RDC1

14 minutes ago, Banditdog said:

Does anyone know if San Francisco Port is replacing the Grand Princess Ship?  Moving her?  Her replacement?

Princess is replacing the Grand in San Francisco with the Star Princess.

I believe Princess is transferring the Grand to P&O sometime in the next year or so.

8 hours ago, OlsSalt said:

 

Seabourn is part of the CCL corporate family. Might have used the same abysmal tech team to do both websites.  Got a group discount? That means there is a problem at the top of CCL and not just HAL.

Princess, Seabourn and HAL are in the same subgroup of CCL called the Holland America Group.

On 1/9/2019 at 8:33 AM, Mochidelight said:

I am for sure no longer cruising with HAL. What do you guys recommend a better replacement for HAL AND preferably one that has an easier and more intuitive website to book things? I was eyeing Princess Cruises, but wanted to get feedback from this community. Thank you in advance!!

For me the biggest weakness in the HAL site is in the ability to find and select a specific room (almost like they want everyone to just take guarantee).  Princess's site is much better doing that function.  Other than that I have not had any problem with the HAL site.

59 minutes ago, jeff92k7 said:

 

I completely get that.  To expand on my comments and put some numbers on them, I did some googling.  Carnival seems pretty tight lipped on the cost of their refits, but here's what I can find.  The expected renovation cost to turn the Triumph into the Sunrise is reported to be ~$200 million.  That will be a complete refurbishment of the entire ship, adding decks, cabins, and remodelling all other areas.  Likely, there will be mechanical upgrades as well.  For all intents and purposes, they are building a new ship inside an existing hull.  However, that ship is much larger than the 2000 and smaller capacity that this discussion is about.
 
The elation and paradise (~2000 double occupancy) recently received major refits (undisclosed cost) where they remodeled all the passenger cabins and most of the common areas.  They also added another deck with more cabins (now 2200 double occupancy).  Untouched were the aft lounge, casino, theater, lobby, and nightclubs; though I believe many of those did get new carpet and upholstery.  Still, not near the extent of the aforementioned Triumph/Sunrise.  An uneducated guess is that it probably cost them $40-50 million.  (Side note: When the major refits were announced for the Elation, there were rumors that Carnival was doing that to prep it to be moved to Princess.  That hasn't happened (yet), but then again, Carnival doesn't announce plans like that ahead of time either.)
 
So, continuing the discussion, to move to HAL, they would have to remodel all those same areas as well as the untouched common areas to give it a "HAL" feel.  So I would guess that it would cost ~$100 million to refit a ship of that approximate size into a HAL ship (or other brand).   Going back to my original comment, the spirit class of ships would be good options for this. They aren't much bigger than the Fantasy class, so the cost to renovate should be roughly similar.  Their passenger capacity is ~2100 at double occupancy which is just over the 2000 mark, but still more likely than any new build at that size.  
 
So Carnival Corp would be looking at a cost of ~100 million to refit an older ship, versus $500 million plus to build a new ship around 2000 passenger capacity.   I don't see them building new ships at that size, and it seems that pretty much everyone on this thread agrees with that, but I would still argue that they may refit older ships and rebrand them to maintain that relatively smaller and less crowded feeling.
 
All said, I think we are both saying the same thing... the cost to benefit just isn't there for new ships at HAL.  Refits may be the best option if HAL is to remain as a slightly upscale/premium mass market brand.  The only other options are to get rid of HAL, or add giant 5000+ capacity ships.  Honestly, I don't see the latter happening.  I think that size ship would turn away many HAL customers who specifically avoid the giant amusement park of the seas type of ships.

Pretty agree with what you are saying. There is no sign that HAL is interested in refitting any old ships, old being near or over 30)  Previous patterns of acquisition would indicate the opposite.  There have been some movements of ships from one CCL line to another.  But they tend to be from Princess to P&O.  The sale of smaller ships tends to be to European lines. 

5 minutes ago, kazu said:

 

Just to add an interesting fact to the discussion - The Prinsendam, the smallest ship in the fleet is still the most profitable PER passenger in the fleet.  that includes on board spending not just cruise cost (although cruise cost is pricier).

 

Yet, that ship is going.  Go figure!

It clearly charges the highest fares. On the cruises I have checked it has been anywhere from 25% to 50% higher on a per day per passenger basis.   It was a ship that HAL obtained relatively cheaply, unlike a new build.  So if the operational costs are less than 25% higher per passenger per day it might just be.  Where are you getting the expense data?

