Solvency of Cruise Lines

[rallydave]

17 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

Based on my discussions with Regent, you are likely correct.  However, keep in mind (and I am sorry that I keep repeating myself but some posters do not read previous posts), that I am not trying to stop included excursions - only wish to give an opt out option.  There are people that have left Regent and gone to other luxury lines due to included excursions being included in the fare. After all, we are all paying for those "included" excursions.  Some of you may not have been on CC when included excursions was implemented.  It was quite an uproar by cruisers that have been to most of the ports repeatedly and did not want to pay for an excursions that they did not want.

 

Perhaps Regent will weigh their options when trying to get people to book cruises in the future.  It is a way of allowing some passengers to pay a little less money for their cruise fare..... having some passengers return that left Regent while keeping their "draw" for new passengers.  There is no doubt that included excursions draw new people to Regent.  However, it is also important to keep their long time customer base.  

 

 

Be careful of unintended issues with what you are asking for.  Even if Regent were to allow opting out of the included excursions, based on the credits for air and hotels, it is likely the credit for not taking excursions will be less than the actual amount included in the fare and should you choose to take some of the Regent excursions it is possible their costs will be more than the credit you receive.  Unintended consequences can be problematic.

 

Also if implemented pretty sure the credit will not be anything to write home about.  After all a profit making company rarely makes changes that reduce their income and profits.

Edited April 24, 2020 by rallydave

[toseaornottosea]

It seems to me when it comes to excursions it should be either included or fully elective on the part of the passenger.  Regent has to pay local tour operators the same fees for a bus, a van, a driver, a guide whether there are 25 or 2 people on a bus or 6 or 2 on a van.  So if it were on an "opt-out" basis resulting in a tour fee saving to the passenger the costs to Regent remain the same unless the "opt-out" is done sufficiently early such that Regent can adjust the vehicle size and other associated costs to them early enough to reduce their costs.   Otherwise Regent has the same costs for an excursion but less revenue to cover those costs.  And I know there is a huge mark-up over Regent's costs for the excursions but I'll bet local tour operators charge Regent more for a tour than than would charge you or me if we were to book a tour directly with them.  My guess is it's a "no win" proposition for Regent, especially given the history of Regent and "included (not free) excursions."

[rallydave]

6 minutes ago, toseaornottosea said:

It seems to me when it comes to excursions it should be either included or fully elective on the part of the passenger.  Regent has to pay local tour operators the same fees for a bus, a van, a driver, a guide whether there are 25 or 2 people on a bus or 6 or 2 on a van.  So if it were on an "opt-out" basis resulting in a tour fee saving to the passenger the costs to Regent remain the same unless the "opt-out" is done sufficiently early such that Regent can adjust the vehicle size and other associated costs to them early enough to reduce their costs.   Otherwise Regent has the same costs for an excursion but less revenue to cover those costs.  And I know there is a huge mark-up over Regent's costs for the excursions but I'll bet local tour operators charge Regent more for a tour than than would charge you or me if we were to book a tour directly with them.  My guess is it's a "no win" proposition for Regent, especially given the history of Regent and "included (not free) excursions."

While you may possibly be correct about the same price of different numbers on tour, I sincerely doubt that to be the case.  Have done many private tours on Regent and other cruise lines and almost always the price varies based on the number of people on tour.

 

As far as Regent markups, yes it most likely is a substantial markup however on many cruises including Regent have had exactly the same tour for much less than with Regent so sincerely doubt the toru operators give Regetn a discount, It is the privat excursions that get the discounts.

[pingpong1]

Aren't Regent passengers also paying for unlimited 24/7 alcohol, even though many individuals choose not to consume it at all, or very little?  Yet, customers are not given the choice of "opting out" of that onboard amenity (and "no" - the alcohol is not being supplied or distributed by a 3rd party/off-ship vendor).  There is no doubt that a significant "pricing component" of Regent's overall fare structure is the advertising/offering of "included and unlimited alcohol".

 

For those who personally choose not to "subsidize" Regent's "all-inclusive features" of alcohol and excursions, there's always Oceania.  OMG - "blasphemy"!    😲  Like some others have suggested, if Regent eliminates too many of their "included perks" (by making them optional), it no longer looks like the "all-inclusive" product that it advertises itself to be (and is certainly reflected in their fares).  If they make themselves "look too much like everyone else", then....they simply become "like everyone else"!  Regards.    

[Bellaggio Cruisers]

Pingpong

Agree!

sheila

[toseaornottosea]

Pingpong

"Aren't Regent passengers also paying for unlimited 24/7 alcohol, even though many individuals choose not to consume it at all, or very little?  Yet, customers are not given the choice of "opting out" of that onboard amenity (and "no" - the alcohol is not being supplied or distributed by a 3rd party/off-ship vendor)."

 

That's good for Regent's bottom line. 

 

"Like some others have suggested, if Regent eliminates too many of their "included perks" (by making them optional), it no longer looks like the "all-inclusive" product that it advertises itself to be (and is certainly reflected in their fares).  If they make themselves "look too much like everyone else", then....they simply become "like everyone else"! "

 

That's what I was trying to suggest.

