Large, Medium, or Small Ship?

[Azulann]

We are starting to plan a European cruise for Fall of 2010.:D I did a Western Med. cruise on the Century in 2008. It had 1800apprx. passengers. We never felt it was crowded and no long waits to disembark at ports. But three of the ports, we were the only ship that day.

We are open to Century, the M class ships or maybe even the Soltice class ships. Do these larger ships feel crowded on sea days and disembarking at ports of call?

Our other option would be Azamara or Oceania? Here the question would be is there enough open space on board and uncrowed bars, etc?

 

All the above mentioned ships have itineraries that we would be interested in doing.

Thanks in advance for sharing your experience.

[spearmint]

We have done Summit, Millennium and Constellation along with Century. Quite frankly, we found no difference in the feeling of spaciousness on the M-class over the C-class (which we did first). The M-class is very similar to the C-class, but with more to offer....like Cova Cafe as opposed to Tastings, and a Thallassotherapy pool as opposed to none.:) Solstice due to its size and its design/layout does not appeal to us.

[Bruin Steve]

We are starting to plan a European cruise for Fall of 2010.:D I did a Western Med. cruise on the Century in 2008. It had 1800apprx. passengers. We never felt it was crowded and no long waits to disembark at ports. But three of the ports, we were the only ship that day.

We are open to Century, the M class ships or maybe even the Soltice class ships. Do these larger ships feel crowded on sea days and disembarking at ports of call?

Our other option would be Azamara or Oceania? Here the question would be is there enough open space on board and uncrowed bars, etc?

 

All the above mentioned ships have itineraries that we would be interested in doing.

Thanks in advance for sharing your experience.

 

I have done six Europe cruises since 2001 on the (old) Crown Princess, Celebrity Millennium, twice on the Celebrity Constellation and twice on the Oceania Nautica...and we are cruising the Baltic again in July on the Celebrity Solstice...So, I guess I have a little experience here, across the board...

 

The key to whether or not a ship feels crowded is not the size of the ship, but the number of passengers compared to the size of the ship...Easiest way to get an approximate idea of this is to divide the total gross tonnage by the number of passengers at full double capacity to get the "Space-per-passenger" ratio...

 

The Century has 71545 gross tons and carries 1,808 passengers at full double capacity...so the ratio is 39.57 gross tons per passenger...

 

The M-Class ships are 90,280 gross tons with 1,950 passengers: 46.297

 

The new Solstice Class ships are 122,000 gross tons with 2,850 passengers: 42.81

 

The Oceania and Azamara ships are 30,277 g.t. and carry 684 passengers: 44.26

 

As you can see, the M-Class, Solstice class and former Ren ships (Oceania and Azamara) ALL give you more room per passenger than the Century...ALL are very spacious and comfortable...

 

Compare these with the last Carnival ship we were on (28.2) or the last Princess ship (38.1)

 

We have found that the larger Celebrity ships are well run and have few problems getting passengers on or off the ship...

 

OTOH, the Oceania cruises we've been on are also very nice with an uncrowded feel...There's a lot less to do onboard and the ship gets fairly quiet at night, but the facilities never seem crowded...Even with open seating, we've never had a wait for a table...Seats in the small showroom are never that hard to find...

 

The real differences in the smaller ships (Oceania and Azamara) and with the larger Celebrity ships are...Open seating versus traditional (Open works nicely with varied times in port--but we prefer traditional: better service with waiters who get to know us)...no formal nights on Oceania--nice not to have to pack all that extra clothes...and, of course, the entertainment and activities are better on the larger ships...

 

Really, the first thing you need to consider is itinerary and price...Find the itinerary you like with the ports you want to visit. Pricing is such that the smaller ship lines tend to be more expensive...Make sure you get an "apples for apples" comparison--Oceania tends to throw in a few extra costs on their pricing...and the "free air" thing really isn't--you can get different prices for "with air" and "without air" just like on other lines...

 

Good luck...

[ellbon]

If iwas goiung to be in Europe on a ship i would love Azamara. it can dock in places the big ships can not and has more time in many ports. i have been on a princess ship that size and i love it. just remember one pool and a small jogging track but it has everythign you need and no formal night.

[Azulann]

Thank you both for your replies. Steve, your analysis is very enlighting. We will concentrate on the itinerary first, then price. Yes, I will compare "apples to apples" with total cost per day on the cruises we are interested in doing. We are open to spending alittle more if we choose Azamara or Oceania. We would book our own airfare.

