Will Princess stay out of California

[Hlitner]

Perhaps this article from the LA Times would further explain some of the happenings. This should not be confused with the new CA law on fuel, but its just additional nails in the coffin.

 

http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-trw-insider2mar02b

 

Hank

[bdjam]

This act really has little to do with the cruise industry, which is miniscule compared to commercial shipping. When Mexico opens new ports that have much lower costs, cheaper labor, etc etc what do you think is going to happen? Perhaps the big benefit will be that Mexicans will be able to stay in their own country because that is where the jobs will be.

The only way the demand for goods will change in California is if the cost becomes prohibative and people leave the state. Currently, California has one of the highest costs of living in the US and while there is a tipping point, it's difficult to see any change in demand for goods based on this legislation. There is also a good part of the population that supports the greening of California and are willing to pay a higher price that trucking goods in from Mexico or Canada might require. The question then becomes why consumers in California who support greener businesses would want to buy products that are brought into the state via less than green methods.

 

The economy of California rivals that of some nations. There is already a movement here to embrace local business and industry over imports. There's no reason to think that such action couldn't take the place of suppliers who don't get the premise behind California's legistation - and who want to lose a good chunk of their business.

[bdjam]

Perhaps this article from the LA Times would further explain some of the happenings. This should not be confused with the new CA law on fuel, but its just additional nails in the coffin.

 

http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-trw-insider2mar02b

 

Hank

Perhaps knowing what coffin we're putting nails in would help...

 

This article linked above is five months old. There's been a lot of backlash to the proposed change in the Passenger Services Vessel Act which was brought about because NCLA couldn't create a decent business for itself in Hawaii and so tried to legislate other cruise lines out of the market. The changes have stalled because of this backlash...it's been in the works for over six months and there's still no final ruling.

 

This article and the changes to the PSVA has NOTHING to do with using a different type of fuel within 24 miles of the State of California.

[Putterdude]

bdjam;

A great rebuttal and correct in every sense. The population and economy of California is for instance the size of my country, Canada. For the some of same reasons that some cruisers don't like to travel to Vancouver for their Alaska cruises many many more won't want to travel to Ensenada to cruise to Hawaii.....ok bad example, but candidly having been to Ensenada it is nowhere that I would choose to go back to.

[nitram1957]

They are the same as any other business, if they will lose money by coming to CA and changing fuel then they won't, if they can come to CA and still make a profit then they will, it's not not rocket science, I expect they'll still cruise from WA and BC

[ggprincess2004]

We were on the bridge of the Coral for a visit, and the Sr. first officer indicated that the Princess ships already switch over before entering California waters, and stay "switched over" for the Alaska cruising, as well. So we are already cruising with whatever costs are involved factored into the equation, with the exception of further rises in the cost per barrel of crude, and refining costs.....

[bdjam]

We were on the bridge of the Coral for a visit, and the Sr. first officer indicated that the Princess ships already switch over before entering California waters, and stay "switched over" for the Alaska cruising, as well. ....

 

Thanks for that information...

[Putterdude]

We were on the bridge of the Coral for a visit, and the Sr. first officer indicated that the Princess ships already switch over before entering California waters, and stay "switched over" for the Alaska cruising, as well. So we are already cruising with whatever costs are involved factored into the equation, with the exception of further rises in the cost per barrel of crude, and refining costs.....

 

That is very interesting information....now we only have to wait on the PVSA amendments. As a Canadian from Vancouver I should be pulling for the amendments as that would drive all of the Alaska cruise business back to Vancouver where it used to be; however that is rather a selfish attitude.;)

[hb1491]

I might be wrong,as I understand Princess ships takes on bunker oil then refine its on the ship to run diesel engine which in turn run electric generator which drive the ship I am sure they could refine the diesel to be in regulation.

but I might be wrong.

[impartfish]

"Ten Californians die every day due to air pollution from ports and freight transportation."

 

Oh brother!

 

It would be interesting to see California law try to take precedent over international waters. :rolleyes:

[Philip217]

I have worked on three ships over the past two years that have already started following the new regulations.

Two smaller fuel tanks are designated for the higher grade fuel. The fuel lines are switched over about 20 km from the borderline to allow the old fuel to exit the lines. A very simple process.

The procedure is reversed as we sail out.

 

The higher costs are already being passed on to the passengers.

Case closed.

[bdjam]

I have worked on three ships over the past two years that have already started following the new regulations.

Two smaller fuel tanks are designated for the higher grade fuel. The fuel lines are switched over about 20 km from the borderline to allow the old fuel to exit the lines. A very simple process.

The procedure is reversed as we sail out.

 

The higher costs are already being passed on to the passengers.

Case closed.

Thank you Philip!

"Ten Californians die every day due to air pollution from ports and freight transportation."

 

Oh brother!

 

It would be interesting to see California law try to take precedent over international waters. :rolleyes:

Where did that quote come from? Right - California law won't take precedence over international or national law - sometimes. But when the ships come into California controlled waters, then what?

[Cruisin' Chick]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that any changes to the PVSA won't go through. Someone posted to the PVSA thread (on Ask a Cruise Question) that info on the first page of this thread, suggesting that a decision, a very bad decision, has been made and published back in May. I searched the LA Times website to see if there was a story about that (there wasn't any recent info...just the old info about the changes being considered).

 

As it would be disasterous to the city that I live in (L.A.) as well as basically cause a great itinerary to disappear), I am against these changes. According to that info, at least fifty per cent of port stays would need to be in a foreign port on an itinerary that's round trip from a US port, when there's a major size US flagged ship in that same area. We were thinking the 50 per cent rule would surely be dropped as that would make a round trip out of the west coast to Hawaii totally undoable.

 

What hath NCLA and Senator Inouye wrat (or something like that).

[MJR]

Cruise ships burn IFO (intermediate) or HFO (Heavy Fuel Oil) which is thick and black but not just crude oil. It is called residual fuel as all the good stuff, gasoline, aviation fuel etc has been taken out. In ports where it is required to burn low sulphur fuel we can change over to Marine Gas Oil or Marine Diesel Oil. Any engine that burns HFO/IFO can burn diesel but it is considerably more expensive.

 

California's Air Resource Board has just re-instated their legislation to force ships to use low sulphur fuel 24 miles from the coast but this legislation will not come in until July 2009. BUT, it can't be enforced without permission from the Federal EPA and they probably won't give it because an international convention will cover air emissions.

 

Currently we change over 3 miles from California's coast. As this affects all cruise companies equally I think it unlikely that they will pull out of California - it's where many of their customers live or fly to.

[Putterdude]

Thanks for your insightful post.

[Dortmunder]

30.000$ divided by 3.000 passengers means a 10$ increase for every passenger. It's not that bad. They are currently charging 9$ a day for the fuel surcharge.
If it is better for the environment, let's go for it.