CCL places new ship order, none for HAL

[HappyInVan]

2 hours ago, kevingastreich said:

LNG is not widely available in all cruise ports so that is a consideration for new builds..  I got this from a Chief Engineer on a HAL ship.

 

LNG is available in all major ports. The operational task is to safely transport LNG from the LNG depots to the docked ship. This is similar to the operation of refueling ships with diesel using barges.

 

https://www.marinelink.com/news/fueling-wrtsil-equip431623

 

You can ask your engineer friend what's the range of the new LNG cruise ships on a single load. That will tell you how often the ship needs to refuel.

 

Here's the important point. The smart people are spending billions. So, they likely have a better understanding of operational matters than your engineer.

 

Of course, not every port can refuel a large LNG ship. So, itineraries to remote regions will still use diesel ships. The question is how many diesel ships are absolutely required for HAL's long itineraries. 4 or 6? 

 

Once, it becomes mandatory to use low Sulphur fuel. The cost different between oil and LNG ships becomes significant. So, expect HAL pax to pay more.

 

That's why I was concerned pre-covid when Princess ordered LNG ships and HAL did not. 

 

[Desert Cruisers]

If it is HAL's intent to attract "new to HAL" and "new to cruising" passengers on their shorter itineraries, then offering an inferior product - in terms of food and entertainment - as compared to "legendary" itineraries is not the way to go.  You only have one chance to make a first impression. The "new to HAL" cruisers may be so dissatisfied by the food and entertainment that they become "one and done" passengers.

[foodsvcmgr]

Agree wholeheartedly and made this point earlier, two different products on the same line seems confusing to the consumer and ultimately unwise.

[TRLD]

1 hour ago, Desert Cruisers said:

If it is HAL's intent to attract "new to HAL" and "new to cruising" passengers on their shorter itineraries, then offering an inferior product - in terms of food and entertainment - as compared to "legendary" itineraries is not the way to go.  You only have one chance to make a first impression. The "new to HAL" cruisers may be so dissatisfied by the food and entertainment that they become "one and done" passengers.

Except keep in mind those cruises are in highly competitive markets, where price point is a key element. They are shorter cruises, port intensive.

 

The food is still good, just not extras like lobster. Which their competition does not have either these days.

 

The cruises are short and port intensive, so entertainment not as important, but still weak even on long cruises. 

 

Even on the shorter cruises, especially in the med they do have some unique itineraries compared to their competition.

 

 

In other words it is a competitive product at a competitive fare.

 

The grand voyages that has the extras comes with higher fares. On a per day basis have seen then from 30% to 70% higher than what I find on the shorter cruises. Prices that would stop many from booking if  their competition has noticeably cheaper fares.

 

 

[howiefrommd]

1 hour ago, TRLD said:

The grand voyages that has the extras comes with higher fares. On a per day basis have seen then from 30% to 70% higher than what I find on the shorter cruises. Prices that would stop many from booking if  their competition has noticeably cheaper fares.

 

 

We recently completed 2 longer cruises.  A grand Australia (94 days) and an Alaska Artic Circle (28 days). Although the website prices were significant, we ended up in both in a Neptune Suite at a fraction of the published price. On the grand Australia it was a upsell for pennies on the dollar and the Alaska it was amazing work of a TA monitoring he prices.

 

Additionally, it should be noted that the Grand Australia was approximately 20 - 30 percent below capacity.  As I had articulated in an earlier post, the potential additional revenue sources (casino, spa, excursions, shops, etc.) were  considerably underutilized.

 

If the master plan is to drastically reduce cruise pricing, fail to supplement additional revenue by the lack of use of casino, spa, etc. HAL may want to revisit this business model.  Both cruises the demographic was very similar (in fact many of he same people did both cruises) mostly 4 or 5 star and president mariners.

[TRLD]

2 minutes ago, howiefrommd said:

We recently completed 2 longer cruises.  A grand Australia (94 days) and an Alaska Artic Circle (28 days). Although the website prices were significant, we ended up in both in a Neptune Suite at a fraction of the published price. On the grand Australia it was a upsell for pennies on the dollar and the Alaska it was amazing work of a TA monitoring he prices.

 

Additionally, it should be noted that the Grand Australia was approximately 20 - 30 percent below capacity.  As I had articulated in an earlier post, the potential additional revenue sources (casino, spa, excursions, shops, etc.) were  considerably underutilized.

 

If the master plan is to drastically reduce cruise pricing, fail to supplement additional revenue by the lack of use of casino, spa, etc. HAL may want to revisit this business model.  Both cruises the demographic was very similar (in fact many of he same people did both cruises) mostly 4 or 5 star and president mariners.

