Which Ships with new orders?

[alfaeric]

I'll preface this by pointing out that we will not be cruising anytime soon, taking many more months off past when cruising resumes.  I have my reasons, and have pointed them out a few times- so no need to bring them back up again.

 

But having watched a video explaining the new CDC rules- where crew safety means single crew cabins, and spacing people out will become a thing- as well as being able to drastically isolate anyone who does get infected- it made me wonder what ships will be the first to go out and sail.

 

And based on the cost to run a ship, the size, etc, IMHO, the ships that will be sailing first out of the US will be the Oasis class ships.

 

First and foremost- the cost of moving the ship around is slightly less than Freedom class ships- this would be the cost regardless of the number of passengers on the ship.  We've been told this many times, and given the way it runs, I have no reason to doubt that line of thinking.

Which leads to so much extra space that it has.  

 

To let spacing happen, I would bet that somewhere in the 1/2 to 2/3 capacity will be used.  For now, as an example, lets call it 2/3, or about 4000 passengers.  That will leave plenty of space for single cabin crew all over the ship, AND keep people apart.  We've sailed many times on an Oasis ship, and have always been fascinated by how you almost never see anyone.  So at 2/3 capacity, the ability to space out would be super easy for passengers.  

 

And at reduced capacity, the amount of crew needed will also go down- reducing the strain of single cabin crew as well.

 

In the end, even at half capacity, the ship will be really close to making money, as it would be reasonably profitable at 2/3 capacity give the raw costs of moving a ship and the rest of the costs would be based on the number of passengers (crew support, food, stuff in general).

 

After that, I would think the Quantum class would work, too- similar reasons in terms of running efficiency.

 

Anyway, that's how I see it.  Keep the costs as low to run the ship and keep people apart.

 

Maybe we will be able to go on a half full Symphony cruise next fall.

[orville99]

7 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

I'll preface this by pointing out that we will not be cruising anytime soon, taking many more months off past when cruising resumes.  I have my reasons, and have pointed them out a few times- so no need to bring them back up again.

 

But having watched a video explaining the new CDC rules- where crew safety means single crew cabins, and spacing people out will become a thing- as well as being able to drastically isolate anyone who does get infected- it made me wonder what ships will be the first to go out and sail.

 

And based on the cost to run a ship, the size, etc, IMHO, the ships that will be sailing first out of the US will be the Oasis class ships.

 

First and foremost- the cost of moving the ship around is slightly less than Freedom class ships- this would be the cost regardless of the number of passengers on the ship.  We've been told this many times, and given the way it runs, I have no reason to doubt that line of thinking.

Which leads to so much extra space that it has.  

 

To let spacing happen, I would bet that somewhere in the 1/2 to 2/3 capacity will be used.  For now, as an example, lets call it 2/3, or about 4000 passengers.  That will leave plenty of space for single cabin crew all over the ship, AND keep people apart.  We've sailed many times on an Oasis ship, and have always been fascinated by how you almost never see anyone.  So at 2/3 capacity, the ability to space out would be super easy for passengers.  

 

And at reduced capacity, the amount of crew needed will also go down- reducing the strain of single cabin crew as well.

 

In the end, even at half capacity, the ship will be really close to making money, as it would be reasonably profitable at 2/3 capacity give the raw costs of moving a ship and the rest of the costs would be based on the number of passengers (crew support, food, stuff in general).

 

After that, I would think the Quantum class would work, too- similar reasons in terms of running efficiency.

 

Anyway, that's how I see it.  Keep the costs as low to run the ship and keep people apart.

 

Maybe we will be able to go on a half full Symphony cruise next fall.

Agree on Oasis class, but would add Freedom class and Voyager class to the list. All of the other classes of RCL ship lack the features (i.e. Royal Promenade, expansive outdoor upper decks, etc.) to space passengers out sufficiently.

 

Have not sailed on any Quantum class ships, so unfamiliar with their layout.

