Is Royal Caribbean building any small ships?

[PhillyFan33579]

17 minutes ago, Airbear232 said:

I’m going to disagree, they are not always “packed” with families and kids.  While we took our kids out of school during the school year, most people don’t.  And, for this reason, they cannot survive as just a “family” line.  They need  their older demographic.  It’s fun to speculate about this and people are very passionate about what the line is going to do. 

I have been on 10 RCI cruises so far this year, ranging from ships as small as Radiance to as large as Icon. Every single ship had a lot of kids on the cruise. I am currently on Independence and there are well over 1,000 kids on this ship per the CD. When I was on Radiance in Alaska two weeks ago, 25 percent of the passengers were under the age of 18 (very surprising to me for an Alaska cruise). There is no doubt in my mind RCI can survive as a family cruise line. If you listen to Michael Bayley talk, he always stresses how RCI is a family cruise line. I cruise on RCI 1-2 months so I feel I have a pretty good feel of the passenger demographic currently cruising on RCI. While you may not like it, RCI doesn’t need older cruisers like me to survive. 

[latebuyer]

Is United States like Canada where the birth rate is dropping? In Canada solos and dinks would be fastest growing demographics. Not sure what its like in States.

[Airbear232]

1 hour ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

I have been on 10 RCI cruises so far this year, ranging from ships as small as Radiance to as large as Icon. Every single ship had a lot of kids on the cruise. I am currently on Independence and there are well over 1,000 kids on this ship per the CD. When I was on Radiance in Alaska two weeks ago, 25 percent of the passengers were under the age of 18 (very surprising to me for an Alaska cruise). There is no doubt in my mind RCI can survive as a family cruise line. If you listen to Michael Bayley talk, he always stresses how RCI is a family cruise line. I cruise on RCI 1-2 months so I feel I have a pretty good feel of the passenger demographic currently cruising on RCI. While you may not like it, RCI doesn’t need older cruisers like me to survive. 

For some reason people are very adamant on their views for this topic.  I go by logic and personal observation.  In the end, Royal will run their company as they and their major stakeholders wish.  Being on Radiance two weeks ago, is not the same as being on Radiance in April or October.  My own believe is that the new ships will be 90k tonnes or less.  Time will tell.  

[Charles4515]

16 minutes ago, Airbear232 said:

For some reason people are very adamant on their views for this topic.  I go by logic and personal observation.  In the end, Royal will run their company as they and their major stakeholders wish.  Being on Radiance two weeks ago, is not the same as being on Radiance in April or October.  My own believe is that the new ships will be 90k tonnes or less.  Time will tell.  

My belief is that they won’t build any new ships below 150k tonnes. Time will tell. 

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, latebuyer said:

Is United States like Canada where the birth rate is dropping? In Canada solos and dinks would be fastest growing demographics. Not sure what its like in States.

Similar but Canada has a small population compared to the US. 38 million versus 333 million. There is room to grow cruise bookings in the US. I think the only thing that would drive Royal to build smaller ships is lack of ports for the larger ships. More likely they will build more private islands and do shorter sailings if they run out of ports.

[Engineroom Snipe]

Finally finished reading all of the posts on this thread.

 

Royal must know its needs older cruisers, younger cruisers, AND their associated families for maximum profit.

 

Older cruisers who have point status on Celebrity now have the option of taking the family (to include grandchildren) on a theme park ship without losing their perks after the new reciprocity  agreement between Royal brands. These cruisers might have hesitated a bit since they enjoyed superior perks if they stayed with Celebrity for their cruises.

 

As posted on this RC blog, higher end Crown and Anchor members can have a more "adult" experience on Celebrity without losing their premium perks. While similar in many ways, Celebrity does have some different itineraries that might entice a long time cruiser looking for a bit of variety.

 

Royal will go for the money. The larger ships have many more opportunities to spend onboard.

 

Just the nature of the corporate beast.

 

There is discussion how older cruisers have more money to spend but they also have built in perks (Crown and Anchor perks) which decrease the reason for spending.

 

There are exceptions to my next statement:

 

It would be reasonable that as we get older, we drink and eat less. This could be due to medical issues, the desire to stay healthy in order to live longer and enjoy activities, and the inability to pack down the food like we did in our youth. Shore excursion become limited due to age restrictions (DO NOT want to get into this discussion since other threads have been dedicated to it).

 

The exception to this would be that we spend more on the dining experience when we do eat, regardless of portions since quality is more important.

 

I sailed on the Nordic Prince, Song of America, Sun Viking and more in my day. The Sun Viking had only 700 people on one of my voyages.

 

I have enjoyed myself on Oasis Class ships. They all have their place. They all have pluses and minuses.

 

The big questions:

 

What is most profitable for RCI? What motivates customers to book more cruises? How much are customers willing to pay for that experience?

 

The answers will decide what next ships are built or acquired.

