Bring ships back to the US

[negc]

Us West Coasters and loyal Rccl/Celeb cruisers wont miss Mexico that much, however we want a few cruises from here. We have a great LA port/San Diego, so it would seem if they dont want to go to Mexico, we could go to Hawaii, Alaska, Maybe even a coastal cruise. Also why not a Chile to SFO and reverse? Even though Ca has been hit hard.......a lot of out-state want to come to Ca, San Francisco / LA , San Diegoand thats not counting Disneyland etc.......do you know Disneyland was sold out New Years Eve/Day that they had to stop selling tickets? So people are spending money in Ca! Maybe the ships dont want to spend "their" money because the ports are high in Hawaii, LA & San Diego.

 

And maybe the audience for those cruises you suggest isn't large enough to fill their ships on a consistent basis and justify the costs associated with moving them to those great ports. The fact that some large number of people will travel from out of state to visit Disneyland or San Francisco, LA or San Diego, doesn't automatically translate into the idea that they will be as willing to travel to California to take a cruise. If the demand was so substantial do you think so many lines would be reducing or eliminating their presence there? I think that RCI's position at this time at least, is "once bitten, twice shy" or "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". T

[Charles4515]

Us West Coasters and loyal Rccl/Celeb cruisers wont miss Mexico that much, however we want a few cruises from here. We have a great LA port/San Diego, so it would seem if they dont want to go to Mexico, we could go to Hawaii, Alaska, Maybe even a coastal cruise. Also why not a Chile to SFO and reverse? Even though Ca has been hit hard.......a lot of out-state want to come to Ca, San Francisco / LA , San Diegoand thats not counting Disneyland etc.......do you know Disneyland was sold out New Years Eve/Day that they had to stop selling tickets? So people are spending money in Ca! Maybe the ships dont want to spend "their" money because the ports are high in Hawaii, LA & San Diego.

 

I love visiting California. Visited many times and will again. I don't see it as a cruise destination though. I would say the same about the east coast too. I don't have an interest in cruises up and down the east coast. Either get in the car and drive or take the train to US east coast cities and attractions.

 

As far as Hawaii I looked into doing it from the west coast. Princess does a 14 day cruise. Way too many sea days and only a few days in Hawaii. It makes a lot more sense for me to do European cruises from here than Hawaii or even Alaska. I have done Alaska and intend to do it again. Alaska is a pretty good cruise itinerary.

[land lover]

I am glad many ships are taking a break from American waters.

 

Cruisers seem to forget how much pollution is generated by these ships and is the dumping that well regulated? You might be surprised to know how many fines are paid by the cruise companies.

 

Certainly it has improved from our Carribean cruise in the early 80s when we watched full 30 gal plastic trash bags being tossed into the ships's wake at midnight floating off in the darkness.

 

New federal regulations, scheduled to go into effect this year, will bar cruise vessels and large commercial ships from discharging treated sewage within three miles of California's coastline. Many other regulations already are in effect like burning a different fuel within 24 miles of shore.

 

 

L:)ri

[smoosh21]

I'm not sure what advantage they would see to such a schedule. They would have to alternate it with a six night cruise and the present schedule allows them to offer both the Oasis or Allure on weekends, one sailing on Saturday and the other on Sunday. Having a regular schedule with ships sailing on the same day each week makes it easier for everyone to understand and plan for. Certainly lines sometimes offer a 6 and 8 day schedule but it isn't the norm and, as I said, I'm not sure what the advantage would be for the cruiseline or for potential passengers. Even the more common 10 and 11 night itineraries present some logistical problems.

 

Both ships would have to go to an 8/6 schedule, otherwise every other week they would end up in port on the same day. They specifically had to build the new pier to host the Oasis class. I don't think anything else can handle it.

 

I doubt they want both ships on an 8/6. I wouldn't mind sailing on an 8 night, but I wouldn't want to sail on only 6 nights

[jorapp]

I don't want more ships out of Florida in the summer doing the Caribbean. Last place I want to go in July or August.

 

Americans need to broaden their horizon and cruise Europe and other parts of the world. Summer is a good time to do that. Many will see that we are not as exceptional as many of us unfortunately imagine.

 

Wow...talk about broad brush strokes...:eek:.

 

I am an American. I lived in Europe and Asia until I was 13 years old. I would love to cruise those areas BUT DH's work schedule does not allow enough time to fly over, cruise, fly back, and then recover from jet lag (it takes him 2 nights).

 

After he retires we will be enjoying those cruises, but until then we have to stick to domestic home ports and 7 night cruises.

 

Honey, I'm a broad broad who has lived abroad. I'm about as BROAD:rolleyes: as I can get...pls don't presume our reasons for the cruise itineraries we choose.

[Trekker954]

I'm not sure what advantage they would see to such a schedule. They would have to alternate it with a six night cruise and the present schedule allows them to offer both the Oasis or Allure on weekends, one sailing on Saturday and the other on Sunday. Having a regular schedule with ships sailing on the same day each week makes it easier for everyone to understand and plan for. Certainly lines sometimes offer a 6 and 8 day schedule but it isn't the norm and, as I said, I'm not sure what the advantage would be for the cruiseline or for potential passengers. Even the more common 10 and 11 night itineraries present some logistical problems.

