quote:

---

Ship forced to leave V.I. for not providing passenger data

By TIM FIELDS

Wednesday, January 28th 2004

ST. THOMAS - The U.S. Coast Guard ordered the Oceana cruise ship out of St. Thomas Harbor on Tuesday morning after the ship failed to provide a list of the names and citizenship of its 2,870 passengers and crew.

While the ship's tenders, which were full of passengers, did reach the waterfront Tuesday morning, the Coast Guard sent them all back to the ship, Coast Guard spokesman Lt. John Reinert said.

"The ship did not have the information required, so they had to leave the harbor," he said.

The company's failure to provide the required information kept passengers from coming ashore and cost local businesses more than $425,000, based on per passenger and crew spending estimates compiled by the Virgin Islands Bureau of Economic Research.

This is the second time Oceana, which is based in England, has failed to provide required manifest information to the Coast Guard, Reinert said. It received a written warning in May.

The P&O Cruises ship docked at 7:45 a.m. and left at 12:30 p.m. for Antigua, the ship's next scheduled port.

"We have not enjoyed a day on St. Thomas today," said Bronwen Griffith, a spokesperson for P&O Cruises.

While Griffith would not confirm the ship received a previous warning, she said the Coast Guard forced the ship to leave because it was not satisfied with the ship's ledger information.

Oceana and its 1,970 passengers and 900 crew were nearing the end of a 15-day Caribbean cruise, and St. Thomas was the only stop in U.S. waters, she said.

Since Oceana visited St. Thomas in December with no problems, Griffith would not comment on why the company failed to deliver the names and citizenship information to the Coast Guard on Tuesday.

"We are taking all measures to fulfill the requirements of all our ports of call," Griffith said.

Oceana and another P&O ship, Oriana, average two to three calls per year to St. Thomas, said West Indian Co. Chief Executive Officer Edward Thomas.

Oriana is scheduled to call on St. Thomas on March 13, and Oceana will return to St Thomas on March 23.

Foreign cruise ships calling on U.S. ports must electronically submit the names and citizenship of their passengers and crew to the National Vessel Movement Center, which is part of the Coast Guard.

The center sends the information to the Coast Guard's Ship Arrival Notification System, where local branches can verify the ship's information.

"The Oceana did not have this information in our system when they arrived," Reinert said.

Foreign ships must provide this information 96 hours before arriving at port, and domestic vessels must provide the information 24 hours before arrival.

The notification has been required since November 2001 under a mandate by the U.S. Homeland Security Department.

While the regulations have been in effect several years, the Coast Guard had been issuing only warnings when ships failed to comply - not turning them away.

"This action is part of an enforcement stance were taking now, and it's to the point now where everyone should be on the same page," he said. "We've offered them a grace period to get used to the requirements."

With the new enforcement plan in place, turning away ships from the territory should not pose a threat to the local tourism industry because nearly all vessels calling on St. Thomas comply, Reinert said.

In the last year, the Coast Guard has issued warnings to only two other cruise lines calling on St. Thomas - Pullmantur and Norwegian Cruise Lines.

Both companies are now providing that information consistently, he said.

With each cruise ship passenger spending an average $175 and each crew member spending an average $90 per visit, losing Oceana for a day is unfortunate, but the ship could have stayed, Thomas said.

The Coast Guard and WICO offered to allow the ship to dock once P&O provided the information. Thomas said he had arranged to have the ship dock at Havensight at 6 p.m. and stay until midnight, once the manifest was processed.

"The captain could have anchored 12 miles out and come back later on. He may have been mad because he was forced to leave," Thomas said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grant:
British security screening of passengers boarding their vessels is adequate to provide a safe cruise environment.

---

[ 01-31-2004: Message edited by: Landlocked Cruiser ]

St Thomas were not pleased with the decision either and wanted the ship back later.. some chance.

Seems as if something was submitted and initially OK'd, but on referring on to SJ, they declined it?
The whole thing is daft imo.. Nitty Gritty and as bad as flying into the US these days.. [the EU agreed credit card details may be submitted as demanded by the US, prior to departure on airlines, so people are not going], Tourism must be way down.

Other cruise lines [Olsen] aren't even bothering to call re the hassles encountered in 2002. Maybe P&O will move on too. Interesingly, Oceana's cruises this month were originally scheduled in the 1st brochure to start/end in FLL... at some point it was changed to Barbados. Wonder why?

Anyway, even those from countries that are a part of the visa waiver program will not be exempt forever. You will need a biometric passport to enter or you won't be allowed in. Eventually, it applies to EVERYONE.

