Reports from Carnival Panorama

[smellywax]

1 hour ago, bdever said:

Thanks, the article said passengers let off today at a different port in Sonoras / OP @smellywax can you confirm?

No we are at sea

[Calnev1]

7 minutes ago, dcsham said:

I highly doubt any sailings within the next few weeks will be cancelled outside of an order by the CDC to stop sailing.  There has been no indication that this will happen, not anywhere.  So I'm sorry you are too nervous to cruise, probably better that you wait until everything is perfect if it's that upsetting.

Unless Carnival denies us boarding, my wife and I will be on the Radiance with our N95 masks for our January 10 sailing.  It will be great with everyone else cancelling!! 

[bratts2go]

12 minutes ago, Calnev1 said:

Nope.  Guaymas, Sonora, is halfway up the Gulf of California.  Way north of Puerto Vallarta.

Right you are!  I got north and south switched in my head's map.  My thinking was that the ships is headed in direction of U.S., although detouring from its original itinerary.

[chengkp75]

14 minutes ago, MrMarc said:

I believe you about the work visa situation, I guess I am not seeing it in the document I am looking at. https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Sep/PVSA-ICP.pdf  I didn't see where the work rules were different for a ship in compliance with the PVSA and exempt from the PVSA.  I also agree that the fines would probably be levied and then withdrawn in the petition phase.  However I think a case could be made under these circumstances where the CBP could not impose the fines at all, but not hurt the power of the law.  It is a perfect example of how rules and laws cannot anticipate every possible situation.  

As I've said, the work visa regulations are not part of the PVSA, since to be compliant with the PVSA, a ship must be US flag, and have a US crew.  Remember, the PVSA only applies to domestic voyages.  What foreign flag cruise ships do is not "being compliant" with the PVSA, they are meeting the requirements that make their voyages non-domestic.  The work visa rules are based on the State Department's regulations for work visas, and a CBP ruling that crew who work on a foreign flag ship that never calls on a non-US port are working exclusively in the US, and therefore their crew visas are not sufficient to cover their labor.

 

Sure, CBP could issue a CFR waiving the fine in the first place, but that would require the whole "change to CFR" procedure, which includes time for interested parties to respond to the proposed change, and it would not happen quickly or even in a few months.

[JT1962]

Looks like the issue may be resolved. 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/mexico-says-cruise-ships-with-coronavirus-cases-can-dock/
 

 

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The Mexican government said Wednesday it will allow cruise ships carrying people infected with the coronavirus to dock. 

 

The announcement came after two Mexican ports refused to allowed passengers ashore because their ships had coronavirus cases. 

 

The Health Department said passengers or crew who show no symptoms will be allowed to come ashore normally, while those with symptoms or a positive virus test will be quarantined or given medical care. 

 

The department said a cruise ship that was prevented from docking at one Pacific coast port will be allowed to dock farther north, at the port of Guaymas. That was an apparent reference to a ship that was supposed to dock at Puerto Vallarta a few days ago but was not allowed to do so.   

 

Early in the pandemic, some cruise ships wandered the seas for weeks seeking a port that would allow them to dock with coronavirus cases aboard.  
 

Mexico is one of the few countries in the world that has instituted no travel restrictions, no testing requirements and no mandatory face mask wearing for visitors. The government argues such measures would be counterproductive for the economy, for which tourism revenues account for about 8.5% of GDP.

[PekingeseLady]

1 hour ago, Calnev1 said:

Here is the link.  Its the Daily Mail, not the Guardian.  Sorry.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10350325/Mexico-allow-non-infected-disembark-cruise-ships-positive-COVID-19-cases-onboard.html

It says passengers have to test. Carnival won't do that. 

[travelplus]

1 hour ago, dcsham said:

I'm with you 100%!  I cruise for the ship experience, the ports have always been secondary to me and my wife.  I know that may not be the same for everyone, but I'd much rather be at the Alchemy Bar than huddled at home worried I might catch Covid.

