chengkp75

Again, not quite correct, though the vast gray area of "overlapping jurisdiction" is one that keeps admiralty lawyers busy for years. When in a US port, not all US laws apply to the ship. Generally, international maritime law says that things that affect the "safety and well being" of the port state (things external to the ship like customs duties, commerce (like gambling, store sales, and liquor laws), pollution, and safety of the ship) fall under the "port state's" (country where the ship is located) laws apply. But, things that are internal to the ship (like wages, labor laws, etc) fall under the jurisdiction of the "flag state". As the cruise ship offers "accommodation" (rooms and meals) to the public in the US when in a US port, then they have to follow the US' ADA laws with regards to accessibility for those with disabilities. Technically, once the ship leaves US waters, the ADA no longer applies, but cruise lines will continue to abide by the requirements since it is easier to accept the ADA requirements all the time, than to switch back and forth from accepting them to not adhering to them. This is why SCOTUS stated that unless Congress specifically mentions foreign flag cruise ships in the ADA, then the foreign flag cruise ships do not have to meet all of the requirements of the ADA. Further, SCOTUS ruled that international regulations like SOLAS can overrule the ADA in certain instances.

I did not say that the cruise ships "do not come under the ADA". I said that the cruise ships do not fully have to comply with ADA. Spector v NCL showed that foreign flag cruise ships do need to meet certain aspects of the ADA. While I agree that there is abuse of the system in allowing dogs that are not true service animals to pose as such, unfortunately, until the ADA is changed, by Congress (and SCOTUS stated that if Congress changed the wording of the ADA to specifically mention foreign flag cruise ships, then all of the ADA would apply), then there is no way to guarantee that a service dog is a service dog. If you want to change this, talk to the US Congress, who can't get anything done at all, let alone change an existing law. A cruise line's hands are tied with regards to the questions that can be asked regarding a service animal. Should the cruise line ask you whether or not "you really need" your scooter? Part of my job when I worked for NCL was ADA compliance officer.

Yes, the cruise line asks this, but do they ask you why you need a scooter? Nope, and neither should they ask someone why they need a service dog. The scooter makes your life easier and better, so does the service dog. Service dogs are no different than your scooter or walker.

Yes, it is a question of "law or not law". Your state has a law about getting a doctor's letter for a handicap placard. That is the law. The law that governs service animals, the ADA, a federal law, specifically states that establishment owners can only ask two questions regarding service dogs; one, "is that a service animal", and two "what service is the dog trained to provide for the owner". That's it. That is the law, and asking any other questions is against the law. Now, SCOTUS has ruled, in Spector v NCL, that foreign flag cruise ships do not fall entirely under the ADA. Specifically, the cruise ship's "internal policies and procedures" are not subject to the ADA. So, while the ADA requires the cruise line to have accessible cabins, and to not charge more for accessible cabins, the policy of requiring documentation to obtain an accessible cabin is up to the cruise line. Their determination as to whether or not to allow you to book an accessible cabin (their internal policy) is different than their ability to not allow you onboard due to your disability (ADA requirement). Asking whether or not a person needs a service animal onboard is to question and possibly deny that person accommodation on the ship (illegal under the ADA, and not an "internal policy")

No, they don't, just like not all hotels (as you mention) have rooms set aside for dogs.

Really? You feel that people who need service animals should not be allowed in certain places? Or that they shouldn't have a service animal at all? And, it is not ADA "guidelines" that regulate whether or not service animals can be on cruise ships, it is law. So, in order to cruise with a service animal, you are saying that a doctor needs to prescribe the service animal, when the law does not require this? Why is a cruise any different than taking a service dog to Yellowstone, staying in a hotel there, and eating in a restaurant, all with the service dog, and all allowed under the law?

A true service animal meets the "code of conduct" that the DOJ has for service animals covered by the ADA. That includes being trained to only relieve themselves in designated areas, or on command.

The cruise lines are well aware of the ADA requirements. They are also well aware of the bad PR they can get from disallowing someone who claims to have a service animal that really isn't.

Most likely correct, but since there is no requirement for a service dog to have a harness, sign, or any other distinctive marking, there isn't really a distinction between a "legitimate" one and a non-legitimate one.

I agree, but your statement was "no dogs in food areas period". That statement precludes service dogs.

Sorry, but the ADA allows service dogs to be in food service areas like restaurants. Typically, they will lie under the table.

That is a corporate/hospitality question that's not really in my wheelhouse. A lot depends on how well off financially the company is, and how well the ship is being booked. If interest in the ship is dropping (less bookings), then they will look at what can be done to "refurbish" the image and improve the bookings. But, if the company is doing well financially, then around the 8-10 year mark they will look at revamping things.

May be fiscally ignorant, but how does depreciation come into play for a corporation that does not pay any corporate tax?

But, the ADA specifically states there are only two places a service dog should be, and a stroller is not one of them.

In the first picture, the dog is not in compliance with the rules of the ADA, but at least in the second picture it is. The ADA states, unequivocally that a service dog has to be in one of two allowable locations: on the floor, or in the owner's arms, or a chest carry harness. Small dogs, typically for diabetics, are allowed to be kept in the owner's arms or a chest carry harness, if they need to be close to the owner's face to detect keto acidosis. I cannot think of a "service" that a small dog would provide for a person with a knee brace, sine the person would still have to bend down to the dog. Those with allergies to a dog do not have the right to challenge the person with the dog as to whether it is a service dog or not, but do have the right to challenge the cruise line about it.

The shipping agency will depend on what cruise line you are going on. There are 4 ship agencies in San Juan, I don't know which agency handles which cruise lines.