Good to know. We are currently looking at a couple of them.

 

Unfortunately for most mass market lines the their long time passengers tend to use less of the onboard serviced. We include ourselves in that category.  Then wonder why the cruiselines change to try and attract new cruisers.

 

Always harder to fill long cruises because the population of those that can take them (money and time) is much more limited. On the Grand cruises we have taken in the past (all loops out of US) the occupancy has been pretty full. Have not done any HAL out of Australia.

 

How full was the Alaska Circle trip? That is one that interests us.

[HappyInVan]

18 minutes ago, howiefrommd said:

We recently completed 2 longer cruises.  A grand Australia (94 days) and an Alaska Artic Circle (28 days). Although the website prices were significant, we ended up in both in a Neptune Suite at a fraction of the published price. On the grand Australia it was a upsell for pennies on the dollar and the Alaska it was amazing work of a TA monitoring he prices...

 

If the master plan is to drastically reduce cruise pricing, fail to supplement additional revenue by the lack of use of casino, spa, etc. HAL may want to revisit this business model.  Both cruises the demographic was very similar (in fact many of he same people did both cruises) mostly 4 or 5 star and president mariners.

 

Exactly! That's why I prefer to do last minutes deals with HAL.

 

The product is so poor on the milk runs (7-10 days). That HAL novices don't move on to the 'premium' product. "I've to put up with THAT for 35 days!!!".

 

The HAL veterans do realize that the premium journeys are better. But, they're fading away. 

 

Meanwhile, regulations are getting tougher in ports and protected areas. Silversea is willing to use LNG. There lies the future if HAL is to survive.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Nova

 

 

Edited July 28 by HappyInVan

[HappyInVan]

2 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

 

Edited July 28 by HappyInVan

[kevingastreich]

12 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

LNG is available in all major ports. The operational task is to safely transport LNG from the LNG depots to the docked ship. This is similar to the operation of refueling ships with diesel using barges.

When the 2024 GWV got diverted around Africa because of the Red Sea hostilities, it was a major issue just finding ports that would have diesel and food.  I can't imagine what the challenge would have been if the ship had to scrounge for LNG.  That is what brought up the whole discussion of diesel vs. LNG.

[howiefrommd]

1 hour ago, TRLD said:

Good to know. We are currently looking at a couple of them.

 

Unfortunately for most mass market lines the their long time passengers tend to use less of the onboard serviced. We include ourselves in that category.  Then wonder why the cruiselines change to try and attract new cruisers.

 

Always harder to fill long cruises because the population of those that can take them (money and time) is much more limited. On the Grand cruises we have taken in the past (all loops out of US) the occupancy has been pretty full. Have not done any HAL out of Australia.

 

How full was the Alaska Circle trip? That is one that interests us.

The Grand Australia was RT out of San Diego.  The Alaska Circle ship was relatively full.  We had a fair amount of medical evacuations but nothing like the Grand Australia (which had 57). I should also note that although called Arctic Circle, we did not get anywhere near the Artic Circle.  The ice was way to heavy to safely navigate the waters.  Once I thought about it, why would anyone (yet alone a cruiseline) think that you could navigate those waters in June.

[howiefrommd]

1 hour ago, TRLD said:

Good to know. We are currently looking at a couple of them.

 

Unfortunately for most mass market lines the their long time passengers tend to use less of the onboard serviced. We include ourselves in that category.  Then wonder why the cruiselines change to try and attract new cruisers.

 

Always harder to fill long cruises because the population of those that can take them (money and time) is much more limited. On the Grand cruises we have taken in the past (all loops out of US) the occupancy has been pretty full. Have not done any HAL out of Australia.

 

How full was the Alaska Circle trip? That is one that interests us.

I did forget one more thing.  Over 700 guests had the HIA package, so the restaurants were quite full.  In casual discussion with the Pinnacle staff, I asked how many guests actually paid for their dinner and he said with the exception of staff (at a discount) he could recall anyone.  

[luv2kroooz]

On 7/27/2024 at 3:42 AM, HappyInVan said:

The interior was designed like a large mall with an long open atrium (photo below).

This is something we really do not prefer. I mean I think a ship should somehow feel like a ship with some connection to the ocean. These new, commercialized, mall-like promenades basically feel like Disney world to us. We don't laser tag, roller coasters, flowriders, go karts etc at sea. Go to disney or your local six flags for that stuff.

