Jump to content

GTJ

Members
  • Posts

    1,160
  • Joined

Everything posted by GTJ

  1. For some time I have been familiar with Dalton Highway Express, though I have not traveled with the company personally. It operates regularly-scheduled service between Fairbanks and Deadhorse, leaving Fairbanks on Tuesdays and Saturdays, and returning from Deadhorse (near Prudoe Bay) the following day, from June 4, 2022, through August 31, 2022. Like many things in Alaska, fares are expensive: $500 round-trip (lower fares to and from intermediate points). The challenge is if you want to make it all the way and wade in the Arctic Ocean. Deadhorse Camp offers a 2-hour tour and shuttle from Deadhorse to the ocean and back, but its regular daily tour times are at 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Since the Dalton Highway Express is scheduled to arrive in Deadhorse at 10:00 p.m., and leave the next morning at 8:00 a.m., you would probably need to make special arrangements to get to and from the ocean during the ten hours you would have in Deadhorse. (There is continuous 24-hour daylight in Deadhorse until the sun finally sets on July 29, 2022, and thereafter until August 15, 2022, there would be continuous daylight or twilight each day, so going on a tour in the "middle of night" would be just fine.)
  2. I reside near LaGuardia Airport and the hotels that advertise themselves as being "at" LaGuardia Airport. It is likely that taxi or taxi-like service would be less expensive and more responsive than the Princess-arranged bus service. If you really want to go by bus, then do so with our public transportation system, and pay $2.75 per person (that's what we do regularly), but $39 per person, even on an express bus, is, in my opinion, a rip-off. If direct transportation is desired, and there's more than one person traveling, then go by taxi or taxi-like service.
  3. For substantial cruises, ACL is about it for the time being. There had been another line, Blount Small Ship Adventures, but its operations were suspended with the pandemic, and it is unclear if that line will be coming back or not. Seastreak operates occasional trips along the Hudson River to West Point, similar to the former Hudson Day Line cruises, usually in connection with events, but it is a rather short "cruise" and maybe not the extent to which you're expecting. Recently Hornblower Cruises & Events acquired American Queen Voyages, and the subsidiary operations of Victory Cruise Lines. These inland and small vessel operating companies would certainly be of the character to operate along the Hudson River, though they do not do so presently. But keep your eyes open as to their future plans. (Pearl Seas Cruises is similarly situated, but a much smaller operation and one that seems more focused on serving the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes with its single vessel, and probably not the Hudson River and Erie Canal.) Hope this information is helpful.
  4. I was passing through Rhode Island several years ago, on my way back from Québec. Having a maritime yearning, I traveled on the Interstate Navigation ferry that was then operating once-daily from Providence to Block Island, connecting there with the Viking Fleet ferry that operates once-daily from Block Island to Montauk (allowing a few hours to visit the island . . . and getting sun-burned in the process!). Then the Hampton Jitney from Montauk back to my home in Flushing. In short, Providence is "close," but it is usually a place enroute to or from someplace else! Perhaps while passing through on a future journey I will have time to visit. (Alas, Interstate Navigation gave up its route to and from Providence, and now only operates to and from Point Judith, so it will have to be some other route!)
  5. Mr. Cudahy has been a prolific transportation writer, mostly well-researched books on rail transportation, but a notable few on maritime history. In looking at the Steamship Historical Society of America website I do not immediately see any archives. I tend to learn a lot from timetables or brochures--for they show a company's routes and otherwise imply a lot of their histories and their competitors--and I have found a few, but many, of such documents posted online.
