Why no Pacific coastal cruises in the summer?

[grumpah1]

We are finding many lovely lower California to Vancouver 7 night cruises for April, May, September or October, but nothing for summer! Why is this? :mad:

 

My wife teaches high school and is not available during those periods. We'd love to explore the California coast, much like we did in Italy. Can anyone point me to cruise lines or charters that might offer such a summer trip? :confused:

Edited February 6, 2013 by grumpah1

[Kamloops50]

We are finding many lovely lower California to Vancouver 7 night cruises for April, May, September or October, but nothing for summer! Why is this? :mad:

 

My wife teaches high school and is not available during those periods. We'd love to explore the California coast, much like we did in Italy. Can anyone point me to cruise lines or charters that might offer such a summer trip? :confused:

 

Alaska is the big draw in the summer . California Coastal s are intermediate cruises before the Mexico & Hawaii cruises start.

[CruiserBruce]

This was just asked on another board, and a cruise line employee you often posts with great info stated 3 reasons. First, fuel regulations along the west coast requiring much more expensive and cleaner burning fuels.

 

Second, a long history of low spending by cruisers sailing out of west coast ports. Lastly, due to laws, a ship sailing from a US port has to end at a foreign port.

Sailing from a foreign port allows the cruise to end at a US port.

 

So, the combo of these makes it not profitable.

[grumpah1]

This was just asked on another board, and a cruise line employee you often posts with great info stated 3 reasons. First, fuel regulations along the west coast requiring much more expensive and cleaner burning fuels.

 

Second, a long history of low spending by cruisers sailing out of west coast ports. Lastly, due to laws, a ship sailing from a US port has to end at a foreign port.

Sailing from a foreign port allows the cruise to end at a US port.

 

So, the combo of these makes it not profitable.

 

None of these reasons hold water by the very fact that these cruises DO exist during the months I mentioned -- just not in the summer.

[Putterdude]

The coastals are in the main just repositioning of ships to Vancouver and Seattle for the Alaska season much in the same manner trans-Atlantic cruises are offered in the spring and fall as ships are repositioned to an from European itineraries. These repositioning cruises are not big money makers if they were the cruise lines would be offering them more often.

[SadieN]

Which ports do you want to see? Driving time between San Diego and San Francisco is only 8 hours. Santa Barbara is almost exactly in the middle.

[grumpah1]

Which ports do you want to see? Driving time between San Diego and San Francisco is only 8 hours. Santa Barbara is almost exactly in the middle.

 

That's the point. I don't want to spend my day in the car. I've actually never been to California, so I'd like to get a sampling of as much of it as I can in a week or so. Five years ago, we took a 7-day NCL cruise up the coast of Italy from Sicily to Nice, France, stopping at 4 ports along the way. That's the type of excursion we're looking for here.

[CruiserBruce]

None of these reasons hold water by the very fact that these cruises DO exist during the months I mentioned -- just not in the summer.

 

So an employee in management of a cruise ship doesn't know what he is talking about??

 

As mentioned, the cruises you identified are part of repostioning routes.

[SadieN]

That's the point. I don't want to spend my day in the car. I've actually never been to California, so I'd like to get a sampling of as much of it as I can in a week or so. Five years ago, we took a 7-day NCL cruise up the coast of Italy from Sicily to Nice, France, stopping at 4 ports along the way. That's the type of excursion we're looking for here.

 

Amtrak on the Pacific Surfliner (San Diego to San Luis Obispo) or Coast Starlight (LA to Seattle) hit all the major coastal cities and some parts can only be seen by train.

[grumpah1]

So an employee in management of a cruise ship doesn't know what he is talking about??

 

As mentioned, the cruises you identified are part of repostioning routes.

 

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.

[grumpah1]

Amtrak on the Pacific Surfliner (San Diego to San Luis Obispo) or Coast Starlight (LA to Seattle) hit all the major coastal cities and some parts can only be seen by train.

 

Does the train wait for you while you explore each stop? I have never taken a train excursion, so I honestly don't know. The beauty of a ship cruise is that it serves as your hotel and restaurant as you explore each port.

[SadieN]

Does the train wait for you while you explore each stop? I have never taken a train excursion, so I honestly don't know. The beauty of a ship cruise is that it serves as your hotel and restaurant as you explore each port.

 

 

No. Treat the train as a HOHO. It's a nice way to see California. We've taken both the Coast Starlight and the Surfliner, very enjoyable trips.

Along the way the train passes through some areas that are normally off limits.

