Why no Pacific coastal cruises in the summer?

[CruiserBruce]

Those are the Catalina/Ensenada/San Diego cruises that many cruise lines haave done over the years. The OP was talking about Canada down to Southern Calif, or similar routes.

[BruceMuzz]

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

 

Carnival Imagination will be 19 years old when it starts this itinerary.

That's too old to compete with any of the newer ships in the Caribbean - or just about anywhere else.

Imagination has no tenders, so Alaska is out of the question.

With the shortage of cruise ships sailing out of San Diego right now, this 3 and 4 day itinerary might just work for them - so long as nobody else tries to compete with them.

 

Catalina and Ensenada have very low port charges (compared to regular California ports); the 3 and 4 day trips will be "booze cruises" with lots of business in the bars, casino, and duty free shops. The actual distances the ship will sail are very short, resulting in lower fuel bills.

 

If they are successful, and another cruise ship tries to compete, that would ruin the chance for profits, but Carnival can just move Imagination to another itinerary.

[BEAV]

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.

 

Hey, careful there now, pal, you're treading on thin ice! :D

Like Oceans & Rivers (hey, good to "see" you around these parts!), we were THRILLED when Mercury came to SF, even if only briefly. Such a classy lady, IMO, for all the reasons O&R stated. Although we first sailed her in the Caribbean in 2000 (just before Millie hit the scene), we sailed her from SF in both 2003 and 2007 (once south, once north). But I agree with your assessment about sending what are considered "B" ships vs. "A" vessels if lines are trying to build any type of long-standing presence in California.

 

On a philosophical note, a number of years ago I was involved in a conversation here on CC where IMO I felt there was a definite mentality that people living on the East Coast aren't all that open-minded about flying cross-country to California to take a cruise. In contrast, us West Coasters think nothing of flying East for pleasure travel, be it to see the Big Apple, catch a cruise from Florida, go to Disney World, or whatever.

In your opinion, do you think there really is such a mentality that exists? Of course there are always those who don't follow the majority, but I'm speaking in very broad, general terms.

[BEAV]

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.)

 

 

Grand Princess is doing a couple of California Coastals (7 nighters R/T SFO) similar to what you did on Mercury in case you're so inclined! They are Sept 27 and Oct 19, 2013. ;)

[BruceMuzz]

Hey, careful there now, pal, you're treading on thin ice! :D

Like Oceans & Rivers (hey, good to "see" you around these parts!), we were THRILLED when Mercury came to SF, even if only briefly. Such a classy lady, IMO, for all the reasons O&R stated. Although we first sailed her in the Caribbean in 2000 (just before Millie hit the scene), we sailed her from SF in both 2003 and 2007 (once south, once north). But I agree with your assessment about sending what are considered "B" ships vs. "A" vessels if lines are trying to build any type of long-standing presence in California.

 

On a philosophical note, a number of years ago I was involved in a conversation here on CC where IMO I felt there was a definite mentality that people living on the East Coast aren't all that open-minded about flying cross-country to California to take a cruise. In contrast, us West Coasters think nothing of flying East for pleasure travel, be it to see the Big Apple, catch a cruise from Florida, go to Disney World, or whatever.

In your opinion, do you think there really is such a mentality that exists? Of course there are always those who don't follow the majority, but I'm speaking in very broad, general terms.

 

I tend to agree with you. The east coast / west coast thing certainly seems to exist, but I have no idea why.

I live part of the year in Europe and part of the year in Asia (and the rest of the year on a cruise ship) so I really travel quite a bit.

I am constantly amazed to meet pax who flew from Chicago to Miami to board a ship and can no longer remember their names due to the vast distance - and one entire time zone -they just flew.

 

I do have a rather unusual theory about that however.

I grew up in the wine business in Northern California.

It is only natural to relate people to the types of wines they produce and drink.

You can ship Australian, Chilean, Italian, or French wines all over the planet, open the bottles a few days later, and the wines show very well.

The people from those countries seem to travel the same way. You can ship them all over the planet and they do pretty well.

 

American wines are different. Ship them to China or Europe and they do not show very well. I don't know why this is the case, but it is often discussed in wine circles.

