chengkp75

If an azipod was down, which would have required a tug escort all the way from the Ambrose sea buoy, then the use of two tugs to dock would be expected, but I didn't hear about a full tug escort, so I don't think this is the case. Docking at the Manhattan Cruise Terminal, for the large ships, is typically scheduled around times of slack water, and the unusually late arrival likely meant the tide and current were running together to make the turn into the berth very difficult. Remember that a perfectly working Carnival ship rammed the pier a few years back. The turn from the Hudson into the berth at MCT is historically difficult, even with azipods and thrusters, as the current the ship is fighting while turning, suddenly goes to zero as the bow becomes shielded by the pier structure.

Yes, it is an incentive program, in the sense that it incentivizes the crew to perform well in order to earn their full compensation. Tipping in a restaurant on land is also an incentive program. The second reason that the DSC model is used by cruise lines (after being able to cut the DSC out of the advertised fare) is so that the DSC is used as both the carrot and the stick to force the crew into a "team approach" to guest service, because any one crew member who causes DSC to be adjusted affects every DSC crew member's paycheck. It is one of the poorest forms of leadership and team building around, but given that the cruise lines do not invest in any leadership training for first and second line supervisors, it overcomes the shortcomings of those supervisors, transferring the leadership requirement to the front line workers themselves. I worked for NCL, and as senior ship management, so I do know how the DSC is set up. It was discussed nearly every week in the shipboard management revenue meeting.

And, in most cases, to get more speed and keep the power (and fuel) down, you need to go longer. Look at the QM2 (86 Mw of propulsion power to move 80k tons displacement (actual weight) at 30 knots) compared to the SS United States (180 Mw of propulsion power to move 47k tons displacement at 36 knots). The SSUS was pushing way above her "hull speed" at 36 knots, which is why it took so much more horsepower to move a smaller ship than QM2 does. Lots of people think that LNG is some wonder fuel that answers all the problems of marine fuel. However, methane (which is what LNG is) when released through what is known as "methane slip" (or the amount of methane lost due to leakage, spills, and incomplete combustion to the atmosphere) is over 80 times the greenhouse gas compared to CO2 over a 20 year span, and over 20 times the effect over a 100 year span. While LNG can make a ship "cleaner", the problems with methane leakage along the supply chain make it arguably worse.

And, to waste money on putting "replica" lifeboats on the upper deck, doesn't help the bottom line.

If he believes that the price will be under a billion dollars in today's environment (it was around $600 million in 2013), he's dreaming. And, if he believes he can operate a small ship like that at prices that are competitive with even low end premium cruise lines, he's dreaming. And, if he believes that he can drum up enough interest to fully book a ship with no balcony cabins, and vast numbers of inside cabins, and price them where he can make any profit at all, he's dreaming.

You would not be violating the law, as you would travel SF-Vancouver-SF, which is a closed loop cruise (SF to SF), and has a foreign port call (Vancouver). Not sure if you do a CBP "pre-clearance" in Vancouver if ship is going to SF (they generally do when going to Seattle), so getting off at the mid-point SF may be problematic. Are the cruises sold separately? If so, then a lot of passengers will be permanently disembarking there, and you would clear entry there, and no problem. If it is sold only as one cruise, then you would need CBP to clear you into the country at the mid-point, and they typically don't do that for just a port call. As far as the cruise line is concerned, just leaving will not leave you in good favor with them. They will likely be making announcements to find you, and may have to search the ship to see if you are onboard, to know whether or not to include you on the departure manifest. You may also have difficulty leaving with your luggage, unless you put it out for collection the night before, as security will see the luggage, and see that you are booked on the next cruise, and stop you to see if your account is paid. While they cannot detain a US citizen from disembarking in a US port, they could place a "innkeeper's lien" on you and not allow you to take your luggage off with you.

