Extended Port Stays

[AZaTaz]

Has anybody heard of cruises that are of 5-7+ days where the number of ports visited are small but the lengh of time is extended. As an example would love to take a cruise that was 7 days with 2 ports and stayed 2 days at each port. We have seen no such itinerary on any of the main cruise lines

[UA02173]

Has anybody heard of cruises that are of 5-7+ days where the number of ports visited are small but the lengh of time is extended. As an example would love to take a cruise that was 7 days with 2 ports and stayed 2 days at each port. We have seen no such itinerary on any of the main cruise lines

 

I have wondered such myself. It would be great if the ship would linger in a port for a day or so and not be rushing off to the next port after a few hours. I would be game for a 7 day cruise that just went to one port and stayed there for 3 days before returning home. 4 days at sea and 3 days checking out a port/country sounds wonderful.

[NAS-KARR]

In my opinion theres no $ in it for a cruise line to do such....and that's the name of the game.

 

Haven't seen such an animal......good luck !

 

CIAO,

[kitty9]

Unfortunately, no such thing exists. The only thing I can suggest is taking land vacations and visit different islands, staying on for a few days at a time. Not even the luxury lines have itineraries that stay over a few days. To be honest, there's not much on any Caribbean island that would entice me to want to say in port for longer than a few hours.

 

The only places where cruise ships might stay overnight are the more exotic itineraries. I know that some lines stay for two or three days in St. Petersburg Russia, and in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam they generally stay for two days.

[LHT28]

Bermuda is the only port this side of the pond I have seen with extended stay

[greatam]

Has anybody heard of cruises that are of 5-7+ days where the number of ports visited are small but the lengh of time is extended. As an example would love to take a cruise that was 7 days with 2 ports and stayed 2 days at each port. We have seen no such itinerary on any of the main cruise lines

 

You could always do EasyCruise in either the Caribbean or Greece. You can get off those ships-stay as long as you want on an island, find your own transport to another island and rejoin the ship.

 

As cheap as EasyCruise is, it is a viable alternative if you can work out the logistics. And just the regular EasyCruise Caribbean schedule is pretty lenient with time in port. Most of the time you arrive about 10:00AM and leave port about 4:00AM the next day.

 

Don't expect too many "cruise ship" amenties. But you really could get your money's worth, as food is additional. So if you ate in port, you are not "wasting" your food on a ship as you do on a regular cruise ship.

 

Our kids (30 somethings) went on EasyCruise last week. They said it was a hoot. Not very "cruise ship like", but a decent, inexpensive way to travel.

[megabill]

Just my two cents here....

 

Bermuda is the only cruise that i know of that actually is 7 days and only 2 ports... went back in 2000 - if i recall correctly it was 1.5 days in one port, and 2.5 days in the other with about 2 days sailing down and 2 days back.

 

 

But to follow up to greatam.... Frankly - until i came to these boards, i've never heard of EasyCruise, so i can't comment on that at all - but they seem like the tour hop-on/hop-off busses you see in big city. which if thats the case - that might be cool. but along the same lines, many of the cruise lines will allow you to disembark in a port and re-join the ship at a later port.

 

I was on the Millennium this summer and saw that quite a bit. Folks might disembark in Livorno and re-join in Naples - doing a 2 or 3 day land-tour. I suppose its probably a lot more convienent in a place like Europe and on longer cruises... but probably still possible in the Caribbean.

[kitty9]

You need to check to see if EasyCruise is a viable option in the US because of the Passenger Services Act. With that law, if their ship starts in a US port, you can't do the hop on hop off thing without violating the law. You can do EasyCruise like that in Europe because those itineraries aren't covered by the PSA.

 

Megabill, no mainstream cruise line allows a passenger to get off the ship and then rejoin it at a later date. What you saw passengers doing was leaving the ship and coming back on the same cruise after doing a land tour. No cruise line will allow you to book a few days on one itinerary and then book days on another itinerary. If you want to do that, you have to pay the full fare for both cruises. The only line that allows that is EasyCruise, but only on their non-US itineraries.

