Two new mid size ships starting 2022

[OlsSalt]

Too bad CCL Annual Report only provides consolidated returns. 

 

BTW,  is that the same cruise industry management that foisted the new HAL website on us. Cut them some slack, they sometimes are mistaken and do not know or understand the industry. Particularly when top management has never even cruised before.

 

Then again Coke knew the industry, and still came out with New Coke anyway.  Industries who malign their customers as know-nothings when customers are in fact  the whole point of the industry may have some later explaining to do to their shareholders. 

Edited January 10, 2019 by OlsSalt

[Sir PMP]

43 minutes ago, OlsSalt said:

Too bad CCL Annual Report only provides consolidated returns. 

 

BTW,  is that the same cruise industry management that foisted the new HAL website on us. Cut them some slack, they sometimes are mistaken and do not know or understand the industry. Particularly when top management has never even cruised before.

 

Then again Coke knew the industry, and still came out with New Coke anyway.  Industries who malign their customers as know-nothings when customers are in fact  the whole point of the industry may have some later explaining to do to their shareholders. 

And Orlando came from Coke..

[cruisemom42]

38 minutes ago, OlsSalt said:

 

Then again Coke knew the industry, and still came out with New Coke anyway.  Industries who malign their customers as know-nothings when customers are in fact  the whole point of the industry may have some later explaining to do to their shareholders. 

 

Hundreds of major business decisions are made daily by the world's corporations. Very few of them turn out to be a "New Coke".  (Which was way back in 1985 -- just the fact that we don't have updated examples to use suggests that such spectacular fails are a rarity.)

 

If I had a dime for the number of times that relatively inconsequential business decisions were equated to "New Coke", I could take a world cruise.

 

[iancal]

I would not blame HAL's disastrous customer facing IT solutions as a representative of Carnival Corp.    They are/were squarely the result of poor management at HAL.  At they certainly did not start with Orlando.  They existed well before though they may have been characterized as limitations compared with industry standards instead of outright flaws. 

 

I can recall, on many occasions, being very surprised at the differences between, say the Princes customer facing IT solutions and those of HAL.  They were, at various time, day and night.  Yet both companies were in the Carnival Corp stable.

[sammiedawg]

Carnival Corporation understands their product line and customers far better than some posters here.  They have Seaborn if a customer wants to move up yet stay in the Carnival food chain.  

I seriously doubt most Holland America customers can afford or want to pay the price for a brand new small ship.   

[jhannah]

Prinsendam was a good example of small ship pricing. Their itineraries were notably higher per diem than HAL's larger vessels. I guess it's just human nature that folks want more (or, in this case less) but don't want to shell out for it. I loved the Prinsendam's feel, yet I thoroughly enjoyed Koningsdam. My upcoming cruises are on Nieuw Amsterdam and Zaandam, as those are the sizes I prefer now.

[RDC1]

15 hours ago, OlsSalt said:

 

#4 - smaller, functional European-style, less frills travel/destination ships. The world is still made up of small ports and plenty of  those who travel for enrichment.  

 

Small ships - 12 months - 1200- 1500 passengers x 12 equals max 31,000 passengers a year to keep one R class ships afloat for unique extended 30 day voyages.

 

In a world fast approaching 8 billion people, if HAL can't find 31,000 unique passengers per ship for a fleet of smaller ships and unique itineraries at mid-market prices, the formerly global cruise line HAL does deserve to go out of business.

 

As a mid-market large, mass cruise line, it is not a niche; it is bottom-feeding by default. Time to get a new vision for HAL before a century of special branding is lost forever due to stale, pedantic management. 

 

And guaranteed, they are not going to find those 31,000 passengers on their new website.  If anything, they are losing those 31,000 passengers with their new website. Mr Kruse, are you asleep at the helm?

The problem with HAL is not finding passengers, the problem is the cost per passenger on a 1200 person ship vs a 2500 person ship.  The ratios of crew, fuel efficiency. port costs, etc give the smaller ships a considerably higher per person per day cost than with the larger ships.  As such if they want to stay with smaller ship sizes rates have to go up considerably, or if they want to keep rates in their current competitive niche, new ships have to be larger and more cost effective. 

[RDC1]

9 hours ago, Krazy Kruizers said:

I read that yesterday about Oceania building 2 smaller ships -- 1200 passengers.  

