chengkp75

Incorrect. The PVSA still protects tens of thousands of US citizens and provides hundreds of millions in US economic revenue. You are looking at the Act through the very narrow view of cruise lines and not what the Act's title represents; all passenger vessels.

No, but they may refuse you reboarding.

Part of a dry dock inspection is the "bottom survey", which includes inspection of the entire hull surface below the water line, the pipe terminations and sea chests for piping, and the propellers, thrusters, rudders, and stabilizers. This includes testing hull plating for lost thickness (corrosion), and x-ray surveying of welds (again, corrosion). This bottom survey is the main reason for going into dry dock, and is the major "critical path" item for a dry docking (i.e. this is what determines how long a dry dock lasts). As stated, for ships older than 15 years, this must be completed "twice in 5 years", or about every 2.5 years (can stretch to 3 years, but then the next dry dock is in only two years). The term "intermediate" denotes that the bottom survey is being done at this intermediate (2.5 year) interval. The ship's documents, and all surveys are on a 5 year expiration, so every 5 years is a "special survey" that completes all the surveys and documentation, and the dry docking in between these "special surveys" is the "intermediate" survey.

According to DNV (the Sun's class society), the intermediate bottom survey is due April 2024, so this is the likely dry dock date. As the Sun is more than 15 years old, she needs to dry dock "twice in 5 years", so the April 2024 date is right at the end of the window from the April 2021 dry dock (interval cannot be more than 3 years).

Limes are still in short supply, which has driven up the price, due to damage to the trees in Mexico due to high temperatures and drought. The high temperatures cause the limes that are picked to "change" more quickly, and also to not grow very large to start with.

I'll stake my 46 years going to sea over your "many hurricane season cruises" as to who knows what they are talking about.

The weather issue generally isn't with the ports, it's that pesky path in between them that might have some bad weather. But, you should know that given your many hurricane season cruises.

Having sailed up and down the East Coast for years, I know that whether the ship was sailing from NY to either Bermuda or Bahamas, you will be either going through the exact same weather, or worse. The ship needs to avoid the Gulf Stream, so sailing east of the Stream, is the same course as Bermuda (so, same weather), or sailing west of the Stream, will give the fringes of the weather, but worse seas due to being closer to shore. And, as another poster said, "what a difference a day makes", depending on the track of the storm. And, that cruise was originally slated for the Bahamas, so they know they can dock there, where as a last minute diversion maybe couldn't. And we shall see how that cruise fares with the weather, and how many complain about it. And, if you think that RCI is the only line that has diverted a fall/winter cruise from NY to Canada instead of the south, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Well, let's look at a map, for a change. The next closest foreign port, after Bermuda would be the Bahamas, taking just over 2 days each way, so only a day in port, but guess what? You would go through the exact same bad weather as if you went to Bermuda. And, if you went through that weather, you'd be complaining about that, and how could RCI jeopardize their passengers by stupidly going through a storm?

Yes, our local grocery stores sell a 32oz for $19-22, so when you add in the taxi fare to get there, it comes out about the same.

If you're going to Portland, Lisa-Marie's Made in Maine gift shop, or the Union Wharf Market have syrup at competitive prices. Both within walking distance of the pier.

As you (and I assume your friend) are Canadians, you will need a visa to actually enter Egypt. Cruise passengers get a "transit" visa for the port calls, but because you will be spending an overnight, and travelling from one city to another, you will be actually entering the country, and will need a visa. Your tour operator should have told you this. When is your cruise? Apparently, after Oct 1st, Canadians can no longer apply for the visa online, but must go to a consulate or embassy. If the time you are spending off the ship is less than 48 hours, you need an "in transit visa", but if you are off the ship more than 48 hours, you need a "tourist visa". https://www.egyptvisaspro.com/visa-requirements/canadian-citizens#:~:text=Egypt Visa for Canadian Citizens,valid until their expiration date.

No. You embarked the first ship in LA and permanently disembarked (meaning you paid your bill, took your luggage off the ship, and the ship sailed out of port without you), ending the first voyage. When you board the second ship (even if it were the same ship as your first cruise), in Vancouver, you are starting a new voyage, ending in Seward. Because you left the ship, and it proceeded without you, and you left at the designated port that you paid for transportation to, then even a break as little as one day between cruises would be legal.

Not sure what you mean here. Victoria is not an exception to the "distant foreign port" rule. Victoria is used as the "foreign port call" for a closed loop Alaska cruise out of Seattle. You cannot go from Seattle on a one way cruise to Alaska (getting off in Alaska). These cruises have to start or end in Canada, which makes them outside the purview of the PVSA. Saying that Victoria is an exception to the PVSA would be like saying that Southampton, England, is an exception, since it is also a one way cruise that starts or ends in a foreign port.

