Can someone please explain the nuts and bolts of all this? What is the 'proposal' referenced in the editorial all about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by canarymoon
Are they wanting to eliminate the Jones Act, or excpand it? Sounds like an expansion if you read it one way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canarymoon
Or is this another issue entirely?
How would it affect Alaskan cruises?
It's basically going to halt the token stops of many cruise itineraries at a foriegn port. It will affect Alaska, Hawaii and many of the shorter cruises from the East and Gulf Coast.
Following article from the:
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection proposal would require foreign-flagged cruise ships that depart from a U.S. port to spend 48 hours in a foreign port. It would also require them to spend more than 24 hours in a foreign port for every two days in a U.S. port.
More time in foreign ports would mean less in U.S. ports, and fewer tourists to spill out of the ships and spend money in places like Portland.
"It could be potentially devastating. There's no question about that," said Jeff Monroe, the city's transportation director.
The proposed change is aimed at helping U.S.-flagged cruise ships based in Hawaii to compete against foreign cruise ships sailing from California by reducing the foreign ships' time in the islands. It would close a loophole that allowed foreign-flagged ships to sail from U.S. ports to Hawaii by stopping briefly in Mexico on the way.
Critics say the sweeping change will imperil hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues and port improvements on the U.S. mainland.
"They've sunk all of this money into cruise facilities and now the government is changing the rules," said Aaron Ellis, communications director for the American Association of Port Authorities.
The Cruise Lines International Association, which represents 24 operators including Carnival Cruise Lines, Celebrity Cruises, Holland America Line and Royal Caribbean International, warns that about 10 million U.S. vacationers stand to have their cruises altered or canceled unless the federal proposal is changed.
In Portland, Monroe predicts that up to 80 percent of cruise ships would have to alter their itineraries. To meet the rules, they might drop Bar Harbor and Portland from their summer and fall cruises on the East Coast.
Together, the two Maine ports accounted for 120 cruise-ship stops last year. More than 150,000 tourists disembarked from the ships, spending money in shops, dining in restaurants and taking shore excursions.
Other U.S. ports would be affected. Key West, Fla., for example, could get skipped altogether by cruise ships traveling from Florida's mainland to the Caribbean. And ships departing from Seattle could be forced to spend more time in British Columbia and less time in Alaska.
"It would be tough to sell an Alaskan cruise if they could only come for one day," said Andrew Green, the Juneau port manager for Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska. Juneau alone would lose an estimated $68 million in direct spending from cruise ships in one summer.
Customs and Border Protection acknowledges that it didn't foresee all of the potential ramifications of the change, which was intended to protect two Norwegian Cruise Line ships that fly the U.S. flag in Hawaii. Rival foreign-flagged competitors based in Los Angeles and San Diego stop briefly in Ensenada, Mexico, before traveling to Hawaii.
The agency's solution to help NCL America was a new interpretation of the 122-year-old Passenger Vessel Services Act, a federal law that forbids foreign-flagged vessels from transporting passengers directly between U.S. ports. To meet the federal requirement, those ships must make a foreign port call as part of their cruise itinerary.
The agency's new interpretation defines a foreign port call as a 48-hour layover, putting a crimp in the itinerary of foreign-flagged ships.
The change was proposed in November and the agency declined to extend the comment period. Because of the timing, there was meager public outcry, Monroe said. "This happened very quietly and right in the middle of the Christmas shopping season," he said.
Glen Vereb, chief of cargo security, carriers and immigration for Customs and Border Protection, said the agency is reviewing more than 1,000 comments, many opposed to the change.
"The door's wide open right now. I'm not quite sure where we're going to end with this, but people have certainly made their opinions loud and clear," he said. "We're taking all of those opinions into account here in making our final rule."
NCL America supports a clarification of the proposed change to make clear that it applies only to the Hawaii market, said Alan Yamamoto, vice president of Hawaii operations for NCL America, in Honolulu.
Maine Sen. Susan Collins, ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said she's confident the agency will revise the rule. If not, she'll ask for hearings.
"It would kill the fledgling cruise-ship business in Maine if this were to go into effect, and I'm determined to ensure that it doesn't," she said.
Wow!
More people certainly need to know about this and get their voices heard.
Would not like to have Alaskan itineraries decimated, or Key West eliminated! And Portland, Bar Harbor, and others would stand to lose a lot, too! Also - what about Catalina?
Whomever Your Congresspeople are. They need to understand that this proposal affects voters of each and every state.
I know one thing, if this goes through I vow never to ever go to Hawaii as long as I live. They will never see a dime directly from me.
