BruceMuzz

You also need to consider that many North Americans (not all) are not the most adventurous travelers in the world. Their comfort zones are very precise. Get them too far from a McDonalds, a Starbucks, or a Walmart, and they get very uncomfortable.

"Foreigners" can be very scary to Americans.

Easier to take it in baby steps.

I'm saving up my money to buy those new commemorative SS United States Razor Blades, imported from Alang, India. Quite a collector's item.

Taxi fare from the Terminal in Yokohama to central Tokyo is around 12,000 Yen. That's about $125 by today's exchange rate.

Japan has a very efficient and inexpensive luggage delivery service from all airports and sea ports - including Yokohama Terminal as well. They will transport and deliver your bags to a Tokyo Hotel for about $10 per bag - usually same day.

Subway from the Yokohama Terminal to downtown Tokyo costs 260 Yen per person (about $2.75), and takes 20 to 25 minutes.

Leading to the question of how California cold ever enforce its laws in international waters?

The California officials were very candid, telling us that if they found we were circumventing their regulations by sailing so far off the coast, they would make things very difficult for our ships when we called at California ports. They unfortunately did not realize that they were already making things difficult for us in many other ways.

They thought we needed them more than they needed us.

They said, "Take it or leave it".

We left it.

The governments of Australia, China, Japan, and Canada are very grateful to the California State Government for the huge financial windfalls sent their way.

Many cruisers leave their brains at home when they go on a cruise.

Generally very negative consequences follow.

Utter nonsense. If you only make money from onboard revenue, then your product must have an extremely low "price of admission", e.g. a bargain basement "get 'em onboard and then sell, sell, sell.". (Ugh, ugh, ugh). I saw a video (on TV, I think) about NCL which stated that all profits are indeed made onboard, but that's not the case for cruise lines which charge significantly more upfront and include a lot for the money and still come out profitable. Those are the cruise lines where we spend our money. (And we do spend money in the shops onboard and on excursions, depending on what is offered, and on wine if it is not included.) We took an excursion on Oceania that was $185 per person, for example.

 

Folks working (or retired) in the San Francisco Bay Area, including but not limited to Silicon Valley, and similar areas, especially those who are at a stage in life where they don't have to spend a fortune on property taxes or mortgages (Baby Boomers, and thereabouts), have more disposable income than people in most other areas of the U.S. and we aren't (as a group) cheap. Few of us dine at Applebees. We dine at more expensive restaurants and many of us spend a lot on very high quality and expensive groceries.

 

We have been cruising for 25+ years, and even when we were very young, we never even considered Carnival or other downmarket lines that apparently do have to lure people in with low prices and then charge extra for everything. But that's not how we or any of our friends choose to cruise.

 

Take your product upmarket and charge correspondingly for the staterooms and give us an upper premium or luxury experience and you'll get most of your profit upfront, and then if you don't hammer us with stupid flyers or make "shopping stops" on excursions, etc. and ensure that the ship isn't a den of smoke and wild partying, we may choose to use your shore excursion department and sail with you again.

I agree with nearly everything you say. From the cruiser's point of view, upscale lines like Oceania are very good choices. Personally I prefer Seabourn. But that's just me.

But you and I have a similar problem. We both like cruise lines that cannot make a profit.

I worked for Seabourn for years. Had a marvelous time.

But Seabourn - like Regent, Oceania, Silver Sea, Sea Dream, and a few others - has never been able to make a profit. And they never will.

Sadly, the general cruising public just will not, or cannot spend the kind of money that will allow a premium cruise line to charge more money upfront and still make a profit.

Have you ever wondered why all the upscale cruise lines together have fewer beds than just one big mass market ship?

Why would the mass market lines build mega ships for over $1 billion each, when they could build much smaller (less expensive) elegant ships and still make a profit?

Sadly those days are gone. America's WalMart mentality will control the cruise industry for many years to come.

As a customer, I am not responsible for the business model of any one of the cruise lines.

