sparks1093

That would make me want to chose the option more.

Yes, one does need to consider port days but as demonstrated it's usually not too difficult to have enough on those days as well (and making sure to average the sea days and port days in the consideration).

I'm not sure that the cuisine or the entertainment will be vastly different on the same line. Different folks doing the same thing is the more likely result. I would still rather experience two different ships if possible so that is probably what I would chose.

I do recall one such day and it was the first time we ever had a drink package (on Royal). We had spent the day at Universal Studios and by the time we returned to the ship we were both so tired we turned in early. As I recall we had 2 whole drinks (each) on the ship. But we did have enough the rest of time for the average to work in our favor (and it certainly helped that Royal's drink package does work on their private island, so essentially another sea day. It also might have helped that our clamshell was right next to the bar. Maybe.).

I can tell.🙂 Since neither of us is involved it doesn't matter, we're just passing the time of day and hopefully other people reading the thread can learn something from it (even if it's only lock your valuables in the safe).

Sounded to me like the Chief Security officer was the one that accused by pointing out only employees had been in the cabin.

All I know is that for a week without Cheers our bar bill was $1300 and to me that is the only number that matters. I can easily drink 5 cocktails every day on vacation, even on most port days. One in the evening on the way to dinner, one with dinner, three during and after the show. That's with starting drinking at 5pm or so and 5 drinks between 5 pm and 11 pm (or 5 drinks in a 6 hour span of time).

Sounds like you want them to be Sherlock Holmes 😉. The bank doesn't require card holders to do that and I know that I wouldn't. I would leave it to the investigative agency if they chose to investigate, which they very likely wouldn't. The OP (and any other card user) isn't required to identify who they suspect committed the fraud when they call the bank and we don't even know if they did. From what the OP provided it is reasonable to conclude that the fraud occurred on the ship and that it might have been the steward or the plumber. That doesn't mean that someone else couldn't have done it, but that is where any investigation would start until they were excluded. I personally don't care where it happened, other than possibly that having an impact on where a police report gets filed.

Ok, dusted of the copy of the proposed regulations. Economic impact was considered by OMB as a result of Federal law, which mandates such a study in any regulation that would cost more than $100 million dollars and when considering Alternative 1, requiring all US travelers including children to present a valid passport book this is what it says: "This alternative would require all U.S. citizens, including minors under 16 and all cruise passengers, to present a valid passport book. The passport card, CBP trusted traveler documents, the MMD, and documents from DHS-approved pilot programs would not be accepted. This would be a more stringent alternative, and it was rejected as potentially too costly and burdensome for low-risk populations of travelers. While the traditional passport book will always be an acceptable document for a U.S. citizen to present upon entry to the United States, DHS and DOS believe that the cost of a traditional passport book may be too burdensome for some U.S. citizens, particularly those living in border communities where land-border crossings are an integral part of everyday life. As stated previously, DHS and DOS believe that children under the age of 16 pose a low security threat in the land and sea environments and will be permitted to present a certified copy of a birth certificate when arriving in the United States at all land and sea ports-of-entry from within the Western Hemisphere. Additionally, DHS and CBP have developed an alternative procedure for children traveling in groups. DHS and DOS have also determined that exempting certain cruise passengers from a passport requirement is the best approach to balance security and travel efficiency considerations in the cruise ship environment." (bolding for emphasis). Too burdensome for groups of low risk populations of travelers (NOT low income populations-- low risk populations). Additionally, if every traveler needed to have a passport this would increase the number of Federal employees because of the increased demand, and while some of those expenses would be offset by user fees some tax dollars would still be in play. If anyone is interested in reading the proposed regulations which I just quoted you can go here Federal Register :: Documents Required for Travelers Departing From or Arriving in the United States at Sea and Land Ports-of-Entry From Within the Western Hemisphere but bring some milk, some of it is very dry reading. These regulations have been in place since 2008 and until the security threat posed by US citizens on closed loop cruises changes the regulations won't change. DHS and DOS have developed procedures to be used since the regulations were written to assist those passengers without passports on a closed loop cruise that need assistance.

The same could be said for people who have a passport and lose it or have it stolen while traveling. Traveler services have always been a part of State's mission and always will be.

AFAIK all of the different IDs are paid for by the fees for said IDs, not tax dollars. And millions of people travel on closed loop cruises every year with something other then a passport and vary few have any issues at all.

And those folks are already on the payroll. No new employees were added to the State Department rolls because of the closed loop exception.

If they are being pennywise and pound foolish if it goes south it's on them and no one else. Hardly a reason for the government to require passports on closed loop cruises.

I get that you understand it, just mentioned it for those that didn't. 🙂

I was raised that way as well. There's a fine between that and victim shaming, though.

The WHTI is much broader than you make it out to be and covers air, land and sea travel. There are exceptions to the general rule for using a passport when two conditions are met 1) the risk is low to the national security and 2) the traveler can be vetted in a timely manner for the mode of travel they are using. I can travel outside the US on a tank of gas, but I do know that isn't what you're referring to. There are people in all income levels who arguably cannot really afford to cruise, it's not just those dirty, good for nothing low-income bottom feeders (and I know that no one used that specific language but that's how many of these posts sound). I still don't understand why so many are hung up on what documentation another traveler is using since if the traveler in question chose wrongly all of the consequences fall squarely on their own head.

Which I think is just part of the onboard point of sale system. No sense having two different systems.

When we first started buying a bottle it was to stretch our budget. Then it became a matter of convenience so we could have nightcaps on the balcony. We could certainly afford it but it's just too steep for convenience. Since we have 5 adults in our party we'll be able to bring enough wine so that's what we'll do.

Carnival does listen. 😄

Nothing changes. During the cruise CBP verifies all of the passenger information through government databases whether they have a passport or not. If someone does have a passport they only need to check one database, without a passport they might have to check a couple. Since this is all done during the voyage it is transparent to the passengers. I'm sure that a lot of hard-working people will appreciate being called a bottom feeder.

The cruise line warning is the key and if you did need a passport to visit the island on a cruise and didn't have one you wouldn't be allowed to board. When the ship pulls in to a port the passenger manifest is (or has been) shared with the authorities and that manifest includes information on citizenship and documents.

Who did they lobby? The regulations were written by faceless government bureaucrats. Sure, the cruise lines, like any other entity (including private citizens) could provide comment on the proposed Federal regulations, but that is not lobbying as the term is used. I did read the proposed regulations and it was clearly spelled out- the closed loop exception was implemented because a US citizen on a closed loop cruise presents a very low risk to the national security. So, the practice that existed prior to the regulations being enacted was allowed to continue. Economics of travel weren't considered, for if they were then citizens would still be allowed to use a birth certificate at a land border (and economic impact was put forth by many commentators, mostly impacted communities and businesses along the border). How people chose to spend their money and vacation is no concern of mine (even if they aren't acting at all prudently).

And if the police never investigate then no one is excluded. Hopefully the report from the Security Officer will be sufficient but if not the OP will be able to convince the local PD to take it.

Since the crime didn't occur in their jurisdiction it's doubtful whether or not the local PD would even accept the complaint.

She did file a report onboard and that report will likely be accepted by the credit card company. I doubt that this will go any further than that.