Raoul, you have such a nice way of phrasing things!
Bob

btw: Here is a pretty cool photo of a Chalks seaplane landing near the Port of Miami with NORWAY in the background:


(taken from Watson Island in Miami)

Royal Caribbean news:

Who wants to spend millions of dollars on a ship with over 30 years service, when cruise lines are spending over a billion dollars on much larger ships that the old Norway.

http://www.timesreporter.com/left.php?ID=50416&r=3

MIAMI – Royal Caribbean International on Monday ordered the world’s largest and most expensive cruise ship, a $1.24 billion vessel that will hold up to 6,400 passengers. It’s the latest step in the industry trend of super-sizing ships, which delight many passengers but are too crowded for other guests.
The ship, dubbed Project Genesis, will be 220,000 gross registered tons when it is delivered to the world’s second-largest cruise operator in fall 2009 by Oslo, Norway-based shipbuilder Aker Yards. Gross registered tons is a standard way to measure a ship’s size and is a unit of volume equal to about 100 cubic feet.
The ship will weigh about 100,000 tons based on displacement – a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier comes in at about 97,000 tons.
The $1.24 billion figure includes all expenses for the ship, “from forks and knives and sheets to artwork and everything else,” said Harri Kulovaara, the Miami-based cruise line’s executive vice president of maritime operations.
Aker said the contract is contingent on final approval of financing, and the ship will be built at one of its Finnish yards. The cruise line, a unit of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., has an option for a second ship.
“Project Genesis truly is a remarkable ship. Its bold design, daring innovations and technological advancements will delight our existing cruisers and help us draw in new ones,” Richard Fain, the parent company’s chairman and CEO, said in a statement.
The announcement also steals some of the spotlight from rival Carnival Corp., the world’s largest cruise operator. Carnival has studied building a ship about the same size, but its Pinnacle project is “on the back burner” because of its prohibitively high price, spokesman Tim Gallagher said.
Kulovaara said in a phone interview that the new ship will be more fuel efficient than current vessels, but he declined to give a specific figure. He said plans for the types of onboard amenities were being finalized. Royal Caribbean has been an innovator in featuring ice skating rinks, rock climbing walls and surfing pools.
Royal Caribbean’s ships are typically more upscale than the bargain Carnival Cruise Lines’ vessels, but they aren’t as traditional as those of luxury carriers such as Cunard.
Project Genesis will carry 5,400 passengers based on two people per cabin, Kulovaara said. But as most cruise cabins can accommodate more than two people using cots or other beds, that number rises to a maximum capacity of 6,400.
Ray Weiller, an owner of discount online travel agency, said many of his clients are drawn to the ever-growing size and number of amenities of ships, but others tire of waiting in long lines to get on and off the vessels. Many complain about the large ships overwhelming some ports of call with too many people trying to visit, he said.
Royal Caribbean still offers a variety of ship sizes, so customers who don’t like larger vessels will have other options, Kulovaara said. The ship will sail in the Caribbean, where many ports already handle megaships, but ports will need some infrastructure improvements to handle it, he said.
Carnival Corp.’s Cunard Line currently has the world’s largest cruise ship – the Queen Mary 2 – at 151,400 gross registered tons. But Royal Caribbean is scheduled to get an even bigger ship in June, the 160,000-ton Freedom of the Seas. It will carry 3,600 passengers double occupancy and 4,370 maximum.
Both will be eclipsed by Project Genesis, which will be 1,180 feet long, 154 feet wide at water level and 240 feet high.

Let's review some statistics, side by side:
Statistic Genesis Norway
Gross Tons 220,000 76,7049
Length 1180 ft. 1028 ft.
Width ft. 154 ft. 110 ft.
Height 240 ft. 120 ft.
Passengers 5,400 2,032 (Double Occupancy)
Cabins 2,700 1,016
Restaurants ?(Freedom class 7) 4
Bars/Lounges ?(Freedom class 12) 8
Swimming Pool YES YES
Surfing Pool YES NO
Ice Skating Rink YES NO
Rock Climbing Wall YES NO

While the Norway may be nostalgia for older cruisers, as the years pass more and more Norway fans will die. Will the Norway attract passengers 10, 15, or 20 years from today to pay off the expenses of updating and upgrading her?
I don't think so.........

