The Cruise Experience is changing!...

[time4u2go]

Having managed ships for the luxury lines for many years, I do not BELIEVE they are losing money.

I KNOW they are losing money.

 

There's obviously no way you could know this for every single luxury cruise line. In any event, calliopecruiser's answer above has proven you to be incorrect. Thank you for your opinion.

Edited September 7, 2014 by time4u2go

[time4u2go]

The only thing I believe is that you need to do your own research to get the answers you seek. I will not do that for you.

 

Why would you ask me that question when you won't accept what I have already told you?

 

Never mind answering, because I won't respond to any more of your nonsense.

 

Your non-answer speaks for itself.

[big al]

When we started cruising in 1990 on the "new" Carnival Fantasy, it was a wonderful experience...there was ONE dining room with 2 times- 6 PM or 8:30 seating..my ex & I sat at a table with 2 other couples. We were 38 & 30 at the time..the older couple were arguing ALL the time, and the wife kept saying to him,"act like a human being, act like a human being!"..apparently the growchy husband had a knack of saying inappropriate things in public..this went on for all 4 nights- so much for enjoying dinner table mates..our next cruise in '96 was on RCI's Majesty Of The Seas...I was re-married to a Latin gal and and we've now cruised 29 times ( # 30 Oasis next month ) on RCI, Disney, Carnival,NCL, Princess, HAL & Celebrity. I am also a cruise agent and have seen the changes since 24 years ago...

 

Here's the thing guys & gals: Cruising certainly has changed- ships have gone from 50-70,000 tons to 140-225,000 tons..from 1500-2000 passengers to 6000+..from ONE dining room with 2 set times to 20+ dining options at any, or all times...from 5-6 bars & lounges to 15-20......from NO kids areas to separate kid's pools, video arcade areas, teen lounges, etc..from NO balconies ( virtually) to the mid 90's when ships started introducing balconies & suites...there are a lot of other perqs that ships started as we headed into the 21st century, but no need to go into all of them, especially IF you have cruised several cruise lines like us..

 

I believe ALL of this was done to lure ONE group of people- THE FAMILY..for a long time, cruising was really for adults..I did 12 Transatlantics as a kid from 1957-67, because my mother's side lived in Europe and she wouldn't fly- so we took TA's from NY..the SS United States, Queen Mary & Elizabeth, Constitution, Independence, Raffaelo, Michelangelo, and more..point being I remember there was NOTHING to do on those 5 nights across the Atlantic for kids/teens..play ping-pong? A movie? Run around the ship? Now, look at what the cruise lines have done for kids & families: slides, zip-lines, rock climbing, flowriders, full court basketball, mini golf, tennis, video arcade rooms, teen rooms & discos, 3-D movies, computer rooms, and much more, right? I am SURE one of the main reasons cruise lines like RCI, NCL & Carnival & even Disney started building bigger ships to ATTRACT families, and NOT just the upper income couple or solo traveller ..in doing so, yes, they were making more $$...

 

In summary, I still believe there are ships & cruises for ALMOST everyone-solo or big family, rich or poor/ middle income, small ship experience or Mega ships, lots of dining options ( NCL & RCI) to fewer more traditional ( HAL, Carnival,Princess,Celebrity) to rotation dining ( Disney) ,from inside cabins at 120 SF to suites & penthouses at 1000+ SF ...has food quality gone down hill? THAT is subjective, like all food questions are..has service gone down hill? We don't see that..the last 3 cruises we 've been on , The Disney Dream & RCI Liberty of The Seas & Allure of The Seas, ALL had exceptional service..a big part of it is- if you go to a Holiday Inn, don't expect a Ritz Carlton experience..if you go to Friday's, or the Outback, or Olive Garden, don't expect Ruth Chris, or Morton's...for that, there's Seabourn, Crystal, Oceania, etc., where you pay $500-800+ PP for a 7 night cruise for 2, instead of an average of $ 100-300 PP depending on cabin, & time of year...I still think cruising is a great deal, especially when you can great offers that include OBC or 1/2 price 2nd passenger, etc..For me, I like the newer, bigger ships, because I Like OPTIONS- dining options, cabin options, show options, etc..and we don't go on cruises to eat or meet waiters or dine with strangers..we LOVE being at sea, chillin' at the pool or on a beach on a tropical island, sitting on our verandah & watching the wonders of the sea ( read my thread on "cabin selection tips" called "Thanks cruise ship balcony", over 24,000 views!) , going to dinner, then going to a show, or singing at the piano bar or in the British Pub..we always seem to find something to do or see..and remember- a bad day on a cruise is ALWAYS better than a good day at work!!

