jan-n-john

OK so I did call them.  FWIW. The rep had to check with marketing and came back with the explanation that the deal is that on these particular trips they will be taking aboard some additional chefs with specific skills for the cuisines of countries being visited and they will be cooking in some of the other (not S.A.L.T.) restaurants on the ship (the Muse for example doesn't have SALT) where there will be sort of additional menus alongside the regular menus and these parallel menus will feature local-type items. So perhaps one can think of it as adding the SALT concept where there isn't an actual SALT???

Regarding the answers to the effect that the culinary part tends to be on land not the ship, that has some seeming logic to it, but it doesn't comport well with the fact that of the five "culinary voyages" Silversea is promoting for 2022, two are transpac repositioning cruises between Japan and Alaska,.  I took a quick look at the included and extra cost excursions for those two at the various ports which revealed almost nothing related to culinary pursuits (a couple of extra cost "cooking lessons" in Yokahama), and in fact most of the ports would seem to be unlikely places to find serious culinary options (e.g. Dutch Harbor Alaska, Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky Russia???).  So I have my doubts that's what makes them culinary -- seems it almost has to be something on the ship. Those two are both on the Muse BTW. There's a third one on Muse and one each on Wind and Whisper.

I may give them a call and inquire further.  If I do I'll post what I learn.

I was perusing the Silversea website and noticed among their specialty cruises they have some promoted as "Culinary Sailings" (there are five during 2022), but was unable to find more specific information as to how the culinary offerings on such cruises differ. If anyone has tried one of these or has information I'd be interested to hear.

Hi All.  New to Silversea.  We are booked in the fall on the Spirit.  My question is, do the cabins on 6 directly above Dolce Vita, basically #640 and higher, experience any effect from the dining room (noise, etc.) or are they just the same as any other from that standpoint? 

Many thanks in advance. 

13 minutes ago, davekathy said:

Agree. Works for cruises that have a norovirus outbreak (never been on one of those ships/cruises). On RC on sea days they have a salad bar set up called the "Tutti Salad Bar" (protected by sneeze guards) in the MDR and you point to the many different salad selections/toppings and salad dressing you want. The server builds you custom salad for you than hands it to you finished.  🥗

Nothing new about that.  We were on the Regent Splendor when things were breaking early March. It has some stations in the buffet, around the edge, with personnel behind, and others that are islands in the middle with no "backspace" (IIRC all the islands in Celebrity buffets have backspaces). For the last few days of the trip, they stationed servers by the islands and they simply got you whatever you asked for, as did the servers behind the serving areas that had backspaces.  Nobody got to serve himself any more.  You handed over or held out your plate, which may already have stuff on it, and he added whatever new thing you asked for. Worked fine.  Of course, with the greater volume of pax on X they will likely need more servers, but it doesn't seem insurmountable to me.

Well, I'm not a big show person, and I've not sailed on HA ever, so can't be much help there (anyway based on my impression from research it's a step down from X).  I'd say the shows on the higher level lines are good, but since the theaters are smaller and the staffing level for show types can't be as large as on the big ships (due to available crew space which is always a constraint) they can't be as big and spectacular as on larger ships.  It just goes with the territory. On the other hand there is a greater feeling of intimacy I suppose.  Suggest that might be a question to pose elsewhere on CC and see what reaction you get. I'm sure there are many who post on Celebrity board who could compare.

I agree with you about celebrity being good value, although I can't say it's because I have experience on mass market lines (Jan does since she's the TA, although it's been many years), but given their ratings that I see and their comparative pricing it looks good to me. 

I view Celebrity as plain premium (5.3*), and Oceania, Azamara, and probably Viking as "upper premium," (say 5.5 to 5.7*) give or take)i.e. a cut above Celebrity.  It will be interesting to see where Virgin ends up fitting in to that scale if at all. Then come the four 6* luxury lines.

As to the reasons for preferring the upper premium and luxury lines, of course  it's mostly subjective.  It's like trying to measure objectively  why Peter Lugar is better than Ruth's Chris or Outback, or Four Seasons than Marriott, or Volvo than Ford.  The only quantifiable thing is room -- the more expensive ships are definitely less crowded, and the cabins are definitely larger (on same-age ships); on Regent they even have walk in closets, and separate bathtubs and showers. The food is better at all types of restaurants, and on the lux lines they will make things to request if you give them a heads up; they have separate kitchens just for special requests and such. Booze is higher level and less charge.  Cabin service is more posh. It's just generally a higher level of service at all times. Of course the ships are smaller if that appeals.  Enrichment lecturers are generally more plentiful and more interesting. Entertainment is not as "showy" and elaborate of course, given the smaller size.  

Is it worth it?  The question always asked but can't ever really be answered.  All anyone can do is try it and see if he likes it.

2 hours ago, drsel said:

Those rich cruisers who are looking to book premium lines like Regent, Oceania, Azamara crystal et cetera are not going to be given much discount.

