Caribbean Itinerary Changes to Save Fuel

[chemmo]

Jenna, Jenna, Jenna. You are such a troublemaker. :D:D:D

 

I can't get the coffee stain out of my blouse either! Seriously your comment made my day...

[ChucktownSteve]

We're on the following 14 Night Exotic Southern Caribbean Eclipse cruise on 1/22. Fortunately, so far (fingers crossed), there have been no time changes on this itinerary.

 

Well I spoke too soon. They shortened our time in three ports also. Two by one hour and another by two hours. My TA and I have not been notified it yet. Someone on our roll call discovered it while I was without power following Hurricane Matthew.

[e11wa]

perhaps its a tide thing?

[chengkp75]

Just a small note, and I'll start by saying that I haven't studied the itineraries in question to see what the relative speeds needed to make good are with the original or revised times.

 

I will just say that for the US market in particular, marine bunker fuel has risen well over 20% in the last two months, and is projected to continue to rise. So, while the cruise lines do purchase fuel "futures" contracts, you will see most lines going to even more fuel saving measures in the short term future. There is no doubt in my mind that these changes in itinerary are driven by anticipated fuel savings.

[ChucktownSteve]

perhaps its a tide thing?

 

Perhaps. However based upon the direction Queen Lisa has been taking Celebrity for more than one year, I'd more likely suspect it's a money thing.

[MVPinBoynton]

Just a small note, and I'll start by saying that I haven't studied the itineraries in question to see what the relative speeds needed to make good are with the original or revised times.

 

I will just say that for the US market in particular, marine bunker fuel has risen well over 20% in the last two months, and is projected to continue to rise. So, while the cruise lines do purchase fuel "futures" contracts, you will see most lines going to even more fuel saving measures in the short term future. There is no doubt in my mind that these changes in itinerary are driven by anticipated fuel savings.

 

Perhaps the fuel savings might be an opportunity to save money for ports that are further away, that certainly wouldn't make sense when a hour was reduced on St. Kitts to travel less than 100 miles to St. Maarten. If X is wanting to have more ship time for passengers to spend money, why in the world would they have added so many overnight stops last year. I don't get the logic for the changes; but there must be a good reason to do it.

[chengkp75]

Perhaps the fuel savings might be an opportunity to save money for ports that are further away, that certainly wouldn't make sense when a hour was reduced on St. Kitts to travel less than 100 miles to St. Maarten. If X is wanting to have more ship time for passengers to spend money, why in the world would they have added so many overnight stops last year. I don't get the logic for the changes; but there must be a good reason to do it.

 

Overnight port stays also save fuel. The only reason I can think of for a longer sea time for 100 mile passage would be whether it requires an additional engine to make the speed for the shorter time frame. Since Eclipse only has 4 large engines, they may be able to make the longer, slower passage on one engine, just the same as they run for hotel load in port. Given that each engine is rated about 18Mw each, and hotel load is probably 8-9Mw, they could get about 6-7Mw of propulsion out of one engine.

[richsea]

Overnight port stays also save fuel. The only reason I can think of for a longer sea time for 100 mile passage would be whether it requires an additional engine to make the speed for the shorter time frame. Since Eclipse only has 4 large engines, they may be able to make the longer, slower passage on one engine, just the same as they run for hotel load in port. Given that each engine is rated about 18Mw each, and hotel load is probably 8-9Mw, they could get about 6-7Mw of propulsion out of one engine.

 

Thanks for sharing your knowledge, chengkp75. It is always interesting to read your perspective based upon experience.

[jagoffee]

Although I have not been notified someone posted on our 1/22/17 roll call that the same time changes have been made. I do find it interesting that I received a notice concerning the final payment being due soon, but no e mail concerning the time changes.

[TravelerThom]

Although I have not been notified someone posted on our 1/22/17 roll call that the same time changes have been made. I do find it interesting that I received a notice concerning the final payment being due soon, but no e mail concerning the time changes.

