Cruising "local": Would you support it?

[EGG]

To OP - I would love this cruise. Thank you for the question. Try not to get insulted when people answer negatively, it is just an opinion and not personal.

 

I think the cruiseline could meet the foreign port requirement by going to the Bahamas on the east coast just like they go to Ensenada or Victoria on the west coast. Maybe not all of the eastern U.S. ports can accomadate larger ships and/or they may not want cruise ships (I've heard this about Charleston).

 

Probably the numbers/money is probably not there for the type of cruiser who would be interested in this cruise. If the cruise lines thought they could make money they would probably have at least a few more of these cruises each year.

[chipq]

I live on West coast and have travelled frequently on East coast but would not cruise to visit the states. When booking upcoming cruise there were itineraries which included Key West but those did not appeal to me. Nothing against KW bur I can do it by car from Miami.

 

http://luv2cruise.blogspot.com

[mtwingcpa]

I thought they could do closed loop US cruises, as long as passengers didn't stay in any of the intervening port? So an LA-LA or Miami-Miami would be OK, even if all the port stops are in the US.

 

In those cases (round trip returning to the point of origin) I believe a stop at a "near" foreign port is always required. For example, round trip Alaska cruises out of Seattle always have a Canadian stop, even if for only a few hours.

 

In the case of a one way cruise, say Miami to New York, a stop at a "distant" foreign port (ie: Curacao) would be required.

 

As I understand it, the only way to avoid the foreign port requirement is on a "cruise to nowhere" with no port stops.

[jasbo49]

So in defense of the OP and from the perspective of a cruiser, I actually think it's a good idea.

 

Whether or not it's practical or violates a law is irrelevant. This is just a hypothetical discussion. The OP probably isn't about to start lobbying cruiseline CEOs or government heads.

 

There are water ferries all over the place to take you on short hops. Just imagine how cool it would be if the water ferry went longer distances and was a cruise ship. Granted, it most likely wouldn't be one of those 6,000 passenger monster ships.

 

People who love cruising take cruises to nowhere. We already established on another thread that many cruisers love sea days to relax or enjoy ship activities.

 

So, I'd be willing to bet that those same people who wanted to go 700 miles up or down the coast would certainly take one of these "cruise ferries" instead of driving.

(Obviously assuming there was a way for the pricing to be reasonable...)

Thank you. Ultimately, what I was thinking is that from the West Coast, there are just two reasonably priced weeklong cruises: Alaska, strictly in summer, and Mexico. A third alternative would be nice just for the variety, and at the same time, we could "buy American" and keep some of our vacation dollars at home.

 

I really wasn't thinking about logistics, and I temporarily forgot the foreign port issue. Yes, the few cruises that travel the territory I'm talking about do make a stop in Ensenada. Here's an example:

 

http://travel.travelocity.com/ecruise/CruiseDetailsItinerary.do?gtCty=&toYearMonth=&unionRt=&srRt=&pagerIndex=&cruiseVendor=&milRt=&action_code=TitleClick&deckId=&fromYearMonth=&promolink=false&pPc=&currency=USD&toDay=&cruiseId=62698&resultsIndex=12&resSt=OR&fromDay=

 

As for the assumption that "there's nothing to do," I'd be happy to spend a day in San Francisco, eating at the wharf and walking Chinatown and all the rest. A day in Santa Barbara would be great. Beautiful beaches, excellent wineries few know about. Stop in L.A. or Long Beach and you can visit Disneyland or take a Hollywood tour. San Diego has Sea World and more gorgeous beaches.

 

I guess, in the end, such cruises are available and if people are interested in them, they'll catch on. Unfortunately for us, they tend to cost a little more than we can afford.

 

Jim

[mtwingcpa]

NCL does 1 trip a year (I think its 1) that starts in Boston and stops several places going down the Eastern seaboard on its way to Florida. Looks like it would be an interesting trip. Boston, NY, Baltimore, Charleston are some of the stops. All historical places. I would enjoy that one once I think. After that probably not

 

I was keeping my eye on that one. But actually I believe the trip embarks in Quebec City, Canada (that's what makes it "legal"). And getting to QC from Seattle does not appear to be easy or cheap. :-(

[jasbo49]

To OP - I would love this cruise. Thank you for the question. Try not to get insulted when people answer negatively, it is just an opinion and not personal.

