More sailings from San Diego or Las Angeles needed to build brand presence

[HaulAwayJoe]

I believe that repeat cruisers stay mostly with the brand they sailed with first. Royal Caribbean is missing out on gaining many loyal cruisers because they no longer offer cruises from San Diego or Las Angeles (the only one listed is a Panama Canal cruise). A mix of 3, 4, and 7 night cruises would build brand presence and promote the long term growth of repeat Royal Caribbean cruisers. If you look on Cruise Critic for the best 15 cruises from California, you will see that Royal Caribbean does not appear on the list.

 

Ideally this could be a sequence of 3 night, 4 night, 7 night, 4 night, and 3 night cruises (or 4,3,7,3,4) that would then repeat every 3 weeks. This would provide a variety for people to choose from. The typical 3 and 4 night Baja and 7 night Mexican Riviera itineraries could be used or mixed with other itineraries.

 

If others agree then perhaps a formal share holder request could be made.

 

Royal Caribbean is our first choice but travel to Florida or Texas for a cruise significantly increases travel time and expense compared to sailing from a California port. This most certainly is also a consideration of first time cruisers.

 

Comments?

[Clarea]

As long as the company can make more money elsewhere, they won't be going back to California on a continuing basis. While they filled the ships, expenses were higher than other locations, so profit was down. Can't blame them.

[ONECRUISER]

I believe that repeat cruisers stay mostly with the brand they sailed with first. Royal Caribbean is missing out on gaining many loyal cruisers because they no longer offer cruises from San Diego or Las Angeles (the only one listed is a Panama Canal cruise). A mix of 3, 4, and 7 night cruises would build brand presence and promote the long term growth of repeat Royal Caribbean cruisers. If you look on Cruise Critic for the best 15 cruises from California, you will see that Royal Caribbean does not appear on the list.

 

Ideally this could be a sequence of 3 night, 4 night, 7 night, 4 night, and 3 night cruises (or 4,3,7,3,4) that would then repeat every 3 weeks. This would provide a variety for people to choose from. The typical 3 and 4 night Baja and 7 night Mexican Riviera itineraries could be used or mixed with other itineraries.

 

If others agree then perhaps a formal share holder request could be made.

 

Royal Caribbean is our first choice but travel to Florida or Texas for a cruise significantly increases travel time and expense compared to sailing from a California port. This most certainly is also a consideration of first time cruisers.

 

Comments?

As Bob said, more money to be made elsewhere. Royal doesn't have plans and won't do west coast in near future...

[Milwaukee Eight]

As long as the company can make more money elsewhere, they won't be going back to California on a continuing basis. While they filled the ships, expenses were higher than other locations, so profit was down. Can't blame them.

 

 

I agree. And Royal needs to replace Majesty at PC before sending a ship to CA.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[blackshirt]

I've been to Los Angeles but where is Las Angeles? Sorry, I couldn't resist :)

[squadron]

As long as the company can make more money elsewhere, they won't be going back to California on a continuing basis. While they filled the ships, expenses were higher than other locations, so profit was down. Can't blame them.

 

Other lines must make a profit or they,too, would leave. I would certainly take advantage of cruises from California as a winter break. I'm getting tired of the time and expense of flights from Western Canada to Florida. Did two cruises from LA previously with RCI.

[Clarea]

Other lines must make a profit or they,too, would leave. I would certainly take advantage of cruises from California as a winter break. I'm getting tired of the time and expense of flights from Western Canada to Florida. Did two cruises from LA previously with RCI.

I didn't say Royal could not make a profit, I said they could make more profit elsewhere. If Royal had 50 ships, I'd bet they would have some ships based in California. However, with the current number of ships they have, why shouldn't they put the ships where they make the most money?

[Amtrac]

I didn't say Royal could not make a profit, I said they could make more profit elsewhere. If Royal had 50 ships, I'd bet they would have some ships based in California. However, with the current number of ships they have, why shouldn't they put the ships where they make the most money?

 

 

 

Thought part of the issue was political/criminal unrest in ports they used to visit on the western Mexican routes.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[britty1]

I for one would probably take more cruises if they had a ship based in Los Angeles or San Diego. I like the 3, 4, 7, 4, 3 schedule. I would probably do a b2b2b with that schedule along with a couple of quick 3 or 4 day ones. I understand there ships are going to placed for the most profit and maybe their compromise is Nola and Galveston but Galveston is a horrible port and expensive to get to unless you live in Texas. JMO

[Clarea]

Thought part of the issue was political/criminal unrest in ports they used to visit on the western Mexican routes.

That certainly didn't help.

[CruiseCheapsk8]

As long as the company can make more money elsewhere, they won't be going back to California on a continuing basis. While they filled the ships, expenses were higher than other locations, so profit was down. Can't blame them.

 

I have heard this before, and frankly, it makes sense to me. Going along with this, I have also read that the cost of cruises is so low out of California (mostly due to the Carnivals of the world) that it doesn't make financial sense that way either. So, to Bob's point, they make more money elsewhere, so they sail elsewhere.

 

 

I agree with the OP, that it would be nice to have Royal Caribbean out here, as I live in Utah and a drive out to LA would save a lot on airfare, but unfortunately, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

I think if your hope is to go out of LA, you ought to give Princess a shot (since RC is not an option).

