MSC OPERA - Mini Review

[eroller]

Doug --

 

 

 

However, Ernie - using the standard of gross tonnage to passenger ratio that indicates general spaciousness, Opera is far less spacious than Oosterdam or even Amsterdam:

[*]Opera - 33.37 GT/PP

[*]Lyrica - 37.42 GT/PP

[*]Royal Princess - 38GT/PP

[*]Amsterdam - 44.20 GT/PP

[*]Oosterdam - 45.996 GT/PP

 

 

To justify the size of cabin to the overall width of the ship doesn't make sense either - Royal Princess was built 20 years ago, has a nearly identical ratio of passenger space as Lyrica, but is without a single inside stateroom within her 106 foot beam whereas MSC chose much smaller staterooms and ended up with double rows of inside staterooms within it's 11' narrower hulls.

 

 

 

One thing I've learned after sailing on almost 60 cruises on a wide variety of ships is that the space ratio doesn't mean a whole lot. On paper it looks good, but I've sailed on ships with low space ratios that feel much more spacious than ships with far higher space ratios. It's all about the design of the ship and how well people flow through the various public areas. LIRICA and OPERA have extremely well designed public areas and they "feel" extremely spacious, regardless of what their space ratio indicates. The amount of public space per passenger is probably more than it should be, since often times there are just too many lounges and some end up empty.

 

I think your comparison with ROYAL PRINCESS is a bad choice. First off, RP was designed for the luxury market at the time, and Princess was considered a fairly high-end line in the 80's. Certainly not mass-market as is the case today. LIRICA and OPERA were never designed for the luxury market, and it would be ludicrous to design a mass-market ship with AOC (all outside cabins). There are not many repeats of RP's AOC design (certainly not in the mass or premium market) because it is simply not economical. I might also add that cabins on ROYAL PRINCESS are hardly considered large, especially not for a premium ship. They are 168 sq ft and so narrow that one bed has to folded into the wall during the day. They are poorly designed in that the door to the balcony is completely blocked if the beds are pushed together to form a queen size. They have never been repeated on a modern ship. They are not as wide as the 140 sq foot cabins on OPERA, but they are longer and the bathroom takes up much more space since there is a tub in each cabin. I would be willing to say that cabins on OPERA actually feel larger than ROYAL PRINCESS (which I have been on several times) because the bathroom takes up much less space and that space is given over to the cabin. This is not to say OPERA cabins are large by any stretch of the imagination, but perfectly adequate and well designed regardless if you are American or European.

 

I also don't think it's fair to say European's have lower expectations in this day and age. Certainly 10-20 years ago this was true, and Europeans were happy to get North America's hand-me-downs. Today, the European market is a hot commodity like the US was 20 years ago. European cruisers now demand the same luxuries that American's do, and the new ships being dedicated to Europe prove this. They are basically the same ship designs we American's have been enjoying (Vista Class, Spirit Class, Conquest Class - all dedicated to Europeans). MSC is building two new ships based off the CORAL PRINCESS. I would be willing to bet the cabins will be much larger and I know for certainly they will be loaded with balconies.

 

One of the reasons MSC has LIRICA and OPERA to begin with is because they were cheap to build. The design was already established and two ships of the same design were already in service for Festival Cruises (they are now in the hands of MSC). It's a generic ship design that was created by the French Shipyard that was easily manipulated to serve several markets. If you can believe it, OPERA's and LIRICA's design is very similar to a luxury ship for RSSC, the SEVEN SEAS MARINER. Of course the interiors were modified to meet RSSC design specs and luxury standards, but the MARINER basically gave berth to LIRICA and OPERA.

 

Ernie

[eroller]

Not a big deal, but I wouldn't agree with the contention that the cabins are smaller in order to have more public space - the numbers just don't work out.

 

 

 

At any rate, I would definitely disagree that MSC are "cramming them in", but they didn't make the cabins small to offer more public space either.