Although there are certainly exceptions (some people from the West Coast for example) the general American public doesn't seem to travel very well. Many are adverse to getting passports, don't understand international travel very well, and have serious problems with languages and currrency that are not their own.

[Oceans&Rivers]

Hey, careful there now, pal, you're treading on thin ice! :D

Like Oceans & Rivers (hey, good to "see" you around these parts!), we were THRILLED when Mercury came to SF, even if only briefly. Such a classy lady, IMO, for all the reasons O&R stated. Although we first sailed her in the Caribbean in 2000 (just before Millie hit the scene), we sailed her from SF in both 2003 and 2007 (once south, once north). But I agree with your assessment about sending what are considered "B" ships vs. "A" vessels if lines are trying to build any type of long-standing presence in California.

 

On a philosophical note, a number of years ago I was involved in a conversation here on CC where IMO I felt there was a definite mentality that people living on the East Coast aren't all that open-minded about flying cross-country to California to take a cruise. In contrast, us West Coasters think nothing of flying East for pleasure travel, be it to see the Big Apple, catch a cruise from Florida, go to Disney World, or whatever.

In your opinion, do you think there really is such a mentality that exists? Of course there are always those who don't follow the majority, but I'm speaking in very broad, general terms.

 

Hi, BEAV, it's good to see you, too. I've been collecting all sorts of stuff on the Internet (before it's gone) about all the wonderful places in the Bay Area from my childhood. Do you remember when there were mummies at the Cliff House? Playland at the Beach? The best Fun House anywhere? Automobile ferries to and from San Francisco? (After the Bay Bridge was built, not before :eek:.) When the whale at Children's Fairyland in Oakland seemed HUGE? When Cameron Stanford House in Oakland was a museum? (I'm assuming you grew up here, too, but I'm not sure.)

 

We really loved Mercury before the aft cabins were added (and the art onboard, like the wall of TV's, the big orbs, and the letters that spelled the word "MEER" on the wall which made nearly everyone do a doubletake). And the Cove? Since I learned to speak German fluently, we're considering cruising on Mein Schiff (I or II) one of these days, combined with a lot of time on land in what I consider to be my second home—Europe.

 

One thing I'll have to disagree with you about, though, is the willingness of Californians (in general, and especially this native) to fly across the country just to spend 1-2 nights in a hotel and take a cruise. We did one Caribbean cruise (10 days, six ports, east and west) and that was more than enough, even though we loved the ship (TSS Fairsky) and the crew. The Caribbean is so crowded (some ports were already crowded way back then), and to me, most of the ports are boring and too similar. Personally, if I were an executive, the Caribbean is not where I'd send my best ship, except to "break her in" if she was built in Euope!

 

So, are you two going to be on one of the Pacific Coastal cruises on Grand Princess? ;)

Edited February 28, 2013 by Oceans&Rivers

[Oceans&Rivers]

Oceans and Rivers,

 

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..

 

Actually, the year that Celebrity brought Mercury to San Francisco, Holland America sent Prinsendam, Crystal sent Harmony and there were other lines, too. Everyone was bringing ships here (after 911), so I would not be surprised that the large number of nice ships competing with one another made it less profitable for everyone. I don't think that year—2003—was a fair test of the waters, no pun intended.

 

As a side note, my trivia partner on Mercury cruised every week from San Francisco during the summer/fall of 2003 and she gave me her opinion of each of the ships, since she cruised nearly continuously. Her favorite was Mercury, and while onboard the cruise we were on, she booked the following week's cruise (and continued as long as cruises were available from San Francisco) and went home to her San Francisco apartment only to check her mail and do her laundry. She always booked balcony cabins. I don't know how much she spent onboard, but her husband spent most of his time in the bars...:)

Edited February 28, 2013 by Oceans&Rivers

[cvpends]

Very interesting discussion. Thanks, everyone!

[jbobst]

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.

 

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.

 

BruceMuzz, You must not work for Princess or Celebrity. Not counting the repositioning cruises to and from Alaska this year, there are 13 different cruises that just do California Coastals (with the one stop in Ensenada) this year alone! Not sure who you work for but while "you don't" cruise out of California, other lines certainly do. The prices for these cruises are also quite a bit higher than I have paid doing the traditional Mexico West Coast cruises in the past. From the way it seems on the cruise boards, and the way these ships appear to be filling up (and the way they filled them up last year), these cruises seem to be popular.

