GTJ

The great thing about NYC is that there are so many distinct neighborhoods, each with their own character (and sometimes changing over time), so most people can chose what they prefer . . . there is no need for one size fitting all! I would say that the Marriott in downtown Brooklyn is the standard against which all other hotels in the area are measured against. The "drag" onto the ferry is probably easier than other transportation, because it is level boarding and you don't have to lift your luggage up into an automobile trunk, from the curb onto a bus, or up and down the stairs of the subway. The distance from the ferry terminal to the beginning of the cruise terminal drop-off area is about 100 feet; the distance to the front door of the cruise terminal is about 400 feet. I have lived within NYC for many decades, and worked in lower Manhattan for a substantial part of that time. I don't think I know what constitutes the "best" part of lower Manhattan. To me, most any part of lower Manhattan has something of interest (especially if, like me, you have an interest in history and geography). There are many hotels near Pier 11, though they do tend to be expensive (after all. Wall Street, where Pier 11 is located, is the financial capital of the world). I am not quite sure of the relevance of the lower east side as place to stay overnight. Either downtown Brooklyn or lower Manhattan would be more convenient. But as to a place to stay, generally, I would not hesitate at all to recommend staying on the lower east side. Some really interesting places to visit, explore, and eat. The main problem with the lower east side is the lack of hotels. There's really only one hotel east of Essex Street (a Holiday Inn), though there are several west of Essex Street and east of Chinatown. I just don't see any particular relevance for bringing up the option of staying on the lower east side (at least absent a particular interest in that neighborhood). A very nice excursion to make from the hotel, over the bridge to city hall. With ambition, make a circle tour by heading uptown from city to Canal Street, then crossing the Manhattan Bridge back into Brooklyn.

I would discourage anyone from flying in on the morning of the cruise departure day for even more reasons than just a testing obligation. The risk of flight disruptions is at the top of that list of reasons! My understanding here is that the flight is on the day before the cruise departure, but at an hour too late to get testing done on that flight arrival day. So in that case, just go from the airport to the hotel, and then do the test the next morning. The list of locations is persistently in flux, so you have to keep on top of it, but there's always going to be locations at which the test can be taken. But the least anxiety-filled alternative is to do the test before leaving home. It could be a proctored online test at a nominal cost. Or if "home" is anything like New York City then there will be lots of places where the test can be taken for free. The difficulty would be if someone is leaving "home" prior to the earliest that the cruise line will allow the test to be taken, and in that case the test would have to be taken either enroute, while traveling, or upon arrival in New York. (This would of particular concern for those traveling multiple days overland, less concern for those traveling by airplane.)

That is interesting because municipalities often justify their regulation on the ground that they are needed to ensure safety and quality service because transportation providers would not provide safe and good quality service if they were not regulated by the government! How does cost compare between city taxis and Uber or Lyft? How does responsiveness compare (i.e., the amount of time it takes from when first wanting transportation to the time boarding that transportation)?

The premise of the inquiry here assumes that the transportation sought is legal and not a violation of cabotage laws. So, for example, transportation from the United States to Canada or to Mexico. The issue is not about the law, but rather about the cruise line permitting, or not permitting, a passenger to do something that is lawful (i.e., embark onto, or disembark from, a vessel). All I see is negligible effort. There are a handful of countries that might prohibit entry or exit by sea (Egypt comes to mind), but that goes back to the matter quoted above: the premise of the inquiry here assumes that the transportation sought is legal. In other words, if it is lawful for passengers to disembark from the vessel and enter the country where the vessel is docked, and the cruise vessel operator is permitting other passengers to alight from the vessel for the day, what reasons are there for the cruise vessel operator to not permit a passenger to alight from the vessel and not return for re-boarding that vessel? What about the reverse? That is, boarding at an intermediate port (and again, only where it would be lawful to do so). The cruise line would need to screen the passenger and his or her baggage upon boarding at an intermediate port . . . but the cruise line does that for every passenger and their on-shore purchases and other acquisitions when they are re-boarding at that same port. The cruise line would need to issue a stateroom key and on board account card to the embarking passenger upon boarding the vessel . . . but the cruise line also does that on board the vessel for any passenger who loses or damages their card. Perhaps there may be some added cautions brought about by the pandemic (I am not quite sure what they may be, but let us assume that to be the case), and that is the reason for Royal Caribbean International suspending its usual practice. But beyond these health concerns, all of these actions relating to passengers embarking or disembarking at intermediate ports seem to be negligible, and within the scope of ordinary care undertaken by any transportation provider.

