No medical waivers honored! Past final payment

[Regguy]

The ADA only comes into play if they charge a disabled customer more then they do for a non-disabled customer, which is not the case.

 

That's not necessarily true. You cannot impose a surcharge or tax on the disabled to provide them with covered or required services. The fact that you charge the non-disabled for the same services is usually good evidence that it's not a surcharge, but it's not dispositive if it's a pretext. For example, a restaurant that is mad it needed to install a ramp and an automatic door and doesn't want to serve the disabled can't charge $100 to use the automatic door instead of the revolving door, even if charges everyone $100 whether disabled or not disabled.

 

Pretext cases are hard to prove, and the reality is they aren't that common because most vendors have market reasons to want to encourage access to the disabled. Nor, as my original post made clear, do I think this is a pretext case, but the hypo I proposed was in response to a general question. Charging $500 a case for a specific drink that the disabled need and not allowing them to bring it on board after final payment, for example, could very well state a cognizable claim for an ADA violation even if everyone has to pay the same $500. It would depend on the facts, but if the cruise line knew that 95 percent of those purchasing it were those who needed it for their disability, it might be a good case.

 

This is easiest to understand with a ludicrous example. If blind people needed visine after swimming, but were prohibited from bringing it on board and it were sold at a 10,000 percent mark up poolside, it could very well be a violation. Water and Gatorade are not specialty items, but since this thread seems to have morphed into an ADA CLE, I thought I would mention the point that neutrality with respect to price is not a dispositive ADA defense.

[RDC1]

That's not necessarily true. You cannot impose a surcharge or tax on the disabled to provide them with covered or required services. The fact that you charge the non-disabled for the same services is usually good evidence that it's not a surcharge, but it's not dispositive if it's a pretext. For example, a restaurant that is mad it needed to install a ramp and an automatic door and doesn't want to serve the disabled can't charge $100 to use the automatic door instead of the revolving door, even if charges everyone $100 whether disabled or not disabled.

 

Pretext cases are hard to prove, and the reality is they aren't that common because most vendors have market reasons to want to encourage access to the disabled. Nor, as my original post made clear, do I think this is a pretext case, but the hypo I proposed was in response to a general question. Charging $500 a case for a specific drink that the disabled need and not allowing them to bring it on board after final payment, for example, could very well state a cognizable claim for an ADA violation even if everyone has to pay the same $500. It would depend on the facts, but if the cruise line knew that 95 percent of those purchasing it were those who needed it for their disability, it might be a good case.

 

This is easiest to understand with a ludicrous example. If blind people needed visine after swimming, but were prohibited from bringing it on board and it were sold at a 10,000 percent mark up poolside, it could very well be a violation. Water and Gatorade are not specialty items, but since this thread seems to have morphed into an ADA CLE, I thought I would mention the point that neutrality with respect to price is not a dispositive ADA defense.

 

Based upon what you have stated if a company were to remodel their business to meet ADA requirements, but then raised prices a small amount for all customers to cover a valid business expense, the cost of loans for the work, they would be in violation.

 

The conversation where I posted that was where someone else claimed that if the ship let the crew bring water on or gave it to them free and charged a different price to customers then an ADA claim could be made because the ship was treating crew differently from disabled passengers.

 

To which I responded that the price difference would only work if they charged disabled customers a different amount then non-disabled customers. They can provide their crew all kinds of benefits that are different then their customers without ADA being involved. They have to treat all of the crew the same (if it was a US ship) and they have to treat the customers the same.

 

So I was not claiming that same price was a total defense, only that there is not a relationship between employee benefits and customer costs. That you could not use crew paying X and disabled customer paying Y to trigger an ADA claim, only if some passengers were paying X and disabled passenger paying Y - different treatment within the customer population.

Edited July 10, 2016 by RDC1

[CruiserGuyWPB]

ADA for a foreign flagged cruise ship is accessible access only. Everyone needs to educate themselves. Just because it comes to the US the ADA does not apply to everything.

 

Please, if you are going to post here, take the time to educate yourself before you come across as a fool.

 

Have a great cruise.

 

Peace :)

[xxoocruiser]

Based upon what you have stated if a company were to remodel their business to meet ADA requirements, but then raised prices a small amount for all customers to cover a valid business expense, the cost of loans for the work, they would be in violation.

 

.

 

Raising prices to cover valid business expenses occurs on a regular basis and does not constitute a violation of the ADA. Regguy's post specifically speaks to a purveyor who imposes a contemptible surcharge or tax for the sole purpose of revenge because they had to bring their establishment up to ADA code. On a side note business's that predate the ADA are grandfathered and are not required to meet ADA minimum standards until such time that the business undergoes a renovation.