  6. I will try to take a look. I see some listings at Ebay . . . . At present I am writing on local history, and one of the sources I have consulted is a "definitive" book on one line, The Brooklyn and Rockaway Beach Railroad. The company operated an integrated service from East New York to Canarsie via railroad, connecting with steamboats to Rockaway Beach. The book does a very job in describing the rail history, but comparatively little about the company's steamboat history (which operated from 1866 through 1905). Similarly, in reviewing contemporaneous newspaper reports about the Great South Bay Ferry Company, there's a fair amount of reporting about the company's rail service in Freeport (N.Y.), but less about the connecting steamboats to Point Lookout in Long Beach (which operated from 1901 through 1921). A few years ago Brian J. Cudahy (formerly with the Federal Transit Administration) authored the books Over & Back: The History of Ferryboats in New York Harbor and Around Manhattan Island and other Maritime Tales of New York; and Sarah Bird Write authored Ferries of America: A Guide to Adventurous Travel, all of which I have in my library. But substantially fewer books than the number covering railroad history.
  7. It sounds like Vancouver might have been planning for the past rather than for the future. In my profession--working within the bus industry--vehicle lengths increased a few years later from the once-standard 40-foot motorcoach to the present standard of 45-feet. A few bus terminals then became obsolete (though not as seriously as Canada Place). Arguably it was foreseeable, as standard bus lengths were 35-feet before the 40-foot length became standard. True, sometimes it is hard to predict what the future will bring, but if Canada Place was too constrained at the time it opened, then it sounds like there was a real planning problem. I will have to take a look. I have a few ferry books, but none on oceanliners. Protecting American industry can be a hot-button issue, balanced by the desire of consumers for competition (i.e., lower prices and better service). Not an easy issue to resolve. In the past I flew to and from Mirabel airport in Montréal, so despised by all that it was eventually abandoned and all the carriers returned to Dorval!
  8. You are very much on point that each of us have our own financial limitations, even though the premium might not be extreme. We traveled to Bermuda in 2019 via Celebrity Cruises, 7-nights (with 4 days in Bermuda) for $846 per person. By having budgeted responsibly for a few years we were able to afford that amount, but we would not have been able to afford the higher Oceania fares. We don't drink, don't use internet enroute, and neither of us were are fazed by using public transportation service, so the Oceania extras would not have been critical for us. We would like to be able to afford the "premium" lines--it is the great intimacy of a smaller vessel that I find most appealing--and even though the premium is not huge, for the time being we cannot. For those who can, it may be a worthwhile and reasonable expenditure. For us, however, it is choice between an inexpensive cruise and no cruise at all.
  9. In thinking about it some more, what I observed was almost certainly would have been Norwegian Cruise Line, not Royal Caribbean International. We were in Bermuda for four days via Celebrity Cruises from Bayonne, and it being part of the Royal Caribbean Group, there would not have been a "competing" Royal Caribbean International vessel at the same time. You sparked my memory into recalling that it was Norwegian Cruise Line that was operating a competing service out of Manhattan, so it must have been that line's small vessel that I saw ferrying its passengers to St. George's. The important point, though, is that none of these carriers are operating their megavessels into St. George's.
  10. From a competitive perspective, the American flag vessels are dwarfed, and a good argument can be made as to the tail wagging the dog. Yet, if you look at the statutory provision granting an exception for Puerto Rico, the competitiveness of an American flag vessel has no relevance as to the continuation of an exemption for foreign flag vessels: "On a showing . . . , by the vessel owner or charterer, that a United States passenger vessel qualified to engage in the coastwise trade is offering or advertising passenger service between a port in Puerto Rico and another port in the United States pursuant to a certificate, the Secretary shall notify the owner or operator of each vessel transporting passengers under subsection (b) [allowing foreign flag vessels to provide such service to and from Puerto Rico] to terminate that transportation within 270 days after the Secretary’s notification." 46 U.S.C. § 55104(c)(1). Under the foregoing statutory provision, a small motorboat could displace a fleet of megavessels. It may well be that the 1886 statute is archaic and no longer relevant in the twenty-first century. But the unions and the small vessel owners may oppose repeal if it will hurt them at all. Still, that opposition might not hold much weight these days, especially when compared to the power they wielded in 1886. A parallel question for thought and consideration: Should British Airways be permitted to transport passengers between New York and Los Angeles? It is essentially the same issue . . . .
