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

[rukkian]

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).

You are thinking logically, but corporate heads are required to get results now, not potential profits down the road.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Forums mobile app

[riclop]

Don't hold your breathe.

[gatour]

Actually they gave and still give away razors, to sell razor blades. Razors you only need a few times, but razor blades you need to keep replacing. Razor blades raw ingredients are cheap to acquire. Razor blades are cheap to manufacture. However the companies, say they are adding new features to the blades. Rubbish. Thus some new companies getting into the business.

 

Getting back on track. As others have said, RCCL feel they can maximize profits by deploying ships to locations outside of CA.

 

In regards to looking at "longterm market expansion". Most companies just look at short term profits to placate the shareholders. Unless a company is owned by Warren Buffet then they are pretty much focused on short term returns.

 

 

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).

[OceansOfTravels]

While I love the idea of a cruise from the West Coast on Royal, I just do not see it happening in the near future. And, if it were to happen, I would see it on the Majesty or a smaller ship from San Diego, because Long Beach/LA is already full, and operating 5 nights to Ensenada and Cabo, and 4 nights to Catalina and Ensenada, which would be primarily booze cruises and getaways. That would be the best way for them to regain presence in the region, because Cabo is rarely served on short cruise routes anymore, and San Diego is an unused port most of the time. Maybe Royal could do an inverted season and have the ship on short cruises from California during the summer, and move it somewhere else for the winter, because many ships will be in other locales for the winter. Maybe splash in a few 7 nights here and there, maybe a special 10 night cruise once every year, maybe some variations with ports like Santa Barbara. This way, they could reestablish themselves on the west coast. However, as many other posters have said, Royal is gaining much more profit in other parts of the world, so unless there is literally a ship with no assignment for a whole season, I do not see it happening soon. I wish it would, I would love to see Royal back in this gorgeous area of the world!

[tonyweir]

Princess fills ships with a 7 day Mexican a Rivera cruise costing more than a 7 day Caribbean cruise. Our options are Princess, NCL, Carnival and Holland America sometimes.

 

Royal Caribbean used have the Monarch of the Seas out of L.A. It was very popular. Before that they had the Viking Serenade.

[Ashland]

Princess fills ships with a 7 day Mexican a Rivera cruise costing more than a 7 day Caribbean cruise. Our options are Princess, NCL, Carnival and Holland America sometimes.

 

Royal Caribbean used have the Monarch of the Seas out of L.A. It was very popular. Before that they had the Viking Serenade.

Don't forget the Vision...it sailed out of San Pedro too and finally the Mariner. I'll always continue to hope that RCI will return someday. We started cruising RCI in the very early 1990's....now 20+ cruises later and still loyal.

[Thetrail]

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?

I understand what you're saying, but don't hold your breath. RCL doesn't sail very often on the west coast for a reason. Their ships sail full week after week, month after month, from the U.S. ports they are in now, that just wasn't the case out of the west coast ,period. Don't look for a west coast presence form RCL anytime soon. As a shareholder I have to agree with this strategy also.

[norcalemt02]

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

 

 

It near LOS vegas.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[norcalemt02]

If Royal really wants to stand out on the West coast they should bring Ovation from Australia for the summer season to sail alaska from San Francisco. North Star will be the selling point near the Golden Gate Bridge and any glaciers.

 

For all you folks that will say "it won't fit, it's too big". It's not big for Norwegian Bliss that will make alaska home.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[matj2000]

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 believe Galveston is the 4th busiest cruise port in the US.

Sorry you don't approve.....

[norcalemt02]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[pspercy]

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

 

Carnival, in addition, will have three ships full time in Galveston soon, if not there already.

 

Galveston is not a "horrible port".

Yes driving down Harborside Dr is "industrial" but that's misleading. Galveston is a destination, hundreds of thousands visit yearly.

[time4u2go]

Carnival, in addition, will have three ships full time in Galveston soon, if not there already.

 

Galveston is not a "horrible port".

Yes driving down Harborside Dr is "industrial" but that's misleading. Galveston is a destination, hundreds of thousands visit yearly.

I don't think Harborside Drive is the main issue. People routinely complain about other things, including distance to airports, fog, required 2-night stays in hotels, Texas liquor tax issues...

[AWOL]

I don't think Harborside Drive is the main issue. People routinely complain about other things, including distance to airports, fog, required 2-night stays in hotels, Texas liquor tax issues...

There are around 11 million people who live within 4 hrs driving time to Galveston. I think this will fill a couple of ships. Getting to the port is not much worst that many ports that we have been to such as Southampton, Rome and Port Canaveral.

 

I think one of the things that keeps them away from California is the cost of doing business from there. Just the addition cost of the fuel ( they can only use low sulfur Diesel which is more than double the cost of bunker fuel) would probably be equal to going out of Texas with an empty ship.

[wl2cruise]

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?

 

That format would not work.

 

The format they sailed before leaving was Sun-Sun for the 7 night MR. Baja run was 3 night Fri-Mon 4 night Mon-FRi.

