chengkp75

While they cannot make you stay, they can place an "innkeeper's lien" on you, which means you cannot take your possessions (baggage) away with you. They will hold the luggage until the bill is paid.

The ship cannot deny you disembarkation, for any reason, in any port. They can make it difficult, and they can point to costs involved, but they cannot hold you on the ship, even for an unpaid account.

But, I don't think Gramps would be satisfied with the swim diaper splash pool! 😁

That limits you to the Disney ships, and the RCI Oasis, Quantum, and Freedom class ships, and a few Voyager class ships. Splash areas for toddlers are different from splash areas that allow non-potty trained kids. Many cruise lines do not allow non-potty trained kids in the Kids Club.

Which has just wasted 150+ gallons of water, not to mention the fuel needed to make that water in the first place, and the fuel needed to treat the wastewater after.

This would be legal, but up to the cruise line to determine whether or not they wish to incur the additional expense of filing new manifests with both Canadian and US Customs and Immigration, and whether they want the potential complaints when US CBP no longer treats the cruise as a "closed loop" cruise, and subjects the disembarking passengers to additional screening. No, "getting sick" does not warrant a waiver of the fine, automatically. I've seen cases where a deceased passenger's spouse was disembarked early and triggered the fine. In those cases, and with a medical disembarkation, the cruise line passes the fine to the passenger, and then it is up to the passenger to appeal to CBP for a waiver. The cruise lines frequently give the passenger all the documentation needed for the appeal, but don't want to actually do the appeal. I would beg to differ on whether a fine was ever levied for a crewmember, as they are not considered passengers, by legal definition. CBP is very specific about the definition of a "passenger". From the CBP PVSA "Informed Compliance" Manual: "CBP has interpreted this regulation to mean that a “passenger” within the meaning of the PVSA is any person transported on a vessel who is not directly and substantially connected with the operation of the vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business." "Examples of who is not a "passenger" per the definition of "directly or substantially connected with the operation of the vessel" are listed as: Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b), a passenger is any person carried on a vessel who is not connected with the operation of such vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business. Operation or Navigation of the Vessel • Auditors and inspectors conducting surveys pursuant to the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, International Safety Management (ISM) Code, International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), and International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). 22 • Cargo hold cleaning crews performing cargo hold cleaning operations.23 • Safety and maintenance inspectors24 • Individuals conducting safety trainings for the crew.25 • Technicians conducting maintenance or repairs on the vessel. 26 Ownership or Business of the Vessel • The officers of a company owning a vessel, and, if the corporate owner, the members of its board of directors, if acting in their official capacities while onboard the vessel.2 The spouse and children of officers of a vessel are not passengers. The children must be a part of the officer’s household.28 CBP has found the following positions to be officers of the vessel: • Captain/Master/Chief Officer;29 • Chief/First Mate;30 • Second Officer;31 • Third Officer;32 • Radio Officer;33 • Chief Engineer;34 and • First Assistant Engineer" The PVSA fine has gone up to $798. Notice the bolding above for outside technicians. And, crew are signed onto ship's articles, and therefore not being transported "for hire".

Sorry, but the crew's food is under the same restrictions as the passenger's food, since an ill crew member could pass the disease to a passenger.

It can imply that, but it isn't correct. Bringing pot into a cruise terminal is a federal offense. Once on the ship, the flag state laws apply, except in certain limited circumstances. The main thing against this article, is that once in international waters, the US has almost no jurisdiction (they have claimed "extra-territorial jurisdiction" over certain major crimes committed against US citizens), and in a foreign port, they have absolutely no jurisdiction. Even when in a US port, international law allows that "port state" (US) law only applies to actions that are "external" to the ship (taxes for commerce done in the port, pollution, etc). Actions and policies "internal" to the ship are under the flag state, unless the "safety or well being" of the port state are adversely affected. People think the DEA can enforce laws on the ships, but anytime the DEA is brought onto a foreign flag ship, it is either at US Customs request (returning from a cruise is importing pot), or at the Captain's request for assistance. Even flag state laws are somewhat limited on ships. Countries like Holland, where pot is "de-criminalized" (but still not legal), do not allow pot on ships that fly their flag, because the IMO has mandated a no drug policy for all ships. Lots of people think the USCG has jurisdiction over foreign flag cruise ships. In fact, the USCG can only enforce the IMO convention regulations (SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, etc), not the stricter regulations that the USCG has placed on US flag ships.

Not even then. US federal law has very little jurisdiction on a foreign flag cruise ship. The laws of the "flag state" (Bahamas for RCI) apply.

As noted in the article, the incidents involve several flag states. As "interested parties" the USCG and NTSB can witness the investigation, and discuss it with the lead investigators, but cannot do any investigation on their own, unless requested to by the flag state. They can issue recommendation reports as subsidiary to the flag state final report. This happens with virtually all cruise ship incidents that involve US citizens, unless the incident happens in US waters, where the flag state will still be lead investigator, but the US can conduct an investigation as "port state". Based on anyone's reports, the USCG and NTSB can only make recommendations for remedial measures, or requests to the IMO for changes in conventions (compliance not mandatory). The flag state can make requirements (mandatory) for ships flying their flag, and can also make requests to the IMO.

