Passenger Vessel Services Act summary to date

[smeyer418]

I'm not surprised by this at all. Regular unleaded gas here is pushing $4.50 a gallon in many places.

 

I already have a 2009 cruise booked (on NCL, believe it or don't), but it leaves from YVR, so we will likely not cancel unless the fuel surcharge burden just becomes totally intolerable.

? NCL has not in the past increased the fuel surcharge on already booked passengers. It was always prospective on new bookings only.

[SeattleCruiselover]

? NCL has not in the past increased the fuel surcharge on already booked passengers. It was always prospective on new bookings only.

 

I know, but I just booked two weeks ago....and a group at that. Our current fuel surcharge rates for a 7 day are $63.00 per person.

[smeyer418]

I know, but I just booked two weeks ago....and a group at that. Our current fuel surcharge rates for a 7 day are $63.00 per person.

 

 

Your first quote was "so we will likely not cancel unless the fuel surcharge burden just becomes totally intolerable.". So you are aware it won't change now that you booked....

[DAGVBSB]

? NCL has not in the past increased the fuel surcharge on already booked passengers. It was always prospective on new bookings only.

 

Exactly my point. Those people who have cruises currently booked (like me...:D ) won't have to pay the added fuel charges and also most likely have their airfare paid for as well.

 

It is those who are yet to book who are going to be hit with fuel surcharges (probably from both the cruise line & airline), luggage surcharges, and all kinds of other higher costs due to the economy who are going to think twice about a cruise. (or any other type of long vacation for that matter.)

 

Once the current "stockpile" of already booked travelers drys up, it will be interesting to see what kind of hit the travel industry is going to take.

 

I got lucky. We booked our RCCL Cruise way back in July 2007 and don't have any fuel surcharges. It was so nice to look at our travel docs and see "Fuel Surcharge = $0" :) :) :)

[SeattleCruiselover]

I know, but I just booked two weeks ago....and a group at that. Our current fuel surcharge rates for a 7 day are $63.00 per person.

 

For now, the cruise lines are not following the airlines and raising the fuel surcharge on those already booked. But there is no guarantee that they will not change their minds at some point in the future if the burden becomes too heavy for them. Since we don't have to fly and pay that $100 per person fuel charge for a flight in addition to the cruise, we won't cancel unless it gets to be more than about 5-10% of the cruise fare. At that point, we would consider it.

[smeyer418]

For now, the cruise lines are not following the airlines and raising the fuel surcharge on those already booked. But there is no guarantee that they will not change their minds at some point in the future if the burden becomes too heavy for them. Since we don't have to fly and pay that $100 per person fuel charge for a flight in addition to the cruise, we won't cancel unless it gets to be more than about 5-10% of the cruise fare. At that point, we would consider it.

 

There is a three or five year old agreement with the Florida attorney general NOT to make these increases retroactive(for those already booked). In fact RC and a couple of others line did try to make the first round of fuel surcharges retro(claiming the agreement had expired and was otherwise void) and after being sued they rolled all the retros back(this was discussed in the first PSVA thread). Canadian law clearly prohibits it.

[wanderingjew]

I think being a prez year I think they will just drag their feet until the election then it might be too late for NCLA

[SeattleCruiselover]

Here is new article from USA Today that covers both the decline in bookings and NCL's plans to raise fuel surcharges to $11.00 per day.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/cruises/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=50916934.blog

[DAGVBSB]

There is a three or five year old agreement with the Florida attorney general NOT to make these increases retroactive(for those already booked). In fact RC and a couple of others line did try to make the first round of fuel surcharges retro(claiming the agreement had expired and was otherwise void) and after being sued they rolled all the retros back(this was discussed in the first PSVA thread). Canadian law clearly prohibits it.

 

another reason, we need the old thread back.....

 

You took the words right out of my mouth...I was about to make the same comment.

 

I can speak from experience on this: RCCL did try to assess the fuel charge on all passengers and then changed (because of the Fla. AG). We first got a letter that said we would be charged the fuel charge and how much it would be and then about a month later we got a letter from RCCL saying that since we were booked before November 1, 2007, we would not have to pay the Fuel charge.

[vjmatty]

another reason, we need the old thread back.....

 

You took the words right out of my mouth...I was about to make the same comment.

 

I can speak from experience on this: RCCL did try to assess the fuel charge on all passengers and then changed (because of the Fla. AG). We first got a letter that said we would be charged the fuel charge and how much it would be and then about a month later we got a letter from RCCL saying that since we were booked before November 1, 2007, we would not have to pay the Fuel charge.

 

This happened to us on both RC and Cunard... both lines refunded our money also.

[DAGVBSB]

I still believe that July 1 is "D-Day" for the C&BP to issue their decision on the PVSA changes. It makes perfect sense unless they plan to wait out NCL's decision on the POAm.