  11. In looking at 2022 schedules, all I see calling at St. George's are Regent Seven Seas, Oceania, Seabourn, Windstar, and Silversea, all part of that upper echelon. Yet, Royal Caribbean International has a page on its website, urging potential passengers to "cruise to St. George island, Bermuda." If my memory from a 2019 visit remains accurate, Royal Caribbean operated, or arranged for, a smaller vessel to ferry its passengers from King's Wharf to St. George's, but would that really count? Is it the same as Holland America Line tendering its passengers into St. George's from an off-shore anchorage? In any cases, the 2022 schedule affirms that the masses are relegated to King's Wharf, and only the smaller, more intimate, and expensive, lines can call elsewhere in Bermuda!
  12. A fascinating history--and I don't think maritime history is generally documented as well as land and air transport. (I am presently writing a local history, and as to one integrated railway-steamship company, much more material is available on the route of the railway, and relatively little as to the routes of the steamships.) There was, of course, a large shift, generally stretching from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, when steamship companies were transitioning from the operation of ocean liners going from place-to-place to the operation of cruise liners going on excursions (around the same time that the railroads were abandoning all their trains, leaving only a relatively inconsequential Via Rail and Rocky Mountaineer excursions). I have not found many good books documenting that transition, and how the cruise lines came to flourish and supplant the ocean liners. It sounds like Vancouver made at least two mistakes. First, at the time it was building Canada Place it did not predict the greater size of vessels that would soon be going into service. Five slips is a good size, but to now have effective lost two slips is not good. Second, taking the position that the vessel operators were captive and had no choice but to respond to the city led to the Seattle flight. Where I reside, in New York City, the municipality often takes the same approach with businesses, and as a result many businesses flee to the other side of the Hudson River and set up shop in Jersey City. Is Vancouver now doing anything to get those cruise vessels back? In another (roll call) forum, I asked a question of others, from outside the New York area, who would be joining us on an 11-night cruise out of Bayonne, New Jersey, to the Caribbean, why they elected to leave from New Jersey instead of Florida. In my mind was the same type of reasoning you stated: "They get less time in [the Caribbean] and spend days in the [Atlantic] Ocean." Not many responses, but mostly in the nature of visiting, or cruising together with, friends and family in the northeast. Not enough responses to judge whether the passengers know any difference . . . is it really the case that a good understanding geography is missing from so many passengers?
  13. I think that you are probably correct. In balancing the interests of all the businesses in Alaska (especially in panhandle) on the one side, and organized labor and one small vessel carrier on the other side, the former seems likely to prevail. And in a matter where there is really only a single state's interest at stake, Congress is more likely to defer to that state's representatives (though in this time of extreme partisanship, that deference might not be counted upon . . . especially if there is a possibility that exceptions might be sought for other states . . . Hawai'i first comes to mind). I will be staying tuned!
  14. Can you recount the history on this? I know that Alaska Steamship Company, which had made regular sailings from Seattle to Alaska, discontinued its passenger operations in 1954. Canadian Pacific was involved, but I don't know its history. Princess Cruises began its Alaska operations in 1969, but I don't know the details: one-way or round-trip cruises, whether from Vancouver or Seattle. In sum I only have a very sketchy understanding of this era. Perhaps you might be able to explain the entry of the various carriers, and the services that were being offered and how those services changed over time. Any scans of old timetables or cruise brochures?