Ron/Heron I don't think anyone here is debating the fact that this ship, if placed back into operation, simply does not have the modern ammenities and dimensions considered "essential" by modern passengers. It certainly is wishful thinking that any investor is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a maintenance-intensive and asbstos-laid 40+ year-old ship. It's great that RCL has its Genesis project and it certainly seems that the industry is all geared towards bigger and better and newer things.

This is exactly why Norway has a future in cruising. Norway is a gateway to a niche market operation that very few venues currently have. Her hull is in excellent condition. If her current ammenities and nav/propulsion systems' age is the matter...

...just replace them!

The solution is simple, and it requires approaching the project from a rebuilding perspective instead of another refurbishment. Financing the project as New Tonnage and installing completely new systems throughout would resolve the maintenance issues.

A GTS or COGES plant would be expensive to run in terms of fuel - though keep in mind that GTS platforms are becoming more and more common in newbuilds these days. The ammenities problem can be solved by containing all infrastructure to the rear engine room. If the forward engine room, boiler rooms, exhaust casings and cargo hold were to be gutted, all that interior volume can then be reassigned as revenue-generating ammenities that can make the ship attractive and profitable.

Her rebuilding would facilitate viability for continued cruising. With 11.7 Million passengers estimated to cruise this year, a classic niche venue, US-flagged cruise product can be highly successful in attracting as many people from those 11.7 million as possible. Decontamination is so expensive (est. @ 22M US$)that it makes sense only if the rest of the ship undergoes a major rebuild, that will replace ALL aging systems with state-of-the-art technology. The name of the game with Norway is complete rebuilding to maximize the existing internal hull volume no longer necessary for machinery, and redesigning those large internal spaces to give the ship the revenue-generating spaces that it needs (i.e. atrium, mall, alternative dining, options).

If you do that, then Norway will hold her own in terms of onboard ammenities even if compared next to the Genesis, in terms of relative percentages for each category. And best of all, no NCL-style external modifications are required. You just have to look at it from another perspective - a new-build perspective - from the engineering and financial point of view, and she could continue to operate after such a rebuild for decades, ensuring a return on investment.

Alex, I take it the niche you describe consists of people with a strong desire to sail on a "classic" passenger liner.

I won't argue that there are more people like us out there; what I do doubt is that the numbers are sufficiently large to constitute a niche -- a niche capable of supporting a ship whose startup costs would be formidable, and whose running costs -- especially under US flag -- would exceed those of newer vessels. And how often would these ocean liner buffs sail on the refurbished ship? Once? Twice?

One topic never raised is the ship's sanitary system, which caused major problems for NCL back in 1980, when the ship was (only) 20 years old! OK, so some would say "gut the vessel down to her scantlings and renew everything!" Easily said by those of us who are not worrying about finding the financing from hard-headed investors not easily swayed by romantic visions.

Sorry, but I see no future for the ship on the high seas.

While it's GREAT news that the QE2 appears to have more 'staying' power beyond 2010 (and is selling out her scheduled voyages, apparently), it is also sad to think what Norway could be today if she had benefited from the same vision through the years. Often, I come back to the photo on the www.lloydwerft.com website, which shows the two great ladies side-by-side--one moving into the future and our Norway, now on the edge of uncertainty. Ugh!

Ron,

I see no connection whatsoever between Royal Caribbean ordering a new ship and the "Norway's" possible fate.

While it is of course up to you to act as an advocate for NCL whenever and wherever possible, in all honesty sometimes your almost desperate tries to shed a positive light on NCL have tendencies of being utterly ridiculous.

I am by no means against NCL, but you do sound like an NCL PR guy most of the time, I'm sorry to say.

Replace just the boilers: Tens of million$, then you still have a very old, well-worn ship.

Renovate: A hundred million$, much of the infrastructure is still OLD.

Complete rebuild: Several hundred million$, but still not able to create the BUZZ of the impending NEW Superships.

Static display: Not a real profitable venture, see Queen Mary and Minghua.

Scrapyard: Nobody wants to see THAT!


Okay, now for something completely different: I think SS NORWAY would make a WONDERFUL artificial reef. Drop her off the Florida Keys or in the Bahamas somewhere. It would create a paradise for sea creatures and divers alike. And for those dozens of people who REALLY long to be on Norway again, gas up the tanks and have at it whenever you like.

THAT would be so freakin’ cool !!!!

