Mexican Riviera Again????

[tahqa]

Then answer this question for me that Adam still will not answer. How in the hell can there competitor meet Onboard metrics and Royal cannot?

 

It may have been a loss leader. The competitor may have been there (and may still be) with a willingness to take losses to get people used to the brand and to get them to be brand loyal.

 

Mariner left LA in early 2011, about two months after Allure started sailing. With two very expensive new ships in the fleet Royal couldn't afford to take the kind of losses that the Carnival Corporation, as a whole, could. :confused:

[RCKRZR]

It may have been a loss leader. The competitor may have been there (and may still be) with a willingness to take losses to get people used to the brand and to get them to be brand loyal.

 

Mariner left LA in early 2011, about two months after Allure started sailing. With two very expensive new ships in the fleet Royal couldn't afford to take the kind of losses that the Carnival Corporation, as a whole, could. :confused:

 

3+ years at a loss? Common sense tells me no, I would think they are making a profit. As to how much maybe ok with Carnival but unacceptable to Royal? It's funny how you mention the capacity increase into the Royal fleet at the time Mariner was pulled from LA. That's not the first time I've heard the statement. Did Royal think we would fly to Florida to get are cruise fix on Oasis and Allure? Maybe but for me I said no thank you.

 

In my opinion they are the best cruiseline out there, but not the only one.

[critterchick]

Expressing pleasure at getting a new ship isn't gloating. Yes, ungracious people are everywhere, but I recall that most people who were happy to see Mariner come out here were just happy, not trying to rub anybody else's nose in it, rather like the people who are happy to see Quantum sailing from New Jersey.

 

Just to clarify: I should have phrased it, "...most people who ere happy to see Mariner cone out here were just happy, rather like the people who are happy to see Quantum sailing from New Jersey, not trying to rub anybody's nose in it." I didn't mean to imply any gloating on the part of the Easterners, although I'm sure there is some...

[suzyluvs2cruise]

Or not. If I were willing to fly to a port more often, I would be paying quite a bit less to sail from Florida, Louisiana or Texas than I paid to sail from LA or San Diego.

 

Expressing pleasure at getting a new ship isn't gloating. Yes, ungracious people are everywhere, but I recall that most people who were happy to see Mariner come out here were just happy, not trying to rub anybody else's nose in it, rather like the people who are happy to see Quantum sailing from New Jersey.

 

It's true that many West Coast CCers wanted to see a newer and bigger ship than Vision or Monarch, but we already had two ships that I, for one, was quite happy with. RCI brought Mariner to LA and then poached her customers by putting Radiance in San Diego. We live 15 minutes from the port in LA but, as working professionals, we like to maximize our vacation time. We sailed on Radiance for 10 nights for the same number of vacation days as 7 on Mariner. Better ship, better itinerary, no brainer.

 

I will believe a bartender or Hotel Director onboard over a corporate bigwig any day. More than one bartender has told me that he makes less money on the cruises sailing from Florida, and more than one HD has said the same. Just sayin'.

 

I'm sure that RCI wasn't making as much money on the West Coast as they thought they could make elsewhere. The market was saturated, the economy was in the toilet and Mexico wasn't helping. They left the market, and Carnival and Princess have filled it.

 

We love RCI once we step onboard, but we're ok with sailing another line for convenience. If they come back, we're there, but if they don't, we'll manage just fine.:)

 

[tahqa]

3+ years at a loss? Common sense tells me no, I would think they are making a profit. As to how much maybe ok with Carnival but unacceptable to Royal? It's funny how you mention the capacity increase into the Royal fleet at the time Mariner was pulled from LA. That's not the first time I've heard the statement. Did Royal think we would fly to Florida to get are cruise fix on Oasis and Allure? Maybe but for me I said no thank you.

 

In my opinion they are the best cruiseline out there, but not the only one.

 

I never mentioned capacity. What I said was that there were two new ships to pay for. Two hugely expensive ships to pay for. Royal can't afford to take many losses against their balance sheet. And we DON'T know that Carnival can't make a profit where Royal can't.

 

Take a look at http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/home/financial-breakdown-of-typical-cruiser/

 

The typical profit per passenger across all cruise line is $185 (before taxes). It doesn't take much of a drop in passenger spending to send a sailing into the red.

