Thread: The importance of ship size

Originally Posted by Lanky Lad

It's not really the size of the ship but the number of people on board that matters to me. Some of the mega ships just have too many people for me. The thought of the alarm sounding in the middle of the night and 6,000 passengers plus crew trying to get to their muster station fills me with dread.

My plan is to toss the life vest on and jump over the side - another reason for Balcony.

Originally Posted by nealberk

Good point, Linda. Another point is how well the space is laid out. On some poorly designed ships, it feels crowded even though the ratio is not that bad. RCL did a great job of laying out the public areas of the Oasis and the Allure so even with as many passengers as the ship has, they don't feel crowded.

I could not agree more, never on RCL (except for parades and other gatherings that get almost the entire ship involved) feel like it is over crowded. On NCL Gem, I had the feeling of over crowded plenty of times. Esp in the store area where you buy the novelty key chains and liquor - not shopping in them but walking past! Just a stupid layout, it is suppose to be two stores with the walkway diving them, but with the layout it looks more like a walk through in a walmart.

Are you sure that is not the image they are trying to convey?

Other .... Totally depends on the sort of cruise we're taking and how long we'll be gone.

I chose other because I like to cruise ships usually 90,000 tons and above. I think they provide the best array of activities, staterooms, and space. I just think that smaller ships would be too small!

But, Mikey, there is something to be said for the intimacy of the smaller ships.

[QUOTE=nealberk;1842272]But, Mikey, there is something to be said for the intimacy of the smaller ships.[/QUOTE]

VERY TRUE!

On the other side of the coin .... There's something to be said for the greater number of things to do on large ships.

Originally Posted by nealberk

But, Mikey, there is something to be said for the intimacy of the smaller ships.

So you think intimacy is more important than having lots of things to eat, see, and do onboard?

I personally am the kind of traveler who hates leaving home to do nothing. If I want to do nothing, I can stay at home. So for me, it is more important to have activities onboard than feel intimacy with the other passengers.

Our first cruise was on the 1000 passenger Veendam. We had excellent dining in both the main dining room and on the lido deck, we had great shows in the main lounge (with a bit more intimacy and closeness to the performers), we had great alternate venues at three performing locations on the ship, we had a pizza and hamburger station, we had nice quiet alcoves for resting, we had a movie theater with a neat popcorn stand, we had games of Trivia Pursuit and similar, we had dancing and we met lots of interesting people because we kept seeing them over and over and really got to meet them.

We were not starved for things to do!

We are relative cruise newbies. I'm not sure how big the Renaissance II was but I suspect it was smaller since it was a good 15 years or so. I remember it seemed quiet to me - it was an older demographic - but living in the over-stimulated SF Bay Area, quiet was pretty nice.

Romantica is listed at 1356 that seemed more lively but didn't feel crowded except sometimes between dinner seatings on an excursion-heavy day.

I have to admit I'm a little apprehensive about Pacifica at 3,000.

In the past we really didn't care much about on-board activities because we were either on excursions, or resting after. And I'm just as happy reading in a corner. This time we have more at sea days, so it might be a bigger deal.

So I would lean to a medium ship (1000-2000 people?) with more time in port - but of course I just described a much more expensive experience, so it probably won't be happening any time soon.

My choice would be 70-110,000. Wouldn't want to do much larger but would certainly consider smaller on some itineraries.