I guess my perspective is different...I don't EXPECT the Norway to compete with newer tonnage. To try that would be pointless. I think you have to try to market the ship in an area where she would make a big splash. To that end, in the Asian market, there is nothing quite like her. Her sheer size would make her an attraction. Her only competiton (that I can think of at the moment) would be her sister cruiseships from Star Cruises. Other ships that are typically stationed in that part of the world year-round are older ships (such as the Norway), but can't touch her relative to size and amenities onboard. Does this make sense???

With respect to the machinery, again, I say that I would not replace the boiler. I would operate her on her remaining boilers initially to gauge the public response. Then, if profits warrant, I would look to make more permanent repairs. Further, I understand that the existing boilers may not be the safest thing on the face of the earth, but let's face it....business decisions (especially those made in developing areas of the world) do not necessarily put a heavy focus on safety. I'm not saying this is acceptable, I'm just saying it's the reality of the situation.

quote:

Originally posted by garnettsmith:
I guess my perspective is different...I don't EXPECT the Norway to compete with newer tonnage. To try that would be pointless. I think you have to try to market the ship in an area where she would make a big splash.

garnettsmith,

indeed. North America might be the world's largest cruise market in the world, but it is far from being the only one. Just one example: The largest ship currently operating on the German cruise market (not counting club-style ships and foreign operators) is less than half the size of the "Norway". The same applies to lots of other markets.

And let's take a look at the side-by-side comparison Ron made yesterday - comparing the "Norway" not with the "Genesis Project" but with an NCL newbuild which entered service les than five years ago:

Statistic Norwgian Sun Norway
Gross Tons 78,309 76,049
Length 853 ft. 1028 ft.
Width 106 ft. 110 ft.
Height ? ft. 223 ft. *)
Passengers 2,002 2,032 (Double Occupancy)
Cabins 1,001 1,016
Restaurants 9 4
Bars/Lounges 10 8
Swimming Pool YES YES
Surfing Pool NO NO
Ice Skating Rink NO NO
Rock Climbing Wall NO NO

*) The "Norway" is almost twice as high as Ron claims she is.

And all of a sudden, the "Norway" doesn't look that bad at all. Of course you cannot compare her with "Norwegian Sun", but it's completely ridiculous to compare her to the "Genesis Project"!

But!
The Sun has 40 years newer pipes.
The Sun has a more economical to run propulsion plant without abestos.
The Sun has 432 cabins and suites with balconies, the Norway 62.

There's not one cabin on the Sun that has obstructed views, the Norway 42.
The Sun has 11 bars/lounges, the Norway 4.
The Sun has 8 or 9 restaurants depending on what you consider the Las Ramblas Tapas Bar is, the Norway 3.

NCL spent over the years, $181 million (pre 1990) refurbishing the Norway. That was $18 million to purchase, $100 million for the 1979-1980 refurb, $40 million for the 1990 refurb, and $23 million for the 1993 refurb.
The Sun cost NCL approximately $400 million.

For another complete refurbishment, it will probably cost this same amount, at least another $181 million. That's almost half the cost of building a brand new ship which should sail for at least another 30 years. Will the SS Norway sail competitively another 30 years if it were refurbished completely?

I'm not arguing that the Norway wasn't a great ship in it's day, but it's day has long since past. It doesn't fit today's NCL's or Star Cruise's Freestyle Cruising concept.

The American Navy would love to bring back it's Iowa class battleships, but the day of battleships ruling the seas has also left us.

There comes a time when men and ships should retire. Back in 2000, Star Cruises seriously considered taking the Norway from NCL, but chose to spend it's money on the Star and Dawn instead. Which both eventually landing in NCL's hands. Where do you think NCL would be today if Star Cruises hadn't order the Star and Dawn, placing their money on refurbishing the Norway once again?

When people say that her day has long since past, it's important to understand WHY.

The reasons WHY her days are past can be virtually eliminated by a complete rebuild as I've proposed. As a matter of fact, if memory serves, NCL commissioned a study some months before the accident, which concluded that Norway's state is such that her service life may be extended by another 20 years (with propper drydocking / refurbishment / maintenance of course).

Ron is right, Sun has 40-year newer pipes, more economical power plant, 432 balcony cabins, no obstructed-view cabins, 9 restaurants.

What Sun, or any other floating building with flowers and ribbons painted on the hull for that matter, does NOT have, is the disctinction of being the last thoroughbred transatlantic liner of the 20th century, with a unique design based on Normandie. In that category, no ship can compete with Norway - and yet this is not enough to trade on in the modern cruise industry.

