Mandatory 48 hour stop rule proposed for certain nearby foreign ports

:eek: US PLANS TIGHTENING OF CRUISE SHIP CABOTAGE

http://www.mgn.com/news/dailystorydetails.cfm?storyid=8318

I saw this on Seatrade Insiders today as well. They are proposing that the foreign call be at least 48 hours long or equal 50% of the time spent in US ports. If this passes, then I would imagine that the roundtrip Alaska sailings from Seattle would be impacted as well as possibly the R/T Canada and New England sailings from New York or Boston.

So the US government is going to make their laws more strict rather than loosen them up so that ships like the Pride can just sail around Hawaii and continue to make a fair profit.

This is clearly intended as a bailout for NCLA's Hawaiian problems, which it did to itself with too many complaints of poor service and other problems, even though it seems to have made steady improvement. NCLA must have a good lobbyist. If passed, the stop in Ensenada won't cut it anymore for the Hawaiian cruises, but this really seems to be overreaching, and I wouldn't bet on it.

Les

This is clearly intended as a bailout for NCLA's Hawaiian problems, which it did to itself with too many complaints of poor service and other problems, even though it seems to have made steady improvement. NCLA must have a good lobbyist. If passed, the stop in Ensenada won't cut it anymore for the Hawaiian cruises, but this really seems to be overreaching, and I wouldn't bet on it.

 

Les

I concur! Time to contact our Representatives in DC.

This is clearly intended as a bailout for NCLA's Hawaiian problems, which it did to itself with too many complaints of poor service and other problems, even though it seems to have made steady improvement. NCLA must have a good lobbyist. If passed, the stop in Ensenada won't cut it anymore for the Hawaiian cruises, but this really seems to be overreaching, and I wouldn't bet on it.

Les

As for Hawaii cruises, it used to be they started or ended in Ensenada - while that's not the best arrangement, it is a viable alternative (although the three hour bus ride across the border ain't the best fun).

They are claiming that Ensenada is a stop. Well I've done the Ensenada to Hawaii cruise on the Dawn and I can assure NCL that we never set one foot on the Dawn in California. In fact the Dawn disembarked the previous cruise passengers and sailed away empty to Ensenada while we waved our now empty ship goodbye. Later we boarded the buses to Ensenada for an awful ride just to be able finally board our kidnapped ship.

Wow. And here we thought the Passenger Services Act was decades behind the times. I guess NCL will do anything to get passengers on their ships, even if it means sabotaging the competition. What they don't understand is that people don't WANT to cruise their ships. They could offer them for free and they'd still have problems. Hopefully, Carnival (and it's subsidiaries) and RCCL have more clout than NCL.

This is clearly intended as a bailout for NCLA's Hawaiian problems, which it did to itself with too many complaints of poor service and other problems, even though it seems to have made steady improvement. NCLA must have a good lobbyist. If passed, the stop in Ensenada won't cut it anymore for the Hawaiian cruises, but this really seems to be overreaching, and I wouldn't bet on it.

 

Les

I agree NCL got their way then threw it in everyones face. :eek:

This is clearly intended as a bailout for NCLA's Hawaiian problems, which it did to itself with too many complaints of poor service and other problems, even though it seems to have made steady improvement. NCLA must have a good lobbyist. If passed, the stop in Ensenada won't cut it anymore for the Hawaiian cruises, but this really seems to be overreaching, and I wouldn't bet on it.

 

Les

I don't give it a chance either.

I say we all ban together and boycot NCLA! I would think that with the money the cruise lines bring into California ports, they (the government) would be shooting themselves in the foot. But then again, they are good at doing just that!

This would certainly have a negative impact on the Seattle economy. Seattle based AK cruises stay only 4 hours in their Canadian ports of call, similar to the Ensenada "service calls" on the circle Hawaii trips. And we have been turning around over 300,000 pax per season--along with all of the money they have spent here before and after......NOT GOOD.

I say we all ban together and boycot NCLA!

This would certainly have a negative impact on the Seattle economy. Seattle based AK cruises stay only 4 hours in their Canadian ports of call, similar to the Ensenada "service calls" on the circle Hawaii trips. And we have been turning around over 300,000 pax per season--along with all of the money they have spent here before and after......NOT GOOD.

