Royal Ships & California

[Ourusualbeach]

1 hour ago, mcrcruiser said:

Interesting about the next 5 to 10 years . IMO  it means nothing  no commitment what so ever on Royal Caribbean's part .  Royal will have to prove themselves worthy of pax switching cruise lines ,if they ever enter the west coast ,specifically  the California  cruising market  .

 

 It just is so very interesting with so many new ships being built  now that there isn't a hint of deploying one or 2 ships to do seasonal sailings from the California ports 

 

 

 

 

 

Dont forget that with the new builds will come retirements from the fleet.  

[wl2cruise]

1 hour ago, Host Clarea said:

 

Note that this did not say "ship based in California", only "ship in California".  This could be the occasional Pacific Coastal or Panama Canal cruise.

 

An update on cruising from California
One cruiser asked Michael Bayley about the prospects of Royal Caribbean returning to California and offering cruises regularly from Los Angeles.

 

Its about returning to California not the occasional high and by.

[WyKnott]

I for one would love it if Royal came back to California on a regular basis, but the Mexican Riviera has gotten old for me. The ship would have to be the draw, because the ports are not. A pacific coastal like the May 2020 out of San Diego would be ideal. All of us who live west of the rockies have to fly to the cruise port which adds to the overall cost.

[wl2cruise]

2 hours ago, mcrcruiser said:

Royal Caribbean ships sail into the most stringent  of environments  in Alaska waters 

 

Any shipping company that visit a California port more than 5 times year must connect to shore power. Royal has decide not to retrofit their ships to accept shore power. its very costly to build, maintain and the electric bill.

[Clarea]

26 minutes ago, wl2cruise said:

 

An update on cruising from California
One cruiser asked Michael Bayley about the prospects of Royal Caribbean returning to California and offering cruises regularly from Los Angeles.

 

Its about returning to California not the occasional high and by.

 

I know what was asked, but I also have heard RC corporate speak BS for years.  I'll believe it when I see it.

[mcrcruiser]

11 minutes ago, wl2cruise said:

 

Any shipping company that visit a California port more than 5 times year must connect to shore power. Royal has decide not to retrofit their ships to accept shore power. its very costly to build, maintain and the electric bill.

Never heard of this rule . What agency requires this ? Just seems a odd thing 

[mcrcruiser]

11 minutes ago, Host Clarea said:

 

I know what was asked, but I also have heard RC corporate speak BS for years.  I'll believe it when I see it.

Unfortunately I agree with you . Seems they learned it well from the politicians   out of Wash DC 

[wl2cruise]

2 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

Never heard of this rule . What agency requires this ? Just seems a odd thing 

 

https://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/shorepower.htm

[mcrcruiser]

7 minutes ago, wl2cruise said:

 

https://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/shorepower.htm

Read it but where does it say it is a law ?   

[not-enough-cruising]

2 hours ago, mcrcruiser said:

Royal Caribbean ships sail into the most stringent  of environments  in Alaska waters 

I don’t believe Alaska has the same “shore power” requirements as California. 

[KelSny1011]

I live in California and CA taxes the crap out of everything.. which leads me to believe the profit margin just isnt worth it for them. 

[mcrcruiser]

5 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

I don’t believe Alaska has the same “shore power” requirements as California. 

We have no idea about this shore power requirement in Ca ports ;as it doesn't say it is a law 

 

 From a environmental point of view Alaska has extremely stringent laws  for cruise ships in their waters 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by mcrcruiser

[mcrcruiser]

1 minute ago, KelSny1011 said:

I live in California and CA taxes the crap out of everything.. which leads me to believe the profit margin just isnt worth it for them. 

 All cruise ships are foreign flag ships .That was done to avoid paying taxes  .

[not-enough-cruising]

1 minute ago, mcrcruiser said:

 All cruise ships are foreign flag ships .That was done to avoid paying taxes  .

Seriously, you don’t think a vessel of any type doesn’t pay a ton of cash to the government in ANY port where they tie off? You don’t think a high tax state Ike CA doesn’t have a tremendous amount of fees they collect from these vessels? 

[not-enough-cruising]

In the not too distant past ChengCP gave a brilliant dissertation on these boards surrounding the shore power requirements VS installing exhaust scrubbers specific to the CA market. Need to find that, or maybe we will hear from the chief. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by not-enough-cruising

[HBE4]

4 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

In the not too distant past ChengCP gave a brilliant dissertation on these boards surrounding the shore power requirements VS installing exhaust scrubbers specific to the CA market. Need to find that, or maybe we will hear from the chief. 

 

Is there a hot-line or a bat-signal (or chief-signal) we can send up? I'm interested in this as well.  Not doubting Wl2cruise' knowledge of the subject, just wondering why Carnival and Holland American can "plug-in" and Royal can not. Does Carnival possess some kind of exotic, advanced power supply??

