HappyInVan

Whatever the HAL website might say, it could be very different by the time of embarkation! 😷

Not me!

+1. It would be the moral thing to do, particularly since flu and RSV are circulating at the same time. It is unfortunate that the cruise industry chooses to drop all protocols, and hit the pax with masks and tests when they sail. 😒

Thanks for the report. Wow! Six days in and still testing. Not good. The numbers must be very bad. In addition, another thread reported that tests required onboard the Miami-Buenos Aires voyage.

Yes please! 👏 Thanks very much for your reporting. Its good to know the good and bad. I might be taking the same voyage!

IMO, the uneven experiences are to be expected. There's been a lot of disruptions over the last two years. The cruise industry needs several months to recruit and train staff. As the health protocols had only began to ease in September, I would expect the ships to have full crews by spring. Enjoy your cruises. For me, its about the destination.

Phew! I was on three HAL cruises this year. I resisted the temptation for a rub down. Who on earth would pay these prices?

Sounds like that's all the supplier could source at the price point of the HAL contract. Will only get worse as new contracts have to be negotiated. Compare that to the price point of the Caribbean sailings. Starting at less than C$100/nite per person. Excess capacity will only get worse as new ships (delayed during the pandemic) join the fleet.

Grasp!!! Mandatory testing onboard! 😒 Thanks for the info. Looks like I'll have to be extra careful prior to embarkation.

Ships might save a lot of fuel by travelling at half speed, but I doubt that's the reason the port was cancelled. That said, I would agree that it is annoying when several ports are cancelled/changed on a voyage. IMO, the ship operators should be able to announce the changes before embarkation.

That's $199/pp for a seven day cruise???? Its a steal, even for an obstructed balcony. You can call them and confirm the exact stateroom. Have a deck plan of the ship ready. Bon Voyage!

Very sorry to hear that. This is what happened to me with another line. I was waiting for a refund for an unacceptable length of time. Me (again): “What happened to my refund?” Them: “Sorry. Has not been processed. We could query the accounting department. They are so busy!” Me: “Sigh! Please query them! BTW, I would like to cancel the booking for my next cruise, and get my deposit back. Thanks!” Lo and Behold! I get a $4k credit to my credit card within a week.

Probably cost cutting. Requires fewer servers. Possibly caused by staff shortage due to covid?.

Sorry to hear that it happened to you. Hope that all works out okay'

Loans taken out on an aircraft or ship are often directly secured against the asset. For example, aircraft leases may be secured at LIBOR+ rates. Far cheaper than a business loan (prime+) to the company . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_lease There is substantial legal and underwriting cost involved in this arrangement. So, only used for very large ticket items. Like house mortgages, the borrower has to provide some degree of margin. It is possible that companies in distress (like CCL) may receive onerous terms. After all, there is a world wide glut of cruise ships.

What concerns me is the amount of budgeted capital outlay for CCL. Just for the Newbuild Capital Expenditures $4.3b (2022), $2.6b (2023). See Page 21 of the 2021 Annual Report. https://www.carnivalcorp.com/static-files/fe45aec4-02e8-4aaa-9ff2-308ec21a488b This adds a lot of capacity into an ongoing pandemic. Can they actually get a mortgage at less than junk bond rates?

+1 That's what happens when you have too many ships and too much excess capacity.

I don't see the point of speculating about when the facilities re-open. We have to wait until the storm's landfall (Thursday 1am) and the extend of damage?

Its an adventure!

Heads up CVM (the company) has closed. The easiest access to an official antigen test may be LifeLab's facility at Russ Baker Way. In Ontario, Lifelab does online verification.

Unfortunately, it is what it is. With excess capacity, CCL fills its ships at bargain basement prices. For example, Hal's Statendam in the Caribbean is still selling November departures, at less than $100/nite pp. That's a crazy price. The customer recovers the cost just with a room service breakfast, full dinner in the Dining Room, and hogging a recliner at the pool. CCL has to cut costs as inflation rages. IMHO, a new range of cost cutting in the new year, as new logistic contracts go into effect.

Usually, big ticket investments (airliners and vessels) are placed in subsidiaries with just one asset. This allows the mortgage lender to quickly seize the asset without getting involved in the parent company's legal issues. IMHO, it is significant that they have placed 12 ships in one subsidiary. This (plus the high interest rate) would explain the loan's popularity. Look at it from the POV of new players. Capturing the parent conglomerate would take a lot of time, expense, cost and uncertainty. In the event of the worst case occuring, there would be a hole in the industry. A new player could immediately start with 12 'clean' ships. Build a brand with industry veterans, or just purchase a brand with or without the ships. As long as there is demand, there will be suppliers. We will still be cruising.

Leave it to the corporate finance experts. They're smart, numerate and have access to the numbers. What's the endgame? Rather than take part in a restructuring of the CCL group, a long term and messy project. The lenders are financing the subsidiary and helping to pay down the original mortgage. In a default, they could simply put the subsidiary into restructuring. White Knight shows up with just a couple of billion, reassures the mortgage lenders, pays off the senior lenders. Easy peasy. Compared to a takeover of the entire group, which requires consensus among the senior lenders, go through the courts, pay a premium to the existing shareholders etc. Yes, the smart sharks are circling.

I'm sure that the lenders and bankers have taken this into account. To ensure that there is enough cushion for themselves.

That's not good news. Means that the lenders would prefer to foreclose and sell the subsidiary than to restructure CCL. Makes sense. The subsidiary would have Carnival's newest and best ships at bargain prices. They'll not need to wade through CCL's complexity and legacy issues. The problem for CCL and it's brands is that once this happens, it will have a cascade effect!