 

 

 

 

Doug,

I don't think that either of us are qualified to start talking about the specifics of public space per passenger. Those figures are simply not published. We all know about space ratios, which take into account the total amount of enclosed passenger space per gross ton. What we don't know is the amount of public lounge/deck space per passenger. In other words, the amount of public space per passenger minus the cabins. I would be willing to bet that OPERA and LIRICA have a higher percent of "public space" per passenger then many other ships ... including the Vista Class.

 

You and I both know it's not that easy just to make the cabins wider. Certain economies of scale have to be met to make the ship profitable, not to mention structural confines that determine what the average size of a cabin will be. The shipyard may well have wanted to design an even wider cabin for OPERA, but chances are it just wasn't possible due to the amount of cabins that have to fit within each section. Of course all standard cabins are pre-fabricated these days and it gets very expensive when you have to start designing unique cabins that don't fit the mold of the rest. One lecture I attended on QM2 spoke of the cabin width. Apparently the designers of QM2 wanted wider standard cabins. The problem was they couldn't make them slightly wider based on the structure of the ship, but they would have to be much wider to make them all fit. That extended width would have made the ship much less profitable so it was decided to go with a more narrow design then they would have preferred. So when dealing with finite objects such as ships, the designers don't always get their way. Sometimes physical structures get in the way! ;)

 

Ernie

[dougnewmanatsea]

All of the cabins are well-designed to maximize space and storage but Doug, you have to experience this ship to understand what Ernie and I are saying: There is a LOT MORE public space, both open spaces and intimate corners, than on any other ship I have experienced.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "more". You mention intimate corners etc. - this is just a function of the way the public space is divided and designed, not how much of it actually exists in terms of sheer volume or square footage.

 

However, Ernie - using the standard of gross tonnage to passenger ratio that indicates general spaciousness, Opera is far less spacious than Oosterdam or even Amsterdam:

On paper, that's quite true. In person it may not be. A very well-designed ship can feel a lot more spacious than the numbers indicate.

 

Yes, lots of the space on Oosterdam is given to the double-height dining room, the 3 level atrium, the 3 level main showlounge, the wraparound Promenade etc, etc.

The promenade doesn't count in gross tonnage as it's not enclosed space.

 

In real life, the Vista-class ships feel big - there's a huge variety of different public spaces - and crowding is not often experienced. I guess this is one definition of "spacious". On the other hand, most of the areas are fairly small and aside from the fact that you aren't crowded in, despite the high passenger/space ratio, there isn't a particuarly spacious feeling.

 

It all comes down to how well a ship "absorbs passengers" and such, and of course personal tastes.

 

To justify the size of cabin to the overall width of the ship doesn't make sense either - Royal Princess was built 20 years ago, has a nearly identical ratio of passenger space as Lyrica, but is without a single inside stateroom within her 106 foot beam whereas MSC chose much smaller staterooms and ended up with double rows of inside staterooms within it's 11' narrower hulls.

ROYAL PRINCESS has no inside cabins simply becuase her cabins are very long and narrow. And when I say narrow, I mean narrow. It was a compromise that was never repeated - an indication of reaction to that design.

 

the European market simply doesn't demand more space per passenger, so MSC is cramming 'em in.

Not cramming them in - but putting more passengers in a smaller ship, yes. These ships were designed for a market that is just different from the US mass market. They also, I might add, were designed on a budget and no doubt do not represent MSC's ideal ship design. In fact they're basically an off-the-shelf design from the shipyard, that originated with MISTRAL which was a ship built on speculation! I expect that if MSC were designing a ship from the keel up, we'd see something very different.

 

One thing I've learned after sailing on almost 60 cruises on a wide variety of ships is that the space ratio doesn't mean a whole lot. On paper it looks good, but I've sailed on ships with low space ratios that feel much more spacious than ships with far higher space ratios.

Well, how something feels and what it actually is are two different things... But generally, in principle, I have to agree with you there. Like all numbers and ratios, the passenger/space ratio can be handy, but it's just a number and only scratches the surface of the whole issue. And in the end all that actually matters is how it actually feels. I mean - and I direct this at Brian, not you Ernie - would you rather be comfortable in a ship that gives the illusion of spaciousness, or uncomfortable in a ship that has loads of space per passenger but feels crowded? Both are entirely possible.