  15. The purpose of the PVSA has been to protect American shipping and labor interests, but most of the vessels plying the route to Alaska are foreign flag vessels. Congress had previously granted exceptions in the case of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, because no American flag vessels were providing service to and from those islands; the exception is somewhat permanent in that it will last until an American flag vessel provides such service. So a similar permanent waiver could be applied for travel to and from Alaska. Except that there are American flag vessels: American Cruise Lines and Alaska Marine Highway both operate such vessels. By sailing on their vessels, no stop in Canada is required. And I would anticipate that both operators, and their labor unions, would be opposed to a permanent exception that would benefit foreign flag vessels and their operators. That said, given that the Alaska Marine Highway is a division of the State of Alaska, and Sen. Murkowski represents the State of Alaska, she could, presumably, forfeit her state's interest in protecting the Alaska Marine Highway because the economic benefit to the state from all the foreign flag vessels serving Alaska ports is a greater interest. But that still leaves the interest of the labor unions representing American employees of the Alaska Marine Highway and American Cruise Lines, and the interest of the corporate owners of American Cruise Lines, in the lurch. In sum, it is a political game to be played, with Sen. Murkowski at the pivot point.
  16. I recall it being back in 1986 that I was scheduled to fly to Vancouver from Spokane, Washington, on Frontier Airlines. But the day before the flight, Frontier Airlines suspended all operations and went belly-up. With no other air carriers flying the same route between Spokane and Vancouver, Northwest Airlines--which had issued my air transportation ticket--rerouted me via Pacific Southwest Airlines from Spokane to Seattle, and then I utilized Greyhound Lines from Seattle to Vancouver. There was regularly-scheduled direct service, pre-COVID, from Seattle's airport to Vancouver several times daily, operated by Quick Coach Lines, an easy and convenient trip; I would expect this service to resume once the border is reopened to casual travel.
  17. As has been noted by others, there remain "some" cruises that serve Hamilton. And while that remains technically the case, you're right that the old glory days of steamships transporting passengers to and from Bermuda, and docking in Hamilton, are over. Some might argue that Furness Bermuda suspending its regular service between New York and Hamilton in 1966 was the beginning of the end. The vessels still calling at Hamilton are largely the smaller ones, with the higher-priced fares, and attempting to re-live those glory days is typically expensive proposition that only a few can enjoy. The rest of, ordained to the mass market megaliners, will be docked at the King's Wharf (or maybe St. George's). When we last in Bermuda, in 2019, we were able to cruise to and from Hamilton itself only because we traveled round-trip on a Hamilton Harbor "cruise" from the city centre ferry terminal . . . but otherwise we had to travel each of the four days we were there by bus or ferry between Hamilton and our vessel docked at King's Wharf.
  18. The expedition vessels (those operated by, e.g., Ponant, Hapag-Lloyd, Silversea, Hurtigruten) are a challenge to follow, also in part because many times these vessels are chartered by travel agencies (e.g., Tauck, Quark, Abercrombie & Kent, Adventure Canada), or even non-profits (e.g., Students on Ice). The issue also comes up with cruises on certain inland itineraries, which are sometimes served by expedition vessels (e.g., Great Lakes, St. Lawrence). Certain time slots not being present on the line's regular website, as is the case with Ponant in October 2022, sometimes searching among travel agencies will find the missing holes. Alas, no luck here. But it can also be also useful going back in time, to see how a line had scheduled cruises in prior years, yet missing data hampers understanding. And because of the interactive nature of the lines' websites, using the "Wayback Machine" at archive.org, rarely works.
