a new class of ship for rcl

[Biker19]

Everything you want to know about what RCCI's plans are for the next several years are here as reported to the SEC. Also check out RCCI's 10-Qs and other filings at the SEC's website. It's all there.

[/font]

That's true, but most of the time info comes out before the SEC fillings. All of the info about those 7 ships listed in the SEC fillings was out before the fillings. Also, the SEC fillings have no info about the ships - just very general plans. We already have more info about the Project Edge ship (size, capacity) from other sources.

[Thetrail]

I agree, eventually they will have to face the fact that the Vision and Radiance class ships will have to leave the fleet.

 

Maybe by that time they will have 10K passenger ships in FLL/PC/Miami, and they won't care about losing the the smaller passenger volume at the other ports.

Would hate to see ports such as Baltimore go away, love the variety from Vision class all the way up to Oasis class....

[Clarea]

Would hate to see ports such as Baltimore go away, love the variety from Vision class all the way up to Oasis class....

Totally agree.

[chengkp75]

While I agree that the economies of scale work well getting to the 5-6000 pax range, I really don't see a 10k ship in the future, except a dim possibility in the far future. At much above the present Oasis class, port and operations infrastructure, even at ports potentially capable of handling the ships, start to work the other way. There are already questions in the maritime industry, from class societies and port states, about the ability of ships larger than current to safely handle that number of guests.

[CntPAcruiser]

I just hope they keep up the Voyager- and Freedom-class ships for as long as we're interested in cruising. We prefer what those ships have to offer as compared to Oasis-class and later (and we have no interest in any of the newer ships any longer). They have eliminated features with the design/build of Oasis and onward that are important to us, and the features that have been added are not, in many cases, ones that attract us.

 

We like having the variety in size/class of ship, and the more interesting itineraries these may permit. It seems likely that as the smaller, older ships age, they will be moved out of the fleet. And perhaps we'll move along as well.

[Clarea]

While I agree that the economies of scale work well getting to the 5-6000 pax range, I really don't see a 10k ship in the future, except a dim possibility in the far future. At much above the present Oasis class, port and operations infrastructure, even at ports potentially capable of handling the ships, start to work the other way. There are already questions in the maritime industry, from class societies and port states, about the ability of ships larger than current to safely handle that number of guests.

I really do hope this is true, thanks.

[gstewart]

Wow - STX France are going to be busy. They have just signed a deal with MSC Cruises today for 4 new ships (2 firm and 2 options) which will be over 200,000 tons carrying around 5,400 pax. These ships are for delivery in 2022, 2024, 2025 and 2026.

 

http://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/14378-msc-orders-four-lng-megaships-from-stx-france.html

[Clarea]

Wow - STX France are going to be busy. They have just signed a deal with MSC Cruises today for 4 new ships (2 firm and 2 options) which will be over 200,000 tons carrying around 5,400 pax. These ships are for delivery in 2022, 2024, 2025 and 2026.

 

http://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/14378-msc-orders-four-lng-megaships-from-stx-france.html

Wow, huge ships and powered by LNG.

[OfTheSeasCruiser]

Wow, huge ships and powered by LNG.

 

Can't say that MSC hasn't caught my attention. The Seaside looks very interesting, also.

[chengkp75]

Wow, huge ships and powered by LNG.

 

I would still have my doubts that the ships will be powered solely by LNG. Most likely they will use existing technology for "dual fuel" engines that burn liquid and gaseous fuels at the same time to produce a cleaner exhaust than from liquid fuel alone. And this may just be when in special ECA zones that mandate cleaner emissions.

 

There are significant drawbacks to large scale use of LNG, particularly on a large cruise ship. The first is storage, LNG requires 6 times the volume of residual fuel oil, so you either give up a vast amount of revenue generating space to fuel tanks, or you rely on LNG infrastructure becoming common in more ports (very, very few at present) and refueling more often. The second is that LNG tanks, unlike liquid fuel tanks, cannot be placed along the outside of the hull, but must be at least 1/4 of the beam inside the hull. This places them right in the middle of the valuable engine room spaces, and would require major rethinking of engine room design. Then there is the reliquifaction equipment that would compress and cool the naturally evaporating LNG back into a liquid, since this cannot just be vented to the atmosphere.

