Is passport needed?

[zqvol]

I must not get around much. What ports require a passport

 

 

None of the ports that are reached by closed loop cruises require passengers to have passports.

 

Cruises that are not closed loop from a US port will require a passport

[sparks1093]

Not quite correct.

I work for 2 of the mass market lines you listed.

One recently started requiring passports on most closed loop cruises.

The other is about to do so.

 

Things sometimes change rapidly in the cruise industry.

Although difficult - It pays to keep up with them.

 

Do you have a link to the website where this is stated?

[sail7seas]

sorry, duplicate

Edited May 29, 2015 by sail7seas

[sail7seas]

I think it is needed but instead of saying needed let's say that it is recommended, BUT it is NOT required.

 

None of the ports that are reached by closed loop cruises require passengers to have passports.

 

Cruises that are not closed loop from a US port will require a passport

 

That is changing.

St. Barth's now requires passport though they did not in recent past years.

I have read St. Maarten is going to require passports.

You don't have one, you won't be permitted on the ship.

Please verify for yourself if those ports are on your itinerary.

 

It is the traveler's responsibility to have all required travel documents.

 

[njhorseman]

Not quite correct.

I work for 2 of the mass market lines you listed.

One recently started requiring passports on most closed loop cruises.

The other is about to do so.

 

Things sometimes change rapidly in the cruise industry.

Although difficult - It pays to keep up with them.

 

Please prove that.

 

I reviewed the websites of every cruise line I listed prior to posting and found no evidence of any of those lines having changed to a general requirement for US citizens to have a passport on their closed loop itineraries.

 

Both Princess and Holland America recently adopted a passport requirement for situations when only one adult is accompanying minors, but it is just for that one unique circumstance, not a general requirement for all passengers to have passports.

Edited May 29, 2015 by njhorseman

[Flatbush Flyer]

Please prove that.

 

I reviewed the websites of every cruise line I listed prior to posting and found no evidence of any of those lines having changed to a general requirement for US citizens to have a passport on their closed loop itineraries.

 

Both Princess and Holland America recently adopted a passport requirement for situations when only one adult is accompanying minors, but it is just for that one unique circumstance, not a general requirement for all passengers to have passports.

 

 

What today's website says is often not what is the reality. Witness the recent upset of Oceania loyalists over a loosening of e-cig restrictions, which resulted in several website rules changes over 3 days. Fortunately, the final management decision was to place the same stringent other tobacco product limits on the e-cigs- very responsive management!

[sparks1093]

What today's website says is often not what is the reality. Witness the recent upset of Oceania loyalists over a loosening of e-cig restrictions, which resulted in several website rules changes over 3 days. Fortunately, the final management decision was to place the same stringent other tobacco product limits on the e-cigs- very responsive management!

 

If a cruise line is going to impose a more stringent documentation requirement on their passengers than they have a positive duty to inform passengers of those requirements, preferably before they book. An up to date website is a good way to do this.

[njhorseman]

What today's website says is often not what is the reality. Witness the recent upset of Oceania loyalists over a loosening of e-cig restrictions, which resulted in several website rules changes over 3 days. Fortunately, the final management decision was to place the same stringent other tobacco product limits on the e-cigs- very responsive management!

 

I'm a former travel agency owner. I found that one of the most reliable sources of information about cruise documentation requirements is a cruise line's website. Very simply, because of the critical nature of the information, the cruise lines are extremely vigilant in their maintenance of this information. It would be rather bad for business to start turning away embarking passengers because the website was wrong.

 

But, since you want to cite the upset of Oceania loyalists over the e-cig rules, may I ask why if two major cruise lines, say Princess and Holland America, recently drastically changed their documentation rules to require all passengers to hold passports, why have we not heard one peep about it on Cruise Critic? No Princess and Holland America loyalists complaining about it? Not a comment on it? No Cruise Critic news item noting it? Given the size of the Holland America/Princess communities the silence is deafening.

Edited May 29, 2015 by njhorseman

[zqvol]

That is changing.

St. Barth's now requires passport though they did not in recent past years.

I have read St. Maarten is going to require passports.

You don't have one, you won't be permitted on the ship.

Please verify for yourself if those ports are on your itinerary.

 

It is the traveler's responsibility to have all required travel documents.

 

 

 

The ships that call at St. Barths are not closed loop cruises from the US. None of the mass market lines go to St. Barths, and the rumor about St. Martin has been debunked many times over.

[4x4bob]

Yes, on a closed loop cruise most Cruise Lines will allow passengers to board without a Pass Port because the Cruise Lines have adopted the position that Adult Passengers should have conducted a Risk Management Evaluation concerning boarding with out a Passport.

 

If a Whoops happens, then it is up to the Passenger to handle the process concerning returning home.