 

The amount of public space per passenger is probably more than it should be, since often times there are just too many lounges and some end up empty.

I have to admit that for their size, the sheer number of different lounges and public spaces on these ships is astonishing. But then, there is no space wasted on atriums, multilevel dining rooms, etc... Not to mention the alternative restaurants that take up so much space on many other new ships. I would hesitate to say that the kind of space planning we see on many new ship is bad, but it sure is strange. I think many new ships are actually divided up not to feel spacious - rather, they're supposed to feel "intimate", i.e. artificially crowded. And when not that, they're designed for "wow factor" which inevitably means lots of generally wasted space (think atriums). Odd, but true. Obviously and refreshingly, these ships weren't designed in that tradition.

 

There are not many repeats of RP's AOC design (certainly not in the mass or premium market) because it is simply not economical.

I'm curious - how is it not economical?

 

ROYAL PRINCESS carries no fewer passengers than most other ships her size (e.g. FAIRSKY)... I was always under the impression that the AOC was not repeated simply becase it resulted in cabins that weren't all that comfortable.

 

I also don't think it's fair to say European's have lower expectations in this day and age.

Not in general, no, but it's a different, less mature market. I think cabins are less important, at least in the European mass market. And OPERA and LIRICA are in essence an old design - MISTRAL came out in 1998 - so we're looking at ships that are the result of mid-1990s thinking here.

 

the MARINER basically gave berth to LIRICA and OPERA.

They're sort of on a different branch of the MISTRAL-class family try if you will. MISTRAL was the first, and then from her two designs were derived - one for SEVEN SEAS MARINER, and one for EUROPEAN VISION and STARS. The latter design then was modified again, and became LIRICA/OPERA. So MARINER didn't exactly give birth to LIRICA and OPERA, but they're definitely based off the same basic design. For all intents and purposes, MARINER is MISTRAL but with each inside/outside cabin pair replaced with a single mini-suite. And, voila! You have a luxury, all-suite ship - and conveniently all-balcony too, since all the outside cabins are quite high up. Of course there were other modifications, but the GA is basically the same for all these ships.

 

MARINER, to some extent, was also a built-on-the-cheap ship - basically a version of a ready-made solution. SEVEN SEAS VOYAGER was a bespoke design and was reportedly quite a bit more expensive.

 

I have to say, all these ships - or at least the MSC twins and MARINER - are extraordinarily nice for tarted-up versions of what started out as a generic design template from a shipyard building ships on speculation.

[bepsf]

You and I both know it's not that easy just to make the cabins wider. Certain economies of scale have to be met to make the ship profitable, not to mention structural confines that determine what the average size of a cabin will be. The shipyard may well have wanted to design an even wider cabin for OPERA, but chances are it just wasn't possible due to the amount of cabins that have to fit within each section. Of course all standard cabins are pre-fabricated these days and it gets very expensive when you have to start designing unique cabins that don't fit the mold of the rest. One lecture I attended on QM2 spoke of the cabin width. Apparently the designers of QM2 wanted wider standard cabins. The problem was they couldn't make them slightly wider based on the structure of the ship, but they would have to be much wider to make them all fit. That extended width would have made the ship much less profitable so it was decided to go with a more narrow design then they would have preferred. So when dealing with finite objects such as ships, the designers don't always get their way. Sometimes physical structures get in the way! ;)

 

Ernie

 

Very interesting and thoughtful discussion Ernie :)

...of course, I may well end up converted to your train of thought after I experience Opera for myself later this month.

Wish you were going to be aboard Opera w/ us so we could continue this over cocktails!!!:D

But I still want to know - are there jacuzzi tubs in the bathrooms of the Cat 11 Balcony Suites?

(I could really use a bubble-bath...)

[eroller]

 

 

Well, how something feels and what it actually is are two different things...

 

Yes, and how the ship "feels" is what is important. It's the perception. Most passengers don't know what a ship's space ratio is, they only know if it felt crowded or not. You can shove superlative figures down my throat until I'm blue in the face, but it's meaningless if the feel of the ship and it's design don't compliment those figures.

