What ship will eventually replace Majesty?

[Ourusualbeach]

Of all the ideas of what ship will replace Her Majesty, I don't think I ever heard the suggestion of Grandeur. Probably because Grandeur's maximum pax capacity is 2440 and Her Majesty max is 2744. The price for the cabins would automatically have to increase just to bring in the same revenue before anything else gets considered in the pricing. I can't imagine a ship so much smaller in pax capacity replacing her.

 

Ships that do not have FlowRider are wonderful ships and have a place in the fleet on other itineraries. On a Caribbean itinerary FlowRider is a good thing to have.....it is hot all year round. Even on there coolest days, in mid January, northerners escaping the cold feel that 75 degrees is hot enough to enjoy it.

 

I agree with you that I do not think it will be Grandeur that replaces the Majesty however do not discount the fact that it could easily be a slightly smaller ship.

 

The Grandeur carries about 10% less passengers yet has far more balconies and suites that would command a higher premium. Also, as is the case with many of the ships those last 10% or so of the cabins do get sold at discounted rates.

 

It is quite possible to have a smaller ship that will generate more revenue than a larger one.

 

Also, with the Caribbean market currently having excess capacity and those new ships coming on board will not help that RCI is deploying more of its fleet overseas. I would think, and it's just my opinion that in order to make the biggest impact as possible in those new markets that Royal will not deploy any of the Vision class to those markets but instead send some of the more modern (larger, newly renovated and new) ships (unfortunate as that is) overseas.

 

I can also see this thread continuing on for another 3-4 months until the itineraries are released and we actually see what Royal has planned. It will be an interesting deployment schedule with the new builds and Majesty's transfer.

[Aquahound]

LMaxwell- The issue with Voyager Class in Key West is the main ship channel approaching KW. The channel makes 2 sharp turns and the cut in between those turns is very narrow. Ships that are too large have a hard enough time navigating that cut in calm weather, let alone if there's any weather. Although Voyager is similar to Breeze in size, every extra foot of width makes a big difference.

 

There is a debate raging in KW right now over whether or not the channel should be widened.

[cruiserdudebobby8]

LMaxwell- The issue with Voyager Class in Key West is the main ship channel approaching KW. The channel makes 2 sharp turns and the cut in between those turns is very narrow. Ships that are too large have a hard enough time navigating that cut in calm weather, let alone if there's any weather. Although Voyager is similar to Breeze in size, every extra foot of width makes a big difference.

 

There is a debate raging in KW right now over whether or not the channel should be widened.

 

How can we compare to Voyager class having azipods and breeze having traditional propulsion

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

[A6cruiser]

I googled the widening key west channel discussions and got this funny image.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[OfTheSeasCruiser]

I googled the widening key west channel discussions and got this funny image.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Looks like the not-so-amazing Norwegian Epic!

[LMaxwell]

LMaxwell- The issue with Voyager Class in Key West is the main ship channel approaching KW. The channel makes 2 sharp turns and the cut in between those turns is very narrow. Ships that are too large have a hard enough time navigating that cut in calm weather, let alone if there's any weather. Although Voyager is similar to Breeze in size, every extra foot of width makes a big difference.

 

There is a debate raging in KW right now over whether or not the channel should be widened.

 

Thank you for the explanation. I know they have been fighting in KW for years over cruise ships, and already cruise ships MUST leave before sunset. I am surprised the fight is so vigorous though as it is pretty plain to see that without cruise ship passengers a good portion of downtown KW would close up; you'd think they'd want the cruise tourists money. Commerce in KW is not sustainable without it.

[LMaxwell]

Here is some interesting info about KW I found

 

http://www.kwsalliance.com/cruise-ship-facts.html

 

 

Sounds like the same issue with Quantum and Bermuda - they can't get the largest ships because the ships won't fit without dredging.

[Paulette3028]

Thank you for the explanation. I know they have been fighting in KW for years over cruise ships, and already cruise ships MUST leave before sunset. I am surprised the fight is so vigorous though as it is pretty plain to see that without cruise ship passengers a good portion of downtown KW would close up; you'd think they'd want the cruise tourists money. Commerce in KW is not sustainable without it.

 

I thought I read somewhere that politicians did not want to 'put it to a vote on a ballot'. Probably because the voters would vote 'YES' to improving the port for the larger ships....those local business owners want as many tourists and their money as possible, not less.

