"Extended Layover?"

My try at translating Dutch to English and all meaning gets lost :( Which is my problem, of course, so let met try to explain.

 

X offers 14 night cruises Amsterdam-St Petersburg-Amsterdam. One week to get there, one overnight, 6 nights to return.

 

14 nighs is a long cruise, most cruises are 7 nights or less. Cruise lines offer 2 night cruises.

 

The only thing X needs to do is to offer segments. 7 night cruises AMS-SPB, 7 night cruises SPB-AMS. Many, if not most, will book B2B AMS-SPB-AMS.

 

That must be possible, and no cabin would be empty. Some people from let's say New York, can just manage 7 days and would like to see Amsterdam and St Petersburg. They can't do the whole 14 days, and they don't care flying to Amsterdam and flying back from Petersburg.

 

Then, TAs, touroperators, the line itself, can think of vacations that start with AMS-SPB, a week or two in SPB, and end with SPB-AMS.

 

I just don't understand why many 14 day cruises aren't offered as 2 segments.

But then, to stay at one end, you would have to stay in SPB for 14 days, making a 28 day trip.

AMS - SPB - 7 Days.

17 days in SPB (cruise ship goes SPB - AMS for 7 days, then AMS - SPB for 7 days).

Then SPB - AMS for 7 days.

And how many cabins are they doing to sell for BOARDING in SPB? Not a huge cruise market there.

Gross maybe, not net.

 

ShorEx costs are high.

Negative, as I mentioned the same thing, figuring they were meaning gross revenue. Confirmed by Shore-ex Manager and also the Captain, who I sailed with many years previously when we were both cadets.

But then, to stay at one end, you would have to stay in SPB for 14 days, making a 28 day trip.

 

AMS - SPB - 7 Days.

 

17 days in SPB (cruise ship goes SPB - AMS for 7 days, then AMS - SPB for 7 days).

 

Then SPB - AMS for 7 days.

 

And how many cabins are they doing to sell for BOARDING in SPB? Not a huge cruise market there.

Yes, it's 14 days if you insist on going back on the same ship, and that ship would need to sail consecutive cruises AMS-SPB-AMS for a long time which doesn't happen. Hong Kong would be difficult as well. Philipsburg, St Martin however resembles a subway station.

I also agree that boarding in SPB doesn't happen often. But it does happen, so the port is capable of arranging it.

Probably the market for guests wanting to book SPB-AMS is almost the same size as the amount of people who booked AMS-SPB. When the season starts, some cabins SPB-AMS will probably be cheap, and when the season ends those will be expensive but the AMS-SPB trip would be cheap.

Allowing creative holidays where an overnight becomes a week would raise the value of all cabins when TAs or tour operators would see an opportunity to sell better vacations. When ships would offer 7 night segments of a 14 night cruise but nobody books those, nothing changes. IMHO it's risk-free, with a big potential to earn more.

Negative, as I mentioned the same thing, figuring they were meaning gross revenue. Confirmed by Shore-ex Manager and also the Captain, who I sailed with many years previously when we were both cadets.

I still don't see it.

I have priced the same excursions directly with the companies versus booking through cruise line. At times, the cruise line has been cheaper. And it has never been more than about $50 more to book through the cruise line.

That takes a LOT of people booking to make that kind of revenue, when you look the profit margin on alcoholic drinks.

Yes, it's 14 days if you insist on going back on the same ship, and that ship would need to sail consecutive cruises AMS-SPB-AMS for a long time which doesn't happen. Hong Kong would be difficult as well. Philipsburg, St Martin however resembles a subway station.

 

I also agree that boarding in SPB doesn't happen often. But it does happen, so the port is capable of arranging it.

 

Probably the market for guests wanting to book SPB-AMS is almost the same size as the amount of people who booked AMS-SPB. When the season starts, some cabins SPB-AMS will probably be cheap, and when the season ends those will be expensive but the AMS-SPB trip would be cheap.

 

Allowing creative holidays where an overnight becomes a week would raise the value of all cabins when TAs or tour operators would see an opportunity to sell better vacations. When ships would offer 7 night segments of a 14 night cruise but nobody books those, nothing changes. IMHO it's risk-free, with a big potential to earn more.

