Many problems in the Caribbean BRING SHIPS TO WEST COAST

[A&L_Ont]

If the cruise was going from LA to Hawaii (two different US ports), then they would have to visit a distant foreign port. But, as long as the cruise is starting and ending at the same US port, then they are only required to visit any foreign port.

 

I don't know which cruise line it was, but to avoid that distant foreign port rule on the one-way cruise from LA to Hawaii, they would bus the passengers from LA to Ensenada and embark the passengers there.

 

I think it was Princess, as I remember reading about it on their boards.

[cruisinfanatic]

With so many problems in the Caribbean, WHY doesn't RCCL bring a ship to the West Coast.

 

Panama Canal, Coastal trips along the West Coast, Hawaii and Mexico.

 

 

Bring a ship to the West Coast.:)

Been there, done that. Didn't work with even one ship

[grandgeezer]

If the cruise was going from LA to Hawaii (two different US ports), then they would have to visit a distant foreign port. But, as long as the cruise is starting and ending at the same US port, then they are only required to visit any foreign port.

 

I don't know which cruise line it was, but to avoid that distant foreign port rule on the one-way cruise from LA to Hawaii, they would bus the passengers from LA to Ensenada and embark the passengers there.

 

Several years ago we did a nine day coastal cruise on the Solstice. It was repositioning from Hawaii to do Alaskan cruises. The ship docked in Ensenada. They bused those passengers to San Diego and the buses loaded the new passengers up and brought us to Ensenada to board. Ironicly, our first stop was San Diego. Now the go from Hawaii right to Vancouver.

[Merion_Mom]

I agree with you..even though we are apparently always in minority on these boards....People get so hostile :eek: when we on the west coast ask for even one RCI ship to return to us again.

 

Yikes people...lighten up..and share with us again. If you don't want to come out here fine....there might be enough of us here already or many that would come.

 

NCL & PCL have no problems filling their ships that sail from here.

My west coast friends cruise often on Princess, because they cut prices to the bone.

 

Not so terribly profitable.

[tanyaewa]

Florida pulls from South America and Europe besides cold weather states.

 

CA pulls from...??

Ummm....

Canada? Asia? Australia?

[chengkp75]

Not that $4 million isn't a lot of money, but that's basically 1-2 week's worth of fare for one non-Oasis ship. A drop in the bucket, so to speak. If there was money to be made, I expect they'd be doing it.

 

While that expense may be only 1-2 weeks of revenue for the ship, the ship is still generating expense, so you can only use the profit to pay for the retrofit. Much longer payback. Add in the amount of time needed to complete the retrofit, another two weeks without revenue, and you also have to find the space to carve out the transformers and the shore connection, with it's own watertight side port, and its not a small job. Additionally, while the ports in California are getting more infrastructure at the ports to allow cold ironing of cargo ships, which use very moderate 0.5 - 1 Mw at 480 volts of power per ship, the cruise berths that can accommodate the 6-8Mw at 10,000 volts the average cruise ship uses for their hotel load are very limited.

[beyond2k]

California is a victim of the Continental Tilt Theory. The Continent tilted and all the nuts rolled to California.

[Sky616]

California is a victim of the Continental Tilt Theory. The Continent tilted and all the nuts rolled to California.

LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE

 

Cruise Critic needs a like button.

[LS6Caddy]

There are a multitude of reasons as many have stated.

1. Emission requirements of California

2. Population density. Larger population to pull from on the East coast, plus Europe, plus South America.

3. Many ships pulled their Mexican Riviera cruises when the violence in Mexico started spilling over to tourist areas that cruise passengers were located.

4. Lack of viable itineraries. Hawaii is pretty much too far for 7 day cruises coupled with the expensive flights...especially from the east coast. And there is a shortage of options. Only a few Mexico ports are doable on a 7 day cruise. There are just so many more options in the Caribbean for cruise lines to choose from for all duration's of cruises.