[ 01-31-2004: Message edited by: CGT ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grant:
From reading other comments regarding this matter, it seems that P & O presented the material on time but in a manner not satisfactory to US officials. It seems as if the ship's documents were kept and presented in a manner that has always been followed by all British ships, and that the problem was that it was done in the manner the US required. The documents were present, they contained all the necessary information, were in the style followed for decades, were in the manner that ports throughout the world required and were acceptable to the rest of the world. The purser's office also held for inspection 100% of the passenger's and crew's passports. Not good enough-too bad, raise the anchor and head for friendlier shores.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grant:
From reading other comments regarding this matter, it seems that P & O presented the material on time but in a manner not satisfactory to US officials.

---

They had already received a written warning that they were doing it improperly. It's brazen of them to think they can continue doing it improperly and still make port calls. When I visit a foreign country if I don't give the authorities the information they want in the manner they desire you won't see me getting in either! And the U.S. gave P&O a second chance (actually a third if you consider their first written warning) but they apparently were too offended to correct their error.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Commodore:
as well as the poor intelligence warning of attacks every 6 weeks

---

I'm no fan of GWB but what makes you think the intelligence when they raise the threat level is "poor"?

[ 01-31-2004: Message edited by: CGT ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Commodore:
Well, we wind up doing things such as delaying flights, which just wasted time as it turned out, but somehow the "shoebomber" managed to sneak through. Not that all of it's bad, just that I don't have too much faith in it after all it's failures in the very recent past.

---

Delayed flights to give the plane and passengers an extra once over when threats are detected are not a "waste of time."

Richard Reid, the "shoebomber" got through in Paris, and as of yet, shoes were not something being checked out. That was over two years ago, I might add, just three months after 9/11.

As for "failuers" in the recent past, I guess if they didn't cancel one of the flights that were warned about and it blew up you would consider that an intelligence "success"? Does it not occur to you that flights that have been canceled or delayed have been security and intelligence "successes" because those planes and passengers are still with us today???

[ 01-31-2004: Message edited by: CGT ]

The P&O Purser definitely needs a slap -- "contact counselling" -- for not doing his job properly. But was an incorrectly-completed form adequate reason to turn away a shipload of mostly-elderly passengers, all of whom will have been screened several times during the air/sea journey, and their thousands of pounds of spending money?

[ 01-31-2004: Message edited by: Ocean Liners ]

and to see Full article St. Thomas Source

quote:

---

Princess Cruises is the U.S. division of P & O Cruises. The Oceana has a maximum passenger capacity of 2,250. Edward Thomas, president of The West Indian Co., the ship's V.I. agent, was very disappointed at the turn of events. "Unfortunately, that ship didn't have its paperwork in place for the federal authorities," he said. "They are required to present documentation, and this problem has occurred before with the ship and they got a verbal warning from the Coast Guard, so they will take action this time.

"We had hoped the ship would go out of the harbor and get its paperwork squared away and come back, Thomas said, "but the captain elected to leave. I guess he was just annoyed. He said he is not coming back."

Thomas rued the lost revenue the ship represented. "It was carrying 1,970 passengers with about 700 crew," he said. "And one of the ship's tenders was approaching the waterfront when it was told to turn back. I can imagine the passengers' frustration."

When asked why the ship didn't have its paperwork in order, Thomas replied, "It's a British ship, and it operates directly out of British headquarters, so I'm not sure they were aware of the rules. It's not like Royal Caribbean or Carnival Cruise Lines, who are regular callers."

In contrast, Thomas reflected on Saturday's call from the Queen Mary 2, a day when 11,000 cruise ship visitors came to our shores without any paperwork problems.

Although the lost revenue from the Oceana is troubling, Thomas said he looked forward to Wednesday's arrival of eight ships.

---

[ 02-01-2004: Message edited by: Ocean Liners ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Commodore:
I don't think the passengers should've been anti-American or disrespectful. Surely both sides at least are partly to blame.

---

That both sides have a sertain blame to this all i agree. buth things must be split.
After 9/11 the American government take so called security mesures that insulted not only the rights of the Americans buth also the same rights off many people around the world. Some European governments the Brittish, also the Dutch falowed as iff there where blind. Not listening to there own poeple. What you now seeing is that specialy fore the British poeple is that they begin to hate there own government. Here in the Netherlands we find that oure Premier is to pro Bush and cooperate to much with his polici so he's not populair (we don't think his home polici in general is good)

So it is obvious that what happend with the Oceania that the passengers will showed there feelings toward the American boarder control. So iff singin Rule Brittania is not showing respect to America.

~Brian