Royal Ships & California

[time4u2go]

1 minute ago, mcrcruiser said:

Thanks for posting this  .

 

Even though there are laws that ships & owners  must adhere to  they certainly are not just isolated to California ports .Any state that berths ships in their ports must have concerns about air quality & other potential pollution problems  . Thus ,we do not believe that  cruise ships  can do what ever they want in other US ports  .  

 

 The above requirements should not prevent a Royal Caribbean ship from berthing in  any of our California ports .If they pay more  ,then they just pass it on to the cruise pax just like they do with Panama Canal taxes  

California is notorious for having strict pollution restrictions, undoubtedly more than most other states.  So it's logical to conclude that it costs more for a cruise line to base their ships there than in other states.  The cruise line could pass the costs on to their passengers, but perhaps that results in fewer passengers, or the cruise line having to lower their markup for those sailings to be competitive, thus reducing their profits for those sailings.

 

Whether you agree or not, or like it or not, people on this thread have given various possible reasons why RC doesn't base a ship in California.  I'm sure RC has done their homework and has decided that they can maximize their profits by basing their ships elsewhere.  It's not like they haven't tried basing ships there before.

[mcrcruiser]

2 minutes ago, wl2cruise said:

 

I"m not knocking California I'm about 90 miles north of you in Riverside County. Ive been cruising with Royal since 2003. You wanted to know why they do not sail regularly out of California and it has to do with their strict environmental laws. 

 

3 minutes ago, wl2cruise said:

 

I"m not knocking California I'm about 90 miles north of you in Riverside County. Ive been cruising with Royal since 2003. You wanted to know why they do not sail regularly out of California and it has to do with their strict environmental laws. 

Perhaps this is one reason ;but ,we are certain that other ports in the US have situations as well that Royal must adhere to  . If this was so prohibitive they why  does Carnival ,Princess ,holland America ,  Norwegian  , Disney avoid Calif ports . It simply is not a main reason for Royal Caribbean to abandon California 

[HBE4]

17 minutes ago, wl2cruise said:

 

Hope this article helps

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-magazine/feature-magazine-articles/5787-summer-2011-green-shorepower-yes-or-no.html 

 

It does help. Interesting: 

 

"According to Adam Goldstein, president and CEO of Royal Caribbean International, shorepower should only be considered on a situational basis. He noted that even though shorepower is offered in Juneau, for instance, it is only available at one pier, which Royal Caribbean does not use, so the access is very restricted.

“We do not participate in shorepower on an operational basis,” Goldstein said, “but our newer ships can be set up for shorepower.” He added ships spend little time at the pier so the benefit would be relatively limited even if every single pier had shorepower. Royal Caribbean’s goal is to generate as little emissions as possible all the time, Goldstein explained, “and shorepower can at best be a partial answer.”

 

I wonder what they consider "situational"?

 

Thanks!

[mcrcruiser]

4 minutes ago, HBE4 said:

 

I'm not sure if people are knocking California as a starting point, just wondering why Royal chooses to not sail from there.

 

According to the man himself, in 2017, he does not think there are enough people to support a ship permanently stationed in California.  I'm not saying he is right or wrong, just stating the facts that he states.

 

 

 

 Not sure who this was speaking  .Wish I was there to discuss many itinerary possibilities from California ports into the largest ocean in this world ,the Pacific 

[AlanF65]

55 minutes ago, HBE4 said:

 

Is there a hot-line or a bat-signal (or chief-signal) we can send up? I'm interested in this as well.  Not doubting Wl2cruise' knowledge of the subject, just wondering why Carnival and Holland American can "plug-in" and Royal can not. Does Carnival possess some kind of exotic, advanced power supply??

 

Everything I've read about California cruising points to the lack of interest in cruising to Mexico for the decline in popularity of West coast cruises.  With the newer, bigger "ships are the destination" Oasis and Quantum-class ships, you'd think that would be less of an issue.

 

Maybe when the Icon-ships come out, they can spare a ship for the left coast?

 

To send a bat signal to another member preface their user name with an "@" symbol so   @chengkp75  

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by AlanF65

[wl2cruise]

3 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

 Not sure who this was speaking  .Wish I was there to discuss many itinerary possibilities from California ports into the largest ocean in this world ,the Pacific 

 

Current CEO of Royal Caribbean and he contradicts what his boss said in 2010 when the pulled Mariner from LA. The ship sailed full.