  19. To provide further explanation of the particular statutes involved: What is commonly referred to as the Passenger Vessel Services Act was enacted by Congress on June 19, 1886, at section 8 of chapter 421 (the chapter being entitled, “An act to abolish certain fees for official services to American vessels, and to amend the laws relating to shipping commissioners, seamen, and owners of vessels, and for other purposes.”), 24 Stat. 81. It read as follows: “That foreign vessels found transporting passengers between places or ports in the United States, when such passengers have been taken on board in the United States, shall be liable to a fine of two dollars for every passenger landed.” The provision was amended by Congress on February 17, 1898, at section 2 of chapter 26 (the chapter being entitled, “An Act To amend the laws relating to navigation.”), 30 Stat. 248. It amended the Passenger Vessel Services Act to read as follows: “No foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of two hundred dollars for each passenger so transported and landed.” The provision was later codified within the United States Code, at 46 U.S.C. § 289, and later recodfied by Congress on October 6, 2006, as positive law within the United States Code, Pub. L. No. 109-304, § 8(c), 120 Stat. 1633, at 46 U.S.C. § 55103. It presently reads as follows: "(a) In General.—Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or chapter 121 of this title, a vessel may not transport passengers between ports or places in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, either directly or via a foreign port, unless the vessel— "(1) is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of engaging in the coastwise trade; and "(2) has been issued a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement under chapter 121 or is exempt from documentation but would otherwise be eligible for such a certificate and endorsement. "(b) Penalty.—The penalty for violating subsection (a) is $300 for each passenger transported and landed." What is commonly referred to as the Jones Act was enacted by Congress on June 5, 1920, at section 27 of chapter 250 (the chapter being entitled, “An Act To provide for the promotion and maintenance of American merchant marine, to repeal certain emergency legislation, and provide for the disposition, regulation, and use of property acquired thereunder, and for other purposes,” the entire chapter also being commonly referred to as the Merchant Marine Act.), 24 Stat. 81. It read as follows: “That no merchandise shall be transported by water, or by land and water, on penalty of forfeiture thereof, between points in the United States, including Districts, Territories, and possessions thereof embraced within the coastwise laws, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation, in any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the United States, or vessels to which the privilege of engaging in the coastwise trade is extended by sections 18 or 22 of this Act * * * .” Over the years this provision was amended by Congress numerous times. The provision was later codified within the United States Code, at 46 U.S.C. § 883, and later recodfied by Congress on October 6, 2006, as positive law within the United States Code, Pub. L. No. 109-304, § 8(c), 120 Stat. 1633, primarily at 46 U.S.C. § 55102. It presently reads as follows: "(a) Definition.—In this section, the term “merchandise” includes— "(1) merchandise owned by the United States Government, a State, or a subdivision of a State; and "(2) valueless material. "(b) Requirements.—Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or chapter 121 of this title, a vessel may not provide any part of the transportation of merchandise by water, or by land and water, between points in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, either directly or via a foreign port, unless the vessel— "(1) is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of engaging in the coastwise trade; and "(2) has been issued a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement under chapter 121 or is exempt from documentation but would otherwise be eligible for such a certificate and endorsement. "(c) Penalty.—Merchandise transported in violation of subsection (b) is liable to seizure by and forfeiture to the Government. Alternatively, an amount equal to the value of the merchandise (as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security) or the actual cost of the transportation, whichever is greater, may be recovered from any person transporting the merchandise or causing the merchandise to be transported." Administrative regulations of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Coastwise Procedure further interpret the Passenger Vessel Services Act, at 19 C.F.R. § 4.80a, and the Jones Act, at 19 C.F.R. § 4.80b. Of course, the regulations are not, themselves, statutory provisions. To summarize: the Passenger Vessel Services Act relates to the carriage of passengers, while the Jones Act relates to the carriage of merchandise. The Passenger Vessel Services Act is the older of the two acts. With the 2006 recodification into positive law within the United States Code, both acts were placed within the same chapter 551 of Title 46. However, their historic origins are separate, notwithstanding their similar subject matter of being coastwise (cabotage) laws. I am not entirely certain of how so many people have become confused and refer to the Jones Act in discussions of passenger transportation. If a discussion relates to the transportation of passengers, then cite to the Passenger Vessel Services Act. If a discussion relates to the transportation of merchandise, then cite to the Jones Act.
