New Oceania ships ordered for 2027 & 2029

[MEFIowa]

Makes sense to phase out 30-year-old ships as they get more and more expensive to maintain. Don't think going from 1250 to 1400 passengers makes any real difference. Certainly not if the ships aren't full on some cruises and in relation to the behemoths you'll see parked next to them in the future.

[Tranquility Base]

It will be interesting to hear about what they plan to use regarding power plants.

Next decade we will see an increasing number of ports / regions in the world placing restrictions on both cruise ship size and emissions.

 

[Vineyard View]

4 hours ago, Tranquility Base said:

It will be interesting to hear about what they plan to use regarding power plants.

Next decade we will see an increasing number of ports / regions in the world placing restrictions on both cruise ship size and emissions.

 

Which is why this trend to increase ship size is head scratching to me. The huge monsters that are floating cities - I don’t get it. But even this announcement is a direction that I wonder about in the premium cruise segment. 

Edited April 9 by Vineyard View

[MEFIowa]

4 minutes ago, Vineyard View said:

Which is why this trend to increase ship size is head scratching to me. The huge monsters that are floating cities....

The WSJ had a story only a couple weeks ago looking at the economics of the behemoths. It all comes down to cost minimization per passenger nautical mile. And, of course, they adjust itineraries and length of voyages to fill them up. They make sense when they're packed.

 

Think of a simple example. O Sirena has to have 1 captain. So does the Behemoth. But the "cost" of that captain is spread across 630 passengers versus 6300, for example. There are only so many engineering positions needed on both ships. The passenger/crew ratio tends to favor the behemoths by a wide margin. Even fuel costs aren't too problematic spread out over so many passengers. (Though I'd love to see a comparison of the fuel used per hour at say 18 knots for Sirena versus a 230,000-ton behemoth.)

[CptBoatface]

Any concept pictures out?

[Vineyard View]

2 hours ago, MEFIowa said:

The WSJ had a story only a couple weeks ago looking at the economics of the behemoths. It all comes down to cost minimization per passenger nautical mile. And, of course, they adjust itineraries and length of voyages to fill them up. They make sense when they're packed.

 

Of course. It is simple math. That is why the cost pp is so low. I am guessing most on this forum, and other premium/luxury lines understand how this works.
At the end of the day, I also think that most of us on these forums are here because we have no desire to experience that outcome in experience. 
In time, there will be a lot of factors influencing the bigger ships, and where they are able to travel. Will 1400 pax stay at the top end of premium cruise lines?  Will people be willing to pay for the premium cost of sailing on these ships vs luxury smaller ships, of it comes to that? IDK. It,e will tell.  

[Vallesan]

6 hours ago, Vineyard View said:

Which is why this trend to increase ship size is head scratching to me. The huge monsters that are floating cities - I don’t get it. But even this announcement is a direction that I wonder about in the premium cruise segment. 

 I agree with you 100%

 

Some of the lasting memories we have  are from sailing up the river into the centre of Saigon and similarly into Klong Toey in Bangkok. 
 

Last summer in the Norwegian Fjords whilst we were able to sail directly into Flam etc we saw some large, but not ‘monstrous’, ships anchored way out of the small towns.

 

To me it would be really sad to see the end of ‘small’ ship cruising. Looks like the ‘luxury’ sector is building more expedition ships so maybe there is still ‘hope’!

[pinotlover]

We’ll be in our late 70’s by then and perhaps past our cruising window. Some here will be much older. I’m certain whatever they have planned is for a different demographic than some of we posters belong. The two O ships still probably have a decade left which may surpass our sailing exploits.

[ChadnKate]

Remember that ship volume is a geometric measure and not just a linear multiplication. So the increase in tonnage way outweighs the extra 200ish passengers. Add in an additional specialty restaurant or two. Increase the entertainment spaces. Add a few “quiet” retreats. Etc. 
The real question for Oceania lovers is if they can keep the attentive and friendly staff while maintaining the epicurean quality. 
We have cruised Vista twice (and all other ships except Insignia at least twice) and while we miss Jacques we found the addition of the Bakery, Embers and Aquamar Kitchen kept us happy. 

[Snaefell3]

Service can be superb or egregious on any size ship, so let's leave that aside.

