Passport

You are of course free to believe what you want but the regulations weren't written by congressmen, they were written by DHS bureaucrats. I have read the regulations (including the proposed ones) and the exception was there from the beginning and the reason for it as well- the low risk to the national security. Yes, lack of passports was given as one of the many reasons for towing to the US, the main reason was because the ship was closer to the US by the time the tow ships reached it. And again, for the purposes of this discussion what happened to the passengers off-loaded in St Marten is more recent and on point.

Lobbyist work with bureaucrats to draft and create regulations across all agencies. (You are free to believe otherwise)/ The FCC rewriting net neutrality rules was influenced by lobbyist.

Lobbyist work with bureaucrats to draft and create regulations across all agencies. (You are free to believe otherwise)/ The FCC rewriting net neutrality rules was influenced by lobbyist.

Even if you are 100% correct, so what? It is still up to the traveler to decide which documentation works best for them and it is still perfectly legal for them to choose something other than a passport.

The Carnival Triumph departed Galveston and drifted close to the Yucatan peninsula which was one of the destinations. Carnival decided to tow the Triumph for 5 days to Mobile. The ship was towed to the closet US port of Mobile. Lack of passports among the 3000 passengers was a reason given for the multi day tow.

 

Cruise lines have associations and lobbyist in Washington. Exceptions don't just happen in Washington given the number of lobbyist in Washington.

Lack of passports had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to tow the Triumph to Mobile, rather than Mexico. Carnival Dream in 2013 had to fly everyone home from St. Maarten, when the ship broke down. There was no issue with getting emergency "passports" for the majority of cruisers who didn't have passports. This is an extremely common occurrence, when someone needs to get off for medical reasons, or whatever, and were travelling on BC/DL.

As you may or may not know, the Triumph broke the tow wire a couple of times during the tow. This happened even though the ship was being towed with the Gulf Stream. Had the tow been in the opposite direction (towards Mexico), the strain on the tow hawser would have been that much greater, and would have resulted in more breakage, and more delays while re-making the tow. Also, going with the Gulf Stream allowed a faster towing speed (the current pushed the ship along) than if the tow was in the other direction. And, by the time the towing vessel had arrived, the ship had drifted, again with the Gulf Stream, to a point where it was nearly even going one way or the other, given the speed that could be achieved in either direction. I've never seen a statement from anyone in an official position saying the decision to tow to Mobile was prompted by a lack of passports among the passengers.

And, by the way, Mobile was in no way the "closest" US port, Galveston could have handled the ship.

And while you may think that the ability to travel without a passport is a "benefit" to the cruise lines, they would actually prefer not to have to deal with the whole DL/BC thing, as this complicates their paperwork, and handling of passengers, and results in many denials of boarding due to incomplete documentation, which is bad PR for them.

And the whole idea of travelling on a DL/BC is part of the WHTI, which is a DHS security program, designed to ensure that all travelers to the US have secure documentation. Prior to the WHTI, which came into effect in 2007, all cruises, whether closed loop or not, required passports. As sparks says, it was decided by Homeland Security that cruise travelers were low risk, as there would be multiple days to vet the passenger documents using the DL/BC method through US databases, as opposed to the hours allowed for incoming airline passengers.

And again the Cheng chimes in with actual facts and knowledge to slap down another "message board expert" :cool::')

and to the OP....and as you can see, another "passport needed" thread goes totally off the rails with posts that have NOTHING to do with your original question.

The Carnival Triumph departed Galveston and drifted close to the Yucatan peninsula which was one of the destinations. Carnival decided to tow the Triumph for 5 days to Mobile. The ship was towed to the closet US port of Mobile. Lack of passports among the 3000 passengers was a reason given for the multi day tow.

 

I wouldn't believe everything you read in the papers. I can certainly assure you that passengers not having passports was given ZERO consideration when deciding where the vessel would go.

In my experience, when my ship suffered mechanical issues beyond the capability of the crew to repair, the only considerations were the closest available drydock or shipyard and the ability to safely tow the vessel, considering prevailing currents and weather.

You forgot CHEAPEST drydock and service costs.

You forgot CHEAPEST drydock and service costs.

I suspect cost if it is a consideration, is much less important than how quickly the ship can be accommodated, repaired and returned to service. Even one day quicker turnaround would more than likely make up for a more expensive drydock.

It depends.

I am sure they take that into account.

You forgot CHEAPEST drydock and service costs.

For emergency repairs, especially when the ship is under tow, they will go to the closest available yard that has labour resources to complete the repairs in the shortest time frame.

The revenue lost every week out of service would normally be considerably greater than the difference in shipyard bids.