changed itinery dissapointed to say the least

[grammax3]

DW and I were all set to cruise RC again in 2009 and it is very disappointing to see they have dropped ports for Explorer. Not only are some southern ports missing, but I see they dropped Quebec City and other northern-most ports. What's next?- 200 laps around Ellis Island.

 

Check Celebrity they still have all the Canadian ports, i.e., Quebec City, Sydney, PEI, Halifax...on the 2009 itineraries. Makes one believe that it is not a "fuel cost" change for RCI, being RCI and Celebrity are owned by the same company, but rather some other reason. We are fans of RCI, but with all the changes being made, we will be looking at other cruiselines for 2009.

[grammax3]

I love your perspective about San Juan being your "uh-oh forgot-to-pack port". It's totally true (though I've actually grown to enjoy San Juan on its merits though I wish we could have more daytime calls than just the nighttime ones.

 

Anyway, my first impression is that three full days at sea at the outset is a little bit unusual -- especially since all we're hearing on this end is how cruise lines want to put ships in to port every day so they can eliminate fuel costs. What is the itinerary now? What was it before? Please tell.

 

It could be that the cruise line wants to slow the ship down (and save fuel) hence the extra day at sea...but that seems kind of weird. Why not just alter the itinerary so ports aren't so far apart?

 

Anyway, I'd really like to know more....

 

Carolyn

 

Carolyn Spencer Brown

Editor in Chief

Cruise Critic

 

I, too, would love to know the real reason for dropping ports. I am wondering if it has anything to do with these bigger ships being built? Is that what is really cutting into the profit of the company? I would think if they continue to drop ports, they will be enticing people to leave RCI and go on to other cruise lines. Just my opinion.

[Maraprince]

You would tend to think that San Juan would want as many ships to call there as possible since American Airlines cut their flight schedule to it.

 

It seems more like a case of RCCL trying to go to different ports than Celebrity does -- create more a distinction between the cruise lines.

 

More sea days would use more fuel than having closer ports or staying overnight. The cost of docking can't be higher than burning up fuel to go to near by ports.

 

My 7/31 sailing left Bayonne at 5 PM but we didn't arrive in New London, CT until 7 AM the next morning. Whether you drive from NYC up to Connecticut or take the Metro-North or Amtrak there, it is a little over 2 hours. So my question is, where the ***** did we sail for all those hours? Definitely not a way to cut back on the amount of fuel used.

 

What is really going on here?

 

 

MARAPRINCE

[ruskatab]

Are yall saying RC is dropping ports so now the cruises are 2 and 3 ports and not the normal 3 and 4 ports? WOW! I would be very upset. Looks like RC wants the cruisers to spend their money on the ship and not in the ports.

[Maraprince]

You might be onto something...more time on the ship, more bingo games, more monies spent in the shops, etc.

 

Asked a friend of mine whose theory was that the docking fees are based on the ship's tonnage. Larger ships would cost more to dock. Still hard to believe that it costs less to stay at sea and burn fuel than to be in a port every day or to stay overnight in a port.

 

Years ago, Cunard used to do 2 Caribbean sailings that you could combine and get a discount on. One was a regular 7-day sailing out of San Juan stopping at 4-5 ports. The second one was called "7 plus" -- 7 capitals plus 2 additional ports. The ship was in a port every day and with some of the closer ports, you did 1/2 days in 2 ports. Very good way not to use up a lot of fuel just cruising around to get to a nearby port overnight.

 

Something more is afoot that just the fuel charges!

 

Also, non US passengers are paying in their local currencies that result in more revenue for RCCL with the current exchange rates. This partly explains why RCCL has been marketing so agressively outside the US. They collect more revenue for the same cabins if a non US passenger books and then there is the on-board revenue as well.

 

MARAPRINCE

[madforcruising]

More sea days would use more fuel than having closer ports or staying overnight. The cost of docking can't be higher than burning up fuel to go to near by ports.

MARAPRINCE

 

 

I have no proof, but I think you are wrong. Port charges are very expensive and it has always been a hige cost factor and so port time was always limited to reduce cost. This is most likely still the case even at exploding fuel prices. You shouldn´t forget that a ship still burns fuel when docked. All the electricity needed onboard is created by running engines. So when docked they not only have to pay for it, but still burn fuel.

