No New "Smaller" Ships Planned?

[TonyBuzz]

Very interesting thread. 2015 fleet is 2-Quantum, 2-Oasis, 3-Freedom, 4-Radiance, 5-Voyager, 6-Vision, 1-Sovereign. By 2019, given current ships on order or retiring, it could be 4-Quantum, 4-Oasis, 3-Freedom, 4-Radiance, 5-Voyager, 5-Vision and still maintain long term growth patterns.

 

Between 2020 and 2023 the five remaining Vision ships will go past 25 years in service. It looks like those will be the next to go. They could replace those and maintain expected growth by building 3 more Quantum and 4 more Oasis class ships. That would put the fleet at 7-Quantum, 8-Oasis, 3-Freedom, 4-Radiance, 5-Voyager.

 

Or they might replace the Vision class with a totally new smaller class, smaller than Voyager and larger than Radiance. Perhaps they would be built to new Panamax standard so they can pass through the new Panama Canal and allowing them into smaller ports currently served by Vision class today. Pure speculation here. It's obvious that Quantum and Oasis class seem to be a good fit for Royal. Will they built more of the big girls or define a new smaller class? Time will tell.

[Desert Cruizers]

In regards to the Golden Gate Bridge, I know the Star Princess can go under and she is larger then the Radiance Class. Where is Royal limit there, the Voyager Class, although we may never see any ship larger then the Radiance Class in San Francisco.

[TonyBuzz]

In regards to the Golden Gate Bridge, I know the Star Princess can go under and she is larger then the Radiance Class. Where is Royal limit there, the Voyager Class, although we may never see any ship larger then the Radiance Class in San Francisco.

 

Voyager class should pass under the Golden Gate (207 ft. Voyager vs. 220 Ft. high tide Golden Gate clearance). And Explorer will be doing it twice in 2016. Sept. 19 and 26. Would be cool to have a Deck 10 balcony room for that. Had a Mini-Suite on Princess sailing under the Golden Gate. Awesome experience at sunrise. :)

[Biker19]

Actually, (I could be completely wrong) I thought it was rumored that 2 of the 4 new ships that were ordered by Carnival Corp will go to Costa.

 

I was going by the latest listing of ship orders compiled in this article in USAToday:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/cruiselog/2013/07/11/guide-new-cruise-ships-order/2506049/

 

I assume they were listing only confirmed orders for a specific line.

[Biker19]

Very interesting thread. 2015 fleet is 2-Quantum, 2-Oasis, 3-Freedom, 4-Radiance, 5-Voyager, 6-Vision, 1-Sovereign. By 2019, given current ships on order or retiring, it could be 4-Quantum, 4-Oasis, 3-Freedom, 4-Radiance, 5-Voyager, 5-Vision and still maintain long term growth patterns.

 

 

I doubt we will see 5 Vision class ships in RCI's fleet in 2019. Growth is happening without addition of ships. Next year 2 ships leave and 2 arrive but the # of berths is going up quite a bit. I think 2018 and 2019 will see the same - one ship each year leaving and arriving but capacity will go up since new ships will be much larger than the ones leaving. I think the fleet will stay around 22-23 but capacity will go up with larger ships.

[Clarea]

In regards to the Golden Gate Bridge, I know the Star Princess can go under and she is larger then the Radiance Class. Where is Royal limit there, the Voyager Class, although we may never see any ship larger then the Radiance Class in San Francisco.

We went under the Golden Gate bridge on Mariner (Voyager class) in May 2009. This means Freedom class could also pass under.

Edited June 26, 2015 by clarea

[DarthGrady]

Looks like in the next 4 years, all of the new ships will be Oasis & Quantum Classes. For now there are still older smaller ships to choose from. Until those are sold off. Doesn't look like they plan to return to a smaller model ship in the future? I would imagine I'm not the only one turned off by cruising with 4k-7k other people? Any idea if they have some longer term plans for some smaller ships? I can't imagine still being interested in cruising if the only ship options are 4k+ passengers in 10 years. Does RCI ever take input from what customers want? If so, where do we make our feelings known to the cruise line?

 

I've got my fingers crossed for some sub-100K gross ton ships, but I don't think it will be a reality for RCI anytime in the near future. The rumors are always indicating that the RCI brass only want to build bigger ships because they can carry more passengers, and are more cost effective. They can also shoehorn more widgets (bumper cars! sky diving! ice skating! model rocketry!) on board.

 

But I'll keep doing my little part. I always write "build more Radiance Class ships!" on every survey I get. :D

[Hoopster95]

And Explorer will be doing it twice in 2016. Sept. 19 and 26.

