Mexican Riviera Again????

[3dog]

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 would agree with this. The CCR MR cruise does appear to be focusing on the younger (late teen, early adult) crowd, and that group has a higher alcohol spending than the family group (not saying that moms and dads won't drink in excess, they are just less likely to do so). So it is quite possible that CCL's alcohol profits are sufficient to keep a ship there.

 

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'm sure it is for the reasons that Mr. Goldstein stated: not the performance level they desired. And with fewer ships than CCL, they cannot afford as much to have lower performing ships in lower performing environments.

 

"Performance", though, is ambiguous, in that it could be driven by any number of factors that drive increased costs and/or lower revenues. It doesn't help that the itineraries are limited, and those that were available were experiencing a significant drop in demand due to local problems.

 

And though I would like to see RCI's ships back, I suspect until there is some relaxation of the Jones Law, we won't see anything based in CA.

[SherriZ366]

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.

Thanks for stating and quantifying the low onboard revenue figures.

[SherriZ366]

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

Your comparisons of spending on Radiance out of Cal. and Radiance and Rhapsody out of Austrailia are pretty illustrative. There are lots of markets where folks are willing to spend. RCI is a business and their bottom line affects many decision.

[SherriZ366]

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).

The proximity to Vegas could have something to do with the lower spending on RCI ships that were deployed to California but the company is moving ships to Asia, where many casinos have opened in Macau and Singapore. They are expecting to generate strong revenues from the casinos on those ships.

[wl2cruise]

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.

 

If theres any truth to this statement I'm sure you're going get a cease and desist order promptly.

[SherriZ366]

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.:)

The gloating was not just in threads heralding MA's move to CA but on every thread dealing with bringing another ship to Port Canaveral. On and on. Anyway, we still have Freedom in Port C through at least April, 2015 so using Cruise Critic in 2009 to give folks who love the port a chance to express interest in another ship being homeported there built enthusiasm and generated communications to Corporate RCI. Of course, corporate had to had good revenue projections based on Mariner and Monarch to deploy FR to Port C and to replace Monarch with Enchantment.

[Piepkorn]

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

 

Yes we all know of that post, and it's a load of crap.

[3dog]

The proximity to Vegas could have something to do with the lower spending on RCI ships that were deployed to California but the company is moving ships to Asia, where many casinos have opened in Macau and Singapore. They are expecting to generate strong revenues from the casinos on those ships.

 

Agreed there are casinos in Macau and Singapore, though many have a higher focus on visitors gambling (with lots of money), rather than locals. As there also appears to be a reasonable desire for gambling and smoking among the residents, it provides a combination that will likely make sure there is sufficient gambling and alcohol revenues on cruise ships.

[3dog]

Yes we all know of that post, and it's a load of crap.

 

I'm sure it is accurate (though ambiguous). It makes little sense to change something that is maximizing profits, just like it makes little sense to not change something that is not. However, it could well also be driven by things we may not see, such as possible increased costs of operating out of a particular port (Port of San Pedro isn't cheap in terms of fees, labor, and/or supplies, and that would cut into what might be decent revenues).

[mommabean]

Agreed there are casinos in Macau and Singapore, though many have a higher focus on visitors gambling (with lots of money), rather than locals. As there also appears to be a reasonable desire for gambling and smoking among the residents, it provides a combination that will likely make sure there is sufficient gambling and alcohol revenues on cruise ships.

 

On Radiance in Australia we were surprised at the Asian interest in gambling. One little machine that was capturing their interest day and night - that quarter pushing machine. Before you laugh, understand that we talked to the Casino manager at length one evening. He said one amazing source of revenue actually comes from that little circular machine. Those quarters are pumped into it at all stations so fast. We stood there sometimes and just watched. I saw one woman actually get a bill to fall off. Then we looked at the users' fingers. Do you have any idea how dirty quarters are? You can see the blackened fingers.

