NCL Building Two 200,000+ Ton Ships

[DevCruise]

These ships are so big! I think Alaska wouldn't work as ports for them. What is the largest ship that is able to cruise in Alaska?

 

I would guess the limitation for Alaska is how big of a ship can you fit through the Panama Canal? At least with NCL, the ships doing Alaska go back and forth from Alaska and the Caribbean.

[Ilovesailing]

I too hope it is true. Recent innovation with the big ships is quite amazing.

 

I do hope the industry knows what it is doing with these large ships. It appears that NCL is having pricing problems in Miami with the Getaway, probably due to over capacity.

 

http://www.travelweekly.com/Cruise-Travel/Norwegian-Cruise-Line-pricing-weak/

 

 

The Titanic was suppose to be amazing as well.

[JayinAZ]

If this is true, it's a great business move for Norwegian. From a business point of view, as of right now, I think Norwegian has one of the best long term brand potentials: the Freestyle concept is appealing to the younger markets, especially in the context of lines like Celebrity, Royal Caribbean, etc., where set dining times are still very much in place. So if Norwegian can create a hard product that only enhances Freestyle, they're in good shape -- much like how Breakaway/Getaway was designed.

 

Freestyle is not unique anymore. Carnival, Royal, Princess all have their anytime/my time dining. What once was unique to NCL no longer is. I thank NCL for this.

[Powriv]

I would guess the limitation for Alaska is how big of a ship can you fit through the Panama Canal? At least with NCL, the ships doing Alaska go back and forth from Alaska and the Caribbean.

 

 

Could be easily solved by sailing from Finland to Australia/Asia for winter sailings, sail back via Hawaii to West Coast for Alaska cruises and then every fall sail back to Australia/Asia via Hawaii thereby avoiding Panama Canal

 

RCL does this route with smaller ships(Radiance and Rhapsody)

[bonvoyagie]

I guess I look at a cruise ship as a floating hotel - not a resort. So for me the bigger the better does not apply. Frankly I think that a 2500 pax or less ship is just fine. I don't buy into the bigger is cheaper to operate theory either. The ships I have been on all have some sort of ratio between staff and pax - that ratio would have to be maintained in order to keep the service levels up - if they drop the service level then you would have dissatisfied customers and you would soon be out of the cruise business.

 

As for the power plants - they too will scale in direct proportion to the amount of tonnage they must propel through the water it will take twice as may BTUs to propel a 200000 GTW as a 100000 GTW ship - not to mention the massive amounts of electricity to run the ship's hotel --er resort.

 

As for the costs to build - I am sure that the initial costs in both time and $$ are also proportional The larger ship may cost slightly less than two smaller ones - I am not sure.

 

As already mentioned the number of ports for these ships is limited now and may still be in the near future - perhaps these mega ships would simply sail the world - like the World does now.

[barnacle_boy]

I guess I look at a cruise ship as a floating hotel - not a resort. So for me the bigger the better does not apply. Frankly I think that a 2500 pax or less ship is just fine. I don't buy into the bigger is cheaper to operate theory either. The ships I have been on all have some sort of ratio between staff and pax - that ratio would have to be maintained in order to keep the service levels up - if they drop the service level then you would have dissatisfied customers and you would soon be out of the cruise business.

 

As for the power plants - they too will scale in direct proportion to the amount of tonnage they must propel through the water it will take twice as may BTUs to propel a 200000 GTW as a 100000 GTW ship - not to mention the massive amounts of electricity to run the ship's hotel --er resort.

 

As for the costs to build - I am sure that the initial costs in both time and $$ are also proportional The larger ship may cost slightly less than two smaller ones - I am not sure.

 

As already mentioned the number of ports for these ships is limited now and may still be in the near future - perhaps these mega ships would simply sail the world - like the World does now.

 

 

Breakaway carries double the number of passengers Jewel does with only a 50% increase in the number of crew. Thus, the crew:passenger ratio is considerably different between the two ships. Jewel is 1:2 and Breakaway is nearly 1:3. Whether or not service levels are maintained is a matter of personal opinion, but your notion that this ratio is fixed is complete fiction.

