chengkp75

Okay, let's first get through a few historical misconceptions that sites like Wiki present regarding the PVSA and Jones Act. While I understand that the Jones Act is not the focus of the OP's question, let me answer the last poster on it. The Jones Act was sponsored by the Senator of that name from Washington state, and was because the Seattle shipowners saw the lucrative Alaska gold rush traffic moving to base out of Canada. So, it had nothing to do with US shipbuilding, or US crews, but everything to do with who owned the ships and docks. It has protected the US by requiring that all domestic US waterborne traffic be US flag, so that it falls under the jurisdiction of the USCG and their far stricter regulations on safety, training, documentation, etc, than foreign ships. And, the Jones Act fleet today includes all tug/barge traffic on US rivers and in US harbors. Now, to the PVSA. The first point to be made is that the Act is the "Passenger" Vessel Services Act, not the "Cruise" vessel act. This is important, since under maritime law, a "passenger vessel" is any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers for hire. So, the regulations of the PVSA not only cover cruise ships with thousands of passengers, but also every single ferry boat, commuter boat, water taxi, dinner cruise, casino boat, tour boats like NYC's Circle Line, whale watching boats, and even larger charter fishing boats, as well as several smaller US flag cruise vessels. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of US jobs, held by US citizens, paying US taxes that are supported by the PVSA US flag passenger vessel fleet, and hundreds of millions of dollars put into the US economy by the fleet. Both the Jones Act and the PVSA apply only to domestic transportation (within the US) and not international transportation (from one country to another). Now, as to why the PVSA was passed into law, lets say that the claim it was to protect US shipbuilding is false, since the types of vessels being regulated by the Act, at the time, were paddlewheel steam boats on US rivers and harbors, and not ships that would safely be built overseas and steamed across oceans to the US. As to the claim that it was passed to protect US maritime labor, this is also false, as organized maritime labor was in its infancy at the time, the first US maritime labor union having been formed on the Great Lakes only 11 years before the PVSA passed, and the unions had no political clout. So, why was the PVSA passed? Safety. In the mid 1800's, many steamboats were catching fire or having boiler explosions, killing thousands of passengers yearly. Congress passed the Steamboat Act of 1838, followed by the Steamboat Act of 1852. While both of these acts required increasing safety features (hydrostatic testing of boilers, licensing of pilots and engineers on steamboats), there was no enforcement mechanism. So, the Steamboat Act of 1871 created the Steamboat Inspection Service, the ancestor of today's USCG Marine Inspection Service, which inspects not only US flag, but all foreign flag vessels that call at US ports for safety and environmental compliance. The SIS enforced the provisions of the various Steamboat Acts, and this, of course, drove up the building and operating costs to the steamboat owners. In retaliation, the steamboat owners started to reflag their vessels, that never left US waters, to various foreign nations, so they would not be subject to the SIS and the Steamboat Acts. The PVSA was the answer to this, requiring that all domestic passenger vessels be US owned, US built, US crewed, and US flagged. Therefore, they were forced to be subject to US safety laws. To this day, the USCG administers safety, training, and documentation regulations that are far stricter for US flag vessels, than it can for foreign flag vessels. International maritime conventions, like SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, MLC, and others that nations sign on to agree to (and the US has signed on to most), require two things: one, that the country pass the wording of the international convention into law in that country, and two, that the country cannot enforce any stricter laws on vessels of other nations, but they can enforce stricter laws on vessels of their own flag. Take for example the training and documentation of a cabin steward on a cruise ship. On a foreign flag cruise ship, the USCG can only determine that the crew member has passed an STCW approved "Personal Safety and Social Responsibility" course (4 hours). All aspects of that crew member's duties in performing their assigned emergency duty are done onboard the ship. On foreign flag cruise ships, the only crew that have extensive emergency training at approved training centers, are the deck and engine crew and officers (who make up about 10% of the total crew. Conversely, on a US flag cruise ship, if a crew member has an assigned emergency station (so, the entire crew), they must have completed STCW Basic Training, at a USCG approved training center, which is a 40 hour course that includes hands on operation of lifeboats, and hands on firefighting. This additional training of course increases the cost for the cruise line to hire US personnel, but gives a much better trained crew. Now, why haven't the cruise lines lobbied for repeal of the PVSA? They did lobby for an exemption for transportation between Puerto Rico and the mainland US. That took over 10 years of lobbying to get passed, and only one cruise line ever started regular one way cruise itineraries between PR and the mainland, that lasted only about 2 years, and folded due to lack of passenger demand, yet it still remains on the books. The cruise lines know that in order to get a repeal of the PVSA, they will have to accept laws placing them further under various US laws (USCG inspection, US labor laws, US tax laws) that would adversely affect their bottom line more than doing away with the foreign port calls, or even the "distant" foreign port calls would gain them. CLIA has stated this publicly over the years.