 

Sure I would love to see HAL build a couple of small ships but I don't see it happening -- sad.  We had quite a few cruises on the Ryndam.  

The ratio for HAL of percent industry revenue / percent industry passengers  is 1.75, the ratio for Oceania is 4.60.  The ratio gives a relative idea of the revenue per passenger on each line.  (for comparison Celebrity is 1.51 and Princess is 1.42)

[Micmac]

I was just on a "behind the scenes" ship tour on the Nieuw Statendam and this was specifically addressed.  For the record, I am a Prinsendam fangirl. 

 

The first thing that was mentioned is that the smaller ships require them to alter business processes that they use on the larger ships.  Non-standard business processes lead to inefficiencies which lead to higher costs.  There is a point to which you can pass these costs off to the passengers but at some point, your price point exceeds ROI for the pocketbook.  OK - I can buy this one. 

 

The second one reason I heard is the first time that I had ever heard it actually voiced - specifically that having (that word appeared to be carefully chosen over the word "building") smaller ships like the Prinsendam in the fleet would put HAL in direct competition with Seabourn.  I don't agree with that statement but this appears to give some insight into the thought process from corporate.  

 

I

[cruisemom42]

34 minutes ago, Micmac said:

 

 

The second one reason I heard is the first time that I had ever heard it actually voiced - specifically that having (that word appeared to be carefully chosen over the word "building") smaller ships like the Prinsendam in the fleet would put HAL in direct competition with Seabourn.  I don't agree with that statement but this appears to give some insight into the thought process from corporate.  

 

I

 

Very interesting....thanks for posting this.

[Sir PMP]

2 hours ago, RDC1 said:

The problem with HAL is not finding passengers, the problem is the cost per passenger on a 1200 person ship vs a 2500 person ship.  The ratios of crew, fuel efficiency. port costs, etc give the smaller ships a considerably higher per person per day cost than with the larger ships.  As such if they want to stay with smaller ship sizes rates have to go up considerably, or if they want to keep rates in their current competitive niche, new ships have to be larger and more cost effective. 

 

You're right, Viking, Oceania, Chrystal, Ritz-Carlton, Regent, Windstar are all wrong..

[RDC1]

31 minutes ago, Sir PMP said:

 

You're right, Viking, Oceania, Chrystal, Ritz-Carlton, Regent, Windstar are all wrong..

 

Your post really does not make a whole lot of sense since each of those other lines already charge higher fares than HAL as they continue their smaller ship brands.

 

So I will stick with the validity of my post

"The problem with HAL is not finding passengers, the problem is the cost per passenger on a 1200 person ship vs a 2500 person ship.  The ratios of crew, fuel efficiency. port costs, etc give the smaller ships a considerably higher per person per day cost than with the larger ships.  As such if they want to stay with smaller ship sizes rates have to go up considerably, or if they want to keep rates in their current competitive niche, new ships have to be larger and more cost effective. "

 

To put it another way the following is the % industry Revenue/% industry Passenger ratio for HAL and the lines you listed, Except for Ritz-Carlton for which I cannot find published data

 

Hal 1.75

Viking 2.17

Oceania 4.60

Crystal  8.00

Regent  6.33

Windstar 2.0

 

So each of the lines listed show significantly more revenue per passenger than HAL as I stated above if HAL wishes to stay with small ships their rates would need to go up significantly. An examination of representative fares by passenger per day of similar cabin classes also shows considerably higher fares on your listed lines. Based on what Viking is doing with their fares I would expect their ratio to move up significantly next year.  Windstar is such a small percentage .2 passenger .4 revenue that I think they are depressed due to rounding issues with the data.

Edited January 11, 2019 by RDC1

[RDC1]

1 hour ago, Micmac said:

I was just on a "behind the scenes" ship tour on the Nieuw Statendam and this was specifically addressed.  For the record, I am a Prinsendam fangirl. 

 

The first thing that was mentioned is that the smaller ships require them to alter business processes that they use on the larger ships.  Non-standard business processes lead to inefficiencies which lead to higher costs.  There is a point to which you can pass these costs off to the passengers but at some point, your price point exceeds ROI for the pocketbook.  OK - I can buy this one. 

 

The second one reason I heard is the first time that I had ever heard it actually voiced - specifically that having (that word appeared to be carefully chosen over the word "building") smaller ships like the Prinsendam in the fleet would put HAL in direct competition with Seabourn.  I don't agree with that statement but this appears to give some insight into the thought process from corporate.  

