John Heald hints at World Cruise?

[jimbo5544]

On 4/22/2024 at 3:51 PM, kwokpot said:

We did 3 b2b2b on the Pride in May/June. '22 for a total of 32 days consecutive days on 1 ship. What was nice was there wasn't any repeat ports ( we could have stayed on for a 4th cruise that wasn't repeats in the Baltics but we decided against it) and we went to many places for the first time, including Bilbao,Spain and the Norwegian fjords. It was a wonderful trip!

Met some people in Dover that were getting off the Pride doing the Norwegian sailing.  They LOVED it.   Was disappointed when we got back and I looked and saw that it was not on any schedule…..  Would do that in a NY minute.

[SDPadreFan]

8 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

Met some people in Dover that were getting off the Pride doing the Norwegian sailing.  They LOVED it.   Was disappointed when we got back and I looked and saw that it was not on any schedule…..  Would do that in a NY minute.

Norway is killing (traditional, big cruise ship) access to it's fjords in 2026. That's already been decided. My sister is doing one on RCCL this year in June before the ban. I think Norway may allow the gas turbine ships (LNG) sometime in the future, but guessing they would have to be sub 5000 pax vessels for some of the smaller ports.

[SDPadreFan]

28 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

Had not thought about the addition of the additional ship to this class.  I tdoes offer up some good options.  Problem is, I like almost all of the options you describe.  Most are mutually exclusive I would think, with the exception of of the winter/summer swaps.  Personally, doing a world cruise segment of two would be the best option for me (wife may have a different view), but if that dog don’t hunt, going back to more extended Journey’s would be sweet. 

This crusty old Navy Chief could easily do an extended deployment, but not sure about my wife. I'm looking at a potential 27 day B2B in 2025 to see how she does. 14 sea days on that one, so it would be a good test.

[jimbo5544]

8 hours ago, SDPadreFan said:

Norway is killing (traditional, big cruise ship) access to it's fjords in 2026. That's already been decided. My sister is doing one on RCCL this year in June before the ban. I think Norway may allow the gas turbine ships (LNG) sometime in the future, but guessing they would have to be sub 5000 pax vessels for some of the smaller ports.

That is a shame

[notscb]

35 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

That is a shame

Yes and no. The fjords are a wonder of the world (IMHO) and deserve to be protected at all costs. If the cruise lines want to capitalize on their beauty, they should be held to a higher standard to also protect them and every port they visit.

 

I think Norway deciding this is a wake up call to the industry to do better.

[tidecat]

13 hours ago, toad455 said:

The issue would be that this "World" cruise would have to use a Spirit-class ship. Alaska/Hawaii gets one, Tampa gets one, Mobile gets one for 6 months, and Baltimore another. Stretches this class a little thin.

Assuming the fourth Excel class in 2027 is accretive to the fleet and not a replacement of an older ship, Carnival would have the option of moving a seasonally-deployed Spirit-class vessel out of Galveston or Mobile and replacing it with something larger.

 

Legend - Tampa (winter)/Europe (summer)

Luminosa - Brisbane (US winter)/Seattle (US summer)

Miracle - World Cruise (winter)/San Francisco (summer)

Pride - Baltimore (year-round)

Spirit - Mobile (year-round)

 

Galveston gets a Conquest-class for the #4 spot there, which would now be year-round.

[tidecat]

14 hours ago, toad455 said:

The issue would be that this "World" cruise would have to use a Spirit-class ship. Alaska/Hawaii gets one, Tampa gets one, Mobile gets one for 6 months, and Baltimore another. Stretches this class a little thin.

Assuming the fourth Excel class in 2027 is accretive to the fleet and not a replacement of an older ship, Carnival would have the option of moving a seasonally-deployed Spirit-class vessel out of Galveston or Mobile and replacing it with something larger.

 

Legend - Tampa (winter)/Europe (summer)

Luminosa - Brisbane (US winter)/Seattle (US summer)

Miracle - World Cruise (winter)/San Francisco (summer)

Pride - Baltimore (year-round)

Spirit - Mobile (year-round)

 

Galveston gets a Conquest-class for the #4 spot there, which would now be year-round.

