Carnival Corp. adds 5 more ships to exit list

[lobster1313]

1 hour ago, roeco9084 said:

Are their any ports in the Caribbean or US that Carnivals larger ships cant fit into? Like if they got rid of all the Fantasy class can they still continue to service the destinations they do now currently?

Tampa. Fantasy and Spirit class ships are the only ones that can go under the Skyway Bridge.

 

 

 

[xDisconnections]

18 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

I don’t think there is any Caribbean port that Carnival’s current fleet can’t reach. Even Vista class ships, which are currently Carnival’s largest until Mardi Gras starts sailing, are on the small side. 

What about St. Barths? 

[xDisconnections]

9 minutes ago, regoodwinjr said:

Tampa. Fantasy and Spirit class ships are the only ones that can go under the Skyway Bridge.

 

 

 

The port can be relocated 🙂

[lobster1313]

Just now, xDisconnections said:

The port can be relocated 🙂

They also can replace the Skyway Bridge neither option is viable.

[xDisconnections]

10 minutes ago, regoodwinjr said:

They also can replace the Skyway Bridge neither option is viable.

How is relocating the port not considered viable? It's easy and inexpensive. Sure, transportation costs will increase by bringing it further away from Tampa's airport but it may be something they are required to do in the not too distant future should the greater Tampa Bay area wish to remain competitive. St. Petersburg would be a decent option and Bradenton wouldn't be too bad.

 

Those ports would still be considered Tampa just as Port Canaveral is considered Orlando, San Andreas is considered Santiago, Bayonne is considered New York City and Civitavecchia is considered Rome, among others. Even Kusadasi, Nynashaman and Athens come to mind.

Edited September 26, 2020 by xDisconnections

[lobster1313]

6 minutes ago, xDisconnections said:

How is relocating the port not considered viable? It's easy and inexpensive. Sure, transportation costs will increase by bringing it further away from Tampa's airport but it may be something they are required to do in the not too distant future should the greater Tampa Bay area wish to remain competitive. St. Petersburg would be a decent option and Bradenton wouldn't be too bad.

 

Those ports would still be considered Tampa just as Port Canaveral is considered Orlando, San Andreas is considered Santiago, Bayonne is considered New York City and Civitavecchia is considered Rome, among others. Even Kusadasi, Nynashaman and Athens come to mind.

It was looked at about 6 years ago and it wasn't a viable option.

[xDisconnections]

27 minutes ago, regoodwinjr said:

It was looked at about 6 years ago and it wasn't a viable option.

Six years ago, they didn’t have the disposal of smaller ships from mass market cruise lines happening in the immediate future. We have that today and the continued disposal of ships in the not too distant future. Spirit class is getting up there in age and there are fewer HAL ships as well which also service that market.

 

They’ll need to regain a competitive advantage eventually.

Edited September 26, 2020 by xDisconnections

[BlerkOne]

1 hour ago, xDisconnections said:

How is relocating the port not considered viable? It's easy and inexpensive. Sure, transportation costs will increase by bringing it further away from Tampa's airport but it may be something they are required to do in the not too distant future should the greater Tampa Bay area wish to remain competitive. St. Petersburg would be a decent option and Bradenton wouldn't be too bad.

 

Those ports would still be considered Tampa just as Port Canaveral is considered Orlando, San Andreas is considered Santiago, Bayonne is considered New York City and Civitavecchia is considered Rome, among others. Even Kusadasi, Nynashaman and Athens come to mind.

 

San who? Valparaiso is the port for Santiago.

 

But really, Florida had too many cruise ships before, and they really have too many now. Too many ships in one basket, especially given the politics du jour.

[xDisconnections]

10 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

 

San who? Valparaiso is the port for Santiago.

 

But really, Florida had too many cruise ships before, and they really have too many now. Too many ships in one basket, especially given the politics du jour.

Princess, HAL, Celebrity and Royal no longer use Valparaiso. They have all been using San Andreas for several years now. I believe NCL and MSC had switched also.

 

We just sailed out of San Antonio in January.

[jimbo5544]

3 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

 

How much more?

Enough to make them candidates for sale, my words are from Donald.  The real point is that even of they were equal, the extra passengers make the decision easier.  I know you like the class, as do I, and they have some sweet spots for “unique” cruise opportunities, but if these opportunities are 2 or 3  years out........

[BlerkOne]

6 hours ago, xDisconnections said:

Princess, HAL, Celebrity and Royal no longer use Valparaiso. They have all been using San Andreas for several years now. I believe NCL and MSC had switched also.

 

We just sailed out of San Antonio in January.

 

San Antonio is a large commercial port, San Andreas is a fault.

[BlerkOne]

5 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

Enough to make them candidates for sale, my words are from Donald.  The real point is that even of they were equal, the extra passengers make the decision easier.  I know you like the class, as do I, and they have some sweet spots for “unique” cruise opportunities, but if these opportunities are 2 or 3  years out........

There was still plenty of life left. Even the Holiday has popped up for sale again.

[xDisconnections]

9 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

 

San Antonio is a large commercial port, San Andreas is a fault.

Wow, I completely missed that one on 2/3 mentions of it. Weird, I had the correct usage on the same post as the incorrect one. Guess my mind must have been elsewhere. Thanks for pointing it out! 

[PhillyFan33579]

20 hours ago, xDisconnections said:

The port can be relocated 🙂

There has been lots of discussions locally in the Tampa area, where I live, over the last 10 years or so about what to do about the Port of Tampa. The two solutions that are always mentioned are either building a new port in Pinellas or Manatee County on the other side of the Skyway Bridge or replacing the Skyway Bridge with another bridge or a tunnel. The last figures I heard were building a new port would cost upwards of 1 billion dollars and replacing the Skyway Bridge would likely be double the cost of building a new port. 