On these port intensive cruises, the food ,great service, comfortable bed,and a nice drink at the end of the day is what is important on the ship.:)

[DougK]

The key to whether or not a ship feels crowded is not the size of the ship, but the number of passengers compared to the size of the ship...Easiest way to get an approximate idea of this is to divide the total gross tonnage by the number of passengers at full double capacity to get the "Space-per-passenger" ratio...

 

I know this is the popular figure to determine space, and I don't have a better method, but this method has some serious shortcomings.

 

One obvious theoretical problem is that it's based on weight (tonnage) rather than space; an aluminum boat of exactly the same dimensions as a steel boat would be listed as having significantly less space. In practice, I don't know that there's much variation yet in the materials used in cruise ships -- unlike airplanes -- but there's at least some discussion of it, and I imagine it will continue to increase in importance as the price of fuel increases.

 

The second problem is that it assumes that every ship devotes an equal percentage of its space to passengers (as opposed to crew and infrastructure). And that assumption is almost certainly untrue. Ships with a lower crew-to-passenger ratio may score lower on the ton/passenger ratio as well, since there are more passengers for the same size ship. I suspect, although I don't know for a fact, that larger ships "waste" a smaller percentage of space on infrastructure due to economies of scale (e.g., it's unlikely that the engine room needs to be twice as big on a ship that's twice as big).

 

But probably the most important factor is *how* the passenger space is utilized. If a ship devotes a large amount of space to shops, it's probably going to feel more crowded than an identically sized ship that has no shops and uses that space for lounges. A ship that has a very large dining area may feel less crowded while dining, but more crowded at other times, since there's less available space for lounging, walking, etc. If a ship has a lot of meeting rooms to make itself attractive to groups/conventions, that's largely wasted space for passengers when the ship isn't booked by a group.

 

It also depends on what the cruise itinerary is. For example, in the Caribbean, what passengers are most likely to care about is the amount of pool space. But in Alaska, that's largely wasted space, and what's more important is the availability of viewing areas for the scenery and wildlife.

 

Unfortunately, I don't know of any systematic evaluation of these factors. I personally have a preference for smaller ships with fewer passengers, because my experience has been that they "feel" more spacious to me. But others may have a different experience, and each ship has its own personal feel.

[The Big Booper]

I know this is the popular figure to determine space, and I don't have a better method, but this method has some serious shortcomings.

 

One obvious theoretical problem is that it's based on weight (tonnage) rather than space; an aluminum boat of exactly the same dimensions as a steel boat would be listed as having significantly less space. In practice, I don't know that there's much variation yet in the materials used in cruise ships -- unlike airplanes -- but there's at least some discussion of it, and I imagine it will continue to increase in importance as the price of fuel increases.

 

The second problem is that it assumes that every ship devotes an equal percentage of its space to passengers (as opposed to crew and infrastructure). And that assumption is almost certainly untrue. Ships with a lower crew-to-passenger ratio may score lower on the ton/passenger ratio as well, since there are more passengers for the same size ship. I suspect, although I don't know for a fact, that larger ships "waste" a smaller percentage of space on infrastructure due to economies of scale (e.g., it's unlikely that the engine room needs to be twice as big on a ship that's twice as big).

 

But probably the most important factor is *how* the passenger space is utilized. If a ship devotes a large amount of space to shops, it's probably going to feel more crowded than an identically sized ship that has no shops and uses that space for lounges. A ship that has a very large dining area may feel less crowded while dining, but more crowded at other times, since there's less available space for lounging, walking, etc. If a ship has a lot of meeting rooms to make itself attractive to groups/conventions, that's largely wasted space for passengers when the ship isn't booked by a group.

 

It also depends on what the cruise itinerary is. For example, in the Caribbean, what passengers are most likely to care about is the amount of pool space. But in Alaska, that's largely wasted space, and what's more important is the availability of viewing areas for the scenery and wildlife.

 

Unfortunately, I don't know of any systematic evaluation of these factors. I personally have a preference for smaller ships with fewer passengers, because my experience has been that they "feel" more spacious to me. But others may have a different experience, and each ship has its own personal feel.

 

Your analysis is 100 % wrong.

 

Gross tonnage has NOTHING to do with actual weight but with cubic volume available to the passengers, with some additional arcane calculations thrown in. You can't drive a cruise ship onto a bathroom scale. A gross ton equals 100 cubic feet of volume, nothing more and nothing less.

 

The Bruin man's analysis is spot on.

 

Google the exact phrase "Gross Register Ton" or "Tonne". The phrase was derived from shipping wines and how much space the wine took up. Thus the word tonne.