If they have two ships, one AMS - SPB at the same time the other does SPB-AMS, it still means a 21 day trip. 7 out, 7 in SPB, 7 back.

And most people cannot do that. And again, what happens if you have few people getting back on? You have empty cabins.

Or worst, ship A drops off 500 cabins of people. When ship B arrives in 1 week, they have only 400 cabins for people getting back on. Or the ship sailed with 100 empty cabins.

STILL, NO UPSIDE FOR THE CRUISE LINE.

If they have two ships, one AMS - SPB at the same time the other does SPB-AMS, it still means a 21 day trip. 7 out, 7 in SPB, 7 back.

Yes, that is the idea. Instead of one overnight you get to spend a week in SPB. Which some people might like better than booking a cruise that is advertised as "See the wonders of St Petersburg" or similar, where in reality the 14 day, 336 hour cruise consists of 18 hours of St Petersburg. That it is when you're first to disembark and everything goes smooth.

And most people cannot do that.

Let's agree that most people can't afford a 14 day cruise on HAL or X anyway. Not many can spend 14 days off, even fewer can afford the fare. The only reason these cruises exist is that besides "most people" there are also "some people" who can manage 14 days and pay for the trip. Many of those who can afford it don't need to ask their boss to get an extra week.

And again, what happens if you have few people getting back on? You have empty cabins.

 

Or worst, ship A drops off 500 cabins of people. When ship B arrives in 1 week, they have only 400 cabins for people getting back on. Or the ship sailed with 100 empty cabins.

You are still picturing this as if the ships are a subway where people decide to get on the ship or decide to enjoy a coffee first and then get on the next one. That's not how it would work. Every cabin is booked months or years before, and that wouldn't change. All ships would sail at capacity as they always do.

STILL, NO UPSIDE FOR THE CRUISE LINE.

There is no "upside" for the cruise line to have dancers and a piano man, a CD, paintings, specialty restaurants, and real grass on the upper deck, either. Actually, why would they even sail at all? Fuel is expensive, even more than all crew combined. Your cruise contract explicitly states that there is no reason the ship should sail at all.

Anyway, the upside is extremely simple: people will pay more for a better vacation. If some people really want to enjoy SPB longer than a few hours, and want to pay for it, they can. If actually nobody cares about SPB, no harm done either.

Spend some time looking at itineraries that you are interested in, that have the variety that you are looking for. Then book your first cruise. Pick cruise #2 that is a week or two ahead and book that cruise.

They are completely separate cruises, one is not connected to the other.

You also would need to get your own visas for whatever location you would be staying independent of the cruises.

Yes, that is the idea. Instead of one overnight you get to spend a week in SPB. Which some people might like better than booking a cruise that is advertised as "See the wonders of St Petersburg" or similar, where in reality the 14 day, 336 hour cruise consists of 18 hours of St Petersburg. That it is when you're first to disembark and everything goes smooth.

 

Let's agree that most people can't afford a 14 day cruise on HAL or X anyway. Not many can spend 14 days off, even fewer can afford the fare. The only reason these cruises exist is that besides "most people" there are also "some people" who can manage 14 days and pay for the trip. Many of those who can afford it don't need to ask their boss to get an extra week.

 

Anyway, the upside is extremely simple: people will pay more for a better vacation. If some people really want to enjoy SPB longer than a few hours, and want to pay for it, they can. If actually nobody cares about SPB, no harm done either.

Here's the problem with your argument, and you even mention it yourself. You say most people can't afford a 14 day cruise, or get 14 days off, but then you propose that they take 14 days to do a 7 day cruise and a 7 day land stay. So, you still are excluding that demographic who can't get 14 days off from work, and I doubt that 7 days on land would be much cheaper than the cruise, let's be generous and say 60%, that's still a significant addition that these people would have to make to take the extended land stay.

That 7 day cruise threshold is key. That is the demographic dividing line that the cruise lines have identified years ago. One demographic takes 7 day or less cruises, and one demographic takes cruises over 7 days. The cruise lines market the cruises based on the demographics, and don't seem to have any trouble filling the ships with either demographic. They just present fewer of the longer cruises because the demographic for them is less than the 7 day demographic. So, if there is a demographic that can afford, both time-wise and economically, a 14 day cruise, why should the cruise line give away half of that money to a land based operation? Get 'em on the ship and keep 'em there.

