Future cruises at 50% capacity thoughts?

[mugtech]

4 hours ago, CruiseMH said:

Also they might be able to reduce the number of crew as well. Cause for 50 % of the passengers they do not need 100% of crew.

The prices will increase for sure.

But the change will not mean 50% of crew, for there will be new jobs such as serving food in the buffet, monitoring the elevators.  Cruise Lines bragging how clean they are going to keep the ships, plus 50% cruisers means 50% of the daily service charges, means crew expense will not be cut in half while the revenue is at 50%.  Inevitably this means pricing of more than 25% above past prices.  But it ain't me, babe, it ain't me you're looking for, babe.

[tallnthensome]

I think you’d need less room stewards at least . 

[seaman11]

44 minutes ago, tallnthensome said:

I think you’d need less room stewards at least . 

Would require a lot less staff and also fuel is very cheap at the moment.  They can still make profit but the main thing is to get them going again.  Even if it doesn't earn a profit.  Use august or sept as a trial run. Hand ful of ships half the pax onboard.  Short trips.  Then if all is well add more pax and bigger ships.  

[Sand and Seas]

47 minutes ago, tallnthensome said:

I think you’d need less room stewards at least . 

 

Some hotels are saying they will not be cleaning your rooms as often, but they will be 'deep-cleaned' before you arrive.  I don't need the room steward twice a day on board.  

[chipmaster]

The business works based on economies of scale,  I am skeptical if they half the passenger cabins that they can get half the crew reduced and also reduced be enough to cover the 50% revenue drop.   

 

I just flew a round trip the plane was maybe at 33% full, actually more than I expected, but not enough to cover the cost, and for how much I paid they must have lost a ton of money on the fight. 

 

50% only works if the price goes up and then even fewer will cruise, not a spiral up to recovery IMHO

Edited May 15, 2020 by chipmaster

[mugtech]

4 minutes ago, chipmaster said:

I just flew a round trip the plane was maybe at 33% full, actually more than I expected, but not enough to cover the cost, and for how much I paid they must have lost a ton of money on the fight. 

 

So the in flight entertainment was a boxing match with the airline taking bets, acting as the house and they lost money?

[PelicanBill]

I believe FDR already mentioned in his interview they don't expect to sail ships full for now.  I think we'll see an airline like process to get people to cancel or get bumped.

 

The idea of no long cruises is a bummer. I am booked on Breakaway's reposition from NYC to New Orleans in November.  But avoiding long cruises makes sense from what people posted above.

[npcl]

6 hours ago, d9704011 said:

Ha!  Keep it short so people won’t develop symptoms onboard.  I’m thinking that getting home to New York, London or Toronto and becoming deathly ill the next day may lead to negative consequences as far as cruising goes.

But at least it is not on the ship where you then have the problem getting everyone off.  You don't really hear much in the news about the cases where the people got off the ship then diagnosed on shore (except for the Ruby where the Australians did an excellent job of contact tracing).  You hear about the Diamond and the Grand, but not much about the Eclipse where a lady came right off the ship, into an ambulance to the hospital and was then diagnosed with COVID.

 

From the cruise lines view point, as long as they can get the passenger off the ship its not their problem.

[joeyancho]

14 hours ago, tallnthensome said:

Yes I agree. You would need less crew, less food, less alcohol .... less of everything .

Except fuel and fixed costs like paying for the ship.

[beerman2]

13 hours ago, disneykins said:

Maybe elevator operators like in the old days, to limit the number of passengers. Only allow handicapped to use elevators, must have a handicapped sticker like you have for parking your car?

In the hallways  have one way signs like at the grocery stores? Same with staircases.

Assigned seating at the theatre so they can cover the unused seats.

Of course if you've already had Covid or got the eventual shot, whats going to make you conform to these rules? There's always someone who thinks the rules don't apply to them.

I thought I read once that the ships need to sail at close to 100% to break even, they make all their profit from on board sales, hence the high pressure sales and higher prices for booze, excursions, etc.

I still think they would rather sail half full and have some income to tide them over until things get back close to what they were. Someday. Maybe.

One way " signs"  is good in principle, however people don't pay attention to them now.

 

"Signs" made me flash back to the song years ago.

 

Signs,Signs everywhere there's signs. Blocking out the scenery, breakin my mind.

Do this don't do that , can't you read the signs.

 

[tallnthensome]

1 hour ago, joeyancho said:

Except fuel and fixed costs like paying for the ship.

Yep, gotta pay for that ship still.

[CruiseMH]

13 hours ago, mugtech said:

But the change will not mean 50% of crew

 

Of course not.I think you still need 80-85% of the crew.But it is less.

I am sure every cruise line does already do the maths and they know how much capacity rthey need to make money.

So once there are rules given out they know right away whether they are doable or not. As long as the income is higher than the expenses they will sail. If the expected income is not enough to cover the costs(fuel,crew,food,etc.) they will not sail.

 

[FranknBeans]

I dont see deep price drops but i do see them closing off lower decks in order to not have to do deep cleaning of the rooms, hallways etc.

