Why no Hawaii ships in the summer?

[CheapieD]

I know we would enjoy taking the grandchildren on a cruise to Hawaii in the summer. We have done a land trip with the oldest one (now 13 y/o) a couple of years ago and he keeps asking to go back as he just loved the islands. A cruise would be a lot cheaper than airfare and the cost of food/hotels in the islands and the immersion of the Hawaiian culture you offer on board ship would certainly be enjoyed by all of us.

 

Jackie

 

We are looking at the same but the only departure that would allow the kids to not miss school are the Christmas cruises which are just about sold out for this year and many cabins gone for 2014. I would love a late may/ early June cruise. When you add up the cost of airfare and hotels it is just cheaper to fly to San Fran or lax and than cruise to the islands.

[runnerodb83]

Any cruise starting on the US West Coast has lower profits than anywhere else in the world.

The seasonal West Coast repositioning cruises are the biggest losers of all.

 

Mexican Riviera itineraries have less profit than any other standard itineraries.

 

Hawaii is a very close second place. Between sailing from California with the outrageously expensive low-sulphur fuel, burning a half million dollars worth of regular fuel to get to Hawaii, then sailing in Hawaii on the ridiculously expensive low-sulphur fuel (and closing the casino in Hawaii to make it even more painful), there is very little reason to even try.

 

The cruise lines have already purchased and developed private ports in Mexico - but not on the West Coast. Between California's crazy environmental laws and the extremely frugal people who cruise from California, the cruise lines cannot make any money on that coast.

 

Carnival has already developed Costa Maya port in the Yucatan and NCL recently bought property nearby to develop their own cruise port.

 

Bruce do you know if the "Scrubbers" currently being installed by most cruise lines, and NCL spec-ing them on their newbuilds will change the environmental costs? IF they work as intended, they are supposed to allow ships to burn the dirty stuff but only emit what the clean stuff does.

 

Oh I do love those re-positioning coastals, but I can see how they are loss leaders. I wonder if princess is beating a dead horse by having 5 of their ships sail these itineraries in the spring and fall, especially the wine country coastals. It seems like every year they have a new variation to try with these. Alaskan sampler seems to be decently sucessful since its coming back next year and then there are some Vancouver, Victoria, SF cruises as well. However when we booked, the price was around $114 per person plus $90 in taxes.

 

Bruce, as you have mentioned, its the trend of the industry to get the cabins full, even at a loss. Its too bad too, because at this point, even if cruise lines listed prices at 10% profit and never budged, and promised better service and food with less nickle and dining on board, i think there would still be drops in bookings because we're all used to these declining standards, many don't know any better; its become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The price of cruising is the same in raw dollars as it was in the 80s. If inflation is taken into account, it would be 2 or 3 times more expensive in todays money.

[iceleven]

"Between California's crazy environmental laws and the extremely frugal people who cruise from California, the cruise lines cannot make any money on that coast."

 

Bruce, I believe I've read where you said this before. How are the people on the west coast so different from those say, on the east coast. Since I have lived my entire life living on both coasts and having cruised many times on both coasts, I personally haven't seen those "extremely frugal people" that you speak of. How are they different than regular cruisers. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just curious how a cruise line makes that distinction.

 

As to the fuel, aren't these environmental laws being extended to other parts of the U.S. within a year or two? I believe I read something that mentioned it. And I do believe that Canada is now already.

[BillB48]

"Between California's crazy environmental laws and the extremely frugal people who cruise from California, the cruise lines cannot make any money on that coast."

 

Bruce, I believe I've read where you said this before. How are the people on the west coast so different from those say, on the east coast. Since I have lived my entire life living on both coasts and having cruised many times on both coasts, I personally haven't seen those "extremely frugal people" that you speak of. How are they different than regular cruisers. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just curious how a cruise line makes that distinction.

 

As to the fuel, aren't these environmental laws being extended to other parts of the U.S. within a year or two? I believe I read something that mentioned it. And I do believe that Canada is now already.

