Does Disney Cruise Line Have Plans to Purchase Abandoned Cruise Ship?

[jrapps]

I found a vague reference on CruiseHive that one of the reasons the Global Dream 1 & 2 were originally having such a hard time finding a buyer was that the ship "lacked compliance with the strict rules and regulations and environmental compliance in Europe." and would require extreme rework "to comply with U.S. or European laws"

I can't find any other reference online of what these regulations are, but if there is any truth to that, it again points to an Asia-only deployment.

 

[iannovich]

Edit: I looked up some numbers. The Disney Dream is 339m(1,112ft) long and 41m(134ft) wide, and a draft of 8m(26ft). Using the Oasis as an approximate, it is 360m long, 64m wide, and a draft of 9.3m, So its over 4 ft deeper, and 75ft wider. My bet is that can not dock at Castaway.

The Global Class ships were designed to be 342 m (1,122 ft 1 in) long, 46.4 m (152 ft 3 in) wide and with a draft of 9.5m (31 ft 2 in).

It's a tiny bit shorter, and a bit less wide, but there's a touch more below the waterline than an Oasis class... still probably a no go for castaway without tendering. I don't think I'd want to be on Castaway with that many folks anyway. Maybe they could incentivize people to stay on board with a theme park, but if Castaway was really considered for something of this size, it'd probably have to do some kind of overnight where guests are allowed to disembark for only one of the two days and the rest of the folks would have to treat that day as a sea day and wait for their turn the next day.

I did notice that this width is skinny enough to fit through the Panama Canal, but I couldn't find any information on how much above the waterline the height is. If it is more than 201 ft above, it's definitely a no go thanks to the Bridge of the Americas. The Oasis class ships are 236 ft above the waterline, so they're right out. I'd guess this one is too.

 

[iannovich]

I found a vague reference on CruiseHive that one of the reasons the Global Dream 1 & 2 were originally having such a hard time finding a buyer was that the ship "lacked compliance with the strict rules and regulations and environmental compliance in Europe." and would require extreme rework "to comply with U.S. or European laws"

I can't find any other reference online of what these regulations are, but if there is any truth to that, it again points to an Asia-only deployment.

That's very interesting. I'm very curious as to what the regulations might be...

Disney wouldn't normally go for something that wouldn't meet environmental standards, even if they're ok in some places. It's not a good look for them if the ship somehow pollutes. If the purchase rumor is true, I would think (hope) that they think the purchase cost is so cheap that they can afford to go ahead and retrofit to meet North American or EU standards.

 

[jrapps]

he Global Class ships were designed to be 342 m (1,122 ft 1 in) long, 46.4 m (152 ft 3 in) wide and with a draft of 9.5m (31 ft 2 in).

Width is a funny measurement to clarify on a ship since the width at the waterline can be vastly different than then width on top decks.

The Oasis class is 47m wide at the waterline, but the top extends out to 60+m wide. You can see in this photo, the cabins are puffed out from the bottom of the ship



In contrast, the Wish is 41m wide at the waterline, but the middle decks (stateroom) are narrower than the waterline. You can see this clearest at the front of the ship.



The Global Dream is more like Oasis in this respect. 47m at waterline, no clue what the upper width is but it is wider as seen in this photo:

 

[maui2k5]

I’m not so sure I believe Disney would buy a ship designed by another company to the retrofit it to be “more Disney”. To me, this is like Disney buying another theme park to rebrand it Disney. I know it’s not unheard of that Disney would buy a property and rebrand it (Paradise Pier), but the ships Disney builds are designed from stem to stern by Disney themselves.

Having said that, who knows what Chapek May do…

 

[iannovich]

Width is a funny measurement to clarify on a ship since the width at the waterline can be vastly different than then width on top decks.

The Oasis class is 47m wide at the waterline, but the top extends out to 60+m wide. You can see in this photo, the cabins are puffed out from the bottom of the ship

yeah, the specs I saw for the Oasis class did specifically list two different Beam sizes (waterline and max). None of the others I looked at did this. The Global Dream only lists one and does look pretty straight on each side, but who knows what the final product may look like. I'm relying on the numbers I found online and they may not even be accurate.