I think that your analogy is right on point. The airlines don't like the passenger who flies only a portion of the full ticket, say, a ticket from point A, through point B, to point C, where only A to B is flown, because the published fare from A to B may be higher than the published fare from A to C! The only recourse available to the airline is to sue the passenger for the additional fare for not having flown the entire ticket, to confiscate frequent flier points, and/or to ban the passenger from future flights. The fare problem is not the case with cruise line transportation. In the airline analogy, the airline does not want passengers to fly only a portion of the journey because of the aforementioned fare problem, but as noted, if you have baggage in hand, the airline cannot really compel a passenger to continue onward absent a kidnapping. And the same would probably be true with Royal Caribbean International, notwithstanding the suspension of its partial cruise practice . . . and the cruise line is not going to kidnap a passenger, intent on departing the cruise itinerary, while on shore and drag him or her back on board the vessel.

What the advantages and disadvantages of requesting an Uber or Lyft pick-up, compared to using a city taxi waiting at the taxi stand, when going from Newark Airport to Manhattan?

Why would it matter, particularly when there are no alternatives? True, one might want and expect there to exist ferries between, say, Miami and Cozumel, but in fact there are none. Only cruise vessels transport passengers on that route. When we travel by cruise vessel, we never buy anything on the vessel. There is the same non-spending for a partial itinerary: no difference. It is true that any savings from someone not traveling the entire itinerary is negligible, and in fact there is no reduction in fare for passengers who travel only a portion of the entire itinerary. If there were "quite a bit of logistics," then there might be some concern. What are those logistics? Whenever a vessel reaches a new country, it must clear immigration and customs, regardless of passengers whether persons on board the vessel will be ashore only temporarily or not. Being inspected by immigration and customs officials is not "special consideration" but a duty of those officials and an obligation of the cruise line. Immigration and customs officials have the right to board vessels, and may demand of the cruise line the interviewing of any person on the vessel, and if the cruise line does not cooperate with immigration and customs officials then the vessel will not be permitted to remain in that country's waters. I will also note that cruise lines routinely embark and disembark persons who perform entertainment services aboard vessels at intermediate stops, and immigration and customs officials must inspect these persons; that there might be additional fare-paying passengers also boarding or alighting should not entail any substantial additional effort by anyone. If there are any visa or other charges assessed individual passengers, then those amounts are collected from the passengers by the immigration or customs officials. Now if there were extra charges incurred by the cruise line, as a result of having embarked or disembarked persons at intermediate stops, then yes, it would be entirely legitimate for the cruise line to pass along those additional charges to the passengers. The analogy to taxis is inappropriate. A taxi is a for-hire vehicle that transports passengers at the direction of those passengers. Cruise vessels transport passengers as a fixed route scheduled service. The proper analogy is that of a bus: a bus may start its journey at one terminus, departing at a particular time, and while enroute to its destination, passengers might board and alight at bus stops that have been established as intermediate stopping points. I really don't understand this hypothetical. If, Delta Air Lines is operating a route from Chicago to Miami, with no intermediate stops, then the only location for boarding is Chicago, and the only location for alighting is Miami. I don't understand the relevance of any local airstrip for which the aircraft is not scheduled to make a stop. And I don't understand how this hypothetical could be analogous to a cruise itinerary where the vessel is scheduled to make intermediate stops. * * * I have not yet read any legitimate policy or logistical reasons for Royal Caribbean International permanently suspending its partial cruise practice. Handling health concerns during the pandemic might be legitimate temporarily, but when the health concerns go away, the partial cruise practice should return.

I think I was misunderstood. Typically, the tests can be completed two days in advance. So even if you're arriving in New York by airplane the day before the cruise vessel departure, you should be able to do the test at home on the day prior to the airplane travel. Otherwise, just get the test done in NYC on the morning of embarkation--not at the Manhattan Cruise Terminal itself but elsewhere in NYC--generally at no cost. HHC has lots of locations; you can see a list at http://www.nychealthandhospitals.org/covid-19-testing-sites (which also includes sites at the city's two airports) or search by map at http://maps.nyc.gov/covid-testing (the address for the Manhattan Cruise Terminal is 711 12th Avenue). Or if you have money to spend, and as noted by others, pay for an online-proctored test.

