Heidi13

The difference in fares is quickly equalised when you add the following to the Princess fare - Port taxes - $2,500 - OBC - $5,750 - Business flights - $12,000 As always, when reviewing cruises their is no "General Rule" determining which cruise may have the lowest total cost, you must consider what is included with each cruise line, and how that compares to your personal needs. In your particular case, assuming you reside in Germany, your flights for a Costa cruise will be significantly less than one starting/ending in North America or Australia. Therefore, when removing the value of business flights, the Costa cruise should be cheaper, unless the onboard spend was huge.

Simple reason is that hotels are not subject to Marine Fire Prevention and Extinguishing Regulations and Structural Fire Protection Regulations. Another key factor is that every piece of equipment onboard must have a Flag/Class approval. UL or equivalent shore-side approval mean nothing once equipment is loaded on a ship.

Wide spread use of microwaves have 2 safety concerns - increased fire risk and the potential for radiation leaks. Microwaves are powered by a magnetron that produces electromagnetic waves. This is similar technology to the energy produced by ship's radars. First thing they teach you when going to sea is to turn the radars off before climbing up to the Monkey Island and mast. To manage the potential radiation risk each microwave would require at least annual testing, which is a huge additional workload on an already busy crew. The increased fire risks may require installation of additional structural fire protection, in each space, as per the regulations. Additional structural fire protection results in increased build cost. The required structural fire protection of each space is based on the calculated fire load of all fixtures, furnishings, floor coverings, etc. Adding a microwave to each cabin adds to the calculated fire load for that space and the potential for increased structural fire protection measures. Hotels do not operate under the rigid marine fire extinguishing and structural fire protection regulations, and associated matrix, hence the reason they are common in hotel rooms.

Lyle - We also experienced it, fortunately with Viking and not a Carnival Brand. I already posted a few relevant points, but can fill you in with more details when we head over to Victoria.

We were sailing on a World Cruise at that time and COVID was most definitely on the radar. Prior to departing Sydney in early February 2020, our itinerary was changed extensively due to ports already not accepting cruise ships and countries with high COVID rates. Therefore, COVID was known about in Sydney a full month before the Ruby Princess sailed. In early March, we were banned from 2 ports, finally getting into Bali after 2 days of negotiations with the local authorities. The same day the Ruby Princess departed Sydney, Viking Cruises made a number of bold decisions to ensure the safety of existing pax and crew. About 400 pax were due to board the ship at the beginning of a segment, many of whom were already in Bali or enroute. Viking decided that no pax were permitted to board the vessel and crew were kept in quarantine for at least 10 days. All pax received more than adequate compensation from Viking. During the Suez Canal transit, when a pilot was mandatory, only 1/2 the Bridge team worked the transit. Once the pilot departed, the Bridge was cleaned and the working members were quarantined, while the other 1/2 of the bridge team stood watches. No other ports after Bali would let us ashore, except pax heading directly to the airport and flying home from Dubai. The next port that accepted pax was Gibraltar. The US may not have been aware of COVID in March 2000, but the rest of the World most certainly was, at least in our experience of sailing from L/A to Gibraltar. The information on COVID was readily available on our Viking ship, so I highly doubt Princess didn't have similar information available, but they continued to sail. Sorry, but they deserve any lawsuits that pax initiate. I have no doubt that the pax lawyers will look at how other cruise lines responded.

The result will vary based on everybody's needs and usage. For some people, the cost difference may favour the lower cost mega ship. However, I note your numbers are based on projections. My numbers were based on factual costs having completed 2 World Cruises on 2 different cruise lines. In addition to cost factors, you also have to consider the quality of the cruise, especially since you are aboard the ship for 4-months. a World Cruise is not a short holiday, similar to 7 to 14 night cruises. A World Cruise is your home away from home. Our Princess ship was more akin to a Greek tramp ship with leaks everywhere, the food quality was well below average and the shows 2nd rate. I spent too many years working on old rust buckets, so am more than happy to pay a premium for higher standards. The Viking cruise was vastly superior to Princess in all aspects, but I was pleasantly surprised when the final costs determined the per diem was virtually the same. Those are real costs, not budget. For similar cabins, Viking was about $65,000 whereas Princess was about $33,000. With respect to bringing wines, beers & spirits aboard - the drinks package only provides wines by the glass. The best wines are only sold by the bottle (extra cost), so when pax want quality wines, Viking are missing out on sales. Same situation with beers, as Viking only had a couple dark beers and IPA's, but certainly not an abundant selection. Personally, I don't drink any American or European yellow beers/lagers, so when I bring beer onboard Viking really don't make savings. Viking's corkage policy is not to save them money, as only World Cruises have complimentary drinks packages, it is because they treat pax like responsible adults and valued customers. I note many cruise lines sell drinks packages, but still ban bringing aboard any beverages or charge excessive corkage fees.

