Future Trends in the Cruise Industry

[LHT28]

Oceania includes all non-alcoholic drinks,

Only coffee,hot tea, iced tea and lemonade, you still pay for bottled water & sodas.

[Dwayne]

I for one don't think the Industry will head to Non-Smoking any time soon. Carnival tried that with the Paradise. The result was less income. They have made some strides to make it more Friendly for non-smokers. And seems a more reasonable compromise.

I think RCL got way over built for Size and capicity. CCL followed by lowering fares to fill their berths. As far as the Future, I think they need to take a breather with New Builds for a few years.

IMHO,
IslandCruz

[tncruiseman]

I also hope we will see increased loyalty programs. RCCL's priviledges start with 5 cruises and Carnival's start with 10, and their member cruise lines don't count. A graduated scale of priviledges would certainly be more of an incentive to book that next cruise. Between the casino, shopping, drinks, etc...they could let us go free and still be money way ahead. If the overbuilding continues, we may even see targeted specials for those with high onboard tabs. If it were my ships, that would be my plan anyway.

[penny3333]

I like your idea tn, they'd be targeting me for sure!

[fruby]

Hello,

Here are suggestions as to new ports or improving others (I'm not sure how many cruise industry professionals read this board but here are my suggestions)

Dublin, Ireland (for European cruises)

Dublin has an excellent port, not far from the cenral of Dublin, where there are many hotels to fit all budgets. Dublin has an outstanding airport that has many reasonably priced flights from all over Europe as well as the USA.

And Dublin is a wonderful cosmopolitan city with much to see and do for cruise ship passengers.

San Francisco/Oakland

San Francisco should making building the new cruise port a priority because this will create hundreds of jobs. And cruise lines should increase the number of ships using this fascinating city as a cruise destination. The San Francisco Bay area is one of the wealthiest areas in the world, filled with lots of people who love to travel and people from San Jose for example shouldn't have to fly somewhere to go on a cruise.

Santa Barbara

This part of California has many interesting sights of historical and cultural interest. As such, this is an ideal port of call that should be used much more.

Fred

[Radiationman]

Originally posted by fruby:
San Francisco/Oakland

San Francisco should making building the new cruise port a priority because this will create hundreds of jobs. And cruise lines should increase the number of ships using this fascinating city as a cruise destination. The San Francisco Bay area is one of the wealthiest areas in the world, filled with lots of people who love to travel and people from San Jose for example shouldn't have to fly somewhere to go on a cruise.

The demographics may be there, but the interest isn't. Bookings out of San Francisco have been soft as a result 2007 will be the last year that Princess will offer departures to Mexico from San Francisco.

In addition plans for an actual cruise terminal in San Francisco have pretty much fallen apart, due to funding and other issues.

Plus San Francisco is limited to 7+ day sailings for almost every cruise line. There's limited demand for sailings that only go so far as Victoria or Vancouver, that means that cruises must go all the way to Alaska which means a long itinerary. The same goes for Mexico sailings.

It's those long sailings that are why bookings have been soft. Theres just not a lot of folks in the bay area that are able (or want) to take a sailing in excess of 7 days.

[LHT28]

[quote]Originally posted by Radiationman:

Plus San Francisco is limited to 7+ day sailings for almost every cruise line.

I am not sure about that .
Last year we did 10 day on the Dawn, it was sold out so there must be an interest
Maybe there are just too many cruiseships now for the demand.

[Radiationman]

Right, that's a 7+ day sailing.

Princess has said that the reason that they will not be operating out San Francisco to Mexico is because bookings are not strong enough. Sailings to Alaska continue to be strong enough to keep a ship sailing from San Francisco.

There's just not enough demand out of San Francisco to support additional sailings. Being out of San Francisco I would live additional calls here, the trouble is with the requirement for a ship sailing to or from San Francisco to call on a foreign port, it means that it just takes too long to use San Francisco as an embarkation or disembarkation port.

[fruby]

Hello,

Thank you Radioman, for your insight on this. It may be that Bay Area cruisers have enough money to fly to wherever their cruises depart and return to. Additionally the Bay Area has three (or four if you include the Sacramento airport) airports serving airlines that fly all over the world.

Fred

[Radiationman]

Originally posted by fruby:
Hello,

Thank you Radioman, for your insight on this. It may be that Bay Area cruisers have enough money to fly to wherever their cruises depart and return to. Additionally the Bay Area has three (or four if you include the Sacramento airport) airports serving airlines that fly all over the world.

Fred

I think that's a part of it, the other part is what the folks at Carnival and a few other lines describe as Time Starvation. Thanks to the pressures of work and other responsibilities, folks who are in the prime demographic for many cruise lines are opting for long weekend vacations instead of 5+ day trips.

As a result we're seeing Carnival and other lines add more 3 and 4 night sailings. San Francisco's location just doesn't work for a 3 or 4 night sailing on a foreign flag vessel unless you look at a 1 way sailing.

That's one of the reason's Carnival is bringing the Elation to San Diego in June where it will operate 4 and 5 night sailings to Mexico...

Edit: Another advertisement removed. User banned. RF