 

I completely understand that it's about money, and I would imagine that if other cruise lines started doing it in competition with Princess and Celebrity, the demand might not be there. I think a few of the things listed in the thread aren't quite true though. If everything you said were true, Princess and Celebrity would not be doing these cruise, but they are doing them. 13 of them in the next 10 months. Empty Casino's and Cruise terminal falling down around your ears? Custom's officers treating passengers like criminals? (I've done 9 cruises out of California, and the Custom's offices are no different or worse than anywhere else). Come on now...

 

Oh, and how do you know that Grand Princess is one of their poorest performers? Not saying they aren't, but curious why you think that.

 

CruiserBruce: "due to laws, a ship sailing from a US port has to end at a foreign port." This is completely false. Every week, there are probably hundreds (at least dozens) of cruises leaving US Ports on ROUND TRIP itineraries...are they all breaking the law? My past 11 cruises all originated in a US port and they all ENDED in the same US port!

 

The OP was simply asking why they don't have these cruises in the Summer when many of us in the west coast (or anywhere in the US for that matter) have kids on summer break or are only able to take vacations in the Summer. The answer seems to be that Alaska simply has the demand for those months as a TON of ships are doing the various Alaska itineraries. I think one or two Coastal cruises would be absolutely perfect during the summer and I know I would pay quite a bit for them if even one was offered. But, I don't decide where ships sail from. All I know is that I would pay a premium for my family to be able to take a summer vacation cruise without having to fly somewhere and to escape the Arizona heat to the coast of California. Can't speak for the rest of the population though, so maybe I am in a very small minority. It does seem like every Summer there are heavily discounted last minute Alaska cruises for sale. It's no wonder they have to have these sales as there are SO many ships in Alaska. It would seem to me that there would be a huge response from West coast/Southwest people if they offered one or two options out of Southern California in the Summer.

[CruiserBruce]

 

CruiserBruce: "due to laws, a ship sailing from a US port has to end at a foreign port." This is completely false. Every week, there are probably hundreds (at least dozens) of cruises leaving US Ports on ROUND TRIP itineraries...are they all breaking the law? My past 11 cruises all originated in a US port and they all ENDED in the same US port!

 

 

Hmmm... the post you pulled this from appears to have been pulled. I meant that to begin and end at different US ports, a stop at a "foriegn distant port" must happen. There are strong rules about transport between two different US ports.

[BruceMuzz]

BruceMuzz, You must not work for Princess or Celebrity. Not counting the repositioning cruises to and from Alaska this year, there are 13 different cruises that just do California Coastals (with the one stop in Ensenada) this year alone! Not sure who you work for but while "you don't" cruise out of California, other lines certainly do. The prices for these cruises are also quite a bit higher than I have paid doing the traditional Mexico West Coast cruises in the past. From the way it seems on the cruise boards, and the way these ships appear to be filling up (and the way they filled them up last year), these cruises seem to be popular.

 

I completely understand that it's about money, and I would imagine that if other cruise lines started doing it in competition with Princess and Celebrity, the demand might not be there. I think a few of the things listed in the thread aren't quite true though. If everything you said were true, Princess and Celebrity would not be doing these cruise, but they are doing them. 13 of them in the next 10 months. Empty Casino's and Cruise terminal falling down around your ears? Custom's officers treating passengers like criminals? (I've done 9 cruises out of California, and the Custom's offices are no different or worse than anywhere else). Come on now...

 

Oh, and how do you know that Grand Princess is one of their poorest performers? Not saying they aren't, but curious why you think that.

 

CruiserBruce: "due to laws, a ship sailing from a US port has to end at a foreign port." This is completely false. Every week, there are probably hundreds (at least dozens) of cruises leaving US Ports on ROUND TRIP itineraries...are they all breaking the law? My past 11 cruises all originated in a US port and they all ENDED in the same US port!