 

I think the issue is overcapacity. The cruise lines have overbuilt and demand is soft in some areas. I have no doubt that the mass market lines like Princess, HAL, Carnival, etc are all facing the same challenge because they are in the same market. If two or three of the mass market brands were to suddenly cease operations and withdraw their fleets I have no doubt that pricing on the remaining lines would be adusted upward.

 

Some Carnival brands seem to be competing against each other in much the same way as the automobile branks were at GM, Chrysler, and Ford. And we know what those respective companies did to reshape their business.....eliminate competing brands, consolidate.

 

As a customer, this is not my issue. We are taking advantage of it because we are well aware that if demand outstripped capacity, the cruise lines would raise prices just as high as they possibly could. Not blaming them, that is just good business. But, at the end of the day they own the business model and can make the decision on whether to retire or increase capacity.

Of course you are not responsible for any cruise line business model.

I work for the cruise lines, and I am not responsible either.

Even if you or I wanted to do so, we would be unable to change that model.

But both of us suffer for it on a regular basis.

I get dinged every day I go to work and have to listen to the non-stop complaints about cutbacks and reduced services and amenities.

These are all being done in the name of profitability

Since the mass market lines are unable to convince middle America to spend more money onboard, we are forced to reduce costs to protect profits. That means you get less for your money, while we make the same profits.

You realize that it is, indeed, YOUR issue when those cutbacks directly affect YOUR cruise experience when it fails to meet your expectations.

Why should you care about what other people spend on-board? And what do you mean that HAL sells cabins at "cost?" Did you follow people around to check out how much they were spending?

We should all care about how much money our fellow cruisers are spending onboard. This directly affects the financial health and future profitability of the company - and decides how user friendly - or not - the cruise line will be.

Currently the business model being used by all the Mass Market lines requires selling nearly all staterooms at cost - or below. This was not my idea, and I don't agree with it, but that's what we are dealing with today. And once it gets started, it is nearly impossible to change. Most of today's cruisers cannot even afford a passport. When choosing a cruise, they shop three things; 1. Price, 2. Price, and 3. Price. If one cruise line tries to return to selling cruises at a profit, those prices will be higher than the other lines, and bankruptcy is on the horizon.

So now all the lines are trying to make a profit only from onboard spending

Guess who spends less onboard than anyone else?

Older frequent cruisers.

Guess which cruise line is famous for having more older frequent cruisers than any other?

It's not Carnival - who is by the way the most financially successful cruise line in the long history of cruising.

Cruise lines are publicly held companies with shareholders who have this crazy idea that they should get some sort of return for their investments. Cruise Line Executives who want to keep their jobs need to deliver profits. They must do it either by increasing revenues and profits - or by reducing costs.

If your favourite cruise line is cutting back and you are unhappy about it, you might want to have a look at your fellow cruisers. The combination of a goofy corporate financial model, and cruisers with no money could be the cause for your unhappiness. Unfortunately you cannot do very much about either issue.

in many parts of the world, international cruise ships need only stay more than 12 miles off the coast in order to keep the casino and duty free shops open.

It used to be that way in California.

Then California passed that law about burning very expensive low-sulphur fuel when in California waters.

So the ships ensured that they were always more than 12 miles away.

Then California decided to extend their jurisdiction to 24 miles.

The UN says that is illegal, but they are doing it anyway.

So the cruise ships decided to stay at least 25 miles off California.

Now California is extending jurisdiction to 45 miles.

Your ship will stay 50 miles off the coast most of the time, to avoid California's costly green laws.

Since the horizon - at sea level - is around 15 miles, you will not see much of the California coast.

Mobile telephone coverage rarely makes it past the horizon.

Plan on using the ship's satellite telephone service most of the time.

As Mr. Muzz says, "It's all about the money."

 

I wonder if the major cruise lines has expressed their concerns about costs and cabotage rules to the power that be in the SF area? Reducing the direct costs of bringing a ship in would seem to be an extremely reasonable incentive to the cruise lines

 

SF just built the new Cruise Terminal at Pier 27 - at least once the America's Cup fiasco is complete - to replace the cruddy Pier 35 (admittedly with million dollar views) where they now park the ships. San Francisco is going to want someone to park there. God knows they are going to need to money to pay for that after the Cup.

