RCI orders, yes, a 6th Oasis class ship!

[Ourusualbeach]

6 minutes ago, Biker19 said:

Found this: http://www.seatrade-*****/news/news-headlines/rcl-outlines-compensation-for-goldstein-in-new-role.html

 

Not sure what a cut in salary and vice chairman means.

Wow! gone from multi millions per year to 250k with no bonus this year and his golden parachute expired Feb 28th.

[Ourusualbeach]

9 minutes ago, Pratique said:

No longer has executive or operational duties. I don't think it is an oversight in the SEC filing.

Yep, based on Bikers post regarding his salary it looks like early retirement with a part time job with a fancy title.  

[Biker19]

2 minutes ago, Ourusualbeach said:

Wow! gone from multi millions per year to 250k with no bonus this year and his golden parachute expired Feb 28th.

Maybe that's the going rate for occasional consulting.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Biker19

[Tall-Cruiser]

5 hours ago, John&LaLa said:

 

Tonnage just for the sake of tonnage may not be a great idea. Probably raise insurance rates or staffing requirements.  Just guessing, though.

 

The key to Icon will be to capitalize on the width of Oasis and add different neighborhoods.  Some creativity could give us a new Royal flagship.

 

Carnival Mardi Gras is going to be interesting 

 

And things will be interesting in Port Canaveral going forward. Besides an Oasis class ship, RCI will more than likely have another big ship there for the weekend savings. Could that be Icon? Or does RCI put her in PEV.  

[bigeck]

4 hours ago, BecciBoo said:

You must be either really old or really young  Did you never watch Disney?  Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?

60 October past, so I remember it well. Watched the film loads with my kids. 

Still a long name to pronounce

[John&LaLa]

4 hours ago, Tall-Cruiser said:

 

And things will be interesting in Port Canaveral going forward. Besides an Oasis class ship, RCI will more than likely have another big ship there for the weekend savings. Could that be Icon? Or does RCI put her in PEV.  

 

Several new hotels going in as we speak. MCO expansion at 3 Billion dollars is adding a terminal and 19 gates.  They are expecting 11 million new passengers in 2021.

 

As far as Icon, who knows.  She's LNG powered and PC will have that capability for Mardi Gras and the space program.  The fuel will come from Savanna and we're closer than PE or PoM.

[Nunagoras]

Well: 6 Oasis behemoths plus 4 Icon behemoths plus 4 MSC World Class behemoths? 14 behemoths total!... 🙂 Can't help myself, but there will clearly to be such a problem: Few ports ready to receive them all!... 😞

 

TBHH: Oasis 6 might arguably to be the end of a very successful line for this superb engineering marvel!... Icon class might to be an "all climates" version of the behemoth subject perhaps with northern Europe, Alaska and other less than stellar climates in mind, considering they can find ports to dock them at those locations. MSC World Class (excuse me for the off-topic) seems to be everything for everyone, but little information on them. The question now is: Where will they dock all those behemoths? Obviously they will be pretty much profitable for both companies... But we are perhaps reaching the limit!...

 

And the technical evolution is creating conditions for smaller, more efficient and more profitable ships. A good example of this can to be found on the LNG engines; and that is only one of them.

 

Have a nice day!...

[AL3XCruise]

3 hours ago, Nunagoras said:

Can't help myself, but there will clearly to be such a problem: Few ports ready to receive them all!...

 

The infrastructure required for a port of call is much less than a departure port, and there are a lot of ships close to the Oasis class in draft and length already in service.  Most of the added size comes as beam on the giants, which can impact docking options but normally not as much as length and draft.

 

I'm sure there will be some piers that require lengthening or the addition of a couple dolphins to safely handle larger ships, but ports seem willing to accommodate growth.  As alluded to by another poster, it wasn't that long ago a large ship was 80,000 GT; now almost all mass market line ships are larger than that.   

 

I'm not disagreeing there are potential issues, but I doubt they are insurmountable for most destinations.  Of course, it is possible tender ports may not be able to support these vessels no matter what.  Or they may invest in super tenders like the Norway used to have.

 

Terminal facilities capable of efficiently handling arrival and departures of multiple 6000+ passenger ships will be trickier, but RCI has already shown a willingness to invest in landside facilities.

 

3 hours ago, Nunagoras said:

Icon class might to be an "all climates" version of the behemoth subject perhaps with northern Europe, Alaska and other less than stellar climates in mind,

 

I have wondered about Oasis-like design with a fully enclosed Boardwalk and Central Park intended for a cooler climate.  I do wonder if Oasis 6 or Icon may have something like that in order to be more versatile, not to mention bump up the GT number!

 

3 hours ago, Nunagoras said:

And the technical evolution is creating conditions for smaller, more efficient and more profitable ships. A good example of this can to be found on the LNG engines; and that is only one of them.

