chengkp75

I would not say that the PVSA is too complex to change/amend, per se. There are several problems involved. First off, since you are now going to be involving foreign flag ships in domestic US traffic, you now have to abide by the strictures of international law, not just US law. For example, even now, US law does not apply completely to foreign flag cruise ships, even when docked in a US port. International law says that the "port state" (country where the ship is physically located) only applies when the "safety and well being" of the port state is threatened. Otherwise, the laws of the "flag state" apply to "internal" situations onboard the ship. An example, is in the SCOTUS case of "Spector v NCL", where the court decided that the ADA applied to foreign flag cruise ships to an extent. The court ruled that in accordance with international law, unless Congress had specifically mentioned foreign flag cruise ships, that "internal policies and procedures" did not fall under the ADA. This is called the "law of unintended consequences". Another problem with amending the PVSA is again, that you are involving international law, since you would be trying to "redefine" what a "passenger vessel" is, which is an international legal definition. This is if you are trying to "carve out" cruise ships from other "passenger vessels" covered by the PVSA. Should you change the act to say that "only ships with over 1000 passengers can be foreign flag", then this would fall afoul of a constitutionality challenge in court from the likes of the Alaska Marine Highway, the Staten Island Ferry, and American Cruise Lines, who would say "we operate "passenger vessels as well, and would like the same cost savings from operating as foreign flag ships as you have granted to these ships", and they would win. Think of every ferry, commuter boat, water taxi, duck boat, sightseeing boat, whale watching boat, casino or dinner cruise boat, or charter fishing boat in the US being able to change to foreign flag, no longer have to abide by USCG regulations, no longer have to have US crew, and no longer pay US taxes.

While it may be true that cruise fares have increased a lot since the end of Covid, I can't say whether or not they have doubled. But, that is due to outside influences, like the deep discounting the lines did to get people back onboard after Covid, the increase in demand for cruises, and the rising costs from worldwide inflation. While taxation is one factor in the difference between US flag, and foreign flag, it is not the main one. Crew costs, both wages and benefits like Social Security, is by far the largest cost difference. Also, customs duty is a large item. Everything that a foreign flag ship imports to the US, whether it is spare parts, hotel amenities, or food and alcohol, pays no import duty as it is "in transit" to a foreign ship. And, as the fares for foreign flag ships have increased greatly, so have those on the POA, which still remains the highest cost cruises around. The issue of cruise line taxation may have come to the attention of the cruising public due to Covid bail out attempts, it has been known for decades, and hotly debated in Congress just as long.

How much of a convenience for the passengers would it be to have the cruise fare likely doubled (as a minimum) for a ship registered in the US? That is the point of my reply.

The US Maritime Commission, which is tasked with promoting US flag shipping has done a study of the cost differential between operating a ship (a cargo ship, not a cruise ship) as a US flag ship, or a foreign flag ship. The overall operating cost for a US flag ship is 3 times that of a foreign flag ship, and the crew cost is 5 times. The last point is vastly significant, when you compare the 20 person crew of a cargo ship to the 1000-2000 person crew on a cruise ship, and multiply that by 500%. The cruise industry has studied the demographics and found that most people from the US don't care about US ports on their cruises, which is why most cruises don't include more than one (the embark/disembark port). CLIA has long stated that their members see no benefit to their bottom lines from any modification or repeal of the PVSA. Medical emergencies are generally not an issue. CBP routinely grants waivers, if applied for, to the cruise lines for violations of the PVSA that are out of the cruise line's control, like weather cancelling the one foreign port, mechanical issues that cancel the foreign port, medical emergencies and deaths, and even weather that prevents flights from reaching the embarkation on time (if the flight is booked through the cruise line). Again, you need to look at the PVSA as the passenger vessel act, not the cruise ship act. By international law, a passenger vessel is any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers for hire. So, the PVSA covers every tour boat, ferry, casino or dinner cruise boat, and large charter fishing boats, as well as cruise ships. Think of the security issues if every one of these boats were to hire foreigners as crew. US flag ships are vital to US national security, and this has been stated and restated for decades (actually ever since President Roosevelt signed the Merchant Marine Act of 1936) by the military, as US flag ships can be used to support our military, as they have since the founding of the country. While the vast majority of this support comes from cargo ships, passenger vessels can be used to provide troop transport in times of war. During Desert Storm, there were foreign flag vessels chartered by the US government, that refused to enter the war zone, while every US flag vessel owned or chartered by the US government delivered their cargo where needed. An example of a civilian cruise ship being used for troop transport in modern times is the Queen Elizabeth II, during the Falklands War. Is there a national security reason that US commercial airline pilots need to be US citizens? As I've stated many times in the past, and even industry leaders have agreed, there would not be a whole lot of heartache with repealing the "US built" clause of the PVSA or Jones Act, since the US has lost its technological edge in shipbuilding decades ago, and is primarily willing only to cater to the US Navy, where cost efficiency is a distant second concern. However, the cost of operating the ship as a US flag vessel, which is what would be required, is what has stopped the cruise lines from petitioning to repeal the PVSA. Remember, it took 10 years of lobbying to get the PVSA exemption for Puerto Rico (one way traffic between PR and the mainland US by foreign ships), and only one cruise line took up the regular use of this route, and it failed after a couple of years due to lack of passenger demand. So, even at the lowered cost of operating as a foreign flag ship, PVSA protected passenger service is not the fountain of new revenue that many cruisers think it would be. The hundreds of thousands of US citizens who are covered by the PVSA would beg to differ with you there. You are looking at the act through the very narrow view of the large cruise ship industry. Question. How do you conduct a background check on someone from another country? And, remember, that even the foreign flag cruise lines were having difficulty restaffing after covid. But, that is an inconvenient fact that needs to be forgotten. The foreign flag ships staffing issues still continue, but have been mitigated by the large pool of both positions available (hundreds of ships) and people wanting the jobs. Remember, that an international crew cabin steward makes a nice middle class income in their home country, while the entry level positions on Pride of America, pay about what flipping burgers at MickeyD does. The POA pays the lowest wages of any US flag vessel, from the dishwasher to the Captain.