[CruiseCheapsk8]

I for one would probably take more cruises if they had a ship based in Los Angeles or San Diego. I like the 3, 4, 7, 4, 3 schedule. I would probably do a b2b2b with that schedule along with a couple of quick 3 or 4 day ones. I understand there ships are going to placed for the most profit and maybe their compromise is Nola and Galveston but Galveston is a horrible port and expensive to get to unless you live in Texas. JMO

 

I would say that "Galveston is a horrible port and expensive to get to unless you live in Texas" is not just your opinion, but an opinion that is shared with the majority of the the cruise critic community. It makes it a touch easier now, with Uber and Lift being back and functioning in Galveston and Houston, but it is still quite awful, far away, and pricey compared to other ports.

Edited June 2, 2017 by GlobetrotterTravel
mispelling

[Clarea]

... I understand there ships are going to placed for the most profit and maybe their compromise is Nola and Galveston but Galveston is a horrible port and expensive to get to unless you live in Texas. JMO

The population within reasonable driving distance to Galveston is huge. The company must be making a very good profit there to keep a Voyager class ship there year round.

[nelblu]

Thought part of the issue was political/criminal unrest in ports they used to visit on the western Mexican routes.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I did the Mexican Riviera some yeas ago and I promised never to do it again. The day we sailed from LA it was in the 40s and in the 60 the next few days. The atmosphere in Mexico wasn't to my liking. The only port that we enjoyed was Cabo San Lucas.

 

I would love a itinerary that sailed from SD with stops in LA, SF(overnight) & Seattle, but there's no foreign port unless they stop in Vancouver, but it would be a longer than a 7 day cruise.

[WALKER1313]

Choosing a California port requires many pax to pay full brochure rate. Not too sure this will happen anytime soon.

 

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Forums mobile app

[Beachin2]

I did the Mexican Riviera some yeas ago and I promised never to do it again. The day we sailed from LA it was in the 40s and in the 60 the next few days. The atmosphere in Mexico wasn't to my liking. The only port that we enjoyed was Cabo San Lucas.

 

I would love a itinerary that sailed from SD with stops in LA, SF(overnight) & Seattle, but there's no foreign port unless they stop in Vancouver, but it would be a longer than a 7 day cruise.

 

Some of us on the west coast call Cabo "Newport Beach South" and just stay on the ship. We tried NCL out of LA and it was just OK, but they did have some things that we really liked. Too many noro outbreaks reported on Princess for our liking, so we fly to cruise.

 

 

I'm very glad that there is enough population within driving distance of Galveston because we wouldn't sail into or out of there again even if the cruise was free.

 

 

RC will never return to SOCA on a regular basis. I've heard the bias up and down the corporate ladder.

[NEARING 100 CRUISES]

In the past, RCL has had too many crew get off the ships in LA and they never returned to the ship.

LA is easy for foreign nationals to get work in the hotel and restaurant industries. With over 20 ships

employing many foreigners is a major human resources headache.

 

Jerry

[WpgCruise]

The West Coasters might best consider supporting the Cruise lines that are home porting in CA. rather than wanting more competition in an already fully serviced Market.

 

Waiting for RCL to sail over the horizon could easily result in Carnival, Princess et al moving to other ports if they can't get the yields needed to meet their Business Plans.

 

Sailing at reduced fares in comparison to other Markets will simply result in the ships being re-deployed.

 

So, to the West Coasters, sail more, pay more and keep the ships you have now.

[HaulAwayJoe]

All very good points (and sorry about the original typo). As a shareholder I would hope RCCL would look beyond only the profit/loss on sailings from CA and look at the bigger picture of long term growth. They gave away razor blades to sell razors. Apple gave schools computers to gain a loyal following. So too the important point is for RCCL to capture the hearts and minds of first time cruisers sailing from the west coast (and repeat business also).

[time4u2go]

All very good points (and sorry about the original typo). As a shareholder I would hope RCCL would look beyond only the profit/loss on sailings from CA and look at the bigger picture of long term growth. They gave away razor blades to sell razors. Apple gave schools computers to gain a loyal following. So too the important point is for RCCL to capture the hearts and minds of first time cruisers sailing from the west coast (and repeat business also).

I'm sure they've done their homework on this. Perhaps it's more profitable to capture the hearts and minds of first time cruisers sailing from Asia.

[FLSteve11]

I'm sure they've done their homework on this. Perhaps it's more profitable to capture the hearts and minds of first time cruisers sailing from Asia.

 

It's quite clear that they're going for the major push on Asia, and will expand that before they go to California.

[Clarea]

All very good points (and sorry about the original typo). As a shareholder I would hope RCCL would look beyond only the profit/loss on sailings from CA and look at the bigger picture of long term growth. They gave away razor blades to sell razors. Apple gave schools computers to gain a loyal following. So too the important point is for RCCL to capture the hearts and minds of first time cruisers sailing from the west coast (and repeat business also).

They can do all that in New Orleans, Galveston, and Baltimore for more profit. If they get more ships, then California might be considered depending on the expense level. Or maybe they will put more ships in Bayonne, Tampa, Asia, Oz, etc.

[whitshel]

The population within reasonable driving distance to Galveston is huge. The company must be making a very good profit there to keep a Voyager class ship there year round.

 

Bob, you didn't just say that, did you? I'm sure you meant Freedom Class :cool:

[Clarea]

Bob, you didn't just say that, did you? I'm sure you meant Freedom Class :cool:

Thanks for the catch, I did mean Freedom class.:)

[Ashland]

It's quite clear that they're going for the major push on Asia, and will expand that before they go to California.

What..."major push on Asia".....Have you noticed the lack of cruises just on the supposedly release of Asia and Singapore for RCI....I was waiting patiently for them to open...and all I can say is what a disappointment :eek::(:loudcry: