NCL Pride of Aloha

You do realize the Pride of Aloha IS the former NCL Sky?

"Jogger011(Paul) Orofino" wrote:

> Hi Robin
>
> Iam going with a few people this August 15,04
> for 7 days.
>
> We booked an outside stateroom Viking deck.
>
> I will let you know how it goes.
> This will be cruise #3 on NCL my first two were on the SKY.
> Paul Orofino
>
> email paulorofio@

You do realize the Pride of Aloha IS the former NCL Sky, I hope?

"Jogger011(Paul) Orofino" wrote:

> Hi Robin
>
> Iam going with a few people this August 15,04
> for 7 days.
>
> We booked an outside stateroom Viking deck.
>
> I will let you know how it goes.
> This will be cruise #3 on NCL my first two were on the SKY.
> Paul Orofino
>
>

BlankWE are in the process of booking 7 day Pride of Aloha cruise for April
2005. We are hoping someone that has been on the ship can give us some info
on what to expect with: service, food, entertainment, shore excursions.
Robin Butler
snowbaby@ecsis.net

First cruise is now. The preliminary reports of food and service are pretty
dismal. I never did expect great reports from an all-American crew.

hdawson228@ (HDawson228) wrote in message news:<20040714143217.04588.00001380@mb-m10.>...
> First cruise is now. The preliminary reports of food and service are pretty
> dismal. I never did expect great reports from an all-American crew.

Must the ship have an all-American crew to be flagged US? Or, might
they just follow US labor laws and hire any qualified people,
Americans or otherwise? I know they are promoting the American crew
thing, but I was just wondering if that's something they must stick
with?

Lee

>Tell me there is a sub-category that is not allowed 75% of the jobs, but if
>it's PERMANENT residents (non-expiring green cards is the distinction I am
>drawing), then that's outrageous.

You need to convince the unions and Congress to change some laws.

Regards, Keith

Rosalie B. gmbeasley@ wrote:

>Would these people who are working and living in the US WANT to have
>cruise ship jobs? The ones that I know are perfectly happy living
>with their families on land. Why would they want a job with long
>hours and low pay away from their families?
>
>Before you get all bent out of shape about a perceived slight to
>permanent residents, think about that.


No, the majority of the people I know personally in the permanent resident
category about which I spoke, would NOT be interested in most of the cruise
jobs. Most already have advanced degrees and professional jobs, including
doctors, CPA's, etc.

However, someone else in that category of permanent residents with non-expiring
visas might want to be an Officer or Cruise Director or similar, and don't
forget that couples might consider working on a cruise ship together, so one
does not always leave family behind.

I don't know if you are an American citizen or not, but how would you like to
be BARRED from the choice of performing a job in the country where you have
lived and paid taxes for 25+ years? Shouldn't you have the choice whether to
apply or not?

It's the lack of choice, of opportunity which is at question.

rtcreferee@mando (RTCReferee) wrote:

>Rosalie B. gmbeasley@ wrote:
>
>>Would these people who are working and living in the US WANT to have
>>cruise ship jobs? The ones that I know are perfectly happy living
>>with their families on land. Why would they want a job with long
>>hours and low pay away from their families?
>>
>>Before you get all bent out of shape about a perceived slight to
>>permanent residents, think about that.
>
>
>No, the majority of the people I know personally in the permanent resident
>category about which I spoke, would NOT be interested in most of the cruise
>jobs. Most already have advanced degrees and professional jobs, including
>doctors, CPA's, etc.
>
>However, someone else in that category of permanent residents with non-expiring
>visas might want to be an Officer or Cruise Director or similar, and don't
>forget that couples might consider working on a cruise ship together, so one
>does not always leave family behind.
>
>I don't know if you are an American citizen or not, but how would you like to
>be BARRED from the choice of performing a job in the country where you have
>lived and paid taxes for 25+ years? Shouldn't you have the choice whether to
>apply or not?
>
They aren't barred. They can do these jobs as long as the total
number is less than 25% of the crew.

I think you are setting up a straw man here - this is not something to
get your knickers in a knot over.

>It's the lack of choice, of opportunity which is at question.

grandma Rosalie

Rosalie B. <gmbeasley@> wrote in message news:<c20ef0l2db3cdle8qcjf60nth3pb7m2m7k@>. ..

> Would these people who are working and living in the US WANT to have
> cruise ship jobs? The ones that I know are perfectly happy living
> with their families on land. Why would they want a job with long
> hours and low pay away from their families?

Okay, but these are cruise ship jobs aboard a U.S. flagged vessel,
which I understand to mean that U.S. labor laws apply. Although the
actual duties might be the same, the compensation is considerably more
than on foreign flagged ships. Right? Might be a great transitional
job for young adults just entering the workforce and not able to find
satisfactory employment on land, or who are just looking to do
something different. I agree that it's not the kind of job that would
appeal to folks that would be leaving behind families - I'm sure the
financial compensation isn't significant enough to make that
worthwhile. But for those folks that don't have those kinds of ties?
Better than flipping burgers at the local McD's in my opinion.

Lee
>
> Before you get all bent out of shape about a perceived slight to
> permanent residents, think about that.
>
> >Tell me there is a sub-category that is not allowed 75% of the jobs, but if
> >it's PERMANENT residents (non-expiring green cards is the distinction I am
> >drawing), then that's outrageous.
>
> grandma Rosalie

Juliana L Holm jholm@osf1.gmu.edu wrote:

>25% is probably a much larger proportion than their incidence in the U
>Population. While I'm not at all sure I agree with the limits, "outrageous"
>might be overstating it.

The percentage of population is irrelevant, in my opinion.
How would you feel about women being OFFICIALLY BARRED from a certain
percentage of jobs simply because they are women? (not saying it isn't already
being done, unofficially, of course. Take a look at the boardrooms.)