******

******

bigger ships [genesis, Carnival pinnacle with a remarkable record of 200,000 grt - (i'm not sure about the name) , more giant resort-like mega ships]

few smaller niche ships for luxurious cruise lines

development of Pacific/australian market with more ships put into service there (few ,2nd hand Fantasy class ships + 1 or 2 newbuilds) and probably one new rival cruise line to P&O Australia

major cruise lines to get rid of old tonnage: Carnival to get rid of Fantasy class ships, RCI to get rid of Empress of the seas, Soverigne class ships , costa to get rid of costa atlantica/romantica/allegra/marina , MSC to get rid of Rhpsody, Monterey . as an impact , smaller local cruise lines and/or budget cruise lines (Thomson, Pullmenture, etc.) will probably buy the old tonnage sold by major cruise lines

in the buttom line : more berths (small old built tonnage for scrap, 80's and 90's old tonnage to budget cruise lines and mega ships +new builds of 110,000+ grt to major cruise lines)

quote:

---

Originally posted by J.S.S.Normandie:
We will be left with a few dumpy old cruise ships doddering along a couple of unspectacular destinations.

---

Unspectacular destinations will only be offered if people are silly enough to keep booking them. I would expect to see a whole variety of more interesting destinations becoming popular in the future.

Eventually American’s might realize that the Caribbean is not the world’s most interesting destination and Cruising in Europe or Asia, or Australia etc. is not a suicide mission.

Standards of American geography will hopefully improve and the masses will finally appreciate that a Mediterranean cruise will not take them within a hairs breath of Iraq at all. Those frighten of terrorism will eventually realize that you are not necessarily safer in your own back yard, anyway.

I would love to see destinations like Antarctica become mores accessible to me, but I don’t want everybody else going. I'd hate to see the likes of Norway and Antarctica start to become over cruised like Alaska.

I think river cruising will grow as a result of ocean cruising growth.

[ 04-26-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pascal:
Do you expect or do you hope, Ernst ?

---

I do not only hope for it, I expect it. There will be some small to medium size ships, not only for the luxury market but also for the 'premium' segment. There is a lot of potential out there - people who would enjoy travelling by ship and would never think about going on one of these Las Vegas style ships. And I do not only think about the crowd attracted by the Hurtigruten ships. (there is of course also a lot possible in this segment)

Also, do not forget that there is actually a respectable fleet of mid sized non luxury ships out there (look at the British and German market) - right now the vessels built some decades ago are sufficient - but this will change - not only because their market will grow too - there is a 'big' not yet reached 'traget audience" out there. (big enough to fill several smaller ships - certainly the Las Vegas segment will still be dominant by passenger numbers)

Oceania is probably just the begin.

[ 04-26-2006: Message edited by: Ernst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by moodus2:
it depends on:
1) what the price of oil will
be and availability.
2) if passengers are willing to travel to the same destinations and hurricane season.
3) ships may be smaller do to
smaller propulsion systems to
reduce fuel consumption.
4) will people have the income
to afford cruising?
5) a what point will cruising
be a fade?

---

it depends on:
1) what the price of oil will be and availability.

People will still cruise even if oil is expensive. We still drive here in the UK with Gas £1 per litre. Maybe we will see nuclear powered cruise ships one day?

2) if passengers are willing to travel to the same destinations and hurricane season.

There are plenty of other destinations in the world.

3) ships may be smaller do to smaller propulsion systems to reduce fuel consumption.

One 100,000 ton ship is effectively cheaper to run that two 50,000 ones in terms of fuel and just about everything. Ships might stop growing one day, but I do not think that they will shrink for a lomg while.

4) will people have the income to afford cruising?

Yes, cruising is getting cheaper and much of the world are getting more affluent.

5) a what point will cruising be a fade?

P.S.: You know that it is precisely 20 years ago today that the Tschernobyl disaster happened? One certainly must not make conclusions about the safety of other nuclear power plants from this accident - but I guess the public would not accept such a nuclear powered cruise ship.