 

Big Al

Still Cruisin' After All These Years

[jayblue]

No disagreement necessary.

 

A 1,500 passenger cruise ship cannot possibly make a profit - at any price point.

 

My question is: Are there any 1,500 passenger cruise ships left?

 

I will use Majesty of the Seas as an example, as I am familiar with it. When I first started cruising, this was a mega ship! RCI did have smaller ships in its fleet, but those have all since been transferred, sold, or retired. Majesty is now the smallest ship in its fleet.

 

I'm not into profits or things like that (that's for corporate shareholders to worry about), but how many people are actually seeking a ship that holds this number of people these days? If they are, it is like because they are taking a destination-based cruise, rather than amenity-based.

[Texas Tillie]

My question is: Are there any 1,500 passenger cruise ships left?

 

HAL has several ships under 1500 passengers -Statendam, Maasdam, Ryndam, Volendam, Zaandam, and some others I'm not remembering.

[navybankerteacher]

No disagreement necessary.

Yes, the passengers on both types of vessels are looking for similar products.

But the operators are looking at two completely different operations.

 

A 1,500 passenger cruise ship cannot possibly make a profit - at any price point.

A 500 passenger river boat can be very successful.

 

I have not managed cruise ships as you have, but I have managed businesses.

 

I must point out that your absolute contention that : "A 1,500 passenger cruise ship cannot possibly make a profit - at any price point" is simply absurd.

 

It may be difficult to compete - but at a price point where revenue exceeds cost will result in profit. Perhaps you mean in the competitive environment which currently exists.

[celebrity]

I have not managed cruise ships as you have, but I have managed businesses.

 

I must point out that your absolute contention that : "A 1,500 passenger cruise ship cannot possibly make a profit - at any price point" is simply absurd.

 

It may be difficult to compete - but at a price point where revenue exceeds cost will result in profit. Perhaps you mean in the competitive environment which currently exists.

 

Well said!

[jayblue]

HAL has several ships under 1500 passengers -Statendam, Maasdam, Ryndam, Volendam, Zaandam, and some others I'm not remembering.

 

Thank you. They are owned by Carnival, I believe? Well, despite it's recent history, Carnival hasn't suffered any great loss keeping their ships afloat. Possibly because they target a specific cruiser?

[MrsPete]

Having managed ships for the luxury lines for many years, I do not BELIEVE they are losing money.

I KNOW they are losing money.

Anyone who understands Business 101 also knows that no company is able to keep its doors open (or its ships sailing) if it's losing money.

 

Your comment might mean that they're losing money on the cruise ticket, but they're making it up on extras (alcohol, excursions, casino), but they simply cannot be losing overall.

[PennyAgain]

The luxury class ships, Crystal etc, seem to be doing OK even now that many are either All Inclusive or Semi-inclusive. Still plenty of upgrades and tours to buy. But the days of bargain cruises on the mass market ships seem to be gone.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[swedish weave]

The following list presents a question that has been posed on this thread quite a few times. How many people knew these lines were bankrupt, or losing money before they folded, merged, or were sold ??

 

Shipping lines no longer operating cruise ships[edit]Name Status Headquarters Notes

Blue Star Line No Ships so far, Getting The Next One in 2016 England Owner of the Liner "Titanic 2" coming in 2016

Club Cruise No longer operates cruise ships Netherlands Continues to charter cruise ships to other companies

EasyCruise No ships in operation. Greece

Far East Shipping Company No longer operates cruise ships Soviet Union

Finnlines No longer operates cruise ships Finland

Ocean Star Cruises No ships in operation. Mexico MV Ocean Star Pacific laid up, as of 2012.

