6th June 2007, 08:34
Although sad, it can' be long before Saga consider replacing "Rose" and "Ruby".
Anybody have any opinions as to their ideal replacements?
6th June 2007, 14:54
what makes you think that Saga are about to replace the "Rose" and the "Ruby", have Saga mentioned something about retiring the ships? With the correct maintenance there should be a good few years left in them.
6th June 2007, 15:05
I have heard nothing either unless there is a chance that they may fail solas
6th June 2007, 17:40
I've heard nothing, but with the recent news about Maro Polo I was reminded of the Saga's.
I just wondered if there were any suggestions as to a what would be suitable long time replacements?
6th June 2007, 18:52
You are right to be concerned about the Saga pair. Mona Lisa (ex Kungsholm, ex Sea Princess, ex Victoria) built 1966 may become a floating hotel in Gothenberg in 2010 because of SOLAS 2010. Fred Olsen are withdrawing Black Prince (also built 1966) at the same time, because of the the new regulations.
Saga Rose was built in 1965. In 2010 she will be 45 years old. Assuming that it is technically possible to rebuild her to meet the new requirements, the cost is probably uneconomic in view of her likely remaining life. Saga Ruby (1973) has a better chance as Carnival have said they intend to modify QE2 (1969).
A lot of old ships will go by 2010 and there are very few replacements about, as the big cruise companies are using their middle-aged ships to open up new markets and new brands.
The only real answer for replacement vessels for Saga is to go for new build. Carnival has just ordered two new ships at $250 million each from Mariotti for its Seabourn brand. They are more up-market than Saga but at 32,200 grt they are about the same size as the Saga pair. The earliest delivery would be 2011, however.
A further problem is that Saga is being prepared for sale or for floatation on the London Stock Market. Over 80% of Saga's business is in financial services (selling insurance etc to the over 50s) and Saga Shipping could simply be sold off as being too much trouble to keep.