[Clarea]

Can't say that MSC hasn't caught my attention. The Seaside looks very interesting, also.

I'm hoping for our Chief Engineer to tell us how readily available LNG is at the ports, differences in range, and what the cost differences might be between that and the bunker fuel.

[Ocean Boy]

I agree, not necessarily, but I don't think they want to make the ships even more crowded.

 

Then why have they added cabins onto the Voyager sisters? All that has done is make them more crowded and increased revenue. Of course, I'm sure RCI would provide their standard answer that it was done to enhance the cruise experience of their guests.

[Clarea]

Then why have they added cabins onto the Voyager sisters? All that has done is make them more crowded and increased revenue. Of course, I'm sure RCI would provide their standard answer that it was done to enhance the cruise experience of their guests.

I think the point I was trying to make (poorly) was that I don't think Royal would want to make their ships as crowded as some of the other lines. In other words, Royal has always had a very good passenger to space ratio, and I believe even with the added staterooms, they are still one of the better cruise lines with that ratio.

[ckfred]

If RC plans to make Royal Caribbean a more mass-market brand with larger ships, while Celebrity has smaller ships to go after the cruiser wanting to visit smaller cities, the one thing that RC needs to do is unify the loyalty programs.

 

It makes no sense that a cruiser can't accumulate points while sailing on Royal Caribbean, Celebrity, and other RC cruise lines.

 

If you look at the airlines, you can belong to one frequent flyer program while accumulating miles on other airlines within an alliance, as well as hotels and rental cars.

 

I'm not saying that RC should have a loyalty program with the myriad ways to accumulate miles as an airline F/F program, but at least let us get C&A points while sailing on Celebrity.

[chengkp75]

I'm hoping for our Chief Engineer to tell us how readily available LNG is at the ports, differences in range, and what the cost differences might be between that and the bunker fuel.

 

At present, there are less than a handful of ports in Europe that have LNG bunkering capabilities for large ships, and the number of LNG bunker barges is very small as well. In the US, I think the first LNG bunker barge was started in the fall of last year. Add to this the infrastructure required to re-liquify the LNG before it can be pumped to the barge and then the ship, and there is significant infrastructure to be implemented. Europe at this time is ahead of the US in this, as they actively started studying LNG fuel back about 2011. So, even though there are a few dual-fuel ships out there, they are mostly operating on liquid fuel anyway, until the bunkering facilities catch up. That there is major investment in these facilities is known, its just a matter of time, money, and regulatory approval until they are up and running.

 

While most ships carry more fuel than needed for one scheduled round trip, this may have to change with LNG. Most planning is calling for "half round-trip" storage, or bunkering twice a voyage. This may or may not hold for cruise ships, with their traditionally short cruises, but its probably a starting yardstick for design. This means that there needs to be even more widespread LNG bunkering facilities than just in major cruise ports, and this could be a problem.

 

LNG is far cheaper per volume than even residual fuel oil, but in the only important measure, of cost per BTU (since LNG has a lower calorific value than residual fuel), LNG comes out somewhere between the cost of residual fuel and marine diesel fuel, again, depending on what market you are in: North America, Europe, or Asia.

 

For a cargo ship, the capital expense and payback period for an LNG dual-fuel ship is more attractive than scrubbers, but I've not seen a study on cruise ships due to their particular requirements for engine room arrangement and fuel tank arrangement.

 

Current dual-fuel technology allows the varying of the LNG content being burned in the engine from 0% to 95%, and most ships will switch to full liquid fuel when outside of ECA's.

[Clarea]

Very interesting. So it seems the energy density per volume for LNG is significantly less than residual/marine diesel fuel. Similar to gasoline vs E85 for cars.