 

[Kwami]

I found a vague reference on CruiseHive that one of the reasons the Global Dream 1 & 2 were originally having such a hard time finding a buyer was that the ship "lacked compliance with the strict rules and regulations and environmental compliance in Europe." and would require extreme rework "to comply with U.S. or European laws"

I can't find any other reference online of what these regulations are, but if there is any truth to that, it again points to an Asia-only deployment.

I'm not so sure that I'd want to be on a ship that doesn't meet US and EU regulations for safety or environmental impact.

 

[jrapps]

I'm not so sure that I'd want to be on a ship that doesn't meet US and EU regulations for safety or environmental impact.

Sadly we don't know if and what those are. Could be anything from engine emissions, to redundant safety systems...it could be as simple as a maximum occupancy per lifeboat. I imagine whatever it is, Disney is factoring the cost to remedy it into their decision.

 

[jrapps]

yeah, the specs I saw for the Oasis class did specifically list two different Beam sizes (waterline and max). None of the others I looked at did this. The Global Dream only lists one and does look pretty straight on each side, but who knows what the final product may look like. I'm relying on the numbers I found online and they may not even be accurate.

It does extend past waterline width, perhaps not as much as the Oasis does. Here is a good photo:

 

[nikem3]

I’m not so sure I believe Disney would buy a ship designed by another company to the retrofit it to be “more Disney”. To me, this is like Disney buying another theme park to rebrand it Disney. I know it’s not unheard of that Disney would buy a property and rebrand it (Paradise Pier), but the ships Disney builds are designed from stem to stern by Disney themselves.

Having said that, who knows what Chapek May do…

I think the intent would be that this is significantly cheaper than starting from scratch. For instance, cabins could probably be kept the way they are, and then adding little Disney touches (pictures, curtains, etc.) The rollercoaster can be utilized, but given a Disney coat of paint and name. A lot of the dining rooms might be perfectly suitable the way they are but adding in additional Disney touches. I don't think it has to be a complete rebranding. Cruise décor is fairly similar (Disney has more hidden Mickey's and a different style) but it could absolutely work with this cruise. Either way, it would be much cheaper to recarpet and retheme this giant ship than the amount of money it would be to create it from scratch. The ship cost 1.6B to make and is supposedly on sale for fractions of the cost. As others have pointed out, regulations would be the most difficult part and cause the biggest overhaul if they planned on taking it out of Asia.

 

[Darren1969]

Either way, this is still a significant investment for Disney to enter a new market. OK, DCL do have the wider WD group behind them but other cruise lines are carrying huge amounts of debt from the last 3 years.

Buy a ship, disneyfy it and offer cruises out of Asia won't be cheap regardless of the source of the ship. Especially is it flops.
Far more economical to send either The Magic or Wonder out for a short season to test the waters as it were. If it fails, the losses with be much lower and they know not to bother. If successful, send, say the Magic, out. Wonder can carry on it's usually schedule as can Wish and Fantasy, with Dream taking over Europe. If the Dream doesn't work out in Europe, swap it and Magic over.

 

[happycamper47]

It does extend past waterline width, perhaps not as much as the Oasis does. Here is a good photo:

View attachment 710059

That additional width is enough to keep it out of the Panama Canal as it can only accept a width of 160' and the ships beam is 152'.

 

[nikem3]

Either way, this is still a significant investment for Disney to enter a new market. OK, DCL do have the wider WD group behind them but other cruise lines are carrying huge amounts of debt from the last 3 years.

Buy a ship, disneyfy it and offer cruises out of Asia won't be cheap regardless of the source of the ship. Especially is it flops.
Far more economical to send either The Magic or Wonder out for a short season to test the waters as it were. If it fails, the losses with be much lower and they know not to bother. If successful, send, say the Magic, out. Wonder can carry on it's usually schedule as can Wish and Fantasy, with Dream taking over Europe. If the Dream doesn't work out in Europe, swap it and Magic over.

That is why I'm hesitant to think they would take this deal if they HAD to sail it in Asia. Because certainly it would be a gamble and a new market. I'd assume if they were going to purchase it, they would retrofit it to fit US markets.

But who knows, crazier things have happened. Disney could also buy it and make a new cruising brand not under DCL brand that is more adult oriented with casinos. Everything is up in the air as this is simply a rumor.

