chengkp75

I would put my money on a surge protector. Even a high wattage hair dryer would not likely cause a fire, it would simply pop the circuit breaker. Only if the appliance itself failed, would it cause a fire (like a heating element where the auto-off switch failed. Even if you plugged a 2000w hair dryer into the bathroom outlet, it would not cause a fire, as the outlet is protected by a fuse.

Rather than trivializing the behavior, I think folks are pointing out that there is a difference between what is right or wrong, and what is legal or not.

Maybe you didn't include this information in your previous posts, but the part about "sickness" being a covered excuse requires that the "sickness" be diagnosed and treated by a doctor. Did your friend see a doctor, or just decide she was too sick to go? And so, if she did not see a doctor, her illness is not covered under reason #1, and so the cancellation fee waiver is not applicable. And, again, I believe that since she did not book a cabin, there is no proof that she paid anything towards this cruise, and her insurance is null for the cruise fare. You would be entitled to a refund of her fare, if she visited a doctor prior to the cruises embarkation time and day.

And, that incident happened in Puerto Rico, and was tried in Puerto Rico under US law, but if it had happened in say Panama, then US law would have no bearing.

And, it made it sound like the head of the operations group was dealing with 35 ships directly. This is a false assumption. Each ship has a technical superintendent who deals with the engineering side of the ship, and usually two or three ships share a marine superintendent who deals with the nautical side of the ship, and these will report to a fleet manager, who then reports to the operations VP. It is up to the VP to ensure that the management levels below him/her are capable of dealing with the ships or groups of ships that they manage, on a day to day, and even annual basis. If these new "head of maritime" positions are doing much beyond setting fleetwide budgets, and setting fleetwide policies, then they are not organizing their work, or not utilizing their subordinates properly. It sounds to me like the Group lost too many middle management during the pandemic, and are now devolving back to try to create another layer of management.

Andy is quite correct here, as he should be as a former ship's Captain. As noted, you don't know the flag of the vessel, or where in the world this happened. Wake up, folks, most of your "rights" and legal protections from the US, stop when you walk up the gangway on a foreign flag cruise ship. All this talk of child protective services, and child endangerment is moot, from a US legal perspective.

The OP booked a room for two passengers, and paid for it. When the second guest cancelled, the single supplement kicked in, and likely that is 100% of the second guest's fare, so yes, the OP paid double for going alone, as all singles do. The agreement between the OP and friend about paying for the cruise is just that, an agreement between them. The insurance company won't pay out for the friend's cruise, since there is no proof that she paid anything for the cruise. That insurance was a waste of money. The insurance company won't pay out for the OP's cruise, because she took the cruise, and the single supplement took up the friend's fare.

Was this an "outbreak", or just one cabin? Was the other cabin's occupants afflicted with noro, or some other disease? Was it just that a senior was in the cabin? Child or adult diapers are considered to be biohazard, and must be bagged in this manner for incineration. Fouled sheets from a senior accident must be placed in the biohazard bags, which are then placed in the biohazard washing machine without being opened (the bag dissolves in the wash) (Bloodied sheets as well). Way too little information to claim there was a "noro outbreak". As for noro, or other gastrointestinal diseases, I can't think of one cruise I worked that didn't have at least one case.

It's not. One poster above used the proper term for the sugar free product: "pancake syrup". It is high fructose corn syrup. Nothing at all like real maple syrup. Once you've had it on pancakes and waffles, you'll never go back.

And, yesterday, it was announced that the Astoria (ex Stockholm) is going to the scrap yard. https://www.cruisehive.com/the-worlds-oldest-cruise-ship-will-be-scrapped/93414

This whole thing sounds just like poor management. With the redundancy of equipment a ship will have in their refrigeration system, the entire system should not have failed. And, even if it did, if the onboard HVAC engineers could not fix it, they shouldn't be onboard. I've got 45+ years in marine engineering, including HVAC, and have never had to call in shore side support. On the other thread, the statement that they missed their loading port for the food, seems just like poor management, for not forwarding the stores. I think this is just a need to repair the thrusters to get the ship back on schedule (and I have also done thruster overhauls while the ship is in service, working in one port after another with the dive crew traveling on the ship), so this is just another example of poor management.

