Oasis-Class Ships Sailing From West Coast?

[CruiseLoverFromNorCal]

Is it possible in the future? Thanks in advance. 

[barbeyg]

A ship has to either be able to fit through the Panama Canal, or go around the Cape.  I can't imagine being on such a large ship in the potentially rocky waters at the tip of South America.   

 

It is my understanding that because of the width, an Oasis class vessel would have to traverses the Suez Canal to get to the Pacific.

 

I have no doubt that someone will come along to correct me if I'm off base, or to do a much better job explaining if I am somewhat correct. 😁

Edited February 25, 2022 by barbeyg

[topnole]

1 hour ago, barbeyg said:

A ship has to either be able to fit through the Panama Canal, or go around the Cape.  I can't imagine being on such a large ship in the potentially rocky waters at the tip of South America.   

 

It is my understanding that because of the width, an Oasis class vessel would have to traverses the Suez Canal to get to the Pacific.

 

I have no doubt that someone will come along to correct me if I'm off base, or to do a much better job explaining if I am somewhat correct. 😁

And how would oasis class do in those rougher seas off California?   In my experience and from talking to crew,

Oasis class doesn’t do as well in rougher seas as Freedom class for example.    There is a reason most cruises in the US go to the Caribbean.  

[Jimbo]

Kind of sad isn't to build a ship, costing that much $$$$ that can't handle a little rough seas. Poor design or what?

I mean really this isn't a ship that was built back in the 50's.

Disappointing to say the least.

[topnole]

17 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

Kind of sad isn't to build a ship, costing that much $$$$ that can't handle a little rough seas. Poor design or what?

I mean really this isn't a ship that was built back in the 50's.

Disappointing to say the least.

She can handle rough seas just fine.  It’s the passengers who get seas sick from moderate motion that are the problem.  There are a lot for them that cruise

nowadays.  
 

I’ll take oasis over a 20 ton ship built in the 50s all day long.  She was clearly built with the Carribean and Mediterranean in mind.  What is wrong with that?   

[Jimbo]

11 minutes ago, topnole said:

She can handle rough seas just fine.  It’s the passengers who get seas sick from moderate motion that are the problem.  There are a lot for them that cruise

nowadays.  
 

I’ll take oasis over a 20 ton ship built in the 50s all day long.  She was clearly built with the Carribean and Mediterranean in mind.  What is wrong with that?   

Just didn't think in today's time we now have to build ships to be itinerary specific. I thought engineering was way past that. Guess not.

[Biker19]

2 hours ago, barbeyg said:

A ship has to either be able to fit through the Panama Canal, or go around the Cape.  I can't imagine being on such a large ship in the potentially rocky waters at the tip of South America. 

O 6, like Wonder was supposed to be, is likely destined for Asia, maybe Australia. Such a ship, could do like Q and R class ships do now and alternate between Asia and West Coast - no need for transit from East Coast. Though, very unlikely for a while.

 

Biker, who thinks RCI's home porting on the West Coast (other than seasonal Alaska sailings) will be short lived.

[CruiseLoverFromNorCal]

Thanks to everyone who responded 

[topnole]

6 hours ago, Jimbo said:

Just didn't think in today's time we now have to build ships to be itinerary specific. I thought engineering was way past that. Guess not.

Well.  At a certain size (height) there are going to be pros and cons with regards to stability in different types of weather.  The great thing is, in calm seas you may not even know you are on a ship on oasis class.  In my early days of cruising (much smaller ships back then other than Norway), I always felt phantom motion for days after returning.  That rarely happens anymore.  

[topnole]

6 hours ago, Biker19 said:

O 6, like Wonder was supposed to be, is likely destined for Asia, maybe Australia. Such a ship, could do like Q and R class ships do now and alternate between Asia and West Coast - no need for transit from East Coast. Though, very unlikely for a while.

 

Biker, who thinks RCI's home porting on the West Coast (other than seasonal Alaska sailings) will be short lived.

I agree.  

[BirdTravels]

7 hours ago, Jimbo said:

Kind of sad isn't to build a ship, costing that much $$$$ that can't handle a little rough seas. Poor design or what?

I mean really this isn't a ship that was built back in the 50's.

Disappointing to say the least.

So,,, you are talking about a cruise ship. Compared to an ocean liner (like some of the Cunard ships) that are built for trans-oceanic crossings. Kinda like do you take a blimp or an airplane if there are strong winds. 

[mil76]

We're not even filling Navigator yet.  I'll be happy to just keep what we have at this point.

[Ashland]

Just now, mil76 said:

We're not even filling Navigator yet.  I'll be happy to just keep what we have at this point.

Agree...just sailed Navigator and have booked again for next March...hoping RCI keeps her here as long as they can.

[Oceansaway17]

8 hours ago, Jimbo said:

Kind of sad isn't to build a ship, costing that much $$$$ that can't handle a little rough seas. Poor design or what?

