ACL announces 5 more river cruise ships

And they feel they need to keep the DQ away????

Why on earth with those plans would anyone ever consider the Delta Queen to be a threat to their business? It can only be a matter of hubris such as is being displayed by another 'CEO' these days.

You're absolutely right, Judy. Two completely different products.

I'm going to play devil's advocate.....you're not going to like this......but why would the general, cruising public want to ride the DQ? In a previous forum I said that these lines have already done the market research...the public wants more spacious rooms, more elevators, more glitz, wifi, etc. Unless the DQ can charge significantly less, why would anyone want a bunk bed and a shower that you have to bend over in to wash your hair? Oh yes there are probably a couple of hundred of us who would ride the DQ if we could....my wife couldn't, no elevator......but is there enough of us to make the boat self sustaining? I really don't know.

In following the Cruise Critic link to the ACL promo and then checking the 5 Highlight bullet points number 5 may give an hint to whom the DQ might appeal.

No 5 point is "No Sea Days. Ships Stop at Ports Every Day". Hopefully there are large groups of people who wish to see and experience the River and not be bused and dog trotted all day long to "points of interest".

Amen, Capt. Jim. To me, "no sea days" is where I would say, "thanks, but no thanks".

In addition to what Capt. Jim posted below, Jim, I would say this: Yes, the DQ might need some work to remain viable. An elevator? I think that would be fine. Yes, by all means get the showers fixed where yu don't have to bend over to wash your hair...a trip to the plumbing supply store solves that. Maybe combine some rooms to make some bigger ones? Maybe.... The DQ's pluses: Fewer shore stops, a real steamboat, make it truly "old fashioned" (and I'm not talking faux-19th century, which she AIN'T), with tasteful decorating and furniture, good food served pretty much as it always was, and the feeling of an old hotel in the mountains. Do old hotels still do well, in spite of their age and quirks? Yep. The key is marketing. Is the DELTA QUEEN for everyone? No, and neither are these new boats. I hope and think there's room for both. Let's get the exemption and see what the market will bear.

Bob mentions "Old Hotels,," well my family still has an old "Auto Court" with modern motel rooms (OK, they were built in 1968, but feature real beam ceilings with real 3/4" thick tongue and groove paneling--not plywood!), and modular units in the old "trailer park" area. If you read the Yelp! reviews, they range from "NEVER again!" to "I LOVE this place and stay often!" The original cabins are very much like the DQ, built in 1923, linoleum floors, fridge on the back porch, two burner hot plates, wooden drainboards, tin shower stalls. The resort does well, but my brother has had to modify the original metal bed-frames to take Queen-sized mattresses, making the room seem even smaller. Some folks love them, some folks think they should be burned to the ground. BTW, no phones, no TVs in the cabins; they are in the modern rooms and the manufactured housing units.
It's a matter of marketing; some folks like "vintage" others like "chic" and there were always be more folks looking for the "chic" than for the "Vintage." I don't have any market research to tell me how much demand there is, but I think if the "new folks" market the authentic period experience (granted, it may be a little glamorized) and the experience of being ON the river (no sea days? You're not on the 'friggin' sea!) that the boat will fill. Granted, we probably won't be able to afford the trips with our limited income, but there are many out there with the income who can.
It will be harder and harder to sell ANY cruises though as more of this "virtual reality" generation grows up--if it's not on their I-this-or-that, they're not interested.

PS, notice the new boats have no paddlewheels; guess that wasn't important anymore--and I'll bet no calliope either! (too noisy!)
I mentioned this to my wife, Linda, and she disdainfully dryly remarked, "That's exciting. . . ." (as in "NOT!"")

Not my point Jim

[QUOTE=Jim Reising;36339]I'm going to play devil's advocate.....you're not going to like this......
I know most people won't like the DQ - they'll prefer the new stuff which ACL is putting out. That's why I question why ACL feels they must continue to pour money into keeping the DQ off the market.

