Bigger

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Agreed - but you should realize that a lot of posters here have only sailed on 3,000 plus passenger ships of mass market lines.  Once you are over 3,000 you have big ship mentality/attitude - it would be interesting (though probably impossible) to get a head count of regular CC posters who have ever experienced a smaller (less than 1,000 passengers) ship.

I will volunteer as one who has cruised on a ship less than 1000 passengers, the former Ocean Princess.

 

And if river cruises count, our river cruise earlier this year had a capacity of 164 with I heard on our cruise actually just under 100 passengers.

[sparks1093]

I didn't think that I would like big ships and favored the smaller ships of 2,000 passengers or so (which I realize is large to many in this thread) but having sailed a couple of the larger ones I have to say they were surprising in many ways, not the least of which was how rarely they felt overly crowded. They certainly offer activities that the smaller ships don't offer. Does that mean that they are "better"? Nope.

[Cruzaholic41]

I’ve cruised everything from river boats to small expeditionary ships to the largest ships in the world. Always?  Of course not. The Icon of the Seas is not “best” for a Galapagos cruise. 
 

However, large ships offer things that little ships don’t. I have a blast on the large ships so yes, I do favor them. But I also thoroughly enjoyed my recent Celebrity Flora cruise. 
 

Not sure what “big ship mentality/attitude” is supposed to mean. 

[clo]

14 hours ago, DarrenM said:

I have just been on my smallest ship to date,

How small? We were on 400 for Antarctica and then ONE HUNDRED for Norwegian coast. The first there could have been almost none and I would have loved it because of the location. The 100 pax one had people from various countries, all experienced travelers, only two others from the US. Tons to talk about. And IIRC there was only one somewhat elderly couple...who drank wine at lunch and dinner 🙂

[clo]

4 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I will volunteer as one who has cruised on a ship less than 1000 passengers, the former Ocean Princess.

 

And if river cruises count, our river cruise earlier this year had a capacity of 164 with I heard on our cruise actually just under 100 passengers.

We did 100.

[donaldsc]

3 hours ago, clo said:

How small? We were on 400 for Antarctica and then ONE HUNDRED for Norwegian coast. The first there could have been almost none and I would have loved it because of the location. The 100 pax one had people from various countries, all experienced travelers, only two others from the US. Tons to talk about. And IIRC there was only one somewhat elderly couple...who drank wine at lunch and dinner 🙂

 

I was 22 on my 1st cruise - a Maine windjammer that was pure sail without a motor.

 

DON

[Flatbush Flyer]

14 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

The smaller ships (now largely operated by more up-scale lines) generally have seats at the pool and restaurants (which generally serve GOOD food without your having to pay extra for the alternate restaurants now on all mass-market lines), because they allow more public area space per passenger - as opposed to the mass market lines which squeeze as many passengers on as possible.

BINGO!

It would seem that some mass market cruisers  may be unaware of (or just disregard) the reality check called “space ratios.” Sure those newer monstrous ships are physically huge. But, with a 5,000+ cruiser capacity, their passenger/space ratio will pale in comparison to much smaller premium/luxury ships at a 600-1200 passenger load.
Likewise, an unending list of eateries on those same giant mass market ships may appear appealing at first glance. But, it would be very interesting to see their overall per person comparative food budget (which historically falls at the low end of per passenger spending) compared to the other cruise industry segments. 

[DarrenM]

7 hours ago, clo said:

How small? We were on 400 for Antarctica and then ONE HUNDRED for Norwegian coast. The first there could have been almost none and I would have loved it because of the location. The 100 pax one had people from various countries, all experienced travelers, only two others from the US. Tons to talk about. And IIRC there was only one somewhat elderly couple...who drank wine at lunch and dinner 🙂

Not that small. lol.

 

Celebrity Constellation. Massive compared to the two you mention above.

 

I have a very low boredom threshold.

