Proposed new rules for foreign flagged ships (merged)

[FLCruiseGirl]

So, what's wrong with a Unionized crew????? I think it's great that they have a Union to represent them when they have problems with management - and to negotiate decent wages and benefits for them. They have a right to make a decent living and be able to get health benefits for themselves and their families and not be completely dependant on cruise passengers that may or may not tip them fairly.

 

I didn't know NCL had Unionized workers. Good for them!

[katiel53]

I guess I don't feel the entire country has to bail out NCLA. If they can't be profitable, then so be it. Why should we have to bow to their demands?

 

The whole passport issue (I know something for another thread) has been delayed by the cruise lines. Why do WE have to keep giving in to the cruiselines? I know they are a business, but so are other companies.

 

We are bailing out people all the time. Accept responsibility for your actions, big company or not.

 

Fl Cruiser, I thought all people working on ships belonged to some kind of union. I could be wrong, but somewhere I read about unions when someone was talking about servers in the dining room.

 

If I am wrong, I apologize. But the rest of my post still stands.

[Catnip]

I guess I don't feel the entire country has to bail out NCLA. If they can't be profitable, then so be it. Why should we have to bow to their demands?

 

We are bailing out people all the time. Accept responsibility for your actions, big company or not.

 

 

Very well said!!!!!!

[TahoeBob]

If NCL can't compete fairly with the same pricing and the same rules, then maybe they should lose money. They are the only Co. that has "All-American UNIONIZED" staff and crew. No wonder they're losing money.

 

But the big problem is that the rules are not the same. I don't know if the proposed rule changes are the answer or not, But the playing field is not equal.

[abridalmaven]

You should give NCL a try. Service is as good if not better than on RCL.

My friend is just back from Hawaii on NCL and service was beyond bad. Kind of mirrors what we had when we went on the Dawn, but more so.

[cruiserbryce]

I am not planning on taking any of these itineraries right now, and wont if they get even more expensive...I have no interest in staying in Ensenada overnight. But this also goes for Seattle based Alaska cruises...we have a stop in Prince Ruppert on our way back to Seattle...the few hours we have there will be enough...I dont need 2 days in a tiny port...

 

If NCL cant compete because they have chosen a certain business model that stinks, but too bad...let them move their ships and find a market where they are better suited to do business.

[clearwaters]

... the USA is broke, to encourage cruise lines to register their ships as US companys? And thus pay taxes to the United States.

[DHADEN]

I was under the impression this was an NCL America issue, not an NCL issue.

 

It's not an "America" issue. It is an NCL vs Every-Other-Cruiseline issue. NCL should have to compete!

We've been on NCL twice and have truly enjoyed both cruises. I'm under the impression that NCL has the same restrictions as RCI as far as the Jones act is concerned.

Tim

 

The whole point is that this law will make it so NCL WON'T have the same restrictions. It is an "American" Cruise line and won't have to spend days in a foriegn port.

 

So, what's wrong with a Unionized crew????? I think it's great that they have a Union to represent them when they have problems with management - and to negotiate decent wages and benefits for them. They have a right to make a decent living and be able to get health benefits for themselves and their families and not be completely dependant on cruise passengers that may or may not tip them fairly.

I didn't know NCL had Unionized workers. Good for them!

 

Whether or not it is union with all the extra benifits isn't the point.

The point is, when there is a union that will "negotiate decent wages and benefits for them. They have a right to make a decent living and be able to get health benefits for themselves and their families and not be completely dependant on cruise passengers that may or may not tip them fairly." it costs more to do that - Thus "NCL had lost $$250 MILLION$$.

I think you would have to admit, they aren't able to compete with that bottom line.

We shouldn't have to make up the difference out of OUR pockets!!

 

Hope This Helps clear up the confusion.

[maitaiguy]

I do want to sail there! However, I will not sail on NCL or NCLAmerica. The group we sailed with on New Years would not want to spend 48 hours in Ensenada. From what I've read on the Princess board (pages and pages in length on this particular subject) this new rule proposal would affect many, many cruises, not just the Hawaii cruises.