Both Viking WC's were 6 months payment in full. For the 2023 WC, they provided an offer of 5% discount if paid 8 months before the normal PIF date.

Viking includes: - Business flights on longhaul and First flights on domestic flights - Transfers to/from the ports - Visa procurement - Luggage forward at embarkation - Significant OBC (our 23 WC was CAN $ 11,000) - Crew tips included - Complimentary drinks package - Included shore-ex in each port - No charge alternative restaurants - No charge 24/7 cabin service - Complimentary wi-fi - Complimentary self-serve laundry, including the dhobi dust (soap) - Complimentary filtered water still/sparking in the cabin 2x-daily - Complimentary bottles of water to take ashore - as many as you want/can carry - Encouraged to bring beer/wines or any other refreshment onboard. - No corkage or service charges to serve your own wine/beer in the restaurant or bars A couple of years ago I did post a detailed cost comparison showing the differences. Edit - a quality gortex type rain jacket + other gifts that were vastly superior to the rubbish princess provided.

When considering a World Cruise, you need to consider the total cost upon return home, rather than the posted brochure fare. We have completed a 2015 WC with Princess and a 2020 WC with Viking Ocean. We also booked the 23 WC with Viking, but unfortunately had to cancel. The Princess WC base fare was about 50% of the 2020 Viking WC, but by the time we returned home and I added all costs, the per diem costs were almost identical. Viking was a few pennies less, for a vastly superior cruise in all respects. Even the projected costs for the 23 WC were going to be very close on a per diem basis, with Viking being only slightly more expensive than a Princess cruise 8-years earlier.

Arriving at 20:00, I would head up town to peruse some of the pubs - Sticky Wicket, Bard & Banker, Irish Times, Whistle Buoy Brewing, Swans. All a short walk between them. If more adventurous, you can try the Craft Beer Market and Spinakers.

If by staying with Cunard, you are referencing the QM2, that is an excellent choice, as she is the last remaining liner capable of handling rough seas in reasonable comfort. However, the other Cunard ships, while newer than the Azamara fleet are just basic cruise ships. Size of the ship has little bearing on sea keeping ability. The excessive rolling, as you navigated around Ireland, can be caused by shallow water effect, which increases wave height and reduces the period. When navigating in coastal waters, the Master may not have the ability to steer a preferred weather course, whereas in open waters this isn't an issue. While the ship's design/scantlings are key factors, many additional contributing factors are also present. Other than the QM2, the other Cunard ship designs are from HAL, with the new Queen Anne a Pinnacle Class and the other 2 being Vista Class. The interior decor of the Cunard fleet may be more comfortable than Azamara, but expecting the Cunard fleet (except QM2) to handle seas, in similar conditions, better than the Azamara fleet requires additional studies than a single coastal voyage.

Don't know how many they have now, but used to be a number of them throughout UK, with 1 in Scotland.

When building a ship one of the key metrics is cost per lower berth. Cruise line also prioritise capital costs on the pax/hotel side of the business. A recent example being the Princess Cruises "Royal" class. They went cheap with the propulsion & rudders, so are stuck with vessels that handle poorly at low speed in confined waters. You will find studies on this class of vessel by both Alaska & BC Coast pilots and the results are poor. Your average cargo ship doesn't include high lift rudders, thrusters, CP props, etc as they dock way less than cruise ships/ferries, so hiring tugs for docking is cheaper than the additional capital cost. Cruise ships dock more frequently, so it is cheaper overall to provide the vessel with self manoeuvring capability, so tugs are only required in extreme conditions, or per local regs. Many cruise ships also navigate narrow channels, so require excellent low speed steerage, which the Royal Class do not have. Another consideration is not all ports have access to large enough tugs to assist high freeboard cruise ships. Victoria is a classic example, with Ogden Point frequently experiencing high winds. Last departure from the graving dock, I requested 2 x 3,000 HP tugs a few days in advance, as I knew they had to come from Vancouver. The best I got was one 1,000 HP tug. Carnival clearly knows the handling restrictions of a class of ship before delivery, as they conduct tank testing/simulations. With the Royal Class, the cost per lower berth was more important than providing current technology to provide the ship with acceptable handling characteristics. If they don't spend money on current technology providing acceptable handling, no way they are going to spend even more money on emerging technology.

We can agree that the CLIA club mega ships are gradually transitioning into low cost resorts, similar to the Billy Butlin's holiday resorts.

