23 Ships OUT. 9 IN. The trend..

[LocoLoco1]

I note that CCL trumpets to the Financial Audience their move to Big Ships. Wondering what vessels will ply the 7 Seas? 

[Florida_gal_50]

Interesting.

[CruiserBruce]

Not really a new idea. Airlines have done similar. Why do you think the 747 has been retired? Very inefficient airplane.

 

Just making their fleet more cost effective and efficient. 

[fatcat04]

29 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

Not really a new idea. Airlines have done similar. Why do you think the 747 has been retired? Very inefficient airplane.

 

Just making their fleet more cost effective and efficient. 

Exactly. The 747 (many of which have been converted to cargos) are out of passenger service and many airlines have retired their A380's. It's all about the $$. 

Edited December 11, 2022 by fatcat04

[Sir PMP]

51 minutes ago, LocoLoco1 said:

I note that CCL trumpets to the Financial Audience their move to Big Ships. Wondering what vessels will ply the 7 Seas? 

Sorry, but service should be the number one priority, Carnival..

[CruiserBruce]

Yep, keep doing things the customer loves, even if it means losing money. That is a wise business decision. 

 

It's ALWAYS  about balancing a number of complicated issues. Right now, I sense, revenues are just STARTING  to get above CURRENT expenses. That goes without mentioning all those past debts. I sense it's going to take a be a good period of full ships before there is any sense of nice amenities returning. And @Sir PMP, as I know you like the smaller, older ships, running those older ships in a losing money situation,  doesn't help things get better sooner. And to say " I would gladly pay more" is strictly a self serving sample, not representative of the real market. EVERYONE is always seeking a cheaper deal.

[HALcruiser2001]

57 minutes ago, fatcat04 said:

Exactly. The 747 (many of which have been converted to cargos) are out of passenger service and many airlines have retired their A380's. It's all about the $$. 

What does POTUS fly in if SHTF?

[Guest ldtr]

Just now, CruiserBruce said:

Yep, keep doing things the customer loves, even if it means losing money. That is a wise business decision. 

 

It's ALWAYS  about balancing a number of complicated issues. Right now, I sense, revenues are just STARTING  to get above CURRENT expenses. That goes without mentioning all those past debts. I sense it's going to take a be a good period of full ships before there is any sense of nice amenities returning. And @Sir PMP, as I know you like the smaller, older ships, running those older ships in a losing money situation,  doesn't help things get better sooner. And to say " I would gladly pay more" is strictly a self serving sample, not representative of the real market. EVERYONE is always seeking a cheaper deal.

Pretty clear competitive economics of the mass market cruise lines including Hal, Princess, ncl, rcl, celebrity are all driving to larger more efficient ships. small will mean paying fares for the premium or luxury brands.

 

 Though HAL is staying at the low end of the average ship size of competing mass market lines.

[CruiserBruce]

17 minutes ago, bdd123 said:

What does POTUS fly in if SHTF?

Much different configuration,  purpose and situation,  and doesn't have a profit motive.

 

And what does "SHTF" mean.

[fatcat04]

30 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

Much different configuration,  purpose and situation,  and doesn't have a profit motive.

 

And what does "SHTF" mean.

@CruiserBruce When the "ahem" hits the fan. And yes, apples and oranges. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the big aircraft, especially the Queens of the Sky. But the industry has deemed them not efficient and let's face it, air travel is all about $$ not comfort or style anymore. I remember well when you dressed up in your Sunday clothes to fly. Now most wear sweatpants.. or even pajama bottoms. 

Edited December 11, 2022 by fatcat04

[VibeGuy]

I think part of any success for Carnivore Corporation is to get the most price sensitive end of the market (7NT Alaska, Florida-to-Caribbean and Mexican Riv) sailings off marine fuel oil/diesel and on to natural gas on as large of ships as the infrastructure will support.  They provide some financial support for the “halo” sailings that define the image of the brand. 

[ski ww]

Sad but true, that's why we don't like cruising RCI. HAL is still a nice seize, compared to other mass market lines. 

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, VibeGuy said:

I think part of any success for Carnivore Corporation is to get the most price sensitive end of the market (7NT Alaska, Florida-to-Caribbean and Mexican Riv) sailings off marine fuel oil/diesel and on to natural gas on as large of ships as the infrastructure will support.

Given today's bunker prices, LNG, even in places like Europe that have far more infrastructure for LNG bunkering than the US (which is almost non-existent on the West Coast), LNG is far more expensive on an energy equivalency than both VLSFO and MGO.

[Mary229]

In addition to the other excellent comments - Energy efficiency, itself, is also a consumer marketing term.

 

 There is nothing that says they can’t convert one of those moderate sized, energy efficient ships to an all suite, low passenger density vessel. 
 

I think they don’t want to go into the expedition niche - very expensive to execute but there is a need for ships that can navigate smaller ports.  I would like them to discuss that niche and whether they are going to compete in that niche

[Gail & Marty sailing away]

9 hours ago, ldtr said:

Pretty clear competitive economics of the mass market cruise lines including Hal, Princess, ncl, rcl, celebrity are all driving to larger more efficient ships. small will mean paying fares for the premium or luxury brands.

 

 Though HAL is staying at the low end of the average ship size of competing mass market lines.

Though HAL is staying at the low end of the average ship size of competing mass market lines.  (That will make them different ) and me happy.

[LocoLoco1]

As the OP, my intent was to wonder aloud what vessels will be plying the 7Seas, doing World Voyages etc. once the current crop of 2000/PAX vessels age and the Big 3 apparently turns to Mega-ships. 

