Jump to content

Smaller ships


MrZoey
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why would hallways not count as "public space", the cabins are, and they are not public. Passenger space ratio is not based on "public" space, but on total passenger space.

 

Of course, I must ask. WHY? What's public about a private cabin? In that case you could as well add the engine room as "public space". It wouldn't matter anyway.

 

Funny, spacious is defined as both "having a large area" or "having a large space" (and space can mean a volume). In the context of houses and offices, where ceiling heights are relatively constant, defining "spaciousness" by square footage can be meaningful. But when you come to something like two theaters of the same square footage, the one with the higher ceiling (more volume) will feel more spacious than one with a lower ceiling.

 

Unless I need to crawl because the ceiling is 5ft heigh, I see the area as the defining metric. A ballroom with a very heigh ceiling, or a huge atrium, or no ceiling at all like Central Park, just has a "nice ceiling".

 

And just to give an oddity of the use of tonnage figures, which were created for cargo vessels, and only "adapted" for passenger vessels, in the way that they treat "space" for cargo (passengers).

 

Freedom of the Seas: 154,407 GT 127,545 NT (net tons)

Oasis of the Seas: 225,282 GT 242,999 NT

 

Note that Freedom has a lower net tonnage than gross tonnage, since this reflects the total enclosed volume, minus the non-cargo volume (crew spaces and tankage), as is normal.

 

Oasis has a larger net tonnage than her gross tonnage! How is that possible? Since the Central Park area (open space) is bounded by "cargo" space on each side (the cabins), it is considered to be "available" cargo volume.

 

Another factor to remember when dealing with both GT and NT, these are not direct measurements of the ship's volume. They are "unitless" numbers that take those volumes and applies a multiplier factor based on naval architecture principles. These factors make the relationship between actual volume and tonnage no longer straight line, with the variance between volume and tonnage getting larger the higher the tonnage gets. So, Oasis has more GT or NT per unit of volume than Freedom does, for the same unit of volume.

 

But, passengers are not cargo even if that's what historically was most important. As a passenger, I value being able to walk around without bumping into people, more space for seats so waiters can navigate between the tables, etc. I wonder why the perfect metric for that, which is area and not volume, isn't used to compare ships. Especially on websites that should want to enable their audience to compare ships in an understandable format, not "theoretically, due to the heigh rising buildings on both sides of Central Park, you could stack so many bodies in there, so Oasis is the best ship if you're looking for space".

 

At cabin level, the cruiselines do tell you how exactly much square foot you get. I've never seen the height of a cabin listed, or the fact that it has dividers which really adds to the space whereas the penthouse has no dividers so its balcony only counts for the height of the railing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I must ask. WHY? What's public about a private cabin? In that case you could as well add the engine room as "public space". It wouldn't matter anyway.

 

 

 

Unless I need to crawl because the ceiling is 5ft heigh, I see the area as the defining metric. A ballroom with a very heigh ceiling, or a huge atrium, or no ceiling at all like Central Park, just has a "nice ceiling".

 

 

 

But, passengers are not cargo even if that's what historically was most important. As a passenger, I value being able to walk around without bumping into people, more space for seats so waiters can navigate between the tables, etc. I wonder why the perfect metric for that, which is area and not volume, isn't used to compare ships. Especially on websites that should want to enable their audience to compare ships in an understandable format, not "theoretically, due to the heigh rising buildings on both sides of Central Park, you could stack so many bodies in there, so Oasis is the best ship if you're looking for space".

 

At cabin level, the cruiselines do tell you how exactly much square foot you get. I've never seen the height of a cabin listed, or the fact that it has dividers which really adds to the space whereas the penthouse has no dividers so its balcony only counts for the height of the railing.

 

Actually, when most cruiselines give you "square footage" of your accommodations, they include the balcony. Royal Caribbean does not. If you don't know that, you will get some very skewed comparisons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I must ask. WHY? What's public about a private cabin? In that case you could as well add the engine room as "public space". It wouldn't matter anyway.

 

 

 

Unless I need to crawl because the ceiling is 5ft heigh, I see the area as the defining metric. A ballroom with a very heigh ceiling, or a huge atrium, or no ceiling at all like Central Park, just has a "nice ceiling".