[Aquahound]

Commerce in KW is not sustainable without it.

 

Well....that's been debated too. You'd be surprised how much commerce comes from cruise ships....err, I should say, how little comes from them. I have no problem saying this as a cruiser myself, but day tripper cruise passengers are notoriously cheap. The businesses that would take the biggest hit are the trashy t shirt shops. Those numbers have been crunched time and time again and it keeps coming to the same end. The larger ships really don't mean more money. The debate is mostly centered around the fact lines are building more and more bigger ships, so it's a matter of keeping up.

[Aquahound]

I thought I read somewhere that politicians did not want to 'put it to a vote on a ballot'. Probably because the voters would vote 'YES' to improving the port for the larger ships....those local business owners want as many tourists and their money as possible, not less.

 

It did go to ballot last year. It didn't pass.

[BillB48]

How can we compare to Voyager class having azipods and breeze having traditional propulsion

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

 

I'm not sure you could draw any meaningful comparisons between the two systems, while in very general terms podded propulsion "might'' have a slight advantage in terms of maneuverability of similarly sized ships. When considering slightly different sized ships (Voyager a little longer and a little wider) it probably would be hard to do a side by side comparison.

Edited November 27, 2014 by BillB48

[Aquahound]

I thought I read somewhere that politicians did not want to 'put it to a vote on a ballot'. Probably because the voters would vote 'YES' to improving the port for the larger ships....those local business owners want as many tourists and their money as possible, not less.

 

It did go to ballot last year. It didn't pass.

 

Just to add one more piece to this....a big reason it did not pass was the environmental impact. The channel goes right through a marine sanctuary and widening the channel would have meant destroying several square miles of sea grass beds, which are sea turtle habitats.

[Paulette3028]

Just to add one more piece to this....a big reason it did not pass was the environmental impact. The channel goes right through a marine sanctuary and widening the channel would have meant destroying several square miles of sea grass beds, which are sea turtle habitats.

 

If the residents voted it down, they voted it down and environmental impact has to be considered.

[LMaxwell]

What was on the ballot was SHOULD the Army Corps of Engineers do a feasibility study of widening the channel. It was SHOULD we get the data on which to base a decision.

 

The anti-cruise ship crowd smeared that into being a "Vote no on channel widening" without ever having the engineering performed to determine the environmental impact, if it was feasible to do, etc.

 

So the voting populace of Key West voted to not get enough information to make a proper decision. That's all they did.

 

Do cruisers boost late night revenue, hotel revenue? No, of course not. Do they boost restaurant, bar, ice cream shop, t-shirt shop, trinket shop, sail/jet ski/sport fishing revenues? Of course. Some service businesses (which exist to service vendors that service tourists) would also be impacted negatively. As older tonnage gets sold off the number of ships that can call at KW will drop. As that drops you get less cruise ship passengers, which means less revenue for business owners, less sales taxes generated. The residents of KW seem to think that by burying their heads in the sand (which is ALL they have voted to do) that they will maintain status quo. They fail to realize that over time tourism drops without adapting to accept the newer ships.

 

Aquahound, with all due respect to you personally (and to Paulette who is always interesting in these discussions), and because I live here too, all I can say is FLORIDUH!

[shipfriend_max]

My Guess:

 

Vision Goes to Baltimore

 

Grandeur Replaces Majesty.

 

Enchantment Stays in Canaveral.

 

Hm, might well be - or Enchantment goes to Miami and either Vision or Grandeur move to PC.

Couldn't it be that Grandeur gets refurbushed and some cabins will be added - so there won't be a decrease (or maybe a small) in passenger capacities...

And as far as I know, Vision got some more cabins as well, when she was updated in 2013 - so she should carry more than 2400 pax...

[Aquahound]

What was on the ballot was SHOULD the Army Corps of Engineers do a feasibility study of widening the channel. It was SHOULD we get the data on which to base a decision.

 

The anti-cruise ship crowd smeared that into being a "Vote no on channel widening" without ever having the engineering performed to determine the environmental impact, if it was feasible to do, etc.

 

So the voting populace of Key West voted to not get enough information to make a proper decision. That's all they did.

