chengkp75

Yes, the passenger may try to go the way he did during the drill, but that is where the crew training aspect of the muster drill comes in, as the crew will redirect. So, in an emergency, since the passenger would not be confused going through doorway A, then he should do that, even if it leads to a fire? Really?

And your qualifications in maritime safety are what? You may feel that the drill is useless, but maybe the Captain does not. Have you studied an entire muster drill to determine whether it is poorly implemented or not? Sorry, everything you say comes down to your comfort.

While the crew get a "salary", it is calculated by hours worked, both straight time and overtime. The hours of work are fixed, and controlled by law. However, the law also says that safety training and drills can be in excess of regulated hours, and that no compensation is given for these training hours.

I guess that you wouldn't mind then having mandatory training and drills at your local fire department, without pay? Maritime crews receive no compensation for the time they are involved in drills and training, and on a cruise ship, the vast majority of that time is training to save passengers, not the crew. If you don't respect the time and effort the crew put into trying to save your life, then I hope that the crew don't reciprocate in an emergency. So, how should they have "practiced the way things should be", other than actually setting fire to the space? And, if there was an actual fire, wouldn't that be confusing to the passengers? Part of my training of crew, when I ran crew and passenger drills, was to "kill" crew who had failed to remember where the fire zone was, and had "passed through" the fire. We then had to practice rescuing those crew.

That depends on what entertainers you are talking about. Feature singers and piano players, for instance, and magicians and comedians are granted "passenger status". Casts of shows are not.

If it is a USCG inspection, that is running late, there is really no telling how long it can be. If at any time during the crew fire and boat drill, if the inspectors are not satisfied with the response, actions, training, or enthusiasm of the crew to the drill, they can stop the drill, and restart it from the beginning again, or even require a different scenario, if they feel this is a "canned" scenario the crew trains specifically for use during inspections.

I believe that the restrictions were relaxed during covid when passenger occupancy was low and the line was struggling to retain crew, because what they are going to is the way it was forever. Now, with passenger occupancy up (meaning bars and venues are fuller), the line does not want crew affecting the passenger experience. So, they are returning to the old requirements. And, the vast majority of crew, have never had access to passenger areas when off-duty. I remember lists that each department head had, that listed what positions in their departments had privileges in what venues, and how often. Even back then, with limited access, and even if you had permission from your department head, it was up to the venue manager to determine if crew were allowed in that evening, or not, based on passenger attendance.

Fair enough, if you're willing to compensate the crew for their many hours of unpaid training to save your life. There is really nothing to hear. The "safety briefing" is merely to fill the time. Your job is to "show up, shut up, and listen up" And, I will confidently say that this was further crew training in directing passengers around a fire zone. Something else that folks never take into consideration: how do I get there if there is a fire between me and my muster station. And, fortunately, the maritime safety experts at the IMO don't care about "passenger satisfaction", and certainly less efficient in time required by crew.

As I've stated many times in the past regarding the new muster drill, what the old muster drill provides is "muscle memory" for the passengers. Not only for where the muster station is, but also how to handle hundreds or thousands of people all moving (some reluctantly, some clueless) towards their muster station, just as it would be for a real emergency. The mantra of "train as if your life depended on it" or "train the way you'd respond" holds true for cruise ship passengers just as much as for military and first responders. Secondly, the drill allows the crew to learn how to deal with recalcitrant passengers (which would translate to frightened passengers during an emergency) en masse. Crowd and crisis management is a skill best taught practically. Further, the lack of a time when every passenger is in known locations removes the training of those crew who passengers never see during the muster drill, which is the searching, clearing, and marking of every cabin and public space, collapsing down from the upper decks towards the muster locations. When could this be accomplished without the in person muster drill?

All cabins and public spaces (including restrooms) are "cleared" by designated crew during the muster. Some of the things passengers don't see happening during the drill.

