chengkp75

I've posted these facts for years, and most times been argued to death, and told I don't know what I'm talking about, so I tend to be very wary of tipping threads.

The crew are in whatever country the ship is in, on a crew visa. Whether this allows for joining/leaving the ship is a different question. In the US, crew only transiting US ports, require a D visa. If they plan on joining/leaving the ship in the US, they need a C1 visa as well. The terms of the C1 visa are that the crew member will be escorted at all times by a bonded security guard from the ship to the airport security line. Further, if the crew has little cash on hand, as most of their salaries are sent home, how is he/she to pay for transportation to the airport. When a crew member leaves a ship normally, they get an entrance stamp from CBP. Without that, the airline may not allow the crewmember to check in. Without completing the contract, the crew member is liable for the cost of the airline ticket. In short, the crew member who leaves without notice would be entering the country illegally. This is the same for all crew on all foreign ships, not just cruise ships.

Further to my comments in that post, it was always, even for 3 stripe and above officers, that access to a particular venue would be restricted by the venue supervisor, based on whether or not the crew would impact the passenger experience. I think, reading this article, that during times of very low occupancy (post pandemic) and crew contract extensions, that the privileges were extended, and they are now returning to prior, as the passenger use of venues increases.

Well, since a good portion of the DSC goes to crew that you never see (not saying whether this is right or wrong, it just is), and given that enforcement of turning in cash tips can be difficult, some of the "back of house" staff could suffer from your #2, while front of house benefits.

They are supposed to turn it in, and if DSC for that pax was removed, it goes to the pool, but if DSC was paid, it is returned to crew. Enforcement, of course, is difficult.

This is true, and the agencies ("unions") also require that a percentage of the salary be sent to the home country each pay period. I don't follow this, or how this relates to the crewing agency getting a percentage. If the DSC is made part of the fare, do you think the line would reduce pay to the statutory minimum (which is about half of what most make)? They would never hire crew at that rate. If the DSC is rolled into the cruise fare, then the cruise line would have use that same amount to pay the crew. The crewing agency, just like most of the crews' home countries, makes no distinction between a "base salary", or a "DSC" or "gratuity" that is collected by the employer. The only money that would make a difference to the crewing agency is a gratuity given by the customer directly to the crew.

Yes, amazingly, I had a college graduate ship's officer who complained that his paycheck was not what "he was promised", and had no idea about Social Security withholding, or tax withholding.

Back when I worked there, the only officers/supervisors that were allowed in pax areas off duty, without prior department head permission, were 3 stripes and above. The venues allowed, and the number of times per month the crew could request access was restricted by the number of stripes. I know that one stripe officers/supervisors did not have cabin stewards at that time, not sure about 1.5 or 2 stripe, but I think it may only have been once weekly service. Some of this may have changed due to covid, and NCL is returning to pre-covid standards.

Since this has not degenerated into a tip/no tip argument, I'll answer this. I only worked at NCL when the DSC system was in place, and things have changed dramatically for the crew with the implementation of the Maritime Labor Convention, but I know that the "base salary" under the old "cash tipping" system was about $50/month. Been away for a time, so not sure of current contracts, but base salary is now around $400/month. I think the crew are better off in the new system, though a lot of that is due to statutory regulations these days. The crew prefer the new DSC, as their salaries are more stable, but they don't like the "team building" aspects, which is really why the cruise line uses the DSC. By making everyone in the pool responsible for ensuring that all DSC is paid (through good service), the cruise lines remove the need for good first line supervisory training, and force the team building to be done by the team itself. And, when this fails, and DSC is removed, the cruise line can tell the crew, "well, it wasn't us that cut your salary, it was the passengers". I detest the DSC system, and feel the crew should be paid hourly, flat rate plus overtime.