 

It was hard enough getting all the shows and activities in on a seven night; six night would make it ever more difficult and some people not be able to get into some of the shows.

[Charles4515]

Wow...talk about broad brush strokes...:eek:.

 

I am an American. I lived in Europe and Asia until I was 13 years old. I would love to cruise those areas BUT DH's work schedule does not allow enough time to fly over, cruise, fly back, and then recover from jet lag (it takes him 2 nights).

 

After he retires we will be enjoying those cruises, but until then we have to stick to domestic home ports and 7 night cruises.

 

Honey, I'm a broad broad who has lived abroad. I'm about as BROAD:rolleyes: as I can get...pls don't presume our reasons for the cruise itineraries we choose.

 

There are plenty of cruises from US homeports in the summer and all year round for you to enjoy. The people who are complaining are the ones painting a broad brush stroke about being made to fly far. None has to fly to Europe or Asia to enjoy a cruise any time of the year.

[Loucat]

Ooooh yes please, I would love Oasis or Allure here in England and not have to pay airfare!:)

IMHO take them both and let them stay there. I loved RCC when they offered a variety of ships out of US ports. Living in Florida, I do understand the need to move ships where they are not in the direct path of storms, but having no interest in Oasis or Allure, maybe we could make a good trade if Adam agreees, which I am sure will not happen. The reality is that they will become a tired itinerary in short order in the US.

[Loucat]

Sorry to disagree but a lot people, most of our neighbors included never leave Florida in the summer and there is no lack of visiting relatives. The area is much more suited to hot weather than our Northern neighbors with pools, beaches,air conditioning,and the beautiful Gulf of Mexico. :cool::D

Not sure where you are in Florida, but we do not have the same situation. Neighbors leave for the Carolinas, Maine etc. Anywhere to get out of the humidity, heat, thunderstorms. We live near Sanibel Island and that area does have visitors all year. Our northern friends never visit during the summer.:confused:

[Charles4515]

IMHO take them both and let them stay there. I loved RCC when they offered a variety of ships out of US ports. Living in Florida, I do understand the need to move ships where they are not in the direct path of storms, but having no interest in Oasis or Allure, maybe we could make a good trade if Adam agreees, which I am sure will not happen. The reality is that they will become a tired itinerary in short order in the US.

 

All Caribbean itineraries out of Florida are tired. Same old same old from port to port. That is why we need to go Europe and Asia.

 

The itineraries of Oasis and Allure are not of major importance. I have been on Oasis and the ship itself is the destination. I will be doing Allure this December on the same western itinerary as I did last December on Oasis. Don't care about the itineraries, the ships are awesome.

[clearwaters]

Every Hawaiian cruise from the U.S. and back seems to stop in Mexico. Yeck. Screwed up. I would be on pins and needles the entire time we would be in port. Looking for pirates, people trying to sneak on board -- whatever. As a Mexican lady I work with told me: "It's all screwed up there." Maybe so, maybe not. But the Jones Act sucks.

[tntornadox]

There are plenty of cruises from US homeports in the summer and all year round for you to enjoy. The people who are complaining are the ones painting a broad brush stroke about being made to fly far. None has to fly to Europe or Asia to enjoy a cruise any time of the year.

 

Sure, but how much are they willing to pay to go on Oasis/Allure/Freedom during the Summer given the price premium before they just jump ship to Carnival where they can cruise for half the price?

 

Not CCers, mind you, but the general public which makes up the great majority.

[Charles4515]

Every Hawaiian cruise from the U.S. and back seems to stop in Mexico. Yeck. Screwed up. I would be on pins and needles the entire time we would be in port. Looking for pirates, people trying to sneak on board -- whatever. As a Mexican lady I work with told me: "It's all screwed up there." Maybe so, maybe not. But the Jones Act sucks.

 

They don't expect you to get off that stop. It is just on there to comply with the passenger services act. No one is going to sneak on the ship. Ship and port security are heavy.

[Charles4515]

Sure, but how much are they willing to pay to go on Oasis/Allure/Freedom during the Summer given the price premium before they just jump ship to Carnival where they can cruise for half the price?

 

Not CCers, mind you, but the general public which makes up the great majority.

 

If Royal Caribbean can fill those ships at a price premium they don't care about those who go on Carnival at half the price. If people won't pay a price premium then Royal Caribbean will lower the prices to fill the ships.

[dbcrac]

I think the only way the cruise lines will change is if enough people keep asking. They moved a lot of ships away from Fl up north and I feel sure that is because people asked.

[negc]

I think the only way the cruise lines will change is if enough people keep asking. They moved a lot of ships away from Fl up north and I feel sure that is because people asked.

 

Not just because people asked but because they determined that there was enough demand for cruises out of those other ports to justify the redeployment and that such actions would prove more profitable for them. That is also why they moved Mariner to the West Coast but in that instance things did not work out as anticipated and they have now redeployed to regions where she should prove more profitable. One advantage that the cruiselines have over land resorts is their ability to redeploy the ships in their fleet as conditions change and to do so on relatively short notice.:)

[ehfl]

I would love it if Congress repealed the Jones Act. It would be a big boost to the US economy, and would generate a lot of new jobs. Then again, Congress rarely does the right thing.