Norwegian Wants $4 More Per Day

[newmexicoNita]

And in vacations, all that money is discretionary spend. So the best way to part my money from me is to create a good value - then I am happy to spend it.

 

I like the unlimited beverage and dining packages - if those are of interest then they are a great value. A single watered down drink at 8.95 going up to 9.95 is NOT a good value and I won't buy more than a few of those!

 

I don't care for NCL's nickel and diming at bakery, ince cream, pizza, coffee, etc. Royal Carribean and Carnival both give you more basics and are a little more free-style in that regard.

 

Your idea of nickel and diming may differ from others. OUr grandaughter and her husband did a RCi cruise in Novermber. They can't wait to return to NCl, based mainly on the NandD they experienced on Royal C. You mention a single watered down drink for $8.95; what kind of drink are you talking about? Hubby always gets gin or vodka tonic, or he has a scotch; no where near the price you are quoting. When did you pay that kind of money? I get a martini, even they are not $8.95 unless I call certain bands. Maybe my math isn't so good, but I don't understand how a 6.7% increase on an 8.95 drink comes up to a $1.00? BTW, what NCL ships have you cruised? According to your bio, you haven't.

Edited March 2, 2015 by newmexicoNita

[detroitlions]

First off, the price of bunker fuel is a lot less volatile than gasoline or crude oil. While gasoline has been falling for months, the price of bunker fuel has remained steady, and only started a marginal drop in February. Offset this with the requirement that as of 1 January, 2015, the ships must burn the much more expensive low sulfur diesel fuel while within 200 miles of the US coast, rather than the cheaper residual fuel they have been burning for decades (diesel is about twice the cost of residual fuel).

There are more variations in the prices of all the above fuels than what you stated. What you quoted is the part the media speaks of. The diesel fuel you speak of is cheaper right now it just did not take as big of a dip as gasoline. All the Diesel sold in my area is low sulfer and the ships diesels are not much different. The only people that use higher sulfer content are farmers.

[detroitlions]

Your idea of nickel and diming may differ from others. OUr grandaughter and her husband did a RCi cruise in Novermber. They can't wait to return to NCl, based mainly on the NandD they experienced on Royal C. You mention a single watered down drink for $8.95; what kind of drink are you talking about? Hubby always gets gin or vodka tonic, or he has a scotch; no where near the price you are quoting. When did you pay that kind of money? I get a martini, even they are not $8.95 unless I call certain bands. Maybe my math isn't so good, but I don't understand how a 6.7% increase on an 8.95 drink comes up to a $1.00? BTW, what NCL ships have you cruised? According to your bio, you haven't.

But when people refer to NCL as nickle and dimeing I seen how it was different years ago when folks that travelled Royal or CC then tried NCL. NCL were the first to have multiple pay extra meal options. Some old school cruisers were turned off from it. Now all the cruise lines have pay extra venues. So there is no differnce which you cruise. I do not apprecitate point of veiws from a fan boy of one cruise line. You will not get a objective point of veiw.

[detroitlions]

First off, the price of bunker fuel is a lot less volatile than gasoline or crude oil. While gasoline has been falling for months, the price of bunker fuel has remained steady, and only started a marginal drop in February. Offset this with the requirement that as of 1 January, 2015, the ships must burn the much more expensive low sulfur diesel fuel while within 200 miles of the US coast, rather than the cheaper residual fuel they have been burning for decades (diesel is about twice the cost of residual fuel).

The term bunker fuel could mean any fuel including steam or coal it is a old term they used for the area on the ship that contained the fuel. Diesel Engines: cruise ships are typically powered by four or five medium-speed (500 revolutions per minute) generator sets, which are fueled by diesel and create between 8 and 10 megawatts of energy each. The power density of a medium-speed marine diesel engine is around 80 kilowatts per cubic meter. To reduce their environmental impact, ships using diesel-fueled engines are required to carry catalytic-reduction equipment and special exhaust-treatment systems. This is way differnt than a freighter engine. Gas Turbines: Royal Caribbean was the first company to fit cruise ships with gas turbines. These are greener than diesel engines and also allow ships to sail with a smaller maintenance crew and a reduced parts inventory. The gas turbine is used to drive generators that then provide electricity to the ship's propeller motors. The steam turbine recovers heat from the gas turbine's exhaust, which can then be used to produce electricity for onboard services such as water heating and air conditioning.

[chengkp75]

There are more variations in the prices of all the above fuels than what you stated. What you quoted is the part the media speaks of. The diesel fuel you speak of is cheaper right now it just did not take as big of a dip as gasoline. All the Diesel sold in my area is low sulfer and the ships diesels are not much different. The only people that use higher sulfer content are farmers.