 

Royal has publicly said that they were unwilling to sail the ships out of Southern California and take a loss on the sailings. Carnival has NEVER said that they weren't taking a loss. They may be willing to take losses where Royal wasn't just to continue to promote their brand and build loyalty.

 

I have nothing against ships sailing out of California and actually had a cruise booked on Mariner back in 2010 because it was ridiculously cheap. I changed my mind, however, because Liberty was doing a sailing in the Western Caribbean that was more interesting itinerary wise. So I paid more money for a lesser cabin because there were more ports for the Liberty sailing and the ports were more interesting to me.

 

When Royal returns to California, and I believe that they will eventually, I will gladly sail with them if the itinerary is interesting to me. However, at this point in time they have made the business decision that their brand is better served elsewhere.

[Piepkorn]

Or not. If I were willing to fly to a port more often, I would be paying quite a bit less to sail from Florida, Louisiana or Texas than I paid to sail from LA or San Diego.

 

Expressing pleasure at getting a new ship isn't gloating. Yes, ungracious people are everywhere, but I recall that most people who were happy to see Mariner come out here were just happy, not trying to rub anybody else's nose in it, rather like the people who are happy to see Quantum sailing from New Jersey.

 

It's true that many West Coast CCers wanted to see a newer and bigger ship than Vision or Monarch, but we already had two ships that I, for one, was quite happy with. RCI brought Mariner to LA and then poached her customers by putting Radiance in San Diego. We live 15 minutes from the port in LA but, as working professionals, we like to maximize our vacation time. We sailed on Radiance for 10 nights for the same number of vacation days as 7 on Mariner. Better ship, better itinerary, no brainer.

 

I will believe a bartender or Hotel Director onboard over a corporate bigwig any day. More than one bartender has told me that he makes less money on the cruises sailing from Florida, and more than one HD has said the same. Just sayin'.

 

I'm sure that RCI wasn't making as much money on the West Coast as they thought they could make elsewhere. The market was saturated, the economy was in the toilet and Mexico wasn't helping. They left the market, and Carnival and Princess have filled it.

 

We love RCI once we step onboard, but we're ok with sailing another line for convenience. If they come back, we're there, but if they don't, we'll manage just fine.:)

 

Well said! :D

 

As my signature indicates, I formally worked for the line and was in several positions during the time that they moved Mariner to California (and again when she was removed) to be party to internal conversations. Beyond that, any employee at the time can tell you we were told in no uncertain terms that the ship would have stayed if people were spending more money onboard. Compared to other ships the onboard revenue was around 30% of what was needed.

 

Anything I have seen would have been internal documents that are proprietary. But rest assured, a ship that has very low fares can still stay in place IF onboard spending metrics are met. This did not happen in California.

 

I really don't know where else we can spend money. I remember on all my Mariner trips that Schooner Bar was packed solid nightly...to the point I couldn't even get close to it, yet on Serenade out of SJU I could have a nice quiet drink every night there with the same small circle of friends. Ironically that trip was cheaper than any Mariner trip I ever took. I didn't spend any less. A ship can also stay in place because the line is afraid to admit failure. That is what is happening now in Europe. They try and add new destinations at a higher price, but we will sit and watch them fall. Consequently, they have to overload Florida with ships, and put in Galveston year round to try and save face to everyone else. We were hopeful for at least Vision, but it appears to be falling apart.

 

Using a simple cost metric (assuming inside cabin pricing for the entire ship), looking at a 3 day weekend Carnival trip from LA at $420 (non-bunk inside) average vs a RCCL 3 day Bahamas trip from Florida mid-July for $370 average, on-board spending on the RCCL ship would have to equate to 1.5 additional drinks per day for every man, woman and child....or based upon my estimated passenger demographic of 65% adult (and taking into account that many people don't drink), it would be closer to 3 additional drinks per day to make the same money. It would really be one drunk ship. The shops don't count, as they are independent. And how much money is in Bingo? Weekend getaway trips typically do not see much in the way of paid shore excursions...but I would be willing to take a half drink per day off if there was a difference. If the bartenders are saying they don't make as much money....then where is the money to the line in sailing from Florida?