Yes, sometimes I get a little sensetive. It was really just that one guy who seemed to be having a field day teeing off on what a clueless moron I was. I should be used to that by now.

 

Jim

[PennyAgain]

Have a gander at the prices for sailing down the AICW

 

http://www.americancruiselines.com/ships/American-Spirit-

 

We recently traveled on American Cruise Line's Queen of the West as we were willing to try an American owned and run cruise line. If was a good cruise so far as seeing and experiencing the Columbia and Snake Rivers but it was very expensive. I'm glad we did it, but likely will be more careful with our cruise spending in future.

[Travelcat2]

There currently are cruises on both coasts and, from what I've heard, they are quite popular. From a personal perspective, I'd love to see more cruises depart and/end from the West Coast (Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego) with longer itineraries. Not thinking about the legalities involved -- perhaps I'm just a bit jealous of all the wonderful itinerariers departing from Florida:confused:

[Starry Eyes]

Thank you. Ultimately, what I was thinking is that from the West Coast, there are just two reasonably priced weeklong cruises: Alaska, strictly in summer, and Mexico. A third alternative would be nice just for the variety, and at the same time, we could "buy American" and keep some of our vacation dollars at home. I really wasn't thinking about logistics, and I temporarily forgot the foreign port issue. Yes, the few cruises that travel the territory I'm talking about do make a stop in Ensenada....

As for the assumption that "there's nothing to do," I'd be happy to spend a day in San Francisco, eating at the wharf and walking Chinatown and all the rest....

I guess, in the end, such cruises are available and if people are interested in them, they'll catch on. Unfortunately for us, they tend to cost a little more than we can afford.

Jim

I live in the Midwest and I would enjoy such a cruise once or twice. Unfortunately it is not popular with everybody. I recall when ships were rerouted due to storms, many Californians do not appreciate touring their own state by ship. and if the the California departures due not appeal to the locals, it will be hard to fill ships week after week.

[shipgeeks]

I for one would love to be able to sail from/to NY, Portland (Maine), Norfolk, Baltimore, Savannah, Charleston, and Florida ports, on a mid-size cruise ship. The only downside I see is not enough sea days on that route, and I also love sea days. I lost my interest in sailing to the Caribbean a long time ago; now I only do that to be on a ship.

[jamessemaj]

OK, it appears that:

 

1. Nobody really wants to cruise the coasts.

 

2. There are legal issues that I don't come close to grasping.

 

3. I once again underestimated some posters' ability to insult and turn ugly.

 

Not my first bad idea, and it probably won't be my last.

 

Jim

 

I commend your gracious response to boorish responses.

 

I think US coast cruising would be great, both east and west as well as the Gulf coast. I don't care for caribbean cruises and have mostly done repositions. One great one was from Vancouver to Ft. L. through the Panama Canal. Unfortunately the only US stop was San Francisco, and that only for a few hours to take on new passengers. I would have preferred more and longer US stops.

 

I don't understand the prohibitive laws either, but I know that laws can be repealed or amended. I think you raise a very important issue.

[cruiseco]

One other question: Would some of these new cruise ports want/allow the regular visits of one or several cruise ships? For example, here in Santa Barbara we get a few ships stopping in once in a while, despite the objections of many locals worried about the possible environmental impact of a fuel/sewage/garbage spill. Would the local community and officials be OK with a vastly increased cruise ship presence? I don't know but it would be a very tough sell.

[jasbo49]

One other question: Would some of these new cruise ports want/allow the regular visits of one or several cruise ships? For example, here in Santa Barbara we get a few ships stopping in once in a while, despite the objections of many locals worried about the possible environmental impact of a fuel/sewage/garbage spill. Would the local community and officials be OK with a vastly increased cruise ship presence? I don't know but it would be a very tough sell.

That's a very good point. I used ports that already have some activity and some allure as my examples, but again, I wasn't thinking feasibility as much as: Let's discuss this idea, because I think it has some merit.

 

I wasn't aware that Santa Barbara had opposition. Probably several potential West Coast ports are not now prepared to welcome the throngs. But there are dozens of places that were not cruise ports 30 years ago and are now, I figure.

