California Coastals and Mexico

[andeesue]

I see cruises out of San Diego to Hawaii, to Peru and back, to Mexico. Sometimes the repositioning ones to Vancouver or from Vancouver to San Diego aren't listed until later in the schedule.

[BruceMuzz]

In 2010, the Port of San Diego reported nearly 300 ship visits for the year.

In 2011, that number dropped to around 135.

In 2012, it was 111.

2013 is projected to fall under 100.

2014 will see fewer than 75.

 

If you dig a bit deeper into the numbers, it gets even worse.

The number of larger ship calls is dropping faster than the number of smaller ship calls. Larger ships mean much bigger financial boosts for the local economy.

 

At the same time, the number of one-day visits is becoming a much larger proportion of ship calls, compared to ship turnarounds.

On average, a medium to large ship calling at San Diego for the day injects around $1 Million into the local economy; a medium to large ship making a turnaround at San Diego injects around $2 Million into the local economy.

 

Most everyone agrees that San Diego was one of the best ports in America for cruise ships to visit. Passengers loved it; crew loved it. Weather was nearly always good. Infrastructure was great. Airport and train station across the street. Great shopping and restaurants within walking distance.

 

But thanks to some really crazy US Immigration Officers, overpriced and out of control Union Stevedores, an old cruise terminal falling apart, a new cruise terminal too short for large ships and built in water too shallow for large ships, and finally that crazy California law requiring very expensive low sulphur fuel (which is not even available in the USA), it was just too much. San Diego has kissed off about a Half Billion Dollars in annual revenues because they were so busy pointing fingers at guilty parties, they had no time to fix the problems. Australia, Canada, and Europe are quite happy now to take that money instead.

 

It is a crying shame to see what has happened in California.

[sassyredhat]

When RCI and CCL had those 5 dayers to Cabo, we took them every year. We have been there many times, but we still love that itin. I would book those again in a heartbeat.

Guess the fuel cost was too much. On our 10 day PCL cruise SF to Alaska, the captain fueled up in Victoria. He said the cost was $833,000.

We can't fly either, so we are cruise limited. We are booked with PCL for one of the coastals. We are also booked with :eek: NCL :eek: for a MR cruise next April. It's our first NCL, but we got Penthouses cheaper than a balcony on any other line.

Pat

[igraf]

You mean like spawning new companies like Google, Apple and Qualcomm? Leading the world in combating air pollution? Perhaps you would be happier living in Beijing. Things are certainly pro-business and anti-working class over there, and they aren't too concerned about what they breathe.

 

igraf

 

 

 

 

 

Yes California bashing, I've lived here my whole life, I have watched what this state has done to its self for many years. It is really quite pathetic and sad in my opinion.

[igraf]

Have you even been here lately? The San Diego economy is hot and is based on defense, cell phone technology and biotech; commercial shipping is only a small part of the picture.

 

The cruise ships are a pleasant presence but they have very little impact on our local economy and only employ a handful of local personnel. We have three major naval bases including two or three carrier groups (and a couple more marine bases) to compensate for any loss of cruise ships.

 

igraf

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2010, the Port of San Diego reported nearly 300 ship visits for the year.

In 2011, that number dropped to around 135.

In 2012, it was 111.

2013 is projected to fall under 100.

2014 will see fewer than 75.

 

If you dig a bit deeper into the numbers, it gets even worse.

The number of larger ship calls is dropping faster than the number of smaller ship calls. Larger ships mean much bigger financial boosts for the local economy.

 

At the same time, the number of one-day visits is becoming a much larger proportion of ship calls, compared to ship turnarounds.

On average, a medium to large ship calling at San Diego for the day injects around $1 Million into the local economy; a medium to large ship making a turnaround at San Diego injects around $2 Million into the local economy.

 

Most everyone agrees that San Diego was one of the best ports in America for cruise ships to visit. Passengers loved it; crew loved it. Weather was nearly always good. Infrastructure was great. Airport and train station across the street. Great shopping and restaurants within walking distance.

 

But thanks to some really crazy US Immigration Officers, overpriced and out of control Union Stevedores, an old cruise terminal falling apart, a new cruise terminal too short for large ships and built in water too shallow for large ships, and finally that crazy California law requiring very expensive low sulphur fuel (which is not even available in the USA), it was just too much. San Diego has kissed off about a Half Billion Dollars in annual revenues because they were so busy pointing fingers at guilty parties, they had no time to fix the problems. Australia, Canada, and Europe are quite happy now to take that money instead.