[ 04-26-2006: Message edited by: Ernst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:

Unspectacular destinations will only be offered if people are silly enough to keep booking them. I would expect to see a whole variety of more interesting destinations becoming popular in the future.

Eventually American’s might realize that the Caribbean is not the world’s most interesting destination and Cruising in Europe or Asia, or Australia etc. is not a suicide mission.

Standards of American geography will hopefully improve and the masses will finally appreciate that a Mediterranean cruise will not take them within a hairs breath of Iraq at all. Those frighten of terrorism will eventually realize that you are not necessarily safer in your own back yard, anyway.

I would love to see destinations like Antarctica become mores accessible to me, but I don’t want everybody else going. I'd hate to see the likes of Norway and Antarctica start to become over cruised like Alaska.

I think river cruising will grow as a result of ocean cruising growth.

[ 04-26-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

---

Certainly more unusual destinations would be nice, but lets face it. People will keep cruising. No matter what. They may complain about the ship and the destinations, but for them a bad cruise is better than no cruise at all. In fact, the majority of people won't notice. As long as their ship is a the best one out there, theyll keep cruising.

The smaller cruise lines will die out, and be replace by a few major ones, and in the end there might be ONE cruise line that pretends to be alot of different ones. But they are all owned by one.

You can say I'm being pessimistic but in truth, look around you. Go into a supermarket. It may look like there are many different brands of chips(or whatever) but pick up the package and most are owned by major companies.

You may well be right, but I think that is an American mass-market attitude. In other parts of the world, cruising is more destination orientated. For example, as the UK has not had too many mega-ships up until recently, the attraction of cruising was the ports and NOT a floating resort.

If you look at Navigator's ex-UK cruises in 2007, many are 14 nights in length and features many interesting ports.

The smaller cruise lines will die out, and be replace by a few major ones, and in the end there might be ONE cruise line that pretends to be alot of different ones. But they are all owned by one.

It does appear that there is already only a handful of big lines, but if one looks closely there are still many of smaller lines out there. What they cannot not normally offer is cruies for $299.

Where I live, there are four popular department stores. One was bought by another and went out of businuss. People were upset, but guess what life went on as normal.

We have big supermarkets here in the UK too, but we still have many 'little' shops. The reason that many of us do not use them (much) is convenience and price. That probably why people cruise with Carnival and RCI.

[ 04-28-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

Of course this disaster scenario is more than unlikely, but not impossible (we have learned through History that we should never say never).
What would become cruise industry after such a disaster ? Of course, it would eventualy recover, but it would take decades.

quote:

---

Originally posted by :
Were not in 1912, ships now have radars and computers that detect other ships and even icebergs around, and "Genesis" will probably be the most technologically advanced cruise ship.

---

I agree, but experience proves that we can't be 100% sure that such thing won't happen. As long as non perfect humans are involved somewhere in the process of handling a ship, nobody can be absolutely sure.

Remember, in 1956, Andrea Doria and Stockholm already had radars...
And in 1912, people could say (and actually, they said it!) "we aren't in 1812 any more, we have wireless communication, watertight compartments and steel hulls".

It seems to me that the big challenge in the Caribbean is the number of passengers going there. I'm beginning to read about passenger congestion in popular destinations in the Caribbean. For example, 18,000 passengers from 6 ships in one day at Philipsburg, St. Maarten - an island which has only 60,000 inhabitants. Beaches packed, the town too full for people to even shop - this is not a good experience.

The problem with the Caribbean is that there's isn't a Barcelona or a Naples in it. Well there is, it's called Miami, but that's where most cruisers have come from! And the other major city in the caribbean, Havana, is off-limits for other reasons.

So what could be done? Well, I think the most likely outcome is to make the ship itself more and more the destination. I expect ships to feature ever more day-time entertainment choices so that passengers won't want to go ashore. The next outcome will be that the cruise lines aggressively develop their private islands, to provide beaches and some sort of on-shore experience for the occasional day ashore.