Will Baltimore Ever Get Any New Cruise Lines?

As of March 12th, I have officially sailed on both of the ships that call Baltimore their home port; the Carnival Pride and the RC Grandeur of the Seas. Both ships have their strengths and weaknesses, but overall, I am glad that people living in the D.C./Baltimore/Pennsylvania/NoVA area have a port close enough to drive to. However, I would like to try even more cruises from Baltimore. At one time, I think Princess Cruises also operated out of Baltimore, but that doesn't happen anymore. When, and if, do you guys think that Baltimore will receive another home port ship?

Personally, I think NCL may do well there. That would give Baltimore one of each of the "Big 3".

The MPA is always looking and talking to other cruise lines. The obsticle we have are our bridges at The Key and Bay Bridges. With an air draft of 185 ft the port can handle only a certain class of cruise ship.

The MPA is always looking and talking to other cruise lines. The obsticle we have are our bridges at The Key and Bay Bridges. With an air draft of 185 ft the port can handle only a certain class of cruise ship.

I've heard that same thing, and it's a bit disappointing. However, all cruise lines seem to have older, smaller ships in their fleets that would suffice. NCL, like RCI and Carnival, has a large fleet with many smaller ships.

I've sailed out of Baltimore three times and one of my favorite things is to see how close the top of the ship comes to the Key Bridge deck.

I've sailed out of Baltimore three times and one of my favorite things is to see how close the top of the ship comes to the Key Bridge deck.

Yep, that's always fun. I always miss the one at the end of the Bay. It's usually night by the time the ship hits that point.

I have sailed out of Baltimore on Carnival Pride and enjoyed both the port facilities (but, watch out for the police when one comes off of I-95 North), the sailaway, and the sailing through the Bay. It's worth being awake when one is nearing/at the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel!

I have never understood why Norfolk seems so underused as a cruise homeport. Closer to the Atlantic than Baltimore. Personal thought: not having used this port as a departure port, is it not as well designed and with parking potential issues as compared to Baltimore?

I do agree with the OP's original premise: mixing up the ship and itinerary offerings from Baltimore would make sailings for experienced cruisers from there more attractive.

I have sailed out of Baltimore on Carnival Pride and enjoyed both the port facilities (but, watch out for the police when one comes off of I-95 North), the sailaway, and the sailing through the Bay. It's worth being awake when one is nearing/at the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel!

 

I have never understood why Norfolk seems so underused as a cruise homeport. Closer to the Atlantic than Baltimore. Personal thought: not having used this port as a departure port, is it not as well designed and with parking potential issues as compared to Baltimore?

 

I do agree with the OP's original premise: mixing up the ship and itinerary offerings from Baltimore would make sailings for experienced cruisers from there more attractive.

I have always wondered why Norfolk was never used as a cruise port either. I'm sure there's a perfectly legitimate reason, so Baltimore is about the only choice between Bayonne and Charleston.

I have always wondered why Norfolk was never used as a cruise port either. I'm sure there's a perfectly legitimate reason, so Baltimore is about the only choice between Bayonne and Charleston.

I sailed out of Norfolk on HAL a number of years ago. It's nearness to the open sea is an asset, but limited parking is a problem. I believe the real disadvantage is its distance from population centers. Where Baltimore is within three or so hours of New York, Philadelphia, the DC area, and Baltimore itself; Norfolk's fairly remote location in the Tidewater adds significant travel costs to the necessary numbers of potential passengers who might use it-- while still being a long way from the prime cruising grounds of the Caribbean.

Active cruise ports are generally found near heavily populated areas or within a day's sail of cruise destinations: neither of which applies to Norfolk.

Boston faces a similar situation--- too far from the Caribbean for year-round use, so it only has warmer season departures for Canada and Bermuda.

As of March 12th, I have officially sailed on both of the ships that call Baltimore their home port; the Carnival Pride and the RC Grandeur of the Seas. Both ships have their strengths and weaknesses, but overall, I am glad that people living in the D.C./Baltimore/Pennsylvania/NoVA area have a port close enough to drive to. However, I would like to try even more cruises from Baltimore. At one time, I think Princess Cruises also operated out of Baltimore, but that doesn't happen anymore. When, and if, do you guys think that Baltimore will receive another home port ship?

 

Personally, I think NCL may do well there. That would give Baltimore one of each of the "Big 3".

RC Enchantment of the Seas was going out of Baltimore for a while. As another poster said, there are 2 bridges they go under so there is a height limit. I would also imagine it has to do with how many people are on each cruise. If the average is 85% full, they aren't going to put a bigger ship there. Cruise lines want every cruise 100% booked

RC Enchantment of the Seas was going out of Baltimore for a while. As another poster said, there are 2 bridges they go under so there is a height limit. I would also imagine it has to do with how many people are on each cruise. If the average is 85% full, they aren't going to put a bigger ship there. Cruise lines want every cruise 100% booked

Be it Royal or Carnival both ships are consistently sold out.

