passenger missing the ship

[claridge]

Just back off the millennium, one of our table mates was late getting back to the ship in San Fran, and was not allowed to board, she was late but the ship was still in dock, she traveled down to Montray, to pick the ship up at its next port, but was not allowed to board again and in fact the ship pack all of her belongings from her cabin and delivered them to her ashore and ended her cruise.

My QUESTION IS IS THIS THE WAY A AMERICAN COMPANY TREATS A USA FEMALE, TRAVELING ALONE, THAT MISSES THE SHIP IN A USA CITY AND CAN NOT GET BACK ON THE SHIP IN A USA TOWN, WHEN THEY COULD HAVE GOT HER BACK ON THE SHIP IN SAN FRAN, SOMETHING IS WRONG SOME WHERE.

[gwrod]

Is that the entire story?

[lvtotrvl1]

Probably much more to this story...would have to have all the facts.

[dkjretired]

Just back off the millennium, one of our table mates was late getting back to the ship in San Fran, and was not allowed to board, she was late but the ship was still in dock, she traveled down to Montray, to pick the ship up at its next port, but was not allowed to board again and in fact the ship pack all of her belongings from her cabin and delivered them to her ashore and ended her cruise.

My QUESTION IS IS THIS THE WAY A AMERICAN COMPANY TREATS A USA FEMALE, TRAVELING ALONE, THAT MISSES THE SHIP IN A USA CITY AND CAN NOT GET BACK ON THE SHIP IN A USA TOWN, WHEN THEY COULD HAVE GOT HER BACK ON THE SHIP IN SAN FRAN, SOMETHING IS WRONG SOME WHERE.

 

I agree there is probably more to this story than meets the eye however under current US law the cruise line would be fined for allowing her to get on the ship under the circumstances you describe. It is an old antiquated law that needs to be changed because its purpose no longer exsists so if you have a complaint see your Congressman or Senator.....

[Sigyn]

I agree, there must be much more to this story.

 

However, a person's gender and/or lack of traveling companions doesn't have anything to do with whether they're allowed back onto a ship. Nor should it be a consideration. I can just hear the captain now..."oh, wait? that's a woman on the dock? well then, go back and get her! oh...it's just a guy with long hair? never mind! full power ahead!"

[lvtotrvl1]

I agree, there must be much more to this story.

 

However, a person's gender and/or lack of traveling companions doesn't have anything to do with whether they're allowed back onto a ship. Nor should it be a consideration. I can just hear the captain now..."oh, wait? that's a woman on the dock? well then, go back and get her! oh...it's just a guy with long hair? never mind! full power ahead!"

 

Thank-you for the laugh this morning:)

[wvufan]

I am interested in hearing the rest of the story.

 

However, based on the info provided, I suspect that the ship had already been processed for security purposes etc by the port authority or other appropriate agency in SF and was closed for further boarding.

 

Dkj is right-there is an old law that applies. Needs to get changed. Can't quite remember the name, but it might be the Jones Act.

 

I am confident that Celebrity's actions were dictated by law. There is no reason they would remove a passenger (and lose revenue) without justification.

 

OOOEEE (from Sea Cruise) :D:D Bob and Phyl

[glenneagle]

You are correct it is the Jones Act.

[Cruise Junky]

You are correct it is the Jones Act.

 

It's actually the PVSA - Passenger Vehicle Services Act, not the Jones Act.

[smeyer418]

There must be more to the story, except at the initial port, CBP(customs and Border Protection) doesn't require the submission of a complete manifest one hour before the ship sails. It may be that CBP already left the ship and they could not allow anyone on but normally they don't leave until the ship is actually sailing. It also possible she opened her mouth in a way that they refused her to board. Normally you can't get back on at another US port because of the PSVA but the fine is $300 and as long as she was willing to pay it they normally do allow it(BTW the cruise line would have to pay the fine at SF if the ship started at a US port) and that would be charged to her account as well.

 

That is not say its not accurate as reported only that there is probably more to the story, after all many times people do catch the pilot boat and are allowed on.

