Any chance of new ships to Alaska?

[bUU]

Currently, it seems that Princess mostly runs Island Princess, Coral Princess, and Star Princess to Alaska. I know 2018 is far off, but is the need to run a smaller ship through some of the tighter portions of the cruise such that they'd preclude Royal class ships? I suspect so, but that begs the question - Is there any impact on the cruise from Star Princess' wider beam?

[paul929207]

The Ruby & Grand also go to Alaska.

[skynight]

Currently, it seems that Princess mostly runs Island Princess, Coral Princess, and Star Princess to Alaska. I know 2018 is far off, but is the need to run a smaller ship through some of the tighter portions of the cruise such that they'd preclude Royal class ships? I suspect so, but that begs the question - Is there any impact on the cruise from Star Princess' wider beam?

 

There is no published schedule to place the Royal & Regal into Alaska, if that is your question.

[BigGuy25]

... and the Crown.

[JimmyVWine]

The size of the ship is not the issue, as others have pointed out. Crown does Alaska. What matters most is usable outdoor space for on deck viewing. The new builds were built with an emphasis on indoor spaces and comfort. Outdoor spaces emphasize the pool areas. They were not built with an eye toward having passengers stand at the rail and take in Mother Nature. They work well for port intensive itineraries, but they would be most people's absolute bottom/last choice for itineraries where expansive vistas are the draw. Smaller balconies that can't accommodate families are not the best choice for Alaska, as Alaska cruises are weighted more heavily toward families. The Promenades on other ships run the length of the vessel and are covered from the elements making them ideal for nature watching in Alaska's uncertain climate. The new builds don't have this feature. They also do not have any space where one can get a view from the bow. Oftentimes, the onboard naturalist will hold sessions at the bow viewing areas to look for wildlife. Can't do that on the new builds.

 

This is not to say that Princess will never position one of the new ships in Alaska. But I know that if they ever do, I would never select that ship for my cruise there, assuming that there are other options...and there always are.

Edited September 24, 2015 by JimmyVWine

[Essiesmom]

Ships that cruise Alaska do not do so year round. they have to be based on the west coast or Asia for the winter season, or able to transit the Panama Canal. Princess does not want to base more ships on the west coast because the market doesn't support them, and currently only three Princess ships can transit the current canal: Coral, Island, Pacific (since Ocean is leaving the fleet). Although the new locks in the Panama Canal are scheduled to open in 2016 (two years late) I would not place money on that. EM

Edited September 24, 2015 by Essiesmom

[JimmyVWine]

Ships that cruise Alaska do not do so year round. they have to be based on the west coast or Asia for the winter season, or able to transit the Panama Canal.

...or do an itinerary that goes around South America. Crown went from being Caribbean/Europe based to Alaska/West Coast based by sailing various legs around South America, and will be returning to the Caribbean/Europe (in late 2016, early 2017) the same way.

[satxdiver]

The Regal and Royal are doing well in the Caribbean in the winter and Europe in the summer. Everyone wants to sail the new ships where they now are located so probably not much incentive to take either of the new ships to Alaska. It would entail sailing around the tip of South America, a long voyage if they were not spending the winter on the South American route. That would require two winters in South America for one summer in Alaska. Perhaps when the new royal class ship joins the fleet in 2017 Princess will consider taking one of them to the west coast.

 

The older grand class ships have an enclosed pool area making them ideal for colder climates. The newer ships are all open on the Lido deck pool areas.

[Pam in CA]

Always "follow the money." It doesn't make economic sense to sail the Royal/Regal all the way around South America for the relatively short Alaskan cruise season. They make far more money and Princess can get higher pricing (making more money) sailing in Europe for the summer. The season is longer and the market is bigger.

 

Yes, the Panama Canal is getting the new locks which could accommodate the Royal/Regal Princess but don't expect Princess to sail their ships through the new locks any time in the next number of years. Passage will cost more and this cost will be tacked on to passenger fares making a Panama Canal itinerary a lot more expensive. People won't pay that just to sail through the new locks. Expect commercial shipping to use the new locks, not cruise ships.

[nukesubsailor]

The new larger locks to open on the Panama Canal will not necessarily mean all bigger cruise ships can transit the canal. There will still be a height restriction at the bridges that cross the canal. I don't recall the height of the bridges or the height of the Royal and Regal so I don't know if they are too tall or not.