There are no cheap deals on premium lines.

it's the Robinhood principle of life.

Cruise lines will obviously try to extract as much as they can from those who can afford it.

It's a business after all!

Hah!  Maybe so.  Although I never saw cruise lines as enforcers of the "take from the rich and give to the poor" principle -- the first part certainly, but the second, not so much.

One would think the premium lines have the same business incentive to monetize unsold cabins as the mass market lines, so one wonders why you don't see much of it, unless protecting the image is a really strong part of the business model, which I suppose for them it is.

BTW we're hardly "rich", although I readily admit that is a concept that depends a lot on one's economic vantage point. Let's just say that I would judge us as being in the lowest economic decile when we've been on the Crystals of the world.  For us that's a splurge and we can only do it occasionally, which I suppose is why I'd like to find a cheaper way to go about it.  A more typical cruiser in that group is the sort that can be found over on the "Luxury Cruises" board here in CC. Very snooty, and more concerned with the brand of champagne served or the obsequiousness of the butlers than anything else. They engage in lots of passive-aggressive "my taste is superior to your taste" discussions, like what is the most spectacular special meal they've managed to order in the MDR or which suite is best. Some of them agree that to achieve the highest place in the cruise pantheon you have to give up on "downscale" lines like Regent and sail on Europa 2, because Berlitz says so. It gets hilarious sometimes.

I see from your handle you have an affinity for Celebrity, which happens to be the line we've used most by far.  Have you spotted them doing the last minute price cut much? 

20 minutes ago, drsel said:

Just arrange the prices by cheapest per day and you will find a lot of bargains under $50 per day.

Carnival cruises from US ports are currently the cheapest, even cheaper than the transatlantic cruises.

Europe and the middle East are now around 60 to 64 dollars per day.

Asia is 84 to 90 dollars per day, except for the trans Pacific cruises between Japan and Canada, which are much cheaper.

All prices are starting prices for an inside cabin including all taxes and port fees, excluding gratuities and service charges.

Kindly pardon the use of the word cheap.

Yeah I've done that.  But I guess I wasn't clear, or just assumed things. Sorry.  Specifically, not to sound snooty, but Carnival isn't our cup of tea.  Nor are inside cabins. For us "cheap" is relative.  We're always looking for 5.5  or 6 star ships, and balconies. Celebrity is kind of our low end entry point (and not even the Millenium class but these days at least Solstice if not Edge), going up from there (Oceania, Azamara, then Regent, Crystal. etc.) .  So I suppose what I really mean is how, if at all, does one get great, or even decent, last minute deals at that level? Deal defined as meaningfully cheaper than the same cabin was six month or so ago. So far I've never found much.

19 hours ago, drsel said:

1. For some of the big online travel agents, commission varies from 10% to 16% in mass market cruise lines.

2. Due to their volume, they get the biggest commissions. Sometimes lower fares as well for a group booking.

3. Last minute cheap fares are provided by the cruise line to fill the last few cabins. Online travel agents merely pass it on to you.

4. They can save the client 8-14% if the fare is the same. Much more in group bookings, where the fare itself is substantially reduced by the cruise line for a large group.

5. You get the biggest or best saving first time also.

6. The deal is sometimes a few dollars less than big box. Sometimes its the same.

7. When the cruise line itself gives you an excellent deal, then the agents discount is zero or negligible.

One good deal right now--

Carnival Splendor Mar 25, 2021 starts at $218 + 96 taxes for 8 nights @$39 per night.

Really excellent value! 

Good information.  Thank you.

Re: #3, the ever interesting late booking: are the on-line agents the best way to search for these, or something else.  I sometimes look at those 90 day deals, but really haven't ever seen much that got my heart pumping.  I've also searched them out on that cruise fare site with the graphs of all the history for each fare that we can't mention.  Same result. What am I doing wrong? Should I sign up for more e-mails to stuff my inbox? Are these deals all they're cracked up to be?

4 hours ago, iancal said:

We have also found, from time to time, significant differences in the cost of in country domestic air.   We have experienced this in Turkey, Greece, Argentina,  and as late as this past winter in Mexico.  We do not bother for small amounts.   This  winter we experienced a difference (35 percent) on an Interjet flight from Cancun to Huatulco by booking on Expedia vs Interjet direct or the other usual booking engines.  

 

We had the same experience with an Olympic flight in Greece this past fall  from Zakynthos to Athens.   Same savings percentage of 35 percent on Expedia plus a higher level of baggage allowance (that was of no use to us) vs booking direct with Olympic/Aegean or on other sights such as Google.  Our preference is always to book air direct but we could not overlook the pricing differences.