No, it doesn't. The Civil Aviation Act is what applies to air travel, not the PVSA. Different sections of the USC, but they do essentially the same thing. Remember, there was no air travel when the PVSA was passed, and the definitions section of the USC defines "passenger vessel" as a ship, and does not include any mention of an airplane.

I don't know for sure, since these speciality restaurants came after my time at NCL, but there are electric smokers and electric barbeque grills, and the ships have had salamander type broilers for years, and these can reach 1000*F (that's how they "finish" a steak with grill marks). I don't see any safety concerns with electric smokers or bbq grills. Open flames are allowed, such as the propane torches used to make creme brulee. There are safety protocols as to storage, access, and use of these. To answer the OP's question, while most of the food is not "cooked to order" (they know roughly how many of each entree is historically used, and prepare that many), it is nearly all "made from scratch", including the soups and sauces, breads and rolls (though things that require consistent size and shape, like hot dog or burger buns, will be brought onboard ready made.

Your "Electric Conveyance Vehicle" (scooter) (had to look it up, but pretty much thought this is what you were referring to), is it being rented from one of the Princess approved vendors? Typically if done through the approved vendor, it will be delivered to the cabin, and can be left there at the end of the cruise. Other vendors will deliver to the terminal. Some terminals (mostly Florida, IIRC), the approved vendors have booths in the terminal for pickup. Check with the rental company to get the right answer.

About as bent out of shape as when you say that AP Moller, Evergreen, CMA CGM, OOCL, and COSCO operate "ocean liners". Container ships are referred to as "liners" since they operate on regular schedules.

I suspect the anchors hit bottom long before the clanking of the windlass stopped. As I say, they let out 7 times the water depth. So, with a water depth of 70-85 feet (and now that I've looked it up, the water depth around Stapleton anchorage is much less than that, around 50 feet), the anchor would have hit bottom within a couple of minutes, depending on whether they payed out or dropped the anchor. The rest of the time was paying out the scope, and having 6-7 shots out in 50 feet of water is a prudent Master in expected heavy weather.

I think you're going to New England? Then you'll be paralleling Long Island, so winds of 25-30 knots, gusting to 40 from northeast (so on your port bow, causing pitching and rolling). Seas 8-12 feet. Gale warning through tonight.

Very likely that Upper Mississippi cruises will be curtailed again this year.

Over a 30 year career, a harbor pilot faces a 1 in 20 chance of a fatality. That's a 5% chance of death. While harbor pilots don't make the US Labor Statistics list of most dangerous jobs, that is because there are so few of them. The most dangerous job in America, according to USBLS is logging, with a 0.08% chance of fatality.

While the seas may look calm to you, sitting high above on the ship, remember that there is one individual who risks his/her life every time a ship enters port, standing on the exposed deck of a small boat, then jumping to a rope ladder and climbing up into the ship, while not falling off the ladder to be drowned or crushed between the ship and the boat. The pilot. At some point, the pilots will decide it is not safe enough to make the transfer from pilot boat to ship, and they will stop boarding ships. Without that person, the ship cannot enter the port, and then you would be sailing around during the storm, and ranting about how stupid the Captain was for not getting into port to avoid the storm. When you have many years of experience in commanding large passenger vessels, and have accepted personal financial and legal responsibility for thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars of vessel, and understand what a SMS is, and how it defines a Captain's actions, then you will be able to critique a Captain's decision making, not before.

No, the ships anchor with the swing radius known, and they maintain a distance to the next ship of more than that, but all the ships will basically swing to the same direction.

Typically 10 shots (900 ft). Most every ship carries that much chain.

No, you put out about 7 times the water depth in chain. And, the total chain put out is generally measured to the windlass wildcat, so there is always almost a shot (shackle or 90 feet), above the water. So, the water depth is around 70-85 feet. Though, in heavy weather, Captains often put out an extra shot of chain. This allows the anchor chain to lie on the sea bed for a good portion of it, so that it adds weight to the anchor, and also so that the ship pulls more horizontally on the anchor, causing it to dig in more the more the ship pulls. A more vertical anchor chain would tend to lift the anchor from the sea bed as the ship pitches and pulls.

