a SIT IN???

[trubey]

Anybody see this?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060123/ap_on_re_eu/britain_queen_mary2;_ylt=Ak0pNOuSgyTQGKVteto0_Dqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

 

lkt

[Krazy Kruizers]

Thanks for the report. When I posted several days ago about the QM 2, I was wondering how they were going to keep their schedule while running on only 3 engines. You can be certain that there will be other ports missed as well.

[grannynurse]

There is a thread on the Cunard board that is very vocal pro and con Cunard treatment of pax on the QM2's present voyage. I believe it is called mutiny mary.

It's a rather lively conversation, check it out if you're interested.

GN

[jhannah]

A sit-in? Oh man. This is one for the books. Seems like half their money back is a good deal. But I can see the point of view that they should have been given the option to just end it at FLL. Will be interesting to see what transpires.

[K&RCurt]

A sit-in? Oh man. This is one for the books. Seems like half their money back is a good deal. But I can see the point of view that they should have been given the option to just end it at FLL. Will be interesting to see what transpires.

 

The problem with getting off in FLL is that many got on in NYC. Leaving in FLL would be a Jones Act violation. While it's "only" a fine, it still likely causes a problem with the cruise line is there is a mass violation of this law.

 

A 50% refund is VERY fair IMO.

[Joanandjoe]

Yes, the QM2 PAX have been lied to and misled, but the ship isn't exactly the Bounty. Mutiny is a rather strong term (see another thread about Mutiny on the QM2); sit-in is more appropriate.

 

Having said that, here's what Carnival/Cunard should do.

 

1) Fix the darn ship before they go any farther.

 

2) Give bigger discounts than 50%. This is supposed to be a cruise, not a crossing.

 

3) Arrange for hotels and/or special excursions for the PAX who were supposed to board in Rio.

 

4) Fly PAX who don't want to stay on the ship home, or to the next boarding point on the cruise.

 

What they're doing is unfair to everyone.

[Cruise or Lose!]

Very fair indeed. Am I the only one who thinks the behaviour of these cruisers is unreasonable and downright hysterical? IN TEARS??? On a CRUISE???

[Sunshine91]

Keith (or anyone) - I've heard the term Jones Act before but am not familiar w/specifics. Can you elaborate?

If it covers things like disembarking early, what about pax who miss all-aboard in port or who leave a cruise early for medical reasons?

Thanks.

[JimandStan]

Sunshine-

 

The Jones act prohibits ships that are not registered in the United States from transporting goods or passengers between two U.S. ports.

When it was enacted (in the 1920's),it was supposed to encourage shipping lines to keep their ships flagged in the U.S.

What it actually DID, was to virtually eliminate intercity commerce by sea in the United States.

 

As part of his legislative efforts on behalf of the hurricane Katrina victims, I understand that President Bush is working towards getting the Jones act repealed, or, failing that, to get a waiver of the act for New Orleans and it's environs, during the rebuilding process.

[JLC@SD]

Yes, the QM2 PAX have been lied to and misled, but the ship isn't exactly the Bounty. Mutiny is a rather strong term (see another thread about Mutiny on the QM2); sit-in is more appropriate.

 

Having said that, here's what Carnival/Cunard should do.

 

1) Fix the darn ship before they go any farther.

 

2) Give bigger discounts than 50%. This is supposed to be a cruise, not a crossing.

 

3) Arrange for hotels and/or special excursions for the PAX who were supposed to board in Rio.

 

4) Fly PAX who don't want to stay on the ship home, or to the next boarding point on the cruise.

 

What they're doing is unfair to everyone.

 

1) Fixing the problem is probably a drydock repair. That has to be scheduled and the ship is on a long cruise. Cunard decided to do the best they can under the situation.

 

2) A discount of 50% is generous considering they still got the food, shows, lodging and transportation. Look at it this way, they paid for the scheduled "sea days"........ and get the non "port days" free.....:)

 

3) Those boarding in Rio will be on schedule, that is the reason they skipped the 3 port calls.

 

4) Why fly home, you were scheduled for a crusie......and you are on a

cruise. Take the 50% refund which is verrrrrrrry generous, and get over it and make the best of it.....:rolleyes:

[JLC@SD]

The problem with getting off in FLL is that many got on in NYC. Leaving in FLL would be a Jones Act violation. While it's "only" a fine, it still likely causes a problem with the cruise line is there is a mass violation of this law.

 

A 50% refund is VERY fair IMO.

 

We have neighbors that were on a New England cruise and were considering leaving the cruise because of a medical problem at home. They were told there would be a $3,000 fine to leave at a US port since they started at a US port.

 

Cunard should have put them off with their luggage at FLL and have US Customs greet them each of them with a 3 grand fine.

