Disney cruise line leaving California

[kingsnake57]

I've often wondered why the cruise lines don't get creative about new ports south of Mexico. Why not try Costa Rica , El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua?

[BruceMuzz]

I've often wondered why the cruise lines don't get creative about new ports south of Mexico. Why not try Costa Rica , El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua?

 

Good question.

4 good answers:

 

1 -Sailing from any southern California port to Central America and back requires more than seven days. Most cruisers from Southern California cannot or will not afford a cruise longer than seven days. We cannot fill our ships with that sort of itinerary. If we cannot fill the ship, we won't offer the cruise.

 

2 - Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua have very few ports on the West Coast that can accommodate cruise ships, but there is nearly nothing there. We stop at these ports on re-positioning cruises between Alaska and the Caribbean twice every year. And every year most of the passengers complain about going to these ports that have nothing of interest.

 

3 - People who sail from Southern California ports spend an average of $10 per person per day less than people who sail from other American ports. $10 doesn't seem like very much, until you multiply it by 365 days, and 100's of thousands of passengers. Mass market cruise ships make profits almost exclusively from onboard spending. We cannot afford to carry passengers from Southern California - no matter where we take them.

 

4 - As mentioned earlier, sailing from a California port is incredibly expensive. Additionally, local officials make operations there incredibly difficult and time consuming, and the stevedores are very difficult and expensive to deal with. We are forced to burn a very special and expensive fuel in California waters - but that fuel is not even available in the USA. If we want to make a profit, we cannot do it in California.

[kingsnake57]

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Just wish there were more options from our area.

 

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2

[nancyfancy40]

Heres how I see it. Love my state. Do we have problems, yes! But every state is going to have their problems as well as their cheerleaders. This is not a political board, but a cruise board.

 

Yes, we are loosing Dinsey line, but we still have the original and most magical place on earth here. Carnival is placing the Imaginiation here, for 3 and 4 day runs. So we will have the Miracle during the winter for 7 dayers, and the Imagination and Inspiration year round for 4 and 4 dayers.

 

As for me, I often cruise to be with friends or just get away form it all. If I want the stopping places as the point of the cruise, there are so many to choose from that embarkation point is not an issue. So these ships and sailings work for me. Cheap airfare and a quick get away if I need one.

 

If I had my wish, I would love Carnival to do a up the coase run. LA to SF to Seatte to Victoria and a a reverse run. Yes that would be cool.

But until then south is just fine with me.

 

Nancy

[SadieN]

Princess is doing California Coastal cruises from San Pedro and Alaska from San Francisco.

 

Unconfirmed rumor has it that some of the Carnival runs will be northbound.

 

We will continue to sail out of Long Beach because we can get to port by public transportation. One of the few places that the PT actually works right in the greater Los Angeles area.

 

Cheaper to do a weekend cruise than Disneyland these days.

[Cuellar]

Having lived in California for a decade now, and done 3-4 cruises out of LA, I can see why they aren't performing as well out here.

 

First, all the cruises obviously visit the same ports, which are also some of the places that people frequently fly to on vacation from California. For example, I was married in Cabo, and have been there 3-4 times on vacation, so spending a half day there is not that appealing. I won't even start on Ensenada, since it totally sucks. Since the itinerary is always the same, after 2 cruises the west coast cruises get a tad repetitive.

 

Second, a lot of the cruises focus on winter out of LA, and it is really damn cold over the water at night in December (at least for California natives). If you're from Chicago, walking around in your shorts in 60 degree weather is fine, but it's winter jacket time for me. Carnival finally got the splendor or whatever which has the covered pool which is awesome, but most other cruise lines do not. I definitely would not go on a Disney cruise out of LA in January, and the kids would freeze to death in the pool.

 

Third, California is one of the best vacation destinations on the planet. We obviously have themeparks out the wazoo in LA and SD - Disneyland, Seaworld, legoland, etc (just like Florida), plus all of the touristy stuff as well. You can hit up San Fran, go skiing/snowboarding, etc. Or you can skip over to Vegas. It makes it a lot harder for the cruise lines to compete on value in my opinion (especially given #4 below).