Silja Line No longer operates cruise ships Finland

 

Defunct[edit]Name Status Headquarters Notes

American Classic Voyages Defunct USA Bankruptcy

Baltic Shipping Company Defunct Soviet Union

Black Sea Shipping Company Defunct Soviet Union

Chandris Cruises Defunct Greece Was merged and re-branded into Celebrity Cruises in 1988

Classic International Cruises Defunct Australia Liquidated on 20 December 2012[1]

Commodore Cruise Line Defunct USA

Crown Cruise Line Defunct Unknown

Cruise West Defunct USA Ceased operations September 18, 2010

Dolphin Cruise Line Defunct Greece Merged into Premier Cruise Line

Effoa Defunct Finland

Festival Cruises Defunct Greece

Hamburg Atlantic Line

German Atlantic Line

Hanseatic Tours Defunct Germany Merged into Hapag-Lloyd Cruises

Home Lines Defunct Italy Merged into Holland America Line

Imperial Majesty Cruise Line Defunct USA Became Celebration Cruise Line in 2009.

Island Cruises Defunct UK

Italian Line / Italian Cruises Defunct Italy

Majesty Cruise Line Defunct Unknown Merged into Norwegian Cruise Line

Norwegian America Line Defunct Norway Merged into Cunard Line

Norwegian Capricorn Line Defunct Australia Merged into Star Cruises

Ocean Village Defunct United Kingdom Operations ceased in 2010.

Orient Lines Defunct USA

Premier Cruise Line Defunct USA

Renaissance Cruises Defunct USA Merged into Oceania Cruises

Royal Viking Line Defunct Norway Merged into Cunard Line

Sally Cruise Defunct Finland Merged into Silja Line

Shaw, Savill & Albion Line Defunct United Kingdom

Sitmar Cruises Defunct Italy Merged into P&O Cruises/Princess Cruises

Swedish American Line Defunct Sweden

Van Gogh Cruises Defunct United Kingdom

White Star Line Defunct United Kingdom Merged with Cunard Line

Windjammer Barefoot Cruises Defunct USA

[swedish weave]

Anyone who understands Business 101 also knows that no company is able to keep its doors open (or its ships sailing) if it's losing money.

 

Your comment might mean that they're losing money on the cruise ticket, but they're making it up on extras (alcohol, excursions, casino), but they simply cannot be losing overall.

 

Many companies remain in operation although they lose money for many years. The link below describes the history of Renaissance Cruises. Pay particular attention to the paragraph titled "The cruise lines demise".

 

http://cruises.answers.com/cruise-lines/the-history-and-life-cycle-of-renaissance-cruises

[sail7seas]

HAL has several ships under 1500 passengers -Statendam, Maasdam, Ryndam, Volendam, Zaandam, and some others I'm not remembering.

 

 

 

Those HAL ships named here have a very loyal following.

HAL has announced two will be leaving the HAL fleet and are being transferred within Carnival Corporation (which owns the Carnival Family of Ships). Statendam and Ryndam are being transferred down under to P & O.

HAL's newest ship under construction at Fincantieri in Italy will be Pinnacle Class of ships and will be 99,000 ton. HAL had promised to stay below 100,000 ton and it appears they are doing just that.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2014 by sail7seas

[calliopecruiser]

Anyone who understands Business 101 also knows that no company is able to keep its doors open (or its ships sailing) if it's losing money.

 

Well, yeah, they can - at least for a goodly number of years. They can do it if the cruise part of the business is being propped up by another part of the business (i.e. stealing from Peter to pay Paul) or they can do it by continuing to borrow money based on hopes of a turnaround. Many companies go for years in a continuing negative balance.

 

That said, the numbers for publicly traded companies are public and relatively easy to get, and as the marketplace and competitive environment changes, so will the fortunes of different models of cruise business.