[VibeGuy]

8 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Given today's bunker prices, LNG, even in places like Europe that have far more infrastructure for LNG bunkering than the US (which is almost non-existent on the West Coast), LNG is far more expensive on an energy equivalency than both VLSFO and MGO.

Today.  
 

I think shipping as a whole will be completely legislated out from HFO during the life of the existing fleet.   This will necessarily drive prices of low-sulfur distillates to fuel existing tonnage higher via demand.   A mandate for closed-loop particulate scrubbers would also further increase the external costs of distillate fuels.  

 

I also think a huge part of the fuel price equation is being driven by the refinery spreads, which are at record levels both in dollars and as a function of crude price.  The more work a refinery has to do on fuel, the more they’ll mark it up over crude.  LNG eliminates the constant upward pressure of increasing refining costs and puts a company buying a lot of LNG in a position to use actual purchases of useable fuel at advantageous prices rather than just hedging with derivatives on an underlying commodity that can’t be used directly.

 

Bunkering is a chicken-egg issue.  Interim solutions will have to suffice until the lines have a critical mass of LNG vessels at a given home port. 
 

The transition is inevitable. We can disagree as to *when* LNG becomes the lowest total cost fuel versus allowed distillate for the tonnage and use cases in cruise line operations, but it behooves Carnival to be ready as near as possible to the crossover point. 

[LocoLoco1]

12 hours ago, Mary229 said:

In addition to the other excellent comments - Energy efficiency, itself, is also a consumer marketing term.

 

 There is nothing that says they can’t convert one of those moderate sized, energy efficient ships to an all suite, low passenger density vessel. 
 

I think they don’t want to go into the expedition niche - very expensive to execute but there is a need for ships that can navigate smaller ports.  I would like them to discuss that niche and whether they are going to compete in that niche

I agree. I’m often curious how the 5 & 6-star brands can keep ‘mature’ ships going instead of going to new builds ala Viking. So, it’s doable I guess..

[chengkp75]

39 minutes ago, LocoLoco1 said:

I agree. I’m often curious how the 5 & 6-star brands can keep ‘mature’ ships going instead of going to new builds ala Viking. So, it’s doable I guess..

The maintenance cost for any ship starts to rise exponentially when the ship reaches 15 years of age.  So, those lines that buy or keep operating "mature" ships have to charge more, and perhaps obtain a smaller profit margin than the mainstream lines.

[Guest ldtr]

Just now, LocoLoco1 said:

I agree. I’m often curious how the 5 & 6-star brands can keep ‘mature’ ships going instead of going to new builds ala Viking. So, it’s doable I guess..

it comes down to either spend more per passenger in build costs for a new small ship or pay higher maintenance costs per passenger with an old small ship. In either case it  comes down to higher per passenger costs with a small vs large ship, which the fare need to reflect.

Edited December 12, 2022 by ldtr

[Mary229]

6 minutes ago, ldtr said:

it comes down to either spend more per passenger in build costs for a new small ship or pay higher maintenance costs per passenger with an old small ship. In either case it  comes down to higher per passenger costs with a small vs large ship, which the fare need to reflect.

There is a third component and that is energy efficiency.   Not only is energy efficiency a cost savings it may become a government dictate thereby immediately obsoleting some of the older ships.  I really don’t think it will happen but it is always a possibility.  In the meantime they can promote themselves as good stewards of the environment, people lap that up

[Guest ldtr]

1 hour ago, Mary229 said:

There is a third component and that is energy efficiency.   Not only is energy efficiency a cost savings it may become a government dictate thereby immediately obsoleting some of the older ships.  I really don’t think it will happen but it is always a possibility.  In the meantime they can promote themselves as good stewards of the environment, people lap that up

Many of the energy related features from lighting to engines to generators, can be improved or upgraded. Just as the lighting in many existing ships has been upgraded to led.

 

Biggest issue is pollution and fuel types but many things can be retrofitted even on existing ships if the demand exists.

 

in any can smaller ships either new builds, old builds, means a higher fare structure beyond that of the mass market lines.

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, Mary229 said:

Not only is energy efficiency a cost savings it may become a government dictate thereby immediately obsoleting some of the older ships.

While some nations can and do limit access to certain areas based on emissions and energy issues, that does not make older ships obsolete.  The IMO has been making ships safer, more environmentally friendly, and more fuel efficient through regulations for decades, but one thing they all have in common, is that they are never retroactive, only applying to newbuild ships.  Given that 80+% of the world's economy travels by ship, they cannot make the vast majority of them obsolete overnight.

[Mary229]

38 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

While some nations can and do limit access to certain areas based on emissions and energy issues, that does not make older ships obsolete.  The IMO has been making ships safer, more environmentally friendly, and more fuel efficient through regulations for decades, but one thing they all have in common, is that they are never retroactive, only applying to newbuild ships.  Given that 80+% of the world's economy travels by ship, they cannot make the vast majority of them obsolete overnight.

I agree that it would be unlikely  but certain factions already dislike the cruise industry and have and can mount considerable public relations campaigns against them.  
 

I never try to gauge political risk, it is the ultimate unknown. I am surprised daily by that sector

Edited December 12, 2022 by Mary229

[VibeGuy]

I think cruiselines have elevated profiles for environmental regulatory risk relative to the rest of the shipping industry because they’re seen as discretionary activity rather than vital connections between producers and consumers.        
 

I agree with competitive pressure as well.  Havila’s new-build program, as an example, gives them both actual environmental leadership (on emitted carbon/passenger mile, pm2.5 and noise) and some very nice marketing points against an extremely ingrained incumbent.   They operate in a pretty specific environment - I don’t know if you can make the same play in the 7NT Eastern Caribbean market; but someone is going to want to have the cleanest fleet in Alaska, and brag about it.