Deployment Schedule 2016-2017. Let the guessing begin

[MindyJohn]

(Sanity prevailed)

Always good to have an adult in the room.[emoji6]

[lighthousemom]

So it looks like Ovation has been chartered by Cruiseco for the inaugural Singapore to Sydney sailing in November 2016. 15 nights.... No details on itineraries. I guess I'll have to wait to do the Sydney to Singapore return since I'm just getting off Harmony in November!

[CVU]

So it looks like Ovation has been chartered by Cruiseco for the inaugural Singapore to Sydney sailing in November 2016. 15 nights.... No details on itineraries. I guess I'll have to wait to do the Sydney to Singapore return since I'm just getting off Harmony in November!

 

Explorer is/was? doing Sydney to Singapore April 28/16.

The cruise before it as well-- has been N/A or Sold Out for weeks.........we are still awaiting the EOS new itinerary. We are booked on both cruises that are N/A.

[3dog]

Until the Jones Act / PVSA are repealed or amended ( creating a carve out for foreign flagged cruise ships) This remains the only viable option other than ending in Vancouver, which is not possible for Explorer. Victoria has logistical challenges (high cost of transport for passengers, availability of supplies, fuel etc) that would probably make a repo from Hawaii even less attractive. I firmly believe she will go via Ensenada and that RCCL knows from historical data exactly what strategies they need to follow to make the repo break-even at the least.

 

Though using Victoria as a regular embarkation/debarkation port would be problematic as you suggest, it is more than feasible to end a cruise there, and travel overnight without passengers to Seattle to resupply and begin the cruise cycle the next day (sort of what Oasis has to do when it repositions to PC from PE).

 

Similarly, take on supplies/fuel in Seattle, travel overnight without passengers to, and pick up the passengers the next day in Victoria before sailing off into towards Hawaii.

 

Provided they don't transport goods or passengers between Seattle and Hawaii, they don't violate either the PVSA or Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (the latter being the real "Jones Act").

[CptSticky]

Though using Victoria as a regular embarkation/debarkation port would be problematic as you suggest, it is more than feasible to end a cruise there, and travel overnight without passengers to Seattle to resupply and begin the cruise cycle the next day (sort of what Oasis has to do when it repositions to PC from PE).

 

Similarly, take on supplies/fuel in Seattle, travel overnight without passengers to, and pick up the passengers the next day in Victoria before sailing off into towards Hawaii.

 

Provided they don't transport goods or passengers between Seattle and Hawaii, they don't violate either the PVSA or Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (the latter being the real "Jones Act").

If ever a law needed a sunset provision........

[3dog]

Living on and cruising from the West Coast makes me familiar with the "Jones Act," as we get a lot of point-to-point (vs. RT) itineraries, with their own special rules. So, I am aware of the intricacies of building itineraries that will satisfy the law, as well as matching the ships to the capabilites and infrastructures in the ports. :)

 

Nit: the "Jones Act" covers cabotage (cargo), it is the PVSA that covers passengers.

 

RCI does not always seem to know, either from historical data or any other resource, how to price their sailings. One claim they make about why they do not have a ship on the West Coast is because they can't make a profit here. It's speculation at this point.

 

Another nit: they don't say they "can't" make a profit on the west coast, they say they can make a better profit elsewhere.

[3dog]

If ever a law needed a sunset provision........

 

Note it is the Jones Act that was ratified in 1920. The PVSA was originally ratified in 1886 and amended in 1985, and has been debated with some regularity. A special provision was made to allow the NCL Pride of America to be compliant, even though only the hull was manufactured in the US.

 

IMO, it is unlikely to be repealed anytime soon (there just doesn't seem to be enough support for and just enough support against to repeal either - except cruisers who would like different itineraries for pleasure cruising on the west coast).

[skiiergirl]

if ever a law needed a sunset provision........

 

like!

[skiiergirl]

Nit: the "Jones Act" covers cabotage (cargo), it is the PVSA that covers passengers.

 

 

 

Another nit: they don't say they "can't" make a profit on the west coast, they say they can make a better profit elsewhere.