 

Do cruisers boost late night revenue, hotel revenue? No, of course not. Do they boost restaurant, bar, ice cream shop, t-shirt shop, trinket shop, sail/jet ski/sport fishing revenues? Of course. Some service businesses (which exist to service vendors that service tourists) would also be impacted negatively. As older tonnage gets sold off the number of ships that can call at KW will drop. As that drops you get less cruise ship passengers, which means less revenue for business owners, less sales taxes generated. The residents of KW seem to think that by burying their heads in the sand (which is ALL they have voted to do) that they will maintain status quo. They fail to realize that over time tourism drops without adapting to accept the newer ships.

 

Aquahound, with all due respect to you personally (and to Paulette who is always interesting in these discussions), and because I live here too, all I can say is FLORIDUH!

 

No offense LMaxwell, but if you are not a resident of Key West, you really don't know what challenges we face with regard to cruise ships. Our decisions are based on what we live and see every day of our lives. Some port cities just can't handle mega ships and with KW only being a 4 x 1.3 mile island, we're already busting at the seams with the ships that visit now, especially in the winter months. Our quality of life is much more important to us than what some outsider cruise passenger thinks.

 

The feasibility study was just the first step in getting the channel widened. The majority of locals said no. Most locals here don't even want to get that ball rolling, and I don't blame them.

 

One more piece of trivia. The pier that berths the largest ships, and the pier that is most desirable...Pier B...is private property, so KW doesn't even get to profit from those port charges.

[Paulette3028]

What was on the ballot was SHOULD the Army Corps of Engineers do a feasibility study of widening the channel. It was SHOULD we get the data on which to base a decision.

 

The anti-cruise ship crowd smeared that into being a "Vote no on channel widening" without ever having the engineering performed to determine the environmental impact, if it was feasible to do, etc.

 

So the voting populace of Key West voted to not get enough information to make a proper decision. That's all they did.

 

Do cruisers boost late night revenue, hotel revenue? No, of course not. Do they boost restaurant, bar, ice cream shop, t-shirt shop, trinket shop, sail/jet ski/sport fishing revenues? Of course. Some service businesses (which exist to service vendors that service tourists) would also be impacted negatively. As older tonnage gets sold off the number of ships that can call at KW will drop. As that drops you get less cruise ship passengers, which means less revenue for business owners, less sales taxes generated. The residents of KW seem to think that by burying their heads in the sand (which is ALL they have voted to do) that they will maintain status quo. They fail to realize that over time tourism drops without adapting to accept the newer ships.

 

Aquahound, with all due respect to you personally (and to Paulette who is always interesting in these discussions), and because I live here too, all I can say is FLORIDUH!

 

No offense LMaxwell, but if you are not a resident of Key West, you really don't know what challenges we face with regard to cruise ships. Our decisions are based on what we live and see every day of our lives. Some port cities just can't handle mega ships and with KW only being a 4 x 1.3 mile island, we're already busting at the seams with the ships that visit now, especially in the winter months. Our quality of life is much more important to us than what some outsider cruise passenger thinks.

 

The feasibility study was just the first step in getting the channel widened. The majority of locals said no. Most locals here don't even want to get that ball rolling, and I don't blame them.

 

One more piece of trivia. The pier that berths the largest ships, and the pier that is most desirable...Pier B...is private property, so KW doesn't even get to profit from those port charges.

 

Before anyone snaps at me, keep in mind I live in Florida. I unfortunately don't live in Key West, so do not know exactly what was on the ballot. But if the voters voted down a feasibility study, then foolish on them. If you don't do the feasibility study (yes it comes at a cost), then you are making a foolish decision overall. Politicians market to the voting population to move the voters in a certain direction (IMO) and voters have to be smart enough to do their own research to make an informed decision. Living and working in S. Florida for some of my fellow S. Floridians (not all, but some) that extra effort doesn't get done - no matter how important an issue (whether a national, state or local issue).

 

BTW, LMaxwell -- thanks for the kudos, I try to keep things interesting.....I never mean to irritate, but if I do, my apologies.

 

I will be on Her Majesty this weekend....in just a few hours for my paella lunch which is a cruise kickoff tradition and will see what the captain may have to say about her replacement.

