Just wondering no:2 …..

[Vallesan]

I was reading about Oceania changing an itinerary from a ‘sail by’ of Antarctica to a ‘sail by’ of a less desirable Antarctic island. 
 

In 2018 we met a couple on a Seabourn cruise who had been to Antarctica and, at that time, it was almost like going to the moon. Now it seems almost as commonplace as going to the Caribbean.

 

Royal Caribbean’s Icon of the Seas has 5610 passengers, maximum 7600, plus 2350 crew.

 

The Suez Canal/ Red Sea are closed leading to all sorts of congestion in the ports in the Mediterranean. Ports that all ships are now all vying for.

 

Quite a number of ports are now putting a stop to excessive/size  of ships number passengers to conserve their habitat. Venice, Galapagos, and  possibly Norwegian ports.

 

In the UK if you want to ‘build’ or ‘remodel’ a property you need to apply for ‘planning permission’. I’m just wondering if a similar ‘planning permission’ should be applied to the building of new cruise ships?

 

It almost seems as though these ‘huge monsters’ of the seas can expand and grow unregulated. 
 

The future doesn’t look that good to me especially for small islands.

 

P.S . I do recognise the financial benefits for some places but I’m not sure that that will offset the damage done to their environment.

[jazznruby]

Thank you for this thread. My mantra for a very long time, especially with regard to cruising which we love and have been doing since 1995, is... just because you can, doesn't mean you should. We've been around the horn in South America (and yes, walked among the penguins) and loved it. We've been to Australia and New Zealand and loved it. We've sailed Alaska's beautiful Inside Passage. We've been to French Guiana and loved that too. But there'a a way to visit these more fragile areas without the ugly sense of entitlement that sometimes comes with the means to do it. 

 

The massive 'Monster of the Seas' and its ilk are abominations that should be avoided at all cost; but unfortunately will find their unwitting and uncaring audience. While the cruise industry has made inroads into being more friendly to the planet, they have a long way to go if these behemoth vessels are allowed to proliferate, unchecked. In the meantime, I applaud those cruise destinations as mentioned above, that have put a long needed stop to allowing their fragile environments to be further compromised and degraded. Do I feel conflicted sometimes about continuing to cruise, and travel at all, for that matter? You bet I do, but try to always do it without a sense of entitlement, and with careful thought and awareness of the consequences of my decisions and actions.

Edited February 14 by jazznruby

[janecambridge]

In 2010 we cruised Antarctica on Princess. We were told we would be the last large ship to enter as far as we did. 

[pinotlover]

I share the OP’s sentiments, however I recognize the vast number of passengers ( even on O) that could care less about the ports or where the ship goes. They cruise for the ship. The giant water slides, the climbing walls, the multiple pools, the entertainment, great bars, and 15 + restaurants to choose from. Just like Oceania passengers, they only rarely get off the ship, and it’s not to take an afternoon nap.
 

Some people go to NYC, London, or Paris on vacation; while others go to the country. Even though I most often go to more remote locations for holiday, we still take eating trips to NYC, Charleston, New Orleans, and Vegas with plenty of crowds. Trust me, Vegas is no less exorbitant than any mega cruise ship, and you never worry about cut port time.

[Harters]

1 hour ago, Vallesan said:

I’m just wondering if a similar ‘planning permission’ should be applied to the building of new cruise ships?

All but impossible to discuss this properly without entering into the political arena which, I presume, is against forum rules (as it is with most forums). Inevitably that hinges on how much you approve of the intervention of governments into commercial enterprise.

 

But, to steer clear of the politics, the "planning permission" arrangements that we have here are restricted to a decision by a local council (with a right of appeal to a government planning inspector). But decisions to build ships or not, cross international borders as under which national jurisdiction a cruise line operates, or ship is constructed. The practicalities of getting worldwide agreement makes your suggestion impractical. 

 

If people across the world want to see restrictions on ship construction, then they would bring that about by voting with their feet and going on different types of holidays, so demand is reduced. It may well come. 

[Harters]

3 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

that could care less about the ports or where the ship goes. They cruise for the ship.

I am one such. And, if there are a lot like me, then it could be relatively easy to reduce demand for cruising by making other holiday destinations more appealing. As I mentioned on another thread, we are looking at an upmarket resort hotel in Cyprus for an autumn break. Pretty much, it will replicate the hotel/entertainment/restaurant side of a cruise. And would be about half the cost of a cruise with O. It has appeal, for sure. Now, I don't have sufficient knowledge to know how "green" it is for me to take a four hour flight to Cyprus and fly back a week later, than it is for me to do a week's cruise (which probably also includes some flying). But it's certainly something to consider. 