 

It is a crying shame to see what has happened in California.

[pris993]

I would love to see HAL go out of San Francisco on a regularly basis, to Alaska, Mexico, California, Hawaii, Panama canal.... we do Princess because that is all available... too bad. Will be a new cruise terminal in San Francisco hope that may encourage more cruises out of San Franicsco.

 

Just returned from a cruise out of Rome in the Mediterranean... on NCL Jade... 10-11 hour flights from San Francisco to Rome... is not something I want to do often. Would much prefer taking a taxi to a ship...

[LuAnn]

In 2010, the Port of San Diego reported nearly 300 ship visits for the year.

In 2011, that number dropped to around 135.

In 2012, it was 111.

2013 is projected to fall under 100.

2014 will see fewer than 75.

 

If you dig a bit deeper into the numbers, it gets even worse.

The number of larger ship calls is dropping faster than the number of smaller ship calls. Larger ships mean much bigger financial boosts for the local economy.

 

At the same time, the number of one-day visits is becoming a much larger proportion of ship calls, compared to ship turnarounds.

On average, a medium to large ship calling at San Diego for the day injects around $1 Million into the local economy; a medium to large ship making a turnaround at San Diego injects around $2 Million into the local economy.

 

Most everyone agrees that San Diego was one of the best ports in America for cruise ships to visit. Passengers loved it; crew loved it. Weather was nearly always good. Infrastructure was great. Airport and train station across the street. Great shopping and restaurants within walking distance.

 

But thanks to some really crazy US Immigration Officers, overpriced and out of control Union Stevedores, an old cruise terminal falling apart, a new cruise terminal too short for large ships and built in water too shallow for large ships, and finally that crazy California law requiring very expensive low sulphur fuel (which is not even available in the USA), it was just too much. San Diego has kissed off about a Half Billion Dollars in annual revenues because they were so busy pointing fingers at guilty parties, they had no time to fix the problems. Australia, Canada, and Europe are quite happy now to take that money instead.

 

It is a crying shame to see what has happened in California.

 

I knew that we had built the new terminal...but didn't realize about the problems of the depth of the water there....why is that ...since it is right next to the old cruise terminal??? :eek::eek::eek:

 

And I thought the reason why we are getting less ships in port is because of the problems with violence in the Mexico ports...and passengers being too afraid to travel there?

 

We have sailed the big "O" about 5 times down to Mexico in the past...and also have done the 10 day Sea of Cortez...loved all of them...and so sorry to see the lack of options from HAL...

 

But...an option...is Celebrity....they sail R/T out of SD to Hawaii many, many times...we have done it twice and loved it! Also there are the re-po cruises...SD to Vancouver and back again...April/May and Sept. when they are moving the ships out of AL.

 

And then there are the Coastal Cruises...we are on a 5 night one tomorrow..going to Santa Barbara, San Francisco and Ensenada.

 

So I'm sorry that you think HAL and others have left CA...but I think there are still some good options...also did HAL LA to Sydney a year ago...great cruise!! LuAnn

[PathfinderEss]

In 2010, the Port of San Diego reported nearly 300 ship visits for the year.

In 2011, that number dropped to around 135.

In 2012, it was 111.

2013 is projected to fall under 100.

2014 will see fewer than 75.

 

If you dig a bit deeper into the numbers, it gets even worse.

The number of larger ship calls is dropping faster than the number of smaller ship calls. Larger ships mean much bigger financial boosts for the local economy.

 

At the same time, the number of one-day visits is becoming a much larger proportion of ship calls, compared to ship turnarounds.

On average, a medium to large ship calling at San Diego for the day injects around $1 Million into the local economy; a medium to large ship making a turnaround at San Diego injects around $2 Million into the local economy.

 

Most everyone agrees that San Diego was one of the best ports in America for cruise ships to visit. Passengers loved it; crew loved it. Weather was nearly always good. Infrastructure was great. Airport and train station across the street. Great shopping and restaurants within walking distance.