[jimbo5544]

7 hours ago, notscb said:

Yes and no. The fjords are a wonder of the world (IMHO) and deserve to be protected at all costs. If the cruise lines want to capitalize on their beauty, they should be held to a higher standard to also protect them and every port they visit.

 

I think Norway deciding this is a wake up call to the industry to do better.

Obviously they can do whatever they want.  If they do not want tourists or tourist dollars, then so be it.  It seems their higher standard (if that is the notifier they are trying to send) is to not have ships cruise. Alaska does similar.  Norway is not going to change the cruise industry, that is just silly. If anybody really thinks that maybe 10 cruises makes a difference in anything in our world then that is really head scratching material.   Restate my original post.  That is a shame. 

Edited April 28 by jimbo5544

[jimbo5544]

7 hours ago, tidecat said:

Assuming the fourth Excel class in 2027 is accretive to the fleet and not a replacement of an older ship, Carnival would have the option of moving a seasonally-deployed Spirit-class vessel out of Galveston or Mobile and replacing it with something larger.

 

Legend - Tampa (winter)/Europe (summer)

Luminosa - Brisbane (US winter)/Seattle (US summer)

Miracle - World Cruise (winter)/San Francisco (summer)

Pride - Baltimore (year-round)

Spirit - Mobile (year-round)

 

Galveston gets a Conquest-class for the #4 spot there, which would now be year-round.

In my humble view, that is the absolute worst scenario.

[tidecat]

2 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

Norway is not going to change the cruise industry, that is just silly. If anybody really thinks that maybe 10 cruises makes a difference in anything in our world then that is really head scratching material.

Except it isn't just 10 cruises a year. Sailings to the Fjords make up greater percentages of other lines' sailings. Geirangerfjord alone receives roughly 40% of its 800,000 visitors by cruise ship. That capacity has to go somewhere.

 

The regulations also extend to domestic shipping and fisheries. While they will not be emission-free come 2026, there is a target to cut those emissions by 50% by 2030.

[jimbo5544]

38 minutes ago, tidecat said:

Except it isn't just 10 cruises a year. Sailings to the Fjords make up greater percentages of other lines' sailings. Geirangerfjord alone receives roughly 40% of its 800,000 visitors by cruise ship. That capacity has to go somewhere.

 

The regulations also extend to domestic shipping and fisheries. While they will not be emission-free come 2026, there is a target to cut those emissions by 50% by 2030.

Thanks for the info.

[notscb]

7 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

If they do not want tourists or tourist dollars, then so be it.

The great thing about Norway is that people are going to come because of the beauty of the Fjords and the adventuring to be had around them, regardless of the bigger cruise lines coming or not. I was just looking at a train/boat/bus tour that one of my favorite travel YouTubers had done in Norway and was considering booking the same trip.

 

Major cruise lines leaving could even be considered as a net positive as local businesses can market different types of land based tours and/or smaller ship tours, keeping dollars local.

 

>Norway is not going to change the cruise industry, that is just silly

 

You're right, but missing the larger picture here. There have been many, many ports that have been lobbying against cruise ships (Key West, Bar Harbor, Alaska in general, Norway). Compounded, these efforts could help to promote change in the industry as a whole. Notice that Norway isn't saying "you can't come," they're saying "you can't come if you're going to destroy our ecosystem." There's a difference.

Edited April 28 by notscb

[jimbo5544]

5 hours ago, notscb said:

The great thing about Norway is that people are going to come because of the beauty of the Fjords and the adventuring to be had around them, regardless of the bigger cruise lines coming or not. I was just looking at a train/boat/bus tour that one of my favorite travel YouTubers had done in Norway and was considering booking the same trip.

 

Major cruise lines leaving could even be considered as a net positive as local businesses can market different types of land based tours and/or smaller ship tours, keeping dollars local.

 

>Norway is not going to change the cruise industry, that is just silly

 

You're right, but missing the larger picture here. There have been many, many ports that have been lobbying against cruise ships (Key West, Bar Harbor, Alaska in general, Norway). Compounded, these efforts could help to promote change in the industry as a whole. Notice that Norway isn't saying "you can't come," they're saying "you can't come if you're going to destroy our ecosystem." There's a difference.

