Why Only One Hawaiian Islands Cruise Ship?

[Coral]

But I do know that Princess is having the Sapphire switched from Mexico to Hawaii for a few times next year. So they must think they'll be a demand.

 

I think any cruise would be more profitable compared to the Mexican route - so Princess's move does make some sense. Some of the Mexican sailings have gone for dirt cheap this year and the past several years. I was recently looking at a minisuite this month on the Sapphire and it was $7xx.

[mikjr]

Some of the Mexican sailings have gone for dirt cheap this year and the past several years. I was recently looking at a minisuite this month on the Sapphire and it was $7xx.

 

With all of the Mexican drug cartel issues in the news, I can understand why folks have no interest in traveling to Mexico. Yes... the bad issues are not happening in the resort communities, but many hear about the kidnappings and killings, and have no interest in going there.

[Coral]

With all of the Mexican drug cartel issues in the news, I can understand why folks have no interest in traveling to Mexico. Yes... the bad issues are not happening in the resort communities, but many hear about the kidnappings and killings, and have no interest in going there.

 

I also think the market is pretty saturated. Many years of several ships literally going to the same ports with very little deviation. It is convenient for those who live close to the ports but I have done that trip 3x and think I have accomplished everything I want to in the ports. I was tempted to do it to escape from our evil weather and that the prices are cheap but ultimately didn't follow through.

[chasetf]

Ugminer,

I assume you realize that Coral, whom you quote, was correct about a Honolulu to LA one-way violating PSA. So is Carnival in offering a Honolulu to Ensenada, since this starts in the USA but ends in Mexico. I mention this only because others may misinterpret your post to be implying that Coral was incorrect.

Bill

 

I just happened to be doing some surfing on Hawaiian cruises. Actually Carnival has one way trips, Embark-Honolulu, do the islands then disembark Ensenada with a free transfer back to I believe San diego and or LAX. Never thought I would even consider Carnival but might for this. I agree with OP, I would love to spend a week in my timeshare, then catch the ship to come home afterhitting the other islands. At todays prices for island hopping, do the math

We did a 10 day San Diego to Honolulu on the Dawn Princess. Well, actually our bags did SD to Hon, we did Ensenada to Honolulu. We checked into the SD terminal, turned in our bags which were loaded on the Dawn, the Dawn then sailed, we were bused to Ensenada and boarded the ship there.

 

The weather and seas were ideal crossing. It was a little cool the first couple days but warmed up to pool time the last three days.

 

Pictures are available at: http://travel.webshots.com/album/561496583zhPAuP

[Colo Cruiser]

I also think the market is pretty saturated. Many years of several ships literally going to the same ports with very little deviation. It is convenient for those who live close to the ports but I have done that trip 3x and think I have accomplished everything I want to in the ports. I was tempted to do it to escape from our evil weather and that the prices are cheap but ultimately didn't follow through.

 

 

Yes!! Key word saturated, and so for quite some time. ;)

[Minoushka]

How about putting back a SUMMER cruise to Hawaii from San Pedro .We did it 3 summers ago and LOVED it .Would love to do it again .LOTS of Families have longer vacations and could go for 2 weeks We did it on REGAL princess

I would jump at the opportunity to go back

Sea days are a REAL vacation going and coming back

The islands were wonderful in summer

 

HEY PRINCESS BRING BACK HAWAII IN SUMMER!!!

[DougH]

I've sailed Tahiti to Hawaii on Princess and Hawaii to Vancouver on Celebrity. Both were nice cruises and allowed me to spend some pre cruise time in both Tahiti (actually on Morrea) and in Hawaii with friends. Would like to do Hawaii again but also on a one way route, the long seas days getting there and back are too much for me also. I don't mind some sea days but not 5 in a row twice on the same cruise!

[billie5]

Cruisin Chick, it is as many have already said, that sailing one way from Hawaii to the West Coast would violate PVSA (without stopping at a "distant" foreign port, a practical impossibility), but sailing from Hawaii to Mexico is allowed. Hence the bussing up from (or down to) Ensenada.