 

3 times... Oct 4 as well :)

(better be going under the GG, I'm booked for that sailing lol!)

 

 

We went under the Golden Gate bridge on Mariner (Voyager class) in May 2009. This means Freedom class could also pass under.

 

Yes, looks like she can:

 

Air drafts

Radiance 178 feet (I think)

Voyager 208

Freedom 213

Oasis 236

Quantum 205

Edited June 26, 2015 by Hoopster95

[Desert Cruizers]

Bob & TonyBuzz, unless something develops to bring Royal Caribbean back to the West Coast, we will never see a Freedom Class under the Golden Gate Bridge. It would be great if we do though.

[TonyBuzz]

Bob & TonyBuzz, unless something develops to bring Royal Caribbean back to the West Coast, we will never see a Freedom Class under the Golden Gate Bridge. It would be great if we do though.

 

We were so happy to see Royal return to California that we booked Jewel for this Oct. as soon as it was available. It will be our first time on Radiance class and she overnight's 40 miles from our home. Thought about Explorer for our 2016 cruise but DW wanted a warm weather cruise so we booked Liberty out of Galveston for Oct. 2016. We'd be happy with any ship we can get sailing from California. Even Quantum will fit under the Golden Gate but I'll be dead before that happens. :)

[BillB48]

3 times... Oct 4 as well :)

(better be going under the GG, I'm booked for that sailing lol!)

 

 

 

 

Yes, looks like she can:

 

Air drafts

Radiance 178 feet (I think)

Voyager 208

Freedom 213

Oasis 236

Quantum 205

 

Please don't think I'm picking nits, but I went back to have a look at old notes and I picked the air draft from a drawing while on the Radiance and it was 173 ft. I believe that it is accurate because the last I was aware the permitted air draft for the Sunshine Skyway is 175 ft. The Radiance and Brilliance have both been in Tampa in recent years.

 

Going back to the Golden Gate Bridge, the actual clearance is 225' and a permitted air draft of 220'. They did manage to slip some container cranes bound for one of the Bay area terminals at 223' not too long ago.

[American Bear]

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=6408

 

 

Got it Thanks, for Carnival Corp, not for Carnival.:)

[American Bear]

I've got my fingers crossed for some sub-100K gross ton ships, but I don't think it will be a reality for RCI anytime in the near future. The rumors are always indicating that the RCI brass only want to build bigger ships because they can carry more passengers, and are more cost effective. They can also shoehorn more widgets (bumper cars! sky diving! ice skating! model rocketry!) on board.

 

But I'll keep doing my little part. I always write "build more Radiance Class ships!" on every survey I get. :D

 

 

I'd agree with you about more Radiance Class ships, our favorite, and also agree its not likely.:)

[Hoopster95]

Please don't think I'm picking nits, but I went back to have a look at old notes and I picked the air draft from a drawing while on the Radiance and it was 173 ft. I believe that it is accurate because the last I was aware the permitted air draft for the Sunshine Skyway is 175 ft. The Radiance and Brilliance have both been in Tampa in recent years..

 

Not nitpicking at all... great info :) I remember speaking with Capt Claus Anderson on NOS. He was Capt taking Radiance under the Skyway the first time and was reminiscing that they had approx 5 ft clearance that first time under. Wikipedia... is that even at all a reliable source?... says Skyway has a 180ft clearance. Lion's gate Bridge Vancouver is 200 ft clearance and I've been told Radiance has "a little over" 20 ft clearance. So whether radiance height is 173 or 178, we're both close I guess (maybe split it in the middle!! :p)

 

I think I have 100% accurate info on Quantum though as I have a photo from the Engineer's desk from the Control Room during the All-Access tour (I posted it in my Quantum review) with several statistics about Quantum clearly laid out, including "air draft 62.5m", which equals 205 ft.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Hoopster95

[Desert Cruizers]

Tony, the Jewel is the only Radiance Class we haven't been on and if I hadn't done the Coastal with friends of ours in Sept of 2013 on the Star Princess, I would have loved to go with the Jewel. We are presently booked on the SOS this October's Quebec to Fort Lauderdale cruise. I would love to see a Voyager or Freedom Class here but doubt it will ever happen in my life time.:) I am much further south then you, in the lower Desert so 2 1/2 hrs to the nearest ports.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Desert Cruizers

[DarthGrady]

Got it Thanks, for Carnival Corp, not for Carnival.:)

Wow, it's hard to imagine that those ships "won't feel congested". More passengers than the Oasis Class ships, but only 180,000 GT? They must have some clever space usage planned.

