Mexican money grab!

[lilsonicfan]

The higher port fees on the DCL Panama Canal cruises comes from the fees for going through the Canal.

Oh right, of course!
I should say that the port fees also seemed higher for our 7 night Disney Fantasy caribbean cruise than the 13 night transatlantic despite more ports on the 13 night.

 

[obsesseddisneyfan]

Meant to loop you into my response above.

But if you ride the bus to the hospital and it stops at Walmart have you shopped at Walmart? But I think it should be built into port costs for the ship and passed onto cruisers as the cost of porting anywhere.

Yes you have, If your parter got off in Walmart and you waited while they went in and got supplies. That is basically what a cruise ship is doing. They are getting supples for you. Those supplies need support to get to the cruise ship port. I am booked on the Panaman canal cruise and have three Mexico stops. I really hope DCL changes the Itinerary. Not looking forward to paying for three ports for 4 people. But I will manage if I have too.

 

[dreamer17555]

Yes you have, If your parter got off in Walmart and you waited while they went in and got supplies. That is basically what a cruise ship is doing. They are getting supples for you. Those supplies need support to get to the cruise ship port. I am booked on the Panaman canal cruise and have three Mexico stops. I really hope DCL changes the Itinerary. Not looking forward to paying for three ports for 4 people. But I will manage if I have too.

Im also on the PC sailing. It is not per port stop but per person for every cruise that goes to Mexico. So an extra $42 per person if there is a single stop or three.

 

[LAS2AMS]

Actually, it may not... Currently, the Mexican government earns $0 from cruise passengers as they are "in transit"... So even if cruise calls were to be cut in half, financially, Mexico is better off. Now, there is the counterargument to this that less cruise ships means less spending in port, which would have a noted impact on the more local economy, which itself, could then see calls for change... Also, at least on DCL, the Western itineraries appear to be priced slightly lower than Eastern... so it becomes more or less a case of the pricing difference going away.

I don’t get this. With cruises, the taxes and fees are almost always local. What Mexico is trying to do is pretty extreme. The last time they tried something similar (late 2000s), the cruise lines heavily reduced calls into Mexico. And the fees weren’t nearly as extreme.

The curse industry supports thousands of jobs in Mexico, directly and indirectly. A family of four would pay upwards of $800 more for a classic 8-day cruise (four ports) on NCL, Carnival and Princess. No way that’s going to happen.

Ultimately, this would be a jobs killer.

 

[yowcruiser]

I don’t get this. With cruises, the taxes and fees are almost always local. What Mexico is trying to do is pretty extreme. The last time they tried something similar (late 2000s), the cruise lines heavily reduced calls into Mexico. And the fees weren’t nearly as extreme.

The curse industry supports thousands of jobs in Mexico, directly and indirectly. A family of four would pay upwards of $800 more for a classic 8-day cruise (four ports) on NCL, Carnival and Princess. No way that’s going to happen.

Ultimately, this would be a jobs killer.

I understand your point... but in everything I read, there was no obvious motives mentioned by Mexico to charge this new fee, other than to finance the military. And they understand the potential impact on local jobs if cruise lines alter their itineraries. Now, there is a fine line in any forums such as this one not to cross when it comes to political comments... So the real question is why would Mexico implement a new tax that is primarily targeted to a specific demographic while understanding the potential impact on the local economy? I'll leave it at that so as not to cross that line...

 

[LAS2AMS]

I understand your point... but in everything I read, there was no obvious motives mentioned by Mexico to charge this new fee, other than to finance the military. And they understand the potential impact on local jobs if cruise lines alter their itineraries. Now, there is a fine line in any forums such as this one not to cross when it comes to political comments... So the real question is why would Mexico implement a new tax that is primarily targeted to a specific demographic while understanding the potential impact on the local economy? I'll leave it at that so as not to cross that line...

From everything I read, it sounds like the “study” they did assessed the fee against current traffic levels to calculate how much money it would raise. They have not ordered a compressive study that would determine if cruise lines would cut their calls, and if so, would the local impact outweigh the federal benefit.

The last time port fees were jacked into the stratosphere, Mexico lost a lot of service…. But they blamed it on people’s ignorant views of violence in the country. It took almost a decade to recover.