 

 

 

 

I'm curious - how is it not economical?

 

ROYAL PRINCESS carries no fewer passengers than most other ships her size (e.g. FAIRSKY)... I was always under the impression that the AOC was not repeated simply because it resulted in cabins that weren't all that comfortable.

 

AOC was essentially repeated on the ships of Crystal Cruises. Modified, but repeated and in the case of HARMONY a few inside cabins were added. Of course these ships are geared toward the luxury market so having all outside cabins makes perfect sense, and the cabins were enlarged from the prototype of ROYAL PRINCESS. Making an AOC mass-market ship would be rather difficult today. The cabins have to be long and narrow to fit in enough to make the ship profitable. Narrow cabins create design obstacles and cabins designed like those on ROYAL PRINCESS are simply not suitable by today's standards. The premium and mass-market lines need interior cabin revenue to help offset those low yields. The ships have to achieve a higher economy of scale than an AOC ship would provide, or chances are we would have seen the AOC design become more widespread. As ships gain even greater width in the future we will see more innovative use of all that interior space. The Royal Promenade view cabins on the Voyager Class ships are a good example. The main reason I think AOC is not repeated on mass and premium market ships is because of yields. Princess discovered that having all outside cabins didn't really help the bottom line. They still had to have low lead-in prices on those outside cabins that were priced the same as inside cabins on competitive ships. That was not the original intent. It ended up not being much of a benefit to them, and instead become a bit of a headache as teams had to be sent over and over again to RP to re-categorize the cabins based on how obstructed the views were.

 

 

 

I think cabins are less important, at least in the European mass market. And OPERA and LIRICA are in essence an old design - MISTRAL came out in 1998 - so we're looking at ships that are the result of mid-1990s thinking here.

 

That was the logic when MISTRAL was designed in 1998, but it's no longer the case in Europe. The market is maturing and expectations are becoming more in line with North America. In the future I don't think we are going to see many physical differences between ships designed for European and North American clientele. This is already the case with current newbuilds and I think that trend will continue. The difference will be in the onboard programming.

 

So MARINER didn't exactly give birth to LIRICA and OPERA, but they're definitely based off the same basic design.

 

Semantics! MISTRAL is the prototype for all the ships mentioned, and each since has been a derivative of the same design. Basically they all share the same roots which is where my "birth" comment derived from.

 

It would be interesting for MSC to design a ship from scratch. They don't have a large ship design division such as Carnival or Royal Caribbean so they have to rely on generic designs by the shipyards and adapt them to their marketing niche. Someday they may become big enough to where they can design a ship on their own. It would be interesting to see what they would envision as their ideal ship.

 

Ernie

[eroller]

Very interesting and thoughtful discussion Ernie :)

...of course, I may well end up converted to your train of thought after I experience Opera for myself later this month.

Wish you were going to be aboard Opera w/ us so we could continue this over cocktails!!!:D

But I still want to know - are there jacuzzi tubs in the bathrooms of the Cat 11 Balcony Suites?

(I could really use a bubble-bath...)

 

 

I've enjoyed the discussion as well, but then again I'm a sucker for all this "tech talk". ;) How ship's are designed, built, and marketed is absolutely fascinating to me.

 

I hope you are not disappointed with OPERA. As I've mentioned before it's best to go with an open mind and no pre-conceived notions of what a cruise experience should be. It's not Princess, HAL, or any other American mass-market line and that's what makes it so unique and special. It seems the passengers that can appreciate and embrace those differences are the ones who love the ship and experience. Those that were not educated about MSC and expected HAL or Princess come away disappointed.

 

I'm sorry I don't know about the Jacuzzi tubs. In fact I've never even seen a pic of the mini-suite bathrooms. If I come across the info, I will be certain to pass it on.

 

Ernie

[czechmate]

On Lirica the balcony cabins (suites) had only standard bath-tubs with a shower over.

 

We are only expecting the same on Opera.

 

I must go check the pics Jana posted - as I seem to remember a pic there of the bathroom hand basin so maybe the bath will be there too!

[dougnewmanatsea]

Yes, and how the ship "feels" is what is important.

