HAL plans to lay off 2,000 employees

[richwmn]

17 minutes ago, Adoptionmsw said:

I communicated with my HAL PCC and she reported that she was not affected by the reorganization. I’m relieved for her.


Sent from my iPad using Forums

Unfortunately, a friend told me yesterday that our PCC was one of those who were released.

 

[cheone]

18 hours ago, eroller said:

 

 

I think you are probably right.  Carnival Corp. just built a state of the art office in Seattle for the HAL Group, so it would absolutely make sense to move Princess there and consolidate.  I hate the idea of people losing their jobs which always happens in these situations, but right now it's survival mode for the cruise lines.  

HAL headquarters are in Seattle.  It has been  headquartered in Seattle for for 46 years and specialized in Alaska Cruises which was the main reason Carnival bought HAL. Most of the 2,000 employees that are being laid off are at the Seattle office.  The state of the art office building also includes or did have 900 Princess employees.  The city of Seattle is not  a employer friendly city  with their laws and the taxes are quite high on employers.  Seattle also has a employee hour tax (head tax) that is very expensive for employers.  This is probably the reason why they have the 2,000 layoffs at the Seattle headquarters.   Many companies are fleeing Seattle for this reason.

[DaveSJ711]

59 minutes ago, cheone said:

Seattle also has a employee hour tax (head tax) that is very expensive for employers.  This is probably the reason why they have the 2,000 layoffs at the Seattle headquarters.   Many companies are fleeing Seattle for this reason.

 

News alert -- Seattle does not have a head tax!  A head tax was adopted in mid-2018, but repealed less than a month later.

 

[1ANGELCAT]

1 hour ago, cheone said:

HAL headquarters are in Seattle.  It has been  headquartered in Seattle for for 46 years and specialized in Alaska Cruises which was the main reason Carnival bought HAL. Most of the 2,000 employees that are being laid off are at the Seattle office.  The state of the art office building also includes or did have 900 Princess employees.  The city of Seattle is not  a employer friendly city  with their laws and the taxes are quite high on employers.  Seattle also has a employee hour tax (head tax) that is very expensive for employers.  This is probably the reason why they have the 2,000 layoffs at the Seattle headquarters.   Many companies are fleeing Seattle for this reason.

HAL moved in 1983, only 37 years ago. 

[rkacruiser]

8 hours ago, frankc98376 said:

According to reports I have read she has dona a great job at Princess.  Wonder if they would move her to Sesttle to run both?

 

An interesting thought, one that I had not considered.  

 

I am not as familiar with the Princess cruise product and how it may or may not have changed over the years as I am with HAL's product.  Could you be explicit as to why she has done a "great job" at Princess?  

 

My two most recent Princess cruises was aboard Royal Princess and Coral Princess.  The one thing that stands out in my memory concerning both cruises (Royal in the Caribbean and Coral in Alaska) was the entertainment program offered on both ships.  

[eroller]

6 hours ago, cheone said:

HAL headquarters are in Seattle.  It has been  headquartered in Seattle for for 46 years and specialized in Alaska Cruises which was the main reason Carnival bought HAL. Most of the 2,000 employees that are being laid off are at the Seattle office.  The state of the art office building also includes or did have 900 Princess employees.  The city of Seattle is not  a employer friendly city  with their laws and the taxes are quite high on employers.  Seattle also has a employee hour tax (head tax) that is very expensive for employers.  This is probably the reason why they have the 2,000 layoffs at the Seattle headquarters.   Many companies are fleeing Seattle for this reason.

 

Regardless of how you feel about the business climate in Seattle, Carnival Corp felt it was worthwhile to build a brand new headquarters complex there for the HAL group.  

 

As for Princess, I'm not even certain they have 900 total shoreside employees let alone that many in Seattle.  The Princess headquarters is in Santa Clarita, CA, and that is where the vast majority of their shoreside employees work.  There were massive layoffs at the Princess headquarters in CA and the Carnival head offices in Miami.  Seattle was not alone or unique in this regard.  

[eroller]

8 hours ago, crusinbanjo said:

Sadly, My personal opinion is that HAL will not survive and will be merged into one of the other brands.  I also fully expect that the S Class, and possibly the R Class ships will all be retired.