 

For me, it is all about the money as well. I would much rather spend my cruise dollars taking BART to the cruise (I live in the SF bay area) rather the spend it on air fare. And a lot of us do spend more that $30.00/day (a lot more - just got the bill from my last Cal Coastal) - there is that demigraphic thing again....

 

I am sure Cruise Executives are licking thier chops looking at the potential California market, with it's population and disposable income. I truly hope they figure out some way to exploit the market - it could be only good for cruisers. Please try harder guys...

 

In the meantime for me, Ships in/out of SF are my first choice - by a long shot, followed by San Pedro (a driving trip) with any port I have to which I have fly to, third. Though I am looking forward to my summer cruise out of Gaveston:)

The cruise lines have been chasing the Feds and the California State Governments for years, trying to get a break. The only answers have been finger pointing and lots of nonsense. At the same time, Canada and Australia are bending over backwards, offering very attractive legal and financial incentives to move cruise ships to their countries.

The biggest move from the US Government has been a new Immigration rule that prohibits the people who built the ships from repairing them in US Shipyards. The result? The cruise lines are now forced move our ships to Canada, Caribbean, and Asia to spend all those millions on dry docks in those countries instead. Another loss for the USA.

Even if California and Uncle Sam decided to lower costs of cruising in California, we still have a profitability problem. People who cruise from California ports spend far less money (on average) than people who sail from just about any other ports in the world. Maybe many of you do spend more than $30.00 per day as you claim. But far more passengers spend more in other locations. That is critically important to the cruise industry. We only make profits from onboard revenues. Many of those frugal cruisers do not live in California, but when they cruise out of the West Coast, they do not spend as much money onboard as cruisers who sail out of other locations. We don't know why that is the case, but we simply cannot afford them.

The cruise line execs have more or less given up on California for the time being. Asia and Australia are far more profitable, with less cost and fewer goofy laws to put up with.

We are trying harder - as you suggested - but not in the location you had hoped for.

While remaining in California might be good for cruisers, moving the ships to Asia and Australia is good for our shareholders and the bottom line.

Remember - it's ALWAYS about the money.

Interesting, so why do cruise lines even mess with Seattle? This year there will be up to 10 cruises per week leaving from Seattle. I count a similar 11 per week from Vancouver. Is it to keep brand loyalty and hope that folks will try alaska cruises from Seattle and then return and try a alaska land tour cruise to/from vancouver/whittier (anchorage, seward etc)?

That's part of it.

But bear in mind that we cannot move those 10 Seattle cruises to Vancouver every week with a guarantee to fill the ships. If we cannot guarantee a full ship, we won't do it.

A surprising number of Americans will not or cannot go to Canada to join a cruise ship.

So we leave the ships in Seattle, to capture that demographic.

Do you specifically see higher revenue from shore excursion sales from the Vancouver cruises vs. Seattle? Or do the non-US guests just spend more in general across the board?

Actually we see both. The differences between Vancouver and Seattle cruisers are quite significant.

Maybe you should take an Alaska cruise out of Vancouver and get some data.

The ship I manage made 22 Alaska voyages out of Vancouver last summer. We averaged 20% US Citizens and 80% non-US.

Our onboard revenues were nearly double those of our sister ships sailing from Seattle.

We return to Vancouver next week for another Alaska season. Our advance bookings are showing even higher percentages of non-US pax this year. That means more profits for us.

So based on BruceMuzz's replies, I'm wondering why the Crown Princess was placed in Vancouver next year for the Alaska run vs Seattle where the grand has been positioned and the Star has been moved to SF. Based on prices for Alaska, Seattle RT versions seem to have a higher premium as compared to 7 day Whittier/Vancouver sailings. I'm wondering why Princess would do this, the Crown is an extra 500+ persons while not having to bring a new ship over...

There are very good reasons for Princess to do this.

Many non-Americans prefer to cruise to Alaska out of Vancouver.

The best reason is the inside passage. This itinerary is far better than cruising the outside passage out of Seattle.

