Future of NCL America Decision to be made by end of 2008

[spongerob]

I'm going to disagree.

 

The PVSA needs to be enforced, no matter how many feathers it ruffles.

 

It wasn't passed by Congress in the 1880s to distress passengers, nor to prop up a failing company. It was passed to encourage growth of the American shipping industry.

And the results 140 years later are...

 

*essentially no civilian shipbuilding in the US

*little or no merchant marine

*regulations that make investment in US-flagged shipping a risky venture with high probability of failure

 

How much more damage do you want?

[DAGVBSB]

The last change to the regulations by Customs was made in 1985 when Alaskan cruises were starting to take off in popularity. That change allowed foreign ships to embark and disembark passengers in the same American port to visit other American ports if they only stopped in a near foreign port. Without the 1985 changes, Alaskan cruises from Seattle would be illegal, cruises that stopped in Port Canaveral, Key West, and Maine would be too. Imagine how many cruise ships that might have been built in America if the rules hadn't been changed in 1985? I propose that many would have been built to meet passenger demands to visit these popular American ports.

 

NY to Florida cruises are popular. Seattle, even San Francisco to Alaska cruises are popular. Miami to the US Virgin Island cruises are popular.

Make it illegal for foreign ships to do them, and I bet you RCI, Carnival, and NCL would start building some cruise ships in America, and man them with Americans as well. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow would make them do so.

 

The foreign flag ships can do the other itineraries, that don't visit Hawaii, US Virgin Islands, Alaska, or New England. Or they can start their cruises from Vancouver, Ensenada, or Halifax, or Nassau to visit more than one American port.

 

Congress allowed NCLA to be created, they can do the same for the other major lines, if they are willing to fly under the American flag, live under American health and safety laws, and pay union wages. But limit them to just a few ships and limit where they can sail like they did to NCLA, until they have time to build ships in America.

 

The idea they will leave the cash cow, America, for long is ridiculous. It's time to stop pampering and pandering to foreign corporations.

 

 

So you are willing to sacrifice those American port jobs NOW just to stop companies like RCCL, Carnival and HAL?? You may be right that many cruiselines may look into building US ships and staffing them...but there are two huge negatives that I see:

1.) It will take at least 3 years or more before those ships would be ready (since they have to be US built). In the meantime, what about the jobs lost in tourism? and what about the immediate devestation to the US economy that it would cause??

 

2.) Cruising would no longer be available to the Middle Class. Why is NCL struggling with NCLA and needs to be able to raise prices on it? The US wage, overtime and hiring laws. NCLA is being forced to pay higher salaries and meet stricter training guidelines than the foreign flagged fleets. Any cruise line that would sail American flagged ships would be burdened with the same problem.

If a large fleet of US flagged ships would be created, then the price of cruising would go way up. Middle class people, who now barely can afford a cruise, (look at all the whines about being "nickeled and dimed") would not be able to take US flagged cruises and would remain on the International ships.

That would leave the wealthier people to cruise on the American flagged ships....they wouldn't. The service, as NCLA as proven, would not be up to the higher priced international cruise lines and so since the cost of a "luxary" cruise line would be the same as the American cruise line cruise, they will choose luxuary.

So basically, the Middle class will sail on the international ships out of foreign ports and the Upper class will be on the luxuary lines and that really leaves no one for the US ships....

 

As long as the US wage laws are in force on the US flagged ships...they simply cannot compete. I know this will ruffle feathers, but the American crew simply will not work as hard as an international crew and it is a factor! Put an International crew on an American flagged ship with the US wage laws...and you might have a chance.....

 

and for the record... NCLA/Star is a foreign corporation just as much as RCCL or Carnival. It seems that the US government is pandering to them.

 

 

 

And the results 140 years later are...

 

*essentially no civilian shipbuilding in the US

*little or no merchant marine

*regulations that make investment in US-flagged shipping a risky venture with high probability of failure

 

How much more damage do you want?