 

The pricing and sales models for both home heating oil (#2 diesel) and road diesel (#1 diesel) are different than marine diesel. The cruise lines, since they buy so much fuel, essentially buy "futures" so that their prices are not as volatile as other ship's prices for fuel. As a ship's Chief Engineer, I deal with the price of fuel every day, and have done so for the last 40 years. Marine diesel also did not take as big a dive as road diesel, it is currently 66% of the price last year, while road diesel is 49% of last year's price. And nearly all of the price drop for marine diesel has happened since December, and has been rising again since January. A similar trend has been seen for marine residual fuel, again to a lesser extent than road diesel, but more than marine diesel (about 55% of last year's price) due to the drop in demand caused by the mandated switch to diesel fuel.

 

When I speak of diesel being low sulfur, I am using this in relation to marine residual fuel oil, which is the primary fuel for ships since oil replaced coal. Currently, worldwide, marine residual fuels are limited to 3.5% sulfur content. Two years ago, the US ECA was instituted which mandated a maximum sulfur content of 1%, which was still attainable with residual fuel, but at a premium for the sulfur reduction process. As of 1 January, 2015, the US ECA mandates 0.1% sulfur, which can only be met by light distillate (diesel) fuel. As I've stated, the cost between residual fuel and diesel is twice as much for diesel.

[chengkp75]

The term bunker fuel could mean any fuel including steam or coal it is a old term they used for the area on the ship that contained the fuel. Diesel Engines: cruise ships are typically powered by four or five medium-speed (500 revolutions per minute) generator sets, which are fueled by diesel and create between 8 and 10 megawatts of energy each. The power density of a medium-speed marine diesel engine is around 80 kilowatts per cubic meter. To reduce their environmental impact, ships using diesel-fueled engines are required to carry catalytic-reduction equipment and special exhaust-treatment systems. This is way differnt than a freighter engine. Gas Turbines: Royal Caribbean was the first company to fit cruise ships with gas turbines. These are greener than diesel engines and also allow ships to sail with a smaller maintenance crew and a reduced parts inventory. The gas turbine is used to drive generators that then provide electricity to the ship's propeller motors. The steam turbine recovers heat from the gas turbine's exhaust, which can then be used to produce electricity for onboard services such as water heating and air conditioning.

 

First let me state that during my 40 years as a marine engineer, I have sailed on cruise ships as Chief Engineer.

 

You are correct that bunkers could be coal, however, the term is still used today for "marine residual fuels".

 

Yes, cruise ships use medium speed diesels, but they have and continue to burn marine residual fuel outside the US ECA. This is typically "IFO 380", which is somewhat less viscous than the "Bunker C" or "IFO 600" fuel used in steam ships. And their capacity is more in the range of 8Mw to 14Mw. No ship is required to have any "catalytic-reduction" or "exhaust treatment" equipment. What comes out of the turbocharger of the engine goes straight up the stack. This applies to all marine diesel engines, whether they are high speed diesels used for auxiliary or emergency service, medium speed used for propulsion, generation, or diesel electric propulsion, or slow speed engines used for cargo ship propulsion.

 

The IAPP convention of the IMO has regulated emissions for ship's diesel engines, but these are met through design of the engine and/or fuel system, not through exhaust gas treatment.

 

The only exhaust gas treatment has come about in the last couple of years, with the advent of the ECA's around the world, and these scrubbers allow the ships to burn the old 3.5% residual fuel, and meet the emissions requirements normally met only with diesel fuel.

 

Funny you should mention the RCI gas turbine vessels. Those 4 ships were built around 2000, and no further cruise ships, including RCI, have been powered by gas turbines. While the gas turbines burn a fuel that is "greener" than marine residual fuel, the gas turbine in a ship's application is horribly inefficient, leading to a larger carbon footprint than a diesel engine. These ships have actually added a diesel engine to run hotel services in port, where the gas turbines are most inefficient (low load). There was no real reduction in engineering crew, as maintenance of the main generators (whether gas turbine or diesel) amounts to maybe 15% of the total maintenance onboard. And up until the present ECA requirements, the use of the diesel fuel in the gas turbine raised fuel cost to offset the maintenance savings.

 

Many of today's marine diesel plants also use exhaust gas boilers to make steam for the ship, and some use that steam in turbo-generators. They will also use the heat from the engine cooling water to drive the evaporators onboard.

