wl2cruise
-
Posts
609 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Store
Blogs
Downloads
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by wl2cruise
-
-
Kind of a simple answer to this . If there were demand for more cruises from the West Coast the cruise lines would be sending more ships there . They are in business to make money. Where are the additional going to go. ?
Royals competitors are increasing capacity and Carnival is investing heavily in Long Beach.
-
I saw an interview with Royal's CEO when he was specifically asked about this. He said many ships leaving from CA were departing with too many empty cabins. So...
Sent from my iPhone using Forums
OK, but his boss Adam G. said the opposite. filling the ship was not the problem.
-
Florida pulls from South America and Europe besides cold weather states.
CA pulls from...??
2nd largest cruise demographic happens to be California.
-
No customs forms in Seattle either returned from the Explorer 8/11.
-
Probably Oasis and Quantum class
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app
as of 2015 0 zero ship had the capability,
-
While that may be one reason, there are RCI ships that do meet that requirement.
Which ones? Last time i heard they refused to retrofit them because it was too costly. 10 times cheaper to install on a new build than to retrofit a ship already service.
-
Thank you! I've been biting my tongue to keep from repeating myself ad nauseum. :D No RCI ship for almost 7 years, other than the occasional repositioning sail by.:(
All because they will not retrofit a ship for shore power.
-
Yep. You have to pay out several millions to equip your ship. Then you pay an electricity delivery fee (to pay for the port infrastructure to have high voltage power lines and transformers, and disconnect switches), and then the average commercial electrical rate in California is $.1274/kwh (12 and 3/4 cents/kwh). To generate one kilowatt on the ship requires 138 grams of fuel/kwh, which at today's cost for low sulfur diesel is about $.04/kwh (4 cents, or 1/4 of the cost to buy the power).
And low sulfur diesel costs twice as much as the residual fuel they can burn with scrubbers. My feeling, based on past experiences with California's CARB is that they will not allow scrubbers to be used as an exemption to the low sulfur fuel requirements.
CARB's law has a sunset rule it will eventually go away. Hopefully sooner that later.
Sent from my iPhone using Forums
-
I believe that repeat cruisers stay mostly with the brand they sailed with first. Royal Caribbean is missing out on gaining many loyal cruisers because they no longer offer cruises from San Diego or Las Angeles (the only one listed is a Panama Canal cruise). A mix of 3, 4, and 7 night cruises would build brand presence and promote the long term growth of repeat Royal Caribbean cruisers. If you look on Cruise Critic for the best 15 cruises from California, you will see that Royal Caribbean does not appear on the list.
Ideally this could be a sequence of 3 night, 4 night, 7 night, 4 night, and 3 night cruises (or 4,3,7,3,4) that would then repeat every 3 weeks. This would provide a variety for people to choose from. The typical 3 and 4 night Baja and 7 night Mexican Riviera itineraries could be used or mixed with other itineraries.
If others agree then perhaps a formal share holder request could be made.
Royal Caribbean is our first choice but travel to Florida or Texas for a cruise significantly increases travel time and expense compared to sailing from a California port. This most certainly is also a consideration of first time cruisers.
Comments?
That format would not work.
The format they sailed before leaving was Sun-Sun for the 7 night MR. Baja run was 3 night Fri-Mon 4 night Mon-FRi.
Royal would need 2 ships sailing out of the West coast to build brand presence with new cruisers.
-
Many People on CC have stated this in the past. Many People asked for years to get a bigger and newer ship to the West coast. RCI finally did it with the Mariner and got burnt with that decision.
I don´t say there is no market at all, but California is not where they make the most Money right now. The hot markets right now are in Asia, especially the Chinese market. Can this Change again? For sure, but California will hardly ever be a big bucks cruise market. Alaska, yep that will work always work in the summertime, some Californa coastal ones thrown in as well. Mexico I believe is more dead than the dead beaten horse and if at all it mostly would attrack a limited Population in California and mostly for short Weekend hops. Hardly a Business case for RCI, especially when the competitor is already there. It would just further destroy Prices for all.
If I´d run RCCL I´d not send a ship there for any lengthy time and as a shareholder I´m glad that the exec´s obviously think the same.
You have some valid points, but as a shareholder I'm a bit concerned that RCI just gave up on the second largest cruise demographic in Northern America. Maybe they just wanted us to fly to Florida to help fill the Oasis class ships! Why does the largest cruise company in the world invest and expand in southern California if there is no future in Mexico? What the west coast really needs is a private destination!!
-
Then how can you explain Norwegian Bliss a 168,800 ton ship going to Alaska? If that ship can fit I'm sure a quantum class will fit as well. Quantum class ship has one up on bliss. It has North Star.
Sent from my iPhone using Forums
I can only refer you to him for the explanation. I can only assume it has to do with the length or the draft of the ship.
-
You guys will call me crazy. You guys will want me to be in a straight jacket for saying this. But I'm putting money a quantum class ship is coming to the west coast to do Alaska. I guarantee it. 1st is has to compete with a large size ship that NCL will put up in Alaska. And when the technology announcement was made Richard rain specifically mention both the Verazanno and Golden Gate Bridge. It's gonna happen folks. Just watch. Mark my word.
