billie5

One of my buddies sailed on the Valor in November last year, said the creme brûlée wasn't good. We're not friends anymore.:p

Now that is funny.

Wonder why a cruise line line like carnival has never considered, to my knowledge, offering cruises or groups based on the the theme of your expected (college) graduation date? Like, say, '62, '63, '64, '65. It means you grew up dancing to the Everly Brothers, Kingston Trio, Joan Baez, early Elvis, etc. Wow, what memories --- even if one of us were an Eastern liberal, say, and the other a 'show me' Midwesterner.

We routinely lock up everything when we leave the cabin. Not just to protect ourselves but also to protect our hard working stewards.

 

It prevents 'misunderstandings' from occurring.

I have been on CC for a dozen years, and believe me, very very few CCers suspect cabin attendants. For very good reasons which one can easily find with a little research! Or imagination.:rolleyes:

Why am I an exception? I dont lounge by the pool and if expressing an opinion on a subject is rude to you then your morals and judgement are way out of whack!

Indeed, you make a valid point. You do have a right to your opinion. Still a pity that it is so unAussie.

.... Oceania, it seems, was the retailer, so it was up to them to deliver the goods or make a repayment....

I agree with some of the points OP has made. It is hard to see that Oceania could not have anticipated the sort of problem which arose for OP and have already formulated a fair response, so that OP would not be threatened with loss of his credit. However, ....

(1) Oceania was most certainly not the retailer. Payment expediter, perhaps. I like the way hypercafe said it: under their umbrella.

(2) Why would any of us assume to know how much responsibility Oceania had in cancelling the sale? Just one of a zillion possibilities: suppose Oceania had confirmed that some of the paintings had a strong possibility of being forgeries. Would you have had them quietly say nothing? Or make their well founded suspicions into a written explanation, as OP would have had it, guaranteeing protracted libel litigation?

(3) To have an art auction if they do not intend to follow through is, on its face, a rather absurd statement. Perhaps they did intend. Perhaps there was nothing they could do about immediately cancelling their contractual arrangements with the dealer. Perhaps they needed to hear back from their legal department. Perhaps they needed to cajole the art company into choosing to end the contract. Perhaps ..............

Yes, they are separate but cruise ships are regulated by both. That causes some of the confusion. In this particular case it is the PVSA being applied in that it regulates that the passengers can't depart that ship in another US port without violating the PVSA. The Jones Act regulates crew nationality and that a ship has to be built in the US to be US flagged. One way of explaining it is that because of the Jones Act cruise ships that are foreign flagged and foreign crewed are regulated by the PVSA.

You can explain it that way, but you would be entirely wrong.

The question of being coastwise qualified, which is written into the original PVSA (It has been amended several times) has been defined by the Coast Guard ever since 1789, and certainly did not/does not require the Jones Act in any way. (Actually, when PVSA was first passed, it was the Bureau of Navigation, oddly enough, but that is irrelevant) It has always required construction of the vessel within the USA, and strict ownership rules. The requirements for USA flagging have changed numerous times, both before and after the Jones Act, by statute but also by administrative fiat and court decisions.

By decisions which well predate the Jones Act, PVSA would apply to the vessel under discussion -- with or without the Jones Act.

This outcome of pretrial motions was, I would guess, expected by nearly everyone. Good to finally reach it.

Rubbish! It is your chair when you are using it even if you are not in it!

 

Learn to get up to the lido earlier if you want a primo chair next to the pool and you wont have a Chog problem, its that simple!

So sorry you feel that way.

Of course the cruise line (and most cruisers also) will tell you that you are simply wrong, since it is their ship and they set the rules.

The real pity is that the Aussies I know are such gentlemen/women. I at least would realize that you are an exception, but what about cruisers who are getting to know an Aussie for the first time?

.....

Any other cruise line I've cruise with will let you upgrade your category if there is a price drop. I'm so disappointed. I think I'll stick with Royal Caribbean from now on...

Wow, have you been incredibly lucky, because the cruise lines I know absolutely positively do have similar sales.

Someone wrote in how disappointed they would be if someone else got a deal for much less than they did. Why, if they were content when they paid whatever they did? I would love to see them on an airplane where virtually everyone seems to have a different price. Do they begrudge those who got a seat for less? I suppose they do. Sad.

Sewage?

Why do people become so mean on these boards? It seems it is always the posters who are very seasoned ....:(

You are absolutely right. I am the author of that post, and when I read your quote of what I wrote, I couldn't believe I actually wrote it. Sort of like when I pass a mirror these days and can not believe the old man I see.

I deeply apologize, especially to the poster to whom it was directed.

Cash is still the preferred method, or phone cards. They don't have much room for other things in their cabin let alone when the pack to go home.

Oh, good gosh. The phone card is back. Which brand? And if they skype??? Please, let it die.