[xxoocruiser]

ADA for a foreign flagged cruise ship is accessible access only. Everyone needs to educate themselves. Just because it comes to the US the ADA does not apply to everything.

 

Please, if you are going to post here, take the time to educate yourself before you come across as a fool.

 

Have a great cruise.

 

Peace :)

 

Agree!!!

 

In fact my post #239 says the same thing in greater detail.

[cruzsnooze]

Water is a medical necessity for every single person on the ship so I can see why NCL says no exception for anyone. Bring some empty water bottles and fill them on board. Buy some when in port, it's usually lax screening for water when you are re boarding in a port because people take water with them so have it when coming back.

[NMLady]

Water is a medical necessity for every single person on the ship so I can see why NCL says no exception for anyone. Bring some empty water bottles and fill them on board. Buy some when in port, it's usually lax screening for water when you are re boarding in a port because people take water with them so have it when coming back.

 

I doubt they'll be lax with this new policy. Don't depend on being able to bring any water, or soda, back from ports.

[LSauls7537]

What I don't understand is the reason given for the ban of bottled water was for security reasons. So what makes bottled water for infant formula and cpap machines that are sealed safer than bottled water sealed for the consumer. Also why are bottles of wine ok as long are you pay the corkage fee. If security is an issue what's the difference?

:confused:

 

It appears as some have stated "some" spoil it for the rest. Vodka was being put in water bottles and brought on board. The extra time it took to inspect the bottles for signs of tamper was causing delays for those checking in, also allows other chemicals that could be brought on board...think Airlines here. Wine is still paying the corkage of $15 and it easy to recognize if it's been tempered with. This is what I've read on sites that were discussing this.

[swedish weave]

It appears as some have stated "some" spoil it for the rest. Vodka was being put in water bottles and brought on board. The extra time it took to inspect the bottles for signs of tamper was causing delays for those checking in, also allows other chemicals that could be brought on board...think Airlines here. Wine is still paying the corkage of $15 and it easy to recognize if it's been tempered with. This is what I've read on sites that were discussing this.

 

Take a quick look on Ebay and you can see that wine corks and seals are available for sale.

 

A hair dryer will shrink the seal and it seems that it looks the same as the factory seal. Think replacing the wine with any liquid you choose.

 

Realistically, NCL is doing this to increase revenue and are not being truthful in what they are using as an excuse.

Edited July 10, 2016 by swedish weave

[NLH Arizona]

Please, if you are going to post here, take the time to educate yourself before you come across as a fool.

 

Have a great cruise.

 

Peace :)

Totally agree. In these days, with the internet, it is so easy to educate one's self on the ADA rules and regulations and see how it applies to the OP's situation, which it doesn't. Even after some have posted documented proof, some still don't seem to understand.

[swedish weave]

Totally agree. In these days, with the internet, it is so easy to educate one's self on the ADA rules and regulations and see how it applies to the OP's situation, which it doesn't. Even after some have posted documented proof, some still don't seem to understand.

 

Posts on Cruise Critic as documented proof ???? Don't make me laugh !!!

[Sissaaaaaa]

Posts on Cruise Critic as documented proof ???? Don't make me laugh !!!

 

Well, case law is case law LOL You can't make that up.

[jrsegrl]

As an alternative to the bottled water can't the OP just bring a Brita/PUR or something similar. Very easy to just filter your own and its what we do at home. I know Pedialyte comes in little packets that you just add to your water. Not sure if Gatorade or PowerAde does but their might be similar brands that do. I don't own one but seem to remember seeing a water bottle that had a little filter in it too.

[fshagan]

As an alternative to the bottled water can't the OP just bring a Brita/PUR or something similar. Very easy to just filter your own and its what we do at home. I know Pedialyte comes in little packets that you just add to your water. Not sure if Gatorade or PowerAde does but their might be similar brands that do. I don't own one but seem to remember seeing a water bottle that had a little filter in it too.

 

I don't know if it was the OP, but somewhere on this forum there is the reported response from "Beverly" at NCL that they will not allow water filtering bottles to be brought on board either, and will confiscate them prior to boarding. According to this second level supervisor you will not be able to bring your own sport bottle back on board in any port.

 

Carnival now has large bins and all bottles have to be deposited in the bins when re-boarding in port.

[tseitel]

I don't know if it was the OP, but somewhere on this forum there is the reported response from "Beverly" at NCL that they will not allow water filtering bottles to be brought on board either, and will confiscate them prior to boarding. According to this second level supervisor you will not be able to bring your own sport bottle back on board in any port.

