NCL stock down on mixed earnings results.

[swedish weave]

Here are some facts and figures that may impact the performance of NCLH now and in the future.

 

The "purchase" of Regent and Oceania involved NCLH absorbing over two and a half billion in debt that was accrued by these two lines since their origin. Note that Del Rio started Oceania with leased ships and about 18 to 24 million dollars after the demise of Renaissance in 2001 or 2002.

 

The new ships NCL has in service or on order cost approximately 900 million each and the payback is on a six year contract with payments of approximately 75 million every six months for each of the ships.

 

The "free" booking bonuses started with them actually being included with no extra costs, and some of those deals are still pending for cruisers who booked over a year ahead. The true impact of the booking bonuses will not show up for some time.

 

NCLH instituted a stock buyback program to help prop up the stock price and I am not up to date on the progress of that.

 

Genting was a major investor in NCL until the shakeup of the board of directors which resulted in Genting beginning a program of relinquishing their positions on the board and reducing their exposure by selling some if not all of their holdings in NCLH.

 

All of these items can and will impact the financial condition of NCLH for several years, so the current decline in the stock price is troublesome and may be an indicator of things to come.

Edited August 28, 2016 by swedish weave

[NLH Arizona]

That information must be from the 10k which is comparing 2015 to FY2014.

 

Now for those two years your have

 

2014 tickets 69.6 On Board 30.4%

2015 tickets 72% On Board 28%

 

If you look at the most recent 10Q filings for Q1 and Q2 you see that they have returned to the 2014 range

 

2016 Q1 Tickets 68.7 On Board 31.3

2015 Q1 Tickets 71.5 On Board 28.5

 

2016 Q2 Tickets 69 On Board 31.0%

2015 Q2 Tickets 72.6 On Board 27.4%

 

So the more recent 10Q data shows that they have returned to the 2014 range in their ratio of revenue from on board sales vs ticket sales.

 

I have not gone through and looked to see if the special deals including drink packages or other on board spend reductions have increased or decreased in 2016 vs 2015 vs 2014. I do not cruise on NCL very often, but someone that checks fares frequently might have an opinion on the rate of those offers.

Thank you for continuing to explain all the ins and outs with your expertise and knowledge. If you wouldn't be on here posting, I don't think a lot of us would understand the real deal as far as NCL and their stock pricing. Thanks again.

[sparks1093]

You might feel that charging for room service is a major shift in the way that the company perceives and treats its customers, but that doesn't mean that everyone feels the same. I don't see charging for room service as treating their customers badly, but that is my opinion and I would guess many others opinion as well, because we don't use room service, so it really doesn't change our perception and is a non-issue.

 

With regard to your poll, you are talking about 91 poster who voted that NCL has gotten worse since Mr. Del Rio, which is not even a good representation of passengers who cruise on NCL that are members of Cruise Critic. And being that only 166 of all the NCL posters on Cruise Critic voted, I don't see anything to be worrisome about, because the low numbers don't seem to be relevant.

 

I certainly understand your negative feelings toward NCL and accept that you have that opinion, but you have to realize that not everyone shares the same opinions.

 

I should have made it clearer that all of the changes made by NCL since Del Rio has taken over represent a change in the way NCL perceives its customers and as far as treatment goes I don't mean that NCL is treating customers bad, but rather the customer is no longer first in NCL's thinking. I am not for a minute suggesting that everyone is going to share this view because there are many who are having a good to great experience with NCL, but my poll does show that many of those who have sailed pre and post Del Rio have noticed a decline in the onboard experience. I don't have negative feelings toward NCL, although I do have some negative thoughts about the way Del Rio has managed things since taking over. Only time will tell if Del Rio is going to be good for NCL or not and whether this will all be a success or not.

[NLH Arizona]

I should have made it clearer that all of the changes made by NCL since Del Rio has taken over represent a change in the way NCL perceives its customers and as far as treatment goes I don't mean that NCL is treating customers bad, but rather the customer is no longer first in NCL's thinking. I am not for a minute suggesting that everyone is going to share this view because there are many who are having a good to great experience with NCL, but my poll does show that many of those who have sailed pre and post Del Rio have noticed a decline in the onboard experience. I don't have negative feelings toward NCL, although I do have some negative thoughts about the way Del Rio has managed things since taking over. Only time will tell if Del Rio is going to be good for NCL or not and whether this will all be a success or not.