No, the simple fact of changing ships makes this two separate voyages. Both are PVSA compliant.

You are correct that the telephone customer service reps have no clue. You can go ahead and book online, but you may get a flag in a couple of weeks that this is not allowed. At this point, or now, if you prefer, call RCI, ask to speak first to a CSR supervisor, and then with the "compliance department", as these are the people who know the PVSA, and who flag the violations (they have lawyers there).

From what I see on marinetraffic, and a chart of Elliott Bay, Quantum is anchored well within the "general anchorage" area off Duwamish Head, and south of the "published" Bainbridge ferry route. She is athwart the Seattle-Bremerton ferry route, but that route transects the anchorage area, and ships are free to anchor anywhere in the anchorage area, but are usually directed to a specific spot by the harbor master and pilot, for a protected anchorage like this.

The IMO has been debating for about a decade so far as to whether disposal of vegetable oil (like from a deep fryer) is to be considered under "garbage" disposal regulations or "oily waste" disposal regulations. This shows how fast things move there as well.

Unless there was a mechanical failure that required her to drop anchor immediately, ships are not allowed to anchor in "fairways", or the shipping channels used to transit the port, even by ferries, so I sort of doubt that other traffic is involved. And, no ship has to "yield" to an anchored vessel, any more than a car needs to yield to a parked car.

Under the International Safety Management (ISM) of the IMO, the company develops a Safety Management System (SMS) that is required to put down in writing, virtually everything that the company does to conduct its business. This means both corporate policies as well as the day to day operation of the ships. This goes down to written policies as to how Guest Services handles complaints, as well as policies governing whether a ship can enter a port or not. Now, also under the ISM, the Captain is given "overriding authority" to make on scene decisions that affect the safety of the vessel, crew, passengers and the environment (this means that no one in corporate can second guess or override a decision made by the Captain, in that moment. So, there is a corporate policy that sets out what weather conditions will allow a ship to enter port, and the Captain is expected to follow these policies and procedures. Now, he/she could make a decision to follow a personal, even more restrictive set of conditions, and not enter a port when the SMS says it would be okay, but he/she cannot apply a less restrictive set of conditions, and expect to keep his/her job. Since missing a port involves a large financial hit for the company, the Captain would not make this decision on his/her own, but would discuss it with corporate before coming to a decision. So, yes, it would in fact be more of a corporate decision (through the SMS) than a decision solely by the Captain.

This is completely false. Cargo can go directly from overseas ports to Puerto Rico, Hawaii, or the US Virgin Islands, just as it does to any mainland US port. Now, whether or not there is a sufficient market for a ship to call at these locales is a different matter, and the flag of the vessel would have nothing to do with that decision. In disaster relief, any "international aid" can come directly from the foreign country, direct to Puerto Rico, for instance, and the only thing that hampered relief supplies in Puerto Rico during hurricane Maria was the inability to clear the docks of existing containers to make space for the incoming relief cargo, not a lack of tonnage from Jones Act shipping. With roads blocked, and no power to pump gas/diesel, trucks could not get to the ports to make room for the relief aid. This is well documented, but ignored by enemies of the Jones Act.

Continuing with the example of the ADA, SCOTUS stated that if Congress changed the wording of the ADA to specifically mention foreign flag cruise ships, then the ADA could be applied in its entirety to those ships. In the 18 years since that decision, Congress has not even considered this. And, I would say that the disabled lobby is far larger and more influential than the cruise lobby, so what makes you think Congress would even address this. There have been many challenges to the Jones Act and PVSA over the decades, none have ever made it out of committee.

So, you would try to get a majority of the 175 member nations of the IMO to agree to change the SOLAS treaty to allow the US to change their cabotage law, when many of those other nations also have similar cabotage laws to the PVSA? You are trying to compare changing US laws with getting many nations, each with their own system of government, to change their laws to accommodate the US. When a nation becomes signatory to a UN convention, like the IMO or SOLAS, they are required to pass laws into each country's statutes that have the exact same wording as the convention, so not only would all of these nations need to agree in the IMO vote, but would then have to change their laws as well.

And the final disembarkation port is a US port. Cunard crossings from NYC to England are not considered under PVSA.

Was that amount listed as "corporate tax" or a "taxes"? (I don't care to read through the SEC filings to see) CLIA has admitted in their statements about the economical impact of cruising on the US economy, that the vast majority of taxes paid by the member cruise lines in the US, are local property taxes on their buildings, and Social Security payments for US citizen employees. Under the reciprocal agreement you mention in the IRS tax code, all revenue generated by a foreign flag ship is tax exempt in the US.