[HBE4]

4 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

 Not sure who this was speaking  .Wish I was there to discuss many itinerary possibilities from California ports into the largest ocean in this world ,the Pacific 

 

 

Sorry, it's Royal Caribbean CEO Michael Bayley. I meant to post the link (not embed the video) like this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pt64Bvxgqo

 

 

[PhoenixCruiser]

2 hours ago, WyKnott said:

I for one would love it if Royal came back to California on a regular basis, but the Mexican Riviera has gotten old for me. The ship would have to be the draw, because the ports are not. A pacific coastal like the May 2020 out of San Diego would be ideal. All of us who live west of the rockies have to fly to the cruise port which adds to the overall cost.

 

Did you book the Serenade for May of 2020?

Edited November 28, 2018 by PhoenixCruiser

[wl2cruise]

28 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

 

Perhaps this is one reason ;but ,we are certain that other ports in the US have situations as well that Royal must adhere to  . If this was so prohibitive they why  does Carnival ,Princess ,holland America ,  Norwegian  , Disney avoid Calif ports . It simply is not a main reason for Royal Caribbean to abandon California 

 

“We do not participate in shorepower on an operational basis,” Goldstein said

 

 

[WyKnott]

22 minutes ago, PhoenixCruiser said:

 

Did you book the Serenade for May of 2020?

Unfortunately my work schedule prohibits me from cruising in spring/early summer. My first solo cruise was the Pacific Northwest on Explorer in October/November. I would like to do that again. Once I retire at the end of 2021, I can cruise any time of year. SO looking forward to that.

Edited November 28, 2018 by WyKnott

[cksv]

I think part of the reason California doesn't have a larger piece of the cruise industry is simply because there aren't a whole lotta ports that the ships can sail to on a 7 day cruise. You're pretty much limited to Mexico and that gets (in my opinion) old pretty quickly. I live in CA but find myself flying to Florida 3x a year just because I love the water and beaches of the Caribbean so much.

[davekathy]

31 minutes ago, cksv said:

I think part of the reason California doesn't have a larger piece of the cruise industry is simply because there aren't a whole lotta ports that the ships can sail to on a 7 day cruise. You're pretty much limited to Mexico and that gets (in my opinion) old pretty quickly. I live in CA but find myself flying to Florida 3x a year just because I love the water and beaches of the Caribbean so much.

Disagree. 

[squadron]

1 hour ago, mcrcruiser said:

Why is every one trying to knock California ports as a starting point for any Royal Caribbean ship  ? 

 

 Do we knock down NYC   or Florida ports or any other port of call . 

 

 It just so happens that California has a lot to offer the cruise industry & it seems to us that Carnival corporation  is very happy to port their ships up & down the coast of our state 

    I would like to have a Royal ship sailing from California  for a warm weather break from winter.  Much cheaper flights for western Canadians and Americans.  I don't "buy" the "too dangerous" and " lack of interest" that the Captain of the Liberty  stated  as an answer to this question last Feb.

[gatour]

2 hours ago, wl2cruise said:

 

https://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/shorepower.htm

Looked at the link.

 

If I read it correctly, it is still in draft mode/public review...

 

November 15, 2018 - Preliminary Health Analyses Public Review Extended  

CARB staff is extending the review and comment period for the preliminary draft of the health analyses for the vessels at berth rulemaking to December 17th. These health analyses are being released for public review in advance of the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for the Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth and At Anchor to support early public review and comment on a draft, and the opportunity for staff to make revisions prior to publication of the ISOR. 

 

[wl2cruise]

11 minutes ago, gatour said:

Looked at the link.

 

If I read it correctly, it is still in draft mode/public review...

 

November 15, 2018 - Preliminary Health Analyses Public Review Extended  

CARB staff is extending the review and comment period for the preliminary draft of the health analyses for the vessels at berth rulemaking to December 17th. These health analyses are being released for public review in advance of the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for the Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth and At Anchor to support early public review and comment on a draft, and the opportunity for staff to make revisions prior to publication of the ISOR. 

 

 

in the left hand column is the  link to the regulation been in effect for awhile now.

 

The At-Berth Regulation was Board approved in December of 2007. Early compliance began on January 1, 2010, with the Equivalent Emission Reduction Option. The majority of fleets will begin compliance on January 1, 2014, with the Reduced Onboard Power Generation Option. Compliance requirements increase from 50% in 2014 to 70% in 2017. Lastly, compliance requirements go up to 80% in 2020.