[Biker19]

While I agree that the economies of scale work well getting to the 5-6000 pax range, I really don't see a 10k ship in the future, except a dim possibility in the far future. At much above the present Oasis class, port and operations infrastructure, even at ports potentially capable of handling the ships, start to work the other way. There are already questions in the maritime industry, from class societies and port states, about the ability of ships larger than current to safely handle that number of guests.

 

As Ford discovered with the Excursion and Airbus with its A380, if you build it they don't always come. Market dynamics, peoples wants and other factors has a limit when one keeps offering bigger and bigger versions of an existing product.

[chengkp75]

Very interesting. So it seems the energy density per volume for LNG is significantly less than residual/marine diesel fuel. Similar to gasoline vs E85 for cars.

 

Way less. To get comparable range from LNG, you need 6 times the fuel tank volume.

[Clarea]

Way less. To get comparable range from LNG, you need 6 times the fuel tank volume.

Wow!:eek:

[OfTheSeasCruiser]

If RC plans to make Royal Caribbean a more mass-market brand with larger ships, while Celebrity has smaller ships to go after the cruiser wanting to visit smaller cities, the one thing that RC needs to do is unify the loyalty programs.

 

It makes no sense that a cruiser can't accumulate points while sailing on Royal Caribbean, Celebrity, and other RC cruise lines.

 

If you look at the airlines, you can belong to one frequent flyer program while accumulating miles on other airlines within an alliance, as well as hotels and rental cars.

 

I'm not saying that RC should have a loyalty program with the myriad ways to accumulate miles as an airline F/F program, but at least let us get C&A points while sailing on Celebrity.

I have to agree with you here.

 

If Royal wants to drop all of their small ships (along with the more exciting itineraries that come with them), the change would be a little easier to accept if my points could move over to Celebrity. I would really love to try Celebrity and I think I would be okay sailing them regularly for a "smaller" ship experience (bouncing back to RCI for a mega-ship), but I would hate having to start from the bottom of the loyalty program.

[steveru621]

Isn't Radiance Class powered by LNG??

 

Voyager and Radiance class were rolled out pretty much at the same time, so they would be replaced on a similar schedule. I think the last Radiance class ship (Jewel?) launched in 2004, which probably gives it until 2034.

 

Voyager class is horrible for Alaska or northern Europe! No covered Solarium (or pool)! Quantum is a better answer.

 

But I would prefer a direct replacement for Radiance class.

 

Edit: sorry bad memory... All of these vessels burn diesel fuel in the gas turbines, (radiance)

Edited April 6, 2016 by steveru621

[Big_G]

As Ford discovered with the Excursion and Airbus with its A380, if you build it they don't always come. Market dynamics, peoples wants and other factors has a limit when one keeps offering bigger and bigger versions of an existing product.

 

You make a valid point and I agree with your analogy except that Royal's reputation is new innovation and who knows what will show up on an even larger ship. I don't think they would build it unless they could find a way to distinguish it from the other classes other than by size.

[Clarea]

Isn't Radiance Class powered by LNG??...

Radiance class does have turbine engines, but they are not powered by LNG.

[steveru621]

Radiance class does have turbine engines, but they are not powered by LNG.

 

Thanks Bob, I remembered after my post. It was gas turbines, not natural gas. :confused:

[OfTheSeasCruiser]

Isn't Radiance Class powered by LNG??

 

Voyager and Radiance class were rolled out pretty much at the same time, so they would be replaced on a similar schedule. I think the last Radiance class ship (Jewel?) launched in 2004, which probably gives it until 2034.

 

Voyager class is horrible for Alaska or northern Europe! No covered Solarium (or pool)! Quantum is a better answer.

 

But I would prefer a direct replacement for Radiance class.

 

Edit: sorry bad memory... All of these vessels burn diesel fuel in the gas turbines, (radiance)

 

I hadn't really thought about the exact dates that the Radiance Class ships' time will be up, however, I agree that they can definitely get 30 years out of each of them. What's majesty going on, 24 years? When you think about how much more advanced the Radiance Class (and Voyager Class ships for that matter) are compared to Majesty, it makes sense. I'd be glad to sail on them in their old age.