The AC does not "turn off" if the card is not in the slot. It activates a "set back" thermostat, just like your house probably has, that raises the set temperature by 5 or 10 degrees. It would require more energy to shut off the AC for the daytime and then work to cool that cabin back down again, rather than just a few degrees range.

There will be different "classes" of dining, with 3rd class being served at long, communal tables, and featuring "mash" and "stew" and other "simple fare".

Are you asking about permanently disembarking in San Francisco, and not taking the second leg? Or just getting off to visit the city, and returning for the second leg? Your first leg, SF-Vancouver-SF, is a closed loop cruise, which the PVSA allows as long as it stops at any foreign port (Vancouver). The second leg, which I assume includes a port call in Mexico as well as SF-LA-SF (as it wouldn't be offered without a foreign port call), is also a closed loop cruise, so any foreign port call is what is required. But, CBP would look at the two cruises together (assuming they are on the same ship), but this would also be a closed loop SF-SF (regardless of what ports are in between), and only requires one foreign port call. The two types of cruises "closed loop" and "open loop (or jaw)" (open loop means you permanently disembark at a different US port from embarkation), are handled completely differently by CBP, the open loop cruise requiring a "distant" foreign port call, while a closed loop only requires a foreign port call (does not need to be "distant").

And, I believe that the Shipping Acts of both the UK and Bermuda provide different requirements for crew compensation than flags of convenience, so the DSC may have been less of an effect on minimum compensation.

Nope, not what I'm saying at all. The only difference is that more or less (depending on which cruise line) of that wage expense comes from DSC and more or less what comes from wages. To do a true comparison, you would need to add in the cruise fare to see if one costs less but has more DSC, or not. If you think that cruise fares would be the same, and not increase by the amount of DSC, if they eliminated DSC across all lines, then I think you are naive. They cannot "do what they want" with the DSC, as it is contractually bound to crew compensation.

Okay, I'll take back my vow to not post here anymore. Could it be that NCL has a lower percentage of the crew's compensation being wages, and a higher percentage being DSC, while keeping the total compensation similar to other lines to remain competitive? Remember, the only thing guaranteed to the crew is the statutory minimum wage, and it doesn't matter whether their total compensation is made up of 70% DSC or 90% DSC. The whole DSC thing is so that advertised fares can be kept as low as possible.

This is true to a very limited extent. The crew are contracted for a total compensation per month, made up of wages and DSC. It is acknowledged in the contract that the DSC is variable, based on passenger participation/satisfaction, so the wage can be less than what is contracted for at any time. There is a statutory minimum wage, that is less than half of the contracted wage (about $685 out of $1400/month contracted), and the DSC makes up about 70-80% of the contracted wage. The cruise line is required to make up salary lost due to DSC reduction, only if the total compensation falls below the minimum. So, passengers removing the DSC can reduce crew compensation by 50% without affecting NCL's bottom line in the slightest. Incorrect, again. The amount of DSC charged to passengers, and the contracted amount of DSC in each crew members' paycheck is based on double occupancy participation in the DSC. The crew's contract acknowledges that the crew's compensation may be more than what is contracted, if the ship has a higher occupancy than double occupancy. So, yes, the crew, of whatever rating in the DSC pool, will see any "extra" DSC that is generated. Further, the crew know, based on terms in the contract, that about 10% of DSC will be used for crew welfare (parties, upgrades to crew facilities voted on by crew), and is not used for "crew uniforms" nor "pensions". I don't get into whether or not people should remove/adjust the DSC, for whatever reason, I just make sure the facts about the DSC and how crew are paid, is presented. That's why this will be my only contribution to this thread.

And the USCG did absolutely nothing with your pictures, since they have no jurisdiction over what goes on in a cruise ship swimming pool, even a US flag one. The only government agency that would be interested is the USPH/CDC.

If Princess reserved a slot in Bar Harbor for this cruise before the November vote by the town council, the port call will likely hold up. If they had not made their reservation until after the town council vote, then they won't be allowed to call at Bar Harbor. It looks like Enchanted is just under the "shoulder season" "pre-vote" previous limit of 3800 pax per day, for ships that reserved before the vote.

