Reports from Carnival Panorama

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, travelplus said:

Of course not its  not like Carnival missed the ports on purpose.

As far as the law is concerned, that doesn't make any difference.  That is why there has to be a fine levied, an appeal, and an exemption.  That is the process.

[BlerkOne]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

As far as the law is concerned, that doesn't make any difference.  That is why there has to be a fine levied, an appeal, and an exemption.  That is the process.

Have you never had a traffic stop where the cop just issued a warning?

[Ferry_Watcher]

@chengkp75  I can't figure out if you are for, or against these foreign flagged cruise ships being able to travel from US city to city without having to stop at a foreign port - like what happened last summer with the Alaskan cruises.

 

The current law seems outdated to me, and, at least for the Alaskan cruises, skipping the mandatory stop on Victoria, BC, and adding instead another Alaska port-of-call would be economically beneficial to Alaska.

 

I understand that there would need to have continued gov't oversight for safety and environmental concerns, but I think doing away with this outdated law, and letting these seasonal cruises continue as they have been would be a win-win for the US.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, BlerkOne said:

Have you never had a traffic stop where the cop just issued a warning?

Sure.  How is the traffic law written (does it specify that a warning can be issued, does it specify whether the cop can use discretion), and how are the enabling regulations written (same questions).

[dianef]

My group of 10 are canceling our Jan 8 sailing as we feel with with 100 or more crew members in quarantine there is bound to be more affected and it might spread to more passengers also.I would not be surprised if they cancel the next few sailings.We we’re going just for the ship anyway as we have been to the ports many times.Have heard that several people coming off another Carnival cruise tested positive after they got home and were sick.

[chengkp75]

Just now, Ferry_Watcher said:

@chengkp75  I can't figure out if you are for, or against these foreign flagged cruise ships being able to travel from US city to city without having to stop at a foreign port - like what happened last summer with the Alaskan cruises.

 

The current law seems outdated to me, and, at least for the Alaskan cruises, skipping the mandatory stop on Victoria, BC, and adding instead another Alaska port-of-call would be economically beneficial to Alaska.

 

I understand that there would need to have continued gov't oversight for safety and environmental concerns, but I think doing away with this outdated law, and letting these seasonal cruises continue as they have been would be a win-win for the US.

I am adamantly against letting foreign flag ships operate in domestic US trades.  No more than I want to see foreign airlines carrying passengers between US cities, or foreign truck drivers allowed to work in the US.  When looked at through the narrow focus of cruise ships, the law may seem outdated, but those same Washington State Ferries that you work for, are covered by the PVSA as well (as is the Alaska Marine Highway, and any dinner cruises or sightseeing boats in Seattle).  If the cruise ships are allowed to operate as foreign ships in the US domestic trade, what is to stop ACL, Uncruise, Washington State Ferry, AMH, or the simple commuter boats in Seattle, from reflagging to foreign and hiring foreign crew?  Nothing, since under IMO conventions (which the US has passed as law), a "passenger vessel" is any vessel that carries "more than 12 passengers for hire", and it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, not the Cruise Vessel Services Act.

 

What would be a win-win for the US would be to allow the foreign built cruise ships to operate in the US domestic trade, as US flag vessels, paying US wages, to US crew (who spend their entire paycheck in the US, and pay US taxes), and that the ships pay US corporate taxes.

[icft]

Over 30 of the posts have been about maritime law. Has this thread been hijacked or what? 💩

[pinto18]

1 hour ago, monykalyn said:

OP hope you enjoy the cruise/ship anyway! Thanks for taking time to update. At some point ya just gotta laugh right?

Just pushed out Jan 15 cruise on panorama out to March. Hopefully things calmed down by then...

@chengkp75 I really appreciate your detailed and knowledgeable responses-not only to this post but others. 

Can I ask how you got your cruise moved? We want to do the same but basically when you call they say dont call they are too busy. And PVPs out till the 3rd

[AmazedByCruising]

52 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

As far as the law is concerned, that doesn't make any difference.  That is why there has to be a fine levied, an appeal, and an exemption.  That is the process.

 

41 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Sure.  How is the traffic law written (does it specify that a warning can be issued, does it specify whether the cop can use discretion), and how are the enabling regulations written (same questions).

 

Would you appeal at a "higher court" or would it be the same "cop" again? In the latter case, the same discretion is apparently already there.

"Your fine will be $150,000. And by the way we fully understand why you missed the port, so if you could just fill out this form A.042.824 and sign here, here and here, we'll send you another letter to tell you you don't have to pay". 