[VibeGuy]

Crown and Ruby are really wonderful ships, but they are awful for the shoulder seasons and Hawaii, what with the lack of covered pool area. Really not one of the better decisions by Princess.

 

I miss having Diamond and Sapphire on the West Coast.

[riclop]

Royal class will not be going to Alaska.

[fishywood]

I seem to recall that when Diamond and Sapphire Princess were launched Princess was quite boastful of them being the largest ships ever granted entry to Glacier Bay--and likely the largest that ever will be. The lower-profile Skywalker's on those ships was a necessary design concession for their sailing Alaska. But now we have the larger Crown and Ruby Princess sailing to Glacier Bay on the round-trip Seattle cruises. Crown did sail the open jaw Vancouver-Whitter route her first season in Alaska but not since. But as remarked above for the Voyage of the Glaciers cruises a more moderate-sized ship with greater open deck space per capita is best. Back in the 1990s I sailed the previous Star Princess and the long-gone Sky Princess to Alaska, and while their lack of amenities compared to today's ships is laughable having less than half the fellow passengers of even the Grand-class ships outweighed any and all negatives. Someday when I consider returning to Alaska I know I will be kicking myself for missing the chance to sail Pacific Princess in 2014 and '15.

[caribill]

Perhaps when the new royal class ship joins the fleet in 2017 Princess will consider taking one of them to the west coast.

 

 

The new Royal class ship will be based in China.

[DougH]

I seem to recall that when Diamond and Sapphire Princess were launched Princess was quite boastful of them being the largest ships ever granted entry to Glacier Bay--and likely the largest that ever will be. The lower-profile Skywalker's on those ships was a necessary design concession for their sailing Alaska. .

 

I've never heard anything about a height restriction in Glacier Bay. The Skywalkers change was due to excessive topside weight and poor fuel consumption.

 

I've been lucky enough to sail Alaska 3 times on the small Island Princess, Royal and this year the Pacific. Small is the way to go if you can. My favorites was the Sun class ships for a nice compromise size.

[Cruiserkenn]

I agree with some others, that the new Royal and Regal would be totally inappropriate for Alaska.

 

Outdoor viewing space is of utmost importance for Alaska.

 

I have enjoyed 14 Alaska cruises on the Dawn, Sun, Star, Grand, Golden, Sapphire, Diamond, and Ruby.

 

Be careful what you wish for...

[Aquahound]

I seem to recall that when Diamond and Sapphire Princess were launched Princess was quite boastful of them being the largest ships ever granted entry to Glacier Bay--and likely the largest that ever will be. The lower-profile Skywalker's on those ships was a necessary design concession for their sailing Alaska.

 

Please explain. What difference does the location of Skywalker's make regarding Glacier Bay? :confused: I know I saw a Princess ship in Glacier Bay last year with the elevated, aft Skywalker's.

 

I agree with some others' date=' that the new Royal and Regal would be totally inappropriate for Alaska.

 

Outdoor viewing space is of utmost importance for Alaska.[/quote']

 

I also agree. One of my biggest complaints about Regal was the total lack of a nice lounge with outside views.

[Steelers36]

Always "follow the money." It doesn't make economic sense to sail the Royal/Regal all the way around South America for the relatively short Alaskan cruise season. They make far more money and Princess can get higher pricing (making more money) sailing in Europe for the summer. The season is longer and the market is bigger.

 

Yes, the Panama Canal is getting the new locks which could accommodate the Royal/Regal Princess but don't expect Princess to sail their ships through the new locks any time in the next number of years. Passage will cost more and this cost will be tacked on to passenger fares making a Panama Canal itinerary a lot more expensive. People won't pay that just to sail through the new locks. Expect commercial shipping to use the new locks, not cruise ships.

 

Yeah, but you just know at least ONE of the cruise operators is going to sail those new locks and market it as a differentiator - something new for cruisers to experience.

[fishywood]

Regulatory requirement or not, Princess did market the change in design of Skywalker's as an Alaska-friendly feature of Diamond and Sapphire Princess at the time of their launch. Subsequently proven to be a bit of an overstatement as now both the original Grand-class ships and the even larger Crown sail to Glacier Bay. Thought that fact was clear in my original post. (And Princess did revert to the original "shopping cart handle" Skywalker's for one subsequent ship [CB] as the "top heavy" issue with Skywalker's was not yet a concern; greater open deck space was).