chengkp75

What you don't understand is that the taxes and fees paid by the cruise lines are a very small percentage of the total taxes and fees collected by the ports. Cargo ships pay the same dockage fees, pilot and tug fees, etc, and also pay a tax on each container landed or loaded, just like the per passenger tax. This affects nearly every price in your daily lives, as over 80% of world commerce travels by sea. The cruise ship taxes and fees don't go to just maintain the cruise terminal, it all goes into the port authority kitty for upkeep of the entire port. And, as you say, things cost more in the US than it does in Mexico or the Caribbean, so the cost to maintain the ports will be higher.

Let's look at the man-hours claims. The typical ship has 16 lifeboats, so there would be 16 muster stations. How many crew are at the e-muster check in at each station? I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say, 4, two to check people in and two to do the demonstration. That means 64 crew. How long are the check in stations manned? Let's say from 10am to 5pm, or 7 hours. That is 448 man-hours for the e-muster. Now, let's look at the traditional muster. While passengers may think that there are only a couple of crew at each muster station, and only for less than an hour, the actual passenger muster drill utilizes around 3-400 crew, depending on the size of the ship, and they have to have time to prepare for the drill, so their time would be around 1.5 hours, so 450-600 man-hours. No, what the other lines are doing is "simulating" training with crowds, which is not the same thing as handling crowds, and I feel that crew training has suffered during the e-muster usage, and will continue to suffer if the e-muster continues. Want an example? See the NCL drill the PP was complaining about, where the crew had no handle on handling the crowds. Now, which is more similar to a real emergency, the e-muster where they handle 10-20 people at a time, or where they are faced with the entire ship heading to muster stations? So, ask yourself, if the old musters were considered to merely be a waste of time, but with the training the crew has had during the e-muster period, when they actually have to do a passenger muster, and it is described as a shambles, have they been receiving better training? This just makes my point.

The port fee I mentioned for shore power is the "hook up" fee, and the "delivery" fee to pay for the infrastructure that was built to provide shore power. Those are flat rates, and can be passed on as "port taxes and fees". As for fuel savings, the cruise line pays for the shore power by the mega-watt-hour, just like your meter at home (though that's in kilowatt-hours), and there have been studies that show it is more expensive for the ships to use shore power than to run their own diesels. The amount charged for the amount of power used, is an "operational" cost, and therefore is not allowed to be included in the "port taxes and fees".

That was a quite stable transfer, they didn't even need to climb a ladder. Pilots do this every day of their working lives. Think about the pilot who has to climb 20' of rope ladder just to get to the small platform at the bottom of the metal stairway, that then stretches another 40' up to the deck of a tanker in ballast. And, then, going down, you are facing the side of the ship on the rope ladder, and stepping backwards onto the pilot boat. Many pilot boats have a small platform at the top of the wheelhouse, that sticks out towards the side of the boat, like a bridge wing, where the pilot steps onto/off of the boat. You'll notice in the video that the Captain turned the ship (watch the land in the background), until the ship was across the seas, and the pilot boat had stopped bouncing on the waves, as it was sheltered by the ship. The reason there are no railings, is that the railings could get smashed when the pilot boat rolls against the ship, or the pilot could get trapped between a railing and the ship. There are grab rails on the side of the superstructure of the pilot boat, and in rough weather there will be a crewman standing on the boat, either tethered off, or holding the grab rails, and reaching for the pilot to pull him in.

Shore power.

The ship provides for "allotments" for the crew, which is where the company sends money from the crew's paycheck, directly to the families at home. This is far more convenient for the crew than finding a Western Union to wire money home. They are allowed to "allot" up to 80% of their pay. Paying cash to the crew has no advantage to them.

"Someone" at RCI and Carnival, not necessarily anyone who has a background in safety training, "considers" it to be better. And, what statistics does "the points guy" use to bolster his argument that the change was to save money? Where are the timesheets? Where is the payroll data?

You are addressing one small portion of the muster drill. But, as I've addressed on many threads about this, this removes any actual, realistic, training for the passengers regarding muster (how you navigate a thousand other people doing the same thing), and removes any realistic training for crew in handling hordes of cats that need herding to muster. And, in reality, the lifejacket demonstration, and "safety briefing" is filler to keep you occupied, while the rest of the muster process (that you don't see, because you're at your station) is completed. And, for the last couple of decades, while using the in person muster system, ships were allowed to not have in person lifejacket demonstrations, or safety briefings, as long as they were shown on the TV's in the cabins.

Who has established this?

Since the cruise lines pay no taxes on revenues, that is not the reason. It is not done for employee taxes either, as most countries where the crew come from, tax anything that comes from the employer (whether listed as wages, salary, or gratuity) as normal income. The sad truth of the matter is that the gratuities have been increasing because the cruise lines are finding it hard to find crew, and are having to pay more to get the crew (and the statutory minimum wage for seafarers goes up each year), so the daily service charge is increased to cover it. Folks, whether you pay a cruise fare and the service charge, or the cruise line rolls the service charge into the fare, it all affects the cruise lines' profits, because if the service charge goes up to cover higher wages, then more of the fare goes to cover operating expenses and the excess becomes profit. This is how all businesses work. And, in line with my "one and done" on tipping threads, I'll go away now.