(Sorry, @icft 🙂)

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by AmazedByCruising

[Calnev1]

Newsreports in the Guardian are stating that the Mexican federal government is interceding to force local mexican ports to allow cruise ships, including the Panorama, to disembark passengers.  Cant post the link.  Google it.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Calnev1

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

Would you appeal at a "higher court" or would it be the same "cop" again? In the latter case, the same discretion is apparently already there.

Not really.  A PVSA violation is assessed by CBP.  The exemption is granted by the Secretary of Homeland Security, CBP's parent agency, so a "higher court".

[Calnev1]

Here is the link.  Its the Daily Mail, not the Guardian.  Sorry.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10350325/Mexico-allow-non-infected-disembark-cruise-ships-positive-COVID-19-cases-onboard.html

[no1racefan1]

1 hour ago, travelplus said:

7 nights on a cruise without Ports that I can easily fly to would not be the end of the world living in the SF Bay Area. While I would love to do the Shore Excursions I booked if it turns out we skip a port or ports I am not that upset. If I am given $50 I would buy a Bottle of Wine or put it towards my Adult drinks.  We have to be flexible.   I would rather be on a cruise then stuck  on I80 in the snow! 

Maybe we have to turn our thinking around. Instead of the Ports we focus on the cruise as the primary reason we are going on vacation like a moving All Inclusive Vacation and the ports secondary.  Then we won't be as disappointed. As long as Carnival provides a good cruise with food, entertainment and a safe environment then I am all for a 7 Day Cruise to Nowhere.

 

Hard pass. I mostly just cruise for the ports and the convenience of unpacking once while being able to see multiple places. DH and I are pretty laid back and would never complain about missing a port that was out of Carnival's control, but I would also never book a cruise with the idea that the ship is the primary vacation. I'd be extremely disappointed if I ended up on a cruise to nowhere (hence why we are choosing not to cruise for a while). Again, we wouldn't complain and would do our best to make the most of it and be extra kind to the crew.

[MrMarc]

3 hours ago, nslatin said:

So if Panorama is denied port entry at  PV, Mazatlan and Cabo does this put Carnival in violation of the PVSA?

 

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

While Congress may have set a "precedent" with Alaska this year, that is a specific law passed by Congress, and cannot be used by a government agency to alter the requirements elsewhere.  And, if CBP were to merely say, "well, that's okay, you missed all your ports due to covid" so we won't assess a fine, they would lose all chance of doing so for any circumstance in the future.  As I said, they will definitely assess the fine, but will also almost assuredly waive it upon appeal from Carnival.

in reading the CBP instructions, it says the PVSA does not apply to

• “Voyages to Nowhere” o Transportation of passengers by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel from a U.S. point to the high seas (i.e. beyond the three mile territorial sea) or foreign waters and back to the same point from which the passengers embarked, assuming the passengers do not go ashore, even temporarily, at another U.S. point.

 

So I don't see where it would have to be advertised.  Secondly I do think the CBP could waive the fines in these cases where a ship had plans to and permission to to dock and disembark passengers but was prevented from doing so by revocation of the permission, making the exception clearly different than other situations.

[bdever]

8 minutes ago, Calnev1 said:

Newsreports in the Guardian are stating that the Mexican federal government is interceding to force local mexican ports to allow cruise ships, including the Panorama, to disembark passengers.  Cant post the link.  Google it.

Could not find it 😕

[Calnev1]

6 minutes ago, Calnev1 said:

Here is the link.  Its the Daily Mail, not the Guardian.  Sorry.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10350325/Mexico-allow-non-infected-disembark-cruise-ships-positive-COVID-19-cases-onboard.html

This newsreport also says the Panorama will disembark passegers in Guaymas, Sonora.  I looked at a map of Mexico, and that makes no sense.  Its too far north.  So now I wonder if the Daily Mail article is inaccurate in other respects.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Calnev1
misspelling

[bdever]

6 minutes ago, Calnev1 said:

Here is the link.  Its the Daily Mail, not the Guardian.  Sorry.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10350325/Mexico-allow-non-infected-disembark-cruise-ships-positive-COVID-19-cases-onboard.html

Thanks, the article said passengers let off today at a different port in Sonoras / OP @smellywax can you confirm?

