The very latest news on the SS United States

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/9286717.htm?1c

 

 

This is a link to an article published in today's Philadelphia Inquirier in the business section. It is the latest news on the SS United States and very exciting news indeed.

 

Linda

There's nothing really new in the article, but obviously NCL is trying to drum up some publicity for the ship which is a good sign. That said, if NCL is spending money on a feasibility study it would seem that they are serious about the possibility of returning her to service.

At least this does give some idea of what direction NCL is planning to take. It looks like Big U will be given a modern high speed powerplant with gas turbines- important as it will allow her to come somewhere close to her original speed. The transcanal route is interesting too, it shows the NCL is thinking about more than just Hawaii. The 2010 date may be a bit optimistic though, it would be difficult to design a whole new ship from the ground up and have it in service by then, and reviving SSUS is a whole lot more complicated than that.

First let me say that as a past passenger (London-NY Tourist class, 1965, I was seven and loved it), I'd love to see the United States come back into service, though they'll have to try to buy their Restaurant back from Celebrity ;) . But, as I see it, there's two problems:

 

1) Size & configuration - the hull is a 50,000 tonner, IIRC. With modern space ratios, that means ~1200 passengers max, plus no balconies, and no picture windows - just portholes. Nostalgia only goes so far.

 

2) Cost - the scope is going to be at least as big, likely bigger than building a new ship of comparable size. $3-400 million, I'd guess. Certainly doable by 2010 with modern techniques, but it's going to take some very optimistic revenue assumptions to make the project be a go.

 

My summary: unless the feds can be conned into guaranteeing it, it won't happen - & even if they do, it likely won't make money. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

At least this does give some idea of what direction NCL is planning to take. It looks like Big U will be given a modern high speed powerplant with gas turbines

Yes, that is by far the most interesting bit. It sounds like they're looking at a diesel/gas turbine-electric COGES setup a la QM2, CORAL PRINCESS, etc.

 

Personally I'd like to see a gas/steam turbine-electric powerplant like MILLENNIUM or RADIANCE OF THE SEAS but those don't seem to have caught on.

 

The transcanal route is interesting too, it shows the NCL is thinking about more than just Hawaii.

I think NCL America does have potential other than Hawaii, but it is still fairly limited. In Hawaii they have a much bigger advantage being US-flagged than just about anywhere else though the Panama Canal itinerary that was proposed in the article might be an interesting niche.

 

1) Size & configuration - the hull is a 50,000 tonner, IIRC. With modern space ratios, that means ~1200 passengers max, plus no balconies, and no picture windows

See the bit in the article about adding extra decks. That would increase the size of the ship significantly. I expect that the entire superstructure would probably be demolished and by the time they're done I think they could easily have a 70,000 GT ship with more than a few balconies.

 

unless the feds can be conned into guaranteeing it, it won't happen - & even if they do, it likely won't make money.

I'm not sure it will happen, but I think it probably could be done, and could make money. If NCL can find a compelling itinerary that non-US-flag lines can't touch, they can charge astronomical fares. Just look at the new Hawaii service - it is hugely successful, the demand has far outstripped supply so far.

I can see the Big U's stacks from my window and I'm trying to imagine the forward stack as a restaurant/bar/observation area. It's an interesting concept.

Woohoo, thanks for all the good info! I bow to your superior knowledge.

 

-SNIP -

I'm not sure it will happen, but I think it probably could be done, and could make money. If NCL can find a compelling itinerary that non-US-flag lines can't touch, they can charge astronomical fares. Just look at the new Hawaii service - it is hugely successful, the demand has far outstripped supply so far.

 

Therein lies the crux of my question - how profitable is the US flagged piece of NCL ? Anyone have any solid data?

 

AHCV were limping along on ancient hulls at pretty high prices & the high personnel costs will, I suspect, erode the profitability of those high fares, particularly given the significant capital costs to offset. The majour business plus (and it's probably temporary) is the high level of paranoia & fear of foreign travel in the US at present - US-centric cruising will get a big boost from that, particularly a non-flight cruise itinerary, since many of the same people who are reluctant to fly abroad are likely nervous of flying.

