Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
jimmieg

Would consolidation of brands benefit Carnival Corp?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, dan4182 said:

 

 


I don’t know what airline(s) you have been flying on lately but, prior to coronavirus, every plane I have flown on has been packed like a can of sardines.


Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

I'm not flying currently, but in the past two weeks you would be hard pressed to find a packed  plane. Several months ago, you would certainly be correct. In Honolulu yesterday, there were 1200 arrivals as opposed to normal 30,000.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dan4182 said:

 

 


I don’t know what airline(s) you have been flying on lately but, prior to coronavirus, every plane I have flown on has been packed like a can of sardines.


Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

Re-reading my original and your post, I think I misunderstood your point. The recent past I was speaking of (not so recent, really) was several years ago, before all the consolidations and such. We would hope to have the seat next to us remain empty, or that we might have a whole row to lie down in. Very handy for red-eyes, and not that uncommon "back in the day."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, caribill said:

 

They are only good for 10 years, so your immunity ran out about 30 years ago.

 

As far as the age restriction:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/yf.html

 

Yellow fever vaccination is good for life. See https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/yellow-fever

The certificate indicating you received it is good for 10 years.

Edited by brisalta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2020 at 1:19 AM, caribill said:

 

They are only good for 10 years, so your immunity ran out about 30 years ago.

 

As far as the age restriction:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/yf.html

From the World Health Organization web site

 

"Amendment to the period of validity of the international certificate of vaccination against yellow fever, which is now extended to the life of the person vaccinated"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they will combine brands, each one has something that makes it that brand.  Plus I am sure they are all insulated from each other so that a lawsuit or penalty of some sort cannot take them all down.

 

I assume right now that employees can rotate between them without any issues.

 

Don't forget they are not necessarily competing with themselves so much as filling up the  shelves so to speak so the other brands do not have space.

 

These brands are all the same company

 

teaser-brands-and-businesses-us-na-jpg.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, fredflint said:

I don't think they will combine brands, each one has something that makes it that brand.  Plus I am sure they are all insulated from each other so that a lawsuit or penalty of some sort cannot take them all down.

 

I assume right now that employees can rotate between them without any issues.

 

Don't forget they are not necessarily competing with themselves so much as filling up the  shelves so to speak so the other brands do not have space.

 

These brands are all the same company

 

teaser-brands-and-businesses-us-na-jpg.j

Good point.

The corporate announcement today in attempting to raise $6bn in cash, which is different from the periodic rolling pause announcement:

 "We cannot predict when any of our ships will begin to sail again," Carnival said."

 

An alternative would perhaps be to mothball a few ships in the largest brands (Princess, Carnival, HAL) to reduce capacity and expense in the near term. Roll them out as demand increases.

But, nobody is asking me. I just remember working in the rust belt when seismic changes were coming to the tire, steel and auto industries. There is a psychological denial that things are changing and denial can effect decision-making for the future 

I do trust some smarter people are talking round the clock about saving an industry I love with all options on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2020 at 11:08 AM, BermudaBound2014 said:

 

Most ships WERE sailing at of near capacity. I suspect that won't happen for quite some time. No one knows how deep the cruise reputation has been hit. In my immediate family we have 8 who have sworn to never cruise (or never again). As an avid cruiser, even I am reconsidering after the picture posted of current cruise conditions on the Zaandam.

 

I'm believe we will define cruising as the way it was before Covid19 vs after. Much like 911 changed the way we fly.

Can you please post a link for the picture? Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, jimmieg said:

Good point.

The corporate announcement today in attempting to raise $6bn in cash, which is different from the periodic rolling pause announcement:

 "We cannot predict when any of our ships will begin to sail again," Carnival said."

 

An alternative would perhaps be to mothball a few ships in the largest brands (Princess, Carnival, HAL) to reduce capacity and expense in the near term. Roll them out as demand increases.

 

 

It is fairly safe to assume that there will be at least one person in the ship movement planing department with training in 'Operational Research'. They will be modelling various scenarios for each of the ships based on various sailing dates, various projections of cost and load factors to break even versus the cost of mothballing a ship.