[Bramcruiser]

Booked the QM2 myself in December and find myself amazed at the childishness of the revolting - and I do mean revolting - passengers. Next time, maybe Cunard can just ram the ship into something on purposes - at least then there would be a reason for a law suit. This whole culture of demading compensation for things that go wrong beyond the line's control is just a sad reflection of our modern civilization.

 

No one died. The ship didn't sink. The worse that happen is that three ports were missed but they are still going to get to Rio and then are being wined and dined all the way on the QM2. I say enjoy the ride.

 

I truly feel sorry for the staff who have to put up with these passengers. Those are the true heros. I could never keep a fake smile and continue to do my job hence why I am not in the service industry.

[K&RCurt]

We have neighbors that were on a New England cruise and were considering leaving the cruise because of a medical problem at home. They were told there would be a $3,000 fine to leave at a US port since they started at a US port.

 

Cunard should have put them off with their luggage at FLL and have US Customs greet them each of them with a 3 grand fine.

 

The fine is levied agains the cruise line NOT the passengers. I'm not sure of the amount but $3,000.00 pp sounds high. It also wouldn't be customs or immigration that would levy the fine. The only way the cruise line would recover the fine would be to get it from the passengers.

 

Sunshine:

 

JimandStan is/are correct. The Jones act prohibits non US flagged vessels (such as the QM2) from transporting passengers between two US ports (NYC and FLL in this case) without making a stop at a "Distant foreign Port" And, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere in the Caribbean is distant enough.

[bepsf]

...(I) find myself amazed at the childishness of the revolting - and I do mean revolting - passengers. Next time, maybe Cunard can just ram the ship into something on purposes - at least then there would be a reason for a law suit. This whole culture of demading compensation for things that go wrong beyond the line's control is just a sad reflection of our modern civilization.

 

No one died. The ship didn't sink. The worse that happen is that three ports were missed but they are still going to get to Rio and then are being wined and dined all the way on the QM2. I say enjoy the ride.

 

Ditto

[chasetf]

JimandStan is/are correct. The Jones act prohibits non US flagged vessels (such as the QM2) from transporting passengers between two US ports (NYC and FLL in this case) without making a stop at a "Distant foreign Port" And, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere in the Caribbean is distant enough.

Bermuda and Bahamas are considered distant ports, otherwise Seven Seas Navigator is not in compliance. I know there are other ships from other lines that do the NY to FLL reposition. :)

[chasetf]

Sunshine- The Jones act prohibits ships that are not registered in the United States from transporting goods or passengers between two U.S. ports.

 

As part of his legislative efforts on behalf of the hurricane Katrina victims, I understand that President Bush is working towards getting the Jones act repealed, or, failing that, to get a waiver of the act for New Orleans and it's environs, during the rebuilding process.

As far as the cruise industry, I do not understand what good that would do.. Most of the places you would want to sail to from NO are foreign ports anyway, unless there is a demand for NO to Tampa / Key West RT's.

 

Who it would benefit is Hawaii, the Alaska trade (gets Seattle in the game) and makes east and west coastals a possibility. (Seattle - SD RT's and NY - FLL RT's)

[thlady]

When we sailed the Legend out of NYC last year, our first port was San Juan. I have been told that Carnival offers a guarantee that if you don't like the cruise, you can disembark at the first port-of-call and Carnival will fly you home and you will receive a full refund of your cruise. When we got to San Juan, there was a handful of pax let off first with all their luggage. Isn't San Juan a US port? Or is it still considered a 'distant foreign port'?

[Joanandjoe]

As far as the cruise industry, I do not understand what good that would do.. Most of the places you would want to sail to from NO are foreign ports anyway, unless there is a demand for NO to Tampa / Key West RT's.

 

The Jones Act applies to both passenger ships and cargo ships. "W" is seeking a waiver so that foreign flagged cargo ships can bring needed supplies and building materials to the Gulf coast.

 

While he's at it, there's some rethinking about whether there are enough U.S. flagged ships for the continuation of the law to make sense. On the Alaska route, what the Jones Act does is have most cruises start in Vancouver instead of Seattle. Is that really good for the economy of the Pacific Northwest? Here in the East, wouldn't it be nice to take a cuise ship from Boston or NYC to Savannah or Charleston? Yes, there are U.S. flagged small ships that sail this route once or twice a year, but no medium or large ships.

[trubey]

If cruises would both begin and end in more U.S. cities, there might even be a market for Northerns to travel to their Florida vacation homes. Just think what a better luggage allowance you'd get. susana.

[chasetf]

The Jones Act applies to both passenger ships and cargo ships. "W" is seeking a waiver so that foreign flagged cargo ships can bring needed supplies and building materials to the Gulf coast.