[megabill]

Sorry - wasn't referring to different itineraries. Was referring to same voyage. Its called an IOC - Interruption of Cruise. Normally used for emergency disembarkation ('permanent')...

 

it was very common to see guests on voyages disembark in one port and hop back on (same voyage) at another port. Did 12 day itineraries in the med durring the summer - saw it a nearly every cruise.

[greatam]

EasyCruise does not go to any US or US territory ports, so no PSA restrictions. That was very carefully thought out by Stelios when he got into the cruise business. It was written in the business plan. No way did he want anything to do with US labor or maritime rules.

 

And ANY ship that does the Med can allow pax to get on and off at different ports-again NO PSA.

[AZaTaz]

Hi thanks for the replies. I do not see how it is a “No money in it for the cruise lines” because as far as I can tell, the cost to the consumer of a cruise is determined by how long the cruise (#of days) and what class of accommodations. If anything, I see how it could be more profitable because of a reduced fuel and food provisions costs. More people would be off ship in the port to dine off ship for example. Fewer ports over the same length of time as a typical cruise surely could result in less fuel being used. It’s amusing (in a good way) how people thought I was talking about the Caribbean when in fact a cruise from LA or San Diego to Costa Rica was what I had in mind. I read a thread that suggests, people (in particular people who have done several cruises) seem to like Sea days more then port days. This got me to thinking, if such is true, why do the cruise lines seem to push the port heavy itinerary and rush port to port as they do?

[greatam]

Hi thanks for the replies. I do not see how it is a “No money in it for the cruise lines” because as far as I can tell, the cost to the consumer of a cruise is determined by how long the cruise (#of days) and what class of accommodations. If anything, I see how it could be more profitable because of a reduced fuel and food provisions costs. More people would be off ship in the port to dine off ship for example. Fewer ports over the same length of time as a typical cruise surely could result in less fuel being used. It’s amusing (in a good way) how people thought I was talking about the Caribbean when in fact a cruise from LA or San Diego to Costa Rica was what I had in mind. I read a thread that suggests, people (in particular people who have done several cruises) seem to like Sea days more then port days. This got me to thinking, if such is true, why do the cruise lines seem to push the port heavy itinerary and rush port to port as they do?

 

Absolutely cannot do what you are thinking of if the ship returns to the USA. PSA prevents this.

 

It may be doable on a Costa Rica itinerary IF the cruise starts or ends in Costa Rica. But that certainly adds to the cost, due to expensive air to Costa Rica.

 

And the cruiselines would not save money on food. They would have to be prepared to served everyone, even if only half showed up for a meal. Would be a lot more food waste.

[AZaTaz]

My understanding of PSA is that a foreign carrier (Airline, cruise line) cannot embark passengers at US Air/Ship port “A” and disembark passengers at US Air/Ship-Port “B” without first going to a foreign Air/Ship-Port for an amount of time. How would a 7 day cruise from San Diego, 3 sea days total, 4 port days at 4 ports, returning to San Diego be allowed by PSA but a cruise from San Diego to Puntarenas, Costa Rica (4 sea days total , 3 days at 1 port) and returning to San Diego be in violation of PSA? In both situations, the requirement of travel to a foreign country is met.

Regarding waste of food, I contend such would not occur because people who would partake in such a cruise, (extended overnight stays at a port) would very likely choose to dine off ship (perhaps even sleep off ship ) and the cruise line would take such into account in the amount of food provisioned and prepared.

I continued to be baffled as to why the Cruise Lines push such port intensive cruises when polls and threads on sites like this one suggest that many customers often want a more leisurely pace.

What is clear to me, it is time to kill off PSA.

[kitty9]

You're not looking at the big picture when it comes to cruise line profits. A huge part of their profits come from casino gaming and alcohol sales. Being in port for extended periods of time cut into those profits quite severely. Then there are the profits from the on board shops and photo stores that must be closed while in port. I don't think any cruise line will want itineraries whereby the casino and shops would be closed for days at a time.

