chengkp75

While I won't dispute what the feeling was, or what the talk among passengers was at the time, I will dispute that there was a "shipwide" failure of the vacuum toilet system. How do I know? Because a ship the size of QM2 will have 4-5 independent vacuum systems, not connected to each other, with 3-4 vacuum pumps in each system, of which 2-3 in each system are in standby mode. So, to fail throughout the ship, 12-20 individual pumps would have had to fail at the same time. Now, if there were widespread failures in parts of the ship, followed by widespread failures in other parts of the ship, even continuing around to all, or virtually all, areas, that I can believe, but don't believe it was a pump failure. A clog caused by one cabin, if that cabin is in a particular spot, can cause the failure of hundreds of cabin toilets. This is because the size of the sewage pipes does not get progressively larger the more toilets that are connected to it, unlike a land based system. I speak from years of experience unclogging vacuum toilets, and have first hand experience with massive system failures caused by a single cabin's acts.

Heck, Portland, Maine had 4 smaller cruise ships overnight there due to Lee.

After an initial inspection, if the ship maintains an "approved biofouling maintenance plan" in accordance with the IMO guidance, additional cleanings are typically not required for return to designated areas of Australia and NZ.

If protecting the environment is the objective, why not do what the IMO has done, and promulgate environmental regulations that apply to all shipping.

And you know how, that the ship is not fixed? Gotta love the conspiracy lovers. Those same folks would be suing RCI for "pain and suffering" if the ship went out into the storm. SMH.

So you think that had they not had an azipod problem that they would say, "yeah, there's 20-30 foot seas out there, let's take the passengers out in that for a thrill. What the heck, the ship is in perfect condition, let's trash it in order to keep the original itinerary"? Gotta love all the armchair ship Captains and CEO's who've never taken responsibility for thousands of lives. I've been in the Gulf of Alaska in that kind of weather, and it's not something I ever cared to repeat, even after 46 years at sea. And, a cruise ship would be worse than a tanker, with passengers flying all around their cabins.

If the green crusade was not a facade, then it would address the pollution from the 95% of vessels that are not cruise ships, that are running their engines in major commercial ports. Why are cruise vessels the only ones picked out by folks like those in the OP's article?

Because it would require massive dredging (and resultant damage to the wetlands) to bring a long unused channel into use to connect the Marghera channel back to the Giudecca Canal.

I'm certainly not "pro-CBP". I am stating facts. You may feel that your viewpoint is "pro-passenger", and it may be, but as my late mother used to say, "wishing doesn't make it so", CBP will abide by the law, not your hopeful interpretation of it. The PVSA does not even mention states. They are different ports. Just like the passengers on NCL's POA can board with just a driver's license, that is the only ship where the OP's scenario would be legal, no matter how contrite you act as you try to reboard.

That may be how you see the voyage, that is not how CBP sees it. Try arguing with them sometime.

You said that if a port "cannot cope with cruise ships" anymore, then they should opt to build a new port? What do you mean by "not coping" with cruise ships? Is it pollution? Is it environmental damage? Is it too many tourists at one time? Because if it is the too many tourists, then why would they opt to build another port to allow those same tourists to come again? Not following the logic.

Your friend does not understand the problem of water displacement. Yes, the aggregate total displacement of all the smaller vessels might possibly equal that of a cruise ship, but that is not the point. When a hundred gondolas pass down a canal that is many times wider and deeper than the gondolas, they displace water, but not the majority of the water in the canal, and not all at once, and not with the force that a cruise ship exerts. The size of the large cruise ships is nearly as deep as the canals, and nearly as wide as the canal, so as the ship pushes through the water, 80% of the canal's water, all at once, is forced into the small areas on either side and below the ship. This increases the speed that the water has to flow to get out of the way of the ship, being hemmed in by the canal sides and bottom, and this increased flow speed means more erosion. I can't even think of an analogy that would show how false this comparison is. Maybe comparing trickling grains of sand through a garden hose full of water, to shoving a golf ball through the same hose.

You'd be fine getting off and just not getting back on before the ship sails, but you would not be allowed back on the ship (remember, you "dinged" off the ship in the last port, so they know you weren't onboard for the sailing) at the next port. You would also be levied the fine.

As stated before, Venice's concerns with cruise ships were mainly with the large ships causing damage to the wetlands in the Bay, not really with the overcrowding, which is why they still allow smaller ships to dock in the city. The overcrowding, they are trying to control with the "entry fee" scheme. Who pays for this new port? I thought the ships were going to use the Marghera port, which is actually still part of the municipality of Venice. So, the cruise industry needs to pay not only for new terminals, but for new ports as well? And, yet you don't think these things would increase cruise fares?

Not even this. If the cruise starts in a US port, and you get off in another US port, rejoin in a foreign port and end back in the original US port, that first segment, when you embark in one US port, and get off in a different US port, would be a violation. You would have to have two foreign ports, get off in one, and rejoin in another, for this to be legal.

Previous posters are correct, this would be a violation of the PVSA, as you would have two point to point cruises without a "distant" foreign port. CBP has decided that a port call of just a few hours (or even overnight) in a US port is not "permanently disembarking", since you are boarding the ship again in the same port. Leaving the ship in one port, and not reboarding the ship in that same port, ends the voyage, and when trying to board at the next port, starts another voyage. This is documented by the ship on the passenger manifest, as a new manifest has to be submitted for departure Kona (different from arrival Kona, since passengers are not departing on the ship that arrived on the ship), and another manifest for departure Hilo (different from arrival Hilo, since new passengers that did not arrive in Hilo on the ship are now departing on the ship). So, since the manifest shows that these passengers did not continue the voyage when the ship left Kona, they "permanently disembarked" the ship, and therefore participated in a one way, point to point cruise without the distant foreign port. Even the second half of the voyage is illegal, since the port call in Ensenada does not meet the "distant" port requirement.

