Anyone else live on the East coast and notice less choices with ships/ports?

[Mutumbojimbo]

I did not realize Carnival would have two ships down under. I guess they too see the writing on the walls and realize they are losing the market here.

 

They'll increase the capacity with the Vista, but that is a couple years away. The only thing I'm sure of is that they'll put their ships where they think they can make the largest profit and right now, I guess that includes Australia.

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

[Aplmac]

Three if they would port in San Francisco...brand new cruise terminal!

Really cool seeing Celebrity there during the Americas Cup.

You'd think they might home-port a ship out of the brand new terminal.

 

Surely the larger SanFranBay Area could generate enough business?

 

.

[Mutumbojimbo]

You'd think they might home-port a ship out of the brand new terminal.

 

Surely the larger SanFranBay Area could generate enough business?

 

.

 

Remember, they have to sail to a foreign port too, I'm not sure what itineraries they could do from SF. Maybe you could do a 7 day Mexican cruise, but I don't know for sure.

 

You'd think that there are enough of us on these boards to change that law(Jones Act, I think) ;)

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

[JMAE]

Carnival may have to rethink the "Close to Home" marketing if they keep eliminating ports. If they move additional ship to Florida do you think we will see more non 7 day cruises due to terminal availability?

[golfadj]

With a second ship moving to Australia, Carnival is losing some capacity out of the US. I'll take everyone's word that there are environmental reasons behind the move out of Baltimore, but the Pride is replacing the Legend in Tampa as a result, that leaves (I think) just the Splendor and Fantasy as non-Florida options on the East Coast. I'm sure it's frustrating but I suppose Carnival thinks it's the best move for the company. There was no shortage of cruisers in Miami last week, that's for sure.

 

Also, there's another thread going on right now about boring itineraries, you have a lot more options starting from Florida, than you do from the East Coast, although it would be nice if Carnival could sort out their Bermuda issue.

 

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

Sure wish they would go back to Bermuda. Tired of same old Caribbean

[Lerin]

Guess you're right!

 

West Coast has only two? home-ports to depart from not so? :confused:

.

If you count the summer months, we have 3. :cool:

[Rosefloater]

Remember, they have to sail to a foreign port too, I'm not sure what itineraries they could do from SF. Maybe you could do a 7 day Mexican cruise, but I don't know for sure.

 

Many of us on the West Coast would love to go to Astoria, Victoria and Vancouver. This itinerary was done during the Swine Flu cruises back in '09 and left from Long Beach.

[CdrescherRBL152]

And where did this information come from? The US ECA (Emissions Control Area) covers the entire US coastline out to 200 miles (except in some areas like between Florida and the Bahamas, where the territorial waters of another country intrude into the ECA). If your supposition was correct, then New Orleans would be even more affected than Baltimore. Any ship currently sailing from Houston/Galveston or NOLA need to steam on the more expensive low sulfur fuel for 200 miles, and any passage up or down the East Coast is also within the ECA. The ECA applies to EVERY ship, regardless of flag country, owner, or type (cargo, tanker, passenger). There is currently a restriction on the sulfur content of fuel used in this area, since Aug 2012, and in Jan 2015, this becomes more stringent.

 

You are correct, however, that Baltimore may be lost only temporarily. Carnival has committed to installing exhaust scrubbers on some ships, as RCI and NCL already have, and these scrubbers will allow the ships to continue to burn the cheaper high sulfur fuel inside the ECA. The North Sea and Baltic areas have had an ECA for years, and now pretty much all of Europe will be working with similar restrictions on sulfur emissions, so this is not just for one port, but will be the wave of the future for ALL ships.[/quote

 

Occurring to reports from transportation trade groups. The amount of allowable emmissions gets lower the farther in land you travel. Due to the routes you must take to getto Balitmore it is roughly a 50 mile trip in land to the port. As such even the scrubbers do not remove enough to meet the standers. Plus once a ship is more then and I belivie 10 miles in land they must confrim to the EPA regs. for a land based vechile.