[LBeeE]

Lots of interesting thoughts/comments here. Thanks to all for responding. I'm wondering if there is a possibility of greater fuel efficiency if they were to consider smaller ships - and by smaller I guess I meant Radiance class and smaller. (As in, not mega-ships). And I don't know whether fuel efficiency is even on their radar at all, but was thinking perhaps it's more likely in a smaller ship than a mega ship.

 

Several thoughts, I looked at a 10 year plan online for the port of Baltimore, and they did mention they are running out of places to dump the sediment that is dredged. Obviously they will have to continue dredging in order for it to remain a viable port for shipping. So they will have to figure that out. And then there is the bridge height issue. Wondering if someday Baltimore will be phased out. I hope not.

 

If they are to continue to sail to Bermuda, from anywhere, (or longer distances in general), I would think they would want to choose a more fuel efficient ship design to do so? And at some point (whenever that may be, 8-12 years, or whenever), someday that day will come when they will have to replace the oldest smaller ships, I'm wondering what will sail to Bermuda? I'm wondering if it's not cost effective to do so regularly with mega ships?

 

And that brings me to my next thought. The environmental regulations in the Chesapeake. (And I'm guessing the Chesapeake isn't the only place with environmental regulations in place either?) I was under the impression Grandeur may have had some modifications in order to make it environmentally compliant with Bay regulations. This would certainly be a consideration with a replacement someday, if they decide to do that.

 

And last, Re: Radiance class in Baltimore (or to Bermuda from wherever), this is from Wikipedia: "MS Radiance of the Seas is a cruise ship owned and operated by Royal Caribbean International. She is registered in Nassau, Bahamas, and is a gas-turbine vessel, the first built for Royal Caribbean. This system produces higher efficient speeds than other cruise ships, and emissions to the air are much lower than cruise ships powered by diesel engines." Seems like a good fit for the Chesapeake Bay and/or long distance cruising to Bermuda (from wherever)?

 

I guess I'm wondering if maybe they won't realize at some point down the road, "Oh snap, why did we build all of these mega ships that cost a boat-load to operate, aren't fuel efficient, and can't access a lot of ports our customers are interested in?" - just a thought lol!!

[Beachcampin]

Lots of interesting thoughts/comments here. Thanks to all for responding. I'm wondering if there is a possibility of greater fuel efficiency if they were to consider smaller ships - and by smaller I guess I meant Radiance class and smaller. (As in, not mega-ships). And I don't know whether fuel efficiency is even on their radar at all, but was thinking perhaps it's more likely in a smaller ship than a mega ship.

 

Several thoughts, I looked at a 10 year plan online for the port of Baltimore, and they did mention they are running out of places to dump the sediment that is dredged. Obviously they will have to continue dredging in order for it to remain a viable port for shipping. So they will have to figure that out. And then there is the bridge height issue. Wondering if someday Baltimore will be phased out. I hope not.

 

If they are to continue to sail to Bermuda, from anywhere, (or longer distances in general), I would think they would want to choose a more fuel efficient ship design to do so? And at some point (whenever that may be, 8-12 years, or whenever), someday that day will come when they will have to replace the oldest smaller ships, I'm wondering what will sail to Bermuda? I'm wondering if it's not cost effective to do so regularly with mega ships?

 

And that brings me to my next thought. The environmental regulations in the Chesapeake. (And I'm guessing the Chesapeake isn't the only place with environmental regulations in place either?) I was under the impression Grandeur may have had some modifications in order to make it environmentally compliant with Bay regulations. This would certainly be a consideration with a replacement someday, if they decide to do that.

 

And last, Re: Radiance class in Baltimore (or to Bermuda from wherever), this is from Wikipedia: "MS Radiance of the Seas is a cruise ship owned and operated by Royal Caribbean International. She is registered in Nassau, Bahamas, and is a gas-turbine vessel, the first built for Royal Caribbean. This system produces higher efficient speeds than other cruise ships, and emissions to the air are much lower than cruise ships powered by diesel engines." Seems like a good fit for the Chesapeake Bay and/or long distance cruising to Bermuda (from wherever)?

 

I guess I'm wondering if maybe they won't realize at some point down the road, "Oh snap, why did we build all of these mega ships that cost a boat-load to operate, aren't fuel efficient, and can't access a lot of ports our customers are interested in?" - just a thought lol!!

 

The Fuel Efficiency point is interesting, but I think it may trend the other way. While it is true that a Radiance Class ship will burn less than Oasis from point A to point B, it would not surprise me if Oasis actually burns less per passenger in the same way that a full city buss will burn less per passenger than an equivalent number of cars.

