Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
cruzsnooze

How About a Cruise With No Ports for Safety

Recommended Posts

If the laws changed, or they figured out a way to make this work, and it meant I could cruise when I normally wouldn’t be able to...I’d do a cruise to nowhere or a scenic cruising cruise because a big part of the fun for me is the onboard experience, and I know my best friend would happily go with me on that. My hubby, however, would NOT go for this because he is all about the ports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, npcl said:

Not sure where you are getting information that Doctors are reportng pressure to list COVID-19 as suspected cause of death.

 

Any references?

https://fee.org/articles/physicians-say-hospitals-are-pressuring-er-docs-to-list-covid-19-on-death-certificates-here-s-why/

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-14/nyc-adds-3-700-to-death-toll-to-count-victims-not-hospitalized

 

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-new-york-city-deaths-73ca3b2b-fefb-4448-8330-e6310304a2b8.html

 

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-new-york-city-deaths-73ca3b2b-fefb-4448-8330-e6310304a2b8.html

 

I am aware of many cases where doctors were criminally prosecuted for Medicare and Medicaid fraud.  Just because Medicaid and Medicare fraud are against the law, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

Quote

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-14/nyc-adds-3-700-to-death-toll-to-count-victims-not-hospitalized

 

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-new-york-city-deaths-73ca3b2b-fefb-4448-8330-e6310304a2b8.html

 

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-new-york-city-deaths-73ca3b2b-fefb-4448-8330-e6310304a2b8.html

 

I am aware of many cases where doctors were criminally prosecuted for Medicare and Medicaid fraud.  Just because Medicaid and Medicare fraud are against the law, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

https://fee.org/articles/physicians-say-hospitals-are-pressuring-er-docs-to-list-covid-19-on-death-certificates-here-s-why/

Freedom for economic education is a Libertarian think tank.

 

From the article itself

 

When Drs. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi of Accelerated Urgent Care held a press conference last week, their goal was to galvanize policymakers to reopen the economy.

 

So the article even states that they had an agenda to open up the economy

 

As Minnesota lawmaker and longtime family practitioner Dr. Scott Jensen recently observed, hospitals are incentivized to pressure physicians to include COVID-19 on death certificates and discharge papers, since the CARES Act increases Medicare payments to hospitals treating COVID-19 victims.

 

This was bebunked several times. including when Dr. Scott Jensen even stated after his comments came out that he had no proof that anyone was doing so. As well as the fact that the number he used about payments were not correct. The real difference is much smaller.

 

The longtime ER doctors, who had their video removed from YouTube after the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly condemned their briefing,

 

So they say that doctors are being pressured yet the medical organizations seem to disagree

 

So much so that they released the following

 

Recently, The American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) released a statement that said the two organizations “jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical society and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.”

 

So hospitals that might have a difference in payments are committing fraud but the opinions of these two that have even more of financial interest are valid.

 

Or as stated in another article

 

 

But other experts in the fields of health and science have pointed out major discrepancies in the two doctors’ data.

 

“They’ve used methods that are ludicrous to get results that are completely implausible,” Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biologist who specializes in infectious disease modeling, told the OC Register.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-14/nyc-adds-3-700-to-death-toll-to-count-victims-not-hospitalized

 

This article says that they added them based upon medical diagnosis, clinical symptoms.  Nothing wrong with doing that.

Lots of cases are diagnosed by symptoms.  In this case some people died at home and testing was not possible as well as some in the hospital that were clinically diagnosed.  Even China went to diagnosing patients based upon clinical information and not depending exclusively upon test results during their outbreak and they certainly were not trying to inflate the numbers.

 

Freddi Goldstein, press secretary to Mayor Bill de Blasio, said Tuesday that the data include at-home deaths of people suspected of having Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That judgment is based on reported symptoms including cough, fever and shortness of breath.

