Grand injured

[Cruise Junky]

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]

 

I don't think any of us know at this point what waivers (if any) have been granted.

[ar1950]

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.

 

Irrespective of any PSVA, rules, or fines, no one who has managed a construction job wants anyone who is not an employee or contractor on their job site when there is any chance of an injury to the non-employee or non-contractor. So I am pretty sure that Princess feels the same about having any passengers on board on the way to Portland (assuming the more knowledgeable posters on this thread are correct about the work commencing on the way to drydock). So, no, still nothing to do with the PSVA violation. If it were otherwise Princess could simply tell anyone who insisted on passage to Portland that they had to pay the fine.

 

And you are correct, it is conjecture on my part, but, no less so than your posts on the subject. Just sayin' here. :)

[Bill B]

Irrespective of any PSVA, rules, or fines, no one who has managed a construction job wants anyone who is not an employee or contractor on their job site when there is any chance of an injury to the non-employee or non-contractor. So I am pretty sure that Princess feels the same about having any passengers on board on the way to Portland (assuming the more knowledgeable posters on this thread are correct about the work commencing on the way to drydock).

 

However, they seem to have no qualms about putting pax on a 'half finished' ship littered with workers and work sites on a maiden voyage from the shipyard!

Edited December 6, 2016 by Bill B

[ar1950]

However, they seem to have no qualms about putting pax on a 'half finished' ship littered with workers and work sites on a maiden voyage from the shipyard!

 

Not the same as a maiden voyage when "most" of the venues are finished and the work involved is finishing up odds and ends. (Plus, you know in advance that you are taking a maiden voyage and there is a high likelihood that not everything is going to be finished. At least if you pay any attention to cruise media sites. Even if you don't know any of this, the ship is mostly full and most every venue, show, and whatever else is available and functioning....I said most, not all.... :)) In my experience that is a lot different than tearing up what is in place and incrementally, by the day, making everything less and less usable. Not to mention there would only be a relatively small number of passengers on the way to dry dock and how could they justify keeping all of the services and entertainment in place. Can you imagine how that would play out? "Why isn't there any service in X, Y, and Z bars?" "Why are all the pools and hot tubs empty?" "Why is there all this noise while we are trying to watch MUTS?" "What happened to the Trivia contest, the bingo game, the Princess theater shows, all of the normal choices in the Horizon Court, my 7:15pm reservation in the dining room, etc., etc., etc.?" "And now I have tripped over the torn up carpet in the passageway and I've sprained my ankle!" "I demand compensation!!"

 

Maybe that is an exaggeration, but, we have all seen it to some extent. Why would Princess put up with that aggravation, not to mention additional liability for possible damages and/or injuries over and above what they already have had to accept?

 

If I am Princess, this is a case when ALL passengers need to be off of the ship before heading to dry dock.

Edited December 6, 2016 by ar1950

[CruiserGuyWPB]

Irrespective of any PSVA, rules, or fines, no one who has managed a construction job wants anyone who is not an employee or contractor on their job site when there is any chance of an injury to the non-employee or non-contractor. So I am pretty sure that Princess feels the same about having any passengers on board on the way to Portland (assuming the more knowledgeable posters on this thread are correct about the work commencing on the way to drydock). So, no, still nothing to do with the PSVA violation. If it were otherwise Princess could simply tell anyone who insisted on passage to Portland that they had to pay the fine.

 

And you are correct, it is conjecture on my part, but, no less so than your posts on the subject. Just sayin' here. :)

 

Actually, those that actually manage a construction site knows that the OWNER is always welcomed on the job site. Its not only the employees and contractors.

[ar1950]

Actually, those that actually manage a construction site knows that the OWNER is always welcomed on the job site. Its not only the employees and contractors.

 

Fine, I missed the owner. Princess always has their managers on site during any dry dock or modifications. :rolleyes: Anyone else other than those three categories are probably going to upset (to put it mildly) that particular owner if there is an accident. Those kind of events can possibly put the owner (not Princess here so don't harp on it in future posts please) out of business after all. :eek:

[CruiserGuyWPB]

Fine, I missed the owner. Princess always has their managers on site during any dry dock or modifications. :rolleyes: Anyone else other than those three categories are probably going to upset (to put it mildly) that particular owner if there is an accident. Those kind of events can possibly put the owner (not Princess here so don't harp on it in future posts please) out of business after all. :eek:

 

Harp on what? That the owner is always allowed on the site? But PRINCESS is the OWNER......... Nad dont use the lame excuse that the stock holders are the owner. :rolleyes:

[ar1950]

Harp on what? That the owner is always allowed on the site? But PRINCESS is the OWNER......... Nad dont use the lame excuse that the stock holders are the owner. :rolleyes:

 

You are missing the point of the comment that I made. I said the non-owner, non-employee, non-contractor person goes on the work site and gets injured it could mean a law suit that will put the owner out of business and I am talking about most small businesses. Princess, not so much, they have the deep pockets and won't be put out of business (same as most large businesses). That is what I meant about don't harp about Princess being put under. They won't. The small businesses, possibly a different story. Does this make more sense?