 

I

I doubt that competition with Seabourn is that much of an issue.  Significantly different product than HAL. The Seaborn product fits clearly in the luxury category with a revenue per passenger on par with Regent. HAL is in the mass market or premium mass market (some people split mass market into 2 levels), but not even into the Premium category.

 

 

[iancal]

It would be interesting to see the age of their respective fleets as a second column.   For HAL, the average age of their ships in that particular size category.   And even more significant, the average number of years since each of the ships in their respective fleets have had a complete rebuilt/refit (ie not a month or two dry dock but a signification out of service period to upgrade all systems and modify/improve the interiors.

 

HAL has a basic challenge.  Older ships, some well past their best before date, others in need of significant engineering upgrades, that are thus probably more costly to operate and maintain.    Introduce a new generation of cruisers whose loyalty is not brand based and nostalgic but based strictly on their perception of the cost/benefit ratio. 

 

 HAL's current builds seem to indicate that they do not feel that they can profitably compete in that space going forward.   This is not a knock on HAL at all, simply an opinion of where they may be headed.

Edited January 11, 2019 by iancal

[OlsSalt]

1 hour ago, Sir PMP said:

 

You're right, Viking, Oceania, Chrystal, Ritz-Carlton, Regent, Windstar are all wrong..

 

Those brands of small ships also sell "luxury".  Is there a reasonable market for similar sized ships that are not luxury and still can be priced in a comfortable range for present HAL small ship fans.

 

I am talking a 1200-1500 non-luxury - not a Prisendam replacement and not a small luxury ship.  It may be the pretense of luxury added on to those above brands still costs less than what the pretense of luxury can command price wise. That I simply do not know.

 

But the new HAL brand is getting far too generic now to compete with anyone besides offering  lower costs (IMHO having just gotten off a short cruise, highly impacted Eurodam). 

 

The smaller HAL ship charms that grew so much loyalty for the brand  and the interaction with the staff/crew gets lost on the large ship "bus trips"  (IMHO) Yes, these are last gasp grouses on my part. But other cruise lines did get their smaller ships to limp along with far more modest pretensions - Fred Olsen comes to mind. 

 

Basic issue - can any cruise line offer 1200-1500 passenger cruises - longer and unique and still make money? VOD went under, but that was a 600 passenger operation. VOA is also a much smaller operation too now chartered to Elder-hotel format. Is there still a commercially viable 1200-1500 passenger ship niche with many of the old traditional HAL charms and relative modesty?

 

Is this a business that can be spun off because it makes no sense to have it under the current HAL larger ship umbrella.  I ask the cosmos. 

[Ken the cruiser]

BTW have you noticed those luxury ships and larger, newer ships have a lot more veranda type cabins than inside and oceanviews? What I find interesting is that around 80% of the cabins on HAL's smaller R class ships are inside and ocean view. This also includes the Prinsendam I believe. No wonder HAL is trying to unload their smaller ships. How can they continue to make a profit when 80% of the passengers are spending around $100 or less pp/day?

[3rdGenCunarder]

1 hour ago, OlsSalt said:

 

Those brands of small ships also sell "luxury".  Is there a reasonable market for similar sized ships that are not luxury and still can be priced in a comfortable range for present HAL small ship fans.

 

I am talking a 1200-1500 non-luxury - not a Prisendam replacement and not a small luxury ship.  It may be the pretense of luxury added on to those above brands still costs less than what the pretense of luxury can command price wise. That I simply do not know.

 

But the new HAL brand is getting far too generic now to compete with anyone besides offering  lower costs (IMHO having just gotten off a short cruise, highly impacted Eurodam). 

 

The smaller HAL ship charms that grew so much loyalty for the brand  and the interaction with the staff/crew gets lost on the large ship "bus trips"  (IMHO) Yes, these are last gasp grouses on my part. But other cruise lines did get their smaller ships to limp along with far more modest pretensions - Fred Olsen comes to mind. 

 

Basic issue - can any cruise line offer 1200-1500 passenger cruises - longer and unique and still make money? VOD went under, but that was a 600 passenger operation. VOA is also a much smaller operation too now chartered to Elder-hotel format. Is there still a commercially viable 1200-1500 passenger ship niche with many of the old traditional HAL charms and relative modesty?

