Jump to content

Disney Purchased the Global Dream Cruise Ship


Recommended Posts

According to several articles Disney has just confirmed they have indeed purchased the 208,000 gross ton Global Dream cruise ship which might have been scrapped after Genting Cruise Lines declared bankruptcy halting all construction on the vessel.  According to Disney the ship will have a capacity around 6,000 total guest instead of the 9,000 total guest and Germany's Meyer Werft shipyard is slated to complete the vessel.  For now according to Disney this vessel will not be home ported in the U.S., so speculation is Disney might have their eye on Asia or some other international market. Disney expects this ship to join its fleet at some point in 2025.  

The sister ship of Global Dream which isn't nearly as completed as Global Dream is still slated to be scrapped.

https://www.cruisehive.com/disney-cruise-line-confirms-208000-gross-ton-global-dream-purchase/87955

https://thepointsguy.com/news/disney-cruise-line-ship-purchase-global-dream/

 

Luckily Royal has a 6th Oasis Class ship being built and 3 Icon Class ships.  I think Disney wants a piece of the Asian market especially once China allows cruising to resume.  Royal will definitely need an Oasis/Icon Class ship to take on Disney and their unnamed 208,000 gross ton new cruise ship.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Makes sense that Disney would reduce the capacity to 6,000 since they are viewed as more of a luxury brand. I could not imagine sailing on a ship of that size with 9,000 passengers and likely 2,000+ crew! The ship is still roughly 20K tons smaller than Oasis class and about 42K tons smaller than Icon class. At a 9,000 passenger configuration, I can only imagine that the cabins would be tiny and the common areas much smaller than on Oasis/Icon class ships! 

It sounds like the second ship, not nearly as far along, is going to be sold for scrap. Very sad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global Dream originally debuted with a capacity statement of 6,000.  They later announced a plan to make every cabin capable of sleeping 3 or more guests.  Double occupancy capacity was still 6,000.  To achieve the higher capacity there would have to be more than two guests in some cabins. 

It's not clear how hard Genting was going to push to get more than 3 in all cabins.  It's also not clear how crammed cabins would be if all of them had more than two guests sailing.  The 9,000 was likely a publicity or marketing gesture trying to obtain the "largest" ship by passenger count title.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WAAAYTOOO said:

Just a guess, but I imagine that the price on that hull was probably too good to pass up.  The next stop for it was the scrapyard, which would have been a damn shame.

I think you're absolutely correct. Disney is so cheap when it comes to these kind of purchases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

I think the 9000 was going to be total occupancy.  Disney just said "yeah, skip all those pullman beds"

It's unknown if SOLAS would have approved 9,000 on a ship smaller physically than Oasis class.  Oasis re-wrote the rules and was a little controversial when she debuted in 2009 in terms of the safety plans and mustering a full ship.  Genting may have planned to keep her in China so they wouldn't be subject to all international requirements that probably would have stymied 9,000 on her.  Or it's possible they never could achieve 9,000 even if there were berths for that many.  It does make reservations simpler if all cabins are equal in terms of sleeping capacity.  Greatly simplifies pricing and selling the ship but there are still muster implications.  They never did address what they would actually do.  

A secondary problem is that some charges that a ship faces can be measured by berths.  Transit through the Panama Canal for example uses berths present, not how many passengers are present for a particular transit.  Some other fees when visiting a port can be berth-based.  Some are based on length and beam. 

Declaring a high number of berths to claim title of largest may have been a dumb move in terms of creating higher operational costs.  

Disney will probably get her classified with a lower number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are on the money, Matt.

Not bashing Disney....but....any of their mainline hotels give all the sizzle on the drive up.  The typical room reminds me of oringal Howard Johnson Motel format.  Two double beds made from plywood, an Ikea dresser, 24" TV, fridge from a college dorm, open sink area seen when you open the door (make sure you are clothed), and a shower/toilet area that rivals many RVs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was surprised to hear they're going ahead with this amid financial struggles and potential cutbacks, even if you got a great deal I can't imagine it was cheap nor will the cost of moving it to a different port to finish building it. Having said that I'm glad to see it's not going to be scrapped as that would have been a shame and waste of effort so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...