5. Pacific tends to be rougher and the weather tends to be colder.

 

West coast cruising would be better for me...much cheaper and shorter flights from CO...but I totally understand why they operate where they do financially...and there is very little appeal to the Mexican Riviera for me...did it once and don't need to do it again.

[datolim]

I stand corrected from what I said. It should read as "nearby foreign port" and not "distant foreign port" as others have pointed out.

At the time some 10 years ago I was too engrossed on the Hawaii-NCL-POA argument to notice about Mexico. For those interested in this story here is the link https://www.gao.gov/assets/250/241568.html

But like the previous poster has said there is not much too choose from on the west coast.

[land lover]

My west coast friends cruise often on Princess, because they cut prices to the bone.

 

Not so terribly profitable.

 

 

When Royal decided to do 2 or was it 3...west coast cruises out of LA..in Oct. 2015 I jumped on the band wagon..booking early....I still had some FCds from 2009.....it had been awhile since cruising with RCI, Jan. 2011 when Mariner left ...but as final payment came up and I looked at what I was paying.....

 

 

......I was thinking I am going on a Pacific Coastal Cruise for almost 1700 a person in a balcony.....with my D+ Balcony discount...... What is wrong with this picture..I had already experienced Princess(2015) and RCI(2009) cut to the bone prices on past Pacific Coastals so decided to cancelled, but had to move my reservation to another date....due to the FCD.....

 

 

....So just randomly picked Venice to cruise out of in 2016...then I took a closer look...and decided to book a B2B out of Venice...for November 2015...I booked an IS and a JS for the same price as that RCI Pacific Coastal..2 weeks for the price of one. Yes...did pay too much for air, but must take opportunity when it arises.

 

 

I kept on watching those few PC RCI sailings out of San Pedro and noticed pricing was dropping on some Cats as it was getting closer and finally they were sold out.

 

But as many have said..it's simple profit.

RCI has tried and the guests have not come, seems the line has found more success in going out of WA or Canada on the West.

 

 

 

However..they have decided to bring "baby" Vision back in Nov. 2018 a Panama canal east bound.

 

I have many fond memories of Vision with my family, my first cruise on Viking Seranade was in 1992.....I and many others So Ca residents have unfortunately experienced RCI's demise out of LA.

 

For a quick get away from a local port Princess is now our choice, but pricing no longer is as bare bones, recently it has stabilized because of so many new cruisers and lots of new Princess promos..... but still I can get a balcony from 799-1100..+tx....

 

I still love RCI for all the fun family memories and the most beautiful ships. I love Oasis and Anthem, I just think the cruise line is slim on itinerary choices.......

 

So if you are still reading my post.....I congratulate you...boooooring........

 

BTW...I have a friend who paid $300 bucks to leave a 4 day cruise on RCI back in 2008 sailing from San Pedro she left in San Diego....I did all the paper work as she became sea sick and simply WANTED OFF THE SHIP! So I learned to much about the Passengers Act.

Edited September 22, 2017 by land lover

[land lover]

There are a multitude of reasons as many have stated.

1. Emission requirements of California

2. Population density. Larger population to pull from on the East coast, plus Europe, plus South America.

3. Many ships pulled their Mexican Riviera cruises when the violence in Mexico started spilling over to tourist areas that cruise passengers were located.

4. Lack of viable itineraries. Hawaii is pretty much too far for 7 day cruises coupled with the expensive flights...especially from the east coast. And there is a shortage of options. Only a few Mexico ports are doable on a 7 day cruise. There are just so many more options in the Caribbean for cruise lines to choose from for all duration's of cruises.

5. Pacific tends to be rougher and the weather tends to be colder.

 

West coast cruising would be better for me...much cheaper and shorter flights from CO...but I totally understand why they operate where they do financially...and there is very little appeal to the Mexican Riviera for me...did it once and don't need to do it again.

 

I have heard much talk about "emissions" requirement in CA..on CC but have never read about it anywhere else or heard about it from RCI staff.