The second best reason is avoiding the TSA and US Immigration and Customs in Seattle.

Many Aussies and Brits fly directly to Vancouver for a long holiday and then take an Alaska cruise as part of that holiday.

Princess is placing a bigger and newer ship in Vancouver to take advantage of the fact that Australians and Brits typically spend far more on an Alaska cruise than Americans do.

Remember that cruise lines generally do not make a profit from selling cruises.

We only profit when passengers spend plenty money onboard the ships. Currently Aussies are the biggest spending Western demographic group.

Ships sailing out of Vancouver to Alaska typically burn less fuel than Seattle ships.

Ships sailing out of Vancouver do not have to pay the local sales tax that Seattle ships pay.

The Vancouver Cruise Terminal is right downtown, giving access to all that Vancouver has to offer.

The new Seattle Cruise Terminal is in a strange location and is not nearly as nice.

The Inside Passage is usually much calmer than the outside passage from Seattle.

Sailing from Vancouver, you enter the inside passage almost immediately and start enjoying the scenery and calm seas.

Sailing from Seattle, you spend the first day or two in open seas, usually windy, cold, and bumpy.

Princess' decision was a no-brainer.

Our First cruise was on the S.S. Oceanic-Home Lines October 11, 1969.

Fare for two was $580 plus $4.00 port tax for a total of $584.00.

New York to Nassau and Freeport.

Food equal to the best restaurants in NYC. Drinks .25 to .60 cents, beer .30 cents, imported beer .35 cents, soda .15 cents.

Service equal to or better than any modern day luxury cruise.

 

Good old days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You didn't get such a good deal.

$584 in 1969 adjusts to $3,664.40 in 2013 dollars.

Today you can take a cruise for 2 from NYC to Nassau for under $1,000 - and if you shop a bit you get a balcony cabin.

With the $2,664 you still have left over, you can buy plenty drinks and fancy dinners at all the specialty restaurants onboard - and still have money left over when you get home.

Maybe today is the "good old days" of cruising..................

BruceMuzz, You must not work for Princess or Celebrity. Not counting the repositioning cruises to and from Alaska this year, there are 13 different cruises that just do California Coastals (with the one stop in Ensenada) this year alone! Not sure who you work for but while "you don't" cruise out of California, other lines certainly do. The prices for these cruises are also quite a bit higher than I have paid doing the traditional Mexico West Coast cruises in the past. From the way it seems on the cruise boards, and the way these ships appear to be filling up (and the way they filled them up last year), these cruises seem to be popular.

 

I completely understand that it's about money, and I would imagine that if other cruise lines started doing it in competition with Princess and Celebrity, the demand might not be there. I think a few of the things listed in the thread aren't quite true though. If everything you said were true, Princess and Celebrity would not be doing these cruise, but they are doing them. 13 of them in the next 10 months. Empty Casino's and Cruise terminal falling down around your ears? Custom's officers treating passengers like criminals? (I've done 9 cruises out of California, and the Custom's offices are no different or worse than anywhere else). Come on now...

 

Oh, and how do you know that Grand Princess is one of their poorest performers? Not saying they aren't, but curious why you think that.

 

CruiserBruce: "due to laws, a ship sailing from a US port has to end at a foreign port." This is completely false. Every week, there are probably hundreds (at least dozens) of cruises leaving US Ports on ROUND TRIP itineraries...are they all breaking the law? My past 11 cruises all originated in a US port and they all ENDED in the same US port!

 

The OP was simply asking why they don't have these cruises in the Summer when many of us in the west coast (or anywhere in the US for that matter) have kids on summer break or are only able to take vacations in the Summer. The answer seems to be that Alaska simply has the demand for those months as a TON of ships are doing the various Alaska itineraries. I think one or two Coastal cruises would be absolutely perfect during the summer and I know I would pay quite a bit for them if even one was offered. But, I don't decide where ships sail from. All I know is that I would pay a premium for my family to be able to take a summer vacation cruise without having to fly somewhere and to escape the Arizona heat to the coast of California. Can't speak for the rest of the population though, so maybe I am in a very small minority. It does seem like every Summer there are heavily discounted last minute Alaska cruises for sale. It's no wonder they have to have these sales as there are SO many ships in Alaska. It would seem to me that there would be a huge response from West coast/Southwest people if they offered one or two options out of Southern California in the Summer.