 

The OP was simply asking why they don't have these cruises in the Summer when many of us in the west coast (or anywhere in the US for that matter) have kids on summer break or are only able to take vacations in the Summer. The answer seems to be that Alaska simply has the demand for those months as a TON of ships are doing the various Alaska itineraries. I think one or two Coastal cruises would be absolutely perfect during the summer and I know I would pay quite a bit for them if even one was offered. But, I don't decide where ships sail from. All I know is that I would pay a premium for my family to be able to take a summer vacation cruise without having to fly somewhere and to escape the Arizona heat to the coast of California. Can't speak for the rest of the population though, so maybe I am in a very small minority. It does seem like every Summer there are heavily discounted last minute Alaska cruises for sale. It's no wonder they have to have these sales as there are SO many ships in Alaska. It would seem to me that there would be a huge response from West coast/Southwest people if they offered one or two options out of Southern California in the Summer.

 

All good questions.

A few good answers:

I managed many ships for both Princess and Celebrity.

I am very familiar with the daily, weekly, monthly, and annual financial balance sheets for those vessels, and how they make or lose money.

 

You took 9 cruises out of California ports and had positive experiences. That's great.

I took several hundred cruises out of California ports and probably had nine or more positive experiences as well.

But my passengers and I had hundreds of very poor experiences as well. The balance is not a very positive one.

 

Now, about that money thing again.

Major cruise lines no longer make a profit selling cruises. In fact, most of the time we sell them at a loss. The fare - if we are lucky and smart - pays for the fuel and the food.

All the other costs - and there are many of them - must be covered by onboard revenues.

This Wal-Mart approach to selling cruises was not my idea, and I do not agree with it, but that is the way it is.

 

This year in Alaska, the average cruise passenger will be spending well over $100 per day onboard.

This year on a Pacific Coastal trip - just a few hundred miles south of Alaska, the average cruise passenger will be spending under $30 per day onboard. That $70+ difference does not sound like much until you multiply it by 10's of thousands of passengers every day, every week, every ship. That $70+ suddenly becomes $70+ MILLION, to be gained or lost by choosing the right location to put your ship. If we gave free cruises in Alaska, we would still make more overall profit than putting the same ship off California and charging for the cruise.

 

And if you read my previous post carefully, you discovered that when cruise lines have older ships that do not perform very well, it is often less costly to locate them in places where other cruise lines will not go (hoping to eke out a modest profit), rather than spending big money on fuel to move them to more popular locations where they cannot possibly make a profit competing with newer and nicer ships.

That is what is currently happening in California.

Edited March 2, 2013 by BruceMuzz

[YubaSutter]

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.

 

South LA does not have any ports. It was formerly called South Central LA. It is many miles inland.

[SnowshoeCat]

 

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.

 

 

I think you just may have talked me out of the repositioning cruise I was looking at for next year. Are you guaranteeing rough seas? ;)

[DLepard]

WE did the Inspiration last year out of Long Beach... although it is an old ship, it was fun. However, the ports are limited. We only stopped in Ensenada... We went more to relax... it wasn't a booze cruise for us. And we relaxed. I was so hopeful there would be more cruises out of San Diego when we booked, but the cruise ships have all but disappeared from our great city. SADLY! There are a few, but only at Christmas and Thanksgiving... I would cruise a lot more if travel to the port weren't involved.

 

FYI: When we sail to Alaska this summer, we are taking Amtrak to Seattle. The OP asked about it mid way through the thread (or someone did). You can purchase a CA pass for about $200 that allows you to travel for 7 days over a 21 day stretch. Not a bad way to hop around CA. It's a beautiful state to explore.

 

(cruising is more fun though...)

Edited March 23, 2013 by DLepard

[chaching]

Interesting discussion going on here. As we are also from hot, hot, hot Arizona in the summer, we would enjoy more cruises along the coast from San Diego to Seattle/Vancouver/Victoria or other port. We have taken one repositioning cruise up the coast as well as another and enjoyed both. Yes, the waters can be rough at times... but we also got that in Alaska when 2/3 of the ship, including crew, were sick going across the Gulf of Alaska. We so seldom see rain here that we are happy when we get to see rain in a port. The only drawback I have seen along the west coast is... maybe you won't want to book a balcony room because you may not get to spend any days out there on your balcony. We understand about the ship/port/tug boat costs... there ought to be a law against that, right? But usually when things make sense to us.. it always boils down to this... it's a business... and they are out to make money!