 

We do not understand the reason for these differences.  Perhaps they are anomalies, but we are happy to take the savings for just of few minutes of surfing the web

 

For hotels, we belong to the usual programs.  Marriott, Hilton, Choice, Accor, and Melia.   We find Marriott and Accor (and their multiple brands) to be the best for offering great member only offers but they are usually the book/pay in advance type.  Accor is good for Boxing Day specials.  We expect to save 25 percent when we book/pay in advance and only do so if we are confident that we will not be cancelling and if the date is a month or so away.

I don't know either but especially with little carriers like that it wouldn't surprise me if they are playing games with exchange rates when they can.  Screw the Yanqui's and so on. Maybe Expedia has found a way to put a stop to it.

9 minutes ago, iancal said:

My sense, based only on our experience, is that the price difference is based on two things.  First is the commission rebate which has been anywhere from 6-10 percent, once in a while 12 percent. The second part has been the ability to join a group booking.   For us that meant a small saving but did result in a complementary tour and great lunch at a nice island venue.

 

Others have claimed that the 'list' price has been less.  Not our experience but that does not mean it is or was not so.

 

We have found, and enjoyed, differences in list price when shopping for cruises in other countries.   So, if we are looking at a cruise in Europe or in Australia we will price that with our on line TA and with either a TA or the cruise line in those countries.   We do the same with most travel products.  There can be substantial differences but you do need to be aware of the conditions that go along with them such as re-faring.  We usually buy inside the final payment window so this has not been an issue for us.  The most recent was three years ago.  We saved 30 plus percent by calling RCI in Sydney to make a late booking vs. booking in North America with our TA or RCI direct.   My sister saved 15 percent on a Baltic cruise by booking through a UK TA.  

 

As an aside, we recently spent 7 weeks in Mexico touring about on our own.  On two occasions we picked up five days stays at two different AI's.   We shopped on line.  Twenty minutes later we were reserving, and paying  for them with a UK travel conglomerate-their price was 20 percent lower,adjusted for currency,  than the hotel or anywhere else we could find.  We travel frequently so these savings can add up for us over the course of a year.

My hat goes off to you.  I consider myself a price shopper, but you put my miserable efforts to shame!

In the case of cruises, we haven't really looked at it hard up 'til now because my wife is a retired TA and still has privileges at a small agency she was once part of.  The problem is she has to give them a big cut of the 10% and the part she gets becomes income to her so it's taxable, so when the dust settles the saving is minimal.  So I've pretty much decided we have to take another route in the future, assuming of course there is a future.

So from your response related to cruises, I gather the main saving is pretty much the amount they will rebate you from their commission, which varies but 7% would be a reasonable estimate most times. The big box folks do that of course and have some other bennies that come into play, so it seems to me there isn't anyone out there who is going to undercut them in the en, at least not enough to worry about. The drawback with them is they only deal with a specific range of lines, so if the client wants a cruise on another line he will have to go elsewhere.

The research goes on.  If anybody else has experiences to share, I'm all ears.

9 minutes ago, drsel said:

Yes online travel agents do discount prices substantially in most cases.

Even the future cruise agent on board could not match the price of the online travel agent.

Plenty of deals under $50 a day (including port fees and all taxes, excluding gratuities/service charges) for transatlantic and trans Pacific cruises.

Europe cruises starting 62 dollars a day including port fees and taxes.

Asia cruises are a little more expensive starting around $82 a day including port fees and all taxes.

These are the starting prices for inside cabins.

Question. Actually several questions.

Is it your sense that mostly how they do lower fares is by rebating the customer part of their(10%?)  commission?  If so, the saving should probably be, what, 7% or so?  Or due to their volume do they get bigger commissions, and/or do they actually get lower fares from the lines which they pass on? If the latter, is it special situations only like last minute or is it across the board?

Put another way, what is your sense as to how much (percentage terms) are they actually typically able to save the client?  Does it vary with the level of cabin or cost of cruise generally?  Luxury vs. mass market? And how much business do you need to do with them to get the best level of savings, or can anyone  get it first time?  Are the perks they throw in worth much

Does the deal made by stand-alone agents compare favorably with the deal from big box agents (one in particular of course)?

A lot of questions I know. All help appreciated.

On 5/4/2020 at 10:26 AM, iancal said:

We stopped bothering with cruise line web sites a long time ago.  We find the TA websites fare better.  Not just in functionality but also in performance and ease of use.  

 

Cruise line websites are for their marketing, not your information gathering or decision making.  To me they aren't much better, if at all, than those fancy brochures they send out, which are a colossal waste of paper and just extra stuff to haul off to the recycling center. But I guess both must work for some folks or the lines wouldn't do it.

The main caveat is that the TA website discussed above doesn't break down cabin types more finely than the four main categories, and the price it displays is the cheapest available cabin in that category. So to decide which, say, type of balcony cabin you want among the 12 or so sub-types available, you can make use of the cruise line website to see the price and amenities for each; OTOH there are other on-line TA sites that give that same information and add in which specific cabins are still available. Usually when searching for a cruise that's my procedure: select cruise based on TA #1 website, then select cabin from TA #2 website, then book however works best.