Because people want or need to travel from point A to point B. That sort of indifference may well be the case. Yet, it does not make sense, either economically or policy-wise. If someone is willing to pay for a service, but not consume all of the service that is offered, why would the service provider refuse to accept that business? Are there substantial costs for the cruise line when not providing all of the transportation, food , and entertainment to a passenger for the full duration of the itinerary? As to policy, do we really want cruise lines being able to deny service to minorities? There is a social history in this country with respect to the protection of the rights of minorities. Several years ago we traveled aboard a Norwegian Cruise Line vessel for which the full itinerary was New York to New Orleans, a one-way repositioning. We were destined for southern Mexico, and after a delightful Caribbean cruise, we alighted at the penultimate stop, San Miguel de Cozumel in the southern state of Quintana Roo (from which we continued onward by ferry to the mainland and then overland by bus). NCL had requested that we meet up in an onboard conference room at the time of arrival in Cozumel for the purpose of clearing Mexican immigration and customs. There we met up with a handful of other travelers who were also alighting at Cozumel, and provided our passports to NCL staff. They provided our passports to the Mexican officials, who stamped them and provided tourist cards (without even interviewing us personally), and NCL staff then returned the documents to us. Thereafter we all alighted alongside everyone else who was departing the vessel for their day excursions on the island. It is difficult to pick out any substantial expense incurred by NCL. We returned to the United States about one month later, this time using a Carnival Cruise Line vessel that was doing a round-trip excursion from New Orleans and stopping at Cozumel. We headed to the vessel in Cozumel, a Carnival staff person accompanied us to the vessel reception desk, where we checked-in and were assigned a stateroom (which was actually an upgrade). No formalities at all, and again seemingly no meaningful expense to the carrier. Previously we had sailed with Coopérative de Transport Maritime et Aérien on a round-trip cruise from Montréal, where we were destined for the French territorial collectivity of Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. Upon arrival at the island, CTMA staff called for us over the vessel's public address system to come to the reception desk. There we met up with the purser, who closed out our account, and met up with the French immigration and customs official, who examined our passports (no stamps or tourist cards this time). Thereafter we alighted with all others who would only remain on the island for the day. Again, seemingly no substantial expense for the cruise line. (For the return to Canada, we simply used a ferry vessel to Fortune, Newfoundland, aboard which all other passengers were also traveling one-way.) Clearly we are a minority. But if profits can be made, without significant added expense to the carrier, why not do so? Why would a cruise line desire to deny service to a minority? I am hopeful for it being temporary, if only because the reasoning given for the suspension is related to the health concerns brought on the pandemic. Are there are any signs that the suspension is, indeed, temporary . . . or permanent? The "rules" are specified in the ticket contract. Yet those rules appear not address the issue. Section 8 of the contract is entitled "Cancellation by Passenger; Early Disembarkation." It reads, in relevant part, "Cancellation by the Passenger after the Cruise or CruiseTour has begun, early disembarkation of the Passenger for any reason, including pursuant to any provision of this Ticket Contract, or 'no-shows,' shall be without refund, compensation, or liability on the part of the Carrier whatsoever." There is no reduction in fare for early disembarkation, but no prohibition of early disembarkation. Additionally, there appears to be no provision permitting the carrier to refuse transportation to a passenger seeking to embark at a downline port. The failure of Royal Caribbean International to have amended its rules makes me hopeful that this may in fact just be a temporary measure and not a permanent change.