 

But thanks to some really crazy US Immigration Officers, overpriced and out of control Union Stevedores, an old cruise terminal falling apart, a new cruise terminal too short for large ships and built in water too shallow for large ships, and finally that crazy California law requiring very expensive low sulphur fuel (which is not even available in the USA), it was just too much. San Diego has kissed off about a Half Billion Dollars in annual revenues because they were so busy pointing fingers at guilty parties, they had no time to fix the problems. Australia, Canada, and Europe are quite happy now to take that money instead.

 

It is a crying shame to see what has happened in California.

 

Yep, this is what I was talking about but what I don't see is California asking all the container ships coming into and out of the very busy port of Los Angeles (San Pedro) to run low sulphur fuel. I guess it is only the cruise ship that pollute, right.:eek:

[Northshorecruisers]

and finally that crazy California law requiring very expensive low sulphur fuel (which is not even available in the USA), it was just too much.

So where does the cruise ship get the fuel if they are running CA to Mexico or doing a cruise from San Diego to Hawaii and back?

[CruiserBruce]

Oh let me see, the cruise ship industry is the only ones that have to run jet fuel going in and out of ports here in California.

 

 

 

 

Yep, this is what I was talking about but what I don't see is California asking all the container ships coming into and out of the very busy port of Los Angeles (San Pedro) to run low sulphur fuel. I guess it is only the cruise ship that pollute, right.:eek:

 

Hmmm... just the facts...

 

According to these two articles, all ships (not just cruise ships, and not just in California)on the West Coast have to use the low sulpher fuel:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-ship-fuel-idUSBRE8701RY20120801

 

http://www.professionalmariner.com/December-January-2013/New-IMO-low-sulfur-fuel-regs-creating-challenges-for-vessel-operators/

 

The first article also implies Europe is also requiring low sulfer fuels.

[igraf]

The San Diego cruise piers do not have a water depth problem. Large cruise ships routinely berth here, and right next to cruise ships we have the Midway aircraft carrier tied up (plus active carriers right on the other side of the bay). I consider an aircraft carrier to be a large ship. Do you?

 

You are correct in that there are fewer ships going to Mexico because of problems perceived by either the cruise line and/or the passengers. Nothing to do with San Diego except that we are closest to Mexico and thus the most affected port.

 

Incidentally, below is the San Diego port cruise ship schedule for the next few weeks. Anyone who says that San Diego is down to one cruise line or can't handle large ships is just plain wrong, and often just has an axe to grind.

 

igraf

 

 

Celebrity Century 04/22 04:45 04/22 17:00 Ensenada, Mexico B - 01 Embark , Disembark

Celebrity Century 04/27 00:00 04/27 00:00 Ensenada, Mexico B - 01 Embark , Disembark , Intransit

Statendam 05/01 05:30 05/01 17:00 TBN B - 02 Visitation SSA PSH HLLND NLD

Sapphire Princess 05/02 06:30 05/02 17:00 Catalina Island, CA B- 04 Visitation METRO

Westerdam 05/06 05:30 05/06 17:00 TBN B - 01 Embark , Disembark SSA PSH HLLND NLD

Celebrity Solstice 05/07 04:00 05/07 20:00 Ensenada, Mexico B- 04 Visitation MSS INTC CELEB

Zuiderdam 05/07 05:30 05/07 17:00 TBN B - 01 Embark , Disembark SSA PSH HLLND NLD

Regatta 05/07 11:00 05/07 23:00 Cabo San Lucas, Mx By- 02 Visitation MTR MSS LBR

Seven Seas Navigator 05/08 12:00 05/08 23:00 Cabo San Lucas, Mx B - 02 Visitation METRO MSS RAD BS

Sapphire Princess 05/09 06:30 05/09 17:00 Santa Barbara, CA B- 04 Visitation METRO PSH PRNCSS BD

Amsterdam 05/16 05:00 05/16 17:00 Cabo San Lucas, Mx B - 01 Visitation SSA PSH HLLND NLD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I knew that we had built the new terminal...but didn't realize about the problems of the depth of the water there....why is that ...since it is right next to the old cruise terminal??? :eek::eek::eek:

 

And I thought the reason why we are getting less ships in port is because of the problems with violence in the Mexico ports...and passengers being too afraid to travel there?

 

We have sailed the big "O" about 5 times down to Mexico in the past...and also have done the 10 day Sea of Cortez...loved all of them...and so sorry to see the lack of options from HAL...