Correct. In port, the ship will normally be able to reduce to one generator on line, at a fairly high load, so very fuel efficient. While underway, the ship's automation is hard-wired to require a minimum of 2-3 generators, regardless of how slow you steam, so you have excess capacity, running at low load, so you not only burn more fuel over more hours, you do so less efficiently. Unless there are required "full speed" transits between ports in the original itinerary, that allow for a slower speed without the port call, you won't save fuel. And, even then, unless the "full speed" run is more than 2-3 days, the fuel savings from slow steaming is marginal.

Bingo.

Actually, this is not true. Every vessel has to establish a "working language", that is spoken by everyone onboard, so that emergency instructions can be understood. Most of the mainstream cruise lines use English as the "working language". Does this mean every crew is "completely fluent" in English? No, but they can read, speak, and understand English. Imagine an engine crew member sent to open a specific valve, but he cannot read the valve tag that is in English.

I've posted these facts for years, and most times been argued to death, and told I don't know what I'm talking about, so I tend to be very wary of tipping threads.

The crew are in whatever country the ship is in, on a crew visa. Whether this allows for joining/leaving the ship is a different question. In the US, crew only transiting US ports, require a D visa. If they plan on joining/leaving the ship in the US, they need a C1 visa as well. The terms of the C1 visa are that the crew member will be escorted at all times by a bonded security guard from the ship to the airport security line. Further, if the crew has little cash on hand, as most of their salaries are sent home, how is he/she to pay for transportation to the airport. When a crew member leaves a ship normally, they get an entrance stamp from CBP. Without that, the airline may not allow the crewmember to check in. Without completing the contract, the crew member is liable for the cost of the airline ticket. In short, the crew member who leaves without notice would be entering the country illegally. This is the same for all crew on all foreign ships, not just cruise ships.

Further to my comments in that post, it was always, even for 3 stripe and above officers, that access to a particular venue would be restricted by the venue supervisor, based on whether or not the crew would impact the passenger experience. I think, reading this article, that during times of very low occupancy (post pandemic) and crew contract extensions, that the privileges were extended, and they are now returning to prior, as the passenger use of venues increases.

Well, since a good portion of the DSC goes to crew that you never see (not saying whether this is right or wrong, it just is), and given that enforcement of turning in cash tips can be difficult, some of the "back of house" staff could suffer from your #2, while front of house benefits.

They are supposed to turn it in, and if DSC for that pax was removed, it goes to the pool, but if DSC was paid, it is returned to crew. Enforcement, of course, is difficult.

This is true, and the agencies ("unions") also require that a percentage of the salary be sent to the home country each pay period. I don't follow this, or how this relates to the crewing agency getting a percentage. If the DSC is made part of the fare, do you think the line would reduce pay to the statutory minimum (which is about half of what most make)? They would never hire crew at that rate. If the DSC is rolled into the cruise fare, then the cruise line would have use that same amount to pay the crew. The crewing agency, just like most of the crews' home countries, makes no distinction between a "base salary", or a "DSC" or "gratuity" that is collected by the employer. The only money that would make a difference to the crewing agency is a gratuity given by the customer directly to the crew.

Yes, amazingly, I had a college graduate ship's officer who complained that his paycheck was not what "he was promised", and had no idea about Social Security withholding, or tax withholding.

Back when I worked there, the only officers/supervisors that were allowed in pax areas off duty, without prior department head permission, were 3 stripes and above. The venues allowed, and the number of times per month the crew could request access was restricted by the number of stripes. I know that one stripe officers/supervisors did not have cabin stewards at that time, not sure about 1.5 or 2 stripe, but I think it may only have been once weekly service. Some of this may have changed due to covid, and NCL is returning to pre-covid standards.

