Will Royal reduce the size of the fleet?

[coaster]

I also tend to think the older ships with less capacity will be easier to fill and may be the first ones back. I don't see many new and younger cruisers with children flocking to the O class ships for awhile. Less crew needed  for older ships is another bonus as there will be hesitation not to overhire and be locked into contracts if things don't rebound fast enough.

[Ocean Boy]

11 minutes ago, coaster said:

I also tend to think the older ships with less capacity will be easier to fill and may be the first ones back. I don't see many new and younger cruisers with children flocking to the O class ships for awhile. Less crew needed  for older ships is another bonus as there will be hesitation not to overhire and be locked into contracts if things don't rebound fast enough.

Cruises have been booked for months, if not for over a year. Do you really see them starting up operations and cancelling O ships further out? That means a lot more FCCs being handed out for future cruise use and tying up cabins instead of fresh cash coming in for those cabins.

[2chiefs]

4 hours ago, goldfish65 said:

 

What happens when you have a cruise booked say next year, but they sell the ship before then?

You would be ship out of luck!

[LMaxwell]

In economic boom times these cruise lines have had hard enough struggle to sell off old ships; how would they dispose of them now?  The deal has to make enough sense as well.  There are quite a number of 1980's and 1990's ships that are for sale, and have been for sale for many, many years. 

[RFerrington]

Personally, I would not cry if they sold off the old ships.  I know many enjoy them but I am not among those.  I doubt they will do anything rash for a while.  I also agree that the loyal cruisers will be the first to rush back and the last thing Royal wants to do is pi** them off right now.  Agree that the bean counters will be DELIGHTED to have the problem of the overcrowded SL to deal with.  Much more preferable to no customers....

[dani negreanu]

16 hours ago, mugtech said:

Getting rid of the older smaller ships we mean fewer unique itineraries into smaller ports, would make for more boring itineraries.

 

Wishing for a "sad" button....

[coaster]

2 hours ago, Ocean Boy said:

Cruises have been booked for months, if not for over a year. Do you really see them starting up operations and cancelling O ships further out? That means a lot more FCCs being handed out for future cruise use and tying up cabins instead of fresh cash coming in for those cabins.

The cruisers who will be back first are C&A members with many cruises under their belt and consequently being of older age. Newer ships with water slides,  a flowrider and venues with an extra fee for a hamburger and french fries will probably be later to recover. The new reality in the cruising industry.

Edited March 26, 2020 by coaster

[leisuretraveler223]

Will Royal reduce the size of the fleet?

 

I've heard Oasis is going to be sunk of Cococay as a KICKASS man made reef. The scuba diving is going to be epic!

[Ocean Boy]

21 minutes ago, coaster said:

The cruisers who will be back first are C&A members with many cruises under their belt and consequently being of older age. 

The cruises are already booked. You are approaching it as if everything starts fresh. Families book summer cruises. They already have their reservations and have had them for months. If the ships are sailing this summer RCI is not going to want to be refunding money or handing out more FCCs by sidelining the O class girls. 

[Milwaukee Eight]

People have so much faith in C&A. 

[rolloman]

4 hours ago, coaster said:

I also tend to think the older ships with less capacity will be easier to fill and may be the first ones back. I don't see many new and younger cruisers with children flocking to the O class ships for awhile. Less crew needed  for older ships is another bonus as there will be hesitation not to overhire and be locked into contracts if things don't rebound fast enough.

This is the same failed thinking which took place when the Oasis was first delivered.  This site was riddled with posters like yourself projecting the Oasis would be a complete failure. Well, we know how that ended don't we? The vast majority want the big ships which are the destination. I can't tell you how many countless times I have heard someone say Royal Caribbean sucks...then I ask.???Oh what ship were you on.....10 out of 10 times it was the Majesty of the Seas or equivalent. 

[cublet]

On 3/26/2020 at 8:18 AM, Merion_Mom said:

RC would love to see a whole bunch of us shuffle over to Celebrity and Azamara, in search of new itineraries and the "small ship experience".  

Hello,

 

Nice idea - but would they allow us to transfer our C&A status to the direct equivalent Captains' Club level?

 

Nope I think would be the answer.

 

Regards,

 

Cublet

[Biker19]

3 minutes ago, cublet said:

Nope I think would be the answer.

Direct at each level no, but being elite on CC for being D and higher in C&A without ever sailing X is a pretty good deal.

[gatour]

18 hours ago, Ocean Boy said:

Smaller ships might be easier to fill. However, who knows if a full smaller ship is much less expensive to run than a partially filled Oasis class ship. Fuel efficiency may have improved over the years and I would think that the biggest change in crew between large and small ships would be the number of cabin attendants. They are not likely to be the highest paid workers on the ships. And if they do want to start attracting new families to cruising they probably have a better shot using O class ships than smaller ships. RCI might also want to get all of these pesky FCCs out of the way quickly though I suppose the alternative could be to make them difficult to use and hope that some expire. Who knows, I am just speculating.

 

I'm sure a lot of factors come into play when deciding the order and mix of ships that will be brought back on line first.

The number of cabin attendants is kind of irrevalent.

 

If you have two ships with 1500 cabins each and one ship with 3000 cabins.  The larger ship will have the same number of cabin attendants as the combined number of cabin attendants of the two smaller ships.

 

The labor savings in the larger ship are in not having to have two captains, two chief engineers, two cruise directors etc.

[Ocean Boy]

1 hour ago, gatour said:

The number of cabin attendants is kind of irrevalent.

 

If you have two ships with 1500 cabins each and one ship with 3000 cabins.  The larger ship will have the same number of cabin attendants as the combined number of cabin attendants of the two smaller ships.