[DarrenM]

14 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Agreed - but you should realize that a lot of posters here have only sailed on 3,000 plus passenger ships of mass market lines.  Once you are over 3,000 you have big ship mentality/attitude - it would be interesting (though probably impossible) to get a head count of regular CC posters who have ever experienced a smaller (less than 1,000 passengers) ship.

What is a big ship mentality/attitude? Genuine question.

[Mary229]

If it is going where I plan to travel it is on my list to consider.  The only major consideration I have is financial solvency as I would like the ship I am on to have fuel and food.  The major lines are all financially stable, perhaps in debt but stable and well financed.  

[MBP&O2/O]

Pre cruise: Big Ship v Small Ship. 

I was once offered a choice between the companies 6 month old 106000dwt flag ship or the second oldest .. 20 years old .... and smallest at 12000dwt.

The larger one would have been three return voyages from the Arabian Gulf to Europe via the CoGH. One month each way. Not many ports could take a ship of that size at that time. Not dissimilar to Monstrosity of the Seas etc.

I took the smaller ship and we went all over. North America, South America, South East and West Africa. Fantastic trip.

 

Cruising: One mass market was enough tyvm!

2 hrs to queue to embark.

1 hrs queuing to get off the ship for excursions. People missing excursions because of queues.

Long wait times for meals. 

Free for all at the buffet.

Wholly unimpressed.

 

Moved to smaller ships.

Last one was 15 mins from bag drop to bar.

No queues to go ashore.

Tables always available.

Civilised buffet.

 

No contest for me.

 

Smaller every time.

[navybankerteacher]

3 hours ago, DarrenM said:

What is a big ship mentality/attitude? Genuine question.

The unthinking mass market customer’s knee-jerk belief that “bigger is better”.  Similar to the approval given the jumbo 747’s when they were introduced: “wide body” is great attitude.  They ignored the extended boarding and debarking times, the 12- across, two aisle configuration - only now are customers (and the lines) recognizing that bigness, in itself, is not necessarily a good thing.   Perhaps it the perceived anonymity of being one among 4,000 or so, rather than being one among a few hundred, (or certainly one of a dozen or so - when you are bound to be recognized) that creates the pushiness and general discourtesy people demonstrate when in huge crowds as opposed to being among just a few.

[AKJonesy]

I can only speak about Holland America.  Your question is subjective.  At least on HAL, there are die hard regular cruisers that embrace the smaller ships so keep that in mind as you read the posts.  I have grown weary of them because even with some updates, they still appear dark and old to me.  Two things I can say about the older class HAL ships that I like is that the staterooms are larger as compared to HAL Pinnacle class ships, AND you can lounge on the promenade deck.  The promenade deck on the Pinnacle class ships are for walking only.  However, having specialty restaurants is a bonus on the Pinnacle class including Club Orange.  You can find quiet places on all of the ships despite the number of passengers.  Lunch time will be busy in the Lido on any ship but breakfast and dinner is easier to find a place to sit.  Look at some vids on YT of various ships and classes and you will get an idea.  HAL does not have any mega ships but for some of my fellow cruisers, I am sure the Pinnacle class does feel that way.  

Edited June 11 by AKJonesy

[CDNPolar]

3 hours ago, MBP&O2/O said:

 

 

Cruising: One mass market was enough tyvm!

2 hrs to queue to embark.

1 hrs queuing to get off the ship for excursions. People missing excursions because of queues.

Long wait times for meals. 

Free for all at the buffet.

Wholly unimpressed.

 

Moved to smaller ships.

Last one was 15 mins from bag drop to bar.

No queues to go ashore.

Tables always available.

Civilised buffet.

 

No contest for me.

 

Smaller every time.

 

No doubt, this is what scares me about the bigger ships.  Lines, waiting, etc.

My nephew loves the big ships and the bigger the better but they don't leave the ship.  They take their kids and it is all about alcohol (adults) and waterslides (kids and adults) and all the other stuff.  They don't wait because they do nothing that requires waiting.

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

 Perhaps it the perceived anonymity of being one among 4,000 or so, rather than being one among a few hundred, (or certainly one of a dozen or so - when you are bound to be recognized) that creates the pushiness and general discourtesy people demonstrate when in huge crowds as opposed to being among just a few.