It is still going away this year.  So would not expect HAL to hang on to the R class for more than 30.

20 minutes ago, OlsSalt said:

What I keep coming back to is ..... "if money is to be made, people would be doing it" ... then how the heck is HAL not fixing its own website.

 

 How much money is HAL, the small to mid-size cruise line,  losing right now due to failed bookings lost on their nightmare website. Hate to see this recent self-inflicted marketing failure make it appear there is no market for a small to midsize, mid price cruise line.  

 

Yes, diving deeply into pure speculation here. Nor will we learn anything when the next CCL annual report comes out, but there are often gems that reveal part of the story in the obscure footnotes buried under the required and exhausting technical verbiage. I eagerly await its issue. 

HAL has far far more information than any of us here will ever have.  No one says that there is not a market.  What people are saying is that there is not a profitable market for new ships at HAL's price point.

1 minute ago, jeff92k7 said:

 

I can't speak to the extra inspections and related costs, but that does make sense.  I don't know what that would be, but I would be curious to see how much more expensive that is and if those increased inspections go by the original date of the hull, or the date of some other equipment (last major refit, for example).
 
My comments about using older ships is that even though they may be less profitable per sailing than newer ships, there isn't the giant price tag of actually building a new ship that they have to subsidize over those sailings.  That would offset the reduced revenue per passenger, assuming the same ticket fares.   The older ships are all paid off and there is a big difference in a $20 million dollar refit, versus a $500 million dollar new build.   You can get a lot of sailings out of that older ship before the cost of that extra $480 million price tag would be paid off.   
 
I'm sure Carnival Corp has many a bean counter looking at all that stuff.  If those older ships weren't still profitable in some fashion, then the Fantasy class would have been retired already.  They are all over 20 years old and the oldest will hit 30 in two years.  Yet Carnival continues to refit them and just did major renovations/upgrades on two of them (the two newest that have azipod propulsion, which may have had some bearing on why those two got such big overhauls).  It seems Carnival has plans to keep at least some of them around for a while longer.  We know the Fantasy will hit 30 years old in service since they have already announced that sailings on her will continue into 2021.
 
Now, for sake of discussion, if they were to transfer one of their older Carnival ships to HAL, the cost per passenger would increase a bit since HAL does have higher fares than Carnival.  That additional per passenger revenue could, again, offset some of the costs of maintaining an older ship.  
 
I'm not saying that this is going to happen... just bringing it up as an option that no one had yet mentioned in this thread.

First for a transfer to HAL to take place they would need to be refit into the look and feel of a HAL ship, which is significantly different than a Carnival ship so there would be substantial remodeling costs. Second there would have to be a perceived need, which I doubt HAL will have. Third the Fantasy class ships are in the 2000 passenger range, considerably larger then the R class ships being discussed. About the same size as the Eurodam built in 2008 which many of the traditional HAL cruisers consider to be far too large.

37 minutes ago, jeff92k7 said:

So I just came across this thread.  My wife and I are Carnival cruisers but are seriously looking at moving "up" to HAL in the next couple of years as our kids grow and we no longer need the family activities and atmosphere that Carnival provides.  Everything I see about HAL basically works exactly like Carnival (which we like) but is a step or two up in quality.  We're not rich so we will never go on the ultra luxury lines, but something like HAL sounds perfect for us.
 
After reading this thread and all the talk of new ships, I had a couple of comments.  Most of the talk is about new ship builds which are too expensive (and I totally get that).  However, no one has said much about refitting older ships and I haven't seen anyone mention the possibility of bringing over ships from Carnival's other brands.  For example, the Spirit class of ships that Carnival uses are ~88,000 tons and ~2100 passengers.  Those are also mostly balcony cabins and seem right in line with what we see on HAL.  Those ships would be a great option for Carnival to refurbish and transfer to HAL.  
 
Carnival already has experience refitting ships.  They have recently done major refits on the Elation and Paradise (Fantasy class ships) as well as the Destiny (now Sunshine), and they have plans to do two more Destiny class ships (the Triumph and Victory).  Those Destiny class refits are so extensive that Carnival has totally renamed the ships and is calling them Sunshine class ships now.
 
Refits are far more cost effective than new builds and can allow Carnival corp and it's many brands to keep ships in service much, much longer which continues to make money for the company and keep fares lower.
 
