Why so few cruises out of West Coast/LA/LB?

[Lizzybell1960]

Hi-I have been wondering why Carnival is the only cruise line that sails on a reg basis out of the Los Angeles/Long Beach area ???

 

I tried to find a cruise originating out of LA/LB r/t to Alaska this summer, there were 2 dates. One in May and one in Sept, dates not good. I would pay double to NOT fly and have 10-14 days onboard the ship, but really nothing to choose from.

 

I am surprised with how popular cruising has become that there are so few cruise options out of LA/San Pedro/Long Beach ports throughout the summer months esp.

 

I would be thrilled to take a 7 day coastal cruise hitting San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Francisco etc. For me, the ports are but a side note of the real vacation...being onboard and sea days. And to not have to fly to go aboard the ship.

 

Is it that every company and their 90% of their ships are up in Alaska for the summer season??

 

Does anyone know why so few cruises are offered out of the West Coast??

 

Thanks much

Liz in Long Beach

[Kartgv]

You're right that there aren't as many as we'd like to see. Princess has some RT's between San Pedro and Alaska during September. They also do RT's to Hawaii. Holland America and Disney do some trips out of San Diego. Carnival is adding more San Diego/Mexico cruises, starting late in 2019. Also look for repositioning cruises on other cruise lines in September and April/May as ships head to/from the Alaska market. In summer the money seems to be in Alaska, the Mediterranean, or Caribbean.

[Kamloops50]

The big thing in my mind is the lack of ports in Mexico and that ports north of San Francisco are to cold in winter . That said , I personally would to see cruises to Hawaii that loops thru LA/SP , SFO , Vancouver ,Seattle , Hawaii and San Diego. This way cruisers in the Pacific Northwest can cruise with little or no fkying.

[Hlitner]

This topic is routinely discussed here on CC. The West Coast has several factors that tend to minimize the number of cruises, especially shorter voyages of less then 2 weeks. One needs to look at the geography and couple that with the PVSA which severely restricts the ability of cruise ships to move between US Ports. And the West Coast weather just about eliminates cruising North of Vancouver during the winter months. This leaves Mexico and many cruisers either do not want to go to Mexico or eventually get tired of the limited number of cruise ports accessible on shorter cruises.

 

A few years ago there were many more West Coast cruises down to the Mexican Riviera. But cruise lines discovered that they could not fill ships unless they cut their pricing. There were also cost related issues caused by the West Coast Longshoreman and the unique California anti-pollution regulations (these meant that many ships had to burn special more expensive low sulphur fuel when near the coast). And also consider that the most popular cruise ports are not convenient to LAX. And then we have San Francisco which has increasingly become a city to be avoided unless folks want to trip over homeless folks, smell urine, see syringes, get constantly harassed by homeless, etc. San Francisco used to be one of my favorite cities in North America and now, DW and I can't get out of the city fast enough :(. For those of us on or near the East Coast its just as easy (or easier) to fly to Europe then to the West Coast...and the cruise/travel opportunities in Europe are amazing.

 

Hank

[navybankerteacher]

Aside from the above-cited spending habits of typical Southern California customers, there are not that many destinations reachable from California ports. Florida ports have dozens of reachable attractive destinations, while the Pacific coast of Mexico lacks that sort of variety.

[bonsai3s]

Sigh...agree with everyone's answer. Those of us that have done all the sailings out of San Diego, LA/San Pedro/LB, San Francisco, Seattle,...now have to fly to other cities if we want to sail to other destinations. We have to factor in the cost of airfare every time we cruise...Sigh again.:(

(Note: Perhaps another reason was passenger safety issues. Cruise lines stopped visiting Mexican ports....this was the case a few years ago and may still be an issue today.)

[Flatbush Flyer]

And then we have San Francisco which has increasingly become a city to be avoided unless folks want to trip over homeless folks, smell urine, see syringes, get constantly harassed by homeless, etc. San Francisco used to be one of my favorite cities in North America and now, DW and I can't get out of the city fast enough :(. Hank

 

Weird. Usually one only hears comments like that from folks who can't afford to live here.

In any case, we'll be fine without you but will always welcome you back.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2017/10/26/san-francisco-tops-our-list-of-americas-coolest-cities/amp/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/north-america/united-states/california/san-francisco/articles/anthony-horowitz-why-san-francisco-is-my-favourite-us-city/amp/

https://www.smartertravel.com/2018/02/02/best-us-cities/

[Lizzybell1960]

This topic is routinely discussed here on CC. The West Coast has several factors that tend to minimize the number of cruises, especially shorter voyages of less then 2 weeks. One needs to look at the geography and couple that with the PVSA which severely restricts the ability of cruise ships to move between US Ports. And the West Coast weather just about eliminates cruising North of Vancouver during the winter months. This leaves Mexico and many cruisers either do not want to go to Mexico or eventually get tired of the limited number of cruise ports accessible on shorter cruises.

