chengkp75

Yes, Punta Arenas has a major shipyard there, and that is where the repairs will take place.

This is the second mention of the Sun, in particular, going back to in person musters. Along with the Disney decision to go back fleetwide, I suspect the days of the e-muster will be over within a year or two. As for "improvements" to the Sun, until the IMO amends SOLAS, the Sun's muster stations will always be outdoors, under the boats. Even if NCL spent the money to commission a study of crowd management, and upgrade various indoor venues to become "muster stations", the IMO would not allow them to be used, as there is sufficient space, per SOLAS, for the muster station to be "as close to the embarkation point as practicable".

Given today's bunker prices, LNG, even in places like Europe that have far more infrastructure for LNG bunkering than the US (which is almost non-existent on the West Coast), LNG is far more expensive on an energy equivalency than both VLSFO and MGO.

Unfortunately, this is the part of the DSC concept that I detest. It was created, and is used to make up for lack of first line personnel management training, by making the DSC pool crew a "team" and using peer pressure within that team to ensure that the customers are completely satisfied with service. The cruise line is able to say "it wasn't us that cut your wages, it was the passengers", so you all must work harder to ensure that everyone on the team does their utmost best. It is "carrot and stick" management, which is completely outdated.

You're right, the amount of DSC is not small change, it accounts for the vast majority of crew wages (that participate in the DSC pool, which has increased greatly over the last decade). And, $15k/year is about right for entry level crew, some will be paid more, and some crew and all supervisors and officers will not be included in the DSC pool. The very ability to break out the DSC as a separate charge also carries with it the restrictions of accounting that publicly traded companies have to meet, and they cannot be melded into general revenue.

No, you were casting aspersions on the professional capability of a licensed professional, and you were asked to provide your expertise in discerning how those professional capabilities were sub-standard. If the poster had said, we won't sail with this Captain again, because we had poor customer service on these cruises, I would not have had an issue with this. Why? Because "customer service" is not a prime responsibility of the Captain, and no cruise ship Captains are licensed to provide good customer service. But the poster's statements alluded to a lack of safety judgement on the part of the Captain, and that is an area where the Captain's professional training and responsibility come into play, and I wondered how the poster knew that the "judgement" was faulty as to the safety of the passengers.

That is assuming that my figure of $400/month base salary, and my figure of $1200/month contracted salary are correct. Frankly, I was picking numbers out of the air, for an example of how a crew salary could be affected by removal of DSC. The base salary could be, and in the past, has been considerably lower. By SEC rules, a line item marked as "gratuities" cannot be integrated into general revenue, just because the cruise line wants to. These are considered "pass through" revenue, just like "port taxes and fees", though I see that this is a contentious subject this week as well.

See my posts #29 and #31. Let's say a waiter signs a contract that says he will get $1200/month, of which $400 is base salary, and $800 is DSC contributions from the passengers. If everyone onboard removed the DSC, then the waiter's salary would only be his base salary of $400/month, except that the cruise line has to step in and meet the mandated minimum wage of $675/month (so they kick in $275). So, to answer your question, if everyone removed the DSC, the salary would go from $1200 to $675/month.

And, do you know whether these decisions were in accordance or in contravention of the company's ISM Code? Or, even of local governmental regulations? Oh, right, you have no knowledge of what the company policies are. Many cruise lines give refunds when ports are canceled for various reasons, this does not indicate poor judgement on the part of the Captain. So, it never crossed your mind that perhaps the Staff Captain that was due to go on the ship was ill, and they asked her to fill in? Wow.

And, so everyone, everywhere in the world should be offered US wages and working conditions? How much do you want your cruise fare to increase by? The crew know before they leave their home country what the contract terms are, and can choose not to take a job that pays very well, but has some variability in it (depending on the attitude of passengers), or one that doesn't pay as well, doesn't have the hardships of shipboard life, and provides a constant, but lesser salary. And, you know what? There are not a lot of takers for cruise ship jobs even when US wages and working conditions are offered. Look at the staffing issues that NCL has had for nearly 20 years with their Hawaii operations.

We are not "giving" them anything. Once a foreign nation is involved, you start to fall outside US legal jurisdiction. Unless you want to stop any foreign cruise ship from homeporting in the US, you are going to have to deal with international law, and give up many of your US protections at the gangway.

And, the ISM gives the Master "overriding authority" when making decisions regarding the safety of the ship, passengers, crew, and environment, so even any experts ashore in the corporate office cannot second guess them.

