Learn me: cruise ships

Rule #1: Take the stairs.

I don't know what it is like on the cruise ship, but I know that I calculated targeting solutions on most of them for a few months in '98 and '99 from 400' under the surface.

They are really too big to be terrible for motion sickness. If you are worried I would recommend an interior cabin as near the center of the ship as you can get. The motion will have a lot less vertical component to it and be easier to manage. They will have food options that are gentle on sick stomachs too, unless they are complete idiots, especially for the first day.

EvanR wrote: I like working on cars. Cars are not allowed aboard ship. I like drinking beer that costs <$10 for a Budweiser. I like not talking to people. Being approached by strangers seems to happen a lot on ships. I like eating at a table for 2 with my SO, not a table full of lingerie salespeople from Saskatoon. (Yes, that happened.)

Fair enough. Appreciate that.

Although the dining for 2 can be fixed- my wife and I only dine for 2. But it's pretty hard to work on cars on board.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

It would be funny to run into you on a trip. We ran into Mark Sheeran when he was taking his first trip on a cruise. Didn't expect that.

As for the food- I think it's better than Applebees- but some others think it's worse- so it's relative to the person.

But I've also been able to put it into perspective- and given that, some of the really good dishes that we like have taken on a new perspective.

Most here have probably been to a decent sized banquet. At a place that tells you that they do banquets really well. The biggest I've been to was 700. It was good, but I could find fault with the cooking, and it was done for large volumes. On the ships I've been on, dining is broken in 2 seatings, smallest ship is just over 2000, so the galley is serving 1000 twice a night, every night. Relative to banquets- I personally think the food is far, far better.

But that's my view, and understand that others have their own issues with the food.

Like you said, though, considering how critical of the food people are, it's amazing that most gain weight.

So is the food like a banquet hall, but maybe/probably better or much better, or is it like Applebee's? Big difference imho.

In reply to mtn:

Everyone seems to have a different take on it. But you won't starve to death.

EvanR wrote: I like not talking to people. Being approached by strangers seems to happen a lot on ships. I like eating at a table for 2 with my SO, not a table full of lingerie salespeople from Saskatoon. (Yes, that happened.)

That pretty much describes SWMBO and myself. Although one of her best friends from years past & her husband are going on this cruise(which is largely the reason SWMBO wants to go). They're good people & we enjoy hanging out on the rare occurrence we can visit each other, but they're way more social than we are.

In reply to petegossett:

That actually brings up a good point. Big group vacations fit well with cruises. You can do anything you want, with anyone you want, and then get together for dinner to talk about the day.

Do not read "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again," By David Foster Wallace.

So, I just got back from a 7 day Alaska cruise on Norwegian that started in Seattle. Our ship was the "Pearl", which is about 2800 passengers and 1100 crew. The captain says he likes it because it has a good power/weight ratio That puppy can move. We were traveling with family, 9 people spanning 3 generations.

I loved the fact that it got us to places we wouldn't get otherwise. Alaska's a bit difficult to reach. Glacier Bay was a very good day with not a cloud in the sky. The shore excursions were okay, there's no question we were on a timetable and running through a program - and the ports were populated by more cruisers than residents. It was a 10:1 ratio in Skagway, seriously. The best shore excursion was when we met up with one of my high school friends that I haven't seen in 20-25 years and we had an excellent day together. The down side was the clock ticking the entire time until we had to be back on the ship. Second best was sea kayaking, because paddling in northern waters feeds my soul.

The freestyle nature of the cruise suited our group. My wife and I could go do adult things while the 9 year old threw temper tantrums, and we'd meet up at meals. We didn't see each other on shore. The buffet was where we ate most of the time, because it's just easier with a group of this size and the kids could eat their body weight in self-serve ice cream. The food was okay. No complaints, but I wouldn't go on the cruise because of it. We did go to one of the specialty restaurants one night and it was fantastic. I'd go back to that restaurant if it was always in the same place

I did not like the crowds. Crowds at the buffet line, crowds to get on the ship, crowds to get off the ship, crowds in the ports, crowds in the passageways, very few places on the ship to hang out in the quiet. I don't live in a big city anymore by choice so this was a hassle. There was a constant pull at your wallet - dealing with the ship was like haggling with a used car dealer, the deals kept on getting more complex and obfuscated. And what's with the diamond stores? Sheesh.

Basically, the ship is a big floating Vegas hotel/casino. If you think that sounds awesome, then there you go.

The on-board activities were cruise ship cheese. I read a lot of books.

Would I go on another Alaskan cruise? Possibly, as I love the North and it's the easiest way to get there - although you only skim through it. Would I go on another cruise to any other place? Hell no. I'd rather fly straight to a single location in the Caribbean and stay there for a week where I could actually relax.