Although, I do admit that it is a less terrible idea than the exchanging emails !

Can you please square your claim that no state in the US demands any written documentation of service training with the following quote taken from the Hawaii web site:

 

http://hdoa.hawaii.gov/ai/aqs/guide-service-dogs/

 

 

"GUIDE DOGS AND SERVICE DOGS THAT MEET THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS CAN COME INTO HAWAII WITHOUT QUARANTINE PROVIDED THEY FOLLOW THE STEPS OUTLINED BELOW:

“Guide dog” means any dog individually trained by a licensed guide dog trainer for guiding a blind person by means of a harness attached to the dog and a rigid handle grasped by the person." (My emphasis added.)

 

How will the individual provide proof of the bona fides of the guide dog trainer?

 

As for the claim that the DoJ regulations prohibit some of the requirements that the Hawaiian web site appears to require all I can say is that it wouldn't be the first time a state passed laws which were at odds with Federal law. These laws stand until they are challenged in court.

Just read the sentence which follows on that website:

“Service dog” means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. The work or tasks performed by a service dog must be directly related to the individual’s disability. The work or tasks include but are not limited to: assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, ....

Pretty crazy, isn't it? Call your dog a guide dog, and it falls under state law. Call it a service animal and it falls under ADA. Just like the (very) old Groucho Marx show You Bet Your Life, where a chicken dropped down with money in its mouth if you used a certain word. I ran into exactly that through two appeals of an SSI ruling denying my son full SSI, until I accidentally used the right word (which incidentally was the word "borrowed"). Of course those federal sob's knew exactly what I meant - just didn't use the right word. But I got even with them; I went on a lecture tour where I explained to other parents of handicapped children how to avoid that trap, especially important for parents not as persistent as I.

I do, however, completely agree with your last paragraph.

Possibly because I dint like using a credit card. I keep one for inferences and ....

Okay, I give up. What are inferences? I figure it is a misspelling, but I can't figure out of what.

This is timely....Yesterday the state law makers are mulling a new Hawaii law that puts serious limits on service animals in the State... includes having state licensed medical people as the only ones who can issue a "service" animal permit. Submitting certification from other sources will not be

accepted thus...

 

It must be, as proposed, Hawaii medical board approved animal certification.

ALL claimed animals that are service animals must , and their owners, be examined by these medical inspectors boards.... Fines will be levied for violation to the owner and the non-compliant certifier.

I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. Medical inspectors at the airports already do the service animal inspections, but do not require any proof of service status other than verbal. Healthwise, they demand a great deal more.

No state in the U.S. demands any written documentation of service training. It would be a clear violation of ADA. However, I have no doubt that there are state legislators who would make such proposals. Heck, I also wish ADA did require real documentation.

Here's a link to the State of Hawaii Animal Industry Division web site stating that there are very specific conditions under which a service animal may be brought into Hawaii:

 

http://hdoa.hawaii.gov/ai/aqs/guide-service-dogs/

 

However, even an animal that meets the qualifications (e.g. trained by a licensed organization, up-to-date vaccination records, identification microchip implanted, documentation of treatment for ticks within 14 days of arrival, and more) probably would not be admitted to Hawaii if arriving by cruise ship. The web site states that the Honolulu International Airport is the only port of entry for cats and dogs. For service animals, the inspection will take place within the airport terminal between 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM with at least 7 days advance notice.

The site you quote is certainly interesting, but you misunderstand it. As a service animal, NO DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. However, with reference only to health issues documentation and ID chip are required.

Your "e.g." referring to training by licensed organization is simply totally wrong.

This is copied from ADA regulations published in the Federal Register in 2010 by the Dept of Justice. You can read the entire document on the DoJ website.

Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go.

and

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

It also does indeed allow for the expulsion of a misbehaving service animal.

I do agree that the given Hawaii website is difficult to read. Although it does not say so on the page you are directed to, this inspection program is only for AIRPORTS. I can assure you that the sea ports which accept international arrivals will have inspection arranged.

Not only does dljones say credit card several times when he means debit card, but the real puzzle is how he/she could possible have over 380 posts and not have read about this over and over again on CC. Or in fact how any adult could not know the difference.

Which is why I refuse to use a card and just use cash. If I need to add more that is no problem.

I fully understand why using a debit card has a lot of negatives. But why not a credit card? Perhaps you object to getting up to 2% of your total charges back in cash, but I can not imagine why.

MacMail played upon opening.... :eek:

I'll try it at work tomorrow on Chrome and yahoo. :cool:

Actually the issue is not if it plays. It almost certainly will. The issue is whether there is a control bar displayed, so the viewer can use it to stop the video.

Beware, sometimes you have to place your cursor on top of the video in order to see the control bar. That is often the case even on CNN online.