 

You probably can tell I'm not Bruce and I have not portrayed him on TV either:D! But, I have some thoughts.... I think the cruise passenger on the West coast are a higher percentage of repeat passengers with many repeats at that. Considering that these people probably have been to Cabo Acapulco or P.V. mucho times they don't buy the tours and are just along for the ride without a lot of on board spending. On the Caribbean side of the equation I believe you have a much greater number of first or second time cruisers filling the bunks. Add to that a much greater number of ports to choose from in the name of Eastern or Western Caribbean.... and we have not yet included deep or the Southern Caribbean.

 

You are correct about the tightening up of fuel requirements, and some of those restrictions already impact East coast cruises now. The Emissions Control Area extend 200 miles off the coast of US and Canada as well (I think). However on the Caribbean side of the cruise business a ship only has to get halfway between two countries to be out of the ECA.... Bahamas and Cuba come to mind. They can switch back to bunker C a lot sooner on those routes.

 

The departure of some of the cruise lines has probably made it a bit easier for those that remained to maintain their prices.

[runnerodb83]

You probably can tell I'm not Bruce and I have not portrayed him on TV either:D! But, I have some thoughts.... I think the cruise passenger on the West coast are a higher percentage of repeat passengers with many repeats at that. Considering that these people probably have been to Cabo Acapulco or P.V. mucho times they don't buy the tours and are just along for the ride without a lot of on board spending. On the Caribbean side of the equation I believe you have a much greater number of first or second time cruisers filling the bunks. Add to that a much greater number of ports to choose from in the name of Eastern or Western Caribbean.... and we have not yet included deep or the Southern Caribbean.

 

You are correct about the tightening up of fuel requirements, and some of those restrictions already impact East coast cruises now. The Emissions Control Area extend 200 miles off the coast of US and Canada as well (I think). However on the Caribbean side of the cruise business a ship only has to get halfway between two countries to be out of the ECA.... Bahamas and Cuba come to mind. They can switch back to bunker C a lot sooner on those routes.

 

The departure of some of the cruise lines has probably made it a bit easier for those that remained to maintain their prices.

 

There are several reports and statistics available on some govt websites as well as CLIA's website that give a breakdown about passengers over the past several years. Of course on board revenue is not given as part of those statistics as those are trade secrets, but theres a lot that can be surmised. California does have a large percentage of the nation's cruisers, however the interesting statistic is that the majority of those california cruiers take cruises longer than 10 days or shorter than 5. Typically, folks who take longer cruises dont spend as much per day as those that take shorter. I was shocked to see its almost an equivalent percentage to the shorter cruises. However, given the itineraries attainable from CA, there aren't a lot of 7 day cruises available based on itineraries alone. The shorter cruises may have a lot of spending, but spend more time in California waters than other cruieses which eats into profits.

 

Other interesting statistics included that Hawaii and Mexico itineraries, as Bruce pointed out, are pretty low on the scale in filling berths. Alaska is #1 but the expensive fuel really cuts into profits.

[FritzG]

Right. Maybe that's another reason why Hawaii is not a prime destination for cruises across the Pacific during hurricane/tropical storm season.

 

They sail the Atlantic and Caribbean routes in hurricane season.

[bermudafan8]

We were lucky and sailed on the Regal to Hawaii in 2007. The Regal did several LA - Hawaii rdtrp sailings that summer prior to being switched to I believe P & O to do Australia sailings. The Regal is still one of our favorite ships - I think it was a mistake for Princess to let it go. As far as the weather - Hawaii was warm in summer but didn't compare to the heat of the Caribbean in summer (or winter or spring for that matter). We had 4 or 5 days visiting islands. The sea days were full of hula lessons, ukulele lessons, & lectures by naturalists etc. It was a wonderful trip and we would reserve this again for summer if it ever became available. There were all ages aboard, including kids but not nearly as many kids as the Caribbean cruises during spring break that we've taken. Our foreign port was a 'stop' in Ensenada. Ideally a ship could be removed from Alaska and relocated to the La/Hawaii summer route. I think it would be very popular, especially since it hasn't been offered in years! Or perhaps the ship could rotate between Hawaii and Mexico cruises.