MOST 2015 embarcations from Florida in 2015??

[greydog]

The C-critic "NEWS" item dated June 28 informs regarding the potentially substantial changes to cruise itineraries starting in 2015. An EPA document indicates cruise fuel costs rising 3% within the "Emission Control Area" around US coasts. This might translate to at least $60 add on for low-sulfur fuel per $2000 cabin fare.

 

As the NEWS indicates, Carnival has announced re-deployments from some E. Coast ports to FL, citing the 2015 fuel rules.

 

The map of the 2015 low-sulfur fuel area is curiously narrower near the tip of FLA, so embarkations from there would reduce cruising in the high-cost area.

 

Other itineraries such as AK and New England would involve majority cruising in the high-cost area.

 

So be aware of itinerary adjustments in 2015.

[Keith1010]

Thanks for sharing this.

 

Keith

[Lois R]

Celebrity, as compared to other lines doesn't have "alot of ships"....

and are only in Florida for part of the year...example, in the summertime

none of their ships sail from Florida. So, would this affect the times

when they are sailing?

Just wondering.......

[AlanAllyn]

The map of the 2015 low-sulfur fuel area is curiously narrower near the tip of FLA, so embarkations from there would reduce cruising in the high-cost area.

It's not so curious. I am reasonably certain the reason is that the Bahamas are not part of the agreement. They are much closer to Florida than 200 miles.

[greydog]

Celebrity, as compared to other lines doesn't have "alot of ships"....

and are only in Florida for part of the year...example, in the summertime

none of their ships sail from Florida. So, would this affect the times

when they are sailing?

Just wondering.......

 

Apparently, all large ships, including cargo containers, when in the ECA region must use either costlier low-sulfur fuel (with separate tanks for storage) or have additional emission scrubber equipment. The EPA doc suggested the ECA impact would raise the shipping cost by $18 for each 20ft container.

 

From what I've seen, a bit dated but govt's move slowly, is that Puerto Rico was not in the ECA zone, nor most of Caribbean. Therefore, limiting the fuel-cost effect would also suggest more P-R departures to the Caribbean destinations.

 

About the entire coast of Alaska is in the 2015 ECA zone, so current itineraries would be fully impacted, i.e. require use of costlier low-sulfur fuel.

 

Its an open issue whether cruise lines would try to spread the cost broadly over all itineraries or let the cost recovery be proportionate to the amount of each itinerary's sailing time in the ECA zone.

 

Just guessing, but that caveat on all tickets saying 'reserve the right to add surcharge if WTI crude is over $x" could be adapted to address this high-cost fuel mandate in 2015.

[greydog]

It's not so curious. I am reasonably certain the reason is that the Bahamas are not part of the agreement. They are much closer to Florida than 200 miles.

 

I'll buy in to that explanation. This ECA agreement is a United Nation's Internat Maritime Org initiative with US EPA participation.

 

 

I can see it now, future Celeb 1-2-3 promos will offer 'cover your fuel surcharges' choice.

[lucinjo]

The C-critic "NEWS" item dated June 28 informs regarding the potentially substantial changes to cruise itineraries starting in 2015. An EPA document indicates cruise fuel costs rising 3% within the "Emission Control Area" around US coasts. This might translate to at least $60 add on for low-sulfur fuel per $2000 cabin fare.

.

 

This statistic is just false. A 3% increase in fuel cost would not result in a $60 per $2000 cabin cost increase. This assumes that fuel is 100% of the cost of the cabin! Things may have changed recently, but fuel was always somewhere around 20% of cruise cost.

Also, except for travel within limited spots like the the Chesapeake Bay and some of the Glacier areas in AK, ships head into international waters as quickly as possible, so only a small percentage of their time would be spent in the emission control area. It is why Carnival is pulling out of Baltimore and Norfolk.

[greydog]

This statistic is just false. A 3% increase in fuel cost would not result in a $60 per $2000 cabin cost increase. This assumes that fuel is 100% of the cost of the cabin! Things may have changed recently, but fuel was always somewhere around 20% of cruise cost.

Also, except for travel within limited spots like the the Chesapeake Bay and some of the Glacier areas in AK, ships head into international waters as quickly as possible, so only a small percentage of their time would be spent in the emission control area. It is why Carnival is pulling out of Baltimore and Norfolk.

 

I agree the 3% = $60 was a rough estimate BUT the EPA estimated $18 per cargo container cost rise, so if there are 5,000 containers treated like 5,000 cruisers, then 2 pax per cabin x $18 is $36 rise per cabin, and relying on the EPA estimate being conservative or accurate.

 

I disagree about limited impact for Alaska - ECA extends generally 200 miles out from coastline and I believe current AK itineraries spend majority of time within 200 miles of coast, especially trips from Vancouver.

 

If the ECA cost increase is so negligible, why are lines already announcing changing deployment ports, citing the ECA?