 

Note it is the Jones Act that was ratified in 1920. The PVSA was originally ratified in 1886 and amended in 1985, and has been debated with some regularity. A special provision was made to allow the NCL Pride of America to be compliant, even though only the hull was manufactured in the US.

 

IMO, it is unlikely to be repealed anytime soon (there just doesn't seem to be enough support for and just enough support against to repeal either - except cruisers who would like different itineraries for pleasure cruising on the west coast).

 

Thanks so much for the educational information. I believe most of us on here realize there are two different acts/laws. Folks have used "Jones Act" and "PVSA" interchangeably on this website for years. The intent of the posters is the same. We aren't arguing a case in a court of law here. Most of us aren't attorneys or in the legal profession. This website is about passenger cruising so I think most folks understand we mean "PVSA" even when we say "Jones". It is just easier to "say" "Jones" we we are "speaking" and that has carried on to our web chatting. Most folks on these forums are very knowledgable!

[geoff2802]

Just saw this article reporting on Gavin Smith's announcement of Ovation's deployment to Australia last week:

http://www.cruisecritic.com.au/news/news.cfm?ID=6303

The first point of note is that the deployment adds 25,000 berths to the Australian market for the season. Ovation's capacity is 4,200 berths at double occupancy, so I take this to mean there will be 6 cruises departing from Australian ports.

The second point he makes is that there are 5 slots reserved for Ovation at Sydney OPT. So it looks something like:

- Singapore to Perth: 15 nights (Cruiseco charter) departing Nov 23 arriving Dec 8.

- Perth to Sydney departing Dec 8 for 12 nights (?).

- 4 Sydney return cruises, first one departing roughly Dec 20, last one roughly Jan 20. At least one will be a short sampler and one goes to NZ.

- Sydney to Singapore via Brisbane departing roughly Jan 24, leaving Australian waters from Darwin on Jan 31.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cheznandy]

Just saw this article reporting on Gavin Smith's announcement of Ovation's deployment to Australia last week:

http://www.cruisecritic.com.au/news/news.cfm?ID=6303

The first point of note is that the deployment adds 25,000 berths to the Australian market for the season. Ovation's capacity is 4,200 berths at double occupancy, so I take this to mean there will be 6 cruises departing from Australian ports.

The second point he makes is that there are 5 slots reserved for Ovation at Sydney OPT. So it looks something like:

- Singapore to Perth: 15 nights (Cruiseco charter) departing Nov 23 arriving Dec 8.

- Perth to Sydney departing Dec 8 for 12 nights (?).

- 4 Sydney return cruises, first one departing roughly Dec 20, last one roughly Jan 20. At least one will be a short sampler and one goes to NZ.

- Sydney to Singapore via Brisbane departing roughly Jan 24, leaving Australian waters from Darwin on Jan 31.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Good detective work;)

 

Chez

[cheznandy]

Melbourne Ports has bookings for Ovation for 13 Dec, 18 Dec 2016 and 11 Jan 2017........there is also a booking in Adelaide ports for Voyager on 12 Dec 2016, could that be Ovation, does it take a day to cruise Adelaide/Melbourne?

 

Chez

[Hoopster95]

Though using Victoria as a regular embarkation/debarkation port would be problematic as you suggest, it is more than feasible to end a cruise there, and travel overnight without passengers to Seattle to resupply and begin the cruise cycle the next day (sort of what Oasis has to do when it repositions to PC from PE).

 

Similarly, take on supplies/fuel in Seattle, travel overnight without passengers to, and pick up the passengers the next day in Victoria before sailing off into towards Hawaii.

 

Provided they don't transport goods or passengers between Seattle and Hawaii, they don't violate either the PVSA or Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (the latter being the real "Jones Act").

 

Where in Victoria is the infrastructure and more importantly, staff, to embark & disembark 3100 passengers and supplies needed? I'm extremely doubtful this can be done in a cost effective manner for RCL or any other cruiseline imho. I guess Ensenada is already set up (ie. Legend is 2 weeks and others previously), so Explorer could come across to Ensenada, reposition overnight without passengers to San Diego or LA, then a coastal cruise up to Seattle visiting Victoria on the final day in order to satisfy to PVSA.