  20. It may also be that there is not enough demand for three one-way cruises from Nome to Vancouver all within a few days of each other in October 2022. But it seems that Ponant would do something to earn at least some passenger revenue, even if not going through Vancouver, for a repositioning cruise that runs at a slight revenue loss is better financially that the complete revenue loss involved in deadheading from the Arctic Circle to the Antarctic Circle without any passengers. True, if there is very little demand, then the preparations to carry passengers at all might exceed the passenger revenue generated, and in that case deadheading would be most economic, but I would think that bar to be rather low, and that in most all cases the incremental revenue from a few passengers would exceed the incremental cost of carrying those passengers. In making educated guesses, it would nice if there were a repository of past cruise itineraries that were readily accessible. But with an industry that seems focused exclusively on prospective sales of passenger tickets, once a departure date has passed, the details of the cruise itineraries are obliterated, and there is little or no interest in preserving the itinerary information for historical or other reasons. The reason for my interest is that I edit Canada and Alaska Timetable, the bimonthly publication that shows all schedules of railways, bus lines, ferries, and cruise lines that provide intercity transportation (meaning journeys from point A to point B, and not merely round-trip excursions) to, from, and within Canada and Alaska. The November issue always includes the annual update to the cruise line schedules for the following year. Right now I have one Ponant vessels ending in Vancouver, and two in Nome. If those vessels will be carrying passengers from Vancouver and Nome, I would like to be able to include those schedules in the November 2021 issue update, and not have to wait until the January 2022 (or later) issue, for that would certainly inconvenience those timetable readers who may use the November 2021 issue to plan out their 2022 cruise holidays.
  21. Going beyond winter 2021-22, I have been trying to determine the schedules for Le Boreal, L’Austral, and Le Commandant Charcot, for October 2022, as all three vessels make their way from Alaska to South America. All three vessels arrive in Nome, Alaska, in mid-September and early October. L’Austral then has a trip scheduled from Nome, Alaska to Vancouver, British Columbia, at the end of September, but otherwise there is a blank space in their timetables until all three vessels reappear in Chile and Argentina in mid-October and early November. Are the three vessels all going to deadhead to Chile and Argentina sans passengers, or will they be in passenger service? Or on charters? I would think that Le Boreal and Le Commandant Charcot would at least make a trip out of Nome to someplace (presumably Vancouver). All three vessels might then transit from Vancouver on one or two cruises each via Honolulu, Hawai'i; Papeete, French Polynesia; or west coast of Mexico and South America. Any ideas? Below is the schedule now being advertised by Ponant. Le Boreal 27 August 2022, Depart Tromsø, Norway, 24 nights via Northeast Passage 20 September 2022, Depart Nome, Alaska, 12 nights r/t to Wrangel Island, Russia 2 October 2022, Arrive Nome, Alaska . . . unknown schedule thereafter 7 November 2022, Depart Ushuaia, Argentina, 15 nights to Antarctica, etc. L’Austral 25 August 2022, Depart Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, 21 nights via Northwest Passage 15 September 2022, Depart Nome, Alaska, 14 nights via Bering Sea 29 September 2022, Arrive Vancouver, British Columbia . . . unknown schedule thereafter 23 October 2022, Depart Talcahuano, Chile, 13 nights to Antarctica, etc. Le Commandant Charcot 7 September 2022, Depart Reykjavík, Iceland, 24 nights via Northwest Passage 1 October 2022, Arrive Nome, Alaska . . . unknown schedule thereafter 30 October 2022, Depart Punta Arenas, Chile, 14 nights to Antarctica, etc.
  22. I have sailed from Québec to Boston this time of year with Norwegian Cruise Line. Nothing noticeable. I have sailed from Blanc-Sablon to St. Barbe, across the Strait of Belle Isle, this time of year with Labrador Marine (and a very few--not many--cruise lines may sail this way on Canadian cruises), and the main issue has been ice . . . but you would certainly not encounter ice in September (when there is ice, the port at St. Barbe closes and vessels are diverted to Corner Brook). I have also sailed a few times from Port-aux-Basques to North Sydney, across the Cabot Strait, this time of year with Marine Atlantic, and there have been a few times when crossing have been annulled on account of storms and rough seas, not necessarily hurricanes, most typically October through March. I have been fortunate in all crossings having been fairly calm. As well I have sailed the St. Lawrence River and Gulf many times on a variety of vessels and operators (the smallest of which being a rather compact hydrofoil), both along its length and across its width, again mostly in autumn, and never any adverse weather conditions. But there my personal experiences; yours may vary.
