Shiprocked Cruise (Magic) collided with the pier in Ocho Rios

[jimbo5544]

Gotta love CC, totally unrelated bashing…. Simply amazing.  Is bashing hijacking a topic? Hmmmmm. Topic ship collides with pier, suddenly line (cruise line not mooring lines ) comparison comes up.  

Edited February 8 by jimbo5544

[TrinaLC]

12 hours ago, mz-s said:

 

Common misconception. The price you pay has nothing to do with the cost to produce the good. Carnival charges what they can get. With older outmoded ships that they don't maintain as well as they could, they can't charge as much as other lines.

Hah, that’s funny!  Good one!

[DallasGuy75219]

2 hours ago, TrinaLC said:

Hah, that’s funny!  Good one!

Apparently someone never took basic economics courses.

[jsglow]

13 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

Gotta love CC, totally unrelated bashing…. Simply amazing.  Is bashing hijacking a topic? Hmmmmm. Topic ship collides with pier, suddenly line (cruise line not mooring lines ) comparison comes up.  

Usual suspects too.

[jimbo5544]

1 hour ago, jsglow said:

Usual suspects too.

How amazing is that……

[Earthworm Jim]

On 2/8/2024 at 3:20 PM, DallasGuy75219 said:

Yes, being the lowest provider isn't always the most profitable decision in a market.  For example in today's travel market people are increasingly looking for a more premium and less no-frills experience. See for example how Spirit and Frontier Airlines are currently performing with their no-frills business models.

 

You're looking at it from a shareholder point of view. I was maintaining from a customer point of view it 's nice to have an option without a price premium built into the cost, as Carnival's competitors have.

[ronrythm]

On 2/8/2024 at 5:05 AM, chengkp75 said:

The damage was caused not by the ship surging back and forth against the dock, according to what I've heard, but because one of the fixed rubber fenders on the dock collapsed, allowing the ship to strike a projecting portion of the dock.

So would the port be responsible for the damage to the vessel, or does the vessel assume risk when docking? Thank you.

[chengkp75]

27 minutes ago, ronrythm said:

So would the port be responsible for the damage to the vessel, or does the vessel assume risk when docking? Thank you.

Well, the ship wasn't docking, it was long docked, but at any rate, the vessel is always responsible for an "allision" (one moving object striking a stationary object) with a fixed facility.  And, it was the ship's lines and winches that were responsible for the ship moving at the dock, and that movement caused the bumper to fail, which then caused the damage to the ship.  So, the ship is not only responsible for the damage to the ship, but the dock as well.

[DallasGuy75219]

12 hours ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

You're looking at it from a shareholder point of view. I was maintaining from a customer point of view it 's nice to have an option without a price premium built into the cost, as Carnival's competitors have.

Corporations aren't charities. They exist primarily to make money for their shareholders.  You can be sure Carnival would charge more of a premium if more than their 3 newest ships were competitive.  They have (relative) value pricing not because they're altruistic but because they're otherwise pretty noncompetitive, because when Royal and NCL were trying to outdo each other with the biggest ships with the most bells and whistles, Carnival sat on the sidelines.

[jimbo5544]

It is always interesting to read others views on topics.  Sometimes they bring facts either not considers to the table or new or different views on the subject matter.  I would agree that Carnival stayed out of the monstrosity of the seas, or the Epic mistake or what ever.  Most cruise lines are public companies and work for their stockholders (equity and hopefully profitable earnings).  Of course, the notable exception is MSC.

 

How and why the Carnival Corp decides to play on the behemoth race (among their many lines) is in fact an interesting decision.  As it has been stated, there are drawbacks to this huge class of ships (port capabilities, no tender capability, the remoteness to the sea, etc).  In the case of Carnival (the corp) they have variables that the smaller, sometimes leaner companies simply do not have.  

 

 https://www.carnivalcorp.com/corporate-information/our-brands

 

Some may think their decision on whether to play or when to enter into the “fray” of the super builds is a detriment, some think it is wisdom.  I look at wonder and icon and shake my head (not so much in wonder but of what cruising has become, one totally over the top ugly behemoth after another), and even cringe a little at Carnival having to finally get into the market.   All that said, their (the corp, and the brand) reluctance to do so, maybe the best thing this mgt team ever did.   

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

It is always interesting to read others views on topics.  Sometimes they bring facts either not considers to the table or new or different views on the subject matter.  I would agree that Carnival stayed out of the monstrosity of the seas, or the Epic mistake or what ever.  Most cruise lines are public companies and work for their stockholders (equity and hopefully profitable earnings).  Of course, the notable exception is MSC.

 

How and why the Carnival Corp decides to play on the behemoth race (among their many lines) is in fact an interesting decision.  As it has been stated, there are drawbacks to this huge class of ships (port capabilities, no tender capability, the remoteness to the sea, etc).  In the case of Carnival (the corp) they have variables that the smaller, sometimes leaner companies simply do not have.  

 

 https://www.carnivalcorp.com/corporate-information/our-brands

 

Some may think their decision on whether to play or when to enter into the “fray” of the super builds is a detriment, some think it is wisdom.  I look at wonder and icon and shake my head (not so much in wonder but of what cruising has become, one totally over the top ugly behemoth after another), and even cringe a little at Carnival having to finally get into the market.   All that said, their (the corp, and the brand) reluctance to do so, maybe the best thing this mgt team ever did.   

I am with you on those monstrosities of the seas and would not cruise on them. We did cruise on the Epic in the Western Mediterranean for our 35th anniversary, and it was the unfriendliest ship we were ever on. Note that NCL is now building Prima class ships, by no means small, but much smaller than their Epic or Breakaway ships.