Sent from my iPhone using Forums
According to Adam Goldstein they do not have plans to put a Quantum class in Alaska and he also believes that class of ships cannot call at the key southeast Alaska ports. I would not be surprised if most or all of the Quantum class end up in China.
-
Why is it expensive to cruise out of California, but not Seattle or Vancouver?
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app
California Air Resource Board declared war on the shipping industry. Speed reductions, Ultra low sulfur fuel, and shower power are just a few examples of the environment laws enacted since 2010
-
Thank you, sounds like another port of call that Celebrity can use.
It's main purpose will be a embarkation port.
-
Where is Rocky Point?
Puerto Peñasco, also known as Rocky Point, is a Mexican fishing and resort city on the Gulf of California. About a hour drive south of the Arizona border.
-
Yes i would in a heartbeat! i'm guessing they will never return to California. They have expressed interest in Rocky point if they can get the terminal and pier completed.
-
Port of Los Angeles has the Bliss listed in October 2018
https://www.portsamerica.com/cruise/los-angeles-terminal-calendar.html
-
You misunderstood the article;
"Vessels operating within 24 nautical miles of the California’s coastline (“Regulated California Waters”) have been required to use distillate fuel with a sulfur content of 0.1% (1,000 ppm) since July 2009."
"As of January 1, 2015, Annex VI to the IMO’s International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”) has required vessels to use fuel with a sulfur content of 0.1% when operating in the North American Emission Control Area (“ECA”). "
"The ECA encompasses Regulated California Waters as it extends 200 nautical miles off the West Coast of the United States, as well as the Gulf of Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and the East Coast of the United States."
So, as I said, as of 1/1/2015, the US ECA matches the the CARB sulfur limit.
Now;
"[CARB’s low-sulfur fuel requirements] shall remain in effect under this subsection until the Executive Officer issues written findings that federal requirements are in place that will achieve equivalent emissions reductions within the Regulated California Waters and are being enforced within the Regulated California Waters.” This language has generally been referred to as the “Sunset Provision.”"
" Since January 2015, the maritime community has awaited CARB’s determination on whether MARPOL Annex VI’s requirements “achieved equivalent emissions reductions within the Regulated California Waters and are being enforced within the Regulated California Waters,” and thus, whether or not it would trigger the Sunset Provision."
What this means is that while all ships are required to burn low sulfur fuel within the US ECA, California is waiting to decide whether to remove their identical requirement depending on whether their testing determines if the US ECA's enforcement equals the CARB enforcement.
ECA requirements are not identical to CARB's and CARB's law was in effect before the ECA law
ECA law either you use low sulfur fuel or a scrubber to clean the exhaust. California law you use low sulfur fuel. CARB realized that the scrubbers are a alternative attempt in good faith to meet the requirements. They are currently testing and early results indicate they are not meeting the state requirements. So the law stays in effect and they will revisit the matter in 2 years.
What I think you are not understanding is the ECA law does not supersede CARB's law. ECA law also says vessels must comply with state law.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/documents/marinenote2016_1.pdf
-
Nope, as of August 2012, the US ECA went into effect, limiting sulfur content in marine fuels to 1% within the ECA, which is defined as being 200 miles from the coast of the North American continent, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the USVI. On January 1st, 2015, the sulfur limit on marine fuels within the US ECA was reduced to 0.1%, which matches what California has had in effect for many years. So, while California used to be the only place, now the entire US and Canada are the same.
Here is the EPA notice of regulation:
Sorry but you are wrong, read this.
http://www.kyl.com/2016/04/07/maritime-alert-california-air-emissions-rules-update/
-
Thank you for the correction.
One note about the stacks vs. the ECA rule- as I understand it, the rule was for ships to use low sulfur fuel within the boundary. But RCI negotiated the alternative of using scrubbers and keep using the bunker fuel.
Only California law requires ships to burn low sulfur.
-
Which one? We normally do chops but thinking maybe there is something better/more unique?
I am Mexican food obsessed so for sure I'm having lunch one day at Sabor? Is it
Yes, Sabor is worth it! Check out the dinning packages you can save some money.
-
What is he going to do put a tax on mother nature? or wait hold her in contempt?
Doesn't he know mother nature has her own server and can get away with anything she wants!:eek:
-
Man, I must be looking at the wrong weeks for Liberty. My promenades were nearly 700 ea and balcony rooms are 900 or more.
549 inside
-
Feedback in red. I don't understand why you're getting so caught up in why RCI is no longer doing certain cruises. It's simple, they'd prefer to have their ships deployed elsewhere, including additional ships in Asia and Australia.
The TEXAS folks better start booking Liberty more! Those prices are starting to look like M/R prices.
Many problems in the Caribbean BRING SHIPS TO WEST COAST
in Royal Caribbean International
Posted
The demand is there just look at the port schedules of LA, LB, and SD. Also look at the recent announcements by Carnival corp, Larger ships coming to LA and LB plus the expansion and investment of LB Dome. Royal will not retrofit their fleet to cold iron. They are using California to show other ports. Boston, England and China are looking or where looking at cold ironing. Royal has told them we will take are business else where BYE BYE. Simple business decision of not increasing operating cost.