All good questions.

A few good answers:

I managed many ships for both Princess and Celebrity.

I am very familiar with the daily, weekly, monthly, and annual financial balance sheets for those vessels, and how they make or lose money.

You took 9 cruises out of California ports and had positive experiences. That's great.

I took several hundred cruises out of California ports and probably had nine or more positive experiences as well.

But my passengers and I had hundreds of very poor experiences as well. The balance is not a very positive one.

Now, about that money thing again.

Major cruise lines no longer make a profit selling cruises. In fact, most of the time we sell them at a loss. The fare - if we are lucky and smart - pays for the fuel and the food.

All the other costs - and there are many of them - must be covered by onboard revenues.

This Wal-Mart approach to selling cruises was not my idea, and I do not agree with it, but that is the way it is.

This year in Alaska, the average cruise passenger will be spending well over $100 per day onboard.

This year on a Pacific Coastal trip - just a few hundred miles south of Alaska, the average cruise passenger will be spending under $30 per day onboard. That $70+ difference does not sound like much until you multiply it by 10's of thousands of passengers every day, every week, every ship. That $70+ suddenly becomes $70+ MILLION, to be gained or lost by choosing the right location to put your ship. If we gave free cruises in Alaska, we would still make more overall profit than putting the same ship off California and charging for the cruise.

And if you read my previous post carefully, you discovered that when cruise lines have older ships that do not perform very well, it is often less costly to locate them in places where other cruise lines will not go (hoping to eke out a modest profit), rather than spending big money on fuel to move them to more popular locations where they cannot possibly make a profit competing with newer and nicer ships.

That is what is currently happening in California.

Hey, careful there now, pal, you're treading on thin ice! :D

Like Oceans & Rivers (hey, good to "see" you around these parts!), we were THRILLED when Mercury came to SF, even if only briefly. Such a classy lady, IMO, for all the reasons O&R stated. Although we first sailed her in the Caribbean in 2000 (just before Millie hit the scene), we sailed her from SF in both 2003 and 2007 (once south, once north). But I agree with your assessment about sending what are considered "B" ships vs. "A" vessels if lines are trying to build any type of long-standing presence in California.

 

On a philosophical note, a number of years ago I was involved in a conversation here on CC where IMO I felt there was a definite mentality that people living on the East Coast aren't all that open-minded about flying cross-country to California to take a cruise. In contrast, us West Coasters think nothing of flying East for pleasure travel, be it to see the Big Apple, catch a cruise from Florida, go to Disney World, or whatever.

In your opinion, do you think there really is such a mentality that exists? Of course there are always those who don't follow the majority, but I'm speaking in very broad, general terms.

I tend to agree with you. The east coast / west coast thing certainly seems to exist, but I have no idea why.

I live part of the year in Europe and part of the year in Asia (and the rest of the year on a cruise ship) so I really travel quite a bit.

I am constantly amazed to meet pax who flew from Chicago to Miami to board a ship and can no longer remember their names due to the vast distance - and one entire time zone -they just flew.

I do have a rather unusual theory about that however.

I grew up in the wine business in Northern California.

It is only natural to relate people to the types of wines they produce and drink.

You can ship Australian, Chilean, Italian, or French wines all over the planet, open the bottles a few days later, and the wines show very well.

The people from those countries seem to travel the same way. You can ship them all over the planet and they do pretty well.

American wines are different. Ship them to China or Europe and they do not show very well. I don't know why this is the case, but it is often discussed in wine circles.

Although there are certainly exceptions (some people from the West Coast for example) the general American public doesn't seem to travel very well. Many are adverse to getting passports, don't understand international travel very well, and have serious problems with languages and currrency that are not their own.

Carnival must find the 3 & 4 day itin profitable enough because they are bringing in the Imagination in 2014. Leaving on Thursdays and Sundays.

