I'm with both of you. The cruise lines are really missing an opportunity. We have done repositions from LA up the coast and enjoyed them. We also look for sailings out of San Diego for coastal cruises, nortbound and southbound. You can only do Mexico once in a while and then it does seem to get boring.
Every once in awhile a cruise will be leaving LA or San Diego with ports in Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Seattle and into Canada, but not often enough.
If a cruise line can do Mexico, why not coastal cruises. Not enough $$$ I guess in their pockets. Most cruisers seem to want out of country cruises.
I'll get off my soap box.
__________________ Ready to Steer towards another cruise
Ok people, here's my 2c worth (3c Canadian). Same as you, going to the caribbean would be nice but air from Vancouver kills us. I would like a coastal cruise, Vancouver, Seattle, Portland (if they will fit under the bridges on the Columbia R.), San Fransisco, LA, (or San Diego). OR maybe some other choices for a 7 day cruise. AND let's have them in the summer when it's sunny.
The problem with Los Angeles can be summed up like this. In San Pedro (LA) the terminal can handle two ships . Carnival is reported to have it's own dock in Long Beach..
From time to time a cruise ship has had to use a remote dock where the terminal buildng is usually s storage shed, not conducive to handling passengers.
After embarking from Los Angeles, say to the Mexican Riviera the port facilities there are not able to handle a lot of ships; two in Puerto Vallarta, maybe one more anchored.. Matzalan one maybe two docked. Acapulco, two docked one or two anchored.
Transiting up the west cost there are not many ports that can handle a cruise ship except if anchored.
Then there is the Passenger Vessel Act of 1886 that requires the foreign flagged cruise ships to visit at least one foreign port before or after departing from a U.S. port. This is why it is cheaper for the cruise lines to use Ensenada, Mexico and San Diego than Los Angeles. Anyway that is what the cruise lines told me. Right now San Diego can only handle two cruise ships at a time.
San Francisco relies on a couple of real old terminals that were never desiogned to handle cruise ship passengers.
California like to cruise and you may find on any cruise ship a large percentage of passengers are from California but the citiesand elected politicians are not hot to trot.
Over the past few years the cruiselines, in particular Carnival and RCI, have moved the ships to where the passengers are and that has been a big boon for them. The more people they can get to drive to the ports, rather than fly, the increased number of bookings they get. If you can save $500 on airfare for you and your spouse plus another $100 for a pre-cruise hotel and meals that's $600 off the total cost of your vacation and leaves more opportunity for the cruiselines to get some of that $600 in drinks, casino winnings, shore excursions, etc.
I think that's a win-win situation. And to top it off the local ports get increased revenues from the ships being docked there.
I could not agree more about wanting more West Coast cruises. I really do not want to sail to Mexico, etc all the time. I also do not want to spend 4-5 days getting to Hawaii. That is not my idea of fun. This year RCCL did a one time, one week cruise up and down the West Coast in Sept., but we had other plans, and could not make that cruise. I do not see it listed any place for this year. I would love to be able to visit San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego, etc. We are within driving distance from California, and it would be a pleasure not to have to pay big money to always fly to the East Coast for good cruises.