Exactly. So I don't know if OPERA is more spacious - but in the end, if she feels that way, who cares?

 

AOC was essentially repeated on the ships of Crystal Cruises.

As you know, the whole ROYAL PRINCESS design was essentially repeated on the Crystal ships :) . (Or at least the first two.)

 

Making an AOC mass-market ship would be rather difficult today. The cabins have to be long and narrow to fit in enough to make the ship profitable. Narrow cabins create design obstacles and cabins designed like those on ROYAL PRINCESS are simply not suitable by today's standards.

Right. So I don't know where "not economical" comes in - I'd say it's just plain not desirable.

 

Most of today's ships have very few inside cabins anyway. The successor in some ways to AOC is the "Max Balcony Concept" (from the very same stable - Wartsila in the AOC days, Kvaerner Masa-Yards when Max Balcony came out, and Aker Finnyards today)... Better known as the SPIRIT- and Vista-class ships. 67% of the cabins have balconies. That number will go higher on the new NCL ship from Aker Finnyards which will have no outside cabins without balconies (but will have some insides). (Personally I'm waiting for a mass-market ship where all of the cabins have views and balconies, but some of them are insides. It'll happen - you heard it here first ;) .) So insides returned, but the basic idea continues. And without those long, narrow cabins.

 

So I think they could cram in just as many cabins in an AOC ship if they wanted to as they do in today's ships - but the ship would be saddled with cabins that everyone would hate.

 

It ended up not being much of a benefit to them, and instead become a bit of a headache as teams had to be sent over and over again to RP to re-categorize the cabins based on how obstructed the views were.

Yes, ROYAL PRINCESS deck plans are always odd to look at as on each deck there's a veritable rainbow of colors from the cabin categories, and in many areas only two or three cabins of the same category are ever next to each other - all because of obstructed views (of which she has tons).

 

That was the logic when MISTRAL was designed in 1998, but it's no longer the case in Europe. The market is maturing and expectations are becoming more in line with North America.

True, but I still don't think balconies and suites are nearly as important in Europe as in North America. They may be soon, but they're not there quite yet.

 

What really matters is whether that was the case when MISTRAL was designed, and I would say that that was a resounding "yes"... That was, after all, well before the first "Costival" ship hit the European market.

 

It would be interesting for MSC to design a ship from scratch.

Indeed it would be. Frankly I haven't a clue what it would look like, but I think we'd like it!

 

I've enjoyed the discussion as well, but then again I'm a sucker for all this "tech talk".

And you know that, on my account, you'll never go without someone else to "talk tech" with on Cruise Critic ;) !

 

I have to say this has turned into one of the most enjoyable CC threads for me in a long while - I'm sure most of the members think we're nuts, but I love this stuff also, and the rest of them can just ignore it ;) ...

[czechmate]

bepsf - Almost sure it is just a standard bath!

 

Had another look at Janas pics and in the mirror above the hand basin you can see the bath hand rail but not the bath.

 

Agree a bubble bath would be so good!

[Turtle Derf]

WOW! I'm exhasted from reading all of this but it is interesting. I sail on Lirica next Tuesday (2/15) for 11 nights into the southern Caribbean and as far as I'm concerned the more the merrier because our sailing has the International Swim Suit Contest on board (only kidding). I have a Cat 11 "Balcony/Suite" which I guess is on deck 10 as the cabin number is 10024. I will take my tape measure and report back with details. Armed with three different cameras I may post pix.

 

I was interested in hearing from someone who was on the Lirica cruise that just came in at the end of last week, I think Thursday or Friday, but I can't seem to find any posts. Any suggestions?

 

Fred

[Jana]

Adding my two cents. :) I never once felt "crammed" on the Opera. Very spacious feeling public areas. Yes, the cabin was small BUT because of all the fun going on all over the ship, spent very little time in the cabin. :D

 

Yup, that was the point I was trying to make.

 

Jana

[Jana]

But I still want to know - are there jacuzzi tubs in the bathrooms of the Cat 11 Balcony Suites?

(I could really use a bubble-bath...)