 

Anyway, I never saw that kind of action in California on the same ship.

 

The ships out of Port Canaveral generally have a lot of casino action along with boozers. :)

[Piepkorn]

The proximity to Vegas could have something to do with the lower spending on RCI ships that were deployed to California but the company is moving ships to Asia, where many casinos have opened in Macau and Singapore. They are expecting to generate strong revenues from the casinos on those ships.

 

A lot of us used Monarch to take the place of the Las Vegas weekend. Could leave work at lunch Friday, hop the ship, gorge on fish tacos and alcohol all day Saturday, and have a great BBQ lunch and more alcohol on Sunday. And still make it work on Monday morning. But with that said, I would always gamble more on the ship than I would in Vegas. The difference now is we used to do the trip up to 6 trips a year, now Carnival gets my business. And instead of 2+ - 7 day trips a year, now it is like 1 every other year. A lot of people in California are abandoning Royal as they've abandoned us...so now it will be 0. One of these days Adam will realize California has pretty much abandoned him.

 

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.

 

Carnival stayed because there is money to be made. As I tried to point out before ( in another thread) is that CCL is bringing a 3rd ship in 2014 to Long Beach so the market can't be bad. (yes I am aware Miracle is only there Oct to Apr). Demographics are younger, but from what I see on these trips, many rookie cruisers trying to keep their costs down. RCCL trips had people flying in from Asia to sail on the 3 day trips, and in generally a bunch more cruise savvy people on those trips. 1200 cabins a week to fill, RCCL had their chance. Although I don't really like CCL, at least being on a cruise is better than no cruise.

[CRUZBUDS]

It will be interesting to see if Carnival keeps three ships in LA. They did have two full time, with the Splendor being a very large ship. Remember Carnival also abandoned San Diego, from 1 and 1/2 ships to zero. :(

 

I admit, we're in the demographic that spends very little aboard. We just got back from a 15 Hawaii on the Celebrity Century. Between the Elite benefits, TA prepaid tips and a shareholder credit - our final on board account was $1.85. :cool:

[cruisnseas]

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).

 

There is not more detail because anything else (like specific numbers, etc) would be proprietary. Nothing I have said is proprietary or any different than what Adam has said on multiple occasions.

 

I think the issue is not so much Vegas but more that people saw these cruises as a cheap get away option. But perhaps Vegas played a role.

 

I will say that even Royal's west coast employees were disappointed when Mariner left. A few that I knew often used it as their weekend cruises.

 

For me, I just wish they'd get a year-round ship out of the Gulf.

 

If theres any truth to this statement I'm sure you're going get a cease and desist order promptly.

 

I love when people have no idea try to comment on what I can and cannot discuss.

 

Considering Adam stated himself, quite publicly, that the relocation was revenue based - and considering that nothing I have stated is proprietary in any way - I seriously doubt that. But nice try.

[wl2cruise]

There is not more detail because anything else (like specific numbers, etc) would be proprietary. Nothing I have said is proprietary or any different than what Adam has said on multiple occasions.

 

I think the issue is not so much Vegas but more that people saw these cruises as a cheap get away option. But perhaps Vegas played a role.

 

I will say that even Royal's west coast employees were disappointed when Mariner left. A few that I knew often used it as their weekend cruises.

 

For me, I just wish they'd get a year-round ship out of the Gulf.

 

 

 

I love when people have no idea try to comment on what I can and cannot discuss.

 

Considering Adam stated himself, quite publicly, that the relocation was revenue based - and considering that nothing I have stated is proprietary in any way - I seriously doubt that. But nice try.

 

Please explain to me what I am trying? Just because you put on the bottom of your signature you where a previous employee at RCi does not me your post carries more accuracy Than any other one I read. For all I know is you could have been the janitor!

[RCKRZR]

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 :)

 

My last cruise I went with choice air to get me to the ship (jet blue) and got my own air back (southwest) so if my flight was cancelled or delayed choice air would have taking care of me (their problem not mine.) I did the same thing for my next cruise. I like choice air a lot.