[scottbee]

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

 

The ships are based in the Pacific Northwest to service Alaska cruises from late April until mid-Sept. The ships arrive via a repositioning cruise generally from the Caribbean, via the Panama to San Diego or LA, followed by another cruise from there to Vancouver. Current US law prohibits a foreign flagged vessel from making a one way sailing between two US ports unless there's a distant foreign port (Canada and Mexico don't count); so that's why they all end in Vancouver (potentially a one day Vancouver-Seattle is tacked on too). Reverse the process at the end of the Alaska cruise season.

 

The cruise lines apparently don't believe there's a significant market for continuous Vancouver-LA summer cruises

 

The reason the California cruise exist is not to service the coastal market, it's just to move the ships. The cruise lines also move boats between the Caribbean and the Mediterranean; which generates eastbound transatlantics in the spring and westbound in the late fall. These transatlantic cruises are just a way to fill a boat which has to move anyway

[mr green]

Pacific cruises are usually 'cruises of convenience', not spectacular, the cruisers may be elderly with little money to spend on board, to make the cruises profitable.

For myself I would welcome more round trip cruises from Vancouver, to anywhere, as it is its Alaska or nothing, which has its draw backs after one has done same for a few times.

Round trips to Hawaii, Mexico, or even the Archipelago, would be more than welcome, for myself anyway.

 

john

[grumpah1]

The ships are based in the Pacific Northwest to service Alaska cruises from late April until mid-Sept. The ships arrive via a repositioning cruise generally from the Caribbean, via the Panama to San Diego or LA, followed by another cruise from there to Vancouver. Current US law prohibits a foreign flagged vessel from making a one way sailing between two US ports unless there's a distant foreign port (Canada and Mexico don't count); so that's why they all end in Vancouver (potentially a one day Vancouver-Seattle is tacked on too). Reverse the process at the end of the Alaska cruise season.

 

The cruise lines apparently don't believe there's a significant market for continuous Vancouver-LA summer cruises

 

The reason the California cruise exist is not to service the coastal market, it's just to move the ships. The cruise lines also move boats between the Caribbean and the Mediterranean; which generates eastbound transatlantics in the spring and westbound in the late fall. These transatlantic cruises are just a way to fill a boat which has to move anyway

 

Thanks, Scott. Those appear to be more logical explanations. Too bad, though.

[Kamloops50]

The ships are based in the Pacific Northwest to service Alaska cruises from late April until mid-Sept. The ships arrive via a repositioning cruise generally from the Caribbean, via the Panama to San Diego or LA, followed by another cruise from there to Vancouver. Current US law prohibits a foreign flagged vessel from making a one way sailing between two US ports unless there's a distant foreign port (Canada and Mexico don't count); so that's why they all end in Vancouver (potentially a one day Vancouver-Seattle is tacked on too). Reverse the process at the end of the Alaska cruise season.

 

The cruise lines apparently don't believe there's a significant market for continuous Vancouver-LA summer cruises

 

The reason the California cruise exist is not to service the coastal market, it's just to move the ships. The cruise lines also move boats between the Caribbean and the Mediterranean; which generates eastbound transatlantics in the spring and westbound in the late fall. These transatlantic cruises are just a way to fill a boat which has to move anyway

 

Princess does some 7 day coastal cruises in the fall from San Pedro . This usually corresponds with different wine festivals . The only problem is they still have to stop in Ensenada to satisfy the Jones Act.

[BEAV]

I believe the principle reason we don't see summertime Pacific Coastal voyages is because demand for Alaska is larger and more lucrative. Period.

 

While previous posters are correct that you see these cruises in Spring/Fall as the ships migrate to/from Alaska, a few lines have added additional Coastal itineraries during this timeframe when they used to send them to Mexico. Demand for Mexico has gone down over the past few years, and some cruise lines have gotten creative and responded with Coastal cruises as alternatives.

 

But again, when it comes to peak summertime, Alaska is the draw.

[BruceMuzz]

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.

Edited February 19, 2013 by BruceMuzz

[BEAV]

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?

[BruceMuzz]

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.

Edited February 20, 2013 by BruceMuzz

[CruiserBruce]

Thanks BruceMuzz. That was the point I made back in post #3- summarized in the last line of the post- it just isn't profitable. But some people know better.

[grumpah1]

Thanks BruceMuzz. That was the point I made back in post #3- summarized in the last line of the post- it just isn't profitable. But some people know better.

 

Yes thanks, BruceMuzz, for your thorough explanation. A lot of what doesn't make sense to the outside observer certainly is brought to light when you look behind the scenes. I know better now. :D

[Oceans&Rivers]

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.

 

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.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Oceans&Rivers

[BruceMuzz]

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.

Edited February 25, 2013 by BruceMuzz

[SadieN]

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