[ellieanne]

6 hours ago, howiefrommd said:

I did forget one more thing.  Over 700 guests had the HIA package, so the restaurants were quite full.  In casual discussion with the Pinnacle staff, I asked how many guests actually paid for their dinner and he said with the exception of staff (at a discount) he could recall anyone.  

This was an issue on my cruise as well. So many passengers had the HIA package that it was impossible for me to use all my benefits because there was just no availability in the specialty restaurants. If over half the passengers include the HIA package in their booking, it might be a better idea for HAL to start including it in the booking from the beginning. Mine was a perk added when re-booking a cancelled cruise, so I didn't pay for it.
I think HAL might be a better option if they went to all-inclusive pricing -- so including the HIA perks and the daily surcharge in the pricing from the beginning. Even raising prices to include include 1 dinner per week per guest, the basic internet package, the basic 15-drinks per day, with a shore excursion credit and the surcharge, it would still be a bargain.
I also think they need to market themselves as what they are. I think they do a good job, but new cruisers don't always pay attention and want all the bells and whistles they see on other lines ads. There is a quiet cruiser market, the ones who don't want all the activities, and HAL does a GREAT job for them. I think HAL just needs to be a little clearer in the marketing. Especially in these times when fewer and fewer people are using travel agents who can help them find the perfect line for them. Upfront and expert knowledge makes a huge difference in passengers expectations of the cruise and their ultimate enjoyment.

[howiefrommd]

11 hours ago, ellieanne said:

I think HAL might be a better option if they went to all-inclusive pricing -- so including the HIA perks and the daily surcharge in the pricing from the beginning. Even raising prices to include include 1 dinner per week per guest, the basic internet package, the basic 15-drinks per day, with a shore excursion credit and the surcharge, it would still be a bargain.
 

We are very itinerary driven, so not loyal to any particular cruiseline.  Obviously I am only talking anecdotally (as a result of many conversations with staff, travel professionals, guests and reading the usual cruise publications and internet sites) but HAL has a very loyal demographic, which for many reasons are quite price conscious. Any attempt to raise prices would probably be counterproductive to their core consumer.  In all transparency, I have gotten crazy good (including all inclusive deals) on Holland for literally pennies on the dollar.  

[ontheweb]

12 hours ago, ellieanne said:

This was an issue on my cruise as well. So many passengers had the HIA package that it was impossible for me to use all my benefits because there was just no availability in the specialty restaurants. If over half the passengers include the HIA package in their booking, it might be a better idea for HAL to start including it in the booking from the beginning. Mine was a perk added when re-booking a cancelled cruise, so I didn't pay for it.
I think HAL might be a better option if they went to all-inclusive pricing -- so including the HIA perks and the daily surcharge in the pricing from the beginning. Even raising prices to include include 1 dinner per week per guest, the basic internet package, the basic 15-drinks per day, with a shore excursion credit and the surcharge, it would still be a bargain.
I also think they need to market themselves as what they are. I think they do a good job, but new cruisers don't always pay attention and want all the bells and whistles they see on other lines ads. There is a quiet cruiser market, the ones who don't want all the activities, and HAL does a GREAT job for them. I think HAL just needs to be a little clearer in the marketing. Especially in these times when fewer and fewer people are using travel agents who can help them find the perfect line for them. Upfront and expert knowledge makes a huge difference in passengers expectations of the cruise and their ultimate enjoyment.

There are many of us who would not want to have to pay for packages we would not or could not use. For instance, we would definitely not want to have to pay for a drink package when I do not drink that much and DW cannot drink (contraindicated with a prescription med she takes.)

[BermudaBound2014]

12 hours ago, ellieanne said:

This was an issue on my cruise as well. So many passengers had the HIA package that it was impossible for me to use all my benefits because there was just no availability in the specialty restaurants. If over half the passengers include the HIA package in their booking, it might be a better idea for HAL to start including it in the booking from the beginning. Mine was a perk added when re-booking a cancelled cruise, so I didn't pay for it.
I think HAL might be a better option if they went to all-inclusive pricing -- so including the HIA perks and the daily surcharge in the pricing from the beginning. Even raising prices to include include 1 dinner per week per guest, the basic internet package, the basic 15-drinks per day, with a shore excursion credit and the surcharge, it would still be a bargain.
I also think they need to market themselves as what they are. I think they do a good job, but new cruisers don't always pay attention and want all the bells and whistles they see on other lines ads. There is a quiet cruiser market, the ones who don't want all the activities, and HAL does a GREAT job for them. I think HAL just needs to be a little clearer in the marketing. Especially in these times when fewer and fewer people are using travel agents who can help them find the perfect line for them. Upfront and expert knowledge makes a huge difference in passengers expectations of the cruise and their ultimate enjoyment.