Here's the problem with your argument, and you even mention it yourself. You say most people can't afford a 14 day cruise, or get 14 days off, but then you propose that they take 14 days to do a 7 day cruise and a 7 day land stay.

No I propose 7 days on the ship, 7 days on land, 7 days on the ship to sail back, 21 days total.The 14 day cruise is extended by 7 days on land in the middle instead of before or after the cruise.

So, if there is a demographic that can afford, both time-wise and economically, a 14 day cruise, why should the cruise line give away half of that money to a land based operation? Get 'em on the ship and keep 'em there.

Given the option between line A and B, where A offers 14 night cruises to SPB with 1 overnight and B offering the same cruise, but also allows to stay a week in SPB, I'd choose line B. And I probably would book the hotels and tours through line B as well. Line B would offer a better product, and gets 7 days extra to extract money from me.

No I propose 7 days on the ship, 7 days on land, 7 days on the ship to sail back, 21 days total.The 14 day cruise is extended by 7 days on land in the middle instead of before or after the cruise.

 

So you are restricting the demographics even more by extending the cruise. Trust me, the cruise lines have studied their market and know that those sell even less than a 14 day cruise. Wonder why not every line offers a world cruise?

 

Given the option between line A and B, where A offers 14 night cruises to SPB with 1 overnight and B offering the same cruise, but also allows to stay a week in SPB, I'd choose line B. And I probably would book the hotels and tours through line B as well. Line B would offer a better product, and gets 7 days extra to extract money from me.

How does the cruise line get 7 extra days to extract money, when they are only getting a mark-up over the land concessionaire's charge? And while this may be your personal preference, I would have to say that the cruise line marketing departments have decided that the cost and expense of adding another embarkation terminal with infrastructure and problematic airline connections and the attendant compensations does not outweigh any additional revenue generated by a few cruisers who can afford a 21 day vacation.

Here's the problem with your argument, and you even mention it yourself. You say most people can't afford a 14 day cruise, or get 14 days off, but then you propose that they take 14 days to do a 7 day cruise and a 7 day land stay. So, you still are excluding that demographic who can't get 14 days off from work, and I doubt that 7 days on land would be much cheaper than the cruise, let's be generous and say 60%, that's still a significant addition that these people would have to make to take the extended land stay.

 

That 7 day cruise threshold is key. That is the demographic dividing line that the cruise lines have identified years ago. One demographic takes 7 day or less cruises, and one demographic takes cruises over 7 days. The cruise lines market the cruises based on the demographics, and don't seem to have any trouble filling the ships with either demographic. They just present fewer of the longer cruises because the demographic for them is less than the 7 day demographic. So, if there is a demographic that can afford, both time-wise and economically, a 14 day cruise, why should the cruise line give away half of that money to a land based operation? Get 'em on the ship and keep 'em there.

And the demographic that can take a 21 day trip (7 days cruise, 7 days land, 7 day cruise) is even smaller. Both time off and cost.

You are still picturing this as if the ships are a subway where people decide to get on the ship or decide to enjoy a coffee first and then get on the next one. That's not how it would work. Every cabin is booked months or years before, and that wouldn't change. All ships would sail at capacity as they always do.

So how many rooms are available for this plan?

100? What happens if you only sell 50 on a cruise. But you sold out on the 14 day, just cruise?

Do you sell those rooms to non-extended layover? Or you can't, because the previous cruise you sold all 100. And on the next cruise, you already sold all 100 cabins, so you will have 100 AMS-SPB, but only 50 coming back.

There is no way to be sure you fill all the available extended layover cabins on all legs all the time.

Well, there variations on the idea that apparently work.

Next June, Queen Mary 2 leaves New York and visits in turn: Southampton, Hamburg, Bruges, St Peter Port (Guernsey), Hamburg, Southampton and New York. It can be booked to and from New York as a 23 night "Grand Bruges and Guernsey" voyage, or in any of multiple shorter segments.

• New York to Southampton
  
• New York to Hamburg
  
• Southampton closed-loop to Bruges & Guernsey via Hamburg.
  