No is a no.  If they do not want cruise ships, then it is what it is.  They will sail to all the surrounding countries.  From my view, it will change nothing and they lose.  Maybe Tesla is building an e-boat, that seems to be going well…. Key West….hmmmm. Here is the link for their cruise ship schedule, looks pretty full to me.  Call the King of Norway, sign up for this and I will be happy.  https://www.cruisemapper.com/ports/key-west-port-121

 

Must have missed Bar harbor on the top ten list of cruise.  

 

When did Alaska kill cruising?  Look s pretty full to me (quick google of the ones CC shows.  https://www.cruisecritic.com/smart-deals/destination-115/?suppressTabs=1&source=132660&taparam=ECCGoogleUS_Kkwd-79646473913309:loc-190_A1274334647860365&supai=&supsn=s&supmbl=&suppos=&supap1=347000205&supap2=1274334647860365&supdev=c&suprnd=&supmob=kwd-79646473913309:loc-190&suplp=&msclkid=4f2e4fbf6aef1265c70a2991b5892e79&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=132660_CC_Bing_US_Desktop_Destinations_Exact_132660&utm_term=alaska cruises for 2024&utm_content=Alaska

 

They talk the talk but give in, in the end.  Dead Presidents rule.  That is the biggest picture.

[notscb]

1 hour ago, jimbo5544 said:

From my view, it will change nothing and they lose.

They talk the talk but give in, in the end.  Dead Presidents rule.  That is the biggest picture.

1. I don't think you fully understand the context, it's already been studied, they don't "lose".

2. The residents of Key West voted for ccruise ship limits and were usurped by their governor. They voted. The will of the community impacted was ignored.

3. Bar Harbor has already started enforcing a  daily cruise limit. It's a very popular stop on Canada/New England cruises.

3. https://www.cruisehive.com/alaskan-city-rejects-petition-to-limit-cruise-passengers/112754

 

Just had to source some of my points so you could see where I'm coming from, especially as it's concerned with people's attitudes toward cruising in general. When people start to say no, it's not just "saying no."

 

Just wanted to give you accurate sourcing to see where I'm coming from.

 

 

Edited April 29 by notscb

[jimbo5544]

11 minutes ago, notscb said:

1. I don't think you fully understand the context, it's already been studied, they don't "lose".

2. The residents of Key West voted for ccruise ship limits and were usurped by their governor. They voted. The will of the community impacted was ignored.

3. Bar Harbor has already started enforcing a  daily cruise limit. It's a very popular stop on Canada/New England cruises.

3. https://www.cruisehive.com/alaskan-city-rejects-petition-to-limit-cruise-passengers/112754

 

Just had to source some of my points so you could see where I'm coming from, especially as it's concerned with people's attitudes toward cruising in general. When people start to say no, it's not just "saying no."

 

Just wanted to give you accurate sourcing to see where I'm coming from.

 

 

I will reply and move on.  I said if they meant no, then it means no.  

 

1. I could care less what they meant when they said no.  Things change all the time.  No’s can become yes as I pointed out.  Studies can and are manipulated all the time. It is what the companies that do the studies get paid to do.  Make the study look like what the people who pay you to do the study want it to look like.  Reality

 

2.  Key West voting on it turns out mean diddly.  They were overridden.  They said no and lost.  Cruising wins.  The State rules in all of these issues, not a little island town.  As it should be.

 

3.  According to Cruise Mapper, if you call it a win in Bar harbor, seems like a paper tiger win to me.  https://www.cruisemapper.com/ports/bar-harbor-port-543  And that is just May.  

 

4.  Push back on Alaskan ports from cities has been going on (and admittedly the state as well) goes back and forth like a ping pong ball.  Just like Norway, they can do what they want.  They do that at their own peril.  You dismiss it, but it is real.

 

I get your point.  That said, cruising is not the evil axis, they had made errors (not even close to other industries, when it comes to ecology.  If Norway, Bar Harbor and Alaska want to drastically limit cruising and label it green, as I said before, that is their decision.  Those towns and cities will suffer and suffer big.  Telling the cruise industry they “have to change” and not even tell them what they need to change or whether it is realistic is nothing more than a red herring.  I know it and you know it.  I will restate my original post, and I mean it.  That is a shame.  We, the cruising community are worse off from their decisions.  