 

RCCL knows that they have lost most of their California business to other lines, maybe when they look at their own numbers, they will put something back here. We'll see if the Bayonne cheerleaders really step up when they see the prices on Quantum....and want to spend $$ on cookies, cotton candy, bumper cars and a pod ride. :p

[Piepkorn]

Did Royal think we would fly to Florida to get are cruise fix on Oasis and Allure? Maybe but for me I said no thank you.

 

Critterchick was with my DW and I on the last Monarch weekend cruise from LA, when Captain Karin said "It's just a short flight to Florida". I remember that moment vividly, and remember the ensuing 'boos' that the gathered crowd gave her. We were ready to throw her overboard.

[bartelbee]

Just my two cents--When talking about Mariner's onboard spending, no one seems to remember the hit she took for the swine flu cruises. We were on the first and it was like sailing on a ghost ship. By the end of the cruise we had at least ten waiters, since all the tables around us were empty. Not only did we have generous onboard credit for this cruise (only time we didn't have a sea pass bill) but we were given another generous onboard credit for our next Mexican cruise. Multiply our lack of spending by how many actually sailed with us and by how many jumped ship, with compensation. I don't remember how many cruises were impacted by this but add it to the disastrous round-the-horn cruise, and they must have been bleeding red for a long time. As someone said, it might have helped had there been a marketing campaign to counteract the bad press, but it sure felt that Royal gave up on making the Mariner work here.

[RCKRZR]

I never mentioned capacity. What I said was that there were two new ships to pay for. Two hugely expensive ships to pay for. Royal can't afford to take many losses against their balance sheet. And we DON'T know that Carnival can't make a profit where Royal can't.

 

Take a look at http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/home/financial-breakdown-of-typical-cruiser/

 

The typical profit per passenger across all cruise line is $185 (before taxes). It doesn't take much of a drop in passenger spending to send a sailing into the red.

 

Royal has publicly said that they were unwilling to sail the ships out of Southern California and take a loss on the sailings. Carnival has NEVER said that they weren't taking a loss. They may be willing to take losses where Royal wasn't just to continue to promote their brand and build loyalty.

 

I have nothing against ships sailing out of California and actually had a cruise booked on Mariner back in 2010 because it was ridiculously cheap. I changed my mind, however, because Liberty was doing a sailing in the Western Caribbean that was more interesting itinerary wise. So I paid more money for a lesser cabin because there were more ports for the Liberty sailing and the ports were more interesting to me.

 

When Royal returns to California, and I believe that they will eventually, I will gladly sail with them if the itinerary is interesting to me. However, at this point in time they have made the business decision that their brand is better served elsewhere.

 

Well with carnival taking a huge hit lately I'm sure they cannot afford taking a loss in California anymore. Any day now they should announce they are leaving.

[RCKRZR]

Critterchick was with my DW and I on the last Monarch weekend cruise from LA, when Captain Karin said "It's just a short flight to Florida". I remember that moment vividly, and remember the ensuing 'boos' that the gathered crowd gave her. We were ready to throw her overboard.

 

Ya if you like taking a red eye for 5.5 hours from LAX to FLL and not getting any sleep for 36 hours.

[CVU]

Ya if you like taking a red eye for 5.5 hours from LAX to FLL and not getting any sleep for 36 hours.

Longer Red Eye from Seattle where we connect!:eek: not a short flight at all for us......

[rednancy1]

or not. If i were willing to fly to a port more often, i would be paying quite a bit less to sail from florida, louisiana or texas than i paid to sail from la or san diego.

 

Expressing pleasure at getting a new ship isn't gloating. Yes, ungracious people are everywhere, but i recall that most people who were happy to see mariner come out here were just happy, not trying to rub anybody else's nose in it, rather like the people who are happy to see quantum sailing from new jersey.

 

It's true that many west coast ccers wanted to see a newer and bigger ship than vision or monarch, but we already had two ships that i, for one, was quite happy with. Rci brought mariner to la and then poached her customers by putting radiance in san diego. We live 15 minutes from the port in la but, as working professionals, we like to maximize our vacation time. We sailed on radiance for 10 nights for the same number of vacation days as 7 on mariner. Better ship, better itinerary, no brainer.

 

I will believe a bartender or hotel director onboard over a corporate bigwig any day. More than one bartender has told me that he makes less money on the cruises sailing from florida, and more than one hd has said the same. Just sayin'.