Heald is just a mouthpiece for those he calls "the beards". They are so out of touch with the crew in general, that this is what they believe.

Many government agencies, and notaries, no longer use an embossed seal, as it does not show on faxes. They use inked stamps instead, and are just as acceptable.

I can just about guarantee that I know what happened. A USPH inspector found unsealed food in a crew cabin, and marked the ship down for it. The crew are not supposed to have any open food in their cabins. Even things like chips should be in individual serving packages.

Just know that even on a closed loop cruise, some countries that are port calls require the passports for US green card holders, depending on where their citizenship is.

No, since the WHO still considers covid to be a health emergency, the IMO will keep the conditional approval for the e-muster, but still consider it subject to review of effectiveness of the training aspect.

And, doesn't the fact that they haven't done this, make you wonder why? It makes me feel that the reason to keep the e-muster is for passenger convenience, and not safety, since the IMO could care less about passenger convenience.

The dredging is only around the areas of Maine Wharf to Custom House Warf, to Portland Pier. The navigation channel is routinely dredged by the Corps of Engineers, and is done to a depth that accommodates tankers, which have deeper drafts than cruise ships.

I should mention that ISPS is an IMO convention, so to get changes to ISPS protocols, the "deep pocketed" cruise lines would need to lobby the IMO, not the US government. As for "uneven enforcement" of the ISPS plans, first off, that is not how the USCG works, and secondly, again, the owner of the facility has the right to determine the usage of the facility. I can't just start ferrying passengers to shore if the city does not allow it on the pier.

Close, but not quite correct, it is up to the USCG, which is in the Department of Homeland Security. That person is dating themselves, as USCG hasn't been under Commerce since 1946. This is also incorrect. Each port has to have an ISPS (International Ship and Port Security) Plan, approved by the USCG, which delineates the security arrangements for the port, by the owner of the port facility, which in this case is the city of Monterey. Even if the city leases the wharf to another entity, that entity has to have an ISPS plan, and the city would have override authority on this, as they can specify the allowed usage by the lessee. So, if the city does not have an ISPS plan approved by the USCG, there can be no passenger boarding or landing at the facility, so the cruise line has no say in the matter.

I'm hoping you mean the opening in the ship's side at the outer edge of the balcony, and not that the door (opening) to the balcony is round. Haven't seen any Hobbits cruising.

My position is that something that is legal, may not be "right" in my view, or even in the view of a majority of people, but I question who has the "right" to say it should not be done. Who makes the decision? If it is merely a matter of me not agreeing with the policy and "voting my wallet" and taking my business elsewhere, that's fine. However, I would not announce to the world that this "isn't right", as this is a personal decision, as it is for the company whose business I have chosen not to use. And, until I knew what the business decision was for not allowing single bookings, I would not state that the policy is "not right".

So, you feel that the examples I gave of "age discrimination" are "not right", and therefore you don't give these businesses your money? Cause, every single cruise line has a minimum age to book a cabin, so you must not be cruising much. And, you feel that nine month pregnant women should be allowed to cruise? If not "automatically accepted" as all right, who makes that decision?

Again, you missed one little word, "else", meaning that the lifejacket demonstration was safety related, but most of the rest is not, it is general shipboard information. For someone who claims to have designed "realistic" training, you just don't get what that term means. Yes, the "events at the actual muster station" were a shambles. Guess what, what happens at the "actual muster station" is what happens in a real emergency. As to how the "shambles" of an in person drill teaches anything about the e-muster, here's where I see you are being obviously obtuse, because the training that the crew have had over the last couple years using the e-muster, and what training any repeat cruisers have had with the e-muster, did not prepare them for a simulated actual, real, emergency (which is what the in person drill is). I responded to another poster in another thread that relying on the e-muster to properly train both passengers and crew for a real emergency is like having the crew assigned to lower the lifeboat, to show up one at a time, get attendance checked off (so they know where to go), and then watch a video on how to lower and launch the lifeboat. That would be real effective training. But, I think this will be the final entry with you, as you are obviously only wanting convenience at the sake of safety, since you have no idea what a shipboard emergency is like, have no idea what the shipboard safety organization is, and no proof of effectiveness of the total training and experience of drills. I really hope you never have to rely on the crew to save you in a real emergency that they have not properly, and exhaustively trained for.

So, it's not "right" for Virgin to not allow anyone under 18? Is it not "right" to disallow a pregnant woman from cruising after a number of weeks? Is it not "right" to not allow people under 21 to book a cabin? Is it not "right" to not allow those over 18 to drink when outside US waters? Is it not "right" to have people under a certain age pay more for a rental car? Is it not "right" to decline service to someone who won't wear a mask in a business that wishes to require them? Where does it end, with having to do what's "right".

Neither do RCI or Carnival address the reasons they feel the drill is better training, except that it gives a better forum for the safety training that does not have to be part of the muster drill. They make no mention of what happens when an actual emergency happens. As one poster noted of an actual in person drill on NCL last week, it was a shambles. This shows that with the e-muster format, neither the passengers nor the crew have any idea what would have to be done in a real emergency. This is as close to proving my point as we will get, short of an actual emergency. And, I'll put my 46 years seagoing time, designing, leading, participating, and critiquing shipboard training, and actual emergencies, against about 98% of CC posters.