 

A Whoops being identified as Missing the Ship and flying to catch up, a medical emergency, Missing the ship at a port, and/or being put off the ship by the crew.

 

One Whoops out weighs a 1,000 I have done it with out any problems.

 

Bob

[sparks1093]

Yes, on a closed loop cruise most Cruise Lines will allow passengers to board without a Pass Port because the Cruise Lines have adopted the position that Adult Passengers should have conducted a Risk Management Evaluation concerning boarding with out a Passport.

 

If a Whoops happens, then it is up to the Passenger to handle the process concerning returning home.

 

A Whoops being identified as Missing the Ship and flying to catch up, a medical emergency, Missing the ship at a port, and/or being put off the ship by the crew.

 

One Whoops out weighs a 1,000 I have done it with out any problems.

 

Bob

Actually passengers are allowed to board because the Department of Homeland Security has determined that a US citizen on a closed loop cruise represents a low risk to the national security so they enacted this exception in the regulations. Yes, if you miss the ship or have to return to the US for a family or medical emergency you will have a delay while the Consulate processes the necessary paperwork to allow you to fly home (there really would be no catching up to the ship on most itineraries since it could take a few days for this process to be completed). The State Department does have the authority to waive the passport requirements in the event of an emergency or for humanitarian reasons. The risk for most passengers of needing to return via another means is also low and good travel insurance would help defray the expense in the event of having to return.

[sloopsailor]

The risk for most passengers of needing to return via another means is also low and good travel insurance would help defray the expense in the event of having to return.

 

But it's not all about the expense. It's about expediency as well.

 

If a family member is hurt badly in an auto accident while you are away, do you really want to wait for days for paperwork to clear before you can return home to be with them? Such a situation happened to close friends of ours. Their daughter was severely injured in an accident and there was a very real possibility she would not survive. Although they did not need passports for their cruise, having them allowed them to return home the same day they were notified about her condition.

 

Fortunately, she survived. But I can't imagine the grief they would have felt if she had died before they arrived because they had been delayed until it was too late due to waiting for clearance if they didn't have their passports.

Edited May 29, 2015 by sloopsailor

[sparks1093]

But it's not all about the expense. It's about expediency as well.

 

If a family member is hurt badly in an auto accident while you are away, do you really want to wait for days for paperwork to clear before you can return home to be with them? Such a situation happened to close friends of ours. Their daughter was severely injured in an accident and there was a very real possibility she would not survive. Although they did not need passports for their cruise, having them allowed them to return home the same day they were notified about her condition.

 

Fortunately, she survived. But I can't imagine the grief they would have felt if she had died before they arrived because they had been delayed until it was too late due to waiting for clearance if they didn't have their passports.

 

That is certainly something that needs to be considered. Under those circumstances it would be my hope that the State Department would procede with more expediency and the delay would be minimal.

[SantaFeFan]

That is certainly something that needs to be considered. Under those circumstances it would be my hope that the State Department would procede with more expediency and the delay would be minimal.

 

The state department is under no obligation to speed anything up, and typically would not bother. It is a matter of personal responsibility. Those who take the necessary precautions will not need such special treatment.

Edited May 29, 2015 by SantaFeFan

[Out to sea!]

That is certainly something that needs to be considered. Under those circumstances it would be my hope that the State Department would procede with more expediency and the delay would be minimal.

 

I'm sorry but this made me giggle. The State Department doing anything with expediency....especially at the time it is most needed??? Isn't that an oxymoron or something?? :D

Edited May 29, 2015 by Out to sea!

[sparks1093]

The state department is under no obligation to speed anything up, and typically would not bother. It is a matter of personal responsibility. Those who take the necessary precautions will not need such special treatment.

 

I'm sorry but this made me giggle. The State Department doing anything with expediency....especially at the time it is most needed??? Isn't that an oxymoron or something?? :D

 

One of the functions of the Consulate is to aid US citizens that need assistance and that includes those on closed loop cruises that need assistance flying home, so yes, it is their obligation. If someone is discomfited by the idea of relying on such assistance they can of course obtain a passport. It's all part of the risk analysis.

[sail7seas]

The ships that call at St. Barths are not closed loop cruises from the US. None of the mass market lines go to St. Barths, and the rumor about St. Martin has been debunked many times over.

 

You are absolutely mistaken.

 

We sailed Maasdam two or maybe even three times round trip, closed loop FLL to FLL and stopped in St. Bartth's.

 

I don't know if they still do that itinerary but the ones we stopped in St. Barth's were within the last five or fewer years.

[John&LaLa]

You are absolutely mistaken.

 

We sailed Maasdam two or maybe even three times round trip, closed loop FLL to FLL and stopped in St. Bartth's.

