Fuel as Component of Cruise Cost

[Observer]

As I look at the 2014 schedules, it appears that there are fewer sea days and more port days, all told. (I have not closely calculated this matter. I am reporting an impression.)

 

This sense on my part prompts me to wonder how important fuel is in the cost structure of a cruise line. Is it significantly more economical for a ship to be sitting in port (with not very distant evening movements) than to have a sea day where the ship is moving along at, say, 15 knots for the entire day.

 

Does anyone on CC have a sense of the cost (per hour? per day?) of underway time? If fuel is a major cost-item for the cruise line, are we likely to see fewer sea days and more port days?

 

Thanks.

[Seafairer]

This is an interesting question, Observer. I'm not qualified to answer it, but will put a few thoughts out here.

 

On the loss of sea days: In Silversea's early years, most cruises were longer than 12 days; it was difficult to find a 7-day voyage. Today, 7-day trips are in demand and have become the new norm. This is due to a difficult economy (7 days are more affordable than 12) and the need to attract more new or younger cruisers, many of whom have limited vacation time. These passengers typically want to visit as many ports as possible, so sea days are rare on these short itineraries.

 

On the cost of sailing vs. remaining in port: I believe the port charge for remaining overnight can be considerable, and is the reason you'll sometimes see a departure at "11:59pm."

 

Silversea plans itineraries years in advance, as fuel costs fluctuate, yet they've maintained their per diem fares within relatively constant ranges. How much is an itinerary is influenced by fuel cost, and how much by market demand? If individual cruises were priced according to mileage, short hops in the Med would be bargains, and only a privileged few could afford crossings and repositionings!

 

Perhaps someone on this board can explain how fuel fits into the cost structure.

[Observer]

How much is an itinerary is influenced by fuel cost, and how much by market demand? If individual cruises were priced according to mileage, short hops in the Med would be bargains, and only a privileged few could afford crossings and repositionings!

 

Perhaps someone on this board can explain how fuel fits into the cost structure.

 

Thanks for your response. I had in fact considered crossings/repositionings. I think that in general they are less costly per day than port-intensive voyages. My assumption was that these voyages are priced as they are because they are generally less attractive than port-intensive visits, that the price may not reflect the cost to Silversea, and that whatever loss they may suffer on these cruises is simply a cost of doing business: Silversea has to get the ships from the Med to the Caribbean, etc.

 

I do hope that someone has a firmer grip on the matter of fuel costs. This matter has gnawed at me for some time. :)

[KirkNC]

Remember the casinos are closed in port.

[Keith1010]

My observation is that the luxury lines in general are going with shorter duration cruises and more days in ports because that is what many of the new luxury travelers are looking for. Often cruises with more sea days involve more lengthily itineraries which are less appealing to those new to the luxury market and those who have full time jobs.

 

Keith

[Randyk47]

Indeed we've noticed the number of 7-day itineraries and while those might be attractive to a lot, maybe even a majority, of luxury cruisers they're actually not attractive to us. While it's gotten easier since I retired a couple of years ago Mrs. K still works and that means scheduling vacation time, coordinating with her staff and leadership, etc. We've found that seven days is just not enough of a break and look more for 10 to 14-day cruises. Add that our cruise focus and interest has changed from winter escapes in the Caribbean to more distant itineraries like the Med. You start adding up airfare, pre/post cruise hotel and associated meals, etc., and it just doesn't make sense to go that far for seven days. Certainly the obvious answer, at least for us, is to look at a pair of 7-day back-to-backs but that also pushes us to our maximum amount do time we gone be gone from home and work.

[CanadianKate]

The shortest SS cruise we've done is 12 days and that is not long enough. Even 18 days was too short. At day 27 I'm ready to pack so we shoot for 24 - 28 day cruises, often picking up B2B cruises.

 

I hate port intensive cruises so you'll always find me on repositioning cruises with lots of sea days. That helps avoid the groups that change the dynamics of the cruise, as well. We've been very lucky so far but will never take a 7 day cruise (or book one as part of a B2B itinerary) because I'm afraid I'd feel cheated out of the full SS experience.

[Observer]

Thanks for the responses. I understand that marketing to a new passenger cohort may be behind the appearance of so many shorter cruises, and I share the distinct preference for longer voyages. There is a financial and human transaction cost in cruising (packing, closing up the house, undressing for TSA at airports, plane fare, etc.) and I like to amortize that fixed cost across as many days as possible. It's because of that preference that I am especially sensitive to this matter.

 

However, the thread has strayed from the topic.

 

Let me repeat/recast the question in the hope that someone on this board can provide an informed answer:

 

*** What is the fuel cost per hour to run a ship (let's take a ship like Shadow/Whisper) at 15 knots?

*** What is the cost of fuel per hour when a ship is idling alongside a dock (with AC and other power consuming functions still operating)?