 

Jim

[jamessemaj]

One other question: Would some of these new cruise ports want/allow the regular visits of one or several cruise ships? For example, here in Santa Barbara we get a few ships stopping in once in a while, despite the objections of many locals worried about the possible environmental impact of a fuel/sewage/garbage spill. Would the local community and officials be OK with a vastly increased cruise ship presence? I don't know but it would be a very tough sell.

 

Could be that Santa Barbara doesn't need the bucks a cruise ship would bring. I guess local attitudes would vary from there to NO or Mobile, etc. Money talks in places that need it.

[Starry Eyes]

I have no idea about Santa Barbara, I have been told in some cities the objections to cruise ship's come from a small, vocal portion of the population, often well-to-do and sometimes giving others the "I've got mine" attitude.

[SadieN]

We do support local and western cruising. Over 20 cruises on three lines, all on the West Coast. Never been on a Carribbean cruise.

Stayed on St Thomas for a week and had a hard time adjusting to the humidity.

 

Sometimes it is nice to know that from any port on a cruise you are no more than 2 hours from home.:p

Heck, on some cruises Mom doesn't even leave her county (Los Angeles) til the second day of the cruise.

[cruiseco]

 

I wasn't aware that Santa Barbara had opposition.

 

Jim

 

You have to remember that the event that set off the whole Earth Day movement was the oil spill here back in 1969 and then a few years back we did have a ship (can't remember which one) spill some sewage. So there's a significant lobby against anything that might cause a problem -- no matter how remote of a chance.

 

Like every other city in CA our budget is broken -- teacher layoffs, etc. So the local politicians welcome any additional revenue but one poll showed that about 30% of locals oppose having cruise ships stopping here regardless of how much money is generated.

 

I have no idea what Oprah's view on the subject is.

[BruceMuzz]

Aside from the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886, making it very difficult and expensive for non US Flag ships to make US coastal cruises, there are a few other deal-breakers:

 

On the East Coast, the most popular time to make these cruises is during the worst weather. The ships get beaten up and damaged, and seasick passengers spend no money onboard. Heavy weather also requires extra fuel - the very last thing that the cruise lines want to hear.

 

On the West Coast, the state of California requires cruise ships to burn extremely expensive low-sulphur fuel when sailing within 50 miles of the California Coast. This fuel isn't even available in the USA. The ships need to go down to Mexico or further south to even buy it. To turn a profit while burning it, we would need to double the price of the cruise. Most cruise lines have already pulled out of California. It's far easier to do business in other locations. We are not going back there anytime soon.

[jasbo49]

You have to remember that the event that set off the whole Earth Day movement was the oil spill here back in 1969 and then a few years back we did have a ship (can't remember which one) spill some sewage. So there's a significant lobby against anything that might cause a problem -- no matter how remote of a chance.

 

Like every other city in CA our budget is broken -- teacher layoffs, etc. So the local politicians welcome any additional revenue but one poll showed that about 30% of locals oppose having cruise ships stopping here regardless of how much money is generated.

 

I have no idea what Oprah's view on the subject is.

First and foremost, I'm glad you at least considered the Oprah issue. Now, with that out of the way, I surfed from Huntington Beach to Del Mar over the 10 years after the biggest spill, so I'm aware of their impact on the coast. Tarballs on my board to prove it.

 

But if only 30 percent of locals disapprove, that really doesn't sound like a big number. I wonder if it isn't more about the well-to-do in the area who are well-to-do no matter how the economy's doing.

 

Again, only Oprah knows for sure.

 

Jim

[jamessemaj]

As I think about the cruises I've taken and passenger excitement I'm reminded of entering SF Bay. It is at the top. Passengers are all on deck for Alaska glaciers and for the Panama Canal. Caribbean ports, ho-hum.

 

Sailing under the Golden Gate into the bay, past Alcatraz, and docking at the pier in that city, is a magnificent experience. It deserves a 2 night stay like St. Petersburg gets.

[sherryf]

We cruise to Alaska out of Seattle because we live here and it is an easy vacation, with no airfare. We love Alaska and are happy to keep going back, but we also love cruising, and Alaska is the most economical cruise for us. If we had other choices for cruising out of Seattle (or Portland) we would definitely consider them. I would love a closed-loop cruise from Seattle, stopping in San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Catalina Island, San Diego, perhaps Oregon ports... and then throw in Ensenada for the obligatory "foreign port". I don't need beaches, and I've been to most of the west coast ports, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't find something fun to do there. I would love a cruise that would allow me to visit some of my favorite places and still sleep in the same bed every night and not have to worry about where to eat dinner.