 

A few years ago there were many more West Coast cruises down to the Mexican Riviera. But cruise lines discovered that they could not fill ships unless they cut their pricing. There were also cost related issues caused by the West Coast Longshoreman and the unique California anti-pollution regulations (these meant that many ships had to burn special more expensive low sulphur fuel when near the coast). And also consider that the most popular cruise ports are not convenient to LAX. And then we have San Francisco which has increasingly become a city to be avoided unless folks want to trip over homeless folks, smell urine, see syringes, get constantly harassed by homeless, etc. San Francisco used to be one of my favorite cities in North America and now, DW and I can't get out of the city fast enough :(. For those of us on or near the East Coast its just as easy (or easier) to fly to Europe then to the West Coast...and the cruise/travel opportunities in Europe are amazing.

 

Hank

 

Hi Hank-isn't the Med wonderful :) We did it on NCL in 2015 and last year in 2017 & we fell in love with Barcelona and Spain. That is an exhausting cruise as every port I wanted to see all I could!

 

I agree with all of the reasons why & now as there is only one weekly 7 day cruise, the prices are high and the weekly cruises appear to be selling out.

 

I think a weekly Ca Coastal cruise in the summer would do really well So many people want to just be onboard & have that experience as well as more r/t to Alaska from LA.

 

Thank you all for your responses. We are excited to try Carnival and cruise the Mexican Rivera in a couple of weeks.

[Heidi13]

In my days working cruise ships, I completed 2 Alaska seasons and at that time Alaska was the highest performing region for cruise ships and I doubt that has changed in the past 30 yrs. The biggest revenue generator was shore-ex, hence the reason most Alaska cruises are based in Vancouver or Seattle.

 

To base those ships in SFO or San Pedro, they would miss out on many days of shore-ex revenue. Also the fuel bill would be substantially higher.

 

Personally, we prefer longer cruises, but the majority of pax on mass market mega ships are looking for 7 days or shorter. From LA you have minimal options for 7-day R/T and still get the number of ports that most of the mass market wants.

 

When we did Mexico cruising it was 7 days LA to Acapulco, then a separate 7-day cruise back. So you had to fly 1-way.

[Keith1010]

It simply comes down to Itinerary.

 

Very hot for a Western Mexico Cruise.

 

Only other type of seven day cruise would be back and forth to Pacific Coastal Cities.

 

Other cruises would be much longer than a seven day cruise.

 

Yes, Alaska is very popular this time of year.

 

Keith

[chengkp75]

Even with the implementation of the North American ECA (Emissions Control Area), and its requirement to burn lower sulfur fuel (or use a scrubber) everywhere along the North American coastline, California continues to be more costly to operate in than other areas. First, the CARB has not ruled that scrubbers are allowed as an alternative to low sulfur fuel as is allowed elsewhere in the US (and hence the higher cost low sulfur diesel fuel must be used), and second is the requirement for ships to "cold iron", or plug into shore power and shut down all ship's generators. This uses a formula based on the number of ship visits to California ports each year, and the fleet size, and some other factors, but basically requires that a ship permanently based in California must have a multi-million dollar installation of a shore power facility capable of operating the entire ship while in port.

 

In addition to what others have said about the restricted itineraries, there is a far different demographic for cruises greater than 7 days, compared to that for cruises 7 days and under.

[Z'Loth]

If you are talking about Long Beach (Los Angeles) or San Diego, then your typical destination is most likely Mexico. My mother and I had two cruises out of there:

• January, 2003 on the Carnival Elation: Long Beach → Puerto Vallarta → Mazatlan → Cabo San Lucas → Long Beach
  
• January 2005 on the Carnival Spirited: San Diego → Acapulco → Zihuatanejo/Ixtapa → Manzanillo → San Diego
  

I suggest that you read over Mexico International Travel Information and the Mexico Travel Warning at the US State Department.

 

In looking over the previous ports, Acapulco and Zihuatanejo/Ixtapa are in the state of Guerrero, Manzanillo is in the state of Colima, and Mazatlan is in Sinaloa. All three states, as of this writing, are explicitly stated as "Level 4: Do Not Travel". Guerrero is the worst, with the explicit warning "U.S. government employees are prohibited from travel to the entire state of Guerrero, including Acapulco." :eek: For Manzanillo, it's "U.S. government travel is permitted only in Zona Dorada, the historic town center, and direct routes to and from these locations and the airport or the cruise ship terminal." Those are just three of the five states of Mexico that is listed as the same threat level as the entire countries of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen.

 

Now, what was your question again?

[Folgers111]

A related issue is the seas are rougher in the Pacific than in the Caribbean or Mediterranean. Even people from California prefer to fly a few hours and experience gentler seas.

[Flatbush Flyer]

A related issue is the seas are rougher in the Pacific than in the Caribbean or Mediterranean. Even people from California prefer to fly a few hours and experience gentler seas.

really? Not anyone I know.

[calliopecruiser]

And then we have San Francisco which has increasingly become a city to be avoided unless folks want to trip over homeless folks, smell urine, see syringes, get constantly harassed by homeless, etc.