[CVU]

Thanks so much for the educational information. I believe most of us on here realize there are two different acts/laws. Folks have used "Jones Act" and "PVSA" interchangeably on this website for years. The intent of the posters is the same. We aren't arguing a case in a court of law here. Most of us aren't attorneys or in the legal profession. This website is about passenger cruising so I think most folks understand we mean "PVSA" even when we say "Jones". It is just easier to "say" "Jones" we we are "speaking" and that has carried on to our web chatting. Most folks on these forums are very knowledgable!

Thanks!!!:)

 

I use "Jones" as well, simpler than remembering the order of the Letters in PVSA. Even the RCL agent used it when checking to be sure we could do a B2B.

People seem to know what anyone is referring to, as you say. It has been an issue on the West Coast when booking cruises.

[Piepkorn]

Where in Victoria is the infrastructure and more importantly, staff, to embark & disembark 3100 passengers and supplies needed? I'm extremely doubtful this can be done in a cost effective manner for RCL or any other cruiseline imho. I guess Ensenada is already set up (ie. Legend is 2 weeks and others previously), so Explorer could come across to Ensenada, reposition overnight without passengers to San Diego or LA, then a coastal cruise up to Seattle visiting Victoria on the final day in order to satisfy to PVSA.

 

Leaving Ensenada, the coastal does not need to (nor will) stop in Canada. It can sail Seattle direct, and passengers would clear customs at the first US stop. If it stopped in Canada, they would have to clear customs 3 times.

[3dog]

Thanks so much for the educational information. I believe most of us on here realize there are two different acts/laws. Folks have used "Jones Act" and "PVSA" interchangeably on this website for years. The intent of the posters is the same. We aren't arguing a case in a court of law here. Most of us aren't attorneys or in the legal profession. This website is about passenger cruising so I think most folks understand we mean "PVSA" even when we say "Jones". It is just easier to "say" "Jones" we we are "speaking" and that has carried on to our web chatting. Most folks on these forums are very knowledgable!

 

Yep, indeed it is used interchangeably on these boards. I just stated it was a nit (two actually).

 

It really doesn't matter if it is easier to say or who stated it: a poster, cruise representative, or even me, or if on these boards it is often used interchangeably, it would be incorrect to state the constraint is the "Jones Act".

[longhorn2004]

Just got off Navigator of the Seas (awesome ship and crew), the crew told us its leaving in November going to Europe, it was destined to go to China, but was changed recently.

[3dog]

Where in Victoria is the infrastructure and more importantly, staff, to embark & disembark 3100 passengers and supplies needed? I'm extremely doubtful this can be done in a cost effective manner for RCL or any other cruiseline imho. I guess Ensenada is already set up (ie. Legend is 2 weeks and others previously), so Explorer could come across to Ensenada, reposition overnight without passengers to San Diego or LA, then a coastal cruise up to Seattle visiting Victoria on the final day in order to satisfy to PVSA.

 

If you believe there is better infrastructure in Ensenada, you might want to visit Ensenada and really take a tour around. Folks embarking there are processed in San Diego and then bussed to Ensenada for further processing before boarding.

 

The reason Legend is doing this, is because it made the Panama Canal trip just before it's westbound Pacific, making it the closest foreign port to it's last US port of call (note that the reason Legend can make the FLL to SD trip, is because it visits Cartagena - a distant foreign port).

 

If using this port as the North America entry, it would not only have to be the debarkation port for the eastbound Pacific, it would also have to be the embarkation port for the coastal to Seattle, not San Diego or L.A., as Victoria is not a distant foreign port, so just visiting isn't sufficient to satisfy the PVSA (and then do it again when she travels back across the Pacific).

 

 

Using Victoria as the endpoint or beginning point would require only the embarkation or disembarkation of passengers (and any cargo that might have been picked up at it's previous port), supplies can be acquired before departing Seattle (also providing they are not offloaded in HI). It is then much easier for these folks to make transit by the local ferries to either Vancouver or Seattle. It would also only require one of embarkation or debarkation on on the "turn around" day.