 

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-new-york-city-deaths-73ca3b2b-fefb-4448-8330-e6310304a2b8.html

 

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-new-york-city-deaths-73ca3b2b-fefb-4448-8330-e6310304a2b8.html

 

So you have one article from a Libertarian think tank, basically about two doctors that even their medical societies condemn

 

And three articles about New York adding probably cases based upon symptoms, that died at home or in hospitals by clinical diagnoses to their data. Where the city publicly announced it and explained their reasoning.

 

My god this must be a major conspiracy to inflate the numbers - NOT.

 

Any thing else?

 

Is this all you can come up with.

Edited by npcl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jakeT said:

Being on many cruises, Most ports look all the same.  

 

Caribbean?  Yes.  For some guests, Alaska?  I suppose.  A Canadian/New England itinerary?  No.  And, my "No" applies to many other ports that I have visited during my cruising experience.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Caribbean?  Yes.  For some guests, Alaska?  I suppose.  A Canadian/New England itinerary?  No.  And, my "No" applies to many other ports that I have visited during my cruising experience.  


A large number of people on these boards think cruise equals Caribbean cruise. They never step out.....




Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, npcl said:

 

 

https://fee.org/articles/physicians-say-hospitals-are-pressuring-er-docs-to-list-covid-19-on-death-certificates-here-s-why/

Freedom for economic education is a Libertarian think tank.

 

From the article itself

 

When Drs. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi of Accelerated Urgent Care held a press conference last week, their goal was to galvanize policymakers to reopen the economy.

 

So the article even states that they had an agenda to open up the economy

 

As Minnesota lawmaker and longtime family practitioner Dr. Scott Jensen recently observed, hospitals are incentivized to pressure physicians to include COVID-19 on death certificates and discharge papers, since the CARES Act increases Medicare payments to hospitals treating COVID-19 victims.

 

This was bebunked several times. including when Dr. Scott Jensen even stated after his comments came out that he had no proof that anyone was doing so. As well as the fact that the number he used about payments were not correct. The real difference is much smaller.

 

The longtime ER doctors, who had their video removed from YouTube after the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly condemned their briefing,

 

So they say that doctors are being pressured yet the medical organizations seem to disagree

 

So much so that they released the following

 

Recently, The American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) released a statement that said the two organizations “jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical society and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.”

 

So hospitals that might have a difference in payments are committing fraud but the opinions of these two that have even more of financial interest are valid.

 

Or as stated in another article

 

 

But other experts in the fields of health and science have pointed out major discrepancies in the two doctors’ data.

 

“They’ve used methods that are ludicrous to get results that are completely implausible,” Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biologist who specializes in infectious disease modeling, told the OC Register.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-14/nyc-adds-3-700-to-death-toll-to-count-victims-not-hospitalized

 

This article says that they added them based upon medical diagnosis, clinical symptoms.  Nothing wrong with doing that.

Lots of cases are diagnosed by symptoms.  In this case some people died at home and testing was not possible as well as some in the hospital that were clinically diagnosed.  Even China went to diagnosing patients based upon clinical information and not depending exclusively upon test results during their outbreak and they certainly were not trying to inflate the numbers.

 

Freddi Goldstein, press secretary to Mayor Bill de Blasio, said Tuesday that the data include at-home deaths of people suspected of having Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That judgment is based on reported symptoms including cough, fever and shortness of breath.

 

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-new-york-city-deaths-73ca3b2b-fefb-4448-8330-e6310304a2b8.html

 

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-new-york-city-deaths-73ca3b2b-fefb-4448-8330-e6310304a2b8.html

 

So you have one article from a Libertarian think tank, basically about two doctors that even their medical societies condemn

 

And three articles about New York adding probably cases based upon symptoms, that died at home or in hospitals by clinical diagnoses to their data. Where the city publicly announced it and explained their reasoning.

 

My god this must be a major conspiracy to inflate the numbers - NOT.

 

Any thing else?