Late last year Royal Caribbean Blog reported that “Royal Caribbean won't let you embark the ship at a different port of call or leave the ship earlier during your cruise.” The blog repeated the cruise line’s reason for this decision as being made “in an abundance of caution for the safety and security of our guests.” (It should be noted that Royal Caribbean Blog is not affiliated with Royal Caribbean International, but is instead an independent blog operated by Royal Sea Media LLC and controlled by Royal Caribbean International cruise enthusiast Matt Hochberg.) Royal Caribbean International had long acknowledged passengers traveling on so-called “partial cruises,” embarking at, and/or disembarking from, cruises at other than the scheduled embarkation and disembarkation ports for their full cruise itinerary. Other cruise lines have nor directly acknowledged such passenger travel, but have also generally accommodated such passengers. The practice is important, and perhaps residual from the prior era of ocean liners providing regular point-to-point transportation by sea, because there are many persons seeking transportation for which there are no other practicable alternatives. Included within that group are persons who cannot fly and for which reasonable or safe overland travel does not exist. Indeed, most of my travel by cruise vessel has involved one-way point-to-point transportation. On its website, as an FAQ within its Healthy Sail Center, Royal Caribbean International states: “Q If I'm denied boarding at the pier or arrive late, can I board the ship at the next port? A No, due to the specific boarding day processes required to evaluate the health of everyone onboard, we cannot have guests join the cruise downline once the sailing has embarked.” The wording of the FAQ suggests that this change by Royal Caribbean International may be just temporary, for the duration of the current pandemic travel restrictions, at least when viewed and considered in the most positive light. Yet, I imagine that some of us may have a concern that this could evolve into a permanent retrenchment by Royal Caribbean International from its provision of point-to-point transportation and evolvement into being exclusively as a excursion provider. Such would be detrimental to those who rely on cruise vessel operators for their transportation needs. This is not an issue controlled by the Passenger Vessel Services Act, which imposes legal restraints against domestic transportation solely between United States ports (for which there generally exists reasonable and safe overland transportation). Rather, the issue is international transportation where cabotage laws do not apply. (Nonetheless, many individuals, and even some cruise lines, seem to get worked up over these domestic constraints, and incorrectly assume or conclude that international transportation cannot be provided by foreign flag vessels.) What concerns or insights do others have over the present refusal of Royal Caribbean International to provide point-to-point transportation, and the likelihood of this refusal being either temporary or becoming permanent? Are there reports of other cruise lines having imposed similar restraints against providing point-to-point transportation, either on a temporary or permanent basis?

I was thinking the same thing. Now there is the Big Chute Marine Railway, on the Trent-Severn Waterway in Ontario, Canada, where vessels are, in fact, placed on wheels to be "dragged" over the intervening land. I don't believe that there is any similar railway transporting large cruise vessels between Port Canaveral and Orlando. 🙂 I believe that Cape Liberty is sometimes promoted as being New York City. Of course, it is not, and I would take offense if anyone were to equate Bayonne (or any part of New Jersey) with New York City. 🙂

Unlikely. There are so many urgent care centers in Manhattan that you should be able to get a test done on the morning of departure. I had a test done earlier this year at the urgent care center near where I reside (American Family Care in Flushing, Queens), which was quick and free. Is it not possible to get a test near your home prior to leaving for the port?

It is not clear what is meant by the term "seedy." The Red Hook neighborhood has been undergoing remarkable change over the past few decades, much like Williamsburg has also changed. But the redevelopment has been progressing more slowly than Wiliamsburg because it has no subway access, and transportation is limited to the B61 bus route and the NYC and Ikea ferry services. Parts of Red Hook had once been a bit rough, filled with industry, and devoid of much interest. Today its largest retailers are Ikea (furniture store) and Food Bazaar (successor to Fairway), and is as well populated by many small pioneering business, such as restaurants and artists. I understand that Hometown Bar-B-Que is darn good, though I have not yet been there. At present there is only a single hotel in Red Hook, the Brooklyn Motor Inn. It gets mixed reviews, the most positive being that it is "not bad," but many commenting on rooms retaining cigarette odors and room maintenance not always meeting expectations. It would seem that there should be sufficient demand a higher quality hotel somewhere along Van Brunt Street, but perhaps there still is not yet enough cruise traffic at the Brooklyn terminal to make the numbers work. Otherwise, there are several hotels nearby in downtown Brooklyn that are well-located and convenient (many are expensive, though likely less compared to Manhattan). There are several hotels spread out along Third and Fourth Avenues, and also immediately south of Green-Wood Cemetery along 39th Street. These would be reasonably close to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, but may not have much of interest in the immediate surroundings. But they are generally close to the subway (closer than the Brooklyn Motor Inn).