Thanks for the clarification on NCL treating customers badly. Time will tell, but I'm more optimistic than you and the other 90 posters (I wouldn't call it many, but a few) who feel things have gotten worse, since things are pretty much the same for me, as none of the changes really affected my cruising experience on NCL. Hopefully, we will still be having this discussion years from now.

[RDC1]

I should have made it clearer that all of the changes made by NCL since Del Rio has taken over represent a change in the way NCL perceives its customers and as far as treatment goes I don't mean that NCL is treating customers bad, but rather the customer is no longer first in NCL's thinking. I am not for a minute suggesting that everyone is going to share this view because there are many who are having a good to great experience with NCL, but my poll does show that many of those who have sailed pre and post Del Rio have noticed a decline in the onboard experience. I don't have negative feelings toward NCL, although I do have some negative thoughts about the way Del Rio has managed things since taking over. Only time will tell if Del Rio is going to be good for NCL or not and whether this will all be a success or not.

 

One can go to each of the different boards and read people saying the same thing about each of the competitive lines. Bottom line is all of the cruise lines make and will continue to make changes in their business model. In the competitive environment in which they operate they are limited in their ability to raise prices. They also have to remain competitive. NCL has been a bit unique in that it has been the leader in non-traditional cruising. It has innovated a whole set of changes. Starting with all any time dining, then a wide range of added cost dining venues. NCL is aiming at younger demographics, basically non-traditional cruisers.

 

Some of the changes are consistent with their competition (some brands being added cost in drink packages), on board costs going up (read the Celebrity board on both of those issues).

 

Changes will continue to happen. Some will be innovative. Some will be in response to the competition. Some will be because their market research indicates that something is not important to the majority of their customers and can be eliminated to cut costs. For each of the changes there will be a reason.

 

When I first cruised Celebrity they used to get every passenger at boarding with a glass of champagne and lead them to their cabin. They certainly don't do that any more. My first cruise on NCL was before freestyle (Norwegian Sea) when they were one of the most traditional of the traditional cruise lines. They are certainly not that anymore. I certainly miss being able to shoot clay pigeons from the back of the ship. The main reason NCL is one of my less frequently cruised lines these days is not because of cost or most of the changes people are talking about here, but instead the over branding of "freestyle". I could have gone postal if I ever heard the phrase "NCL home of freestyle cruising" one more time after hearing 30 times each day over the PA system.

 

Just as with airlines, cruise lines have to grow and compete or go out of business. That competition means they have to become more economically efficient. They do that by increasing the number of ships improving their economies of scale, by reducing cost per passenger by using larger ships, by improving the efficiency of on board operations, by acquiring other cruise lines, etc. Then when and where the opportunity allows in this competitive environment they also raise prices. No surprise in any of this get efficient or get taken out.

 

Just as with airlines the cruise industry in littered with bankrupt cruise lines that are no longer around, as well as others that only continue to exist because they got absorbed into one of the remaining large companies.

 

 

You can rest assured that "CUSTOMERS" are foremost in their thinking. But that is customers as a group, not necessarily each individual customer.

Edited August 28, 2016 by RDC1

[pspercy]

I don't remember when FDR took over but friends who cruised with Oceania over the last several years have nothing but praise for them so FDR must've done something right !

[don't-use-real-name]

I don't remember when FDR took over but friends who cruised with Oceania over the last several years have nothing but praise for them so FDR must've done something right !

 

I subscribe to the Peter Principle !

FDR may have done well piloting a small cruise line but he is now in a league with "BIG" cruise ships and many of them !

[sparks1093]

One can go to each of the different boards and read people saying the same thing about each of the competitive lines. Bottom line is all of the cruise lines make and will continue to make changes in their business model. In the competitive environment in which they operate they are limited in their ability to raise prices. They also have to remain competitive. NCL has been a bit unique in that it has been the leader in non-traditional cruising. It has innovated a whole set of changes. Starting with all any time dining, then a wide range of added cost dining venues. NCL is aiming at younger demographics, basically non-traditional cruisers.

 

Some of the changes are consistent with their competition (some brands being added cost in drink packages), on board costs going up (read the Celebrity board on both of those issues).

 

Changes will continue to happen. Some will be innovative. Some will be in response to the competition. Some will be because their market research indicates that something is not important to the majority of their customers and can be eliminated to cut costs. For each of the changes there will be a reason.

