chengkp75

Okay, I vaguely remember this from someone at RCI, but as you say, it was EBTDI, and the debt on the ship is a major consideration. And, I really doubt that the 30% number was really viable, unless it took into account the reduced manning that was needed for reduced capacity, and that was the reality at the time.

This is the largest pile of horse manure I've ever seen on CC, or virtually anywhere, for that matter. Let's look at the math. 3% capacity on Oasis is 168 pax. Let's say they are all booked in the most expensive cabins, and I saw a recent price for a week cruise of $1666 per suite. That is $280k in revenue. Now, with a crew complement of 2181, let's pay all crew the minimum wage of $666/month (real bargain to get a Captain for that!), that is $1.4 million/month, or $360k/week, so the payroll is more than the revenue from 168 pax. And that is only allowing for a 40 hour work week for all crew, as anything over 40 requires overtime, by law. The fuel bill alone, assuming she steams along at a leisurely 12 knots for half of the time of the 7 day cruise, and is in port for the other half, is over $200k.

Even though crew wages are protected by the ILO (International Labor Organization), not the IMO (International Maritime Organization), flag state control inspections cover this area as well. The JMC (Joint Maritime Commission) of the ILO sets a minimum wage for all seafarers, that is $666 USD per month, for a 40 hour work week, and 125% of that for hours over 40 per week. That works out to $3.89/hour for straight time, and $4.86/hour overtime.

While many service dog owners do use a vest, typically to keep people from approaching the dog, it is not required legally. Further, anyone can buy a service dog vest on the internet.

As do I, but it apparently isn't a big enough problem to get changed. However, I do agree with the feeling that certification would entail huge costs for the owner. Many service dogs, who perform true services for their disabled owners, learned their "job" from instinct, and the owner found out that the dog was attuned to their condition, and started using the dog as a service dog. The dog probably already had basic training in decorum around the house, and while I agree that a service dog needs to meet the DOJ code of conduct, it does not have to involve months of training by outside persons. The dogs for the blind and hearing impaired typically do require the vast amount of training, but for many other disabilities or illnesses, as I've said, the dog learns it on its own.

But, that is just it, the cruise line cannot legally make a challenge to a claim of a service dog. The ADA has been around for over 30 years, and Congress has not seen the need to change it to require certification, or allow businesses to challenge a claim. Let me be very clear. I am not in favor of pets onboard, nor am I tolerant of people making false claims about service dogs. However, having had to operate (and be a compliance officer for ADA issues on cruise ships), I am merely stating the law, and what the cruise lines are allowed and not allowed to do legally.

The Paris MOU merely is an agreement that the signatory nations will apply inspection of all vessels to the same standard. But, those inspections are merely to ensure compliance with the international conventions I've mentioned. It even mentions in the beginning that the "principal responsibility for the application of standards laid down in international instruments" rests upon the flag state. These inspections are for the condition of the vessel at the time it is in the port state's waters, not an incident in international waters. They even call out the only two times where the Paris MOU can investigate "operational matters" of the vessel, and these are MARPOL (pollution) violations or violations of a section of COLREGS that deals with traffic separation schemes (deals with collisions at sea). Much of the Paris MOU echoes the IMO's "Procedures for Port State Control", so is pretty universal. A question about the procedures for bridge watches and notification of the Master of unusual circumstances, and speed in poor visibility, etc, would be covered by the company's SMS (Safety Management System), which is required by the IMO's ISM Code (International Safety Management). The SMS is required to be audited by a third party, typically the ship's classification society, on an annual basis. A port state control inspection, however, would only be limited to ensuring that such a document is onboard, that the relevant certifications (issued by the class society for the flag state) are current, and there are no deficiencies. The SMS will require that the company do an internal investigation into the incident, and determine if new or revised policies and procedures need to be incorporated into the SMS to prevent future occurrences. The flag state notes these investigations, and will determine whether or not they feel a flag state investigation is warranted.

But you don't use a service dog, and have to certify what that dog does for you, which would indicate your disability.

The advocacy groups for the disabled were part of the drafting of the ADA, which didn't require certification, and the reasons given were, first the cost (a trained service dog can cost $10-20k), and the certification would disclose the person's disability. Right or wrong, that is their feelings on the matter.

The UK as a "port state" (the country where a ship is docked) has the jurisdiction to inspect any foreign flag vessel for compliance with various IMO conventions (SOLAS, STCW, MARPOL, etc), since the UK is signatory to those conventions. When a country is signatory to one of these conventions, then the country has to pass legislation that mirrors the wording of the conventions. So, the UK can enforce SOLAS, etc, but not any stricter regulations that the UK may have for UK flag vessels (this is the case with the USCG as well, who have stricter regulations for US flag vessels). However, since the incident did not happen in any country's territorial waters, then the investigation falls to the "flag state". So, if this ship were to go to the UK now, MAIB could inspect for SOLAS violations, but could not investigate this incident.