 

I'm sure that rci wasn't making as much money on the west coast as they thought they could make elsewhere. The market was saturated, the economy was in the toilet and mexico wasn't helping. They left the market, and carnival and princess have filled it.

 

We love rci once we step onboard, but we're ok with sailing another line for convenience. If they come back, we're there, but if they don't, we'll manage just fine.:)

 

 

like

[cruisnseas]

Then answer this question for me that Adam still will not answer. How in the hell can there competitor meet Onboard metrics and Royal cannot?

 

I was on 4 sailing on the Mariner during her deployment in La and out of 13 cruises my highest Onboard bill was a 14day Panama cruise1800 the next one was Mariners in LA they averaged around 1200. For my family of four. My lowest was on Vision I just got off in December 10 night Caribbean 625.

 

I'm still skeptical because of a conversation (someone from Miami) I had on the Radiance Before her dry dock. Knowing what has happened in last 18 months RCI worst fears did not come to light!

 

Competitors have different onboard metrics. They have different break-even points. Perhaps their costs there are lower (lower wages, maintenance, food costs, etc). Perhaps they are willing to take a loss on that ship (sort of like how Royal often takes a loss on their Med cruises these days). The fact is when you look at what the Mariner was pulling in vs any other ship in Royal's fleet, she wasn't pulling her weight in CA so she got moved.

 

I really don't know where else we can spend money. I remember on all my Mariner trips that Schooner Bar was packed solid nightly...to the point I couldn't even get close to it, yet on Serenade out of SJU I could have a nice quiet drink every night there with the same small circle of friends. Ironically that trip was cheaper than any Mariner trip I ever took. I didn't spend any less. A ship can also stay in place because the line is afraid to admit failure. That is what is happening now in Europe. They try and add new destinations at a higher price, but we will sit and watch them fall. Consequently, they have to overload Florida with ships, and put in Galveston year round to try and save face to everyone else. We were hopeful for at least Vision, but it appears to be falling apart.

 

Using a simple cost metric (assuming inside cabin pricing for the entire ship), looking at a 3 day weekend Carnival trip from LA at $420 (non-bunk inside) average vs a RCCL 3 day Bahamas trip from Florida mid-July for $370 average, on-board spending on the RCCL ship would have to equate to 1.5 additional drinks per day for every man, woman and child....or based upon my estimated passenger demographic of 65% adult (and taking into account that many people don't drink), it would be closer to 3 additional drinks per day to make the same money. It would really be one drunk ship. The shops don't count, as they are independent. And how much money is in Bingo? Weekend getaway trips typically do not see much in the way of paid shore excursions...but I would be willing to take a half drink per day off if there was a difference. If the bartenders are saying they don't make as much money....then where is the money to the line in sailing from Florida?

 

RCCL knows that they have lost most of their California business to other lines, maybe when they look at their own numbers, they will put something back here. We'll see if the Bayonne cheerleaders really step up when they see the prices on Quantum....and want to spend $$ on cookies, cotton candy, bumper cars and a pod ride. :p

 

Where else could people spend money? The Casino. The shops (they do count - Royal gets a portion of their sales). The ship excursions. Alcohol is a big profit area but it is dwarfed when compared to the casino. And comparing it to another line is not accurate as we cannot be sure the other line has similar overhead costs for that trip.

[mommabean]

For all the complaining about flying to FL from the west coast....

 

This Floridian did and will in the future fly to CA for a Mexican Riviera cruise. We rarely cruise out of FL and would prefer to fly somewhere else and make an event out of it with some land time.

 

We have done the MR on Carnival out of San Diego and would rather have done it on an RCI ship.

 

The flight across the country is easy and certainly doesn't have to be a red eye.

 

One doesn't need to know an individual's spending habits to see the trend on board. There was not a whole lot of shopping on Radiance back in the MR days. And the bars were not packed most of the time. The cruises were very cheap.

 

Compare that to Radiance and Rhapsody in Australia - where I just went on both. Talk about shopaholics! The Aussies are just that on both ships. And on Rhapsody they drink like there is no tomorrow. EVERY night in the VCL the bar stools must be moved away from the bar to accommodate the people who jam pack the bar area to get their drinks. The other bars were doing quite well, too.