4 hours ago, caribill said:

 

They may do just fine on pricing, but not on service. Compare UAL or Delta to Asia with the service on Cathay Pacific or JAL or Singapore Airlines or a number of other foreign airlines.

You're certainly not the first person to make that point; maybe more like the 10 zillionth. While there's some truth in it, IMHO there's also a lot of smoke and mirrors.  The most important variable in (cabin) service, and the only one that's really quantifiable, is seat room, and when I've looked at seat maps and sizes I have yet to find any systematic differences.  The interpersonal aspects are in the eye of the beholder.  It's true that the cabin crew on some Asian carriers is younger and more pleasing to the eye, especially the male eye, but keep in mind that the reason behind that is that some Asian carriers can keep the supply of sweet young things coming, by ditching the older ones at an early point; given US labor laws, US carriers don't have that option, and personally I view that as a good thing.

Whatever, the fact remains that US carriers compete and make money on their international services, which was the original point, meaning that hypothetically allowing foreign flag airlines to serve US city pairs certainly doesn't mean they would run US carriers "out of business."  In fact, the only more-or-less test case of such an effort I know of was Sir Richard's shot at it with Virgin America, and in the end that came up short.  

12 hours ago, katisdale said:

I have a neighbor who was a pilot (now retired). He would not want the PVSA nor the Jones Act changed. He says the only thing keeping the US airlines in business is that foreign airlines cannot take a passenger from one US city to another US city without first stopping at a foreign airport. In other words, he explained that British Airways for example can fly from London Heathrow to an American city, perhaps JFK, but cannot fly from JFK to St. Louis. The plane would have to go to a foreign airport before going to Missouri. I have no personal knowledge of what rules this entails but I found this intriguing.

I'm sure your neighbor is (was) a fine pilot, but pilots are usually not very reliable sources of good information about airline business matters and regulation.

Briefly, what you are talking about is called cabotage.  It started out as a maritime shipping term but nowadays is applied to all forms of transportation. Cabotage would occur if a non-national carrier (transportation company registered or "flagged" elsewhere) carried goods or people between two points in that given country; hypothetical examples would include British Airways or Maersk shipping or Princess Cruises providing carriage of passengers or cargo within the US, say from NY to Miami. Same thing if United Airlines tried to sell tickets from say London to Manchester.

The key thing is that, with limited exceptions, every country bans cabotage -- generally, no country allows non-national carriers to serve its domestic commerce.  In the US maritime sector, this restriction is embedded in the Jones Act and PVSA, and there are other laws covering aviation.  Pretty much every other country of consequence has similar laws that cover maritime and air, and even trucking etc. as appropriate; there's nothing unusual about this. There are exceptions, e.g. among EU and NAFTA countries, but these are usually limited and very specific.

So banning cabotage, such as the US banning foreign airlines or ships from serving within the US, is national policy everywhere, not just the US. There is not and never was any serious thought among those in charge of opening up the US to cabotage, and it is not fundamentally based on concern about "cheap" foreign competition; everybody does it.

But here's the thing.  Your pilot friend is obviously wrong on another key point -- US airlines are clearly competitive with other countries' airlines; they prove that every day with their international services where they do just fine thank you. Even if a foreign carrier were hypothetically allowed to set up a service in the US (or Britain or the EU), there is little reason to think it would have any significant competitive advantage. Its factor costs and efficiencies are mostly the same as US carriers. Same airplanes, same fuel, same maintenance, and so on.  Even airlines like say Emirates mostly use cockpit crews from developed countries and pay similar salaries.  Cockpit compensation costs may be higher among European lines than US carriers. Bottom line is that even if foreign airlines could set up in the US there is no basis to think they could out compete US carriers. US aviation law is not "the only thing keeping US airlines in business."

This is, of course, not exactly true in the realm of maritime shipping.

31 minutes ago, jan-n-john said:

 

 So if so, why did foreign flag operators not continue with steam and just buy fuel it in the US?  If it was due to labor cost, that derives from US policy forcing them to use high cost US cits.  But is it also because they had to buy engines in the US and since there weren't any US low speed diesel builders at so they were stuck? Either way the problem goes back to US "buy America" policy.

 

Sorry I garbled up that US flag steam discussion, and I missed the edit window.  Try this

So if so, why didn't foreign flag operators also continue with steam and just buy cheap fuel in the US? Obviously they didn't, but US operators did. Was the US operators' staying with steam actually due to higher labor cost? Or was the real issue that there weren't any US low speed diesel builders so they were stuck? Either way the root of the problem goes back to US "buy America" policy imposed arbitrarily by law.

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, they do.  Typically your passenger muster station leader is a cabin steward or waitstaff.  Fire teams are made up of crew from all areas of the hotel staff, with usually only one engineering crew on each team.  For the POA, with a 900+ crew, about 750 will have emergency duties specified:  fire teams, medical teams, muster leaders, crew who direct passengers during emergencies, crew who "clear" cabins to ensure occupants are out, etc, and the rest will be listed as "assist as directed", meaning they are on "standby" for when the on-scene commander needs more manpower.

