chengkp75

The new Viking ships hope to be hydrogen fueled, but no class society has yet made rules for building ships with hydrogen fuel, and without that, the ships won't be built (as hydrogen fueled).

Regardless of whether it was a medical evacuation or a "necessary disembarkation", it would still violate the CTA, and the line would likely get fined. Not sure how the appeal process works in Canada, so they could apply for a waiver/exemption based on circumstances.

Yeah, state of Maine tourist board has found that cruise passengers spend less than half of what a land tourist spends in the state.

That went along with less effective fire suppression systems. I remember the Baked Alaska, the Bananas Foster, and the Cherries Jubilee that would set off the sprinklers in the dining rooms.

However, Viking is registered in Norway's "second register", the NIS (Norwegian International Ship). This exempts the ship from many of the requirements that are placed on Norwegian (NOR) registered ships, like wages, crew nationality, working conditions, etc. The NIS was created as a way to compete with "flags of convenience" ships, and is not considered a "flag of convenience" simply because the ships fly the Norwegian flag. There are limitations on NIS ships regarding voyages and port calls, much like the US's PVSA and Jones Act.

While some claim that the Jones Act "hinders" Puerto Rico, the GAO has published reports to the contrary. Even at the height of hurricane Maria relief effort, and everyone was clamoring for exemptions to the Jones Act, the docks in San Juan were stuffed with containers of aid, to the point where they could not offload anymore, due to lack of transportation and blocked roads around the island. In fact, after Maria, despite President Trump's granting of waivers, no foreign flag ship made deliveries to Puerto Rico from the mainland US. Puerto Rico's power system woes are directly tied to failures of management of the system, not upgrading or even repairing systems, both when the system was a quasi-government system, and now as a private corporation. If US flag shipping is too expensive, the power company is free to buy electrical systems (in many cases far better than those made in the US) from Europe, and have them shipped to PR on foreign ships. I don't see how the Jones Act has caused the power company to not maintain their own systems. Even after hurricane Harvey hit the refineries in the Gulf Coast, and President Trump, again, granted waivers to the Jones Act, since Florida was hurting for gasoline and jet fuel, guess how many foreign flag ships actually were used? One, for one voyage. Why? Because there was a fleet of US flag tankers waiting, fully loaded, that could not enter Florida ports due to hurricane Irma. Once the ports reopened, the US flag tankers that were milling about in the Gulf supplied Florida, just like they have been for years, since there is no pipelines in Florida. The US Gulf to Florida has been a major Jones Act market for decades, and the Jones Act fleet has met the vast majority of Florida's need for refined product all those years. Sorry, enough of a rant about the Jones Act/PVSA, let the thread get back to its original topic.

No one is saying that the cruise ship is a prison. However, unlike the US's PVSA, the Canadian CTA specifies fines, for each occurrence, or for each day that the occurrence happens, of "up to $50,000" against the cruise line. The ticket contract states that the passenger is aware that on some itineraries that leaving the vessel at a port other than the designated disembarkation port can violate local law, and the cruise line would think long and hard about whether they want to subject themselves to this. The ticket contract is also what gives the cruise line the right to pass the fine on to the passenger/s that caused the violation. I have seen many instances where a passenger disembarked early at a US port, due to illness, and once due to death of a spouse, and in each case the cruise line was fined for the violation, passed the fine on to the passenger, and then told the passenger that if they wanted to, the passenger could appeal to CBP for a refund. Many, many people would benefit from a close study, not just a cursory reading, of the cruise line ticket contracts.

No, the PVSA originally involved all river, harbor, and lake transport of passengers, and was enacted for safety concerns, many of which exist to this day. Why should we ship LNG from the US Gulf, when there is a pipeline bringing in natural gas from Canada, far cheaper. How did the PVSA, or more accurately, the Jones Act, prolong the power issues in Puerto Rico?