 

Carnival now has large bins and all bottles have to be deposited in the bins when re-boarding in port.

 

Wait a minute, when you say " sports bottle " do you mean bottles of water purchased in port? Or insulated bottles that you can refill ? I love my insulated bottle, it stays cold for hours, & was planning on taking it on excursions.

[Quilting_Cruiser]

fshagan, can you direct us to where you saw this information? I just purchased a Camelbak filtered water bottle for my cruise in September. Your post is the first I've seen saying filtering water bottles are banned...

[NLH Arizona]

fshagan, can you direct us to where you saw this information? I just purchased a Camelbak filtered water bottle for my cruise in September. Your post is the first I've seen saying filtering water bottles are banned...

One poster on one of the threads said he/she was told that by NCL. Not sure I believe that the information is correct, since many others have talked with NCL and no one was told that except for the one poster.

[Quilting_Cruiser]

One poster on one of the threads said he/she was told that by NCL. Not sure I believe that the information is correct, since many others have talked with NCL and no one was told that except for the one poster.

 

Thank you. I was surprised to see that as I'm sure it would cause another uproar on the boards since that's a solution many are planning to use since we can no longer carry water on board.

 

Thanks!

[Annmeat]

I don't know if it was the OP, but somewhere on this forum there is the reported response from "Beverly" at NCL that they will not allow water filtering bottles to be brought on board either, and will confiscate them prior to boarding. According to this second level supervisor you will not be able to bring your own sport bottle back on board in any port.

 

Carnival now has large bins and all bottles have to be deposited in the bins when re-boarding in port.

 

The thread on which that conversation was relayed has been removed. The alleged comments came from someone reached on the regular NCL phone number during the Holiday weekend. NCL is not going to search suitcases for empty water bottles and certainly will not be confiscating personal property unless it is listed on their "prohibited items" list.

 

They also aren't going to eat your children.

If this is a deal breaker- break the deal! I think it's crappy that they have not informed all of this change. Let's see what happens next week.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Annmeat

[Annmeat]

One poster on one of the threads said he/she was told that by NCL. Not sure I believe that the information is correct, since many others have talked with NCL and no one was told that except for the one poster.

 

And the entire thread has been removed. They cannot search every suitcase for a danged water sports bottle camelback filter - whatever! I'm

[Rosethorn40]

The thread on which that conversation was relayed has been removed. The alleged comments came from someone reached on the regular NCL phone number during the Holiday weekend. NCL is not going to search suitcases for empty water bottles and certainly will not be confiscating personal property unless it is listed on their "prohibited items" list.

They also aren't going to eat your children.

��

If this is a deal breaker- break the deal! I think it's crappy that they have not informed all of this change. Let's see what happens next week.

 

Pitty, now that IS a deal breaker

[LMaxwell]

You need to speak to the Access Dept. 866-584-9756. This number is also given 1-866-787-5674. I'm sure either could get you to the right person.

 

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for posting that. Need it for baby formula that NCL has blessed as OK.

[sverigecruiser]

And, has that ever, ever happened to you??? I take about four personal and six to eight business trips each year (all over the U.S., Europe, and Asia) and I've never once seen a policy like that at any hotel nor had hotel personnel ask to check my bags. Many times I've stood at the registration counter with beverages and take-out food as I checked in and it's never been questioned.

 

No, that has never happened to me.

 

I didn't said that most hotels have that policy.

 

I should never say that some, or many, hotels has that policy if I didn't knew that as a fact. That doesn't mean that I can provide a link or even name any hotels with that policy.

 

I know that the internet most of the time isn't a reliable source but from what I found with a quick search it seems to be most common in Turkey.

 

Does anyone know how it is in Las Vegas? That's the other place I found where it seems to be rather common with that policy.

[redfantum]

No, that has never happened to me.

 

I didn't said that most hotels have that policy.

 

I should never say that some, or many, hotels has that policy if I didn't knew that as a fact. That doesn't mean that I can provide a link or even name any hotels with that policy.

 

I know that the internet most of the time isn't a reliable source but from what I found with a quick search it seems to be most common in Turkey.

 

Does anyone know how it is in Las Vegas? That's the other place I found where it seems to be rather common with that policy.

 

Recently stayed at the Golden Nugget in Vegas. They have a no outside food and beverage in rooms policy. There was no enforcement. We brought our own coffee as they charge $10 for 4 k-cups.

[janpo]

Recently stayed at the Golden Nugget in Vegas. They have a no outside food and beverage in rooms policy. There was no enforcement. We brought our own coffee as they charge $10 for 4 k-cups.

 

Tha Palazzo/ Venetian also has that rule.Not enforced.