Edited November 3, 2020 by orville99

[twangster]

Space ratios are mostly irrelevant as we look at which ships might sail in the initial reduced capacity mode.   

 

Revenue potential and operating costs will be a significant factor when any line chooses their initial restart fleet.  Each ship has a break even number in terms of guests.  Some will make the cut, some can't.  

 

Money will be the deciding factor, not if ship X offers 5% or 10% more or less space per passenger over ship Y.  Space will be dealt with by eliminating activities such as belly flop contests or flag of nation parades.

[alfaeric]

12 minutes ago, twangster said:

Space ratios are mostly irrelevant as we look at which ships might sail in the initial reduced capacity mode.   

 

Revenue potential and operating costs will be a significant factor when any line chooses their initial restart fleet.  Each ship has a break even number in terms of guests.  Some will make the cut, some can't.  

 

Money will be the deciding factor, not if ship X offers 5% or 10% more or less space per passenger over ship Y.  Space will be dealt with by eliminating activities such as belly flop contests or flag of nation parades.

Knowing that the non passenger related operating costs of an Oasis vs. a Freedom is almost the exact same, that's why it seems to me that a reduced capacity Oasis ship would be the best option- when running at 2/3 capacity, it would be similar in cost v revenue as a Freedom class that's running close to full.  Which is why so many have been ordered by RCI- very efficient profit.

 

The smaller the ship, the higher the non passenger related costs have an impact on less than full ships.

[alfaeric]

57 minutes ago, orville99 said:

Agree on Oasis class, but would add Freedom class and Voyager class to the list. All of the other classes of RCL ship lack the features (i.e. Royal Promenade, expansive outdoor upper decks, etc.) to space passengers out sufficiently.

 

Have not sailed on any Quantum class ships, so unfamiliar with their layout.

If they were allowed that many ships, I would put Freedom over Voyager- since they are almost the exact same ship, but Freedom is longer.  So non passenger costs will be the same between the classes, which means a reduced capacity cruise would have a better balance on the larger Freedom ships.

 

Quantum has a lot of open space, and I think they run very efficiently vs. Freedom- so I would put them just after Oasis in the US.

 

[twangster]

Another factor will be what ship is available in the region.  One ship may have an edge in profitability at 50% capacity but if that ship is currently in the wrong region it changes the math if it requires a costly empty transocean voyage to move the ship. 

 

There are no Quantum class ships in North America right now so they may be 'geographically undesirable' for the purpose of a U.S. initial restart.   

[alfaeric]

As long as they are in the Atlantic region, I don't see having the ships in Europe a big deal.  They have a LOT to do, including quarantining the crew for 14 days before boarding.  And another quarantine once on the ship.  The second one would be good to sail across the Atlantic while they sit in their cabins.

[Hoopster95]

5 hours ago, alfaeric said:

And based on the cost to run a ship, the size, etc, IMHO, the ships that will be sailing first out of the US will be the Oasis class ships.... After that, I would think the Quantum class would work, too- similar reasons in terms of running efficiency.

 

3 hours ago, twangster said:

Another factor will be what ship is available in the region.  One ship may have an edge in profitability at 50% capacity but if that ship is currently in the wrong region it changes the math if it requires a costly empty transocean voyage to move the ship. 

So much intelligence and common sense in this thread... well done gents! 😝

 

Alfaeric, agree with your posts.... issues getting started, spacing, timing, all of it.

Vision and Radiance will be extremely difficult to run until C19 gone (0% chance of this) or mitigated (vaccine? tough call), or the CDC requirements are reduced.

 

Twangster, totally agree with your thoughts on current ship positions.... $250,000,000 bleeding per month lends to the belief RCG will leave ships in their current regions for some time. Anyone even slightly thinking their current booked ship and exact itinerary will be cruising in the next few months is totally in denial to the truths of the situation and conditions at hand.