With the exception of @chengkp75 I probably have a better understanding of the multiple levels of regulations facing this industry than most. When the World's ports increasingly ban/restrict both the number and size of cruise ships, and CLIA member cruise ships are restricted from docking, I hardly consider that as muting regulations. All businesses should conduct regular SWOT Analysis - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. As part of the threats analysis, mega ship owners should be concerned by the ever increasing trend of ports restricting the size and number of cruise ships. A quality ship owner will address these threats by developing plans, of which building smaller ships is only 1 of many options. Based on the report, the CLIA club do not appear interested in building smaller tonnage, as they continue with economy of scale. Therefore, I can only assume the mega ship owners are accepting they will be banned from an increasing number of ports, with their ships becoming little more than destination resorts. This may appeal to the younger generations, but I have always cruised for the destinations. Private companies such as Viking, who are building 8 ocean ships in the next 6 years and a number of river cruise ships, must acquire financing for the capital expenses from somewhere. Viking's Chairman is a billionaire, but even he doesn't have $4 to 5 billion sitting in the bank to pay the shipyards. With a little research you can find who is investing and often the rate of return. Might not be audited results, but better than nothing. Another key factor is comparing how the crews are treated, contract lengths, wages, benefits, crew retention rates, etc.

Don't believe I stated that the 2 non-CLIA cruise lines I mentioned were being "More Responsible", as that is highly subjective. I did refer to them as "Quality", which is based on my 40 years in the industry and our son's 20 years in the industry, and counting. Yes, both those Lines focus on smaller ships, which I concur is one of their selling points, but it also addresses the concerns being raised by an increasing number of the World's ports. The push-back on accepting ever increasing sizes of ship has a high probability of growing. With the knowledge of the potential for refusing larger cruise ships, how are CLIA members addressing the issue - they continue to build mega ships for economy of scale. I foresee in the medium term that mega ships have increasing port limitations, and in a 7-day cruise may visit 1 or 2 ports, with the ship being the destination. This industry has evolved significantly since I started in 1975 and it will continue to evolve. In 8 - 10 year, I would not be surprised if the CLIA mega ships are nothing more than destination resorts. Economy of scale keeping prices low for the masses. With respect to batteries and solar not being practical, the marine industry has a number of significant differences to the automotive industry. Hurtigruten current has plans to build a zero emission ship (450' LOA) for 500 pax, with the vessel entering service in 2030. This vessel will integrate automatic sails with extensive solar panels and batteries (60MWh). The batteries will be charged by the solar panels and shore power when docked. The sails will provide propulsion assistance and are covered with about 15,000 sq feet of solar. The ship's design will incorporate aero-dynamics and hull friction is addressed by a couple of initiative, including thrusters retracting into the hull when not docking. The next generation of Viking ships have a small increase in size to accommodate the hydrogen propulsion system, increasing from 930 to 998 pax. They already have a test bed in operation and the first hydrogen powered ship enters service next year. If this option can be scaled to a 50,000 tons ship, I don't see why it couldn't be scaled to 100,000 ton ships. How many CLIA members are implementing this technology - none, that I am aware of. Why aren't Carnival brands & RCI introducing alternative fuels, other than the old LNG dual fuel technology. Since I no longer work in the industry and everyone I knew is now retired, I have no definitive answer. However, Carnival has the worst record of environmental infractions, with RCI being a close second.

Couldn't be further from the truth. The quality ship owners implementing alternative energy for propulsion not most definitely not marketing initiatives. They are addressing real issues that are already being faced by the cruise industry, with the planned 2026 closure of some Norwegian Fjords being the next. Once Norway implements this closure, I don't expect it will be long before other jurisdictions follow suit. As the Chief so aptly posted previously, an increasing number of cities are banning cruise ships, so these non-CLIA members are building smaller ships and embracing technology to address the concerns. Hardly a marketing initiative. Marketing is about selling your product, the quality ship owners are implementing these technologies, not to sell cruises, but to keep their ships sailing in the regions their pax wish to visit. The old technologies mentioned in the CLIA report are cost saving, as I have experienced with the operation of my last command and managing a shipyard. The current technologies being implemented - fuel cells, batteries, solar were not available prior to my retirement, so I have no real data on costs. However, I expect they are not cheaper than LNG/Bunker Fuel, so potentially have higher capital and possibly operating costs. If the cruise industry is so healthy, as per the CLIA report, why is Carnival's stock price plummeting. It has dropped about 25% in less than 1 month. I'll suggest a company's stock price is a vastly superior bellwether, as to a company's financial health, than a glossy marketing report from CLIA.

