Jump to content

"Extended Layover?"


SkygazrMatt
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi there. I have a question about customizing an itinerary....

Is it possible with any ships or lines to debark at a port of call - where the ship is only staying one day - and stay at that port until the ship (or line) comes around again in a week or so, then re-embark and continue the cruise? Is there a name for this kind of booking?

 

My wife and I are interested in an Asia or South Pacific cruise, and also want to spend a week or so in Hong Kong. Lots of interesting itineraries stop in Hong Kong, but only for one night.

 

Thanks!

 

Matt in Norcal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you could get the cruise line to allow this, know that you would have to pay for the cabin for the two full cruises, since the cruise line would lose the revenue from those cabins otherwise. Visa requirements also change from being a day visitor on a cruise ship to an extended stay. The cruise line would also have to make arrangements with the customs and immigration officials in Hong Kong to specifically clear you into the country (just as if you arrived on an airline for a week's visit), and then back out of the country when you reboard. This also forces the ship to change the passenger manifest each time you leave the ship or return, and this can result in additional cost to do so. Due to the cost of paying for two full cruises, this is a very rare request, and I doubt that most lines would honor it. Probably your best bet would be to find a cruise that embarks/disembarks in Hong Kong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might want to check other cruise lines, as our next cruise spends 3 days in HK.

 

Any more than that and most people would do a land tour, as that is probably more cost effective than booking 2 cruises. The other option is a boarding or disembarkation at HK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you could get the cruise line to allow this, know that you would have to pay for the cabin for the two full cruises, since the cruise line would lose the revenue from those cabins otherwise.

 

If the cruise line doesn't mind the extra paperwork, maybe at a fee, a very creative TA could organize a "relay-race" where each time the ship visits HK the cabin is filled with passengers who just spent a week in HK.

 

Then again, why don't the cruise lines organize such thing themselves? My own cruise to St Petersburg would have had much more value if the overnight could have been extended to a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the cruise line doesn't mind the extra paperwork, maybe at a fee, a very creative TA could organize a "relay-race" where each time the ship visits HK the cabin is filled with passengers who just spent a week in HK.

 

Then again, why don't the cruise lines organize such thing themselves? My own cruise to St Petersburg would have had much more value if the overnight could have been extended to a week.

 

Why don't the cruise lines organize this themselves? Simple. They are not selling land vacations, and make no money on this. And what happens when the creative TA can't find someone to fill the cabin for a given week? Who swallows the cost? Cruise line? TA? the unlucky pax who gets off? the unlucky pax who gets on after the vacancy? Sorry, sounds like a logistical nightmare to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't the cruise lines organize this themselves? Simple. They are not selling land vacations, and make no money on this.

 

They'd be selling cruises that went one way, like segments on a WC. It's up to the cruiser how to spend the night in HK in absence

of the ship.

 

And what happens when the creative TA can't find someone to fill the cabin for a given week? Who swallows the cost? Cruise line? TA? the unlucky pax who gets off? the unlucky pax who gets on after the vacancy? Sorry, sounds like a logistical nightmare to me.

 

Airlines have this problem each flight, for each seat. But yes, it is pretty complicated :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'd be selling cruises that went one way, like segments on a WC. It's up to the cruiser how to spend the night in HK in absence

of the ship.

 

 

 

Airlines have this problem each flight, for each seat. But yes, it is pretty complicated :)

 

So what is the advantage to the cruise line to break a cruise down into short segments? This increases their booking cost, their turnaround labor, and would be necessary to advertise and attract a different demographic to those who want a full cruise. Don't see the advantage to doing this. And really? Are you equating an airline (transportation industry) with a cruise (hospitality industry)? If the cruise was a ferry, with minimal amenities, used as a form of transportation, that would be a more fair comparison to air travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did two cruises where they either started or ended in Hong Kong. When it started in HK, I went four days early and toured HK and then boarded the ship. On the second cruise, it ended in HK and I stayed for 5 days after the cruise and then flew home.