Carnival Imagination will be 19 years old when it starts this itinerary.

That's too old to compete with any of the newer ships in the Caribbean - or just about anywhere else.

Imagination has no tenders, so Alaska is out of the question.

With the shortage of cruise ships sailing out of San Diego right now, this 3 and 4 day itinerary might just work for them - so long as nobody else tries to compete with them.

Catalina and Ensenada have very low port charges (compared to regular California ports); the 3 and 4 day trips will be "booze cruises" with lots of business in the bars, casino, and duty free shops. The actual distances the ship will sail are very short, resulting in lower fuel bills.

If they are successful, and another cruise ship tries to compete, that would ruin the chance for profits, but Carnival can just move Imagination to another itinerary.

One part of the money equation not discussed is gaining market share, i.e. getting new passengers to try your product.

 

Like BEAV, we live in the San Francisco Bay area. We simply won't fly anywhere to try out a cruise line new to us, though we'll fly further away later (depends where—probably never another Caribbean cruise) if we enjoyed the first cruise from here. You have to get us onboard at our homeport to try your product at least once before we will commit to any other itinerary. Do you executives not factor that into your cost/benefit ratio?

 

Our very first Celebrity cruise was a Pacific Coastal cruise on the Mercury (miss the Mercury!) round trip from San Francisco. We spent more in the bars on that ship than usual because the lounges, the entertainment and art was so interesting and the service and food then was so good. Plus, we really enjoyed the coastal itinerary which included San Diego as a port of call, also Monterey and Santa Catalina (plus Ensenada, of course), and Los Angeles as a substitute for Santa Barbara. Celebrity showed off the ship to lots of travel agents in California then, too.

 

We have taken another Celebrity cruise since then (Alaska), and we are thinking of trying an S-class in Alaska this summer (Seattle round trip) to see if we like that class of ship and want to use it again in the future. (The most important thing to us is physical comfort in the cabin, so that's what we'll test first.)

 

We took a short cruise on a Princess Grand Class ship when they were brand spanking new, and aside from the newness and a few other nice features, we were unimpressed, and will likely not take one of the Princess cruises, unless they offer a Pacific Coastal cruise round trip from San Francisco. (The Hawaii voyages don't spend enough time in Hawaii to entice us.)

 

I know a lot of folks from the Bay Area took their first cruise on Celebrity way back in 2003 like we did, and they would never have even tried Celebrity had Celebrity not come to our home port. Now many of them cruise Celebrity regularly.

 

Surely a decade later Celebrity can come back for a bit and swoop up a new batch of SF Bay Area cruisers. It worked for Oceania in 2011.

Oceans and Rivers,

The only thing our executives think about is cost/benefit ratios.

In case I haven't mentioned it lately, it is ALWAYS about the money.

A few more cruise marketing facts that may be of help:

We have more business right now than we can handle. Yes, I know what you are going to ask. If we have more business than we can handle, why are we discounting cabins?

Although based on a very complicated business model, simply put, a certain percentage of that business we get is undesirable to us. But sometimes we take it anyway. In the long term it is cheaper for us to just take that less profitable business than to refuse it and spend more money to attract the more desirable passenger groups.

Remember that we are looking not at individual customers, but at large demographic groups. In the grand scheme of cruise line finance, you are not a guest nor a passenger, but a small number that is part of a much bigger overall average.

And in the grand scheme of cruise line sales and marketing, people who are not willing to fly to try out a new cruise line have proven overall to be less desirable to us.

We always want more market share - but not perhaps in the way you understand it. We do not need more heads on pillows. We have that already.

We want a larger percentage of people who spend MORE money on cruises.

History has taught us over and over again that people who sail from California spend (on average) LESS money on cruises.

Current practice tells us that ships sailing from California ports have much higher operating costs than from any other US ports.

So why would a cruise sales and marketing exec (who wants to keep his job and bonus) propose to move a ship to an area that is proven to deliver a more frugal passenger base at a much higher cost?

There is a cost/benefit ratio that could quickly end a promising carer.