I would think it would be easy for the lines to adjust their schedules to spend the needed time. Especially on the Alaska routes, they certainly do not far to sail.... it would just be a matter of paying for the additional port time. Same thing with Ensenada... but they may have to sail faster (and burn more fuel) to get the additional port time.

But I agree.... if it is NCL that is pushing this.... it certainly will not help with their image turnaround.

On our Hawaiian cruise, when the captain announced that we would have to skip Kona (our last Hawaiian port) due to high waves, but "the good news" was that we would be heading to Ensenada and would have a full day there...I'm sure you could hear the collective groan all the way back to L.A.

So because NCL can't get enough passengers for its Hawaiian cruises, everyone else has to suffer????? Let's hope this doesn't pass.

What a crock on the loss of 1,000 US jobs. We were on Pride talking to a lot of the staff about this and they were saying that the turnover in staff was so bad in Hawaii that anyone remotely decent would still have their job just be redeployed to the other two ships.

I would think it would be easy for the lines to adjust their schedules to spend the needed time. Especially on the Alaska routes, they certainly do not far to sail.... it would just be a matter of paying for the additional port time. Same thing with Ensenada... but they may have to sail faster (and burn more fuel) to get the additional port time.

 

But I agree.... if it is NCL that is pushing this.... it certainly will not help with their image turnaround.

I seriously doubt that the cruise lines that use SEA as a homeport for Alaska would be willing to expand the 7 night cruises enough to accommodate 48 hours in Canada that would be required with this.

NCLA must have a good lobbyist.

I seriously doubt that the cruise lines that use SEA as a homeport for Alaska would be willing to expand the 7 night cruises enough to accommodate 48 hours in Canada that would be required with this.

I agree. NCL would be cutting off their nose to save their face.

Sounds like some Protectionist in office in some backwater Washington DC office is dreaming this one up.

Bet the same guy wants the "street oil lamps must be maintained" act toughened up as well.

Yeah! On the other hand, I wasn't planning on ever cruising with NCLA in the first place. Hmm..

Don't worry Pam in MA, you won't miss a thing, stay with your plans.

We sailed NCL's POH and the food(all restaurants) and service were the world's worse.....NEVER-EVER again on NCL.

CIAO,

Don't worry Pam in MA, you won't miss a thing, stay with your plans.

We sailed NCL's POH and the food(all restaurants) and service were the world's worse.....NEVER-EVER again on NCL.

 

 

CIAO,

My good friends sailed the NCL POH, they kept on sending "Help Me" posts. They said the food was awful. The only cruise they have ever e-mailed me from.

I can not get the link to work, but once I get some solid information will be writing my government officials as in representatives and senators to protest.

I agree. NCL would be cutting off their nose to save their face.

 

Sounds like some Protectionist in office in some backwater Washington DC office is dreaming this one up.

 

Bet the same guy wants the "street oil lamps must be maintained" act toughened up as well.

I'm a former Princess employee, my daughter works for Majestic America, and her significant other works for Holland America, all of whom have corporate offices here in Seattle, along with Alaska Cruise West. I think I will do a little constructive forwarding of this thread and see if it won't stir up a little bit of interest/action from that quarter, as well.

And, as a travel agent, I guess I would have to think twice about buying or selling the NCL product until the dust settles from this one (don't really sell NCLA much, but do a fair amount of business with the parent company......)

Does anybody know who to contact to register a protest in regards to this rule change? The only person benefiting from this rule change would be NCLA (a company created by bending the PSA rules to begin with because they certainly aren't using US ships). The passengers definitely wouldn't be the ones to benefit. The US based cruiselines wouldn't be the ones to benefit. The US ports of LA, San Diego, and Seattle would definitely be harmed.

I would register a protest with your Congressional representatives and US Senators. They would be a logical starting place.

If you felt up to it, you could also let CLIA know, since they are involved in the comment period up til 21 Dec 07.

FYI

What you are seeing is the lobbying efforts of various cruise lines (NCL among them) attempting to create laws that directly affect their revenue. If you disagree with the goal, contact your government representative. If you don't, please don't bitch about the result (assuming that the law will pass).

Yes, I did get up on the wrong side of the bed today, and yes I am being argumentive. I also am being realistic and honest about my feelings.

:eek: US PLANS TIGHTENING OF CRUISE SHIP CABOTAGE

 

http://www.mgn.com/news/dailystorydetails.cfm?storyid=8318