 

The relationship you suggest between power and size is also overly simplistic. Your further assumption that it is linear is absurd. Breakaway has a 62,000 kw power plant with 17.5 mw pods. Jewel has a 72,000 kw power plant with 19.5 mw pods. Jewel is actually MORE powerful than the larger Breakaway. Your relationship doesn't take into account developments in hydrodynamics and new hull shapes that save energy and fuel, nor does it take into account the decision of lines to choose lower speeds for lower operating expenses.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

Edited July 6, 2014 by barnacle_boy

[negc]

I guess I look at a cruise ship as a floating hotel - not a resort. So for me the bigger the better does not apply. Frankly I think that a 2500 pax or less ship is just fine. I don't buy into the bigger is cheaper to operate theory either. The ships I have been on all have some sort of ratio between staff and pax - that ratio would have to be maintained in order to keep the service levels up - if they drop the service level then you would have dissatisfied customers and you would soon be out of the cruise business.

 

As for the power plants - they too will scale in direct proportion to the amount of tonnage they must propel through the water it will take twice as may BTUs to propel a 200000 GTW as a 100000 GTW ship - not to mention the massive amounts of electricity to run the ship's hotel --er resort.

 

As for the costs to build - I am sure that the initial costs in both time and $$ are also proportional The larger ship may cost slightly less than two smaller ones - I am not sure.

 

As already mentioned the number of ports for these ships is limited now and may still be in the near future - perhaps these mega ships would simply sail the world - like the World does now.

 

While the passenger/staff ratio may not be much different, the increased staff on the larger ships is primarily in the lowest paid categories. Both ships only require one Ship's Master, one Chief Engineer, and similar numbers of the other more highly paid ship's personnel, so there is a significant savings in personnel costs and any increased overall costs, if there are any, are more than offset by the substantial increase in revenues from passengers. If it were not more profitable for the cruise lines to build and operate larger ships, they would certainly revert to building the size ships that you prefer. The fact that they haven't should show you that there is a flaw in your reasoning.

[Dave85]

If it were not more profitable for the cruise lines to build and operate larger ships, they would certainly revert to building the size ships that you prefer. The fact that they haven't should show you that there is a flaw in your reasoning.

 

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. If all of the lines are following a particular trend in their new builds, it's a good bet that there's a financial or operational reason for doing so. The mass market lines will keep building big, for better or worse.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Cruise Critic Forums mobile app

[Silverman]

My innovation request....if you build bigger ships? How about bigger pools or better yet. More pools. That's the biggest thing lacking on these new builds.

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

[UPNYGuy]

Celebrity Solstice is a 120,000 post-Panamax ship, and FWIW she is almost the same breadth and length as breakaway. She is currently underway performing Alaska turns. Juneau is updating the pier to be able to handle larger ships.

 

Wouldn't surprise me to see Bliss doing Mexican Rivera cruises in the winter, and Alaskan cruises in the summer.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[danacline]

I know that mega ships are the way forward, but as much as we loved the Epic and would love to go on the Breakaway/Getaway (if it wasn't for the flight) I actually think we preferred the Spirit and would like to be able to cruise with NCL to smaller ports in the Med (Malta, Corsica, Ibiza etc)

 

We love freestyle and love NCL, but we also love Ports and want to be able to see loads and aren't too worried about the ships now: as long as there is some good entertainment and some nice hot tubs Im easy to please! :D

 

Ooh, maybe with all these new big ships they may bring some of the older/smaller ones over to Europe and have some increased variety in itinerary...(wishful thinking!?)

 

We just finished the 12-day Med cruise on the Spirit. It was able to fit quite well in all the ports we visited, including Mykonos and Kusadasi. While onboard, it was announced that the Epic would be moving to the Med next year for full-time cruises there. Several of the ports (Civitaveccia, Athens, Barcelona, Istanbul) are large enough and deep enough to handle a 200k-ton ship, but Venice would have a problem with them. Not sure about Naples.

[London-Calling]

All I can say is I hope NCL is planning for more interesting itineraries than what the Oasis-class ships are doing now...

 

Unlikely: The more interesting the ship the more boring the itinerary!

[aubreyc1988]

My innovation request....if you build bigger ships? How about bigger pools or better yet. More pools. That's the biggest thing lacking on these new builds.

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

 

I agree...I remember going on my first cruise on the triumph and thinking "Why isnt the pool bigger?"