The "Niche" I describe does not consist of people with a strong desire to sail on a classic passenger liner. The marketing potential here does not lie with an existing fan base; rather, it is the clientele potential that the product itself is able to create by simple virtue of offering a classic cruise venue that is completely unlike the "ultra-modern" RCCI/Celeb/Carnival approach, WITHOUT the exhorbitant prices even in lower-category staterooms.

In other words, the potential for a successful niche operation doesn't lie in Norway's fans, but rather in Norway's ability to create a specific response in potential clients:

"Honey, take a look at this...it's completely different from everything else".

The true question then becomes, is she different in a good way or in a bad way? That's where the rebuild comes in. Getting people into the ship is one thing, making sure they have a good time and meeting their expectations is another. A lot of that is management. Cuisine. Entertainment. But the very fist impression is made by the ship itself. 4.5% industry growth in 2006 means a lot of new traffic through the hatch. If they see worn carpeting, NCL's signature 80's decor, rust, peeling paint, leaking sprinklers, asbestos, and random steam containment failures...the venue won't well at all, and any investment would go down the drain.

If instead, people come aboard and see:

-Luxurious and up-to-date art nuveau interiors resembling the original...
-Well known works of art...
-Quality Entertainment...
-Numerous alternative restaurant venues..
-Numerous retail venues...
-Over 250 verandah staterooms...
-Unique and innovative lounges, ranging from the remarkable Club International, once
again extended to its former dimensions and equipped with a glass dome, to an innovative
lounge built inside the forward smokestack offering panoramic views...
-An atrium and internal mall which can compete with those of any modern superliner, complete
with 3 decks of interior-facing cabins, all where un-necessary machinery space used to be...
-A main restaurant once and again considered "best in the world", where the level of service is
such that you could hand your Maitre D' a list with your desired meals for the duration of
your cruise AND not only will those meals be provided BUT ALSO every meal is better than the
one before...
-A classic and highly-recognizable exterior facade that seamlessly integrates the original
1960's look with NCL's 1992 additions...
-A US Flag registration that allows for itineraries without competition...

..you bring ALL these features toghether and you end up with a ship that:

1) Is highly competitive
2) Is easily marketable
3) Has the same maintenance and fuel expenses as any new build
4) Has the same lifespan expectancy as any new build
5) Has more history and name recognition than any other ship sailing today
6) Has the potential to sail at full capacity and generate income, every time

BUT the only way to to this, both from an economic and from an engineering perspective, is gutting the vessel down to her scantlings and rebuilding everything. EVERYTHING.

And yes, this is quite easily said by those of us who are not worrying about finding the financing from hard-headed investors. At least I suppose that is the case, as to my knowledge no other person but me has floated such a plan. And I'm sure as heck not sitting it. Frankly I am quite sure that I could convince ANY investor with an open mind, the problem for me happens to be no access and no contacts, and I'm working very hard to change that.

quote:

Originally posted by Ron Clark:
But!
The Sun has 40 years newer pipes.
The Sun has a more economical to run propulsion plant without abestos.
The Sun has 432 cabins and suites with balconies, the Norway 62.

There's not one cabin on the Sun that has obstructed views, the Norway 42.
The Sun has 11 bars/lounges, the Norway 4.
The Sun has 8 or 9 restaurants depending on what you consider the Las Ramblas Tapas Bar is, the Norway 3.

NCL spent over the years, $181 million (pre 1990) refurbishing the Norway. That was $18 million to purchase, $100 million for the 1979-1980 refurb, $40 million for the 1990 refurb, and $23 million for the 1993 refurb.
The Sun cost NCL approximately $400 million.

For another complete refurbishment, it will probably cost this same amount, at least another $181 million. That's almost half the cost of building a brand new ship which should sail for at least another 30 years. Will the SS Norway sail competitively another 30 years if it were refurbished completely?

I'm not arguing that the Norway wasn't a great ship in it's day, but it's day has long since past. It doesn't fit today's NCL's or Star Cruise's Freestyle Cruising concept.

The American Navy would love to bring back it's Iowa class battleships, but the day of battleships ruling the seas has also left us.

There comes a time when men and ships should retire. Back in 2000, Star Cruises seriously considered taking the Norway from NCL, but chose to spend it's money on the Star and Dawn instead. Which both eventually landing in NCL's hands. Where do you think NCL would be today if Star Cruises hadn't order the Star and Dawn, placing their money on refurbishing the Norway once again?