 

To look at a company that has been operating for decades with virtually no profit, look no further than Amazon, which brings in a lot of income, but also spends as much (and sometimes more) than they bring in. And they have for decades.

Edited September 7, 2014 by calliopecruiser
added Amazon info

[time4u2go]

The following list presents a question that has been posed on this thread quite a few times. How many people knew these lines were bankrupt, or losing money before they folded, merged, or were sold ??

...

 

Listing these companies doesn't prove that no luxury cruise lines are profitable.

[BruceMuzz]

I have not managed cruise ships as you have, but I have managed businesses.

 

I must point out that your absolute contention that : "A 1,500 passenger cruise ship cannot possibly make a profit - at any price point" is simply absurd.

 

It may be difficult to compete - but at a price point where revenue exceeds cost will result in profit. Perhaps you mean in the competitive environment which currently exists.

 

Please look at it this way.

I managed ships for Seabourn for many years.

At the time we were charging a base fare of US$1200 per person per day.

We were also bleeding money.

At those prices we could not fill the ships.

 

But if we had been able to fill the ships at $1200 per person per day, we still would be operating at a loss.

 

So our Sales and Marketing people decided to start discounting in order to attract more passengers. On selected itineraries, you could book passage on Seabourn for around US$800 per day.

Occupancy picked up a bit, but so did our operating losses.

 

We did some internal studies that showed the possibility of making a profit if we charged a base fare over $3,500 per person per day - with a full ship.

We all know that is an impossible situation. Or to use your term - absurd. Something like that is not going to happen in any environment - competitive or otherwise.

 

So which price point is going to generate a profit for Seabourn?

 

$800 per day which helps to fill the ship but increases operating losses?

$1200 per day which leaves the ship half empty and increases operating losses?

$2000 per day which leaves the ship completely empty, further increasing losses?

 

If you can name a price point that will generate higher revenues than costs for Seabourn, you are going to have a very rosy and lucrative future with them.

Edited September 7, 2014 by BruceMuzz

[grand isle joe]

.......paging Jethro Bodine.......paging Jerthro Bodine.........I need some "deciferinn".........:eek::D

[navybankerteacher]

Please look at it this way.

I managed ships for Seabourn for many years.

At the time we were charging a base fare of US$1200 per person per day.

We were also bleeding money.

At those prices we could not fill the ships.

 

But if we had been able to fill the ships at $1200 per person per day, we still would be operating at a loss.

 

So our Sales and Marketing people decided to start discounting in order to attract more passengers. On selected itineraries, you could book passage on Seabourn for around US$800 per day.

Occupancy picked up a bit, but so did our operating losses.

 

We did some internal studies that showed the possibility of making a profit if we charged a base fare over $3,500 per person per day - with a full ship.

We all know that is an impossible situation. Or to use your term - absurd. Something like that is not going to happen in any environment - competitive or otherwise.

 

So which price point is going to generate a profit for Seabourn?

 

$800 per day which helps to fill the ship but increases operating losses?

$1200 per day which leaves the ship half empty and increases operating losses?

$2000 per day which leaves the ship completely empty, further increasing losses?

 

If you can name a price point that will generate higher revenues than costs for Seabourn, you are going to have a very rosy and lucrative future with them.

 

Perhaps Seabourn was not creatively managed. I am not going to try to dispute your specific figures - but I do find that the conclusion you take them to strains credibility.

 

The fact that NCL purchase Oceania indicates that they seem to believe that there is a way to operate that size ship profitably - the fleet being two ships of less than 1300 pax and three of less than 900.

 

I seriously doubt that NCL would have made their decision to unthinkingly buy a guaranteed money losing operation.

[dancinman66]

Only the high end cruise ships are 1000 to 1500 passengers now

All the main stream ones are well over 2000 now

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Texas Tillie]

Only the high end cruise ships are 1000 to 1500 passengers now

All the main stream ones are well over 2000 now

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Holland America certainly does have a number of ships under 1500 passengers.

[sail7seas]

Only the high end cruise ships are 1000 to 1500 passengers now

All the main stream ones are well over 2000 now

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

 

That isn't accurate.