 

 

Same as lines leaving because of violence in Mexico......ports have been changed....but again only have heard speculation on CC.

 

I heard from more than one officer on RCI that it was the fees charged by Mexico that did them in on their short 3 & 4 day itineraries.

Just on princess fees have almost doubled in 2 years...on MR sailings.

Try flying into Mexico on a freebee airline voucher...might as well pay for the ticket.....

 

But totally agree with your other points.

Edited September 22, 2017 by land lover

[time4u2go]

I have heard much talk about "emissions" requirement in CA..on CC but have never read about it anywhere else or heard about it from RCI staff.

 

 

Same as lines leaving because of violence in Mexico......ports have been changed....but again only have heard speculation on CC.

 

Just curious ....

If you google california cruise ship emission laws, there is plenty of information about it.

[chengkp75]

If you google california cruise ship emission laws, there is plenty of information about it.

 

And the emissions and cold ironing requirements apply to all ships, so there are many cargo ships that are specific to the California runs now, since they have been retrofitted for cold ironing. The cargo ships don't have the luxury of moving from one area (West Coast) to another (Caribbean) and providing the same service the way a cruise ship does.

[land lover]

If you google california cruise ship emission laws, there is plenty of information about it.

 

 

Thanks...but I guess I should have asked please show me an article that says one reason RCI pulled their ships was because of CA emissions laws(but no cruise line would admit that, would they?)

 

However...now you reopened my eyes to questioning sailing on any cruise ship, especially the Oasis class, not because of CA laws but simple pollution.

 

I remember our first cruise, a Caribbean, our honeymoon in 1983.....we were looking out from the rear of the vessel and were watching as several plastic bags were being tossed at sea, that was easily seen, but on newer ships what aren't we seeing?

Edited September 22, 2017 by land lover

[land lover]

And the emissions and cold ironing requirements apply to all ships, so there are many cargo ships that are specific to the California runs now, since they have been retrofitted for cold ironing. The cargo ships don't have the luxury of moving from one area (West Coast) to another (Caribbean) and providing the same service the way a cruise ship does.

 

 

Interesting.....

[Gloworm2]

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

[chengkp75]

Thanks...but I guess I should have asked please show me an article that says one reason RCI pulled their ships was because of CA emissions laws(but no cruise line would admit that, would they?)

 

However...now you reopened my eyes to questioning sailing on any cruise ship, especially the Oasis class, not because of CA laws but simple pollution.

 

I remember our first cruise, a Caribbean, our honeymoon in 1983.....we were looking out from the rear of the vessel and were watching as several plastic bags were being tossed at sea, that was easily seen, but on newer ships what aren't we seeing?

 

At the time that cold ironing was first proposed in California, there was great debate in the cruise lines over whether they were willing to invest in the necessary equipment to allow the ship to be powered from shore. Many decided not to, and some retrofitted specific ships just for use in California.

 

Now, since the establishment of the North American ECA, the emissions requirements within 200 nm of the North American continent (and some non-contiguous US states and territories) are virtually the same as the California CARB rules, except that the ECA does not require cold ironing, and California does not allow the use of scrubbers in place of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Both CARB and the US ECA require sulfur limits of 0.1%. The California zone only extends out 40 nm from shore, while the North American ECA is 200 nm, including all of Canada as well. So, the Oasis, like every ship operating inside the ECA, will be required to burn low sulfur diesel or use a scrubber that has been certified as meeting the same emissions as low sulfur diesel.

 

With regards to garbage, yes, in the "bad old days", the cruise lines were pretty bad about this, but then so were most ships around the world. You have to remember that the MARPOL (Marine Pollution) Convention, which with several annexes governs all "discharges" from ships (oil, noxious liquids, sewage, garbage, and air), only entered into effect in October of 1983. So, while what you saw on your first cruise was distasteful, remember that depending on the date, it may have been completely legal. Having said that, even after implementation of MARPOL, cruise ships were still being caught dumping plastic and trash, but with the EPA giving rewards to people reporting this, and with the proliferation of cell phone cameras, the cruise lines got fined so much that they decided it was better to abide by the rules. I would say, based on my 42 years at sea, that the cruise ships are far and away better stewards of the ocean than most other ships afloat today. If the dumping that happened in the bad old days was going on today, it would be all over youtube and social media in a heartbeat. Yes, there are the problems, like the Princess ship with the OWS in Alaska, but this can happen to any industry at any time.