 

Is this all you can come up with.

Number one, you cherry picked my statement out of context.  The point I was making was that the more reliable statistics in the face of increased testing were rates of hospitalizations and deaths, not the raw numbers of cases being detected by increased testing.

 

Second, you asked me where I got that information (inferring that I had made it up).  You went to great lengths to find rebuttals of the reports that pressure is being put on some doctors to report pneumonia deaths as Covid-19, so there's obviously an issue about some doctors being told to list deaths as covid-19 related.

 

Third, Mayor DiBlasio's press secretary isn't a reliable source of impartial information.  You report he says the people are being reported as having died from Covid-19 because their symptoms were "cough, fever and shortness of breath."  These are the very same symptoms the American Lung Association lists as the main symptoms of pneumonia.  CDC says pneumonia kills almost 50,000 people a year.  CDC also states that older people, those with underlying conditions such as diabetes and heart disease are at greater risk - sound familiar?  I only relate the similarity because NYC is listing some deaths as covid-19 if the patient displayed symptoms of ordinary pneumonia and tested negative for covid-19.  There's a reason why the bureaucrats are telling doctors to assume negative tests were false negatives so the death can be re-categorized as covid-19.

 

I've explained my thinking and reasons to you and I have no desire to discuss this any further.  You are free to believe your sources and I am free to believe my sources.  Just, please don't infer that I make things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

31 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

A large number of people on these boards think cruise equals Caribbean cruise. They never step out.....

 

For many it's a matter of wanting to go somewhere warm so late August/fall NE Canada cruises as well as Alaska would be out.  For many it also comes down to money.  Many only cruise every year or so and they save up. If they could afford to "step out" maybe they would cross the pond and explore the different European options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Number one, you cherry picked my statement out of context.  The point I was making was that the more reliable statistics in the face of increased testing were rates of hospitalizations and deaths, not the raw numbers of cases being detected by increased testing.

 

Second, you asked me where I got that information (inferring that I had made it up).  You went to great lengths to find rebuttals of the reports that pressure is being put on some doctors to report pneumonia deaths as Covid-19, so there's obviously an issue about some doctors being told to list deaths as covid-19 related.

 

Third, Mayor DiBlasio's press secretary isn't a reliable source of impartial information.  You report he says the people are being reported as having died from Covid-19 because their symptoms were "cough, fever and shortness of breath."  These are the very same symptoms the American Lung Association lists as the main symptoms of pneumonia.  CDC says pneumonia kills almost 50,000 people a year.  CDC also states that older people, those with underlying conditions such as diabetes and heart disease are at greater risk - sound familiar?  I only relate the similarity because NYC is listing some deaths as covid-19 if the patient displayed symptoms of ordinary pneumonia and tested negative for covid-19.  There's a reason why the bureaucrats are telling doctors to assume negative tests were false negatives so the death can be re-categorized as covid-19.

 

I've explained my thinking and reasons to you and I have no desire to discuss this any further.  You are free to believe your sources and I am free to believe my sources.  Just, please don't infer that I make things up.

Actually I did not cherry pick

Here is your post where you stated the 

 

Right now, most of the increases in cases are as a result of many, many more tests being performed.  The real measures are hospitalizations and deaths but even those numbers are being manipulated.  Doctors are reporting pressure to list Covid-19 as 'suspected' cause of death or as a contributing factor.  It doesn't help when the government is adding financial incentives to list hospitalizations as Covid-19 related.  But even these anomalies don't much reflect a big effect on the overall rate of hospitalizations and deaths.

 

Note that the majority of your post was to denigrate the reliability of the statistics.

 

Then when I asked for your source, because I had seen anything cridble. you provided one document that quotes two people that even the medical societies come out against.  And 3 articles about the New York.  Was there something in the article that said that the city was telling them to ignore tests.  I certainly did not read that, nor did it say count normal pneumonia (not sure what normal is because there are lots of causes of pneumonia) but instead make the call on the basis of symptoms, in other words medical diagnosis.  Not quite as simple as hey lets call every case of shortness of breath COVID.  Is it bi-laterial pneumonia? Does it respond to antibiotics (as in bacterial pneumonia) etc.

