Grand injured

[timetobook]

Pearl Harbor Day festivities are going on over there she said...very busy at the port.

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Aquahound]

Is it CPB which enforces the PVSA or Dept. of Commerce? It seems to me that it is not a security issue, but one of interstate commerce. Just wondering. Loren

 

It's strange, actually. CBP, a DHS entity, imposes the fine. However, waivers from the PVSA have to be approved through the Secretary of Transportation.

[chengkp75]

It's strange, actually. CBP, a DHS entity, imposes the fine. However, waivers from the PVSA have to be approved through the Secretary of Transportation.

 

Even stranger is that while CBP is now under Homeland Security, US Customs started out under Treasury, INS was under Justice, Border Patrol was Labor, and CBP also includes Agriculture inspectors.

[Aquahound]

Even stranger is that while CBP is now under Homeland Security, US Customs started out under Treasury, INS was under Justice, Border Patrol was Labor, and CBP also includes Agriculture inspectors.

 

So true. Also, prior to DHS, USCG was Transportation. Mix customs regulations with cabotage laws and it's one big mess. Even I get confused within my own department sometimes.

[Murphey]

Do you by chance have the web cam site for the Columbia River? Would love to watch it also.

 

 

 

 

Sharon

 

Sorry, I don't, but I'm going to check it out. I have a friend who works at the dry dock and he's going to let me know when she scheduled to come in. If it's a reasonable time of day, we'll go see her in person!

[oskidunker]

Are they going to allow anyone to stay onboard and disembark in Portland?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[ar1950]

Are they going to allow anyone to stay onboard and disembark in Portland?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

An earlier post from someone on board said that they couldn't do that.

 

They didn't give an exact reason, but, maybe this is it:

 

 

Seriously though, some folks who know about the workings of ships and dry docks have pointed out that the Grand is likely to be late to its scheduled slot and part of the work is probably going to be done on route.

Edited December 6, 2016 by ar1950

[Iwant2BatC]

So glad to find this site and learn why the Grand sailed in today. I watched from my lanai and knew she wasn't on the schedule and also that it was a very odd time for a ship to be arriving. Happy all are safe. Enjoy Honolulu. Lots of activities at Pearl Harbor.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[caribill]

This maybe an update,but many people are staying on the ship and will be transferred to the airport. Seems many fly out on 12/7 including myself.

 

 

 

Is Princess paying for the airline baggage charges?

[WupperAV]

PCL is probably getting someone to Charter passengers. They would take care of everything I would think. Insurance anyone?

[Underwatr]

Are they going to allow anyone to stay onboard and disembark in Portland?

 

An earlier post from someone on board said that they couldn't do that.

Conjecture: Disembarking in Hawaii is waiverable due to the necessity to return to port, but transporting passengers to Portland would still constitute a PVSA violation.

[chengkp75]

So true. Also, prior to DHS, USCG was Transportation. Mix customs regulations with cabotage laws and it's one big mess. Even I get confused within my own department sometimes.

 

And to show my age, I remember when USCG was under Treasury. I don't even know what departments the Lifesaving Service, Revenue Cutter Service, the Lighthouse Service, or the Steamboat Inspection Service were under prior to USCG. :eek: What a long, strange trip its been.

[ar1950]

Conjecture: Disembarking in Hawaii is waiverable due to the necessity to return to port, but transporting passengers to Portland would still constitute a PVSA violation.

 

The question that I was answering had nothing to do with PVSA violation. Read back a few pages. Someone wanted to go on the ship to Portland because they hated flying. They asked if they could go back via the ship to Portland and where told no.

Edited December 6, 2016 by ar1950

[Underwatr]

But the answer to that has everything to do with a PVSA violation.

 

Even despite the fact that work would be ongoing, the ship can't give passengers the option to cruise to Portland.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Underwatr

[triptolemus]

But the answer to that has everything to do with a PVSA violation.

 

...Or the ability for the hotel on the ship to be in a position and condition to serve passengers.

 

Whether they disembark in HNL or PDX, the PVSA violation is done, which as previously stated, is probably good for a wavier in this case

[Cruise Junky]

But the answer to that has everything to do with a PVSA violation.

 

Even despite the fact that work would be ongoing, the ship can't give passengers the option to cruise to Portland.

 

Getting off in Hawaii vs disembarking in Portland is the same violation.

[Colo Cruiser]

Are they going to allow anyone to stay onboard and disembark in Portland?

 

 

I would say no passengers will be allowed to make that trip onboard.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Colo Cruiser

[hawkeyetlse]

Even if the dry dock was in Vancouver (sidestepping all PVSA concerns), I think they still wouldn't offer anyone the option of staying on board. The last thing they want is to have to sail anywhere with just a handful of passengers. They lose a huge amount of money that way (not to mention that the resulting cruise would be longer than what passengers originally paid for, and they would still require transportation back to SF upon arrival).

 

Best just to sail empty. Plus in this case, as chengkp75 suggested, they need to put the crew to work stripping the interiors etc. ahead of the dry dock, something they can't do with passengers on board.

[Colo Cruiser]

Getting off in Hawaii vs disembarking in Portland is the same violation.

 

They have no choice.

[easyboy]

Hi folks - live from the Grand Princess, we are getting cell service, and it seems to be Molokai I'm looking at from the port side of the ship.

 

This has been an eventful but in total actually a quite good cruise, at least for me and my wife, assuming all goes well between now and our return home. We got all of our Hawaii ports -- which we know is not guaranteed -- and bonus time in Honolulu, and lost very little. Princess is transporting us to the airport and paying for our flights home and have also compensated us by refunding half the cost of this cruise AND giving us future credit equal to that amount as well (effectively making this cruise "free"). This seems like fair compensation for what will be a moderate inconvenience at best (since one of the reasons we took this particular trip was to avoid flying to begin with).

 

More later - back to vacation.

Nothing more to ask!

[Cruise Junky]

They have no choice.

 

Ha? What does that have to do with my post and the one I responded to?

[Colo Cruiser]

Ha? What does that have to do with my post and the one I responded to?

 

 

Portland-no PAX no violation.

[Host Jazzbeau]

Getting off in Hawaii vs disembarking in Portland is the same violation.

 

Do you have knowledge to back this up, or are you using "common sense" -- which has no place in a Regulatory Environment ??? The accident would allow a waiver to disembark passengers in Honolulu. After that, it's hard to claim hardship. Hawaii vs Portland might be two completely different things in the eyes of those granting the waiver. [i will defer to the Chief for a definitive ruling]

Edited December 6, 2016 by Host Jazzbeau

[Underwatr]

Just MHO:

 

Disembarking everyone in Hawaii can be easily waived because the ship had to return for repairs and the original schedule can't be maintained.

 

If Princess was to give anyone the option to stay onboard until Portland, then it (Portland) becomes a deliberate PVSA violation, which probably would not be waived.

 

Yes, it's technically a violation either way, but as soon as Princess gives someone an option as to where to be disembarked it is no longer a waiverable violation.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Underwatr

[Cruise Junky]

Just MHO:

 

Disembarking everyone in Hawaii can be easily waived because the ship had to return for repairs and the original schedule can't be maintained.

 

If Princess was to give anyone the option to stay onboard until Portland, then it (Portland) becomes a deliberate PVSA violation, which probably would not be waived.

 

Yes, it's technically a violation either way, but as soon as Princess gives someone an option as to where to be disembarked it is no longer a waiverable violation.

 

Exactly. They're both technically a violation but I just can't see them letting anyone stay on. They're heading into dry dock they're not going to want to accommodate the people that want to stay on with full meals and hotel service.