[arush5268d]

Occurring to reports from transportation trade groups. The amount of allowable emmissions gets lower the farther in land you travel. Due to the routes you must take to getto Balitmore it is roughly a 50 mile trip in land to the port. As such even the scrubbers do not remove enough to meet the standers. Plus once a ship is more then and I belivie 10 miles in land they must confrim to the EPA regs. for a land based vechile.

 

I would take chengkp75 for his word on this. He's the chief engineer on a ship, if my memory serves me.

 

As others have said - if the thins you mentioned really were true then they would also apply to NOLO.

[chengkp75]

And where did this information come from? The US ECA (Emissions Control Area) covers the entire US coastline out to 200 miles (except in some areas like between Florida and the Bahamas, where the territorial waters of another country intrude into the ECA). If your supposition was correct, then New Orleans would be even more affected than Baltimore. Any ship currently sailing from Houston/Galveston or NOLA need to steam on the more expensive low sulfur fuel for 200 miles, and any passage up or down the East Coast is also within the ECA. The ECA applies to EVERY ship, regardless of flag country, owner, or type (cargo, tanker, passenger). There is currently a restriction on the sulfur content of fuel used in this area, since Aug 2012, and in Jan 2015, this becomes more stringent.

 

You are correct, however, that Baltimore may be lost only temporarily. Carnival has committed to installing exhaust scrubbers on some ships, as RCI and NCL already have, and these scrubbers will allow the ships to continue to burn the cheaper high sulfur fuel inside the ECA. The North Sea and Baltic areas have had an ECA for years, and now pretty much all of Europe will be working with similar restrictions on sulfur emissions, so this is not just for one port, but will be the wave of the future for ALL ships.[/quote

 

Occurring to reports from transportation trade groups. The amount of allowable emmissions gets lower the farther in land you travel. Due to the routes you must take to getto Balitmore it is roughly a 50 mile trip in land to the port. As such even the scrubbers do not remove enough to meet the standers. Plus once a ship is more then and I belivie 10 miles in land they must confrim to the EPA regs. for a land based vechile.

 

Unless a state has more restrictive emissions limits than the EPA, there is no reduction in emissions limits "inland". At present, California is the only state that has stricter emissions limits than the current EPA's US ECA. The 2015 ECA limits will meet the California limits.

 

I have to deal with the ECA every working day of my career. My ship operates 100% of its time inside the US ECA, so currently we have to burn 1% sulfur content fuel, while outside the ECA, you can burn 3.5% sulfur fuel. We travel to New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Houston, and do not need to reduce emissions the further up the rivers we get. I have never heard of a ship being required to meet EPA requirements for a land vehicle.

 

The scrubbers currently installed on RCI and NCL ships, DO in fact reduce emissions to the point where they can revert to burning the cheaper 3.5% sulfur heavy fuel oil and still meet the 2015 emissions standards.

 

Ships without scrubbers in 2015 will need to limit themselves to 0.1% sulfur fuels, which pretty much removes heavy fuel oil from their diet. To meet this requirement without a scrubber, you must burn much more expensive low sulfur diesel fuel. And in 2018 or 2020, the worldwide limit on sulfur in ship's fuel will drop to 0.5%. So scrubbers are most likely the wave of the future for all ships.

 

The reason Carnival left Baltimore, is that it was not as profitable as New Orleans (some due to capacity issues, and some due to port fees, I'm sure), and why continue to sail 150 miles up and down the Chesapeake (in addition to any sailing inside the 200 mile limit along the Atlantic Coast), burning costly low sulfur fuel, when 20 miles from the dock in Miami, they can shift to the cheap high sulfur heavy fuel oil? Carnival was looking for a discount on port fees from Baltimore in order to offset the cost of the fuel.

 

As to the new regulations causing Baltimore to close completely, what nonsense. That must be a trucking association fighting against the "short sea shipping" initiative, which would encourage coastwise shipping to reduce emissions, as ships are more fuel efficient than either trucks or trains at carrying cargo. By that reasoning, New Orleans, Houston, Portland Oregon, and many other ports would be closed. 97% of world commerce is carried at sea. Do you really think the EPA is stupid enough to make a regulation that would close most of the US's major ports?