[Aus Traveller]

You are missing the point of the comment that I made. I said the non-owner, non-employee, non-contractor person goes on the work site and gets injured it could mean a law suit that will put the owner out of business and I am talking about most small businesses. Princess, not so much, they have the deep pockets and won't be put out of business (same as most large businesses). That is what I meant about don't harp about Princess being put under. They won't. The small businesses, possibly a different story. Does this make more sense?

It made sense to me the first time. :)

[500adverbs]

A couple little notes of clarification and additional details from back on the Grand after a very nice afternoon & evening in Honolulu and Waikiki.

 

The Maui tender delays (both initially disembarking the ship when we got in and then for an hour or so later on, as people were trying to get back to the ship in the early afternoon rain) were (we were told) due to an insufficient number of security personnel (TSA or security contractors) on Maui -- hearsay that day was that some were flown in from another island. No way for me to substantiate that. Wind was mentioned by the captain as a possible cause the night before but never came up that day. There was weather but it didn't turn out to be significant for the tendering process.

 

As for disembarkation: Princess is getting us all to the airport in 30 disembarkation groups between Tuesday morning and Wednesday morning. We are putting our luggage outside our doors by 11 the night before. The following may be overly granular for some, but here goes.

 

On Tuesday, twelve groups will meet in Michelangelo dining room on Tuesday between 5 am and 11:45 am, and two more will meet at 3 and 6 pm. Those folks will all be flying out on Tuesday. If they have flights scheduled from SFO on a later day, Princess will be putting them up at a hotel Wednesday night.

 

Those of us who are leaving Wednesday will be staying on the ship Tuesday night. Wednesday morning there are 16 groups meeting between 4:30 am and 9:45 am (the sheet notes that the meeting time is not the disembarkation time). We will see how this goes.

 

There are people flying on United, Delta, and Hawaiian Airlines, and probably others. Most people we've talked to are connecting in Maui or LAX or Las Vegas and are ending up in SFO or OAK. Some are going to Sacramento. We were told by Passenger Services that when we get to the airport we have to grab our luggage from the shuttle and check it in ourselves (meaning we all have to pay our checked baggage fees and possibly get reimbursed for it). We heard of one married couple who are being put on two different flights, one to Oakland and one to SFO, and then they will meet up again after being shuttled separately to their hotel.

 

In the meantime, we have full run of the ship and/or Honolulu tomorrow. This evening after our little jaunt to Waikiki and back my wife and I had pools and hot tubs all to ourselves, which was a little weird. No lines coming back to the ship -- just us and about seven very wonderful, friendly local port security folks.

 

We feel lucky to have gotten back to Honolulu safely (even more so after reading this thread). We also think the crew have been doing their best and that they have had remarkably good attitudes given the difficulties we've heard they have had to undergo. (For example, we heard there was no A/C in crew quarters yesterday but obviously can't substantiate that either.) It will be interesting to see what comes out about this over time.

 

Repairs of some kind have been proceeding to the hull today and tonight. Tomorrow is definitely going to be weird as maybe half the ship will be leaving by afternoon and the rest of us will be leaving the next day. Okay, enough random updates from here... good night.

Edited December 6, 2016 by 500adverbs

[lstone19]

We were told by Passenger Services that when we get to the airport we have to grab our luggage from the shuttle and check it in ourselves (meaning we all have to pay our checked baggage fees and possibly get reimbursed for it).

 

Don't assume you will have to pay bag fees. I would not be at all surprised if a bag fee waiver is included in the fares Princess has negotiated with the various airlines. Collecting fees is not automatic at check-in; airline customer service reps only collect them if the system tells them it is due.

[Aquahound]

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]

 

I can answer that...somewhat. Right off the bat, it is a PVSA violation no doubt. Grand is a foreign flagged ship that did not visit a foreign port.

 

As for waivers, there are specific criteria in both the Jones Act and PVSA for the granting of waivers. These are for National Defense or in cases where competing US vessels do not exist. For example, until a US flagged ferry between the mainland US and Puerto Rico exists, foreign flagged ships have a waiver.

