Denied

[Eng23]

Is this going to turn out like the story about the family being removed from the ship when the husband brought "tobacco" in a baggie

That one is an "oldie but goodie"!

[Eng23]

Ok everyone, thanks for your input. I have talked to my friend since I posted the question the first time. We are set to sail this Sunday to Cozumel, Belize and Honduras. He was called by "security" last friday and was told due to some port laws he is unable to board and will be given a full refund. I did ask what port law he gave me a vague excuse and said he had the same problems when going to and from Canada. This guy has a passport and explained to them that and was told he still could not board but that he could go by air. The reason I asked originally was is because I have never heard of this before and just seem odd. I believe he is not telling me everything which is well with in his rights and respect his privacy. I was just curious to what would be the reason and if anyone had experienced this sort of thing before. They are still going on vacation to Playa de Carmen but flying and we will meet up there this week. Thanks for all the info and some of you are very funny!

 

This makes even less sense in the overall scheme of things. Going by air has more restrictions than getting on a cruise ship. It sounds like it was a documentation problem which is the sole responsibility of the person travelling to ensure all is correct, the cruise line is not responsible for mistakes or omissions in a person's travel documents. This being the case the cruise line very rarely if at all issues a full refund. This really does nothing to clarify why boarding was denied. :confused:

[txcowboy10]

Me thinks this "denied" passenger is hiding a big truth from rest of party...but like others have said, it's interesting he can still fly...purportedly. I'm thinking felony in his past...IMO...would explain "security" calling vs. RCI rep...and the full refund on such short notice when passenger manifest was checked by Homeland security.

Edited October 21, 2015 by txcowboy10

[GUT2407]

This makes even less sense in the overall scheme of things. Going by air has more restrictions than getting on a cruise ship. It sounds like it was a documentation problem which is the sole responsibility of the person travelling to ensure all is correct, the cruise line is not responsible for mistakes or omissions in a person's travel documents. This being the case the cruise line very rarely if at all issues a full refund. This really does nothing to clarify why boarding was denied. :confused:

 

In fact makes it more confusing.

[Eng23]

In fact makes it more confusing.

 

Agreed! :)

[panjabi]

Canada routinely denies Americans entry that have had a past DUI, even if they were not jailed and put on probation, as most Americans are on their first DUI

 

This is true even after the DUI probation is over. There is a process where you can apply to some Canadian official who can grant a "pardon" or something bizarre like that

 

While this rule is not uniformly imposed (especially on land crossings), we have had multiple such instances over the years in our office (a big Fortune 500 company) that we have an actual "Canada Travel Eligibility" status in our office for the people that travel to our Canada office

 

The FIRST thing my company asked me when I got hired was if I ever had a DUI. The key word 'EVER". Then they did a full background criminal check on me. Then I was marked "Canada Travel ELIGIBLE"

 

Everytime I fly into Canada, I notice that their passport scanning process at immigration is longer (and involves more computer reading time by the Officer) than the equivalent US immigration

[perditax]

Canada routinely denies Americans entry that have had a past DUI, even if they were not jailed and put on probation, as most Americans are on their first DUI

 

This is true even after the DUI probation is over. There is a process where you can apply to some Canadian official who can grant a "pardon" or something bizarre like that

 

While this rule is not uniformly imposed (especially on land crossings), we have had multiple such instances over the years in our office (a big Fortune 500 company) that we have an actual "Canada Travel Eligibility" status in our office for the people that travel to our Canada office

 

The FIRST thing my company asked me when I got hired was if I ever had a DUI. The key word 'EVER". Then they did a full background criminal check on me. Then I was marked "Canada Travel ELIGIBLE"

 

Everytime I fly into Canada, I notice that their passport scanning process at immigration is longer (and involves more computer reading time by the Officer) than the equivalent US immigration

 

Yep, I've read some interesting stories here about the intersection of "past DUI" + "Alaska cruise", including one guy who said he didn't even try to get off during a port stop in Vancouver (from a Seattle roundtrip cruise), and claimed Canadian border agents still came onto the ship to detain him and some others, questioned him and denied him entry to Canada. Which he said he hadn't even intended to try to get in the first place.

[orville99]

The ship is sailing out of Galveston, so unless the "friend" is coming from Canada, I'm lost with the references. And if they are and can fly into Cancun from Canada, why would they not be allowed to fly into Texas? If they're not U.S citizens, are there specific countries on a list somewhere that RCL (or CBP) can't board without additional clearance (paperwork)?

[sr4mjc]

"I did ask what port law he gave me a vague excuse"

 

He knows, he just doesn't want you to know.

[JVilleGal]

Once again this post sure sounds like 2 earlier threads that disappeared in the last couple days. Cruise Line Security call and denied passage... Just sayin!

[SonicShip]

Maybe, if the person was denied boarding due to a DUI (or criminal record) it could be because of one ports lets say, Belize. So he could fly directly to the other ports. But since the cruise goes to all the ports if there was one country that he was not allowed in then he would not allowed to board for the cruise since they goto all the countries. It does matter if you don't get off the ship as you are in their waters.

[CruisingChick]

I am betting it's the criminal record and I think it's the cruise line that doesn't want the passenger on board not a port of call issue.

[orville99]

I am betting it's the criminal record and I think it's the cruise line that doesn't want the passenger on board not a port of call issue.

 

Ding, Ding, I think we have a winner:)

[Merion_Mom]

This is giving me the opportunity to use one of my new favorite phrases, learned on a cruise.

 

"I call SHENANIGANS on this!!!!"

[Charles4515]

I am betting it's the criminal record and I think it's the cruise line that doesn't want the passenger on board not a port of call issue.

 

 

That makes the most sense. They may be on some kind of offenders list which I won't mention by name.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cabansail]

I'm still going with being an Alien and having transgressed some sanction of the Inter Galactic Council. I mean this is hardly amazing when in America over 20% of the population have been subject to an alien abduction and in some states it's compulsory.

 

 

But surely that wouldn't deny him boarding, they'd just beam him up.:confused:;)

 

Have you seen the latest fees for Beaming Up? Especially while at sea? I don't know how they can justify it to be honest. Must be to do with the recent price rise of kryptonite.