Why is it so hard to use cruiselines to actually get somewhere

First of all I hate flying, I know it's ridiculous but I'm not exactly the only one. I would fly if absolutely necessary, but Dutch Wikipedia says 14% will not fly at all (a big part of them probably wouldn't like ships either, but that leaves a huge market).

Why are there so few cruiselines that just take you from A to B, like the QE2 takes you from Southampton to New York and back?

An example, what if I wanted to visit Lissabon, starting from Amsterdam. I could look up a lot of itineraries (which is quite hard, actually!) and select only nights 2 to 5 of "MSC Iberian Adventures, 7 nights" (I just made that trip up), to get from Amsterdam to Lissabon. And then select nights 58-61 of "HAL African Discoveries, 87 nights" to return. It would cost a fortune, obviously.

A look at http://www.marinetraffic.com shows a lot of cruiseships continuously sailing between Amsterdam and Lissabon, and there must be a few empty cabins that would be profitable to get filled (including dis/embarking, muster training, etc) last minute. (BTW, to get from Amsterdam to Lissabon by by train is possible of course. The fastest connection I found lasts 26 hours, during you which you'd have to switch trains 4 times, no food included, no sleep included, definitely no entertainment, and the lowest price I saw was about $450 one way.)

The rest of hospitaly industry doesn't work like that: "You want to book a room just for Christmas. Of course you can, and we do have a room available, but we happen to have our Super Christmas Special which lasts 10 days. We can't just let you book for 2 days"

And the transportation industry doesn't do that either: "No sir, this flight is only available for people who will fly back in the same plane exactly 12 days later."

So, why's that?

(BTW, Googling "partial cruises", I saw http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1459813 that the Passenger Vessel Services Act actually forbids picking up passengers up from Hawaii to get them to Los Angeles. While that is somewhat amazing, I'd be even more amazed if such rules are applied in the rest of the world. Also, I wouldn't mind the listed fine of $300 to be deducted from OBC)

Well, sadly the old days are gone. Airplanes replaced ships for getting from one place to another, and the remaining ships, with the exception of Cunard's transatlantic service, are just in the vacation cruising business. There is simply not enough demand for cruise ships to run local runs between ports for people who only want transportation between those ports.

That being said, you might be able to work out something on freighters. Many do have cabins for guests who want to get between the ports they are servicing. It will be hard to get a good list of ships, but you might try that avenue.

As for the Passenger Vessel Services Act (the Jones Act) this only prevents non-American flagged vessels from carrying passengers between two American ports without stops in a foreign port in between. That would have nothing to do with passage from Amsterdam to Lisbon. It is a failed attempt to protect American cruise companies.

Not that I am sure that there was ever passenger service between Amsterdam and Lisbon, but you are living in the wrong time.

CRUISE SHIPS exist to do CRUISES which are vacations and most vacationers prefer to end up where they started

in the past there were ships that were Ocean Liners ..built to cross the oceans for transportation .... these did not end up where they started and competed for speed (how many days to cross the Atlantic)

All but eliminated by the AIRPLANE (how many HOURS to cross the Atlantic)

In many places ships are still used as FERRIES ..... but even some of these compete with air travel . . . or tunnel/chunnel

Because it is a cruise ship, not a bus.

First of all I hate flying, I know it's ridiculous but I'm not exactly the only one. I would fly if absolutely necessary, but Dutch Wikipedia says 14% will not fly at all (a big part of them probably wouldn't like ships either, but that leaves a huge market).

 

Why are there so few cruiselines that just take you from A to B, like the QE2 takes you from Southampton to New York and back?

 

An example, what if I wanted to visit Lissabon, starting from Amsterdam. I could look up a lot of itineraries (which is quite hard, actually!) and select only nights 2 to 5 of "MSC Iberian Adventures, 7 nights" (I just made that trip up), to get from Amsterdam to Lissabon. And then select nights 58-61 of "HAL African Discoveries, 87 nights" to return. It would cost a fortune, obviously.

 

A look at http://www.marinetraffic.com shows a lot of cruiseships continuously sailing between Amsterdam and Lissabon, and there must be a few empty cabins that would be profitable to get filled (including dis/embarking, muster training, etc) last minute. (BTW, to get from Amsterdam to Lissabon by by train is possible of course. The fastest connection I found lasts 26 hours, during you which you'd have to switch trains 4 times, no food included, no sleep included, definitely no entertainment, and the lowest price I saw was about $450 one way.)