 

This was an outgrowth of the MMA of 1936, where increased crew costs were passed to the taxpayer via the subsidies.  As I said, we should have been leading in going to smaller, better trained crew, given more technology to aid that smaller crew to do the same job, as is done today with today's "unattended engine rooms", and bridge automation.

 

I will disagree with you about ships not being a higher capital/lower wage activity.  The most significant lack of innovation that the US merchant marine faced after WW2 was that the rest of the world adopted the marine diesel engine for propulsion.  Fuel was expensive outside the US at the time, and labor was cheap, so this fuel efficient mode of propulsion was attractive to the rest of the world.  But in the US, fuel was cheap and labor was expensive, so we stayed with the steam propulsion plant, with it's inherent inefficiency, but very low maintenance requirements, right up until the Oil Embargo when fuel prices woke everyone up to the savings of diesel.  I believe that if the US had embraced the diesel engine back in the 50's, then we would have designed innovative automation to reduce the manning and maintenance required to keep this efficient plant operating, and this would have led to a much different picture of the US merchant marine.

 

The subsidies did not introduce "rigidities", but it did make any thought of looking at the problem from a different perspective unattractive, since the simple expedient of using more, higher cost labor to build a ship, or more, higher cost labor to operate that ship, didn't cost labor or management a thing.  The subsidy did what it was designed to do, get the US merchant marine ready for WW2, but they should have been scrapped after the war.

Thank you for fleshing that out a bit.

My main point about maids and bartenders is, do they have to be US cits or green card holders?  If so, that adds rocket fuel to the pumped up cost of operating a theoretical US flag cruise ship, thus adding to the impossibility of competing in any foreign trade. 

With regard to steam turbines, isn't it a little more complicated than that?  Say there are (were) US flag and foreign flag in a given route.  Is it not true that a no matter what flag a ship has, it will buy fuel wherever it can get it cheapest, and if so there should be no difference imposed by the US flag vs. a foreign flag (in international service).  So if so, why did foreign flag operators not continue with steam and just buy fuel it in the US?  If it was due to labor cost, that derives from US policy forcing them to use high cost US cits.  But is it also because they had to buy engines in the US and since there weren't any US low speed diesel builders at so they were stuck? Either way the problem goes back to US "buy America" policy.

One important rigidity in the operating subsidy program was that to get it the US flag operator had to sign up to serve a specific defined trade route (TR 1 or TR 17 for example) and didn't have flexibility to move ships around when appropriate as did his foreign flag competition.  That rigidity was very costly, and trust me I heard about that a lot from US companies back in those days. For this reason and many other rigidities in the subsidy program, the subsidy did not really make up for the costs imposed by the US flag.  In fact, because of these rigidities, Sea Land didn't bother with subsidies -- they managed to just swallow it (because in container operations labor is a small cost anyway) and ran their business in spite of it. That was a special case and it worked for a while but in the end they lost; the SL 7's and high fuel cost eventually did them in and along came Maersk.

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, as I said about the POA, everyone who has an emergency duty on a ship is considered to be "crew", and therefore must be fully credentialed merchant mariners.  And, US flag requires all licensed officers to be US citizens, and at least 75% of all crew to be US citizens, and the remainder can be US Resident Aliens.

 

I'm not sure how "US maritime policy shoots itself in the foot", except in my contention that the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, not the Jones Act or PVSA, was the driving force that killed the overseas US merchant marine.  The use of the construction and operating subsidies caused our industry to atrophy the US's natural drive towards innovation, where we could have made up for higher crew costs by more innovative shipbuilding and ship design.  Despite US crew wages being essentially flat over the 45 years of my career, we are still far behind foreign flag operators in operating costs.

 

As for a "head tax", I'm afraid that would end up just like the PVSA fines, passed to the passenger by a clause in the ticket contract, driving up cruise fares.

I don't know whether hotel maids and bartenders, waiters and cooks etc. on cruise ships participate in emergency actions, but even if not the higher costs of people to fill those jobs, if they must be US cits or green card holders, compared to the compensation costs for similar posts on foreign flag cruise ships, still would be a significant additional driver of higher crew costs for a US flag cruise ship compared with a cargo ship. You served on PofA; what is the deal on those folks?