I'm not sure if LNG favors smaller ships.  The LNG powered AidaNova is second only to Oasis class ships in size, and the Icons will be LNG as well.  It seems the technology has become the most economical way to meet new emissions standards on large ships.  

 

I do agree that smaller ships may be on the horizon to target various markets and offer more varied departures and itineraries.   NCL's next generation of ship is "only" 130,000 GT, which seems to buck recent trends but is still quite large.

 

And @Nunagoras, I realize I quoted you a ton... I just found some of your points really interesting to think about!

Edited March 7, 2019 by AL3XCruise

[Nunagoras]

No problem AL3XCruise!... 🙂 We are here because we just love to talk about our very favourite hobby that is cruising!... 🙂

 

Well may I answer something perhaps to clarify what I said and answer to your thoughts?

 

So: Embarkation and debarkation processes won't be the problem. Here in Europe those behemoths are doing multi port embarkation and debarkation. MSC and Costa are doing that all days here. Even RCI is doing it on their Oasis class European sailings by using both Barcelona and Rome as embarkation and debarkation ports. The problem will be the distance from the ports to the main sites. Apart Barcelona and Naples, all the other Oasis class ports are cargo ports far away from the main sites. Certainly those ships are wonderful for a fantastic holiday where they are the destination. I own have experienced that... But in some 10 or 15 years from now that will cease to be the case once everyone have experienced and in some cases have gone tired of that. Now it is quite of a novelty. In 15 years it might to become such another mess we have to deal with...

 

Let us to see my own city: Lisbon, Portugal: An Oasis class ship can't likely go to our brand new and fabulous city cruise terminal once likely it can't pass below the 25 of April bridge. If a company wanted to call an Oasis class ship here, even on an emergency, they should use the cargo port of Sines that is nearly 100 miles south of Lisbon! And Lisbon might not to be the worst of the cases...

 

TBHH: The Caribbean is well served with all those behemoths serving it right now. There might to be a place for more 3 or 4 for Europe plus 1 or 2 to Asia and the Middle East and the odd 1 or 2 for Australia. That makes barely 5 to 8 additional ones... And we have already some 11 on the order book to let alone those 175-200K GT we are not counting for now!... Surely that is the end of the line on this trend! Even the mainstream will certainly need to evolve after that!...

 

A fully enclosed Oasis class "as it is" seems to be practically impossible due to the centre of gravity that is calculated by design to be as it is right now for its size and the needed stability with the open spaces at Central Park and the board Walk; so Oasis 6 will be exactly what her sisters are, except the odd new features and amenities, but those are basically built over the "hotel" part, not the structural one. If someone wanted so, there would pretty well to be possible to have such an Oasis class ship employed as a troop transportation ship! Same superstructure, different "hotel" design! So their unique chance to build such a nearly full enclosed ship rely with the Icon class. Perhaps "smaller" ships structurally speaking with higher GT! Permit me moderators, but that seems also the way MSC is doing their World class...

 

Hope to have been clear enough! Have a nice day!

Edited March 7, 2019 by Nunagoras

[jamestown478]

has anyone seen any info on when construction will begin on the 5th oasis ship?

[AL3XCruise]

5 hours ago, Nunagoras said:

So: Embarkation and debarkation processes won't be the problem. Here in Europe those behemoths are doing multi port embarkation and debarkation. MSC and Costa are doing that all days here. Even RCI is doing it on their Oasis class European sailings by using both Barcelona and Rome as embarkation and debarkation ports. The problem will be the distance from the ports to the main sites. Apart Barcelona and Naples, all the other Oasis class ports are cargo ports far away from the main sites. Certainly those ships are wonderful for a fantastic holiday where they are the destination. I own have experienced that... But in some 10 or 15 years from now that will cease to be the case once everyone have experienced and in some cases have gone tired of that. Now it is quite of a novelty. In 15 years it might to become such another mess we have to deal with...

 

Good point; I'll admit that all my cruises have originated in the US and Canada, where multi-port embarkation is uncommon.  I'm sure the distance from the port to various attractions will diminish the appeal of certain ports for large ship passengers, but IF the industry is right about future demand I think there will still be plenty of room for all the 200K+ GT ships currently planned.  Some ports will likely expand to accommodate the ships, others will invest in transit of some kind, and some will simply focus on smaller ships.

 

Of course, as you said, if they are still ordering these ships at this rate in 15 years, the problem could become much more acute.  I agree that right now the lines market the big ships as a destination.  As they become more prevalent, its possible the amenities they provide will become standard expectations, pushing ships that size and bigger and forcing ports and cruise lines to figure out viable solutions.  Or you may be right that the novelty wears off and the market trends to more flexible smaller ships.  The next few years will be interesting!

