PDA

View Full Version : Allure/Oasis compared to Titanic????


PH8
May 27th, 2010, 07:28 PM
Don't really think it's a good comparison,do you??

http://industry.bnet.com/travel/10006232/royal-caribbean-readies-titanic-twin-allure-of-the-seas-but-profits-might-not-be-buoyant/

BroncosFan2010
May 27th, 2010, 07:33 PM
If either of those ships sink, the price of cruising on RCCL will go up exponentially! While I am not a fan of either of those monster ships, I will them no ill-will.

octagonmike
May 27th, 2010, 07:38 PM
If either of those ships sink, the price of cruising on RCCL will go up exponentially! While I am not a fan of either of those monster ships, I will them no ill-will.


If either of those ships sink, the oceans will rise wiping out many of us ! ;)

BroncosFan2010
May 27th, 2010, 10:13 PM
if either of those ships sink, the oceans will rise wiping out many of us ! ;)

lol

shipshape sam
May 27th, 2010, 10:19 PM
Sailed on Freedom and felt it was too big for us, but after a year of the Oasis launch, had to at least try Allure and make our own opinion. Won't mind enjoying the Caribbean and ports of call this December. Unless there is something spectacular, this will be our only cruise on the Oasis class, but would hate to voice opinions and never have sailed the class. I myself say a little prayer about sinking/crashing on every trip I take. So far, so good. :)

Bazzito
May 27th, 2010, 10:44 PM
Well, in comparison to the Titanic, you're much more likely to survive a sinking in the Oasis or Allure.

Her's an interesting fact about the Gulf of Mexico:

"The Gulf of Mexico basin resembles a large pit with a broad shallow rim. Approximately 38% of the Gulf is comprised by shallow and intertidal areas (< 20 m deep). The area of the continental shelf (< 180 m) and continental slope (180 - 3,000 m) represent 22% and 20% respectively, and abyssal areas deeper than 3,000 m comprise the final 20% (Gore, 1992)"

http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/gfmexico.gif

So, considering the the Oasis is 18 decks high (plus about another 20 meters, or so below that), there's a better than 50% chance that were it to sink to the bottom at any point in the cruise, if the passengers and crew would retire to decks 16 and above, they could still dine in the Windjammer with dry feet after the bottom of the ship reached the sea floor.

I don't think the galley on the Titanic stayed open after midnight, if memory serves.;)

firefly333
May 27th, 2010, 11:21 PM
If either of those ships sink, the price of cruising on RCCL will go up exponentially! While I am not a fan of either of those monster ships, I will them no ill-will.

if either of them sink, Ill bet the opposite, that prices would drop significantly as who would want to sail on a cruiseline whose ships sunk?

schmeed
May 28th, 2010, 12:03 AM
Don't really think it's a good comparison,do you??

http://industry.bnet.com/travel/10006232/royal-caribbean-readies-titanic-twin-allure-of-the-seas-but-profits-might-not-be-buoyant/
They weren't comparing the ships to the "Titanic". They were using the word titanic in it's simplest definition.

titanic
Definition
ti·tan·ic[ tī tánnik ]ADJECTIVE
1. very large or strong: having extraordinary physical strength or size
2. powerful: of extraordinary power, scope, or impressiveness

DEIx15x8
May 28th, 2010, 12:03 AM
If either of them sink I think RCCL has enough insurance out to ensure that they do not face any loss from either ship. Instead though they will face the loss of all of those berths that are no longer available to bring in income for at a minimum 2 years. On top of that the loss of the largest (which often makes people think safest and unsinkable) ship would result in a huge fear of cruising that would drop bookings across all lines drastically. It is that fear that would cause RCCL to fail rather than the loss of the ships.

schmeed
May 28th, 2010, 12:08 AM
If either of them sink I think RCCL has enough insurance out to ensure that they do not face any loss from either ship. Instead though they will face the loss of all of those berths that are no longer available to bring in income for at a minimum 2 years. On top of that the loss of the largest (which often makes people think safest and unsinkable) ship would result in a huge fear of cruising that would drop bookings across all lines drastically. It is that fear that would cause RCCL to fail rather than the loss of the ships.
Not to mention their insurance company subsequently dropping them after a claim of that magnitude. I can't imagine they would be able to insure any of their ships after that...

rubrrick
May 28th, 2010, 12:26 AM
Maybe the subject is revelent......but I'm not sure why! Should any ship sink..........and the last cruise line that I know of, sank off of the island of Santorini, a couple of years ago.

