Why no Pacific coastal cruises in the summer?

[BruceMuzz]

Maybe you should take an Alaska cruise out of Vancouver and get some data.

 

The ship I manage made 22 Alaska voyages out of Vancouver last summer. We averaged 20% US Citizens and 80% non-US.

Our onboard revenues were nearly double those of our sister ships sailing from Seattle.

We return to Vancouver next week for another Alaska season. Our advance bookings are showing even higher percentages of non-US pax this year. That means more profits for us.

[BEAV]

The ship I manage made 22 Alaska voyages out of Vancouver last summer. We averaged 20% US Citizens and 80% non-US.

Our onboard revenues were nearly double those of our sister ships sailing from Seattle.

We return to Vancouver next week for another Alaska season. Our advance bookings are showing even higher percentages of non-US pax this year. That means more profits for us.

 

Do you specifically see higher revenue from shore excursion sales from the Vancouver cruises vs. Seattle? Or do the non-US guests just spend more in general across the board?

[BruceMuzz]

Do you specifically see higher revenue from shore excursion sales from the Vancouver cruises vs. Seattle? Or do the non-US guests just spend more in general across the board?

 

Actually we see both. The differences between Vancouver and Seattle cruisers are quite significant.

[runnerodb83]

Interesting, so why do cruise lines even mess with Seattle? This year there will be up to 10 cruises per week leaving from Seattle. I count a similar 11 per week from Vancouver. Is it to keep brand loyalty and hope that folks will try alaska cruises from Seattle and then return and try a alaska land tour cruise to/from vancouver/whittier (anchorage, seward etc)?

[thyme2go]

There is a money factor before you get on the ship that is NOT being accounted for in this discussion. Vancouver is an expensive city to visit/stay in. For internationals it may be part of the game, but it also is an issue that American's (those in the NW) know. The inside passage is indeed beautiful, but it does not come without a cost. There is a very narrow passage called Seymour narrows which can affect transport. I know, as we spent hours bobbing not far from Vancouver waiting on the right tide conditions before we could start heading up the inside passage. We lost out on some beautiful scenery as the sun set before we were very far from Vancouver. Lastly, do not think that you will not 'feel the ocean' if you leave out of Vancouver. Our last trip to Alaska (late 2011 and out of Vancouver) had us in very rough weather in the exposed transit between N. Vancouver island and SE Alaska. So much so that Beaufort 12 was the scale on the way home! All in all, the comparison between these two ports for consumers needs a bit more finesse than just $$$$ that the cruiseline takes in. :)

Edited April 17, 2013 by thyme2go
clarification

[BruceMuzz]

Interesting, so why do cruise lines even mess with Seattle? This year there will be up to 10 cruises per week leaving from Seattle. I count a similar 11 per week from Vancouver. Is it to keep brand loyalty and hope that folks will try alaska cruises from Seattle and then return and try a alaska land tour cruise to/from vancouver/whittier (anchorage, seward etc)?

 

That's part of it.

But bear in mind that we cannot move those 10 Seattle cruises to Vancouver every week with a guarantee to fill the ships. If we cannot guarantee a full ship, we won't do it.

A surprising number of Americans will not or cannot go to Canada to join a cruise ship.

So we leave the ships in Seattle, to capture that demographic.

[runnerodb83]

That's part of it.

But bear in mind that we cannot move those 10 Seattle cruises to Vancouver every week with a guarantee to fill the ships. If we cannot guarantee a full ship, we won't do it.

A surprising number of Americans will not or cannot go to Canada to join a cruise ship.

So we leave the ships in Seattle, to capture that demographic.

 

I think the first Alaskan cruise for a lot of american citizens is easier to fly to a US port, and sail round trip. The airfare is much cheaper too than flying to Vancouver or alaska.

 

But from what you have said, I doubt there will ever be more types of alaskan cruises from seattle other than the 7 day "milk run" with Ketchikan, Juneau, Skagway/Sitka, Victoria. I know HAL occasionally runs 3 and 4 day cruises to/from vancouver to nanaimo, seattle, victoria or some combination, but i don't imagine those have much staying power beyond one or two cruises per season. The 1 day cruises between Seattle and Vancouver are interesting, some seem to be sell out winners, others I have been on the ships are half full. Vancouver to Hawaii seems to be another potential market that could be a viable "1 way" version rather than Ensenada to Hawaii, but there are a lot of days at sea, and without a solid program on board to bring in revenue, the ship is probably eating fuel sailing through rougher north pacific waters. Right now, it seems like the hawaii itineraries from LA/SF/SD are over-saturdated with princess running up to 3 ships at a time and HAL adding 1 or 2 with Celebrity and Carnival in the shoulder seasons.