 

The rest of hospitaly industry doesn't work like that: "You want to book a room just for Christmas. Of course you can, and we do have a room available, but we happen to have our Super Christmas Special which lasts 10 days. We can't just let you book for 2 days"

 

And the transportation industry doesn't do that either: "No sir, this flight is only available for people who will fly back in the same plane exactly 12 days later."

 

So, why's that?

 

(BTW, Googling "partial cruises", I saw http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1459813 that the Passenger Vessel Services Act actually forbids picking up passengers up from Hawaii to get them to Los Angeles. While that is somewhat amazing, I'd be even more amazed if such rules are applied in the rest of the world. Also, I wouldn't mind the listed fine of $300 to be deducted from OBC)

You should prepare yourself to be more amazed.

The Passenger Vessel Services Act is just one (American) example of Cabotage Laws that exist in nearly every country in the world.

Many of the trips you would like to take on cruise ships would be illegal.

It's very generous of you to offer to just pay the fine for violating a cabotage law. But in most cases, if a ship captain knowingly allows you to violate these laws, he faces even bigger penalties, including having his ship banned from that particular country.

You need to stick to ferry boats.

@bbwex

Thanks!

As an IT person, I learned programming on a Commodore 64 and witnessed Gopher being replaced by WWW. I was born in exactly the right time, I wouldn't trade that for nicer traveling options!

For one trip I had to do I did look into freighters. It seemed to be a once in a lifetime adventure to do with your girlfriend in your twenties, not an easy escape from flying. I did fly that time.

I simply don't believe that there is no demand. Of the few people (maybe 30) I had a chat with during my trip Rotterdam - Malaga - Rotterdam, at least 2 said they liked cruising because they didn't have to fly (B2B, 90% of guests were Dutch!). It's easy to believe that lines like 7/10/14 or even 87 day cruises, with just a few major embarkation/disembarkation days because the costs are much lower or something like that. On the other hand, I can't be the only one who actually did not go to a conference because I'd have to fly (yes, that conference was in Barcelona) while there were plenty of ships going just the right way, with probably at least one empty cabin.

As the old Chinese saying goes: there's no demand for bread if the bakery is closed.

@BruceMuzz,

Not trying to drift into very technical levels, but "You need to stick to ferry boats.", what would be the legal difference between a ferry and a cruiseship?

@luddite, Capt_BJ

HAL used to be a bus and forgot about it completely, they could still act as one least a little, couldn't it?

The rest of hospitaly industry doesn't work like that: "You want to book a room just for Christmas. Of course you can, and we do have a room available, but we happen to have our Super Christmas Special which lasts 10 days. We can't just let you book for 2 days"

Not to be nitpicky, but when planning for our trip in July I found it difficult booking a hotel in Venice because most has a 2 night minimum stay. I wanted to book one night before the cruise and one night after and this proved to be quite challenging and seriously reduced my options.

With all due respect, casually surveying maybe 30 people on your cruise is far from doing appropriate business research to determine if a certain venture is feasible. I am sure the various cruise lines are very good at determining feasibility, and would do what you propose if there was a profit in it.

@BruceMuzz,

 

Not trying to drift into very technical levels, but "You need to stick to ferry boats.", what would be the legal difference between a ferry and a cruiseship?

 

@luddite, Capt_BJ

HAL used to be a bus and forgot about it completely, they could still act as one least a little, couldn't it?

When describing HAL that way, you are going back decades! Immigrants crossed the Atlantic on HAL ships back in the days before jets make the trip in 6 hours give or take. Man has landed on the moon in that time span. :)

OP, you gave an example of wanting to book nights 58-61 of a HAL cruise. Here is exactly why it won't work. Why would they guarantee you a room in one of those cabins on that sailing when they could have that ship sold out? Someone could very easily come along and last minute after you booked and want to book the whole cruise. What if you had only 3 nights booked in that room therefore prohibiting them from booking that room for the rest of the cruise. That's a huge loss of revenue to the cruise line if they could have someone in that room the entire cruise.

I mean I get where you are coming from. I hate flying and I would love to cruise instead, but these companies are not meant for that anymore. The early 1900's are long gone, and I more than once have thought I was born in the wrong time. Oh how I would love to sail the oceans instead of the skies...

it is available https://www.google.com/search?q=saling+on+a+freighter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&q=sailing+on+a+freighter&spell=1

not cheap but doable

I think Maersk Lines might be a fit for the OP.

