Thread: Cruise routes could change

Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 --now you know how it started.

Cruise routes could change

By Joe Malinconico
Newhouse News Service and Seattle Times Travel staff
Cruise ships, including those sailing from Seattle to Alaska, could face significant changes in itineraries under proposed new U.S. regulations.
Most cruise liners would be required to stay 48 hours at foreign ports, instead of the token visits that are used now to meet an existing law. Also, many popular cruise routes would have to be reconfigured if the regulations take effect.

For example, Alaska-bound cruises from Seattle could be compelled to make longer port stops in British Columbia or could drop Seattle as their starting port and switch to Vancouver, B.C. Cruises from San Diego to Hawaii, which currently make a very brief stop in Ensenada, Mexico, also would be significantly affected.

Critics of the proposal say the changes would devastate the cruise industry, cost thousands of jobs and imperil ports that depend on the travel trade. It's unclear when the proposed federal regulations could be imposed or modified.
"The proposal would cause immediate, significant economic harm to the U.S. port industry," said Kurt Nagle, president of the American Association of Port Authorities.

Seattle's cruise industry has boomed in the past decade with five companies offering weeklong cruises between Seattle and Alaska during this year's cruise season, which begins in the spring. More than 200 cruise-ship visits and nearly 754,605 passengers are expected this year, according to the Port of Seattle.
Maritime officials, however, insist that cruise regulations need to be changed to prevent foreign-flagged ships from gaining an unfair advantage over American vessels.

The proposed revisions in Customs regulations stem from a Pacific Ocean tempest involving a 19th-century U.S. law and the cruise lines that serve Hawaii.

The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 was a stroke of protectionism designed to give American merchant ships a monopoly on U.S. coastline trade, including passenger travel, by putting restrictions on foreign carriers. Under the law, foreign-flagged carriers were prohibited from carrying passengers between American ports without first stopping at a foreign terminal.

Now, fast-forward to the 21st century.
In recent years, American-flagged cruise-ship companies began complaining that foreign competitors were making a mockery of the 19th-century law by running ocean liners between California and Hawaii that stopped for an hour in Mexico — which authorities considered an "evasion" of the requirement for a foreign-port visit.

The U.S. Maritime Administration, which promotes the American-flagged ship industry (which includes several Norwegian Cruise Line ships that sail among the Hawaiian islands), asked U.S. Customs and Border Protection to craft rules to prevent such maneuvers.

"They were stopping at 2 a.m. at Ensenada and leaving at 3 a.m.," said U.S. Maritime Administrator Sean Connaughton. "It was right on their Web site. It said it was only a service call and no passengers could get off the ship there."
But because the current regulations do not stipulate how long a ship must stop at a foreign port, the only way to prevent the practice was to draw up more specific rules, Connaughton said.

The agency came up with a proposal that included three new requirements on foreign carriers, including: the stop at a foreign port last at least 48 hours; the total time spent at foreign ports be at least half the total time spent at U.S. ports on the cruise; and passengers must be allowed to go ashore during the stop at the foreign port.

Last year, Customs officials asked for public comments on the proposal. They were deluged with more than 1,000 submissions. Those included letters from the ports group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Cruise Lines International Association — all of which are strongly opposed to the changes.

The new regulations would affect only foreign-flagged cruise ships, but that accounts for the vast majority of them. The Cruise Lines International Association, which says it represents about 97 percent of the cruise industry in this country, says that only five of its members' 175 oceangoing cruise ships sail under the American flag.

Running a U.S.-flagged cruise ship tends not to be as profitable as operating one under a foreign flag, officials said. That's because U.S. ships face a host of hurdles — including taxes, labor issues and safety inspections — that don't apply to foreign-flagged cruise liners, said Glen Vereb, the Customs chief overseeing the cruise industry.

Vereb said it may take weeks or months before officials decide whether to adopt the proposals, scrap them or modify them.

Kristin Jackson of the Seattle Times Travel staff contributed to this report: kjackson@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

I have been reading about this for some time now.

The Hawaiian route would not be drastically affected -- those cruises (for HAL) would just have to become 17 day cruises instead of 15 day cruises -- not a big problem there. I can't speak for the other cruise lines.

But Alaska -- that would affect them - BIG TIME. Many people take those cruises for the ports -- new rules would mean that less time in ports and cutting out ports. Very bad for Alaska.

Yep...big changes would have to be made.

This article was brought to our attention by Janice (stanford's girl) It is the first one to tell why this act came into being in the first place.