[negc]

Unlikely: The more interesting the ship the more boring the itinerary!

 

Itineraries are only boring if you have been on the same ones many, many times. For the many first time cruisers or relative newcomers to cruising that a new ship attracts, most of the ports on those itineraries are ones that they want to visit. As more ports improve their infrastructure to accommodate the largest ships, itineraries may become more interesting even to veteran cruisers. Even now, ports like Falmouth, Jamaica are new to all but a limited number of cruisers.

[rbelfi]

Itineraries are only boring if you have been on the same ones many, many times. For the many first time cruisers or relative newcomers to cruising that a new ship attracts, most of the ports on those itineraries are ones that they want to visit. As more ports improve their infrastructure to accommodate the largest ships, itineraries may become more interesting even to veteran cruisers. Even now, ports like Falmouth, Jamaica are new to all but a limited number of cruisers.

 

I have to think that more and more ports will be updating their infrastructure. As the times change, ports of call have to change to accomidate.

[DevonianCruiser]

Does anyone recall an article around 10 years ago when plans for a 500,000 cruise ship were drawn up. At the time they said the most suitable place to build it would have been a deep water port I'm Brazil and the cost for fitting out the shipyard to accommodate the build would have been £60 million ($100 m) - before they even started! There were only 2 or 3 ports in the Caribbean that could have accommodated the ship.

 

That said on my first cruise in 1997 for two weeks around the Caribbean most of the ports were tender from memory and the docks were fairly non existent. Nowadays the docks and terminals are fairly modern and will develop further as the ships do :D

[sdmike]

no funny naming discussion yet? I'm disappointed. :)

[JohnIreland]

I would guess the limitation for Alaska is how big of a ship can you fit through the Panama Canal? At least with NCL, the ships doing Alaska go back and forth from Alaska and the Caribbean.

 

At the moment the Gem class it he biggest that can go through. But the Breakaway class (don't know about the Epic) will be once the widening is finish next year.

[sjbdtz]

no funny naming discussion yet? I'm disappointed. :)

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure they'll be named:

 

 

- NCL Size

- NCL Matters

 

 

It'll be the perfect segue to Bliss.

 

 

 

Stephen

 

 

.

Edited July 11, 2014 by sjbdtz

[big al]

Cruise agent here..about 6 months ago I was talking to an NCL agent and he mentioned that NCL was going to build a few mega ships very soon..I said, "yeah the Escape & the Bliss?"..he replied, "no much bigger"..when I asked how big, "180,000 tons?" ..he said, "bigger"..."how big?" I asked again..."200,000 tons" he replied after a moment's hesitation....I was almost speechless..now, I don't want to start more rumors , I'm just reporting what this agent said...when I saw this thread, I had to comment ...and I agree with some posters- we need more & bigger pools ( Allure & Oasis have a lot) , AND we certainly need different itineraries..please NOT St. Thomas, St. Maarten and Nassau for Eastern...I DO love Tortola, though...I will try & find out more from some NCL insiders....

 

Big Al

[barnacle_boy]

Cruise ship pools are small because they can have an adverse effect on vessel stability. Water weighs 62 lbs per cubic foot, so you can imagine how heavy a swimming pool can be. Metacentric height, or GM, is the calculated distance between the center of gravity and the metacenter, or the point of intersection of the vertical through the center of buoyancy and the center of gravity and the vertical through the new center of buoyancy when the vessel moves. In simple terms, it's a measure of a vessel's stability. Large GM = short, snappy rolls with high stability. Low GM = long, gentle rolls with low stability. Negative GM = something went horribly wrong and you're about to live the Poseidon Adventure (grab your lifejacket and hope that it's the 1972 classic and not the awful 2006 remake).

 

Since most swimming pools are located on the topmost deck, that heavy weight actually moves the vessel's center of gravity upwards closer to the metacenter. Shorter distance = smaller GM = less stability. That's why some new vessels are choosing to relocate large spa facilities with indoor pools (Royal Princess and the new AIDAprima off the top of my head) to lower decks. I believe Fincantieri presented that as one of several solutions for adding more passenger cabin decks without compromising stability.