 

When I first cruised Celebrity they used to get every passenger at boarding with a glass of champagne and lead them to their cabin. They certainly don't do that any more. My first cruise on NCL was before freestyle (Norwegian Sea) when they were one of the most traditional of the traditional cruise lines. They are certainly not that anymore. I certainly miss being able to shoot clay pigeons from the back of the ship. The main reason NCL is one of my less frequently cruised lines these days is not because of cost or most of the changes people are talking about here, but instead the over branding of "freestyle". I could have gone postal if I ever heard the phrase "NCL home of freestyle cruising" one more time after hearing 30 times each day over the PA system.

 

Just as with airlines, cruise lines have to grow and compete or go out of business. That competition means they have to become more economically efficient. They do that by increasing the number of ships improving their economies of scale, by reducing cost per passenger by using larger ships, by improving the efficiency of on board operations, by acquiring other cruise lines, etc. Then when and where the opportunity allows in this competitive environment they also raise prices. No surprise in any of this get efficient or get taken out.

 

Just as with airlines the cruise industry in littered with bankrupt cruise lines that are no longer around, as well as others that only continue to exist because they got absorbed into one of the remaining large companies.

 

 

You can rest assured that "CUSTOMERS" are foremost in their thinking. But that is customers as a group, not necessarily each individual customer.

 

Yes, I know, business has to change and evolve to survive. And every cruise line has made changes that haven't sat well with their customers. But what Del Rio is doing goes beyond that because he is trying to change the very nature of NCL itself. Even that isn't a bad thing, but I have no real interest in sailing with what his vision is, whereas I did love NCL as it was and would choose them even if the fare were a bit higher. I do understand that I am only one person, but I was a loyal NCL customer. We are now looking to book another cruise for 2018 and NCL's prices for those cruises are much higher than I want to pay, so it's unlikely that NCL will get the booking. Purely business, just the way Del Rio wants it.

[RDC1]

Yes, I know, business has to change and evolve to survive. And every cruise line has made changes that haven't sat well with their customers. But what Del Rio is doing goes beyond that because he is trying to change the very nature of NCL itself. Even that isn't a bad thing, but I have no real interest in sailing with what his vision is, whereas I did love NCL as it was and would choose them even if the fare were a bit higher. I do understand that I am only one person, but I was a loyal NCL customer. We are now looking to book another cruise for 2018 and NCL's prices for those cruises are much higher than I want to pay, so it's unlikely that NCL will get the booking. Purely business, just the way Del Rio wants it.

 

Which NCL did you love. You had the original, the very traditional NCL, that was nearly totally reinvented when it went free style, and added the Haven concept. Now how exactly has the very nature of NCL changed? From what I have seen they have raised gratuities, they have changed the category on some drinks, they have restricted drinks being brought on board, but then again so have their main competition (RCCL and Celebrity). The core of the business has not changed. Now they have added a service charge for room service (not sure if their competition has done that as well. I have not been on RCCL for a few years, but I think they have done something to restrict room service as well) which might be unique.

 

Now what is this threat to the very nature of NCL that has taken place? What have I missed?

 

Those changes taken all together might add up to 5% of a total cruise costs, at most. There might be a few people that brought on cases of water, used room service heavily that might be impacted more, but I would expect those are the people that the changes were aimed at. For most passengers the impact is minimal.

Edited August 28, 2016 by RDC1

[Shawnino]

Thank you for continuing to explain all the ins and outs with your expertise and knowledge. If you wouldn't be on here posting, I don't think a lot of us would understand the real deal as far as NCL and their stock pricing. Thanks again.

 

Will there be enough pump so that you can dump?

[kathybelcher2433]

Okay, the next few posts are going to be long the lines of "it's not the changes so much, but the way they were (not) communicated and the timing of those changes". But, come on. Is there ever a good time to communicate change or especially bad news? Did you expect NCL to take out an ad in the NYT or send you flowers and candy first?

 

In my career, whenever a change was to happen, there was always a lively internal debate as to how, when, and who to communicate. And I'd say 90% of the time we just let it go, knowing there would be an initial backlash, sone lumps to take, a few lost customers and then it would all die back down as long as we were generally doing right by the clients.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[RDC1]

Here are some facts and figures that may impact the performance of NCLH now and in the future.

 

The "purchase" of Regent and Oceania involved NCLH absorbing over two and a half billion in debt that was accrued by these two lines since their origin. Note that Del Rio started Oceania with leased ships and about 18 to 24 million dollars after the demise of Renaissance in 2001 or 2002.

 

The new ships NCL has in service or on order cost approximately 900 million each and the payback is on a six year contract with payments of approximately 75 million every six months for each of the ships.

 

The "free" booking bonuses started with them actually being included with no extra costs, and some of those deals are still pending for cruisers who booked over a year ahead. The true impact of the booking bonuses will not show up for some time.

