Norwegian Fjords - changes afoot?

[the penguins]

5 hours ago, canderson said:

 

It seems they are using the 'local ferry' boats for the Signature cruises (like the North Cape Line) as well, not just for the 'mail run' itineraries.

 

I was also a bit surprised at the prices given the cabin size. 

 

MS Trollfjord, 14nts in an O2 cabin for $5,300pp, cabin is 108 - 129 ft²

Celeb Apex, 14nts in a Veranda cabin which is at least 2.5X the size, $4,500pp

 

You are really comparing apples with pears.

One of the biggest differences is in the costs of the crew. All Hurtigruten crew on the Norway programme have pay and terms of employment that would probably bankrupt X and all the other major cruise lines. Take for example the cabin stewards who from memory work 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off - that's 2 weeks off on full pay. Plus sick pay, pensions, annual leave etc all in line with jobs ashore.

The description of the 12 night classic cruise as being "a ferry boat" service is not in my opinion accurate or helpful.

We have done a proper "expedition" cruise on Hurtigruten (17 days to the Antarctic) where  the services of a full team are vital however in my opinion this is not essential to enjoy the cruise to the Fjords.

The standard Classic Roundtrip works just great combining lots of opportunities for excursions with hours of scenic cruising. You will spend so little time in your cabin that the simplest ones are just fine. The main dining room is reserved exclusively for cruise passengers and the local food makes a wonderful change from the style of cuisine served on the major cruise lines.

True there is no casino, theatre or even a silent disco but the bars and lounge are warm and welcoming.

Unlike on Apex all passengers  have access the forward facing observation lounge .

Finally a quick look at the maps shown  earlier on this thread clearly show the difference between the 2 lines - On X  the ships travels from port to port by going out into the North Sea (essential so they can open the casino, shops etc, discharge waste and use the cheaper fuels) whilst H hugs the shore line going up and down the numerous fjords which are not accessible to X.

Whichever style you choose enjoy.

[NMTraveller]

On 8/28/2024 at 2:13 PM, mac_tlc said:

We have had this “discussion” before and I still disagree with you. The job on the bridge is safe navigation, not viewing the surrounding area. Bad analogy. We have done afts in Norway and Alaska twice — as recently as last week. We love them and do not at all consider them suboptimal. 
 

To each his own. If I had a choice of a forward or aft cabin, I’d take the aft. Too much wind forward. For some, the aft views do do it.

 

For the Panama Canal, I can see the forward view being different.

 

 

mac_tlc

On my last cruise they put the smoking area in the back 😁  No complaints observed.

 

How do you match up with the play by play audio of the scenery,  when the scenery you are seeing is several minutes behind?

Edited August 29 by NMTraveller

[canderson]

30 minutes ago, the penguins said:

You are really comparing apples with pears.

One of the biggest differences is in the costs of the crew. All Hurtigruten crew on the Norway programme have pay and terms of employment that would probably bankrupt X and all the other major cruise lines.

Actually, I'm comparing pears with apples 😉

 

Granted, there are definitely additional costs for carrying pax, but some of this is offset by the fact that a large part of the operational cost is already sunk.  The captain and the rest of the crew necessary to keep the boat afloat - so to speak, much of the fuel, and much of the engineering maintenance is already the cost of 'delivering the mail', so to speak. 

 

One would have expected that 'new' business model that included taking on 'cruise passengers' would have been done for the increase in incremental revenue, not to subsidize the basic services that these ships provide to those who depend upon them for delivery and personal transport ... though I supposed that's what could be happening here.

[mac_tlc]

1 hour ago, NMTraveller said:

On my last cruise they put the smoking area in the back 😁  No complaints observed.

 

How do you match up with the play by play audio of the scenery,  when the scenery you are seeing is several minutes behind?

Actually last week on the Edge as it cruises Dawes glacier there was a naturalist pointing out several areas of interest.  We had no problem sitting comfortably on our aft veranda and noticing the areas that were highlighted. In fact for a decent portion of that event, the Edge was stationary, or turning in place so even you who would be up front would be in the back eventually. As it should be. Sorta sounds like karma to me. 
 

mac_tlc

[the penguins]

7 hours ago, canderson said:

Actually, I'm comparing pears with apples 😉

 

Granted, there are definitely additional costs for carrying pax, but some of this is offset by the fact that a large part of the operational cost is already sunk.  The captain and the rest of the crew necessary to keep the boat afloat - so to speak, much of the fuel, and much of the engineering maintenance is already the cost of 'delivering the mail', so to speak. 