[Snaefell3]

1 hour ago, Vallesan said:

I’m just wondering if a similar ‘planning permission’ should be applied to the building of new cruise ships?

Nope, nope, NOPE!

-- and that's before you get to the issue of "regulated by whom?"

 

(For why, start with King Canute and the tide, then continue with Prohibition)

[Tranquility Base]

5 hours ago, Vallesan said:

It almost seems as though these ‘huge monsters’ of the seas can expand and grow unregulated. 

I think the 'regulation' will come from a local level as we are already seeing in an increasing number of countries and ports.

Either banning ships of a certain size or simply not spending the dollars to upgrade facilities to accomodate them.

 

Leave the Mega ships to their ports; and I'll simply find a cruise on a small ship to their more "boutique" ports. 

Yes, it becomes somewhat of a problem when we share ports (IE: Alaska), but a destination such as that makes up for the inconvenience in other ways. 

[clo]

4 hours ago, jazznruby said:

Thank you for this thread. My mantra for a very long time, especially with regard to cruising which we love and have been doing since 1995, is... just because you can, doesn't mean you should. We've been around the horn in South America (and yes, walked among the penguins) and loved it. We've been to Australia and New Zealand and loved it. We've sailed Alaska's beautiful Inside Passage. We've been to French Guiana and loved that too. But there'a a way to visit these more fragile areas without the ugly sense of entitlement that sometimes comes with the means to do it. 

 

The massive 'Monster of the Seas' and its ilk are abominations that should be avoided at all cost; but unfortunately will find their unwitting and uncaring audience. While the cruise industry has made inroads into being more friendly to the planet, they have a long way to go if these behemoth vessels are allowed to proliferate, unchecked. In the meantime, I applaud those cruise destinations as mentioned above, that have put a long needed stop to allowing their fragile environments to be further compromised and degraded. Do I feel conflicted sometimes about continuing to cruise, and travel at all, for that matter? You bet I do, but try to always do it without a sense of entitlement, and with careful thought and awareness of the consequences of my decisions and actions.

Thank you for the best Cruise Critic post I've ever read. Protecting our planet has large and small actions. We can make a difference. And "awareness of the consequences" is huge. Thanks again.

[clo]

4 hours ago, pinotlover said:

Trust me, Vegas is no less exorbitant than any mega cruise ship, and you never worry about cut port time.

And the food is so, so good!

[Vallesan]

This thread was just ‘idle speculation’. I know it’s not possible to ‘regulate’ the industry and yes, as has been said it will be down to individual ports/countries to ‘regulate’ as they see fit.

Thank you so much for your thoughts. All very interesting

[all2me]

Lots of well written responses here! Without getting too firery!

I guess a line is somewhat drawn….who cruise for the ship….who cruise for the itinerary. We select according to “where” the ship takes us. We actually get off at ports and take excursions! I do realize some people “unable” to do this. And we then choose our next cruise to see brand new places to experience. 
I assume as long as people book these giant floating resorts they will keep sailing. What I think will happen….less and less ports will allow large ships dockage…and they will be mostly “at sea.” And we will (hopefully) enjoy our cruise travels. 

[curmudgeon98]

I suspect the larger ships are actually "greener" on a per passenger basis than smaller ships (especially R-class, but even newer small ships).  There's just more efficiency in propulsion, crew, and hotel systems.  I agree that the sheer size, especially draft, could have a greater negative impact in certain cases, but many of the popular ports are already dealing with multiple ships in port at once, so the port impact is often more a matter of total passengers rather than ship size.

 

If you talk to folks on many of the small islands, you tend to hear stories of regret as to how the island has been paved over with resort hotels, even aside from the cruise ship impact.  But there's also appreciation for jobs, medical care, and transport links that wouldn't be possible without tourists.

 

I avoid the big ships myself, but I try not to look down on those who choose them.  In my own prejudices, small ships and land-based tourists are more at fault for pushing tourism into places like Antarctica and Mt Everest where it doesn't belong.  We can always find somebody to pick on.   

[cruisemom42]

On 2/14/2024 at 1:12 PM, pinotlover said:

Trust me, Vegas is no less exorbitant than any mega cruise ship, and you never worry about cut port time.