If you don't find out until after Final Payment you are less likely to cancel:rolleyes::mad:

[chamima]

We are on the Eclipse Feb. 5 and again on the 19th.

I have also not received any notifications but went into my files to check.

The 5th seems to have the original port times

2/9 Curacao - 11pm

2/14 Barbados - 4pm (it's Valentine's Day so they probably want us on the ship???)

2/15 St. Kitts - 6pm

 

But the 19th has all of the changes others have noted

2/23 Curacao - 10 pm (then Aruba)

2/27 Barbados - 10 pm

3/1 St. Kitts - 4 pm

 

The port orders are slightly different for the two cruises but on BOTH we sail from St. Kitts to St. Maarten.

Why do we leave 2 hours earlier from St. Kitts on the second?

It really doesn't matter because we don't intend to get off the ship in St. Kitts - just curious.

 

All of the theories above are interesting but none explain the differences in our B2B cruises this coming February.

[ghstudio]

Upon reflection of this issue and thinking about the posts....and realizing that the ship is more or less drifting under power between ports, the change must be due to saving money....either reducing port charges, or perhaps being able to run on a single generator vs two generators, or someone doing analytic work that shows if people are on board for an additional 1/2 hour they will spend $x more (and that might be the most likely guess).

 

Changing port times prior to the cruise without notification should be a violation of some law...it certainly strikes me as immoral and unethical. It's certainly not a way for Celebrity to maintain a positive relationship with their past or future passengers, but my sense is that they don't focus on this much these days.

[downsmead]

Someone has posted on our roll call (Singapore to Abu Dhabi, April 2017) re two ports where we are now leaving earlier, with the same reason (Marine .....) being cited 😔

[chamima]

Upon reflection of this issue and thinking about the posts....and realizing that the ship is more or less drifting under power between ports, the change must be due to saving money....either reducing port charges, or perhaps being able to run on a single generator vs two generators, or someone doing analytic work that shows if people are on board for an additional 1/2 hour they will spend $x more (and that might be the most likely guess).

 

Changing port times prior to the cruise without notification should be a violation of some law...it certainly strikes me as immoral and unethical. It's certainly not a way for Celebrity to maintain a positive relationship with their past or future passengers, but my sense is that they don't focus on this much these days.

 

 

 

And it's exactly that thought that has us looking elsewhere for the future.

2017 is pretty much locked in but if the onboard experience mirrors what we're seeing (and feeling) then that's it. :(

[maherp]

Have now been advised that our Arabian Coast cruise in January is leaving Abu Dhabi and hour earlier. Looks like there may be a few more itinerary changes coming!

[coldweathergirl]

And it's exactly that thought that has us looking elsewhere for the future.

2017 is pretty much locked in but if the onboard experience mirrors what we're seeing (and feeling) then that's it. :(

 

I wouldn't doubt that many of the cruise lines are doing this now. We sailed Oceania last November around the cape in South Africa and almost all of our ports of call were shortened by a couple of hours once final payment had been made.

[jagoffee]

I wouldn't doubt that many of the cruise lines are doing this now. We sailed Oceania last November around the cape in South Africa and almost all of our ports of call were shortened by a couple of hours once final payment had been made.

 

At least in the OP's example and our 1/21 same changes the changes are before the final,payment.

[richsea]

And it's exactly that thought that has us looking elsewhere for the future.

2017 is pretty much locked in but if the onboard experience mirrors what we're seeing (and feeling) then that's it. :(

 

While I do think that Celebrity is not exactly what it used to be, it still is, IMO, overall the best of the mainstream lines. I can't tell you how many times over the years that I have read the doom & gloom posts here & then boarded a Celebrity ship to find that the experience has not been downgraded. You should also note that there is a portion of posters on this board that are always finding fault with Celebrity, & just pick, pick, pick. It's like death by a thousand cuts. Yet they keep coming back for more!

 

Go on your cruises next year & enjoy.