It is a decision as to whether or not they want to dedicate man/hours to maintaining the equipment, and whether or not their insurance club wants the additional risk of the added laundry machines. It is a simple risk/reward calculation. It's just like the decision as to whether or not to have coffee makers in every cabin. Some lines do, some don't. Some lines have them on certain itineraries, and not others. Why? Because if the line provides the coffee makers, they have to inspect and test them on a regular basis, for safety, and this takes up a massive amount of man/hours. Does the reward of giving each passenger their own coffee maker outweigh the cost of the units and the time required to inspect/test them taken away from other maintenance tasks, perhaps on more important equipment? They do, but given the limited size of technical departments onboard, it becomes a question of where do we better utilize our resources.

I've seen a couple of small tankers go in, and the MSC Cargo Passion III was the container ship. She is very small (1000 TEU containers, opposed to the Dali's 10,000), so her draft was not a problem, and a lot of her deck containers were refrigerated, so high value. I think the hope was to bring in some car carriers, but I don't think that happened.

And, I said the line "generally" eats the increase, perhaps I should have said "always". I have never heard of an increase (except for Panama Canal cruises), but can't say it has never happened. And, the point I was trying to make, in response to the OP's question, was that the estimated per passenger taxes and fees could be higher on the second week of the B2B because it is not a school vacation week, while the first week was (higher demand on first week). Same total taxes and fees, but with less passengers, the per passenger taxes and fees are higher, for the same cruise.

Yes, the rebates of taxes and fees is never very large. For Rocketman, note the use of "estimates" and "quoted amount".

Okay, here's an example. Let's say there is a cruise that has total taxes and fees of $50,000. Historically, the cruise line knows that 2000 passengers have booked this cruise, so they set the taxes and fees at $25/passenger. Now, if only 1800 passengers actually take the cruise, the cruise line does not ask for more money from each passenger ($2.78), they just pay the difference to the ports/countries. If, however, 2200 passengers take the cruise, the cruise line will often rebate the $2.27/passenger to their onboard account. Happens all the time, and is particularly noticeable on Panama Canal cruises where the taxes and fees are especially high, so the actual passenger count makes a big difference. They are actually required to rebate the reduction in taxes and fees, since this is a "pass through" charge (i.e. it goes from the passenger to the third party that charges the taxes/fees).

If the taxes per passenger were to increase (too few passengers), the line generally eats the increase. If they go down (more passengers), there is an adjustment to the onboard account rebating the difference.

I never said they were in compliance. I said I couldn't prove that they weren't. I'll bet someone can. And, from what I can see, the only thing the software will do is allow them to possibly violate regulations closer to the borders of the regulated zones. It also takes any personal responsibility away from those people who are designated to ensure compliance by putting it on the software. "Well, OneOcean didn't tell me that we were entering a regulated space, so I thought it was okay".

No, their probation period ended in April, 2022, having just been found in violation of that probation in Jan, 2022. I have no proof that they are in violation, but without a seismic change in corporate culture (and Mickey Arison still heads the board), and the c-suite officers are all long term Carnival employees that were there when the violations and probation violations and compliance plan "gaslighting" was going on, so I don't foresee that the environmental compliance outlook has shifted 180 degrees, let alone adopted a completely foreign (to them) culture. Plus, they've rolled the "Chief Climate Officer" into the jobs of the President and CEO, meaning that it does not get the attention the job needs. Sorry, this "software" program is mere window dressing.