 

My 2 ents worth, fairly uninformed.

Therein lies the crux of my question - how profitable is the US flagged piece of NCL ? Anyone have any solid data?

Pretty much impossible as it's only existed for a month ;) .

 

But no, I don't know how profitable it is. I do know that bookings are very solid for PRIDE OF ALOHA and that per diems are a good deal higher than any of the other NCL ships, and probably more than any mass-market ships anywhere. Whether the higher operating costs of a US-flag ship offset those high fares I don't know. Obviously NCL is pretty confident as they just started building US-flags ship number 3 (PRIDE OF HAWAII)!

 

AHCV were limping along on ancient hulls at pretty high prices & the high personnel costs will, I suspect, erode the profitability of those high fares

Honestly I'm not that familiar with the details of the financial situation surrounding AMCV's collapse, but there were a lot of extenuating factors there. NCL to AMCV is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

 

And AHC did very well for years. Until AMCV came along, actually.

 

The majour business plus (and it's probably temporary) is the high level of paranoia & fear of foreign travel in the US at present

I don't think that's had a huge effect on the Hawaii itineraries. It has been a big boost to NCL's "Homeland Cruising" scheme (good idea, terrible name), which was part of an overall trend that we had been seeing even independent of the fears in the market.

 

Cruises outside of the US, and more precisely cruises not leaving from North American ports, have been doing extremely well lately... From what I've heard the 2005 Europe season in particular is experiencing very strong early bookings. In the end it simply had to happen: the paranoia is calming down when it comes to foreign travel.

 

US-centric cruising will get a big boost from that, particularly a non-flight cruise itinerary

At the moment the US-flag operation is only running in Hawaii and that itinerary of course requires a flight for anyone not living on Oahu.

 

Cruising that doesn't require flying has indeed gotten a big boost but that's a whole different issue separate from the US-flag one and one that all the major North American mass-market lines have gone for in a big way.

I think I phrased my statement poorly - I meant that it seemed to me that a non-flying US-flag operation could do really well, if, as you so neatly phrased it, they could provide a really compelling itinerary.

 

Again, please don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the United States come back, and I'd like to see NCL do well in this - but do remember, NCL haven't been the best run fleet (fiscally or otherwise), and look at the sad job with the Norway. I suspect (almost entirely without evidence) that margins may not be so stellar as the strong bookings might indicate, but time will tell. At least real ocean-going passenger ships are flying the US flag again - for the first time in about 40 years, I think.

 

Now if CP will just revive their fleet, we can see a real North American renaissance!

I'm inclined to think that American Hawaii Cruises didn't do so well because of the ships that they were operating - they were starting out w/ old ships: old engines & old passenger spaces which resulted in a poor ratio of passengers to cost of fuel and labor to move the ship.

 

If NCL America spends the money to install new fuel-efficient engines and systems, totally rebuilds the interiors and superstructure to accomodate larger public spaces as well as more (and more desirable) passenger accomodations, and give it a unique trans-atlantic style for the old-ship buffs who might otherwise book a vacation on QE2 or QM2 and plans a unique destination-oriented schedule - I don't see why it wouldn't have a winner on its hands. There are plenty of folks who would love to take a week and a half to take a ship from SF to NYC via the canal, SF to HI, or even an occassional (gosh!) NYC to Europe.

