Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

chengkp75

Members
  • Content Count

    18,903
  • Joined

About chengkp75

  • Rank
    10,000+ Club

About Me

  • Location
    Maine or at sea
  • Interests
    Former cruise ship Chief Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This is fairly likely, as the UK currently has no travel restrictions, so getting crew to a ship there is easier than other places, certainly the US for cruise ship crew.
  2. For the OP. Two problems with your idea. One, in order to have passengers (even if the ship is not going anywhere, they would be passengers, since they are paying for the experience, and are not essential to the ship's operation), board or leave a ship, it would need to "clear" to "enter the port". This "clearance" requires the granting of "pratique", or a "clean bill of health" for all onboard. The CDC's no sail order, as enforced by the USCG, requires the establishment of many costly measures to deal with covid, prior to a cruise ship being granted pratique. So, no one would be allowed onboard unless the cruise line met the CDC's requirements, and if they met the requirements, they could sail on "normal" cruises. While a ship at anchor has not necessarily "cleared" the port for entry, to take passengers onboard via tender would require "clearing" and "pratique", so this option is also out. As has been noted, cruise ships have been receiving limited pratique to disembark crew, under strict limitations, so I don't see the CDC or USCG lifting the requirements for pratique just so a cruise ship could offer a restaurant experience. Second, since the ship is offering public accommodations (bars and restaurants) on a foreign flag vessel, without an accompanying foreign voyage, so the crew would be working exclusively within the US, and would need to be either US citizens or foreign crew holding H1B work visas. The cost and difficulty in obtaining thousands of work visas for the crew is why "cruises to nowhere" are no longer offered. Contrary to popular belief here on CC, "cruises to nowhere" are still legal, but the crew must meet the visa requirements, which makes the operation fiscally uneconomical. And, finally, if I wanted to dine out during the pandemic, I would not choose the "institutional" food quality of a cruise ship over a fine, local restaurant.
  3. Also, with the limitations on ports of call, this limits the opening of European cruises to EU flagged ships exclusively, so lines like AIDA, HAL, and Costa could keep older ships viable longer than flag of convenience ships.
  4. At present, there is American Cruise Lines, and Blount Small Ship Adventures offering US flag coastal and river cruises. American Queen River Cruises offers Mississippi River cruises under US flag, and Viking is starting up a US flag operation on the Mississippi.
  5. Given that the US has the worst infection rate of any country in the world, I don't see how cruising at only US ports would be a safe idea. The EU has virtually taken this first wave of covid back to "baseline" infections, so their ports are far safer than US ports. What the EU has proposed, and what the cruise lines are planning on adopting (AIDA) are "cruises to nowhere", with no ports of call. First off, "cruises to nowhere" are legal under the PVSA, but run afoul of US visa regulations regarding crew members, so are not economically viable. Secondly, many may ask why a huge corporation like Carnival is starting up cruises with one of their smallest lines, AIDA, and the answer is the EU's version of the PVSA. A cruise from/to a German homeport, with no other ports of call, would be domestic transportation withing Germany, an EU member nation, and therefore limited to only ships that are flagged in EU member nations. So, AIDA can do these cruises, as can Costa, HAL, and a few ships that are flagged in Malta, but the vast majority of cruise ships, from most of the lines, which are flagged in the Bahamas or Panama, will not be allowed to do these cruises. Instead of changing the PVSA to allow US only cruises, I suspect that US ports may be the last to open to cruises, unless we get the virus under control.
  6. Face masks or mouth/nose coverings are designed to protect others from the wearer's breath. Face shields are designed to protect the wearer from other's breath.
  7. Sorry, misspoke, it is Iceland that is exempt, due to the Gulf Stream. Here is the map of the north arctic region. Since Spitsbergen is at 78* north, it is definitely under the new rules, as is the Northwest Passage and all of the polar ice cap.
  8. Greenland, even north of 60* is exempt from Polar Class regulations.
  9. Kind of contradicts the article written by the investment analyst who said that the CDC was ignoring proposals from the cruise lines.
  10. It means that the Navigation Officer is bored. Probably because there is no definite destination ordered, just "head towards this area, and we'll let you know when you get close".
  11. This has always been how the CDC operates, they set guidelines or requirements, and expect the industry to provide the best possible working solution.
  12. It is optional. The certificate that the Eclipse has is for class "1C", which is a Baltic ice class rating, and does not meet the required new Polar Class "PC-6" that is required for passenger vessels in Arctic waters.
  13. That was one side's version, NCL and an investment analyst, nowhere was any feedback from the CDC even looked for in the articles I saw, so who's to say what is correct? Here's my take on the new working group:
×
×
  • Create New...