[Dayenu]

I love to cruise out of a new place each time, visiting different parts of the US and Europe. The only reason I may start cruising local is the rising price of flights.

 

I mean, once I've stopped in Ensenada, why would I go there again if I can help it?

[smeyer418]

Aside from the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886, making it very difficult and expensive for non US Flag ships to make US coastal cruises, there are a few other deal-breakers:

 

On the East Coast, the most popular time to make these cruises is during the worst weather. The ships get beaten up and damaged, and seasick passengers spend no money onboard. Heavy weather also requires extra fuel - the very last thing that the cruise lines want to hear.

 

On the West Coast, the state of California requires cruise ships to burn extremely expensive low-sulphur fuel when sailing within 50 miles of the California Coast. This fuel isn't even available in the USA. The ships need to go down to Mexico or further south to even buy it. To turn a profit while burning it, we would need to double the price of the cruise. Most cruise lines have already pulled out of California. It's far easier to do business in other locations. We are not going back there anytime soon.

 

 

among other things it also wasn't the Unions. What killed ships like the SS United States was something called the 707 and the failure of the government to spend money supporting the cruise industry.

The 707 made it cheaper and easier to fly to Europe...what the SS US was intended to for. In fact the United States when built was heavily subsidized and directly paid for by the US Government.

the US government quickly entered into contracts with the airlines for them to be paid to fly mail overseas. This subsidy created the whole British cruise liner industry. The history of the US is replete with subsidies such as this. The train industry was built exclusively on US subsidies(they were given free land).

Although its easy to blame the Unions, they had relatively little to do with it. The Maritime Unions have been quick to give away lots of things to get the American flagged Pride of America back into operation. You can't even get a cruise ship built in the US...and its not because of the Unions. Look where the cruise ships are built..places like France, England and Italy..places were unions are MUCH stronger than they are here and more militant too.

yes there are some example of Union excesses but like Satan in religion they are given more credit for doing wrong than is really the case.

 

I could go on but it would become a political rant something verboten here but I promise you Unions whose membership is at a all time low(since 1930-before that in many states they were illegal).

 

Read this

http://maritime-executive.com/article/op-ed-the-failure-of-u-s-maritime-policy

 

Its not the Unions that are causing this. Its failure of the government to have a policy that encourages a US Fleet...and its not the Unions that stop it but a failure to have a vision that supports it(and that does mean government money- we have by cutting taxes starved the government from doing the right things so that you can't get people back to work because greed makes it more profitable to get it overseas- from countries that do subsidize their workers- we are at a competitive disadvantage because of the failure to have national health care. read the article...)

[bob brown]

On 26 October, I will embark the Norwegian Dawn in Quebec City, spend a night on board there, and then sail to Portland, Boston, New York, Norfolk, Baltimore, Charleston, Miami, Key West, and disembark in Tampa.

In case you didn't count, thats Nine US Ports....I believe this may be some kind of record.:)

So yes, some of us do like 'coastal' cruises. Besides our ship, several other ships are doing 'repositioning' cruises from the New England / Canada season to their winter season in the Caribbean, though none are making that many stops.

[Erik101]

OK, it appears that:

 

1. Nobody really wants to cruise the coasts.

 

2. There are legal issues that I don't come close to grasping.

 

3. I once again underestimated some posters' ability to insult and turn ugly.

 

Not my first bad idea, and it probably won't be my last.

 

Jim

 

I give you a lot of credit for starting this thread! While I wouldn't care for cruising around the States, I do support the idea. I'm willing to bet that there are cruisers from other countries than our own that would take advantage of a US cruise. The majority of the responders to this thread don't care for cruising the States either but if you've noticed, those responders are from North America. If you get a poll from those living in Europe, Asia and South America, I bet you would get several different opinions with their own reasonings.

 

By the way, the reason why I said I give you a lot of credit is because when I read the title of your post, I knew that you were going to get some very strong opinions! But as I have said in another thread, this is an internet message board and some people will say what they want without thinking on how their words may affect others. So do what I do and focus on those responders who are willing to carry on an opinionated conversation while maintaining their cordiality.