chengkp75

I think that they got exactly what they wanted, and that is no excessive crushes of people on one day, marketing more for longer staying guests. If more ships shift to Portland, I think it will follow suit, though not likely to the extreme limit that Bar Harbor set. Lots of people around here are not big cruise ship passenger fans.

At NCL, where I witnessed that instance, they will provide all documentation needed to apply for a refund to CBP. I can't say how other cruise lines handle it.

I will qualify my last post with regards to restraining a passenger from leaving the ship, by saying that not paying a hotel bill is considered theft in Hawaii, and the amount of the PVSA fine makes it 2nd degree theft, which is a felony, and as such, ship's security can stop a person from disembarking until local law enforcement arrive. This is not considered theft, a criminal charge, but a civil one, in many states, and you cannot be detained for a civil crime.

Camden is a nice town, but it is nearly 2 hour drive each way.

Bar Harbor has ruled that if a cruise ship had made a reservation for a port call to Bar Harbor before the town council vote on the cruise passenger limits (which was Oct/Nov last year, if I remember right), then large ships would be allowed. But, any reservations made after the council vote date would be limited to 1000 passengers per day. Portland is a great city to visit, I've lived here for 50 years. Great restaurants, lots to see. Check the "Canada/New England" forum and look for threads on Portland, or search my posts on what to do or see. It all depends on your activity level and interests. I frequently recommend, and get positive feedback on, the Casco Bay Ferry "mailboat run", which has earned itself a "sticky" in the Canada/NE forum. Great views of the islands and bay, and interesting to learn about and see the island lifestyle.

First off, the OP says it was a "hypothetical", but then said that CBP officers required payment from the passengers. This is blatantly untrue. CBP doesn't give a hoot about the passenger, the fine is for the cruise line, and that is where they will get their money. It is merely the cruise line ticket contract where you give the cruise line permission to pass the fine to you. And, anyone saying that without paying the fine "no US citizen is disembarking" is also pure rubbish. As noted by others, the PVSA has nothing to do with the citizenship of the passenger, since the fine is for the cruise line to have transported any passenger in this manner. And, as noted above, CBP doesn't care about the passenger, and are perfectly willing to let a passenger disembark in violation of the PVSA, since they will simply fine the cruise line. Secondly, there is no legal reason that the cruise line can hold anyone on the ship that wants to leave, for any reason. The only thing that the cruise line can do is place an "innkeeper's lien" on the passenger who doesn't pay their bill in full (whether normal charges or PVSA fines), and all that means is that the passenger cannot take their luggage with them, the cruise line holds it as collateral for the debt. Thirdly, in most cases of medical evacuation or disembarkation, CBP will levy a fine against the cruise line, and the cruise line will pass it to the passenger, and it will fall to the passenger to obtain a waiver and return of the fine from CBP. I know of one case where a deceased passenger was fined for "disembarking" early, and the surviving spouse had to apply for waiver. As to whether or not the fine is covered by Princess' insurance, the OP needs to read the policy to see if it mentions fines. If it does, it's covered, if it doesn't, it's not covered. Simple.

And, I sympathise with that. But, as I say, lumping these into "azipod issues" oversimplifies the problem. Is it something external to the azipod, like a bent blade? While causing propulsion issues (slower speed), it is not an "azipod issue". Is it the same pod as last year? What was the failure last year? What is the failure this year? Are they the same failure, or something in a totally different sub-system (like a bearing failure one time, and a failure of the steering (azimuthing) system, or even in the electrical control system that modulates the electrical power to various frequencies to allow the propeller to operate at various speeds? Way too many variables to lump things together and condemn this as a recurring problem. And, while the cruising public feel that azipods are an everyday form of propulsion, and despite the fact they've been in use for about 30 years, the sample size of azipod maintenance history is still relatively small. For example, there are about 120,000 merchant ships in the world today, each with one propeller (so one propulsion system), and over the 30 year life of azipods, those have produced 15-20 billion running hours (depending on how long the ship is in port) (and considering that shafted slow speed diesel engines have been powering ships for about 100 years, or 3 times as long as azipods). Azipods, on the other hand, only have about 700 units in operations (0.5% as many as the shafted propellers), and have generated 20 million running hours (0.1% compared to the shafted propellers), so their statistical database for equipment failure rates, and maintenance rates are still quite low compared to "conventional" propulsion. So, they are still learning things about how azipods last and when to maintain them, and will do so for many years to come.

Can't argue with the Captain, Vancouver it is. If it is just bent blades, they could do this in the water in Vancouver or Victoria. If it's an azipod failure, then likely back to Portland for dry dock. As for ending the cruise in the US, a mechanical failure exemption from the PVSA is almost invariably granted.

This is like saying you have "car issues" when you have repairs done for brakes one year and cooling system the next.

Taking 4000 tons off the bow, along with maybe another 1000 tons of containers (no idea how many are laden and how many are empty) will certainly raise the bow, but not sure if it will be enough to come unstuck. I thought I've seen in a few shots that they have run mooring lines from the Dali's bow to the SE dolphin (ahead of Dali and on the other side of the bridge) to help stabilize the bow, and the two anchors will hopefully have been recovered and reset directly under the bow. As noted by the Unified Command, the "canal effect" of a large ship moving fast in a narrow, shallow channel will cause a whole lot of hydraulic force towards things on the sides of the channel (like the Dali), and this could cause her to lift up and maybe break free.

Ships using the limited depth channel will be determined by the Captain of the Port of Baltimore (USCG) on an "as needed" basis. I believe the cruise ships will fit into the "between 40k to 60k ton displacement" category, which will mean they will be evaluated by the CotP, weighing risk to reward as to whether they are allowed or not. Not confident that the cruise ships will show enough reward to warrant the risk in traversing the channel.

I think the ship will return to Norfolk, and then dead-head to Baltimore for the next cruise.

Marinetraffic is showing her destination as Astoria, pointing to her going to Portland for drydocking. Currently Vigor's dock is empty, Victoria's dock currently has Norwegian Sun in it. Radiance doing 15.8 knots.

Off hand, I don't remember the repair you mention, but was the "evening before" on the Panama Canal cruise that I quoted, or the next cruise? But, yes, if the blades are available (some ships carry a spare set on the bow), then it would be just a couple of days to replace the blades by diver.

Does your car give you hints before it breaks down? 😉