Titanic Cruise

[f-mattox]

I would hope so to; but probably for a different reason :-)

[Maurine]

I'd do it if I had the money and didn't end the same way as the first Titanic.

[LisaP]

I waited a bit before posting my thoughts, as my initial ones were, shall we say, non-publishable. (Is that even a word?)

In any case, time hasn't changed my opinion. As an ocean liner fanatic, I'm rather appalled by this notion. Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for a voyage that honors the memories of those who perished tragic night. Promoting it as a near re-creation, implying a form of entertainment, is what bothers me. JMHO.

I hope that the lecturers have some true knowledge to impart. There is a great deal of misinformation out there.

[f-mattox]

That was my feeling, Lisa; I just couldn't put it as eloquently as you did.

[Casanova frankenstein]

Well this trip can sound interesting
But why the use a little ship for a transatlantic trip?

43,537 tons??

[Dave]

But why the use a little ship for a transatlantic trip?

43,537 tons??

Don't equate gross tonnage with a ship's seaworthiness. It isn't a weight but a measure of a ship's volume.

[Casanova frankenstein]

Ok

I was mostly asking considering movement and sea sickness that's all...

[Dwayne]

Actually, the Titanic only had a gross tonnage of around 46,000. Maybe they are purposely using a similarly size ship?

Dwayne

[LisaP]

No worries about her seaworthiness. She was originally built for cruising lengthy itineraries. Actually, she used to be smaller until a 100-foot midsection was added about two years ago.

[f-mattox]

At 43,537 tons Balmoral is Fred Olsen's largest ship.

And I think Dwayne is on to the real reason--it is similar in size to Titanic. It's a charter, and presumably the operators could have chartered any ship they thought they could fill.