As to the comments about no cruise line keeping ships older than 30 years...  I just don't see that as being an issue at this point.   When we were on the Fantasy last year, we did the behind the scenes tour and one of the things we learned was that the Fantasy (1991) was the first cruise ship with diesel electric propulsion instead of direct drive propulsion.  This means that the props are turned with electric motors that get their power from multiple generators as opposed to a large engine directly turning them.  In practice, this is a lot more reliable and can, and likely will, keep ships in service much longer.  It is far easier and more cost effective to replace one of 7 generators than it is to replace an entire direct drive engine. 
 
Previous classes of ships would see dramatic increases in maintenance costs as they age which led to earlier retirements on those ships versus the newer ships.  As such, it is entirely feasible that Carnival may continue to refit ships and could keep them in service for 30 or 40 years (or more) provided the hulls remain in good condition.  Everything else inside could be gutted and replaced, keeping the ships like new.
 
This is even more possible when you think that Carnival is building these new 5000-6000 passenger monstrosities (Mardi Gras).  Eventually, they will have to do something with the smaller ships as the big ones take over sailings.  They can't keep adding more home ports indefinitely.  Since building smaller ships is not cost effective, the idea of refitting and moving the ships to other lines (like HAL) enables them to continue to make money and keep the tiered brand structure in place servicing all types of customers in the cruise market.

Somewhere on cruise critic there is a posting by Chengkp75, an experienced large ship marine engineering officer, who has spent time working for cruise lines (specifically NCL if I recall right) where he discussed the drivers for increased costs past 30.  It includes more frequent inspections, with more in depth inspections having to be conducted.  I looked for and could not find that posting. Was hoping he would enter this discussion and give us the benefit of his experience concerning the age issue.

As far as Carnival continuing to use old ships why would they if they are less profitable then new ships?  Business's, atleast good ones, try to increase margin, not decrease it. They do, do things with older ships.  They sell them to someone like Fred Olson or some other European or Asian companies that will use such ships. If there is no market then they are scrapped.

Carnival with their lower price point have kept some ships past 30 years in the past for example the holiday was 34 when they got rid of it.  They do have new ships being added faster then their current fleet is aging so I expect the current Fantasy class ships to be retired as the new ships come online due to where they deploy their capacity.

4 minutes ago, AL3XCruise said:

First of all this is a great discussion... it seems like talks about business strategy elsewhere on this board often fall apart fairly quickly due to personal attachment to certain lines.  Here everyone is sharing thoughts and insights in a friendly way.

 

 

I looked at that site but was hesitant to post it as I wasn't sure how they sourced there info.  I'm not saying its wrong, I just generally don't like to repost data that I haven't been able to verify from multiple sources or from a primary source, like a annual report.  I'm guessing the information is mostly accurate, but there are some inconsistencies in the presentation.  For example Allure OTS (where it notes maximum passenger capacity) and Oasis OTS (where it notes double occupancy).  That makes Allure's cost per berth far less.  Still, the cost for ship seems to line up anytime I've cross referenced with another source.

 

I know the focus here is HAL, but it is interesting to note that the Oasis class ships generally cost more per berth than smaller RCI vessels.  I don't know if that is due to the amenities, some technical issues on a ship that large, or something else entirely.  As pointed out by others, luxury ships also tend to be more expensive per berth, and not many small non-luxury ships have been built recently.  In short, while my hunch would be bigger is cheaper per berth all else being equal, its tough to draw broad conclusions about construction costs without more data.  

 

Operations are different.  I think it is fairly well understood that while hotel staff increases more or less proportionally to passenger count (assuming the same level of service), the rest of the crew only increases slightly as the ship grows.

 

 

I understand you say the math is fuzzy.  Based on https://cruisemarketwatch.com/financial-breakdown-of-typical-cruiser/, which averages data from several lines annual reports, your revenue number is pretty close.  If you assume that all depreciation and interests expenses are related to ship acquisition (they aren't, but we are being fuzzy), the average is about $455 per week left over for ship acquisition (and profit).  Target returns vary by industry, but if we assume 10% as a typical minimum, you are left with a loss of more than $50,000 over 30 years (assuming operating costs and ticket prices both follow the same inflation curve).