 

5 hours ago, Nunagoras said:

TBHH: The Caribbean is well served with all those behemoths serving it right now. There might to be a place for more 3 or 4 for Europe plus 1 or 2 to Asia and the Middle East and the odd 1 or 2 for Australia. That makes barely 5 to 8 additional ones... And we have already some 11 on the order book to let alone those 175-200K GT we are not counting for now!..

 

Publicly, cruise executives seem to think growth in the Caribbean will continue.  Of course, they have motivations to promote the most optimistic picture!  If they are proved correct, it is conceivable that current ships could be replaced by giants at near a 1:1 ratio. Ships in the 100GT range may be moved elsewhere or transferred to other lines.  I've seen quotes from line management admitting some US ports have great potential, but the lines are focusing on maximum profitability routes out of Florida and don't have enough ships to expand.

 

I'll admit I don't know nearly as much about other markets, though.

 

6 hours ago, Nunagoras said:

A fully enclosed Oasis class "as it is" seems to be practically impossible due to the centre of gravity that is calculated by design to be as it is right now for its size and the needed stability with the open spaces at Central Park and the board Walk;

 

I'm not sure how "on the edge" Oasis is with regards to stability.  Enclosing the area in glass would have a much smaller impact on center of gravity than actually building out decks (talk about a lot of inside cabins!), which I'm sure would not be possible without major changes.  But given the size of the ship, I'm sure even a relatively lightweight enclosure would be something requiring careful evaluation.  I agree, though, that it is far more likely to see that kind of change introduced on the Icon than on Oasis 6, if at all.

6 hours ago, Nunagoras said:

Perhaps "smaller" ships structurally speaking with higher GT! Permit me moderators, but that seems also the way MSC is doing their World class...

 

I agree.  I also am really looking forward to the World class, as it will be our first time seeing someone other than RCI enter that territory!  

 

6 hours ago, Nunagoras said:

We are here because we just love to talk about our very favourite hobby that is cruising!... 🙂

 Sometimes discussions via text sound more like arguments than a friendly conversation, so just wanted to make sure my thoughts were taken in the cordial manner they are intended!  Take care!

[CRUISEFAN0001]

I noticed the Beluga of the Seas name hasn't been used yet...

[Pratique]

7 hours ago, AL3XCruise said:

Of course, as you said, if they are still ordering these ships at this rate in 15 years, the problem could become much more acute.  I agree that right now the lines market the big ships as a destination.  As they become more prevalent, its possible the amenities they provide will become standard expectations, pushing ships that size and bigger and forcing ports and cruise lines to figure out viable solutions.  Or you may be right that the novelty wears off and the market trends to more flexible smaller ships.  The next few years will be interesting!

For some people, the mass market mega ships (Oasis) will be the gateway drug to the smaller, luxury ships (Celebrity Flora).

[Pratique]

This graphic is fun.

 

[John&LaLa]

21 minutes ago, Pratique said:

This graphic is fun.

 

 

It is, but doesn't take into consideration beam.

 

I'll bet two of Symphony's lifeboats would hold all the passengers from NP

Edited March 8, 2019 by John&LaLa

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, John&LaLa said:

 

It is, but doesn't take into consideration beam.

 

I'll bet two of Symphony's lifeboats would hold all the passengers from NP

Actually, about 4 boats.

 

[chengkp75]

With regards to technology enabling "smaller, more efficient and more profitable ships", I don't see that.  Especially the comment about LNG.  LNG does not give any advantage to a smaller ship over a larger ship.  In fact, just the opposite, in my opinion.  LNG requires a far greater volume to produce as much energy as liquid fuel (either diesel or residual fuel), and the storage is more complex than liquid fuels (restricted from being on the sides of ships, where most liquid fuel tanks are; requiring cryogenic insulated tanks, requiring reliquifaction plants) that larger ships can "find room for" in their larger hulls.

 

The economies of scale that larger ships see over smaller ships is that incremental changes in machinery to increase overall power for the ship is much less than purchasing a second set of engines to power two smaller ships.  Economy of scale affects both capital expense and operating expense.  It also comes into other areas of the ship's operation, like galleys and laundries, where again large machinery to provide the service is less expensive and requires less crew than two sets of equipment on two vessels.  Smaller ships will be for the higher priced lines where the fares can cover the larger expense of the smaller ships.