 

Hank

 

Interesting......next month I go to San Francisco for the first time in over 35 years, and I'm interested to see what it's like. I'm only there about 24 hours before my cruise, though.

[Kartgv]

A related issue is the seas are rougher in the Pacific than in the Caribbean or Mediterranean. Even people from California prefer to fly a few hours and experience gentler seas.

 

Not us or any of our cruising neighbors. I'd ALWAYS choose being rocked to sleep by a good sea swell over flying anywhere, anytime.

 

I have to agree that West Coasters would probably spend less on ship tours; we've often been to all the ports before and do our own thing by rental car, walking, or taxi/Uber. On the issue of spending less for drinks, has the prevalence of drink packages changed that dynamic any? We often get the drink package for free as a TA perk - how does that affect the cruise lines' revenues?

[gwsster]

I agree, there are so many places that we could use a port. I wish they would open up Port Hueneme for ships. It is a deep water port and there is a lot to do and see in Ventura County.

 

 

The big thing in my mind is the lack of ports in Mexico and that ports north of San Francisco are to cold in winter . That said , I personally would to see cruises to Hawaii that loops thru LA/SP , SFO , Vancouver ,Seattle , Hawaii and San Diego. This way cruisers in the Pacific Northwest can cruise with little or no fkying.

[sail7seas]

I agree, there are so many places that we could use a port. I wish they would open up Port Hueneme for ships. It is a deep water port and there is a lot to do and see in Ventura County.

 

dOES It have infastructure to handle CRUISERs and cruise ships? How far from FROM major airport? Direct flights to East Coast major cities? YOU NEED TO ATTRACT that population.

Edited July 3, 2018 by sail7seas

[Folgers111]

Another reason: Most Americans live near the East Coast or the Gulf. Only 15 percent live in the Pacidic Time Zone and many of those can cruise out of Seattle, which is very busy. Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area are big, but it’s nothing like the 100 million that live on the eastern seaboard.

[sail7seas]

Another reason: Most Americans live near the East Coast or the Gulf. Only 15 percent live in the Pacidic Time Zone and many of those can cruise out of Seattle, which is very busy. Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area are big, but it’s nothing like the 100 million that live on the eastern seaboard.

 

 

 

 

You answered the quesion that t opened this thread,

[Lizzybell1960]

40 million people live in CA, with a big percent in the LA area That's a huge population, aka a huge market to pull from. That's a lot of potential cruisers but I do get the reasons why.

 

What I have realized is that there are a huge number of ships in Alaska for 5 months, that cannot be good for that area, too much :(

[spookwife]

I have done all the Mexican Riviera ports. not a single one would I EVER willingly go back to. ( and this was before most of Mexico went off limits to military personnel)

 

I did do a pacific wine country cruise once which I enjoyed a lot and it was easy to just skip the Mexican port required. I would seriously consider a similar cruise that had stops in Canada. haven't had any poutine in a while.....

 

and I did both of them while stationed in CA so no flying was necessary. if I had to add flying to the mix, it would have to be a spectacular itinerary at a bargain basement price

[XBGuy]

In an attempt to get this conversation back on cruising, I would like to repeat much of what the Purser said.

 

Lizzy, the cruise lines are corporations. They're raison d'etre is to make money. Believe me, if they felt they could make more money sailing out of Los Angeles more often, they would do it.

 

Princess has two or three ships home-ported in San Pedro from September until May. There are no summer sailings out of Los Angeles, because those ships are repositioned to Alaska. Carnival does offer various Mexico cruises all year long, but, again in the summer months, it deploys one of its west coast ships to Alaska. Obviously, they feel they can make more money on Alaska cruises.

 

While Carnival (Long Beach) and Princess (San Pedro) are the only cruise lines that have ships home-ported in the area, Other cruise lines do offer occasional cruises out of Los Angeles. As somebody has already noted, often when ships are being deployed to/from Alaska, a couple cruises will be offered. I have seen cruises offered by NCL, Celebrity and Royal Caribbean offered out of Los Angeles--mostly, in early autumn. Also, I have seen intermittent offerings from some luxury lines such as Crystal and Seabourn.

 

Interestingly, next year Princess is deploying one of their larger ships, the Royal Princess, to Los Angeles. If they can consistently sell out that ship, they will, of course, consider other offerings. If other lines see that Princess is making a lot of money in Los Angeles, they will, certainly, consider adding cruises.

 

A friend, today, told me that cruise line bookings in the Caribbean are down this year. The purported reason is that more and more people are concerned about hurricanes. If ships are sailing the Caribbean with empty cabins, it won't take long before those cruise corporations are going to start thinking "We have to send are ships to places where more people want to go."

 

To address your specific question about cruises out of Long Beach, keep in mind that the Long Beach cruise terminal is owned by Carnival. If Royal Caribbean decides it wants to sail out of the area, it is going to look at the municipally owned San Pedro terminal before it considers negotiating with its competitor, Carnival.