 

The press secretary is also not an MD and would not be presenting the medical details for inclusion.  For the press it certainly would be a simplistic list that they and people can relate to.

 

You also certainly implied that doctors would fake results in order for a little compensation.

 

With all of the studies no being done on clinical outcomes, medical records review do you not think that some inconsistencies would turn up if there was actually large scale false reporting going on?

 
 

There has been speculation on social media that the number of COVID-19 deaths is being intentionally inflated. But Dr. Aiken said it is more likely that COVID-19 deaths are actually being undercounted because of lack of testing.

There are multiple reasons Dr. Aiken said Owen’s claims are unrealistic.

First, most “asymptomatic” people aren’t being tested right now. Test-kits are still in demand across much of the nation, and many regions have limited testing to those already showing symptoms. It’s also unlikely that already deceased patients would be tested post-mortem if they appear to have died from something else.

“I’m not sure why a person without symptoms, coming into the hospital for stroke would be tested for COVID-19 anyway,” Dr. Aiken said.

 

 

The second reason, Dr. Aikens explained Owen’s claims were unrealistic is that the claims seem to imply there are situations where someone can clearly rule out COVID-19 as a cause of death in infected patients. That is not the case, according to Dr. Aiken.

“Sometimes it isn’t clear how various things relate to one another at death,” Dr. Aiken said. “Certain judgments will be wrong. In the example given, (stroke with COVID-19), it would be important to know if that individual had symptoms of COVID-19. If so, symptoms such as dehydration from COVID-19, or inability to take medications for blood pressure control, may put that person at risk for a stroke. In that case, the cause of death might be listed as 'stroke,' but COVID-19 could be contributory. There is also emerging evidence that COVID-19 infection may have unexpected effects on blood vessels, and circulation, making infected people susceptible to stroke."

 

The third reason these claims are unrealistic is because of the hodge-podge ways of investigating deaths in the United States, Dr. Aiken said. In addition to the physician medical examiners, there are elected lay coroners, justices of the peace and sheriff coroners operating under various county or state systems. Funding and resources – including COVID-19 tests -- are also uneven across jurisdictions.

Given that, “I don’t believe that all deaths caused by COVID-19 are being counted, and I don’t believe that accurate counting will happen in the short-term future,” Dr. Aiken said.

The cause of death is sometimes a judgment call, she said. 

However, she said, “medical examiners and coroners are not part of a conspiracy of death certification to classify all deaths as caused by COVID-19. We are certifying deaths to our best knowledge and belief, based on investigation, medical information, and testing, as always."

 

Edited by npcl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  For many it's a matter of wanting to go somewhere warm so late August/fall NE Canada cruises as well as Alaska would be out.  For many it also comes down to money.  Many only cruise every year or so and they save up. If they could afford to "step out" maybe they would cross the pond and explore the different European options.

 

 

To be clear I didn’t mean to sound snarky. I enjoy Caribbean cruises. They are a lot of fun. I am also into snorkeling and beaches so I don’t consider them same old same old. Even Nassau, I go to Blue Lagoon, nice beach, so I am not dissing Caribbean cruises. I agree nice to do to go somewhere warm when it is winter here. Did the Caribbean this past January. I also have done a bunch of European cruises, Alaska, New England, etc. And of course Bermuda.....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shmoo here said:

As noted, a ship has to allow passengers to disembark, or the stop isn't legal.

 

 

What if the ship wants to allow passengers to disembark but the port will not allow it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!. What is the difference between the Jones Act and this PCSA?  Had not heard of this till this thread!   Jones Act I have heard many times. It was referred to in articles about the Alaska cruises not having access to Victoria when returning to Seattle. We were booked on one so it was of concern to us.

