Carnival to Stop Offering Cruises to Nowhere - Starting in 2016

[falkcor]

What's interesting is that the cruise I have bolded is still available as the only Cruise to Nowhere in 2016.

 

that is interesting, and i noticed that too... but given carnival's IT and/or itineraries departments, i wouldn't be surprised if they just 'haven't gotten to it yet' (it is the latest one on the list!) :rolleyes: ;)

[Rudyard]

Haven't got the e-mail cancelling my Breeze cruise yet, but I'm sure it's coming. It's a shame as we got a good rate the day it became available and wanted to do a quick weekend getaway that would also give us a chance to explore Galveston's newest ship.

[spice1]

Haven't got the e-mail cancelling my Breeze cruise yet, but I'm sure it's coming. It's a shame as we got a good rate the day it became available and wanted to do a quick weekend getaway that would also give us a chance to explore Galveston's newest ship.

 

 

Everyone needs to check out the Passagers Vessel Services Act 1886

& also Merchant Marine Act of 1920 ( Jones Act.) This will help to answer everyones question

[PortSideCruzan]

 

Hi Falkcor :)

 

In regards to the Breeze December 9th, 2016 cruise to nowhere, that is still available to book;

 

My wife & I are on the Breeze voyage prior, a 12-day 'Carnival Journeys' cruise, also its a Breeze repositioning sailing; Miami to Texas, November 27th to December 9, 2016.

 

I wonder if the repositioning aspect will be a factor here.

 

Very curious of this outcome. I'll be watching my November 27th sailing, the December 9th cruise to nowhere sailing, and the December 11th, 7-day sailing.

 

Have a terrific evening,

 

 

:)

 

 

 

 

 

[DebJ14]

You mean the ones protecting American jobs? I sure won't argue against their cause.

 

And now that I understand (perhaps) the reasoning behind the CTN ban, having to do with the crew effectively working in the USA without a work permit, rather than just "visiting" the USA as part of their job on outward-bound cruises, I don't have a problem with it at all.

 

The solutions are simple: If you want to run cruises between US cities without going to a foreign distant port, or if you want to offer "cruises to nowhere" from US cities, all you have to do is be a US-flagged vessel, and be subject to US labor (and other) laws. Just like the ships running cruises around the Hawaiian Islands. If you're a foreign-flagged vessel, and want to run CTNs, then your crew must be legally allowed to work in the USA.

 

And then the cost of the CTN would be prohibitive. Ever price the NCL Hawaii product ? It is outrageously priced and friends who sailed said the service was not nearly as good as that given by the foreign crews on every other cruise.

Edited June 12, 2015 by DebJ14

[falkcor]

 

Hi Falkcor :)

 

In regards to the Breeze December 9th, 2016 cruise to nowhere, that is still available to book;

 

My wife & I are on the Breeze voyage prior, a 12-day 'Carnival Journeys' cruise, also its a Breeze repositioning sailing; Miami to Texas, November 27th to December 9, 2016.

 

I wonder if the repositioning aspect will be a factor here.

 

Very curious of this outcome. I'll be watching my November 27th sailing, the December 9th cruise to nowhere sailing, and the December 11th, 7-day sailing.

 

Have a terrific evening,

 

 

:)

 

 

hi portsidecruzan :)

 

yes, that is interesting... i'm not sure exactly why that's the last cruise to nowhere that is listed as available to book, but all sources to date (not as if that is prolific reading) have indicated this is an across-the-board type of thing, so one would logically expect some changes may be forthcoming.

 

in all earnest, the question of 'why' still has not been stated, though i think we were on to something earlier in this thread...

 

i could offer one hypothesis as to why that cruise is still available - between those sailings you mentioned, they may not have yet figured out how to absorb the extra days, or how to distribute them between the cruise before or after... do you make an already long cruise longer? or a shorter cruise a little longer? which ship is selling better, which could potentially result in out of pocket airline fees for those already booked? i'm sure there's plenty of beans for their bean counters to count, and that could explain why that's the lone cruise left - it's not as if carnival is always that great about communicating changes like this all at once, across the board - look at how they release itineraries :)

 

anyhow, that's my hypothesis, maybe they haven't figured out what to do / secured port berths, etc. for the cruises before or after which may be affected. but that's just what i said, a hypothesis, and speculation. who knows!

 

regardless, i hope your cruises are not affected or even better, you benefit from whatever changes may occur.

 

you have a terrific evening, too ;)

[Rudyard]

And then the cost of the CTN would be prohibitive. Ever price the NCL Hawaii product ? It is outrageously priced and friends who sailed said the service was not nearly as good as that given by the foreign crews on every other cruise.

