Who wants to fly anymore?

[peterhof]

Being a frequent cruiser (usually 2 or more per year) for the past 30+ years, my wife and I still want to visit different locations in the world by cruise ship.

 

However, the modern scenario for cruise companies is to place their ships at "Hub" ports for 3 or 4 months, doing 7 to 14-night cruises to locations that are in easy reach. For instance - Southampton cruises are mainly to med ports or to Scandinavia and the Baltics, maybe the Canaries as well - Harwich also offers mainly Baltic cruises, but never Med ones - Dover likewise.

 

As we have got older, the thought of having of flying to board the ship, has become more and more the element of the holiday that is never enjoyed. So much so, that we have now decided to cruise only from and back to the UK mainland. It doesn't matter what port the ship sails from, just as long as we can comfortably drive there from our home. We most certainly are not alone in this and the thought occured to me that there now exists an opertunity for an enterprising cruise line to convert a few of their older ships into a no frills, "get passengers to the hub" service, creating a back-to-back cruise. This would be an alternative to their flight arrangement service, but at a similar price. This would be much more enjoyed than being herded like cattle and seated cramped up for hours, after checking in up to 3-hours before and waiting in an airport. For disabled passengers like myself. that scenario is a nightmare at times.

 

Typically for UK passengers, the ships would act like ferries, travelling from UK hubs (Southampton, Dover, Tilbury, Harwich, Liverpool etc) to European hubs (Amsterdam, Barcelona, Malaga, Copenhagen etc.) Some European hubs would also offer connections to Middle Eastern and Asian hubs. This would become a similar network as exists now on airlines. Similarly, North America would be linked to the UK (Southampton) from New York, Boston, Miami and Montreal, as well as developing it's own "hub" ship network from the West to the East, North and South. The latter being an alternative to Cunard's now exclusive monopoly of a regular Transatlantic crossing service.

 

The transfer ships would, as mentioned, be all "no frills" - i.e. different size cabins (so able to charge more for space facilities) but the same standard throughout. No room service, no meals included, no entertainment etc. Everthing would still be there, but passengers would have to pay for everything, probably as now using an on board account system. Casino's would still be there, but the show theatre would be converted into a shopping mall - thus the cruise lines would create a new revenue stream, hiring out shops to high-end designers and electrical and photographic giants. This concept could become so popular that RCI may decide to build "Manhatton of the Seas".

 

Easyjet boss Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou did try to create a cheap, no frills cruise line around the Med, but that was a much different concept. This idea, would mean that if you used the same cruise line to get you to the hub for your main "All whistles & bells" cruise, all porterage and land transfers between ships was taken care of. Furthermore, on-board accounts from the "hub" ship would seemlessly transfer to your main cruise and you would only have to check-in once. If the "hub" transfer lasted only 1-night, then main luggage would be checked in once also and brought to your main cruise cabin. On the "hub" ship you would only have a guaranteed grade of cabin and no selection would be possible.

 

I believe this would be very popular with older, traditional cruisers and if the cruise line used this service in their reward programmes, similar to the door-to-door service which is now getting popular with non cruise package holidays again, loyalty to the brand would be enhanced too.

 

For us, being retired, it would open up all sorts of possibilities - i.e. drive to Southampton (or, as we live in Harwich - take a hub ship there) - take a "no frills" hub transatlantic to Miami - then a main cruise around the Caribbean returning to Miami - either do the reverse back to the UK, or extend the trip to other parts of the North American "hub" ship network for another main cruise - Alaska or Hawaii maybe.

 

The main thing is that instead of flying, passengers would be able to take the civilised option of travel. Perhaps the heyday of flights to get to cruises is over! Grey power could be active here as well. With an aging population, over 75% of the cruise industry's clients are retired or over 60. No-fly cruise popularity has quadrupled in the last 5-years and set to double in the next two - watch this space !!!

[newport dave]

Being a frequent cruiser (usually 2 or more per year) for the past 30+ years, my wife and I still want to visit different locations in the world by cruise ship.

 

However, the modern scenario for cruise companies is to place their ships at "Hub" ports for 3 or 4 months, doing 7 to 14-night cruises to locations that are in easy reach. For instance - Southampton cruises are mainly to med ports or to Scandinavia and the Baltics, maybe the Canaries as well - Harwich also offers mainly Baltic cruises, but never Med ones - Dover likewise.