I will deal with this as a wage/salary question rather than a tip question, which I tend to avoid. '' A cabin steward/waitstaff will have a contracted salary of around $1200/month, for an 84 hour work week. There is a statutory minimum wage for seafarers of $675/month. A cabin steward's salary is made up of "base salary" and "DSC (I don't use the term "crew tips") contribution. The base salary will be less than the statutory minimum wage, around $400/month. The crew member's contract specifies that their salary is made up of a fixed "base salary", and a variable "DSC contribution". Since passengers can remove the DSC, the amount that a crew member receives from the DSC can vary month to month, and as long as it reaches the statutory minimum wage, the cruise line is not required to supplement it. In other words, theoretically, a cabin steward's salary could vary from the contracted $1200/month, to as low as $675/month, depending on DSC contributions. The room and board argument is misleading, as unless the crew member is living in his/her parent's basement while off the ship, they have rent/mortgage to pay to maintain a home they are not occupying, and likely a family that still eats while the crew is on the ship. While wages seem extremely low to passengers, due to the passenger's standards of living, in the crew's home countries, the salary provides a high end middle class income.

Because it's you, I will make a second post here. This was true, but with the advent of the statutory minimum wage, the base salary has been increased. And if you look at the ISF site you link, you will see that NCL ships are listed as "having an ISF compliant" contract. The ISF agrees to the Maritime Labor Convention, which lists the statutory minimum wage for any seafarer as $675/month. While I agree with your figures from "glassdoor", as I've stated, if the amount of DSC removed still leaves the crew receiving more than $675, then the company does not need to make up the balance to the "contracted" $1200/month. This is specified in the crew contract. As I've said, the contract specifies that the DSC contribution amount can be variable. The crew do not get paid weekly. When I was there, it was monthly, it may be twice monthly now, not sure. The amount of DSC reduction is noted weekly at the weekly ship's management meeting, and is a large topic. The amount of DSC is collected for the entire pay period (2 week or 4 week), and then the crew compensation is adjusted accordingly.

I will make my one and only post to a tip thread, I'll state this based on my years with NCL, and will not argue it with anyone. The crew sign an employment contract that defines their total monthly compensation. For quite a lot of crew (most front of house, and some hotel back of house), this total compensation is outlined as so much "base salary" and so much from "DSC contributions". The amount of "DSC" is noted in the contract as being "variable" depending on the contributions by the passengers (i.e. how many reduce or remove the DSC). There is also a statutory minimum salary listed, and typically the base salary is less than the minimum salary. Therefore, unless the amount of removed DSC brings the crew's salary below the minimum, the cruise line does not have to make up the difference. The line is only required to make up enough that the crew receives the minimum amount. The amount of "DSC contribution" contracted to crew is based on the historical occupancy (typically 105%), so occupancy below that will reduce the crew's total compensation. The cruise line will also keep a percentage of the DSC (most frequently the amount from occupancy above the norm) for a "crew welfare" fund that is used to purchase things the crew want in their lounges, and to pay for various holiday crew parties. The cruise line does not "keep" any of the DSC money, which is why they are allowed to charge it as a separate item, it is a "pass through" expense from their revenue.

Actually, this is incorrect. Under the ISM (International Safety Management) Code, and SOLAS, which all shipping companies must adhere to, and which is part of law under the flag state, the Captain is granted overriding authority as the person on the scene, when making any decision (emergency or otherwise), regarding the safety of the passengers, crew, ship, or environment. This means that no person in the corporate structure can override his/her decision. And, only if that decision is found later to have violated the existing ISM policies and procedures, could any action be taken against the Captain. ISM does not take into account the profitability or cost of any procedure or policy within the company, and these codes have been in place for decades, and have to cover virtually every aspect of company and ship operation, and deal with strictly safety concerns. The ISM is the overriding document on how a shipping company does its business, and fault can be found both at the ship/crew level as well as the corporate level by statutory third party audits of the plan as a whole and any incidents.

And, each one of those 5 boroughs is a separate county. Manhattan (New York County), the Bronx (Bronx County), Brooklyn (Kings County), Queens (Queens County) and Staten Island (Richmond County).

I've always personally detested the North Sea, where the relatively enclosed nature, and relatively shallow water prevents the long rollers, but you get shorter period, higher sided seas.

