New ships...yuk!!

[Vic The Parrot]

 

When they fire that beancounter, security will have to drag him out of the HAL headquarters as he screams, "Micky Arison and Joe Farcus made me do it! Honest!" ;)

 

 

LOL

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised

[hdawson]

Bambi. Yes the ships are sailing full. However, I just finished a 10 day Celebrity cruise for a paltry $847 total cost. Don't you think there are itenerarys that will command a higher and more profitable fare?

[BambiRumsey]

Yes, the Baltic/Med trips bring in more revenue, but my point is, add additional ships and bring in the higher Europe revenue AND the Florida revenue at the same time - KA-CHING!

 

The more ships they have the more markets they can saturate.

[BambiRumsey]

I also think that past Celebrity cruisers will pay a higher price for an X FLL depature than for a Carnival FLL departure or another line because we know the VALUE of what that buys us.

 

I paid the same exact price for me, DH and DD to do 7 days on Disney as I did 10 days on the Galaxy and what disappointed me was that Disney did not bring the VALUE I expected for that price.

 

Maybe it is just the woman in me. I would rather pay $200 for a pair of shoes at Nordstrom I love that will be timeless and in style forever and are well made and will last me several years than to pay $30 for a pair at Payless that won't make it through the end of the season.

 

If they offer a product of value and quality, I don't think many of us here would mind paying a little more.

[canderson]

The current argument is that the Med and Baltic are the hot places to go in the summer but as I am sure we are all aware, X rarely if ever sailed with empty space during the summer trips from FLL!

True, but at what per diem? That area is so competitive that I'm sure they'd prefer to be anywhere else where they still thought they could fill ships. The cost to the customer of a northern European cruise is easily 2X that of a comparable number of nights on the same ship in the Caribbean.

[canderson]

Yes, the Baltic/Med trips bring in more revenue, but my point is, add additional ships and bring in the higher Europe revenue AND the Florida revenue at the same time - KA-CHING!

 

The more ships they have the more markets they can saturate.

In a strictly beancounting sense, it will take them a lot longer to amortize the expense of any new ships in the Caribbean at the lower per diems they can command there. I'd expect that they would do as they are doing now and then add more remote (read "exotic") itineraries in other locations with more lucrative per passenger revenue than they'd ever find in the Caribbean.

 

Just a guess, but it would not surprise me at all if they left RCL to ply that part of the world on the assumption (likely mistaken) that their Celebrity customers will take that alternative if they want to cruise there. It was of some interest that the cross-line loyalty plan took place just before the itinerary changes began to become known.

[canderson]

Seriously, an after dinner stroll around the ship is something that X is missing. Since all you have apparently done is X you don't realize how romantic this is (expecially as you get older).

There's always the jogging track on Deck 11 on the M-Class ships -- that pretty well circumnavigates things <ducking>.

[Vic The Parrot]

The topside 'jogging track'???

 

 

C'moooooooon!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

LOL

[henri]

Besides to the big-ship market there is an upcoming (old)small-ship market. This are ships, not shoeboxes. And.... it is very nice to be on this kind of ships.

Nowedays -in the Med.- there are: AQUAMARINE, CALYPSO, SAPPHIRE, MELODY, ARION, MONTEREY, RHAPSODY and from LouiseCruises still more.

They visit harbours where the big ones cannot come and give you the feeling of sailing .

And...... very often there are free -as use to be- amenities, like free table-wine at diner, free sauna/steamroom, free shuttles in port, free horsed'euvre before diner and during the evening, free "fitness-classes", cheap foto's, etc.

Henri.

[CruisingChick]

Ok...I don't get it. People here complaining that there may be no new ships sporting an X until 2007. I say YIPPEEEE!!!! Later, say 2050, would be even better....

 

Lets examine what huge new ships do to a cruise line....

 

a) spreads the experienced staff thinner and introduces far too many new staff onboard all the fleet.

 

b) makes the over-crowded port situation worse.

 

c) creates a glut of cabins = lowers the price (good :D ) = cost cutting starts, quality slides = rules and standards are ignored...anything to fill those cabins.