I'm all for the above however thats a huge pill for Star Cruises or whoever to swallow. In the end it's probably cheaper and more certain to build a new ship from scratch. Again I'm all for the Norway but as we all know it's easier to create something compared to re-creating something. If it were me I would first and foremost deal with the propulsion and then update the interior where absolutely needed. Kick the food and service up a notch. Use ports of call that if she has to tender so does everyone else, for example Grand Cayman, that way she's equal with others. Let the ship do the rest. Afterall she was sailing to capacity prior to the accident. I'd shy away from major modifications especially any more cabins. The ship's public areas and elevators are already overtaxed with the additional decks / cabins. At this point the best thing we can hope for is that Star follows thru with their viability study from 2002 and return the ship to service.

The Norway will not have to have a rock-climbing wall, ice-skating rink nor surfing attraction to be successful. Like others have mentioned...she ran pretty much full capacity prior to her being taken from service with the interior as it is now...though dated by today's standards.

The expense of gutting the interior, repowering, rebuilding, etc. just in an attempt to "compete" with today's megaships would be a financial disaster. She might hold her own in the short term....but in order to be profitable for the long term...the Norway has to have a gimmick, an edge, something that sets it apart other than her name, history or looks.

It's all up to developing a long-term market which will have to set itself apart from the commonality of the megaships of today. Come on now...the new ships are so identical that one line has to outdo the other by having an ice-skating rink on board? People actually base their decision to sail on a particular ship because it has an ice skating rink!!

Spare me, please.

The big guns of the cruise-line industry are brainwashing first-time cruisers into thinking that bigger is best, while knowing huge profits are gained by bigger ships carrying 3 times the passengers. All this at the expense of the "traditional" cruise experience, which first timers will never get to experience anyway....so they have nothing to compare it to.

This may be a sign of the times, true. But there is that "nitch" of people who truly appreciate the finer things found in the cruise ship experience other than mass and the masses. As suggested in a previous post, are our numbers so small....will the novelty of the SS Norway, if she is "reborn", fade with time?

Good question.

But just look at the number of people viewing this post since it's debut in May....almost 26,000. One hundred per day. And this is only ONE website. The fact is: There is an interest. There is a following. There is an attraction. Therefore, there is market and possibility for profit, short and long term. It's up to an investor and their advisors, new to the cruise industry, or existing smaller lines looking to expand, to put this in motion one way or another.

When comparing a cruise ship to a particular hotel....MOST people will always pick a brand new Holiday Inn. It's affordable, new, clean. On the other hand...others will never settle for anything less than the Ritz. It's classic, posh, and timeless. Considering the possibility of the Norway's rebirth...and the initial attraction that may induce, I think that if properly "merchandised", the Norway could become that "Ritz". It could set itself apart from the common box ships...those ever increasing "Holiday Inns" of the cruise fleet.

Exceptional service, fine cuisine, elaborate accomodations. Offer the finer things in life. Fine artwork, exceptional entertainment, and so on. The ship's traditional style as well as her distinguished history would be the icing on the cake for long term success.

Easy for me to say. Talk is inexpensive. Just my thoughts.

Don't forget, NCL and Star Cruises also have two other 40-50 year old ships they must deal with soon. NCL inherited the 24,000 grt SS Independence with the acquistion of American Hawaii and has also bought the 53,000 grt SS United States.

http://www.maritimematters.com/independence.html
http://www.ss-united-states.com/i2.html

While the last trans-Atlantic oceanliner may have been the France/Norway, no one disagrees that the SS US was the fastest.

It also has the destinction of being American built, and would give NCLA the freedom to sail it commercially within the USA besides Hawaii.
The other three NCLA ships can sail only in Hawaii according to the loopholes Senator Inhue legislated for Hawaii cruises.

The SS US can also sail through the Panama Canal, allowing East and West Coast operations.
The France/Norway is both too long and too wide to sail through the Panama Canal.

It is also in great material shape, and has already had all the abestos removed from the ship along with almost all the interior bulkheads, except for the engine and boiler rooms.

The SS US had accomodiations for 2000 passengers and 1,000 crew members, as many as the France/Norway, before the asbstos laden bulkheads were stripped from the ship.