 

Only problem is that I hate Vegas. 🤣

[clo]

1 hour ago, all2me said:

less ports will allow large ships dockage…

This.

[pinotlover]

26 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Only problem is that I hate Vegas. 🤣

Yep, Vegas isn’t a place for wanting to go to bed by nine, not interested in great production shows, or interested in possible iffy food. 

[Harters]

On 2/14/2024 at 6:22 PM, Harters said:

we are looking at an upmarket resort hotel in Cyprus for an autumn break.

Well, we've decided to book this. All the reviews are good. Good location Nice room, with its own private terrace and sea view.. All food (main restaurant and specialities) & booze included Nightly shows. Flights included. And all for less than half the price of the similar length O cruise we had been looking at (which, as it was a UK round trip had no flights involved). If it's as good as we hope , then it's very possible our cruising days will be over. 

[EJL2023]

3 hours ago, Harters said:

Well, we've decided to book this. All the reviews are good. Good location Nice room, with its own private terrace and sea view.. All food (main restaurant and specialities) & booze included Nightly shows. Flights included. And all for less than half the price of the similar length O cruise we had been looking at (which, as it was a UK round trip had no flights involved). If it's as good as we hope , then it's very possible our cruising days will be over. 

We’ve found a resort we thoroughly enjoy in Puerto Vallarta, MX which is all inclusive. While their food is excellent, it still is not on the same level as Oceania but yet the overall experience is wonderful and we are looking to book our third visit. It is pricey but still below an Oceania cruise but that is quite understandable as you are not being transported to somewhere new every day, but it certainly is a much more relaxed experience which is why we have returned. Not to the point of stopping to cruise yet though. I think we have a few more good years for both. 

[Harters]

3 minutes ago, EJL2023 said:

It is pricey but still below an Oceania cruise but that is quite understandable as you are not being transported to somewhere new every day

The resort has come in at a total of about £5000, whereas the cruise was about £10,000. With that sort of difference, I'll need a lot of convincing that being transported round the Bay of Biscay is worth the other five grand. We'll see how it goes. 

[MSEm]

On many of these Maga sized ships the major objective is to make money on on-board sales; the pictures, all the drinks, the entertainment (Ziplines, Skating, etc) and food (restaurants, ice cream, room service). The fewer ports of call, the more time "guest" are on board to spend money. It works for many families and multi-generation groups.

We prefer the smaller ships, with few sea days and more inclusive pricing.

[EJL2023]

25 minutes ago, Harters said:

The resort has come in at a total of about £5000, whereas the cruise was about £10,000. With that sort of difference, I'll need a lot of convincing that being transported round the Bay of Biscay is worth the other five grand. We'll see how it goes. 

Well, not all cruises are around the Bay of Biscay.

[Vallesan]

4 hours ago, Harters said:

Well, we've decided to book this. All the reviews are good. Good location Nice room, with its own private terrace and sea view.. All food (main restaurant and specialities) & booze included Nightly shows. Flights included. And all for less than half the price of the similar length O cruise we had been looking at (which, as it was a UK round trip had no flights involved). If it's as good as we hope , then it's very possible our cruising days will be over. 

It will be really interesting to see the comparison.
However, you can’t really compare. We love cruising but also enjoy land based holidays. One doesn’t necessarily have to preclude the other. Both have their good points especially with a saving of £5000! 
Whatever you choose the most important thing is to ENJOY!

[Harters]

56 minutes ago, EJL2023 said:

Well, not all cruises are around the Bay of Biscay.

True - but this would be our third attempt to do this particular cruise. Covid interrupted one (we caught it the week we were due to board, so couldnt get the negative test required at the time). Then we couldnt go ahead with the second attempt as medical issues prevented us from getting travel insurance.  Maybe third time lucky. Or not. 

[EJL2023]

4 hours ago, Harters said:

True - but this would be our third attempt to do this particular cruise. Covid interrupted one (we caught it the week we were due to board, so couldnt get the negative test required at the time). Then we couldnt go ahead with the second attempt as medical issues prevented us from getting travel insurance.  Maybe third time lucky. Or not. 

Certainly understand, my point was you indicated if this resort worked out, your cruising days may be over, not just this particular cruise. 

[Harters]

1 hour ago, EJL2023 said:

my point was......

Ah, right. 🙂