 

d) older, better ships are sold off to force patrons to choose the newer ships.

 

e) nickel and diming increases due to lower fares...one way or the other you are going to pay.

 

f) although ads claim the new ships have more room per pax than previous builds this is not true (thanks OCYN) as considerable amount of space is dedicated to conference rooms, meeting rooms etc...this skews the math.

 

Bigger is seldom better...and I prefer a better cruise, NOT just a bigger ship!!

 

Danno, I have to say I agree 100% with everything you have stated.

 

Anne Maria

[Desertbelle]

Though I very often agree with you on many things Danno, I don't agree with you on this.

 

I think you are reading a lot into the acquisition of new ships....making a lot of assumptions.

 

I haven't yet taken a Celebrity cruise, but I think I have read these boards enough to know that I am going to love the two cruises I have booked on Celebrity this year. If I enjoy these cruises as much as I think I will be wanting to book more Celebrity cruises in the future.

 

It seems that a lot of people on the CC boards seem to prefer sea days to port days, thinking of the ship as their vacation destination...we don't feel this way at all. We love ports and we love traveling to new and exciting places we have never been to before, and we love revisiting places we enjoyed on other cruises but didn't have much time to sufficiently explore. Therefore, we enjoy having choices.

 

I think that Celebrity expanding their wonderful product to more places is a good thing. We have only been seriously cruising for a few years, having spent the last 30 years raising 4 children. I think that the vast majority of the Baby Boomers are in the same boat....so to speak. ;)

 

We are now ready and able to do the traveling that we couldn't manage before. If Celebrity doesn't expand to accomodate the millions of healthy, young at heart, Baby Boomers in their 50's and 60's who not only want to travel, but who still want to see the world, then Celebrity will shrivel up and die along with the passenger base who is currently the majority of those cruising these days.

 

I would love to see a Celebrity presence in the Orient, Austrailia, Europe, South America, Africa, etc, and not just with old, tired ships, but with some new, exciting ships that will give me more choices when I plan my cruises.

 

I have only been on one "mega ship" and that was the Star Princess, and I didn't enjoy it for several reasons. I am not a big fan of Princess, as we have had some unpleasant experiences on their ships. I don't see us straying from RCI or Celebrity in the future because I think they have what we want.

 

At this point I am going to trust Celebrity that they understand the way the world is changing (20 million baby boomers moving towards retirement is a major force to reckon with!!) and that any new ships they add to their fleet will be just as wonderful as the ones they already have.

[Danno]

If these changes come to pass...and the track record on this board is quite good...then I am simply not interested in being a client of X any longer. If they can replace me, and those like me, with more passengers who want these changes, then they should proceed...but they will proceed without me.

 

 

After all, it's my money and I'll spend it with whom ever has a product that meets my wants and needs...

[jsea]

I think you are reading a lot into the acquisition of new ships....making a lot of assumptions.

Agreed. All this negativity and we've yet to get wind of anything more than the fact that some new tonnage is on the way.

 

Cruise lines, even the best of them, add new tonnage from time to time; they don't stagnate. Crystal recently boosted its fleet size by 50%, and Silversea doubled its fleet size not too long ago with the addition of Whisper and Shadow.

 

With Horizon and Zenith leaving there will be room for new tonnage. Staff won't be stretched thin as Celebrity will hire new people if needed. How do you think Crystal and Silversea did it?

 

The sky is not falling... yet.

[Andy]

Just a guess, but it would not surprise me at all if they left RCL to ply that part of the world on the assumption (likely mistaken) that their Celebrity customers will take that alternative if they want to cruise there. It was of some interest that the cross-line loyalty plan took place just before the itinerary changes began to become known.

 

Hi Canderson !

 

Yes, that is my concern too.... that Celebrity wants to become some sort of World Cruise line, such as a Crystal for example. Perhaps their thinking is that those of us who like to sail out of the USA, will simply march over to Royal Caribbean ?

 

If that is their long term game plan... I think they will be in for a huge surprise on that. I doubt that many of us, will "automatically" book with Royal Caribbean. Hopefully, we will know more, when the 2006/2007 schedules come out.