 

As Aquahound points out I don't live in KW, but it disturbs me when knowledge is avoided that can be useful in the overall decision. The world is constantly changing, and yes too often 'getting bigger and bigger'. Many communities have faced some sort of challenge of 'bigger and better' to come. If no cruise ships could call on KW (although not realistic in the near future) what would that do to the economics of the community?

[Ourusualbeach]

Before anyone snaps at me, keep in mind I live in Florida. I unfortunately don't live in Key West, so do not know exactly what was on the ballot. But if the voters voted down a feasibility study, then foolish on them. If you don't do the feasibility study (yes it comes at a cost), then you are making a foolish decision overall. Politicians market to the voting population to move the voters in a certain direction (IMO) and voters have to be smart enough to do their own research to make an informed decision. Living and working in S. Florida for some of my fellow S. Floridians (not all, but some) that extra effort doesn't get done - no matter how important an issue (whether a national, state or local issue).

 

BTW, LMaxwell -- thanks for the kudos, I try to keep things interesting.....I never mean to irritate, but if I do, my apologies.

 

I will be on Her Majesty this weekend....in just a few hours for my paella lunch which is a cruise kickoff tradition and will see what the captain may have to say about her replacement.

 

As Aquahound points out I don't live in KW, but it disturbs me when knowledge is avoided that can be useful in the overall decision. The world is constantly changing, and yes too often 'getting bigger and bigger'. Many communities have faced some sort of challenge of 'bigger and better' to come. If no cruise ships could call on KW (although not realistic in the near future) what would that do to the economics of the community?

 

Why would this be a foolish decision?

 

Yes the question was in regards to a feasibility study on making the channel bigger but the bigger question is whether or not they wanted the cruise ships at all. If the residents are not in favor of having larger cruise ships then it does not make sense to spend money to do a feasibility study on something that would get voted down at a later date.

 

I would call it a very prudent decision.

[Paulette3028]

Why would this be a foolish decision?

 

Yes the question was in regards to a feasibility study on making the channel bigger but the bigger question is whether or not they wanted the cruise ships at all. If the residents are not in favor of having larger cruise ships then it does not make sense to spend money to do a feasibility study on something that would get voted down at a later date.

 

I would call it a very prudent decision.

 

It is foolish not to have the knowledge the study would provide. The next step is the next step and if it gets voted down then, so be it. But you need to have the vote knowing all the information.

 

To me it sounds more like 'fear of the information that you will receive', so I just avoid the knowledge.

[Dave85]

Why would this be a foolish decision?

 

Yes the question was in regards to a feasibility study on making the channel bigger but the bigger question is whether or not they wanted the cruise ships at all. If the residents are not in favor of having larger cruise ships then it does not make sense to spend money to do a feasibility study on something that would get voted down at a later date.

 

I would call it a very prudent decision.

 

It is foolish not to have the knowledge the study would provide. The next step is the next step and if it gets voted down then, so be it. But you need to have the vote knowing all the information.

 

To me it sounds more like 'fear of the information that you will receive', so I just avoid the knowledge.

 

There's merit to both of your arguments, IMHO.

 

On one hand, it's generally wise to gather as much data as you can before making a major decision that could impact the economy of an area and the lives of its population. I certainly endorse that principle. On the other hand, if the decision to spend the money to obtain that data rests in the hands of the same people who know for certain they will not act to widen the channel -- the subject of the study -- regardless of the outcome of the study, then it makes sense that they would decline to spend that money.

 

Thanks for the info Aquahound, the port charges aspect is interesting and certainly impacts the economic calculus.

 

These are difficult decisions with passionate supporters on both sides. I saw Carnival Fantasy in Nassau a couple of weeks ago, which is currently sailing out of Charleston, SC. I'm sure most of us are aware of all the local strife over cruise ship calls in Charleston, which has made for interesting reading. Seems like Team Cruise Ships won that round.

[Paulette3028]

There's merit to both of your arguments, IMHO.

 

On one hand, it's generally wise to gather as much data as you can before making a major decision that could impact the economy of an area and the lives of its population. I certainly endorse that principle. On the other hand, if the decision to spend the money to obtain that data rests in the hands of the same people who know for certain they will not act to widen the channel -- the subject of the study -- regardless of the outcome of the study, then it makes sense that they would decline to spend that money.

 

Thanks for the info Aquahound, the port charges aspect is interesting and certainly impacts the economic calculus.