 

Another thing to take into account is something called the free surface effect. Water wants to remain horizontal. Thus, as the vessel rolls and pitches, water wants to move towards the motion of the vessel. This exacerbates the rolling and pitching even further and reduces the ability of the vessel to right itself. That's why having water sloshing around on the car deck of ferries is deadly. Herald of Free Enterprise, Estonia, even Costa Concordia capsized due to a loss of stability caused by the free surface effect of water sloshing about inside their hulls. Of course, that's at the extreme end. The free surface effect in a cruise ship pool is more of a safety concern because of the tendency for waves to develop in the pool. The larger the body of water, the more pronounced the effect, and the more dangerous things become for swimmers. Passengers don't want to bash their heads, and cruise lines don't want the resulting lawsuits.

 

There are, however, new solutions that could potentially help to greatly increase the size of pools on the next generation of cruise ships. One way is to install retractable baffling dividers in long pools that would prevent large waves from developing in response to the motion of the vessel. Oasis and Allure have something similar in place for their massive Aqua Theater pools. RCI's subsidiary TUI, a German niche line, might have solved the problem once and for all onboard their latest new build. Mein Schiff 3 has a 170 foot long swimming pool, which is by far the longest at sea. In the center of the pool is a retractable baffle divider that, at least in theory, should keep water and swimmers in the pool. Only time will tell if this solution is effective, but if it is, we're likely to see much, much longer pools in the future.

[FreestyleNovice]

Cruise ship pools are small because they can have an adverse effect on vessel stability. Water weighs 62 lbs per cubic foot, so you can imagine how heavy a swimming pool can be. Metacentric height, or GM, is the calculated distance between the center of gravity and the metacenter, or the point of intersection of the vertical through the center of buoyancy and the center of gravity and the vertical through the new center of buoyancy when the vessel moves. In simple terms, it's a measure of a vessel's stability. Large GM = short, snappy rolls with high stability. Low GM = long, gentle rolls with low stability. Negative GM = something went horribly wrong and you're about to live the Poseidon Adventure (grab your lifejacket and hope that it's the 1972 classic and not the awful 2006 remake).

 

Since most swimming pools are located on the topmost deck, that heavy weight actually moves the vessel's center of gravity upwards closer to the metacenter. Shorter distance = smaller GM = less stability. That's why some new vessels are choosing to relocate large spa facilities with indoor pools (Royal Princess and the new AIDAprima off the top of my head) to lower decks. I believe Fincantieri presented that as one of several solutions for adding more passenger cabin decks without compromising stability.

 

Another thing to take into account is something called the free surface effect. Water wants to remain horizontal. Thus, as the vessel rolls and pitches, water wants to move towards the motion of the vessel. This exacerbates the rolling and pitching even further and reduces the ability of the vessel to right itself. That's why having water sloshing around on the car deck of ferries is deadly. Herald of Free Enterprise, Estonia, even Costa Concordia capsized due to a loss of stability caused by the free surface effect of water sloshing about inside their hulls. Of course, that's at the extreme end. The free surface effect in a cruise ship pool is more of a safety concern because of the tendency for waves to develop in the pool. The larger the body of water, the more pronounced the effect, and the more dangerous things become for swimmers. Passengers don't want to bash their heads, and cruise lines don't want the resulting lawsuits.

 

There are, however, new solutions that could potentially help to greatly increase the size of pools on the next generation of cruise ships. One way is to install retractable baffling dividers in long pools that would prevent large waves from developing in response to the motion of the vessel. Oasis and Allure have something similar in place for their massive Aqua Theater pools. RCI's subsidiary TUI, a German niche line, might have solved the problem once and for all onboard their latest new build. Mein Schiff 3 has a 170 foot long swimming pool, which is by far the longest at sea. In the center of the pool is a retractable baffle divider that, at least in theory, should keep water and swimmers in the pool. Only time will tell if this solution is effective, but if it is, we're likely to see much, much longer pools in the future.

 

Like watching Discovery Channel, with hands down the best written post, great read. Thanks, nice contribution!

[shof515]

from cruise fever website:

Update July 14, 2014: Norwegian Cruise Line has confirmed an order for 2 new 4,200 passenger Breakaway Plus class ships. The cruise ships will be 164,000 gross tons and they are scheduled for delivery in 2018 and 2019. These two new ships are in addition to the already announced Norwegian Escape and Bliss.

 

time to close this topic in 3....2....1...