 

The last thing to consider is that essentially, the US EPA has little jurisdiction over foreign ships. We can mandate emissions within 12 miles, but outside of that, it is up to the IMO. The EPA proposed the current North American ECA, and Congress passed it, mandating emissions out to 200 nm, but without the IMO adopting it, it would have no force on foreign flag ships.

Edited March 2, 2015 by chengkp75

[new salt]

First let me state that during my 40 years as a marine engineer, I have sailed on cruise ships as Chief Engineer.

 

You are correct that bunkers could be coal, however, the term is still used today for "marine residual fuels".

 

Yes, cruise ships use medium speed diesels, but they have and continue to burn marine residual fuel outside the US ECA. This is typically "IFO 380", which is somewhat less viscous than the "Bunker C" or "IFO 600" fuel used in steam ships. And their capacity is more in the range of 8Mw to 14Mw. No ship is required to have any "catalytic-reduction" or "exhaust treatment" equipment. What comes out of the turbocharger of the engine goes straight up the stack. This applies to all marine diesel engines, whether they are high speed diesels used for auxiliary or emergency service, medium speed used for propulsion, generation, or diesel electric propulsion, or slow speed engines used for cargo ship propulsion.

 

The IAPP convention of the IMO has regulated emissions for ship's diesel engines, but these are met through design of the engine and/or fuel system, not through exhaust gas treatment"...."

 

The last thing to consider is that essentially, the US EPA has little jurisdiction over foreign ships. We can mandate emissions within 12 miles, but outside of that, it is up to the IMO. The EPA proposed the current North American ECA, and Congress passed it, mandating emissions out to 200 nm, but without the IMO adopting it, it would have no force on foreign flag ships.

 

Don't you just hate it when someone comes on here and knows what he is talking about!

[detroitlions]

First let me state that during my 40 years as a marine engineer, I have sailed on cruise ships as Chief Engineer.

 

You are correct that bunkers could be coal, however, the term is still used today for "marine residual fuels".

 

Yes, cruise ships use medium speed diesels, but they have and continue to burn marine residual fuel outside the US ECA. This is typically "IFO 380", which is somewhat less viscous than the "Bunker C" or "IFO 600" fuel used in steam ships. And their capacity is more in the range of 8Mw to 14Mw. No ship is required to have any "catalytic-reduction" or "exhaust treatment" equipment. What comes out of the turbocharger of the engine goes straight up the stack. This applies to all marine diesel engines, whether they are high speed diesels used for auxiliary or emergency service, medium speed used for propulsion, generation, or diesel electric propulsion, or slow speed engines used for cargo ship propulsion.

 

The IAPP convention of the IMO has regulated emissions for ship's diesel engines, but these are met through design of the engine and/or fuel system, not through exhaust gas treatment.

 

The only exhaust gas treatment has come about in the last couple of years, with the advent of the ECA's around the world, and these scrubbers allow the ships to burn the old 3.5% residual fuel, and meet the emissions requirements normally met only with diesel fuel.

 

Funny you should mention the RCI gas turbine vessels. Those 4 ships were built around 2000, and no further cruise ships, including RCI, have been powered by gas turbines. While the gas turbines burn a fuel that is "greener" than marine residual fuel, the gas turbine in a ship's application is horribly inefficient, leading to a larger carbon footprint than a diesel engine. These ships have actually added a diesel engine to run hotel services in port, where the gas turbines are most inefficient (low load). There was no real reduction in engineering crew, as maintenance of the main generators (whether gas turbine or diesel) amounts to maybe 15% of the total maintenance onboard. And up until the present ECA requirements, the use of the diesel fuel in the gas turbine raised fuel cost to offset the maintenance savings.

 

Many of today's marine diesel plants also use exhaust gas boilers to make steam for the ship, and some use that steam in turbo-generators. They will also use the heat from the engine cooling water to drive the evaporators onboard.

 

The last thing to consider is that essentially, the US EPA has little jurisdiction over foreign ships. We can mandate emissions within 12 miles, but outside of that, it is up to the IMO. The EPA proposed the current North American ECA, and Congress passed it, mandating emissions out to 200 nm, but without the IMO adopting it, it would have no force on foreign flag ships.

I dont want to bore everyone with all the statistics and numbers most people do not get it nor do they care how I know. I was mearly stating on how the fuel prices went down. Also the point you made on the emissions is not true. Ships that use diesel engines are required to carry exhaust-treatment systems and catalytic-reduction equipment to reduce the environmental impact. And the Marine gas turbines do emit more emissions so your correct on that point but that is politcal. Also the Marine gas turbines on cruise ships are not removed as you stated they use them and will continue to do so there were changes made in how the set up worked on the cruise ships. I know about other ships and most of them due to size and what they do are not useing what the cruise industry use including nuclear power.