When building a ship, those "one off" items are ordered a couple years in advance. While diesel engines are not "one off" items, I have known where lines will pre-order engines years before the contract to build the ship is even tendered. And, each "one off" order delays everything behind it, since the production line has to be retooled for the next "one off" item.

I only wish that a dry dock was just to paint the hull. Then the Chief Engineer would not have to work 18 hour days, logging tens of miles of steps around the ship, under the ship, and up and down into the dock, every day of the docking. Every dry dock has a massive amount of mechanical maintenance, inspection, and repair, to all the systems that make a cruise ship a ship.

I assume that she was docked port side to the dock, then? What were the winds like at the time? State of the tide? Very likely between a strong tidal current and cross winds, the turning basin by Fisher Island was not safe to use.

Actually, that is not correct. To get to/from LA to Hawaii only needs an average of 17 knots speed, well down from full speed. With the six engines Crown has, taking any one out of service can still provide enough power to reach this speed. If I remember correctly, the problem was that one engine was down for repair (waiting on parts), and another had to be overhauled, so two engines out of service. The one engine was overhauled a good while ago, and I believe that the repairs on the other were completed months ago.

If you look at the "First Class staterooms and suites-A deck", the photo of a "special stateroom" , the far corner looks very similar to your photo, with the two port lights, and the round AC vent.

From what I can see on the as built deck plans: https://www.sterling.rmplc.co.uk/visions/decks.html The second and third class cabins had a sink in the stateroom (not in a separate bath), and about 60% of the second class cabins had a private toilet, the rest, and all third class cabins used common toilet facilities.

And while you get everything repaired, get the electrician to fit a "whole house surge suppressor". Lightning struck in the yard of our 200 year old house. Fortunately, as part of the charm of the house, we retained the lightning rods on the roof. The glass globes on these glowed like light bulbs, the copper piping in the house glowed green, and the aluminum trim on the windows glowed. But, with a surge suppressor, no electrical damage whatsoever.

Does Viking have Hi-Fog in the cabins, or a basic sprinkler system? Most of my cruise ships only used Hi-Fog in machinery spaces, to protect the electrical systems, while the cabins got the "large drop" sprinklers to maximize water on the fire.

I would put my money on a surge protector. Even a high wattage hair dryer would not likely cause a fire, it would simply pop the circuit breaker. Only if the appliance itself failed, would it cause a fire (like a heating element where the auto-off switch failed. Even if you plugged a 2000w hair dryer into the bathroom outlet, it would not cause a fire, as the outlet is protected by a fuse.

Rather than trivializing the behavior, I think folks are pointing out that there is a difference between what is right or wrong, and what is legal or not.

Maybe you didn't include this information in your previous posts, but the part about "sickness" being a covered excuse requires that the "sickness" be diagnosed and treated by a doctor. Did your friend see a doctor, or just decide she was too sick to go? And so, if she did not see a doctor, her illness is not covered under reason #1, and so the cancellation fee waiver is not applicable. And, again, I believe that since she did not book a cabin, there is no proof that she paid anything towards this cruise, and her insurance is null for the cruise fare. You would be entitled to a refund of her fare, if she visited a doctor prior to the cruises embarkation time and day.

And, that incident happened in Puerto Rico, and was tried in Puerto Rico under US law, but if it had happened in say Panama, then US law would have no bearing.

And, it made it sound like the head of the operations group was dealing with 35 ships directly. This is a false assumption. Each ship has a technical superintendent who deals with the engineering side of the ship, and usually two or three ships share a marine superintendent who deals with the nautical side of the ship, and these will report to a fleet manager, who then reports to the operations VP. It is up to the VP to ensure that the management levels below him/her are capable of dealing with the ships or groups of ships that they manage, on a day to day, and even annual basis. If these new "head of maritime" positions are doing much beyond setting fleetwide budgets, and setting fleetwide policies, then they are not organizing their work, or not utilizing their subordinates properly. It sounds to me like the Group lost too many middle management during the pandemic, and are now devolving back to try to create another layer of management.

Andy is quite correct here, as he should be as a former ship's Captain. As noted, you don't know the flag of the vessel, or where in the world this happened. Wake up, folks, most of your "rights" and legal protections from the US, stop when you walk up the gangway on a foreign flag cruise ship. All this talk of child protective services, and child endangerment is moot, from a US legal perspective.

The OP booked a room for two passengers, and paid for it. When the second guest cancelled, the single supplement kicked in, and likely that is 100% of the second guest's fare, so yes, the OP paid double for going alone, as all singles do. The agreement between the OP and friend about paying for the cruise is just that, an agreement between them. The insurance company won't pay out for the friend's cruise, since there is no proof that she paid anything for the cruise. That insurance was a waste of money. The insurance company won't pay out for the OP's cruise, because she took the cruise, and the single supplement took up the friend's fare.