 

The remaining tradeoff is ports-of-call opportunity (smaller ships go more places) vs economies of scale (bigger ships cost less per Gross Ton to operate).  O has chosen to use part of those economies to give pax "elbow room".  We don't know about food venues yet, but I suspect the new ships will also have more venues like AquaMar and  Bakery -- they'll have the room.

 

Frankly, there are not that many places that a 67,000GT ship can get into that an 86,000GT ship cannot, so there's not much opportunity lost there.

 

The new ships will sail with 61.4 GT/pax, noticeably less crowded than the 'O'- and 'A'-class's 55.8, and spacious compared to the 'R'-class's 50.  For comparison, Oasis of the Seas offers but 40.5.

 

[cruisemom42]

On 4/8/2024 at 8:10 PM, Snaefell3 said:

The 'R'-class ships are late 1980s design.  They are comparatively expensive to run on a per-pax basis, have really-out-of-environmental-vogue propulsion, and ...have you ever showered in a non-suite cabin?  😉

 

O would have disposed of them long ago except O didn't want to be a 2-ship cruise line.

 

 

I love the R-class, and I've showered in a non-suite cabin. I hope O holds on to at least a couple of them. Perhaps for longer, more interesting itineraries.

 

[taiwan_girl]

4 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I love the R-class, and I've showered in a non-suite cabin. I hope O holds on to at least a couple of them. Perhaps for longer, more interesting itineraries.

 

 I agree.  Our one (so far) cruise on Oceania was on Regatta to Alaska and we (3 generation family of 8 ) absolutely loved it.  

 

Took a cruise this past Christmas/New Year on Viking with the same group, and while it also was very nice, we all thought Oceania was just a bit better.

[Andee]

I wish Oceania was adding ships between the R ships and the O ships in size, perhaps around 900 passengers.

We started sailing Oceania in 2004, when the entire fleet was 2 R ships.

[cayman09]

We were very much HAL devotees, but as they grew their capacity we grew disenchanted. We sailed on Veendam 1,100 passengers, old Westerdam 1,500, Eurodam & Nieuw Amsterdam 2,100 and finally Nieuw Statendam at almost 2,700. The service and food suffered as the size increased and we finally said no more. We're happy with Oceania and hope they're not going the way of HAL. We are trying Azamara next year and I'll be watching other small ship lines as well.

[bradpole]

On 4/10/2024 at 3:25 PM, cruisemom42 said:

 

I love the R-class, and I've showered in a non-suite cabin. I hope O holds on to at least a couple of them. Perhaps for longer, more interesting itineraries.

 

We love the little R class sisters as well.  We enjoyed the O class, but stepping back on an R class just felt like coming home!  Yes, the bathrooms are tiny (we generally book interiors), but are very well designed and functional!  We’ve had bigger bathrooms on other ships that have had less storage and were less functional!  A perfect example was Crystal Symphony, her standard ocean view bathrooms (this was before her most recent dry dock) although they were bigger we felt the bathroom was much more frustrating than the tiny ones on the R class.  The bathroom had 2 vessel sinks mounted on top of the counter that made it very hard to actually wash your hands without rubbing the sink bowl, very annoying!  Plus it was tub only, and in rough seas it felt a little iffy stepping in and out of the tub.  

[TRLD]

On 4/9/2024 at 6:09 AM, MEFIowa said:

Makes sense to phase out 30-year-old ships as they get more and more expensive to maintain. Don't think going from 1250 to 1400 passengers makes any real difference. Certainly not if the ships aren't full on some cruises and in relation to the behemoths you'll see parked next to them in the future.

1200 and below can go to Bora Bora. Anything above 1200 cannot. 

Edited April 13 by TRLD

[the more ports the better]

Bora Bora and all of the FP ports are overwhelmed by both O and R ships.  Those tiny towns cater to Paul Gauguin and Windstar.  I cruise O regularly but have done FP on both O and PG.  No comparison, is a mob scene on O and perfectly pleasant on PG.  Can’t imagine something even larger.

[the more ports the better]

For me, R ships seem much more crowded than O ships.  Have not been on vista so I can’t comment there.  I am all for more space per person but agree with everyone here, there needs to be an additional restaurant, Jacques gets my vote!!!

[tigerfan75]

9 hours ago, the more ports the better said:

Bora Bora and all of the FP ports are overwhelmed by both O and R ships.  Those tiny towns cater to Paul Gauguin and Windstar.  I cruise O regularly but have done FP on both O and PG.  No comparison, is a mob scene on O and perfectly pleasant on PG.  Can’t imagine something even larger.