 

These are difficult decisions with passionate supporters on both sides. I saw Carnival Fantasy in Nassau a couple of weeks ago, which is currently sailing out of Charleston, SC. I'm sure most of us are aware of all the local strife over cruise ship calls in Charleston, which has made for interesting reading. Seems like Team Cruise Ships won that round.

 

I subscribe to the philosophy that knowledge is key -- people change their opinions based on new information that they obtain. But you need the information.

 

I grew up in a shore community, called Coney Island -- from May to October we were inundated by 'bungalow bunnies' as they were called. It was a fascinating time, of money making revelry and yes as I look back 'people pollution' -- but when the economy/society changed in that community....it became bleak. I know what a huge influx of tourists can do, and I understand what the lack of those same tourists can do.

[Aquahound]

Why would this be a foolish decision?

 

Yes the question was in regards to a feasibility study on making the channel bigger but the bigger question is whether or not they wanted the cruise ships at all. If the residents are not in favor of having larger cruise ships then it does not make sense to spend money to do a feasibility study on something that would get voted down at a later date.

 

I would call it a very prudent decision.

 

Thank you for understanding. :). There is little that's more frustrating than outsiders trying to tell you what's best for your town.

 

And this is exactly what I was talking about when I told someone else if they don't live here, they don't really know the whole story. This feasibility study would not have been the first. This debate has been going on for as long as I can remember and independent studies have already been conducted. The results are always the same. The area that needs widened is a sandy bottom covered in turtle grass. The environmental impact just isn't worth it to most KW residents and we don't need another study....at our cost....to tell us what we already know.

[Aquahound]

Oh, and let me add one more thing that could shed some light on this. I attended an interesting city commission meeting a while ago on this very subject. It was attended by local business owners. Surprisingly, shop owners unanimously said they wanted KW to attract more "quality, not quantity" cruise ships. Basically, that meant less Carnival and more Oceania, Regent, HAL, Disney, etc. Even shop owners weren't totally supportive of the widening.

[LMaxwell]

No offense LMaxwell, but if you are not a resident of Key West, you really don't know what challenges we face with regard to cruise ships. Our decisions are based on what we live and see every day of our lives. Some port cities just can't handle mega ships and with KW only being a 4 x 1.3 mile island, we're already busting at the seams with the ships that visit now, especially in the winter months. Our quality of life is much more important to us than what some outsider cruise passenger thinks.

 

The feasibility study was just the first step in getting the channel widened. The majority of locals said no. Most locals here don't even want to get that ball rolling, and I don't blame them.

 

One more piece of trivia. The pier that berths the largest ships, and the pier that is most desirable...Pier B...is private property, so KW doesn't even get to profit from those port charges.

 

No offense taken at all. But it was a smear campaign to make people think they were voting against widening the channel when all they really did was vote against having the ACoE doing a feasibility and environmental impact study, a data gathering study. The best decisions are always made based on factual data, not just feelings.

 

And while I don't live in KW, I do have some understanding of the dynamics there, I do spend a decent amount of time in the various towns of the Keys as it is quick and easy getaway for us.

 

It just seems to be a head buried in the sand approach. Not sure why anyone would reasonably object to having hard data with which to then make a decision.

 

I still contend that if nothing is done, that over the next X number of years cruise ship traffic decreases as older / smaller cruise ships are sold off and new ships can't port in KW. Yes, quality of life is important but if you lose hundreds of thousands of guests per year you'll also see small businesses closing up shop.

 

Still though, they can reach KW from Port Canaveral no problem with a Vision-class ship, and put a Voyager-class ship in Miami to blow away the competition. A sea day on a Voyager-class ship could be a great revenue generator for RCI as well. Mainly I just don't want to see RCI stick a 15 year old ship in Miami that isn't clearly superior to its competition, they will get no converts from NCL or Carnival that way (my opinion). I want to see RCI dominate the short Miami cruise market.

[LMaxwell]

The area that needs widened is a sandy bottom covered in turtle grass. The environmental impact just isn't worth it to most KW residents and we don't need another study....at our cost....to tell us what we already know.

 

I capitulate to you. You ARE a local resident and more in tune with local challenges more so than any of the rest of us could be. I still have the same line of thought as Paulette, but I see your perspective too - that a study will say XYZ needs to be done and people don't support XYZ anyways, so why spend the $?