• Hamburg closed-loop to Bruges & Guernsey
  
• Southampton to Hamburg
  
• Hamburg to Southampton
  
• Hamburg to New York
  
• Southampton to New York
  

...as well as a follow-on cruise of the northeast US and Canada originating in Hamburg, Southampton or New York.

Managing cabin inventory over all of these segments in at least three different sales markets is challenging, but Cunard seems to be willing to give it a go.

We've booked from New York to Hamburg and from Hamburg to New York and Cunard will manage to fill the stateroom during the five nights that we're in Germany.

Cunard does this pretty regularly. They have some very interesting itineraries.

Well, there variations on the idea that apparently work.

 

Managing cabin inventory over all of these segments in at least three different sales markets is challenging, but Cunard seems to be willing to give it a go.

 

We've booked from New York to Hamburg and from Hamburg to New York and Cunard will manage to fill the stateroom during the five nights that we're in Germany.

And I thought extending SPB to a week would probably be feasable and profitable, and very nice for the cruisers with some puzzles for the sales department. Someone at Cunard must have decided that spending a lot on software, I guess millions, would pay off. The highest fares possible, where the ships always sails full, with a zillion variables (fuel, port fees, eggs, weather conditions, age, language, country and income of the guests, probable on board spending, probable % of return guests, the list is endless).

I hope X and HAL will be inspired by how the competition can offer such a huge list of ways to enjoy a 23 night cruise, and will offer OP a bit more than one night in Hong Kong in the future.

How does the cruise line get 7 extra days to extract money, when they are only getting a mark-up over the land concessionaire's charge? And while this may be your personal preference, I would have to say that the cruise line marketing departments have decided that the cost and expense of adding another embarkation terminal with infrastructure and problematic airline connections and the attendant compensations does not outweigh any additional revenue generated by a few cruisers who can afford a 21 day vacation.

"Only a mark-up" may not be thousands, but it is extra money. SPB is already, albeit hardly used, embarkation terminal. Especially SPB would be, IMHO, a perfect port. The demographic already on the ship is way above the 7 day treshold, both in time and money. Those are the ones of which, wild guess, at least 50% could also easily manage 21 days. Also, this is not a wild guess, the demographic that chooses a cruise to see SPB instead of an island, flies around the world for that, wants more than one overnight.

So how many rooms are available for this plan?

 

100? What happens if you only sell 50 on a cruise. But you sold out on the 14 day, just cruise?

All of them. Then you look at which cabins are sold and discount the segments/cruises where cabins are still empty. If one segment gets very popular a long time before final payment, you raise those prices. Anyway, look at the amazing range of opportunities Cunard can pull off. I think they have a general idea of how many cabins will be used for segmented cruises, to inform ports, suppliers, crew, tour operators, and whatnot. But I don't think they have a set limit.

For what upside?

That is the point. Can it be done, yes. With issues and time and money to make it work.

For what purpose? Can you recoup the investment in time and money, and continuing marketing and tweaking to make it work?

And, even with all that, it does not balance out, you will sail with empty cabins.

If you like this, sail on Cunard. I doubt you will see it on the mass market lines.

For what upside?

 

That is the point. Can it be done, yes. With issues and time and money to make it work.

 

For what purpose? Can you recoup the investment in time and money, and continuing marketing and tweaking to make it work?

 

And, even with all that, it does not balance out, you will sail with empty cabins.

 

If you like this, sail on Cunard. I doubt you will see it on the mass market lines.

Ships hardly ever sail below capacity and I think that holds for Cunard as well.

Yes, issues, yes time, yes money. That's the same in any industry, there are always issues to solve, you will always need to invest. A lemonade stand has issues. http://video.foxnews.com/v/5792315699001/?#sp=show-clips

Lines invest in climbing walls, Oprah, musicals, race tracks, specialty restaurants, underwater bars, stabilizers. None of those things make money. The purpose is to attract more clients, and somewhere along the line hopefully that investment pays off.

OP wants to stay longer in HK and specifically complains that no line offers the opportunity. Maybe the marketing people at Cunard are laughed at by the marketing departments of other lines, but I cruise for the itineraries and Cunard has just won my sympathy.