Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About voyageur9

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
  • Interests
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Cruising is not constitutionally protected. So to refuse to sell a ticket or to refuse boarding or to remove from the ship, those who fail to meet medical minimums isn't illegal. Frankly it's no different than roller coaster operators who specify minimum height and maximum weight criteria. If there's a reasonable safety and/or operational reason, then the operator can refuse those who fail to meet requirements. Some cruise operators refuse children. Others require medical certificates. And, I very much doubt that the morbidly obese or or those with chronic and serious diseases would have much luck in the courts trying to force a cruise line to carry them by claiming discrimination. It's only unlawful discrimination if it's based on a constitutionally protected class. So race, gender, sexual preference etc etc. But for HAL or any other cruise operator to set minimum requirements of health so as to reduce the danger to others would likely pass legal muster. It might be a poor commercial decision (although maybe not) but it's not unlawful.
  2. Maybe, ... if it's a regulatory or contractual requirement that the passenger meet certain medical or ambulatory or other health standards to protect themselves and others and that individual fails to meet those regulatory or contractual requirements at the time of boarding then he/she is in breach and can't expect compensation. But the requirements need to be unambiguous and would-be passengers must know them with specificity in advance. Just like you can get denied entry into a country if you aren't properly vaccinated. If you fail, you pay your own flight home. Those in doubt, need insurance.
  3. Smallpox was eradicated in the late 1970s, through vaccination. Many countries, including the United States in some instances, require proof of various vaccinations prior to issuing visas and/or permitting entry. So, domestically, do many school systems. Herd immunity is the single best safeguard against epidemics. Recent lethal outbreaks of measles have resulted from parents declining to protect their children. There's nothing new nor unusual about nations or other levels of government requiring vaccines (when available) against new or recurrent viral or other disease. It's basic public health.
  4. No one-size fits all policy will ever satisfy everyone. There will always be outliers who, perhaps justly, feel the policy discriminates against them. Same as insurance. Young males pay significantly higher premiums because young male drivers (in aggregate) cause far more deaths, injuries and property damage than other demographic segments. It's a commercial transaction. Going on a cruise is not a constitutionally-protected activity so certain types of commercial discrimination will be lawful. So, if a cruise line decides it wants nothing to do with children (i.e. Virgin -- not for health reasons) or over-70s or those without a medical certificate, it may take a financial hit from losing some customers but doing so isn't illegal. Some may regard that as unfair. They can take their money elsewhere. Others may regard the absence of certain demographics as cruise enhancing. Evaluating every potential customer individually isn't commercially viable, any more so that an auto insurer opting to give individualized premiums to the 23-year-old male because he can prove he's safer/fitter/whatever than the norm.
  5. Miraflores locks webcam Same site has another webcam of Gatun locks at north end. Assume Rotterdam and Zaandam will both transit in the cheaper/older/smaller locks unless traffic requires otherwise. Both now seemed to have joined the queue.
  6. In fact, the much-admired Captain Albert provided a clear and concise account several days ago of the special meeting called by Rotterdam's captain in which he outlined the basis for the voyage which was beyond the scope of the crew's contract. That account may not explicitly deal with all of the fine details but it is not "nothing."
  7. As of 11 am EDT Rotterdam has turned away from the approaches to the canal and is listing its destination as "Anchorage" Port Balboa, Panama, which is to the west of the canal entrance. Zaandam, a few miles further south, is still roughly in line with the Panama canal queue. But she could veer off too as did Rotterdam. Apologies copies Max2003 post
  8. Those positions are 145 nautical miles (167 miles, 268 kms) apart ... and sunset halfway between the two is approx 1915 (EDT) .... just under two hours. Anyone familiar with lat/long calcs, please check my math.
  9. That's 185 nm apart. Assuming direct courses towards each other and a closing speed of 40+ knots, Rotterdam has been doing 23+ and Zaandam about 20, then a rendezvous in something over four hours from the time of the lat-long provided by Wehwalt.
  10. A rendezvous off Balboa would (even at their relatively high speeds) have occurred at or just after local sunset. I agree with your surmise that the two passengers vessels with AIS turned off seem to have changed course for an earlier high-seas meet. It might then be accomplished in the last hour or so of daylight. Adding current offshore weather: Afternoon Light NW winds with a slight chop. Small mid period waves. Winds: NW 8 to 11 knots. Seas: SSW 4 feet at 12 seconds.
  11. Little San Salvador Island, (its proper name) is sovereign territory of The Bahamas. No foreign-flagged ship can even enter the 12-mile territorial waters without permission. Yes Carnival owns the island. Just like a corporation might own a big ranch in Texas. But the same corporation could not airlift thousands of people from abroad, including some non-citizens, to that ranch (especially if some were suspected of being infected with a potentially deadly and virulent disease) just by asserting ownership. Neither international maritime law nor domestic property law confers that kind of ability to usurp or ignore Bahamian territorial rights.
  12. Update on positions. As of 0800 EDT, Rotterdam and Zaandam are roughly 1,360 nautical miles apart. Rotterdam's reported speed is 23.7 knots and Zandaam's is 20 knots. They are not headed directly for each other but rather are apparently intending a rendezvous at -- or offshore -- Balboa which is the southern or Pacific entrance to the Canal. Given their current positions, courses and speeds, such a rendezvous is still about 36 hours away or shortly after local sunset Thursday.
  13. Rotterdam is now up to 23.7 knots (27 mph or 44 km/hr) course 118 along the coast so it does appear a rendezvous off Balboa is most likely in about 50 hours.
  14. if they are intending a direct course, high-seas, rendezvous, Rotterdam should be steering 142 degrees (roughly SE) and Zaandam 323 degrees (roughly NW) ... but that doesn't appear to be the case. At 1000 EDT Rotterdam is steering 120-degrees at 22-5 knots paralleling the coast so a rendezvous offshore Panama seems more likely. Don't have an up-to-date position/course for Zaandam
  • Create New...