When I said "shoot in foot etc." I was referring to the entire range of requirements to operate under the US flag that drive up costs without a compensating improvement in the resulting operation to help them compete. As to whether "innovation" etc. could have overcome the input cost disadvantage (ie higher compensation costs for the same job)  I am a lot more pessimistic than you.  One hears all the time lines like "we can do it -- we just have to be creative" applied to all sorts of issues in all sorts of activities, but it's mostly pep talk not a realistic solution.  In every activity, each country has some advantages and some disadvantages, due to unyielding underlying economic (and other) factors. Starting mostly after WWII, the US had higher wages than everybody else, so had to gravitate to higher capital/lower wage economic activity. Operating ships isn't that, and others can do it cheaper, so the US flag gradually got eliminated from international trade, especially with a subsidy program that didn't work because it introduced unnecessary rigidities that themselves increased costs. The main "innovation" the US applied seems to have been to write rules that called for more crew, not less, which was going the wrong way.  It was only a matter of time.   

Of course a head tax would be ultimately paid by customers, like all costs.  But if you look at the "lost income taxes" and divide it by the number of embarkations (which I haven't), based on general business knowledge I'm confident the per head cost would be so little that it would have no noticeable effect on people's propensity to cruise; there's already a long list of such taxes and fees on air tickets that hardly anybody is aware of, and airlines do pay taxes.  The point is, done correctly, it would eliminate a major anti-cruise (foreign flag ship) talking point that one hears constantly and has IMO a major downside effect on the industry's relationship with the federal government, which certainly was a factor in them not getting any help in the latest COVID package.

31 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

A few things that show how cruise prices will change if it were to go to US crews and US flag:

 

https://www.maritime.dot.gov/sites/marad.dot.gov/files/docs/resources/3651/comparisonofusandforeignflagoperatingcosts.pdf

 

This shows that operating cost for a cargo ship (much lower operating cost and lower crew cost than a cruise ship) is 2.7 times what a foreign flag ship would cost, and crew cost would be 5.3 times as much.  This was 9 years ago.

 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/u-s-flag-fleet-faces-higher-costs-fewer-cargoes

 

And this shows that in the interim, the cost differential has gone up by about 40%.

 

For cruising to resume at even a fraction of what it was before this hiatus, it could not sustain a 270-380% increase in price.  And, crew cost would be a far more significant cost percentage of operating expense on a cruise ship, so the final figure could be 4 to 5 times today's prices.

Thanks for posting this, and especially the link to the MarAd study.  It once again clarifies why there aren't going to be any US flag cruise ships, at least not under current laws/policy; they simply cannot compete with foreign flag ships, a point I have been trying to make lately in other threads.  US maritime policy shoots itself in the foot.  BTW the 2011 study is only the latest in a series of such studies -- I did one myself for MarAd back in the 70's (when there were still direct subsidies, before Reagan) which came to the same conclusion, just different absolute numbers; it was when that one got publicized in the Journal of Commerce (daily shipping newspaper in NY) that I found myself testifying before Congress on the subject, which was an interesting experience. Foreign flag is not done primarily to avoid US taxes or even to operate less safely, certainly not in the case of cruise ships.  Cost, specifically labor cost, is the driver.  No US flag cruise ship can compete, period.  PofA is in a trade where it doesn't have to compete which is why it can survive. Note that the costs shown in the MarAd study are for cargo vessels -- IIUC, in addition to navigation crew, a US flag cruise ship would have to have most or all of its hotel crew as US citizens as well, further enlarging the crew cost gap, but I'm not sure of the details.

If as a matter of national policy the US feels foreign flag cruise ships don't pay their fair share of taxes, it could easily put a non-evadable head tax on pax, paid by the operators, to replace the "lost" income taxes. End of discussion about that.

1 hour ago, bob brown said:

If MSC (all sides of it) are family owned privately, isn't that just "different pockets in the same pair of pants", so-to-speak?🙂

That's what one would think but for some reason (and I don't for a fact know the reason) the cruise part is publishing its financials, while the rest of MSC as far as I can see is not. They talk about having somehow taken on a separate identity, and having taken control of "the brand" as it pertains to cruises.  So it appears there has been some change in the previous simple "one family ownership", although the cruise subsidiary is still 100% by MSC which is still "ultimately controlled" by the Aponte family.  So I don't really know what it all means.

https://www.msccruises.com/en-gl/Assets/MSC Cruises Annual report 2019.pdf

See the para at the top of page 7 in the linked report. Also the top of page 28. Maybe there's somebody around here who knows what it all really means. 

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

All I can say is that MSC brings in $28 billion in revenue, while MSC Cruises brings in $2.8 billion, so the cruise business accounts for 10% of their business.

The cruises number is public information (it's EUR by the way).  Where did you get the container number?  I have seen it as speculation, but Maersk (the ocean shipping part) brings in about $28 billion and we know it's bigger than MSC, so I have doubts MSC's container revenue is that large, but don't know of a reliable source. In any case, I am not aware of any source for their container side EBITDA, and that would be more critical in terms of how helpful they could be to the cruise side.  Two other things: the worldwide container business is also under severe stress, and MSC recently appears to have broken off the cruise business into some type of (semi?) autonomous business so that adds further question as to how any assistance would work.  So there are still some unknowns, at least to me.

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I'll make a few comments on your "additional thoughts".