I mean really this isn't a ship that was built back in the 50's.

Disappointing to say the least.

yes I do agree with you.  

 

I suppose it could go to Europe, and then Suez and then alternate between Australia and California.

But then again if RCI wanted to do this, they will need to plan it a year out or longer givven issues with NZ and AUST still being closed.  

[Ourusualbeach]

11 hours ago, CruiseLoverFromNorCal said:

Is it possible in the future? Thanks in advance. 

Given that Navigator sales are not near what they should be I seriously doubt you will see Royal commit to a larger ship with more berths to fill

[soremekun]

OP, you can get an Oasis class ship only after Boston gets an Oasis/Quantum class duo.

[Fairsailing]

I’m no Carnival fan, but the Navigator can’t compete with the Panorama.  Radiance, maybe.  That’s why they are having a hard time filling berths.  RCI has a history of half-hearted attempts to compete in SoCal.  

[Broons77]

2 hours ago, soremekun said:

OP, you can get an Oasis class ship only after Boston gets an Oasis/Quantum class duo.

 

I had a mild rant along these lines on a thread I posted yesterday.  Don't understand why NCL will port a mid size ship there but not Royal.

[ticketsunlimited]

35 minutes ago, Broons77 said:

 

I had a mild rant along these lines on a thread I posted yesterday.  Don't understand why NCL will port a mid size ship there but not Royal.

We took Serenade out of Boston Twice to Bermuda.  It was so convenient both to get to the port and to get to Bermuda quickly so we can spend 3 nights there.  Really hope they bring something into Boston.  We would do that cruise yearly if they did.

[Jimbo]

I would be more interested in sailings out of San Diego then San Pedro. Much nicer area  for pre and post cruise stays.

[long4acruise]

15 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

I would be more interested in sailings out of San Diego then San Pedro. Much nicer area  for pre and post cruise stays.

Definitely agree! Airport, hotels and cruise terminal are very close.  Plus lots to do in the area and in walking distances.

Departed from SD for the CAS "Members Cruise" (Panama Canal) on Legend in 2013 (I think that was the year?). 

[whitshel]

2 hours ago, Fairsailing said:

I’m no Carnival fan, but the Navigator can’t compete with the Panorama.  Radiance, maybe.  That’s why they are having a hard time filling berths.  RCI has a history of half-hearted attempts to compete in SoCal.  

The Carnival Radiance is where near competing with the Navigator!  Sailed the Radiance in Dec 21  and was the worst cruise experience in 15+ cruises. 

[dswallow]

The Bridge of the Americas limits the height above the waterline of ships to 190 feet; and at low water exceptions as high as 205 feet can be made. The Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge has a clearance of 228 feet, which allows an Oasis Class ship to transit after lowing smokestacks. You'd need to slice another 23 feet off an Oasis class ship to get through the Panama Canal -- approximately two decks and maybe part of a third. And that's also assuming the transit through the canal can accommodate the width of Oasis class ships wherever the max width of 198 feet is reached -- I suppose that could be the bridge as opposed to lifeboat-to-lifeboat widths. Which may be passable. 🙂

[Another_Critic]

17 hours ago, soremekun said:

OP, you can get an Oasis class ship only after Boston gets an Oasis/Quantum class duo.

But first, Baltimore gets a Radiance class ship.

[chengkp75]

On 2/25/2022 at 8:49 AM, Jimbo said:

Kind of sad isn't to build a ship, costing that much $$$$ that can't handle a little rough seas. Poor design or what?

I mean really this isn't a ship that was built back in the 50's.

Disappointing to say the least.

There is a huge difference between "handle a little rough seas", and passengers complaining about ship's motion.  There is nothing wrong with Oasis class stability.

20 hours ago, topnole said:

Well.  At a certain size (height) there are going to be pros and cons with regards to stability in different types of weather.  The great thing is, in calm seas you may not even know you are on a ship on oasis class.  In my early days of cruising (much smaller ships back then other than Norway), I always felt phantom motion for days after returning.  That rarely happens anymore.  

Having to dissect this will take some time.  A ship of a "certain size (height)" is built differently than a "less tall" ship, meaning the smaller ship will tend to be narrower, and have less draft, both of which have more effect on stability than height.  In fact, a taller ship has its center of gravity higher, so the metacentric height (distance between center of buoyancy and center of gravity) is greater, and as such, the taller ship will be "stiffer" in lateral stability, meaning it will take more force to start the ship rolling, and that once the ship does start to roll, it will more quickly build force to right itself, which it will do quite quickly, producing a very uncomfortable "snap roll", that will tend to send people flying off their feet.  To compensate for this, stabilizers and stabilizing tanks are used to try to dampen (slow down) the roll motion to a motion that is comfortable.  So, the "tall" ship is not less stable than the "short" ship.