chengkp75

I did not think this was a blanket requirement for any disability, as the number of chairs is limited. Low vision, diabetic retinopathy, lack of depth perception (sight in only one eye).

This, in my opinion (and I'm not a lawyer nor have I played one on TV), treds into the gray area of Spector v NCL, where SCOTUS said that the foreign flag cruise ship's "internal policies and procedures" are not subject to the ADA, as this requirement for "registration" could be considered an internal policy. This is obviously in line with UK laws, as this applies only to crossings originating in the UK. However, denying a person a service animal when boarding in the US, would be, in my opinion, a violation of the ADA, as the cruise line is selling transportation as a "common carrier", and as such that transportation cannot be denied to a person because they need a service animal. I don't know how long this language or policy has been in place, but I don't believe it would survive a court challenge from a US disabled person.

However, there is no national requirement for training of factual service dogs, some are trained at home by the disabled person or their family, some are even pets who are found to have developed a sense for things like diabetic incidents, and have learned to alert their owner, all on the dog's own initiative. So, standards vary, and actually except for the DOJ "code of conduct", there are no standards. And, yes, the DOJ document does allow for the removal of a service animal if it is disruptive or bites.

I don't know Cunard's exact rules, but I would say that you mean "anyone with a mobility disability" would use an evac chair, but I don't think that that would apply to those with PTSD or seizure disorders, as they are perfectly capable of moving to the muster station under their own power. And, while corporate policies may be universal, the laws in various nations differ, so those may play a part. And, because of this, even if the UK has stricter rules about service animals, the US does not, and so Cunard sets their policy to the least restrictive.

No, the service animals, whether factual or not, would come to the muster station with their owners, and then if the Captain decides to abandon ship (remember, the passenger muster signal is not the abandon ship signal), the animals will be separated from their owners and placed in a secure location while the passengers board the lifeboats. Also remember, when the Captain signals for the passengers to board the lifeboats and evacuate, this still isn't the abandon ship signal, and the crew will remain at their emergency stations with the exceptions of the 3-4 crew assigned to each lifeboat. There could be an instance where the passengers evacuate, and then the crew get the emergency under control, and remain on the ship, so the animals could be saved. I don't think there are more animals onboard these days, especially since Covid, as there have been complaints about this for decades now.

What about a serious fire? Not every abandoned ship sinks. Far more likely scenario. No bigger than if your neighbor's pet bit you, and the cruise line would not be liable, though they may settle just to get rid of it.

Just curious, but why would you expect the company to reply to you about this?

As someone who knows people with service dogs and who worked as an accessibility compliance officer for NCL, I will say that your "definition" of service dog is far too limited. There are dogs that assist the wheelchair bound, as well as those that assist with other "invisible" disabilities like autism, diabetes, seizure disorders and PTSD. None of these are "comfort" animals, which I agree have no place on a cruise ship, and which are not, at least in the US granted the same protections as service animals. The US ADA allows for service animals to be in one of two places, either on the floor, or in the owner's arms, as some service dogs need to be close to the owner's breath to detect the ketones of an imminent diabetic incident. It is not just bad publicity, but legal action. In the US, if the cruise line goes beyond the two allowable questions (Is this a service dog?)(What act does the dog provide to you?), and challenges the dog's right to be onboard, then they can be sued under the ADA. And, as others have stated, in the US there is no legal requirement for documenting, certifying, or training of a service animal, so you can show up with a service animal without any "online certificate", and board the animal. This is just the kind of discrimination that the ADA seeks to prevent. A service dog is a medical appliance, just as a wheelchair is. Do you wish to bar wheelchair users from cruising? There is also limited space for wheelchairs and scooters onboard. As above, a service animal is a medical appliance, and just like a wheelchair, it would not be brought into a lifeboat, if the ship had to abandon. Two different cases. In the first, regarding passports and visas, as a common carrier, they are responsible for your repatriation cost if they bring you to a country where you are not allowed (no proper documentation), so even if you were taken off the ship by some immigration authorities, the cruise line would still be liable to pay for any detention and housing cost as well as flights back home, so it is in their interest to ensure proper documentation and compliance with the law. As for service animals, as I've noted, there are only two questions the cruise line is legally allowed to ask (in the US), and any questioning beyond that is non-compliance with the law. As I said in an earlier post, the cruise lines have the ability to make rules for the governance of service animals onboard, but choose not to, feeling that the complaints of passengers about possibly fake service, or emotional support, animals is outweighed by the cost of litigation if they push the matter further, even if the litigation ends in the cruise lines' favor It is a problem, for sure, but it is not the cruise lines' problem, it is society's problem, as this kind of abuse of a law is not only limited to cruise ships, but to businesses in general.

It all depends on the repair contract VVR signed with H&W. If H&W bid on a specific repair, they will either use their own workers, or hire sub-contractors on their dime. If H&W did not bid on the repair (something like renovating the hotel side, which most shipyards don't do for cruise ships), then VVR would hire their own sub-contractors, and pay them directly.

Okay, let's take your young person with no known medical condition that is medically disembarked in a foreign country, who has an extreme fear of flying. You would have two choices: 1. The person continues to receive medical care in the foreign country until they could book another cruise to return to the US 2. A medical charter flight, with doctor and nurses, might accept a patient who needs to be unconscious to fly, but again, depending on the length of the flight, this may not be feasible.

I believe it is similar, but if the company has stated it won't have any money in a few weeks (obviously no accounts receivable by then), then even with layoffs they may not be able to continue to pay their workers. Not sure what you mean by "funny business" with H&W? Who hasn't paid their suppliers,etc? H&W or VVR? If you mean that VVR has not paid their employees or suppliers, then those debts go to the top of the receivership list, and they can also, any one of them, file for a bailiff's warrant and seize the ship.