 

I've worked on both international and US ships, and seen the quality of some emergency equipment, and I feel that the US requirements lead to a safer ship.  JMHO.  One of the problems with the El Faro is one of the problems I've mentioned regarding USCG Marine Inspection, is their outsourcing of Marine Inspection to class societies via the "Alternative Compliance Program", which the El Faro was under. Now, are all USCG approval requirements completely necessary, or in some cases merely to continue a consistency of standards across all US industry by requiring testing by US standards agencies, well that can get right into the weeds.

 

The Pride of America was originally being built in a US shipyard, for a US owner, for the Hawaiian trade.  That owner went bankrupt, and the US government was left guaranteeing the loan to the shipyard for an unfinished hull.  While she was completed in Germany, I would love to see how much of her structure is of US origin, as even Jones Act or PVSA compliant ships are allowed significant foreign content.

 

With regards to AP Moeller and Viking, and NCL as well, these are not "shell corporations", which are defined as corporations without active business operations or significant assets.  All of these corporations have formed subsidiaries in the US (US incorporated), that have business operations in the US, and which either own or lease significant assets (the vessels).  As I've said before, it is quite common in the maritime world for each ship to be "owned" by a separate corporation that is a subsidiary of the parent, and is leased or chartered to that parent.  This has nothing to do with flag state.

 

And, the GAO has not found any conclusive evidence that the Jones Act or PVSA increases the cost of living in those areas of the US you mention.  There is no restriction that says goods from overseas have to go to the mainland first, and then be shipped to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or Alaska only on Jones Act shipping.  If there was significant savings to be made, both retailers and shippers could arrange for direct importation on foreign bottoms, and there is already existing this foreign trade to those locations.

I'll respond to your comments, and any differences we have really aren't major.  But first kindly allow me to mention, reluctantly, that I am a retired transportation economist who, long ago and far away, specialized in ports and maritime transportation, and even once testified before Congress (the House Maritime Sub-committee) on the subject of US flag competitiveness. I even once taught some courses in the subject at that other maritime academy across the sound.  I've been away from it all for a long time;  things do change and I haven't necessarily kept up, but at least do have a faint flicker of knowledge where these issues are concerned.

On safety, I agree -- let's not get into the weeds on safety inspections.  I'll just stand by my earlier comments. In effect my point is that the safety regime of the US is likely not more effective in promoting safety that that of other nations, but it can and does impose some extra costs which, while not necessarily deal-breakers, does add to the cost burden of operating under the US flag.   The main thing remains crew costs.

Regarding Pride of America, the main takeaway is only that, contrary to what some might think, its existence is based on some very special circumstances and as such it in no way supports the idea that a US flag cruise ship could be competitive in any "normal" cruise market.

Regarding AP Moller and Viking, there's no value getting into the definition of what is or is not a shell company.  If you wish,  I used the term loosely because folks understand the basic idea behind it. The real takeaway there is that the US citizen ownership provision of US domestic shipping laws can easily be structured around, rendering the policy ineffective in application and fundamentally pointless since the true economic owner can be and sometimes is a non-US entity.

Regarding "conclusive evidence of Jones Act impact on prices", that's a little mealy-mouthed don't you think?  As an alternative to GAO, ask the people of Puerto Rico or Hawaii what they think; you'll get an ear full.  Of course those places can be served directly from international points, but the reality is they are Americans and act like Americans, meaning they don't import gallon jugs of milk or boxes of Pop Tarts from Japan or the UK.  That stuff and thousands of tons of other stuff comes from the mainland, and the shipping cost is artificially, and some would say needlessly, inflated by the US flag requirement, and it may not be just raw cost but also the resulting lack of competition (we could have a separate discussion on how transportation rates get made, a topic near and dear to my heart).  In effect, the people in those places are being forced to pick up a lot more than their fair share of the tab for the high-cost US shipping industry, the maintenance of which is always being justified primarily as a readiness issue benefiting all Americans.  Whether it really is, and whether there are better ways to accomplish that goal or even whether it's really necessary, are topics for another discussion but that would be well beyond Cruise Critic.

PS  As an aside, one of the jobs I did in the distant past was to manage a port master plan study for the Port of San Juan.

Below is a post I made earlier in the "Which cruise lines sail under the US banner" thread and I was asked to repost it here.  So, OK, I'll repost it here.  Unchanged except a few proof reading-type fixes to hopefully reduce embarrassment.  Below the repost I've added some additional thoughts:

===============

For a bit of clarification, the key is whether the vessel is operating in foreign trade or purely domestic or other protected trade.  For example, all the river boats and others mentioned above are purely in domestic trade.  No foreign flag ships are allowed by law to serve domestic routes; thus, any ship that serves such routes must be US flag, but also by definition is protected from competition from foreign flag ships.  This includes domestic offshore trades such as Puerto Rico and Hawaii (important there for cargo services not pax services). 