 

However, if they go cheap just to end up with an old ship with too many closed staterooms to plod around the islands - Caribbean or Hawaii - NCL America may as well just light a match to those millions...

i think that some big problems with restoring the SSUS is that 1) ncl i bet is totally underestimating the time period for restoring the ship, and i bet there is unforseen damage, that would jack up the price 2) the ssus is unfit for hawaii cruises (though i may be wrong) , her design is not right for this type of cruise no balconies, no picture windows, and no glass. unless they completely destroy the superstructure and then rebuild her up from there, she will most likely look like a worse version of the norway, which although kept its apeel as a former classic looked like a tired old woman trying to mix and match old and new fashions, so the ship will look bad unless the new design calls for intigrating a older design into the new one . another thing is that the classic public rooms on the norway from the "by gone era" are non existant on the ssus, they were stripped down to the bulkheadand the ships once beautiful room are hunks of metal, so that will be a big problem especially for alot of ppl today that would want to flock to her for her old time appeal

Sadly, I don't think there's any market for her if they rebuild according to her original design/lines. She was designed solely for the transatlantic market, and that dried up decades ago.

 

You couldn't put her in the Carribean; she'd be a Greyhound among Saint Bernards. As you point out, she has no balconies to speak of, and her public spaces were stripped out years ago.

 

Perhaps she'd have some cache as a floating hotel (Queen Mary), but the cost of putting her to sea would far outweigh her earnings potential.

The latest news as printed in Philadelphia Inquirer:

 

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20070509_A_grand_ship_may_sail_again.html

I'd love to sail the United States again, but I don't think it'll happen. It's fun to follow the stories about it, though.

 

Dottie

I would definitely book a cruise aboard the "Big U" if she returns to service. There is a market for this ship.

Article in today's USA Today:

 

Hopes dim for revival of SS United States - USATODAY.com

the USA was wealthy & interested enough to buy the Queen Mary & Queen Elizabeth so it puzzles me why such a famous ship as the United States was allowed to sit & rot.Is this not a bit of a national let down,like France not giving a home to the SS France?I would have thought that someone with the money would have been interested before NCL came along.It is sad, just like the Carnival Corporation not giving their first ship, the Empress of Canada,a home.

Any thoughts or comments please?

The Queen Elizabeth burned and sank in HongKong Harbor years ago.

 

The Queen Mary was bought by private sector, not government.

 

Frankly, I find your post somewhat puzzling.

Sorry I did not make myself clear.Please do not take offence.I am not intending any national criticism.I simply am puzzled that there was enough money & interest in the USA to try to save the Mary & the Elizabeth but not the 'United States'.I meant in the private sector , not the government.

The USA is a very proud & nationalistic country, so I would have thought there would have been more interest in saving the 'United States', than the other, British ships.I thought that some Americans may have been disappointed by this.I simply hoped for some info. & discussion on this.:)

It is my understanding that the Queen Elizabeth was in Fort Lauderdale as the 'Elizabeth' before being sold.Maybe Host Doug. can appear from the 'ether' & confirm this.

As a Scotsman I am disappointed that we have neither of these great ships & will not have the QE2 either.

I hope I have clarified things & not offended anyone!:o

I certainly wasn't offended, but still think you are confused.

 

Queen Elizabeth burned and sank in Hong Kong years ago.

 

QE2 was bought by a UAE group.

 

Queen Mary, which has been in Long Beach for years, is in the private sector, and has been a continual economic drain on whatever owner has her at the moment, having gone through a string of owners, including Disney's hotel arm.

Please go to 'www.maritimematters.com' & scrole down to the article on the 'Elizabeth' in Florida.You may find it interesting.

I know the QE2 is going to Dubai, that is why she will not be retiring to Glasgow (as we would wish) or Southhampton (who also want her).

At least the Queen Mary is still at Long Beach ,inspite of all the financial problems, so we can still visit her,(I hope to stay on her this year if she is still open for business).The QE2 will be in Dubai, & it would be nice if someone would preserve the 'United States',even though she never sails again.She is an important piece of maritime history.Too late for the 'France'.:(

The problem with trying to preserve the United States is that there is nothing left to preserve. There is a badly rusted hull, and presumably, some very decayed engines and boilers. There is nothing else.

 

Doc

Thanks for the reply DocF. What is there for NCL to even think of re-entering into service? I suppose if the hull is sound, they would have to rebuild the rest?