 

Like others have said, if you want to do this, you will have to pay for two full cruises, and knowing that cruises in that part of the world tend to be very long, the cost will be quite high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might want to check other cruise lines, as our next cruise spends 3 days in HK.

 

Any more than that and most people would do a land tour, as that is probably more cost effective than booking 2 cruises. The other option is a boarding or disembarkation at HK.

 

My thoughts exactly. :)

 

JB :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the 1980's, this was done on a limited basis. In 1981, on the Starward, 40 passengers got off the ship in Port Antonia, Jamaica, and we stayed for a week in a small resort that was owned or leased by the cruise line. At the end of our week, we got back on the ship and another 40 got off, freeing their block of rooms for us. We then finished the cruise. It was a very memorable 2 weeks, and I wish someone offered something similar today, but the obstacles are understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is the advantage to the cruise line to break a cruise down into short segments? This increases their booking cost, their turnaround labor, and would be necessary to advertise and attract a different demographic to those who want a full cruise. Don't see the advantage to doing this.

 

They do break down World Cruises into segments, with all the problems you mention. They also sell 3 and 4 night cruises, scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

For example, HAL offers 14 night cruises Amsterdam-St Petersburg-Amsterdam. There's one overnight in SPB, the next day all aboard is 5 pm.

 

If you manage to get off the ship at exactly 8, quod non, return at midnight, get off at 8 again, and immigration magically does not take a full hour, let's say you'd get 18 hours "quality time" in St Petersburg. To rush through Peter & Paul, 2% of the Hermitage ("hurry up, next group is waiting"), eat a bit, see the Swan Lake and maybe a few hours on a boat tour the next day. That's it. That's the cruise advertised as "See the wonders of St Petersburg!" People from New Zealand already spend 18 days to visit Petersburg, certainly some of them would like the very highlight to be longer than 18 hours. On my cruise, there were many from NZ, and probably none of them would need to ask for the days off to add 7 days, nor would they need to save for the trip. The demographic needed is already there.

 

The choice would be between "14 night cruise, 2 days in beautiful SPB, $4000" and "21 night cruise, including 7 days of magic in SPB, $6500". $1000 extra for the trouble, leaving $1500 left to pay for the hotel and restaurant. Those 7 days would be taken care of by a local company that already organizes the shorex now, no reason for X or HAL to find out what hotel or which restaurant.

 

Also, a free 7 more days to sell more excursions, shopping advice, free chips to play in the world famous SPB casino, a visit to the diamond museum with a coupon for Faberge eggs at 30% discount, all the usual ways to squeeze money out of pax except that for those 7 days you don't even need a ship. The ship would be sailing at a virtual 150% capacity, at higher fares, and some people, like me, would appreciate it a lot.

 

And really? Are you equating an airline (transportation industry) with a cruise (hospitality industry)? If the cruise was a ferry, with minimal amenities, used as a form of transportation, that would be a more fair comparison to air travel.

 

The hospitaly industry usually (there are exceptions) doesn't mind if I book for just one night, eat just one meal, or visit just one day of a 3 day congress. I wouldn't have high hopes for a land based resort where you need to book 14 days as 7 days would be too much work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that hotel can have a reasonable expectation that someone will come along and book the vacant room, while a ship has a hard time getting someone onboard after the original guest has left, and the ship has likely sailed. But no one has still given an example of a benefit to the cruise line to do something that complicates their business model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that hotel can have a reasonable expectation that someone will come along and book the vacant room, while a ship has a hard time getting someone onboard after the original guest has left, and the ship has likely sailed. But no one has still given an example of a benefit to the cruise line to do something that complicates their business model.

 

Totally agree, hotels get lots of walk-up business, yet to see it on a cruise ship.

 

Certainly can't think of any upside to this option for the cruise lines. Cruise lines want each cabin filled and when cruises don't sell, the initiate fire sales to fill the cabins. Why - because they make more money once they get you aboard the ship. Having pax stay ashore for up to say 50% of a B2B would put a serious dent in revenues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are in the area, before or after your cruise, just FLY to Hong Kong and do your land visit. MUCH easier.

Yeah, that's the best option. I did a cruise from Singapore to Malaysia and Thailand and afterwards spent a few days in Singapore and took a landbased bus tour back to Malaysia...before then flying into Bangkok for a few days ((and I did HK on my way to the cruise!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that hotel can have a reasonable expectation that someone will come along and book the vacant room, while a ship has a hard time getting someone onboard after the original guest has left, and the ship has likely sailed.

 

I didn't mean that "suddenly" a cabin sails empty from SPB to AMS because pax decided to stay a week longer. Pax would just book two 7 day, one-way cruises. The ship would know who's in which cabin months or even years in advance.

 

My last 14 night cruise was also sold as two 7 night cruises. Actually, we were the exception and most people booked one of the 7 day cruises.

 

But no one has still given an example of a benefit to the cruise line to do something that complicates their business model.

 

It doesn't complicate things. Everyone wanting to do the original 14 night cruise can book it. However, some people would just like AMS-SPB, others would like SPB-AMS, and yet others would like both of them but with a pause in between. The latter three groups, who weren't interested before, would also start bidding for the same cabins, leading to higher fares. That's a win.

 

The major advantage however is that the captive audience remains captive for 3 or 4 weeks, but only use 2 weeks of an expensive ship. I'm always told that the fare is barely enough to sail, where profit is made when people start buying drinks, art, and shorex. By combining 2 cruises, the cruise line can offer a shorex that takes 7 days. 7 days extra to sell a visit to Moscow, a few more Faberge eggs, an original Russian massage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean that "suddenly" a cabin sails empty from SPB to AMS because pax decided to stay a week longer. Pax would just book two 7 day, one-way cruises. The ship would know who's in which cabin months or even years in advance.

 

My last 14 night cruise was also sold as two 7 night cruises. Actually, we were the exception and most people booked one of the 7 day cruises.

 

 

 

It doesn't complicate things. Everyone wanting to do the original 14 night cruise can book it. However, some people would just like AMS-SPB, others would like SPB-AMS, and yet others would like both of them but with a pause in between. The latter three groups, who weren't interested before, would also start bidding for the same cabins, leading to higher fares. That's a win.

 

The major advantage however is that the captive audience remains captive for 3 or 4 weeks, but only use 2 weeks of an expensive ship. I'm always told that the fare is barely enough to sail, where profit is made when people start buying drinks, art, and shorex. By combining 2 cruises, the cruise line can offer a shorex that takes 7 days. 7 days extra to sell a visit to Moscow, a few more Faberge eggs, an original Russian massage.

 

Shorex is not that large a profit center for the cruise lines, as they are only getting a markup over what the excursion operator charges. Onboard revenue (drinks, casino, dining) are where the profit is made. The only way a cruise line would make a significant amount on something like this, would be if they invested in the excursion operator, hotels, restaurants (i.e. and all-inclusive at the port), and that capital investment would need to be repaid before any "profit" would come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shorex is not that large a profit center for the cruise lines, as they are only getting a markup over what the excursion operator charges. Onboard revenue (drinks, casino, dining) are where the profit is made. The only way a cruise line would make a significant amount on something like this, would be if they invested in the excursion operator, hotels, restaurants (i.e. and all-inclusive at the port), and that capital investment would need to be repaid before any "profit" would come.

 

Specialty restaurants even cost money. https://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?p=39539044&highlight=specialty#post39539044

 

I thought that shorex did count as "onboard spending".

 

The ships make money by having "Shopping experts" sending people to the right shops, without owning those shops.

 

Anyway, if the line isn't interested in earning money from the land based part they can leave it up to the TA or a tour operator who will like such tourists, and still the group of potential pax would increase leading to higher fares. A week extra in SPB would be fantastic. Another example, the lousy 2 or 3 ports, total 20 hours you get to spend in "Amazing Iceland" is IMHO an insult to people expecting to see Iceland after sailing 1000nm. I know cruises are "a taste of this, a taste of that" but this is like announcing the restaurant is closed when the spoon almost reaches your mouth.