 

Is this a business that can be spun off because it makes no sense to have it under the current HAL larger ship umbrella.  I ask the cosmos. 

 

Not trying to speak for the cosmos, but my opinion is that what you want isn't commercially viable for today's market. I wish it were. Maybe the Maasdam in-depth cruises will work out to be viable. I certainly hope so. 

 

I don't need a zillion bells and whistles and a ship big enough to hold 6000 people. But a lot of people do. They want the "wow." They want fun and time when they don't have to think. I'm not saying big-ship cruisers are stupid.But it seems that, for many people, a vacation shouldn't have anything serious about it. People want to turn off their minds, not stimulate them.

 

If a small ship that's modest in its offerings doesn't provide a "wow," how will it attract enough passengers? Maasdam is trying it with what In our family we call "content." I grew up traveling with my parents to places where there were interesting things to see and learn about. I love museums. I look for historic sites when I plan my travel because I want "content". But that isn't modern travel for most people. Museums and places like Colonial Williamsburg have attendance problems because so many people don't see that as a way to spend their vacation time. 

 

[RDC1]

31 minutes ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

Not trying to speak for the cosmos, but my opinion is that what you want isn't commercially viable for today's market. I wish it were. Maybe the Maasdam in-depth cruises will work out to be viable. I certainly hope so. 

 

I don't need a zillion bells and whistles and a ship big enough to hold 6000 people. But a lot of people do. They want the "wow." They want fun and time when they don't have to think. I'm not saying big-ship cruisers are stupid.But it seems that, for many people, a vacation shouldn't have anything serious about it. People want to turn off their minds, not stimulate them.

 

If a small ship that's modest in its offerings doesn't provide a "wow," how will it attract enough passengers? Maasdam is trying it with what In our family we call "content." I grew up traveling with my parents to places where there were interesting things to see and learn about. I love museums. I look for historic sites when I plan my travel because I want "content". But that isn't modern travel for most people. Museums and places like Colonial Williamsburg have attendance problems because so many people don't see that as a way to spend their vacation time. 

 

HAL has a niche which is classic style cruising on smaller than average mass market ship size, with a number of unique routes.  Currently their average fleet size is less than 2000.  Over the next few years, as new ships are built and older ships retired it will grow, but will still be smaller than the competing lines in the mass market or premium mass market space (some people put Celebrity, Princess and Hal in a category of premium mass market)

 

Here are some numbers that I put together last year about average ship size in the mass market space.

 

HAL - total capacity 26,251 with 15 ships average capacity 1750

Princess - total capacity 44,702 with 17 ships, average capacity 2629

Royal Caribbean - Total Capacity 82824 with 25 ships, average capacity 3313

NCL - Total Capacity 50.569 with 17 ships, average capacity 2974

Celebrity - Total Capacity 23118 with 9 ships, average capacity 2568

Edited January 11, 2019 by RDC1

[cruisemom42]

20 minutes ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

If a small ship that's modest in its offerings doesn't provide a "wow," how will it attract enough passengers? Maasdam is trying it with what In our family we call "content." I grew up traveling with my parents to places where there were interesting things to see and learn about. I love museums. I look for historic sites when I plan my travel because I want "content". But that isn't modern travel for most people. Museums and places like Colonial Williamsburg have attendance problems because so many people don't see that as a way to spend their vacation time. 

 

 

I'm with you on the desire for 'content'.  I also love museums and I'm always puzzled by how many people really dislike them. I am the odd fish who seeks out and buys old guidebooks for sites and museums because they contain a lot more information, in most cases, than newer guidebooks -- these are often big on soft-focus photos and cutesy text, but little real 'content'. 

 

One of the main reasons I have enjoyed traveling with Voyages to Antiquity has been their outstanding lecturers. The ship is old (she was previously a ferry) and has few balconies and even fewer bells and whistles. But she has offered great itineraries and 'content'.  However, comparing the prices with HAL, the average cruiser is unlikely to value the content and be willing to pay more for it on a smaller 'no frills' ship.

 

I think some cruisers underestimate just how much more a smaller ship may need to charge per passenger in order to be as profitable as a larger ship, let alone be more profitable...  I suspect Voyages to Antiquity has chartered their ship to the Road Scholar operation because even at higher prices (although solos could get good deals) and even with a lot of repeat passengers, they had trouble filling the ship and making a profitable go of it.

