Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Royal Caribbean orders new Icon Class of 5,000 pax LNG fueled ships

Mattsudds

By Mattsudds,
in Royal Caribbean International

 Share

Recommended Posts

MADflyer

MADflyer

Posted
Posted

RCL will continue to focus on port development in conjunction with the increase of capacity and these large ships will feed the RCL land operations where they will have land revenue generating outlets. It will be interesting to see the number of ports where RCL will have developments similar to Falmouth and Labadee.

 

It seems that RCI is quite successfully segmenting areas of the large ships to offer several 'experiences' on the same ship. This allows them to maintain the RCI experience for the various base segments of passengers while preventing the ships from feeling overcrowded.

 

There is nothing to prevent RCI from prolonging the lifespan of the small ships to their full 30 years and could keep Radiance class in service through 2030 and beyond. The cruisers that these ships appeal to may continue to be more traditional and the cruises will be more port focused than ship focused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cruiser Bruiser

Cruiser Bruiser

Posted
Posted
Isn't Carnival or NCL building a ship close to Oasis capacity but more in line with Quantum tonnage?

 

Carnival and MSC, yes; Norwegian no.

 

With the inventory of Oasis class and Quantum class by the time Icon class shows up...RCI will have a major fleet of very large ships. Interesting that there has not been much news for some time now about mid-to-smaller size ships.

 

There's a rumor that NCL is going in the opposite direction of RCI with a possible order of six new ships at 130k GT. I really hope the rumor is true.

 

http://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/15866-italian-media-fincantieri-about-to-land-huge-norwegian-ship-order.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
poncho1973

poncho1973

Posted
Posted

This is great news.

 

I'm excited... of course, I'm mostly excited to see the throngs of CC posters who will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER sail on this new class because __________.

 

(Insert any hot button topic of choice... dining plan changes, smoking changes, hairstyle changes, uniform changes, lack of something, adding something, the size being too large, the size not being bigger than Oasis-class ships, the color of the flooring, the food they haven't eaten yet, the pool they haven't swam in yet, the chairs someone hasn't hogged yet, the changieness of the changes, the unchangieness of the changes, the WJ, the whatever.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pickels

Pickels

Posted
Posted

Everyone has their opinions, their likes/dislikes, preferences, etc. We prefer the smaller class of ships; if we were to cruise on one of these gigantic newer ships, (Allure, Oasis), I feel like I'm in a hotel, or a mall, not a ship. IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John&LaLa "Live from...." Rare

John&LaLa

Posted
Posted

Everyone has their opinions, their likes/dislikes, preferences, etc. We prefer the smaller class of ships; if we were to cruise on one of these gigantic newer ships, (Allure, Oasis), I feel like I'm in a hotel, or a mall, not a ship. IMHO.

Have you been on one yet?

 

I've never felt like I was in a mall.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRUISEFAN0001

CRUISEFAN0001

Posted
Posted
Have you been on one yet?

 

I've never felt like I was in a mall.

Nor have we...in fact...it feels less crowded than small ships IMHO, and there is an added feeling of stability while sailing and more to do onboard.

 

Sailing on Oasis class ships is now a topic that comes up frequently with our own friends and other acquaintances...and when asked...our limited poll of perhaps 20 people who have stated "we'd never sail on a ship that big" has found that more than 3/4 of those polled have no direct experiences themselves from sailing on one.

 

With Harmony next on our pending cruise list, and Allure & Oasis done previously...we obviously enjoy this size ship. We also enjoyed sailing on Freedom Class, Navigator Class, and Radiance Class ships previously as well.

 

They all have their own positive experiences and amenities for passengers, while also offering a variety of ports and destinations served.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pinkrosesdeb

pinkrosesdeb

Posted
Posted

Oasis is not my favorite class but it is still an incredible ship that we would certainly pick again if the price is right. I am not excited about their small cabins but it has never caused us to have a bad time. Everyone should try them at least once before they say NEVER! I had lots of people on Celebrity tell us they would never try Royal because the promenade felt like a "mall" but they have never sailed with Royal. How do they know they don't like it? We enjoyed our Celebrity cruise very much but there shopping area is very hard to navigate at times because it is so close. I would not say I wouldn't sail Celebrity again because of that. Make the most of every cruise, find something to love instead of looking for the one thing you hate. We have had some really bad customer service on Royal and it upset me for awhile...but, I was on a cruise and I got over it, how can you stay mad on a cruise?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blizzard54

Blizzard54

Posted
Posted
While the port states may be able to ban smoking on open deck areas while in port, they would have no jurisdiction to ban all smoking on foreign flag ships inside the ships, or while at sea.

 

no knowledge of UK, but AU seems to be able to do it. at least from what I've read around here.

 

I am not sure under what authority the rules is made or enforced but I do know that on any cruise that starts in AU smoking is not allowed anywhere inside the ship. On the Explorer transpacific that began in Sydney smoking was not allowed in the casino or the cigar bar for the entire trip. As I understand it, currently as the ship is repositioning back to AU, smoking is allowed in those venues until it arrives back in Sydney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
poncho1973

poncho1973

Posted
Posted
Everyone has their opinions, their likes/dislikes, preferences, etc. We prefer the smaller class of ships; if we were to cruise on one of these gigantic newer ships, (Allure, Oasis), I feel like I'm in a hotel, or a mall, not a ship. IMHO.

