chengkp75

Basically, yes. The way the ship worked this when I worked the NCL Hawaii ships is that the bridge notifies the purser's office when the ship leaves the 3 mile limit, and the POS registers are reprogrammed to stop charging tax. And, it's not just drinks that you will pay tax on, it is anything you purchase onboard while within 3 miles.

In port and until the ship gets outside of 3 miles

The USPH VSP requirement to have handwashing sinks at the entry to self-service buffets is only for ships built after May 2018, or that have had the buffet "significantly" modified after this date. So, not sure where the Ruby fits into that scheme. There is no requirement for handwashing sinks at any other dining venues, only self-service ones, and not drink stations. The requirement is to have one station at each entrance, and at least one per hundred seats.

They probably told you it was "Royal Caribbean International Ranch Dressing". But I will just about guarantee that it came from Sysco or other major wholesale distributor, and the RCI label is added. Sysco gets this from various makers, but it is not noted to the cruise line which manufacturer makes it.

The only real problem is whether they are touching both "food contact" surfaces and "non-food contact" surfaces. All food contact surfaces are sanitized frequently.

Even taking the lifeboats off for the transit, she is too wide, since the davits are "fixed" with the boats outside the ship. They used a different davit for these ships, where the davit retracts into the ship, bringing the boat and davit arms closer to the side of the ship.

Slower steaming generally results in less fuel consumption, but reducing by a knot or even two, over the short time spans that cruise ships generally have between ports would not result in a significant savings. Cargo ships have adopted slow steaming, but that is mainly for many day voyages between ports. Shore power is not a savings for the cruise ships, since the rate they pay for electricity, or the "use charge" the port levies has to cover the infrastructure costs from providing the shore power station. Plus the ship needs about a $1 million investment to install the shore power connection. Shore power is forced on the ships in ports that want to reduce emissions. Shore power is rare in the US, and especially for cruise ships, since cargo ships can use 480v power, while cruise ships require 10,000v power.

And, it's been reported in the last two days that NYC an NCL did not reach an agreement on the charter, and NYC is in discussions with other lines.

While bunker prices have started to rise this past week, they are still about 35% lower than in June.

I'm afraid you're right, but my hope is that there are enough calls to muster with the emergency handled quickly and things returned to normal, but with chaos during the musters to bring about a return.

But, getting to your muster station (which you should go to rather than your lifeboat) early does not guarantee that your boat will be loaded and launched first. That would be important if the cruise lines set the requirements. But they don't, and they don't have a vote in the IMO, which does set the requirements, either. Do you think that if the cruise lines had a voice in the safety regulations, that they would have progressed from the Titanic? Safety equipment and compliance costs money. Fortunately, as noted above, the cruise line has no vote in the matter. If the IMO says that ships have to revert to the previous muster system, the cruise lines have to comply, whether their passengers like it or not.

There is typically a mobility challenged muster station, that will have a nurse in attendance, and crew assigned to get the disabled to the boats. There will typically also be crew assigned to go find the disabled (if they are known to the ship), and bring them to the muster, using a hand carry if needed for stairs, or using the elevators (which are not "disabled" as most think, but placed in "firefighter mode" which disables the call buttons at each deck, and the elevator is controlled only in the cab.

I think the USCG and CBP would disagree that their autonomy is semantics, even though they fall under the same Cabinet Department. That would be like saying that the Army and Navy are the same, since they fall under Defense. And, I really think the Marines would disagree.

It has been reported in the last many years' SEC filings that Carnival Corp does not buy fuel futures.

Fortunately, passengers don't vote for SOLAS amendments. And the agencies that do, are not particularly swayed by public opinion. And, most of those agencies are not from countries with large cruise passenger populations.

While you may not consider them "boilers", there is a heat exchanger that takes the secondary water system water, and boils it, using the heated primary water loop, and the steam then powers a turbine. So, a gas turbine, for the same power output, would be much smaller than the steam turbine, the secondary water loop, the heat exchanger (boiler), and the reactor system. This is established fact. And, while the gas turbine holds a size advantage over diesel, diesel still holds a size advantage over steam. I would suspect that a nuclear powered cruise ship would still use a turbo-electric propulsion system. Steam turbines are notoriously slow in response to astern bells, and suck up enormous volumes of steam to get any power at all from them. It also needs to be stopped to reverse. Electric propulsion with SCR controlled speed is almost instantaneous in response, and a controllable pitch propeller can go almost directly from full ahead to full astern in seconds. Steam turbines are slightly more efficient when going ahead, but dreadful when maneuvering. There is a reason that the US merchant marine retained steam turbine propulsion after WW2 when the rest of the world converted to diesel, cheap fuel. When fuel wasn't cheap anymore, after the Oil Embargo in the 70's, the US dumped steam like a hot potato, and converted to diesel. Today, virtually the only steam ships operating are the LNG tankers, that use the boil off of cargo as fuel.

No. Port facilities are under the jurisdiction of the USCG, as the "Port State Control" agency. Both the ships and the port have to have ISPS (International Ship and Port Security) plans, that meet international standards, and that the USCG oversee. The terminal security is private, hired by the port. TSA does, however, act in an advisory role to USCG in implementing the ISPS requirements, and for training purposes. TSA also assists the USCG in port security by issuing the TWIC (Transportation Workers Identification Credential), which all mariners or contractors (truck drivers, cab drivers, ship's agents, port chaplains, vendors) require to be allowed free access to port facilities. The TWIC program is like the TSA-Pre Check, though the TWIC requires a full FBI background check.

First off, TSA has nothing to do with cruise ships or their manifests. As for when the passenger manifest is turned in to CBP, that is 90 minutes prior to sailing. For most lines, prior to covid, you could book within about 24 hours of sailing, some up to the afternoon before.

While you are correct that debt service is a large portion of the corporate balance sheet, bunker fuel is about 15% of operating costs, and the largest single line item, per ship.

Any first responder organization or training facility will tell you the same. So, I guess you don't put much faith in airline pilots, firefighters, police, or even armed forces. What those same organizations will tell you, is that the more you train, and the more realistic the training, the more "muscle memory" will take over from conscious thought and you will respond as you have trained. Will the crew act perfectly in an emergency? Likely not, but they will do a far better job of saving your life than you or all the thousands of passengers would. I, too, find your attitude, or at least your statement, to be demeaning to those who take training for the sole reason to save your life. Training is difficult, and many times dangerous to the crew.

No.

Sorry, brain fart, was thinking Portland dry dock. Don't know why.

They must have really upgraded the propulsion system to make that time table. 9100 miles in 5 days.

From the first post, it appeared to me (and the other poster as well), that you were talking about a one-way cruise from Florida to either NYC or NOLA. Now that the actual itineraries are shown, it becomes legal. But, not sure these cruises with limited US ports is what the OP is looking for, though we may never know.

And, you'd be wrong. US bunker barges, unlike those elsewhere around the world, require the ship to connect the hose (stick the nozzle in the filler) on the ship side, and to control when to stop fueling. Both ship and bunker barge share responsibility for the safe transfer of fuel. Pretty much responsibility changes at the side of the receiving vessel.