Are cruise ship companies making a mistake getting ride of small ships?

[Heidi13]

On 9/2/2020 at 5:13 PM, LawDog61 said:

The cruise lines have been busy down sizing capacity by selling or scraping older smaller ship.   They seem to be assuming that the world of tomorrow will be filled with 3000-5000 passenger ships. While the CDC may  put percent capacity restriction on the ships, what about the ports?   Will ports restrict these huge ships?   I believe Vienna has imposed restrictions (Was it 40k tonnes?) and I can see a world where these huge ships are not welcomed.  

 

While the mass market lines are off-loading tonnage, I suggest the primary selection of which ships are sold, is based on age and not pax capacity.

 

Yes, the ships being sold/scrapped are smaller, but they are all much older than the mega ships being retained. In the industry, older ships cost considerably more money to operate - the hulls are less efficient, the engines are less efficient and they require more maintenance, repairs and dockings, etc. The mega ships have economies of scale, but those are quickly eradicated, as the ship ages.

[navybankerteacher]

28 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

That's a ridiculous exaggeration .  You don't pay extra for meals, coffee or tea on NCL. You only pay extra if you want to eat in a specialty restaurant or have a specialty coffee like a latte. And it's not just NCL that charges for meals beyond the basics in the main dining rooms and buffets .Royal and Carnival have done that for years. it's standard mass market procedure. 

 

29 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

That's a ridiculous exaggeration .  You don't pay extra for meals, coffee or tea on NCL. You only pay extra if you want to eat in a specialty restaurant or have a specialty coffee like a latte. And it's not just NCL that charges for meals beyond the basics in the main dining rooms and buffets .Royal and Carnival have done that for years. it's standard mass market procedure. 

I said it was “the direction NCL has been taking”;  not that they had gotten there.  Anyone with experience sailing NCL over the years will have noticed that previously included things like room service have now become “for a fee” , and will also have noticed the distinct decline in both quality of food and service in the included MDR meals, as well as the added charges for bringing on water or soft drinks.

 

Very much of what used to be included in the fare now costs extra - is there any reason to believe that trend will not continue ——- especially as the mass market lines will have to struggle to keep their advertised fares attractive in the face of additional operating costs due to health concerns - as well as the likelihood of decreasing passenger loads which may be required to achieve distancing.

[cruisemom42]

54 minutes ago, wowzz said:

But the new Saga and all the Viking ships are 100% balconies. 

 

True. But either way, if ships are sailing at a reduced capacity, which is what the poster I responded to was suggesting, even at 70% capacity, everyone can have a balcony, even on larger ships.

[iancal]

The cruise lines that cannot operate smaller ships at a profit or at the profit level required by their owners should get rid of those ships.  They have a duty to their shareholders.    Covid seems to have encouraged this.

 

Not saying that smaller ships cannot be profitable. I am certain that they can be, and have been in the past.  It just depends on the cruise line that operates them and their focus.   It is difficult to be everything to everybody.   

Edited September 4, 2020 by iancal

[Flatbush Flyer]

2 hours ago, wowzz said:

 But then, what about the included drinks with lunch and dinner? If you don't drink you are paying for those as well.

And then, when you have transfers to the ship at the beginning and end of the cruise, what about those people that live only 50 miles away subsidising those living 250 miles away?

 Eventually you end up with a cruise where you just pay for a cabin, and then you pay extra for every meal, tea, coffee etc. That way, no one has to pay for something they don't want, just like debundled airfares.

 

One of the great things about the "premium" cruise industry segment (beyond the ideal space and crew ratios on the  "R" ships of Azamara and Oceania) is that there is a "middle-of-the-road" fare flexibility by making optional some of the included items in the "luxury" segment. At the same time, of course, there's no "nickel diming" for some/all "basics" (e.g., on Oceania - beverages, internet, specialty restaurants are always included) nor are there amusement parks, thundering herds of humanity, etc.

