Los Angeles based ship in the near future??

[Clarea]

12 hours ago, CulverCityCruisers said:

For all of us on the west coast PLEASE HELP us out here!!  We need a ship so we no longer have to give our $$$$ away to Princess or Carnival.  Starting to here rumors that finally Royal MIGHT be sending us a ship in 2020 or 2021. WOW, if we had a ship here we would be on her al the time!!

Anyone have any insight??

 

Royal might have a ship pass through LA or San Diego as part of a reposition/canal cruise, but I doubt they base one there on a long term basis.  I believe the environmental rules change when a ship is based there over some specific length of time and Royal has other places to base ships that have less expenses.

[CulverCityCruisers]

8 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

One ship almost selling out on one cruise doesn't show demand. Repositioning cruise on the Eclipse, in October, from Vancouver to L.A. seven day cruise, $499 for a balcony. That is cheap!

 

But try getting on the Oct 2019 sailing to Hawaii or the 9 day CA coastal

Edited August 3, 2019 by CulverCityCruisers
error

[not-enough-cruising]

Royal has made it pretty clear that they are not willing to incur the expense to convert the fleet to comply with the CA shore to ship power requirements. They are able to get a finite number of waivers so you will see the “one off” itineraries but not a ship in residence. 

[123funcruiser]

5 hours ago, Host Clarea said:

 

Royal might have a ship pass through LA or San Diego as part of a reposition/canal cruise, but I doubt they base one there on a long term basis.  I believe the environmental rules change when a ship is based there over some specific length of time and Royal has other places to base ships that have less expenses.

 

13 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

Royal has made it pretty clear that they are not willing to incur the expense to convert the fleet to comply with the CA shore to ship power requirements. They are able to get a finite number of waivers so you will see the “one off” itineraries but not a ship in residence. 

 

This !!!

 

They tried it on in the past and they got burnt. I don´t say there is no market, but obviously at this time there is no market for them. They have better Options to make more Money elsewhere. 

 

While I certainly love the west coast there´s not really many cruiseports to visit. You would have to pay me loads of Money to get on a ship to visit any Mexican ports, so that does not leave much to go to. I´ve done Alaska out of SF and would do that again in a heartbeat, Hawaii from the Westcoast would be great as well, but that´s a longer trip as it Needs to be R/T due to PVSA. 

 

I think it´s doubtful they would return to the West Coast anytime soon. 

[Cruising89143]

I read a comment earlier this year by Michael Bayley. He was asked about RCI basing a ship on the west coast. He stated that it was not in their immediate plans but he stated that they do watch the market. 

 

NCL, Carnival, Princess, HAL have a good presence here and Disney is here part time from San Diego so the west coast must be profitable and worth retrofitting ships for shoreside plug-in where required. MSC is looking to invest in Seattle for a cruise port for Alaska. I suspect that we will see them also place a ship out here with so many new ships being built. It’s nice to see more choices being added even if it’s not RCI. 

 

 

[PhoenixCruiser]

21 hours ago, Aquahound said:

 

No, it was definitely Radiance.  Back around 2009.  It was when she had all those plumbing problems.  

 

18 hours ago, Merion_Mom said:

 

 

Yes, Radiance used to sail out of San Diego.  Mariner was only in San Pedro briefly - February 2009 to mid 2010.  A failed experiment.  😉  (don't shoot the messenger)

 

Thank you both!!

 

I really didn't remember the Radiance out of San Diego, probably because we were already booked on the Mariner out of San Pedro for December 2009.

[time4u2go]

Still waiting to hear from the OP about where these rumors about a ship being based in California came from.

[whitshel]

1 hour ago, PhoenixCruiser said:

 

 

Thank you both!!

 

I really didn't remember the Radiance out of San Diego, probably because we were already booked on the Mariner out of San Pedro for December 2009.

The Radiance out of San Diego was doing 10/11 night itineraries.  And it was only pt time.  I think Celebrity had the Mercury at the same time doing the same 10/11 night runs 

[Merion_Mom]

RC has stated it baldly several times. 

 

It’s not that they can’t make money with a ship based in California. 

 

It’s that they can make MORE money elsewhere. 

[Merion_Mom]

RC has stated it baldly several times. 

 

It’s not that they can’t make money with a ship based in California. 

 

It’s that they can make MORE money elsewhere. 

[ONECRUISER]

18 hours ago, Merion_Mom said:

 

 

Well "said"

[Ashland]

1 hour ago, ONECRUISER said:

Well "said"

"Stranger Things" have happened 

[Merion_Mom]

1 minute ago, Ashland said:

"Stranger Things" have happened 

 

I guess so - like Empress sailing out of Bayonne or Majesty sailing out of New Orleans.  😄 

[BillB48]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I too think the primary reason for not basing a ship in any of the CA ports is CARB.  That is California Air Resources Board which dictates that ships must switch to shore power within one hour of arrival.  Here is the choice Royal faces, if they make a ship compliant in order to base it in LA for example, then all other Royal ships in the fleet must be capable to receive shore power if they wish to call at LA.  As it stands now all of their ships are eligible to call on LA up to 5 times a year without having to connect to shore power.  Make one compliant and then lose the ability to call at that port with any other of your ships.  By comparison cargo ships are allowed 20 or 25 visits per year under the exemption.