 

There must be someone who has some insight on this? Perhaps an ex Navy sailor who knows the difference in fuel consumption while underway as opposed to in port.

[Bolshoi]

Just a quick Google search turned up a range of data for fuel consumption whilst underway: 200 gal/nautical mile to 85 gal/mile (not stated if nautical or statute). I would suspect Silversea's ships would operate at the lower end of that range as they are smaller ships. I could not find a consumption number for normal port operations. I would suspect that this could vary from port to port, depending on availability of portside electrical power.

 

If the opportunity presents itself I'll explore fuel use a little more when on the Whisper in 2 weeks.

[gdlamberth]

From a December 2000, article we get:

 

Theoretical fuel usage was confirmed: 58 tons in 24 hours at a cruising speed of 19½; knots. (Thick as tar, fuel is heated to 257 degrees before it can flow to the engines.)

 

for Silver Shadow. From this March 2012 article:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=fuel%20consumption%20for%20silversea%20whisper&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CGIQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mespas.com%2Fmultimedia%2Fdocs%2FMedia%2FDShip_April_2012-ST_Management_extends_deal_with_MESPAS.pdf&ei=ySK-UPHSEezgigKA-YC4Ag&usg=AFQjCNFzdYcKhbmSx5xLrmclDXDxZvOuuA

 

we find SS expects to save 2-3% with their new trim management system; and that they use about 70,000 tons fleet wide in the course of a year.

 

So, sounds like they might be down to about 56 tons/24hours of cruising for a "sea Day" vice 28 tons (or so) for a port ot port overnight transit.

 

If you get SS annual report you should be able to find total fuel costs and dividing that number by 70,000 tons get their cost per ton. Then you can convert that into the "delta" fuel costs for a sea day vice an overnight transit port to port. :o

[dusababy]

If you get SS annual report you should be able to find total fuel costs and dividing that number by 70,000 tons get their cost per ton. Then you can convert that into the "delta" fuel costs for a sea day vice an overnight transit port to port. :o

 

SS is a private company - what annual report? Can you share how to get this information?

[Observer]

This is very interesting -- at least to me. :)

 

I am embarrassed that I did not do a web search before posting.

 

It appears that bunker fuel runs around $600/unit (I assume that the unit is a ton). At that rate, and given some estimates above, it would cost around $34,000/day for underway time. That figure (according to a previous poster) is around twice as much as it costs to sit in port.

 

This would seem to imply that a port-intensive trip is less costly to SS (at least from a fuel perspective) than a trip with many sea days.

[gdlamberth]

Well, in that case may not be too easy. Based on Bunkerworld prices for LA (prices vary a signicant amount by port) it's about $668/MT (for IFO380 and I don't know if that's what SS ships use (IFO 180 is a little more and MGO a lot more)). FYI, Rotterdam is $586/MT and Houston $620/MT. Don't know about any discounts SS might get buying bulk options but that should be close.

[gdlamberth]

 

It appears that bunker fuel runs around $600/unit (I assume that the unit is a ton). At that rate, and given some estimates above, it would cost around $34,000/day for underway time. That figure (according to a previous poster) is around twice as much as it costs to sit in port.

 

This would seem to imply that a port-intensive trip is less costly to SS (at least from a fuel perspective) than a trip with many sea days.

 

I think the better calculation is to compare sea day (i.e. 24hours cruising costs) to port day (i.e. 12 hours cruising + Port fees). Assuming our fuel costs and port fee estimates are remotely close, that would make a sea day cost about the same as a port day (not counting dining and drinking differences associated with in port or at sea:p).

[Seafairer]

Bolshoi, thank you for volunteering to try to get some information when you board the Whisper this month - excellent idea. You'll occasionally see the Chief Engineer during the day, and should be able to have a casual conversation about this.

[Silver Spectre]

Bolshoi, thank you for volunteering to try to get some information when you board the Whisper this month - excellent idea. You'll occasionally see the Chief Engineer during the day, and should be able to have a casual conversation about this.

 

Alternatively sign up for a bridge visit (assuming that they are still doing them) and ask the Navigator.

[57 varieties]

No more bridge visits for security reasons. Shame.

[Silver Spectre]

No more bridge visits for security reasons. Shame.

 

Last I heard was that the company was not happy about bridge visits (for so called security reasons), but that the decision was up to the Captain at the time.

[Randyk47]

Last I heard was that the company was not happy about bridge visits (for so called security reasons), but that the decision was up to the Captain at the time.

 

Had a very nice bridge visit on the Wind in March with the Captain. I think there were about a dozen of us. http://www.klugsplace.com/Images/BridgeTour_4.jpg

[Mr Luxury]

No more bridge visits for security reasons. Shame.

 

It depends on who you are.like a lot of things in life.