 

This may impact cruise lines to the point that they will not sail out of LA, San Diego, San Francisco or Seattle. West coast departures would more likely be from Vancouver or Ensenada. I do not want to take a bus across the border to Ensenada, I like the convenience of LA, San Diego or Long Beach as this saves big money on plane tickets.

 

This new rule would also impact NCL's regular cruises. They should be careful what they wish for.

 

My TA has said that her agency (known for towing here in SoCal will not book passengers on NCL or NCLA unless the passengers insist on it. They had too many complains in the past about bad service.

 

 

This could be a huge issue for the US ports and surrounding businesses. Many people are employed as bus drivers, cab drivers, hotel employees, people involved in supplying the ships, etc. This could have a huge negative economic impact, not only here on the Left Coast but also in the port areas of Hawaii. Don't the legislators from Hawaii pushing this bill understand the economic impact of all the ships from other lines coming to the islands? Many passengers spend big dollars when they get off the ships each day. Possibly the lawmakers only understand the $$$ they have received from NCLA as was suggested by several people on the Princess board on this subject.

 

I've gotten way long on this post but I'm thinking that this is bad legislation for us as cruisers and for the US economy. It is short sighted to try to protect three ships at the expense of such a large economic impact.

 

By the way the CEO of NCL stepped down from the board yesterday. Apparently he still has his job but does everyone know that Apollo now owns fifty percent of NCL?

 

Thanks for letting me state my opinion, but this really could be bad IMO.

[klingoncruiser]

Wow, what a train wreck this would be. Reward the NCL ships in Hawaii for bad business practices. Seattle has worked hard to wrestle business from Vancouver. This would run all the cruise ships out as they would not want to spend two days in any ports in Canada. Better to just move to Vancouver and do away with the hassles. It would also cause the cruise lines to have to cut out Alaskan ports to make it work and that would really hurt Alaska. What a joke.....:mad:

 

 

I think only the ships in Hawaii are flagged US. The rest for NCL are overseas flagged.

[CPT Trips]

So, how does NCLA compete against “...for somebody that's trying to pull a fast one by avoiding taxes, health laws and environmental laws?”

 

That's how Hawaii's Rep Abercrombie characterized all the foreign flagged ships that we all patronize.

[BobBeaSea]

This won't just effect West Coast ports, it will be all American ports. As for having unionized employees, this has nothing to do with NCLA's problems, about 90% of all crews onboard cruise ships belong to a union. I can't understand the anti-union rants here, the battle is long over and the anti-union side has won. Barely 10% of America's total work force belongs to a union....why the continuous rants?

[ClipperMiami]

So, how does NCLA compete against “...for somebody that's trying to pull a fast one by avoiding taxes, health laws and environmental laws?”

 

That's how Hawaii's Rep Abercrombie characterized all the foreign flagged ships that we all patronize.

That's because Abercrombie (D-HI) is your typical leftist loon and talks without having any idea what he is talking about. The US based cruise lines (Carnival et al and RCI et al) pay US corporate taxes and all cruise ships using US ports must comply with US health, safety and environmental regulations whether their ships are US-flagged or not.

 

The lines do not have US flagged vessels for several reasons, not the least of which is that they would be required to use US crews. This by itself would be a ggood thing, but unfortunately it brings with it the US maritime unions and their union rules. The US maritime unions have done a very effective job of stamping out the US maritime industry, thank you very much.

[Shipyard Cruiser]

That's because Abercrombie (D-HI) is your typical leftist loon and talks without having any idea what he is talking about. The US based cruise lines (Carnival et al and RCI et al) pay US corporate taxes and all cruise ships using US ports must comply with US health, safety and environmental regulations whether their ships are US-flagged or not.

 

The lines do not have US flagged vessels for several reasons, not the least of which is that they would be required to use US crews. This by itself would be a ggood thing, but unfortunately it brings with it the US maritime unions and their union rules. The US maritime unions have done a very effective job of stamping out the US maritime industry, thank you very much.

