Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by boatseller

  1. Maybe this sailing, things were a little mixed togeather. There were some Pinnacles...noticing...they were sent to the Diamond Lounge instead of wherever they were supposed to be.
  2. I saw guests in Giovanni's at a non-dinner seating and I'm pretty sure the host said it was for the Diamond whatever meal it was at that time.
  3. Ok, I'm sorry, you're just not getting it. I can't make it any simpler or clearer. They don't need to change the definition of a any vessel type and I never said they did. So yes, I read your response, but you're responding with irrelevancy. Foreign flagged ships are prevented from transporting passengers between coastwise ports solely by PVSA, not SOLAS or any other law or treaty. The relevant sections of the PVSA are about cabotage, not safety or tarrifs or duties or anything else. It's just protectionism as intended. Congress can change, amend, strike any of this on a whim or with enough...facilitation. They did exactly that with ATRA. Do you know how? They simple deemed that the ship made a 'foreign' call by...wait for it...ready...this is big...sending an email to Canada! That's right, you can now visit Canada by email*. Congress did this at their descretion and I don't see Norway raising a stink about it. So they just deem Vancouver or Victoria as non-nearby ports, voila!, problem solved. Again, in as simple terms as I can put it, the cabotage rules in the PVSA are a 155 year old anachronism that's silly and should be revisited and modernized. Cruising from Honolulu to San Diego is no threat to US jobs or industry. The best test, let someone seriously propose it and see if the airlines object. *Technically, the way I read it, only the foreign crew visits Canada by email but whatever....
  4. OMG, did you even read my response? I never mentioned anything about redefining a passenger vessel. Again, you're just arguing for the law because of the law. Yes, you're critizing. Maybe explain why allowing perhaps 200 guests a season to sail HNL-SAN (or similar itineraries) threatens thousands of American jobs. Politicians are very good at targeted exemptions. Let me state it very simply, 155 years later, it's silly that guests can't take a luxury cruise from Honolulu to San Diego but can take one from Miami to Los Angeles, the only difference being Cartagena is a 'distant' port while Vancouver is not. This despite the travel distance being pretty close. Those Panama Canal cruises haven't caused mass layoffs at American Cruise Lines, have they? Ok, here's another option, just declare Vancouver or Victoria distant ports for a season or two and see what happens. Oh no! Will Amtrak have to suspend the Coast Starlight?
  5. So, thanks for the thoughtful response, but you seem to be arguing for the law because of the law. That ATRA was passed means PVSA can be redefined. Also, I'm only suggesting that the passenger restriction be lifted, not that Norwegian Encore can sail one-way cruises between New York and Miami. Foreign (just not Distent) Ports, sure keep it. The ships are already sailing those itineraries. It's just the through Passengers that needs an exemption to allow something that just wasn't a thing 155 years ago and had no economic downside today. Instead of just critizing, maybe add another requirement. Good heavens. These used to be called discussion boards for a reason. ACL river cruises wouldn't be affected. UniCruise larges ship has a capacity of a whopping 86, I'm sure the WA delegation can get a non-specific (but totally specific) provision added. Also, everything you mentioned is at the discretion of Congress. " Costa Concordia. Carnival Splendor. Carnival Triumph. Freedom of the Seas." All irrelevant except.... Consta Condodia was an entirely Italian affair, shipyard, registration, company, captain, departure port. It'd be like Pride of America running aground on Molokini. Protectionism didn't save them.
  6. No, I meant some here say we're wrong to call something stupid just because it's the law. Same situation with the CCCP...er CDCP. The relative ease with which the Alaska exemption was granted suggests a lot of things in the PVSA wouldn't survive reauthorization. 14+ day luxury cruises were not part of the debate in 1886. And let's be realistic, a cruise ship built in Europe and managed by a company based in Florida (I can hit 4 with a frisbee from my houses) or Europe or Hong Kong aren't randomly capsizing or exploding or running aground. Reasonable blanket exemption: voyages longer than 4 nights where each guest is assigned a cabin on ships without vehicle or cargo capacity that do not call on the same US port more than 12 times in a 12 month period.
  7. Hmm.... CDC out of the blue relaxes restrictions.... The next day, Florida wins an injunction.... It's just a PR move so they can claim they were going to do this anyway. They're in retreat mode. I recall somone saying it was Florida that held all the cards...
  8. Winner! Winner! It's not your job or anyone elses. They made their choice, I respect that. But it also means I'm under no obligation to change my behavior it the slightest bit to accommodate them.
  9. 100%, completely, totally stupid. Now just waiting for those to argue we're wrong just becasue it's the law. The original PVSA is 155 years old...I think a few things in life have changed since then.
  10. This was one of the loopiest processes ever. Yes, hard copy only to the stateroom. If you try to log in to the portal, it will say No Results, even after receiving the email. And no, you don't have to go to Singapore to pick them up.
  11. My party had an odd number heading into the ice show so I...wait for it...sat next to a stranger. Neither of us cared, but if all the seats weren't blocked, there could have been 10 seats between us....
  12. $7.49 for most beers and $13 is a good average for menu wines.
  13. FEI, I posted the new drink menu to Instagram. #adventureoftheseas
  14. If that works as well as the Cruise Planner, we'll just swim to Coco Cay.
  15. Like I said, drama much. Nothing happening is an impasse. No one complains when the media speculates about hung juries. 1 out if 5 Federal Bureaucrats can probably recognize that.
  16. This pipe dream is why Venezuelans are starving. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you won't be disheartened.
  17. Srsl? When nothing happens, they're not square dancing. Seems nothing was actually leaked. Nothing is an impass.
  18. No. I am being blocked from making choices. I would board AotS tomorrow even if Royal suddenly announced no protocols, no tests and we're filling every open stateroom with unvax'd guests. I'm more worried about noro than the ccv.
  19. You're right, it's not nonsense. It's destructive. The reaction has caused far more societal damage than the virus. It time to end it all. "stop contagious diseases from coming in over the boarder" Yeah, that ship sailed a year and a half ago. Preventing 2 asymptomatic vax'd persons from reentering the country is not just dumb, it's endangerment. The best care in the world is in the US and they're being blocked from that. Who ever made that decision should be in prison.
  20. The side of caution is not sailing at all. Nothing will stop the virus. It time to end all this nonsense
  21. Oh please...the impass isn't some super super secret. Either way, this is just Royal. Some cruise line is going to say enough! If you're vax'd, we're not going to bother you with any thing.
  22. And by the way folks, this anti-data nonsense is exactly why Governor DeSantis is so resolute in the battle against the Center for Dumb Cruise Protocols.
  23. Unless big pharma gets concerned people start to think the vax isn't effective which is what this decision suggests.
  24. +1. At this rate, it will never end and cruising will never return because they're setting themselves up for inevitable failure. Denying people boarding because the vax is working is even dumber than the CDC...oh, I wonder what ex-bureaucrat they hired... The only solution is to end all testing.
  • Create New...