 

We loved the Mexican Riviera - Mazatlan included. If RCI would bring a ship back to San Diego, we'd do it at least once a year. Los Angeles? Probably not.

 

Gina

[RCKRZR]

For all the complaining about flying to FL from the west coast....

 

This Floridian did and will in the future fly to CA for a Mexican Riviera cruise. We rarely cruise out of FL and would prefer to fly somewhere else and make an event out of it with some land time.

 

We have done the MR on Carnival out of San Diego and would rather have done it on an RCI ship.

 

The flight across the country is easy and certainly doesn't have to be a red eye.

 

One doesn't need to know an individual's spending habits to see the trend on board. There was not a whole lot of shopping on Radiance back in the MR days. And the bars were not packed most of the time. The cruises were very cheap.

 

Compare that to Radiance and Rhapsody in Australia - where I just went on both. Talk about shopaholics! The Aussies are just that on both ships. And on Rhapsody they drink like there is no tomorrow. EVERY night in the VCL the bar stools must be moved away from the bar to accommodate the people who jam pack the bar area to get their drinks. The other bars were doing quite well, too.

 

We loved the Mexican Riviera - Mazatlan included. If RCI would bring a ship back to San Diego, we'd do it at least once a year. Los Angeles? Probably not.

 

Gina

 

I'm not complaining. It's hard to get from California to Florida the same day a cruise leaves. My best option last time was a red eye, also my first time doing one.

 

San Diego will do for me also. They can do the MR, Hawaii and PNW out of there.

[norcalal]

I simply do not understand how folks outside of California can be so certain that we who do live here and our spending habits are responsible for RCL pulling out.

 

Out of California, I have sailed the Monarch, the Mariner and the Radiance, all numerous times. I do not remember seeing empty bars, unpopular premium dinning venues, or uncrowded casinos.

 

Having a vested interested, but little factual knowledge, the reported reasons for departure that I favor are;

The economy

Swine flu in Mexico (we were on the second Mariner cruise that went north and received 375 obc each)

California special fuel requirements

Lack of dry dock facilities

The violence in Mexico

California port chargers

 

Just to be clear, these are my thoughts, based on my onboard experience and opinion without factual knowledge. But please do not tell me that I am at fault for not spending enough on board.:confused:

[travelgoddess1]

I'm not complaining. It's hard to get from California to Florida the same day a cruise leaves. My best option last time was a red eye, also my first time doing one.

 

San Diego will do for me also. They can do the MR, Hawaii and PNW out of there.

 

And that creates another problem for those of us from the West Coast traveling east. We have to fly in a day early, unless we want to do the tortured red eye, or we cannot connect to the ship in time. If you're flying home after a cruise from the West Coast, there is no concern for having to arrive at a specific time.

 

There has been an in house resistance against putting a ship on the West Coast, regardless of the economic meltdown and H1N1 virus in 2009.

[RCKRZR]

 

There has been an in house resistance against putting a ship on the West Coast, regardless of the economic meltdown and H1N1 virus in 2009.

 

I am all ears or I should say eyes. Enlighten me please!

[mommabean]

I'm not complaining. It's hard to get from California to Florida the same day a cruise leaves. My best option last time was a red eye, also my first time doing one.

 

San Diego will do for me also. They can do the MR, Hawaii and PNW out of there.

 

If they went to all 3 of those places from

San Diego, we'd be on board.

 

We never did a same day flight. There were times when they were almost giving away flights on SWA and also rooms at the former Holiday Inn. OK, just above free! ;) I guess it was the economy.

[3dog]

For all the complaining about flying to FL from the west coast....

 

This Floridian did and will in the future fly to CA for a Mexican Riviera cruise. We rarely cruise out of FL and would prefer to fly somewhere else and make an event out of it with some land time.

 

We have done the MR on Carnival out of San Diego and would rather have done it on an RCI ship.

 

The flight across the country is easy and certainly doesn't have to be a red eye.