A different opinion here.  Experienced no “mob scene” on Insignia in FP in February.  Well managed.  No sense of overwhelming.

[cayman09]

Was on Regatta last year and it was far from a mob scene. Very smooth & organized. Islands were welcoming.

[ak1004]

12 hours ago, the more ports the better said:

For me, R ships seem much more crowded than O ships.  Have not been on vista so I can’t comment there.  I am all for more space per person but agree with everyone here, there needs to be an additional restaurant, Jacques gets my vote!!!

 

This was our impression too. O class has space to passenger ratio of 52, O class 44. Numbers don't lie. And the new ships will have ratio of 61, the highest in its class and almost as high as most luxury ships. In terms of number of passengers, I doubt anyone will even notice the difference between 1,250 and 1,400, but I'm sure it will feel more spacious.

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, ak1004 said:

 

This was our impression too. O class has space to passenger ratio of 52, O class 44. Numbers don't lie. And the new ships will have ratio of 61, the highest in its class and almost as high as most luxury ships. In terms of number of passengers, I doubt anyone will even notice the difference between 1,250 and 1,400, but I'm sure it will feel more spacious.

 

The numbers may not lie but quoted in a vacuum they don't necessarily present a meaningful picture. GT is a measure of total enclosed volume, and the word total is important because it includes a lot of space not utilized by passengers...engine rooms, galleys, crew quarters, store rooms. etc.

For example I recall when Marina and Riviera were being built the ships' architect commented that the size of the galleys were exceptionally large for ships carrying 1,250 passengers. Those exceptionally large galleys take away from the space available for passenger use.

 

The size of staterooms affects the size of public spaces and public spaces are where passengers notice whether a ship feels crowded. In two ships of equal GT carrying an equal number of passengers smaller staterooms can translate to larger public spaces, larger staterooms to smaller public spaces. Then, how the public spaces are divided substantially affects the perception of spaciousness. For example, a smaller main show room leaves more room for other venues.

 

For those reasons while the space to passenger ratio has some value the numbers aren't a mathematically meaning measure. A ship with a ratio of 60 may not have 20% more public passenger space per passenger than a ship with a ratio of 50.

Edited April 14 by njhorseman

[ak1004]

22 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

 

The numbers may not lie but quoted in a vacuum they don't necessarily present a meaningful picture. GT is a measure of total enclosed volume, and the word total is important because it includes a lot of space not utilized by passengers...engine rooms, galleys, crew quarters, store rooms. etc.

For example I recall when Marina and Riviera were being built the ships' architect commented that the size of the galleys were exceptionally large for ships carrying 1,250 passengers. Those exceptionally large galleys take away from the space available for passenger use.

 

The size of staterooms affects the size of public spaces and public spaces are where passengers notice whether a ship feels crowded. In two ships of equal GT carrying an equal number of passengers smaller staterooms can translate to larger public spaces, larger staterooms to smaller public spaces. Then, how the public spaces are divided substantially affects the perception of spaciousness. For example, a smaller main show room leaves more room for other venues.

 

For those reasons while the space to passenger ratio has some value the numbers aren't a mathematically meaning measure. A ship with a ratio of 60 may not have 20% more public passenger space per passenger than a ship with a ratio of 50.

 

All valid points. I don't disagree.

 

The ratio is far from perfect, but I think it is still a pretty good estimate. As an example, QM2 has a ratio of 55, and indeed it felt the least crowded of all mass market ships. 

 

The difference between 44 and 52 is pretty significant to be ignored even considering all other factors you mentioned, and to me, Regatta did feel slightly more crowded than Riviera.

 

And if you compare Regatta with 30,000 ton and 700 guests to ships like Silver Dawn or Silver Spirit that have 40,000 ton and 600 guests, the difference is very significant, despite SS cabins being almost double in size.

[MarkWiltonM]

Personally, I am happy with 1,400 capacity and looking forward to seeing how Oceania uses the extra capacity. We just got off Celebrity Apex after having sailed on Oceania for a while and it was way too big for us at 2,910 double occupancy and 3,405 max. It was also packed. We canceled 3 Celebrity cruises when we got home and only have Oceania booked for the next two years. (I will say, though, that the food on Apex was surprisingly good, way better than we've had on other Celebrity ships in the older Solstice class, and comparable to if not better than Oceania. Don't get upset, just my opinion!)