[lobster1313]

16 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

There has been lots of discussions locally in the Tampa area, where I live, over the last 10 years or so about what to do about the Port of Tampa. The two solutions that are always mentioned are either building a new port in Pinellas or Manatee County on the other side of the Skyway Bridge or replacing the Skyway Bridge with another bridge or a tunnel. The last figures I heard were building a new port would cost upwards of 1 billion dollars and replacing the Skyway Bridge would likely be double the cost of building a new port. 

The other issue was the environmental impact of relocating the port.

[xDisconnections]

54 minutes ago, regoodwinjr said:

The other issue was the environmental impact of relocating the port.

Can't be worse than operating a cruise ship, no? Carnival isn't known to care about the environment.

[xDisconnections]

1 hour ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

There has been lots of discussions locally in the Tampa area, where I live, over the last 10 years or so about what to do about the Port of Tampa. The two solutions that are always mentioned are either building a new port in Pinellas or Manatee County on the other side of the Skyway Bridge or replacing the Skyway Bridge with another bridge or a tunnel. The last figures I heard were building a new port would cost upwards of 1 billion dollars and replacing the Skyway Bridge would likely be double the cost of building a new port. 

For something as critical to the operation as this would be, they would make it happen if they needed/wanted.

 

The tunnel or bridge construction would be the more likely despite it being more costly, in my opinion.

Edited September 27, 2020 by xDisconnections

[BlerkOne]

9 minutes ago, xDisconnections said:

Can't be worse than operating a cruise ship, no? Carnival isn't known to care about the environment.

The same is true of all cruise lines.

[xDisconnections]

2 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

The same is true of all cruise lines.

I agree.

[PhillyFan33579]

35 minutes ago, xDisconnections said:

For something as critical to the operation as this would be, they would make it happen if they needed/wanted.

 

The tunnel or bridge construction would be the more likely despite it being more costly, in my opinion.

I think the decision makers (port, local government, etc.) have viewed this as a future problem. However, in my opinion the future is getting closer now with this pandemic resulting in the elimination of a lot of smaller ships, which could reach the Poet of Tampa. 

[xDisconnections]

6 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

I think the decision makers (port, local government, etc.) have viewed this as a future problem. However, in my opinion the future is getting closer now with this pandemic resulting in the elimination of a lot of smaller ships, which could reach the Poet of Tampa. 

Yup, this is much closer now than it were six years ago as referenced in the thread. Spirit class is getting up there in age and Carnival likes to redeploy these vessels to Australia and also historically in Alaska. Although Tampa is an important port, Carnival needs to do what is best for their business and if, for some reason, it means they cannot sail to Tampa, it is Tampa’s responsibility to figure out how to accommodate Carnival if they still want Carnival’s business as a strategic alliance.

 

I can’t see Carnival making structural changes to the ships like we saw with the Oasis of the Seas to accommodate Bayonne.

Edited September 27, 2020 by xDisconnections

[lobster1313]

6 minutes ago, xDisconnections said:

Yup, this is much closer now than it were six years ago as referenced in the thread. Spirit class is getting up there in age and Carnival likes to redeploy these vessels to Australia and also historically in Alaska. Although Tampa is an important port, Carnival needs to do what is best for their business and if, for some reason, it means they cannot sail to Tampa, it is Tampa’s responsibility to figure out how to accommodate Carnival if they still want Carnival’s business as a strategic alliance.

 

I can’t see Carnival making structural changes to the ships like we saw with the Oasis of the Seas to accommodate Bayonne.

Carnival made changes to their ships when they originally started using Tampa as a port so they would again to keep sailing on the west coast of Florida. The cruise lines want and need an alternative port in Florida.

 

This is not just Tampa's decision but also a Federal one so none of the issues that have come up before have changed. 

[xDisconnections]

10 minutes ago, regoodwinjr said:

Carnival made changes to their ships when they originally started using Tampa as a port so they would again to keep sailing on the west coast of Florida. The cruise lines want and need an alternative port in Florida.

 

This is not just Tampa's decision but also a Federal one so none of the issues that have come up before have changed. 

Oh, I didn’t realize Carnival modified their ship’s funnel to a point where it was retractable and allows it to clear lower height levels.

 

Tampa is useful, sure. If Carnival’s ships can’t sail there and Tampa wants the business, they’ll figure out a way. It shouldn’t be Carnival’s responsibility when Tampa is the client wanting a service Carnival provides.

Edited September 27, 2020 by xDisconnections

[lobster1313]

26 minutes ago, xDisconnections said:

Oh, I didn’t realize Carnival modified their ship’s funnel to a point where it was retractable and allows it to clear lower height levels.

 

Tampa is useful, sure. If Carnival’s ships can’t sail there and Tampa wants the business, they’ll figure out a way. It shouldn’t be Carnival’s responsibility when Tampa is the client wanting a service Carnival provides.

"

Skyway.

In 1998, Carnival Cruise Lines had to modify its 2,600-passenger ship, the Sensation, to squeeze under the Sunshine Skyway bridge and reach the Port of Tampa."

 

https://www.floridatrend.com/article/11267/low-clearance

 

 

[xDisconnections]

3 minutes ago, regoodwinjr said:

"

Skyway.

In 1998, Carnival Cruise Lines had to modify its 2,600-passenger ship, the Sensation, to squeeze under the Sunshine Skyway bridge and reach the Port of Tampa."

 

https://www.floridatrend.com/article/11267/low-clearance

 

 

Interesting. That way way before my time and certainly a long time ago. History doesn’t always repeat itself. Tampa would likely want Carnival there more than Carnival needs the port.

Edited September 27, 2020 by xDisconnections