 

But...an option...is Celebrity....they sail R/T out of SD to Hawaii many, many times...we have done it twice and loved it! Also there are the re-po cruises...SD to Vancouver and back again...April/May and Sept. when they are moving the ships out of AL.

 

And then there are the Coastal Cruises...we are on a 5 night one tomorrow..going to Santa Barbara, San Francisco and Ensenada.

 

So I'm sorry that you think HAL and others have left CA...but I think there are still some good options...also did HAL LA to Sydney a year ago...great cruise!! LuAnn

[swedish weave]

Hmmm... just the facts...

 

According to these two articles, all ships (not just cruise ships, and not just in California)on the West Coast have to use the low sulpher fuel:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-ship-fuel-idUSBRE8701RY20120801

 

http://www.professionalmariner.com/December-January-2013/New-IMO-low-sulfur-fuel-regs-creating-challenges-for-vessel-operators/

 

The first article also implies Europe is also requiring low sulfer fuels.

 

Stay tuned !!!! Mexico is planning (or building) a huge container terminal in Mexico to divert some of the container business from california ports. A big factor in the push to get this done is the low sulphur fuel restriction within 100 miles of the California coast.

 

If you think California is not shooting themselves in the foot, you are misinformed.

 

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/01/04/1968545/more-competition-for-west-coast.html

[CruiserBruce]

Stay tuned !!!! Mexico is planning (or building) a huge container terminal in Mexico to divert some of the container business from california ports. A big factor in the push to get this done is the low sulphur fuel restriction within 100 miles of the California coast.

 

If you think California is not shooting themselves in the foot, you are misinformed.

 

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/01/04/1968545/more-competition-for-west-coast.html

 

Funny, that article makes no mention of low sulpher fuels, but of a "harbor tax", and it seems to be a problem in Washington also.

 

The two articles I linked are not California only laws, but federal low sulpher requirements. But as few cruise ships stop in Oregon, you don't hear about any impact for Oregon. Obviously many stop in Washington.

 

If you don't want any envirnmental or business regulations, head on over to Texas, where operating fertilizer plants less than a mile from hospitals, schools and nursing homes is considered good business. Who cares about 14 dead?

[swedish weave]

To add to my prior comments about the new container port in Mexico, it isn't much of a stretch of the imagination to envision the cruise ships using Mexico instead of the West Coast ports.

 

Run through rail service is in place between the KCS and Mexican railroads, And trucks can now transport frieght across the border.

 

http://gcaptain.com/mexicos-900-million-mega-container/

 

The next step could easily be to transport passengers across the border

[swedish weave]

Funny, that article makes no mention of low sulpher fuels, but of a "harbor tax", and it seems to be a problem in Washington also.

 

The two articles I linked are not California only laws, but federal low sulpher requirements. But as few cruise ships stop in Oregon, you don't hear about any impact for Oregon. Obviously many stop in Washington.

 

If you don't want any envirnmental or business regulations, head on over to Texas, where operating fertilizer plants less than a mile from hospitals, schools and nursing homes is considered good business. Who cares about 14 dead?

 

I think we need to grasp the big picture instead of parsing the words and looking for discrepancies in the news articles. There are many different articles on the internet about this project. I just happened to copy the link from an Oregon paper.

 

Mike Haverty of the KCS was setting up the scenario for this business several years ago.

 

I am saying that the environmental laws in the USA (Particularly in California) are changing the way we do business, and possibly bringing about some financial downfalls.

[BruceMuzz]

[quote name='igraf']The San Diego cruise piers do not have a water depth problem. Large cruise ships routinely berth here, and right next to cruise ships we have the Midway aircraft carrier tied up (plus active carriers right on the other side of the bay). I consider an aircraft carrier to be a large ship. Do you?

You are correct in that there are fewer ships going to Mexico because of problems perceived by either the cruise line and/or the passengers. Nothing to do with San Diego except that we are closest to Mexico and thus the most affected port.

Incidentally, below is the San Diego port cruise ship schedule for the next few weeks. Anyone who says that San Diego is down to one cruise line or can't handle large ships is just plain wrong, and often just has an axe to grind.

igraf


The Midway is not a very large ship by today's standards. But if you do a bit of research online, you will learn that Midway is stuck in the mud on the bottom of San Diego Harbor.
When they designed and built the new cruise terminal ($33 Million), $10 million came from Carnival Corp and $23 million from the taxpayers. The designers somehow forgot to measure the water depth under the pier. When they realized their mistake, the tried to dredge, but were stopped by the California EPA.