And, yet, you started this thread with an article discussing pollution in a major commercial port, and continued to comment on shore power, which would almost never come to small ports. As I said, if the locals feel that the number of tourists is damaging their city, or that other forms of tourism benefit the city more (most studies find that cruise, or day, tourists spend about half of what an overnight tourist spends in the local economy), that's fine. Let them exercise all legal rights to limit tourism. Just don't hide behind a "green crusade" facade.

Yeah, got several problems with this "recommendation". First is the most obvious, and one I mentioned before. It wants to target 5% of the problem (the part of world shipping that cruise ships account for) because it doesn't affect them as the non-cruising public, but is willing to let the other 95% go along doing what they claim is harmful, because it would affect their ability to buy a new phone every year. Second, they seem to realize that residual fuel is called that for a reason. It is not a product that the refineries choose to produce, it is the residual left over from refining a barrel of crude oil as much as possible, and amounts to about 25-35% of each barrel of crude. If ships are not to use this residual, what are refineries to do with it? Pump it back into the ground? The IMO has already accomplished something that many in the maritime and petroleum industries didn't think possible, the viable mandating of low sulfur fuel for ships, reducing sulfur content by 85% over the last decade, just in residual fuel. And, that affects 100% of shipping, not just the small part that cruise ships are. And, finally, has anyone studied an area of sea, say close to a port's entry, where lots of ships with scrubbers pass by, to see if the sea handles differently what are found to be pollutants in the air? Does pollution by ships need to be addressed? Sure. Is it going to come with a hefty price tag? Sure. Should we do it anyway? Sure. Does singling out cruise ships provide an efficient way to accomplish this? Only marginally, due to the percentages. I won't argue the overcrowding, or the other environmental issues with large cruise ships in ports not designed for them, but the whole cruise ship fuel pollution argument is specious. It hides a dislike of the "luxury" of cruises behind an environmental facade.

Venice is worried about erosion of the mud flats as well

Unfortunately, your approach using smaller ships means that the cruise lines cannot take advantage of the economies of size that the larger ships give, and therefore cruise fares will have to rise, and this can deter many demographics from cruising, thereby causing the cruise lines to lose business.

I'm never an advocate of lying. They cannot keep you onboard if you want to get off. The absolute most they could do is place an "innkeeper's lien", which would preclude you from leaving with your luggage until the bill is paid, which is easy enough to do at the time. Giving them the advance warning that you intend to do this will go a long way in how your disembarkation process goes. If they know in advance, they can have customs and immigration waiting, and likely not charge you for it, whereas if you just try to walk off, they can hold you until customs and immigration are called, and arrive, and then they would likely pass the additional charge to you. As I've said, contact Carnival's "compliance department" for clearance to do this, from a legal standpoint. Don't work with customer service reps, or guest services.

It is estimated that adding shore power capability to a cruise ship is well over a million dollars. While that is not a really significant cost, if it allows the ship to continue to operate based on regulations, the real problem with getting shore power is one that the environmentalists don't think about. That is the infrastructure required by the port to provide the power. While not difficult to provide power for most cargo ships, only requiring about 800kw at 480 volts, supplying a single cruise ship is far different. That cruise ship requires in the area of 8Mw (or the equivalent of 10 cargo ships), but at 10,000 volts. So, the taxpayers are the ones who have the final say whether ports get shore power or not, as the cost of installing the additional power grid, the substations, the high voltage safety equipment, and the high voltage connection points is going to come from them, into their governmental port authority. This is the true reason that shore power has moved so slowly. As Andy says above, the price point for that shore power is also a consideration. The taxpayers and the port authority will of course try to recoup the cost of the infrastructure by charging more for the shore power than say a land based industry would. If that price point exceeds the fuel cost to power the ship in port, or the scrubber cost to clean the exhaust, then the ship will find another port that does not require shore power, and take their business elsewhere, and this goes for all ships, not just cruise ships. And, singling out the cruise industry is facile. As the person noted in the original article, there are far more cargo ships in the port, "but they benefit everyone" so its okay to breathe their pollution (and the typical cargo ship is in port longer than a cruise ship) because otherwise we would have to pay more for the "necessities of life" like our cars and tvs and cell phones that those ships bring. Many articles mention the vast amounts of pollution that cruise ships are deemed to spew forth, but they don't mention that that is only when at sea, and that in port there is much less, since the power is much less. A similar problem has been going on in the US for several years now, where states like Vermont have placed a hold on allowing new solar power projects, because the basic infrastructure needed to carry all the new power generated isn't there. The same will hold true when EV's become more prevalent, it won't be a lack of charging stations that is the problem, it will be the lack of power generating stations, and the power lines and transformers to carry that power to the charging stations that will cause the problems.

And, you'd likely be wrong. While it is unlikely to be a brand that a consumer could find and purchase, it is almost assuredly a standard marine or commercial brand and item.

Australia does have cabotage laws, but the OP is wanting to start a cruise in one country and end in another, so it is not a "domestic" or "coastwise" voyage for either Australia or New Zealand. OP, whenever a customer service rep starts to talk about maritime laws, ask to speak to the "compliance department", as this is where the lawyers are, and they will give you the straight answer. The statements about the fine are just rubbish.

While it is done all the time, and rarely discovered, technically for a cruise involving a US port, USPH does not allow non-sealed food items to be brought onboard. This is because all food items are to be from documented sources, which your kitchen is not.