Mothballing a ship and keeping it maintained is not an insignificant cost.

Edited by brisalta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CC has deleted all photos that were posted  and all posts that mentioned the photo so this discussion may not be allowed either. If you google for crew conditions the photo is still available on a popular travel magazine article. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2020 at 6:50 PM, neverbeenhere said:

Vaccines for everything.
Have you seen the exemptions for children when vaccines are required for school.? I would expect to see as many or more for cruising. 

 

No exemptions allowed for children where I live except for certifiable serious allergies but then school is not optional. Going on a cruise is an option, not a requirement of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

CC has deleted all photos that were posted  and all posts that mentioned the photo so this discussion may not be allowed either. If you google for crew conditions the photo is still available on a popular travel magazine article. 

 

Did you post this in the correct place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

@brisalta Yes. correct place.

 

I was responding to @joeyancho who directly asked me the question in post #32.

 

If you had quoted at least part of what you were responding to your response may have been a bit more understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2020 at 4:46 PM, loge23 said:

jimmieg: According to the Princess Wiki page: " It was previously a subsidiary of P&O Princess Cruises, and is currently under Holland America Group within Carnival Corporation & plc , which holds executive control over the Princess Cruises brand."

Certainly Jan Schwartz appears to call the shots for Princess, but apparently she reports to the Holland America Group's CEO, a chap named Stein Kruse. Mr. Kruse oversees, under the Holland America Group umbrella, Princess, Holland American, Seabourn, and the P&O subsidiaries. Holland American and the others have their own CEO's as well, as you noted.

I suppose Mr. Kruse in turn reports to Arison of Carnival. 

Here's a link to Holland's Exec profile page:

https://www.hollandamerica.com/en_US/our-company/executive-team.html

Now where their responsibilities cross over is not clear - that's a lot of bosses!

 

 

 

 

Just to be clear, the HAL Group only includes P&O Australia, not P&O UK as they along with Cunard come under Carnival UK which is separate in an operational aspect from anything relating to the HAL Group.  Yes, they're all part of the same dysfunctional family known as Carnival Corp. but they're run autonomously from HAL, Princess, etc...

 

To further break it down, Stein Kruse was the President and CEO of HAL until late December 2013 when the concept of the HAL Group was formed and he was then appointed CEO of the group with brand specific presidents put in place (i.e. Jan Swartz for Princess and Orlando Ashford for HAL) both of whom report to him (Kruse) and he in turn reports to Arnold Donald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 

Just to be clear, the HAL Group only includes P&O Australia, not P&O UK as they along with Cunard come under Carnival UK which is separate in an operational aspect from anything relating to the HAL Group.  Yes, they're all part of the same dysfunctional family known as Carnival Corp. but they're run autonomously from HAL, Princess, etc...

 

To further break it down, Stein Kruse was the President and CEO of HAL until late December 2013 when the concept of the HAL Group was formed and he was then appointed CEO of the group with brand specific presidents put in place (i.e. Jan Swartz for Princess and Orlando Ashford for HAL) both of whom report to him (Kruse) and he in turn reports to Arnold Donald.

And interesting then, that Cunard has (at least some of their graphics work here in the Princess facilities. And under Carnival Corp officers Jan Schwartz is listed as not only as Group President for Princess but also Carnival Australia.

Definitely convoluted in my mind. Will be interesting to see who rises to the top in the current dilemma.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jimmieg said:

And interesting then, that Cunard has (at least some of their graphics work here in the Princess facilities. And under Carnival Corp officers Jan Schwartz is listed as not only as Group President for Princess but also Carnival Australia.

Definitely convoluted in my mind. Will be interesting to see who rises to the top in the current dilemma.

 

 

The Cunard logo on the building in Santa Clarita has been there since the early 2000's when Princess and P&O were still joined at the hip and Princess had management over Cunard.  Of course things shifted later on with P&O and Cunard becoming separate entities and being managed internally from Southampton as Carnival UK.  Princess once had an entire floor in their office but is now reduced to a corner although much like other office within the corporation there's plenty of multi brand recognition in advertising.  More than likely that for optics it looks better to have both logos on the building than removing one which would then lend to all kinds of speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 

More than likely that for optics it looks better to have both logos on the building than removing one which would then lend to all kinds of speculation.

