Curious about itinerary changes....

[murphysmum]

Hello...

 

I love cruising, but I know very little about how/why cruise lines plan their itineraries.

 

I'm very curious about what would motivate changes in Azamara's formerly perfect (in my opinion) Panama Canal itinerary.

 

In February of 08 we flew to Acapulco to board the ship, ending in Miami. We loved being able to skip the regular Mexican Riviera stops (nothing wrong with them, but we've been there many times), seeing Huatulco in Mexico and then making six stops in Central America before a one day stop in Calica and then on to Miami. Azamara allowed for long days in port so that we could plan excellent tours; we were able to see parts of Nicaragua, stopped at both east and west coast of Costa Rica, east coast of Guatemala (would have loved west coast as well), brief Panama stop, San Andreas, Columbia (not great, but different) and then a day on the Yucatan and on to Miami. It was port intensive and each port was fascinating.

 

We also loved everything about the ship and have recommended the ship and the itinerary to many friends. However, it appears that the itinerary has been "watered down", with much less time in Central America, more sea days, goes to and from US. This results in stops at Cabo, PV or Acapulco on the west coast and one stop somewhere in the Carribbean on the way to Miami with, I think, only three stops in Central America.

 

So, bottom line is, I'm just curious why changes like that would be made when everyone on the ship who we talked to seemed very enthusiastic about the "new" Central American focused itinerary. I'm very glad that I took the trip when I did; I wish that others would have the chance as well.

 

I'll be curious to hear what others would prefer in a Panama Canal cruise.

 

Thanks in advance for any information an experienced cruiser or possibly travel agent or board manager can give me.

 

I don't want to end this without saying that I LOVED the ship and will definitely cruise with Azamara again...just not to Panama.

 

murphysmum;)

[Andy]

Hi Murphysmum !

 

While I do not have the exact reason for the change, I can think of some possible reasons for the move from Acapulco to Los Angeles :

 

1. I recall reading that passengers were not happy with Acapulco being a port of embarcation/disembarcation. It's possible that Acapulco wasnt a good fit for Azamara.

 

2. Many Azamara passengers want longer sailings. The new sailings are a bit longer.

 

3. I recall passengers talking about the very high cost of Air to/from Acapulco. This may have been of concern to Azamara.

 

4. Many passengers on the West coast asked for Azamara to depart from there on occasion. Perhaps Azamara wanted to see what the demand was from Los Angeles.

 

While it may be none of the above, this may be some of the reasons for the change.

[Druke I]

I think Host Andy's first point has a lot of merit.

 

As one who has embarked on one cruise in Acapulco, and disembarked there on another, I hold a very low opinion of the port and of the airport. (Neither cruise was with Azamara).

 

I would much prefer to sail from a port in CA; San Francisco or San Diego preferably before Los Angeles (San Pedro or Long Beach).

[murphysmum]

Thanks to both of you for sharing your perspectives on my question about the new Panama Canal itineraries.

 

RE: some of your points.....I can see why some people were not happy with Acapulco as an embarkation point as, in my opinion, it's "lost some charm". However, we simply flew in from LA in the AM, took a cab directly to the ship and avoided the city. For those who needed to fly in the night before, I can see the problem and your point (sorry if this offends anyone in Acapulco).

 

You mentioned the cost of flying to Acapulco as a negative. For us, flying out of LA, it was minimal and easy. I CAN see how this would be a problem for those coming longer distances. I think the new Azamara itinerary takes 4 or 5 days to get to Acapulco; for me it was worth it to skip what would be multiple repetitions of Mexican Riviera ports (also excellent for those who haven't done it yet) and start the trip further down the coast.

 

Andy, actually, I think that our trip was 14 days and that the new ones are 12, so they're really not lengthening the itinerary...just spending more time at sea and skipping some interesting ports.

 

I do think that the new itinerary is still quite nice for someone who wants to see the Mexican Riviera, do the Canal and make a stop in the Carribbean.....and likes sea days. The ships are wonderful, so it's not hard to spend time aboard.

 

Druke 1...I, like you, live in California and would rather cruise from a "home port". It looks like, from your posts, that you have a great deal more sailing experience that I do, so I'm curious where else you can go from California? For a Hawaii, Tahiti or Alaska cruise, I'd fly to the embarkation point there. Just curious. It IS really nice to simply drive to Long Beach with a suitcase and get on a ship.

 

I didn't mention this is my previous posting/question, but I'm curious if you think it might have had something to do with dissatisfaction with some of the Central American port stops. We didn't encounter anyone on our ship who seemed fearful (but I didn't talk to everyone on the ship either). I have noted questions about "danger", "fear", "safety" etc. on sites for Columbia, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama. All of these are safe, magnificently interesting places to visit, and are quite safe. Your opinions?

 

Thanks to both of you and happy future sailings...

 

murphysmum;)

[Andy]

Andy, actually, I think that our trip was 14 days and that the new ones are 12, so they're really not lengthening the itinerary...just spending more time at sea and skipping some interesting ports.

 

 

I didn't mention this is my previous posting/question, but I'm curious if you think it might have had something to do with dissatisfaction with some of the Central American port stops. We didn't encounter anyone on our ship who seemed fearful (but I didn't talk to everyone on the ship either). I have noted questions about "danger", "fear", "safety" etc. on sites for Columbia, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama. All of these are safe, magnificently interesting places to visit, and are quite safe. Your opinions?

 

Thanks to both of you and happy future sailings...

 

murphysmum;)

 

Hi Murphysmum !

 

Re: Length of itinerary.... Azamara's 2008/2009 Panama Canal itineraries are 16 nights. I believe the old ones were in the range of 12 - 14 nights, so they are definitely longer than last season's itineraries.

 

As for your comments about the Central American port stops.... you may be right about this. I agree with you that many of these ports get a bad rap. Sadly, we've seen negative comments, so I am sure at least a little caution is in order. As with any port, doing your homework in advance, and being very aware of your surroundings is always a wise idea.

 

Also, if you feel any concern with a port of call, I would strongly recommend using the Cruise line's excursions. There are also many reputable local tour operators that can be researched in the Ports of Call section of Cruise Critic.

 

No matter what excursions you choose, being educated about your port is always a good decision !

[Druke I]

Well, for starters, we love sailing from San Francisco. Not only is it close to our home, but San Francisco Bay is a lovely harbor - and it is a true thrill to sail under the magnificent Golden Gate Bridge. SF's cruise terminal does leave a lot to be desired.

 

From San Francico, we have sailed to the Mexican Riviera, Canada, Alaska, Hawaii, and Sydney Australia (different cruises).

 

San Diego's cruise terminal is very handy to the San Diego Airport.