Edited December 13, 2013 by chengkp75

[bigdog1958]

Every few years things change. Carnival will consolidate to the South for a couple of years, then when everyone realizes that with the cost of flying to florida, they can go to a high end all-inclusive cheaper then cruising, they will lose customers from the North. Then come 2016 or 17, they will be back in the Northeast to try and win the customers back. Right now they have to reduce the prices in the winter up North too much to make the profits they want as a company. However, take away the ports for a couple of years, and people will pay more to cruise again from the North instead of flying

[Tapi]

However, take away the ports for a couple of years, and people will pay more to cruise again from the North instead of flying

 

People are already paying more to sail from the north. Just not on Carnival. Pricing on NCL, Royal and Princess is consistently much higher than on Carnival out of New York. The price disparity is much more drastic in this market than out of Florida ports.

 

Don't know what the reasoning is. Maybe marketing? The other cruise lines have marketed heavily their New York sailings and their new ships from that port. Carnival not so much.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Tapi

[billfish]

Every few years things change. Carnival will consolidate to the South for a couple of years, then when everyone realizes that with the cost of flying to florida, they can go to a high end all-inclusive cheaper then cruising, they will lose customers from the North. Then come 2016 or 17, they will be back in the Northeast to try and win the customers back. Right now they have to reduce the prices in the winter up North too much to make the profits they want as a company. However, take away the ports for a couple of years, and people will pay more to cruise again from the North instead of flying

 

How true. You have to add the cost of air and perhaps a nights hotel and food which adds up. A couple of years ago Carnival Glory had several trips available out of Boston ,but it only lasted one year.

[Jimmy Geegitz]

Just be glad you don't live on the west coast.

[jimbo5544]

I did not realize Carnival would have two ships down under. I guess they too see the writing on the walls and realize they are losing the market here.

wrong again, as usual. How many ships does RCCL have abroad?

[jimbo5544]

Is Carnival shrinking?

 

We are both Platinum and LOVE Carnival but are discouraged since it looks like

1. Norfolk port is gone (we had a lovely cruise from there)

 

2. Baltimore port looks like it's gone after October (cruised 3 times from there and heard that Carnival wasn't going to be leaving from there anymore due to some new pollution changes that they couldn't/weren't able to abide by.)

 

3. I Love my Canada cruises. For many years not so long ago there were two ships, Victory and Glory, that went continuously to Canada. There were so many sailings, but now with the Splendor, a ship we sail on later this month to the Bahamas, there's only a handful of sailings to Canada.

 

I told my daughter that it may just end up with New York and Florida as the east coast choices, which would break my heart.

 

Anyone know what's going on?

Sailings to Canada from New York and Boston were not big sellers.

[arush5268d]

wrong again, as usual. How many ships does RCCL have abroad?

 

 

What strange world do you live in?

[Carnival_Brides]

How true. You have to add the cost of air and perhaps a nights hotel and food which adds up. A couple of years ago Carnival Glory had several trips available out of Boston ,but it only lasted one year.

 

Actually--they were there for two years. Their product did not appeal to the New England homeport crowd and they were only there part-time in a crowded market (HAL, NCL, RCI among others). They had to discount their cruises to the point that they were giving them away--but I got 2 b2bs out of it.

[lukeduke07]

If they would only bring back Mobile as a emarkation port. Or even Savannah (as has been rumored). If they had short 3-5 day cruises from those I would go SEVERAL times a year. (not that carnival doesnt get a good chunk of my money as is)

[jimbo5544]

What strange world do you live in?

Sometimes I wonder. Your point was that Carnival is dire straits (not the band by the way, which would have been a good thing) and this is evidenced by sending another ship to Australia. This is true, but not full time. Off season the Legend will return to the US. The Spirit sales are doing very well down under.

 

If your logic is true, Royal must be in deep dodo as they have many more ships not in the carib. The wrong again part is way to numerous to mention specifics.:cool:

[Staceelvls]

I live in the west coast, and it is true we don't have many options at all. One of the reasons that my boyfriend and I are flying to Miami's port in April.