Hi Keith,

As per my recent post in the “Minor Confessions’ thread, I just got back from an Alaskan cruise out of Seattle myself – Princess Ruby – August 14th to 21st.

Out of curiosity, what was the specific date range for your cruise?

August 28-Sept 4th. The Princess cruises are obviously on a slightly different route, we saw Princess ships in every port but there were three different ones. There's no question you're pounding a well-worn pathway in the sea.

The ships themselves are pretty incredible machines. They never really go dark - the stop in Seattle to offload nearly 3000 people and bring on another 3000 is about 8 hours. They undergo maintenance constantly. We saw a couple of ships testing their lifeboats at one of the ports. The Pearl was scheduled to go in to drydock for her 5 year checkup at the end of this year, which would normally be a 2 week stay if she wasn't getting an interior refit. Otherwise she's working. I think drydock is the only time when they fully shut the ship down.

They're on electric drive now, which makes them really maneuverable. Which got me wondering - why don't they use turbines for electrical generation instead of diesel engines?

In reply to Keith Tanner:

Cost. There are 4 ships in the RCI fleet that use gas turbines. First, the engines themselves are quite a bit more expensive than a diesel. Odd to think that, but it's true. Second, the fuel required is MUCH better than the bunker fuel that big marine diesels use- so there's a much higher operating cost for gas turbine engines, too.

Third is flexibility- as it turns out, even though diesels run the best at about 70-80% nominal load, they still can run pretty well at much lower loads- gas turbines are not as flexible. On the 4 ships with gas turbines, all of them have a small diesel that was installed during one of the dry docks so that they are better run on shore.

Unless you were talking steam turbines...

Ha! No, not steam. Hadn't taken the fuel quality into consideration, that's a significant factor.

I figured you'd have multiple turbines and just fire up one after the other as your load scaled up. But I guess the electrical draw isn't that great on shore, just the hotel load. I'm assuming hot water comes from the engine coolant.

On a billion dollar ship, is the difference in the engine cost all that significant?

Keith Tanner wrote: So, I just got back from a 7 day Alaska cruise on Norwegian that started in Seattle. Our ship was the "Pearl", which is about 2800 passengers and 1100 crew. The captain says he likes it because it has a good power/weight ratio That puppy can move. We were traveling with family, 9 people spanning 3 generations. I loved the fact that it got us to places we wouldn't get otherwise. Alaska's a bit difficult to reach. Glacier Bay was a very good day with not a cloud in the sky. The shore excursions were okay, there's no question we were on a timetable and running through a program - and the ports were populated by more cruisers than residents. It was a 10:1 ratio in Skagway, seriously. The best shore excursion was when we met up with one of my high school friends that I haven't seen in 20-25 years and we had an excellent day together. The down side was the clock ticking the entire time until we had to be back on the ship. Second best was sea kayaking, because paddling in northern waters feeds my soul. The freestyle nature of the cruise suited our group. My wife and I could go do adult things while the 9 year old threw temper tantrums, and we'd meet up at meals. We didn't see each other on shore. The buffet was where we ate most of the time, because it's just easier with a group of this size and the kids could eat their body weight in self-serve ice cream. The food was okay. No complaints, but I wouldn't go on the cruise because of it. We did go to one of the specialty restaurants one night and it was fantastic. I'd go back to that restaurant if it was always in the same place I did not like the crowds. Crowds at the buffet line, crowds to get on the ship, crowds to get off the ship, crowds in the ports, crowds in the passageways, very few places on the ship to hang out in the quiet. I don't live in a big city anymore by choice so this was a hassle. There was a constant pull at your wallet - dealing with the ship was like haggling with a used car dealer, the deals kept on getting more complex and obfuscated. And what's with the diamond stores? Sheesh. Basically, the ship is a big floating Vegas hotel/casino. If you think that sounds awesome, then there you go. The on-board activities were cruise ship cheese. I read a lot of books. Would I go on another Alaskan cruise? Possibly, as I love the North and it's the easiest way to get there - although you only skim through it. Would I go on another cruise to any other place? Hell no. I'd rather fly straight to a single location in the Caribbean and stay there for a week where I could actually relax.

Precisely why me and the ex went to the Sandals in Jamaica. Way less people, no timetables (but still able to go on "excursions") only pull on the wallet is the gift shop or excursions because it's all inclusive. Depending on the size of the resort 6-9 different restaurants.

I have no desire to go on a cruise. But I also don't really care for Vegas either so....