 

Obviously, a small ship may be able to charge slightly more.  However, it can also be argued that a small ship will see less revenue from onboard spending due to fewer offerings.  Furthermore, a small ship will likely cost more per passenger to operate than the industry average.  I don't have the time or resources to dig into that kind of nitty gritty, but I'm guessing Carnival Corp does it all the time.

 

I will agree that as the different brands jockey for market segments on the "big watery chess board" it creates some confusion about what they actually are.  I don't have experience with either line HAL or Princess, but as someone who has been looking at them as a possible change from my normal lines they seem to be getting more similar.  I almost wonder if in the long term Carnival sees Princess as following Celebrity's apparent move towards an affluent younger crowd that wants an upscale yet fun alternative to CCL.   HAL then moves into Princess territory to pick up the slack while improving operating margins.  Sadly that likely means certain HAL aspects will be lost.

 

 

 

I have not checked everything on that table, but I did go through and check the HAL ships we were talking about and the data did match other publicly available information.  Exact or not who knows, but it appears to be the best I can find.  

There are some inconsistencies in passengers, but the cost totals per passenger that I checked seemed to be based upon max capacity, not two berth capacity. I have not gone through any of the Royal numbers because the topic is primarily HAL and to some degree the CCL parent company.

In addition to crew costs, don't forget that larger ships are more cost effective when it comes to fuel costs per passenger as well.  Probably much more so than crew cost per passenger differences.  You also have the fact that docking fees are generally not per passenger, so while their might be some differences on ship tonnage, most docking costs seem to be fixed so the more passengers the lower the fee costs added on to the fares.

Mass market companies are pretty similar with 25-30% of revenue coming from on board sales. The primary reason that they don't like solo cruisers.  Even at a 100% markup for solo cabins they still lose money (more than their profit margin) compared to at least 2 per cabin.

What I come back to in the end is if there was money to be made, people would be doing it.  Businesses are very good at finding and taking advantage of opportunities.  The fact that no one is building ships in the R class size space for any mass market line, nor is there any new startup building or for that matter even buying older ships for use in the mass market price area, makes it pretty clear to me that there is no money to be made there with those ships at that price point. To make money at these sizes, you need to charge premium cruise line fares.

11 hours ago, OlsSalt said:

How much does it cost to build a non-luxury smaller ship compared to the luxury ship price per passenger quoted above?  So much speculation still going on this topic.   Let's do make that an R class type ship - new build.

 

Even if HAL does not choose to build any more R class ships, I just would like to know the non-luxury ship building costs differentials for that size - if the prices quoted here keep insisting they will need to be luxury ship builds.

 

How  much of the original R class design and engineering would need to be scrapped in order to still produce a viable smaller ship in today's market - cost savings upfront there if it does not need significant re-engineering of this classic ship suitable for the 1200 passenger model.   How about bulk order pricing?

 

Only real change I would make in a new R class is superficial only - put the casino and smokers in the interior Pinnacle dining area and the Pinnacle up where the casino is located. Hate that dead end that blocks the flow of the aft stair case top to bottom, but that would be the only tweak I would make.

 

If HAL saturates the large ship market, or  more likely fails to offer a competitive advantage to retain a larger ship market share, how profitable will new large HAL ship builds in the first place.  

 

Sounds like there is a lot of febrile market chasing going on at HAL, and an organization management that is singularly ill-equipped to make any predictions about the future of cruising in the first place. 

 

1. the last R class ship cost 400 million in 2000.

2. there have not been any ships built in that price range or smaller since, except by premium lines, with one exception Aida built the Aura in 2003 for 350 million (207,000 per passenger)

3. HAL builds ships in the 175,000 per passenger berth range or lower and the last R class cost them significantly more then that.

4. cruise lines are limited in the number of ships that they are building due to limited shipyard space building them, so even if someone wanted to build smaller ships they would have a problem getting yard space, thus the fact that the smaller ships being built are higher than one might expect for ships of their size.

The best source of cruise ship costs out there, showing the cost of most ships, including date built, or acquired, cost and cost per passenger berth is https://www.cruisemapper.com/wiki/759-how-much-does-a-cruise-ship-cost

35 minutes ago, OlsSalt said:

How much does it cost to build and furnish an intentional "luxury" ship per passenger, as compared to a less luxurious outfitted and build?  How valid is the $380,000 per passenger cost when it is an Oceania ship vs a HAL comparable size ship.