 

yes, the law that was supposed to save the US shipping industry has damaged it...

[electricron]

So you are willing to sacrifice those American port jobs NOW just to stop companies like RCCL, Carnival and HAL?? You may be right that many cruiselines may look into building US ships and staffing them...but there are two huge negatives that I see:

1.) It will take at least 3 years or more before those ships would be ready (since they have to be US built). In the meantime, what about the jobs lost in tourism? and what about the immediate devestation to the US economy that it would cause??

 

2.) Cruising would no longer be available to the Middle Class. Why is NCL struggling with NCLA and needs to be able to raise prices on it? The US wage, overtime and hiring laws. NCLA is being forced to pay higher salaries and meet stricter training guidelines than the foreign flagged fleets. Any cruise line that would sail American flagged ships would be burdened with the same problem.

If a large fleet of US flagged ships would be created, then the price of cruising would go way up. Middle class people, who now barely can afford a cruise, (look at all the whines about being "nickeled and dimed") would not be able to take US flagged cruises and would remain on the International ships.

That would leave the wealthier people to cruise on the American flagged ships....they wouldn't. The service, as NCLA as proven, would not be up to the higher priced international cruise lines and so since the cost of a "luxary" cruise line would be the same as the American cruise line cruise, they will choose luxuary.

So basically, the Middle class will sail on the international ships out of foreign ports and the Upper class will be on the luxuary lines and that really leaves no one for the US ships....

 

As long as the US wage laws are in force on the US flagged ships...they simply cannot compete. I know this will ruffle feathers, but the American crew simply will not work as hard as an international crew and it is a factor! Put an International crew on an American flagged ship with the US wage laws...and you might have a chance.....

 

and for the record... NCLA/Star is a foreign corporation just as much as RCCL or Carnival. It seems that the US government is pandering to them.

 

 

 

 

 

yes, the law that was supposed to save the US shipping industry has damaged it...

 

 

I did write to allow the other cruise lines to reflag some foreign built ships like they allowed NCLA to do. That should suffice to protect American jobs in American ports on basically American coastal cruises. :rolleyes:

 

Please don't suggest the highlight of a New York to Florida cruise is Great Stirrup Cay. We all know the jewel of this itinerary is Port Canaveral, with Orlando's amusement parks, and the Kennedy Space Center.

[cruise4kicks]

Please don't suggest the highlight of a New York to Florida cruise is Great Stirrup Cay. We all know the jewel of this itinerary is Port Canaveral, with Orlando's amusement parks, and the Kennedy Space Center.

Speak for yourself, Ron. ;) If I ever do the FL/Bahamas run again: (1) It will be for the ship, not the itinerary; (2) I'll stay on the ship at Port Canaveral; (3) GSC will definitely be the highlight of the ports :eek: (which is why I go for the ship, not the ports). To each his own, I suppose.

[DAGVBSB]

Please don't suggest the highlight of a New York to Florida cruise is Great Stirrup Cay. We all know the jewel of this itinerary is Port Canaveral, with Orlando's amusement parks, and the Kennedy Space Center.

 

 

On my Dawn cruise, we didn't go to Port Canaveral and I didn't much care for Nassau or GSC. Bermuda was nice.

[SeattleCruiselover]

Though I can't say what they are yet, since they have not been publically announced, the (American flagged) cruise line that my daughter works for is already making some plans to hop in and compete for some of those passengers even before the final regs are announced. Too bad they can't do any open ocean crusing, because some of what they have planned would put some hurt on NCLA's plans to raise prices if they were able to enter the Hawaii market.

[Cruisin' Chick]

I believe that they really want the International cruises to Hawaii to completely stop and are doing this to make them so unappealing (very long cruise, limited stops in Hawaii, leaving from a foreign port) that people won't cruise them and look to NCL.