Wouldn't a cruise be able to get around this part of the rule all together by leaving from Ensenada or Vancouver and then going to Hawaii and San Deigo? Or from Vancouver to Alaska and back. Or the current one ways from Vancouver to Anchorage?

Suzanne .... I was wondering the same thing as you?

There are a lot of popular round trip Alaska routes that start in one of the California ports or Seattle. Those would be cut unless they stay 48 hours or longer in Canada. It's not engraved in stone and I think the negative outcry will have an effect on what is finally done.

Round trip Hawaii would be impossible unless 2 days (or more, depending on the final wordage) are spent in a foreign port. Don't know about round trip Hawaii from Ensenada...that would depend on what kind of deal could be made with the Mexican government. It would make it more expensive and very inconvenient, in my opinion.

HAL could easily do round trips for Hawaii -- instead of them 15 days -- they would have to change to 18 days -- spend 2 days in Cabo and then head back to San Diego -- or spend 1 day in Cabo and a day in Ensenada.

Having all cruises go out of Vancouver -- that would be a nightmare. There are quite a few ships that sail our of there already on both round trips and cruises that begin there and end in Seward, Whittier, etc. To suddenly have all ships go from there -- Canada would love it but Seattle would hate it.

We have done quite a few cruises out of Vancouver. But for us it is easier to fly into Seattle and then transfer to Vancouver. To get to Vancouver from Pittsburgh - more expensive -- very few air lines have just one stop -- thus making for a very long day.

Originally Posted by Krazy Kruizers

I have been reading about this for some time now.

The Hawaiian route would not be drastically affected -- those cruises (for HAL) would just have to become 17 day cruises instead of 15 day cruises -- not a big problem there. I can't speak for the other cruise lines.

But Alaska -- that would affect them - BIG TIME. Many people take those cruises for the ports -- new rules would mean that less time in ports and cutting out ports. Very bad for Alaska.

Actually I would have to disagree about that with the Hawaiian route. In order for a cruiseship to go roundtrip from LA or San Diego, Princess, Celebrity and HAL would have to cut time in the Hawaiian Islands, which is the destinations considered to be The Cruise. Most likely all the lines would not go for the additonal days. In fact, the Princess' RT is going from a 15-day cruise to a 14-day cruise next fall.

And if that proposed 50 per cent rule goes into effect, definitely a port or two would be eliminated.

The other option would be to change the embarkation and/or disembarkation ports to Ensenada. For many, this is not tenable.

Originally Posted by CruiseArizona

Wouldn't a cruise be able to get around this part of the rule all together by leaving from Ensenada or Vancouver and then going to Hawaii and San Deigo? Or from Vancouver to Alaska and back. Or the current one ways from Vancouver to Anchorage?

Yes. But for many of us who have done this sailing, it wouldn't be the same. If the problem is truly HAL's midnight service stop, then why not let them know to change it to the daytime. Not penalize all the cruiselines who do the RT. The real purpose of the 48 hour stop in Ensenada is a ploy on NCLA's part to eliminate the competition because of their red ink.

Because of a small number of ships (now two) doing the interstate Hawaiian cruises (not "several" as the story states), several US ports will end up losing millions of dollars in tourism dollars. Just think of every passenger who flies into Los Angeles and San Diego, then stays at least a night in a hotel, and eats in the restaurants. Perhaps take in the Aquarium of the Pacifc or shop at Frederick's of Hollywood or at Farmer's Market. Then catches a shuttle or taxi to the port.

Even us locals contribute to the economy by parking at the Port, with a percentage of the parking fees going to the city.

As someone who enjoyed a roundtrip to Hawaii, and have been among those discussing this for over a month on the ds (the last time I looked, there's been a thread of over 800 replies), NCL is not coming out of this looking good. If their goal was to eliminate the RTs to Hawaii so as to increase numbers on their Pride ships, I can honestly say that this won't happen. Many people have said that if the RTs cease to exist, they would either not return to Hawaii (which is why the governor of Hawaii has now come out against the changes) or else fly there and just do a land vacation.

On our cruise, we were in Ensenada several hours. We got off the ship just long enough for hubby to buy his mother a trinket at that little marketplace next to the pier, and then return to the ship, where, I'm guessing, about 80 per cent of the passengers just stayed onboard.

Sorry to come off really strong, but as the wife of a City of LA employee who keeps hearing that the city is in financial straits, I would hate to see more money going away. Also, I would hate to see several popular itineraries be changed or eliminated just because of a bad business decision on NCL's part a few years ago.