 

As for the Grand, the Secretary of Transportation can, and very well might, grant a waiver. But according to the PVSA waiver criteria, it is not certain. It very well might not be granted as well.

[p_mori7]

Thanks for the update 500 !

 

We'd love to see more photos if anybody on board can snap a few !

[p_mori7]

Personally, with regards to PVSA; PCL will not impose this upon the passengers for something beyond their control and that's all that matters.

[tcdcruiser]

Below is an excerpt from the US Custom Services publication "PVSA An Informed Compliance Publication".

 

First, per page 7 the Customs and Border Protection Service has responsibility for "enforcing and administrating" this regulation.

 

Next, the publication specifically states the following on page 8.

 

 

"Passenger vessel transportation between United States ports has historically been viewed to be part of the coastwise trade after the enactment of the PVSA. This view is premised on the concepts of continuity of the voyage and whether its intended purpose or objective is coastwise transportation"

 

 

IMHO - Princess Cruise can assert that coastwise transportation was not the intended purpose or objection of the transportation to Hawaii. The reason or objective of the diversion was safety.

 

 

 

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pvsa_icp_3.pdf

Edited December 6, 2016 by tcdcruiser

[Contractor99]

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

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Then PCL would need to make new arrangements for everyone to get from SFO back home, so they will make sure everyone is there latest at the previously planned arrival of the ship.

 

Plus, the ride to Portland will need to be with full speed, no stabilizers and crew being busy with preparing the ship for Dry Dock as much as possible.

[Aquahound]

Personally, with regards to PVSA; PCL will not impose this upon the passengers for something beyond their control and that's all that matters.

 

I would hope not, but I once saw the fine imposed against a man who had died and his wife. The deceased and his wife were removed from the ship at sea and taken into Key West. This was Carnival.

 

Seriously...I can't make this stuff up.

[chengkp75]

Personally, with regards to PVSA; PCL will not impose this upon the passengers for something beyond their control and that's all that matters.

 

I would hope not, but I once saw the fine imposed against a man who had died and his wife. The deceased and his wife were removed from the ship at sea and taken into Key West. This was Carnival.

 

Seriously...I can't make this stuff up.

 

First off, the PVSA fine is levied against the cruise line, CBP could care less who the passenger was, or the reason. It is only the ticket contract where you give the cruise line the ability to pass any fine on to you.

 

Yes, PVSA fines are levied against deceased passengers. If a waiver is applied for, it will also routinely be granted, both in cases of death and medical evacuation. It depends on the cruise line as to whether they pursue the refund, if they didn't pass the fine to the passenger, or whether they make the family deal with filing the waiver request. Either way, the fine gets paid, and then you wait for the wheels of government to grind out the refund.

[Aquahound]

First off, the PVSA fine is levied against the cruise line, CBP could care less who the passenger was, or the reason. It is only the ticket contract where you give the cruise line the ability to pass any fine on to you.

 

Yes, PVSA fines are levied against deceased passengers. If a waiver is applied for, it will also routinely be granted, both in cases of death and medical evacuation. It depends on the cruise line as to whether they pursue the refund, if they didn't pass the fine to the passenger, or whether they make the family deal with filing the waiver request. Either way, the fine gets paid, and then you wait for the wheels of government to grind out the refund.

 

Carnival moved fast. The fines were imposed by CCL onto their Sign and Sail accounts. Not only was I shocked, I was really saddened to hear CCL would do that.

[hawkeyetlse]

It depends on the cruise line as to whether they pursue the refund, if they didn't pass the fine to the passenger, or whether they make the family deal with filing the waiver request.

How is it even possible for the family to apply to CBP/DoT for a refund? As you said, as far as the government is concerned, the fine is paid by the cruise line, and they "could care less who the passenger was".

[Contractor99]

Carnival moved fast. The fines were imposed by CCL onto their Sign and Sail accounts. Not only was I shocked, I was really saddened to hear CCL would do that.

 

But why would CCL pay for a charge a passenger is responsible for? The CBP charges the cruise line, the cruiseline charges for everything before a passenger leaves the ship. (These are the instructions Receptionists have, otherwise the Receptionist having failed to charge will pay)

With the proof of death, the family can go to get the money back - which will take a lot more time...but this is the government....

[chengkp75]

How is it even possible for the family to apply to CBP/DoT for a refund? As you said, as far as the government is concerned, the fine is paid by the cruise line, and they "could care less who the passenger was".