 

Statendam, Maasdam, Ryndam and Veendam all carry in the range of 1,250 - 1,300 guests. Zaandam, Voldendam, Amsterdam and Rotterdam all carry under 1,500 guests.

 

I don't think those are the ships you mean by 'high end' though they are lovely ships.. :)

 

[BruceMuzz]

Perhaps Seabourn was not creatively managed. I am not going to try to dispute your specific figures - but I do find that the conclusion you take them to strains credibility.

 

The fact that NCL purchase Oceania indicates that they seem to believe that there is a way to operate that size ship profitably - the fleet being two ships of less than 1300 pax and three of less than 900.

 

I seriously doubt that NCL would have made their decision to unthinkingly buy a guaranteed money losing operation.

 

Seabourn has lost money every day since the company started many, many years ago.

Mickey Arison unthinkingly bought this guaranteed money losing operation quite some time ago, continued to lose big money on it, and transferred it to HAL, where it continues to lose big money.

Some people have big wallets, and even bigger egos.

 

If the three smaller and older (and lovely) Seabourn ships stood any chance to make any profit, HAL would not have sold them off.

The same thing happened earlier with Windstar. Those small and lovely ships could not possibly make a profit for HAL, and were finally disposed of.

[sail7seas]

Seabourn has lost money every day since the company started many, many years ago.

Mickey Arison unthinkingly bought this guaranteed money losing operation quite some time ago, continued to lose big money on it, and transferred it to HAL, where it continues to lose big money.

Some people have big wallets, and even bigger egos.

 

If the three smaller and older (and lovely) Seabourn ships stood any chance to make any profit, HAL would not have sold them off.

The same thing happened earlier with Windstar. Those small and lovely ships could not possibly make a profit for HAL, and were finally disposed of.

 

 

 

Yet, all these many years later and despite severe financial problems, Windstar ships are still sailing. :)

 

[navybankerteacher]

Seabourn has lost money every day since the company started many, many years ago.

Mickey Arison unthinkingly bought this guaranteed money losing operation quite some time ago, continued to lose big money on it, and transferred it to HAL, where it continues to lose big money.

Some people have big wallets, and even bigger egos.

 

If the three smaller and older (and lovely) Seabourn ships stood any chance to make any profit, HAL would not have sold them off.

The same thing happened earlier with Windstar. Those small and lovely ships could not possibly make a profit for HAL, and were finally disposed of.

 

Back to my original response to your statement that a 1,500 passenger ship could never be operated profitably at any price point: while the "yachts of Seabourn" might have been very difficult to operate profitably (but might not have been as impossible as you contend) that hardly translates to a full size 1,500 passenger ship.

 

Referring to Porter's "Competitive Advantage" a 1,500 passenger ship might not be able to compete successfully by relying on cost advantage - but it might very well be able to successfully compete on the basis of differentiation. The experience of an operator of 500 passenger and less ships does not in any way necessarily apply to vessels the size of HAL's R and S classes.

[swedish weave]

Seabourn has lost money every day since the company started many, many years ago.

Mickey Arison unthinkingly bought this guaranteed money losing operation quite some time ago, continued to lose big money on it, and transferred it to HAL, where it continues to lose big money.

Some people have big wallets, and even bigger egos.

 

If the three smaller and older (and lovely) Seabourn ships stood any chance to make any profit, HAL would not have sold them off.

The same thing happened earlier with Windstar. Those small and lovely ships could not possibly make a profit for HAL, and were finally disposed of.

 

Bruce --- Could this possibly be a similar scenario whereby Apollo is transferring a money losing entity to NCL.

 

Frank Del Rio was CEO of Renassance cruises until he was fired shortly before they went bankrupt, and left many investors credit card companies and travel agents holding the bag. He and another person from Alamo car rental bought some of the Renassance ships and formed the company that NCL recently bought. Since Apollo acquired that company and sold it to NCL, it raises some concerns about the deal.

 

A quick look at the Apollo board of directors shows some interesting info about the history of the members.

Edited September 8, 2014 by swedish weave