 

One would have expected that 'new' business model that included taking on 'cruise passengers' would have been done for the increase in incremental revenue, not to subsidize the basic services that these ships provide to those who depend upon them for delivery and personal transport ... though I supposed that's what could be happening here.

New business model?

Hurtigruten has operated the same mix of carrying mail, general cargo/freight, day passengers and cruise passengers  for over 70 years - Hurtigruten's history shows it has actually carried tourists since 1896 but that's  pushing it a bit. Just as with all other "cruise" lines the ships have gradually got bigger, the onboard facilities have improved and costs have risen.

 

 

Edited August 30 by the penguins
Missed words

[bebe08]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2024/08/28/norway-allows-cruise-ships-in-world-heritage-fjords-until-2032/

 

Looks like an extension to the ban.

[the penguins]

15 hours ago, mac_tlc said:

Actually last week on the Edge as it cruises Dawes glacier there was a naturalist pointing out several areas of interest.  We had no problem sitting comfortably on our aft veranda and noticing the areas that were highlighted. In fact for a decent portion of that event, the Edge was stationary, or turning in place so even you who would be up front would be in the back eventually. As it should be. Sorta sounds like karma to me. 
 

mac_tlc

as the front of the Edge is only available to suite guests the majority of the passengers would have to be content with side or aft views.

[canderson]

8 hours ago, the penguins said:

New business model?

Yes, significantly more focus on cruising (much increased cabin count).  If you look at the ships now, the bulk of the space above the waterline is taken by cruise accommodations and public space for same.  It started out as a 'sideline' and has now taken over the majority of the GT of the ship.  Then there's the addition of the Signature runs to the original Coastal Express itineraries.

 

 

 

 

[the penguins]

53 minutes ago, canderson said:

Yes, significantly more focus on cruising (much increased cabin count).  If you look at the ships now, the bulk of the space above the waterline is taken by cruise accommodations and public space for same.  It started out as a 'sideline' and has now taken over the majority of the GT of the ship.  Then there's the addition of the Signature runs to the original Coastal Express itineraries.

 

 

 

 

the change has been forced as following the decision to remove Hurtigruten's monopoly on the route it only needed half the ships. Previously the ships departed from Bergen every day.

Where do you get the increased cabin count figures ftrom?

the Trollfjord was built in 2002 and carries 500 passengers and most of the other ships have the same passenger capacity.

The Fram can carry 318 (and has had this capacity since it's launch in 2007)  but on all it's Antarctic cruises it restricts capacity to 200.

The "Signature" cruises and the HX cruises (Hurtigruten Expeditions) are really a rebranding of something they have been doing for years.

[canderson]

2 minutes ago, the penguins said:

Where do you get the increased cabin count figures ftrom?

 

Notice that I typed 'new' and not new.  It's relative and has been incremental.  And the point made was that while wages are higher, part of the cost of operation would be there and paid for whether they take cruising pax along for the ride or not, which would keep that side of the cost lower.

 

The exception would be if they were using the cruising side to subsidize the mail/ferry side, in which case, the somewhat higher cruise fares make sense.  For a cruise ship, ALL of the operating expense has to amortized across cruise passenger $.  Not so with the cruise/mail/ferry approach, especially given the space allotted per passenger aboard is even less than a river boat.

 

One would think, as I noted, that the evolution from mail/ferry to cruise/mail/ferry would have begun as a way to enhance revenue on itineraries that had to happen anyway.

 

 

[the penguins]

2 hours ago, canderson said:

Notice that I typed 'new' and not new.  It's relative and has been incremental.  And the point made was that while wages are higher, part of the cost of operation would be there and paid for whether they take cruising pax along for the ride or not, which would keep that side of the cost lower.

 

The exception would be if they were using the cruising side to subsidize the mail/ferry side, in which case, the somewhat higher cruise fares make sense.  For a cruise ship, ALL of the operating expense has to amortized across cruise passenger $.  Not so with the cruise/mail/ferry approach, especially given the space allotted per passenger aboard is even less than a river boat.

 

One would think, as I noted, that the evolution from mail/ferry to cruise/mail/ferry would have begun as a way to enhance revenue on itineraries that had to happen anyway.

 

 

Your original statement was that now the bulk of the accommodation above the waterline is for cruise passengers. The truth is that has been the case since 2007 so hardly a new development.

You are also ignoring Hurtigruten’s other big source of income which is general freight.

Unlike on conventional cruise ships passengers on Hurtigruten do not contribute much in the way of onboard spend - no casinos, no spa treatments, a tiny gift shop and one small extra cost restaurant.

Perhaps the one big change is that since Hurtigruten was bought by a British company the marketing has changed and expanded to more countries especially to the US and Canada.