 

Everything I've read about California cruising points to the lack of interest in cruising to Mexico for the decline in popularity of West coast cruises.  With the newer, bigger "ships are the destination" Oasis and Quantum-class ships, you'd think that would be less of an issue.

 

Maybe when the Icon-ships come out, they can spare a ship for the left coast?

[Hoopster95]

27 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

In the not too distant past ChengCP gave a brilliant dissertation on these boards surrounding the shore power requirements VS installing exhaust scrubbers specific to the CA market. Need to find that, or maybe we will hear from the chief. 

 

I think these are the links you're looking for

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Hoopster95

[mcrcruiser]

29 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

Seriously, you don’t think a vessel of any type doesn’t pay a ton of cash to the government in ANY port where they tie off? You don’t think a high tax state Ike CA doesn’t have a tremendous amount of fees they collect from these vessels? 

 That is conjecture  . We have no idea about whether the state of Calif taxes ships or the ports tax ships ;but ,we do know that we  pay port taxes on every cruise & port it stops at . That is for sure 

[mcrcruiser]

Why is every one trying to knock California ports as a starting point for any Royal Caribbean ship  ? 

 

 Do we knock down NYC   or Florida ports or any other port of call . 

 

 It just so happens that California has a lot to offer the cruise industry & it seems to us that Carnival corporation  is very happy to port their ships up & down the coast of our state 

[time4u2go]

47 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

Read it but where does it say it is a law ?   

 

43 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

We have no idea about this shore power requirement in Ca ports ;as it doesn't say it is a law 

 

 From a environmental point of view Alaska has extremely stringent laws  for cruise ships in their waters 

 

 

Right here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/shorepwr07/93118-t17.pdf

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by time4u2go

[wl2cruise]

23 minutes ago, HBE4 said:

 

Is there a hot-line or a bat-signal (or chief-signal) we can send up? I'm interested in this as well.  Not doubting Wl2cruise' knowledge of the subject, just wondering why Carnival and Holland American can "plug-in" and Royal can not. Does Carnival possess some kind of exotic, advanced power supply??

 

Everything I've read about California cruising points to the lack of interest in cruising to Mexico for the decline in popularity of West coast cruises.  With the newer, bigger "ships are the destination" Oasis and Quantum-class ships, you'd think that would be less of an issue.

 

Maybe when the Icon-ships come out, they can spare a ship for the left coast?

 

Hope this article helps

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-magazine/feature-magazine-articles/5787-summer-2011-green-shorepower-yes-or-no.html 

[mcrcruiser]

2 minutes ago, time4u2go said:

 

Right here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/shorepwr07/93118-t17.pdf

 

Thanks for posting this  .

 

Even though there are laws that ships & owners  must adhere to  they certainly are not just isolated to California ports .Any state that berths ships in their ports must have concerns about air quality & other potential pollution problems  . Thus ,we do not believe that  cruise ships  can do what ever they want in other US ports  .  

 

 The above requirements should not prevent a Royal Caribbean ship from berthing in  any of our California ports .If they pay more  ,then they just pass it on to the cruise pax just like they do with Panama Canal taxes  

[wl2cruise]

7 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

Why is every one trying to knock California ports as a starting point for any Royal Caribbean ship  ? 

 

 Do we knock down NYC   or Florida ports or any other port of call . 

 

 It just so happens that California has a lot to offer the cruise industry & it seems to us that Carnival corporation  is very happy to port their ships up & down the coast of our state 

 

I"m not knocking California I'm about 90 miles north of you in Riverside County. Ive been cruising with Royal since 2003. You wanted to know why they do not sail regularly out of California and it has to do with their strict environmental laws. 

[HBE4]

14 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

Why is every one trying to knock California ports as a starting point for any Royal Caribbean ship  ? 

 

 Do we knock down NYC   or Florida ports or any other port of call . 

 

 It just so happens that California has a lot to offer the cruise industry & it seems to us that Carnival corporation  is very happy to port their ships up & down the coast of our state 

 

I'm not sure if people are knocking California as a starting point, just wondering why Royal chooses to not sail from there.

 

According to the man himself, in 2017, he does not think there are enough people to support a ship permanently stationed in California.  I'm not saying he is right or wrong, just stating the facts that he states.

 

 

 

[AlanF65]

52 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

Read it but where does it say it is a law ?   

Over on the left https://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/finalregulation.pdf

 

Every county /area has different air quality boards that local regulation must be a least as stringent as the state regulation, my area it is more stringent. I can't purchase a complaint chemical from Sacramento with an additive as it goes over the limit in my area.

 

The CARB has the authority to fine,  or close any business.

 

For us this first started in the early 80's we went to meetings in LA. It was furniture industry, auto body shops and the Aerospace industry.  Our furniture reps would get up with practical questions ( how can a business doing  million a year in sales afford a million dollar scrubber) and get blown off, same with the auto body  industry.

 

The aerospace guys buried them with paper, quoted the federal register, quoted  exemptions and rulings and handed them boxes of paper with questions. They inspect us like clockwork every two years.