The restriction on air draft dictates what ships will call Baltimore.

Navy bankerteacher you are right on target why Norfolk is not a desirable cruise port, this was even after they pent over $20 million to build a terminal.

We have the same problem here with the bridges. Also, in Tampa. They want to move the port here in Jacksonville out on the other side but a group of locals have been fighting it.

One of the big drawbacks to Baltimore is the amount of time spent within the US ECA, where the ship either has to burn low sulfur diesel fuel, or be equipped with, and using scrubbers. Both the Grandeur and the Pride have scrubbers installed, so they can continue to burn the cheaper residual fuel while in the US ECA, but until more ships through more of the fleets have them installed (about 6-9 months per ship while in operation, and $1-1.5 million per engine) there won't be many new ships or other lines using Baltimore. Philly has a similar drawback. Once the ship is outside of 200 miles from shore, they can switch back to cheaper fuel, or bypass the scrubbers, so the quicker they can do so, the better for their bottom line.

Also, not sure of the Grandeur's or Pride's schedules, but with only one embarkation ramp (currently none, thanks to the Pride), they probably have taken the prime Saturday/Sunday embarkation days, so any other ships would have to schedule for the less popular weekday embarkations, or use their lower deck gangways for embarkation.

One of the big drawbacks to Baltimore is the amount of time spent within the US ECA, where the ship either has to burn low sulfur diesel fuel, or be equipped with, and using scrubbers. Both the Grandeur and the Pride have scrubbers installed, so they can continue to burn the cheaper residual fuel while in the US ECA, but until more ships through more of the fleets have them installed (about 6-9 months per ship while in operation, and $1-1.5 million per engine) there won't be many new ships or other lines using Baltimore. Philly has a similar drawback. Once the ship is outside of 200 miles from shore, they can switch back to cheaper fuel, or bypass the scrubbers, so the quicker they can do so, the better for their bottom line.

 

Also, not sure of the Grandeur's or Pride's schedules, but with only one embarkation ramp (currently none, thanks to the Pride), they probably have taken the prime Saturday/Sunday embarkation days, so any other ships would have to schedule for the less popular weekday embarkations, or use their lower deck gangways for embarkation.

The Pride's schedule is Sunday.

The Grandeur's schedule is Thursday or Saturday depending on where she is going.

I would like to see my home city of Philadelphia host a series of cruises. rcl did so in 2006

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

I would like to see my home city of Philadelphia host a series of cruises. rcl did so in 2006

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

Again, until scrubbers become more widespread throughout the fleets, this most likely isn't going to happen.

Again, until scrubbers become more widespread throughout the fleets, this most likely isn't going to happen.

Not to mention that the cruise terminal in Philadelphia, which was a makeshift operation at best, doesn't even exist any longer.

No cruise terminal plus no scrubbers plus no ships that are small enough to pass under the bridges equals no chance.

[emoji848][emoji848][emoji848][emoji848]what are scrubbers?

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[emoji848][emoji848][emoji848][emoji848]what are scrubbers?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

Since 1 January, 2015, there have been emissions standards for ships operating within 200 miles of the North American coastline. These standards essentially require ships to burn low sulfur diesel fuel, which is twice as expensive as the residual fuel they used to burn. Scrubbers, at a cost of about $1-1.5 million per engine (or about $6-9 million per ship), remove the pollutants from the diesel exhaust gas, and allow the ships to continue to burn the less costly residual fuel while still meeting the emissions standards.

Ports like Philadelphia and Baltimore, being several hours upriver or up the Bay, means that the ships have to spend this time burning the more expensive fuel before they even get to the coast, let alone 200 miles from it.

 

 

 

Since 1 January, 2015, there have been emissions standards for ships operating within 200 miles of the North American coastline. These standards essentially require ships to burn low sulfur diesel fuel, which is twice as expensive as the residual fuel they used to burn. Scrubbers, at a cost of about $1-1.5 million per engine (or about $6-9 million per ship), remove the pollutants from the diesel exhaust gas, and allow the ships to continue to burn the less costly residual fuel while still meeting the emissions standards.

 

 

 

Ports like Philadelphia and Baltimore, being several hours upriver or up the Bay, means that the ships have to spend this time burning the more expensive fuel before they even get to the coast, let alone 200 miles from it.

Very interesting, being a Maryland resident, I remember hearing about this on the news. I also remember that along with this requirement, it also put in jeopardy RCL and Carnival continuing to do business here. I wonder if would be more cost effective to build a new cruise terminal further down the bay, perhaps in the Annapolis area south of the Bay Bridge, thereby, eliminating the bridge height issues AND shortening the mileage to the ocean. (Although I would miss the thrill of going under the bridges). Perhaps this would open doors to more cruises, ships, etc (perhaps NCL?).