 

In the meantime... here are two interesting tidbits that I have discovered:

 

1.) Here is a link to a newsletter for the MEBA where they are pounding their chests about sending out a bunch of letters in support of NCL's proposed changes to the PVSA. (said it is "critical" that the changes be enacted.)

 

http://www.d1meba.org/01_-_Members_Supporting_a_Strong_PVSA.pdf

 

 

2.) Interesting historical note: The PVSA went into effect on June 19, 1886. So it's 122nd birthday is Thursday. Anyone want a piece of cake....:D

[smeyer418]

I still believe that July 1 is "D-Day" for the C&BP to issue their decision on the PVSA changes. It makes perfect sense unless they plan to wait out NCL's decision on the POAm.

 

In the meantime... here are two interesting tidbits that I have discovered:

 

1.) Here is a link to a newsletter for the MEBA where they are pounding their chests about sending out a bunch of letters in support of NCL's proposed changes to the PVSA. (said it is "critical" that the changes be enacted.)

 

http://www.d1meba.org/01_-_Members_Supporting_a_Strong_PVSA.pdf

 

 

2.) Interesting historical note: The PVSA went into effect on June 19, 1886. So it's 122nd birthday is Thursday. Anyone want a piece of cake....:D

 

 

almost nothing gets released on or about July 1 for a number of reasons...mostly having to do with as many people being on vacation for July 4th as possible. Schools out and most workers who can try to get away. Congress is also probably out on recess. The President traditionally has used this time to make controversial appointments.

 

so I will again say don't hold your breathe.

[DAGVBSB]

almost nothing gets released on or about July 1 for a number of reasons...mostly having to do with as many people being on vacation for July 4th as possible. Schools out and most workers who can try to get away. Congress is also probably out on recess. The President traditionally has used this time to make controversial appointments.

 

so I will again say don't hold your breathe.

 

All the more reason to release the information on July 1. Congress is out on recess, many state governments are in the same boat and many other people who may have been following this are either busy (tourist season) or on vacation themselves.

 

They tried to ram this through originally by proposing it during the Christmas Holiday Season (and making the comment period ONLY during the Christmas season) so that people might not notice and not respond, so what makes you think, they won't release the final decision during that period??

 

July 1 is perfect for so many reasons:

1.) As Smeyer pointed out... many of those who care about this and would be impacted might be on vacation or busy and thus not notice right away.

2.) With a 90 day waiver, it would get the Alaska season out of the way.

3.) It would give cruise lines time to alter their fall Hawaii cruise schedules if necessary.

4.) It still gives NCL time to see what kind of effect, if any, the decision will have on NCL-A operations before they have to make a decision on whether to continue NCLA or liquidate it.

 

I would think that NCL and Senator Innoye would be pushing the C&BP to issue the decision (thinking it will go in their favor) so that the NCLA monopoly on Hawaii can begin and they can make the operation profitable withing the Apollo time table.

 

All of these reasons make July 1 the oportune time to do it.

 

(and let's not forget... I will be on a cruise and won't be able to respond to the decision.....lol)

[cvanhorn]

All the more reason to release the information on July 1. Congress is out on recess, many state governments are in the same boat and many other people who may have been following this are either busy (tourist season) or on vacation themselves.

 

They tried to ram this through originally by proposing it during the Christmas Holiday Season (and making the comment period ONLY during the Christmas season) so that people might not notice and not respond, so what makes you think, they won't release the final decision during that period??

 

July 1 is perfect for so many reasons:

1.) As Smeyer pointed out... many of those who care about this and would be impacted might be on vacation or busy and thus not notice right away.

2.) With a 90 day waiver, it would get the Alaska season out of the way.

3.) It would give cruise lines time to alter their fall Hawaii cruise schedules if necessary.

4.) It still gives NCL time to see what kind of effect, if any, the decision will have on NCL-A operations before they have to make a decision on whether to continue NCLA or liquidate it.

 

I would think that NCL and Senator Innoye would be pushing the C&BP to issue the decision (thinking it will go in their favor) so that the NCLA monopoly on Hawaii can begin and they can make the operation profitable withing the Apollo time table.

 

All of these reasons make July 1 the oportune time to do it.

 

(and let's not forget... I will be on a cruise and won't be able to respond to the decision.....lol)

 

Let's not forget that it is now Mr. Cherkoff who will make, or not make, the final decision and not the bueracrats at C&BP.

 

I am betting on it just staying in his "just let it lay" basket.

[Sea Fan]

"---Quote (Originally by DAGVBSB)---

Geez... I go out of town for a few days and you let this thing slip back several pages.....:D ---End Quote--- Sorry... but you know as they say, no news is good news ;)"

 

Just some news would be nice! No cake for me, Thank you!