 

 

 

I agree this could absolutely happen.  I've been saying Princess might go because they might be tarnished beyond repair, but they are still more well known than HAL.  The have the Love Boat history and all that.  That might work in their favor for survival.  Plus a large modern fleet that probably earns more than HAL.  

 

I so think it's quite probable that either Princess or HAL will get the chopping block.  They are the most similar brands in the Carnival portfolio with a very similar demographic.  Plus lots of overlap.  It Carnival Corp is looking to reduce expenses and simplify, one of these brands seems like the obvious choice.  

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

6 hours ago, cheone said:Seattle also has a employee hour tax (head tax) that is very expensive for employers.  This is probably the reason why they have the 2,000 layoffs at the Seattle headquarters.   Many companies are fleeing Seattle for this reason.

WAG in this, but maybe the layoffs were in Seattle because ... that's where the employees are.

(HAL could've laid off 2,000 in low-tax, good ol' boy Murfreesboro, except ... well, it didn't have staff there)

[borasue]

Our PCC had been with HAL over 9 years.  Just heard from her that she was among those that were laid off.  As sad as we are about not being able to cruise these days, my sadness runs ten times deeper for those who've just lost their livelihood.  😔 

[eroller]

9 minutes ago, borasue said:

Our PCC had been with HAL over 9 years.  Just heard from her that she was among those that were laid off.  As sad as we are about not being able to cruise these days, my sadness runs ten times deeper for those who've just lost their livelihood.  😔 

 

My friend at Princess in LA has over 20 years with the company.  He wasn't laid off but placed on a 6 month furlough.  This workforce reduction hit people even with lots of tenure with the company.  So sad.  

[Gracie115]

21 hours ago, frankc98376 said:

According to reports I have read she has dona a great job at Princess.  Wonder if they would move her to Sesttle to run both?

 

After 3 cruises on Princess I have to say I can't agree. Now waiting over 60 days for our Princess refund, last time we spoke with Princess were told, "I have no idea when refunds will be coming"  I'd say their treatment of their customers is pretty sad.  I don't think I'd want her running HAL or any other line at this point.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Gracie115

[Roz]

10 hours ago, eroller said:

I agree this could absolutely happen.  I've been saying Princess might go because they might be tarnished beyond repair, but they are still more well known than HAL.  The have the Love Boat history and all that.  That might work in their favor for survival.  Plus a large modern fleet that probably earns more than HAL.  

 

I so think it's quite probable that either Princess or HAL will get the chopping block.  They are the most similar brands in the Carnival portfolio with a very similar demographic.  Plus lots of overlap.  It Carnival Corp is looking to reduce expenses and simplify, one of these brands seems like the obvious choice.  

 

Agree with you and Crusinbanjo 100%.  Of all the lines under the Carnival umbrella, Princess and HAL are the most similar.  All the talk on this board about merging HAL and Seabourn just leaves me scratching my head.  Those two have nothing in common.  

[vswan]

Not really surprised that employees were laid off. At this point there is no certainty as to when the cruise lines will be able to start up or how it will be received. As a purely business decision, they probably didn't have much choice - many businesses are in the same place. What surprises me is that PCC where among the group. They are the people who work with the public on future bookings which is the only hope any cruise line has to stay afloat.

 

A hard place for the cruise lines to be. They have no income so can't pay employees, yet they need at least some of those employees to plan how to implement and improve the product for what is to come to keep them in business - things like new embarkation ports closer to home, itineraries, shore excursions, safety measures.

[DFD1]

4 hours ago, Gracie115 said:

 

After 3 cruises on Princess I have to say I can't agree. Now waiting over 60 days for our Princess refund, last time we spoke with Princess were told, "I have no idea when refunds will be coming"  I'd say their treatment of their customers is pretty sad.  I don't think I'd want her running HAL or any other line at this point.

 

At least the Princess spokesperson was honest with you and did not give your the "60 to 90 day runaround" nonsense HAL is dishing out.

[cruisemom42]

6 hours ago, Gracie115 said:

 

After 3 cruises on Princess I have to say I can't agree. Now waiting over 60 days for our Princess refund, last time we spoke with Princess were told, "I have no idea when refunds will be coming"  I'd say their treatment of their customers is pretty sad.  I don't think I'd want her running HAL or any other line at this point.

 

HAL has been no better, unfortunately.