 

NCLH instituted a stock buyback program to help prop up the stock price and I am not up to date on the progress of that.

 

Genting was a major investor in NCL until the shakeup of the board of directors which resulted in Genting beginning a program of relinquishing their positions on the board and reducing their exposure by selling some if not all of their holdings in NCLH.

 

All of these items can and will impact the financial condition of NCLH for several years, so the current decline in the stock price is troublesome and may be an indicator of things to come.

 

Not unusual for a major investor to reduce or exit a position, once their lockup ends after an IPO. After all the main purpose of an IPO is to enable private investors to cash out all or some of their position. A secondary purpose is to raise money for the business (though I have not seen any signs of NCLH wanting to do a secondary offering).

 

Not surprised an investor from the IPO is exiting at this time with the stock up 44% from the IPO. I would suspect their lockup would have been 24 months if they had an interest prior to the IPO. If you had a major investor exiting, it would explain the recent trending down. The end of the lockup period would also explain the bottom on Feb 18, 2015 with the decline starting right when the 24 month lockup would have ended. The stock rebounded with a short term peak at the end of March before starting the current more gradual decline.

 

To compete with RCL and CCL, NCLH has to grow to survive. As I recall the line was experiencing substantial trouble, prior to getting substantial funding from private equity. By assembling NCL, together with the premium lines, NCLH is assembling a full range of lines to match RCL with NCL pitted against RCCL and to some degree Celebrity (most fares against RCCL, Haven against Celebrity), Oceania positioned against Celebrity and Azamara, and Regent above Azamara.

 

It is not surprising that RCL has responded by adopting some of the same innovations that NCL piloted. They are after the same demographics.

 

NCLH is in a fight with number 2, RCL, they don't seem as focused against the much more traditional number 1, CCL.

[RDC1]

Will there be enough pump so that you can dump?

 

As I stated earlier I have no financial interest in NCLH. I have had a position in RCL in the past, but no longer have one. I do currently hold a position in CCL stock.

 

I also mentioned that I do expect a continued drop in the stock price to technical support around 32 with stronger support around 30, both of which are still higher than the IPO price.

[NLH Arizona]

Okay, the next few posts are going to be long the lines of "it's not the changes so much, but the way they were (not) communicated and the timing of those changes". But, come on. Is there ever a good time to communicate change or especially bad news? Did you expect NCL to take out an ad in the NYT or send you flowers and candy first?

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

I think some really do think they should get candy and flowers and, most of all, be in on the change decisions, as they feel they know what everyone wants. What is amazing is that with some of the "loyals" saying they are talking their money elsewhere, it has not had an impact on NCL as far as them wavering on the changes.

 

I do think that NCL could improve their communication by simply sending out a blanket email to all their customers when a change occurs. I don't think they have to give any upfront notification other than a couple of week for those who are close to sailing.

[NLH Arizona]

Will there be enough pump so that you can dump?

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

[swedish weave]

Not unusual for a major investor to reduce or exit a position, once their lockup ends after an IPO. After all the main purpose of an IPO is to enable private investors to cash out all or some of their position. A secondary purpose is to raise money for the business (though I have not seen any signs of NCLH wanting to do a secondary offering).

 

Not surprised an investor from the IPO is exiting at this time with the stock up 44% from the IPO. I would suspect their lockup would have been 24 months if they had an interest prior to the IPO. If you had a major investor exiting, it would explain the recent trending down. The end of the lockup period would also explain the bottom on Feb 18, 2015 with the decline starting right when the 24 month lockup would have ended. The stock rebounded with a short term peak at the end of March before starting the current more gradual decline.

 

To compete with RCL and CCL, NCLH has to grow to survive. As I recall the line was experiencing substantial trouble, prior to getting substantial funding from private equity. By assembling NCL, together with the premium lines, NCLH is assembling a full range of lines to match RCL with NCL pitted against RCCL and to some degree Celebrity (most fares against RCCL, Haven against Celebrity), Oceania positioned against Celebrity and Azamara, and Regent above Azamara.

 

It is not surprising that RCL has responded by adopting some of the same innovations that NCL piloted. They are after the same demographics.

 

NCLH is in a fight with number 2, RCL, they don't seem as focused against the much more traditional number 1, CCL.

 

This in reference to your first paragraph ----

 

Aug 13, 2015 ... Looking back to 2 days ago, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. (NASD: NCLH

) priced a 20000000 share secondary stock offering at $59.25 ...