 

I think NCL GREATLY underestimated the consequences of this action of trying to put teeth in the PVSA. Because of the broad scope of the issue that has to enforced, it is going to do serious harm to the entire cruising industry and especially NCL image. (yes, I know NCLA and NCL are too different companies...but the VAST majority of people do not and consider the "Pride" ships simply a part of NCL.)

 

You know, its too bad that John Houseman is no longer alive... remember the commercials he used to do for some brokerage firm... "We get your business the Old Fashioned way...we eaaaaaarrrrnnnn it." NCL should take a lesson for that instead of the sneaky way of attempting to create a monopoly.

 

Yea, John didn't say, "we pay off senators....":rolleyes:

 

Again, if there was a problem with too short of port visits, then establish a reasonable minimum, such as six hours. Methinks the 48 hours is just a ploy to drive the foreign flagged cruiselines out of the Hawaiian market, and not a redressing of the service stop issue.

 

The honchos of NCLA are delusional if they believe the typical fan of HAL, Celebrity or Princess will book a NCLA cruise. Especially if the proposed changes go through.

[electricron]

Yea' date=' John didn't say, "we pay off senators....":rolleyes:

 

Again, if there was a problem with too short of port visits, then establish a reasonable minimum, such as six hours. Methinks the 48 hours is just a ploy to drive the foreign flagged cruiselines out of the Hawaiian market, and not a redressing of the service stop issue.

 

The honchos of NCLA are delusional if they believe the typical fan of HAL, Celebrity or Princess will book a NCLA cruise. Especially if the proposed changes go through.[/quote']

 

I also agree a reasonable amount of time should be set as the limit. I also agree 48 hours is much too long and unrealistic with todays cruise itineraries. But I disagree with you on what the time should be. I'm thinking it should be as long as the shortest time in an American port as a minimum, up to the longest time in an American port as a maximum, or somewhere in between.

 

Take this Diamond Princess itinerary for an example:

 

Sat Feb 16 Los Angeles, CA 4:00pm

Sun Feb 17 At Sea

Mon Feb 18 At Sea

Tue Feb 19 At Sea

Wed Feb 20 At Sea

Thu Feb 21 Hilo, Hawaii, HI 11:00am 6:00pm 7 hours

Fri Feb 22 Lahaina, Maui, HI 8:00am 6:00pm 10 hours

Sat Feb 23 Nawiliwili, Kauai, HI 8:00am 5:00pm 9 hours

Sun Feb 24 Honolulu, Oahu, HI 7:00am 11:00pm 16 hours

Mon Feb 25 Kona, Hawaii, HI 8:00am 6:00pm 10 hours

Tue Feb 26 At Sea

Wed Feb 27 At Sea

Thu Feb 28 At Sea

Fri Feb 29 At Sea

Sat Mar 1 Ensenada, Mexico 1:00pm 8:00pm 7 hours

Sun Mar 2 Los Angeles, CA 7:00am

 

At least Ensenada's 7 hours equals the 7 hours in Hilo as a minimum. And I wouldn't object if Customs decided 16 hours in Ensenada would be required because there is a 16 hours stop in Honolulu, as a maximum. I believe setting an arbitary number, be it just 4 or 6 short hours or a long 48 hours is wrong.

The number of hours should be based upon the proposed itinerary, either using the shortest, longest, or somewhere in between, depending upon the hours spent in any port for that specific itinerary. Wouldn't that be fair?

Since I believe the PVSA purpose is to encourage growth of American shipping, I'm more inclined to favor using the time of the longest stop in an American port as the minimum in a foreign port. But I wouldn't necessarily be against using the shortest stop.

[DAGVBSB]

The impact would be much less, because the cruise lines will change their itineraries to meet any new rules.

 

The $19 million impact on Catalina could be replaced by a simple, cheaper fast ferry servicing Catalina, like the new Hawaii Superferry. And at the same time provide American sailors a job.

 

The City of San Francisco disagrees with you Ron...