I live in LA. I have two Mexican Riviera cruises booked each in 25 and 26, and one so far in 27. I have a PC cruise with three stops in Mexico booked in late 25. We also typically do multiple weekend cruises per year, usually on a whim. Of these fees stick, most of these cruises will be canceled. And I’m just one person.

 

[dreamer17555]

I don’t get this. With cruises, the taxes and fees are almost always local. What Mexico is trying to do is pretty extreme. The last time they tried something similar (late 2000s), the cruise lines heavily reduced calls into Mexico. And the fees weren’t nearly as extreme.

The curse industry supports thousands of jobs in Mexico, directly and indirectly. A family of four would pay upwards of $800 more for a classic 8-day cruise (four ports) on NCL, Carnival and Princess. No way that’s going to happen.

Ultimately, this would be a jobs killer.

It is NOT per port stop- It is per cruise. So a family of 4 is an extra $168- not $800.

And lets keep in mind the cruise industry had far few ships sailing in the 2000s. And cruise lines weren't building private beach clubs in Mexico (one in Cozumel and Perfect Day Mexico in Costa Maya). Look at how much Galveston has grown as a cruise port since the 2000s? Those ships need to sail to Mexico if they want to keep sailing on cruises less than 6+ days. Mexico knows the cruise lines have their hands tied...

 

[kiford]

I think that one of the main complaints that people have is that the fees are not going to local infrastructure but to fund the Mexican army, and it is higher than that charged by many of the islands. I have no issue with paying for port upgrades, maintenance, local markets, etc., but I'm not sure why tourist visa dollars are supporting the military.

It is NOT per port stop- It is per cruise.

As reported by multiple media outlets, it is per port stop, not per cruise. Whether they got that wrong or not, that is what is being reported.

Cruise lines can't really avoid Mexico if cruising out of Florida, Texas, or California. That's geography. Plus, none of the islands have the port infrastructure or land-based operators to take on that sort of passenger volume all year round.

Mexicans know it. And I have no issues with paying them a fair fee.

It is entirely possible to cruise out of Florida or Texas and avoid Mexico. Disney's Eastern Caribbean route does not go to Mexico and the Western one only goes to Cozumel. They could simply bypass Cozumel and continue on to Grand Cayman with an additional day at sea. Cozumel is heavily reliant on tourism and about 65% of that comes from cruise passengers - I'm not sure how long they could handle reduced cruise traffic. Plenty of other cruise lines do 7-day cruises that do not go to Mexico. Some that go out of Galveston go to Honduras and Belize. And there are cruises out of LA that skip Mexico by sailing up the coast. If all of the cruise lines skipped Mexico, yes, there would be competition for smaller islands, but it's not a given that a cruise must hit Mexico just because of geography.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I have no issue with paying for port upgrades, maintenance, local markets, etc., but I'm not sure why tourist visa dollars are supporting the military.

I don't disagree with you as I've said that a few times too and many are rightfully so critiquing where money is supposed to be earmarked but I do think in terms of Mexico even though we know there are less than savory stuff going on has a decent amount of places that are not safe, that's not to say it should be towards the military rather than local (which I much more think it should) but Mexico is more unique in its risks compared to other destinations that have had these fees. They are joining a growing list of places that are having them but they certainly aren't the same as Venice, Amsterdam, Alaska, etc in terms of risks.

I didn't really feel unsafe visiting Cancun however it was a different sight to see the heavy armed military presence in Cancun. You've got multiple fly-bys of military helicopters along the beach line and ATV with military personnel driving in and around your hotel on the beach sands primarily in the Hotel Zone. Tulum as well. At different points in the year they ramp up that military presence. It's being done in large part for the tourists and their safety. Cozumel is very close to Cancun as well. Tourists aren't the target of the majority of issues in Mexico but they can get caught in the fray.

While we did see military around Old San Juan when we visited Puerto Rico (Old San Juan was the only place to have that in Puerto Rico) it was not the same level as Cancun.

In terms of paying a tax land arrival guests to Quintana Roo where Cancun is at were already supposed to be paying at fee (at 224 pesos per person). For this particular fee being spoken about in the OP (the $42 one) cruise ship passengers have just been exempt from fees as they were considered transit.

As reported by multiple media outlets, it is per port stop, not per cruise. Whether they got that wrong or not, that is what is being reported.