[detroitlions]

I dont want to bore everyone with all the statistics and numbers most people do not get it nor do they care how I know. I was mearly stating on how the fuel prices went down. Also the point you made on the emissions is not true. Ships that use diesel engines are required to carry exhaust-treatment systems and catalytic-reduction equipment to reduce the environmental impact. And the Marine gas turbines do emit more emissions so your correct on that point but that is politcal. Also the Marine gas turbines on cruise ships are not removed as you stated they use them and will continue to do so there were changes made in how the set up worked on the cruise ships. I know about other ships and most of them due to size and what they do are not useing what the cruise industry use including nuclear power.

I do enjoy all the knowlede you have on ships. Things have canged since 2000, If any cruise ship and I dont care where it was built docks on our ports and they do not have the emissions proper they will not be going anywhere look it up.

[chengkp75]

Also the point you made on the emissions is not true. Ships that use diesel engines are required to carry exhaust-treatment systems and catalytic-reduction equipment to reduce the environmental impact.

 

Could you provide a source or data for this? As stated, I have worked for 40 years all on diesel powered ships that range from tugs to drilling vessels, container ships, RO/RO ships, bulk carriers, tankers, and cruise ships, and have never seen any catalytic or exhaust treatment system on any type of engine, high/medium/low speed, direct reversing, diesel electric, or geared propulsion.

 

And the Marine gas turbines do emit more emissions so your correct on that point but that is politcal. Also the Marine gas turbines on cruise ships are not removed as you stated they use them and will continue to do so there were changes made in how the set up worked on the cruise ships.

 

I never said they were removed. I said that a diesel generator was added to provide efficient power in port. The gas turbines are used to generate at sea when the load can be kept high.

 

I know about other ships and most of them due to size and what they do are not useing what the cruise industry use including nuclear power.

 

Huh? Fully aware, as stated above, about what types of propulsion and power plants are used on virtually every type of ship out there. It's true that the diesel electric power plants on cruise ships are not common on other ships, but that has nothing to do with emissions controls. As I've said, scrubbers are coming, but again, few outside the cruise industry are planning on using them in the near future, because most commercial vessels will spend most of their time outside the ECA, where scrubbers are not needed, and also don't burn half as much fuel per day when IN the ECA.

[chengkp75]

I do enjoy all the knowlede you have on ships. Things have canged since 2000, If any cruise ship and I dont care where it was built docks on our ports and they do not have the emissions proper they will not be going anywhere look it up.

 

 

Not sure why you mention 2000, I am still sailing, and will sail for another 5+ years, so I am up on both regulatory and operational conditions today.

 

Frankly, I don't have to look it up. I deal with it every day at work. The IMO, through the IAPP regulations, requires that an engine type or model be tested for emissions when first built. The engine manufacturer is then given a certificate for that engine "family". Each engine built is then tested for emissions when run on the manufacturer's test bed, and given a certificate. After that, there is no further testing done on the engine, and the only requirement is to keep record of all parts renewed that could affect emissions. And again, this is done with NO exhaust treatment or catalytic converters. Since the US is a member of the UN, we have agreed to allow the IMO to regulate the international maritime industry, and can only enforce what the IMO has mandated on foreign ships. US ships will have their emissions certificates for the engines issued by the EPA, and could be forced to meet stricter standards, should the EPA so decide, but they have not to date.

 

The only record required for a ship to enter the US ECA and confirm that they are meeting the emissions requirements for the ECA are the "Bunker Delivery Notice" provided by the fuel supplier, showing that the fuel supplied to the ship meets the sulfur content required.

 

These records, the "tech file" of parts renewed on the engine, and the sulfur content of the fuel being burned, are the only records required to be kept, whether the ship is foreign or US flagged. My ship is US flag and spends 100% of its time within the US ECA, so I know what is needed to meet the regulations for the US ECA.

[sundercruiser]

I don't understand how a 6.7% increase on an 8.95 drink comes up to a $1.00?

 

Don't know if this is the answer, but do note that NCL has also raised the suggested gratuity on drinks from 15 to 18 percent.

 

So a drink that used to cost $8.95 (but which actually cost, with gratuity, $10.29) will now cost $9.55, which with 18 percent gratuity tacked on comes to $11.27, or just two cents shy of that extra buck.

 

Overall, drink prices are rising by almost 10 percent when the additional gratuity is factored in.