When Celebrity took a chance and and sent Mercury to San Francisco, you had a chance to try the cruise line. You spent more money than usual. But it still obviously was not enough to make any difference to Celebrity. If it had, they would be sending more ships to San Francisco to do the same thing again. And Celebrity's competitors would be copying them and sending even more ships.

But none of that is happening.

If you or I were able to make such decisions and wanted to send a ship to impress a potentially valuable new demographic in San Francisco, we would not be sending a dumpy old ship like Mercury. Instead we would be sending the newest, glitziest ship in the fleet.

So what is Princess doing to impress the San Francisco market? They are sending their oldest and lowest rated ship to San Francisco to impress this potential market.

It is pretty clear that the cost/benefit ratio of cruising out of San Francisco is not to the liking of the Celebrity or Princess execs - and their competitors.

Remember - It is ALWAYS about the money.

Crime is going up in many different countries.

Mexico is generally one of the worst right now.

How does it directly affect cruise passengers?

In the past decade, one cruise passenger was wounded by gunfire in Mazatlan when he inadvertantly walked through a shootout between rival gangs.

That is the only recorded - and highly publicized - violent crime injury to a cruise passenger in Mexico in 10 years.

During that same period, there has been a huge jump in violent crimes against cruise passengers (and crew) in St Thomas, San Juan, Miami, and Los Angeles.

The cruise line I work for will no longer allow crew to stay ashore after dark in St Thomas and San Juan. Too many have been victims of violent crime in recent years. Our ships do not stay in port after dark in Miami, so we do not have to worry as much there, and we no longer call at California ports, so no worries there.

But in Mexico, we have never had problems for pax or crew, so we have no restrictions or worries as yet.

Is there anything scientific about these numbers? Nothing at all.

It only shows that in the past several years more crew and passengers were victims of violent crime in these 4 US cities than in Mexican cities.

Thanks for the candid feedback which, although unfortunate, makes a lot of sense.

 

With Princess getting ready to home port Grand Princess in SF for a full year starting next month, were you surprised they made such a bold move given the high costs vs. low return on investment for all the reasons you state? Or do they have some magic potion the other lines don't have?!!

Finally, do you think Princess will pull out of SF, like so many have done in the past, once the year is up - or continue to home port here?

BEAV,

I was a bit surprised, but they do have a chance to be profitable there - only because nearly everyone else has pulled out. The cruise lines and airlines enjoy an advantage that other industries do not usually have. We have a very effective control of inventory which has a direct relationship on the pricing related to supply and demand.

When one area becomes undesirable to us (usually when profits or demand drop) we can simply go somewhere else.

When nearly everybody in the industry decides to go somewhere else (like the current case in California) low supply drives up fares for whoever remains. Low supply also increases the chance that whoever remains can fill their ships.

That's what Princess is banking on.

They can probably stay marginally profitable in California with the Grand Princess (one of their oldest and poorest performers) so long as nobody else tries to come back and compete with them.

If another cruise line returns to California, the increased capacity will drive down occupancy and fares, destroying any chance of profitability.

If the Grand Princess went to Alaska or the Caribbean, it's age and relatively poor condition would result in lower fares and lower occupancies when trying to compete against much better vessels making the same itineraries.

As usual, it's all about the money.

I'm not saying that they are lying, I'm just saying that the reasoning doesn't make sense if it applies to only part of the year.

 

1. Fuel regulations along the West coast would apply Sept-May also, not just June, July and August.

 

2. Do cruisers sailing out of West coast ports spend less money in the summer months than in the Spring, Fall or Winter? I'd like to see those studies.

 

3. The cruise I was mentioning starts in Vancouver and ends in South LA.

 

It could very well be that there just isn't the interest in that itinerary and so the route is not profitable if they can't fill the ship, but I find it hard to believe that the time of year has anything to do with it.

I was the cruise line manager being quoted by the other poster.

You need to realize that it is ALWAYS about the money.

You also need to realize that fuel is the highest cost (money again) we have - anywhere.

