RCCL/Celebrity to cancel LA-Hawaii???

[flagger]

I follow Carnival's John Heald's blog regularly and I must admit with a SAN-Hawaii cruise booked, an entry this morning has me a bit concerned...

 

http://johnhealdsblog.com/2008/02/27/breaking-news/

[negc]

I think that it would take more than a rumor from an anonymous source on a Carnival CD's blog about a possible action by RCI and/or Celebrity to make me concerned. It could be the product of someone who takes the CBP threat about rule enforcement more seriously than most of us, and who has made an assumption based on a situation that does not yet exist and may never exist. Without stronger evidence to support this claim, I don't think that we should give this rumor greater credibility than it deserves.:rolleyes:

[xpcdoojk]

When I want to know what is going on I always turn to a celebrity CD blog.:D Thanks for sharing.:D

 

jc<----snort:D

[bruce-r]

John, I was just having a chat with a friend who has a friend who told him that RCI/Celebrity are about to cancel all their LA-Hawaii cruises.

 

I have no idea if this is true but it seems that the source was pretty good.

 

Oh Yah, totally reliable source.

[Cruising89143]

I have seen this CD in action twice on Carnival cruises. The first time you enjoy his show. The second time you realize that he's a fake. I also thought that once off stage, he's off as in you don't see him around the ship.

[xpcdoojk]

I have seen this CD in action twice on Carnival cruises. The first time you enjoy his show. The second time you realize that he's a fake. I also thought that once off stage, he's off as in you don't see him around the ship.

 

Gordon, the man is a living genius and true rock star! How dare you to call him a fake!:D :p <snort>

 

Celebrity worship and how far from anything with meaning is what I have learned from an occassional glance at that stuff. :D

 

To each their own, but it is pretty sad.:eek:

 

jc;)

[negc]

Don't you just love posters who say "I don't know whether this is true or not" and then go ahead and spread the latest rumor?:rolleyes: The only one worse is the person who reads this stuff, accepts it as fact, and, in a panic, spreads it far and wide with not even the slightest indication that the story might be totally false. :mad:

[Desert Cruizers]

negc, my feelings, are that unless a Cruise lines makes an official announcement of any changes, I tend to not worry about unofficial announcements on these Boards. These CC Boards are wonderful for giving all of us much needed information about Cruising, yet as you just said, lets not report on information that is not yet proven. In looking over the Hawaii schedual off RCL, I feel that any changes they make will be for the upcoming year and not 2008.

[glgolfer]

Opposition to the new interpretation seems to be growing rapidly. Here's just one article from Hawaii in opposition.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d3514d0e-df22-4ab6-9bc5-8fd804ced02b

 

Even NCLs management has expressed concern with the way it is written.

They just wanted to stop all other ships from going to Hawaii, but the rule has to apply to all ports everywhere. NCL finally realized it would hurt all their other ships and routes as much as the other lines and are now whining that they didn't mean for it to hurt them, too. There are some of the opinion that NCLs management is not the brightest in the industry.

 

Basically there are 3 gentlemen from Hawaii that have received contributions from NCL, some unions and a few other politicians that have received contributions, too, that are in favor of it.

 

I would not be surprised if the words were written by someone (other than the folks at CBP) who just recently realized the true impact of the words.

 

It will be very interesting to see how the CBP gets out of the corner they put themselves into. They admitted they did no ecomomic impact study (or any other study) before they posted the change. Now that they have some idea of the impact on other ports with the loss of thousands of jobs and millions of $$$ in lost revenue to CONUS cities if the cruiselines move their ships, they might be rethinking the new interpretation.

 

So, until there is an official announcement by the CBP as to the actual change(s), noone is going anywhere.

[jaxon41]

Opposition to the new interpretation seems to be growing rapidly. Here's just one article from Hawaii in opposition.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d3514d0e-df22-4ab6-9bc5-8fd804ced02b

 

Even NCLs management has expressed concern with the way it is written.

They just wanted to stop all other ships from going to Hawaii, but the rule has to apply to all ports everywhere. NCL finally realized it would hurt all their other ships and routes as much as the other lines and are now whining that they didn't mean for it to hurt them, too. There are some of the opinion that NCLs management is not the brightest in the industry.

 

Basically there are 3 gentlemen from Hawaii that have received contributions from NCL, some unions and a few other politicians that have received contributions, too, that are in favor of it.

 

I would not be surprised if the words were written by someone (other than the folks at CBP) who just recently realized the true impact of the words.