I think the OP is conflating "refurbishment" with "drydock". Many CC members confuse the two ideas. A drydock is a statutory inspection/repair period for mechanical/infrastructure inspection/maintenance/repair of the ship's systems. As Andy has noted above, every ship that lists it's "last refurbishment" in 2017, has had a drydock since then, but not necessarily a "refurbishment". A "refurbishment" is an overhaul/update of the amenities of the hotel side of the ship's operation. While, generally, "refurbishments" are conducted at the same time as a drydock inspection (simply because the ship is already out of service for the drydocking), there is nothing mandatory about a "refurbishment", and a ship can do a drydocking without doing any significant "refurbishment" to the hotel side. While maintenance to the hotel side will normally be done in a drydocking (piecemeal replacement of carpeting, new mattresses, furniture reupholstery, etc), these are generally not referred to as "refurbishments" in cruise sites that list these things. A "refurbishment", as denoted by these sites, generally refers to times where new venues and activities are added to the the ship (removing other, older venues and activities), new cabins are installed, or major changes to the decor of the hotel. Again, none of these "refurbishment" actions are "required" at any time, and given the financial straits the cruise lines are currently in, are not high on their list of "things to do". They will do a cost/benefit analysis to see if, in their opinion, the cost of a "refurbishment" is outweighed by the potential benefit of increased bookings or potential higher fares based on the new amenities the proposed "refurbishment" provides.

Not being an accounting or finance wizard, let me get this straight. The debt the line has only affects whether they can borrow more to build new ships? Who is paying the interest on this debt? Where in the revenue and cost analysis does this interest come into play? Since you are looking at the SEC filings, how much interest does CCL pay on their debt, and what does that work out to in terms of debt/passenger-day? How much has debt service gone up between pre-Covid and now?

Because nothing in the video accounts for the massive amount of debt load the cruise lines accrued during Covid.

I'm not disputing that a typical cruise ship crew member makes an "upper middle class" income in their home country. Just that the "room and board" savings is not quite as large an aspect as some would think.

By far the most common cruise ship fire I've experienced (about 3 or 4) were in the incinerator silos. For those not familiar, the incinerators are fed with shredded paper and cardboard to burn. This material is fed by crew into a shredder, and then falls into a hopper that holds about 6 cubic meters of waste. The fires typically happen when the crew are not totally vigilant in sorting the garbage, and a piece of metal (commonly a AA battery) gets chewed up in the shredder, causing a spark, which ignites the shredded waste in the hopper. This smoldering paper/cardboard is then covered by more paper/cardboard, and partially smothered, so it remains a smolder. Once the ship leaves port, and the incinerator is fired up, as the waste is fed into the incinerator, the smolder moves closer to the surface, until it gets enough oxygen to ignite, and then you've got a fire in the hopper. The hopper is fitted with a steam smothering system which replaces the oxygen with steam to put the fire out, but then you've got 6 cubic meters of wet paper/cardboard that won't dry out, and won't burn in the incinerator. So, we try to contain the burn, and feed the burning material into the incinerator as fast as possible, and let it burn where it is supposed to burn.

The room and board issue comes up every time crew compensation is discussed. Unless the crew member is single, and living with his/her parents, then he/she has an apartment or home that is either unoccupied, or occupied by the crew member's family, while the crew member is on the ship, so they are still paying rent/mortgage while on the ship, and if they have a family, they are still paying for utilities and food while on the ship. As for medical, that only applies to the crew member, not family, nor to the crew member when not on the ship.

Your facts are not quite correct. The $666/month is the minimum wage for seafarers, and is based on a 40 hour work week. Hours in excess of 40/week have to be paid at 125% of the base wage ($3.84/hour base x 125% = $4.80/hour overtime). So, given that the average cruise ship crew works about 90 hours/week, that is around $1500/month. Both you and TRLD are somewhat correct about the hours worked. Cruise lines can choose to adopt either the STCW "work hours" regime, or the STCW "rest hours" regime. The "work hours" says a maximum of 10 hours per day of work, while the "rest hours" regime says that the crew must have a minimum of 77 hours rest in any 7 day period (or 90 hours of work). So, the deck and engine departments will work about 84 hours/week, while the hotel crew will work between 84-90 hours/week. Regardless, each crew member is paid for each hour worked, whether at base wage or overtime, even though it does not show on their contract or pay voucher as being "per hour", it is calculated by the cruise line into a monthly salary based on how many hours of work are specified in the contract. The salary calculation is not "supplemented" by the daily gratuity, the DSC is factored in as a part of the monthly salary. This is specified in the crew's contract as their salary is made up by X% salary, and X% DSC. And, until the removal of DSC drops the monthly salary below the minimum of $666, the cruise line does not have to make up the difference. I didn't find anything new in the video, as it has been known in the industry for decades that the cruise fare basically covers the ship's operating expenses, and the profit comes from "onboard revenue". And, as the writer says, the "economies of scale" are what is driving the cruise lines to larger and larger ships.

But, steamers are not even a miniscule user of water, so that is not a concern.

Oh, yes, RCI makes bundles and bundles of money from the few people who send clothes out to get ironed. It is risk/reward. Banning hair care appliances would cause a great uproar (high risk, potential loss of customers), to a high reward as well (limiting heating appliances), while banning steamers is low risk (not many complaints) to high reward (limiting heating appliances). The insurance premium the ship pays is based on this risk/reward calculation. The irons the ship provides are inspected, tested, and repaired on a regular basis, something the cruise line cannot do to passengers' appliances. As someone who has fought shipboard fires, has worked with shipboard electrical systems, and understands maritime risk/reward considerations for over 4 decades, I personally would like to see hair appliances banned as well, but I also know that that would never happen, so you adjust to the risk.