The last time I was on a ship (mid-sized at 90,000 tons)calling at the new pier, our bow got stuck in the mud at low tide, and we had to be pulled off by tugs.
The new pier is too short, with no "dolphins" to attach lines from our stern. The currents in the harbor caused the ship to twist and pull away from the pier, nearly causing our gangway to fall into the harbor. Captain claimed he would never take a ship to that pier again. The cruise company agreed, and we never used it again.

If the new terminal is so good, why do they let it sit empty, insisting on using the old terminal that is falling down??
Instead, the new terminal is being rented out for wedding receptions. How is that working out for you?
Last year the City of San Diego made $230,000 revenue from wedding receptions in the new $33 million terminal building, while cruise ships continue to use the old terminal. So they should break even on the construction costs in about 125 years.
What a mess.

[SilvertoGold]

[quote name='BruceMuzz'][quote name='igraf']The San Diego cruise piers do not have a water depth problem. Large cruise ships routinely berth here, and right next to cruise ships we have the Midway aircraft carrier tied up (plus active carriers right on the other side of the bay). I consider an aircraft carrier to be a large ship. Do you?

You are correct in that there are fewer ships going to Mexico because of problems perceived by either the cruise line and/or the passengers. Nothing to do with San Diego except that we are closest to Mexico and thus the most affected port.

Incidentally, below is the San Diego port cruise ship schedule for the next few weeks. Anyone who says that San Diego is down to one cruise line or can't handle large ships is just plain wrong, and often just has an axe to grind.

igraf


The Midway is not a very large ship by today's standards. But if you do a bit of research online, you will learn that Midway is stuck in the mud on the bottom of San Diego Harbor.
When they designed and built the new cruise terminal ($33 Million), $10 million came from Carnival Corp and $23 million from the taxpayers. The designers somehow forgot to measure the water depth under the pier. When they realized their mistake, the tried to dredge, but were stopped by the California EPA.

The last time I was on a ship (mid-sized at 90,000 tons)calling at the new pier, our bow got stuck in the mud at low tide, and we had to be pulled off by tugs.
The new pier is too short, with no "dolphins" to attach lines from our stern. The currents in the harbor caused the ship to twist and pull away from the pier, nearly causing our gangway to fall into the harbor. Captain claimed he would never take a ship to that pier again. The cruise company agreed, and we never used it again.

If the new terminal is so good, why do they let it sit empty, insisting on using the old terminal that is falling down??
Instead, the new terminal is being rented out for wedding receptions. How is that working out for you?
Last year the City of San Diego made $230,000 revenue from wedding receptions in the new $33 million terminal building, while cruise ships continue to use the old terminal. So they should break even on the construction costs in about 125 years.
What a mess.[/quote]

Thanks for all the information: very interesting.

Why does the new pier, so close to the old one, have so many problems with water depth and currents?

[swedish weave]

[quote name='SilvertoGold'][quote name='BruceMuzz']

Thanks for all the information: very interesting.

Why does the new pier, so close to the old one, have so many problems with water depth and currents?[/quote]

They misjudged the depth they needed for the large ships and the EPA would not let them dredge to correct the problem.

If a large portion of the ship is sticking out without anything to tie to, the currents can cause it to move.

[sassyredhat]

[SIZE=3]Wow~~I didn't expect this to turn into an argument. :eek:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]I just posted hoping HAL will read my message about shorter Cabo runs.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]I live in San Diego, and I just repeated what was told to me by my TA and from reading different articles. We do have issues with the terminal and the harbor.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Pat[/SIZE]

[CRUZBUDS]

[quote name='LuAnn']
But...an option...is Celebrity....they sail R/T out of SD to Hawaii many, many times...we have done it twice and loved it! Also there are the re-po cruises...SD to Vancouver and back again...April/May and Sept. when they are moving the ships out of AL.

And then there are the Coastal Cruises...we are on a 5 night one tomorrow..going to Santa Barbara, San Francisco and Ensenada.

So I'm sorry that you think HAL and others have left CA...but I think there are still some good options...also did HAL LA to Sydney a year ago...great cruise!! LuAnn[/QUOTE]

Celebrity is pulling of San Diego (again) -- it will just be a few canal cruises and repostionings :(

[jbobst]

[quote name='BruceMuzz']

The Midway is not a very large ship by today's standards. But if you do a bit of research online, you will learn that Midway is stuck in the mud on the bottom of San Diego Harbor.

