I still don't see the logic of this. Consider:
- Disney likes to move ships during the summer (peak season) to exoctic places where they can charge a premium (Med, Baltic, Alaska).
- Repositioning cruises usually aren't as easy to fill - probably because of the dates/costs involved. But the West Coast repo seems to be selling well enough (cat 11 is gone).
Ok, maybe they think they'll be able to get a premium for an off-season Hawaii repo?
On the other hand - a Hawaii option on the way to the far-east makes sense.
- It fits the previous pattern (first med, Baltic, Alaska) of offering a unique opportunity.
- There will be plenty of past cruisers who will jump at the chance to visit a "new" location under the Disney brand/service.
- They'll be able to charge Baltic-like margins or higher.
- Tie in to three Disney parks (2 in Tokyo, one in Hong Kong) - some will take the cruise just to visit those parks for the first time.
From a business/profitability standpoint, A repo to Vancouver by way of Hawaii during the off-season just doesn't make sense. A repo to the far-east by way of Hawaii could be hugely profitable.
Remember - it's not just about giving us a treat or going to new places for the sake of going to new places. It's about profitability. I don't see the business case for Hawaii as a repo to Vancouver.
So I stand by my prediction: If they follow through with Hawaii, they'll go to Asia.