 

When I was on the Jewel last year I had a chance to talk to a few NCL veterans I met through our roll call. Without exception, everyone of them that had cruised on POA said the level of service was less than they experienced on their other NCL cruises.

[yoshi14]

very interesting find... here's what i came up with in that regard (small excerpt):

 

 

 

http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/archive/2014/01/13/39-cruise-to-nowhere-39-foreign-crews-need-work-authorization-bimini-superfast-operations-v-winkowski.aspx

 

and here's the link to the complaint:

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27924754/Bimini.pdf

 

ETA: it looks like they lost that case:

 

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-01-23/entertainment/fl-bimini-superfast-genting-011814-20140117_1_genting-rwbimini-com-cruise

 

i wonder if it was in fact because of that case, that the regulations are changing across the industry...

I wondered what became of Tom Winkowski. I worked for him in the 90's when he was the assistant DD in LA for what was then called U.S Customs Service.

[teecee60]

Apparently, this is not something new. The Bimini Superfast filing mentions a 1993 bill in Congress to limit CTN's to US flag vessels.

 

So what meddling jerks were a majority, and in charge of Congress in 1993?

 

Who was the meddling idiot in the White House who signed the bill into law?

 

The road to perdition seems always to be paved with only the VERY best of intentions.

[undercat]

Actually, I think it is CBP looking at violations of immigration and visa laws more than the PVSA. CBP fears that a ship like the Bimini Superfast could have foreign crew working in the US for extended periods, so long as the ship makes an occasional voyage outside territorial waters. As I've said, the foreign crew working on the US flag POA must have H-1 work visas, and this requires a lot more background check and fiscal responsibility on the part of the sponsor (cruise line), than either a B-1 work visa or a D-1 crew visa.

 

Hmm, good point!

[chengkp75]

So what meddling jerks were a majority, and in charge of Congress in 1993?

 

Who was the meddling idiot in the White House who signed the bill into law?

 

The road to perdition seems always to be paved with only the VERY best of intentions.

 

Actually, the bill passed the House, the Senate took no action, and the bill died and was never enacted. I believe the CBP took a mandate from this Congressional action to review the CTN exemption in light of crew visa requirements and saw that they could be contradictory and made a rule revision.

[cruzn buckeye]

I am thinking that because most of those cancelled are in between some of the longer journey cruises... as a previous poster said, they will not leave the ships sit for 2 days empty, it would be a huge loss in sales... who knows, they many have to adjust those Journey dates too, not cancel, just change dates perhaps:rolleyes:

[sparks1093]

I am thinking that because most of those cancelled are in between some of the longer journey cruises... as a previous poster said, they will not leave the ships sit for 2 days empty, it would be a huge loss in sales... who knows, they many have to adjust those Journey dates too, not cancel, just change dates perhaps:rolleyes:

 

I know the Breakaway for NCL is doing 12 day cruises in January and the way the schedule is done they have three 2 day slots that could be filled. Cruise lines will have to adjust their schedules somehow to avoid that (possibly meaning that some cruises will be departing in the middle of a week instead of on a weekend).

[jimbo5544]

The road to perdition seems always to be paved with only the VERY best of intentions.

 

 

If only that were true

[going2cruz]

I don't know why this is all of a sudden a concern, it's not like the cruises go anywhere. As I recall we just disembarked the ship on our last one and didn't even go through customs.

 

Apparently, this is not something new. The Bimini Superfast filing mentions a 1993 bill in Congress to limit CTN's to US flag vessels. No way of knowing if there was a request for comment back then, and whether CBP made a rule change then, and it was not common knowledge, so that the Bimini case (20 years later) was the first denied under this rule. Though it does appear that CBP was selectively applying the rule, if it was created back then. The letter to RWB from CBP appears to cite current law, so there would appear to be some rule out there. I think that what triggered the CBP reaction was that the Bimini ship was going to be doing this regularly, not just occasionally like the major cruise lines do.

 

Exactly, it appears Carnivals has decided to interpret the law differently now in order to support there recent company decisions, I suspect NCL and the others have no idea about this.

 

Doesn't it seem odd this new policy interpretation of old law comes out at a time that their obviously attempting an image adjustment. All the recent news about rowdy crowds and brawls that have caused the alcohol policy enforcement where no water carry on is allowed anymore.

 

The CTN's have been called the "BOOZE CRUISE" for years now:confused:

Edited June 12, 2015 by going2cruz

[lido deck larry]

Noooooooooooo.... say it ain't so. Stupid guvmint. Is all Obama ' s fault.

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[chengkp75]

Exactly, it appears Carnivals has decided to interpret the law differently now in order to support there recent company decisions, I suspect NCL and the others have no idea about this.

 

Doesn't it seem odd this new policy interpretation of old law comes out at a time that their obviously attempting an image adjustment. All the recent news about rowdy crowds and brawls that have caused the alcohol policy enforcement where no water carry on is allowed anymore.

 

The CTN's have been called the "BOOZE CRUISE" for years now:confused:

 

Actually, I believe all the lines are perfectly aware of this. They have been having to request exemptions in order to have CTN's since the 2013 decision in the Bimini case, so they were most likely notified the same time as Carnival that exemptions would no longer be granted as of 1 Jan. It is just that Carnival had made the move to have regularly scheduled CTN's, while the other lines only have them occasionally.

[voltron1974]

I look forward to the CTN's ever year. I was planning 3 CTN's next year.

If I cancel my Escape sailing for November, I'll go on the Breakaway CTN in December since that will be the last.

 

I wonder if this is the reason Disney didn't schedule a CTN from NY.

[falkcor]

cruise critic picked up on this and posted a news story here:

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=6402

 

Specifics on the regulations were not immediately available, but Cruise Critic has contacted the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Federal Maritime Commission for comment.

 

i look forward to cruise critic reporting what comments they receive from CLIA.

 

incidentally, it says at the bottom that:

 

In the meantime, cruisers are speculating about the regulations on the Cruise Critic message boards. You can join the conversation and share your thoughts.

 

and that's this thread. look at that :)

[cornyship]

I wondered what became of Tom Winkowski. I worked for him in the 90's when he was the assistant DD in LA for what was then called U.S Customs Service.

 

Mr.W is now in charge of ICE...

Cornelia

 

http://www.dhs.gov/person/thomas-s-winkowski

[falkcor]

elsewhere, other news outlets are picking up on this too, including here:

http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2017124&c=setreg&region=2

 

they include the only statement i've seen from CLIA yet:

 

"While itinerary decisions are made by individual cruise lines, beginning in 2016, in compliance with US laws and regulations, foreign-flagged cruise lines operating out of US ports are not to offer cruises for sale that do not include a call in a foreign port," a statement from the Cruise Lines International Association said.

 

including from their own press section:

http://www.cruising.org/regulatory/pressroom-research

 

still, i can find no concrete information regarding exactly what regulatory action spurred these changes, aside from what has already been posted here.

[vyellen]

Just get rid of the Jones Act once and for all.

[sparks1093]

Just get rid of the Jones Act once and for all.

 

That wouldn't cure the current issue- CTN's violate the visa that foreign workers have been issued (at least according to the research I've done).

[chengkp75]

Just get rid of the Jones Act once and for all.

 

First off, getting rid of the Jones Act would not affect the passenger industry at all. You are thinking of the PVSA.

 

There are two issues here to think about when declaring the PVSA should be repealed. If it was, then every dinner cruise, casino boat, ferry, and charter fishing boat currently operating in the US would be eligible to reflag to a foreign flag, and then not be subject to US labor laws, US taxes, or have the USCG apply their more stringent safety standards than the IMO requires of foreign flag ships. US jobs would be lost, tax revenue would be lost, the port economies would suffer since the crews would be foreign and not living and spending in the country, and maritime accidents would increase.

 

The second issue is that CBP is looking at this issue more from the viewpoint of crew visas and CBP's ability to vet and track these crew, than from a PVSA standpoint. My reading of the ruling is that the cruise lines are not prohibited from having CTN's, just that they cannot do so with foreign crew having D-1 visas. NCL went to Congress to get the ability to carry foreign crew on a US flag ship, why can't the other lines do a similar thing for their foreign flag ships. They would not have to pay US wages like NCL does, but they would have to invest a substantial amount of money in getting the entire crew H-1 work visas. Since CTN's are such a small amount of the revenue days for any cruise ship, it just isn't worth it. So the major issue is visas, not US flag.

[travler27]

And then the cost of the CTN would be prohibitive. Ever price the NCL Hawaii product ? It is outrageously priced and friends who sailed said the service was not nearly as good as that given by the foreign crews on every other cruise.

 

Everyone jumps on the "raise the minimum wage" band wagon every time that subject comes up. Increased labor costs equal increased costs to the consumer. Doesn't matter if it's an employee of McDonalds or Carnival Cruise. When wages go up so does the price of hamburgers, coffee and cruises.

Edited June 12, 2015 by travler27