 

Fourth, since it is more expensive to operate, and you're flying to a busy destination (vacation and business) with LA, the cost of any cruise out of LA is going to be $500 or more expensive than Miami, which means most people would prefer to do East Coast instead of West Coast (especially given #1 and #2). Hell, I've flown from LA to the east coast for cruises which worked out cheaper than just cruising out of LA (X-mas week). If you want to spend a couple extra days in LA, it's going to be pricey as well (way pricier than Orlando).

 

Fifth, some of the ships they send out to the West Coast really suck. I was pretty happy with Carnival Splendor, but every cruise out of here is on a ratty old ship. Even Disney sent a pretty old ship out here. If you spent extra money, LA is a great destination, and the ports are mediocre, you really NEED the ship to be good in order to make it enjoyable.

 

I know there is a big focus on cost in the discussion above, but I really don't think that's the main problem. If the cruise ship needs to charge an extra $100 for the cruise to be profitable, they're already doing that. I think the average cost out of LA is $100-$200 higher than east coast.

[Cruisin' Chick]

Need to read CA history. Grey Davis said we needed to keep reserves. Republicans decided this wasn't a good idea and we got the Schwarzenegger. Depleted our reserves. Take Moonbeam over the Terminator anyday.

 

Port of LA also has special airpollution laws. Ships plug into port instead of running their engines 24/7. We've always had air poluttion problems.

There is a reason the Chumash called the LA basin the Valley of the Smokes.

 

It's definitely less smoggy now than back in the 60s and 70s when I was growing up in the San Fernando Valley. California has strict laws concerning smog tests (and yes, we do moan and groan every other year when we have to get each car tested) and that has certainly helped. And I agree with your statements about the pols. Enuf said.

 

Having lived in California for a decade now, and done 3-4 cruises out of LA, I can see why they aren't performing as well out here.

 

First, all the cruises obviously visit the same ports, which are also some of the places that people frequently fly to on vacation from California. For example, I was married in Cabo, and have been there 3-4 times on vacation, so spending a half day there is not that appealing. I won't even start on Ensenada, since it totally sucks. Since the itinerary is always the same, after 2 cruises the west coast cruises get a tad repetitive.

 

Second, a lot of the cruises focus on winter out of LA, and it is really damn cold over the water at night in December (at least for California natives). If you're from Chicago, walking around in your shorts in 60 degree weather is fine, but it's winter jacket time for me. Carnival finally got the splendor or whatever which has the covered pool which is awesome, but most other cruise lines do not. I definitely would not go on a Disney cruise out of LA in January, and the kids would freeze to death in the pool.

 

Third, California is one of the best vacation destinations on the planet. We obviously have themeparks out the wazoo in LA and SD - Disneyland, Seaworld, legoland, etc (just like Florida), plus all of the touristy stuff as well. You can hit up San Fran, go skiing/snowboarding, etc. Or you can skip over to Vegas. It makes it a lot harder for the cruise lines to compete on value in my opinion (especially given #4 below).

 

Fourth, since it is more expensive to operate, and you're flying to a busy destination (vacation and business) with LA, the cost of any cruise out of LA is going to be $500 or more expensive than Miami, which means most people would prefer to do East Coast instead of West Coast (especially given #1 and #2). Hell, I've flown from LA to the east coast for cruises which worked out cheaper than just cruising out of LA (X-mas week). If you want to spend a couple extra days in LA, it's going to be pricey as well (way pricier than Orlando).

 

Fifth, some of the ships they send out to the West Coast really suck. I was pretty happy with Carnival Splendor, but every cruise out of here is on a ratty old ship. Even Disney sent a pretty old ship out here. If you spent extra money, LA is a great destination, and the ports are mediocre, you really NEED the ship to be good in order to make it enjoyable.