 

The recently posted PBS video on building the luxury small ship (Regent? Oceania?) demanded that ship reach a "comfort" class status which was the very top of the game. This required the most precision designed and executed propellers ever to date constructed to reduce vibration and cavitation that qualified them to reach this special "comfort" class claim. Along with luxury fittings everywhere they could be installed. 

 

We value-cruisers do put up with a less sanitized onboard setting, and are willing to hear and feel and even smell  the ships we are on. 

As I stated earlier the Amsterdam in 2000 cost 400 million, $241,000 per passenger at full capacity.   So at best increase that for inflation to get a similar HAL ship.  That is significantly more than the 175000 per passenger that HAL seems to be fairly consistent on HAL builds.  HAL also built the Nieuw Amsterdam, a considerably larger ship in 2010 for 450 million  and 175,000 per passenger at full capacity.

So lets just say that you could build a ship the size of Amsterdam for the same price as 19 years ago, not likely, but lets use that assumption.

Then to maintain the same profitability on that ship as the Nieuw Amsterdam your fare would have to be 38% higher just to account for the increased capital expenditure per passenger. Then if you look at crew to passenger ratio  Am  647/1380=.47 compared to NAm 929/2106=.44 (if you assume similar average crew costs, which again is not likely due to having similar numbers of technical staff, so most of the increase is lower paid hotel workers, but to keep it simple lets assume the same ratio) that means that the crew costs would be 7% higher per passenger.  So that makes the difference in fare to be at least 45% for a similar profit margin.  By the time you add in fuel efficiency and other items of scale  you get a fare structure where you would need to charge over 50% higher for an AM class ship compared to a NAm class ship to have similar profitability.  And that is IF you could build that size ship at that cost today considering that the Nieuw Amsterdam was built 10 years later.

How many would pay over 50% more for similar cabins between those two ships? For that matter would you?  The numbers are probably actually worse.

41 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

A very concrete example of what I mentioned (a couple of pages ago!) regarding the economies of scale when building new ships.  

 

You have similar economies of scale when it comes to ship operations as well.

If you look at the HAL ships that they have purchased the purchase cost per passenger has been less than $175,000 per passenger with the exception of Amsterdam in 2000 at $241,000 (which was the last of its class) and Konigsdam at $208,000 per passenger. So Hal could build the much larger Nieuw Amsterdam in 2010 for the $175,000 per passenger for $450 million, not much more and substantially less per passenger than the Amsterdam 10 years earlier that cost them $400 million.

For comparison Oceania's Riveria is 2012 cost them $380,000 per passenger berth over twice what HAL pays per berth on its builds.

2 hours ago, OlsSalt said:

 

HAL is already well into Olsen territory, but it is now abandoning it.  Unlikely they will move back into it. However, Olsen expanding into the NA market with their excellent offerings and who knows, maybe some the older HAL grand dames soon to get phased out, would be a very welcome niche.

 

If Olsen is still sailing a Prinsendam sister ship (Boudicca), they do have more faith in its original stock than the new bigger is better HAL is considering.   HAL is too much of a mish mash today - so it does need to decide - bigger or smaller. ( Verdict is in)   Why new and bigger HAL does not get collapsed into the Princess brand remains a mystery to me.  What part of the bigger ship market do they intend to carve out for themselves?

 

 We fell in love when HAL was almost all smaller, and watched it start  dosing on steroids with the intro of the still relatively petite Euro and NA, by today's mega ship standards. Each new HAL addition diminishes our own interest in the HAL brand - there is no future for us or cruising on HAL's larger ships.  

 

But Olsen now does get a nod to see how it actually delivers, what it presents in its marketing - how clunky are its older ships - and how high up in cabin category does one need to go to get something equivalent to the normal HAL experience. Voyages of Discovery tried using an older German built ship and it was ultimately a very poor substitute  for its unique programs. it will also be interesting to see how well the Prinsendam does as the new German Phoenix brand.

 

The whole industry is like one big watery chess board.  Or maybe that is a Ouija board. 

But HAL is not really in Olson's territory because they do not sail old ships.  They build or buy ships much earlier in their lifetime.  Looking at the most recent data on new smaller ship build  in 2012 Oceania paid 380 million for the Riveria and in 2018 Seabourn paid $585 million for the 650 passenger Ovation. So Oceania 1 ship build 7 years ago cost 6 times what the value of Olsons entire fleet.