.... anybody who has a relative who is a doctor and willing to write a note seems to be allowed in public places - malls, restaurants, cruise ships, etc.....

I simply do not understand why such a simple matter is so difficult to understand for a lot of individuals.

A business in the U.S. can not insist on a doctor's note, or any other official "certification." Of course, if it makes the disabled person feel better, then they can do as they please. And there are plenty of internet sites which will take your money for legally worthless documentation. But the certificates are pretty ............

My dad told me something when I was young and playing with stocks. NEVER invest with money you can't afford to lose. If you come out ahead, you are doing better than most.

Steve

It is always a good idea to respect one's parents. But I hope you are smart enough to realize your dad did not know what he was talking about, vis-a-vis the last sentence.

Divide the last hundred years into decades, however you want, and you will discover, just as every investor has, or would, that investment in the market has not only been a money maker, but substantially better than any other monetary alternative.

This is the cause of so many, if not all, problems nowadays.

ALL problems? I take it you don't read a newspaper.

I apologize. How people responded was in fact reasonable in this case. I believe Carnival always does bill afterward, but you would not know that from what he wrote, and since he was the writer, it is not unreasonable for people to conclude he got away scot free. Again, sorry about that part of my post.

he had troubling swimming that was the point.

And you know he had trouble swimming because ...........

I agree. He should have had to pay his own way home.

One of the great mysteries of life is why so many people seem to believe what they read or see on the internet. You would think that common sense alone would keep CCers from repeating what the first poster wrote, that "they" paid for the flight.

For what it is worth, most news media presentations have reported that he will be responsible for the flight home. (Yes, I know, this does not preclude Carnival paying and billing, but that is not the point)

I recently read a thread where PVSA came up (for cruise originating in US, ending abroad). On the first page every single post referring to the statute was completely wrong. Even posters with more than 5,000 posts. 20 posts and not one single post correctly pointing out that a cruise originating in US and ending in a foreign port is not even subject to PVSA.

Astonishing. But like a contagious disease, the misinformation will now undoubtedly be spread by everyone else reading those posts.

There have always been a lot of threads about service animals, and, for that matter, about PVSA. The one thing both of these types of threads have in common is the huge amount of misinformation the threads invariably have.

In that regard this particular thread is rather good. A lot of the misinformation has already been corrected. Like, for example, that emotional support animals are NOT service animals, and so not protected the way service animals are. In particular, one can demand the sort of documentation which would never be permitted for a service animal.

As far as comments about 4 - 6 month quarantines, those comments don't make a lot of sense, as they refer to animals entering the country, not those quarantined on the ship. Which, incidentally, makes it rather unlikely that a boatload of papers would have to be filled out for each animal, at least in my opinion.

I know that a cruise line may not legally ask questions about a person's disability. However, if every organization that trains and places service animals puts a micro chip in the service animal, I wonder if government organizations or companies acting in their stead (i.e. the cruise ship that is letting a service animal on board) might be within their rights to ask for the chip ID number of the service animal.

 

If the cruiser can produce a verifiable chip number, then the animal comes on board no further questions asked. It doesn't matter if the cruiser has no visible disability. It doesn't matter if a cruiser temporarily displays able-bodied behavior. A chip from a recognized training organization trumps other people's suspicion, guesses, hunches, etc.

 

If the chips have an ID number that in some way is coded to the training organization that issued the animal, I think most organizations would only issue the chips legitimately for fear of losing their tax exempt status.

 

I suspect there will always be folks who try to circumvent the laws/regulations. There might be someone wealthy enough to give a major charitable contribution with the expectation that the receiving charity would implant a chip in a family pet who has no more service training than the average chair. But I've got to believe that the frequency of abuses will go way down. No reputable charitable organization is going to jeopardize it's legal status for the current cost of a vest and a patch.

 

And, finally, this abuse may sort itself out the first time a non-trained service animal harms another passenger. The understandable reluctance to check on the bona fides of an animal may evaporate the first time a cruise ship/airplane/etc. is facing a law suit.

I think the post quoted above can easily lead to misunderstandings. ADA does not require that any training organization be involved in training one's service animal. Anyone, including the disabled individual him/herself or their 3rd cousin, can do the training (or claim they did!), and unless they happen to be veterinarians, they would not be able to imbed a chip. So the answer to your wonder is "of course not," neither a cruise company nor anyone else would be within their rights to deny entry to an animal without a chip.

As for checking on bona fides, it is against the law, whether or not there are lawsuits, just one or a zillion. Cruise ships/airplanes/etc. can not simply have their reluctance evaporate.

For what it is worth, I am disabled and I think the failure of ADA to insist on much better control over an animal owner being able to prove the animal really is a trained service animal is terrible. But the law at present is what it is, whether it makes sense or not.