[Eli_6]

I am not holding my breath as we are about to cancel our Princess WC segment because it was re-routed in such a terrible way that we completely skipped Asia and the middle east and it was literally the Asia/ME segment of the cruise!  31 sea days on a 41 day cruise.  I know Carnival Corp isn't responsible for the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea but d**n, how can you just completely skip an entire continent and call it a w.c.???  We are now doing a Sydney to Singapore cruise instead. 

[jimbo5544]

9 hours ago, Eli_6 said:

I am not holding my breath as we are about to cancel our Princess WC segment because it was re-routed in such a terrible way that we completely skipped Asia and the middle east and it was literally the Asia/ME segment of the cruise!  31 sea days on a 41 day cruise.  I know Carnival Corp isn't responsible for the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea but d**n, how can you just completely skip an entire continent and call it a w.c.???  We are now doing a Sydney to Singapore cruise instead. 

We live in a strange world right now.  I would prob do the same thing.

[jsglow]

10 hours ago, Eli_6 said:

I am not holding my breath as we are about to cancel our Princess WC segment because it was re-routed in such a terrible way that we completely skipped Asia and the middle east and it was literally the Asia/ME segment of the cruise!  31 sea days on a 41 day cruise.  I know Carnival Corp isn't responsible for the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea but d**n, how can you just completely skip an entire continent and call it a w.c.???  We are now doing a Sydney to Singapore cruise instead. 

You're making the right call @Eli_6. The only folks who should be in those west Asian waters are sailors with big guns. Enjoy your Sydney/Singapore run. Is that Splendor going for dry dock?

[ChinaShrek]

On 4/28/2024 at 6:42 AM, jimbo5544 said:

Obviously they can do whatever they want.  If they do not want tourists or tourist dollars, then so be it.  It seems their higher standard (if that is the notifier they are trying to send) is to not have ships cruise. Alaska does similar.  Norway is not going to change the cruise industry, that is just silly. If anybody really thinks that maybe 10 cruises makes a difference in anything in our world then that is really head scratching material.   Restate my original post.  That is a shame. 

Lots of ports are saying no to cruise ships. Norway is a wealthy country and does not cruise money. In fact, the economic benefit of cruise ships on the local is often exaggerated. Bar Harbor is also limiting cruise ships to 1000 passengers per day in total. It is not about changing the cruising industry. It is about how cruising destroys certain communities in the summer. The locals not want this. Venice has also limited cruise ships. If you really want to travel to Norway, people can fly there. Same with Bar Harbor.

[ChinaShrek]

On 4/28/2024 at 10:04 PM, jimbo5544 said:

 

 

I get your point.  That said, cruising is not the evil axis, they had made errors (not even close to other industries, when it comes to ecology.  If Norway, Bar Harbor and Alaska want to drastically limit cruising and label it green, as I said before, that is their decision.  Those towns and cities will suffer and suffer big.  Telling the cruise industry they “have to change” and not even tell them what they need to change or whether it is realistic is nothing more than a red herring.  I know it and you know it.  I will restate my original post, and I mean it.  That is a shame.  We, the cruising community are worse off from their decisions.  

Bar Harbor did a major impact study of cruise passengers and found out that very few cruisers spend any actual money in the town. Most passengers book a tour and buy a t-shirt. Drive to Bar Harbor, stay a week in a cottage, and eat out every night. Now you are helping the local economy. It is about keeping life in Bar Harbor they way it was 50 years ago. Nothing wrong with that.

[Eli_6]

4 hours ago, jsglow said:

You're making the right call @Eli_6. The only folks who should be in those west Asian waters are sailors with big guns. Enjoy your Sydney/Singapore run. Is that Splendor going for dry dock?

Yes!  And I am super excited. 

The revised itinerary came out last week for our Princess world cruise segment and it had us going from Sydney to Barcelona with stops at 1 other Australian port, South Africa, 1 stop at some other African country, 1 stop at some Portugues island, Gibraltar (already been), 2 Spain stops at places we have already been, and ending in Barcelona (also where we have been twice)...and 31 sea days on a 41 day cruise.  Originally we were supposed to go to Bali, Phuket, multiple other stops in Asia, Oman, Jordan, Israel, Greece, and end in Rome. There was even an excursion to the Taj Mahal we wanted to take!  I get why they changed it.  I really do.  But that doesn't mean I want to drop 25k for the cruise plus the price of the airline tix plus 41 days of no work/no income for my husband to spend 3/4 of the cruise on sea days and half the other stops at places we have already been. 