 

If this is true, then rising fuel costs would actually point towards there being less likelihood of smaller ships.

[AtlantaCruiser72]

The Fuel Efficiency point is interesting, but I think it may trend the other way. While it is true that a Radiance Class ship will burn less than Oasis from point A to point B, it would not surprise me if Oasis actually burns less per passenger in the same way that a full city buss will burn less per passenger than an equivalent number of cars.

 

If this is true, then rising fuel costs would actually point towards there being less likelihood of smaller ships.

 

I seem to remember reading that the Quantum class are the most fuel efficient in the fleet - silicon hull coating, an air bubble layer that helps her through the water, solar panels, and more efficient lighting, heating/cooling and electronics systems throughout.

[chengkp75]

Lots of interesting thoughts/comments here. Thanks to all for responding. I'm wondering if there is a possibility of greater fuel efficiency if they were to consider smaller ships - and by smaller I guess I meant Radiance class and smaller. (As in, not mega-ships). And I don't know whether fuel efficiency is even on their radar at all, but was thinking perhaps it's more likely in a smaller ship than a mega ship.

 

Several thoughts, I looked at a 10 year plan online for the port of Baltimore, and they did mention they are running out of places to dump the sediment that is dredged. Obviously they will have to continue dredging in order for it to remain a viable port for shipping. So they will have to figure that out. And then there is the bridge height issue. Wondering if someday Baltimore will be phased out. I hope not.

 

If they are to continue to sail to Bermuda, from anywhere, (or longer distances in general), I would think they would want to choose a more fuel efficient ship design to do so? And at some point (whenever that may be, 8-12 years, or whenever), someday that day will come when they will have to replace the oldest smaller ships, I'm wondering what will sail to Bermuda? I'm wondering if it's not cost effective to do so regularly with mega ships?

 

And that brings me to my next thought. The environmental regulations in the Chesapeake. (And I'm guessing the Chesapeake isn't the only place with environmental regulations in place either?) I was under the impression Grandeur may have had some modifications in order to make it environmentally compliant with Bay regulations. This would certainly be a consideration with a replacement someday, if they decide to do that.

 

And last, Re: Radiance class in Baltimore (or to Bermuda from wherever), this is from Wikipedia: "MS Radiance of the Seas is a cruise ship owned and operated by Royal Caribbean International. She is registered in Nassau, Bahamas, and is a gas-turbine vessel, the first built for Royal Caribbean. This system produces higher efficient speeds than other cruise ships, and emissions to the air are much lower than cruise ships powered by diesel engines." Seems like a good fit for the Chesapeake Bay and/or long distance cruising to Bermuda (from wherever)?

 

I guess I'm wondering if maybe they won't realize at some point down the road, "Oh snap, why did we build all of these mega ships that cost a boat-load to operate, aren't fuel efficient, and can't access a lot of ports our customers are interested in?" - just a thought lol!!

 

The trend towards larger ships is driven by two factors: fuel efficiency, and capital cost. Both the per passenger fuel cost and capital cost drops with larger ships.

 

Bridges are a major problem for cruise ships, as older bridges in places like Baltimore and Tampa limit the ships that can call there, and given the trend to larger ships, these ports may eventually disappear, or new bridges will be needed.

 

You are correct that the Chesapeake is not alone in emissions controls. As of 1 Jan 2015, every ship operating within 200nm of the US/Canada coast must burn low sulfur diesel fuel, or equip themselves with scrubbers. These scrubbers allow the ships to continue to burn the less expensive high sulfur residual fuel and still meet the emissions standards. The scrubbers cost about $1-1.5 million per engine. Grandeur has scrubbers installed on at least some of her engines, which is why she won't be leaving Baltimore anytime soon. The problem with Baltimore is that the trip down the Bay is an added distance travelled within the Emissions Control Area (ECA) over a seaside port like Charleston or NYC. Nearly every major cruise ship that calls on US ports will be fitting scrubbers over the next 5 years or so.

 

The problem with the Radiance class gas turbine ships is that the gas turbines are so large (2 x 20mW) that they are horribly inefficient at slower cruising speeds, and particularly in port, so much so that diesel generators were added to provide power in port. Plus, the gas turbines run on the same low sulfur diesel fuel as the diesels without scrubbers are required to burn, so no savings on fuel. Gas turbines provide great efficiency when loaded to the max, but tend to drink fuel when low loaded.