The reason the only US flag major cruise ship (Pride of America) even exists is because there is no practical way to offer weekly inter-island cruises around Hawaii (PofA's business model) and also call at any foreign ports, so there is no practical way to do it except by using a US flag ship.

Why does flag matter, and why are there no US flag full-size cruise ships except PofA?  CLIA and others offer a long list of "reasons," but they downplay or don't even mention the real reason, which is cost.  Due to US laws and regulations regarding ship design/build and particularly operations, it is simply not possible to operate under the US flag and be competitive, mainly due to the US citizen crew requirement. Anyone who tried to compete using a US flag ship would be out of business before the ship got wet. That is the true bottom line, i.e. why there are no US flag cruise (or cargo) ships operating in any route where foreign flag ships can also operate, which is basically everywhere except those protected domestic routes mentioned above and when carrying certain protected cargos. Note -- it has essentially nothing to do with safety or tax dodging, as is often alleged. Operating cost is the driver. (but see below)

In essence, due to their high costs no ship can operate under the US flag without either direct or indirect subsidy.  There used to be direct subsidies for cargo shipping, but those were eliminated long ago, and that was the death-knell for US flag international liner cargo services.  But there are still two important forms of indirect subsidy: (1) exclusion of foreign flag ships from domestic routes, thus protecting higher cost US flag ships from lower cost foreign flag shipping (e.g. Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, river shipping, and coastal US shipping which today is mostly tankers), and (2) dedicated US cargos reserved only to US flag ships such as US food aid shipments and military cargos -- the famous "Capt. Philips" ship was a US flag vessel carrying protected US food donation shipments IIRC. It is mostly this reserved cargo shipping where foreign-built ships operating under the US flag are found, as mentioned earlier by chengkp75; interestingly that ship was beneficially owned by AP Moller, a Danish company, and complied with US ownership requirements through shell companies.

It's complicated.

===========

A couple of additional thoughts.

US required safety and quasi-safety requirements do increase the cost of operating under the US flag; how much is impossible to say.  But  those who defend these requirements present it as a given that they are worthwhile. I don't buy that at face value; there is some correct/reasonable level of safety requirements, equipment, inspections that is optimal, and I am not aware of any evidence that the level called for in international agreements (under IMO for example) and adhered to by most foreign flag ships are not adequate and appropriate.  I am aware of no data showing that the US requirements are not actually excessive and amount to job preserving actions hiding behind "safety" as a cover.  Costa Concordia was a case of a crazy captain showing off to his mother/drinking buddies -- it had nothing to do with safety requirements that I know of. And if US safety requirements are so great, tell me about El Faro.  The truth is  that these marine disaster incidents are exceptionally rare, and below the threshold of where there is statistical validity to draw conclusions about whose safety regime is the most appropriate.  

Further to the Pride of America, that is a domestic trade and normally would require use of a US built ship.  There was no such ship, and the deal was given a special dispensation by Congress to allow use of a foreign-built ship(s). Without that it simply wouldn't have happened

Another example of a beneficially foreign-owned vessel in US domestic trade is about to come into existence with Viking's entry into river cruising on the Mississippi. The boat(s) are being built in Louisiana and will be "owned" by a US company but long term chartered to Viking; it's obvious that the arrangement was set up by lawyers to comply with the law (PVSA) but in fact the economics and business relationships are such that they will be controlled in all substantial ways by Viking just as if Viking were the owner of record, similar to the AP Moller arrangement noted above.

The requirement of US flag shipping in the case of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Alaska comes at a real cost to those places.  High cost US flag shipping has a real impact on the cost of living for citizens in those places; they complain about being stuck with the bill for US protectionism with some cause, especially Puerto Rico which doesn't have Alaskan oil or tremendous Hawaiian tourism revenues to make up the difference.

On 4/26/2020 at 6:19 PM, NantahalaCruiser said:

As drsel said, just check out a couple of online TA websites.  I have a favorite that has tremendous flexibility in their search capability - always use it for my searches - never booked with them 😎

 

Among the various search options are:

• range of departure dates by year, month & day
• min/max number of nights
• embarkation port
• disembarkation port
• included ports
• excluded ports
• included cruise lines

Have fun searching

The really powerful feature about that website (which of course shall remain unnamed), well at least the one I like best because I'm a cheapskate, is that when you get your list of cruises based on your search criteria, you can change the column on the right from "status", whatever that is, to price per night which will display the price per night for the cabin category you are currently viewing.  Then click the column heading and it will display the cruises in each group from lowest to highest price.  Really great for quickly sniffing out bargains.

Also the "custom search" feature is far more powerful than the simple one that shows up first -- it does take a little practice to get the most out of it however; one of the custom search features I always use is ship ranking, which cuts out a lot of returns that I'm not interested in and saves time.

I've not yet found a website that can touch that one's capability to quickly search out cruises, and trust me I've looked.  If anybody knows of one I'm all ears. Don't mention names though.