Texan1636

I did post a reply to your question - see post #20 above. As you did not acknowledge, it’s possible you did not see it.

I somehow DID miss this. I apologize, but thank you for responding!

Would this stop you going on a cruise if there was no self service laundry on a ship

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

It would be a consideration. It probably wouldn't stop us from booking the cruise, unless there was a similar itinerary on a Regent ship or another Seabourn ship that has self service laundry.

Can any of you on board Ovation confirm whether there is a self-service laundry on Deck 5 (forward from the back stairs), as is now the case on Encore? Thanks.

Will Ovation have the same?

We cancelled a booked cruise on the Explorer after reading a similar thread a few weeks ago and after corresponding with some posters who had been on the Explorer. Due to job demands, I have to be confident that the internet will work when I need it.

I was (am) in the same situation as you - if you send me an email, I will be happy to go into detail with regard to what I needed to do and the problems that I (and others) ran into - hope this helps you out.

 

gnomie :)

Thanks! Gnomie, I sent you an email.

We are considering the Explorer for a Caribbean itinerary in March. However, I have read some reviews and comments indicating that the internet service can be extremely slow and unreliable, possibly due to the "free internet" policy saturating the available bandwidth.

I need to be in reliable contact with my office and be able to pull up documents, etc. from email upon short notice. If the problem is as I have read in some threads, then I'm afraid it is a deal-killer for us. We have cruised Seabourn recently and found the internet connectivity to be manageable, as people have to pay for access.

If anyone has direct experience with the internet service on the Explorer specifically, I would appreciate hearing about it.

We are mainly Regent cruisers (as you can see from cruises below), but here is a link to our prior review of a great Seabourn Norway cruise we took in 2011 on the Sojourn. There were things that we liked better about Regent and things we liked better about Seabourn, but I think a Norway itinerary (with small ports in fjords, etc.) is a great itinerary for a slightly smaller Seabourn ship (as compared to Voyager or Mariner).

We would gladly cruise Seabourn again for the right itinerary (and only on one of their newer ships).

http://www.cruisecritic.com/memberreviews/memberreview.cfm?EntryID=87128

I assume you realize that the buyer and seller are both controlled by Apollo. Although Apollo currently owns only 20% of the outstanding NCLH shares they still control the NCLH board by reason of the agreement that was struck when they purchased 50% of NCL for $1 billion from Genting. After the sale of PCH closes, Apollo will actually own more of NCLH than it does now, since they will be receiving the lion's share, if not all, of the new NCLH shares that are being issued .

 

Yes, to satisfy regulations the deal had to be technically approved by a committee comprised of "independent" (non Apollo) NCLH directors (none of whom are public directors by the way...they are all affiliated with Apollo's partners Genting and TPG), but anyone who doesn't think that the "independent" committee wasn't by and large doing Apollo's bidding (and no doubt saw it as being to their own advantage to do so) is being seriously naive.

 

The deal was an easier way for Apollo to take PCH public and take some cash out of the deal quickly than the PCH IPO proposal they had already filed. They made clever use of the vehicle they already had in place and control, NCLH, and put lipstick on the pig by praising the synergies, etc.

 

This deal is so incestuous I have to wonder whether the SEC will have any questions about whether it has to be modified in some way to protect the interests of NCLH's general public shareholders.

Seriously?? So, let me make sure I understand. Why did the sellers protect in the merger agreement against the buyer "minimizing" profits in 2015 if I'm wrong?? And TPG just "caved-in" to approve a deal to benefit Apollo at the expense of TPG?? And the transaction committee of the Board (which was designed to protect every interest holder other than Apollo, and whose members have personal liability if they don't do that) hired and was represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore (the most prestigious corporate law firm in America), who just disregarded its duties and looked to benefit Apollo?? I don't think you've spent any time with David Bonderman, of TPG, if you believe any of that that for a nanosecond. I think this discussion is getting too esoteric for most of this cruise audience, but if you want to let me know your email, I will be happy to have a "corporate lawyer" discussion with you about the governance issues. NO Way that Texas Pacific Group (or Prestige or its other constituent interests) are getting screwed-over here to "assist" Apollo. I have no involvement in this transaction, but I have plenty of history with both Apollo and TPG (and others in similar situations).