 

While I don't see ships getting much, if any, larger than the Oasis/Allure class, I think the smaller ships will be relegated to the luxury lines that can charge a premium to cover the inefficiency of smaller scale.

[yj_eugene]

And that brings me to my next thought. The environmental regulations in the Chesapeake. (And I'm guessing the Chesapeake isn't the only place with environmental regulations in place either?)

 

Your guess is right. Here's a map:

 

 

I was under the impression Grandeur may have had some modifications in order to make it environmentally compliant with Bay regulations.

 

Pretty sure she's had scrubbers installed to make her compliant.

 

"MS Radiance of the Seas is a cruise ship owned and operated by Royal Caribbean International. She is registered in Nassau, Bahamas, and is a gas-turbine vessel, the first built for Royal Caribbean. This system produces higher efficient speeds than other cruise ships, and emissions to the air are much lower than cruise ships powered by diesel engines." Seems like a good fit for the Chesapeake Bay and/or long distance cruising to Bermuda (from wherever)?

 

Depends. The gas-turbine's cost more to run. I would think Royal is very careful about where they deploy those ships. Until more of the fleet has scrubbers installed, they will probably be used in areas that require low emissions (Baltics, Alaska, Maritimes, etc, see map) for extended running. The Chesapeake would seem to fit the bill, and I'm pretty sure a Radiance class can fit. Both the Key and Bay Bridges have 5 ft more air draft than Tampa's Sunshine Skyway Bridge, which has had Radiance class ships (barely) pass under it for several years now. Whenever they decide to retire or redeploy a Vision class ship from Baltimore, I fully expect a Radiance class to end up there.

[Biker19]

As we have seen with the recent announcement that the Majesty is not leaving the fleet as originally planned, changes in the fleet and deployments can vary without much warning.

[BeneClone]

We're hoping to take at least one specialty cruise which involves much smaller ships. The fathom ship Carnival will use for "social impact" tours at 716 is much larger than the Celebrity Xpedition which sails to Galapagos with 96. As the lines target TV smaller markets and Ports, they may use more of the smaller ships or abandon those markets to the smaller companies.

 

Sent from my XT897 using Tapatalk

[twonpcb]

Given past trends RCI is unlikely to extend the lifecycle of any of their ships much beyond 20 years. If the the financials make sense, any of the Vision class could be following Splendour out of the fleet at any time after 2017 ( I assume Legend will be next). With Oasis 4 and Quantum 4 coming before 2020, I would think at least 2 ships will leave before then.

 

As the airline industry has seen, there's a very limited market for the A380 (the Oasis class of the airline business) or as Ford has seen with the Excursion simply going bigger with every remodel has its limits (and market appeal).

 

I think the cruise industry has already reached that limit with Oasis and it is unlikely anyone would build anything bigger. Of course smaller than Oasis could still be very large. An Edge class ship with an additional deck (about 3300 capacity) makes the most sense for the next class of ships. Such a ship could still make it to most ports currently served by Vision class ships and make sense financially.

 

You hit the nail on the head. Thank you!

[chengkp75]

I''ve been away from this thread for a couple days, and so I went back and reviewed the earlier posts.

 

I will agree with Biker19 about life cycle. I note several posters say the ships "feel" young or new, or had major refurbishments lately, but that is not what drives the major cost of maintaining a ship during her later years.

 

Once a ship reaches 15 years, the required drydock schedule drops from every 5 years (with an underwater survey by divers at 2.5 years), to a drydock every 2.5 years (twice in 5). This increases cost considerably, whether or not much is done in the hotel. Also, at the 15 year mark, the ship enters her "fourth special period". Special periods are 5 year spans where the classification societies set certain inspections that need to be accomplished during the period. Starting with the 4th, there is a vastly increased requirement for ultrasonic testing of steel thicknesses throughout the structure of the ship (all those areas below where guests are). This is not only the hull steel, but the framing in tanks and engine spaces, and the interior plating of tanks as well. There also start to be required x-rays of welds on the hull and at framing. All of this costs time and a lot of money, and can also lead to steel replacement due to corrosion (normal for all ships), which costs more time and money.

 

This is why most of the major cruise lines either move an older ship to one of their other "brands" or sells the ship outright, to an operator who has a different passenger demographic, and whose overhead and operating budget structure will allow them to swallow the higher cost of maintaining an older ship.

 

But again, the main driving force behind larger ships is cost. Between one 5000 passenger ship or two 2500 passenger ships, you save money by buying one larger engineering plant over two smaller plants. The 5k ship costs $1billion, and each of the 2.5k ships costs $600million. You save $200million in capital expense with the larger ship. That's not pocket change.