 

As for stability.  The comment about newer ships being "bottom heavy", that has been the trend in cruise ships over the last couple of decades, and no, they don't put thicker steel in the hull just to get weight down there.  Now, as to raising the center of gravity of an Oasis class ship, without seeing their design drawings and the stability curves, I can't say for sure, but there can be a significant rise in center of gravity before the ship becomes unstable.  When a ship rolls, the center of buoyancy (the center of the volume of the hull below the waterline) moves with respect to the hull in an arc, the center of which is the "metacenter".  The center of gravity does not move with respect to the hull as the ship rolls.  So, the center of gravity acts downward (gravity) and the center of buoyancy acts upward (tendancy to float), and the horizontal distance between these two forces is the "righting moment" or force that brings the ship back upright.  The distance between the center of gravity and the metacenter is called the "metacentric height" (GM), and is the primary measure of a ship's stability.  The lower the center of gravity, hence the higher the GM, the "stiffer" the ship is, meaning it has less tendency to roll, and when it does roll, it "snaps" back violently (because of the great force generated by the large GM).  Raising the center of gravity reduces the GM, and reduces the righting moment, so the ship will roll more easily, but because the righting moment is less, the return motion will be less violent, and more comfortable (which is what you want for a cruise ship).  Until the center of gravity is moved above the metacenter, the ship will not become unstable, or roll over.  Ships with very low GM measures (older cargo ships measured their GM in a couple of inches) are still not unstable, but will roll easily, very slowly, and will tend to hesitate at the end of the roll, as if the ship is thinking "do I roll back, or just lie here on my side?"  Adding weight up high by closing in the center of Oasis might still not bring the ship to instability, and there could be other measures to remediate this, like carrying more sea water ballast (weight down low).  While carrying useless ballast around does require more fuel to push the added weight around, again the cost could be offset by the economy of adding the ability to carry more passengers.

 

And, with regards to the number of ships currently on order, shipbuilding has always been a cyclical environment. When demand is high, you build ships, but those ships have a time delay built in due to the nature of shipbuilding and the limited places to build them.  So, by the time the last ships ordered have been built, supply has met or exceeded demand, and now supply exceeds demand and prices drop, and you don't build ships until the demand rises again, or supply is reduced by scrapping older tonnage.

[Pratique]

16 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The economies of scale that larger ships see over smaller ships is that incremental changes in machinery to increase overall power for the ship is much less than purchasing a second set of engines to power two smaller ships.  Economy of scale affects both capital expense and operating expense.  It also comes into other areas of the ship's operation, like galleys and laundries, where again large machinery to provide the service is less expensive and requires less crew than two sets of equipment on two vessels.  Smaller ships will be for the higher priced lines where the fares can cover the larger expense of the smaller ships.

 

I am currently reading the book published in the '90s for Royal Caribbean's 25th anniversary and that is exactly what the authors said about Royal's early expansion plans. They went so far as to say one master, one staff captain, one chief engineer, etc., is less expensive than two of each, so that helped justify stretching existing ships versus building new ones to supplement the fleet.

[John&LaLa]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Actually, about 4 boats.

 

 

Nordic Prince was 714 pax dbl occupancy 

 

Oasis lifeboats hold 370 

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, John&LaLa said:

 

Nordic Prince was 714 pax dbl occupancy 

 

Oasis lifeboats hold 370 

My bad, was looking at the figures after the 1980 rebuild.

[Pratique]

That lifeboat capacity includes crew.

[chengkp75]

39 minutes ago, Pratique said:

I am currently reading the book published in the '90s for Royal Caribbean's 25th anniversary and that is exactly what the authors said about Royal's early expansion plans. They went so far as to say one master, one staff captain, one chief engineer, etc., is less expensive than two of each, so that helped justify stretching existing ships versus building new ones to supplement the fleet.

Did a quick calculation for Voyager and Oasis (not quite apples to apples, since 2 Voyagers is more pax than Oasis, but close).  Voyager cost $650 million in 1998 ($798 million in 2006) and Oasis cost $1.4 billion in 2006.  So, two Voyagers would cost nearly $200 million more than Oasis, and that is just the capital expense, not the operating expense.

[BillOh]

On 2/18/2019 at 1:38 PM, bigeck said:

Whats the name going to be ??

I hope I haven't already said this in this thread, but I was writing my congressperson recently and we typing in that she was oblivious of the facts.     As I typed -" Oblivous of the......."  my phone suggested SEAS as the next word.   So the name will be Oblivious of the Seas.    Forgive me for posting that again, I forget where i mentioned it.  

[Pratique]

I am curious how they amortize the capital costs and how many years until a new ship generates a “profit” or revenue toward financing and operating new ships. Price tags in the billions are mind boggling. Two ships may be more expensive but if the market suddenly goes south who’s going to want so many mega ships? I can’t even comprehend who would want to buy these ships when Royal is done using them.

[Pratique]

8 minutes ago, BillOh said:

I hope I haven't already said this in this thread, but I was writing my congressperson recently and we typing in that she was oblivious of the facts.     As I typed -" Oblivous of the......."  my phone suggested SEAS as the next word.   So the name will be Oblivious of the Seas.    Forgive me for posting that again, I forget where i mentioned it.  

I like it. Oblivious “to” the Seas. Rough seas? Ship says, “hold my beer.”