There are NO new small ships getting built below the premium brand level, because the economics do not make sense in the mass market fare range. You can have some attempts to sail small ships at lower prices such as Fred Olson, but they will at best be very small niche markets.  Others have tried and usually have failed. If it wasn't for CCL who purchase HAL and under whose ownership all of the current HAL ships were purchased or obtained, HAL would most likely not have survived either. 

1 hour ago, OlsSalt said:

 

Makes one wonder how Fred Olsen still milks profits out of venerable Northern European-built ships even older than that - apparently they found the smaller, older ship sweet spot. 

What they found was that they can make a profit in the primarily UK market, by not having to outlay substantial amounts of capital to buy new ships. The article you quoted indicates that their complete valuation of all four of their ships is 48,691,000 pounds or about 64 million dollars.  

1 hour ago, kazu said:

 

Prinsendam hit the 30 mark last year.  She is still with the fleet (leased) until July.

 

Then, sadly she is gone.  Along with her leaving will be some regulars I suspect.  I met a lot of people who were 4 or 5* + Mariners and that was the only HAL ship they would sail.  They sailed for itinerary and experience of good service 😉 

 

And yes it is tougher to maintain these ships - her windows and other things had to be specially ordered.

But she was sold last year and leased back to finish up some cruises and will be gone this year.

1 hour ago, OlsSalt said:

'

Maybe it is time for CCL and HAL to reassess that arbitrary model. Seems to be working for Fred Olsen.  Spin off the new big HAL ships to Princess and  concentrate development of the HAL brand for what it does best - smaller, traditional ships with great itineraries and a choice of  US departures.  

 

Best way to get HAL brand consistency is stop trying to be something it has no business being - a big ship competitor..

It is not arbitrary.  There was a post in a different topic a few months ago by Chengkp75 (ships engineering officer) where he mentioned that once ships reach a specific age (I think is was 30 but may have been lower) maintenance costs go up significantly due to requirements for additional inspections that much be performed each year.  CCL owned lines, as well as the other major companies, retire their ships before they reach that increased cost age.

Get used to it the Holland ships will leave the line before 30 and probably even earlier.

17 minutes ago, OlsSalt said:

 

How do the Fred Olsen very nice range of  dedicated single cabins stack up, price wise. FO reminds me of the old Discovery.  Plus they offer 3 for 2 and other special cabin price packages.  I think they are serving a valuable niche. The UK departures is the one draw back right now.  One ship Balmoral is 1200, the other three are closer to 800. The Boudicca looks like their world explorer. I wonder what their former ships heritage was. 

 

Update -WIKI -  Balmoral is a cruise ship owned and operated by Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines. She was built in 1988 by the Meyer Werft shipyard in Papenburg, West Germany, as Crown Odyssey for Royal Cruise Line. She has also sailed for the Norwegian Cruise Line as Norwegian Crown and Orient Lines as Crown Odyssey. In 2007–2008 she was lengthened by 30 m (98 ft) at the Blohm + Vossshipyard in Hamburg prior to entering service with her current operator

 

WIKI: Boudicca - indeed is the Prinsedam's lost sister:

 

MV Boudicca is a cruise ship owned and operated by Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines. She was built in 1973 by Wärtsilä Helsinki Shipyard, Finland as Royal Viking Sky for Nordenfjeldske Dampsibsselskap, Trondheim, which placed the ship in Royal Viking Line service.

 

Prior to entering service with her current owners, the ship has also sailed under the names Sunward (for Norwegian Cruise Line), Birka Queen (with Birka Cruises), Golden Princess (with Princess Cruises), SuperStar Capricorn (with Star Cruises), Hyundai Keumgang(with Hyundai Merchant Marine) and Grand Latino (with Viajes Iberojet (now Iberocruceros)).[7

Fred Olson's newest ship is over 25 years old, their oldest is 46. The four ships   No signs of them do a new build anytime soon.  They basically buy cruise ships that other fleets are retiring.  The last ship they acquired was in 2007 and it is over 30 years old.

CCL owned companies don't sail ships over 30 years, and few over 25.  Fred Olson operates with ships that the major lines have retired, even then their prices are creeping up.  No way they could afford a new build on their fare structure.

56 minutes ago, OlsSalt said:

 

Again for the sake of argument, we are not talking about another "well-heeled" passenger base. They have plenty to choose from already. The mid-market, fewer frills, travel oriented passenger with more time than money to still enjoy the longer and unique itineraries.