Regardless of whether the OP are Canadian citizens, getting on a foreign flag cruise ship in Quebec and getting off in Halifax is a violation of Canada's Coastal Trading Act (similar to the US PVSA), and therefore there would have been a lot of paperwork involved in clearing the ship to disembark a "domestic" traveler and then clearing the new manifest for departure. Since it was at the OP's choice to disembark, it is likely that they will get the fine passed to them (and they can be far more severe than the PVSA fine).

Try the Princess ship bridge webcam. Currently pointed at the end of the drydock.

While I won't dispute BigAl's personal experience, to say that ships "usually" dock port side to, is incorrect. I worked cruise ships that docked 3 out of 4 ports starboard side to, week after week. It depends on whether the ship has to, or prefers to turn around before or after docking, if at a finger pier, which side of the pier it docks to, weather, tides, and maintenance of the ship. To book a cabin based on which side of the ship is against the dock is a crap shoot at best.

Likely the crew "failed" the fire and boat drill, and had to repeat it.

If the driver's license has a US flag on it, it is from one of the five states mentioned above, and is a WHTI approved ID. If it has a "star" (usually gold), then it is a "Real ID", and is not a WHTI approved ID.

It is currently scheduled for sea trials in May, 2023, and delivery in July, 2023.

Fully understood. Just making the point that the muster is a separate "emergency situation" from an abandonment. Probably too fine a distinction for those who haven't done thousands of these drills, and some actual emergencies. Plus, the number of times passengers are actually called to muster stations is so low that it easily gets conflated with abandon ship. And, actually, when/if the Captain decides to have the passengers loaded into the boats, and leave the ship, that is not "abandon ship". All crew members will remain at their general emergency stations (fighting the fire or whatever) until after the passengers and all boats are away, and then if the Captain then decides, then the abandon ship signal will be sounded, and the crew will move to their abandon ship stations, which are generally under the boats, so not enough room for both passenger and crew to be at abandon ship stations at the same time. This was another of the failures of the Concordia disaster, Schettino never sounded the muster signal, but gave the abandon ship announcement when passengers were still on the ship.

Heck, I've been roughed up, physically, by US Customs officers (long before it was CBP), as a US citizen, walking in a US city, towards a US flag ship, and when presented with a US Merchant Mariners Card, was roughed up for "not having any ID", even though at the time, Customs and USCG (the issuing agency of the documents) were both under the Treasury Dept. I've seen people in an airport immigration line in Jordan, where the Immigration official took his military web belt off and started striking a passenger around the head and face with it (they were speaking in Arabic, so I could not tell what it was about). So, no, a customs official in another country shooting a dog that had violated entry quarantine would not surprise me.

The muster drill has just as much to do with a fire, a man overboard, or an environmental hazard as with abandoning. Muster is about accountability, whatever the emergency. Having untrained people moved to known, controllable locations, where they can be counted, is what the muster is all about. Yes, a muster is critical to an abandonment, but it is just as critical to any other emergency, and should be considered a separate function from abandoning ship. Look at a fire onboard. Many fires are dealt with using the "Code Bravo" call, where only the fire and emergency teams respond. Then there are fires where the On Scene Commander recommends to the Captain, and he/she agrees, that the fire is large enough that an accounting of passengers, and getting them out of the way of emergency teams is recommended, and passengers will be called to muster. The On Scene and the Captain know that the likelihood of abandoning ship at this point is miniscule, but need to get a pax count. Finally, there are the fires that get away from the second example, and there is no hope for the ship, or the fire has spread so widely that it is difficult to keep the vast number of passengers onboard, so the Captain signals for the passengers to leave the ship. As I've said, there are hundreds of instances where the muster was called when no though whatsoever was given to abandoning ship, it was for accountability.