So, I started searching other Australia/Asian sailings and saw they had two really great rooms next to one another on the Splendor. It doesn't have as many Asian stops as we were originally supposed to have on the Princess world cruise, but it is a FRACTION of the price...and certainly has more than the current Princess w.c. has.  I also really love the Splendor's layout despite the weird pink circle decor.  We got two of the scenic ocean view rooms with the floor-to-ceiling windows. I have always wanted to cruise in one of those rooms!  And hubs even got a casino deal where he got $750 OBC and a pretty cheap room.  I, unfortunately, did not get the casino offer but it still wasn't a bad price for a 16 day cruise stopping at some really cool places even at the "regular" VIFP rate.

Edited May 2 by Eli_6

[jimbo5544]

2 hours ago, ChinaShrek said:

Bar Harbor did a major impact study of cruise passengers and found out that very few cruisers spend any actual money in the town. Most passengers book a tour and buy a t-shirt. Drive to Bar Harbor, stay a week in a cottage, and eat out every night. Now you are helping the local economy. It is about keeping life in Bar Harbor they way it was 50 years ago. Nothing wrong with that.

As I have said before, studies find what the people who pay for them want them to find, that said, it is their choice, if they do not want cruisers then so be it.  

[jimbo5544]

2 hours ago, ChinaShrek said:

Lots of ports are saying no to cruise ships. Norway is a wealthy country and does not cruise money. In fact, the economic benefit of cruise ships on the local is often exaggerated. Bar Harbor is also limiting cruise ships to 1000 passengers per day in total. It is not about changing the cruising industry. It is about how cruising destroys certain communities in the summer. The locals not want this. Venice has also limited cruise ships. If you really want to travel to Norway, people can fly there. Same with Bar Harbor.

If Bar Harbor does not want cruisers, then turn them off totally, is it a bone to limit it to 1,000?  As you stated, they get nothing so keep it as it was in 1945.  Residents decide what they want and cruisers can decide when shunned what they want.  Easy peasey.  Same for Norway.  That said, Norways economic position is way different then Bar Harbor.

[jimbo5544]

2 hours ago, Eli_6 said:

Yes!  And I am super excited. 

The revised itinerary came out last week for our Princess world cruise segment and it had us going from Sydney to Barcelona with stops at 1 other Australian port, South Africa, 1 stop at some other African country, 1 stop at some Portugues island, Gibraltar (already been), 2 Spain stops at places we have already been, and ending in Barcelona (also where we have been twice)...and 31 sea days on a 41 day cruise.  Originally we were supposed to go to Bali, Phuket, multiple other stops in Asia, Oman, Jordan, Israel, Greece, and end in Rome. There was even an excursion to the Taj Mahal we wanted to take!  I get why they changed it.  I really do.  But that doesn't mean I want to drop 25k for the cruise plus the price of the airline tix plus 41 days of no work/no income for my husband to spend 3/4 of the cruise on sea days and half the other stops at places we have already been. 

So, I started searching other Australia/Asian sailings and saw they had two really great rooms next to one another on the Splendor. It doesn't have as many Asian stops as we were originally supposed to have on the Princess world cruise, but it is a FRACTION of the price...and certainly has more than the current Princess w.c. has.  I also really love the Splendor's layout despite the weird pink circle decor.  We got two of the scenic ocean view rooms with the floor-to-ceiling windows. I have always wanted to cruise in one of those rooms!  And hubs even got a casino deal where he got $750 OBC and a pretty cheap room.  I, unfortunately, did not get the casino offer but it still wasn't a bad price for a 16 day cruise stopping at some really cool places even at the "regular" VIFP rate.

Sounds weird to me.  Wonder why they would cut back so much.  

[Eli_6]

On 5/2/2024 at 1:18 PM, jimbo5544 said:

Sounds weird to me.  Wonder why they would cut back so much.  

I think because it takes so much longer to go around the horn of Africa as compared to through the Suez Canal.  However, I personally would rather skip some of the Spain/Portugal ports and have still gone to Phuket, Bali, etc. I don't see why they couldn't have kept some of the Asian ports. They literally cut them ALL out.