chengkp75

Once again, I have to question whether reading comprehension or merely misquoting to prove your position is at work here. I never said the muster drill is not to train the passengers. Please show me where I said that. What I said is that the muster drill is to train both crew and passengers. The "training" you reference, like the lifejacket donning, and I don't really remember much of anything else that was safety related in the spiel, is not important to the muster drill. As stated, long before the e-muster, ships were allowed to not have lifejacket demonstrations at the drill, as long as they had it on the TV (so, even that training was allowed, by the IMO, to be separate from the muster drill).

Can cruise lines refuse to sell cabins to children? To anyone under 18 (Virgin)? To pregnant women after a certain gestation date? If you are not a member of a "protected class", then the cruise line, just like any business, can set reasonable conditions on who they serve. Also, remember that the cruise ship does not adhere to US law in most cases. As was noted by SCOTUS in the Spector v NCL ADA case, unless Congress specifically mentions foreign flag cruise ships in legislation, then the "internal policies and procedures" of US law do not apply.

The shore power question is really very little to do with cruise ships, which make up a very small part of the ship calls at the major California ports. And, the port taxes and fees are the same for all ships, cargo and cruise, except for the "cargo" fees and taxes (either passenger count or container count). And, once you decide to have a passenger terminal there, who pays for it (hint, it'll be the passenger)? Does the port authority build all the infrastructure (including shore power), and charge the lines port fees accordingly to cover the investment, or do the cruise lines build it, and pay for it by raising cruise fares? Also, I looked at the LA and Hueneme port tariffs, and while it is for sure that some things are more expensive in LA, for dockage, for a 200 meter long ship (like a medium cruise ship), LA wants $3131 per 24 hours, while Hueneme wants $3364. And, here's the real kicker. The "wharfage" fee (fee to transport cargo across the dock) for cruise ship passengers is: LA $16.60 per passenger, Hueneme $1029 per passenger.

Considering that it takes more than the few security officers onboard to search an area, and then determine that no one reenters the spaces, no it doesn't. Why do you think they call passenger muster frequently when dealing with a man overboard situation? To get the hundreds of crew to search the ship properly. Also, during a real emergency, the security officers would not be available to search the ship, they would be providing security to keep people from entering hazardous zones, and the housekeeping crew would be searching. Even doing stowaway searches on cargo ships, with their limited number of spaces, but also a limited number of crew, there is no way to ensure that a determined person does not loop around and reenter a searched area. The only way is to post "mark one eyeballs" on the ways into/out of spaces that have been searched. So, essentially what you are saying is, "we want to train you on a duty you would not be doing in an emergency, and take you away from the assigned duties that you are supposed to be training for during the muster drill, which is what you would be doing in an emergency". That sounds like truly effective training.

No, because security have assigned emergency duties during the muster drill, and are participating in the drill.

No, they don't. To get stragglers off at the end of the cruise, they will send security to specific cabins, and then public spaces, with the guest photo to find these people. Do you think they call cabin stewards and tell them to drop whatever cabin they are turning, and go look in another cabin for stragglers? They do not search and lock down the entire ship during disembarkation. Have you ever seen a shipwide search during disembarkation, or talked to anyone who has participated in this?

Port taxes and fees will continue to increase as long as maintenance and repair costs continue to rise, unless the public wants to support a port authority with state or local general tax revenue. Cruise lines will have no control over this. Higher prices set by the cruise lines are required to service their accumulated debt. Cruise prices over the two decades prior to the pandemic were less expensive each year than the year before, in terms of current dollars, so cruisers were getting spoiled by paying less in constant dollars than in the past. In my opinion, cruise line stocks have never been very attractive, giving only a modest, median return on investment. Shipowning is a capital intensive business that does not give a great return, and is very dependent on forces outside of the company's control, like weather.

While not specifically "searching for stragglers", the part of the muster drill that takes time, takes a large portion of the crew, and that passengers don't see is that every cabin and public space on the ship is searched and cleared, just as it would be in an emergency.

The OP brought up the possibility that high port charges could force cargo ships away from the California ports, after I pointed out that the taxes and fees paid by cruise ships was only a minor portion of the revenue the major ports take in, mostly from cargo ships. My point was that the large commercial port authorities in California would hardly notice the loss in revenue if cruise lines were to drop them.

But they also don't have the assistance of the muster station teams to control the crowds. And, most of the boat prep is being done while the passengers are being mustered, on many ships well away from the boats. Even if there is no inclination to load passengers into the boats, in a complete "fire and general emergency" situation (which is what the "passenger muster signal" is, not abandon ship), the boat launching crews and the boat crews (who are not the muster station teams) will report to the boats and prep them and lower them to embarkation.