Why should the rest of the country pay for a failed business model that everyone told them was a bad move when they first stated a few years back that they were going to do the American flagged vessel with an all american crew. Just another poorly led company looking for a Government Bailout.
Trying to find the other thread, but my eyes are getting tired.
Basically as I see it:
NCLA is having problems with their interstate Hawaiian cruises. So the head guy Veitch (I think that's his name) got Senator Inouye on board with trying to change the PVSA to make it difficult for Princess, HAL and Celebrity to run their popular round trips to Hawaii from the west coast. The senator went to the Maritime Administration and complained that the RTs aren't spending enough time in a foreign port.
At issue is the service stop in Ensenada. so the MarAd is making a big deal about the HAL stop that generally falls around midnight (before heading to the final stop in San Diego). Princess usually would go there around 8pm for about an hour to qualify.
When we were on the cruise, we ended up the whole day (until 6pm) in Ensenada because we eneded up missing our final Hawaiian port. For many of us, it was been there, done that too many times and most of the passengers stayed onboard the ship.
So Veitch was complaining that the non-NCL ships were skirting the law by stopping briefly in Ensenada. (For Pete's sake, it's a Hawaiian cruise, not a Hawaii and Mexico cruise). So what the MarAd and Customs and Border Protection came up with are new rules:
1) The stop in the foreign port for the foreign flagged ships that are going RT from an US port is to be at least 48 hours long.
2) Passengers are to be allowed to get off the ship in this foreign port.
3) The ships are to spend time in foreign ports equal to 50 per cent of time spent in the US ports. So if a ship spends as total of 40 hours in US ports, it must also spend 20 hours in foreign ports.
Again, as I see it, this is a ploy on NCLA's part to try to damage and eliminate the RT west coast - Hawaiian cruises. In order to met those requirements, at least a port or two must be eliminated, the cruise has to be lengthened, or the embarkation/disembarkation must be changed to a foreign port (such as Ensenada, Acapulco, or Vancouver in the case of the Hawaiian cruises).
The reason many of us are up in arms over this is that some people like doing the RT as a way for non-fliers to be able to experience Hawaii. Also, it's a very relaxing type of cruise with several sea days before and after the islands. We think they are two different types of cruises with different target audiences. Some people like to just sail around Hawaii. And others want the longer cruise. If NCLA gets their way and the other cruiselines basically drop the RTs, their passengers are not going to necessarily switch to the Pride ships.
Another repercussion (and a serious one) is that if these cruises go away or move to foreign ports, the cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, as well as Seattle, Boston, and Florida ports will stand to lose millions in tourism dollars. On my cruise (on my CC roll call), we had people coming in from England, Canada, the west coast, Northern California. All those people (at least those I talked to on the roll call thread) came in at least a day early, some for more days than that. They had hotel rooms, bought meals, took taxis and shuttles, went to Universal Studios or Disneyland. My family spent money on a car service, but if we drove in as usual, part of the $12/day parking fee would go to the City of Los Angeles. If those people instead have to be bused to Ensenada or simply take another cruise from elsewhere, the City of LA loses out of millions. the City is already scrapped for funds -- my hubby works in emergency services and they are so short handed, it's scary, and they can't hire anyone due to the hiring freeze.
The irony of all this is that the CPB says that these changes have to be applied to any cruise going from an US port to an US Port (I'm not completely sure if this is just RTs but I'm guessing not). So if a foreign stop has to be several hours long, NCL is in violation on their Alaskan cruises. When that was pointed out the Veitch, he complained that it should just be applied to the Hawaiian cruises.
The time allowed for comments on the CPB site was only about a month or so. Many of us submitted opposing comments as did the Governor of California, the Mayor of LA, the Catalina Chamber of Commerce and so forth. And now, the govenor of Hawaii has expressed opposition as she is concerned that Princess, HAL and Celebrity will cease to sail to Hawaii.
Unfortunately, these revisions are not going to be voted on by Congress. The CPB will make a decision soon. And many people who have booked a cruise that could be affected this year are very nervous.
And all because a company made a poor business decision (and carried it out in a mismanaged way).
Thank you for that very thorough explanation, Patty!
This is could create undesirable consequences for many others besides just a few ships here and there.
When will we learn that there usually ARE unintended consequences affecting many when there is a government 'solution' aimed at elliminating accountability (or responsibility) for the few?
Cruise Line Fans: Cruise Forum, Reviews and Chat From Real Cruisers
-
Centrum Deck
-
Cruise Places
-
United States
-
Hawaii
-
Big concern: future of Hawaiian Cruises
#
#
Linear Mode