 

 

I responded to this higher up, you obviously missed it: No whirlpools. Here's a photo that I didn't put in my album because it just isn't aesthetic:

 

http://sleeping-around.com/mscopera/suitetub.jpg

 

I guess it depends on what you mean by "more". You mention intimate corners etc. - this is just a function of the way the public space is divided and designed, not how much of it actually exists in terms of sheer volume or square footage.

 

OK, you win on semantics :-) It FEELS like there is more public space, but by your reckoning, it's just USABLE space compared to other ships with atriums etc. Anyway, I liked the usable space, it gave a sense of having tons of options for relaxing or conversation or activity.

 

Jana

[mapsmith]

Just wanted to add that the Opera seems spacious, and it is because of the use of mirrors EVERYWHERE. We were in a balcony and had a floor to ceiling mirror opposite the beds and next to the Balcony. Totally eliminated any cramped feeling. (mapwife now wants one at home that size, since she could do her makeup with ease)

 

Also leaving the L'Approdo from the Port Side it looked like you could see all the way forward, but was in reality only mirrors in the casino.

 

Mirrors everywhere.

 

And, also with the small Showers in the room, I actually heard of a few people who started showering in the Le Terme' Dressing Rooms which had full size showers and no vinyl curtain clinging to your butt.

 

mapsmith

[bepsf]

I responded to this higher up, you obviously missed it: No whirlpools. Here's a photo that I didn't put in my album because it just isn't aesthetic:

 

http://sleeping-around.com/mscopera/suitetub.jpg

 

Jana

 

Thanks Jana!!!

 

I guess I'll have to take my bubbles and rubber duckie up to the jacuzzi's on the Lido!;)

[dougnewmanatsea]

OK, you win on semantics :-)

You didn't actually expect to get into a discussion on semantics with me and have me lose, did you ;) ?

 

It FEELS like there is more public space, but by your reckoning, it's just USABLE space compared to other ships with atriums etc.

Exactly. And (with apologies to Martha Stewart), that's a Good Thing.

[Jana]

Doug,

 

Despite my lack of communication over the past few months, I have made it quite clear to you that you are one of my heroes, and never a loser at ANYTHING. Considering that I am four times your age, and despite all of my years of book larnin' and experience, I have learned more from you about ships (and sundry other things too) than I ever would have thought possible.

 

On the other hand, maybe, MAYBE, I will win someday.

 

Maybe.

 

And if I don't, I'd rather "lose" to you than to anyone else I know :-)

 

jj

[eroller]

 

True, but I still don't think balconies and suites are nearly as important in Europe as in North America. They may be soon, but they're not there quite yet.

 

 

 

I personally think Europe has pretty much caught up. I think they want larger cabins, suites, and balconies just as much as the US market and have the money to back up their desires. Pretty much any new ship designed today for Europe is going to have larger cabins and balconies, even the new AIDA ships will offer balconies and larger cabins. For years AIDA shunned balconies and kept cabins smaller to promote getting out of the cabin and involved in activities. Interestingly enough this was also Royal Caribbean's philosophy back in the beginning with SONG OF NORWAY and her sisters.

 

What is really interesting is I was just going over specs for the new PRIDE OF AMERICA. This ship is designed specifically for American's and cruises in US waters. My personal opinion is she is one of the ugliest new ships I have ever laid eyes on. The standard size inside and outside cabins are 132 sq feet, smaller than OPERA or LIRICA. It seems POA is going against the trend of offering larger and more amenity filled cabins for the US market. If we used POA as an example of American's demanding more, I would say that theory is shot to hell.

 

Ernie

[dougnewmanatsea]

Despite my lack of communication over the past few months, I have made it quite clear to you that you are one of my heroes

Well, I'm honored to say the least. I don't think I've ever been anyone's hero before ;) !

 

On the other hand, maybe, MAYBE, I will win someday.

Believe me, I make mistakes sometimes. Ask Ernie :) .

 

I personally think Europe has pretty much caught up. I think they want larger cabins, suites, and balconies just as much as the US market and have the money to back up their desires.

Yes and no. There are lots of mass-market European ships that would be disasters if put up against modern US tonnage.

