As I previously stated we sailed her twice on the Seattle iten to Hubbard glacier and all port calls were done on time and speeds were not not close to full speed. Perhaps Celebrity is just saving fuel(money)?
I suspect that several factors influenced the decision.
>> 1. The major airlines are now offering more capacity to Vancouver, at reasonable prices, to accommodate cruise passengers. (I'll confess that I may be partly responsible for this. A couple years ago, I asked a fairly pointed question about scheduling flights to accommodate passengers on cruise ships that carry a couple thousand passengers each, pointing out that Vancouver is one of the ports where cruise ships turn around throughout the summer, at the annual stockholder's meeting of a major airline. The airline's chairman, obviously caught off guard, said that they had not looked at cruise ship schedules but that he hoped that the executives seated in the front row were taking careful notes of what I had said.) In any case, the number of passengers requiring transfers to/from Seattle when ships turn around in Vancouver is greatly diminished because flights to/from Vancouver are now readily available.
>> 2. Departures from Vancouver do facilitate disembarkation of passengers who have to leave a cruise early due to family emergencies. The U. S. government levies a fairly stiff fine ($2,000 per disembarked passenger IIRC) for disembarkations in violation of the Passenger Services Act. Since Canadian ports are not "distant" within the meaning of that act, this fine normally applies for every passenger who leavea s cruise that originated in Seattle anywhere in Alaska. The cruise line may pass the fine through to the passenger, but even that is an awkward situation when somebody has a death in the family or whatever.
>> 3. It's also possible that a terminal was not available in Seattle when the line wanted it.
In any case, it's pretty much a wash for most passengers.