 

I get what you are saying, but this would likely be very unpopular with the majority sailing main stream lines.  Better luck with this pricing model on luxury lines.

 

People like options. When I travel with DH I get HIA (gotta love a built in babysitter 😁.) I don't drink much when I travel solo, so I wouldn't want to subsidize others.

 

Plus, if everyone has the package, they need more staff. The staff is already much thinner post covid (as is the entire world staffing).

[EtaC]

On 7/27/2024 at 9:50 AM, TRLD said:

Compare the HAL ships to the similarly sized, 24 year old Grand Princess.  The public areas on Princess are designed for more general use, on HAL they are currently set up for music walk with a lot of sound deadening material that makes the area less useful for other activities and gives it a very closed in feeling. The one very attractive feature of HAL ships is the Crows Nest. 

 

We sail on HAL in spite of music walk, not because of it.

 

 

And others, such as myself sail because of it. Different strokes....

[HappyInVan]

Here's some tidbits that provides perspective on the cruise industry.

 

MSC keeps launching big new ships. By 2028, their tonnage will be 3.7 million GT. By comparison, Carnival brand will also have a similar tonnage; after launching the Excel ships and transferring ships from Costa and P&O Australia.

 

The problem is that RCI will have 5 million GT by 2027. That's why Carnival has been cannibalizing the other brands. They've fallen behind during their pause. The other companies have been filling the order books at the shipyards.

 

How desperate is Carnival to keep up? Would Carnival accept being number 3 in the industry. Where else can they get vessels? Cunard has only 4. Costa has already lost vessels. So, that leaves just Aida, Princess and HAL.

 

[TRLD]

23 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

Here's some tidbits that provides perspective on the cruise industry.

 

MSC keeps launching big new ships. By 2028, their tonnage will be 3.7 million GT. By comparison, Carnival brand will also have a similar tonnage; after launching the Excel ships and transferring ships from Costa and P&O Australia.

 

The problem is that RCI will have 5 million GT by 2027. That's why Carnival has been cannibalizing the other brands. They've fallen behind during their pause. The other companies have been filling the order books at the shipyards.

 

How desperate is Carnival to keep up? Would Carnival accept being number 3 in the industry. Where else can they get vessels? Cunard has only 4. Costa has already lost vessels. So, that leaves just Aida, Princess and HAL.

 

Ah one of the 4 horsemen of the CCL apocalypse.  

 

They did just order a number of ships for Carnival. Other orders will follow over the next few years for other lines, depending upon their relative priority as the debt gets paid down, pretty much the same as NCLH and RCL.

 

The size of Carnival does not matter that much as long as it keeps up with demand for its segment. It currently has capacity of 89,000.

 

What does matter is the total size of all CCL brands.

 

Keep in mind that all of the lines owned by CCL.have a total capacity of 257,000 at 2 per cabin capacity, not counting 2024 deliveries, the next closest is RCL at 171,000 including Mein Schiff and Hapag-Lloyd.

 

NCLH is way down around 62,000 capacity with MSC in that ball park.

 

CCL will continue to be the largest holding company for atleast this decade and probably much longer.

 

 

Edited July 30 by TRLD

[Desert Cruisers]

16 hours ago, howiefrommd said:

We are very itinerary driven, so not loyal to any particular cruiseline.  Obviously I am only talking anecdotally (as a result of many conversations with staff, travel professionals, guests and reading the usual cruise publications and internet sites) but HAL has a very loyal demographic, which for many reasons are quite price conscious. Any attempt to raise prices would probably be counterproductive to their core consumer.  In all transparency, I have gotten crazy good (including all inclusive deals) on Holland for literally pennies on the dollar.  

No doubt that there is a loyal core of Mariners but is it the most profitable passenger segment for HAL?  Filling ships is important but so is the passenger mix.  Yes, a company can make $ from price-conscious passengers but it involves a tradeoff between included amenities and cost control.  I read a lot on this board about how past passengers are dissatisfied about HAL cutting back on things.  What's more important - better amenities or holding the line on price?

 

We are 3-star Mariners but HAL is just not on the top of our list when we are thinking about cruising.  Last Fall, we sailed Cunard to England and then sailed on Azamara from Rome to Barcelona. Wanting to sail back to the States, we found a TA on the Oosterdam leaving from Barcelona which fit our schedule. There weren't a lot of other options. We decided to give HAL another try after a disappointing sailing in 2019 on the Volendam in South America. Unfortunately, the Oosterdam was a disappointment compared with Cunard and Azamara.  Yes, there was a price difference so we had lowered our expectations.  While there were some positives on HAL - e.g., a wonderful breakfast menu, good cabin stewards, and quiet places to sit - it was quite boring to be onboard.  We don't need to be entertained every minute and we are not late-night people. There was very little to do during the day and evening.  We would have been willing to pay more for a better experience. HAL does have some interesting itineraries but there is too much variation in the onboard experience. 

