CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums

CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums (http://www.cruisemates.com/forum/)
-   Chit - Chat for Cruisers (http://www.cruisemates.com/forum/chit-chat-cruisers/)
-   -   Carnival Leaving Norfolk & Baltimore - Citing Fuel Costs! (http://www.cruisemates.com/forum/chit-chat-cruisers/397297-carnival-leaving-norfolk-baltimore-citing-fuel-costs.html)

storybookcruises.com June 27th, 2013 04:01 PM

Carnival Leaving Norfolk & Baltimore - Citing Fuel Costs!
 
Carnival is citing fuel costs as a reason not to return to Norfolk and why they are pulling out of Baltimore.

So let's see, Carnival has two choices here;

They can decide to abide by the existing sulfur emissions laws, which is better for the environment and the people living in the area, or they can stick their tongues out and penalize those passengers in the Mid-Atlantic region by moving these ships elsewhere in order not to worry about environmental impact laws.

Yes, they would encumber a slightly higher cost for the cleaner fuel and have to raise fares a little to cover it. But instead, they have chosen to say they could care less about their customers and the environment.

Gee, what kind of message does that send?

Carnival Cruise Lines announces it is leaving Norfolk | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

Pete

Marc June 30th, 2013 05:30 PM

Ah, so you don't like consequences of new regulations. It would be amusing if Cunard pulled out of New York. :)

storybookcruises.com June 30th, 2013 06:47 PM

Personally, I would much rather pay a slightly higher fee to insure we do what's right than to keep polluting and not worry about the damage it causes not only to the environment, but to the people who live and work in the area. It's companies like this that care more about their bottom line than to the ecological damage they cause. It speaks volumes about them when they choose this path instead of taking the path other cruise lines have taken to insure they meet or exceed local environmental protection laws.

If they decide not to abide by the laws, then hopefully others will fill the void who want to take on the responsibility to do the right thing.

And if Cunard decided to leave New York, you're right - it would be amusing!

Pete

Manuel June 30th, 2013 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruise planner (Post 1477686)
Personally, I would much rather pay a slightly higher fee to insure we do what's right than to keep polluting and not worry about the damage it causes not only to the environment, but to the people who live and work in the area.

Pete

I agree with that 100%.

TM

storybookcruises.com June 30th, 2013 10:36 PM

Plus, I absolutely hate it when a big business tries to use political ties to get what they want so they can be allowed to disobey the laws for their own benefit while everyone else is required to obey the laws.

Shame on them for threatening to take their business elsewhere if they don't get what they want and shame on the politicians who are considering giving them what they want!

Check it out; O'Malley lobbies EPA to ease cruise ship pollution rule - Baltimore Sun

To me, they can either obey the laws or go somewhere else. Hopefully, they'll eventually run out of places to hide and have to obey the laws. Other cruise lines play by the rules, why not them?

Pete

Manuel July 1st, 2013 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruise planner (Post 1477696)

To me, they can either obey the laws or go somewhere else. Hopefully, they'll eventually run out of places to hide and have to obey the laws. Other cruise lines play by the rules, why not them?

Pete

I feel the same way. If you want to stay in business you should be a responsible company.

TM

Luanne Russo July 1st, 2013 10:02 AM

I read both articles, and I have a few questions. Do the regulations also apply to ships in Fla.?

Why would ships come from so far away, to do the same ports as those out of Fla.?

Did you read the comments on the Norfolk article? Sounds like there were more reasons for a pull out, other than EPA.

Dave Beers July 1st, 2013 12:41 PM

Look at this map and you'll see why south Florida is getting a boost from the ECA. The red areas are covered by the ECA. Those ships sailing from Miami and Port Everglades can get outside the zone quick where ships from other ports have a lot of ocean to cover before they can switch to the higher sulphur fuel.

storybookcruises.com July 1st, 2013 01:04 PM

I could be wrong on this, but from what I've been told the laws are the same - it's the ports that are different. In other words, the ports in Florida have constant prevailing winds that keep the ports cleaner. Baltimore is unique in that the port is on the Chesapeake Bay and much more inland.