 

It should be noted that some people love those monstrosities of the seas. I don't think there is a middle ground; you either love them or hate them.

[Butterbean1000]

6 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

It is always interesting to read others views on topics.  Sometimes they bring facts either not considers to the table or new or different views on the subject matter.  I would agree that Carnival stayed out of the monstrosity of the seas, or the Epic mistake or what ever.  Most cruise lines are public companies and work for their stockholders (equity and hopefully profitable earnings).  Of course, the notable exception is MSC.

 

How and why the Carnival Corp decides to play on the behemoth race (among their many lines) is in fact an interesting decision.  As it has been stated, there are drawbacks to this huge class of ships (port capabilities, no tender capability, the remoteness to the sea, etc).  In the case of Carnival (the corp) they have variables that the smaller, sometimes leaner companies simply do not have.  

 

 https://www.carnivalcorp.com/corporate-information/our-brands

 

Some may think their decision on whether to play or when to enter into the “fray” of the super builds is a detriment, some think it is wisdom.  I look at wonder and icon and shake my head (not so much in wonder but of what cruising has become, one totally over the top ugly behemoth after another), and even cringe a little at Carnival having to finally get into the market.   All that said, their (the corp, and the brand) reluctance to do so, maybe the best thing this mgt team ever did.   

 So totally agree.  The industry has turned the focus to the ship being the attraction and not the simplicity of just sailing and visiting foreign ports.  I am sad to see this.  We, of course, have the choice of not sailing on the "monstrosities", but that leaves the older and maybe not as well kept up ships.  I believe there are still enough cruisers out there to cater to those who don't need or want to sail on a floating mall and amusement park.

Edited February 11 by Butterbean1000

[Theosprey247]

As someone once said, “Options are a good thing”.

[jimbo5544]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I am with you on those monstrosities of the seas and would not cruise on them. We did cruise on the Epic in the Western Mediterranean for our 35th anniversary, and it was the unfriendliest ship we were ever on. Note that NCL is now building Prima class ships, by no means small, but much smaller than their Epic or Breakaway ships.

 

It should be noted that some people love those monstrosities of the seas. I don't think there is a middle ground; you either love them or hate them.

There are more than some that like them, which is fine.  Icon is butt ugly.  

[jimbo5544]

2 hours ago, Butterbean1000 said:

 So totally agree.  The industry has turned the focus to the ship being the attraction and not the simplicity of just sailing and visiting foreign ports.  I am sad to see this.  We, of course, have the choice of not sailing on the "monstrosities", but that leaves the older and maybe not as well kept up ships.  I believe there are still enough cruisers out there to cater to those who don't need or want to sail on a floating mall and amusement park.

In my (what some would say) Jaundiced view, being this large take away from what is so important to us in cruising.  That is being in touch with the sea and going to places that emphasize that.

[jimbo5544]

1 hour ago, Theosprey247 said:

As someone once said, “Options are a good thing”.

I do say that a LOT and do mean it.  I am simply voicing my views.  Obviously the popularity of Icon, and the ridiculous prices they are demanding attest to that.  I am not sure I would sail her if the porice was discounted seventy percent….but that is just me.

[ontheweb]

4 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

There are more than some that like them, which is fine.  Icon is butt ugly.  

I really should have said some love them and some hate them. There are a lot in both camps. There does not seem to be a middle ground.

[jimbo5544]

11 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

I really should have said some love them and some hate them. There are a lot in both camps. There does not seem to be a middle ground.

 All true.  One cannot argue with RCCL success in these ships.  At the price they cost though…..I wonder where we are headed in the industry.

Edited February 11 by jimbo5544

[Butterbean1000]

21 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

 All true.  One cannot argue with RCCL success in these ships.  At the price they cost though…..I wonder where we are headed in the industry.

I don't see how the average working family can afford sailing on these mega ships, specifically RCCL.  My son priced out for his family of 4 and it was ridiculous. 

[mz-s]

9 minutes ago, Butterbean1000 said:

I don't see how the average working family can afford sailing on these mega ships, specifically RCCL.  My son priced out for his family of 4 and it was ridiculous. 

 

Cruising in general is quickly pricing the middle class out.

[jimbo5544]

17 minutes ago, Butterbean1000 said:

I don't see how the average working family can afford sailing on these mega ships, specifically RCCL.  My son priced out for his family of 4 and it was ridiculous. 

Totally off the charts.

[sexy1engineer]

that is very bad!!!

at least nobody was hurt!!

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, jimbo5544 said:

 All true.  One cannot argue with RCCL success in these ships.  At the price they cost though…..I wonder where we are headed in the industry.

Our first two cruises were actually with Royal Caribbean. And then they started building their monstrosities, and we were no longer customers. Maybe someday we could consider one of their older ships from NYC especially if it had an ice skating rink as DW is into figure skating.

[Earthworm Jim]

19 hours ago, DallasGuy75219 said:

Corporations aren't charities. They exist primarily to make money for their shareholders.  You can be sure Carnival would charge more of a premium if more than their 3 newest ships were competitive.  They have (relative) value pricing not because they're altruistic but because they're otherwise pretty noncompetitive, because when Royal and NCL were trying to outdo each other with the biggest ships with the most bells and whistles, Carnival sat on the sidelines.

 

 Gee, no kidding. That still doesn't mean it's not in the customer's best interest to not have to pay a premium for bells and whistles which they may not want. 

Edited February 12 by Earthworm Jim

[DallasGuy75219]

On 2/11/2024 at 1:24 PM, Butterbean1000 said:

 So totally agree.  The industry has turned the focus to the ship being the attraction and not the simplicity of just sailing and visiting foreign ports.  I am sad to see this.

You do realize that Carnival started that 50+ years with their Fun Ship philosophy?