[critterchick]

My last cruise I went with choice air to get me to the ship (jet blue) and got my own air back (southwest) so if my flight was cancelled or delayed choice air would have taking care of me (their problem not mine.) I did the same thing for my next cruise. I like choice air a lot.

 

They might "take care of you," but in this day and age of oversold flights, you would most likely be looking at joining your ship in a port other than the original embarkation point. They aren't going to charter a plane to make sure you arrive on Day 1.

[RCKRZR]

They might "take care of you," but in this day and age of oversold flights, you would most likely be looking at joining your ship in a port other than the original embarkation point. They aren't going to charter a plane to make sure you arrive on Day 1.

 

I leave for Solstice in 24 days please don't jinx me. Thanks for the advice i'll go the day before.

[Ashland]

Very interesting posts above.

 

Thanks so much to those of you that continue (as I do) to hope RCI will return to the west coast and will speak up about it...

 

So many times the mere mention of this possibility on these boards causes an east coast feeding frenzy.

 

We aren't the enemy...but just loyal RCI cruisers that would love the ability to cruise more often.

[AtlantaCruiser72]

It will be interesting to see if Carnival keeps three ships in LA. They did have two full time, with the Splendor being a very large ship. Remember Carnival also abandoned San Diego, from 1 and 1/2 ships to zero. :(

 

I admit, we're in the demographic that spends very little aboard. We just got back from a 15 Hawaii on the Celebrity Century. Between the Elite benefits, TA prepaid tips and a shareholder credit - our final on board account was $1.85. :cool:

 

And I'm guessing that this typical low level of onboard revenue is one reason Celebrity is abandoning California and sending Century to Australia and Asia for winter 2014/15.

[RCKRZR]

Very interesting posts above.

 

Thanks so much to those of you that continue (as I do) to hope RCI will return to the west coast and will speak up about it...

 

So many times the mere mention of this possibility on these boards causes an east coast feeding frenzy.

 

We aren't the enemy...but just loyal RCI cruisers that would love the ability to cruise more often.

 

The drumbeat is getting louder!! Maybe RCI will rethink their decision. :-)

[Piepkorn]

Thanks so much to those of you that continue (as I do) to hope RCI will return to the west coast and will speak up about it...

 

So many times the mere mention of this possibility on these boards causes an east coast feeding frenzy.

 

We aren't the enemy...but just loyal RCI cruisers that would love the ability to cruise more often.

 

I'm not getting my hopes up. Schedule is done, we just wait for them to post it. East Coasters are too busy gloating about their new ship. I have a letter going out to Richard Fain today on this subject.

 

And I'm guessing that this typical low level of onboard revenue is one reason Celebrity is abandoning California and sending Century to Australia and Asia for winter 2014/15.

 

The person had a bunch of OBC's, not that they were necessarily being cheap. We had a Carnival cruise where we had more OBC's than the whole cruise cost. At the end of the cruise I had about 50 cents credit in my account. Was able to pay my tips, drink every night, buy things in the shops...etc. Gambling was out of my own pocket. I was not cheap, but not having a big on-board bill really means nothing.

 

I still say to this day that on-board revenue was not the real reason they pulled out - it was the reason that Adam could give without having flags come up. And I am tired of hearing 'violence in Mexico'. Heck, even a busload of people got robbed in St. Kitts last week. The cause of Mazatlan being pulled was because of some Canadian citizen was killed in a non-tourist location at 3am. More people have been killed adjacent to the cruise terminal in San Pedro, yet ships will still sail here.

 

We have to put pressure on the Board if anything is to ever be done.

[RCKRZR]

I'm not getting my hopes up. Schedule is done, we just wait for them to post it. East Coasters are too busy gloating about their new ship. I have a letter going out to Richard Fain today on this subject.