 

[eroller]

5 hours ago, Roz said:

 

   All the talk on this board about merging HAL and Seabourn just leaves me scratching my head.  Those two have nothing in common.  

 

 

Me too.  People think that just because the two brands share the same head office, it makes them suitable to be combined into one brand.  One has nothing to do with the other and the two brands are night and day.  Not compatible in any way.  

[Gracie115]

4 hours ago, DFD1 said:

 

At least the Princess spokesperson was honest with you and did not give your the "60 to 90 day runaround" nonsense HAL is dishing out.

 

True, but that was hardly comforting.  

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, eroller said:

 

Me too.  People think that just because the two brands share the same head office, it makes them suitable to be combined into one brand.  One has nothing to do with the other and the two brands are night and day.  Not compatible in any way.  

 

I agree, but I can see Seabourn's ship's as a smaller class of HAL or Princess ships easier than I can see HAL's and Princess' ships combined in to one line.  In fact, with Seabourn now having an expeditionary ship, I can see HAL or Princess competing with Celebrity in that venue. 

 

Just giving a different perspective. 

[DFD1]

2 hours ago, Gracie115 said:

 

True, but that was hardly comforting.  

 

Of course. I understand. The only real comfort will come when HAL does what it says it will do. I hope for everyone, that happens soon.

[Despegue]

I am fearing a move of Princess towards the Asian market, Including Alaska, which is becoming very popular in Asia, where they are already well established, with ships retrofitted for the local Preferences.

HAL would become the Europe/American part of the venture, keeping its own branding For now.

 

[rkacruiser]

8 minutes ago, Despegue said:

I am fearing a move of Princess towards the Asian market, Including Alaska, which is becoming very popular in Asia, where they are already well established, with ships retrofitted for the local Preferences.

HAL would become the Europe/American part of the venture, keeping its own branding For now.

 

 

Yours is an interesting thought.  

 

Regarding the Alaskan market, HAL has been there longer than Princess, I believe.  Both Companies have made significant investments over the years in the Alaskan tourist industry.  I wonder if one Company has made more of an investment than the other one.  If so, would that help determine which Company offers cruises in what region?  

[Despegue]

That is why I believe both brands will still overlap in Alaska, but geared to slightly  different customer bases. 
Princess has a good name in Asia, and in China the Love Boat theme is extremely popular.

I see Princess as the expected Carnival Asia concept that was scheduled to start operations soon.

 

 

[eroller]

2 hours ago, Aquahound said:

 

I agree, but I can see Seabourn's ship's as a smaller class of HAL or Princess ships easier than I can see HAL's and Princess' ships combined in to one line.  In fact, with Seabourn now having an expeditionary ship, I can see HAL or Princess competing with Celebrity in that venue. 

 

Just giving a different perspective. 

 

Interesting perspective.  The problem is that creating a sub-brand within an existing brand generally creates confusion in the marketplace.  It can also be very expensive from a marketing perspective.  The two brands are so different and with a completely different customer base, that is makes sense to operate them as separate brands and market specifically to their demographics.  

Sharing synergies such as office space, a reservation platform, some crewing, and procurement already provides a great savings.  They get the best of both worlds as it is, and Carnival gets a dedicated luxury brand which is needed in its portfolio.  
 

I’ll add you may see Celebrity’s expedition ships rebranded under newly acquired Silversea, where they are more appropriate from a marketing perspective.  

Edited May 16, 2020 by eroller

[rkacruiser]

2 minutes ago, eroller said:

The problem is that creating a sub-brand within an existing brand generally creates confusion in the marketplace.  It can also be very expensive from a marketing perspective.  The two brands are so different and with a completely different customer base, 

 

Isn't this what Cunard discovered decades ago when they tried the small cruising ship concept with Cunard Adventurer, Cunard Ambassador, Cunard Princess, and Cunard Countess?

 

The Cunard product on the Queens was not able to be replicated on the smaller ships.

[rkacruiser]

8 minutes ago, eroller said:

ou may see Celebrity’s expedition ships rebranded under newly acquired Silversea, where they are more appropriate from a marketing perspective.

 

I agree with your thinking.  Celebrity has been successful in marketing their expedition ships and, at least from the advertising that I receive from them, it does seem to be more of an upscale experience.