[lepidoptera]

13 hours ago, seaman11 said:

Would require a lot less staff and also fuel is very cheap at the moment.  They can still make profit but the main thing is to get them going again.  Even if it doesn't earn a profit.  Use august or sept as a trial run. Hand ful of ships half the pax onboard.  Short trips.  Then if all is well add more pax and bigger ships.  

 

I also think they need to be careful where they sail and proactively cancel sailings change itineraries to avoid hot spots. The amount of negative publicity that the Diamond Princess especially generated is substantial, but all the cruise lines sailing to the center of the pandemic in Asia and refusing to change things until their ships were being turned away was shameful. One more disaster like that and I think it could cause regulations that completely gut cruises. 

[npcl]

8 hours ago, joeyancho said:

Except fuel and fixed costs like paying for the ship.

Not much fuel if they are short cruise from Florida to private islands in the Bahamas and back 

[SouthLyonCruiser]

There is no way that the ships can sail with 50% capacity. Fixed costs of doing business would eat them alive. Either the prices would have to be sky high or they could not sail.

[npcl]

31 minutes ago, SouthLyonCruiser said:

There is no way that the ships can sail with 50% capacity. Fixed costs of doing business would eat them alive. Either the prices would have to be sky high or they could not sail.

The cruise lines would be willing to eat that cost on some cruises just to get ships moving again and more importantly to get people to believe that the cruise lines are operating again and make more bookings and send them more money.  That is far far more important to them than any profit/loss in the short term.

 

If they cannot convince people to keep booking they are truly dead in the water.

[ECCruise]

It is almost like a punch list for all the things that I would NOT want in a cruise:

 

1) Short itineraries (we never do less than 12, usually 14-30)

2) Caribbean island destinations or worse, private island destinations

3) Less dining opportunity (no or reduced buffet)

4) Less or no shows or needing to get tickets in advance to limit capacity

5) Wearing a mask (we do it at home when out 100% of the time but home is free not $500 a day)

6) Enhanced possibilities of rule-breaking pax on the ship (all over the US presently) 

7)  Long lines for elevators if needed (deck 2 to deck 14 e.g.)

 

and the piece de resistance:  Higher prices.  For a reduced experience.  It ain't me, either, babe.

 

[larry_s_taco]

What about cruises to no where? They could stay out 4-5 days (or even 7-?). No port charges to pay. No on land port restrictions to worry about. They wouldn't have to worry as much about getting back in the country if they didn't visit a different country that may have a virus outbreak. The ship would have a captive audience for liquor sales/shop sales, casino ect… It would be kind of like a crossing, but returning to the same port. 

[mugtech]

17 minutes ago, larry_s_taco said:

What about cruises to no where?  

A few other threads already covered the why nots of this idea, at least in the USA.

[ECCruise]

55 minutes ago, larry_s_taco said:

What about cruises to no where? They could stay out 4-5 days (or even 7-?). No port charges to pay. No on land port restrictions to worry about. They wouldn't have to worry as much about getting back in the country if they didn't visit a different country that may have a virus outbreak. The ship would have a captive audience for liquor sales/shop sales, casino ect… It would be kind of like a crossing, but returning to the same port. 

Can't be done legally.  PVSA.

[zqvol]

They may sail at a reduced capacity, but it won't be 50%. It is more likely to be between 90% and 92%, instead of at 105% - 110% of capacity that they currently do. If you don't have a certain revenue from the voyage you lose money, and 50% is not enough to break even.

 

IMO no one sails until there is a vaccine, and you will have to provide proof that you have been vaccinated before you board.

[pcakes122]

On 5/15/2020 at 1:52 PM, npcl said:

Not much fuel if they are short cruise from Florida to private islands in the Bahamas and back 

That's what Royal Caribbean's plan is according to one of the latest interviews with their CEO. They are starting with three and four day cruises to their private island.  It makes sense that NCL would do the same.

[BirdTravels]

On 5/14/2020 at 7:34 PM, tallnthensome said:

I think you’d need less room stewards at least . 

Less room stewards

Less cooks and servers if the buffet is closed and the MDR is serving all passengers 3 meals a day

Less laundry personnel with 1/2 the rooms and 1/2 the high consumables like napkins (maybe moving to more [costly] paper products that can be incinerated) 

Fewer service staff for fewer passengers

Fewer bar staff and servers

Less entertainment to reduce potential for crowds (only use the main theater)

The return of fixed time dining to control crowds

Closure of pools and spas requires less staff

 

[BirdTravels]

On 5/14/2020 at 2:43 PM, CruiseMH said:

If i would be NCL i would check who has paid the smallest amount of money for their booking and i would cancel their bookings. Then i would have to refund a rather small amount of money. Also they might be able to reduce the number of crew as well.

 

On 5/14/2020 at 4:57 PM, Buford T Justiice said:

I agree.  Maybe NCL can also incorporate an algorithm to take into account customers onboard spend.

 

In the past, upwards of 25% or more of the passengers on some cruises were casino guests with comped rooms or discounted rooms. While they paid the smallest amount of money for their booking, those are not the passengers that NCL would leave behind on the dock. For example, on our recent cruise, 850+ of the 4000 adult passengers were casino guests.