What the OP does not realize is that the "taxes" are not taxes placed on his/her purchase, but taxes paid by the ship to the port. Now, many of these taxes are fixed for the ship, so that fixed tax amount is divided up by the number of passengers onboard to get a "per passenger" amount of taxes and fees. Now, the identical cruise the next week, may have significantly more or less passengers historically booked than the first week, and this will affect the number of passengers that the fixed tax or fee is divided into. In many cases, when actual occupancy on the ship is vastly different (either up or down) from historical data, the "taxes and fees" get adjusted once the cruise starts.

And, what is this going to do to make Carnival Corp any more environmentally compliant than they are now (which is not saying much)? Not much. Sure, it tells them exactly when they cross into a regulated zone, but does this automatically shut off the incinerators, or change over fuels? Nope. Does this stop them from venting fluorocarbons (refrigerants), as they've done in the past, since this is a worldwide restriction? Nope. Does this stop them from bypassing oil/water separators in discharging waste water, again a worldwide restriction? Nope. All of these things Carnival has been convicted of doing in the past, and continued to do while on probation from that conviction. Many shipping companies manage to be environmentally compliant without relying on navigational software to remind them when to "watch out for regulators" by being compliant all the time, even when not required. That commitment would make me applaud Carnival far more than this showpiece. While I see that the "PR" in PR Newswire is for "press release", in my opinion, this entire piece of "environmentally compliant software" is nothing but the other "pr" "public relations".

If this is as widespread as reported, its unusual. I don't track what ships are where, or what itineraries they are doing, so I'll ask a couple of questions. Was the ship recently in bad weather, rolling and pitching badly? Is it where there has been a recent major change in the temperature where she is cruising? Either condition could cause widespread emptying of the deck drain U-traps, allowing sewer gas to back up into the ship. The crew should be going around to all the areas that have deck drains, but where the drains don't regularly see water (like drains in electrical lockers and fan rooms where the drain is for containing leaks only), and pouring water down to refill the trap, which will stop the smell almost immediately.

Wait, after saying that you will never sail NCL again, and complaining about the condition of the ship, a week after you got off the ship you are still tracking it?

While I personally have nothing but contempt for Schettino (and refuse to acknowledge his rank), there was nothing in his professional history that predicted that he would act in this fashion in an emergency. Until you are face to face with the beast, you never know whether you will run into the fire or away from it, regardless of how much training you have. Some of the best personnel during training and drills will pack up in the real thing, and some who shy away during training will become heroic in an emergency.

Not much, but I think it might be a barge for supplies.

I can't help it.

The sets of upper and lower lights are called "range lights", and if the pilot keeps one directly above the other, he is on course and in the middle of the channel, or "on the range". The position of the lower light in relation to the upper, if not precisely above each other, tells the pilot which way he has to steer the ship to get back on track.

Can you tell what the barge is? Is it a bunker barge (fuel hose up to ship) and only there for a few hours, or has it been there all along? If it's been there a while, it may be a diver support vessel, and that would lead to the bent propeller blade theory. If it is a bunker barge, then it may be a failure of the electrical supply to the azipods that converts the AC power to DC, then back to AC to allow variable speed of the azipod motors. Either one could have caused the "bang" reported as being heard at the time of the failure.

Further to the OP's question, there is, nor has there ever been, a law saying that "the Captain goes down with the ship". There is no requirement that the Captain give up his/her life on a sinking ship, nor even that they be among the last to abandon the ship. However, the Captain has personal responsibility for the lives of passengers and crew, and for the vessel, and so by abandoning the ship early, can run afoul if people die as a result of the Captain leaving the ship (Concordia), or if the ship fails to subsequently sink. If a ship is found afloat with no one onboard, salvage law allows the next person to set foot on the ship to possess it, and be entitled to sell it and it's contents (even passenger belongings), so abandoning a ship is a serious calculation.