It must be getting late for this old guy......the point is?????????:rolleyes:

Rick

schmeed
May 28th, 2010, 12:28 AM
No point...the OP thought the article was comparing the Oasis/Allure to the "Titanic" and then the thread spun off into cruise ships sinking. *sigh*

Aquahound
May 28th, 2010, 08:09 AM
"The Gulf of Mexico basin resembles a large pit with a broad shallow rim. Approximately 38% of the Gulf is comprised by shallow and intertidal areas (< 20 m deep). The area of the continental shelf (< 180 m) and continental slope (180 - 3,000 m) represent 22% and 20% respectively, and abyssal areas deeper than 3,000 m comprise the final 20% (Gore, 1992)"


Oasis and Allure do not have Gulf of Mexico itineraries.

isujim
May 28th, 2010, 08:16 AM
Maybe the subject is revelent......but I'm not sure why! Should any ship sink..........and the last cruise line that I know of, sank off of the island of Santorini, a couple of years ago.

It must be getting late for this old guy......the point is?????????:rolleyes:

Rick

Rick..........we have only one thing to say........N.O.O.T.S.:D

isujim
May 28th, 2010, 08:21 AM
Boy...........thanks for the link Kathy.........all kidding aside, the financial picture outlined was not pretty at all.:confused:

GMoney
May 28th, 2010, 08:33 AM
The "Titanic" reference is just a metaphor. No one's suggesting the ships will literally sink.

rubrrick
May 28th, 2010, 09:05 AM
The "Titanic" reference is just a metaphor. No one's suggesting the ships will literally sink.


You are right Patrick. Just the company!!;)

Rick

PH8
May 28th, 2010, 09:19 AM
They weren't comparing the ships to the "Titanic". They were using the word titanic in it's simplest definition.


I know...........I read it too fast..:o

BillOh
May 28th, 2010, 09:40 AM
if the passengers and crew would retire to decks 16 and above, they could still dine in the Windjammer with dry feet after the bottom of the ship reached the sea floor.




Maybe it could plug the BP leak by sitting down on top of it.

heavychevy
May 30th, 2010, 12:55 PM
Oasis and Allure do not have Gulf of Mexico itineraries.

$The area of the continental shelf (< 180 m)$

$$$$ all engines full ahead, we're landing on the shelf. Those D+ members whose cocktails are full--go to the front of the ship.:D Anyone see '2012';;;;;D+ members are the chosen ones, ooooops, no floating B&B allowed:p

^^^^^make sure the band is playing^^^^^^^^^

Muushka
May 30th, 2010, 01:17 PM
And this thread is how rumors start!

"Did you hear that the Oasis and Allure are not seaworthy???" ;)

All kidding aside, that financial report is not good. I see what they are charging on Freedom now, and makes me glad I waited. It also makes me wonder what will happen once the 2 new ships have lost their shine.

cruisingator2
May 30th, 2010, 02:08 PM
And who is the person that wrote this article? I did a Google search and I came away with the feeling that she knows little about the cruise industry. For me after two cruises on the Oasis, bring on Allure.:)

dmdiver
May 30th, 2010, 03:04 PM
They weren't comparing the ships to the "Titanic". They were using the word titanic in it's simplest definition.

titanic
Definition
ti·tan·ic[ tī tánnik ]ADJECTIVE
1. very large or strong: having extraordinary physical strength or size
2. powerful: of extraordinary power, scope, or impressiveness

Exactly what I was thinking....

ehfl
May 30th, 2010, 03:12 PM
Neither Oasis nor Allure will be sailing in the Gulf of Mexico....there doesn't seem to be a point to this post.

ehfl
May 30th, 2010, 03:20 PM
The article is a little too negative. RCL has about 18 billion in Assets, and 10 billion in debt, with a positive equity of 8 billion. It has over 1 billion in current assets, with current assets rising faster than current liabilities. RCLs current ratio is healthier than Carnival's (which has about 1.5 billion in current assets against nearly 5 billion in current liabilities).

The travel industry as a whole has been through some tough times, with with oil prices falling, RCL should remain strong.

TahoeBob
May 30th, 2010, 06:56 PM
Boy...........thanks for the link Kathy.........all kidding aside, the financial picture outlined was not pretty at all.:confused:

This a new one for, its the first thing I have heard about any business that is having a tough time right now with there financial situation.

In reality this is old news. Yes RCI has huge debt, but the truth is no matter what happens with RCI and there financial picture those ships will still be sailing and passengers will be happy.

klingoncruiser
May 30th, 2010, 09:09 PM
They need a little cheese to go with that whine. Everyone trashed the Oasis before it came out and seems it is a very nice ship and doing well.

dougp26364
May 31st, 2010, 01:14 AM
Once Oasis and Allure are sailing their overdone caribbean ports, some of the other ships will be able to go to new/different iteneraries. Hopefully those will be profitable and will keep cruisers tired of the same old overdone caribbean ports new and interesting destinations to explore via cruising. I don't see the author of this article exploring the potential of larger ships (voyager/freedom) in new markets or even European markets.

It's a short article with a dramatic title. IMHO, drama news rather than reported news.