Exactly right my Friend!

[AmazedByCruising]

12 minutes ago, JT1962 said:

The announcement came after two Mexican ports refused to allowed passengers ashore because their ships had coronavirus cases

 

Those ports have a point, as their numbers are still falling. Within weeks though, it's like shouting from a burning forest that visitors are not allowed to smoke.

[Calnev1]

12 minutes ago, PekingeseLady said:

It says passengers have to test. Carnival won't do that. 

If you read beyond the abreviated bullet points at the top, I don't think the article itself says that asympotomatic passengers have to test.  We will get the reality, I guess, when the Panorama tries to disembark at Cabo.

[bdever]

24 minutes ago, JT1962 said:

Looks like the issue may be resolved. 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/mexico-says-cruise-ships-with-coronavirus-cases-can-dock/
 

 

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The Mexican government said Wednesday it will allow cruise ships carrying people infected with the coronavirus to dock. 

 

The announcement came after two Mexican ports refused to allowed passengers ashore because their ships had coronavirus cases. 

 

The Health Department said passengers or crew who show no symptoms will be allowed to come ashore normally, while those with symptoms or a positive virus test will be quarantined or given medical care. 

 

The department said a cruise ship that was prevented from docking at one Pacific coast port will be allowed to dock farther north, at the port of Guaymas. That was an apparent reference to a ship that was supposed to dock at Puerto Vallarta a few days ago but was not allowed to do so.   

 

Early in the pandemic, some cruise ships wandered the seas for weeks seeking a port that would allow them to dock with coronavirus cases aboard.  
 

Mexico is one of the few countries in the world that has instituted no travel restrictions, no testing requirements and no mandatory face mask wearing for visitors. The government argues such measures would be counterproductive for the economy, for which tourism revenues account for about 8.5% of GDP.

Wednesday???? It’s only Tuesday… hmm these articles are not helping in terms of legitimacy 

[bdever]

Moreover the Seattle Times article incorrectly states an alternative port and says Mexico does not require face masks 🤦🏻‍♀️

[BlerkOne]

1 hour ago, dcsham said:

I swear to God reading about issues you describe here and also reading cruiser reviews that some people only go on vacation to have a bad time.  Pretty ridiculous.

Some people aren't happy unless they have something to complain about.

[beerman2]

2 minutes ago, bdever said:

Wednesday???? It’s only Tuesday… hmm these articles are not helping in terms of legitimacy 

This is after denying a cruise ship to dock today. Tomorrow (Wednesday) they will allow ships to dock.

 

They changed their mind!

[Calnev1]

1 minute ago, beerman2 said:

This is after denying a cruise ship to dock today. Tomorrow (Wednesday) they will allow ships to dock.

 

They changed their mind!

At the very least the sentence in the Seattle Times was ambiguously worded.

[bdever]

1 minute ago, beerman2 said:

This is after denying a cruise ship to dock today. Tomorrow (Wednesday) they will allow ships to dock.

 

They changed their mind!

I see what you’re saying but that’s not the way it was written. To top it off the article incorrectly states an alternative port and incorrect mask protocols for Mexico which certainly doesn’t help with the integrity of the reporting.

[PekingeseLady]

12 minutes ago, Calnev1 said:

If you read beyond the abreviated bullet points at the top, I don't think the article itself says that asympotomatic passengers have to test.  We will get the reality, I guess, when the Panorama tries to disembark at Cabo.

I read it as passengers need to test. As in all. But I probably read into it.  Your remark seems a bit condensing. Not very nice. We will find out tomorrow though. God bless you.

[nocl]

5 hours ago, ArchieCruise said:

I actually do not believe Carnival would be in violation because the rules state they cannot transport guests between Us ports.  Since the cruise is starting and stopping in the same port without any other stops it isn’t going between ports and would not be in violation (think cruise to nowhere).

 

With that said the cruise did stop in Puerto Vallarta.  Nobody was allowed off but they did stop and dock in Puerto Vallarta for the day.  