[TravelerThom]

I wouldn't doubt that many of the cruise lines are doing this now. We sailed Oceania last November around the cape in South Africa and almost all of our ports of call were shortened by a couple of hours once final payment had been made.

In case you missed my comment from above about Oceania doing this:

...Last year AFTER Final Payment Oceania changed numerous port schedules on me (including losing half a day in Rio). My survey gave them a 10/10 for food, 10/10 for service, 0 (yes zero) chance of sailing with them again. Sorry, I do not forgive selling me one product and having no good faith intent of delivering that product. If cruise lines want to change their schedule in the future that is their prerogative, but taking my money and then changing the deal when they could deliver the promised product is total BS. My not humble opinion.

Oceania Marina from Lisbon to Cape Town lost 23 hours of port time after Final Payment; Cape Town to Rio lost "only" 9 hours.

[Silvery Seas Cruiser]

I'd rather leave port an hour earlier than have the notorious "fuel surcharge" of a few years ago when crude oil was at record or near-record highs. If Celebrity and other lines are finding the cost of fuel prohibitive, they will find a way to make up the cost by charging more for something else such as drinks, certain classes of rooms, premium restaurants or whatever. Pulling out of port an hour earlier is the least bothersome way to me to save Celebrity money.

[ChucktownSteve]

I'd rather leave port an hour earlier than have the notorious "fuel surcharge" of a few years ago when crude oil was at record or near-record highs. If Celebrity and other lines are finding the cost of fuel prohibitive, they will find a way to make up the cost by charging more for something else such as drinks, certain classes of rooms, premium restaurants or whatever. Pulling out of port an hour earlier is the least bothersome way to me to save Celebrity money.

 

Have you been charged or do you know anyone who has been charged that fuel charge? Even when the cost of crude was over $65, I was never charged. The price of WTI is currently under $50/bb. I just don't understand where the current fear of a fuel surcharge being implemented is a reality or valid reason. I suspect it may be just to add to the cruise line's bottom line.

 

BTW Celebrity already is charging more for drinks and they're also rolling the liquor perk into the inflated cost of a cruise without it that many unsuspecting, non CC members aren't aware of.

 

"Celebrity Cruises has suspended their fuel supplement for all sailings. Guests already booked on sailings that depart on or after January 1, 2009, will receive a refund of any fuel supplement paid, as follows: Guests with existing bookings for sailings that depart on or after January 1, 2009, and who are now paid in full, will have the supplement automatically refunded to them in the form of an onboard credit during their sailing. Guests with existing bookings for sailings that depart on or after January 1, 2009, and who are not yet paid in full, will have the supplement automatically removed from their outstanding balance.

 

For US reservations, Celebrity Cruises reserves the right to impose a fuel supplement on all guests if the price of West Texas Intermediate fuel exceeds $65.00 per barrel. The fuel supplement for 1st and 2nd guests would be no more than $10 per guest per day, to a maximum of $140 per cruise; and for additional guests would be no more than $5 per person per day, to a maximum of $70 per cruise."

[chengkp75]

I seriously doubt that a fuel surcharge is anywhere on the horizon. However, as I stated previously, despite the current low price of crude, that really has not much effect on the price of refined product, and demand tends to drive the prices of individual products. Marine fuel prices have been climbing over the last few months, 20% for residual fuel oil used outside the US ECA or by ships with scrubbers, and 25+% for marine gas oil (diesel fuel required by ships without scrubbers in the US ECA). Cruise lines are looking to adjust steaming speeds, and hence time at sea and time in port to minimize their long term fuel usage.

[cruisefam38]

Thanks for the heads up MVP.

[downsmead]

Someone has posted on our roll call (Singapore to Abu Dhabi, April 2017) re two ports where we are now leaving earlier, with the same reason (Marine .....) being cited 😔

Interestingly, we have now had notification re the early departures from Celebrity UK but in their email they state it is for 'Operational reasons'!

[Duanerice1]

At least most of you are still going to your original ports. They cancelled Dominica after we booked. Staying the night in Barbados. Now that is a ripoff.