[Cruise Junky]

Cruisin Chick, it is as many have already said, that sailing one way from Hawaii to the West Coast would violate PVSA (without stopping at a "distant" foreign port, a practical impossibility), but sailing from Hawaii to Mexico is allowed. Hence the bussing up from (or down to) Ensenada.

 

HAL has a nice itinerary running Vancouver - Hawaii - Vancouver that I would love if it wasn't on HAL ;)

[billie5]

Carnival and RCI also have ships sailing from Honolulu to Vancouver, if you are devoted to avoiding HAL.

[Cruise Junky]

Carnival and RCI also have ships sailing from Honolulu to Vancouver, if you are devoted to avoiding HAL.

 

Yes, I know, but they're just one way...it would really be nice to have no flights at all.

[Cruisin' Chick]

Cruisin Chick, it is as many have already said, that sailing one way from Hawaii to the West Coast would violate PVSA (without stopping at a "distant" foreign port, a practical impossibility), but sailing from Hawaii to Mexico is allowed. Hence the bussing up from (or down to) Ensenada.

 

But still don't understand why the passengers have to get off the ship at Ensenada if the ship is continuing on to San Diego (w/o passengers). Why not have the cruise start in San Diego, go to Hawaii, make the stop in Ensenada, and then finished in San Diego. That wouldn't be too much different from what Princess is doing (the RT from San Pedro). I wouldn't care for the bus trip.

[billie5]

For that you can thank our Congress. In PSA (or, more correctly, PVSA), the P stands for "Passenger." Our Congressmen, in their wisdom, have forbidden a foreign flagged ship to convey passengers who embark at one American port and disembark at another American port, unless the vessel also visits a distant foreign port. A visit to Canada or Mexico would not qualify. However, PSA does not prevent passengers from embarking at an American port, disembarking at a foreign port and then being conveyed by land or air to another US port. Or the vessel itself from proceeding to the US. Thus you are forced to have the scenic bus ride, while the ship chug-a-lugs up to California.

[FritzG]

We loved the 15day Hawaiian cruise we took in 2008. But we love sea days so it was perfect for us. Actually we booked the cruise for the sea days rather than port days. There was enough time to explore each island especially since we had taken two land trips to Maui in the past.

 

It's high on our list for 2011 so I hope they don't drop the route. We would never take a cruise that starts in Hawaii and gives you no sea days at all.

[Cruisin' Chick]

For that you can thank our Congress. In PSA (or, more correctly, PVSA), the P stands for "Passenger." Our Congressmen, in their wisdom, have forbidden a foreign flagged ship to convey passengers who embark at one American port and disembark at another American port, unless the vessel also visits a distant foreign port. A visit to Canada or Mexico would not qualify. However, PSA does not prevent passengers from embarking at an American port, disembarking at a foreign port and then being conveyed by land or air to another US port. Or the vessel itself from proceeding to the US. Thus you are forced to have the scenic bus ride, while the ship chug-a-lugs up to California.

 

Okay, I must be dense as I don't understand why the SD-SD passengers need to disembark in Ensenada and then get bused up to SD while the LA-LA passengers don't disembark in Ensenada and can leave in LA.

[jowahe]

Okay' date=' I must be dense as I don't understand why the SD-SD passengers need to disembark in Ensenada and then get bused up to SD while the LA-LA passengers don't disembark in Ensenada and can leave in LA.[/quote']

 

HAL's 2-wk Hawaii cruise from San Diego and Princess' 2-wk Hawaii cruise from L.A. each make a "service" call at Ensenada. Passengers DO NOT disembark there, but return to SD or LA for disembarkation. Only ones bussed are those on "one-way" itineraries.

[threecats]

Okay' date=' I must be dense as I don't understand why the SD-SD passengers need to disembark in Ensenada and then get bused up to SD while the LA-LA passengers don't disembark in Ensenada and can leave in LA.[/quote']

My best guess would be, that HAL thought it advisable to stop skirting around the laws (PVSA), whereas Princess and others continue to do so.;)

[Cuizer2]

Unfortunately, the cruises have to be rt lax for the most part. To go from the us hawaain islands to the us mainland one way would violate the passenger services act unless they were to stop at a " distant" foreign port ( mexico, canada and central america do not qualify as "distant" foreign ports). An itinerary to be lawful would have to stop at a distant foregn port in the south pacific or touch the continent of south america to be a "lawful" itinerary for a foreign flagged vessel, ncl had a us flagged vesssel doing the islands itinerary.