That eliminates all service animals in the US, since there is no legal requirement to certify a service animal. Whether that is right or not, that is the law here. And, even in Canada, not all provinces require certification of service animals (only B.C., Alberta, and Nova Scotia do).

Well, to me, a "scupper" is a hole in the outside deck that leads to a pipe that releases water over the side. Something that may have "height" that you talk about is usually referred to as a "freeing port", or an opening in the solid bulwark around the outside deck. But, either way, no, you don't want to keep uncontained water onboard. Bulwarks are made solid to prevent the water from getting onto the deck in the first place, so making the freeing ports larger defeats the purpose of the bulwark. Yes, free surface effect from uncontained water reduces the stiffness of a vessel, but it can also cause a fixed heel if it collects for too long. The only reason the Concordia rolled over was that the port side of the ship grounded, and she continued to take on water, which forced the starboard side lower in the water, causing more and more water inside the hull to move to the starboard side, causing the heel to increase exponentially. If she hadn't grounded a second time, the water in the hull would have stayed balanced between port and starboard, and the ship would have sunk upright.

Yes, an ESA is defined as an animal that "simply by their presence" provides comfort to the owner. PTSD service dogs provide an actual service, typically alerting the owner to a situation where the owner's stress level is rising, and will tend to nudge or guide the owner away from the stressor. They are genuine service animals, and people need to recognize PTSD as a disability.

Not sure how it's different in Canada, but how do you discriminate against one type of disability and not another?

So much of that farce is nonsensical.

While you are correct that the railing would likely be in the water, unless there was actual downflooding, from water coming in the promenade deck doors, the ship could recover from an even greater roll. Cruise ships are inherently "stiff" ships, meaning they have a great amount of initial stability. This means it takes a lot of force to start the ship rolling, but once it does start to roll, the stability creates an even greater force to right the ship (and the greater the roll, the greater the counterforce), which for a cruise ship means it would "snap roll" and literally throw people and objects across the ship. This stiffness is what stabilizers are for, to slow down the roll period. An intact ship (one not taking on water), can survive a roll nearly onto her "beam ends" 90* (if everything on the low side is watertight). Think of a cruise ship as one of those "punching clowns" that fall flat on the floor when punched, but spring right back up.

There is no requirement in the US for any paperwork or certification for a service dog to be covered by the ADA. Your cousin is a dog? You type really well. Actually, the ADA allows for service dogs to be in one of two places, either on the floor, or in the owner's arms. Diabetic alert dogs, and others, sometimes need to be close to the owner's face to properly alert. These two are correct. And, again, "true" service dogs do not need to be large, or on a leash. Beagles and Chihuahuas are especially good at diabetic alert service, for instance. I wholeheartedly agree, and I have stated for years, every time a service dog thread comes up on CC, that CLIA should adopt a "service animal code of conduct", much like the one the DOJ has made (that allows business owners to disallow even "true" service animals if they violate the code), but they don't seem to have the stomach for the bad PR they will generate by denying someone who says their dog is a service dog. SCOTUS found, in Spector v NCL, that the internal policies and procedures of foreign flag cruise ships (such as a code of conduct) does not fall within the jurisdiction of the ADA.

This is not true, the dog can be of any size or breed, depending on the task the dog is providing.

It looks like maybe 20 to 30 degrees. You don't know how level the camera was being held. I've experienced 30 degree rolls, and you would not be standing upright, let alone walking along a smooth floor like in the video at that degree of roll. 45* would have put the railings on the promenade deck at the water level, and likely started some flooding through the non-watertight doors there, and blown out some portlights on the decks below the promenade.

Well, actually, the "maritime division" of the DOT is the Maritime Administration, but even then, they are not charged with investigating marine incidents, that is the USCG, with possible assistance from the NTSB. While the Captain is ultimately responsible for anything that happens on a ship, there are things that are beyond anyone's control, like turbulence on an airplane. If they had been following company procedures, and industry best practices, then no, very unlikely that anyone lost their job over this.

Radar will only detect wind by detecting objects in that wind, so a sudden squall may not have picked up enough water droplets to read as other than clutter on the radar. And, your boat radar is likely on a different band than a commercial radar, so giving different performance.