 

And, at least on Oceania, there remains the option to do the less expensive "cruise only" (including the above basics) vs O Life (with amenity choice of tours/booze/SBC and with/without air). 

[Flatbush Flyer]

18 minutes ago, iancal said:

The cruise lines that cannot operate smaller ships at a profit or at the profit level required by their owners should get rid of those ships.  They have a duty to their shareholders.    Covid seems to have encouraged this.

 

Not saying that smaller ships cannot be profitable. I am certain that they can be, and have been in the past.  It just depends on the cruise line that operates them and their focus.   It is difficult to be everything to everybody.   

With few occasional itinerary exceptions, the "R" ships (<700 passengers) of Azamara and Oceania usually cruise with full occupancy.

[Cruzaholic41]

3 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

With few occasional itinerary exceptions, the "R" ships (<700 passengers) of Azamara and Oceania usually cruise with full occupancy.

So do the 6000+ Oasis Class ships of RCI. What’s your point?

[Flatbush Flyer]

7 minutes ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

So do the 6000+ Oasis Class ships of RCI. What’s your point?

6000?

That was "then." This is "now."

Bye bye megaships....

 

[Cruzaholic41]

1 minute ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

6000?

That was "then." This is "now."

Bye bye megaships....

 

Newsflash. The 700 pax ships are empty “now” too. Although, something tells me you don’t get that. 

[wowzz]

Let's face it, as and when cruising starts again, most ships will only be sailing at 60% capacity, which is probably around breakeven for each cruise as far as the larger ships are concerned.  Not sure if it will be economic at that occupancy level for the smaller (under 1000 pax) ships.

 

[Flatbush Flyer]

31 minutes ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

Newsflash. The 700 pax ships are empty “now” too. Although, something tells me you don’t get that. 

Empty (at this point) is somewhat irrelevant to the bigger/future picture. So, try not to be a concrete thinker.

 

Look at the paid-in-full (vs passenger cancelled) fourth quarter "premium" segment 2020 bookings (e.g., for those R ships not yet cancelled by Azamara and Oceania). Between passenger intent and mandated capacity limits, those ships will cruise "full" if CDC et al prohibitions and other travel restrictions are lifted.

The same holds true for deposited "premium" bookings in 2021.

 

You seem to not grasp the common sense "new normal" reality of the "premium/luxury" industry segment's more uniformly financially capable demographic meeting a requirement for far less bookings to fill R ships (vs mass market megaships and their much more varied demographic's financial well-being).

 

Your misguided belief that the mass market will fair as well as the other industry segments in the new normal" reminds me of the New Yorker cartoon showing a scientist at a huge blackboard full of mathematical equations who has just scrawled at a critical junction "miracle happens here."

[Flatbush Flyer]

37 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Let's face it, as and when cruising starts again, most ships will only be sailing at 60% capacity, which is probably around breakeven for each cruise as far as the larger ships are concerned.  Not sure if it will be economic at that occupancy level for the smaller (under 1000 pax) ships.

 

What part do you not understand about the demographic of the smaller ships that constitute the premium/luxury segments?

Unlike the mass market, if those cruise lines raise their fares, the bulk of their passenger demographic will be able to afford it AND (though perhaps without a smile) write the check in a flash.

[Cruzaholic41]

12 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

 

You seem to not grasp the common sense "new normal" reality...

It’s not a matter of understanding. It’s a matter of - I don’t agree with you. Tough concept to grasp nowadays, I guess. 🙄

[Flatbush Flyer]

13 minutes ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

It’s not a matter of understanding. It’s a matter of - I don’t agree with you. Tough concept to grasp nowadays, I guess. 🙄

Disagreement about something as mundane as cruise ship bookings need not be a bad thing (particularly when you're running out of things to do while sheltered in place (pandemic, natural disaster, et al.).

Have a nice weekend and stay safe.