I've stayed in Cozumel several times. One of the first things I learned was to avoid the cruise port.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

The turn around is impressive. A couple ships dock across from our building in New York. When I come to work on Saturdays there are a dozen tractor trailers lined up waiting for the boats to come in, taxis and charter buses line up and shortly after the ship stops everything starts moving and by the time I leave work they're headed back out to sea.

Not only are they loading all those people on and off, customs is involved! The potential for a massive hairball is significant.

Fun note: apparently the reason the Alaska cruises stop in Victoria, BC is to make it an international cruise. This changes the rules as to the composition of the crew. If it was all US stops, they'd have to have more American staff which has an effect on salaries. As it was, most of the staff was from the Philipines, Indonesia and the like. The only Americans were some of the entertainment staff, the cruise director and a few of the officers. I never saw a Norwegian

Note the distinct requirements for employment on The Pride Of America. That's the only Norwegian ship that does all-US cruises. You need to be American or have a green card and the length of the assignments are shorter.
https://www.ncl.com/about/careers/shipboard-employment/faq

Keith Tanner wrote: Ha! No, not steam. Hadn't taken the fuel quality into consideration, that's a significant factor. I figured you'd have multiple turbines and just fire up one after the other as your load scaled up. But I guess the electrical draw isn't that great on shore, just the hotel load. I'm assuming hot water comes from the engine coolant. On a billion dollar ship, is the difference in the engine cost all that significant?

Yup. They have a tool that trims the ship so that it's running the minimum fuel, too. They run 1000's of tons of fuel each week, and that adds up pretty darned quickly. Fuel is the #1 cost of the cruise line for operating costs. So being able to run bunker fuel over even low Sulphur fuel is a big deal. To the point that RCI making a multi million dollar install of scrubbers instead of running alternate fuel within US emissions range.

Keith Tanner wrote: Fun note: apparently the reason the Alaska cruises stop in Victoria, BC is to make it an international cruise. This changes the rules as to the composition of the crew. If it was all US stops, they'd have to have more American staff which has an effect on salaries. As it was, most of the staff was from the Philipines, Indonesia and the like. The only Americans were some of the entertainment staff, the cruise director and a few of the officers. I never saw a Norwegian

On top of that, the ship would have to be made in the US. The rules around that are over 100 years old.

Newer cruise ships are amusement parks on the water. At least that is what their adds appear.

I'm not into cruises, my SO is, so she goes with a female friend.

I'm much more into road trips. Haven't done one in a long time.

Wall-e wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: The turn around is impressive. A couple ships dock across from our building in New York. When I come to work on Saturdays there are a dozen tractor trailers lined up waiting for the boats to come in, taxis and charter buses line up and shortly after the ship stops everything starts moving and by the time I leave work they're headed back out to sea.

Wave to us next Thursday.

alfadriver wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: Ha! No, not steam. Hadn't taken the fuel quality into consideration, that's a significant factor. I figured you'd have multiple turbines and just fire up one after the other as your load scaled up. But I guess the electrical draw isn't that great on shore, just the hotel load. I'm assuming hot water comes from the engine coolant. On a billion dollar ship, is the difference in the engine cost all that significant?

Yup. They have a tool that trims the ship so that it's running the minimum fuel, too. They run 1000's of tons of fuel each week, and that adds up pretty darned quickly. Fuel is the #1 cost of the cruise line for operating costs. So being able to run bunker fuel over even low Sulphur fuel is a big deal. To the point that RCI making a multi million dollar install of scrubbers instead of running alternate fuel within US emissions range.

We had to slow at one point to drop off a pilot, then accelerate up to speed again. All I could think of was how much that little maneuver cost in terms of fuel.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

They also run fast if they leave late, or for many other reasons. But fuel is still a big thing.

Some things only make sense to an MBA.

I'm going to agree with alfadriver here, and he's said most of what I wanted to say. I've taken only a couple of cruises, on Royal Caribbean out of Baltimore (a simple 15 minute drive to the dock for me), that went to different stops from each other. Got to see a lot more places than a single trip to one place would get you, sorry. Going out next year on RC from Baltimore to the Bahamas for a 5 day trip. The wife and I don't get seasick, love meeting new people and making new short term friends and love the way RC treats passengers. The food in the steakhouse was great, as was the food for the mystery dinner theater. The daily dinner is ok, and they bring you as much as you want (had escargot for the first time on the first cruise and ended up having 4 plates of it one night). The breakfast buffet is, well, a typical breakfast buffet elsewhere, we just went at a slightly later time to avoid the crowds. Lunch was usually stuff from local places.

A couple of you really don't get the concept of taking time off. "I can't work on cars." No E36 M3. Try new things every once in a while.

I'd love to take one of those European river cruises, and probably will in a couple years.