 

 

 

The person had a bunch of OBC's, not that they were necessarily being cheap. We had a Carnival cruise where we had more OBC's than the whole cruise cost. At the end of the cruise I had about 50 cents credit in my account. Was able to pay my tips, drink every night, buy things in the shops...etc. Gambling was out of my own pocket. I was not cheap, but not having a big on-board bill really means nothing.

 

I still say to this day that on-board revenue was not the real reason they pulled out - it was the reason that Adam could give without having flags come up. And I am tired of hearing 'violence in Mexico'. Heck, even a busload of people got robbed in St. Kitts last week. The cause of Mazatlan being pulled was because of some Canadian citizen was killed in a non-tourist location at 3am. More people have been killed adjacent to the cruise terminal in San Pedro, yet ships will still sail here.

 

We have to put pressure on the Board if anything is to ever be done.

 

How about starting a online petition?

[Piepkorn]

How about starting a online petition?

 

Nice idea, probably won't do a bit of good, but will support you if you want to put it together. The only way we can really get their attention is to stop purchasing their product. My letter to Richard Fain will explain exactly that. For every letter they receive, statistically 10,000 people feel the same way. Since Adam doesn't give a 'crap', going above him might help.

 

Eventually I see a ship coming back out west. That is simply because they won't have any other place to put it. Getting close to that point now.

[RCKRZR]

Eventually I see a ship coming back out west. That is simply because they won't have any other place to put it. Getting close to that point now.

 

I thought since Adam became CEO of RCI he never had anything good to say about cruising out of California publicly anyway. I don't want a ship back in California just doing 7 day MR cruises, they wi'll just pull it again. We need a variety also. I believe they didn't have to ABANDON their customers on the west coast, they could have reduced capacity and tried a variety of itineraries. They could have won the battle but they surrendered to their competitor ( Miami Heat yuck!!!) They where my only choice to cruise before (a minimum of once a year sometimes two times @ $7500.00+ out of my pocket.) and now I look at other cruiselines.

[Bruin Steve]

I do not recall ever seeing RCCL or any cruise line stating that they are or were taking a LOSS on cruises out of California.

 

What they said was that they could earn more money placing the ships elsewhere.

 

I have never seen anything indicating that California based cruises sold at lower fares than those from the East Coast. In fact, prices on similar ships and similar length cruises from Florida consistently sail for lower fares than their California counterparts.

 

Likewise, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that people cruising out of California spend any less onboard than people sailing out of the east coast. These sort of statements appear to be completely fabricated by folks ATTEMPTING to explain how profits might be lower on the West Coast without a full understanding of the economiocs of the industry. The spending habits of the typical cruiser don't vary one part of the country to another...same alcohol consumption, same gambling habits, same shore excursion purchasing, etc.

 

The actual differences in economics are more connected to fuel costs (much higher in California), regulatory compliance, maintenance costs and other issues which have nothing to do with personal spending or cruise fares...but do impact overall net profits.

 

The second thing creating a negative effect is the media coverage of crime and violence in Mexico. Of course, there is also crime and violence in the Caribbean--in Jamaica, Haiti, etc. AND many Caribbean cruises ALSO visit Mexico--Cancun, Cozumel, Costa Maya, et al. Somehow, though, it's the Mexican Riviera route taking the big hit--even though the ports of Cabo San Lucas, Puerto Vallarta and others being relatively violence-free...But, perception is everything...

 

In order to compensate for the higher fuel and regulatory costs, the cruise line would have to, likely, raise prices--and market against the Mexico public image...Which RCCL has chosen not to do, instead gambling on moving ships into several foreign markets--South and Central America, the Far East and into overloading the European markets...

 

Why? They have perceived the ability to make higher profit margins on these routes. Europe, for example, has always garnered a much higher per day cruise fare...And has typically exhibited high demand, especially in the summer months...But, with the historically large current numbers of ships in Europe, can they really continue to garner those high fares? Recent evidence seems to say no...