 

I know there is a big focus on cost in the discussion above, but I really don't think that's the main problem. If the cruise ship needs to charge an extra $100 for the cruise to be profitable, they're already doing that. I think the average cost out of LA is $100-$200 higher than east coast.

 

I thought Disney was just going to be on the west coast for a year or two this time (they had been here for a season some years ago too before returning that ship back to the Caribbean). They have so few ships that I guess they don't want to set up something permanent here.

 

I so agree about Ensenada. Been there, done that, and felt it was a waste of time. The last two times on Hawaiian cruises we stayed onboard in that port and we were far from alone in that. The times before that, only got off to go to the marketplace on the pier (hubby would get a trinket for his mother who was still alive at that time).

 

Our favorite line has become Princess anyway and they have the covered pools on the ships that stick around here (helps with the Alaskan cruises). So we're glad that we have some options for cruises on the west coast. We just got off the Golden Princess yesterday for our third Hawaiian RT, second on the Golden, and it's my favorite itinerary, especially as Princess has sought to make the experience an Aloha one (unlike most cruises on which you won't know which itinerary you're doing on the way to the first port). We do have some other itineraries on our dream list, but all of those will involve long and expensive flights. With our last three cruises, it's a 50 minute drive on the average to get to San Pedro.

 

I do have to admit that my family isn't exactly big secondary on board revenue spenders. My cruise card was swiped just once these last two weeks for a package of bandaids (I had a foot injury and went through the supply I'd packed), we just bought two photos (I don't think we were able to find all of ours -- I wish Princess would start using a facial recognition system), we don't gamble or do bingo nor art auctions, and my daughter bought more drinks (soft, of course) than her parents. But I'd figured we weren't the norm when it comes to low spending.

[JLC@SD]

For those hoping for a RCCL ship back in California, it doesn't look good. Now Disney is discontinuing cruises out of California, and the Wonder will head to Galveston next Autumn. Obviously, most cruise lines are not successful in the California market. We had the "meal with an officer" last week on Oasis. We dined with a finance officer. He stated the cost of doing business in California (everything from fuel, to catering, to port charges, etc) is more expensive than most places. That, with the fact that on-board spending is less in that market, means that cruise lines don't prefer to do business there. So, in the near future it doesn't look good. Plus, the Mexico cruises are less attractive with the violence, etc., and the cruise lines are basically required to have an international itinerary. So, California is very limited in what it can offer. Maybe someday, but not soon! I know some are disappointed in this, but just think, most of us in the US do not have a cruise ship nearby either. Chicago, for example, has no ships! LOL

I think California and Disney were not a good fit. Disney caters to families / children. From California, most cruises go to Mexico or Hawaii. Mexico is a mess and I would not want to take my kids there, and interest to cruise there has dropped off. Hawaii is too long of a trip from California for kids.

 

And my home town, San Diego is seeing fewer ships these days.

[VowRenewal13]

We will be cruising Disney May 19, 2014 out of San Diego to Vancouver.

[Donray]

No need to bash our state..I wouldn't bash yours...I guess we don't need to leave the welcome mat out or the light on for you:rolleyes:

 

I live in CA and the lights are going out because of bad management and the state does not want anyone to open a business here anyway.

CA needs to be bashed.

[BruceMuzz]

And they just said our Population just reached 36 million people.....I think a Cruise line can make a go of it. And for the Florida People...I am reading 99.00 on the Monarch / Majesty offer 99.00 weekend fares...that's making money!!

 

Mike

 

It helps if you understand that all the major cruise lines today do not make any profit selling cruises; we only make money from selling you things once you get onboard.

That business model was not my idea and I don't like it - but that's the way we operate.

 

People who take cruises out of California spend on average $10 per person per day LESS than people who cruise out of any other ports in America.

That doesn't seem like very much money until you realize that the major cruise lines carried over 13 million passengers last year; most of them out of US Ports.

Take that $70 dollar loss for a 7 day cruise and multiply it by 10 million or so pasengers and you will quickly realize why the cruise lines are not interested in losing that kind of money by sailing out of California.