@Katgoesonholiday

Thanks for telling me that even hotels do have minimum lengths, didn't know that! I've never had a hotel telling me I couldn't sleep there for just one night. Then again, 2 nights is not a 7 day "Mysteries of Something" cruise.

@CruiserBruce

"I am sure the various cruise lines are very good at determining feasibility, and would do what you propose if there was a profit in it."

I have absolutely no doubt cruiselines know what they are doing! I do feel free to ask why something like "hop on/hop off" is apparantly not as profitable as it would seem.

@kelkel2

Nights 58-61 of the HAL cruise just might be available, and in the current system I'd have to book the whole 87 day cruise. Yet, there are many, many cruise ships going up and down in Western Europe, at least one of them must have a cabin that happens to be free. I'm very glad that you acknowledge that there is a demand that simply is not met because no company offers it.

@BruceMuzz

I have been reading just a few pages on Cabotage rules, and as a libertarian I'm obviously the worst person to discuss the merits of laws with, yet would you agree that a law that actually forbids lines to bring passengers from A to B, because because other lines that don't even exist anymore would otherwise lose business, is not a good law?

There are some "world cruises" that can be purchased as segments. But specific segments. And yes, the Passenger Vessel Services Act comes into play that would disallow breaking up the segments. And even if the PVSA doesn't come into play, if you decide to leave a ship early before the final day, you would be required to pay for the entire cruise.

It's not exactly like booking hotel rooms (even though I've, too, heard of some hotels that require a minimum stay). There's more chances to fill the hotel when you're not talking about transporting people here and there.

I live a drive away from the Port of Los Angeles and have done the cruise between LA and Hawaii three times. I hate flying so it's a great itinerary for my family. We can't just sail over there and leave the ship for some days and catch another ship back. That's not how it works even if we're willing to pay for two cruises. And the cruise line will not only get fined if passengers deliberately do this, but risk, as someone pointed out getting into trouble for allowing it. So we would like to spend more time on one of the islands, the best thing to do is to fly over there and do a land stay. Another option would be to start or end the cruise in Ensenada or Vancouver, but due to cruise line schedules, one way cruises are usually in late September or early May so it's a bit difficult to use the ship this way. Most people who take an one way to Hawaii will fly the other way home. And for the LA-HI RTs, we do have to stop in Ensenada, but my family treats that day as a stationary day at sea as we're not fond of that port.

Cruise vacations are something unique compared to land stays. And even though the itineraries aren't as flexible as you're asking it to be, that's just the way it is.

The rest of hospitaly industry doesn't work like that: "You want to book a room just for Christmas. Of course you can, and we do have a room available, but we happen to have our Super Christmas Special which lasts 10 days. We can't just let you book for 2 days"

Not sure where you get this from many hotels and other forms of accommodation have minimum stays at certain times.

Pre the 1960's [or thereabouts] many people did travel by ship from one place to another. I believe some lines do permit it, mainly cargo ships with limited rooms available I had a friend who did it all the time, it was only when he was in his late 70's that he had to stop traveling that way, such trips though take more planning as itineraries aren't as set.

Not too sure why people are quoting Jones Law Amsterdam and Lisbon are in different countries.

@BruceMuzz

I have been reading just a few pages on Cabotage rules, and as a libertarian I'm obviously the worst person to discuss the merits of laws with, yet would you agree that a law that actually forbids lines to bring passengers from A to B, because because other lines that don't even exist anymore would otherwise lose business, is not a good law?

Continue reading and you will learn U.S. PVSA also applies to airlines.

KLM(for example) cannot carry passengers between two U.S. cities without a foreign stop in between.

@BruceMuzz

I have been reading just a few pages on Cabotage rules, and as a libertarian I'm obviously the worst person to discuss the merits of laws with, yet would you agree that a law that actually forbids lines to bring passengers from A to B, because because other lines that don't even exist anymore would otherwise lose business, is not a good law?

I am not a lawyer nor a politician.

I don't really care if the cabotage laws are good or bad laws.

There is nothing I will ever be able to do to change them.

But the cruise lines generally love cabotage laws.

It allows us (actually forces us) to charge you thousands of euros for an elegant cruise vacation, rather than a few euros for a cheapie ferry boat ride.

Cruise lines are publicly held and owned companies. Our stockholders selfishly want a return on the millions of dollars they have invested. If we started operating as ferries, we would be out of business very soon.