A sea day gives them more time to go to the next port, which means cruising at lower speed and saving fuel. So if there´s a sea day they save fuel instead of burning more.

[pmshirl]

I received a letter last week that St George Grenada was dropped from my AOS itinerary(june14-21-2008), and we just have an extra sea day to replace that port! Oh Well!;)

[critterchick]

You would tend to think that San Juan would want as many ships to call there as possible since American Airlines cut their flight schedule to it.

 

Agreed. But it may be just far enough "off course" or require too much sailing in waters that would case greater fuel consumption that RCI doesn't want to go there. For us it's nearly a wasted port because on both of our cruises we only had 4-5 hours on land so it was hardly worth going off the ship.

 

It seems more like a case of RCCL trying to go to different ports than Celebrity does -- create more a distinction between the cruise lines.

 

Or RCI is bleeding cash while Celebrity/Azamara is still relatively healthy so is forced to cut ports to save money.

 

More sea days would use more fuel than having closer ports or staying overnight. The cost of docking can't be higher than burning up fuel to go to near by ports.

 

My 7/31 sailing left Bayonne at 5 PM but we didn't arrive in New London, CT until 7 AM the next morning. Whether you drive from NYC up to Connecticut or take the Metro-North or Amtrak there, it is a little over 2 hours. So my question is, where the ***** did we sail for all those hours? Definitely not a way to cut back on the amount of fuel used.

 

You were probably floating dead in the water during the night. The sea day on the Monarch weekend cruise now consists of going out of sight of land and cutting the engines so the ship just drifts all day.

 

And remember that the shops and casinos, which I'm guessing make good money for the ship, are open the whole time the ship is "at sea" so that offsets some of the fuel cost, if they're even burning any.

[ehfl]

You have plenty of time to change to a different cruise.

[smoosh21]

Just found out that they dropped Grand Cayman off of our Liberty cruise in Feb 2010. I would have rather dropped Cozy than GC. Or be offered to pay additional $. GC is one of our favorites.

 

That's 2 ports in 2 cruises that have been dropped in the past week or so. And with no RCL notification! The other was dropping PR from a Jan 2010 Explorer cruise.

 

Looks like they are really tightening their belt for cruises 1-1/2 years out.

 

Wow, I am glad I checked. I see that they have dumped Grand Caymen on our November 2009 Liberty Sailing. Now my partner will be happy as he enjoys the extra day at sea, but I was sort of looking forward to Grand Caymen as it was the only stop I havent been to.

 

It is funny, because the RCI website map actually shows Costa Maya on the wrong side of the Yucatan. I wonder if this is to fool people into thinking they are travelling further than they actually are. You can see this by going to the RCI website. They are showing Costa Maya on the Gulf Side of Mexico and not the Caribbean side. This is a really foolish mistake for them to make.

 

I must also say it looks like RCI is not going a very good job communicating this information to the travel agents as they are currently unaware of the change. They are still showing us going to Grand Cayman.

 

I am not going to cancel my cruise, but I am kinda pissed about they way this is being handled.

[wrp96]

The funny part about the Liberty itinerary change is that change would actually make me want to book the Liberty. I don't like Grand Cayman so missing that port would not be a burden to me. Still I understand people's disappointment.

[frito58]

They dropped Greneda from our 09 cruise so I dumped RCI and went with a Princess cruise that had a better itinerary. Their choice to save a few bucks my choice to change cruises.

[sandian]

Hi folks

just received a letter from my TA regarding itinery change rci had let them know about it which means they are contacting everyone about this which is good news. At least they are not ignoring the situation

[Maraprince]

Hi folks

just received a letter from my TA regarding itinery change rci had let them know about it which means they are contacting everyone about this which is good news. At least they are not ignoring the situation

Since you received official notification from RCCL about the dropped port, was there any mention of refunding the port charges as well?

 

Just curious.....

 

 

MARAPRINCE

[madforcruising]

With way more than a year to go I doubt there are any refunds mentioned, because nothing but deposit is actually paid yet.

[sandian]

no mention as yet of any credit but will enquire with my TA you can but hope