Having transported bananas off and on for 30+ years, from when we loaded full stalks of bananas onto hooks in refrigerated holds, to today's container shipping, I'll add some insight. In the old days, we had to enter the holds to take CO2 readings and take the bananas temperature, so for the first few days, you always armed yourself with a CO2 fire extinguisher, to gas the Banana Spiders (up to about 2" long body), that would be congregated at the door, trying to escape the cold. Nasty. Today's bananas are transported in refrigerated containers, and the CO2 content is still monitored, though without entering, to determine how much fresh air is needed to keep the CO2 levels down. When we were carrying bananas from Venezuela to Florida, if a refrigerated box stopped working, we were told not to worry, those bananas would be perfectly ripe for the Miami market, while the refrigerated ones could be shipped onwards. The profit margin on bananas is incredible, well into the 80% range, even given ocean shipping. In the old days, when a hurricane knocked down a banana plantation, the banana company would have their ships converge there, to pick up as many as possible, to keep them in storage sailing around the ocean. But, if the price for bananas plummeted, I have known of ships that were instructed to dump an entire cargo in the ocean to keep prices up. In my experience, the "trans-fresh" process of inerting the container with nitrogen, which inhibits ripening completely, is so expensive that it is saved for the pricier things like "stone" fruits (mango, peach, apricot). About 20 years ago, this process cost $40k per container.

And, while you are entitled to your opinion, what are your qualifications and knowledge of the company's ISM Code, to know whether or not these decisions were actually sound seamanship, and/or within the requirements of the ISM?

And, this is what each and every crew member voluntarily agree to in their employment contract. The fact that a large portion of their salary is made up from DSC, and that this is variable, is clearly spelled out in the contract.

The $1200 is for a 70 hour work week, but the minimum wage for a 40 hour week is $658. Regardless of how many hours the worker works, the overtime is not guaranteed, and if the crew contract says that DSC makes up most of the salary, (say the "base wage" is contracted at $400/month), then the cruise line does not need to step in and make up the balance above the $658. So, while the crew is contracted for $1200/month, it can vary from that down to the minimum, depending on how much DSC is removed. Sorry if I confused you. When you get a collective bargaining agreement involved, as nearly all crew have, you can get some really weird conditions.

A quick google search for "wheelchair van service nyc" shows a couple of services, one with 2000 vehicles, that provide service to the cruise terminals, and have mid to large vans that should accommodate all your requirements. Definitely book in advance and discuss your exact needs.

Not sure where this figure comes from, because the mandated minimum wage is $658/month, starting in Jan 2023.

They actually rely far more on ozone generators in the walk-in boxes, as this controls the CO2 levels and ethylene (the gas given off by ripening fruit) levels.

While it is quite true that diesel fuel is cheaper than bunker fuel (that the diesel engines run on while on a crossing), the gas turbines on the QM2 do not run on aviation fuel, they run on MGO (Marine Gas Oil, or the equivalent of #2 heating oil (home heating diesel).

Interesting that the video does not record a "loud boom" as the woman describes. MayAlso of interest to me is the "porpoising" penguin, which usually is a defense against predators. I've kind of wondered since I heard the "explosion" happened under the boat, whether a leopard seal or orca surfaced under them. It's hard to know if the shot of penguins was continuous with the video of the boat jumping in the air, or whether she didn't capture the "explosion" and only the aftermath. Will be interesting to get all statements from everyone on the boat, and the inspection of the boat. And, I'm not disputing what they experienced, or saying that they are inaccurate in their description, just that it opens more questions in my mind.

The oil was being maintained at the lower end of the manufacturer's recommended level. This was pointed out in the Norwegian accident investigation board report as poor operational procedure, but as noted, it was within limits. I am sure that since then, Viking's ISM code has been amended to not allow this practice in the future. In normal circumstances, operating at this low level is perfectly safe for the engines, it is just that with the knowledge of bad weather ahead, they should have topped up to avoid this incident. The oil level monitoring systems are not very accurate, as the oil sloshes back and forth in the sump, giving high readings one second, and low readings the next. The most accurate method is to hand measure the oil with a dipstick (just like your car), taking several readings and averaging them. Even if the oil level had gone below the lower limit of the manufacturer's recommendations, the engine would still not have been in danger. As happened in this instance, the oil sloshed away from the oil pump suction, and the oil pump lost pressure. The engines did exactly what they were designed to do to protect the engine, and they shut down on the low oil pressure, with no damage to the engines. I don't know what lines you cruise, but the fact that Carnival had an entire class of ships where the CO2 firefighting systems were installed incorrectly, and was only discovered after years of operation, and this information was not sent to all ships in the class to have repairs done immediately, and that they had two fires within 3 years (Splendor and Triumph), that while caused by different causes, resulted in total loss of power to the ships, yet nothing was studied or proposed as possible means to rectify the problem, gives me far more concern than the Viking incident.

That is on the cruise line then, if they don't enforce it. No, there is a zero tolerance for anyone on a ship. Did I disagree with the supposition that it would be legal federally soon? Nope. It is you who are distorting things. I pointed out that US federal law has very limited applicability to foreign flag cruise ships. It is up to the flag state, not the US, as to what laws apply. And, did I say that maritime law may not evolve? Not that I see. I said that regardless of what happens with US federal law, that until maritime law does change, the federal law doesn't matter. Let's see, does nicotine affect the safe performance of a mariner's job. Not that I am aware of.

And, ships have one of the most restrictive limits on alcohol use, at all times, on duty or off, of 0.05% and subject to random drug and alcohol testing.

What difference would that make? You do realize that the ship is not part of the US, and not subject to most US laws? Under maritime law, all ships have a zero tolerance for drugs.