Let's get some facts straight about the Concordia. Schettino was onboard, and did signal "abandon ship". What he failed to do was to sound the "fire and general emergency" alarm, which sends passengers to their muster stations, and which most cruise passengers mistakenly believe is the "abandon ship" signal. Secondly, the Hotel Manager is not "responsible for evacuating all crew and pax", he directs the crew responsible for mustering the passengers, under the Captain's direction. Since the signal to muster passengers was not made, the crew rightly sent the passengers away from the muster locations. What should have happened, was that as soon as Schettino was notified that there was flooding in the engine room (about 7 minutes after striking the rock), the passenger muster signal should have been made, and the muster completed, ensuring that all passengers were accounted for. Then, when he was informed that 4 watertight compartments were flooding (about 2 minutes after being told of the flooding, and which meant that the ship was going to sink no matter what was done), he should have announced that the passengers should get into the boats, and evacuate. Once, the passengers were evacuated, then you sound the "abandon ship" signal, as this releases the crew from their "fire and general emergency" stations (where many have worked to muster and evacuate the passengers), and send the crew to their abandon ship stations. Schettino called for "abandon ship" without having the passengers mustered, nor without the passengers having been evacuated first. Schettino's claim that he "fell" into the boat is ridiculous on its merits, and even to say this shows that he waited far too long to get the passengers to safety. And, finally, the Staff Captain on a cruise ship is a fully accredited Captain, equal to the Captain, and can order the abandon ship if the Captain is not capable of doing so. As for the OP's question. I have stated above, the sequence of events that take place in a ship evacuation. Passengers and the 3 crew assigned to man each lifeboat evacuate the ship. Then, the crew report to their abandon ship stations, and when the Captain signals time to abandon ship, the crew will board the liferafts and evacuate. The Captain and the bridge officers are typically assigned to one raft, and the Captain will hold that raft until the last. And, as for reading about the Concordia, I know that there are a lot of "factual" accounts out there that in no way relate to what happened that night, but I recommend reading the official investigation report by the Italian Ministry of Transport: https://www.transportes.gob.es/recursos_mfom/2012costaconcordia.pdf

While this is good advice in general, if you have a "power only" USB cable, using public USB ports is not a problem. And, if you think the cruise line is going to invest tens of thousands of dollars to run miles of cable to link all the USB ports in each cabin together so that data can be stolen from passengers, you must think they are really much harder up for revenue than they are.

Frankly, I would be very hesitant about leaving a lithium ion battery to charge unattended in your cabin. I would contact MSC's special needs department to see if they allow lithium ion batteries, or whether they want gel cell ones.

What time did you leave your cabin? What time was the "all ashore" call for last disembarkation? At any time between the two times, anyone could have walked in and taken the backpack. A diamond status cruiser and you have to ask this question? Stop trying to say that your gratuity is somehow tied to the steward providing for your security. I've worked cruise ships, and I don't recall seeing anywhere in a cabin steward's employment contract where they are in any way responsible for either your safety (though some may have that duty assigned for emergencies) or your personal property. That is the cruise line's responsibility, not the cabin stewards. You left the backpack behind, and it never made it to lost and found, and its been several months, so get over it. And, in fact, your blaming the cabin steward is completely bogus as well. As a diamond cruiser you should know that cabin doors are left open during turn around, so even assuming there was a theft, virtually any member of the crew, from the Captain to the hotel utility, and including the engineers who may have had to repair something in the cabin, or the deck hands who had to clean the balcony, had access to your cabin. So, if you want to blame someone, blame the Captain. You say you want Carnival to have a discussion with the cabin steward. What do you think was done in the "full investigation" that Carnival says was done? Or, do you wish to have the cabin steward brought to you so you and your attorney can depose him/her? What was in the backpack that you need to make this much fuss over? The crown jewels?

Some cruises have overnights at the embarkation port. But, a bit different in anticipating a day at sea, opposed to a day tied to a dock, and was Icy Strait the first scheduled port of call, or was one cancelled to cover the two days at the dock? Oops, finally twigged to what the problem is, US CBP clears all passengers into the US when they board in Vancouver, so if they were allowed to get off and on at will, that would invalidate the clearance.

No, if you're overnighting in a port, you normally are allowed to come and go as you wish. Not sure why CBP says no one can get off while at the dock, though that's not really what the message from RCI says, just that everyone has to have checked in and boarded on Friday, most likely for manifest submission time frame.