Your second bullet point argues against your statement that muster is "step one in abandoning ship". Muster is about accountability. Period. Many times there have been fires on ships where the Captain has had no intention of abandoning ship, but the muster provides him with an accurate count of passengers, and a knowledge of who, and very likely where, to look for. The Star Princess is a classic example of how the passengers were held at muster for long hours, but due to the widespread smoke from the fire, it allowed the crew to know who was missing. The Captain never had a thought about abandoning ship. Sometimes passengers are called to muster stations due to a reported man overboard, just so accountability can be obtained. It's not "lining up to abandon ship", it is about getting you out of the current emergency, say a fire, but has nothing to do with a future emergency like the fire getting out of control and having to abandon ship. And, probably a better lesson to learn from a muster drill is not so much "where to go", but how to get there from where I am now. This is a "mental drill" I've proposed here on CC to follow during muster drill. Think of a place on the ship where you have spent time. Then think of the path from that spot to the muster location. Then impose a fire between the two, and think of how to still get to the muster location going around the fire. This is the greatest lesson to take away from a muster drill.

How many times have you heard over the plane's PA, while still at the departure gate: "all passengers take their seats", and then an airline employee comes down the aisle and counts heads? Sounds like a "muster drill" to me.

What you think of as an exaggerated claim is likely from a US viewpoint. Having traveled the world, and seen it from many of the least desirable locations, it would not surprise me to have a local customs agent threaten to shoot a passenger, let alone a dog.

I think the statement wa certain countries won't allow a service dog to come ashore. That is quite different than "do not allow service dogs". The country may allow "native" service dogs, and even service dogs imported that have met a quarantine requirement (I know the UK used to require a 3 month quarantine for any dog), but not a dog brought on a cruise ship. And, law enforcement in various countries have various authorities, perhaps even to shooting dogs that violate quarantine. I know that Maine Game Wardens have the authority to shoot any dog on sight if it is running deer or moose and are close enough to cause an imminent threat to the animal's life. US Dept of Agriculture has the right to "dispose" of any animal that is thought to have been imported without following the required quarantine.

Sorry, Bruce, but that is not correct. Asking what task the dog is supposed to perform is one of the two questions allowed under the ADA. This is not quite correct. SCOTUS has ruled in Spector v NCL, that only certain aspects of the ADA apply to foreign flag cruise ships, and further that SOLAS can trump the ADA where necessary for safety. SCOTUS ruled that since Congress did not specifically mention foreign flag cruise ships in the ADA, that under international law, the "internal policies and procedures" of a foreign flag cruise ship are not subject to the ADA. This means that should a cruise line decide to enact a set of rules for service animals onboard the ship, provided the customer is made aware of these rules prior to purchasing the cruise, that are more restrictive than the ADA, then that is legal, even when in US waters. SCOTUS gave Congress the "out" by saying that if Congress revised the ADA to mention foreign flag cruise ships, then the ADA would fully apply. In the 17 years since Spector, Congress has not decided to amend the ADA. Just as if you tried to board a plane without the required visa for the country you are going to, the airline would deny boarding, if a country doesn't allow service dogs, even if the dog is not going to set paw on soil, the ship has entered the country, and the cruise line can deny boarding as the person not meeting the requirement for traveling to the country the cruise is purchased for.

Some fees charged by CBP go to CBP for their operations, some go to other government agencies; some goes to Agriculture to pay for inspections, some goes to Army Corps of Engineers for harbor maintenance.

What navybankerteacher says is correct, it is something that is inherently understood by all mariners, just as missing family milestones, holidays, births and deaths are inherently understood to be part of a mariner's life. However, cruise ship crew training, particularly for the vast majority of crew, who are assigned duties related to the passenger muster, goes beyond what normal mariners expect. You accept that you need to train and practice to save your own life and the life of your fellow crew (who are trained to help you as well), but having to place yourself in harm's way for people who don't give a fig about you, or would lift a finger to help you, is something else. Given a lot of passengers' attitude towards the safety drills and the crew in general, it would not surprise me for crew to feel "save the ship, the hell with the passengers" or "why should I give up my time for these ungrateful people". That, of course, is not right, but it is human nature. And, as I've said many times, until there is a real emergency, regardless of how much and how well you've trained, there is no way of telling whether an individual will run into the fire or away from it.

Breakaway class. It's a kind of bungee jump over the side.