[pearliemae]

Carnival Imagination will be 19 years old when it

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.

 

Would you please clarify what you mean when you say "Imagination has no tenders", please.

Thanks

[muffin]

I am learning SOOOO much in this thread. Stuff I sort of knew, or at least suspected, but it is so refreshing to get info from people who really KNOW what is going on. We in western Canada long ago realized we would be flying for our cruises unless we went to Alaska. We have done Alaska many times, it is sort of our " default" cruise with just a ferry ride and then a cab to the pier. We love it every time and each cruise is different. Glad they will probably keep alaska on the " top" list for as long as we travel!!! Again, thanks so for your reasoned and knowledgable thoughts.

[jrpend]

As Mr. Muzz says, "It's all about the money."

 

I wonder if the major cruise lines has expressed their concerns about costs and cabotage rules to the power that be in the SF area? Reducing the direct costs of bringing a ship in would seem to be an extremely reasonable incentive to the cruise lines

 

SF just built the new Cruise Terminal at Pier 27 - at least once the America's Cup fiasco is complete - to replace the cruddy Pier 35 (admittedly with million dollar views) where they now park the ships. San Francisco is going to want someone to park there. God knows they are going to need to money to pay for that after the Cup.

 

For me, it is all about the money as well. I would much rather spend my cruise dollars taking BART to the cruise (I live in the SF bay area) rather the spend it on air fare. And a lot of us do spend more that $30.00/day (a lot more - just got the bill from my last Cal Coastal) - there is that demigraphic thing again....

 

I am sure Cruise Executives are licking thier chops looking at the potential California market, with it's population and disposable income. I truly hope they figure out some way to exploit the market - it could be only good for cruisers. Please try harder guys...

 

In the meantime for me, Ships in/out of SF are my first choice - by a long shot, followed by San Pedro (a driving trip) with any port I have to which I have fly to, third. Though I am looking forward to my summer cruise out of Gaveston:)

[BruceMuzz]

As Mr. Muzz says, "It's all about the money."

 

I wonder if the major cruise lines has expressed their concerns about costs and cabotage rules to the power that be in the SF area? Reducing the direct costs of bringing a ship in would seem to be an extremely reasonable incentive to the cruise lines

 

SF just built the new Cruise Terminal at Pier 27 - at least once the America's Cup fiasco is complete - to replace the cruddy Pier 35 (admittedly with million dollar views) where they now park the ships. San Francisco is going to want someone to park there. God knows they are going to need to money to pay for that after the Cup.

 

For me, it is all about the money as well. I would much rather spend my cruise dollars taking BART to the cruise (I live in the SF bay area) rather the spend it on air fare. And a lot of us do spend more that $30.00/day (a lot more - just got the bill from my last Cal Coastal) - there is that demigraphic thing again....

 

I am sure Cruise Executives are licking thier chops looking at the potential California market, with it's population and disposable income. I truly hope they figure out some way to exploit the market - it could be only good for cruisers. Please try harder guys...

 

In the meantime for me, Ships in/out of SF are my first choice - by a long shot, followed by San Pedro (a driving trip) with any port I have to which I have fly to, third. Though I am looking forward to my summer cruise out of Gaveston:)

 

The cruise lines have been chasing the Feds and the California State Governments for years, trying to get a break. The only answers have been finger pointing and lots of nonsense. At the same time, Canada and Australia are bending over backwards, offering very attractive legal and financial incentives to move cruise ships to their countries.

The biggest move from the US Government has been a new Immigration rule that prohibits the people who built the ships from repairing them in US Shipyards. The result? The cruise lines are now forced move our ships to Canada, Caribbean, and Asia to spend all those millions on dry docks in those countries instead. Another loss for the USA.

 

Even if California and Uncle Sam decided to lower costs of cruising in California, we still have a profitability problem. People who cruise from California ports spend far less money (on average) than people who sail from just about any other ports in the world. Maybe many of you do spend more than $30.00 per day as you claim. But far more passengers spend more in other locations. That is critically important to the cruise industry. We only make profits from onboard revenues. Many of those frugal cruisers do not live in California, but when they cruise out of the West Coast, they do not spend as much money onboard as cruisers who sail out of other locations. We don't know why that is the case, but we simply cannot afford them.

 

The cruise line execs have more or less given up on California for the time being. Asia and Australia are far more profitable, with less cost and fewer goofy laws to put up with.

We are trying harder - as you suggested - but not in the location you had hoped for.

