chengkp75

Maybe we should use the "official" crew term for passengers, "cargo that complains".

Yes, from what I see, this starts immediately. Instead of one limit for shoulder months, and another limit for summer months, the 1000 limit is year round, even though ships don't call in the winter.

I believe the resolution was for the 2024-2025 season, so this summer. Will do a bit of research.

Generally, any toilet tissue is safe for use in a vacuum toilet system, contrary to urban legend. In 40+ years of working on vacuum toilet systems, I've never seen a clog from "the wrong type" of toilet paper. Wipes, of any kind, whether "septic safe" or not, are not to be used in vacuum toilets. As far as things being marked "septic safe", that bears no relevance to a ship's system, as the ship's system handles waste a lot differently than a land septic tank system (been on one at multiple houses for over 40 years). Again, wipes of any kind, even "septic safe" ones should not be sent down either a residential septic system or a municipal sewage system. Most of these wipes are made with plastic fibers, or at the least woven paper fibers, and will not break down, and will cause blockages even in municipal sewer systems. Using toilet paper not marked "septic safe" in a residential septic system just means that the tank needs to be pumped at the recommended 3 year interval. In fact, the vacuum toilet systems on cruise ships do not want the toilet paper to break down quickly (as the boating "marine" or RV paper is designed to do), as the vacuum system needs to maintain some "shape" in order to properly travel down (or in some cases, up) the vacuum piping. Cruise ship toilet paper is the way it is because the ship goes through pallet loads of it weekly, so they buy the cheapest stuff they can.

Never seen that myself, as a heating pad draws only about 250 watt, while hair dryers are typically 1500-1800 watts, and unless more than one of those is plugged into the 110v circuit you generally don't trip the breaker.

NCL has a sign on the crew side of all doors leading to pax areas that says "you're going on stage", which is why crew tend to not want to spend off time in pax areas.

I would call BS on this claim, having seen crew food. However, scurvy has an incidence of 7% in the US, and in 73% in India. This is without even being on a ship. Since ships restock provisions weekly, there is no shortage of fruits and vegetables, even for crew, but if people choose not to eat properly, then scurvy can happen. There are also statutory requirements for fresh produce for all ships' crew, and general nutrition as well.

Frankly, I think we in Portland would look forward to overnight stays for the ships, allowing the passengers to sample a lot more of our fine restaurants, many of which don't open for lunch.

Probably not for Bar Harbor, at least. Maine has studied spending trends, and have found that cruise passengers spend about half, per day, of what overnight tourists spend. And, if the town increases taxes to cover the needed upgrades to the infrastructure required to meet cruise passenger influxes, (garbage, piers, sidewalks, policing, etc), those mom and pop owners will again agree that limiting cruise ships is viable. And, Venice won't go back to having huge ships in the Canals, either, for a lot of reasons, not just tourist income.

For all but small ships, yes. The only concession judge Walker gave to the plaintiffs was that the town could not restrict the number of crew that go ashore, nor can crew be counted among the limit.

I haven't read the ordinance, but the court's verdict, and the main engine for enforcing the limit is the town's "reservation system" for using the anchorages. If the number of passengers exceed the daily cap, they won't issue a reservation for that ship on that day. I believe the town is basing the ordinance on the landward access of passengers from the private docks to municipal land (streets and sidewalks). The Town Manager has noted that there are still issues to be worked out with monitoring the limits on private land, and what the penalties will be for violations (to the pier owners, not the cruise lines).

So, maybe this is a "perk" given to supervisors in lieu of a higher salary.

I'm not sure that any container ships have restarted passenger service since Covid.

Does Elliott provide advocacy for cruises sold outside the US, for non-US passengers, for a cruise that does not call in the US?

Yep.

Probably the most common officers I've seen eating in the buffet are the bridge officers. Due to their watch schedules, they don't generally mesh with the dining hours in the officer's mess.

However, he ruled that there can be no limitation on crew going ashore, that's Federal jurisdiction, so the 1000 limit applies only to pax.

Judge has just ruled in favor of the 1000 pax limit resolution.

Just as you as a passenger are not allowed in crew areas, off duty crew are generally not allowed in passenger areas. And, even during working hours, if a crew member's duties do not require them to be in passenger areas, then they are not allowed in those areas. Permission to go to passenger areas while off duty, or to eat in passenger venues, even while on duty, is based on rank. Generally, only supervisors (those in whites, many of whom are not "officers" but hotel supervisors) are allowed to eat in places like the buffet. It is generally not until the crew member is of "three stripe" rank that they can eat in passenger areas without permission from their department head, and on a limited number of times per month. Some staff, like cruise director staff, don't wear whites, but have "assimilated" ranks just like the ones wearing whites. Entertainers are generally given more freedom, and some guest entertainers are granted "passenger status" and live in passenger cabins. Would you consider it normal to be allowed as a passenger to eat in the crew mess?

The dry docking in May 2022 was the 15 year dry dock (third special survey), and she needs to dry dock twice between that date and May 2027. So, the mid-period dry dock (as I said, after 15 years the mid-period survey must be a dry dock), comes in with a window of Feb - Aug 2025. The Oct - Nov time frame would have been too early. The repair dry dock was also outside the statutory windows, so there is no credit for that dry docking.

And, it has been shown that all of the mechanical scaling, sanding, etc, that the crew do to the steel of the ship, followed by painting, is basically useless in terms of preserving the steel, it is merely cosmetic. Even if not blowing gale force, in the time between the preparation of the surface, and the actual painting, salt has gotten on the surface, and will cause the coating to fail, or the rust underneath to reappear.

While this could happen, if they did it, they would then move the entire survey schedule for the remainder of the ship's life up by 6 months or so. You don't get credit for doing dry dock inspections earlier than the allowed window, so since this dry docking marks the end of the ship's first survey period (5 years), doing it early would require starting the clock over at the earlier time. That cuts a few months off the ship's life towards the period when the surveys and inspections start to really add up. And, again, going slower for a stabilizer problem is counter-productive, so that is not the issue.

I believe you are mistaking "engines" for "propellers". Yes, with 2 propellers down, the ship would not sail. What I am suggesting is that one or more of the 5 diesel engines that generate electricity to drive the ship may be down, and the ship could very easily sail with 2 engines down.

The May 2025 date is from the Lloyd's Register database, the classification society that requires the dry dockings. It is a mid-period dry docking, so there is some leeway, from about Feb to May, but since Victoria is over 15 years old, she cannot do the in service, underwater survey in lieu of the mid-period dry docking that she could do before.

She has a dry docking due in May 2025, so if any renovations are scheduled, that is when they will happen. Whether or not they do much beyond simple hotel maintenance (new carpeting where required, new soft goods where required, new furniture where required, etc) is up to their corporate financial situation.