 

Finally that isn't to say CBP can't be a horse's patooti either.

[robtulipe]

It's actually the PVSA - Passenger Vehicle Services Act, not the Jones Act.

PVSA stands for Passenger Vessel Service Act.

 

for more info go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886

[smeyer418]

PVSA stands for Passenger Vessel Service Act.

 

for more info go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886

 

 

fyi the wikipedia info is not complete and is somewhat misleading. In order to start at one US port and end at a different US port the ship has to visit a distant foreign port(anything not in North America is a distant foreign port) not merely any foreign port. Bermuda is considered a nearby foreign port as are all the Caribbean islands except Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao.

 

and it can start and return to same US port as long as it doesn't stop anywhere( a trip to nowhere) and if it stops anywhere it must stop at at least one Foreign port(nearby or distant doesn't matter) I corrected the listing

[6502programmer]

My QUESTION IS IS THIS THE WAY A AMERICAN COMPANY TREATS A USA FEMALE, TRAVELING ALONE, THAT MISSES THE SHIP IN A USA CITY AND CAN NOT GET BACK ON THE SHIP IN A USA TOWN, WHEN THEY COULD HAVE GOT HER BACK ON THE SHIP IN SAN FRAN, SOMETHING IS WRONG SOME WHERE.

I'm sure there's a WHOLE lot more to this story. I suspect that CBP cleared the ship, she got there late, and CBP denied boarding. I don't see it being to far from the realm of possibility that she then lost it on CBP, port staff, Celebrity corporate, or some combination, and was subsequently denied reboarding at any port.

 

Regardless, this cruise (if it was the 9/28 12 nighter out of Vancouver) was going from SF to Monterey to Catalina, ending in LA. If they allowed her to board, as others have noted, Celebrity would have run afoul of US law. While they will often pay the fine (and charge the passenger's account to cover for it), they are by no means required to.

 

Also, while Celebrity, owned by RCCL, is a US-based company, the ship is flagged in Malta, making it a Maltese ship, legally-speaking.

[readytocruise2009]

Just back off the millennium, one of our table mates was late getting back to the ship in San Fran, and was not allowed to board, she was late but the ship was still in dock, she traveled down to Montray, to pick the ship up at its next port, but was not allowed to board again and in fact the ship pack all of her belongings from her cabin and delivered them to her ashore and ended her cruise.

My QUESTION IS IS THIS THE WAY A AMERICAN COMPANY TREATS A USA FEMALE, TRAVELING ALONE, THAT MISSES THE SHIP IN A USA CITY AND CAN NOT GET BACK ON THE SHIP IN A USA TOWN, WHEN THEY COULD HAVE GOT HER BACK ON THE SHIP IN SAN FRAN, SOMETHING IS WRONG SOME WHERE.

 

BS Post and were all perpetuating it by taking the bait ROFLO

[6502programmer]

BS Post and were all perpetuating it by taking the bait ROFLO

Naah. If I wanted to bait the minions, I'd post something about seeing a dude wearing jeans on formal night being denied admission to the MDR (which he was, on our Alaska cruise) and that this was BS (it's not), he's paid for his vacation (so what?), that it doesn't matter what someone else wears (a screaming child on an airplane doesn't REALLY affect you either, does it?), or some other such nonsense.

[misterbuds]

We were also on this cruise and yes we did hear this story exactly as the original poster stated. We actually were on the tender that was delivering the luggage to shore in Montery. I thought it odd at the time, but then that night at dinner I had heard the story from one of our table mates. It is unfortunate and I definitely could see how one can miss the ship in San Francisco since there was quite a way to go from the pier to the gangway and especially if you didn't watch your time and got stuck on a trolley/cable car, etc. But I do believe the reason she wasn't allowed back on is due to that antiquated US law that is still on the books. We had cleared immigration in Seattle and then Customs in LA. I know our last port was Catalina and they told us in the daily that no one would be allowed to disembark there.