[AtlantaCruiser72]

The future of mid-sized cruising lies with lines like Oceania and Viking. The price point for these lines is commensurate with the operating costs of vessels in the 800-1200 passenger size range.  Both have a unique value proposition by being less nickel-and-dime than mainstream brands, but not truly all-inclusive (with the increased fares) like brands such as Regent and Seabourn.  

 

The future of HAL is decidedly premium mainstream/mass-market with larger ships. Carnival Corp has made that abundantly clear.  As the S and R class vessels leave the fleet they will not be replaced with similarly sized vessels.  Amsterdam, Volendam and Zaandam will soldier on for another 11-12 years but Maasdam, Veendam and Rotterdam will all be gone within 5-9 years at most. (Assuming HAL sells off /retires at 30 years).

 

At some point the Vista class will either take on the longer more exotic itineraries, or those itineraries will fade into memory with the smaller ships and refined elegance that HAL used to be known for.

[OlsSalt]

Here is a novel concept---- how about a smaller cruise line for people who like to just travel?????  

Calling just 13,000 of you,  out there in the world of 7.5 billion people. Give HAL a jingle and see what they can offer. 

[iancal]

It is not a question of who wants to travel on a smaller ship.

 

But rather  who wants to travel on HAL vs their competitors in this space.  Isn't that the real question????

Edited January 11, 2019 by iancal

[OlsSalt]

36 minutes ago, iancal said:

It is not a question of who wants to travel on a smaller ship.

 

But rather  who wants to travel on HAL vs their competitors in this space.  Isn't that the real question????

 

No, because there is no competition with the HAL product right now among smaller ships.

 

There are small ships, but very different over onboard all experiences. No other mainline brand has the price, value and travel itineraries that HAL consistently offers on its smaller ships - S and R class ships.

 

 Princess has one. Celebrity and the other mainline brands have zero that I know of. Carnival has maybe one or two - 1200 or so ships but very weak itineraries and old ships.

 

Not sure why people keep wanting to compare HAL  R-class ship potential, to the premium and/or luxury brand smaller ship offerings. Not even close to being the issue. '

 

I admit I know nothing about the need to be luxury only at this passenger capacity level, or else the ship never even leaves the dock.  But at least I want an apples  to apples comparison for similar HAL non-premium amenities in the smaller ships if one is going to put this suggestion down out of hand;  this was not intended to be a premium/luxury smaller ship comparison with the HAL brand.

Edited January 11, 2019 by OlsSalt

[RDC1]

7 minutes ago, OlsSalt said:

 

No, because there is no competition with the HAL product right now among smaller ships.

 

There are small ships, but very different over onboard all experiences. No other mainline brand has the price, value and travel itineraries that HAL consistently offers on its smaller ships - S and R class ships.

 

 Princess has one. Celebrity and the other mainline brands have zero that I know of. Carnival has maybe one or two - 1200 or so ships but very weak itineraries and old ships.

 

Not sure why people keep wanting to compare HAL  R-class ship potential, to the premium and/or luxury brand smaller ship offerings. Not even close to being the issue. '

 

I admit I know nothing about the need to be luxury only at this passenger capacity level, or else the ship never even leaves the dock.  But at least I want an apples  to apples comparison for similar HAL non-premium amenities in the smaller ships if one is going to put this suggestion down out of hand;  this was not intended to be a premium/luxury smaller ship comparison with the HAL brand.

The problem is that HAL cannot replace their current ships, with new similarly sized ships at the current fare price point. The economics do not work. They would have to go up price to the area of Viking and as such would no longer be in their niche. For all the reasons explained earlier small ships are more expensive to operate and as such must either command higher fares (as the premium brands do) or they go away.  HAL will continue to operate what they have, even with the higher cost structure until they age out, but they will not be replaced.  

 

As far as I can see there is not a ship over 30 years old currently in use in a cruise line owned by CCL.  Very few older than 25.

 

So that would mean retirement of the S class ships 4-6 years.  I think if the current Maasdam experiment does not work it will be gone in a couple of years. The R class gone in 6-10 years.

 

[iancal]

Exactly. HAL is simply squeezing every dime they can out those smaller, much older ships.    Once they are finally gone, sold, whatever, that will be the end of that class of ship for HAL.