Plugging into shore power is expected to be the most common method for complying with the At-Berth Regulation. The Navy first developed shore power that allows ships to plug into electricity at the berth rather than running onboard engines. Shore power was first commercially implemented in 2001 by Princess Cruises in Alaska. China Shipping, in 2004, was the first container carrier in California to use shore power at the Port of Los Angeles. Between 2004 and 2012, the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, and San Diego have installed a total of 5 shore power berths for cruise ships and 11 shore power berths for container vessels. More shore power berths are expected to be installed in the coming years

Edited November 28, 2018 by wl2cruise

[Ourusualbeach]

1 hour ago, mcrcruiser said:

 

Perhaps this is one reason ;but ,we are certain that other ports in the US have situations as well that Royal must adhere to  . If this was so prohibitive they why  does Carnival ,Princess ,holland America ,  Norwegian  , Disney avoid Calif ports . It simply is not a main reason for Royal Caribbean to abandon California 

 

Why does Carnival have one ship doing Alaska yet Princess has 8.  Why does Princess have 1 ship in the Med yet Royal has 5......

 

Cruise lines carer to their strengths.  They can’t be everything to everyone and they pick the markets they think cater best to their largest demographic base and provide the best return to their shareholders. For Royal that is predominantly the Caribbean and Europe.  

[AlanF65]

9 minutes ago, gatour said:

Looked at the link.

 

If I read it correctly, it is still in draft mode/public review...

 

November 15, 2018 - Preliminary Health Analyses Public Review Extended  

CARB staff is extending the review and comment period for the preliminary draft of the health analyses for the vessels at berth rulemaking to December 17th. These health analyses are being released for public review in advance of the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for the Control Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth and At Anchor to support early public review and comment on a draft, and the opportunity for staff to make revisions prior to publication of the ISOR. 

 

 

The 11-15-2018 is a draft revision to the 2007 Regulation which can be found here https://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/finalregulation.pdf

current law for 2014, 2017, 2020 law starts on page 8 of the pdf.

[AlanF65]

20 hours ago, mcrcruiser said:

Royal Caribbean ships sail into the most stringent  of environments  in Alaska waters 

 

This is an air quality rule based on the amount of smog in southern California and the Bay area. Its about decreasing emissions and particles. There are probably 15+ million cars in the LA area plus everything else

[Biker19]

In case anyone was wondering why RCI may opt out of left coast sailings:

 

Quote

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) plans to propose new regulations that would require all cruise ships docking in the state to plug into shorepower.

 

If enacted, the cold ironing rules, to be introduced at the Dec. 5 CARB board meeting, would go into effect Jan. 1, 2021, according to a resource board spokesperson.

 

Current regulations require ships visiting the major Californian ports five or more times to plug in while at berth. Under the soon-to-be proposed new rules, ships previously visiting four or fewer times would remain exempt from the regulations until 2023, said Karen Caesar, the board's information officer.

 

The rule change would also change the exact moment a ship must begin cold ironing and be able to end, as well as the types of reports generated to ensure compliance during calls. It will also address instances where a vessel may not be able to use shorepower, such as during equipment repairs or terminal construction projects.

 

The compliance requirements of the existing regulation would be superseded on Jan. 1, 2021 with the new regulation, but the reporting elements of the existing regulation remain in effect until Dec. 31, 2025 to ensure 2020 compliance remains effective.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Biker19

[Tulsacoker]

4 minutes ago, Biker19 said:

In case anyone was wondering why RCI may opt out of left coast sailings:

 

PG&E must been need to sell their excess electricity somewhere during the blackouts 

[not-enough-cruising]

An already difficult and expensive pond to play in, just became more so. 

[John&LaLa]

2 hours ago, Biker19 said:

In case anyone was wondering why RCI may opt out of left coast sailings:

 

 

Would LNG be exempt 

[Biker19]

Just now, John&LaLa said:

Would LNG be exempt 

Probably not to the the CARB tree huggers.

[squadron]

On 11/27/2018 at 8:34 AM, mcrcruiser said:

Just that California is a huge market for cruising & there presence of absence is very noticeable to the cruising community  .When you add in Arizona & Nevada to the mix ;as those folks could drive to a California port ,this then is a huge market 

Add  Western Canadians who would have a shorter and cheaper flight to California rather than Florida.   I did two cruises with RCI out of LA before they left.  I would   like to be able to do so again.  

[not-enough-cruising]

9 minutes ago, squadron said:

Add  Western Canadians who would have a shorter and cheaper flight to California rather than Florida.   I did two cruises with RCI out of LA before they left.  I would   like to be able to do so again.  

However as long as ships are selling at 100%+ capacity from nearly every other port in the world; I can’t imagine it makes much business sense to undergo the expense necessary to be compliant (at least with regards to retrofitting existing fleet)