[jsea]

Yes, that is my concern too.... that Celebrity wants to become some sort of World Cruise line, such as a Crystal for example.

Why is that a bad thing? It's not like Celebrity plans on leaving the Caribbean. They just won't have their whole fleet positioned there, which I can't blame them. Summer in the Caribbean isn't exactly the season.

[Ericknow32]

spreading their fleet is not bad, but not filling in the gaps left behind is.

[Andy]

[quote name='Ericknow32']spreading their fleet is not bad, but not filling in the gaps left behind is.[/QUOTE]

Hi Ericknow & Jsea !

Eriknow.......... EXACTLY MY POINT !

I have ZERO problem with Celebrity trying new things, but to walk away from many of the itineraries that made them what they are, and leaving many of their past and LOYAL cruisers to hang like they are right now, it TOTALLY inexcusable.

As I have repeatedly said, its great that Celebrity wants to do new things, but they have to redeploy their fleet MUCH better than they are doing for 2005, so that there can be something for everyone.

I hope they will fix some of these gaping holes, when the new schedules come out in a month or 2. If they dont, they are going to continue to lose some very loyal customers, and that, IMHO, is not a wise decision at all.

[benjamins]

[quote name='jsea']
Cruise lines, even the best of them, add new tonnage from time to time; they don't stagnate. Crystal recently boosted its fleet size by 50%, [/QUOTE]

Interesting choice. Crystal's ships:

Harmony 1990.
Symphony 1995.
Serenity 2004.

There's a big gap in between newbuilds for Crystal. Their next newbuild should be around 2010, 2011 if they follow their current rate of expansion.

Celebrity

Century 1995
Galaxy 1996
Mercury 1997
Millennium 2000
Infinity 2001
Summit 2002
Constellation 2002

Celebrity has expanded way faster and more than Crystal. And which one has the higher reputation for consistency of quality of product? How in the world is Celebrity stagnating? The equating of not building new ships every year with stagnating is quite troubling, IMO.

[jsea]

[quote name='benjamins']Celebrity has expanded way faster and more than Crystal. And which one has the higher reputation for consistency of quality of product? How in the world is Celebrity stagnating? The equating of not building new ships every year with stagnating is quite troubling, IMO.[/QUOTE]I think you're misinterpreting my post. Where did I say that Celebrity should build new ships every year? All I said was that lines expand "from time to time" (which doesn't even begin to connote annually) and that with Horizon and Zenith departing, Celebrity will have to make plans to bring on new tonnage.

Here's what I said in another thread (it's hard to keep track of everything since people feel the need to start new threads about this topic every time they hear something instead of adding it to an old one and keeping an organized discussion going, but I digress :D):

[QUOTE]Celebrity can expand without harming its product. RCI learned a lesson after the [b]rapid expansion with the Millennium Class. Granted, the impact wouldn't have been so deleterious had the expansion not occurred right around 9/11, but I trust that RCI/Celebrity are more cautious now when it comes to X growth.[/b] I think we should give credit where credit is due. Celebrity has been very proactive in terms of enhancing/protecting its product in recent years. 'A taste of luxury', ConciergeClass, more onboard lectures/enrichment series, Cirque (okay, not necessarily an enhancement but at least Celebrity is trying to differentiate itself), etc.

I think it's a little preemptive to proclaim "the sky is falling!" Before we blast Celebrity for expansion, let us wait and see what the new hardware is like. Growth is a natural occurrence. It is going to happen.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you that Celebrity expanded too quickly with the M Class. But you ended your list early. You forgot to include the May 2002 - 2007/2008 (5 or 6 year gap) timeframe in which Celebrity has had/will have no new hardware. Also, while Crystal hasn't divested itself of any old tonnage, Celebrity will, thus necessitating more capacity even over the need for capacity due to natural growth in the industry.

[jsea]

[quote name='Ericknow32']spreading their fleet is not bad, but not filling in the gaps left behind is.[/QUOTE]So on the one hand we have posters like you who feel that if Celebrity takes some of their ships out of the Caribbean 'gaps' will be left behind, but then there are posters like [b]Danno[/b] who say that new tonnage by Celebrity will only further overrun the Caribbean...