[Propsmom]

My husband I just booked a Princess 9/22/13 Coastal Cruiise and we are from the East Coast :) After reading much of this post, I'm not so sure this was the right cruise for us. We are big onboard spenders and are in our 40's.

 

How rough are the seas...really???

[Oceans&Rivers]

My husband I just booked a Princess 9/22/13 Coastal Cruiise and we are from the East Coast :) After reading much of this post, I'm not so sure this was the right cruise for us. We are big onboard spenders and are in our 40's.

 

How rough are the seas...really???

 

I live on the West Coast and have taken quite a few cruises that go up or down the coast, and I have never experienced any nausea whatsoever on any cruise up or down the coast, even in January when we took a 3-day round trip getaway cruise SF to Ensenada (didn't get off the ship).

 

I have felt nausea twice on parts of Alaska itineraries ever since the lines started doing more "outer passage" routes, and I have experienced nausea returning to Miami (near the Bahamas) from a Caribbean round trip.

 

But up and down the Pacific (the word means "peaceful")? Never.

 

No, wait, I need to edit that. On the first night of a 14-night cruise up to Alaska in late August of 2011, I started to feel queasy during dinner; but that was very high on the ship and I was eating a meal that included a spicy lobster pasta entree and was served with "gourmet" oils. When we modified the dish (to make it blander) and had it sent to our suite lower in the ship, then I was fine.

 

So I would suggest that just in case, on your first night out if it is even a little rough (and maybe if it isn't), dine lower and dine blander until you become accustomed to the movement. (Also, we had not taken any meclizine [newer Dramamine or Bonine], since neither of us tends to get seasick very often.)

Edited April 8, 2013 by Oceans&Rivers

[Propsmom]

Oceans&Rivers, Thanks for your reply, I have to say I have cruised up and down the Atlantic. From NYC to Canada and Baltimore to the Bahamas and both times the seas were rough a few times during the cruise...mostly due to hurricanes in the distance.

 

Athough I must admit I just cruised out of Venice Italy to the Greek Isles and Croatia...wow was that like cruising on a river. So I might be a bit spoiled by the calm seas.

 

Can't wait to do this cruise and visit the Pacific coast !!

[runnerodb83]

So based on BruceMuzz's replies, I'm wondering why the Crown Princess was placed in Vancouver next year for the Alaska run vs Seattle where the grand has been positioned and the Star has been moved to SF. Based on prices for Alaska, Seattle RT versions seem to have a higher premium as compared to 7 day Whittier/Vancouver sailings. I'm wondering why Princess would do this, the Crown is an extra 500+ persons while not having to bring a new ship over...

[CantanaLobo]

Maybe the demographic of people willing to go to Vancouver does more on-board spending that the Seattle r/t demographic, and hence is more profitable overall than the Seattle r/t even with a higher Seattle fare?

 

Just my WAG.

[runnerodb83]

Maybe the demographic of people willing to go to Vancouver does more on-board spending that the Seattle r/t demographic, and hence is more profitable overall than the Seattle r/t even with a higher Seattle fare?

 

Just my WAG.

 

Thats a good observation, and likely true since those on the Vancouver/Whittier trips are typically part of a land tour as well. However, I wonder what the profit breakdown between say the Golden Princess and Crown Princess is. Both ships probably cost relatively the same to operate in terms of fuel used and probably have similar crew/pax ratio. I would imagine that princess conceived the crown class of ships to increase profits on the grand class without a major additional expense in terms of crew and operational costs.

[BruceMuzz]

So based on BruceMuzz's replies, I'm wondering why the Crown Princess was placed in Vancouver next year for the Alaska run vs Seattle where the grand has been positioned and the Star has been moved to SF. Based on prices for Alaska, Seattle RT versions seem to have a higher premium as compared to 7 day Whittier/Vancouver sailings. I'm wondering why Princess would do this, the Crown is an extra 500+ persons while not having to bring a new ship over...

 

There are very good reasons for Princess to do this.

 

Many non-Americans prefer to cruise to Alaska out of Vancouver.

The best reason is the inside passage. This itinerary is far better than cruising the outside passage out of Seattle.

The second best reason is avoiding the TSA and US Immigration and Customs in Seattle.