 

http://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1014&Itemid=58

 

One of the best quotes that I have read yet on this mess is from San Francisco's Mayor:

 

“At a time when our nation is on the brink of recession, the federal government should be stimulating our economy. This rule would strike a blow to our city’s successful cruise business,” said Mayor Gavin Newsom.

[electricron]

The City of San Francisco disagrees with you Ron...

 

http://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1014&Itemid=58

 

One of the best quotes that I have read yet on this mess is from San Francisco's Mayor:

 

“At a time when our nation is on the brink of recession, the federal government should be stimulating our economy. This rule would strike a blow to our city’s successful cruise business,” said Mayor Gavin Newsom.

 

Successful cruise business from San Francisco? Compared to what?

Let's look at the number of sailings for the upcoming year, until late April 2009, that embark in San Francisco.

Panama Canal 1

South America 1

Australia/New Zealand 1

*Hawaii 1

Tahiti 2

Repositioning 2

*Pacific Northwest 5

Mexico 10

**Alaska 20

 

I don't believe losing the one Hawaiian cruise is going to hurt the Port of San Francisco much. Loosing the 5 Pacific Coastal cruises will hurt some, and loosing the overwhelming number of 20 Alaskan cruises will hurt much.

But still, the total number of sailings from San Francisco, ie 47, is less than one cruise per week over an entire year.

Compared to 186 sailings from Long Beach and 348 sailings from Los Angeles, I wouldn't necessarily call San Francisco the cruise ship capital on the West Coast.

[DAGVBSB]

Now USA Today has came out against the proposal and they are citing many other newspapers comments in their story....and they call NCL out BY NAME in the article.

 

 

'Misguided' government rule could shut down Hawaii cruises:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/cruises/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=45317894.blog

[weary traveler]

7 hours wouldnt kill me in Esenada... it was the almost 9 hours by bus from there to LA that almost did. worth it to put up in a USA port. :rolleyes:

[Don Haynes]

Its amazing how 77 percent of the people want a stronger border, threaten a few cruises, and they fold to foreign corporations. Americans for Americans.....

 

I guess you all want to work for British corporations...

[DAGVBSB]

Its amazing how 77 percent of the people want a stronger border, threaten a few cruises, and they fold to foreign corporations. Americans for Americans.....

 

I guess you all want to work for British corporations...

 

Funny..... NCLA's Parent Company is Star Cruises...a foreign corporation.

 

So Don, I guess this means that using your logic above, you don't support NCLA either....

[DAGVBSB]

It appears that Hawaii's Congressional Delegation is on the opposite side of the fence from their own Governor, Tourism Department, Port workers and general population.....

 

Governor Lingle is opposed to the new restrictions but the Congressional Delegation is supporting NCL in this matter:

 

"I've got no sympathy for somebody that's trying to pull a fast one by avoiding taxes, health laws and environmental laws," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-H)

 

Then Neil, why do you support NCL?? They are just as guilty of that in Alaska and New England as the other cruise lines are in Hawaii. So why be such a big supporter?

 

Maybe......

 

From the Honolulu Star Bulletin:

"The second-largest contributor to Abercrombie's current re-election campaign is Star Cruises, NCL's parent company. The company gave him $11,000, behind only defense contractor BAE Systems, according to Opensecrets.org."

 

Link: http://starbulletin.com/2008/01/26/editorial/editorial01.html

[Don Haynes]

At least, NCLA did get an exemption from the US Congress, and HAVE flagged foreign built ships as American, NONE of the other cruise lines have done so. MOST OF NCLA'S crews are American, NONE of the other cruise lines chose to follow.

 

Americans for Americans.....not for anyone else.

[DAGVBSB]

At least, NCLA did get an exemption from the US Congress, and HAVE flagged foreign built ships as American, NONE of the other cruise lines have done so. MOST OF NCLA'S crews are American, NONE of the other cruise lines chose to follow.

 

Americans for Americans.....not for anyone else.

 

Of course.... NCL, Star, NCLA, whatever you want to call em had to get special exemptions to do the Hawaii cruises..... Then they had to go back and get another exemption to add international crew....