Panama is even more strict than Bahamas regarding arming crew, only allowing it in high risk areas (Horn of Africa, etc). USCG Marshals still routinely board cruise ships for transit into/out of port. In Hawaii, in 2004-2008, we had routine boardings on the NCL ships, and the USCG would raise eyebrows when they got into the buffet line with an M-16 strapped across their chest. Funny incident, when our Security Officer was checking USCG ID's as they boarded (as is required under the ISPS Code (International Ship and Port Security). One Coastie didn't have any ID with him ("I was going on the boat"), and Security told him he couldn't board. Then came the "do you know who I am?" and "I'm in a USCG uniform", until his boss told him to get back in their boat and go back to base. The USCG senior rating told Security that if Security hadn't turned the Coastie away, he would have cited the ship for an ISPS violation. Most flag state nations don't allow merchant ships to arm, and many don't recognize using armed security forces onboard either.

I very much doubt that RCI arms their security officers. Most cruise lines do not. Bahamas does not recommend that ships flying their flag carry arms. How far out of port were you when this happened? Because it was most likely USCG Sea Marshals, who have regularly boarded cruise ships since 9/11, and carry long guns.

Actually, legally, SOLAS defines "passenger" as "every person other than the master and the members of the crew or other persons employed or engaged in any capacity on board a ship on the business of the ship [and] a child under one year of age”. So, unless the cruise line is paying you to be on the ship, you are a passenger.

Short time Naval reservist, but big history buff.

Not to get too far off topic, but while Midway was probably the most influential naval battle of the war, the Philippine Sea (Great Marianas Turkey Shoot) was a larger carrier battle, and Leyte Gulf was a larger naval battle.

It will not be done until the next scheduled dry docking, which for the Magic is May this year. So, wherever they have planned for the dry docking, they will just add this to the work specification. I can just about guarantee this won't be done in a US shipyard, as the costs are too great. It looks like she will be doing Caribbean, so Freeport is most likely, and April 1-14 looks like the time slot.

My take is that the entire fleet will be purchased by either ACL or Viking, at fire sale prices, then scrapped, in order to keep another potential operator from getting US bottoms.

They will need to cut out the damaged plate back to where it is not damaged, then cut out deck and stiffeners (longitudinals and frames) that will have been deformed by the impact (there will be frames, longitudinals, and deck plating behind the damaged hull that are bent and deformed as well). Then new sections of stiffeners, deck, and hull plating will be welded back in. Given the amount of time until the next drydocking, all of the areas will have been surveyed, and the exact sizes of the replacement sections determined, so that before the ship even arrives at the shipyard, those will be cut and sized and ready to go. From there, the removal of damaged steel, inserting the new steel, and welding it all up should take 3-4 days of two shift days. The class society will be present in the shipyard, as 90% of the work done in the shipyard is required by the class society. For this repair, the surveyor will inspect when the new pieces (both hull plating and stiffeners) are tack welded into place to ensure that there are no excessive gaps that would need to be filled with weld metal, then after the "root pass" (the first full pass of welding all around the hull patch (which will generally be an x-ray inspection) to determine there are no deficiencies in the weld, and then once fully welded, they will do a "splash test" (for a repair that size, or a "vacuum box" for a smaller repair) to determine that the repair is watertight. The welders need to be certified by the class society, and the procedure, from start to finish (things like size of weld, welding rod type, inter-pass temperature of the base metal, etc, etc) will be written, and checked by the surveyor for compliance. The USCG has almost no jurisdiction over a foreign flag ship, except when it is in a US port, so they would have nothing to do with the repair, or whether the repair was done properly. I thought you were asking about a comparison of the hull repair vs the propeller repair a previous poster mentioned.

Not sure what you're asking.

Thanks, Jim. Yeah, should have qualified my statement that "when properly stowed", there is no noise.