 

On a Viking Ocean ship you can be "invisible" if you want to be but we love Viking for the fact that the crew learn our names and we are known.

[wcook]

This forum has posters who enjoy the smaller ships. But if you look at the general public, they are clearly voting with their wallet for bigger and bigger ships. 

[Mary229]

1 hour ago, wcook said:

This forum has posters who enjoy the smaller ships. But if you look at the general public, they are clearly voting with their wallet for bigger and bigger ships. 

There are basically two models and they are very different.  One is people seeking a resort at sea, a destination itself. Gamblers and family vacationers could be lumped into this group but some may also drift into the second group.  The second group are travelers seeking a mode of transportation. There are different levels of experiences for each type though the resort at sea  ships seem to have settled on one ship, different levels of experience. 

Edited June 11 by Mary229

[clo]

10 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

eateries on those same giant mass market ships

Off-topic but I read a piece yesterday about a line - won't try to guess so as not to embarrass - that after two 'entrees' they charge you for any additional ones. But unlimited sides, etc. And that line or another charges $18'ish for a second lobster on those nights. I had to laugh. What kind of glutons are they catering to???

[navybankerteacher]

3 hours ago, wcook said:

This forum has posters who enjoy the smaller ships. But if you look at the general public, they are clearly voting with their wallet for bigger and bigger ships. 

Yes, in large part they are “voting with their wallet” …  in the sense that they can generally cruise for less money on the mega ships.   The fact remains, however: you only get what you are willing to pay for.

[Cruzaholic41]

7 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

The unthinking mass market customer’s knee-jerk belief that “bigger is better”.  Similar to the approval given the jumbo 747’s when they were introduced: “wide body” is great attitude.  They ignored the extended boarding and debarking times, the 12- across, two aisle configuration - only now are customers (and the lines) recognizing that bigness, in itself, is not necessarily a good thing.   Perhaps it the perceived anonymity of being one among 4,000 or so, rather than being one among a few hundred, (or certainly one of a dozen or so - when you are bound to be recognized) that creates the pushiness and general discourtesy people demonstrate when in huge crowds as opposed to being among just a few.

So folks who prefer large ships are “unthinking?”  What a preposterous thing to say. Why is it so hard for some of you to understand that not everyone prefers your tastes?  🙄

[navybankerteacher]

1 minute ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

So folks who prefer large ships are “unthinking?”  What a preposterous thing to say. Why is it so hard for some of you to understand that not everyone prefers your tastes?  🙄

You should work on reading comprehension. I did not say that people who prefer large ships are unthinking, rather I referred to  “the unthinking mass market customer” , never suggesting that all mass market customers are unthinking.. There are many mass market customers who are capable of thinking - but the unthinking ones do tend to automatically equate bigger with better.

[ldubs]

8 minutes ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

So folks who prefer large ships are “unthinking?”  What a preposterous thing to say. Why is it so hard for some of you to understand that not everyone prefers your tastes?  🙄

 

I'm still trying to understand how anyone would prefer a 707 to a 747 on a long haul flight.  😀

 

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

I'm still trying to understand how anyone would prefer a 707 to a 747 on a long haul flight.  😀

 

I do not know who would, but I would prefer an Airbus 320 over a 747.

[clo]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes, in large part they are “voting with their wallet” …  in the sense that they can generally cruise for less money on the mega ships.

Glad you mentioned that. Totally correct.

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Yes, in large part they are “voting with their wallet” …  in the sense that they can generally cruise for less money on the mega ships.   The fact remains, however: you only get what you are willing to pay for.

Is that really true? I've been reading that the fares for the humongous new RCCL ship, the Oasis, are sky high.

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

I do not know who would, but I would prefer an Airbus 320 over a 747.

I also like the Airbus 320, but of course it wasn't even an option until many years after the 747 was put into service.  For long haul 10+ hour flights the 747 was a favorite of mine.