 

It will be very interesting to see how the CBP gets out of the corner they put themselves into. They admitted they did no ecomomic impact study (or any other study) before they posted the change. Now that they have some idea of the impact on other ports with the loss of thousands of jobs and millions of $$$ in lost revenue to CONUS cities if the cruiselines move their ships, they might be rethinking the new interpretation.

 

So, until there is an official announcement by the CBP as to the actual change(s), noone is going anywhere.

 

Just a thought -- I recently read an article urging folks against this new interpretation to contact Pelosi and Feinstein (both SF, if I am not mistaken). Do you suppose the rumor is purposeful to get people to start calling the legislators?

[dagadget]

John, I was just having a chat with a friend who has a friend who told him that RCI/Celebrity are about to cancel all their LA-Hawaii cruises.

 

I have no idea if this is true but it seems that the source was pretty good.

 

Oh Yah, totally reliable source.

 

 

I have to agree rather skimpy information at best. I will admit that this will happen if that 48 hour ruling ends up taking effect. Hawaii will end up loosing all of it's cruise options.

[wheretonow?]

Flagger - what are you doing reading a Carnival board anyway! :p:p

 

This legislation is ludicrous - not only affecting Hawaii and Alaska, what about 3 and 4 day cruises? Or Eastern Carribean itins (my next Mariner trip is San Juan, St. Thomas, St. Martin - only one foreign port). In fact, none of the cruises I'm currently booked on meet these requirements. If it passes I expect there will be a lot more ships departing from Ensenada, Vancouver and possible even the East coast of Mexico. So there goes pre/post stay dollars from American cities. Not a well thought through plan at all.

 

And even with all the hand holding, NCL is still pulling out another ship. So basically it would be changing the itins for every cruise line for ONE NCL ship? Especially when they are really attracting a different market (folks who are looking for inter-island transportation vs. cruisers looking for a longer trip and more sea days.). :rolleyes:

 

Hopefully they will come to their senses - especially since the state of Hawaii (among others) are against it!

[glgolfer]

Contacting the west coast ladies might be a futile gesture as the three gentlemen from Hawaii in favor of the change belong to the same club.

But. it should be done anyway, just to rattle their chains.

[Cruising89143]

There are some of the opinion that NCLs management is not the brightest in the industry.

 

 

You got it. Those boys at NCL thought that they would be slick and get some politicians and a union behind them to get the rules changed but now it may come back and bite them square in the @ss. Not the sharpest tools in the shed when it comes to NCL's management.

[jaxon41]

Contacting the west coast ladies might be a futile gesture as the three gentlemen from Hawaii in favor of the change belong to the same club.

But. it should be done anyway, just to rattle their chains.

 

But has been pointed out, the affect is far reaching -- Alaska and Washington have legislators, too. At the very least it would seem to me that you have several states -- and a much larger population -- which should be furious at the potential economic impact of the rule interpretation requiring a 48 hour stay in a foreign port. That old rule just needs to go in my opinion -- look at the east coast cities that would be helped by allowing ships to go from the major cities in the north down through Charleston to Florida. We are just cutting off our noses to spite our faces, imo.

[glgolfer]

jaxon 41 - I was just saying that Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein are all cohorts of Inouye and the other 2 in Hawaii. Some folks have said contacting them has seemed to be a waste of time.

 

There are many politicians from the city, state and federal level that are absolutely opposed to the change and are contacting not just the CBP, but the head of Homeland Security.

 

Contacting them to show support should be done.

 

I contacted all three of mine here in Florida. So far I've heard from our rep, but not the senators.

[negc]

Contacting the west coast ladies might be a futile gesture as the three gentlemen from Hawaii in favor of the change belong to the same club.

But. it should be done anyway, just to rattle their chains.

 

Actually, while they may all be members of the same club, they are not necessarily of the same mind as the Senator of Hawaii and his cohorts, although I haven't checked any list of supporters or opponents of his efforts. I really haven't seen any indication that Senators Boxer and Feinstein and Speaker Pelosi share much in common with Senator Inouye. I do know that several governors representing both political parties, and including the governor of Hawaii have voiced strong opposition to this idea.

 

While we are talking about a new interpretation of legislation and not new legislation per se, it generally does not benefit a bureaucrat to interpret laws passed by Congress in ways that are contrary to the desire of those Senators and Congressmen. It is not considered to be a good career move and anyone who goes against the wishes of powerful legislators usually feels their wrath.