 

2. Our friends had the virus back in late January after returning from a 10 day cruise. It was not diagnosed because there were no tests available then. They listed it as Pneumonia but one of them got very sick and did not respond to the anti-biotics. They were medivaced back to Canada ( they are snowbirds here in Florida for the winter only) in early March.They are waiting for their hometown to get the anti-body tests. Ergo, there must have many like them who have not been counted in the statistics. Just a thought!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, gmjc2 said:

!. What is the difference between the Jones Act and this PCSA?  Had not heard of this till this thread!   Jones Act I have heard many times. It was referred to in articles about the Alaska cruises not having access to Victoria when returning to Seattle. We were booked on one so it was of concern to us.

As noted above, the Jones Act (as it is commonly referred to by the cruise line CSR's, and posters here on CC) applies to domestic cargo shipping, while the PVSA (Passenger Vessel Services Act) applies to domestic passenger travel.  I don't have any idea what an article about Alaska cruises would say why Victoria would not be allowed by the PVSA, unless that article was seriously confused.  It may have said that the port call at Victoria was required by the PVSA, which it is, as round trip cruises starting and ending at the same US port require a port call in a foreign port (Canada).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may not have been clear about the Victoria part. When Victoria closed it's port to the cruise ships. our Alaska cruise had to be cancelled because (and I reference the announcements) the Jones Act rule was that the ship had to visit a foreign port before returning to the US. No mention of cargo was in the several articles I read. Also the Jones act was referenced on our Australian cruise in 2013. We had to stop in Ensenada before the ship could dock in San Diego. That was a disaster but a story for another time! They changed the itinerary to go to Vancouver instead after the trauma we all suffered that day! Just reporting our experiences and information given to us on our 54 cruises.

 

So I can only conclude that the name of the ruling protocol has become this PVSA title today. Does not surprise me that there would be some catchy acronym.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this on Google search. We are both right!  The Jones Act is used to regulate cruise ships in their port requirements because almost all the ships are registered in foreign countries therefore they are classified as non- us vessels. Therefore are subject to the Jones Act. 

 

"The Jones Act treats U.S. cruise ships and passengers differently from foreign cruise ships and passengers. While the act allows U.S. ships to travel directly from U.S. port to port, it prohibits foreign ships from traveling directly from U.S. port to port."

 

I knew I was not crazy!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we have been cruising (over forty years) the "Jones Act" has been improperly cited when it comes cruises from US Ports.  Perhaps some folks find it easier to remember then "PVSA."  🙂   But even if Congress were to eliminate the PVSA restrictions (or the regulators were to issue a blanket waiver) I do not think it would be very helpful to the cruise lines.  As can be seen in this thread, there are many cruisers who see ships as a means to go between ports rather then an end to itself.  There are also some cruisers (including me) who would be happy with cruises to nowhere.  In fact, DW once said that if there a 100 day round the world cruise with no ports we would be among the first to book :).   The longest we have been on a ship without getting off is only 14 days (transpacific where we stayed on the ship at its lone port in Hawaii) and it was complete heaven.

 

This coming December we are doing back to back 7 day cruises on an MSC ship in the Caribbean.  It is likely that we will not get off the ship at any of the ports other then the private island (Ocean Cay).  And the reason we get off in Ocean Cay is that we are in Yacht Club...and Ocean Cay has a private enclave for those in the YC.

 

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another factual paragraph pertaining to this subject.

 

"The Jones Act (also known as the Passenger Services Act) prohibits ships of Non-U.S registry from embarking and debarking guests at two different U.S ports. Such travel would constitute point-to-point transportation between two U.S ports, which is prohibited on foreign flagged ships."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic the premise was a cruise where everyone was screened for the virus to best of the ships ability and then nobody would get on or off in an effort to keep it safer. I'm ready for a get away but not unless the risks are minimal. Minimal doesn't mean perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

  But even if Congress were to eliminate the PVSA restrictions (or the regulators were to issue a blanket waiver) I do not think it would be very helpful to the cruise lines.  As can be seen in this thread, there are many cruisers who see ships as a means to go between ports rather then an end to itself.  There are also some cruisers (including me) who would be happy with cruises to nowhere.  