 

If you need more info, google "nclh secondary stock offering".

 

Del Rio has indicated he wants to move NCL up to a higher class cruise line and appeal to a "more affluent clientele". This leaves Del Rio with three very pricey cruise lines and there is nothing to appeal to the budget cruisers.

 

He amassed substantial debt on Oceania and Regent before he "sold" them to Apollo in 2008, and since Apollo had a position of power in NCL, they arranged to transfer the cruise lines and associated debt to NCLH.

 

There is no doubt that many cruisers loved the cruises, but it seems the management was lacking in the ability to keep the companies debt under control.

 

Some of the effects are beginning to show up now.

Edited August 28, 2016 by swedish weave

[my3sonsnj]

I do think that NCL could improve their communication by simply sending out a blanket email to all their customers when a change occurs. I don't think they have to give any upfront notification other than a couple of week for those who are close to sailing.

I agree and they already have the means to do this in the myNCL messages. The fact that they don't take full advantage of this is troubling........

[NLH Arizona]

I agree and they already have the means to do this in the myNCL messages. The fact that they don't take full advantage of this is troubling........

I don't find it troubling, as far as how the company is run. I just find it amazing that they would choose a "soft announcement" strategy on changes, when they have the ability to send out emails to their customers. But, their company, their rules.

[sfaaa]

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

 

It's stock talk referring to someone deliberately painting a rosy but false picture of a company to drive up the stock price and then dumping it at huge profit before the bubble burst.

[NLH Arizona]

It's stock talk referring to someone deliberately painting a rosy but false picture of a company to drive up the stock price and then dumping it at huge profit before the bubble burst.

Since I don't own any stock in the three lines I cruise (NCL, Celebrity or Crystal) nor any other stocks for that matter, I obviously don't understand the stock lingo. Thanks for the education.

 

I don't see anyone painting a rosy but false picture. What I do see is some painting a very unduly negative picture because of their dislike for the changes NCL has done in the last year.

Edited August 28, 2016 by NLH Arizona

[pokerpro5]

I enjoyed the part where Del Rio partially blames the Brexit and subsequent British pound decline for NCL's earnings woes.

 

That's a standard go-to for all companies doing business with international customers. If the international currency gets weaker, they claim those customers can't afford their product as much anymore. If the international currency gets stronger, they claim either that operations become more expensive in those countries, or that it changed people's spending habits in a negative way for them.

 

All of these earnings statements (whether actual or forward-leaning) are full of BS excuses if the news is bad. You rarely gain any real clarity by reading the statement from the CEO.

 

However, I do believe his "minimizing discounting" line. As has already been stated here, that has been Del Rio's M/O since day one, and in fact I believe he is trying to push out all "value" cruisers. This is the reason for all of the recent customer-hostile changes. Even the "no bringing food back to your room" was meant to push out value cruisers (with the goal being retention of cruisers who don't mind the room service charge, while getting rid of those who do mind it), but it backfired because it pissed off everyone, rather than just the cheapskates.

 

I believe that they haven't budged on the water/soda thing because they don't want most customers who are unhappy about it. If you happily buy the exorbitant water and/or pay for a soda package, then you're Del Rio's target demographic.

 

He already pretty much killed the last-minute-cruising model described in that now-obsolete post linked in my signature.

[sfaaa]

 

He already pretty much killed the last-minute-cruising model described in that now-obsolete post linked in my signature.

 

Last minute deals are still around if you dig deep but definitely getting harder to find. I see two such bargains right now on NCL.com.

[swedish weave]

I enjoyed the part where Del Rio partially blames the Brexit and subsequent British pound decline for NCL's earnings woes.

 

That's a standard go-to for all companies doing business with international customers. If the international currency gets weaker, they claim those customers can't afford their product as much anymore. If the international currency gets stronger, they claim either that operations become more expensive in those countries, or that it changed people's spending habits in a negative way for them.

 

All of these earnings statements (whether actual or forward-leaning) are full of BS excuses if the news is bad. You rarely gain any real clarity by reading the statement from the CEO.

 

However, I do believe his "minimizing discounting" line. As has already been stated here, that has been Del Rio's M/O since day one, and in fact I believe he is trying to push out all "value" cruisers. This is the reason for all of the recent customer-hostile changes. Even the "no bringing food back to your room" was meant to push out value cruisers (with the goal being retention of cruisers who don't mind the room service charge, while getting rid of those who do mind it), but it backfired because it pissed off everyone, rather than just the cheapskates.