I think Andy will agree that most Masters will also prefer not to have rocks on both sides. Open ocean gives you the option to steer various courses to minimize pitch/roll, and still not bounce of the "curbs".

What you might consider "extensive" repairs is probably a lot different than what the company does. Ships are steel boxes, designed to flex with the seas. If you stand at the back of a ship on the upper deck, and look at the bow, you will see both the bow flexing up and down in relation to the rest of the hull, as well as twisting side to side. This is normal. However, when you glue wood decking on to the steel, it has a different elasticity, and so will tend to break at stress points. Those areas of wooden deck would likely be roped off, and repaired within 3-5 days by the ship's carpenters.

Since SOLAS has not been amended to allow the "e-muster", RCI's system was likely granted a temporary allowance by the IMO, with the understanding, as most new proposals to the IMO go, that after a certain time, and after a certain amount of review of the effectiveness (not popularity) of the system, it would either be granted permanent status, or disallowed.

Actually, if you read the report on the Concordia, and study the hydrodynamics of the situation, if the ship had remained in deep water, it would have taken longer to sink, and would have remained upright. It was the grounding on Giglio's shore that caused the ship to roll over. Had it remained in deep water, there would almost certainly have been less loss of life.

And no one knows if this was a temporary permit or not. Given my experience with the IMO, I would say that it was granted a trial period, followed by IMO review of the data.

There never was a muster drill held, for the latest embarkation. And with no muster sounded, the crew rightly followed orders and sent pax away. Had the muster been sounded, in a timely fashion, then the crew training and the experience of a drill for the earlier pax would have accomplished the muster process in time to find everyone and load the boats orderly.

Cruise passengers amounted to just under 300,000 for Portland this year. That is out of 5.4 million tourists who visit the greater Portland area each year. While I didn't agree with the ballot initiative, I think there should be a limit on passengers/day, as we had 8000 one day, in a city with a population of 68,000.

In fact, it is not the USCG, which has very little jurisdiction over foreign cruise ships, that allowed the new muster system, it was the IMO. It is not up to the cruise lines, but the maritime safety experts at the IMO. The old system has been tried and tested for decades, but I am afraid it will take a disaster to point out the flaws in the new system. How so? The old muster gave every passenger the experience of what an actual muster would be, rather than a saunter along at your own pace and timing. The requirement to show lifejacket donning has been allowed to be a video presentation for a long time, the cruise lines used this to fill time while the crew finished the "behind the scenes" aspects of the muster that passengers have no clue about. As you are herded to your muster station, hundreds of crew are opening, searching, and marking every cabin and public space as "clear". While not perfect (someone moving around the ship can avoid detection for a while (those late comers), it is a necessary part of the muster function. However, the new system has removed all crowd control training from the crew (dealing with recalcitrant pax, which would translate to frightened pax in an emergency), and also removed the experience of an actual muster from the pax. So, during a real muster, we wouldn't want it to be inconvenient, and should just let you all saunter on down to muster when you feel it is convenient? Remember, the crew are taken away from their duties for muster drill as well, but their convenience doesn't matter? Whose lives are they training to save? I guess I should be grateful that the vast majority of people have never experienced a life threatening emergency so they can blithely accept convenience over a few minutes of responsibility.

The figure I quoted is from the US Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/barharbortownhancockcountymaine And, you may find that the median "owner occupied" (as opposed to summercators) is $297,000, and the median rent is $881.

Never said it would be "perfect", but I don't believe it would be chaos. And, "how many drills do the crew do"? With the new procedure, they have no drills of crowd and crisis control. That is my point. If you've read the official reports of the Concordia, you would know that there was no muster sounded, and was a complete failure of command, not a failure of the system. Had the muster been sounded, when the Captain knew the ship was sinking, which was over an hour before he called for "abandon ship", I doubt that few, if any, lives would have been lost. Again, this was a failure of command, not the system, and had the new system been in effect, it would not have made any difference. Read the report of the incident before trying to use it to justify your arguments. Never mind.