 

One side effect of ignoring California that they may not have considered is that, merely counting California and its immediate neighbors closest to the ports of Los Angeles and San Diego--Arizona and Nevada--that's a population of around 60 MILLION people...when you add in the populations of the other Western states for whom cruising out of California is far more convenient--Utah, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc., that is a VERY large group of potential customers that they are just writing off to the Carnival Corporation.

 

The cruise businesss is a growing industry. Many cruisers are first time cruisers...and first time cruisers often start out with shorter cruises close to home...By ignoring California, what Royal Caribbean is doing is insuring that a vast majority of these new cruisers are introduced to cruising on a CARNIVAL ship.

 

Although many of us may feel Royal Caribbean offers a much superior product, you've got to realize that many folks who take their first cruise with a cruise line, even Carnival--maybe especially Carnival--tend to go back to that cruise line again...and again...and again. After all, they do have fun...they do get food and entertainment and many of the same things that make ANY cruise enjoyable...Just read the Carnival board...How often have these folks take their first cruise on Carnival and then ALL of their subsequent cruises on Carnival?

 

Once that brand loyalty is established, it is hard to move customers off that.

 

Well, without even ONE ship in this market, Royal Caribbean has ceded that MAJOR marketing advantage to the competition. West Coast cruisers will start byt trying out a 3 or 4 nighter, by necessity on Carnival...Next time, they will move up to that 7 nighter to Mexico on Carnival...When they finally decide they want a little variety, they'll head to Alaska or the Caribbean...but, by this time, they are hooked on Carnival and they will book Carnival--even in parts of the world where RCCL has a presence...

 

How many cruise sales and potential customers does RCI lose by NOT maintaining a presence here?

 

I think that is where RCCL is REALLY "missing the boat"...

 

I'd love to cruise a lot more. I've even done a fairly recent 3-nighter on Carnival when I really would rather have gone on RCI...but had no choice...If RCI had a ship here, we'd be very likely, now that our kids are grown and we're not paying for colleges and don't have a mortgage anymore, to be taking 2 or 3 more local cruises per year out of SoCal.

 

It even undermines their ordinary "loyalty" marketing. I live in SoCal. I am a Diamond C&A member. I am down to cruising only twice a year. Due to my wife's and my schedules, we just can't get away to other parts of the world often enough to cruise any more nowadays...So, I really doubt we'll see "Diamond Plus" any time in the foreseeable future (and we're not all that far away)...So, now, even when we cruise on our one or two "big" vacations a year, we have far less incentive to stick with RCI...because when you don't have the opportunities, you aren't going to climb that C&A chart anyway, the "loyalty" sort of vanishes...

 

So, in the end, Royal Caribbean will lose a major stake in the new cruiser market...and they will lose a portion of their repeat customer market...

 

By the way, for many, many years, Royal Caribbean only sent their older ships with fewer amenities here. They'd advertise the big ships with the ice rinks and the Flowriders...and they'd give us the "Viking Serenade" and Monarch of the Seas"...

 

When they finally moved the Mariner of the Seas here for a short time, they really didn't market it in any special way here...The entire marketing budget, even here in California, was pushing the Oasis and Allure and the amenities one couldn't get without flying to Florida...

 

They did have a couple of very short pre-inaugural cruises--where they brought onboard a large number of local travel agents...But, times have changed, RCI--You DON'T get the bulk of your local business from local travel agents anymore...Most people nowadays book their cruises DIRECT through the company or with an internet booking service or with a national travel agency they only contact over the net or through 800 numbers...

 

You've got to create a demand locally...

 

Remember, also, that a lot of cruises are reall sold by "word of mouth"...Your friends and neighbors go on a cruise and convince you to go...or to go with them...AND, at this point in time, thanlks to your lack of presence here, all of those friends and neighbors are cruising with the competition...