I think that's the crux because what I've read is ambiguous. It just says something like "any passenger who visits a Mexican port" but it doesn't state either way if this is a one-time collection or multiple. Because Mexico is used a lot for just one port in order to get that international port stop for U.S. laws it could be that many articles are coming from that standpoint.

It is entirely possible to cruise out of Florida or Texas and avoid Mexico. Disney's Eastern Caribbean route does not go to Mexico and the Western one only goes to Cozumel. They could simply bypass Cozumel and continue on to Grand Cayman with an additional day at sea. Cozumel is heavily reliant on tourism and about 65% of that comes from cruise passengers - I'm not sure how long they could handle reduced cruise traffic. Plenty of other cruise lines do 7-day cruises that do not go to Mexico. Some that go out of Galveston go to Honduras and Belize. And there are cruises out of LA that skip Mexico by sailing up the coast. If all of the cruise lines skipped Mexico, yes, there would be competition for smaller islands, but it's not a given that a cruise must hit Mexico just because of geography.

You can but cruise ship companies as a whole are not likely to choose Honduras (a Level 3) over Mexico where some of the coast places have a Level 2. Belize is also a very different type destination as is Honduras, Costa Rica, etc in that area. Mexico is just a popular place that enough Americans will be choosing a cruise to go to. Geographically Mexico is easier to hit when you're visiting the Caribbean, a quick stop in Cozumel and onto other parts of the Caribbean and people by far are going to pick those two places over Belize City. I've seen Merida also used to get that foreign port and that state is a Level 1. I think on the western coast out of either San Diego or Los Angeles most go to Ensenada, Mexico. If you're sailing up the coast you're probably headed to Vancouver, Seattle or Alaska where you can stop in Vancouver fairly easy or end there.

 

[Intr3pid]

It is entirely possible to cruise out of Florida or Texas and avoid Mexico. Disney's Eastern Caribbean route does not go to Mexico and the Western one only goes to Cozumel. They could simply bypass Cozumel and continue on to Grand Cayman with an additional day at sea. Cozumel is heavily reliant on tourism and about 65% of that comes from cruise passengers - I'm not sure how long they could handle reduced cruise traffic. Plenty of other cruise lines do 7-day cruises that do not go to Mexico. Some that go out of Galveston go to Honduras and Belize. And there are cruises out of LA that skip Mexico by sailing up the coast. If all of the cruise lines skipped Mexico, yes, there would be competition for smaller islands, but it's not a given that a cruise must hit Mexico just because of geography.

Not really. Grand Cayman, for example, is a tender port and can only handle so many ships in a couple of days before they have to turn around. You are confusing "possibility of avoiding Mexico" with making a viable business out of it. If cruise lines could exclusively do Eastern Caribbean all year round, they already would.

 

[kiford]

Not really. Grand Cayman, for example, is a tender port and can only handle so many ships in a couple of days before they have to turn around. You are confusing "possibility of avoiding Mexico" with making a viable business out of it. If cruise lines could exclusively do Eastern Caribbean all year round, they already would.

I'm not confusing anything - I was responding to the comment that it wasn't possible to avoid Mexico for Caribbean cruises. It is absolutely possible without doing only exclusively Eastern itineraries. If an existing route has Grand Cayman on the itinerary already planned after stopping in Mexico, instead of going to a Mexican port you spend the day at sea and arrive at Grand Cayman when originally planned. That doesn't create any additional ships in Grand Cayman simultaneously.

 

[Intr3pid]

I'm not confusing anything - I was responding to the comment that it wasn't possible to avoid Mexico for Caribbean cruises. It is absolutely possible without doing only exclusively Eastern itineraries. If an existing route has Grand Cayman on the itinerary already planned after stopping in Mexico, instead of going to a Mexican port you spend the day at sea and arrive at Grand Cayman when originally planned. That doesn't create any additional ships in Grand Cayman simultaneously.

The possibility of avoiding Mexico for a cruise ship isn't the same as the viability of doing it as a cruise line. Re-read my first post carefully.

Is it possible to sail to just St Lucia/Barbados from Port Canaveral and back in 7 days? Yes. Is it possible to cruise to just Vancouver/San Francisco from San Diego and back in 7 days? Yes. Is it viable as a business all season round?

What about your 4- or 5-day itineraries? How many of them can get to Grand Cayman from Port Canaveral (or Galveston) and turn around?