 

I believe that they haven't budged on the water/soda thing because they don't want most customers who are unhappy about it. If you happily buy the exorbitant water and/or pay for a soda package, then you're Del Rio's target demographic.

 

He already pretty much killed the last-minute-cruising model described in that now-obsolete post linked in my signature.

 

I recall the failure of Renaissance was blamed on 9/11. Interesting how history operates.

[RDC1]

I enjoyed the part where Del Rio partially blames the Brexit and subsequent British pound decline for NCL's earnings woes.

 

That's a standard go-to for all companies doing business with international customers. If the international currency gets weaker, they claim those customers can't afford their product as much anymore. If the international currency gets stronger, they claim either that operations become more expensive in those countries, or that it changed people's spending habits in a negative way for them.

 

All of these earnings statements (whether actual or forward-leaning) are full of BS excuses if the news is bad. You rarely gain any real clarity by reading the statement from the CEO.

 

However, I do believe his "minimizing discounting" line. As has already been stated here, that has been Del Rio's M/O since day one, and in fact I believe he is trying to push out all "value" cruisers. This is the reason for all of the recent customer-hostile changes. Even the "no bringing food back to your room" was meant to push out value cruisers (with the goal being retention of cruisers who don't mind the room service charge, while getting rid of those who do mind it), but it backfired because it pissed off everyone, rather than just the cheapskates.

 

I believe that they haven't budged on the water/soda thing because they don't want most customers who are unhappy about it. If you happily buy the exorbitant water and/or pay for a soda package, then you're Del Rio's target demographic.

 

He already pretty much killed the last-minute-cruising model described in that now-obsolete post linked in my signature.

 

I would look at it a bit differently. I think it is more that there are certain savings and can be obtained, processes simplified, that generate value to the company and reduce expenses. If it doing so they lose some customers, those that abuse some of those items, then they are perfectly willing to suffer that attrition.

 

The crew space on a cruise ship is a limited space. The number of crew that can be carried is limited.

 

Let take a look at room service. How many crew does it take to meet the demands for room service and where do they come from? Are they waiters from other dining venues that also have to spend time doing room service? How many head count were they able to reduce by making the change? Did that mean that the head count could be used else where? You can be pretty sure before making that change the company would have done an analysis and spliced and diced the data. They would know by room category what percentage of their passengers used room service and how often, They would also know how many were really frequent users (maybe multiple times a day), how often they cruised, how much they spent, what room categories, etc. Then an economic analysis is performed, including an estimate on loss and retention of existing customers.

 

I would expect the primary goal of putting a cost on room service was in priority 1. Reduce the use and abuse 2. Decrease the staff requirements, both in food delivery and in dish cleanup. 3. Have the user of the service pay for a portion of the costs, instead of being absorbed in the general ticket price.

 

I may not always agree with how some of the decisions have been implemented but I can see the logic behind them and why they might do so.

 

NCL has been moving away from traditional man dining room for a number of years. First being going fully to anytime, then going to the large number of separate dining venues of different types, with the majority being additional fixed fee, then going to some be ala carte pricing. If I was prone to guessing I would suspect that there end model is to basically convert to land type dining on ship. Move what people are used to on to the cruise. Every change they have made is a step in that direction so why would people be surprised when they go another step in that direction. With the selling of dining packages they almost seem to be following a Walt Disney Resorts schema.

[sparks1093]

Which NCL did you love. You had the original, the very traditional NCL, that was nearly totally reinvented when it went free style, and added the Haven concept. Now how exactly has the very nature of NCL changed? From what I have seen they have raised gratuities, they have changed the category on some drinks, they have restricted drinks being brought on board, but then again so have their main competition (RCCL and Celebrity). The core of the business has not changed. Now they have added a service charge for room service (not sure if their competition has done that as well. I have not been on RCCL for a few years, but I think they have done something to restrict room service as well) which might be unique.

 

Now what is this threat to the very nature of NCL that has taken place? What have I missed?

 

Those changes taken all together might add up to 5% of a total cruise costs, at most. There might be a few people that brought on cases of water, used room service heavily that might be impacted more, but I would expect those are the people that the changes were aimed at. For most passengers the impact is minimal.

 

Threat to NCL? Who said anything about a threat to NCL? I loved the NCL that I sailed with so 2008 to 2014. This isn't the thread to rehash all of the changes that have been made, but it was also certain public statements made by Del Rio that put the changes into context for me and this isn't the place to rehash those either. Del Rio wants to move NCL up on the cruise line food chain and there is nothing wrong with that other than it puts NCL out of my price point.