 

Also, only enclosed space is counted. So open pool decks, jogging decks, etc. with no roof coverings don't fit into the calculation.

[DougK]

Your analysis is 100 % wrong.

 

Gross tonnage has NOTHING to do with actual weight but with cubic volume available to the passengers, with some additional arcane calculations thrown in. You can't drive a cruise ship onto a bathroom scale. A gross ton equals 100 cubic feet of volume, nothing more and nothing less.

 

 

Thanks for the correction -- apparently the word "tonnage" has multiple meanings and I just assumed wrongly that ship measurements had to do with weight. I learn something new every day.

 

The Bruin man's analysis is spot on.

 

Here, however, I still beg to differ. The most important factors I discussed in my post had nothing to do with weight, but with the distribution of space. I continue to believe that those are important factors -- the layout of the ship is very important for how crowded it feels. To take an extreme example, consider a ship that decided to create several immense suites, each taking up a significant portion of a deck. For 99% of the passengers, that space would just be wasted, even though it would still be calculated as part of the passenger-space ratio.

[Bruin Steve]

Thanks for the correction -- apparently the word "tonnage" has multiple meanings and I just assumed wrongly that ship measurements had to do with weight. I learn something new every day.

 

 

 

Here, however, I still beg to differ. The most important factors I discussed in my post had nothing to do with weight, but with the distribution of space. I continue to believe that those are important factors -- the layout of the ship is very important for how crowded it feels. To take an extreme example, consider a ship that decided to create several immense suites, each taking up a significant portion of a deck. For 99% of the passengers, that space would just be wasted, even though it would still be calculated as part of the passenger-space ratio.

 

Doug, it's a method of approximation...

And though some of the points you bring up have some hypothetical validity, it happens that the approximations are extremely close to the reality...

In fact, they are, if anything, more exaggerated. Here's why:

 

The ships with the lower ratios have, generally put in MORE passenger cabins--why the more passengers--and therefore have LESS of their volume taken up by "public space"...Though there are some luxury class lines who devote far more space to each cabin and have, at times, all suites, virtually EVERY "big ship" cruise line has a fairly close ratio of standard cabins to suites...and the cabins are generally in the same range as to size while the number of suites is so small in comparison that the sizes of suites make little difference.

 

So, those Carnival ships with the very poor space ratios, but with nicely sized passenger cabins, are genrally even more crowded than those small space per passenger ratios make it appear. Also, when you look at marketing, ships like Carnival, just as an example, tend to market toward families and people looking for lowest price. So, they tend to fill up a greater number of third and fourth berths, so the ratio is even more exaggerated when taking into consideration "full" occupancy rather than "double" occupancy.

 

So, the typical ship with a 45.0 space ratio is usually more than 50% more spacious than one with a 30.0 ratio.

 

Yes, beyond that, the "design" and layout of a ship can make it feel roomier or more crowded...But, those ships with more space can work with that more space to create that roomier feel as well. When space is limited, designers "cheat" a little on things like widths of walkways, encroachment of shops, bars and other amenities into the walkways, etc. It is difficult to make a more crowded ship feel more spacious. I usually look to the dining room we were in on the Carnival Liberty. Tables were wedged in in far more crowded fashion than they should be...many tables were replaced by "booths"--which allow them to abut table after table with no room between...Walkways between tables were narrow and often unpassable. It is what happens when you try to fit more passengers into less space.

[Bridge Maven]

I agree that space per passenger is more important than the size of a ship in determining how crowded a ship feels but it is also important to consider how that space is allocated. If a ship has many areas that are rarely used (aka wasted space) it makes other parts of the ship more crowded than its passenger to space ratio would imply. This is also a problem with cruises in warm climates that have pool areas that are too small for its number of its passengers no matter how ideal its passenger to space ratio is. I have also been on cruises with good passenger to space ratios that had very long waits for tenders because theiy did not have adequate tender service, while other cruises used more tenders that were larger so there were shorter waits even though there were a lot more passengers.

[Azulann]

Thanks for the engrossing "guy conversation" about formulas:cool: One factor I will consider in choosing the size of ship is the size of the Sunset and Martinni Bars, everything else being equal!! thanks guys:D

[The Big Booper]

Thanks for the engrossing "guy conversation" about formulas:cool: One factor I will consider in choosing the size of ship is the size of the Sunset and Martinni Bars, everything else being equal!! thanks guys:D

 

Thank You :).

