freestyling Posted December 4, 2014 #1 Share Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) Interesting that Celebrity is now ordering smaller ships. Although these new ships are 2900 PAX :)http://www.cruiseweekly.com.au/news/cruise-weekly-breaking-news-celebrity-launches-new-ship-class-orders-first-two-vessels/22108 Edited December 4, 2014 by freestyling size of ships ordered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuthC Posted December 4, 2014 #2 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I would hardly call 117,000 GRT and 2900 passengers "small". I probably wouldn't even call it "mid-size". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyling Posted December 4, 2014 Author #3 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Oh I totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sail7seas Posted December 4, 2014 #4 Share Posted December 4, 2014 That is not what I would call 'smaller'. :D Smaller than Oasis? ....... Yes Small? ...... No. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare rafinmd Posted December 4, 2014 #5 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Celebrity Solstice: 122,000 GRT, 2850 PAX New ships: 117,000 GRT, 2900 PAX Sounds like "more crowded" is a better description than "smaller" Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krazy Kruizers Posted December 4, 2014 #6 Share Posted December 4, 2014 To my mind - that is small. I wouldn't sail on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christine Frances Posted December 5, 2014 #7 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Celebrity Edge 117,000 tons/2900 pax = 40.34 pax ratio Koningsdam 99,500 tons/2650 pax = 37.55 pax ratio Rather cruise Celebrity for space:) HAL NA 86.000 tons/2104 pax = 40.87 So Celebrity's new ship is more comparable to NA than the Koningsdam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammiedawg Posted December 5, 2014 #8 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Celebrity Edge 117,000 tons/2900 pax = 40.34 pax ratio Koningsdam 99,500 tons/2650 pax = 37.55 pax ratio Rather cruise Celebrity for space:) HAL NA 86.000 tons/2104 pax = 40.87 So Celebrity's new ship is more comparable to NA than the Koningsdam. Christine France's is correct, the most important statistic is space per passenger ratio. Many cruisers get hung up on the size of the ship instead of the space ratio. I've done the math for other ships and I've been surprised a few times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare LAFFNVEGAS Posted December 5, 2014 #9 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Christine France's is correct, the most important statistic is space per passenger ratio. Many cruisers get hung up on the size of the ship instead of the space ratio. I've done the math for other ships and I've been surprised a few times. I agree, the other thing I like to look at is Crew to Passenger ratio, I think HAL falls a bit short in that area too :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammiedawg Posted December 5, 2014 #10 Share Posted December 5, 2014 The space ratio is discussed a lot on the Princess boards and I know some of their ratios. Not surprisingly the Coral Island Princess have terrific ratios. The Diamond and Sapphire twins are the next best. The worst ratios are on the old Sun class ships which were mostly offloaded to the Australian market, this class of ships feel crowded. On HAL the Ryndam ratio is very good and Is a much better value than the Prinsendam. Both ships have the same standard menus and food for the fleet but the Ryndam is newer and the physical plant is much nicer. The Ryndam space ratio is close to the Prinsendam. The Coral and Island Princess have better space ratios than the HAL Vista ships, even though their passenger capacity is about the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InTheWASide Posted December 5, 2014 #11 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Christine France's is correct, the most important statistic is space per passenger ratio. Many cruisers get hung up on the size of the ship instead of the space ratio. I've done the math for other ships and I've been surprised a few times. There are ways to skew that information though based on the sizes, shapes, multiple floors being used, etc. I agree with Lisa on her reply that the best thing to go off of is passenger to crew ratio. Those are hard factual numbers that cannot be skewed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammiedawg Posted December 5, 2014 #12 Share Posted December 5, 2014 I agree crew ratio is very important, many of us have noted short staffing compared to what it used to be. . We've been told by room stewards and dining crew people that they are supposed to have more staff on board than they actually have. I'm not sure passengers get the exact staffing numbers for their individual cruise experience. Staffing info on cruise summaries appear to be pulled off the HAL website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PathfinderEss Posted December 5, 2014 #13 Share Posted December 5, 2014 I'm sorry, as others have said and I agree I don't see these as 'small ships'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Hlitner Posted December 5, 2014 #14 Share Posted December 5, 2014 My goodness. Folks on this HAL forum would argue that the sky is not chartreuse. Seriously folks, the term "small" means small! Most old cruisers would consider any ship with more then around 700 passengers to not be small! Seabourn has small ships, Azamara has small ships, Oceania has mostly small ships. HAL has one small ship (Prinsendam). Hank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirkNC Posted December 5, 2014 #15 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Maybe adding an "er" to small would eliminate the debate. At least someone is not ordering 5,000 pax ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jade13 Posted December 5, 2014 #16 Share Posted December 5, 2014 My goodness. Folks on this HAL forum would argue that the sky is not chartreuse. Seriously folks, the term "small" means small! Most old cruisers would consider any ship with more then around 700 passengers to not be small! Seabourn has small ships, Azamara has small ships, Oceania has mostly small ships. HAL has one small ship (Prinsendam). Hank Agree. I wouldn't consider any ship over approx. 700 passengers, small. The more important point is that Celebrity/RCCL have been continually investing in new ships and updating their older ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aruba Posted December 5, 2014 #17 Share Posted December 5, 2014 I think the OP was being ironic -- as evidenced by the smiley face. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyling Posted December 5, 2014 Author #18 Share Posted December 5, 2014 I think the OP was being ironic -- as evidenced by the smiley face. :) You are correct :D . It is also the "headline" of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon1 Posted December 5, 2014 #19 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Smaller. Still too big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iancal Posted December 5, 2014 #20 Share Posted December 5, 2014 (edited) In addition to space ratios, I think that ship design plays a large part in how crowded or how large a ship feels. We have been on a few poorly designed ships...the ones where the elevators let out directly in front of the MDR, showrooms, or other areas that can become very congested. They may have fewer passengers but they feel much more crowded. We have also been on a few large ones, like the Solstice class ships and some Princess ships that for our taste, are very well designed for traffic flow. They seem less crowded even though they are larger ships. Edited December 5, 2014 by iancal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now