  23. Baltimore's cruise terminal does not have good transportation. No subway, no light rail, the only bus route has no bus stop proximate to the cruise terminal, and the surrounding area is generally inhospitable to pedestrians. In the absence of transportation provided by the hotel or rental car company itself, you're pretty much stuck with taxi or taxi-like transportation. It is too bad because the no. 71 bus route does stop by the Radisson, on Baltimore Street between Hanover Street and Charles Street, and the bus route goes past the Cruise Maryland Terminal, and would be a reasonably convenient means of making this connection, but for the fact that no one from the MTA put in a bus stop at the cruise terminal itself.
  24. The company has "specials" every year for booking by October 1 . . . they're always threatening to raise their fares after October 1 each year. For transportation in Alaska, the $45 fare is not bad, and probably the best that can be had. But generally, it is a high fare. The distance between Anchorage and Seward is 125 miles. That distance is virtually identical to the distance between New York and Atlantic City, where a bus ticket purchased from OurBus is about $20. The distance is about the same between New York and Hartford, where a ticket purchased from Greyhound Lines is about $23. Even a mileage ticket--the most expensive fare available--is only $39 for a 125-mile trip. So the $45 for the journey between Anchorage and Seward is about twice what it ought to be (especially so since the bus will likely be fairly full), but costs are generally greater in Alaska compared to the lower 48 (including the fact that their equipment remains idle for half the year), and plus they're able to get away with cruise vacationer pricing. So a good price that will likely beat what many others will be paying, but certainly not a steal for its inherent value.
  25. I think Alaska Cruise Transportation lists all three carriers as an all-purpose place holder on their website, but not all cruise lines will actually have vessels in port at Seward simultaneously. This is evident from looking at the full cruise line schedule for Seward in 2022: Norwegian Cruise Line, alternate Mondays, May 9 to Sept 26 Regent Seven Seas Cruises, alternate Wednesdays, May 18 to Sept 14 Silversea Cruises, every Thursday, May 19 to Sept 8 (except 5/26) Royal Caribbean Group, every Friday, May 13 to Sept 16 Windstar Cruises, four specific dates: 6/11, 7/3, 8/8, 8/29 Viking Ocean Cruises, every 20 days, May 12 to Sept 11, with vessel remaining in port at Seward for three consecutive days (thereby being spread out uniformly over all days of the week for its 21 total days in Seward) In years past Holland America Line would be in Seward every Sunday, mid-June through mid-September, but it has since relocated to Whittier, joining with Princess Cruises (both of which are brands of Carnival Corp. & plc). While that relocation theoretically leaves open capacity in Seward on Sundays, utilization of that capacity is probably limited by the corresponding capacity of the cruise ship terminal in Vancouver (which Holland America Line continues to use every Sunday). For years Norwegian Cruise Line has dedicated only one vessel to this route, the least of all the mega vessel brands, and which seems surprising to me. Seemingly port capacity would be readily available for NCL to add one vessel and operate weekly, instead of biweekly. This coming year Silversea Cruises, a premium cruise line, will have done just that, adding a second vessel and operating on a weekly schedule. Perhaps Regent Seven Seas Cruises will also do the same sometime in the future. Viking Ocean Cruises tries to be different, so it and its passengers are probably happy enough with its somewhat-quirky schedule. While Alaska Cruise Transportation has a somewhat flexible departure schedule from Anchorage, so to be able to adjust spontaneously to demand, generally its timetable is as follows: 9:00 a.m. depart Sheraton 9:15 a.m. depart Hilton 9:20 a.m. depart Marriott 9:30 a.m. depart Hotel Captain Cook 10:00 a.m. depart International airport
×
×
  • Create New...