 

[HappyInVan]

There's some resistance to LNG cruise ships. Fact: AIDA (CCL company) has operated a LNG dual-fuel vessel since 2018...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDAnova

 

Several other vessels driven solely by LNG has been launched. No indications of problems. I'll be happy to ride on an LNG vessel because of its pollution advantages.

 

The industry has organized a system of LNG fueling barges to support LNG cruise ships. So, any major port around the States and Western Europe can support LNG ships.

 

How often do LNG cruise ships need to refuel? Apparently, it takes 11 hours to fuel a large cruise ship for two weeks of operation. Those ships were designed to service standard 7-10 day itineraries. So, it would be an easy operation to top up the ships in the home port after each journey.

 

“The process, which took nearly eight hours, topped up the cruise ship’s LNG tanks with approximately 2,700 cubic meters of the gas. The Mardi Gras has a capacity of 3,600 cubic meters of LNG, enough to power the cruise ship’s four engines for approximately 14 days.

 

https://maritime-executive.com/article/north-america-s-first-lng-cruise-ship-fuels-preparing-for-mv

 

Enjoy

[BermudaBound2014]

8 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

. I'll be happy to ride on an LNG vessel because of its pollution advantages.

 

Smell is another advantage to sailing on a LNG vessel.

 

I walked down the pier from 7 days on a LGN vessel (Carnival Celebration) to board the NCL Encore which uses marine diesel. I never realized how much marine diesel smells until I had that direct comparison. It a distinctly noticeable difference and my sniffer isn't the best.

Edited July 31 by BermudaBound2014

[Hlitner]

LNG seems like a great idea for cruise (and merchant) ships and a few industry insiders, that post here on CC, have convinced me that the storage/systems are safe.  But I also get the feeling that this in an area where the cruise lines cannot be too far ahead of the various port authorities, who must ascertain the ability to bunker LNG in their ports.    We are already seeing what happens, when technology moves faster than the infrastructure necessary to support the technology.  Consider that electric cars are not very popular, in much of the USA, for multiple reasons including the lack of infrastructure (fast charging stations).  

 

I notice that the OP is from Vancouver (a beautiful area).  A quick internet search shows that the Port of Vancouver is doing studies and considering projects that would meet their LNG needs by 2030!  But LNG ships are already here and there will be many more before 2030.  Several cruise lines (especially with the MSC group which includes both MSC and Explora Journeys) is already made the commitment (the last 4 of Explora Journey's planned 6 vessels, will be LNG powered).  And the newest class of MSC mega ships are LNG powered.

 

Despite being reassured by some industry professionals, I do have some lingering concerns about LNG safety.  Consider that most bunker cruise accidents involve spills which are expensive to clean-up.  But a bunker LNG accident could, conceivably, result in a major explosion.  There can be no learning curve with this kind of risk, we must get it right!

 

Hank

[BermudaBound2014]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

  But a bunker LNG accident could, conceivably, result in a major explosion.  There can be no learning curve with this kind of risk, we must get it right!

 

Hank

 

Not going to lie, was a bit apprehensive myself. It's like Nuclear power. When it goes right it's very inexpensive and quite environmentally friendly. When it goes wrong it's a great big BOOM and it goes real wrong, real quick. 

[HappyInVan]

Currently, HAL has zero orders for LNG or hybrid vessels.

 

This is a problem because Norway will ban fuel oil ships from a few heritage fjords by 2026. Likely widen the ban in the coming years.

 

This includes the much visited Geirangerfjord (300k cruise pax a year) which HAL already no longer visits. I was on the Rotterdam in 2019, and I was very impressed by this fjord and hinterland.

 

https://cruisepassenger.com.au/news/norway-moves-to-ban-all-ships-except-those-with-alternative-power/

 

Traditional ships will bypass the protected areas, or load pax on excursion boats for the ride into the fjords. Geirangerfjord is 15 km long.

 

There will likely be problems for the mega LNG ships. Will the Sun Princess (176k GT 4,300 pax) be able to dock with Geiranger's floating pier? The 200k GT ships will likely not be able to dock. It would be messy if pax had to tender ashore.

 

So, hope we see many medium size LNG ships.