[smokeybandit]

40 minutes ago, Engineroom Snipe said:

As posted on this RC blog, higher end Crown and Anchor members can have a more "adult" experience on Celebrity without losing their premium perks. While similar in many ways, Celebrity does have some different itineraries that might entice a long time cruiser looking for a bit of variety.

I personally don't think the updated status matching moves the needle for anyone except RC Pinnacles.

Edited June 24 by smokeybandit

[Engineroom Snipe]

1 minute ago, smokeybandit said:

I personally don't think the updated status matching moves the need for anyone except RC Pinnacles.

Yes, but these cruisers are doing ten to fifteen cruises each year for more than twenty years. Royal gets to keep their money on Celebrity while freeing up cabins (and suites) on their family ships. This especially works if the cruisers are happy with the change of venue.

[smokeybandit]

5 minutes ago, Engineroom Snipe said:

Yes, but these cruisers are doing ten to fifteen cruises each year for more than twenty years. Royal gets to keep their money on Celebrity while freeing up cabins (and suites) on their family ships. This especially works if the cruisers are happy with the change of venue.

This is true, and possible the main point of the shake up. Get Pinnacles off RC ships.

But for the rest of us, it's useless since D+ on RC has far better benefits than E+ on Celebrity.

[Charles4515]

27 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

This is true, and possible the main point of the shake up. Get Pinnacles off RC ships.

But for the rest of us, it's useless since D+ on RC has far better benefits than E+ on Celebrity.

True but now that I am D+ on RC by reciprocity I would still rather book on Celebrity.

[Fairsky84]

RC will only build smaller ships if there's a strong business case for doing it. Right now their total fleet passenger capacity is about 94,000 berths. The capacity of their 8 smallest ships combined (Vision & Radiance Classes) represents only 17% of that. And I'd guess those ships represent an even smaller % of the company's profits since the larger ships generate much more revenue. 

For some perspective, just two new Icon-class ships would likely offset the profit generated by all 8 of the Vision/Radiance-class ships, and about 2/3rds of their passenger berths. In other words, there's not much of an economic argument for RC to build smaller (sub 150,000 grt) ships. 

The only possible reason would be to maintain a presence in cruise markets or homeports restricting larger ships (Tampa, Baltimore, Alaska, New England, ect.) But with Voyager & Quantum classes still able to sail to many of these ports, and Celebrity able to serve some of these markets, I'm not sure the investment required for a new class of smaller RC ships between 100k -150k tons makes sense. 

As I said before, I would LOVE for RC to build the Discovery-class ships. But I wouldn't bet on it. I'll believe it when I see it. 

Edited June 24 by Fairsky84

[SUgwoz]

12 hours ago, latebuyer said:

Is United States like Canada where the birth rate is dropping? In Canada solos and dinks would be fastest growing demographics. Not sure what its like in States.

Solos and Dinks have unlimited options of vacationing (and cruise lines that don't allow families(kids).  Families have more restrictions, there is a reason why cruise lines have shifted in the last 20-25 years.  Also why you see far more hotels go the route of being a resort for families not to leave the property.

 

 

[PhillyFan33579]

1 hour ago, Engineroom Snipe said:

Yes, but these cruisers are doing ten to fifteen cruises each year for more than twenty years. Royal gets to keep their money on Celebrity while freeing up cabins (and suites) on their family ships. This especially works if the cruisers are happy with the change of venue.

Keep in mind if RCI loses passengers to Celebrity, they are not keeping that money. RCI and Celebrity Cruises are separate cruise lines that are owned by Royal Caribbean Group. Leadership at RCI is not going to look good if they start losing too many passengers to Celebrity. RCI leadership saying their lost revenue is going to Celebrity will likely result in people being fired.  However, I think this hypothetical situation is highly unlikely the was RCI is filling their ships. 

[Engineroom Snipe]

32 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

Keep in mind if RCI loses passengers to Celebrity, they are not keeping that money. RCI and Celebrity Cruises are separate cruise lines that are owned by Royal Caribbean Group. Leadership at RCI is not going to look good if they start losing too many passengers to Celebrity. RCI leadership saying their lost revenue is going to Celebrity will likely result in people being fired.  However, I think this hypothetical situation is highly unlikely the was RCI is filling their ships. 

My point was that Royal Caribbean Group would not suffer if high end Crown and Anchor point achievers went to Celebrity with cabins opening for higher spenders at RCI. In the end, everyone would benefit. While not good for RCI specifically, Royal Caribbean Group would prefer to keep them "in the family" as opposed to going to "The Haven" at another cruise lines for the same price as a suite on RCI.

 

When looking at discounts, Celebrity seems to offer more "upgrades" and add-ons for the same price as RCI which would indicate that they need to do this to fill cabins compared to RCI.

[latebuyer]

I feel like the main cruise i want which needs a small ship is the panama canal. So i should get on that, oh yes also kawaii which i feel most cruise ships don’t stop off at anyway.

Edited June 24 by latebuyer

[Charles4515]

59 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

Keep in mind if RCI loses passengers to Celebrity, they are not keeping that money. RCI and Celebrity Cruises are separate cruise lines that are owned by Royal Caribbean Group. Leadership at RCI is not going to look good if they start losing too many passengers to Celebrity. RCI leadership saying their lost revenue is going to Celebrity will likely result in people being fired.  However, I think this hypothetical situation is highly unlikely the was RCI is filling their ships. 

Is Celebrity on the stock exchange? RCI? Those are just brands. The company is Royal Caribbean Group. The allocation of ships and berths to the brands can be adjusted to market conditions. The investors who own the company only care about RCG profits. 

[PhillyFan33579]

6 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

Is Celebrity on the stock exchange? RCI? Those are just brands. The company is Royal Caribbean Group. The allocation of ships and berths to the brands can be adjusted to market conditions. The investors who own the company only care about RCG profits. 

I agree stockholders ultimately only care about the success of the parent company, Royal Caribbean Group. However, Royal Caribbean International and Celebrity Cruises are still two separate independent companies. This is very common in the business industry. For example, Darden Restaurants owns numerous restaurants, including Olive Garden and Longhorn Steakhouse. Even though they are both owned by the same parent company, Olive Garden and Longhorn Steakhouse are still two separate companies. Darden leadership cares about all their restaurants, but an owner of an Olive Garden restaurant(s) is only concerned with his restaurants, not sister restaurants like Longhorn. Likewise, RCI leadership is only focused on their cruise line. How Celebrity performs is irrelevant to RCI leadership, although obviously very important to RCG leadership.  

[Fairsky84]

25 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

Is Celebrity on the stock exchange? RCI? Those are just brands. The company is Royal Caribbean Group. The allocation of ships and berths to the brands can be adjusted to market conditions. The investors who own the company only care about RCG profits. 

Precisely. 

[Hoopster95]

6 hours ago, Fairsky84 said:

RC will only build smaller ships if there's a strong business case for doing it. Right now their total fleet passenger capacity is about 94,000 berths. The capacity of their 8 smallest ships combined (Vision & Radiance Classes) represents only 17% of that. And I'd guess those ships represent an even smaller % of the company's profits since the larger ships generate much more revenue. 

 

I've been told Vision ships are good re profit. They are paid for, capital cost depreciation at 0. They are making good money... until an engine fails, or some other super high cost event happens. Like an old car with 250,000 miles on it... run it until it breaks down. Don't replace a $5000 engine on a car worth only $1000.

In other words, there's not much of an economic argument for RC to build smaller (sub 150,000 grt) ships. 

 

THIS ^

The only possible reason would be to maintain a presence in cruise markets or homeports restricting larger ships (Tampa, Baltimore, Alaska, New England, ect.) 

 

Radiance to Jewel are "only" 20-24 years old. I feel they'll end up home porting in Tampa & Baltimore the remainder of this decade if/when Vision class ends.

 

As I said before, I would LOVE for RC to build the Discovery-class ships. But I wouldn't bet on it. I'll believe it when I see it

 

Oh I think they will... Voyager is 25 years old. Will we see Voyager still in the RC fleet in 2029 when she's 30? Discovery Class is not to replace Vision/Radiance... perhaps it's to replace Voyager Class when they are too old to keep running.

 

Fantastic post.

Expand the window above.

Some of my thoughts in blue

Edited June 24 by Hoopster95

[RobInMN]

8 minutes ago, Hoopster95 said:

 

Fantastic post.

Expand the window above.

Some of my thoughts in blue

I feel like you are conflating size with use. Every indication from captain's Q&A's is that Project Discovery will be closer to the size of Voyager/Freedom than Radiance. It's all about the economics. When people talk about Project Discovery "replacing" Vision and Radiance it is the use. Vision and Radiance go places that even the Voyager class can not go, whether that's due to height, design (life boats hanging over the hull lines), emissions (I believe Project Discovery will be LNG), passenger count or possibly even the lack of self-contained tendering capabilities. I believe (partially in the project name itself - Discovery), that the idea is to replace Vision and Radiance in the more unique ports and itineraries. 

Icon and Oasis will be served by the same dozen or so large Caribbean and Western Mediterranean ports. Project Discovery could do these and the multitude of smaller ports. Plus British Isles, Iceland, Greece, and hopefully Norwegian Fjords and the Arctic Circle. Maybe one might do another Ultimate World Cruise.

 

[boscobeans]

On 6/13/2023 at 11:53 AM, latebuyer said:

I'm a little concerned what is going to happen if these small ships like the radiance class age out and i'm wondering if royal caribbean is building new ones. Not all of us like these big ships. I'm also from Vancouver and the big ships can't go under the bridge.

Now older and no longer seeking surfing, rock climbing walls and towering water slides, my wife and I would love to see a smaller ship (or two) with all the best creature comforts and the ability to visit ports that are being closed due to ship size. Cruises limited to possibly longer 12-14 days sailings that would not normally be the cat's meow for "family" cruising due to cruise length.

Celebrity, Royal and Holland all had ships that filled the bill, and not really that long ago.