 

[Jocelynaus]

I found a vague reference on CruiseHive that one of the reasons the Global Dream 1 & 2 were originally having such a hard time finding a buyer was that the ship "lacked compliance with the strict rules and regulations and environmental compliance in Europe." and would require extreme rework "to comply with U.S. or European laws"

I can't find any other reference online of what these regulations are, but if there is any truth to that, it again points to an Asia-only deployment.

I have read this too and searched too but I don’t think it’s based on fact. The marketing for it in the ships Brochure and the video list the Med, Baltic, Australia and Alaska as intended destinations/itineraries. Being built in Germany I doubt it doesn’t comply with international regulations.

I think they are struggling to find a buyer because it’s lots of money for a struggling industry. The major lines have new big ships of their own and lots were decommissioned during Covid. Most smaller lines would probably not have the backing Disney does to take this on without fear of winding up like Gentring.

As for savings the liquidator sold the Crystal Cruises for $125m, including one from 2021. If Global Dream sold for less than half of the $1.1b and had $500m spent on it to finish and an imagineer overlay they’d still get a larger ship for less than the cost of the Wish and sooner than the Treasure.

They were still laying the bottom of Global Dream 2, the shipyards have been sold to the navy and global dream 2 being removed to start navy ships before the year is out.

 

[jrapps]

I have read this too and searched too but I don’t think it’s based on fact. The marketing for it in the ships Brochure and the video list the Med, Baltic, Australia and Alaska as intended destinations/itineraries. Being built in Germany and the brochure having a box for the high standards I doubt it doesn’t comply with international regulations. I think they are struggling to find a bug because it’s lots of money for a struggling industry. RCL and Carnival have been decommissioning ships and both have a new fleet of big ships already.

As for savings the liquidator sold the Crystal Cruises for $125m, including one from 2021. I believe the German Government is a creditor for Global Dream for $280m. If it sold for less than half of the $1.1b and had $500m spent on it to finish and an imagineer overlay they’d still get a larger ship for less than the cost of the Wish and sooner than the Treasure.

They were still laying the bottom of Global Dream 2, the shipyards have been sold to the navy and global dream 2 being removed to start navy ships before the year is out.

I doubt it will be done before Treasure. It's not just a paint job. It will take weeks/months for DCL to finish this deal. If they really are going to do a massive overhaul then figure 9-12 months of Imagineering, 6-12 months of work to redo the ship..my guess is Treasure comes out in 24, this one comes out in 25, and the 3rd Triton is 26/27.

 

[Jocelynaus]

I doubt it will be done before Treasure. It's not just a paint job. It will take weeks/months for DCL to finish this deal. If they really are going to do a massive overhaul then figure 9-12 months of Imagineering, 6-12 months of work to redo the ship..my guess is Treasure comes out in 24, this one comes out in 25, and the 3rd Triton is 26/27.

It has to leave the shipyard by the end of 2023 for it to start building navy ships. The liquidators have leased the space back to the end of 2023.

They could sail it elsewhere but if it’s already 70% done you’d think you’d try to get it done in that year.

 

[Kwami]

It has to leave the shipyard by the end of 2023 for it to start building navy ships. The liquidators have leased the space back to the end of 2023.

They could sail it elsewhere but if it’s already 70% done you’d think you’d try to get it done in that year.

It's only 70% done if Disney keeps the original design exactly as it is. That's definitely not going to happen.

 

[Jocelynaus]

Here’s that video with intended destinations in the US, Australia and EU, hence probably no compliance refit needed. The video is 3 minutes long, the destinations are in the last 25 seconds. But the rest shows the ship: https://fb.watch/g5AnrVpFJS/

 

[iannovich]

That additional width is enough to keep it out of the Panama Canal as it can only accept a width of 160' and the ships beam is 152'.

Last year the Panama Canal increased the maximum beam to just a hair over 168ft to allow for wider container ships. But that still doesn't leave much room depending on how far those decks stick out.

If that 152' is truly the full ship's beam (not just the beam of the hull), then they'd be good.

But I still think it is very likely to be too tall above the waterline to go under the Bridge of the Americas. It's just fun to think about.

Maybe it could come through the Northwest Passage, lol.

 

[iannovich]

Here’s that video with intended destinations in the US, Australia and EU, hence probably no compliance refit needed. The video is 3 minutes long, the destinations are in the last 25 seconds. But the rest shows the ship: https://fb.watch/g5AnrVpFJS/

Nice catch!