While business may continue, the problem is that H&W are out of cash to make payroll, so that will affect their ability to continue working.

I like the photos of the business center, with chairs on casters. From working for 4 decades on ships with an office chair on wheels, I know those will be tied down every time the ship is at sea, put away, or tipped over to prevent them smashing into everything hour after hour.

OP, on one hand, you are talking about Hawaii (RT from West Coast?), and on the other, you are talking about taking your father to Tahiti (is this also RT from West Coast?). Which is the plan, because these are two very different scenarios. What medical emergency are you contemplating your mother having? Because, it is 2700 miles from Hawaii to Tahiti, and once outside of about 400-600 miles from Hawaii (a day to a day and a half), there would be no air evacuation until Tahiti, and maybe not even then.

Now, having said all that, just like virtually every major cruise line, Cunard is likely not willing to make up policy decisions like this, nor enforce them, it is much easier to just ignore the problem. CLIA could very easily come up with a code of conduct, but they don't.

I'll just chime in on the air evacuation from the ship. The decision to do one is not made by the ship's doctor alone. The ship's Captain, the helicopter flight crew, and the government agency's flight surgeon will all have a say in whether or not an air evacuation is warranted, and whether it happens. If the flight surgeon or flight crew know that the patient could become violent during either the basket lift, or the flight in a crowded helicopter, my suspicion is that an air evacuation would be ruled out. The first thing the government agency looks at is a risk/reward calculation as to whether the patient is better off for an extended period in the well stocked medical center onboard, or whether the risk of an airlift and flight in a helicopter with limited resources to the patient is outweighed by the shorter time to get the patient to the hospital. Part of that calculation is risk to the flight crew, and a potentially violent patient just ups that risk. I doubt that either the ship's doctor, nor the flight surgeon would recommend tranquilizing a patient to unconsciousness for an airlift, as just so much could go wrong in that scenario.

This is not quite correct. In SCOTUS' decision in Spector v NCL, a couple of decades ago, they stated that the "internal policies and procedures" of a foreign flag cruise ship are not subject to the ADA. That means that while the company has to accept an animal that is claimed to be a service animal, how they accept it is up to the company. As long as the policies don't interfere with the performance of the claimed service, or restrict the owner from certain activities, they can limit where the service animal can go (say limited seating in the theater, limited access to various restaurants, or seating within the restaurants, etc). The company is also free to establish a "service animal code of conduct" to cover things like dogs sitting on chairs, being fed from the table, etc.

An interesting wrinkle is that Harland & Wolff is facing bankruptcy itself in a couple of months. So, they would be desperate to get VV to pay their bills.

scrap value alone is more than $50k

Sorry, that should have said, "repay the debt" not loan. That commission to the Marshals includes the Marshals doing the actual selling of the ship, so Penn Warehousing don't need to do anything to collect the value of the ship.

However, since this is a maritime debt, they can place an "in rem" lien on the ship, and send the US Marshal's Service to seize the ship, which they can then sell to repay the loan. The USMS charge a maximum of $50k in commission.

They would not cancel all the guests assigned to the inoperable boat, as this would leave a block of cabins unoccupied. They will still have the passengers muster at the assigned station, as the passenger muster is not really about getting into the boats, it is for accountability; knowing that everyone has been accounted for. If, in the unlikely event that the emergency went from a muster to an evacuation, those in the station where the boat is inoperable, would be fed to the other boats as capacity allows. This can be done after the pax count is done, so we know that everyone is there, and other boats can report their numbers of open spaces in their boats and the pax escorted to those boats.

I have no idea how they decide who gets cancelled. Rhapsody has a total pax capacity of 2416 and a crew complement of 765, for a total of 3181 total souls onboard. Ships must carry 125% of the total souls number as life saving appliance capacity, so this would be 3976. Take away one 150 person lifeboat, that means they have capacity for 3826, or more than the ship's capacity. But, the problem comes with the fact that 75% of the capacity must be in lifeboats, so based on 150 man lifeboats, they have a lifeboat capacity of 2400, which works out to be exactly 75%. Take away one lifeboat, and you drop the lifeboat capacity to 2250, which is 75% of 3000. Take away the crew, and you are left with a passenger capacity of 2235, which is 237 over the double occupancy capacity, but short of the 2416 maximum capacity. So, while the ship still has life saving capacity for 3826, she can only carry 3000 due to the percentage of capacity being in lifeboats. Rafts, while primarily designated for crew, can be used for passengers, and are on many ships, via the MES systems (Marine Evacuation Systems) that use multiple rafts and a chute to get into the rafts.

No, they have had to bump some passengers to get the capacity down to the capacity of the remaining lifeboats.

I'll just throw this out. The maximum hours per day, and per week that a crew member can work is mandated by international convention to 14 hours/day of work or 91 hours/week (so actually limited to 13 hours, average, per day due to the week limitation). Hours of the day that are not allowable work hours are considered "mandated rest periods". Crew who are required to work during their mandated rest periods, must be given a "compensatory" rest period the next day. So if a crew member works 15 hours one day, they must be given 1 or 2 hours extra time off the next day. This is all tracked and recorded for each crew member, and these records are reviewed by port state officials, like the USCG, UK MCA, or Dutch Maritime Authority, when they inspect the ships in their ports, and non-compliance (working crew too much) can result in fines or detention of the ship. About 6 years ago, Brazil (not noted for their worker safety culture) detained a cruise ship for a couple days while investigating these work/rest hour violations.