(In fact, it takes 8 hours to transit the Bay one-way from Baltimore to the Atlantic Ocean because of the length and the speed limit. It actually takes longer to go from Baltimore to Bermuda than it does to go from New York to Bermuda even though New York is further away.)

But because the Port of Baltimore is inland, they don't get the prevailing winds and it's more susceptible to smog. Plus, the Chesapeake Bay has other EPA laws and regulations because of the unique situation it has, which is very fragile. There really aren't any ports in the U.S. quite like it, so it's hard to compare it against all the other ports.

One great feature about sailing out of the Mid-Atlantic/New York/Boston areas is that they are closer to Canada/New England ports, so they do offer something those sailing out of Florida don't offer.

As for sailing to the same ports as those out of Florida, when you look at where ships can go, there aren't a whole lot of options no matter where they sail out of. And when you look at how far they can go in a week, they are very limited.

The whole thing is driven by supply and demand. And out of this area there's a pretty good demand because alot of people don't want to fly. It can cost more to fly to Florida out of this area than it costs to fly to California - go figure that one! When you look at the population within a 3-hour driving distance of Baltimore, that's a pretty huge amount of prospective cruisers.

I don't read too many comments because most of them are written by people with uneducated opinions who have no idea what they're talking about.

But one thing is for sure, it really sucks that Norfolk spent alot of money to build the new cruise terminal and revamp the area in hopes of bringing ships there on a regular basis. Norfolk got a big commitment from Carnival Corp. and took them at their word, so they invested alot in the infrastructure to provide Carnival a nice terminal. Now, Carnival is defaulting on their promises by saying, "If we have to play by your rules, we're going to take our marbles and go home."

As with most things in today's world, it's more about the politics than doing what's right.

If you notice, other cruise lines aren't having these same problems.

Pete

Truck Cruiser July 3rd, 2013 09:19 AM

I agree that they could of raised prices to cover the added expenses of sailing out of Baltimore and Norfolk. I must assume that Carnival thought that they wouldn't be able to fill their ships with customers if they did that, raise their prices.

Carnival left Mobile Alabama after they built a cruise terminal there too. It would seem to me that these cities failed to sign contracts for the long term with Carnival so they could recoup the costs of building these structures.

storybookcruises.com July 3rd, 2013 01:46 PM

Most of the time it's all about supply and demand. If there's a big demand and they're selling the berths, they'll stay for a while. But if the berths aren't selling, then they'll pull out and go elsewhere. This is what happened in the San Diego/Los Angeles area with the Mexican Riviera cruises. They ended up with way too many berths and not enough passengers, so things dramatically changed. For example, RCCL moved the Mariner of the Seas there for a while and it was very popular at first. But they moved it out because they just weren't filling the berths. This was caused by two basic problems; there are only so many ports available to them during a 7-night cruise and people did not have a lot of different choices for itineraries. And then, to make matters worse, there were problems in some of the ports causing people to not want to go there - this further limited the choices of ports.

To a degree, the same thing is going on in Baltimore, but the demand has been fairly good. We've had one ship going out of there for many years. It was the Celebrity Galaxy for quite a while, then the Grandeur of the Seas, then the Enchantment of the Seas, and back to the Grandeur of the Seas. Over the last several years, Carnival brought the Miracle in for a while and changed over to the Pride, so we had two ships sailing out of port. We weren't sure if the demand could support two ships, but we've been pleasantly surprised by the numbers. However, as with Southern California, there are only so many ports available out of this area. While we do have a few more options, such as Canada/New England, Bermuda, The Bahamas, and the Caribbean, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years. One major problem with this port is that there is a limit on size due to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

So, when you add all the nuances associated with cruising out of Baltimore, then add the fuel problems, the 8 hour transit time for the bay each way, and the politics, it becomes a big chess game.

Pete


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1