 

The example I've used in other threads is Serenade... I've seen several posts regarding Alaska sailings and Hawaii/Sydney TP's and I just shake my head. No way in hell RCG sails Serenade through the Panama Canal (no passengers on sailing over 7 days), at a price tag of $400,000 + fuel + staff + etc , just to  provide half occupancy (so about 1200 people) sailings to Alaska.... let alone the 2 week TP's. Also it's been said that Radiance only breaks even at about 50% occupancy, so why even bother sailing her?

 

Ships and itineraries are going to change a lot in the coming months with redployments, ports opening up/closing up, islands allowing cruise ships/not allowing, CDC  changing requirements/not changing, new USA administration/same one, good economy/bad economy, etc etc. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be relied upon at this time for anyone who has a current booking.

[orville99]

6 minutes ago, Hoopster95 said:

 

So much intelligence and common sense in this thread... well done gents! 😝

 

Anyone even slightly thinking their current booked ship and exact itinerary will be cruising in the next few months is totally in denial to the truths of the situation and conditions at hand.

 

Ships and itineraries are going to change a lot in the coming months with redployments, ports opening up/closing up, islands allowing cruise ships/not allowing, CDC  changing requirements/not changing, new USA administration/same one, good economy/bad economy, etc etc. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be relied upon at this time for anyone who has a current booking

Absolutely agree. We have seven cruises booked in 2021: two on Harmony (March and November), and five in between those on Allure. Presuming any of these cruises actually take place, my guess is the ones that do sail will all be on Harmony. In order for Allure to do the summer here, both Harmony and Allure will have to do TA's to swap positions, and I just don't see that happening. A lot less costly for RCL to leave Allure in Europe to do Harmony's summer Med sailings and leave Harmony here to do Allure's summer Caribbean ones.

[yogimax]

7 hours ago, alfaeric said:

In the end, even at half capacity, the ship will be really close to making money, as it would be reasonably profitable at 2/3 capacity give the raw costs of moving a ship and the rest of the costs would be based on the number of passengers (crew support, food, stuff in general).

 

Not sure I agree with this.  Remember there are numerous fixed costs that include insurance, fuel, debt service, etc..  The only way I see profitability at reduced capacity is major price increases to the cruising public to offset the fixed expenses.

[ssb]

So there is observation and initial conclusion , that Alaska with Radiance may  not happen in summer 2021 ? 

[alfaeric]

1 hour ago, yogimax said:

Not sure I agree with this.  Remember there are numerous fixed costs that include insurance, fuel, debt service, etc..  The only way I see profitability at reduced capacity is major price increases to the cruising public to offset the fixed expenses.

I'm not suggesting that they will be profitable, but in terms of raw operating costs- the big one independent of the passengers is fuel- and we've been told more than once by engineers and captains that the Oasis ships use the same fuel as Freedom ships, yet are 50% larger in terms of people.  Which is why I think the operating loss of running a partially full ship will be easier to deal with on an Oasis.  A half full Oasis is pretty darned close to a full Freedom in terms of paying passengers, and the crew size will be matching the passengers as opposed to the full ship of crew.

 

If they are going for profitability- it's going to be a struggle.  Raising costs when demand will be low for some time isn't a great idea.  

[alfaeric]

55 minutes ago, ssb said:

So there is observation and initial conclusion , that Alaska with Radiance may  not happen in summer 2021 ? 

At *this* point, I would say that IF Alaska happens, it will be the Odyssey.  Relative to passenger numbers, lower operating costs, and easier to space passengers apart.

 

But a REALLY huge IF.

[Milwaukee Eight]

1 hour ago, yogimax said:

The only way I see profitability at reduced capacity is major price increases to the cruising public to offset the fixed expenses.

Suite prices for insides? 😇

[Another_Critic]

59 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

At *this* point, I would say that IF Alaska happens, it will be the Odyssey.  Relative to passenger numbers, lower operating costs, and easier to space passengers apart.

 

But a REALLY huge IF.

 

Ovation, not Odyssey.