 

"Being 20 in the '70s sure beats being 70 in the '20s"

[Roz]

On 9/2/2020 at 7:13 PM, LawDog61 said:

I believe Vienna has imposed restrictions (Was it 40k tonnes?) and I can see a world where these huge ships are not welcomed.  

 

Vienna is on the Danube.  Maybe you mean Venice?

[donaldsc]

5 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I think a dose of realism IS needed. I'm not sure you realize that newer (larger) ships that the lines are keeping have a very high percentage of balcony cabins available.

 

For example, the Regal Princess (5500 passengers) offers 81% balcony cabins.

 

Compare that with the "R" class ships that make up all of Azamara's line and 4 out of 6 of Oceania's ships -- these offer only about 66% balcony cabins. Even the new Carnival ship, the Mardi Gras, offers slightly more balcony cabins than these.

 

The ships being gotten rid of are the older ones in the 1500-2500 range that do have fewer balcony cabins. 

 

So people on larger ships, even at reduced capacity, are unlikely to have to hunker down in an inside cabin just because they are on a larger ship.

 

Many of us feel that balconies are vastly over rated and a total waste of money.

 

DON

[njhorseman]

4 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

 

I said it was “the direction NCL has been taking”;  not that they had gotten there.  Anyone with experience sailing NCL over the years will have noticed that previously included things like room service have now become “for a fee” , and will also have noticed the distinct decline in both quality of food and service in the included MDR meals, as well as the added charges for bringing on water or soft drinks.

 

Very much of what used to be included in the fare now costs extra - is there any reason to believe that trend will not continue ——- especially as the mass market lines will have to struggle to keep their advertised fares attractive in the face of additional operating costs due to health concerns - as well as the likelihood of decreasing passenger loads which may be required to achieve distancing.

NCL started charging non-Haven cabins for room service other than for continental breakfast about five years ago. If this is "the direction NCL has been taking" please tell me what else they've done in the subsequent time other than prohibiting water and soda to be brought on board. I've cruised on at least ten different cruise lines over more than 30 years. Food and service has generally declined on all of them, not just the mass market lines and certainly not just on NCL. In the last five years we've cruised solely on NCL and Oceania and we've actually seen the food on NCL improve recently in the main dining room.

[ldubs]

Back to the topic, are they getting rid of small ships or are they getting rid of old ships, which of course, would be smaller than the newer ones.   

 

I find the discussion interesting about profitability of a 5,000 passenger cruise ship sailing at 60% capacity compared to a 1,000 passenger ship at 60% capacity interesting.   Don't know the answer, but interesting.  

[wowzz]

3 hours ago, donaldsc said:

 

Many of us feel that balconies are vastly over rated and a total waste of money.

 

DON

Given that the trend is for ships to have more and more balconies, I think you are in the minority.

 Spending 4 days in an interior cabin going through the BoB in a force 10 is not my idea of fun.

[evandbob]

4 hours ago, donaldsc said:

 

Many of us feel that balconies are vastly over rated and a total waste of money.

 

DON

 

Actually, a few of you feel that way, since the trend is to have more and more balconies on a cruise ship.  Those who don't feel that way might be considered "many" amongst themselves, but are in the minority of cruise ship passengers as the appeal and demand for balconies continues to grow.  

 

I find the other side thread about small luxury cruise ships irrelevant to the OP's question about small cruise ships being sold.  But hey, we can't travel or cruise, so banging on a keyboard does become a way to make the time go by until we can.  See, I've just done it myself.

[snaebyllej]

5 hours ago, wowzz said:

Spending 4 days in an interior cabin going through the BoB in a force 10 is not my idea of fun.

Let's see; in a Force 10 storm, would I rather be in an outside cabin, or in an inside cabin with less motion?

 

[donaldsc]

4 hours ago, evandbob said:

 

Actually, a few of you feel that way, since the trend is to have more and more balconies on a cruise ship.  Those who don't feel that way might be considered "many" amongst themselves, but are in the minority of cruise ship passengers as the appeal and demand for balconies continues to grow.  