Except that raises a whole different issue, since if a ship does not land at a foreign port, it is considered to be a totally domestic cruise which would require crew to have US work visa's, require compliance with US labor and tax laws, and make the revenue from the cruise subject to US corporate income tax.

 

Better for them to be fined under PVSA and then the fine waived after appeal.

[nocl]

5 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

They could be charged, but I doubt it. Congress set a covid precedent with Alaska and Canada. The ship certainly did more than exchange an email as they did in Canada, and other ships have also been refused, as I understand it.

 

I'm not sure where a "private" foreign island port could be created in the Pacific, but could be a way to thwart the idiotic PVSA in the future.

Congress passed a law that granted a very specific exception, it is not a precedent concerning violation of the law.  That law only applied to cruises from Seattle to Alaska, certainly did not apply to any other ports, or to Mexico.

[Sunshine3601]

Is there a lot of crew that tested positive as I find it odd they weren't allowed to dock with only 5 passengers testing positive.     This summer with delta strain plenty of ships had covid onboard with more than 5 positives and were permitted to dock.     Just wondering.

[bdever]

1 minute ago, Sunshine3601 said:

Is there a lot of crew that tested positive as I find it odd they weren't allowed to dock with only 5 passengers testing positive.     This summer with delta strain plenty of ships had covid onboard with more than 5 positives and were permitted to dock.     Just wondering.

A lot of positive crew - 60+ reported to the PV port authorities. No bueno. 

[Sunshine3601]

Just now, bdever said:

A lot of positive crew - 60+ reported to the PV port authorities. No bueno. 

that stinks...hopefully they recover quickly and can get out of quarantine soon.

[MrMarc]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

As I've said, the work visa regulations are not part of the PVSA, since to be compliant with the PVSA, a ship must be US flag, and have a US crew.  Remember, the PVSA only applies to domestic voyages.  What foreign flag cruise ships do is not "being compliant" with the PVSA, they are meeting the requirements that make their voyages non-domestic.  The work visa rules are based on the State Department's regulations for work visas, and a CBP ruling that crew who work on a foreign flag ship that never calls on a non-US port are working exclusively in the US, and therefore their crew visas are not sufficient to cover their labor.

 

Sure, CBP could issue a CFR waiving the fine in the first place, but that would require the whole "change to CFR" procedure, which includes time for interested parties to respond to the proposed change, and it would not happen quickly or even in a few months.

I have never worked with this law, so clearly I am misreading it.  As for waiving the fines, I would think in a case like this that it would fall within the discretion of CBP enforcement, not requiring an alteration in the law.  However, on re-reading it, there does not appear to be any discretion, so the petition procedure would  be the only procedure that could be used.  This makes you right again.  Thankfully, I have gotten used to being wrong (wife & 2 daughters), and don't mind admitting it.

[sanmarcosman]

1 hour ago, bdever said:

Moreover the Seattle Times article incorrectly states an alternative port and says Mexico does not require face masks 🤦🏻‍♀️

It's merely restating the AP article, look at the byline 😉 

[sanmarcosman]

1 hour ago, PekingeseLady said:

It says passengers have to test. Carnival won't do that. 

No, it says guests have to be be tested. The wording is vague and we'll know more tomorrow what was meant.

 

[monykalyn]

3 hours ago, pinto18 said:

Can I ask how you got your cruise moved? We want to do the same but basically when you call they say dont call they are too busy. And PVPs out till the 3rd

just called, sat on hold until someone answered. I did call the "alternate" number (800-845-2599) and just didn't select an option. I had Katura who was AWESOME. Don't think these CS reps used to this but she got it done, had to get someone to help her with moving it without penalty. Note this wasn't a casino cruise-apparently that is a different set of challenges LOL-lost my OBC that was a promo when booking, but got wifi (which is what I was gonna use the OBC anyway) so a wash there. Think fare difference was $300 when all said and done. Just happy to have it moved now 🙂