Hey Celebrity, how about a Tahiti/Hawaii itinerary from the west coast?

[cruise kitty]

What part of this seems well said to you?

 

All of it for me too, I'm a Los Angeles native, I'd love to have Celebrity out of San Diego regularly, but it's just not realistic.

 

I'm perfectly comfortable flying to Europe to cruise with Celebrity.

[El Crucero]

I understand there are many potential reasons why Celebrity wouldn't, couldn't, shouldn't offer the kind of cruises suggested. And it is okay to point this out, but this thread is to gauge if these suggested cruises have any interest. ARE YOU LISTENING CELEBRITY? I don't want to use other cruise lines that are not my first choice because there is no other choice!

 

For example, two or three 15 day round trips to Hawai'i a year makes sense, not 20. And one California 28 day round trip to the South Pacific (Hawai'i/Tahiti) a year might make sense. The possibilities are endless. Let me throw out some potential itineraries from California ports (yes there are more than a few on this list who have business education and experience):

- 15 day round trip to Hawai'i (Princess sells these like crazy, but I want to cruise on Celebrity)

- 14 day to Hawai'i/Tahiti with a companion 14 day return to same port that could be booked as a 28 day B2B.

- 8 day wine tour LA/Santa Barbara/San Francisco/ Astoria/ Seattle/ Vancouver with a companion 8 day return on the same route (visiting different wineries) that could be booked as a 16 day B2B. (We did a similar wine tour on Connie to France/Spain/ Portugal and it was spectacular!)

- 10 day Alaska tour LA/ San Francisco/Victoria/various ports in Alaska with a companion 10 day return of different ports in Alaska/ Vancouver/Seattle/LA that could be booked as a 20 day B2B.

- 10 day Central America tour San Diego/Cabo San Lucas/Guatemala/Costa Rica and then a 10 day B2B back to San Diego hitting hitting different ports along the way

- 8 day California Coastal LA/Santa Barbara/Monterey/SF/Catalina/Ensenada/LA (Celebrity already does this one once a year and I think it always sells out way in advance)

 

Well, that's a start. You can quibble about the number of days and port selection, but that is beside the point. What I am suggesting is a concept with details worked out later. Come on cruisers, give Celebrity some more ideas to consider! I do think that all cruise lines are going to have a tough time filling spots on Mediterranean, European, Middle East itineraries for the foreseeable future because of recent "events."

[norwegianwood57]

Thank you for propelling this forward.

[OzKiwiJJ]

 

Then again ,what harm would Celebrity have arranging for the Soltice to do some Hawaii R/Ts Oct /Nov & or Hawaii /Tahiti 28 day cruisings .:D

 

 

Oy! Solstice is ours from Oct/Nov to Mar/Apr. Hands off! :mad: ;) :D

Edited July 7, 2016 by OzKiwiJJ

[norwegianwood57]

Ok!!! Ok !!!:):):)

[Hydrokitty]

I understand there are many potential reasons why Celebrity wouldn't, couldn't, shouldn't offer the kind of cruises suggested. And it is okay to point this out, but this thread is to gauge if these suggested cruises have any interest. ARE YOU LISTENING CELEBRITY? I don't want to use other cruise lines that are not my first choice because there is no other choice!

 

For example, two or three 15 day round trips to Hawai'i a year makes sense, not 20. And one California 28 day round trip to the South Pacific (Hawai'i/Tahiti) a year might make sense. The possibilities are endless. Let me throw out some potential itineraries from California ports (yes there are more than a few on this list who have business education and experience):

- 15 day round trip to Hawai'i (Princess sells these like crazy, but I want to cruise on Celebrity)

- 14 day to Hawai'i/Tahiti with a companion 14 day return to same port that could be booked as a 28 day B2B.