Actually, what the crew do to launch a lifeboat during drill, regardless of where it is done, is precisely what would be done in an emergency situation. The reason it is done in a sheltered port is that the retrieval of the boats is an inherently dangerous activity. The lifeboat arrangements are designed to do one thing, be launched with a load of people, once. To make this objective as foolproof as possible, things are done in the design that make other processes, like retrieving the boat, very difficult and dangerous. Injuries during lifeboat drills is one of the leading causes of injury among mariners. The crew go through the exact same steps they would do in an emergency, so the "muscle memory" of what to do is ingrained. My point was, that if you made the boat drill like the e-muster, they wouldn't actually do what they are supposed to do. It's like the crew doing a "table top" or "discussion" of how to fight a fire, without putting the gear on, without actually handling a hose with 150psi of water pressure, or how to actually fight a fire, and expecting them to be well trained. The old adage is "train as you would fight, and then fight as you trained". Realism in training is everything.

And, would that crew be as well trained if they came to the drill one at a time, had their name checked off, and listened to a presentation of how to launch a lifeboat? Sound like the description of another drill that many claim is just as effective as doing an actual muster? Over on the NCL board, there are complaints that the in person muster drills are a shambles, much worse than before the e-muster, and could this be due to the fact that the crew has not had any recent training in actually handling crowds?

They do make TV antenna surge protectors too.

There is no possibility of moving the volume of cargo that the California ports handle to Mexico or Oregon, without massive infrastructure improvements, which then have to be paid for by higher port fees. And, around and around you go.

I have. And, with the exception of an unattributed quote from Carnival, and having done my own analysis of the two methods of mustering, this was made by someone who hasn't actually seen a traditional muster on a ship. Yes, each particular crew member is tied up longer with e-muster, but vastly more crew are tied up for a shorter period with the traditional muster. I see it as a wash.

SMH

Actually, that is the reason for the "code" calls, to not alarm the passengers. You would get a "code Bravo" call for a fire in a trash can in a crew cabin, that was extinguished with an extinguisher by the person who reported it, is that something that the passengers need to be aware of? As the "on scene commander" for all shipboard emergencies on the cruise ships I worked (I was the Staff Chief Engineer, no the Captain is not "on scene", he is on the bridge), I was responsible for the emergency response teams, and the prosecuting of the emergency. Only when I felt, in consultation with the Captain, that the passengers needed to be removed from all areas of the ship and mustered for accountability, would I recommend that the "passenger muster" signal should be sounded. This is really the only alarm that passengers need to be concerned with, the "passenger muster" alarm, as until that is sounded, whatever emergency is ongoing is under control. And, note, that contrary to most passengers' notion, the "passenger muster" signal is not the "abandon ship" signal, it is known to crew as the "fire and general emergency" signal.

As I noted on your other thread, shore power ends up costing the cruise lines more than running their own generators. And, that charge, for the actual electricity used, is not in the "port taxes and fees", though the "hook up" and "delivery" fees are a required fee, and therefore are included in the "port taxes and fees".

You can go to the "East Coast Departures" forum to find out information about NYC, and getting around.

I use "Seadistances.org" and this shows Gdansk to Ronne as 185 nm (pretty close, Andy). I suspect this is one major thing. Leaving after 1900 from Gdansk, would likely lead to overtime for line handlers. Similarly, arriving before noon in Denmark would likely require a morning shift, and an afternoon shift (neither one of which actually works a full shift, but they get paid for a full shift). Yep. The entire Baltic region is an ECA, so they have to burn 0.1% sulfur "super low sulfur diesel" fuel the whole time, which is about 3 times the cost of residual fuel they burn outside the ECA.

The e-muster was given conditional approval, pending evaluation by the IMO (and remember, it is the IMO, not the USCG that sets standards for safety on foreign flag cruise ships), so until the conditional approval is rescinded, it is acceptable to do either way. I see the e-muster going away in the next couple of years at the outside.

Incinerator fires are pretty common on cruise ships. They are most commonly inside the incinerator, which is equipped with fire suppression equipment, but if the smoke/heat alarm goes off, it is treated like any other fire. They usually happen when crew are not completely diligent in sorting trash to go into the incinerator. There is a shredder that can cause a spark if metal or things like AA batteries are shredded, and this spark can smolder for hours, before the alarm happens. An "automated alarm" with door closings sounds like a fire detector in that zone went off. When a fire is detected in a fire zone (one section of the ship from keel to top, and there will be 5-7 zones typically, and are delineated by the fire doors in the passageways), the doors will automatically close, and ventilation will automatically be shut down in that zone. Fires reported in the engine room can be caused by a lot of things other than fire. A steam leak can set off a smoke detector, or overzealous use of anti-seize compound on exhaust manifold bolts can burn off when the engine is first run again, causing smoke and odors and false alarms. It sounds more like the crew are still learning the ropes regarding the safety systems onboard, and things are being handled over cautiously. Typically, all these would be a "code Bravo" call with a location, not a general announcement of a fire.

Where did this come from? No, keeping the balcony partitions closed is a safety consideration.

Proof of this, please. In another thread, I did some quick man-hour figures, and I see the two methods as a wash as far as total man-hours are concerned.

Some lines keep a percentage back from distribution to crew, but it goes into a crew welfare fund, which pays for crew parties, improvements to crew facilities, etc. I've heard that Viking keeps a good bit, but uses it for things like repatriating crew who have family emergencies before the end of their contracts, and even for education.