 

If we can focus on the demographic potential of that group, maybe we can come up with 14,098 more of them. than just me and DH.  Who have enjoyed 500 HAL days in that exact category.  Shall we be totally orphaned now? In this world of 7.5 billion people..

at what fare?  the problem is that the current fare levels are not supportable with new build smaller ships.  

at current fare level plenty would want to sale, at the fare levels required to support new builds, not so much. 

5 hours ago, iancal said:

How many new builds has HAL done in the past ten years and how many builds have been announced?  How many of that total would be considered smaller ships?

 

What ships does HAL currently have on the auction block?  Has HAL announced any plans to do  a complete refit on any of their smaller ships in order to extend their life by 10/15 years or more?

 

Those answers should provide a fairly good indication as to  where HAL is headed vis a vis ship size.

no line owned by ccl is sailing a ship over 30 years. Very few over 25. So an upper limit for retirement of each class can be set using those two ages as boundary conditions 25 as min and 30 as max.

6 hours ago, iancal said:

The bottom line is that many traditional HAL cruisers want a small ship environment but are unwilling to ante up with the fare that new builds require to pass that line between red and black on the P&L.  HAL is simply not going to build smaller ships and keep the fares on those ships  stable relative to the current fare structure.   The new builds deliver what cruisers want....verandah cabins.   There will be far fewer insides and outsides compared to balcony cabins on these new builds.    It is not in the cards so it is unproductive to keep wishing for something that will not happen or moaning and groaning about why it will not happen.  For those who prefer those ships the choice in a few years will be to go with the flow or switch to a different cruise line that specializes in smaller ships.

 

Enjoy HAL's smaller ships.  They will be eased out of the fleet before too long.

I would change one portion   "The new builds will deliver the more profitable per square foot verandah cabins". A fair number of people do book insides and ocean views so I would not state necessarily that verandah are only what cruisers want.  Cruise lines maximize the number of them in new builds because they can charge more.

44 minutes ago, brody013 said:

We are US citizens who are booked on a Diamond Princess cruise this March.  After making  shore excursion reservations, the bottom of the "Excursion Reservations" section of our "Cruise Personalizer" states the following as "new":

  " Pay Before You Sail, Or Pay Later Onboard

  You have the option to pay for shore excursions in advance of your cruise.  If you wait, we will add the charges to your onboard account which is settled at the end of the cruise."

  Upon clicking on the "Pay Now" tab,  the payment options are credit card or pay pal.  Since our OBCs exceed the cost of the shore excursions and anticipated onboard charges, we will not make an advance shore excursions payment.

 

Anyone else with the same notice in their Cruise Personalizer account?

 

 

Might be something unique to the Diamond.  On my reservations on Grand, Sapphire, and Emerald prepayment was required at time of reservation

2 hours ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

Sounds great, but as you say, not possible. What would you be willing to give up to change an impossible combination to one that would be viable?

 

We are sailing over 100 days this year, with about the same amount on land, so are requirements are not necessarily the same as others.  But a priority list would be

1. Interesting routes

2. A ship board environment which is relaxing with places to read and have discussions with friends.

3. Good quality and variety of food.  For us Variety would be key. As far as quality Hilton or Hyatt hotel banquet food is fine.

4.. A variety of entertainment options,  doesn't have to be of highest quality but good enough to provide some amusement on long trips.  Entertainment includes facilities like pools, work out facilities and lectures.

5. Ship size driven in only that would prefer a smaller ship than a larger for a given route and similar price point. Smaller ships also mean access to some ports not practical for larger ships.

In other words we are happy with HAL, even with the new ships, liking the ship board environment, but we also sail on Princess, Celebrity and Royal Caribbean depending upon routes. Have done some premium (Viking and Oceania) but generally don't care for them as much.

2 hours ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

Actually, not a Carnival Ship. I remember now that she had been Adonia, a P&O ship and she went back to P&O. Not sure if they still have her or what her pre-P&O history was.

 

 

Yep, you are correct. I was thinking that they grabbed a carnival ship, but they did grab a P&O ship.

14 minutes ago, ChinaShrek said:

 

What about Disney?

I could have listed a number of others.  Disney is in the mass market area, the upper end of mass market but still mass market.

2 minutes ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

Yes, Fathom. (sorry if anyone is offended by "do-gooder," but I couldn't remember the name) It was an attempt at a small ship niche product.   

 

Fathom was not a Princess ship, it was a new brand by CCL using an older Carnival ship.