If you look up the definition of "sailing" in any number of dictionaries, one definition is "the departure of a ship from port" (no mention of sails). A "sailing" is also defined as being a "voyage by a ferry or cruise ship, especially on a fixed schedule" (Oxford dictionary). I sailed the oceans for 46 years on ships, none of which had sails.

The FDA does not allow fish that has been flash frozen and then defrosted for sale to be called "fresh", it is "fresh frozen". Most of what you get in supermarkets as "fresh" is "fresh frozen". Beware of your "fresh" flounder, as this fish also (and about half of the fish on HAL's list) have parasite risk, so even cooked it must be checked for temperature to kill the parasites. Yes, I think that HAL should be calling it "local" or "locally sourced" rather than "fresh".

Someone seems to be quite sensitive, and reads a lot into posts that aren't there. Andy in no way denigrated the responsibilities of a USN Captain, he merely pointed out the well known differences in authorities and responsibilities between naval and merchant ship's officers. Having sailed on both the "Gray Funnel Line" and as a commercial merchant mariner, I know these differences well. One is not "better" or "lacking in authority", they are merely different, due to the different missions, and legal constraints. As Andy said, a cruise ship's Captain would not be allowed to hire divers to do an inspection or cleaning, without corporate permission. As he also mentioned, the ISM requires that the Captain have overriding authority in concerns for the environment, but that is for decisions made at the moment that an incident was happening, without waiting for corporate approval. The only place this could happen in this scenario, would be for the Captain to refuse to enter NZ waters, if he/she knew the ship would be in violation, and the company could not reprimand him/her for that decision. Now, planning on having a ship enter NZ waters, when it has not met the requirements of the NZ biofouling management requirements, is a corporate decision that should be in contravention of the corporate SMS policies, but then again, cruise line executives are not professionals, and don't always "follow the rules" the way a professional mariner would.

I don't read anything in the OP's post that questions the professionalism of the Master. As Andy (Heidi13) has said, these same Masters were caught short last season, when the regulations had been in force for a couple of years before, so I feel it is a valid question by a member of the cruising public, which is why I answered it with my professional opinion and knowledge.

Not sure what "critical comment" "demeaning the character and professionalism of the master/captain" you are referring to. I hope you are not referring to the post above yours from Heidi13, who has been a ship's Master for decades, and who knows of what he speaks. I, as another professional mariner, with 46 years as a licensed officer, agree with him that in many cases the Master is instructed by corporate to "not worry" about certain regulations. Also, if you knew the number of Captains/Chief Engineers who have been convicted of environmental violations over the years, you would not be so quick to assume that they are completely altruistic. I take exception when non-mariners question the actions and motives of Captains here on CC, but when an experienced mariner does so, as I have done as well, then it's something to listen to.

Molluscan shellfish (clams, mussels, oysters) in the shell have never needed to be frozen for use on cruise ships. There are a few hoops to jump through, though, regarding documentation. The fact is that most fish is flash frozen on the fishing boat, even that sold or marketed as "fresh". All fish intended for serving in undercooked or uncooked condition (sushi, ceviche), must have been frozen by the supplier to kill parasites. Never frozen fish lasts only about 5-10 days, losing quality each day, so I really doubt that HAL is getting fish that has never been frozen, but that the "fresh" marketing means they are sourcing the "frozen onboard" fish from local areas, instead of provisioning it all at the turn-around port.

Just like anyone else who is employed as an expat, the crew are liable for taxes in their country of residence (though some expats are also liable in the country they work in). As BruceMuzz has said, in the Philippines and Indonesia, any compensation the crew receives, whether it is called "gratuities" or "DSC", or whatever, if it is collected by, and distributed by the employer, it is taxable income. The only non-taxable gratuities are those received directly from the customer.

Nearly every member of Congress has less of a clue about the PVSA, or how CBP works, than the cruise line customer service reps. 😲

I'll just say a couple of things here. The $941 figure quoted sounds like the $798 current PVSA fine, and RCI's long standing $143 "downline" disembarkation fee. Whether that fee merely covers the additional cost of submitting the modified passenger manifests to CBP caused by the passenger/s leaving, or whether part of it is merely to dissuade passengers from using this is unknown to me, and I won't debate it, as customer service questions are not my wheelhouse. I did see an article from the Elliot Group (though not a big fan), that is extremely similar to this case, where the cruise line was ignoring the passenger's request to waive the fine. After Elliot got involved, the answer (and I won't judge the validity of the argument or not) was that the original requests from the passenger did not mention a medical emergency. The fine was refunded. I know from personal experience, though it is nearly two decades ago, that when a passenger was disembarked for medical reasons, or death, that the cruise line provided the passenger's family with the form for a waiver of PVSA fine, and all required accompanying paperwork, and left it to the family to request the waiver. Not sure if that has changed in the last 20 years, but it may well have, as there was an overhaul to the fine/waiver process a few years back. I will say that in cases that I've known about, only one family member, along with the patient/deceased were allowed to get the fine waived, not the entire party. Also, note that the PVSA fine is now adjusted annually for inflation, so if you use an old article about the PVSA, it may have an incorrect fine amount.