 

Mind you Costa are trying to change this - but I still think that the European market is less cabin-obsessed than the American market (and I mean this in a good way - on some mass-market American ships, I find passengers act almost like recluses, hiding in their posh cabins and causing the public areas to be virtually deserted at times). Even at the high end, look at DEUTSCHLAND - never, ever would a high-end American cruise ship get away with cabins anywhere near the size of hers.

 

Actually, I think small standard cabins are still OK on the US market - but increasingly, there is a lot of demand for big suites, and more and more people are joining the "I won't cruise if I can't have a balcony" bandwagon. (Honestly, I've never seen that many people on their balconies - but as I said above, I have noticed that people are spending a lot more time in their cabins with the advent of many-channelled interactive TV, balconies, bigger suites, etc.)

 

Pretty much any new ship designed today for Europe is going to have larger cabins and balconies, even the new AIDA ships will offer balconies and larger cabins.

Yes, those should be interesting. I can't wait to see what the GAs turn out to be like for those ships.

 

For years AIDA shunned balconies and kept cabins smaller to promote getting out of the cabin and involved in activities. Interestingly enough this was also Royal Caribbean's philosophy back in the beginning with SONG OF NORWAY and her sisters.

I never bought that theory when RCI were selling it, and I tend not to buy it now either. In RCI's case, I'm 100% sure that the ships had tiny cabins just because they were cramming them in. And those were also ships built on the cheap (the ultra-cheap!), off what were basically ferry designs.

 

Do I believe it in Aida's and MSC's case? Probably not. I think the proof is that both are building new ships that will probably have bigger cabins and more balconies. The only case in which I might - just might - believe this is that of DEUTSCHLAND. And personally I do think her cabins are a little too small for a ship with such high fares - but I think the late Herr Deilmann may have genuinely been (as he claimed) engaging in a little social engineering when he had her built with small cabins. Certainly the only reason I can think of for him having left balconies off her is that he didn't like them.

 

It seems POA is going against the trend of offering larger and more amenity filled cabins for the US market.

That's puzzled me ever since I saw the details about her, and it still puzzles me now. I'll chalk it up to an oversight in design - and that her original designers may have thought that they could take advantage of passengers a little bit because there was no alternative in the market she was being used for. The next NCLA ship will be PRIDE OF HAWAII, and she'll have normal-sized cabins, vast suites, and all the rest.

 

Incidentally, your comment a few posts back about making the cabins wider being difficult reminded me of NORWEGIAN SUN, whose standard cabins are in fact wider than those on COSTA VICTORIA and NORWEGIAN SKY for just that purpose. Not to say that it could be done on LIRICA or OPERA, but it's been done before. HAL did it with some of the inside cabins on the Vista-class ships (compared to the SPIRIT-class ships) too.

[eroller]

 

 

Yes, those should be interesting. I can't wait to see what the GAs turn out to be like for those ships.

 

Me too! They look very interesting.

 

 

I never bought that theory when RCI were selling it, and I tend not to buy it now either. In RCI's case, I'm 100% sure that the ships had tiny cabins just because they were cramming them in. And those were also ships built on the cheap (the ultra-cheap!), off what were basically ferry designs.

 

 

I agree.

 

 

 

 

That's puzzled me ever since I saw the details about her, and it still puzzles me now. I'll chalk it up to an oversight in design - and that her original designers may have thought that they could take advantage of passengers a little bit because there was no alternative in the market she was being used for.

 

 

 

There are many other design attributes about POA I find puzzling. Looking at the deck plan I see several possible bottlenecks, not to mention a very small main pool area. Hopefully my observations are wrong. The

worst design deficiency IMO is the conference center. It's

located at the very top of the ship (above the bridge) and all the

way forward. It contains absolutely no windows. First off, why put

a conference center in such a prime location, and second, it can't

even be used as an observation lounge since there are no windows.

What was NCL thinking? I agree it's important to have extensive

conference facilities on this US registered ship as it will generate

a lot of revenue, but the location should have been low down in the

ship, such as conference centers on QM2 and the Voyager Class

ships. NCL has taken a prime spot to view the amazing scenery of

Hawaii and turned it into a windowless auditorium.