 

The thing is... I just don't understand blanket opinions on things you've never tried.

 

I had concerns about this class of ship being too large. I took a cruise on Oasis. Now I actually have a real opinion based on real firsthand experiences.

 

Other than the ports, where it was blatantly obvious your ship was much larger than any other ships and where you saw tons of people piling off... I never once felt like I was out of place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chengkp75

chengkp75

Posted
Posted
I am not sure under what authority the rules is made or enforced but I do know that on any cruise that starts in AU smoking is not allowed anywhere inside the ship. On the Explorer transpacific that began in Sydney smoking was not allowed in the casino or the cigar bar for the entire trip. As I understand it, currently as the ship is repositioning back to AU, smoking is allowed in those venues until it arrives back in Sydney.

 

I believe that some of this is due to Australia's cabotage law similar to the PVSA which restricts coastwise traffic to Australian flag vessels. However, Oz allows for waivers if there is no Australian flag vessel that provides a comparable service, then a foreign flag vessel can apply for a waiver for a specified number of voyages. When doing so, the foreign flag ship must meet all Australian laws, and employ Australian seamen and officers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immy619

immy619

Posted
Posted

LNG ship would make perfect sense for Alaska. They're the strictest with fuel / exhaust standards. RC ships already sail Radiance at capacity and with healthy profit margins. Retire Radiance and a 5000-person clean ship makes tons of sense.

 

Port it in San Fran or South Pacific runs like Explorer did this year during the winter months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRUISEFAN0001

CRUISEFAN0001

Posted
Posted
LNG ship would make perfect sense for Alaska. They're the strictest with fuel / exhaust standards. RC ships already sail Radiance at capacity and with healthy profit margins. Retire Radiance and a 5000-person clean ship makes tons of sense.

 

Port it in San Fran or South Pacific runs like Explorer did this year during the winter months.

We suspect navigating Tracy Arm Fjord and some other places will be an issue for that size ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chengkp75

chengkp75

Posted
Posted
LNG ship would make perfect sense for Alaska. They're the strictest with fuel / exhaust standards. RC ships already sail Radiance at capacity and with healthy profit margins. Retire Radiance and a 5000-person clean ship makes tons of sense.

 

Port it in San Fran or South Pacific runs like Explorer did this year during the winter months.

 

Actually, Alaska does not have the strictest fuel/exhaust emissions standards. When the EPA enacted the US ECA (Emissions Control Area), which covers the entire North American continent out to 200 miles, and which in Jan 2015 required all ships to use fuel with a sulfur content of 0.1% or less, Alaska sued the EPA to stop implementation, since this has affected the price of the fuel that can be used, and this affects consumer prices in Alaska, since most of their products come in by sea. So, the US government forced Alaska to accept stricter standards than the state wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cruisinfromtampa

cruisinfromtampa

Posted
Posted
Not feasable? Why? (asked out of curiosity, deferring to your local knowledge.)

 

Several reasons in my mind. The first being cost. Building a new terminal was estimated to be in the $600-$800 million range a few years ago (If I remember correctly). Based on how public investment in infrastructure has gone here lately, I just don't see that happening.

 

Second is location. To have a terminal west of the bridge would put it, most likely, at the far south-western edge of Pinellas County. Obtaining enough land on the water will be a challenge to put it lightly. The bulk of the county is already built out, especially on the water. The barrier islands off Pinellas would, in my opinion, create a challenge to plopping a cruise terminal large enough to port mega ships down. Additionally, anybody living near the water paid a lot of money. Right or wrong, they're not going to want a cruise port in their back yard.

 

Southern Pinellas County is extremely inconvenient for the vast majority of the population of the Bay Area. I live in Carrollwood, which is extreme North Tampa (I'm about 8 miles from the Pasco County line). I can be at Port Tampa, with traffic, in roughly 30-40 minutes. Moving the terminal to the far side of the world would easily double my drive, if not more. As far north as I am, I am still significantly closer than half? the population of the Bay Area. I loathe the drive on a normal day. Starting and ending a vacation that way is not a positive.

 

I don't know for sure, but I would also assume that the environmental impact would be a huge concern. There is a lot of state and county protected land in the area.

 

Just my thoughts, of course. Never say never, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mts416

mts416

Posted
Posted

I feel most likely the same criteria apply for the port in Baltimore, I believe the key bridge is the restrictive value.

 

I understand the potential economic hit to smaller ships, but it seems impractical to either lose the market from the port or some how raise the bridges.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites
QueenofKrakatoa

QueenofKrakatoa

Posted
Posted
This is great news.

 

I'm excited... of course, I'm mostly excited to see the throngs of CC posters who will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER sail on this new class because __________.

 

(Insert any hot button topic of choice... dining plan changes, smoking changes, hairstyle changes, uniform changes, lack of something, adding something, the size being too large, the size not being bigger than Oasis-class ships, the color of the flooring, the food they haven't eaten yet, the pool they haven't swam in yet, the chairs someone hasn't hogged yet, the changieness of the changes, the unchangieness of the changes, the WJ, the whatever.)

 

The diamond lounge not being made of real actual diamonds, no gluten free towel animals, the fact that the sand doesn't look like the picture in the brochure...yeah, I just better talk to your manager right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Set Sail Beyond the Ordinary with Oceania Cruises
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: The Widest View in the Whole Wide World
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...