 

Dianne

[SeattleCruiselover]

I still believe that July 1 is "D-Day" for the C&BP to issue their decision on the PVSA changes. It makes perfect sense unless they plan to wait out NCL's decision on the POAm.

 

In the meantime... here are two interesting tidbits that I have discovered:

 

1.) Here is a link to a newsletter for the MEBA where they are pounding their chests about sending out a bunch of letters in support of NCL's proposed changes to the PVSA. (said it is "critical" that the changes be enacted.)

 

http://www.d1meba.org/01_-_Members_Supporting_a_Strong_PVSA.pdf

 

 

2.) Interesting historical note: The PVSA went into effect on June 19, 1886. So it's 122nd birthday is Thursday. Anyone want a piece of cake....:D

 

1. OK, which union is MEBA....the Engineers?

 

2. If I wasn't already totally miserable over something else, this would give me something to "celebrate" today......NOT.

[DAGVBSB]

1. OK, which union is MEBA....the Engineers?

.

 

Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association

[DAGVBSB]

Let's not forget that it is now Mr. Cherkoff who will make, or not make, the final decision and not the bueracrats at C&BP.

 

I am betting on it just staying in his "just let it lay" basket.

 

With Cherkoff being a lame duck cabinet member and with this being such a hot potatoe issue, I could see him doing that and leaving it to the next Secretary of Homeland Security, BUT....

 

I don't think NCL will accept that. I'm sure that they have Senator Innoye being annoying and calling Cherkoff every day demanding a decision. I'll bet Congressman Abercrumbie is doing the same. NCL believes that the decision will favor them and their monopoly idea and can't wait long for a decision with the Apollo deadline looming. I'm sure that Colin calls his paid off lap dogs everyday in Washington telling them to get Homeland Security to make the decsion.

 

I know Cherkoff may want to sit on this, but I don't think either side is going to let him. C&BP made the mess by rushing a poorly thought out proposal to the table to get it snuck through at Christmas and now "Daddy" (Cherkoff) in this case has to clean up the mess and suffer the heat from whichever side is going to be upset.

[SherriZ366]

Glad I found this thread

[Cruisin' Chick]

Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't able to use the computer for several days as it's been triple digit temps here (even at night it's been close to 90 degrees:eek: ) besides trying to recover from a tooth infection (which delayed the root canal:eek: :eek: )....

 

Beneficial...what a misnomer as if this thing becomes a reality, many port jobs will be lost.

[DAGVBSB]

Sorry' date=' I wasn't able to use the computer for several days as it's been triple digit temps here (even at night it's been close to 90 degrees:eek: ) besides trying to recover from a tooth infection (which delayed the root canal:eek: :eek: )....

 

Beneficial...what a misnomer as if this thing becomes a reality, many port jobs will be lost.[/quote']

 

Actually, I think the Mariner's Unions have real problems in supporting either side of this issue. If they support NCL and the PVSA changes, then they save the 700+ jobs on the POAm BUT they will lose many more than that in port jobs. If they oppose the PVSA changes, then they save the port jobs but probably cost the jobs on the POAm.

 

Unions are supposed to work together, but this issue is going to divide them based on who they represent.

 

As far as temps go.... it got down to 60 degrees here last night and we aren't looking at temps above 85 at least through the weekend.

[SeattleCruiselover]

Sorry' date=' I wasn't able to use the computer for several days as it's been triple digit temps here (even at night it's been close to 90 degrees:eek: ) besides trying to recover from a tooth infection (which delayed the root canal:eek: :eek: )....

 

Beneficial...what a misnomer as if this thing becomes a reality, many port jobs will be lost.[/quote']

 

Patty: Feel better soon, and, hopefully, the temp will go down a bit, too.

[kerrydee]

this must mean something.

 

http://www.traveltrade.com/news_article.htm?id=2201&p=index.htm:confused:

[smeyer418]

this must mean something.

 

http://www.traveltrade.com/news_article.htm?id=2201&p=index.htm:confused:

 

 

Actually its a sign that he will remain with NCL. Star runs other lines in Asia. Apollo and Star own NCL. By no longer being in one or the others camp he can continue running NCL without divided loyalties. I wouldn't make much of it other than they paid him $10 million dollars so he couldn't go elsewhere(probably their way of paying him for his part in the Apollo investment- a 2% tip)

[SeattleCruiselover]

this must mean something.

 

http://www.traveltrade.com/news_article.htm?id=2201&p=index.htm:confused:

 

It certainly means that he is now totally divorced from NCL/A, and Star is 100% in charge to make it or break it for the next several months, at which time Apollo will decide whether or not to cut them loose.