[ssb]

If cruise lines can initially just cover their variable  costs of the specific sailing and make enough to pay on some on the fixed company overhead costs , they are ahead by sailing. 

Edited November 3, 2020 by ssb

[Domino D]

First month to two months will be about proving that they can operate safely.  Profitability won't be a factor.  If there is immediate demand, you can bet your sweet bippy the fares will be high. 

 

I think there are a lot of factors that will go into choosing which ships start out.  Fuel cost will for sure be one.  I would not be surprised if staff size wasn't another.  It might be easier to start out with a smaller ship with less public spaces, that is more easily kept clean and sanitized.  Finally, there is amenity availability.  If they can't open all the restaurants, bars, and amenities on the larger ships, it will likely lead to more complaints about closures.  It might be easier to operate a smaller ship at normal levels and therefore have less noticeable change in the experience.  But, they are experts at running the ships and have had 8 months to figure it out, so I'm sure they have a plan.

[FionaMG]

3 hours ago, orville99 said:

A lot less costly for RCL to leave Allure in Europe to do Harmony's summer Med sailings and leave Harmony here to do Allure's summer Caribbean ones.

But doesn't Harmony have to be in Europe next summer for her 5-year dry dock? In which case, wouldn't Allure be needed in the Caribbean to replace Harmony there?

[bouhunter]

10 hours ago, alfaeric said:

 

 

 

 

To let spacing happen, I would bet that somewhere in the 1/2 to 2/3 capacity will be used.  For now, as an example, lets call it 2/3, or about 4000 passengers.  That will leave plenty of space for single cabin crew all over the ship, AND keep people apart.  We've sailed many times on an Oasis ship, and have always been fascinated by how you almost never see anyone.  So at 2/3 capacity, the ability to space out would be super easy for passengers.  

 

 

That is assuming there are 4000 people every week who want to risk covid and quarantine and  mask up for a restricted experience.

[orville99]

12 hours ago, FionaMG said:

But doesn't Harmony have to be in Europe next summer for her 5-year dry dock? In which case, wouldn't Allure be needed in the Caribbean to replace Harmony there?

While she is due for her 5-year check-up, I'm not sure whether that would require her to go to Cadiz (or that Cadiz would even be open) in order to get whatever the regs require to be done. She may be able to do what's needed in Freeport, or even Newport News.

 

With all of the Covid disruptions to "normal" operations, she may even be able to petition for a waiver until 2022 since she hasn't sailed since early march.

Edited November 4, 2020 by orville99

[alfaeric]

12 hours ago, bouhunter said:

That is assuming there are 4000 people every week who want to risk covid and quarantine and  mask up for a restricted experience.

True.  But relative to the normal number of people sailing per week out of the US, 4000 is a pretty small number.  And I would bet that there are enough people willing to take a chance.

[Ourusualbeach]

6 minutes ago, orville99 said:

While she is due for her 5-year check-up, I'm not sure whether that would require her to go to Cadiz (or that Cadiz would even be open) in order to get whatever the regs require to be done. She may be able to do what's needed in Freeport, or even Newport News.

 

With all of the Covid disruptions to "normal" operations, she may even be able to petition for a waiver until 2022 since she hasn't sailed since early march.

The Freeport dock has not been replaced/rebuilt since the accident with Oasis.  
 

 

Edited November 4, 2020 by Ourusualbeach

[bouhunter]

59 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

True.  But relative to the normal number of people sailing per week out of the US, 4000 is a pretty small number.  And I would bet that there are enough people willing to take a chance.

But are there enough people interested in a cruise with restrictions on ports, masks, venues, etc etc.  It's not just about "taking a chance".  Time will tell.

[yogimax]

17 hours ago, Milwaukee Eight said:

Suite prices for insides? 😇

But would they have access to the SL?

[smokeybandit]

Profitability is the last thing they're worried about right now. Revenue stream is key, along with rebuilding trust with the casual cruiser that cruises are safe (after they've so unfairly been labeled as covid jails).

 

It's the same thing the airlines have gone through.