[time4u2go]

Thanks...but I guess I should have asked please show me an article that says one reason RCI pulled their ships was because of CA emissions laws(but no cruise line would admit that, would they?)

 

However...now you reopened my eyes to questioning sailing on any cruise ship, especially the Oasis class, not because of CA laws but simple pollution.

 

I remember our first cruise, a Caribbean, our honeymoon in 1983.....we were looking out from the rear of the vessel and were watching as several plastic bags were being tossed at sea, that was easily seen, but on newer ships what aren't we seeing?

I vaguely remember a big scandal about this, once somebody took video of it happening on a ship and went public with the video.

[land lover]

At the time that cold ironing was first proposed in California, there was great debate in the cruise lines over whether they were willing to invest in the necessary equipment to allow the ship to be powered from shore. Many decided not to, and some retrofitted specific ships just for use in California.

 

Now, since the establishment of the North American ECA, the emissions requirements within 200 nm of the North American continent (and some non-contiguous US states and territories) are virtually the same as the California CARB rules, except that the ECA does not require cold ironing, and California does not allow the use of scrubbers in place of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Both CARB and the US ECA require sulfur limits of 0.1%. The California zone only extends out 40 nm from shore, while the North American ECA is 200 nm, including all of Canada as well. So, the Oasis, like every ship operating inside the ECA, will be required to burn low sulfur diesel or use a scrubber that has been certified as meeting the same emissions as low sulfur diesel.

 

With regards to garbage, yes, in the "bad old days", the cruise lines were pretty bad about this, but then so were most ships around the world. You have to remember that the MARPOL (Marine Pollution) Convention, which with several annexes governs all "discharges" from ships (oil, noxious liquids, sewage, garbage, and air), only entered into effect in October of 1983. So, while what you saw on your first cruise was distasteful, remember that depending on the date, it may have been completely legal. Having said that, even after implementation of MARPOL, cruise ships were still being caught dumping plastic and trash, but with the EPA giving rewards to people reporting this, and with the proliferation of cell phone cameras, the cruise lines got fined so much that they decided it was better to abide by the rules. I would say, based on my 42 years at sea, that the cruise ships are far and away better stewards of the ocean than most other ships afloat today. If the dumping that happened in the bad old days was going on today, it would be all over youtube and social media in a heartbeat. Yes, there are the problems, like the Princess ship with the OWS in Alaska, but this can happen to any industry at any time.

 

I appreciate the info and was reading about the low sulfer diesel prior to your post...thanks for the comment about the Cruise ships being better stewards of the sea than others, not that I would stop cruising, but gives me another perspective, especially after recently cruising into Shanghai and seeing 100's of ships on the same route.

 

Our cruise was in Oct. 1983...guess the ship had not gotten the memo....At first we, though it was dolphins jumping in the wake, as the lighting was dim.

[wl2cruise]

Florida pulls from South America and Europe besides cold weather states.

 

CA pulls from...??

 

2nd largest cruise demographic happens to be California.

[time4u2go]

2nd largest cruise demographic happens to be California.

Where did you find this information? I'm curious to learn more.

[Schplinky]

Every ship we have sailed on out of Cali was cheaper than a Caribbean cruise because there is less demand. Not sure adding ships would help that.

[Langley Cruisers]

"Many problems in the Caribbean" - understood and horrific, and temporary. However, if RCI decided today to start doing what OP suggests, it would still be years before the itinerary (itineraries) would reflect that.

[wl2cruise]

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.