[SusieQft]

25 minutes ago, toseaornottosea said:

I'll bet local tour operators charge Regent more for a tour than than would charge you or me if we were to book a tour directly with them.

I would take that bet.  Surely Regent gets a volume discount.

[toseaornottosea]

SusieQft you are correct.  Somehow it came out wrong from me.  I'm sure Regent gets great deals from the local tour operators.  I know from sailing on other luxury cruise lines that I can get the same excursion they offer at say $150 per person for considerably less by booking the very same excursion directly with the local tour operator.  Somehow it came out all wrong.  Covid-19 moment I guess.

[flossie009]

On 4/19/2020 at 2:12 AM, Travelcat2 said:

The few times that we have been forced to deal with Destination Services has been horrendous.

I believe that regulars on this Board all know your unwarranted prejudice against the pleasant & hard-working members of the Regent Destinations Services team.

 

14 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

I understand that it is a selling point and I am not suggesting doing away with included excursions but rather giving an opt out option.  Additionally, if someone that oops out and would like to take an excursion, they can pay for it.  The computer can be set up fairly easily to accommodate this. 

This would be a logistical nightmare.

 

14 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

Obviously I've given this a lot of thought, however, so far, Regent has not liked my idea.

I am glad to hear this.

 

We like the Regent all-inclusive offering. For those that don't there are other good luxury lines from which to choose.

As others have said it is the included excursions that is one of the offerings that sets Regent apart from its competitors. It has obviously been a successful business model up until these troubled times. Changing the business model now is unlikely to help Regent's future fortunes.  

 

[Travelcat2]

Firstly, I have been very specific that opt out options are only for services provided by outside contractors (airlines, hotels, etc.) so this has nothing whatsoever to do with the online experience.  No one has suggested that onboard inclusivity be changed.

 

It would not be a logistical nightmare but rather a simple programming issue.  When you book - there could be a box to check if you opt out.  For passengers that do opt out, if they want to book an excursion (which they would still be able to do), they will be charged (just as those of us that book Regent Choice excursions are charged).  

 

As I recently posted on this thread, I have discussed this with Regent several times and they weren't interested in doing this.  However, with many ships having availability in 2020 and 2021, it could encourage those of us that want to opt out to book while not changing included excursions for people that want them.  Even a small discount for opting out could make the difference between booking and not booking for some of us.

 

 

P.S.  In my opinion, as long as Regent has included International Business Class Air, no other luxury cruise line can compete in terms of inclusivity.  The cruise that we "may" be taking in January has a $7,500/person opt out credit for air.  That is a lot of money.  

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Travelcat2

[Dolebludger]

From the many posts on this and other threads about included things on Regent, it seems to me that the problem is not that excursions are included, but it is that many aren't very good. Many guests feel they are paying for them (which they are) and they rightfully don't want to pay for them. In contrast, on a couple of European River cruises on Scenic we took, shore excursions were also included in the fare, but they were excellent. (none consisting of "just a bus ride"). Never heard nor read any complaints about them being included. As for excursions on Regent, the fact that it also offers extra cost excursions means it is aware that the included excursions aren't up to everybody's tastes. 

 

But this thread is about Regent's solvency (and that of other cruise lines) due to the length of time that cruising has been (and will be) halted. In a post above I advised all to read the financial news and consult their financial advisors about this. I followed my own advice and am not happy about what I found out. NCLH is reportedly attempting to sell of partial ownership to private investors. Carnival has already sold off 8% to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and has sold bonds paying 10.5% per annum, meaning they are "junk bonds".NCLH went into this mess already carrying more debt than the experts feel is possible to service, given the cruise moratorium. And I mean real experts -- not me. 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Dolebludger

[bissel]

Sounds like a good idea to me. 

[Travelcat2]

1 hour ago, toseaornottosea said:

SusieQft you are correct.  Somehow it came out wrong from me.  I'm sure Regent gets great deals from the local tour operators.  I know from sailing on other luxury cruise lines that I can get the same excursion they offer at say $150 per person for considerably less by booking the very same excursion directly with the local tour operator.  Somehow it came out all wrong.  Covid-19 moment I guess.

 

And, as I have learned, you can take the identical excursion on Oceania and pay 50% more than what Regent charges for a Regent Choice excursion (we have tried the same excursion on both cruise lines).

 

Flossie - there are many other people that feel the same way about excursions and Destination Services as I do (and for a darn good reason).  I am too polite to share specific information on a public board but have shared it with other Regent cruisers in person.  If they were treated the way that we were, some would have gone ballistic (but, again, our polite upbringing does not permit us to scream at people ..... the way that we were screamed at by a Destination Services manager).   Note:  We had done nothing wrong - the error was theirs.  We were told that the person had a anger management issue.  Since they are still employed by Regent, I hope that they received the help that they needed.