 

I find the other side thread about small luxury cruise ships irrelevant to the OP's question about small cruise ships being sold.  But hey, we can't travel or cruise, so banging on a keyboard does become a way to make the time go by until we can.  See, I've just done it myself.

 

It is not a matter of what we want but what we are forced to take as they lines do not give us an alternative.  It is just a matter of economics for the cruise lines.  

 

As an example - lets assume that a ship has 5000 cabins and balcony costs $6000 and an outside cabin costs $4000.  You can use any numbers but I had to come up with something for the example.  If the ship is 50% balcony and 50% outside, the potential money they get is $25,000,000 gross.  If the ratio is 4000 balcony and 1000 outside, they get $28,000,000.  If the ratio 5000 balcony and zero outside, they get $30,000,000.  

 

Balconies do not cost that much more on the initial ship build and in my example (you can use any numbers you want but you will get the same result), they have the potential of grossing $5,000,000 more by going to an all balcony ship.  If they run a 1 week cruise their total increased take for going to an all balcony ship over a 50% balcony ship is $260,00,000.  They did not ask their customers if so many people really wanted a balcony.  They just decided to build them to get more money out of us.  They are not stupid.  We are just forced to take what they give us.

 

DON

[wowzz]

3 hours ago, snaebyllej said:

Let's see; in a Force 10 storm, would I rather be in an outside cabin, or in an inside cabin with less motion?

 

Depending on the cabin position, that's a fair point. However,  balcony cabins tend to be bigger than inside cabins, so are "nicer" places to be for extended periods of time, and personally,  in rough weather I prefer to be able to see the outside world, rather than just the 4 walls of my cabin.

As always, just a personal,choice. 

[Heidi13]

9 hours ago, donaldsc said:

 

It is not a matter of what we want but what we are forced to take as they lines do not give us an alternative.  It is just a matter of economics for the cruise lines.  

 

As an example - lets assume that a ship has 5000 cabins and balcony costs $6000 and an outside cabin costs $4000.  You can use any numbers but I had to come up with something for the example.  If the ship is 50% balcony and 50% outside, the potential money they get is $25,000,000 gross.  If the ratio is 4000 balcony and 1000 outside, they get $28,000,000.  If the ratio 5000 balcony and zero outside, they get $30,000,000.  

 

Balconies do not cost that much more on the initial ship build and in my example (you can use any numbers you want but you will get the same result), they have the potential of grossing $5,000,000 more by going to an all balcony ship.  If they run a 1 week cruise their total increased take for going to an all balcony ship over a 50% balcony ship is $260,00,000.  They did not ask their customers if so many people really wanted a balcony.  They just decided to build them to get more money out of us.  They are not stupid.  We are just forced to take what they give us.

 

DON

 

Another factor to consider is that over the operational life of a ship, the balconies may actually save money. Many costs with respect to docking, canal transits, etc are based on Gross Tonnage, which is a volume measurement of enclosed space.

 

As balconies are not totally enclosed, they are not included in the GT measurement. Therefore, balconies may save the owner on operational costs, as opposed to fully enclosed "Oceanview" cabins.

[Heidi13]

10 hours ago, snaebyllej said:

Let's see; in a Force 10 storm, would I rather be in an outside cabin, or in an inside cabin with less motion?

 

 

An inside cabin will only have less motion when the ship is rolling, a movement that is significantly reduced by the stabalisers.

 

When the ship is pitching, a fwd or aft inside cabin will receive more movement than a m'ship's balcony that is on the same deck.

 

You mentioned a Force 10, which is storm force, with winds up to about 55 kts. The height of the seas depends on the fetch, duration and depth, but expect something in the 30 to 40 + feet range. On all cruise ships, except possibly QM2, these conditions require weather courses and even on a stabalised ship, I would never place the seas on the beam, so expect pitching.