 

Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego is my congressmen and he is about as as liberal as they get and he is leading the fight againest the new rules as it will really hurt the cruise business here in San Diego.

 

As some one in the shipbuilding industry I know that US flagged ships must be built in the US.

 

Instead of posting out here you might want to let your congressmen know how you feel about this.:)

[BobBeaSea]

That's because Abercrombie (D-HI) is your typical leftist loon and talks without having any idea what he is talking about. The US based cruise lines (Carnival et al and RCI et al) pay US corporate taxes and all cruise ships using US ports must comply with US health, safety and environmental regulations whether their ships are US-flagged or not.

 

The lines do not have US flagged vessels for several reasons, not the least of which is that they would be required to use US crews. This by itself would be a ggood thing, but unfortunately it brings with it the US maritime unions and their union rules. The US maritime unions have done a very effective job of stamping out the US maritime industry, thank you very much.

 

So the decline in the U.S. Merchant Marine is due entirely to unions? You must be joking. Shipping companies working on behalf of large corporations have long ago "third partied" merchant shipping to foreign flagged shipping companies. It's not just the higher costs of paying American crews (whether they belong to a union or not, these costs are much higher than foreign flagged vessels), it's the cost to build AND maintain ships which has to be done on American soil. There is no way the U.S. Merchant Marine can compete with low cost countries. This a familiar story for a lot of our economy. Companies who contract for the delivery of goods to the U.S. wouldn't dream using a U.S. flagged company - far too expensive. This is why less than 3% of the goods hitting the shelves are handled by U.S. flagged ships, and even this lowly number is shrinking.

[Arizona Cruz Chic]

We took LOS from Honolulu to Ensenada 3 years ago. Both DH and I agreed we would never do that again because it was 4 long sea days with rough seas and cold winds. This year we are flying to Honolulu and prefer to spend those extra days in Hawaii.

 

I would enjoy sailing the Hawaiian islands again but wish NCL had casinos onboard their Hawaiian fleet. I don't understand why gambling is not allowed overnight between islands. We were able to gamble on LOS when we moved between islands.

 

There is no gambling in Hawaii, no Bingo, no casinos on land...nothing! :eek: Therefore the NCLA ships were built with out casinos. RC and other foreign flagged ships can open the casino's just like any other port, so many miles out at sea.

 

 

 

***

[Mark_K]

So, what's wrong with a Unionized crew????? I think it's great that they have a Union to represent them when they have problems with management - and to negotiate decent wages and benefits for them. They have a right to make a decent living and be able to get health benefits for themselves and their families and not be completely dependant on cruise passengers that may or may not tip them fairly.

 

I didn't know NCL had Unionized workers. Good for them!

Nearly all crew on Royal Caribbean are represented by the Norwegian Seaman's Union and, among other things, get health benefits and up to 112 days of sick pay.

[crisndeefromde]

Nearly all crew on Royal Caribbean are represented by the Norwegian Seaman's Union and, among other things, get health benefits and up to 112 days of sick pay.

 

Thanks for the great information Mark. We have also been following this story. You are so right that it doesn't just affect Hawaii but here, it affects the entire eastern seaboard. key West depends on these ships as well. Maine just spent millions of dollars and so did Ct. Bayonne has a ways to go but so far so good with the explorer. It is bad enough that we have to pay extra fees already to visit Alaska.

This just doesn't hurt the cruiselines but everyone else who benefits from our tourism dollars.

 

I hope someone gets this stopped.

[RADICALBURN]

Sounds like somebody is getting a kickback oops......lobby money. Will look to cruise from overseas for now. Won't cruise ncl and would like to see things settled before booking another cruise over here. Hate to book a cruise and then have to change dates or flight plans. Won't book until they get their act together. To bad for all the cities who updated their ports..........RADICAL

[MJonTravel]

Well intentioned, but often ill-informed politicians tend to concoct things like this from time to time. While there may very well be some change forthcoming, I suspect the worst of this poorly thought-out rulemaking will get changed before it is finalized.

