Bill Overview
Title: Cruise Passenger Protection Act of 2022
Description: of 2022 This bill revises provisions related to passenger vessel security and safety. The bill directs the Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop standards for cruise ship owners to provide passengers with a conspicuous and unambiguous summary of key terms of passage contracts before they are binding. Vessel owners must provide each passenger with a summary meeting those standards and include the summary in promotional literature. The bill prescribes civil and criminal penalties for violations. DOT must (1) establish a hotline for passenger complaints, (2) determine whether any of the enumerated rights in the international cruise line passenger bill of rights (adopted by the members of the Cruise Lines International Association) are enforceable under federal law, and (3) establish an advisory committee for passenger vessel consumer protection. Vessel owners must ensure that a vessel is staffed with sea marshals and medical staff. DOT must designate a director of victim support services, establish a 24-hour telephone number for crime victims, develop a written summary of rights for crime victims, maintain a statistical compilation of reported incidents, and study the feasibility of having an individual on board each vessel to provide victim support and related services. The Department of Homeland Security may withhold or revoke the clearance of, and the Coast Guard may deny entry into the United States to, any vessel owner who commits an act or omission for which a penalty is imposed under this bill or fails to pay the penalty.
Sponsors: Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Target Audience
Population: Cruise passengers
Estimated Size: 14000000
- Cruising is a popular form of leisure travel, implying potential global impact.
- The main target is cruise passengers, who number in the millions each year.
- The legislation mostly affects U.S.-based cruise operations, which cater to both American and international tourists.
- The Cruise Lines International Association reported 30 million global passengers annually pre-pandemic (2019), which is a typical benchmark.
Reasoning
- The population primarily impacted consists of the 14 million Americans who participate in cruise trips annually. Given the budget limitations, the policy intends to enhance security and safety without imposing direct financial constraints on cruise passengers.
- The potential impact on individuals will vary based on their cruising frequency, personal experiences on cruises, and valuation of enhanced security measures.
- Cruisers with past negative experiences or concerns about safety may feel a strong positive impact from the increased protections and support services.
- The larger cruise industry and environment include varied perspectives, such as frequent cruisers, first-time cruisers, and even those whose experiences have been consistently positive and untroubled.
Simulated Interviews
Travel Agent (Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's important to enhance passenger protections.
- This policy makes the cruise industry more appealing, especially to those wary of long sea travels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Software Engineer (New York)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the proactive approach to safety.
- The hotline and support services are reassuring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (California)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having medical staff on board is essential, especially for older passengers.
- The policy adds peace of mind, which is invaluable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Teacher (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not sure if this policy will affect my vacation choices.
- It sounds positive but doesn't impact my travel preferences much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Nurse (Washington)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I view this policy favorably as it addresses safety.
- The availability of medical staff on cruises is a relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Business Manager (New Jersey)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy improving overall safety is beneficial.
- Not sure how often I'll use the hotline, but it's nice to have.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (Ohio)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing there's better safety makes cruising more appealing.
- I'm still on a student budget, so cost mostly drives my decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Entrepreneur (Illinois)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's clarity about passenger rights is reassuring.
- I support measures for enhanced victim support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Freelance Writer (New Mexico)
Age: 52 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds supportive but doesn't alter my cruise interest much.
- I appreciate the concept of enhanced security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Hotel Manager (Hawaii)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy impacts me as I don't plan to cruise.
- I do think it's good for passenger safety overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $255000000 (Low: $205000000, High: $305000000)
Year 3: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 5: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)
Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- The regulatory impact on cruise industry operations and pricing strategies.
- Long-term safety improvements potentially boosting consumer confidence and demand.
- Administrative costs incurred by DOT and related enforcement bodies.
- Effectiveness of proposed regulatory measures in achieving enhanced passenger safety and satisfaction.
- Economic feasibility for cruise operators to meet the staffing and operational changes required by the act.