Very good post.  I do recall reading that the cruise industry used cruises to nowhere as a low cost means of introducing new customers to the cruising experience.  I think that may have been the primary motivation behind the BVEs Princess used to do. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the BVE came about after CBP shut down the cruises to nowhere.  I've never taken one and I wish I had.  I'd love to do a one or two day cruise out of New York, Baltimore or Boston every so often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2020 at 4:54 PM, cruzsnooze said:

Who would join me on a 5 or 7 days cruise out of San Pedro that would have to stop for a few hours in Ensenada but no one disembarks. All safety measures like temperature before boarding and other CDC guidelines being followed. The caveat would be no chance of picking up any virus (not already on the ship) at ports and hopefully no one who embarked was ill.  RCL is talking about a quarantine section of rooms on their ship just in case and only allowing 50% passenger capacity. Buffet would not be self serve and seating at all venues would have social distancing. Under the right conditions I would venue back. The biggie for me would be no ports to pick up any virus. 

I have  no intention of cruising as long as these silly 'social distancing' and 'wear a mask' are in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, gmjc2 said:

I may not have been clear about the Victoria part. When Victoria closed it's port to the cruise ships. our Alaska cruise had to be cancelled because (and I reference the announcements) the Jones Act rule was that the ship had to visit a foreign port before returning to the US. No mention of cargo was in the several articles I read. Also the Jones act was referenced on our Australian cruise in 2013. We had to stop in Ensenada before the ship could dock in San Diego. That was a disaster but a story for another time! They changed the itinerary to go to Vancouver instead after the trauma we all suffered that day! Just reporting our experiences and information given to us on our 54 cruises.

 

So I can only conclude that the name of the ruling protocol has become this PVSA title today. Does not surprise me that there would be some catchy acronym.

 

Okay, yes, there is a requirement for a foreign port call in the PVSA, so if the one foreign port call was cancelled due to port closing, then the voyage would have to be cancelled.

 

Don't believe everything you read on the internet, especially Wikipedia.  The PVSA, which does cover domestic passenger travel, was passed in 1886.  The Jones Act, which covers domestic cargo shipment, was passed in 1920.  Just because the Jones Act is more widely referred to, does not mean that it actually covers passenger services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Very good post.  I do recall reading that the cruise industry used cruises to nowhere as a low cost means of introducing new customers to the cruising experience.  I think that may have been the primary motivation behind the BVEs Princess used to do. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the BVE came about after CBP shut down the cruises to nowhere.  I've never taken one and I wish I had.  I'd love to do a one or two day cruise out of New York, Baltimore or Boston every so often.

Actually, the cruises to nowhere were a form of "filler" for when cruise itineraries required a difficult number of days to complete, which would have made embarkation day a different day each cruise.  Now, they generally set itineraries that need it to be alternating lengths, such as 8 day week one, and 6 day week two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you are going to ignore multiple articles on the subject just because they are on the internet! Incidentally where did you get your information from? Most likely the internet is my guess!!!  Just saying!!!   LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, you are going to ignore multiple articles on the subject just because they are on the internet! Incidentally where did you get your information from? Most likely the internet is my guess!!!  Just saying!!!   LOL!

  

He is a merchant mariner and probably has the Jones Act and PVSA memorized. He has a special interest in maintaining the unions control of mariner hiring. His main reason to be on these boards seems to be defend those laws. He would have everyone believe they cannot or should not be changed. I don’t agree with him on that but he does know the laws.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with the Quark Expeditions Team!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...