 

Royal would need 2 ships sailing out of the West coast to build brand presence with new cruisers.

[SelectSys]

I took two cruises from LA and they were my least favorite. For Mexico, I really prefer to fly from Tijuana and be at my destination in 2 or 3 hours.

 

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 with this 100%. Costs for everything are higher and going higher in California. Many businesses are seeking better opportunities outside CA due to the cost of doing business here. Why should RCI be any different?

 

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.

 

Yep, they are certainly making investments in Asia. It only makes sense to try and capture a part of this super fast growing market.

[chengkp75]

With regards to cost in California, remember that the Farallon Islands off San Francisco, and the Channel Islands off LA extend the ECA even further, requiring longer use of costly diesel fuel. Further, and more importantly, the port of LA requires "cold ironing" of ships (shutting off ship's diesels and plugging in for electrical power), the cost to add this to a cruise ship (most don't have the capability) is several million dollars.

[Clarea]

With regards to cost in California, remember that the Farallon Islands off San Francisco, and the Channel Islands off LA extend the ECA even further, requiring longer use of costly diesel fuel. Further, and more importantly, the port of LA requires "cold ironing" of ships (shutting off ship's diesels and plugging in for electrical power), the cost to add this to a cruise ship (most don't have the capability) is several million dollars.

Curious about this because Vision stops in LA at the end/beginning of Panama Canal cruises in Nov 2018. Do you know if Vision has this external power capability? Or do the authorities in LA give a one-day exemption?

[BillB48]

Curious about this because Vision stops in LA at the end/beginning of Panama Canal cruises in Nov 2018. Do you know if Vision has this external power capability? Or do the authorities in LA give a one-day exemption?

 

 

Seems to me I read somewhere that it did not apply to passenger ships of a particular cruise line that visited less than 5 times a year.

[Clarea]

Seems to me I read somewhere that it did not apply to passenger ships of a particular cruise line that visited less than 5 times a year.

 

Makes sense there would be some sort of frequency clause.

[alfaeric]

I don't want to drive, too. Can they do sailings out of the Great Lakes?

[chengkp75]

Okay, did a little research, and found that the rules exempt from cold ironing a fleet that only calls at a California port less than 5 times a year (this means that if 5 different ships of the same company call at LA once a year, then the whole fleet must meet the requirements). It also treats each port separately, so that a ship that calls at LA 5 times, but at SFO only 2 times a year, only needs to meet the requirements in LA.

 

So, the ships that only call at California infrequently will have to either cold iron, if fitted and if available, or burn ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Currently, California is studying whether or not the use of scrubbers, which meet the EPA's requirements for emissions within the US ECA meet the requirements of the California CARB ECA, which predated the federal one, and California would require that even if equipped with scrubbers, the ships burn ultr-low sulfur diesel.

[Clarea]

Okay, did a little research, and found that the rules exempt from cold ironing a fleet that only calls at a California port less than 5 times a year (this means that if 5 different ships of the same company call at LA once a year, then the whole fleet must meet the requirements). It also treats each port separately, so that a ship that calls at LA 5 times, but at SFO only 2 times a year, only needs to meet the requirements in LA.

 

So, the ships that only call at California infrequently will have to either cold iron, if fitted and if available, or burn ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Currently, California is studying whether or not the use of scrubbers, which meet the EPA's requirements for emissions within the US ECA meet the requirements of the California CARB ECA, which predated the federal one, and California would require that even if equipped with scrubbers, the ships burn ultr-low sulfur diesel.

Thanks Chief. So either way (cold ironing or ultra-low sulfur fuel), the expense is significantly higher.

[chengkp75]

Thanks Chief. So either way (cold ironing or ultra-low sulfur fuel), the expense is significantly higher.

 

Yep. You have to pay out several millions to equip your ship. Then you pay an electricity delivery fee (to pay for the port infrastructure to have high voltage power lines and transformers, and disconnect switches), and then the average commercial electrical rate in California is $.1274/kwh (12 and 3/4 cents/kwh). To generate one kilowatt on the ship requires 138 grams of fuel/kwh, which at today's cost for low sulfur diesel is about $.04/kwh (4 cents, or 1/4 of the cost to buy the power).

 

And low sulfur diesel costs twice as much as the residual fuel they can burn with scrubbers. My feeling, based on past experiences with California's CARB is that they will not allow scrubbers to be used as an exemption to the low sulfur fuel requirements.

[LeesSummitCruiser1]

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.

 

With Houston and New Orleans and Dallas within 4 hours, they don't worry to much about the few flying in. When we were on the Liberty, an informal survey by me demonstrated that 90+ % drove. Many were from Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. We had a group of 50 from Kansas City, and 30 of them drove. Galveston has pretty easy and cheap parking. If you are driving, you can stay in a hotel off of Galveston Island for a reasonable cost. It's only a pain if you fly in and need to find local transportation and insist on staying on Galveston Island precruise.