 

While remaining in California might be good for cruisers, moving the ships to Asia and Australia is good for our shareholders and the bottom line.

Remember - it's ALWAYS about the money.

[em-sk]

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.

 

I am doing my first west costal cruise. The other option I considered was Europe again. The selling point of a costal was to spend some time in California, the rack bottom cruise fares helped but if the itinerary was not good I would probably being doing the Mediterranean again.

I use to live in Vancouver but still live in Canada. The airfare flying from Canada to the US has a lot of fees/taxes for TSA, US Immigration, US Agriculture Inspection, and their Canada Counterparts added on. That is one of the factors that makes it cheaper to fly out of Seattle to the rest of the US. When it comes to air from Vancouver to the rest of the world the fares are competitive and you have non-stop flights to places like Australia and New Zeeland as well as Europe. To London alone there is Air Canada, Air Transat, British Airway and Virgin Atlantic. Like many non-Americans I find the border clearance unpredictable, sometimes you sail through and there times the questions asked are just odd. The different mix in passengers between Seattle and Vancouver makes perfect sense.

I don’t know if NCL will make or lose money or the cruise. However it is obvious, that they want to make the most money they can on their asset and that involves it spending most of the time sailing to and from Alaska.

Edited April 27, 2013 by em-sk

[runnerodb83]

Like many non-Americans I find the border clearance unpredictable, sometimes you sail through and there times the questions asked are just odd.

 

American's have just as tough a time getting through the border. When I was in college/university, we drove to vancouver for new years eve since we could all drink alcohol legally (all were 19). On the return trip, the officers questioned us why we went to Canada. We responded "to celebrate new years eve". His response was "don't they have new years eve in Seattle?"

 

However, I've had similar treatment from Canadian Border Inspectors as well.

 

Border times are always unpredictable and can be especially bad during alaskan season when the re positioning cruises are running. I think I saw 1 or 2 days this may/sept when there will be 4 or 5 ships in Vancouver, that will be a nightmare at the border and the ports. While I haven't sailed out of Ballentyne Pier, Canada Place typically takes much longer than Port of Seattle to load. I don't think it's the fault of the facility, I think it just wasn't designed to handle ships of 2000+ passengers like many of the newer terminals.

[Oceans&Rivers]

Even if California and Uncle Sam decided to lower costs of cruising in California, we still have a profitability problem. People who cruise from California ports spend far less money (on average) than people who sail from just about any other ports in the world. Maybe many of you do spend more than $30.00 per day as you claim. But far more passengers spend more in other locations. That is critically important to the cruise industry. We only make profits from onboard revenues. Many of those frugal cruisers do not live in California, but when they cruise out of the West Coast, they do not spend as much money onboard as cruisers who sail out of other locations. We don't know why that is the case, but we simply cannot afford them.

 

Utter nonsense. If you only make money from onboard revenue, then your product must have an extremely low "price of admission", e.g. a bargain basement "get 'em onboard and then sell, sell, sell.". (Ugh, ugh, ugh). I saw a video (on TV, I think) about NCL which stated that all profits are indeed made onboard, but that's not the case for cruise lines which charge significantly more upfront and include a lot for the money and still come out profitable. Those are the cruise lines where we spend our money. (And we do spend money in the shops onboard and on excursions, depending on what is offered, and on wine if it is not included.) We took an excursion on Oceania that was $185 per person, for example.

 

Folks working (or retired) in the San Francisco Bay Area, including but not limited to Silicon Valley, and similar areas, especially those who are at a stage in life where they don't have to spend a fortune on property taxes or mortgages (Baby Boomers, and thereabouts), have more disposable income than people in most other areas of the U.S. and we aren't (as a group) cheap. Few of us dine at Applebees. We dine at more expensive restaurants and many of us spend a lot on very high quality and expensive groceries.

 

We have been cruising for 25+ years, and even when we were very young, we never even considered Carnival or other downmarket lines that apparently do have to lure people in with low prices and then charge extra for everything. But that's not how we or any of our friends choose to cruise.

 

Take your product upmarket and charge correspondingly for the staterooms and give us an upper premium or luxury experience and you'll get most of your profit upfront, and then if you don't hammer us with stupid flyers or make "shopping stops" on excursions, etc. and ensure that the ship isn't a den of smoke and wild partying, we may choose to use your shore excursion department and sail with you again.

[Oceans&Rivers]

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 !!

 

I'm happy to help. I think you will love your Pacific coast cruise and cruising out of San Francisco and under the Golden Gate Bridge is thrilling every time we do it.

 

For your best view of San Francisco during sail out, go out on deck portside, and you will also want to go starboard to get a good picture of Alcatraz and the Marin headlands.

[BruceMuzz]

Utter nonsense. If you only make money from onboard revenue, then your product must have an extremely low "price of admission", e.g. a bargain basement "get 'em onboard and then sell, sell, sell.". (Ugh, ugh, ugh). I saw a video (on TV, I think) about NCL which stated that all profits are indeed made onboard, but that's not the case for cruise lines which charge significantly more upfront and include a lot for the money and still come out profitable. Those are the cruise lines where we spend our money. (And we do spend money in the shops onboard and on excursions, depending on what is offered, and on wine if it is not included.) We took an excursion on Oceania that was $185 per person, for example.

 

Folks working (or retired) in the San Francisco Bay Area, including but not limited to Silicon Valley, and similar areas, especially those who are at a stage in life where they don't have to spend a fortune on property taxes or mortgages (Baby Boomers, and thereabouts), have more disposable income than people in most other areas of the U.S. and we aren't (as a group) cheap. Few of us dine at Applebees. We dine at more expensive restaurants and many of us spend a lot on very high quality and expensive groceries.

 

We have been cruising for 25+ years, and even when we were very young, we never even considered Carnival or other downmarket lines that apparently do have to lure people in with low prices and then charge extra for everything. But that's not how we or any of our friends choose to cruise.

 

Take your product upmarket and charge correspondingly for the staterooms and give us an upper premium or luxury experience and you'll get most of your profit upfront, and then if you don't hammer us with stupid flyers or make "shopping stops" on excursions, etc. and ensure that the ship isn't a den of smoke and wild partying, we may choose to use your shore excursion department and sail with you again.

 

I agree with nearly everything you say. From the cruiser's point of view, upscale lines like Oceania are very good choices. Personally I prefer Seabourn. But that's just me.

 

But you and I have a similar problem. We both like cruise lines that cannot make a profit.

I worked for Seabourn for years. Had a marvelous time.

But Seabourn - like Regent, Oceania, Silver Sea, Sea Dream, and a few others - has never been able to make a profit. And they never will.

Sadly, the general cruising public just will not, or cannot spend the kind of money that will allow a premium cruise line to charge more money upfront and still make a profit.

Have you ever wondered why all the upscale cruise lines together have fewer beds than just one big mass market ship?

Why would the mass market lines build mega ships for over $1 billion each, when they could build much smaller (less expensive) elegant ships and still make a profit?

 

Sadly those days are gone. America's WalMart mentality will control the cruise industry for many years to come.

[runnerodb83]

I agree with nearly everything you say. From the cruiser's point of view, upscale lines like Oceania are very good choices. Personally I prefer Seabourn. But that's just me.

 

But you and I have a similar problem. We both like cruise lines that cannot make a profit.

I worked for Seabourn for years. Had a marvelous time.

But Seabourn - like Regent, Oceania, Silver Sea, Sea Dream, and a few others - has never been able to make a profit. And they never will.

Sadly, the general cruising public just will not, or cannot spend the kind of money that will allow a premium cruise line to charge more money upfront and still make a profit.

Have you ever wondered why all the upscale cruise lines together have fewer beds than just one big mass market ship?

Why would the mass market lines build mega ships for over $1 billion each, when they could build much smaller (less expensive) elegant ships and still make a profit?

 

Sadly those days are gone. America's WalMart mentality will control the cruise industry for many years to come.

 

Probably the reasons above are why Carnival/RCCL are the most successful cruise lines in the world, low prices of admission with lots of add on fees, mostly sunny destinations attracting the party atmosphere, and a demographic of partiers and very active vacationers (many first timers) that are will to pay for the extra activities, fruity watered down drinks.

 

These are probably some of the main reasons why cruise lines like Princess, HAL, Celebrity were purchased by Carnival, they had trouble competing on their own, especially considering they were all saddled with a mish mash of older vessels that, at the time, couldn't compete with the Fantasy class 8 or the Monach of the Seas classes.

[LeftcoastBC]

a very informative thread.

 

Living on the Lowermainland of BC we treat Vancouver and Seattle as our getaway ports without the flying required to "Go Warm"

 

Just returned from a HAL 3 dayer to the fine Ports of Port Alberni and Seattle. That was I think our 4th short cruise out of either YVR & SEA. We have also gone to AK from both Ports.

 

I am amazed at the $$ consumption differences that have been given...but on reflection can now picture the reasons.

 

I would like to add into the thought process here two facts: one that there were very few US persons on our trip at all. Mostly Canadian and Asian. Although it was impossible for me to determine if the later were actually from off shore.

 

The second. When cruising in and around Vancouver Island in the Strait of Jaun de Fuca and into Puget sound in Washington State waters..... The casino's are not open. I'm sure this causes a profit issue that reflects on the number of similar cruises. Or just coastals for that matter.

[SadieN]

a very informative thread.

 

............................................The second. When cruising in and around Vancouver Island in the Strait of Jaun de Fuca and into Puget sound in Washington State waters..... The casino's are not open. I'm sure this causes a profit issue that reflects on the number of similar cruises. Or just coastals for that matter.

 

 

The casinos are open on the 3 & 4 day cruises out of Los Angeles (Long Beach). Even when the first stop is Catalina Island, 22 miles off the coast and part of Los Angeles County.

[Smokeyham]

Very interesting discussion here.

 

Interesting that people who cruise from California ports spend less on board. I could see where the profit on shore excursions would be less, since what is offered might not be seen as being as "exotic" as what you can get in Alaska, but what I and my friends spend on board for drinks, in the casino, etc. isn't affected by the itinerary, but more by what we are doing aboard.

 

San Francisco is building a new cruise terminal (slated to open in Fall, 2014) and although I don't think people choose their cruise based on what the embarkation terminal looks like I do think it may attract more ships to at least stop in, since it is being designed to handle larger ships.

 

The greater San Francisco Bay area, with a population of over 7 million people, and an economy which is recovering well from the Great Recession, would seem to make San Francisco a good place to start/end cruises. Princess seems to be capitalizing on this, with home porting the Grand Princess out of San Francisco, and offering more round-trip California Coastal, Alaskan, and Hawaii cruises.

 

A factor which I think does limit the west coast cruise industry, especially for northern California, is the lack of nearby ports. To the north of San Francisco there is only Astoria (till you get to Vancouver/Victoria). To the south is Monterey, which has very limited capacity, and then a longer journey to Santa Barbara/LA/San Diego, and the required stop in Ensenada.

 

It will be interesting to continue to watch this and see what happens over the next couple of years.

[YubaSutter]

 

A factor which I think does limit the west coast cruise industry, especially for northern California, is the lack of nearby ports. To the north of San Francisco there is only Astoria (till you get to Vancouver/Victoria). To the south is Monterey, which has very limited capacity, and then a longer journey to Santa Barbara/LA/San Diego, and the required stop in Ensenada.

 

 

There is a small port north of San Francisco called Seattle. You forgot that one.

[Smokeyham]

There is a small port north of San Francisco called Seattle. You forgot that one.

 

Absolutely, and a beautiful port it is! My apologies!

[Go-Bucks!]

Remember - It is ALWAYS about the money.

 

 

Just found this very interesting thread. Thanks to BruceMuzz for sharing his "insider" knowledge.

 

I totally agree with his oft-written quote above. We cruisers can't forget that the cruiselines are a business and won't be able to stay in business unless they make money. Same as my employer. ;) Since I own Carnival Corp stock, I'm all for doing whatever helps them make money, therefore I make money too since I'm a part owner.

 

But on the other side of the coin, I'm one of the "frugal" cruisers. I like having a low cabin price (vs. a more expensive all-inclusive cruise) and having to pay for extras separately because I use very few of the extras. I don't drink alcohol, don't gamble, rarely use spa services, don't eat at specialty food locations or play bingo, and rarely ever buy anything at ship stores. I do book an occasional excursion in certain ports, but for the most part I don't spend much onboard.

 

Bruce, thanks again for your insights. :)

Edited January 26, 2014 by Go-Bucks!

[billrco90278]

Actually, flying to San Franciso in the summer, renting a car, and driving to San Diego (or vice-versa) on Highway 1 over at least three-four days is one of the the best ways to get a taste of the best of California. Cruising suits some regions better than others.

Edited February 1, 2014 by billrco90278

[paluni]

Well, this is really an eye-opener. I always thought the cruise lines didn't do California coastals because the summer weather is terrible! Especially in the San Francisco/Monterey Peninsula area. Unless you really like foggy, damp, chilly weather. The best time is spring and fall. September and October can be great (I've lived in San Francisco Bay Area all my life). That's when San Francisco warms up. As far as what BruceMuzz says about the regulations, worker problems, I can believe it. My brother calls California "The People's Republic of California." And I can see cruise lines being looked on by local governments and unions as turkeys to be picked clean.

This post by Mr. Muzz is real eye-opening.

I feel a little guilty for perhaps being too frugal. Hopefully, other passengers will be picking up our short-fall. We still do spend, though. :)