[chengkp75]

Just now, MrMarc said:

 

in reading the CBP instructions, it says the PVSA does not apply to

• “Voyages to Nowhere” o Transportation of passengers by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel from a U.S. point to the high seas (i.e. beyond the three mile territorial sea) or foreign waters and back to the same point from which the passengers embarked, assuming the passengers do not go ashore, even temporarily, at another U.S. point.

 

So I don't see where it would have to be advertised.  Secondly I do think the CBP could waive the fines in these cases where a ship had plans to and permission to to dock and disembark passengers but was prevented from doing so by revocation of the permission, making the exception clearly different than other situations.

You forget the second part of the "cruise to nowhere" problem.  As I said, a cruise to nowhere is allowed by PVSA, but it requires work visas for all crew.  The cost of getting these visas, and the requirement to pay US wages for workers on a work visa (not the international wage that cruise ship crew get now), that has made cruise lines no longer offer "cruises to nowhere".  So, if they say to CBP that "this was a cruise to nowhere", then CBP would be satisfied on the PVSA front, but would then ask for the work visas for the thousand foreign crew, and the line would be fined under the laws regarding visas and foreign workers.

 

And, once again, the fine would need to be assessed, but would then almost 100% be repealed when the cruise line files the paperwork.  But, that would be, as you say, where a cruise line has permission to enter the foreign port, but if the port has stated that cruise ships cannot call there, then it would be a knowing violation of the work visa regulations.

[asalligo]

A full sea only cruise would not bother me at all. I can understand people expecting some compensation though, contract or not. Carnival would also be smart to try to make these guests as happy as possible. More people will cancel if they hear about no port cruises. That is a really big deal to some people.  

[outdoors27]

Scroll back up Calnev1 posted the link.

[Calnev1]

This "figure out what the Panorama is doing" is fun!!   According to the map on  the website whatsinport, it looks like the Panorama was on its way to Mazatlan early this morning, and then before reaching Mazatlan did a hard left directly toward Cabo.  The Panorama is halfway to Cabo right now.  So I bet its going to try to disembark in Cabo tomorrow.  Definitetly not Guaymas, as reported in the Daily Mail.

[bratts2go]

13 minutes ago, Calnev1 said:

This newsreport also says the Panorama will disembark passegers in Guayamas, Sonora.  I looked at a map of Mexico, and that makes no sense.  Its too far north.  So now I wonder if the Daily Mail article is inaccurate in other respects.

I believe Puerto Vallarta is north of Guaymas.

[MrMarc]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

You forget the second part of the "cruise to nowhere" problem.  As I said, a cruise to nowhere is allowed by PVSA, but it requires work visas for all crew.  The cost of getting these visas, and the requirement to pay US wages for workers on a work visa (not the international wage that cruise ship crew get now), that has made cruise lines no longer offer "cruises to nowhere".  So, if they say to CBP that "this was a cruise to nowhere", then CBP would be satisfied on the PVSA front, but would then ask for the work visas for the thousand foreign crew, and the line would be fined under the laws regarding visas and foreign workers.

 

And, once again, the fine would need to be assessed, but would then almost 100% be repealed when the cruise line files the paperwork.  But, that would be, as you say, where a cruise line has permission to enter the foreign port, but if the port has stated that cruise ships cannot call there, then it would be a knowing violation of the work visa regulations.

I believe you about the work visa situation, I guess I am not seeing it in the document I am looking at. https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Sep/PVSA-ICP.pdf  I didn't see where the work rules were different for a ship in compliance with the PVSA and exempt from the PVSA.  I also agree that the fines would probably be levied and then withdrawn in the petition phase.  However I think a case could be made under these circumstances where the CBP could not impose the fines at all, but not hurt the power of the law.  It is a perfect example of how rules and laws cannot anticipate every possible situation.  

[Calnev1]

4 minutes ago, bratts2go said:

I believe Puerto Vallarta is north of Guaymas.

Nope.  Guaymas, Sonora, is halfway up the Gulf of California.  Way north of Puerto Vallarta.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Calnev1

[momof3cruisers]

3 hours ago, smellywax said:

I agree, the crew have been fantastic! We were on lido deck and then in the elevators following where 2 families were majorly complaining and mad they were missing their golf outing today after missing their zip lining yesterday and what an “effed up Christmas.” I wanted to tell them it’s effed up that being together wasn’t enough. Glad there are others on the ship that are making the most of it.

Just remind yourself how unhappy those people must always be and don’t let it get to you. 
 

I hope you enjoy the rest of your cruise. I bet you are glad you’re not stuck on the old Long Beach ships!