Carnival/Baltimore/EPA law suits...threats to leave

According Gene Sloan..."

Some of the reasons CCL has not listed upcoming cruises from Balt. after April 2014. The Sun reports, "Carnival threatens to pull ship from Baltimore over air-quality mandate"

Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-gr-omalley-carnival-pollution-20130616,0,825696.story#ixzz2XDosRKa8

Thanks for sharing this article.

Keith

It is my opinion that they should not worry to much about the cruise threats. Carnival seems to believe they are above everyone else. It is to our benefit that the EPA is acting and I stand behind them 100%.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

According Gene Sloan..."

Some of the reasons CCL has not listed upcoming cruises from Balt. after April 2014. The Sun reports, "Carnival threatens to pull ship from Baltimore over air-quality mandate"

 

Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-gr-omalley-carnival-pollution-20130616,0,825696.story#ixzz2XDosRKa8

With the diesel mandate being an EPA nationwide mandate, it sounds like the overall number of ships calling U.S. ports their home could decline--and not just Carnival ships. I had recently read that Carnival's contract at Baltimore is a 5 year deal signed in 2011, but only the first two years are firm with the last 3 years being three one year options. And August 2013 is when the 2 year timeframe runs out.

We might end up having to fly to ports in the Caribbean to embark. The winners in that scenario are the Caribbean ports and the airlines. The losers would be U.S. ports and Carnival. The airfare cost would make cruising cost prohibitive for some.

With the diesel mandate being an EPA nationwide mandate, it sounds like the overall number of ships calling U.S. ports their home could decline--and not just Carnival ships. I had recently read that Carnival's contract at Baltimore is a 5 year deal signed in 2011, but only the first two years are firm with the last 3 years being three one year options. And August 2013 is when the 2 year timeframe runs out.

 

We might end up having to fly to ports in the Caribbean to embark. The winners in that scenario are the Caribbean ports and the airlines. The losers would be U.S. ports and Carnival. The airfare cost would make cruising cost prohibitive for some.

While not as stringent, yet, worldwide emissions standards for ships will get tighter in the next few years as well. There is a reason that the majority of cruise ships home port in the US, the demographics. Most cruisers are US, and the fuel increases will not change that, and the lines will not move their ships away from US ports. As you say, this would make cruising prohibitive due to airfares, just when lines are starting to embrace the "home port cruising" concept of multiple home ports, not just all ships based in Florida.

The EPA estimates the increase in fuel cost to be $7 pp/pd (though I think that is low, IMHO around $20 pp/pd), but using the EPA number, this would be like the fuel surcharges from a few years ago, and that did not bring about a decrease in cruising. Even at $140 pp for a 7 day cruise, that is less than the airfare to/from a Caribbean home port.

RCI and NCL have been granted waivers to the EPA fuel standards, as they are actively testing scrubbers, which is acceptable to the IMO regulations. Until Carnival ponies up the money to test scrubbers, there is little hope of their getting a waiver. Carnival realizes that fuel increases in US waters is the future business model, but is trying to obtain concessions from Baltimore on dock fees, etc.

With the diesel mandate being an EPA nationwide mandate, it sounds like the overall number of ships calling U.S. ports their home could decline--and not just Carnival ships. I had recently read that Carnival's contract at Baltimore is a 5 year deal signed in 2011, but only the first two years are firm with the last 3 years being three one year options. And August 2013 is when the 2 year timeframe runs out.

 

We might end up having to fly to ports in the Caribbean to embark. The winners in that scenario are the Caribbean ports and the airlines. The losers would be U.S. ports and Carnival. The airfare cost would make cruising cost prohibitive for some.

I am not an expert by any means but by sailing out of Baltimore the ship has to meet the mandate the entire time it is transiting the Cheasapeake Bay before entering international waters. Sailing from Miami or other ports international waters are reached much quicker so the impact is not so great.

It would be a shame if the Pride leaves Baltimore. It is not like they did not know about this mandate in advance.

It makes it difficult to plan ahead, or even qualify for cruise sales as they come along:confused:

It makes it difficult to plan ahead, or even qualify for cruise sales as they come along:confused:

My guess is that they will blitz it pretty big, once they are done deciding what to do. Rumor is that it is all tied to this ECO stuff.

It's sort of ironic that the EPA would be gunning for cruise ships sailing out of Baltimore. I would think that there are bigger fish to fry in that area of Charm City, LOL.

It's sort of ironic that the EPA would be gunning for cruise ships sailing out of Baltimore. I would think that there are bigger fish to fry in that area of Charm City, LOL.

It is actually not just cruise ships, it is all ships that burn that fuel (at least my understanding) and not only country wide but world wide I believe. This is not something new and has been on the radar scope for a while.

It is actually not just cruise ships, it is all ships that burn that fuel (at least my understanding) and not only country wide but world wide I believe. This is not something new and has been on the radar scope for a while.

I get it, but my comment (tongue in cheek) is more to why Governor O'Malley is looking for an exception. On a weekday when all of the factories, etc. are in full use Baltimore can be a stinky, smoky mess! I hope (as a part-time resident on the Bay, 8 miles from the city) that we aren't being subjected to a slow death by toxins, but I have my doubts.

I get it, but my comment (tongue in cheek) is more to why Governor O'Malley is looking for an exception. On a weekday when all of the factories, etc. are in full use Baltimore can be a stinky, smoky mess! I hope (as a part-time resident on the Bay, 8 miles from the city) that we aren't being subjected to a slow death by toxins, but I have my doubts.

Understand, they are using him as pressure to make their point or to make concessions on port fees. Great if it works, lousy for the city and state and cruisers...if it does not.

other ideas for locations if we lose Baltimore as a home port, Norfolk Va it is near the mouth of the Bay and is a reasonable drive from Baltimore. If not there then How about Savannah Ga they are talking about building a cruise port without anybody promising them a ship. it is a long drive for Marylanders I feel sorry for them for to lose a cruise ship is awful. But I live south of Atlanta it would be great for us. The EPA is not controlled by anyone, they do what they want and doesn't care about people losing jobs.

There is an article in The Virginian Pilot this morning about Carnival , discussing whether we will have a ship here next year. There was no mention of the EPA. The article stated that John Heald's Facebook response that Carnival will not call on Norfolk in 2014 means that they have not given this info yet. I think when we sailed on the Maasdam 10 or so years ago, we were passing the North Carolina outer banks after late dinner.So it only takes a few hours to be out of the Chesapeake Bay.Wishing for some sailings from Norfolk, but would hate to see Baltimore lose their ships.