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Very interesting, being a Maryland resident, I remember hearing about this on the news. I also remember that along with this requirement, it also put in jeopardy RCL and Carnival continuing to do business here. I wonder if would be more cost effective to build a new cruise terminal further down the bay, perhaps in the Annapolis area south of the Bay Bridge, thereby, eliminating the bridge height issues AND shortening the mileage to the ocean. (Although I would miss the thrill of going under the bridges). Perhaps this would open doors to more cruises, ships, etc (perhaps NCL?).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Actually, it was only Carnival that balked at the requirements, and tried to get concessions from the state on port fees to offset the federal requirements. Both Grandeur and Carnival Pride have scrubbers installed, so they will most likely be long term residents of Baltimore.

I don't know the Bay area that well, but moving a cruise terminal to an area where there isn't sufficient infrastructure (distance from major airports, roads, let alone docking) hasn't worked well for Norfolk, so I doubt a move away from Baltimore would be any more successful.

Actually, it was only Carnival that balked at the requirements, and tried to get concessions from the state on port fees to offset the federal requirements. Both Grandeur and Carnival Pride have scrubbers installed, so they will most likely be long term residents of Baltimore.

 

 

 

I don't know the Bay area that well, but moving a cruise terminal to an area where there isn't sufficient infrastructure (distance from major airports, roads, let alone docking) hasn't worked well for Norfolk, so I doubt a move away from Baltimore would be any more successful.

I know Royal Caribbean just signed a 4-year deal with Baltimore so it's good there. As for moving the terminal further down to the Annapolis area would actually put it closer to DC and with I-97 and U.S. 50 being limited access highways, still easy access for Baltimore, BWI Airport an traffic along the I-95 corridor. Just throwing it out there.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Actually, it was only Carnival that balked at the requirements, and tried to get concessions from the state on port fees to offset the federal requirements. Both Grandeur and Carnival Pride have scrubbers installed, so they will most likely be long term residents of Baltimore.

 

I don't know the Bay area that well, but moving a cruise terminal to an area where there isn't sufficient infrastructure (distance from major airports, roads, let alone docking) hasn't worked well for Norfolk, so I doubt a move away from Baltimore would be any more successful.

i don't think that was the case. the grandeur was allowed to use the scrubbers from the start because they had already had them installed on the ship. but they wanted the pride to use a different fuel to burn all the way down the Chesapeake until they got into international water. this fuel of course was extremely expensive. the pride wanted to use the scrubbers that the grandeur was being allowed to use as it was only fair that the rules were the same for both cruise lines. during the feud over the issue carnival pulled the pride to tampa until they were allowed to use the same scrubber system that rccl was allowed to use. it wasn't a case of carnival balking at the requirements. it was a case of carnival balking at the idea of different rules being applied for the same requirement. why would one cruise line be allowed to use scrubbers but another cruise line have to burn a special fuel instead of using scrubbers.

once the pride left baltimore and went to tampa there was only 1 ship in baltimore and rccl was able to schedule what ever they wanted. once the pride came back to baltimore they had to schedule around the rccl schedule for a couple years. this is why the pride has some cruises with different lengths. they have some 8 day cruises and also the journey cruises. the normal schedule is rccl leaves on a saturday and carnival on a sunday.

there were 4 cruise lines that cruised out of baltimore when the port opened. of course you had carnival and rccl. but also the celebrity mercury cruised out of baltimore on 9 and 12 night cruises and also there was american cruise lines a small cruise ship around 120 people that cruises the Chesapeake.

don't know why celebrity left baltimore.

american cruise lines still has the Chesapeake cruise that leaves out of the port of baltimore. but i don't think they use the same terminal as rccl and carnival.

It wasn't a case of carnival balking at the requirements. it was a case of carnival balking at the idea of different rules being applied for the same requirement. why would one cruise line be allowed to use scrubbers but another cruise line have to burn a special fuel instead of using scrubbers.

Because IMHO government should set standards, and leave the process up to those who need to meet the standards. If one line can meet the regs with scrubbers and another line can burn special fuel to meet the regs, who cares how they did it, it only matters that they did it.

I've heard that same thing, and it's a bit disappointing. However, all cruise lines seem to have older, smaller ships in their fleets that would suffice. NCL, like RCI and Carnival, has a large fleet with many smaller ships.

Money talks. The cruise lines know which client sectors will pay X for Y, and they know that they can maximize profit with their smaller ships elsewhere. Perhaps those ships can operate year-round somewhere else, avoiding long repositioning runs that earn some revenue but not what a "real cruise" could earn. Perhaps they feel that a certain segment of their clientele prefers the smaller ship, while a different segment of their clientele prefers the larger ship, and they know that the typical demographic of Baltimore only sells well to the clientele who prefer the bigger ship.