Royal Ships & California

[John&LaLa]

37 minutes ago, wl2cruise said:

 

It's the PVSA not the jones act and several cruise lines are doing Pacific costal's including Celebrity. I agree Q class would be the best fit for California. The port of Los Angeles will be building a new cruise terminal in the next couple of years for vessels like Oasis class ships. Minimum requirements for the ship are 1100ft long and 5000+ passengers. One of the local papers asked a port representative if Disney going to bring vessels he said no. we have another previous customer looking to return. Hmm I wonder who that is? Icon class will comply with CARBS laws.

 

Which Coastal ports will accommodate a ship larger than Oasis?

[not-enough-cruising]

1 hour ago, wl2cruise said:

 Icon class will comply with CARBS laws.

This seems to be an inconclusive conclusion. Lots of articles about public buses powered by CNG not passing CARB requirements 

 

https://www.fleetowner.com/news/fleet_carb_study_says

[John&LaLa]

10 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

This seems to be an inconclusive conclusion. Lots of articles about public buses powered by CNG not passing CARB requirements 

 

https://www.fleetowner.com/news/fleet_carb_study_says

CNG and LNG are different fuels🤔

 

And this article is 17 years old😱

Edited November 25, 2019 by John&LaLa

[xpcdoojk]

3 hours ago, gatour said:

Keep in mind that Royal Caribbean has a smaller fleet number wise than Carnival.  Royal Caribbean also has tendency to transfer their older smaller ships to other affiliates, while Carnival doesn't.  Carnival periodically updates their older paid off/amortized ships and moves them around different niche markets.  Royal Caribbean doesn't do this as much.

 

I am not a CEO of a cruise line, but as an outsider, it looks like each company has a different business model.  If each company's stockholders are happy with the results, then who am I to judge.  While I would love a Royal Caribbean ship out of Jacksonville, I don't think it would happen anytime soon for various reasons.

 

We had a crappy IRA each, the DW and I, many moons ago, and each I cashed out and invested in two stocks.  My IRA was slightly more valuable and I was able to afford at the time the much more golden stock... CCL my wife, could only afford 100 shares in the then relatively crappier RCI stock.  Many years later her stock is worth 2-1/2 times what mine is.  Mine is now less valuable than when I bought it.  Just saying...and upon that realization, I am not happy.  I have only taken advantage of the shareholders credit twice on CCL cruises since I bought the stock... I suck as an investor. 😉

 

jc

[Ourusualbeach]

22 hours ago, Tree_skier said:

What about a seasonal run coinciding with the Alaska season that starts in Long Beach going to San Francisco, Astoria, Seattle, Victoria debarking in Vancouver then turning around and doing the same thing backwards.  No Jones act problems and think of the opportunities it would give for side by sides connecting with round trip Alaska's.  Just a wishful thought, I know.

Cunard is doing that on a number of sailings using the same ship. Looks like a great itinerary.

[wl2cruise]

4 hours ago, John&LaLa said:

 

Which Coastal ports will accommodate a ship larger than Oasis?

 

No clue. 

 

4 hours ago, not-enough-cruising said:

This seems to be an inconclusive conclusion. Lots of articles about public buses powered by CNG not passing CARB requirements 

 

https://www.fleetowner.com/news/fleet_carb_study_says

 

FYI Icon will be using a fuel cell to run hotel operations while docked.

 

"We believe fuel cells offer very interesting design possibilities," said Harri Kulovaara, RCL's chief of ship design. "As the technology becomes smaller and more efficient, fuel cells become more viable in a significant way to power the ship's hotel functions. We will begin testing those possibilities as soon as we can, and look to maximize their use when Icon class debuts."

[John&LaLa]

7 hours ago, wl2cruise said:

 

No clue.

 

 

That's a fairly important part of the puzzle.

 

Hopefully someone else does

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, wl2cruise said:

 

No clue. 

 

 

FYI Icon will be using a fuel cell to run hotel operations while docked.

 

"We believe fuel cells offer very interesting design possibilities," said Harri Kulovaara, RCL's chief of ship design. "As the technology becomes smaller and more efficient, fuel cells become more viable in a significant way to power the ship's hotel functions. We will begin testing those possibilities as soon as we can, and look to maximize their use when Icon class debuts."

Not quite correct.  The fuel cell module that will be installed on Icon class ships is only 100 kw, whereas the hotel load for that class of ship would be in the 10+ Mw range, so they would need 100 of the modules to power the hotel load.  As far as I know, there are only provisional rules for carrying and using liquid hydrogen as fuel for ships with any of the classification societies, so that is another hurdle to overcome.

 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/royal-caribbean-to-test-fuel-cell-on-high-end-newbuild

[chengkp75]

On 11/24/2019 at 3:16 AM, crzndeb said:

I was on the Voyager this month and and a couple of officers had also heard the same rumors we have, that the Voyager will come back to California. We can always hope.

I'm not sure they would want to invest the $1 million+ needed to install shore power connection on a 20 year old ship.

On 11/24/2019 at 11:31 AM, Biker19 said:

Serenade is doing that next year but likely a one time thing.

Yes, ships (or fleets) that only make a few calls in California each year can get around the cold ironing rules, with a "mediation fee".

[wl2cruise]

45 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not quite correct.  The fuel cell module that will be installed on Icon class ships is only 100 kw, whereas the hotel load for that class of ship would be in the 10+ Mw range, so they would need 100 of the modules to power the hotel load.  As far as I know, there are only provisional rules for carrying and using liquid hydrogen as fuel for ships with any of the classification societies, so that is another hurdle to overcome.

 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/royal-caribbean-to-test-fuel-cell-on-high-end-newbuild

 

The more you know.

 

https://www.rclcorporate.com/rcl-steps-to-the-fore-with-plans-for-fuel-cell-technology/

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, wl2cruise said:

 

The more you know.

 

https://www.rclcorporate.com/rcl-steps-to-the-fore-with-plans-for-fuel-cell-technology/

Yes, it says:

 

"possibility fuel cells can be used in a “significant way” to power the Icon ships’ hotel functions, and added that regulatory standards would also have to be developed for the technology."

 

As I noted, it does not mean that the hotel power will all be from fuel cells, and they don't know yet how "significant" they will be until the testing is done.  And the regulatory hurdles still exist.

[wl2cruise]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, it says:

 

"possibility fuel cells can be used in a “significant way” to power the Icon ships’ hotel functions, and added that regulatory standards would also have to be developed for the technology."

 

As I noted, it does not mean that the hotel power will all be from fuel cells, and they don't know yet how "significant" they will be until the testing is done.  And the regulatory hurdles still exist.

 

Testing started in 2017 and has expanded. Several cruise lines have ordered ships with fuel cell technology. I don't see the regulatory standards as a hurdle, it's only a matter of time as they try to push them off fossil fuels. ABB announced last summer they are in calibration in building a 3Mw fuel cell for marine applications. 

 

 "possibility fuel cells can be used in a “significant way” to power the Icon ships’ hotel functions,   Gotta love lowering the bar and over achieving! 

 

 

 

[twangster]

I thought I read Apex will have shore power capability.  So will Panorama IIRC. 

 

Apex to CA?

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, wl2cruise said:

 

Testing started in 2017 and has expanded. Several cruise lines have ordered ships with fuel cell technology. I don't see the regulatory standards as a hurdle, it's only a matter of time as they try to push them off fossil fuels. ABB announced last summer they are in calibration in building a 3Mw fuel cell for marine applications. 

 

 "possibility fuel cells can be used in a “significant way” to power the Icon ships’ hotel functions,   Gotta love lowering the bar and over achieving! 

 

 

 

It's not the national regulatory standards that are the hurdle, it is the classification societies' rules for shipbuilding that are important.  And they could care less about whether it is a fossil fuel or not.  They have just come around to approving LNG for use on passenger vessels.  And, since liquid hydrogen requires a temperature almost 100*C lower than LNG, this causes some serious concerns for shipboard design of storage and handling systems, since even with a vacuum envelope, you will get cold enough temperatures outside the container to cause frosting, as well as the 1% leakoff rate of a highly explosive gas.

 

Current OSHA regulations, for example of national requirements, does not allow storage of liquid hydrogen in quantities over 600 gallons anywhere but outdoors.  I see that DNV GL (a class society) has published rules for use of liquid hydrogen, and other societies will likely follow, but right now, DNV GL recognizes more types of "low flashpoint" fuels like liquid hydrogen than the IMO does in their IGF code, and the codes are all tougher for passenger vessels than for cargo vessels.

 

Not saying it won't happen, just that I don't foresee it happening on a large scale by the time the Icon class ships come out starting in 2022.

[AZSwissGal]

FWIW, at a travel show last month here in Phoenix, a Royal rep was giving a presentation which included all the new ships coming, when and where they will be placed.  She stated that the first ship in the Icon class would be placed in California, port TBD, in 2022, that this would make many people happy.  She did explain that the reason they would be able to base it in CA is due to the fuel the Icon class will use and would be compliant with CA laws.  

 

 

 

[wl2cruise]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 

 

Not saying it won't happen, just that I don't foresee it happening on a large scale by the time the Icon class ships come out starting in 2022.