- 8 day wine tour LA/Santa Barbara/San Francisco/ Astoria/ Seattle/ Vancouver with a companion 8 day return on the same route (visiting different wineries) that could be booked as a 16 day B2B. (We did a similar wine tour on Connie to France/Spain/ Portugal and it was spectacular!)

- 10 day Alaska tour LA/ San Francisco/Victoria/various ports in Alaska with a companion 10 day return of different ports in Alaska/ Vancouver/Seattle/LA that could be booked as a 20 day B2B.

- 10 day Central America tour San Diego/Cabo San Lucas/Guatemala/Costa Rica and then a 10 day B2B back to San Diego hitting hitting different ports along the way

- 8 day California Coastal LA/Santa Barbara/Monterey/SF/Catalina/Ensenada/LA (Celebrity already does this one once a year and I think it always sells out way in advance)

 

Well, that's a start. You can quibble about the number of days and port selection, but that is beside the point. What I am suggesting is a concept with details worked out later. Come on cruisers, give Celebrity some more ideas to consider! I do think that all cruise lines are going to have a tough time filling spots on Mediterranean, European, Middle East itineraries for the foreseeable future because of recent "events."

 

WOW!!!! Are you listening Celebrity??? Some great ideas....1 or 2 that might not work, but all worth at least a line on the agenda at the next meeting.

[cl.klink]

How about a route that goes back and forth between Hawaii and Alaska, falling the route the whales themselves take?

 

- Joel

[Cruise Junky]

How about a route that goes back and forth between Hawaii and Alaska, falling the route the whales themselves take?

 

- Joel

 

It's against the law. It breaks the PVSA unless you can end it in Vancouver. Personally I have no interest in combining the two but others might be interested. We love the current Honolulu/Vancouver route.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Cruise Junky

[cl.klink]

It's against the law. It breaks the PVSA unless you can end it in Vancouver. Personally I have no interest in combining the two but others might be interested. We love the current Honolulu/Vancouver route.

 

Not ifa stop in a foreign port is included (e.g. Victoria BC, Vancouver).

-Joel

[BEAV]

Cruise Junky is correct if you're referring to a one-way sailing between Hawaii and Alaska.

[BEAV]

Cruise Junky is correct if you're referring to a one-way sailing between Hawaii and Alaska.

 

Round trip Hawaii-Alaska-Alaska would be legal if you had a port stop in Victoria or Vancouver. But you couldn't break it into two one-way segments.

[Cruise Junky]

Not ifa stop in a foreign port is included (e.g. Victoria BC, Vancouver).

-Joel

 

 

Nope. That's the deal if it's a cruise that departs and returns go the same us port ie a Seattle return. Once it becomes a cruise between two different US ports ie...Honolulu and Anchorage, it's a whole different ball game. You need to hit a foreign DISTANT port and there aren't any in North America.

[El Crucero]

Celebrity Century had a 15 day LA/Hawai'i/Ensenada/LA itinerary. Princess currently uses this itinerary. It is a legal itinerary and meets the requirements of the Jones Act. My understanding of the Jones Act means a Seattle/Hawai'i/Victoria/Seattle would be legal and a Hawai'i/Vancouver/ Alaska (and vice versa) would also be legal.

Edited July 8, 2016 by El Crucero

[Cruise Junky]

Celebrity Century had a 15 day LA/Hawai'i/Ensenada/LA itinerary. Princess currently uses this itinerary. It is a legal itinerary and meets the requirements of the Jones Act. My understanding of the Jones Act means a Seattle/Hawai'i/Victoria/Seattle would be legal and a Hawai'i/Vancouver/ Alaska (and vice versa) would also be legal.

 

You can't just say "Hawai'i/Vancouver/ Alaska (and vice versa) would also be legal" You'd have to give us embarkation and disembarkation ports. The example you gave on Century is a return LA cruise. Starting and ending at the same us port has different rules than starting and ending in different US ports.

 

If you did a Hawaii/Alaska cruise that started in Hawaii and ended in Vancouver would be legal. They couldn't end in Seattle, LA or Anchorage though.