[Gonzo70]

I don't think the law is "antiquated." This same law is what prohibits foreign airlines from conducting flights from one U.S. city to another (this protects the U.S. airlines from foreign competition). A foreign airline can fly from say London to New York, but it cannot sell tickets for a New York to Miami flight. While its application to cruise lines is debatable (Royal Caribbean and Carnival Corp. sure would like people to see it as an antiquated law), the law in and of itself still serves a useful, viable purpose in other areas. Even within the cruise industry it would be important if a U.S. company were to become a big player in the cruise industry (though currently labor laws, liability issue and tax laws make this unfeasible).

[joeinsb]

I was standing in the outdoor dining area of the Ocean Cafe, waiting for Millie's sailout, when the announcement came, asking that a Ms So-and-so of cabin 8-something-something, report to the purser. I turned to my new cruise friends and said, "Well, there's a late one," and told them that when she got on board we should all give her what Marge Simpson calls, "hate hoots," which is where you stand around the person and derisively shout, "Hoot, hoot, hoot" as you mock them. Anyway, you had to be there.

 

As for missing the boat, when you have nearly 36 hours to spend in port and know full well when the ship is scheduled to depart, there's no excuse for being late. Sure, there's a lot to see in San Francisco. But if you take an excursion (on your own, not with the cruise line) to say, the Napa Valley, on departure day, you are tempting fate. Losing track of time is no excuse either. The real issue here is that some people think that time tables, rules, laws, etc don't apply to them. This lady learned that they do.

 

As for changes to the Passenger Vessel Services Act, don't hold your breath.

[dkjretired]

I don't think the law is "antiquated." This same law is what prohibits foreign airlines from conducting flights from one U.S. city to another (this protects the U.S. airlines from foreign competition). A foreign airline can fly from say London to New York, but it cannot sell tickets for a New York to Miami flight. While its application to cruise lines is debatable (Royal Caribbean and Carnival Corp. sure would like people to see it as an antiquated law), the law in and of itself still serves a useful, viable purpose in other areas. Even within the cruise industry it would be important if a U.S. company were to become a big player in the cruise industry (though currently labor laws, liability issue and tax laws make this unfeasible).

 

The law is antiquated in that it is protecting an industry in the US that is not viable and basically doesn't exsist. If the law protects the airlines, thats fine but change it to keep protecting the airlines and remove the cruise ship provisions.

[donaldsc]

My QUESTION IS IS THIS THE WAY A AMERICAN COMPANY TREATS A USA FEMALE, TRAVELING ALONE, THAT MISSES THE SHIP IN A USA CITY AND CAN NOT GET BACK ON THE SHIP IN A USA TOWN, WHEN THEY COULD HAVE GOT HER BACK ON THE SHIP IN SAN FRAN, SOMETHING IS WRONG SOME WHERE.

 

Two points -

 

1) She was late - end of statement.

 

2) Should she be treated differently because she was female? If women want to be treated as equals, they should be expected to be treated as equals.

 

Go ahead - flame me.

 

DON

[CruisingEasy]

Get back to the ship on time and all this could be avoided.

 

Female or Male - it does not matter. Adults are responsible for all of their own actions.

[readytocruise2009]

If true, why denied entry at next port? Doesn't the rule allow entry at next port? Why was her stuff already?

[ma_in_ak]

I believe she couldn't board at the next port because it was also a US port. I could be wrong but I think it is something about the ship having to leave the country before passengers can board again. Another family had a problem with missing the ship in Miami and then not being allowed to board at the next port which was Key West.

 

Also, I am female and I don't think there should be different rules for women, or for someone traveling alone or by what country the person is from. I do think it's important to be on time, but the rule does seem excessive. If someone can get to the next port, what is the harm in letting them board there? They already paid for the cruise, so why not let them on?

[Cruising Carol]

I was waiting, to see when ship would sail, in the lobby where passengers enter the ship. The staff called the security check area to see if anyone was in sight. They reported no one visible. This was at 4:55 pm (check-in time was 4:45 pm) The ship did not leave until about 5:10 pm. I thought they were very diligent in checking and trying to get all passengers on board.

[cruiserbryce]

seems odd that they would let her board after traveling to the next port. I wonde rif all the details have been told to OP?