Sorry, but you do not understand the deal. The transaction will close in Q4 with additional incentives for Prestige shareholders in 2015 after the deal closes if certain post deal conditions are met. Your rationale of "not too profitable in 2015" makes zero sense. I have not looked at the SEC docs and could be wrong but in these types of deals there are always incentives for the selling shareholders to maintain/improve certain key measures. NCL paid a premium, $50M is relatively small dollars for them vs the purchase price. But more so bigger dollars for Prestige shareholders, particularly Prestige executive officers. It's a bonus for them really and an incentive to ensure a smooth and profitable transition to maintain the brand.

I don'[t understand what you are saying. The buyer (NCL) will be operating the business all throughout 2015 (yes, they will likely keep existing management in place, but NCL will be making all decisions on budgets, etc.). That buyer will either (a) not have to pay an additional $50 million at the end of 2015 if things are not extremely profitable (measured by revenues reduced by, among other things, on-board expenses, as detailed in the merger agreement) or (b) have to pay an existing $50 million if the company exceeds certain profitability targets (I"m oversimplifying, as there is a formula, but $50 million is the maximum). For a buyer in this circumstance, the financial incentive is to not maximize profitability on a "book" basis in 2015, because they would have to give a significant chunk back to the sellers - they could sit on things (even improve the product) for a year to incentivize customers to book cruises in 2016 and following (the measurement period for the "earn-out" is only 2015, so improved profitability pushed from 2015 to 2016 flows right to the pocket of the buyer, not the seller). The $50 million payment requirement certainly doesn't make the buyer want to inflate profitability for 2015. Obviously, the sellers (and their lawyers) agree with me, as they put protective provisions in the merger agreement designed to deal with the exact buyer motivations that I'm describing - this is what I do for a living, by the way, and I've been opposite Apollo on numerous deals.

Figure it out, it can't. Currently there is a $50M carrot dangling in front of their noses to "significant increases in revenue" - that can only happen by either cutting expenses or increasing prices. Regent is now at a point where if they increase their prices any more, it will just turn off more customers so the only way to achieve this goal is to cut expenses. Remember - it is not what the paying passenger wants - it is what will increase the value of the stock.

 

That is the finance lesson of the day - now back to work.

 

gnomie :)

I don't understand how the obligation of the buyer (NCL, who will be operating Prestige in 2015) to potentially pay an additional $50 million can be seen as a "carrot." Actually, it's just the opposite - the financial incentive would be for NCL to be sure that Prestige is NOT too profitable in 2015 so that this money doesn't have to be paid to the sellers. In fact, if you pull the merger agreement from the SEC website, you see that the sellers were concerned about this and included language to attempt to force NCL to operate the business in the same way in 2015 as it has been operated previously.

Great, thanks to all of you!

I appreciate all the hotel input. Thanks to all!

We will be stopping in Civatevecchia for a day on our Mariner Barcelona to Venice cruise this summer. We spent time in Rome 2 years ago, so we were thinking about doing something different that day and sign up for the Italian Countryside and Catacombs excursion. It looks like a very long day (9 hours), but I'm curious whether anyone here has taken that excursion and, if so, whether it would be recommended. Thanks!

We are sailing on the May 29 Mariner cruise out of Barcelona and are trying to decide between the Mandarin Oriental and the Hotel Arts (which we understand is managed by Ritz Carlton) for our stay the night before departure. Any thoughts would be appreciated. I note that the Hotel Arts appears to be right by the cruise terminal, but I assume it's not walking distance with luggage - I wonder whether taxi drivers would be upset if we go such a short distance.

The Form S-1 just filed by Prestige for its proposed IPO gives some details that I had not previously seen regarding the new Seven Seas Explorer. The filing includes a comparison chart of the features of each Regent and Oceania ship. It indicates that the gross tonage of the Explorer will be 67,000 tons (13,000 tons larger than the 54,000 tons indicated in the July press release announcing the construction of the ship).

The filing also indicates that the ship will accomodate 750 berths. This is up slightly from the 738 berths indicated in the July press release, but given the increase in tonnage, this is a pretty insignificant increase in berths. The filing states that the space ratio will be a whopping 89.33 per passanger (as compared to 60.52 on Voyager, 68.68 on Mariner and 58.78 on Navigator) and that the crew-to guest ratio will be 1:1.4, as compared to 1:1.6 on the Voyager and Mariner.

We are looking forward to sailing her!