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Travelcat2

[Stickman1990]

44 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

 

44 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

Flossie - there are many other people that feel the same way about excursions and Destination Services as I do (and for a darn good reason).  I am too polite to share specific information on a public board but have shared it with other Regent cruisers in person.  If they were treated the way that we were, some would have gone ballistic (but, again, our polite upbringing does not permit us to scream at people ..... the way that we were screamed at by a Destination Services manager).   Note:  We had done nothing wrong - the error was theirs.  We were told that the person had a anger management issue.  Since they are still employed by Regent, I hope that they received the help that they needed.

 

There’s often two sides to a story....It would be interesting to hear the other

 

Well I guess we all know your position on included tours on Regent - but it seems you’re in the minority on it so maybe it’s time to move on and let others enjoy the benefit 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Stickman1990

[Dolebludger]

On at least some itineraries, we too would like to receive a credit for shore excursions we don’t want to take. That is not going to keep us off the ship. Similarly, we don’t want to take Regent’s included basic economy flight legs that are within North America without a decent credit for not taking them.That  won’t keep us off the ship either. What does (and maybe will) keep us off the ship is a combination of the moratorium now and Regent’s demise if this goes on too long. Financial facts are a boring subject, but cruise lines are “bleeding money” while their ships are parked. The line conglomerates are also bleeding money due to the high interest loans they have taken out, both before and during the pandemic, and NCLH is doing so. Selling off equity interests in the conglomerates will diminish their ability to service their high interest debt, even if restrictions were lifted worldwide tomorrow. I have read on other threads on this forum that Regent has canceled all its cruises until the end of June. That’s a bit optimistic, as CDC has ordered that all cruises from or to US ports are banned until late July. Of course the ban order states that it may be lifted sooner, or extended until later. The “Street” reportedly believes the latter will be the case. And there is concern about when bans at itinerary ports will be lifted. Because of all these “wild cards” NCLH stock is going for about 1/6th of its 52 week high. 

 

This thread was originally posted on the matter of cruise line solvency — whether they would financially survive the pandemic. As to some cruisers’ legitimate dislike of all included excursions without decent opt-out, and our dislike of included basic economy air in North America, without decent opt-out, these things won’t matter if Regent fails to survive this “perfect storm” crisis.

[bissel]

Aren’t you just making a case for outside investment? Why is that bad?

[Pcardad]

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/04/19/private-equity-is-reportedly-circling-norwegian-cr.aspx

 

[bissel]

I read it. Where is the problem?

[Steve Q]

No one should be shocked to see Private Equity firms circling around the cruise lines. They are prime candidates. It would certainly seem logical that Norwegian is going to require an infusion of capital. It is just a matter of determining the source, if available. Honestly, we should all hope that there are willing investors. Private Equity investors, however, often come with certain requests/demands that necessary changes be made. They don’t usually risk their money to become silent partners.

[Travelcat2]

Keep in mind that, if Regent makes some changes that will fill their ships during this uncertain time, this will affect their bottom line (in a positive way).  This is why the discussion of excursions and other issues play into the topic.  

 

Of course this is about numbers but cruise lines may have the ability to make moves that will be positive for them going forward.

[bissel]

Steve, so the choice may be between PE control vs. going out of business, right?

[mrlevin]

13 minutes ago, Steve Q said:

No one should be shocked to see Private Equity firms circling around the cruise lines. They are prime candidates. It would certainly seem logical that Norwegian is going to require an infusion of capital. It is just a matter of determining the source, if available. Honestly, we should all hope that there are willing investors. Private Equity investors, however, often come with certain requests/demands that necessary changes be made. They don’t usually risk their money to become silent partners.

 

I am hoping that private equity just takes on Regent and (unfortunately) Oceania as happened last time.  I would love to see Regent free of NCLH.

Edited April 25, 2020 by mrlevin

[Dolebludger]

I certainly hope Regent can make some changes that will reasonably fill their ships when they can sail. One would certainly be a decent and reasonable credit for opting - out of included excursions. Another would be (at least) including North American economy air that we could upgrade to business for cash. 
 

As far is what is wrong with seeking private equity funds in exchange for a share in the company (“white knight”), it lies in the terms of the agreement to get this funding.  We will never see those terms, but this is generally a “desperation move” by a corporation. In the case of NCLH with a very unfavorable debt/equity ratio and debt/valuation ratio, they will need to do some serious discounting. So the terms offered to a private equity firm would have to be very favorable to that firm. As when Carnival sold 8% to Saudi Arabia. Nobody knows what was paid for that share! For an extreme example, would I pay $1 for an 8% equity in Carnival? Sure! But would I pay 8% of what the valuation of Carnival’s assets were a year or so ago? No, because who wants to buy a bunch of cruise ships now? The asset valuation of cruise lines has gone way down, unfortunately for us all.

 

Would I like to see Regent and Oceania split from NCL? Sure I would! I haven’t experienced any decline on Regent since its “marriage” to NCL, but others have said they have. But Regent and NCL have nothing in common. I rank NCL about 1/5 a point above Carnival, and I don’t want to cruise on either. I’d rather stay home in the mountains. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Dolebludger

[bissel]

Dolebludger, from the customer viewpoint (which is mine) it seems it could work out pretty well! 

[Dolebludger]

Yes, I certainly hope you are right!