 

 

Note, I was only suggesting this is feasible, not optimal. Certainly as has been suggested by Hoopster, Ensenada is effectively another choice. But seeing as Explorer is bound for Alaska, finding a Canadian port for the endpoint would seem to be a more practical choice.

[skiiergirl]

Yep, indeed it is used interchangeably on these boards. I just stated it was a nit (two actually).

 

It really doesn't matter if it is easier to say or who stated it: a poster, cruise representative, or even me, or if on these boards it is often used interchangeably, it would be incorrect to state the constraint is the "Jones Act".

 

Please give us your definition of "nit". I am not familiar with this term and what I just pulled up on a search is certainly not very flattering. Please clarify.

[3dog]

Please give us your definition of "nit". I am not familiar with this term and what I just pulled up on a search is certainly not very flattering. Please clarify.

 

Indeed, I should have considered that this term might not have been understood.

 

But my use of this term is related to a slang phrase known as "nit-picking" (very much related to the terms that you probably found in your search), and in this context a "nit" would be a single item of interest. A similar slang phrase would be to "split hairs".

 

The most reasonable definition I found was in the free dictionary under "nit-pick":

 

To be concerned with or find fault with insignificant details.

 

So when I use this term, it would mean that there is (at least what I believe to be) something incorrect that could be corrected, but don't really care if it is corrected.

[skiiergirl]

Indeed, I should have considered that this term might not have been understood.

 

But my use of this term is related to a slang phrase known as "nit-picking" (very much related to the terms that you probably found in your search), and in this context a "nit" would be a single item of interest. A similar slang phrase would be to "split hairs".

 

The most reasonable definition I found was in the free dictionary under "nit-pick":

 

To be concerned with or find fault with insignificant details.

 

So when I use this term, it would mean that there is (at least what I believe to be) something incorrect that could be corrected, but don't really care if it is corrected.

 

I am quite familiar with the term "nit-picking" just not the "nit" alone. The definition that pulled up in the online dictionary when I did a search for "nit" indicated "stupid person". I was quite sure you weren't calling a large number of people on this thread "stupid"...therefore I thought it best to ask you for your definition. Yes...if you had said..."This may be nit-picking but...." then I would have understood. Thanks for the explanation. I still feel there is nothing wrong with any of us mentioning "Jones" when we really mean PVSA. We aren't in Congress, not approaching Congress to change it, and aren't going in to court with arguments. When we band together to do that...then let's get technical! So as long as we know what we are referring....

[CRUISEBOY305]

I find it ridiculous when a 'customer' accuses a company that has been in their business for years (and has been very profitable at it) of 'not knowing how to price their sailings'.

 

From your signature, I can see you are in the Pinnacle Club, but that doesn't give you access to their board room or any other area of the company that would be involved in determining 'what they need to be able to make a profit (or the kind of profit they want) from sailing a ship from the West Coast.

 

 

HAHA.....this made me laugh. You clearly have not been cruising with royal very long. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[CRUISEBOY305]

(Sanity prevailed)

 

I for one always thought you were running the show.:p:p:p

 

Gracefully ignore her. She's a troll that loves to stir the pot. ;)

[CptSticky]

Nit: the "Jones Act" covers cabotage (cargo), it is the PVSA that covers passengers.

 

 

 

Another nit: they don't say they "can't" make a profit on the west coast, they say they can make a better profit elsewhere.

Pretty sure that's why Karen used parentheses. I personally have gotten tired of trying to refer to it as PVSA only to have the person I'm talking to not understand or even try to correct me so I usually just give up and call it "Jones". Not correct, but I choose to go along to get along. If you have lost as many cruises to PVSA as either I have (or I'm sure Karen has) then trust me you are very familiar with it. I think I can quote the rules in my sleep. Lost two booked cruises just this year.

[John&LaLa]

I for one always thought you were running the show.:p:p:p

 

Gracefully ignore her. She's a troll that loves to stir the pot. ;)

 

I do not believe Paulette is a troll, slightly opinionated on occasion, but hardly a troll. To suggest otherwise is both rude and inaccurate.