Since this has not degenerated into a tip/no tip argument, I'll answer this. I only worked at NCL when the DSC system was in place, and things have changed dramatically for the crew with the implementation of the Maritime Labor Convention, but I know that the "base salary" under the old "cash tipping" system was about $50/month. Been away for a time, so not sure of current contracts, but base salary is now around $400/month. I think the crew are better off in the new system, though a lot of that is due to statutory regulations these days. The crew prefer the new DSC, as their salaries are more stable, but they don't like the "team building" aspects, which is really why the cruise line uses the DSC. By making everyone in the pool responsible for ensuring that all DSC is paid (through good service), the cruise lines remove the need for good first line supervisory training, and force the team building to be done by the team itself. And, when this fails, and DSC is removed, the cruise line can tell the crew, "well, it wasn't us that cut your salary, it was the passengers". I detest the DSC system, and feel the crew should be paid hourly, flat rate plus overtime.

I will deal with this as a wage/salary question rather than a tip question, which I tend to avoid. '' A cabin steward/waitstaff will have a contracted salary of around $1200/month, for an 84 hour work week. There is a statutory minimum wage for seafarers of $675/month. A cabin steward's salary is made up of "base salary" and "DSC (I don't use the term "crew tips") contribution. The base salary will be less than the statutory minimum wage, around $400/month. The crew member's contract specifies that their salary is made up of a fixed "base salary", and a variable "DSC contribution". Since passengers can remove the DSC, the amount that a crew member receives from the DSC can vary month to month, and as long as it reaches the statutory minimum wage, the cruise line is not required to supplement it. In other words, theoretically, a cabin steward's salary could vary from the contracted $1200/month, to as low as $675/month, depending on DSC contributions. The room and board argument is misleading, as unless the crew member is living in his/her parent's basement while off the ship, they have rent/mortgage to pay to maintain a home they are not occupying, and likely a family that still eats while the crew is on the ship. While wages seem extremely low to passengers, due to the passenger's standards of living, in the crew's home countries, the salary provides a high end middle class income.

Because it's you, I will make a second post here. This was true, but with the advent of the statutory minimum wage, the base salary has been increased. And if you look at the ISF site you link, you will see that NCL ships are listed as "having an ISF compliant" contract. The ISF agrees to the Maritime Labor Convention, which lists the statutory minimum wage for any seafarer as $675/month. While I agree with your figures from "glassdoor", as I've stated, if the amount of DSC removed still leaves the crew receiving more than $675, then the company does not need to make up the balance to the "contracted" $1200/month. This is specified in the crew contract. As I've said, the contract specifies that the DSC contribution amount can be variable. The crew do not get paid weekly. When I was there, it was monthly, it may be twice monthly now, not sure. The amount of DSC reduction is noted weekly at the weekly ship's management meeting, and is a large topic. The amount of DSC is collected for the entire pay period (2 week or 4 week), and then the crew compensation is adjusted accordingly.

I will make my one and only post to a tip thread, I'll state this based on my years with NCL, and will not argue it with anyone. The crew sign an employment contract that defines their total monthly compensation. For quite a lot of crew (most front of house, and some hotel back of house), this total compensation is outlined as so much "base salary" and so much from "DSC contributions". The amount of "DSC" is noted in the contract as being "variable" depending on the contributions by the passengers (i.e. how many reduce or remove the DSC). There is also a statutory minimum salary listed, and typically the base salary is less than the minimum salary. Therefore, unless the amount of removed DSC brings the crew's salary below the minimum, the cruise line does not have to make up the difference. The line is only required to make up enough that the crew receives the minimum amount. The amount of "DSC contribution" contracted to crew is based on the historical occupancy (typically 105%), so occupancy below that will reduce the crew's total compensation. The cruise line will also keep a percentage of the DSC (most frequently the amount from occupancy above the norm) for a "crew welfare" fund that is used to purchase things the crew want in their lounges, and to pay for various holiday crew parties. The cruise line does not "keep" any of the DSC money, which is why they are allowed to charge it as a separate item, it is a "pass through" expense from their revenue.