As someone with more than a little experience in these areas, I'll try to answer your questions. As the ship is Bahamian flagged, it falls to the Bahamian Maritime Authority as to whether the incident is investigated or not. I know that for a US flag vessel, the USCG requires that any incident that involves injuries more serious than first aid, has to be reported, but not necessarily investigated by them. I suspect this line is what has others accusing you of questioning the seamanship of others. If the squall was known to be there, and this is not always the case, as squalls, by their very nature tend to pop up quickly and die out quickly. So, the ship likely never had warning that it was there, or the severity of it. There are no weather observers or recording stations in the ocean. Do you know that he wasn't notified, as soon as the officer of the watch noticed it visually, or on the radar? Again, I will state what I have said about stabilizers many times on CC. Stabilizers will not stop a ship from rolling, nor are they designed to do so. The size of a wing that could stop tens of thousands of tons of ship from rolling would be nearly the size of the ship. A fin stabilizer, or any stabilizer for that matter, are designed to slow down the roll to a more comfortable speed (the time from one end of the roll to the other). Stabilizers also will not decrease the severity of the roll. That is determined by the weather and the ship size and shape, and again would require an enormous "platform" hanging out the side of the ship to make any difference. A sudden squall will raise significant seas in a short time, and the ship will roll to these, if the course is such that the seas are on the side. And, in your case, the ship's course was nearly head on into the seas, so you experienced, pitching and slamming, while the Explorer likely had the seas on the beam, so she rolled, but didn't pitch. Again, I will say that the US will not have any jurisdiction to investigate this, since the ship is not US flagged. They can request to be an "interested party", if US citizens were seriously injured, but that does only gives them the right to follow along with the Bahamian investigation. Many folks here on CC tend to blame Captains immediately, but the maritime industry has evolved from a "blame" culture to a "root cause" culture, where if the Captain, officers, and crew are found to have followed all the Safety Management System policies and procedures that the company has set, then no blame is apportioned to anyone, and the focus is on promulgating new policies and procedures to prevent the incident happening again. Now, as to your assertions based on your Royal Navy experience: Their shape makes them very stiff, which means that they tend to resist rolling to a greater degree, but once they start to roll, the very stiffness causes them to "snap roll", which is why they need stabilizers to slow the rolling down. Squalls certainly do "just appear". And do know that Explorer does not weigh 100k plus tons? From my experience, the navies of the world do not care about Gross Tonnage, but Displacement Tonnage. Gross Tonnage is volume, Displacement is weight, and the carrier you were on was likely 22,000 displacement tons, and Explorer is around 60-70,000 displacement tons. But even then, it takes time to get the momentum off a ship, there are no brakes. I salute your service in the Royal Navy, and agree that you do have some experience of ship's routines, but I have always maintained that naval vessels and merchant vessels are different universes, and most do not have experience in both universes. I do. More in the merchant service world, and less in the "Gray Funnel" line, but I've been there. You mention the Standing Orders book, and I agree that it would be there, and all officers of the watch have to know its contents, but how do you know that it wasn't followed? These are the kinds of questions and suggestions that make others think you are casting aspersions. I have a 46 year career as a ship's officer, and since I was not on the bridge of this ship on this day, I don't even speculate about what "should have been done". I let the facts come out and then make judgements. I think your expectations for a cruise ship's stability are somewhat exaggerated.

It's really not about the fuel, but the horsepower. It took 240,000 horsepower to drive a 53,000 GT ship to that record speed. The QM2 is nearly 3 times the size (149,000 GT), nearly twice as heavy (79,000 tons to SSUS's 45,000 tons displacement), but only has about half the propulsion power, at 112,000 hp. There is no way any ship built today could match that speed, certainly not without taking away a whole lot of passenger space. A few container ships have matched the SSUS, but they are not working today, as their power, and hence fuel consumption, make them uneconomical.

Not quite correct. CBP fines the cruise line for the violation. The ticket contract you sign when booking the cruise gives NCL the right to pass any fine on to you. At that point, NCL is done with the issue. They will only request a waiver if the entire ship is in violation of the PVSA, for some reason like weather or mechanical problems, that was a result of a decision made by the company. As cold as this sounds, the OP chose to disembark, and therefore are liable for the fine. It is now incumbent on the OP to contact CBP, not NCL to request a waiver, though I doubt it will be granted. When I worked for NCL, a woman disembarked early with her deceased husband, and was charged the fine. It was up to her to contact CBP to request a waiver of the fine.

But, if Breakaway doesn't have the life expectancy to get major changes, then no cruise ship does, since they don't change new ships. And, yet, many companies renovate many ships, many of which are older than Breakaway.