I can't tell you how many crew I've "killed" during a drill, because they reported to the on scene command by walking through the "fire". It does give the medical teams a lot of practice, though.

Why would you need to specifically show that you know the way from your cabin to the muster station? Will an emergency always happen when everyone is in their cabins? The best possible training would be to understand how to get to the muster station from anywhere on the ship, and even better, to know how to do this with a fire blocking the direct path from where you are to where your muster station is.

Military folk will tell you that comes from locking your knees, not so much the heat. The trick is to consciously flex the knees slightly while standing.

Note also that you will be required to keep the blinds closed at night to keep light from your cabin from interfering with the bridge crew's night vision.

Only the "tender/lifeboats" have upper seating. On the other boats, you have to lie on the top and stretch out to hold the grab rails.

What authorities have jurisdiction over foreign flag cruise ship safety, other than the IMO?

Actually, it does not need to be inspected, depending on how the line documents the measures it takes to remediate fouling since the last inspection.

While they are not quick, they have done quite a lot, including reducing sulfur emissions from ship's fuel by 85%, enacting MARPOL (marine pollution requirements), enacting STCW (training and competency requirements for ship's crew), the MLC 2006 (protecting crew working conditions and pay), and, of course SOLAS.

Who at Carnival feels the e-muster is a better safety drill? The ships' officers or the corporate head office? I'll bet that there was not a survey of ship's leadership on this. I'm saying that the statement says nothing without some context. That is the author's contention, not a proven fact. There can be correlation without causation. Did Disney have a bunch of cost cutting before they were the first to revert? And, while the e-muster may require crew to deal with the muster for longer periods during the turn-around, it does not require more crew to accomplish. I question anything that Carnival Corp says about operations, given their proven disregard for environmental issues, why should passenger safety be any more important to them?

Really? You think the cruising public cares even the slightest, or has any idea of how the crew is trained to save them? The cruising public wants one thing, a fun vacation. Until a disaster happens, the public doesn't think it can happen, so whether the crew is trained or not, is not their concern.

But, they are just one voice out of the 174 members of the Maritime Safety Committee of the IMO, which has to propose any changes to SOLAS, and then only one vote out of 174 in the IMO Council which has to approve any changes.

Andy has taken a Suez transit much more recently than I, and on a Viking ship, so he can provide better experience, but from my experience, while 4am may be the "pilot aboard" and "hove short" time, it takes about an hour or better to actually get underway and get near to the ports.

From Transport Canada regarding the Coasting Trade Act: "If passengers embark in one location in Canada and disembark at another location in Canada the voyage would meet the definition of “coasting trade” under the Coasting Trade Act. This means that a foreign-registered or non-duty paid vessel would require a coasting trade licence for the voyage. This is the case, even if the vessel’s full itinerary doesn’t meet the definition of coasting trade under the Act." This says that even if the "full itinerary" doesn't meet the definition of coasting trade" (in other words if the full cruise is considered "legal" under the CTA (has a foreign port call), just the simple act of getting on in one Canadian port and getting off in another violates the CTA. And, unlike the PVSA, fines for violations of the CTA can be up to $5000. But, hey, maybe cabotage laws don't apply to you.

And, yet, the author of the article that said the USCG has given "positive feedback" did not reach out to them for clarification as to what was the positive feedback. Was it about training, was it about participation levels, were passengers interviewed, did the USCG witness e-musters? Lots of unanswered questions about these statements. I find it interesting that the USCG Cruise Ship National Center of Expertise, which is the USCG's center for training and investigation of cruise ship safety, and is the USCG's liaison with the cruise industry, has not issued any findings on the e-muster system.