[granger]

My understanding of the proposed change of interpretation of the Jones law is that it will impact ALL foreign flagged ships sailing from ALL US ports. This would mean, for example, 48 hour stops in the Caribbean on sailings from Miami.

 

Should these proposals succeed, the cruise lines would be faced with some difficult choices. The two obvious alternatives would be to either maximize departures from the nearest non US ports such as Vancouver.....not practical because of capacity and geographic limitations, or completely redesign their itineraries to accommodate the 48 hour rule.....not practical because of passenger resistance. Reflagging their vessels is not an option unless there is a complete revamp of current legislation, added to which the increase in costs would be prohibitive.

 

According to recent articles in the press there are only 5 (some reports suggest only 3) American flagged cruise ships out of a total of almost 200 worldwide, so all major cruise lines, including NCL's non American vessels, will be impacted. Presumably 2 (soon to be 1) of the 5 or less American flagged cruise ships belong to NCLA.

 

So the question arises.....is it sensible to protect 5 or less (soon to be 4 or less) American flagged cruise ships and by doing so risk the revenue and employment generated by millions of cruise passengers who use US cruise ports every year, many of whom arrive from outside the USA and bolster local economies with pre and post cruise vacations and overnight stays.

 

It seems to me this proposal is complete nonsense and has zero economic logic, not to mention the fact that many cruisers would be unable to continue cruising because of financial and/or logistical constraints.

 

The Jones law is an archaic piece of protectionist legislation that is being used in this instance as a convenient vehicle to further the interests of a minute portion of a huge industry.

 

In the meantime, lets all enjoy our cruises and hope that this proposal fails.

[FL_Cruiser64]

Many maritime unions weighed in also -- probably to try to protect or increase jobs.

 

 

This entire rule idea has the potential to ruin the cruise industry in the USA. All cruises starting in a US port could be affected. Let's hope that some people in Washington wake up and fix things. a lot of money is going to be lost if nothing is done. I suspect this is going to get fixed rather soon and before the Feb implementation dates that I have seen in other posts and news stories....

 

Not only that: Caribbean cruises can easily start from the Bahamas or SJU which is only 1 flight hour away from FLL or MIA. Can you imagine all those nights of hotel bookings lost in the US because cruisers stay overnight somewhere else. All the dinners and lunches they will eat somewhere else.

 

But its so typical of NCL. They were already chased out of the 3/4 Night Caribbean market and now they are trying to lift an inferior product by attempting to eliminate competition through a political maneuver instead of improving a product.

[FL_Cruiser64]

Nearly all crew on Royal Caribbean are represented by the Norwegian Seaman's Union and, among other things, get health benefits and up to 112 days of sick pay.

 

I just saw a report about the crew onboard the Voyager and Radiance Class ships. Holly smokes. They have a lot of facilities below deck 2. I assume that would be true for the Freedom Class as well. They are treated quite well. I guess the biggest abuse they take is from passengers. :D

[Curro]

The Jones law is an archaic piece of protectionist legislation that is being used in this instance as a convenient vehicle to further the interests of a minute portion of a huge industry.

 

I agree. I am kind of an insider to the european shipbuilding industry, and I can tell you that:

1-European workers have the same or better working conditions than the US, and probably the cost of materials is cheaper in the US since most of them can be obtained inland, so no need to pay customs.

2-After WWII, the US was the world leader in shipbuilding.

3-Right now, the order book for Europe is of 20 million cgt (compensated gross tons, it is a measure that takes intu account not only the size of the ships but also their cost or "added value"), where as for the US it is of 0,7 million cgt. Even though the Asian contries are now clearly leading on this when they ha no shipbuilding industry at all 50 years ago, the Europeans seem to have done much better than the US

 

My theory is that these protectionist laws have made no good to the industry, since they feel no need to improve to compete with the foreign shipyards. Any way, I think that if cruise ships had to be built in the US they will result much more expensive than those build in Europe, and will take longerto build.

 

Some previous poster said that he was part of the shipbuilding industry (US, I imagine), so please correct me if I am wrong.

[gotbeer]

wow lost it lol