 

Incidentally, your comment a few posts back about making the cabins wider being difficult reminded me of NORWEGIAN SUN, whose standard cabins are in fact wider than those on COSTA VICTORIA and NORWEGIAN SKY for just that purpose. Not to say that it could be done on LIRICA or OPERA, but it's been done before. HAL did it with some of the inside cabins on the Vista-class ships (compared to the SPIRIT-class ships) too.

 

 

Absolutely it can be done, but whether the expense is worth it and the market demands it is questionable. My point was that it's just not as simple as saying "lets make the cabins wider". There are a lot of structural considerations that have to be taken into account. In the case of NORWEGIAN SKY, the cabins were a disaster from day one. There were severe storage deficiencies and the design had to be changed on the next ship. It's amazing those inside cabins are only 121 sq ft. Of course NORWEGIAN SKY is PRIDE OF ALOHA now and I guess POA will make a good running mate since both ships will have below average sized cabins.

 

 

Ernie

[dougnewmanatsea]

There are many other design attributes about POA I find puzzling.

At least on paper, she's utterly bizarre.

 

I agree with you about the conference center - whatever posessed them to put it there is beyond me.

 

I fear that when PRIDE OF HAWAII comes out, both PRIDE OF ALOHA and PRIDE OF AMERICA will pale in comparison. I would like to do the NCL Hawaii thing, but am not in much of a hurry as I think the product can only get better as time goes on, and I would much prefer PRIDE OF HAWAII to the other two ships.

 

Absolutely it can be done, but whether the expense is worth it and the market demands it is questionable.

Certainly. From what I've seen the cabins on the MSC ships are more than adequate - 140 sq ft is really not that small and they look quite pleasantly designed and furnished.

 

In the case of NORWEGIAN SKY, the cabins were a disaster from day one. There were severe storage deficiencies and the design had to be changed on the next ship.

Most of the cabins were, I think, 150 sq ft (and some on SUN still are), but some insides were 120 sq ft - very small. This was a legacy from the Costa design - but those 120 sq ft cabins on COSTA VICTORIA are a completely different design, and unlike on NORWEGIAN SKY, they acommodate only two pax.

[Jana]

The cabins on the Sun are great... big, with excellent storage, desk and closet space.

 

The cabins on Star and Dawn, however, are smaller and much more poorly designed as far as storage and access is concerned.

 

Jana

[caviargal]

My inside cabin on the Sun, Deck 4, was miniscule. The bed took most of the space.

 

There was good storage and I was travelling alone so it was ok, but for 2 it would have been really tight for one week.

[eroller]

My inside cabin on the Sun, Deck 4, was miniscule. The bed took most of the space.

 

There was good storage and I was travelling alone so it was ok, but for 2 it would have been really tight for one week.

 

Cabin on the SUN are definitely better than PRIDE OF ALOHA (ex NORWEGIAN SKY). Insides average 147 sq ft and outsides average 145 sq ft. Certainly not huge, and still below industry average, but better.

 

Ernie

[eroller]

The cabins on the Sun are great... big, with excellent storage, desk and closet space.

 

The cabins on Star and Dawn, however, are smaller and much more poorly designed as far as storage and access is concerned.

 

Jana

 

 

I sailed on NORWEGIAN STAR during an inaugural cruise. The ship really wasn't my cup of tea and I agree cabins could have been a bit better. The furnishings seemed really cheap and almost temporary to me. We had a balcony and the cabin was ok. What I really liked were the bathrooms. They are probably the best designed I have come across on a cruise ship. The toilette is in an enclosed area with a sliding door for privacy. Two people could actually be in the bathroom together if it were necessary.

 

Ernie

[dougnewmanatsea]

Insides average 147 sq ft and outsides average 145 sq ft.

I think the average is probably rather bigger, as inside and outside cabins on her come in two sizes, standard and large (deluxe/superior), the latter being considerably bigger than 145 sq ft (which is probably around the size of the "standard" cabins). The deluxe and superior cabins are the "widened" ones.