 

Yes your example of the Seattle return would be legal but would have to be sold as one cruise. And it's the PVSA, not the Jones Act.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Cruise Junky

[El Crucero]

You can't just say "Hawai'i/Vancouver/ Alaska (and vice versa) would also be legal" You'd have to give us embarkation and disembarkation ports. The example you gave on Century is a return LA cruise. Starting and ending at the same us port has different rules than starting and ending in different US ports.

 

If you did a Hawaii/Alaska cruise that started in Hawaii and ended in Vancouver would be legal. They couldn't end in Seattle, LA or Anchorage though.

 

Yes your example of the Seattle return would be legal but would have to be sold as one cruise. And it's the PVSA, not the Jones Act.

 

You could be right, but that is not my understanding of the Jones Act. But the details of an itinerary is not the purpose of this thread. This thread is merely to discuss concepts for West Coast cruises. I'll let the Celebrity legal staff figure out the actual itinerary that meets legal requirements.

Edited July 8, 2016 by El Crucero

[BEAV]

You could be right, but that is not my understanding of the Jones Act. But the details of an itinerary is not the purpose of this thread. This thread is merely to discuss concepts for West Coast cruises. I'll let the Celebrity legal staff figure out the actual itinerary that meets legal requirements.

 

The PVSA (not Jones Act) requires round trip (closed loop) cruises beginning/ending at the same port to stop at one (any) foreign port.

 

One way sailings departing from one US port and ending at a different US port require stopping at a DISTANT foreign port. Distant foreign ports are Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao and Cartegena. Victoria and Vancouver are not distant foreign ports. They're foreign, but not distant foreign.

 

In recent years, the only legal way to do a one way sailing from California to Hawaii was to originate in Ensenada and bus everyone there from San Diego to begin the cruise. The busing operation was fraught with problems and the cruise lines (Celebrity included) have largely abandoned these itineraries as a result. The only legal way to sail from the West Coast to Hawaii is to do the round trip like Princess, HAL and Carnival currently do.

 

A one way sailing from Vancouver to Hawaii is legal, whereas Seattle to Hawaii is illegal.

 

The PVSA and geography (lack of distant foreign ports) are contributing factors

to why it's difficult to create legal itineraries on the West Coast that begin in one US port and end in a different US port.

[florisdekort]

Nope. That's the deal if it's a cruise that departs and returns go the same us port ie a Seattle return. Once it becomes a cruise between two different US ports ie...Honolulu and Anchorage, it's a whole different ball game. You need to hit a foreign DISTANT port and there aren't any in North America.

 

This is 100% correct.

Edited July 8, 2016 by florisdekort

[norwegianwood57]

Floris, you must have missed all my posts about wanting as few children on cruises as possible and cruising at times that achieve that goal. Those are a must read. Go at it.

 

Back to the topic.

 

With all the creative ideas here, we still have not been able to attract any Celeb rep.

 

California, so many wonderful ports to sail out of and return to.

[4774Papa]

We like the one-way from Sydney to Hawaii, stopping in two NZ ports as well as some Pacific islands. However, we want to see more of NZ. If we did a land tour of NZ then back to Sydney and on that cruise, the cost would be up there. Would prefer more stops in NZ for the one way.

[zoncom]

I spent 18,000 to see South Pacific on Oceania because you refuse to serve this large area. And I would do it again. I have done your Vancouver-Honolulu.Its fine but misses all the beautiful South Pacific that requires a long cruise.Doing the Solstice repo on either or both ends as a complete SP would be a good start. Aussies/NZers would do it from Sydney. Americans etc. from LA. I got the impression from recent officers questionaire forum on Reflection that O is getting tired of being asked about this area.Boomers are getting tired of Caribbean and Mexico. Some of us same with Europe. .Celebrity suits me fine except for same old boring itineries.

