Pcardad

Part is pent up demand. Part is limited time left to cruise. Part is this age-bracket has a lot of money right now.

Cheers!

I think we know the same people...

I heard the discussion was between Explorer and Splendor with no decision as yet made. The drydock dates for Mariner and Voyager have been out for a while but I don't think anyone has leaked the details yet although they were determined almost a year ago.

I've hear they are considering changing ships for WC in the future....

That is still set for Nov of 2025 yes?

Mariner doesn't have a drydock next month - November of 2025 is the next scheduled drydock (unless they have changed it recently).

They confirmed this in an SEC filing last year - the target was 15% reduction in non-fuel costs. They were totally upfront about it. From February 28, 2023. The Company is undertaking a broad and ongoing margin enhancement initiative and took several steps in recent months to improve operating efficiencies, reduce costs, and maximize revenue generation opportunities while continuing to provide value to its guests. As part of this initiative, operating efficiency and cost reduction efforts are expected to result in a decrease of nearly 15% in Adjusted Net Cruise Costs excluding Fuel per Capacity Day for full year 2023 as compared to the second half of 2022. https://www.nclhltd.com/investors/news-events/press-releases/detail/534/norwegian-cruise-line-holdings-reports-fourth-quarter-and

It is because people are nasty and can't be bothered to wash their hands.

There is legal precedent for opinion vs. allegation. In Wasserman v Freilich [2016] EWHC 312 (QB), Sir David Eady remarked at the end of his judgment that “an allegation of dishonesty, fraud or attempted fraud will usually fall fairly and squarely on the side of fact rather than opinion.” The judge also added that:- “[an allegation of dishonesty] is not thought to be a matter of opinion: nor can one convert an allegation of dishonesty...into a matter of opinion by merely inserting in front of it a formula such as "I believe …" or "she thinks …"” I would like to say that if Regent has withheld info that they were legally required to disclose, or that would make their claims fraudulent, they deserve whatever they get. We are in totally agreement on this point. Perhaps the only difference in opinion that we have is that I am not willing to state they have been dishonest based on current available evidence. Could we agree to disagree on this point, have a virtual beer together in the spirit of hoping for full disclosure, and leave the matter (and the other readers of this forum, in peace?

NCLH announced months ago in an SEC filing that they were reducing non-fuel costs by 15% - fully disclosed.

Whatever they are doing, it is working. Costs are down 19% as part of their cost-cutting initiative as per earnings release a few minutes ago. At this rate, they will become profitable again in the next 3 - 6 months.

A poster claimed Regent was "making up an excuse" to skip ports to travel more slowly to save money.... Fraud is defined as wrongful...deception intended to result in financial...gain. I don't see how calling something by its name differs from calling it by its definition but perhaps others have a different set of rules they live by.

If Regent intentionally changed or cancelled ports with prior notice and intent and withheld said information from guests and blamed it falsely on weather or something "out of their control" in the hopes of profiting from this action it would be called what then? My point being there simply isn't enough data to assume the above.....no matter if you call it by it's name or simply its definition.

Yes....exactly like I said. Other people are making the accusations and I am saying they are accusing Regent of fraud. When they state Regent is knowingly deceiving guests for money that is fraud.....and it is too strong a word for what the facts indicate. I stand by these comments as I do not believe it is the case.

I didn't suggest fraud.....I am questioning the leaps others are making with their comments and conclusions. However, if Regent is screwing people over they deserve whatever they get. PS - I have no idea what "virtue signaling" even is.

I was making fun of flat-earthers and contrail conspiracy theorists...not people here as no one here has identified as such. I simply don't see facts that indicate Regent is lying or committing fraud. They have provided information that some people do not believe and they have refused to provide as much information as some people would like....neither is lying or committing fraud.

Where are the flat-earthers and the contrail conspiracy people?

There is a lot of pressure for cruise ships to shut down and take port power while in port but not all are able to do so. It is possible that the ones that cannot, must limit their visits in certain ports.

I see this across the board on all major cruise lines. I think they would lose more than they would save by forfeiting the port fees just to save a bit of fuel......plus the PR risk is off the chart. The math doesn't add up. To be clear, shaving an hour off a port to once in a while is a coincidence...shaving it off most runs is evidence. I will find out.

Anything at or above 175% earns double nights... *Single guests earn double nights when traveling at 175% or higher single supplement" https://www.rssc.com/seven-seas-society

And you will get twice the nights credited to your RSS account.

This is basically accusing NCLH of fraud....by cancelling ports with no reason and not telling the guests, eating the port charges, and hoping to make up that lost cost in reduced fuel savings. You feel this is the most likely scenario?

In order to save money by "skipping ports" they would need to cancel the port with enough notice (months) that they get their money back for the port reservation. However, if you look on the port schedules for the ports, the ships are still scheduled to dock. So if they are NOT cancelling and recovering their money, how are they saving money?

I an not sure which rep you saw - but if you are in GA, it was probably either K.R. or L.T. (depending on your TA's agency). I have worked with both. Mike left the end of January and has not yet updated his Linkedin profile but I certainly wish him the best - he is a great guy. If it makes any difference, my experiences indicate that all cruise lines are still having issues Post Covid for a variety of reasons. Even Viking is seeking financing to cover debt and now, this just in, seeks an IPO to raise additional money. Viking Holdings files confidential draft for IPO 01:47 PM | Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. (NCLH) | By: Amy Thielen, SA News Editor Viking Holdings Ltd. confirmed on Friday that it has filed a confidential draft registration with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for an initial public offering. The number of shares to be offered has not yet been determined. The cruise operator has reportedly engaged Bank of America (BAC), J.P. Morgan (JPM), UBS Group (UBS), and Well Fargo (WFC) as advisors, according to Bloomberg. The offering could be conducted as early as Q2 this year. Viking Cruises, based in Basel, Switzerland, provides river, ocean, and expedition cruises under three divisions. The company was founded in 1997 in St. Petersburg, Russia by Torstein Hagen. The company has raised $1B in funding over two rounds, the most recent $500M from private equity firm TPG and the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board. More on CCL Industries Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, etc. CCL Industries Inc. (CCDBF) Q4 2023 Earnings Call Transcript CCL Industries Inc. 2023 Q4 - Results - Earnings Call Presentation Royal Caribbean: Blowing Past Base Case Royal Caribbean Cruises prices upsized notes offering of $1.25B Royal Caribbean Cruises added as new long idea at Hedgeye