 

NOW, they and their paid off Congressional lap dogs (Abercrombie and Innoye) want a new government regulation to give them a Monopoly on Hawaii cruises.

 

Funny, most GOOD American companies (i.e.: Wendy's, McDonald's, Wal-Mart) have been successful due to smart leadership (Thomas, Kroc, Walton) and hard work.... NOT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. But, as I have said, so many times, NCL's leadership is not smart and therefore they can't be successful without help.

[paulsurf]

Getting exemtions, paying off congress to get a monopoly in order to bag some buck$ equals working smart versus working hard.

[mikedw]

Let's see, the foreign flagged ships don't adhere to any US labor laws, pay very little taxes in the US, since they're incorporated in foreign countries and the ships themselves hire very few if any Americans. I see actually no problem with giving preference to US Flagged ships. Hopefully once they come out with the new regulations, this will spur the development of even more US Flagged Passenger Ships.

[DAGVBSB]

Let's see, the foreign flagged ships don't adhere to any US labor laws, pay very little taxes in the US, since they're incorporated in foreign countries and the ships themselves hire very few if any Americans. I see actually no problem with giving preference to US Flagged ships. Hopefully once they come out with the new regulations, this will spur the development of even more US Flagged Passenger Ships.

 

and if they do, it will put cruising out of reach for the vast majority of Americans.

 

1.) The cost of building a ship in the US is much greater than the cost of building one in Europe. (all US flagged ships must be built in the US, so it is at least 3 years away......)

 

2.) The labor costs are much higher, the training costs and certifications are much higher.

 

3.) NCLA is already having trouble keeping 3 American flagged ships staffed with American workers...... do you think you could find enough American workers for 10???

 

All of those will simply add to the cost of the cruises and Americans will either opt for cruises from foreign ports or simply not to cruise. You can dictate US labor laws and regulations on businesses, but you can't dictate how Americans will spend their money.

[DAGVBSB]

Another interesting quote from a government official:

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said she's confident the DHS will revise the rule. If not, she'll ask for hearings.

 

'It would kill the fledgling cruise ship business in Maine if this were to go into effect, and I'm determined to ensure that it doesn't,' she said.

 

and some other intersting tidbits:

 

Juneau alone estimates it would lose in a single season $68 million in direct spending from ships that brought a million passengers to the city last year.

 

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Department did not do an economic analysis of the new rule, deeming it unnecessary, said Harold Singer, chief of the Department of Homeland Security's regulations branch.

[electricron]

Funny..... NCLA's Parent Company is Star Cruises...a foreign corporation.

 

So Don, I guess this means that using your logic above, you don't support NCLA either....

 

That''s not true anymore, NCL is only half owned by Star Cruises today, the other half is owned by Apollo Management, an American company.

[Sbilko]

What you all fail to realize is that this law was enacted prior to jet travel, when ship travel was the only method of covering great distances. If this change goes through, 48 hours, or even 24 hours, the big winners will be Canada’s east and west coast ports. NCL-A will have to keep on increasing it fares to the point that no one will sail with them. Also all Atlantic crossings to New York will be affected. Remember that American people who cruise will fly to non American Cities, just to Cruise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DAGVBSB]

That''s not true anymore, NCL is only half owned by Star Cruises today, the other half is owned by Apollo Management, an American company.

 

Ron, we are talking about NCLA here....NCLA is owned soley by Star at this time. Apollo did not take ownsership of them in the NCL deal.

[Cruisin' Chick]

At least, NCLA did get an exemption from the US Congress, and HAVE flagged foreign built ships as American, NONE of the other cruise lines have done so. MOST OF NCLA'S crews are American, NONE of the other cruise lines chose to follow.

 

Americans for Americans.....not for anyone else.

 

Well then, I guess you're in favor of driving out ships from US Ports. That sure will help Americans. Not.:rolleyes: :eek: :(