 

The family will need to get the case number from the cruise line, a copy of the itemized bill showing the charge for the fine, a copy of the ticket contract showing that the fine was to be passed along, and a certificate of death, or medical file from a hospital and letter from cruise line that they were medically disembarked. It's a lot of hoops to jump through, and will take time, but CBP sees this all the time, which is why they mention on their FAQ's about the PVSA, that the fine is against the line, so they are well aware that the fine is passed to the passenger, and are willing to work with whomever to find an equitable end.

[Astro Flyer]

A couple little notes of clarification and additional details from back on the Grand after a very nice afternoon & evening in Honolulu and Waikiki.

 

The Maui tender delays (both initially disembarking the ship when we got in and then for an hour or so later on, as people were trying to get back to the ship in the early afternoon rain) were (we were told) due to an insufficient number of security personnel (TSA or security contractors) on Maui -- hearsay that day was that some were flown in from another island. No way for me to substantiate that. Wind was mentioned by the captain as a possible cause the night before but never came up that day. There was weather but it didn't turn out to be significant for the tendering process.

 

As for disembarkation: Princess is getting us all to the airport in 30 disembarkation groups between Tuesday morning and Wednesday morning. We are putting our luggage outside our doors by 11 the night before. The following may be overly granular for some, but here goes.

 

On Tuesday, twelve groups will meet in Michelangelo dining room on Tuesday between 5 am and 11:45 am, and two more will meet at 3 and 6 pm. Those folks will all be flying out on Tuesday. If they have flights scheduled from SFO on a later day, Princess will be putting them up at a hotel Wednesday night.

 

Those of us who are leaving Wednesday will be staying on the ship Tuesday night. Wednesday morning there are 16 groups meeting between 4:30 am and 9:45 am (the sheet notes that the meeting time is not the disembarkation time). We will see how this goes.

 

There are people flying on United, Delta, and Hawaiian Airlines, and probably others. Most people we've talked to are connecting in Maui or LAX or Las Vegas and are ending up in SFO or OAK. Some are going to Sacramento. We were told by Passenger Services that when we get to the airport we have to grab our luggage from the shuttle and check it in ourselves (meaning we all have to pay our checked baggage fees and possibly get reimbursed for it). We heard of one married couple who are being put on two different flights, one to Oakland and one to SFO, and then they will meet up again after being shuttled separately to their hotel.

 

In the meantime, we have full run of the ship and/or Honolulu tomorrow. This evening after our little jaunt to Waikiki and back my wife and I had pools and hot tubs all to ourselves, which was a little weird. No lines coming back to the ship -- just us and about seven very wonderful, friendly local port security folks.

 

We feel lucky to have gotten back to Honolulu safely (even more so after reading this thread). We also think the crew have been doing their best and that they have had remarkably good attitudes given the difficulties we've heard they have had to undergo. (For example, we heard there was no A/C in crew quarters yesterday but obviously can't substantiate that either.) It will be interesting to see what comes out about this over time.

 

Repairs of some kind have been proceeding to the hull today and tonight. Tomorrow is definitely going to be weird as maybe half the ship will be leaving by afternoon and the rest of us will be leaving the next day. Okay, enough random updates from here... good night.

Thanks for the update & with the 75th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor on Wednesday they're predicting some traffic delays & restricting usage of some roads.

[Underwatr]

We weren't charged a PVSA violation fee (because it wasn't a violation) but Cunard did impose a fee of a few hundred dollars to disembark us at a port of call when my wife fell ill.

[cherylandtk]

...Next, the publication specifically states the following on page 8.

 

 

"Passenger vessel transportation between United States ports has historically been viewed to be part of the coastwise trade after the enactment of the PVSA. This view is premised on the concepts of continuity of the voyage and whether its intended purpose or objective is coastwise transportation"

 

IMHO - Princess Cruise can assert that coastwise transportation was not the intended purpose or objection of the transportation to Hawaii. The reason or objective of the diversion was safety.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pvsa_icp_3.pdf

The same document states that the only reason for granting a waiver is in the interest of national defense. (Page 14). Whether that is a narrow or broad definition is up for discussion.

 

Does anyone here recall how the PVSA violation was handled back in 2/2013 with the Carnival Triumph returning to Mobile instead of Galveston? At the time all the hoo-haw on the boards focused on the passport rule of the WHTI, and whether pax without passports would have any trouble returning to a different port. (They didn't). I don't know if a PVSA fine was imposed or not, but am fairly sure that Carnival absorbed it if one was. I would think that a similar ruling and scenario would apply in this case.