Finally you need to realize that California forces us to burn even more expensive fuel than in any other place in world.

So with those ideas in mind, why would a cruise ship ever want to sail off the California coast?

Answer: We don't. The weather off the California coast is miserable far more often than nice, seas are usually rough with passengers puking instead of spending money, pool bars are empty, casino is empty, and California regulations force us to sail so far off the coast that you never see California. California immigration and customs officers treat our passengers like criminals, the union stevedores are the laziest, most corrupt, and most expensive in the world, the outdated cruise terminals are falling down around our ears, and we are forced to employ outrageously expensive tugboats in California ports, wiping out any chance of profit. Just sailing a ship into and out of San Francisco Bay costs us $176,000 in tugboat fees - even though the tugboats never touch my ship.

But there are times when it is LESS COSTLY (money again) than the other alternatives.

Those times are in the Spring and Fall, when it is too cold and nasty to sail in Alaska, and the fuel cost (money again) to get the ship to another warmer location is greater than the money we lose sailing off the California coast.

Remember that it is ALWAYS about the money.

So far as the studies on passenger spending habits, my employers spent big money for that data, and they have no interest in giving it to you. But having read the data, I can tell you that people sailing out of California spend less money onboard EVERY month of the year, compared to people sailing out of any other ports. There are just a few times every year when the cruise lines are willing to put up with that - in order to avoid losing even more money doing it another way.

In the Summer months, where we sail is a no-brainer.

Alaska cruisers spend an average 600% more money every day onboard than California Coastal cruisers.

It is ALWAYS about the money.

Now that everyone has finished guessing about ship captains, I can give you some real information.

Most major cruise lines have unions representing Deck, Engine, and Hotel.

The primary unions representing Deck Officers (including Captains) are European.

Very few Americans belong to European Maritime Unions, so are not able to be hired.

Most major cruise lines have their Captains working 3 months on and 3 months off. The 3 months off are usually not paid. American Captains like to claim unemployment insurance during those 3 months, creating a huge insurance expense for the cruise line.

Cruise lines hire their crews from Recruiting Agencies in many different countries; the USA has nearly no crewing agencies of any kind.

American Maritime Union rates for Deck Officers (including Captains) are nearly double the rates for European Deck Officers. The cruise lines cannot afford the Americans.

Nearly all Cruise Ship Captains speak several languages - including the language of the flag or country of their ships.

American Captains all speak two languages:

1. English (or at least an American version of English).

2. English louder.

American cruise ship crew rarely get along very well with crew from other countries. They usually have the attitude that the American way is the right way, and all other ways are wrong.

The US Navy has many Captains who are familiar with nuclear ships and warships.

Cruise ships are neither nuclear nor warships. They operate and handle much differently.

On a cruise ship, the Captain is expected and responsible to socialize comfortably with passengers from many different nations. The few American Captains we see are not very adept nor comfortable doing this.

The International Maritime Organisation mandates many of the regulations and operations on international vessels. For reasons that nobody seems able to explain, the few remaining American ships frequently have operations that are directly opposite from the rest of the world. A good example; on international ships, all even numbered boats, rafts, cabins, lockers, etc are on the port side. On American ships they are on starboard side.

Another example: on international ships, the alarm codes for emergency alerts and crew to lifeboat stations are exactly opposite the ones on US Ships.

Most countries have a nautical history, with a tradition of merchant mariners moving up through the ranks of merchant vessels to finally arrive as captains on cruise ships.

The USA lost that history and tradition long ago.

The Pacific Ocean is always choppy on alternate Tuesdays and Thursdays, but only during months that have an R in their spelling.

On Leap Years, the choppiness switches to Mondays and Wednesdays.

Many other lines do this indoors where you can sit if you want, Hal should speed this up.

The mass market cruise line I work for holds safety drills indoors. Our Flag State Inspectors have just inofrmed us that the bulkheads and windows in those large public areas are not safe in emergency conditions - especially where flames are present. We will soon be moving our drills to the outer decks - where it is safer.

Every cruise line gives options to passengers with medical conditions. You only need notify the cruise line before the safety drill happens.