 

As for the PSA, it's been a a pain in the behind law for many years and one that's not going to go away anytime soon, unfortunately.

[megabill]

What is clear to me, it is time to kill off PSA

 

totally agree. (speaking from second hand experience: ) who wants to stop in ensendada for a bit on their way back to san diego from Hawaii. (i'm NOT being sarcastic there) its a waste of time, eh?

 

 

I continued to be baffled as to why the Cruise Lines push such port intensive cruises when polls and threads on sites like this one suggest that many customers often want a more leisurely pace.

 

i'm gonna take this a bit o/t, sorry. I agree to an extent. Personally, i dont mind a quick visit to some places (vs an extended visit) - but having spent the summer in the med on Millennium - i can definitely understand the benefit of extended stays. Every voyage we overnighted in Barcelona and Venice - which was really nice. I've also had the benefit of visiting Rome... a 12 hour day in Rome is definitely not enough. It was nice to do a Shore excursion, then have the time to go back and explore the things i thought were a bit more interesting. Thats something that's not very possibly with one 12-hour visit.

 

There are disadvantages to extended stays as well. I had gone to bermuda a few years back. I didn't know anything about it, but *thought* i liked the idea of a couple days in one port, a couple days in the other. I didn't have such a great experience there. It seems that it was either go to the beach (which, at the time, i didn't enjoy doing) or play golf (which i dont do)... so for me, Bermuda was a bust.

 

I guess it mostly has to do with the itinerary too. My opinion - there were a few ports in the Med that would have been nice to spend more time in. I speculating here - but i would think that there are some cruise lines that actually do cater to that... like for example, an over night in Rome (i actually thought i saw somewhere that Millennium will be doing that next summer - but don't quote me.) Alternatively - there are places on the (only few) caribbean cruises that i've been on that a day is more than plenty for me to get my fill.

 

of course, there's always sea days - those are good things too :)

[chasetf]

You're not looking at the big picture when it comes to cruise line profits. A huge part of their profits come from casino gaming and alcohol sales. Being in port for extended periods of time cut into those profits quite severely. Then there are the profits from the on board shops and photo stores that must be closed while in port. I don't think any cruise line will want itineraries whereby the casino and shops would be closed for days at a time.

While in port the profit center changes from the casino and bars to the tours. They get a big cut of those "ship tours". :D

[chasetf]

What is clear to me, it is time to kill off PSA.

Problem is not the cruise industry, it is the airline industry. PSA is why KLM, Qantas, Virgin Air do not fly LA to NY. The American airlines do not want the competion. ;)

[chasetf]

My understanding of PSA is that a foreign carrier (Airline, cruise line) cannot embark passengers at US Air/Ship port “A” and disembark passengers at US Air/Ship-Port “B” without first going to a foreign Air/Ship-Port for an amount of time.

Time has nothing to do with it. Some ships make a 1 hr service call in Ensenada and satisify PSA.

How would a 7 day cruise from San Diego, 3 sea days total, 4 port days at 4 ports, returning to San Diego be allowed by PSA but a cruise from San Diego to Puntarenas, Costa Rica (4 sea days total , 3 days at 1 port) and returning to San Diego be in violation of PSA? In both situations, the requirement of travel to a foreign country is met.

Your example of SD to Puntarenas to SD would be a round trip and only requires a foreign port. I think that trip would be ok. The problems occur when starting in Port A (say Ft. Lauderdale) traveling to Port B (LA for instance). That requires a distant foreign port, which in your example Puntarenas would not qualify.

[chasetf]

Has anybody heard of cruises that are of 5-7+ days where the number of ports visited are small but the lengh of time is extended. As an example would love to take a cruise that was 7 days with 2 ports and stayed 2 days at each port. We have seen no such itinerary on any of the main cruise lines

One way to make a trip like this would be in Alaska. If you use the ferries like a cruise ship, then you can travel between ports and stay for multiple days. Problem is you would need to get off, stay in port, and board a new ferry to continue on. But you could certainly "tailor" your own trip and see places the ships don't go. :D