 

We were on the Brilliance Med run a couple years ago cruising between ports when I noticed a smallish ship docked way in the distance partially hidden since it was docked in an inlet. I grabbed my trusty superzoom (Panasonic FZ30) and cranked it up to full optical (12x) and switched on the digital magnification (4x). It was one of the former R ships with the Princess thingy on the stack, such as Azamara and Oceanic use. No way could the bigger ships fit in where that was docked.

[Imagineer]

...this is very true, the former R ships now being used by Oceania, Princess and Azamara (Celebrity owned) are able to get into ports you'll never get to on the larger or largest ships. We were on the Regatta last year doing the Med, we were able to visit Portofino, Portovecchio, Kotor, all very small harbors, and in Venice, able to utilize a dock much closer to the main part of the city which, in Venice, meant a lot less walking...

...the smaller ships may equal some of the large ones when you look at the tonnes per passenger stats, as Bruin Steve points out, but I'm sure he will agree with me, as he's experienced Oceania's ships, that the smaller cruise ships just manage to have a different ambiance. We're not sure about going with Oceania again, their prices have gone up a lot in the last couple years, but we are considering that the same offering is available from Azamara, same ships with some tweaks to the decor but much more attractive pricing and very similar itineraries...

 

cheers,

 

the Imagineer

[The Big Booper]

From what I have read, Azamara did a much more thorough renovation, including substantial interior workings, then Princess did. Including building new public rooms.

 

If I were to go on one of these smaller ships I would go with them.

[Bridge Maven]

From what I have read, Azamara did a much more thorough renovation, including substantial interior workings, then Princess did. Including building new public rooms.

 

If I were to go on one of these smaller ships I would go with them.

 

I haven't been on any of the renovated R ships, but have heard from people who did that Oceania has the best product for this type of ship.

[Bruin Steve]

...as Bruin Steve points out, but I'm sure he will agree with me, as he's experienced Oceania's ships, that the smaller cruise ships just manage to have a different ambiance...

 

Yes, I would agree there's a different ambiance...

Of course, there are both pluses and minuses...

 

The smaller ships can get into those smaller ports (We loved Kotor)...and you can find yourself in ports that don't have 8,000 cruise tourists there for the day...though they also do many of the same big ports as well (When we were on Oceania Nautica in Venice, we were NOT in a better located dock--same area as everyone else)...

 

The real difference in ambiance, to me, is that the Oceania ships are far quieter and seem to "go to sleep" earlier...This may have something to do with the total numbers, but, perhaps more to do with demographics...With the cruise costing more and the lack of Children's and Teens' programs, the passengers tend to be a bit older...The entertainment and activities aren't close to what you find on a big ship like Celebrity...They also have done away with formal nights and have open seating dining (I prefer traditional, but Oceania--unlike some large ship cruise lines--pulls it off very well. The dining room is ample for the number of passengers and the specialty restaurants have zero service charge--so they are filled every night).

 

I think BOTH Celebrity and Oceania or Azamara are great products--just a little different.

But, then, there is that price difference. Celebrity definitely give you a lower price and therefore more value for your money...But I find Oceania well worth paying that extra for--especially for some of their more creative itineraries.

 

Celebrity, Azamara and Oceania are all excellent choices IMHO...

[ellbon]

i have been on a small princess ship. Unless they took down walls the size of al lthe cabind etc are the same. it is a nice ship. the balcony's are a nice size.

you have open seating fro dinner. you have smallr show rooms and bars but you can get into ports you can not get into with big ships.

 

smaller is better in europe.

[excitedofharpenden]

We are starting to plan a European cruise for Fall of 2010.:D I did a Western Med. cruise on the Century in 2008. It had 1800apprx. passengers. We never felt it was crowded and no long waits to disembark at ports. But three of the ports, we were the only ship that day.

We are open to Century, the M class ships or maybe even the Soltice class ships. Do these larger ships feel crowded on sea days and disembarking at ports of call?

My experience of the M-Class ships is that they don't feel any more crowded than the smaller C-Class or indeed that much bigger and seem to deal well with the traffic. I haven't been on the S-Class yet, but will be on Equinox later this year. My advanced feeling is that it won't feel crowded either, but I am still a little nervous of such a large ship. It's going to be fun finding out for sure!

 

Phil

[Azulann]

Phil, Have a wondeful cruise. I look forward to your posted review when you return.

[excitedofharpenden]

Azulann, thanks. I've become a bit lax at doing reviews recently, but I'll make an effort this time as it's a totally new ship:cool:

 

Phil