Does Anyone get Tired of the Same Sailings

[cruissett]

Since RC keeps SanJuan as one of it's stops, I'd like to at least see a full day there instead of a couple hours in the morning or a couple hours at night. I don't even bother getting off to walk around Old SanJuan, but I would consider going to a beach or the rain forest if there was more time.

[Onessa]

I'd be seriously interested to see what you would suggest as a more interesting Alaska cruise and if you know if any of the other major lines offer such an itinerary. :)

However, I think that most lines in cruising Alaska offer similar itineraries because that is what their research indicates that most of their guests want. RCI is, after all, a mass market line, and they are pretty much going to offer cruises that have the widest appeal. Those of us who are looking for new and/or more interesting itineraries may have to investigate smaller, and probably, more upscale lines whose product caters to travelers who are looking for new cruise experiences. If RCI doesn't offer what you are looking for, it is probably more advisable to look elsewhere than to expect RCI to change its itineraries to satisfy your expectations.:)

 

I believe the question is "does anyone get tired of the same sailings?" - my answer was "yes, I am tired of the same sailings". I never asked RCCI to change their itineraries for AK -- I simply said, that we did not consider any of the RCCI cruises, and yes we did "look elsewhere".

 

The other mass-market lines AK itineraries -- Princess, Holland America, and NCL all had some interesting alternatives. Haines, Homer, and Kodiak for example in AK, and more cruising options, and more itineraries that included Sitka. Some interesting itineraries that included some more off-the-beaten-path BC destinations as well.

 

Also, I have my MBA in market research and work for one of the largest market research companies in the world (think TV ratings) and teach market research part-time at the college level. Let's be realistic here --Most of the pax expectations come from what the cruiseline tells them. Many pax book based primarily on what is cheapest and works with their vacation schedule. Most lines plan based upon:

1) the most itinerary they can pack into the cruise time schedule (more itinerary makes the advertising easier), and

2) which ports charge them the lowest fees, and

3) which ports offer them the best ability to hawk those very lucrative excursions.

[printingchick]

To each his own (no flames please), but I can't fathom staying on the ship and having no interest in the ports. It never occurred to me that people chose their vacation for the mode of transportation, rather than the destination. The ship is certainly important to me - so far I prefer Voyager Class, but I'm still experimenting - but I absolutely choose primarily for the ports of call.

 

As another poster said, we're sort of limited to the Caribbean. My BF hates to fly. San Juan is about as far as he can stand. We take only direct flights - once up/once down. We can't do Europe or the west coast. (We live in New England.) Yes, we could do a New England/Canada cruise. But we live here! We're looking to escape the cold and bask in the sunshine with a cold drink of the day when we cruise.

 

That said, there are a HUGE number of ports in the Caribbean, but so many of them are rarely visited. Roatan and Belize in the west. Tortolla in the east/south. Grenada, Barbuda, Bonaire, St. Barts...the list is practically endless in the southern region.

[negc]

I believe the question is "does anyone get tired of the same sailings?" - my answer was "yes, I am tired of the same sailings". I never asked RCCI to change their itineraries for AK -- I simply said, that we did not consider any of the RCCI cruises, and yes we did "look elsewhere".

 

The other mass-market lines AK itineraries -- Princess, Holland America, and NCL all had some interesting alternatives. Haines, Homer, and Kodiak for example in AK, and more cruising options, and more itineraries that included Sitka. Some interesting itineraries that included some more off-the-beaten-path BC destinations as well.

 

Also, I have my MBA in market research and work for one of the largest market research companies in the world (think TV ratings) and teach market research part-time at the college level. Let's be realistic here --Most of the pax expectations come from what the cruiseline tells them. Many pax book based primarily on what is cheapest and works with their vacation schedule. Most lines plan based upon:

1) the most itinerary they can pack into the cruise time schedule (more itinerary makes the advertising easier), and

2) which ports charge them the lowest fees, and

3) which ports offer them the best ability to hawk those very lucrative excursions.

 

Thanks for the information about alternative ports being offered by other lines. If others agree that these are more interesting or appealing ports of call, I imagine those lines will experience an increase in bookings. I don't disagree with you about the criteria that the lines use in designing their itineraries or why many passengers believe that some ports are more "must see" than others. The fact remains, however, that those factors explain to a large degree why RCI and other lines offer the itineraries that they do. When there are significant changes in those factors, then we can expect to see changes in itineraries. In the meantime, most of the mass market lines have re-examined their focus on Alaska and have decided to redeploy some of their ships to other regions where they hope to operate more profitably. The reduction in the number of ships plying Alaskan waters, however, probably reduces the likelihood that they will offer itineraries that are a significant departure from the standard Juneau, Skagway or Sitka, Ketchikan ones.:(

[cruiserbryce]

havent done enough cruising to get tired of the itineraries yet, and while I can see how this could happen, there are always more exotic trips out there...you just need to be willing to shell out the $ for them.

[negc]

To each his own (no flames please), but I can't fathom staying on the ship and having no interest in the ports. It never occurred to me that people chose their vacation for the mode of transportation, rather than the destination. The ship is certainly important to me - so far I prefer Voyager Class, but I'm still experimenting - but I absolutely choose primarily for the ports of call.

 

As another poster said, we're sort of limited to the Caribbean. My BF hates to fly. San Juan is about as far as he can stand. We take only direct flights - once up/once down. We can't do Europe or the west coast. (We live in New England.) Yes, we could do a New England/Canada cruise. But we live here! We're looking to escape the cold and bask in the sunshine with a cold drink of the day when we cruise.

 

That said, there are a HUGE number of ports in the Caribbean, but so many of them are rarely visited. Roatan and Belize in the west. Tortolla in the east/south. Grenada, Barbuda, Bonaire, St. Barts...the list is practically endless in the southern region.

 

Check out the itineraries carefully and you may find ships that include many or most of those locations among their itineraries. In March we sailed to Belize from Fort Lauderdale. Last year we sailed from Santo Domingo on a ship that took us to a number of ports that were new to us (Guadaloupe and St. Kitts) and a number of others (Barbados and Martinique) that we hadn't visited in years. The ship's alternative itinerary offered a totally different selection of islands and our biggest regret was that we didn't book a back to back. Now, getting to Santo Domingo might be a problem for your BF, but we found flights that went from Boston to Santo Domingo, with one connection in Miami. Some of the ports may not be able to accommodate the largest cruise ships, but most are visited by smaller ships in the fleets of the major lines. :)