@BruceMuzz,

 

Not trying to drift into very technical levels, but "You need to stick to ferry boats.", what would be the legal difference between a ferry and a cruiseship?

 

@luddite, Capt_BJ

HAL used to be a bus and forgot about it completely, they could still act as one least a little, couldn't it?

If you did a little research you would find that there are plenty of ways to travel by ship. Brittany Ferries, for example - British Isles to France and Spain; the Mediterranean is full of ships ("ferries", if you insist), going from virtually all main ports to others; there is overnight service, with comfortable accommodations if you are willing to pay for premium quarters between Harwich in England to the Hook of Holland; Silver Line between Baltic ports, etc., etc.

Why ask a CRUISE line to provide services totally unsuited to their stated and intended mission, when local service is so readily available?

I recall when the Pullman Company provided comfortable overnight inter-city train service - as well as transcontintal -- beore airlines madethem largely non-competitive. Sure: there is Amtrak -- but what they provide is a dismal third behind, say, N Y Central's Twentieth Century to Chicago, or New Haven's Owl and Night Cape Codder trains. The world changes: in many ways, but certainly not all, for the better. Best to learn to live with it.

There are not many cruise lines that just take you from point a to b because many people want ports and can't take too much time off from work plus there is the cost of the fuel and the speed of flying. It was airlines that for a period of time caused many cruise lines to go out of business.

Keith

Actually we just used a Cruise ship as a ferry/bus/train/car/airline alternative. It was a repositioning cruise on the NCL Pearl from Vancouver to Los Angeles. It was part of the ship's repositioning from the Alaska summer cruise season to the Caribbean. If we had the time we could have stayed on the ship all the way to Miami. These types of cruises are rare but if you look hard enough they can be found.

BTW the price of this 5 night cruise in a balcony cabin was about half of what the other forms of transport were when you include food and hotel costs for the five nights. So keep searching - it might be worth your while.;)

To answer the OP's question.

I believe the true answer is that Cruise Lines are NOT TRANSPORTATION. They are Destination Resorts. You would not expect to go to a Club Med and expect to be transported to another Club Med. Since the dawning of Cruise Lines, they have been Resorts that happen to move. You go to stay at the All-Inclusive Resort, not for Transportation. If you want Transportation you need to book Ocean Liners or Cargo Ships that make their profits from Transportation. Of course, on those ships, the amenities will not be the same and the price will reflect the Costs of Transportation rather than the Destinations.

To answer the OP's question.

 

I believe the true answer is that Cruise Lines are NOT TRANSPORTATION. They are Destination Resorts. You would not expect to go to a Club Med and expect to be transported to another Club Med. Since the dawning of Cruise Lines, they have been Resorts that happen to move. You go to stay at the All-Inclusive Resort, not for Transportation. If you want Transportation you need to book Ocean Liners or Cargo Ships that make their profits from Transportation. Of course, on those ships, the amenities will not be the same and the price will reflect the Costs of Transportation rather than the Destinations.

Easy cruise (from easyjet) tried something like that in the Greek waters a few years back.....they were out of business within a year.

Cruise ships-or rather liners were the only means of transport between the US and other countries for centuries-until about the end of the 1950's. True, there were airlines back then but people were afraid them and they were noisy and slow and expensive compared to established ships.

By the end of the 1960's ocean liners were relics and jets were the way to go.

It happened that fast.

True, there are people who would like the nostalgia of sailing from A to B on a ship just to get there and Cunard still does that. But the glory days of the liners are long gone. The cruise industry has changed with the times and it is apparently thriving in its new role.

The reason why this is so is because of time. In 1924 the only way to go from San Fransisco to London was to take a train cross country train for perhaps 4-5 days. then board as ship from NY to London for another 6-7 days.

Today, one can go from SFO to London in less than 24 hours.

The demand for getting someplace in 5-14 days comes from vacationers.

If you really want to experience what it is like to go from A to B by ship take a full Panama Canal Cruise. Princess, for example has 14-15 day cruises from LA to FLL through the canal. We took one in 2012. It is an interesting experience because you truly go from point A to Point B by ship. The trip take 14-15 days and it takes all of them. We did stop in Costa Rica, a day in Panama before the transit. Columbia and Aruba. But on traditional voyages, they would stop in ports as well. In the old days, Havana was a popular port of call.

It may not be exactly the same experience....but it comes pretty close to it.