight doors there, and increase flooding, which will move the ship deeper into the water, allowing more to rush in through those doors, and so on. The depictions of the listed ships allows for the weight of the ship to decrease while listing, which is not what happens, the ship weighs the same no matter what angle it lists at, so the waterline at the centerline (the sharp bow in the pictures) will always remain constant. The 15* list depiction is accurate, the others, not so much, but they do illustrate the actual angles. At 15*, you are walking in the corner between the deck and bulkhead, greater than that, and you have difficulty standing at all, if this is rolling and not a constant list.

Anyone who bought cruise line shares for any other reason than buying the minimum for shareholder benefits has always been taking a large risk. Shipping companies, of any type, are one disaster away from folding. The ROI on cruise industry stocks is decidedly middle of the road, there are many better investments out there than shipping stocks.