Considering the expense of stripping the ship has already been done for the SS US, the SS US has this major advantage over the France/Norway on refurbishing to a modern cruise ship. NCL can basically start from scratch if it chooses to refurb it.

As a side argument, the expenses to replace the steam engines and boilers in either ship to diesel engines or gas turbines would probably be the same for both ships, if NCL decided to do so for economic reasons. But with the SS US, they don't have to.

If you were NCL desiring to expand NCLA oiperations to the continential US, which of these two ships would be more viable in the future?

I highly suggest the SS US will be. It's American built, the already stripped interiors gives NCL a free hand to refurb as they wish.
The SS US has no boiler and engines problems to have to be fixed, while the France/Norway must be.

Personally, I don't look for NCL to refurbish any of the 3 ships (Norway, Independence, United States). They obviously have no stomach for the Norway and as far as the Indy and Big U go, their purchase was just a cheap way of keeping the potential competitors out of Hawaii. They basically paid a cheap price for both ships and, at the same time, kept other cruiselines from getting hold of US built tonnage. If they ever had any intention of operating the two ships, the Indy would already be in service. If memory serves me correctly, the Indy went through about a $35 million refit about year or so before American-Hawaii bit the dust. She was in near prime condition when NCL bought her, but they haven't done a thing with her. If the Norway or the other two ever re-enter service, they won't be flying the NCL pennant.

Veitch already stated that classic liners do not fit into NCL's fleet modernization/freestyle program. It would undermine their entire business model.

I don't expect any of these 3 ships will be refurb'ed by NCL under Star ownership. By securing these 3 vessels, Star is making sure no one competes with their US-Flagged HI operation. The only way would be another sweetheart deal by Sen. Inhouye & Sec. Minetta, or else buying US-flagged container hulls and transforming into PAX vessels, like Costa did.

If I had the money I'd do it just for the pleasure of taking away market share from NCL.

quote:

Originally posted by Keath:
The Norway will not have to have a rock-climbing wall, ice-skating rink nor surfing attraction to be successful. Like others have mentioned...she ran pretty much full capacity prior to her being taken from service with the interior as it is now...though dated by today's standards.

Reply:
No one is saying she has to have the same features as a Genesis RCI ship. Ice skating/rock climbing/surfing/etc is not in the ship's character. What I'm talking about is adding the very basic features that modern clients have come to expect, i.e. Balcony Verandahs, Atrium, Alternative Dining, and Retail. 3 out of those 4 require large internal spaces. Norway's only (mostly unused) large internal space is her fwd engine room/boiler room, and Norway's only partitioned vertical shaft is her forward emmissions systems. Both are no longer needed with a new and modern power plant - not using that internal volume would simply be a travesty.

quote:

Originally posted by Keath:
The expense of gutting the interior, repowering, rebuilding, etc. just in an attempt to "compete" with today's megaships would be a financial disaster.

Reply:
As opposed to "just" repowering? As opposed to "just" decontaminating? As opposed to "just" repairing and refurbishing?

The purpose of the "gut and rebuild" idea is not an attempt to compete against modern megaships. The purpose of gutting and rebuilding is to avoid having to operate a vessel with 40-year old systems requiring constant maintenance and significantly higher upkeep than a newbuild. You want it to perform like new tonnage, so you MAKE it new tonnage by replacing aging systems. The ability to modernize in order to compete happens to be a useful side effect.

quote:

Originally posted by Keath:
She might hold her own in the short term....but in order to be profitable for the long term...the Norway has to have a gimmick, an edge, something that sets it apart other than her name, history or looks.

Reply:
What possible edge could she have apart from her name, history and looks? Perhaps US reflagging...maybe a Cunard/Silversea/Raddisson-like 6-star operation. That's about it!

Her biggest selling points are her history, her looks. It's what's made her popular and well known, it's what will make her easily marketable in the future. It represents something different that the so-called "box ships". If she can't trade on that...she's lost.

quote:

Originally posted by Keath:
It's all up to developing a long-term market which will have to set itself apart from the commonality of the megaships of today. Come on now...the new ships are so identical that one line has to outdo the other by having an ice-skating rink on board? People actually base their decision to sail on a particular ship because it has an ice skating rink!!

Reply:
Or flowers painted on the hull. The biggest asset to this ship is that survey after survey of debarking passengers and new reservations point to the reason for cruising's popularity as "romanticism and nostalgia". Blue Lady's got oodles of that.