[Biker19]

5 hours ago, Merion_Mom said:

 

I guess so - like Empress sailing out of Bayonne or Majesty sailing out of New Orleans.  😄 

Montreal is even more so - who would have guessed Montreal before the west coast?

[CRUISEFAN0001]

9 minutes ago, BillB48 said:

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I too think the primary reason for not basing a ship in any of the CA ports is CARB.  That is California Air Resources Board which dictates that ships must switch to shore power within one hour of arrival.  Here is the choice Royal faces, if they make a ship compliant in order to base it in LA for example, then all other Royal ships in the fleet must be capable to receive shore power if they wish to call at LA.  As it stands now all of their ships are eligible to call on LA up to 5 times a year without having to connect to shore power.  Make one compliant and then lose the ability to call at that port with any other of your ships.  By comparison cargo ships are allowed 20 or 25 visits per year under the exemption.

I suspect you are correct. California regulations result in businesses avoiding the state

[Cruising89143]

4 hours ago, BillB48 said:

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I too think the primary reason for not basing a ship in any of the CA ports is CARB.  That is California Air Resources Board which dictates that ships must switch to shore power within one hour of arrival.  Here is the choice Royal faces, if they make a ship compliant in order to base it in LA for example, then all other Royal ships in the fleet must be capable to receive shore power if they wish to call at LA.  As it stands now all of their ships are eligible to call on LA up to 5 times a year without having to connect to shore power.  Make one compliant and then lose the ability to call at that port with any other of your ships.  By comparison cargo ships are allowed 20 or 25 visits per year under the exemption.

 

I think that you have it correct. That’s their choice but fortunately for us west coasters the competition does not see it that way and we’re getting more ships to choose from. Actually RCI used to be one of our favorite lines but now they have fallen below a few others. I would much rather see Celebrity bring more ships out here. This year they are doing some nice cruises on the Eclipse. 

[Glide_Path]

5 hours ago, BillB48 said:

Here is the choice Royal faces, if they make a ship compliant in order to base it in LA for example, then all other Royal ships in the fleet must be capable to receive shore power if they wish to call at LA.

Are you saying that if 1 ship in the company's fleet is CARB complaint and based in LA, then the rest of the ships from the same company will no longer be eligible for the 5x/year exemption?  Looks like NCL Joy in 2020 will have at least 12 sailing, and NCL Bliss 7 sailings out of L.A.

[nelblu]

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 2:53 AM, Ashland said:

We loved the Vision out of San Pedro and sailed her many times on the Mexican Riviera itinerary.

One of the big reasons Mariner failed was the timing...H1N1 hit and violence in Mexico.

I  will always keep up the hope that RCI will return to our coast someday...but every time this subject

is brought up it's always met with strong doubt...Never say never when it comes to what RCI may just

decide to do someday.

 

We did the Vision out of LA on Feb. 2003.  Other than Cabo, the other 2 stops were meh.  With the gang violence, it's even worse.  What was also disappointing was that after a 6 hour flight the temp in LA was  in the mid-50s and we had no proper clothing.  It got decent when we arrived in Cabo.

 

If RCL returns to the West Coast, what I'd like to see is an itinerary that covers the West Coast cities, eg;

S.D., S.F, Seattle, etc.

 

 

[BillB48]

2 hours ago, Glide_Path said:

Are you saying that if 1 ship in the company's fleet is CARB complaint and based in LA, then the rest of the ships from the same company will no longer be eligible for the 5x/year exemption?  Looks like NCL Joy in 2020 will have at least 12 sailing, and NCL Bliss 7 sailings out of L.A.

 

That's the way I read the regulation.  I am assuming that in the case of Royal making one of their ships compliant, it would only affect Royal Caribbean's fleet.  Even though Royal "owns" Celebrity, X's ships would still be able to use the exemption if they opted not to be shore power compliant.  Guess Royal isn't interested in a low/no CARB diet!😉

[smplybcause]

Are you saying that if 1 ship in the company's fleet is CARB complaint and based in LA, then the rest of the ships from the same company will no longer be eligible for the 5x/year exemption?  Looks like NCL Joy in 2020 will have at least 12 sailing, and NCL Bliss 7 sailings out of L.A.

https://www.ncl.com/sail-and-sustain/fuel-and-energy-conservation

Joy and Bliss are able to connect to shore power. And a couple other of their ships. Most likely their new ones too based on released itineraries.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[robandana]

I think in Vancouver, Canada they must also connect to shore side power, how does the Radiance do this?

[Carnival4U]

9 hours ago, CRUISEFAN0001 said:

I suspect you are correct. California regulations result in businesses avoiding the state

ROFL!

[cruisequeen4ever]

I’ve heard, too, that CA just isn’t a profitable cruise port region. I wonder if that’s changed, though, since clearly Princess and Norwegian think it’s good enough to bring in the good ships!

 

We sailed on the Viking Serenade back when Royal Caribbean was one of the main cruise lines in CA.

[PhoenixCruiser]

I’ve heard, too, that CA just isn’t a profitable cruise port region. I wonder if that’s changed, though, since clearly Princess and Norwegian think it’s good enough to bring in the good ships!
 
We sailed on the Viking Serenade back when Royal Caribbean was one of the main cruise lines in CA.

Add Carnival to the list with new ships.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk