Is Royal Caribbean building any small ships?

[Fairsky84]

I think RCI has two goals that exist in tension with each other:

1. Replace the aging ships in the fleet with new tonnage that can still service smaller homeports (Tampa, Jacksonville, Baltimore, etc) and more exotic itineraries (Asia, Mid-East, world cruises, etc.).

2. Make these new ships as large as possible to provide more signature "wow" features, increase revenues, and maximize the economies of scale. 

I'm guessing the balance of these two goals will result in the Discovery-class being about 130,000 to 150,000 tons... or about Voyager size. I seriously doubt RCI will ever build another ship for the Royal Caribbean brand that is under 100,000 tons. 

[RobInMN]

39 minutes ago, Saab4444 said:

Because they already withdraw many smaller ships from Europe and reduced varity of itineraries significantly. For us Royal is not attractive in Europe anymore and we are choosing other lines.

Part of that, like Norway, is environmental. UNESCO and net-zero. A new class will likely solve that by going LNG, like Icon and Utopia.

 

A project name like "Discovery" doesn't imply simply focused on home ports. While Captain Rumen (Radiance) didn't really have too much to say, he did say that part of the design process was deciding where all they want to be able to go in order to figure out the dimensional limitations (like bridge heights). which also implies looking at ports of call and not simply home ports.

 

 

[latebuyer]

54 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

When has RCI officially stated they are building a new smaller class ship? If you have knowledge of a statement or video from Michael Bayley, or anyone else at RCI, specifically stating RCI is building a new smaller class ship, please post a link to it here. 

This is a really long thread. But i know Michael Bayley said something at one point. In any event, we'll have to see what happens. A big divide between those who think royal caribbean should focus on milk runs to coco cay and those who want the ships to go to different itineraries. Sad if they just become floating hotels and that's it.

[Nathan Graveson]

34 minutes ago, Fairsky84 said:

I think RCI has two goals that exist in tension with each other:

1. Replace the aging ships in the fleet with new tonnage that can still service smaller homeports (Tampa, Jacksonville, Baltimore, etc) and more exotic itineraries (Asia, Mid-East, world cruises, etc.).

2. Make these new ships as large as possible to provide more signature "wow" features, increase revenues, and maximize the economies of scale. 

I'm guessing the balance of these two goals will result in the Discovery-class being about 130,000 to 150,000 tons... or about Voyager size. I seriously doubt RCI will ever build another ship for the Royal Caribbean brand that is under 100,000 tons. 

This is exactly what I have been told. As much as Royal Caribbean want to replace the older-ships in the fleet, size brings MORE! 

From what I have been told is Voyager/Freedom size, with LNG-Hybrid propulsion...

[PhillyFan33579]

1 minute ago, latebuyer said:

This is a really long thread. But i know Michael Bayley said something at one point. In any event, we'll have to see what happens. A big divide between those who think royal caribbean should focus on milk runs to coco cay and those who want the ships to go to different itineraries. Sad if they just become floating hotels and that's it.

Personally I hope RCI builds a new smaller class ship, even if smaller turns out to be similar in size to Voyager class ships. But it wouldn’t surprise me if they continue to focus on bigger ships and building more private locations. Earlier this year when RCI was going to make a big announcement the next day, I thought it was going to be about the long rumored Project Discovery. I was very surprised when the announcement was they were going to build another Oasis class ship. I heard more than once at luncheons with officers that Utopia was going to be the last Oasis class ship. 

[latebuyer]

I actually found this article. 

 

https://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/discovery-class-smaller-cruise-ship

 

See his facebook post at the bottom

[Hoopster95]

2 hours ago, Ourusualbeach said:

When I say smaller ships it is smaller. I have never said less than 100,000 tons.  I havecskwsys said that project Discovery is slatedvto be around a VY class size at 140,000 tons

 

Ah ok... got it. Thx Ourusualbeach

[Hoopster95]

1 hour ago, c-leg5 said:

They may well be “in an area” but choice of ports is undoubtedly smaller.

 

1 hour ago, Saab4444 said:

But to a very limited range of ports and Voyager class is as old as Radiance class. 

 

Totally wrong. Name ports in the Med that Voyager Class or Quantum class do not go to compared to other mass market lines like NCL, Princess and HAL only.... if you want to compare oranges to apples, we can compare Azamara, Oceania and others at triple the cost of Royal, with obviously smaller ships and much much less passengers,  but we cannot do that here.

 

 

1 hour ago, gumshoe958 said:

I think Royal are perfectly happy visiting a very limited range of ports.

 

THIS 100%.

 

Royal wants Utopia, Wonder and other 6000 passenger ships to go only to CocoCay, Labadee, and coming soon a fake man made Bahamas private Beach and a fake man-made private St Thomas Beach. I feel any new class will mimic Oasis, Q and Icon classes as an "internal" stay on the ship, the ship is the destination type of resort. There will be little value to cruising for the ports imho to "experience" culture and new places in the world

 

You know, Royal is brilliant. They've got it so right. They see tens of thousands of people buying time shares, or going to all-inclusives and just sitting within the compound, week after week, month after month, and then year after year. Obviously the majority of the cruise market does not want to see the world via cruise ship either. Those that do can easily River Cruise or go on cruise lines with smaller ships. It's that easy of a decision.

 

The majority of mass market cruisers seem to want the all-inclusive resort experience however on cruise ships... especially for families. No way a parent will bring a 4 and 7 yr old, wake them up at 6am to get off in Civitavecchia to walk around Rome for 10 hours. These families, Royal's target market, want to wake up and go to a private, safe, secure private beach where their kids can play (at a massive price), they can all sit in their over priced $1000+ cabanas, and drink all day for free (ahem... at $80 per day per person on a drink package). Unvbeleiavble return on their investment compared to dropping a couple of 60 years olds off in Civitavecchia (insert any port in the world here) so that those cruisers "leave" Royal to spend their money elsewhere for the day.

 

I wish I had bought more Royal stock. Seriously, they are totally brilliant and I cannot blame them one bit for this approach.

[alfaeric]

It's interesting the difference in what people think is small.  

 

Since the new class of ship is enough above 100k GT, it's highly unlikely to fit under the bridges to Baltimore and Tampa.  Tampa fits Radiance class ships, which are ~90k, and Baltimore fits Vision, which are ~70k.  Since GT is a measure of total interior size, that tells you a lot.

 

If we are actually talking small ports that do require small ships, that's in the 70-90k GT size.  I would put Discovery in the mid-medium sized ships- which the Voyager class ships are.  But those ships are unlikely to fit into Tampa or Baltimore.  And a lot of really small ports.

 

So anytime I hear (and I heard it first hand, too, on the Vision) of anyone implying that the +100kGT Discovery ships will come to Baltimore, I really scoff at that idea.  I guess they could make it wider than taller, but that would be pretty wide to be that big and still fit under all of the bridges.

[latebuyer]

Is not the birth rate dropping? In Canada at least it is. I don't know that being 100% reliant on families is the way to go. Better to diversify. Plus there was some complaints on this forum that it is cheaper to go on an all inclusive then a royal caribbean ship. On the other hand, if you are going for the itinerary there are definitely pluses to taking a cruise.

[SUgwoz]

32 minutes ago, latebuyer said:

Is not the birth rate dropping? In Canada at least it is. I don't know that being 100% reliant on families is the way to go. Better to diversify. Plus there was some complaints on this forum that it is cheaper to go on an all inclusive then a royal caribbean ship. On the other hand, if you are going for the itinerary there are definitely pluses to taking a cruise.

You are insinuating there will not be enough families to cruise and only older generations will be available? 

 

Generally speaking focusing on a younger demographic is playing the long game.  Disney World today is not attended because 4 years old want to go, its because the 4 year old from the 80-90s wants to take their family.

 

Majority of the other cruise lines focus on a target demographic to the point of not catering at all if the person doesn't fit it, Royal is following that trend, but not to the point of exclusion.

[latebuyer]

I don't think i insinuated anything. I asked a question. I'm no business person, but to put it another way don't put all your eggs in one basket. People's suggestion that all royal caribbean should do is focus on families i think is wrong.

[latebuyer]

Just to add, it would be interesting if an mba or business person could provide insight here into royal caribbean's strategy.

[alfaeric]

2 hours ago, latebuyer said:

I don't think i insinuated anything. I asked a question. I'm no business person, but to put it another way don't put all your eggs in one basket. People's suggestion that all royal caribbean should do is focus on families i think is wrong.

"One basket" suggests that the ships are ONLY family friendly.  They appeal to more people than just families, otherwise there would not be people well over 50 on the big ships.  We've never had kids, but love the big ships.

 

Maybe the big ships are not appealing to you, but you can't extrapolate that to everyone.

 

Let alone, it's working in a massive way right now in their favor.

 

There are plenty of small ships in competition, so Royal doesn't have to rush into this.

[Charles4515]

2 hours ago, latebuyer said:

I don't think i insinuated anything. I asked a question. I'm no business person, but to put it another way don't put all your eggs in one basket. People's suggestion that all royal caribbean should do is focus on families i think is wrong.

They focus on family friendly cruises but they appeal to those going without families. Plenty on their ship for all demographics. I have gone solo on Royal a few times. I have ended up on many Royal sailings because it  is well suited for groups that have all ages from children to seniors. If you don't like Royal's focus there are plenty of other cruise lines. Royal is not going to change focus. They have established a family riendly brand.

Edited April 23 by Charles4515

[latebuyer]

That's true. I forgot that's their focus! If they were like norwegian and put more emphasis on solos then i would like the bigger ships. Do these ships have many solo cabins? Solos is definitely a growing demographic. Sorry getting off track. 

[Charles4515]

1 minute ago, latebuyer said:

That's true. I forgot that's their focus! If they were like norwegian and put more emphasis on solos then i would like the bigger ships. Do these ships have many solo cabins? Solos is definitely a growing demographic. Sorry getting off track. 

They have solo cabins on some ships. When I went solo I never booked a solo cabin, I stayed in a double by myself. Same with NCL when I went solo I never booked a solo cabin. 

[SUgwoz]

11 minutes ago, latebuyer said:

That's true. I forgot that's their focus! If they were like norwegian and put more emphasis on solos then i would like the bigger ships. Do these ships have many solo cabins? Solos is definitely a growing demographic. Sorry getting off track. 

While Solo cruising can be growing. Solo travelers have inifinite amount of options to travel. Families, particularly multi generational families have a much more limited set of options for traveling. 

 

Would think adult only cruise lines could do a better job at focusing on solo travellers.

[Charles4515]

4 minutes ago, SUgwoz said:

While Solo cruising can be growing. Solo travelers have inifinite amount of options to travel. Families, particularly multi generational families have a much more limited set of options for traveling. 

 

Would think adult only cruise lines could do a better job at focusing on solo travellers.

Solo travelers have plenty of options on Royal Caribbean ships. The only reason to book a solo cabin is to possibly save money. Adult only cruise lines appeal to couples and solos who don't want children around. 

[SUgwoz]

1 minute ago, Charles4515 said:

Solo travelers have plenty of options on Royal Caribbean ships. The only reason to book a solo cabin is to possibly save money. Adult only cruise lines appeal to couples and solos who don't want children around. 

Just meaning adult cruise lines don't have to have cabins that accommodate 3-4+ passengers. Allowing for more cabins solos can book. 

[Charles4515]

25 minutes ago, SUgwoz said:

Just meaning adult cruise lines don't have to have cabins that accommodate 3-4+ passengers. Allowing for more cabins solos can book. 

Aren’t  cabins on Royal Caribbean that accommodate 3 or 4 aThe same size as cabins that accommodate two. I have been in standard cabins with sofa beds and pullmans by myself. 

[SUgwoz]

39 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

Aren’t  cabins on Royal Caribbean that accommodate 3 or 4 aThe same size as cabins that accommodate two. I have been in standard cabins with sofa beds and pullmans by myself. 

Based on Icon, they restrict allowing 2 person bookings to secure a 3-4+ stateroom that is not a suite. Which is why the cost of a 2 person booking is significantly higher than a 3-4 person booking. 

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, SUgwoz said:

Based on Icon, they restrict allowing 2 person bookings to secure a 3-4+ stateroom that is not a suite. Which is why the cost of a 2 person booking is significantly higher than a 3-4 person booking. 

I have never heard of a 2 person booking of a standard stateroom costing more than a 3/4 person in the same cat. booking. Whenever I have gotten quotes it is based on double occupancy and any additional would have an add on. That is the way pricing was for the groups I went with. The 3rd or 4th was cheaper per person but the total cabin price was higher. I have never gotten any quotes for Icon though. 
 

No matter the total number of cabins a ship has a maximum capacity based on lifeboats so even if there are 4 beds they can’t sell them if it puts the ship over that maximum capacity. 

Edited April 24 by Charles4515

[Biker19]

16 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

. I have never gotten any quotes for Icon though. 

You will likely be surprised at the pricing scheme. 

[blt23]

Vancouver-Alaska and Eastern Med are both high yield markets that can't accommodate mega ships yet are core itineraries for attracting and retaining guests who want to cruise in multiple different regions.

 

With Vision, Voyager, Radiance classes all getting old, Royal will need to build some new "smaller" ships if they want to stay in those markets long term. Vancouver/Alaska is the more restricted one and even that could easily fit a ship of at least 3k guests/130k tons, which feels like it could still work financially for Royal on those itineraries.

 

By comparison, Tampa and Baltimore are lower yielding, have tighter height limits, and have alternative ports relatively nearby which all makes it much less likely that Royal tries to build new ships for them.

 

It makes sense for Royal to build some new medium sized ships for their key non-Caribbean markets, but I can also envision a future where basically every ship sailing Caribbean cruises in the summer is Icon/Oasis sized.