 

Reminds me of a company (I will call it the XXX company) that we once did business with in Florida. They had a big sign outside their office building.

 

When they moved to a different office building, they left the sign there rather than pay to have it removed. After all, any publicity is good too have, right?

 

Well, one day the police raided a business in that former building and the headlines read "Prostitution ring busted in XXX building."

 

At that point, the company decided that maybe it was time to have the sign removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2020 at 3:30 PM, brisalta said:

 

No exemptions allowed for children where I live except for certifiable serious allergies but then school is not optional. Going on a cruise is an option, not a requirement of life.

I believe they did away with the exemptions (which were being abused) in my state despite vigorous  protests. The courts ruled that public health safety took priority and allowed the law to stand.

 

Before that a youngster who is basically our son's Godson in everything but formal name and qualified for a medical exemption because of a compromised immunity system ended up getting the measles shot because that was less dangerous than being not vaccinated with all the children out there whose parents were claiming the "religious" exemption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who love to cruise will return to cruising. Those who never would anyway are the ones screaming the loudest and will always exist. The ones in between are like the general public at large and have short attention spans.

Personally, I see no need to 'end' a brand that has been around for decades (or hundred years in HAL's case) because of this mess. Do you think the White Star Line ceased to exist when Titanic sank? No. Did Cunard go under when Lusitania was torpedoed? No. Did Lauro Lines cease to exist after the Achille Lauro hijacking? No. Did Costa go under after the Concordia disaster? No. If companies went out of business due to bad press we'd have none left.

 

If anything, they'll mothball older ships until demand picks back up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think that eliminating and consolidating brands will help Carnival.

 

With that said I expect once they restart that revenue will be substantially less than last year.  Have seen forecasts by analysts that put 2021 and 2022 revenue at 25% on 2019, only rising above that level in 2023.

 

In those circumstances Carnival might not have much of a choice and might choose a couple of brands to do more cruises, than all their brands doing a very small number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suffice it to say but I think the new building program will come to a grinding halt across the corporation.  Look no further than the Enchanted being built in Italy, or the Iona being built in Germany...both countries have been affected albeit Italy worse off and that's just 2 ships for 2 brands.  Looking ahead to the plans for other new builds across the brands in the coming years and there's no doubt going to be a domino effect which will bring everything to a stop.

That said, does it make sense to push out new ships in favor of getting rid of the older ones in a replacement scheme or does it make more sense to keep what you've got and delay what's only on paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't have a clue as to whether they will combine brands.  Nor does anyone posting here on CruiseCritic.  But while each may have their own uniqueness and demographic, that may not be considered with corporate makes the decision.  A prime example would be General Motors.  Look at all the brands they used to have.  Now where are Pontiac and Oldsmobile?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TM said:

I personally don't have a clue as to whether they will combine brands.  Nor does anyone posting here on CruiseCritic.  But while each may have their own uniqueness and demographic, that may not be considered with corporate makes the decision.  A prime example would be General Motors.  Look at all the brands they used to have.  Now where are Pontiac and Oldsmobile?  

 

You've got the example I was going to quote. GM ditched a couple of brands. Ford got rid of Mercury. Chrysler eliminated Plymouth. Spreading out the market across internally competing brands is simply bad business sense. There will be a massive contraction in cruise demand for a few years and expect several new builds either partially constructed or not yet started to be cancelled or postponed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, robsaw said:

 

You've got the example I was going to quote. GM ditched a couple of brands. Ford got rid of Mercury. Chrysler eliminated Plymouth. Spreading out the market across internally competing brands is simply bad business sense.

 

 

Do you have any info how Ford or GM total sales were after the brands were eliminated?  Did Ford and GM keep there overall market shares?

 

They eliminated brands that were not selling well.

 

Carnival Corp brands are aimed at different markets. Eliminating a brand would mean fewer customers from that market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...