 

IMO, you have a different perspective from west coast travelers, and may not completely understand. It is not just a 5 hour flight, but a 3 hour timechange, so a flight from LAX to FLL has a "time difference" of 8 hours (more if traveling from, say SEA to MIA). So a flight leaving at 8am arrives at 4pm (or later, if there are delays). It is fundamentally impossible to "fly the day of", meaning that people with limited vacation time need to fly the red-eye leaving at midnight to arrive at 8am making for a very long first day

 

Add to this that west coast non-stops to some east coast port cities only start from the major cities. Flying to SJU, you can only only do it non-stop from LAX, and only on limited flights (and with airline cutbacks, not sure it can be done anymore), so connections are nearly a requirement. Live in Tucson, and want to cruise Oasis, you must fly the day before, start at 7am, make at least one connection, and arrive at 7pm (there isn't even the option to fly to LAX to catch it's early non-stop).

 

Traveling the day before, the cruiser arrives in time to check into a hotel, and has no time to appreciate the departure destination, and would have to travel more days in advance or stay longer to discover the port city.

 

East coast travelers can get on a plane at 8am, and arrive in LAX at 10am (or even depart 10am to arrive at noon so as not requiring waking too early). Flying the day of the cruise is quite feasible, as well as more time in a departure port should the cruiser arriving some number of days before the cruise. And as the west coast port cities are major or significant hubs (SAN, LAX, SFO, SEA, YVR - SAN being a little less than the others), non-stop flights are common from/to a number of east coast and even midwest cities, making it not only easier to fly to, but easier to return from.

 

 

Of course it will be pointed out that the inverse of the time difference applies at the end of the cruise, but for most people by that time the vacation is over, so it doesn't matter as much if getting home at 4pm or 10pm (at least this has been my personal observation: though it is nice to get home earlier, any need to rush or any departure anxieties are pretty much over - as I have already done the cruise, there is no longer any chance of missing it).

 

 

Having done both of the east-bound and west-bound vacations, I personally find it much easier to start a vacation going west-bound; including those to the far east, where one would actually loose a day as part of the time change.

[mommabean]

I would not say it is wise to fly the day off no matter which coast you are flying from or how short the flight. I've had delayed flights. I've had canceled flights. I don't believe it's worth the risk.

 

I hope they put a ship in CA for your sake. And for ME, too :)

[3dog]

As my signature indicates, I formally worked for the line and was in several positions during the time that they moved Mariner to California (and again when she was removed) to be party to internal conversations. Beyond that, any employee at the time can tell you we were told in no uncertain terms that the ship would have stayed if people were spending more money onboard. Compared to other ships the onboard revenue was around 30% of what was needed.

 

Anything I have seen would have been internal documents that are proprietary. But rest assured, a ship that has very low fares can still stay in place IF onboard spending metrics are met. This did not happen in California.

 

No offense intended, but if you were really "part of the internal conversations", I would expect that reporting it here would not go over well or there would be much more detail.

 

 

However, there appears to be some truth to these statements, in that much of what I heard (certainly hearsay enough to at least question the completeness) was that Mariner was sailing full at a decent fare, but onboard revenues were indeed lower; predominantly in the casino. My personal observations of the cruises I did out of L.A. and cruises out of other ports (including the Mediterranean), is that the casino was much less populated on the west coast cruises than on other cruises.

 

Speculative, but I wonder if proximity to Las Vegas spoils west coast residents desire to gamble on a cruise ship? And just as speculative, but possible CCL continues to find it sufficiently possible to sail the Mexican Riviera as they put more people in the same space, making either a bit more in the casino due to the higher density, or making the casino a more desirable place to be such to increase revenues.

 

 

Not a big gambler, but if the smoke handling in ships casino's were better, I might stay longer (on my last Mariner cruise, even though the casino was mostly vacant, the smoke level was so high, I couldn't even walk through it - haven't done any other ship out of L.A. for a very long time, so I have no information if this problem plagues the other lines casinos).

[setsail]

http://www.royalcaribbean.com/connect/blog/royal-caribbean-clarifies-decision-on-mariner-of-the-seas%e2%80%99-deployment-change/

[mommabean]

Maybe Carnival has younger demographics overall. Therefore they are more likely to spend what they don't have. Or they drink more and proceed to spend what they forgot they don't have. :D

 

I always wondered why CCL stayed. I'd like to know the real reason RCI left. It seems we'll never know for sure but I still wish RCI would go back west.

[RCKRZR]

 

I always wondered why CCL stayed. I'd like to know the real reason RCI left. It seems we'll never know for sure but I still wish RCI would go back west.

 

I think that's how a lot of west coast cruiser see it. Well said.