747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3999 posts, RR: 2 Posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1869 times:
When the economy pick up, could you see Carnival Cruise with a 200000+ ton ship in the future? There was a time when Carnival was the most popular cruises line in the world, it's partly due to them being the fun ships. With Carnival's fun ship theme, and the Carnival Dream's good looks, I would like to see what Carnival do with a 200000 tonner, so what are the chances we see one?
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 14249 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1859 times:
Mass-market cruise lines are moving toward a model similar to what the airlines have done - they want to make their money not on the cruise fare, but rather in onboard ancillary revenue from specialty restaurants, attractions like surfing simulators, etc. And the best way to do this is to maximize the amount of customers per cruise.
This is why 70,000 ton vessels are now considered "small" by comparison, and 110-130,000 tons are the baseline these days. There's not a big market for ultra-large vessels, though - that's why Royal Caribbean only ordered two of them, doing the bread-and-butter Eastern and Western Caribbean markets and deploying their mid-size ships - similar to the way airlines are trying to do more point-to-point - into new departure points like Baltimore, Galveston, and higher yield markets like Europe.
So, could Carnival do a 200,000 ton ship? Sure - and it would make financial sense for them. But only one or two, no more than that.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6148 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1480 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 6):
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 5):
Carnival is rather trashy...
I hate to sound stuffy or elitist, but I'll always gladly pay more to Royal Caribbean, Celebrity, or NCL to avoid taking Carnival.
I took a Carnival cruise again earlier this year after taking a few RCCL cruises. While I do prefer Carnival's dining room fare over RCCL's, I preferred the overall experience from RCCL---even on the smaller Vision class ships---despite the slightly smaller cabins.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
Most of the cruise lines are owned by Carnival these days. They still get your money.
I wouldn't say most, but many are: Carnival, of course, P&O, P&O Australia, Cunard, Holland America, Princess, Seabourn, Costa, Aida, Ibero.
At any rate, I could see Carnival going bigger to give them their own version of the Oasis class, but I think they may still be taking a more "wait and see" approach. While Oasis and Allure are certainly feathers in RCI's cap, their size also restricts where they go. My wife and I have given thought to them, but their itineraries are still rather restricted and if it's any indicator, RCI's next class of ships, Project Sunshine, are expected to be somewhere between the Freedom class and Oasis class in size rather than going larger than Oasis.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
malioil From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 138 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1386 times:
Mikey Arison has stated a few times that the QM2 will remain Carnival Corp's largest vessel for the foreseeable future.
However, if the economy really does pick up we can see the ships go larger than Dream, no doubt. Right now, I doubt we will see anything on the ghastly scale of Oasis OTS, but somewhere in the middle. Carnival, although an innovative cruise line does tend to side a tad with the 'traditional' cruise product that they invented, that of the fun ships, although I do use the term traditional lightly. A ship on the size of Oasis does not fit with the overall direction the company has been taking for the past few years. If you notice, all their ships are more or less similar, with the atrium, theater, dining room, etc. With the Dream class we've seen some innovations, but nothing game-changing- it's merely another CCL ship with larger capacity, and some new ideas.
CCL is very profitable at the moment, and I do not see why they'd abandon ship for an RCI style approach, as right now its unnecessary.
Cruise lines, as previously stated make a lot of their money today from the onboard revenue, rather than the cruise fare itself. Somehow, this drives me to another point- premium and ultra-luxury lines these days, to those who can afford the fare, are a lot better value for money. Take this as an example-
My last Seabourn cruise cost $3799 per person, for a week in the Medeteranian. To say Seabourn is something else would be doing the company no justice- they have a product that is sheer, utter luxury in ever single aspect. To have what Seabourn gives you at sea on shore you'd be paying more than $10000. The aforementioned price is the same as a J ticket TATL from LHR. Anyway, back to my point, on that cruise, my on board spending was about $600, which included just the extra shore excursions and gifts I had purchased. Everything else, surprisingly, is included.
On the other hand, when I ran into some free time in Miami earlier this year, I jumped on the Norwegian Sky. Cruise fare was just $320, but I ended up spending $850 on the 3 night cruise. Yes, I did opt for a lot of the ''extras'', but even fresh juice is considered extra on NCL these days... I won't complain, for NCL fares are some of the lowest in the industry, but if you want to take your liberty on a cruise, paying to be on a ship where everything is included can serve you much money in the long run, nevermind the levels of service you are likely to encounter on board would also be something else.
The premium lines, like HAL and X also are a very good value for money, all things considered.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8747 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1372 times:
My wife and I went on a RCCL Mariner of the Seas and that was a pretty nice size. We were able to get docked and leave port without a lot of problems and the ship was large enough to continue "exploring" for a week. At the same time it was easy to get good seats by the window for meals when we were having ship movements. The Windjammer over the fantail was our preference.
I really can't see putting a larger ship over the Mariner when it comes to looking for a cruise. I'd rather have the ports over a mega size.