 

 

 

But, passengers are not cargo even if that's what historically was most important. As a passenger, I value being able to walk around without bumping into people, more space for seats so waiters can navigate between the tables, etc. I wonder why the perfect metric for that, which is area and not volume, isn't used to compare ships. Especially on websites that should want to enable their audience to compare ships in an understandable format, not "theoretically, due to the heigh rising buildings on both sides of Central Park, you could stack so many bodies in there, so Oasis is the best ship if you're looking for space".

 

At cabin level, the cruiselines do tell you how exactly much square foot you get. I've never seen the height of a cabin listed, or the fact that it has dividers which really adds to the space whereas the penthouse has no dividers so its balcony only counts for the height of the railing.

 

Again, it is the space per passenger, not the public space per passenger. If you had a ship with huge public spaces, so there is "room to walk about without bumping into people" and "waiters to navigate between tables", but the cabins were the size of crew cabins (some 6' x 6', plus a shared toilet/shower), would you consider that ship to be "spacious"? I don't think so. And since you don't spend your entire time onboard in public spaces (I don't think you sleep in the atrium, do you?), the cabins are included as "your space". For this same reason, the engine room is not considered, since you cannot spend any time there. And your desire for room to move around freely argues against your idea that hallways should not be considered public spaces. How else to you move from one area to another?

 

As for height, that's not my definition of spacious, it is an architectural concept. Take it or leave it. As for cabins, again, there is generally a standard ceiling height, so spaciousness can be defined more by square footage. But, if the theater were to have the balcony moved forward to cover all the main level seats, would this be just a "bad ceiling", or a "cramped" (lack of spaciousness) theater? Volume is very important to architects, whether on land or at sea.

 

And my point was that neither GT/pax or NT/pax is a precise measure of spaciousness, but they are the only real volume calculations that ships use. And that given the non-linear relationship of GT to volume, Oasis may actually have the same pax/volume as the Freedom, when comparing actual interior volume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff! Any thoughts on who buys these old, expensive to maintain ships, and how they make the profit after cost hurdle work for them?

 

Richard.

 

They cost a lot less to buy.

 

If you take a $500 million ship, and purchase it for $200 million. The extra $300 million you did not spend, pays for a LOT of maintenance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Size is a matter of opinion. I look at the Empress as being a mid-sized ship. Mid-sized like the HAL's S and R class.

 

I took the Fathom Adonia out of Miami to Cuba and DR last March. Adonia was small to me. It was just over half the size of Empress.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my point was that neither GT/pax or NT/pax is a precise measure of spaciousness, but they are the only real volume calculations that ships use.

 

That's why I asked my original question. I understand that it's best or at least easier for the shipping industry, law, ports, taxes, etc, to have one measure to decide how big a ship is, no matter if it's a trawler, bulk carrier, containership, dredger, a cruiseship or whatever.

 

As a consumer however, tonnage is not very interesting, while I do value a bit more precision than "despite the 4000 guests, the ship never feels crowded". Similar to a crew/pax ratio which is really helpful to find the ships I can't afford :). Sqft/pax would not be perfect but it's a lot easier to compare ships by that metric than one that was meant to show how much cargo a ship could theoretically handle, which needs an explanation from a Chief Engineer to just get an idea of how it would be calculated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, when most cruiselines give you "square footage" of your accommodations, they include the balcony. Royal Caribbean does not. If you don't know that, you will get some very skewed comparisons.

 

Personally, I'd like to exchange the sitting area that I've never used except for luggage in 4 cruises for a bigger balcony. Why would RC not include the balcony?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom class is the perfect size. Anything larger and I’m not interested. Too crowded for me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

One thing I love about Freedom is the bow access - nothing beats being up there pulling into a port. It's also an awesome place to hang out at night. Away from the noise and lights. It's very peaceful and on a clear night the sky fills up with stars...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have been looking for it through various web sites, blogs etc. I could have sworn when the Edge was announced that there was a sister size being built for Royal but I can't find anything. AM I just making this up? Also how big is the Edge-pax wise its just under 3k at full occupancy isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been looking for it through various web sites, blogs etc. I could have sworn when the Edge was announced that there was a sister size being built for Royal but I can't find anything. AM I just making this up? Also how big is the Edge-pax wise its just under 3k at full occupancy isn't it?

People were hoping Royal would build a variation of Edge (i.e. Quantum's design came from Solstice), so there was discussion about it, but nothing official.

 

As the above poster mentioned, Royal's next set of ships is the Icon Class, which seem to be much larger than Edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...