 

Many Aussies and Brits fly directly to Vancouver for a long holiday and then take an Alaska cruise as part of that holiday.

Princess is placing a bigger and newer ship in Vancouver to take advantage of the fact that Australians and Brits typically spend far more on an Alaska cruise than Americans do.

Remember that cruise lines generally do not make a profit from selling cruises.

We only profit when passengers spend plenty money onboard the ships. Currently Aussies are the biggest spending Western demographic group.

 

Ships sailing out of Vancouver to Alaska typically burn less fuel than Seattle ships.

Ships sailing out of Vancouver do not have to pay the local sales tax that Seattle ships pay.

The Vancouver Cruise Terminal is right downtown, giving access to all that Vancouver has to offer.

The new Seattle Cruise Terminal is in a strange location and is not nearly as nice.

The Inside Passage is usually much calmer than the outside passage from Seattle.

Sailing from Vancouver, you enter the inside passage almost immediately and start enjoying the scenery and calm seas.

Sailing from Seattle, you spend the first day or two in open seas, usually windy, cold, and bumpy.

Princess' decision was a no-brainer.

[runnerodb83]

There are very good reasons for Princess to do this.

 

Many non-Americans prefer to cruise to Alaska out of Vancouver.

The best reason is the inside passage. This itinerary is far better than cruising the outside passage out of Seattle.

The second best reason is avoiding the TSA and US Immigration and Customs in Seattle.

 

Many Aussies and Brits fly directly to Vancouver for a long holiday and then take an Alaska cruise as part of that holiday.

Princess is placing a bigger and newer ship in Vancouver to take advantage of the fact that Australians and Brits typically spend far more on an Alaska cruise than Americans do.

Remember that cruise lines generally do not make a profit from selling cruises.

We only profit when passengers spend plenty money onboard the ships. Currently Aussies are the biggest spending Western demographic group.

 

Ships sailing out of Vancouver to Alaska typically burn less fuel than Seattle ships.

Ships sailing out of Vancouver do not have to pay the local sales tax that Seattle ships pay.

The Vancouver Cruise Terminal is right downtown, giving access to all that Vancouver has to offer.

The new Seattle Cruise Terminal is in a strange location and is not nearly as nice.

The Inside Passage is usually much calmer than the outside passage from Seattle.

Sailing from Vancouver, you enter the inside passage almost immediately and start enjoying the scenery and calm seas.

Sailing from Seattle, you spend the first day or two in open seas, usually windy, cold, and bumpy.

Princess' decision was a no-brainer.

 

You make a lot of great points, and I agree with most of them. The one I'm having trouble understanding is whether enough Aussies/UK folks cruise on the Alaska cruises to be a significant profit demographic. The AK cruises I have done out of Seattle typically appear to be >80% US passengers,

[BEAV]

You make a lot of great points, and I agree with most of them. The one I'm having trouble understanding is whether enough Aussies/UK folks cruise on the Alaska cruises to be a significant profit demographic. The AK cruises I have done out of Seattle typically appear to be >80% US passengers,

 

Remember, Bruce claimed the non-US citizens prefer to sail out of Vancouver, not Seattle, which seems to draw the "local" U.S. market. While transportation to/from Seattle is usually less expensive than Vancouver for those of us here in the States, it may not be any more expensive for those coming from Europe and/or Australia. And as he said, avoiding transit into/out of the U.S. keeps them free of our TSA/Immigration woes.

 

So to me it makes perfect sense why Seattle would draw a more U.S.-based market and Vancouver a more global one.

[runnerodb83]

Remember, Bruce claimed the non-US citizens prefer to sail out of Vancouver, not Seattle, which seems to draw the "local" U.S. market. While transportation to/from Seattle is usually less expensive than Vancouver for those of us here in the States, it may not be any more expensive for those coming from Europe and/or Australia. And as he said, avoiding transit into/out of the U.S. keeps them free of our TSA/Immigration woes.

 

So to me it makes perfect sense why Seattle would draw a more U.S.-based market and Vancouver a more global one.

 

Thats a good point, but all things considered, I would still bet that on most Vancouver based cruises, the majority of passengers are US citizens. I guess I don't have any demographics to back that claim up, which would be interesting to see.