 

👍

[Ashland]

4 hours ago, AZSwissGal said:

FWIW, at a travel show last month here in Phoenix, a Royal rep was giving a presentation which included all the new ships coming, when and where they will be placed.  She stated that the first ship in the Icon class would be placed in California, port TBD, in 2022, that this would make many people happy.  She did explain that the reason they would be able to base it in CA is due to the fuel the Icon class will use and would be compliant with CA laws.  

 

 

 

I guess all of you that continually say  "When Pigs Fly" as far as an RCI ship sailing again out of California ...they just might be taking to the sky 

[davekathy]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

It's not the national regulatory standards that are the hurdle, it is the classification societies' rules for shipbuilding that are important.  And they could care less about whether it is a fossil fuel or not.  They have just come around to approving LNG for use on passenger vessels.  And, since liquid hydrogen requires a temperature almost 100*C lower than LNG, this causes some serious concerns for shipboard design of storage and handling systems, since even with a vacuum envelope, you will get cold enough temperatures outside the container to cause frosting, as well as the 1% leakoff rate of a highly explosive gas.

 

Current OSHA regulations, for example of national requirements, does not allow storage of liquid hydrogen in quantities over 600 gallons anywhere but outdoors.  I see that DNV GL (a class society) has published rules for use of liquid hydrogen, and other societies will likely follow, but right now, DNV GL recognizes more types of "low flashpoint" fuels like liquid hydrogen than the IMO does in their IGF code, and the codes are all tougher for passenger vessels than for cargo vessels.

 

Not saying it won't happen, just that I don't foresee it happening on a large scale by the time the Icon class ships come out starting in 2022.

What is Celebrity doing different than RC? We've cruised from Seattle and Vancouver down to LA and  San Diego. 

[Clarea]

2 minutes ago, davekathy said:

What is Celebrity doing different than RC? We've cruised from Seattle and Vancouver down to LA and  San Diego. 

 

We've also done that on Royal, but apparently the California rules are changing making it more expensive for the cruise lines.

[wl2cruise]

51 minutes ago, Host Clarea said:

 

We've also done that on Royal, but apparently the California rules are changing making it more expensive for the cruise lines.

 

 So is that why Royal's competitors are deploying new ships to California? 

[twangster]

20 minutes ago, wl2cruise said:

 So is that why Royal's competitors are deploying new ships to California? 

 

Possibly.  Panorama will be able to accept shore power while in port.  

 

It's a lot easier to build it in during the build process compared to retrofitting an older ship.  

 

It does lead to the question what will cruise lines do if effectively only new ships are allowed in CA?  (or it's not cost effective to waive older ships during transit through CA?)

 

Wonder if Odyssey is being built with shore power capability.  Hmmm. 

[Clarea]

25 minutes ago, wl2cruise said:

 

 So is that why Royal's competitors are deploying new ships to California? 

 

No idea why Royal's competitors do whatever it is they are doing.

 

I do know that Royal can make more profit basing ships elsewhere.  Perhaps at some point if they run out of more profitable places to base ships they will once again base a ship in California, but until then, why should they?

[xpcdoojk]

10 minutes ago, Host Clarea said:

 

No idea why Royal's competitors do whatever it is they are doing.

 

I do know that Royal can make more profit basing ships elsewhere.  Perhaps at some point if they run out of more profitable places to base ships they will once again base a ship in California, but until then, why should they?

 

Not to mention what interesting options do they have if Mexico is considered unsafe, and it is cold half of the year in Seattle and Vancouver?

 

jc

[wl2cruise]

14 minutes ago, Host Clarea said:

 

No idea why Royal's competitors do whatever it is they are doing.

 

I do know that Royal can make more profit basing ships elsewhere.  Perhaps at some point if they run out of more profitable places to base ships they will once again base a ship in California, but until then, why should they?

 

Just look at the pricing out of New Orleans you can purchase a 7 night cruise for $60-$70 dollars a night.

 

22 minutes ago, twangster said:

 

Possibly.  Panorama will be able to accept shore power while in port.  

 

It's a lot easier to build it in during the build process compared to retrofitting an older ship. it's a lot cheaper.

 

It does lead to the question what will cruise lines do if effectively only new ships are allowed in CA?  (or it's not cost effective to waive older ships during transit through CA?) New or old they will need to comply with the law. I believe the reason your seeing larger new vessel is because how well Alaska is doing and the rebate program from the port of LA. 

 

Wonder if Odyssey is being built with shore power capability.  Hmmm. Possible or she's testing the fuel cell or cells.

 

[John&LaLa]

6 minutes ago, wl2cruise said:

 

Just look at the pricing out of New Orleans you can purchase a 7 night cruise for $60-$70 dollars a night.

 

Do you think MJ would sell well in LA🤔

 

Current West Coast prices for the competition more like $50 a night

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by John&LaLa