Chief - another consideration. The CLIA Club would like us to think they are switching to shore power to help the environment, but based on my experience, the primary driver is cost savings. Back in the early 2000's when I ran one of our local shipyards, we brought the largest vessel in for a wet docking. We addressed all infrastructure needs except the provision of power, as the yard didn't have the required voltage or spare capacity. The service couldn't be upgraded in time for the first docking, so I had to cost hiring a Genset (Cat 35xx series) and the generating cost for diesel, compared to local hydro. Can't remember exact numbers, but hydro was single digit per kWh, whereas diesel was almost $0.80 per kWh, or about 10x the cost of hydro power. I expect the cruise ships using shore power in Vancouver are purchasing the power from Metro Port Vancouver at about 10-15% of the cost to run the ship's gensets. CLIA would like pax to believe the primary reason they are finally jumping on the shore power bandwagon is due to their concerns for the environment. Might be a contributing factor, but certainly isn't the predominant factor. At least they were consistent, since they didn't mention the cost savings on both LNG or shore-power.

Most likely nothing more than a marketing initiative. Having cruised with parents, as a child, and now in his 20's he is a potential future long term pax with HAL. HAL is providing a free cruise to hopefully sow the seed.

Here are a few from Sydney that may be of interest · Harry’s Café de Wheels – food truck since 1945 · Fortune of War – Sydney’s Oldest Pub, George St · Squire’s Landing – North End OPT · Tap Rooms – Argyle Street · Munich Brahaus – Argyle Street · Glenmore Hotel – Gloucester Walk · Harts Pub – Gloucester Street · Hero of Waterloo Pub – across motorway from the Rocks, built 1840’s · Steyne Hotel – Manly Beach, has a rooftop garden · Doyles Restaurant/Carryout – Watson Bay

You got the correct company this time. This industry is more than revenue and pax traffic. The CLIA club are so far behind on propulsion technology, they are still building LNG ships. Hurtigruten have a zero emission ship planned to be operational by 2030 and Viking will have 8 hydrogen fuel cell ships operational by 2030. The document also omits any mention of how the CLIA club is planning to address the upcoming closures in some Norwegian fjords. Non CLIA owners are addressing these issues with new ships already on order. As per the report, the CLIA club is working on LNG and shore-power, hardly leading edge technology, as my last ship had shore-power capability since it was built in the 1990's and she was changed to LNG about 12 yrs ago. CLIA would like you to think they are switching to LNG for the environment. Yes, it does burn cleaner, but still requires diesel for combustion, so the real reason for switching to LNG is that it is much cheaper. I won't quote numbers, but my last ship's bunker bill reduced significantly when switched to dual fuel. Any reputable report, especially in this industry, would also include a SWOT Analysis, which was conspicuous by its absence. In addition to propulsion and emissions, they make no mention how they will address the bio-fouling issues in New Zealand. Sorry, but based on my experience in the industry, this document is certainly not a comprehensive report on the overall cruise industry, it is little more than a glossy, sales brochure for members of the CLIA Club. Doesn't address any of the major issues impacting cruise lines in the next 5 - 8 years. Rather than knowing how the average age of pax is changing, I am more interested in how they are addressing their tonnage to meet the ever increasing restrictions.

Sorry, wrong company. Viking Line is a Ro/Pax company (aka 'ferry") based in Finland that operates ferries in the Baltic. Totally different company from Viking Cruises. As you correctly stated Viking Cruises, is a private company that does not publish financial results. BTW - this is a common mistake made by those that haven't worked in the industry and I also note that Viking Lifesaving Equipment is also a different company, as they are based in Denmark. Viking Cruises are a Norwegian Company, with a Head Office in Switzerland. Viking is the largest operator on rivers and by 2030 will have the most operational ocean ships behind only Carnival and Royal Caribbean. When combining river, ocean and expedition fleets, I believe Viking are already the largest number of pax vessel in the World. How can the needle not move, when the World's largest ship owner, by number of ships, is not a member of the CLIA club.

CLIA is mostly the cruise lines serving the North American market. Doesn't include a number of European Lines with Viking, Hurtigruten, Ambassador, Fred Olsen just some that aren't members. Viking as a ocean, river and expedition cruise line are the biggest non-members. The report also only included CLIA member newbuilds, as I believe Viking have more ships on order that all Carnival brands combined. When discussing alternative fuels it mentioned only 15% of newbuilts will have battery storage and/or fuel cell capability. Not a great percentage, since most CLIA members are still introducing LNG, which burns cleaner, but still requires small amounts of diesel for combustion. Viking has 8 ships on order and all have hydrogen fuel cell technology included. Norwegian companies are also investing heavily in SOLAR and hydrogen, so at least this part of the report is not representative of the industry as a whole.

Not all cruise lines are member of CLIA, so the report does not quite cover the entire cruise industry.

Unfortunately, that ship is new to Fred Olsen, being an old Holland America ship they sold during COVID. I doubt it had any single cabins when operated by HAL, which is why you aren't finding any single cabins..