 

As we have got older, the thought of having of flying to board the ship, has become more and more the element of the holiday that is never enjoyed. So much so, that we have now decided to cruise only from and back to the UK mainland. It doesn't matter what port the ship sails from, just as long as we can comfortably drive there from our home. We most certainly are not alone in this and the thought occured to me that there now exists an opertunity for an enterprising cruise line to convert a few of their older ships into a no frills, "get passengers to the hub" service, creating a back-to-back cruise. This would be an alternative to their flight arrangement service, but at a similar price. This would be much more enjoyed than being herded like cattle and seated cramped up for hours, after checking in up to 3-hours before and waiting in an airport. For disabled passengers like myself. that scenario is a nightmare at times.

 

Typically for UK passengers, the ships would act like ferries, travelling from UK hubs (Southampton, Dover, Tilbury, Harwich, Liverpool etc) to European hubs (Amsterdam, Barcelona, Malaga, Copenhagen etc.) Some European hubs would also offer connections to Middle Eastern and Asian hubs. This would become a similar network as exists now on airlines. Similarly, North America would be linked to the UK (Southampton) from New York, Boston, Miami and Montreal, as well as developing it's own "hub" ship network from the West to the East, North and South. The latter being an alternative to Cunard's now exclusive monopoly of a regular Transatlantic crossing service.

 

The transfer ships would, as mentioned, be all "no frills" - i.e. different size cabins (so able to charge more for space facilities) but the same standard throughout. No room service, no meals included, no entertainment etc. Everthing would still be there, but passengers would have to pay for everything, probably as now using an on board account system. Casino's would still be there, but the show theatre would be converted into a shopping mall - thus the cruise lines would create a new revenue stream, hiring out shops to high-end designers and electrical and photographic giants. This concept could become so popular that RCI may decide to build "Manhatton of the Seas".

 

Easyjet boss Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou did try to create a cheap, no frills cruise line around the Med, but that was a much different concept. This idea, would mean that if you used the same cruise line to get you to the hub for your main "All whistles & bells" cruise, all porterage and land transfers between ships was taken care of. Furthermore, on-board accounts from the "hub" ship would seemlessly transfer to your main cruise and you would only have to check-in once. If the "hub" transfer lasted only 1-night, then main luggage would be checked in once also and brought to your main cruise cabin. On the "hub" ship you would only have a guaranteed grade of cabin and no selection would be possible.

 

I believe this would be very popular with older, traditional cruisers and if the cruise line used this service in their reward programmes, similar to the door-to-door service which is now getting popular with non cruise package holidays again, loyalty to the brand would be enhanced too.

 

For us, being retired, it would open up all sorts of possibilities - i.e. drive to Southampton (or, as we live in Harwich - take a hub ship there) - take a "no frills" hub transatlantic to Miami - then a main cruise around the Caribbean returning to Miami - either do the reverse back to the UK, or extend the trip to other parts of the North American "hub" ship network for another main cruise - Alaska or Hawaii maybe.

 

The main thing is that instead of flying, passengers would be able to take the civilised option of travel. Perhaps the heyday of flights to get to cruises is over! Grey power could be active here as well. With an aging population, over 75% of the cruise industry's clients are retired or over 60. No-fly cruise popularity has quadrupled in the last 5-years and set to double in the next two - watch this space !!!

 

Adding 10 days to get to and back from Miami for a Caribbean cruise is mad. It would also double the price of the holiday. Most people don't have the time to add an extra 10 days just so they don't have to suffer a 6-7 hour flight. It would also add and extra 4-6 days just to get to Barcelona for your Med cruise, making it a 20 day cruise instead of 14.

 

Why not save up for a couple of years, and then do a Round the World cruise.

 

More, and more younger people are now starting to cruise, who just can't afford to take so much time of work.

 

IMO it's a complete non-starter.

[yorkshirephil]

I hate flying with a vengence but accept it as a means to an end. However the thought of crossing the Atlantic or Med even, on a no frills ship to a hub fills me with even more dread. I do like cruising from the UK, but now find it a bit repetitive. Being fortunate to be in full time employment our holidays are valuble to us and we do like the winter sun, therefore taking a 7-15 night cruise from the UK is of no value. When we retire we will hopefully cruise more, I would be happy to then take a 30+ day cruise from the UK to the Caribbean, Middle east, etc. However my idea of cruising is to take in the ship, food, entertainment, meeting people, visiting places, etc. which can be done reasonably cheaply if you can wait for a late deal.