 

The one way cruises to / from Hawaii either begin or end in either Ensenada or Vancouver.

[Cruisin' Chick]

My best guess would be, that HAL thought it advisable to stop skirting around the laws (PVSA), whereas Princess and others continue to do so.;)

 

Actually, Princess isn't "skirting around the laws." When they stop in Ensenada now, it's for a full port stop, which is fulfills the law. NCL was trying to make that illegal, but was unsuccessful. A few years ago, Princess and other ships were stopping for an hour and that was stopped. Just seems to be a stupid law to me.

[Cuizer2]

My best guess would be, that HAL thought it advisable to stop skirting around the laws (PVSA), whereas Princess and others continue to do so.;)

 

They skirt around the islands, but they are in compliance with the PVSA.

[Philip217]

Actually' date=' Princess isn't "skirting around the laws." When they stop in Ensenada now, it's for a full port stop, which is fulfills the law. NCL was trying to make that illegal, but was unsuccessful. A few years ago, Princess and other ships were stopping for an hour and that was stopped. Just seems to be a stupid law to me.[/quote']

 

It is a stupid law. But that law permits the few remaining American Flag cargo shipping companies to stay in business. Without the law in place, they would be bankrupt tomorrow.

 

This stupid law also prevents foreign airlines from competing with US Air Carriers. If they were allowed to compete, the US Airlines would all be out of business as well.

 

But come to think about it, I wouldn't mind having China Southern Airlines taking over all of United's routes in the USA.

[RickEk]

It is a stupid law. But that law permits the few remaining American Flag cargo shipping companies to stay in business. Without the law in place, they would be bankrupt tomorrow.

 

This stupid law also prevents foreign airlines from competing with US Air Carriers. If they were allowed to compete, the US Airlines would all be out of business as well.

 

But come to think about it, I wouldn't mind having China Southern Airlines taking over all of United's routes in the USA.

 

Hmmm... from what I've read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886), the PVSA only applies to passenger vessels and not cargo ships. It also has nothing to do with airlines (it was, after all, enacted in 1886! :) ).

 

The Jones Act (or the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920) only applies to cargo vessels, and again, not to airlines.

[Cuizer2]

It is a stupid law. But that law permits the few remaining American Flag cargo shipping companies to stay in business. Without the law in place, they would be bankrupt tomorrow.

 

This stupid law also prevents foreign airlines from competing with US Air Carriers. If they were allowed to compete, the US Airlines would all be out of business as well.

 

But come to think about it, I wouldn't mind having China Southern Airlines taking over all of United's routes in the USA.

 

The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (sometimes abbreviated to PVSA, Passenger Services Act, or PSA) is a piece of United States legislation which came into force in 1886 relating to cabotage. Essentially, it says:

 

No foreign vessels shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $200(now $300) for each passenger so transported and landed.

 

I realize in China passengers might be considered cargo, but here in the United States passengers are people and cargo is cargo. The PVSA does not apply to cargo vessels.

 

And while I am sure China Southern Airlines was flying in 1886, the Wright brothers didn't start flying here in the United States until December 1903. So the PVSA does not apply to airlines either.

[Cuizer2]

Double post. So I'll post a bonus photo instead ...

 

The Carnival Triumph leaving Miami in August 2004 ...

 

[threecats]

Actually' date=' Princess isn't "skirting around the laws." When they stop in Ensenada now, it's for a full port stop, which is fulfills the law. NCL was trying to make that illegal, but was unsuccessful. A few years ago, Princess and other ships were stopping for an hour and that was stopped. Just seems to be a stupid law to me.[/quote']

They are, because the ships have to stop at a distant foreign port for the act not to apply. Ensenada, as well as any port in North/Central America and most of the Caribbean, does not count as a distant foreign port. It's one of the reasons, for instance, that Panama Canal full transit cruises often stop in Aruba, which is one of the few distant foreign ports. ;)