 

It wouldn't be very fair though to bring A+ passengers to SPB on an expensive ship and then let the tour operator extract money for a full week with only money making tours and visits to tourist shops.

 

The lines could add a hefty surcharge to the fare when passengers book a return cruise within one or two weeks. (Similar to what airlines do to seperate business from holiday flights).

 

Bottom line is that this is almost business as usual for the cruise line, they can make longer cruises a lot more attractive by allowing guests to turn an overnight into a week, and they would make more money. The benefits are clear, and I still don't see where all the extra work would come from.

Edited by AmazedByCruising
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean that "suddenly" a cabin sails empty from SPB to AMS because pax decided to stay a week longer. Pax would just book two 7 day, one-way cruises. The ship would know who's in which cabin months or even years in advance.

 

My last 14 night cruise was also sold as two 7 night cruises. Actually, we were the exception and most people booked one of the 7 day cruises.

 

This is what has been said earlier.

 

Book B2B cruises, and arrange to off the ship for the middle period.

 

However, you are paying for days on the ship, that you will not be there. So if you can afford to do this, go for it.

 

But if you can afford this, why not, before or after the cruise, FLY to the desired place and stay as long as you want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what has been said earlier.

 

Book B2B cruises, and arrange to off the ship for the middle period.

 

However, you are paying for days on the ship, that you will not be there. So if you can afford to do this, go for it.

 

I can't afford paying for an empty cabin, but all it would take is a 14 day cruise to be split in 2.

 

But if you can afford this, why not, before or after the cruise, FLY to the desired place and stay as long as you want?

 

Nope :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shorex is not that large a profit center for the cruise lines, as they are only getting a markup over what the excursion operator charges. Onboard revenue (drinks, casino, dining) are where the profit is made. The only way a cruise line would make a significant amount on something like this, would be if they invested in the excursion operator, hotels, restaurants (i.e. and all-inclusive at the port), and that capital investment would need to be repaid before any "profit" would come.

 

I suspect this may vary by cruise line and itinerary. With our previous cruise line in Alaska, shore-ex did actually provide the highest net earnings. Regarding bars, the best performing bar was one that was located on deck 2 or 3. I found this highly surprising, since I am aware of how little they pay for booze.

 

It was confirmed by the Shore-ex Manager, who we knew very well, as she came from the same town as us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't afford paying for an empty cabin, but all it would take is a 14 day cruise to be split in 2. :)

 

You don't want to pay for an empty cabin, so why do you think that the cruise line wants to have an empty cabin that is not paid for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect this may vary by cruise line and itinerary. With our previous cruise line in Alaska, shore-ex did actually provide the highest net earnings. Regarding bars, the best performing bar was one that was located on deck 2 or 3. I found this highly surprising, since I am aware of how little they pay for booze.

 

It was confirmed by the Shore-ex Manager, who we knew very well, as she came from the same town as us.

 

Gross maybe, not net.

 

ShorEx costs are high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't want to pay for an empty cabin, so why do you think that the cruise line wants to have an empty cabin that is not paid for?

 

My try at translating Dutch to English and all meaning gets lost :( Which is my problem, of course, so let met try to explain.

 

X offers 14 night cruises Amsterdam-St Petersburg-Amsterdam. One week to get there, one overnight, 6 nights to return.

 

14 nighs is a long cruise, most cruises are 7 nights or less. Cruise lines offer 2 night cruises.

 

The only thing X needs to do is to offer segments. 7 night cruises AMS-SPB, 7 night cruises SPB-AMS. Many, if not most, will book B2B AMS-SPB-AMS.

 

That must be possible, and no cabin would be empty. Some people from let's say New York, can just manage 7 days and would like to see Amsterdam and St Petersburg. They can't do the whole 14 days, and they don't care flying to Amsterdam and flying back from Petersburg.

 

Then, TAs, touroperators, the line itself, can think of vacations that start with AMS-SPB, a week or two in SPB, and end with SPB-AMS.

 

I just don't understand why many 14 day cruises aren't offered as 2 segments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...