NCL was one of the main players in the Caribbean cruising market when they introduced the SUNWARD I in 1966. Then lost some ground in the 70s before the NORWAY entered service in 1980. NORWAY to NCL was like the Voyager-class vessels to RCI nowadays. NCL cashed in alot from the popularity of the NORWAY. Eight years later when they introduced the SEAWARD, they were cash-strapped and built a cheap, small-budget ship. This continued into the 90s and they bacame a small player. Since Star Cruises acquired NCL, they are starting to get popular again and finding a niche.

What exactly happened to NCL in the 80s when they went from being sucessful and popular to building a cheap SEAWARD? They slowly dropped out of the 'leaders' in the Caribbean market towards bankruptcy. I know that Kloster management in the 90s acquiring many brands was a disaster, but I believed their slow demise began before this...

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
If MA had no interest in saving her, as Onno said, he wouldn't even flicker an eyelid over Norway.

---

Hard nosed business men are ruthless. If they can’t make money out of a ship, it is worthless. There is no room for sentiment.

NCL renovated the SS France, not out of sentiment, but to gain the biggest ship cruising the Caribbean, at the time. If they rebuild the SS United States it will be to gain another US flagged vessel and the new itineraries which that will open up. When the QE2’s maintenance cost more than the income generated, she will be cast aside too!

Before the boiler explosion, I suspect the SS Norway was struggling to make money. NCL were selling her Carib cruises very cheaply indeed.

Although popular with ship-nuts, the Norway needed to attract 2000 plus members of Joe Public, every week. Unfortunately the Norway could no longer compete, with the increasing number of newbuilds.

[ 05-27-2005: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keitaro:
Had Carnival bought out NCL, NORWAY would have been gone a long time ago !!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris:

Perhaps a company with more money could have fixed Norway?

---

It’s not that NCL could not afford to fix her, after all Star/NCL are a multi-million dollar organisation. They obviously decided that they would be better spending money on there newbuilds than an old ship.

As for Freestyle Dining: The only people that do not tend to like it or those that have never tried it!

I’m sure that if NCL would have repaired her, even at great cost, if they thought that they could still make money out of her. If other cruise lines though that they could run her profitably, they would have purchased her - I doubt if any have.

[ 05-27-2005: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patsy:
...I don't really see the difference between a liner as well-loved as Norway and the QE2...

---

I suppose there is not too much room in the global cruise market for prestigious Ocean Liners. We now have two, QM2 and QE2. Only the QM2 offers transatlantic crossings, of course I’m sure that Queen Victoria will replace the QE2 sooner or latter.

I often wonder how the SS Norway would have turned out if she had been renovated to become a ‘luxury’ product, but that’s not NCL market. NCL chose to make the SS France a mass market cruise ship – and that is the difference.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:

As for Freestyle Dining: The only people that do not tend to like it or those that have never tried it!
[ 05-27-2005: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

---

Having recently tried FreeForAll Cruising (or was that Freakstyle Cruising?) I think it sucks. Unless you enjoy waiting 10 min to an hour to eat.

[ 05-27-2005: Message edited by: empressport ]