.......and I prefaced my remarks with "As far as the cruise industry"....

 

I would agree for the need for cargo ships....:)

[chasetf]

While he's at it, there's some rethinking about whether there are enough U.S. flagged ships for the continuation of the law to make sense.

There aren't. That is why foreign flagged ships need to have the American ports "opened" to them.

On the Alaska route, what the Jones Act does is have most cruises start in Vancouver instead of Seattle. Is that really good for the economy of the Pacific Northwest?

I think so. Why should Americans be going to Vancouver to spend the $'s if Seattle is a possibility. Only viable RT we see is out of Seattle with a call in Victoria or Vancouver. There could be lot more longer one way Alaska trips out of SF / LA / SD.

 

Here in the East, wouldn't it be nice to take a cuise ship from Boston or NYC to Savannah or Charleston? Yes, there are U.S. flagged small ships that sail this route once or twice a year, but no medium or large ships.

We did a Montreal to NY trip. A Boston / Maine / NY down the coast would be appealing too. Lots of great cities to visit along the way.

 

xxxx

[BruceMuzz]

Actually, if you want to get technical about this issue, it is not really the Jones Act, but the Passenger Services Act (better known as PSA)that we need to talk about. The Jones Act covers working hours and conditions for US sailors. The PSA was enacted about 100 years ago to legislate foreign transportation competition out of the USA since the US operators couldn't manage to compete fairly with foreign operators.

The PSA is administered by the US Customs Department. The current fine (raised from $200 in 2004) is US$300 per person who does not go "far foreign" on a foreign flagged "CARRIER". "Carrier" is the important word here. Cruise Ships are carriers - but so are airplanes, and the PSA applies to them as well.

Just as US Ships have not been able to financially compete with foreign ships on a level playing field for the past few centuries, US Airlines have also not been able to financially compete with foreign flag airlines. To help them out, Congress interpreted the PSA as applying to airlines as well. This prevents non-US Airlines from dominating major flight markets in the USA. Notable is the airspace from the West Coast to Hawaii. The PSA allows 5 major US Carriers to dominate that airspace and artificially inflate ticket prices. Without competition, they can make their own rules - and their own prices.

 

Unfortunately the losers in this situation are the American Public:

1. The PSA does not really restrict foreign trans-atlantic air carriers. As a result, healthy competition has forced trans-atlantic air fares to very reasonable levels.

2. PSA makes it nearly impossible for Asian and Canadian airlines to fly to Hawaii and make a profit. Most of them have cut or eliminated thier flights to Hawaii. The US Carriers that now dominate that air space can set their own prices. Ticket Prices from the US Mainland to Hawaii are often double what they cost from the US Mainland to Europe.

3. The Japanese generally will not fly on US airplanes. Previously the Japanese tourist industry was the backbone of the Hawaiian economy. Now that most Japanese flights do not stop in Hawaii, the number of Japanese tourists in Hawaii has dropped dramatically. So have the number of tourist dollars ( yen) spent in Hawaii. The Hawaiians got screwed by the PSA.

4. To add insult to injury, the PSA also prevents most foreign cargo ships from carrying goods to Hawaii - where nearly everything is imported. The Hawaiians MUST have their goods delivered by very expensive US Cargo ships, or very expensice US airplanes. This essentially doubles or triples the cost of nearly everything they receive. This explains the very high cost of living there.

 

The US Government has done several studies on the PSA with the following conclusions:

If airlines were exempted from PSA regulations, AA, UAL, Continental, Hawaiian Air, and Northwest would be out of business in a few weeks time.

If Cargo Ships were exempted from PSA regulations, Mattson and CSX (the only remaining US Cargo shipping lines) would be bankrupt immediately.

If Cruise Ships were exempted from PSA Regulations, NCL America and the few US Flagged Coastal Cruising Companies would fail almost immediately.

 

It's not going to happen.

[chasetf]

The US Government has done several studies on the PSA with the following conclusions:

If airlines were exempted from PSA regulations, AA, UAL, Continental, Hawaiian Air, and Northwest would be out of business in a few weeks time.

If Cargo Ships were exempted from PSA regulations, Mattson and CSX (the only remaining US Cargo shipping lines) would be bankrupt immediately.

If Cruise Ships were exempted from PSA Regulations, NCL America and the few US Flagged Coastal Cruising Companies would fail almost immediately.

 

It's not going to happen.

So why not keep protecting the airlines and mod the shipping laws.

 

Why should Hawaii keep subsidizing Mattson and CSX if they cannot compete. As far as the US Flagged Coastal Cruisers, there are more longshoremen who could be employed if ships were sailing from American ports than seamen crewing those coastals. Cruise ships will never be American flagged and crewed....they cannot compete economically.

 

So it should happen... at least for shipping.