The last time I was on a ship (mid-sized at 90,000 tons)calling at the new pier, our bow got stuck in the mud at low tide, and we had to be pulled off by tugs.

The new pier is too short, with no "dolphins" to attach lines from our stern. The currents in the harbor caused the ship to twist and pull away from the pier, nearly causing our gangway to fall into the harbor. Captain claimed he would never take a ship to that pier again. The cruise company agreed, and we never used it again.
[/quote]

Wow, this is quite the information. I am not sure this makes much sense.

I did a few searched online about the Midway being stuck in the mud...can't find anything. Can you post a link or two?

So, a little over a week ago I was onboard the Sapphire Princess. The Sapphire is a very large ship (~116,000 tons). We docked just fine in San Diego. In fact it docks there often when it does the California Coastal cruise itinerary. Next year, the Crown Princess...a slightly smaller ship (though it holds more passengers and has an additional passenger deck)...will be doing California Coastals and will be docking in San Diego. Your information seems almost absurd about large ships not docking there. You still haven't told us who you work for and I just have to be a little suspect. I am not trying to be rude, it just doesn't make alot of sense.

[CRUZBUDS]

We were told be the hotel manager on a HAL cruise that it can only be used by larger ships at high tide.

I do know they built the new terminal on 80 year pilings, from a civil engineer friend acquainted with the project. It was designed to be overflow only.

Another boondoggle in San Diego was the millions of dollars spent to for the infrastructure to provide shore power to docked cruise ships. The goal was to improve air quality.

I asked the chief electrician of the Century why they didn't use. He didn't know anything about and wasn't the least bit interested in connecting to shore for power. :confused:

[CRUZBUDS]

[quote name='jbobst']Wow, this is quite the information. I am not sure this makes much sense.

I did a few searched online about the Midway being stuck in the mud...can't find anything. Can you post a link or two?

So, a little over a week ago I was onboard the Sapphire Princess. The Sapphire is a very large ship (~116,000 tons). We docked just fine in San Diego. In fact it docks there often when it does the California Coastal cruise itinerary. Next year, the Crown Princess...a slightly smaller ship (though it holds more passengers and has an additional passenger deck)...will be doing California Coastals and will be docking in San Diego. Your information seems almost absurd about large ships not docking there. You still haven't told us who you work for and I just have to be a little suspect. I am not trying to be rude, it just doesn't make alot of sense.[/QUOTE]

Are you sure you were at the "New Terminal"? -- The schedule shows you were the only ship in port, I've never seen the new one used unless it was the third ship. This past Thursday the Sapphire was in and was docked across from us on the Century at the old terminal.

[PathfinderEss]

[quote name='jbobst']Wow, this is quite the information. I am not sure this makes much sense.

I did a few searched online about the Midway being stuck in the mud...can't find anything. Can you post a link or two?

So, a little over a week ago I was onboard the Sapphire Princess. The Sapphire is a very large ship (~116,000 tons). We docked just fine in San Diego. In fact it docks there often when it does the California Coastal cruise itinerary. Next year, the Crown Princess...a slightly smaller ship (though it holds more passengers and has an additional passenger deck)...will be doing California Coastals and will be docking in San Diego. Your information seems almost absurd about large ships not docking there. You still haven't told us who you work for and I just have to be a little suspect. I am not trying to be rude, it just doesn't make alot of sense.[/quote]

[SIZE=3][COLOR=darkred][B]Sapphire Princess always docks at the old terminal.[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[PathfinderEss]

[quote name='CruiserBruce']Hmmm... just the facts...

According to these two articles, [B][I]all ships[/I][/B] (not just cruise ships, and not just in California)on the West Coast have to use the low sulpher fuel:

[URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-ship-fuel-idUSBRE8701RY20120801[/URL]

[URL]http://www.professionalmariner.com/December-January-2013/New-IMO-low-sulfur-fuel-regs-creating-challenges-for-vessel-operators/[/URL]

The first article also implies Europe is also requiring low sulfer fuels.[/quote]

[SIZE=3][COLOR=darkred][B]I stand corrected, I thought it was only cruise ships. :o[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]