I would place a premium on a more stable ship and I, personally, hate the notion of those massive ships. I would want something smaller (not that the QM2 is small).
I guess that puts me in the niche category and given I don’t take cruises they certainly do not care about my opinions.
But those monster 6,000 passenger cruise ships seem awful. Just my $0.02.
Smaller than Titanic?
I would think that without passengers there would be plenty of supplies for the crew.
I daresay the livestock tenders fertilized the ocean every day. Probably kept the critters abaft so the wind would carry the odors away.
Same here, no way, no how would i ever cruise on one of those behemoths, for many reasons.
But I do have an acquaintance who spent three weeks on a couple of ships when between apartments – with food and accommodations as a package, it was cheaper and more pleasant than motels/restaurants for the hiatus. He mentioned that there are retirees who have chosen to live aboard a cruise ship rather than in a retirement community.
I mentioned the Wind Surf above. There are plenty of small cruise ships in the 200-500 passenger range, and lots of them make ocean crossings.
There is much to be said for a smaller ship. You can go into smaller ports, thousands of people aren’t crowding every port, there are no lines, and you get great service. It’s also not as expensive as you’d think. $2499 for a 14 day ocean crossing is only $180 per day or so, for all meals, entertainment and accomodations. That’s the price of a cheap hotel.
Well, i would certainly prefer a smaller ship, personally. But i don’t like casinos, either. I’m also not the target market.
I’ve been sea sick, but i imagine I’d get used to the motion in a day or so, and “it rolled too much” isn’t a complaint I’ve ever heard from friends who enjoy cruising. So I’m not sure there’s much market premium on a more stable ship.
I suspect 99% of cruises are nice and smooth not least because the ships will actively try to avoid storms (changing the itinerary happens on ships due to this…it seems it is not uncommon).
But, getting battered by storms does happen. This occurred less than a week ago:
I took the QE2 from NY to France in 1980, and lots of regular cruises since. Not all that much different except the QE2 was a lot more formal, with regular seatings for dinner and lunch. It had a casino, shows, even movies. But no stops between. It was an older ship than the current ones, and it had first class and transatlantic class, unlike the one class for all modern ships.
I was on the SS United States as a kid when my great aunt was taking it to England. Back then guests were allowed on. I was impressed by her stateroom.
It appears that most of them still suck environmentally, though, even compared to notoriously environmentally-sucky air travel, according to this analysis. I don’t know how much practical difference sail-only capacity would make to those results, though.
But basically, as you note, the fundamental issue is that most people these days don’t think of the “travel” part of vacation travel as a main component of their “vacation” (except for bicycle tourists and through-hikers and their ilk). Getting to the destination is typically something to be accomplished as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to enjoy the destination as soon as possible.
If the “travel” is intended to be prolonged enjoyable in and of itself, then as you said, it’s not so much a passage as a cruise.
I recall reading of freighters carrying sheep – a lot of sheep – from Australia to the Middle East. It mentioned you could smell them for miles downwind.
I specifically mentioned the Wind Surf, which I have sailed on. It is a sailing vessel, and can travel on wind power alone. When we sailed on her, a couple of legs were done with wind power alone, and most of the time wind was complemented by the diesel engines. The sails are all computer controlled and furl and unfurl without human aid. It’s a really cool ship. We are planning to cruise on her again as soon as we can.
I’m guessing it’s the most environmentally friendly cruise liner around, excepting maybe for other sailing ships. But it’s the largest at 535 ft, and can carry 310-342 guests and 210 staff.
I still follow the Facebook account of the ship I sailed on years ago, and I hear about some others, as well. There’s one that visits Antarctica every year, and often sails from Cape Horn to the Cape of Good Hope (with a stop at Tristan Da Cunha). If anybody really wants to “get away from it all”, that’s about as far as you can get.
I wouldn’t call them cruise ships, or ocean liners. You’re there to be part of the crew, and to participate in sailing the ship. I’ve no idea what their carbon footprints are, but they spend most of their time under sail.
Yup, I specifically referenced that sail-only capacity in my previous post.
It sounds as though hybrid cruise ships may be closer at present to achieving zero-impact goals than sail-plus-diesel vessels. (There is no denying that sailing ships look way cooler and more fun than the horizontal-skyscraper engine-driven liners, though! Happy sailing!)
There is a luxury cruise ship that claims to be exceptionally eco-friendly despite no sails (it is also an icebreaker). However, the fares are STUPID expensive! ($11,000/week to over $20,000/week).
ETA: I see the ship I linked to is included in the article @Kimstu linked.
I would add some train travel is about the journey as much, if not more, than the destination. At least that is how I viewed my La Crosse, WI ↔ Everett, WA trip on the Empire Builder (actually part of a bicycle tour, as it allowed me to transport my fully assembled bike)
Brian
Yep, an Internet friend of mine living in Ontario took the cross-continent ride across Canada and back to have the experience of the ride (and the passing scenery) itself.
Yeah, definitely agree about recreational train travel. For that matter, there are tour buses that would qualify as “about the journey as much as the destination” also.
I realize this topic is done but, for those interested, a YouTube channel which focuses on ship design just posted a video (14 minutes long) describing the distinction between a cruise ship and an ocean liner. It’s interesting (I think):
Which is sort of weird because eggs neither require refrigeration, nor expire in so short a period. I suppose it makes sense if the kitchen was making the sort of dishes that really require freshly laid eggs (poaching them for example).