[quote name='Host Andy']I have ZERO problem with Celebrity trying new things, but to walk away from many of the itineraries that made them what they are, and leaving many of their past and LOYAL cruisers to hang like they are right now, it TOTALLY inexcusable.[/QUOTE]Unless of course these new itineraries are garnering higher per diems. Celebrity isn't going to leave multiple ships plying the waters of the Caribbean if it can successfully deploy a ship elsewhere getting passengers to pay more money. Summertime in the Caribbean isn't exactly high season. If Celebrity wants to be a premium line it needs to sail 'premium' itineraries.


[QUOTE]I hope they will fix some of these gaping holes, when the new schedules come out in a month or 2. If they dont, they are going to continue to lose some very loyal customers, and that, IMHO, is not a wise decision at all.[/QUOTE]While they might lose some loyal customers, they'll probably pick up some new ones in their place who are willing to pay higher per diems for other destinations, like with their ship shuffle from the Caribbean to Europe this summer. Celebrity is a business, pure and simple. They're in it to please investors so they're going to follow the money.

[dedlaw]

This is an entertaining and entirely silly rant. The premise (unintended) is not that Carnival calls the shots, but that X does. After all, if we're worried that new builds crowd the ports (and that's a fair concern), let's face it -- if X doesn't add berths, somebody else will. I've been on two Celebrity cruises, one the worst I've been on, one the best. Different ships, different styles. Celebrity has been very successful (from the bean-counter perspective) and they've been relatively conservative about introducing new product. So what's the beef? If you don't like where X goes, find another line . . . oh, I forgot, the others already suck. Well, you can always rent a motor home and see the USA.

The comment (I think from hdawson) about grow or die is certainly true in this type of business. I'd hate to see X fade entirely because they decided to calcify to change "nothing" for past cruisers -- nobody seems to complain when they add new touches which are an improvement (like cool towels when reboarding after a day in port). I personally have no fear that this company is going to turn on a dime and all at once try to be all things to all people.

[raudacruise]

[quote name='Danno']

After all, it's my money and I'll spend it with whom ever has a product that meets my wants and needs...[/QUOTE]


You are entirely correct. The only way to change things is to vote with your feet.

However, I think X is trying to fill boots that are too big for your feet.

Online polls and board postings are not going to change things. Why, because only the passionate participate. The silent majority does not but spends a lot more. You can call them "ignorant" if you want, but 90% plus don't read this board or any other.

The consolidation of the industry hasn't helped but I think sometime in the future lines will differentiate themselves better than they have in the past. I also expect them to differentiate ships or itineraries even more.

[canderson]

[quote name='jsea']Why is that a bad thing? It's not like Celebrity plans on leaving the Caribbean. They just won't have their whole fleet positioned there, which I can't blame them. Summer in the Caribbean isn't exactly the season.[/QUOTE]Compared to what was available before the changes, [u]winter[/u] (which IS the high season, isn't it?) won't be either, unless you like 7 nt. trips. Best I can tell, there won't be any more long (10 nights or more) Caribbean cruises from [b][size=3]X[/size][/b] next winter -- just the Galveston runs on Galaxy down toward Panama.

[jsea]

[quote name='canderson']Compared to what was available before the changes, [u]winter[/u] (which IS the high season, isn't it?) won't be either, unless you like 7 nt. trips. Best I can tell, there won't be any more long (10 nights or more) Caribbean cruises from [b][size=3]X[/size][/b] next winter -- just the Galveston runs on Galaxy down toward Panama.[/QUOTE]I can only suppose that Celebrity deemed it more advantageous to cut the 10-nighters. More nights doesn't always equate to higher per diems.

[canderson]

[quote name='jsea']I can only suppose that Celebrity deemed it more advantageous to cut the 10-nighters. More nights doesn't always equate to higher per diems.[/QUOTE]Per diems were about the same as for the 7 nt trips, and we certainly weren't sailing half full!

We'll see how a return to the Galaxy goes, but if that doesn't work out, we'll either have to consider the trans-Canal or find another line that offers the longer trips.