 

The labor savings in the larger ship are in not having to have two captains, two chief engineers, two cruise directors etc.

I think that was my point.

[NateUpNorth]

17 hours ago, Milwaukee Eight said:

People have so much faith in C&A. 

 

It’s mind boggling. If there’s price wars in the near future who’s desperate enough for a few free drinks and a coffee machine to pay more?

And the tiers below Diamond are a majority of “bonuses” that could easily be outdone by lower prices elsewhere.

 

If they reduce anything I could see it being ports of call, shuffle more wallets, I mean guests, through the private beaches.

 

[Ocean Boy]

10 minutes ago, NateUpNorth said:

 

It’s mind boggling. If there’s price wars in the near future who’s desperate enough for a few free drinks and a coffee machine to pay more?

And the tiers below Diamond are a majority of “bonuses” that could easily be outdone by lower prices elsewhere.

 

If they reduce anything I could see it being ports of call, shuffle more wallets, I mean guests, through the private beaches.

 

I get what you are saying. However, you are assuming all upper level C&A folks choose RCI just for the perks. What about tbe idea that some prefer the product? I am not going to pay less to cruise another line if the product doesn't suite me. Of course,  that doesn't mean that I don't also like the perks that go with my level.

 

When I bought my last car I could have spent much less for one that would get me from home to the office just like the one that I did buy. I preferred to spend more to get a car that I liked better.

[NateUpNorth]

2 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

I get what you are saying. However, you are assuming all upper level C&A folks choose RCI just for the perks. What about tbe idea that some prefer the product? I am not going to pay less to cruise another line if the product doesn't suite me. Of course,  that doesn't mean that I don't also like the perks that go with my level.

 

When I bought my last car I could have spent much less for one that would get me from home to the office just like the one that I did buy. I preferred to spend more to get a car that I liked better.

 

I think that goes without saying, but I should have specified “price wars across similar lines”. Valid points all around.

[Milwaukee Eight]

48 minutes ago, Ocean Boy said:

I get what you are saying. However, you are assuming all upper level C&A folks choose RCI just for the perks. What about tbe idea that some prefer the product? I am not going to pay less to cruise another line if the product doesn't suite me. Of course,  that doesn't mean that I don't also like the perks that go with my level.

 

When I bought my last car I could have spent much less for one that would get me from home to the office just like the one that I did buy. I preferred to spend more to get a car that I liked better.

My point was, many C&A members really believe that Royal will look out for them. It’s a business and has a budget. We NEVER looked back on a previous QTR. it’s what you bring today that matters. The CL, they want more “free” drinks added to SeaPass?  Why?  That’s not a benefit for Royal. I’d love to look at the profit/loss sheet for some of those heavy top tier cruises, especially alcohol sales. 

[grapau27]

1 hour ago, Ocean Boy said:

I get what you are saying. However, you are assuming all upper level C&A folks choose RCI just for the perks. What about tbe idea that some prefer the product? I am not going to pay less to cruise another line if the product doesn't suite me. Of course,  that doesn't mean that I don't also like the perks that go with my level.

 

When I bought my last car I could have spent much less for one that would get me from home to the office just like the one that I did buy. I preferred to spend more to get a car that I liked better.

+1

[gatour]

3 hours ago, Ocean Boy said:

I think that was my point.

It wasn't quite clear.  You referenced the number of cabin attendants.  I was trying to add on to it and make it clearer.  It would be better to retire two 1500 cabin passenger ships than one 3000 cabin passenger ship.  The cost savings wouldn't be in the number of cabin attendants but in other labor costs associated with other departments/management.

[grandgeezer]

2 hours ago, Ocean Boy said:

I get what you are saying. However, you are assuming all upper level C&A folks choose RCI just for the perks. What about tbe idea that some prefer the product? I am not going to pay less to cruise another line if the product doesn't suite me. Of course,  that doesn't mean that I don't also like the perks that go with my level.

 

When I bought my last car I could have spent much less for one that would get me from home to the office just like the one that I did buy. I preferred to spend more to get a car that I liked better.

 

I just recently bought a new car and I bought the one that made more sense to me, based on my needs not the one I liked the best. It was cheaper, it looks great and performs  as expected. Money was not the deciding factor, not by a long shot. The one I liked the best had all the not really needed extra bells and whistles but besides that, it was the same standard features as the one I bought. In a lot of cases spending more money doesn't equate to a better product.

[Merion_Mom]

10 hours ago, cublet said:

Hello,

 

Nice idea - but would they allow us to transfer our C&A status to the direct equivalent Captains' Club level?

 

Nope I think would be the answer.

 

Regards,

 

Cublet

 

No, and that is actually part of the reason they would like it to happen.

[Ocean Boy]

58 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

In a lot of cases spending more money doesn't equate to a better product.

Please show me where I so much as implied that it did.

[Ocean Boy]

3 hours ago, Milwaukee Eight said:

My point was, many C&A members really believe that Royal will look out for them. It’s a business and has a budget. We NEVER looked back on a previous QTR. it’s what you bring today that matters. The CL, they want more “free” drinks added to SeaPass?  Why?  That’s not a benefit for Royal. I’d love to look at the profit/loss sheet for some of those heavy top tier cruises, especially alcohol sales. 

I have no delusions that to RCI I am anything more than a C&A number that, most importantly, is attached to a credit card. However, just as it is their job to look out for them it is my job to look out for me. I am not a big drinker. At the end of the cruise I don't feel guilty if I haven't run up a big drink tab any more than RCI feels guilty for charging me $15.00 for a drink that cost them around $0.25.