[zoncom]

I spent 18,000 to see South Pacific on Oceania because you refuse to serve this large area. And I would do it again. I have done your Vancouver-Honolulu.Its fine but misses all the beautiful South Pacific that requires a long cruise.Doing the Solstice repo on either or both ends as a complete SP would be a good start. Aussies/NZers would do it from Sydney. Americans etc. from LA. I got the impression from recent officers questionaire forum on Reflection that O is getting tired of being asked about this area.Boomers are getting tired of Caribbean and Mexico. Some of us same with Europe. .Celebrity suits me fine except for same old boring itineries

[norwegianwood57]

I havent the time now to do the research, does anyone know the rationale behind the Jones Act or the PVSA?

[zoncom]

PVSA for people. Jones for cargo I think.

[4774Papa]

I havent the time now to do the research, does anyone know the rationale behind the Jones Act or the PVSA?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920

 

Reasons are largely to protect US industries.

 

 

Effects[edit]

The Jones Act prevents foreign-flagged ships from carrying cargo between the US mainland and noncontiguous parts of the US, such as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam.[11] Foreign ships inbound with goods cannot stop any of these four locations, offload goods, load mainland-bound goods, and continue to US mainland ports. Instead, they must proceed directly to US mainland ports, where distributors break bulk and then send goods to US places off the mainland by US-flagged ships.[11] Jones Act restrictions can be circumvented by making a stop in a foreign country between two US ports, e.g., Anchorage-Vancouver-Seattle.

 

Puerto Rico[edit]

Studies by the World Economic Forum and Federal Reserve Bank of New York have concluded that the Jones Act hinders economic development in Puerto Rico.[12]

 

By contrast, in March 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study of the effect of the Jones Act on Puerto Rico that noted "[f]reight rates are set based on a host of supply and demand factors in the market, some of which are affected directly or indirectly by Jones Act requirements." The report further concludes, however, that "because so many other factors besides the Jones Act affect rates, it is difficult to isolate the exact extent to which freight rates between the United States and Puerto Rico are affected by the Jones Act." The report also addresses what would happen "under a full exemption from the Act, the rules and requirements that would apply to all carriers would need to be determined." The report continues that "[w]hile proponents of this change expect increased competition and greater availability of vessels to suit shippers' needs, it is also possible that the reliability and other beneficial aspects of the current service could be affected." The report concludes that "GAO's report confirmed that previous estimates of the so-called 'cost' of the Jones Act are not verifiable and cannot be proven."[13]

 

In the Washington Times, Rep. Duncan Hunter spoke to the need for the Jones Act and why it's not to blame for the island's debt crisis. "With or without such an effort, it's imperative not to conflate the unrelated issues of Puerto Rico's debt and the Jones Act, and to fully grasp the importance of ensuring the safe transport of goods between American ports. There must also be acknowledgment of the dire consequences of exposing ports and waterways to foreign seafarers."[14]

 

US shipbuilding[edit]

Because the Jones Act requires all transport between US ports be carried on US-built ships, the Jones Act supports the domestic US shipbuilding industry.[15][16] Critics of the Jones act describe it as protectionist, harming the overall economy for the sake of benefiting narrow interests.[17][18] With protectionism as its competitive advantage, the need for innovation and cost efficiency is greatly reduced. They also argue that even if the ultimate goal is to support the US shipbuilding industry, the Jones Act is an ineffective way to achieve this goal, as it drives up shipping costs, increases energy costs, stifles competition, and hampers innovation in the U.S. shipping industry.[19] As a result, U.S. built and flagged vessels lose part of their competitiveness in international markets. Ships built to satisfy the Jones Act have been found to cost 3 times as much than those built in foreign shipyards,[20] and the most expensive Jones Act ship is the tanker Liberty Bay.[21]

[norwegianwood57]

Thank you for posting this. Have to read it carefully to see how this is pertinent to cruising.