Judy, I have thought about your question quite a lot, especially in light of an article I read where Mr. Robertson said he welcomes the competition from Viking. I'm not sure exactly his thinking on the DQ issue but I believe it might be this...and you're not going to like this either...some people really believe the DQ is unsafe. Right or wrong, they believe that. He may be one of them. Also he might be thinking that ACL is a family owned business and he had to spend millions on each boat he built to make them comply with the current laws, why should someone get a "free pass" and be allowed to operate a boat that he believes poses a fire hazard?
He has invested a lot of money in the river passenger business and he knows that, God forbid, if something happened to the DQ, it would tarnish the whole industry, not just the DQSC.
Like I say, I am not him so I really don't know his thoughts, but if I were in his shoes, with millions of my dollars invested in a business I'm trying to grow, I would want a level playing field. As Dale says "What do I know?"

I'm looking at a printed brochure (2017) from the St Lawrence Cruise Lines Inc. A family owned company as it says in print who operate one vessel the M/V CANADIAN EMPRESS on the St Lawrence River 32 "staterooms", 66 passengers, 407 grt, 108ft in length. Built 1981.

This thread has mentioned some of the rooms and wc/shower arrangements on our beloved Str. Delta Queen. There is a photo in the printed brochure (and on their website) of a room [on the St Lawrence Deck) which appears very DQish.

According to the website the company choose the year 1908 as a "model" the boats operating on the St Lawrence at the time for this boat obviously on a smaller scale.

I have no connection to this company, never have see the vessel and have not been on most of the St Lawrence where they operate; however the St Lawrence has some beautiful scenery.

Hopefully the DQ will be able to tap into a culture that enjoys the adventure of getting to a destination and not a glitzy "floating destination" as developed in some Ocean cruises and we are now seeing proposed for United States Rivers.

Mr. Robertson might think the legislation is a "free pass" but it isn't. It is allowing a non-standard (in today's world) constructed boat to operate--AFTER it has met coast guard inspection. There is no "free pass" as the DQ owners will have to spend millions getting her to the point of coast guard approval. As for an accident giving the industry a "black ball" I don't see the Costa Concordia accident causing a downturn in seagoing cruises. IMHO, it's all a smoke screen to reduce competition--and perhaps a personal grudge by Mr. Robertson.

Yes to Jim and Jim

Jim R: I can't honestly believe that Robertson thinks the DQ is unsafe, but your point about hurting the other boats if she would have a fire-related serious incident is a possibility. Quite honestly the biggest safety concern in my mind is the pilot requirement. It doesn't matter how much steel is in a boat if the pilot has no experience in the area or with locks or with handling that type of boat. Give me a company that will pay more for first class pilots such as we had on the DQ/MQ/AQ (and yes I would be paying for it in a higher fare), than to hire the cheapest lowest grade license currently allowed by the CG. THAT is a safety concern I don't ever see addressed! Above Baton Rouge there is no First Class Licensing now and I don't know if whatever the license is called now even requires one to have ever been on stretches of river he is navigating with sleeping passengers aboard.
Jim B: While we are in the minority I'm sure regarding accepting the more spartan quarters the DQ provides, look at the rise in popularity of tiny houses - there are a couple of TV series dedicated to them. People want less and want to pay less. The question is how big is that market, enough for the relatively small DQ to be profitable? And can the DQ charge less by not having an army (or navy) of hostesses, entertainers, room service stewards, etc.? And as to the cruising days, I keep saying if you want to see the small towns for a whole day, take a Greyhound, not a boat! Remember Viking's slogan: Spend less time getting there and more time being there.
I say Spend more time getting there and less time being there!!!!! Unless 'there' is aboard a steamboat!!!!

Judy, you made some excellent points. I too have wondered about the experience and ability of some of the navigation personnel. G.W. McBride and I were talking about this several years ago, he said in the day it was a natter of pride not to have a chart book in the pilothouse because back then pilots KNEW the river they were licensed on. Now the CG fines you if you don't have up to date charts (either in book form or electronic). If I were sleeping in a stateroom on a passenger boat, I would most definetly want the man between the sticks to at least know where the next lock is without having to look it up.