 

I don't know if they still do that itinerary but the ones we stopped in St. Barth's were within the last five or fewer years.

 

He's not mistaken if there are not any closed loop sailings going there now:cool:

[sail7seas]

I don't know if that is true or not.

If Maasdam is not calling there any more, another HAL ship may be. I haven't looked.

Edited May 29, 2015 by sail7seas

[SantaFeFan]

One of the functions of the Consulate is to aid US citizens that need assistance and that includes those on closed loop cruises that need assistance flying home, so yes, it is their obligation. If someone is discomfited by the idea of relying on such assistance they can of course obtain a passport. It's all part of the risk analysis.

 

Yes, of course they will assist. But don't count on them dropping everything to help you out "right now" because of your carelessness. They will assist in processing the paperwork, but will do it on "government" time. Anyone who shirks their responsibility to protect themselves while travelling and expecting the government to rush to their rescue if something they could have avoided happens is headed for major disappointment. Why should our taxes be used to expedite travel documents because a person stubbornly refused to get a passport to save a few bucks?

 

Plus, sometimes the US Embassy you are depending on will have limited hours, or be in a town many miles away. So don't count on immediate results. It may take several days to the documents in the best of circumstances.

Edited May 29, 2015 by SantaFeFan

[sparks1093]

Yes, of course they will assist. But don't count on them dropping everything to help you out "right now" because of your carelessness. They will assist in processing the paperwork, but will do it on "government" time. Anyone who shirks their responsibility to protect themselves while travelling and expecting the government to rush to their rescue if something they could have avoided happens is headed for major disappointment. Why should our taxes be used to expedite travel documents because a person stubbornly refused to get a passport to save a few bucks?

 

Plus, sometimes the US Embassy you are depending on will have limited hours, or be in a town many miles away. So don't count on immediate results. It may take several days to the documents in the best of circumstances.

 

So someone who travels on a document allowed by the government is careless? There are legal alternatives to using a passport and travelers should pick the documentation that works best for their needs and they aren't "shirking their responsibility" by doing so. The fact of the matter is that millions of US citizens travel on closed loop cruises with something other than a passport with no issue whatsoever. Yes, they will face delays if "something" happens, but the odds of "something" happening for most people is slight, so it boils down to one's comfort with the risk presented.

[sloopsailor]

So someone who travels on a document allowed by the government is careless? There are legal alternatives to using a passport and travelers should pick the documentation that works best for their needs and they aren't "shirking their responsibility" by doing so. The fact of the matter is that millions of US citizens travel on closed loop cruises with something other than a passport with no issue whatsoever. Yes, they will face delays if "something" happens, but the odds of "something" happening for most people is slight, so it boils down to one's comfort with the risk presented.

 

Agreed that most times something won't happen. What I find annoying about your argument is that you believe that a person should have the freedom of being under protected when travelling outside the borders, and then expect the government to be responsible for bailing them out when things go south.

 

I don't rely on someone else to fix things for me. I prefer to take that responsibility on myself. It's called ACCOUNTABILITY. In this case, with an "unnecessary" passport.

Edited May 30, 2015 by sloopsailor

[Out to sea!]

One of the functions of the Consulate is to aid US citizens that need assistance and that includes those on closed loop cruises that need assistance flying home, so yes, it is their obligation. If someone is discomfited by the idea of relying on such assistance they can of course obtain a passport. It's all part of the risk analysis.

 

Yes, it is their obligation (job in fact) to assist. There is nothing that states they must do it "quickly" though. ;)

[sparks1093]

Agreed that most times something won't happen. What I find annoying about your argument is that you believe that a person should have the freedom of being under protected when travelling outside the borders, and then expect the government to be responsible for bailing them out when things go south.

 

I don't rely on someone else to fix things for me. I prefer to take that responsibility on myself. It's called ACCOUNTABILITY. In this case, with an "unnecessary" passport.

 

US citizens are afforded that protection as a right and privilege of being a US citizen regardless of where they are in the world and hand in hand with that is the right to make a choice when a choice is available. If an emergency happens then yes, I would expect the government to be responsible to help when they have an agency whose job it is to lend such assistance.

 

The only argument that I am putting forward is that people have a viable choice regarding travel documentation and making counter-points when people raise objections to traveling without a passport. That way people have more information to consider when making their decision. The main point that I was making in this thread is that travelers are not alone if an issue arises.

[sparks1093]

Yes, it is their obligation (job in fact) to assist. There is nothing that states they must do it "quickly" though. ;)

 

You are correct, the only thing that dictates how quickly they will act are the facts and circumstances of each case. I would expect that they would act/react differently if someone overstayed at Senor Frogs versus someone that has had a medical emergency;).