HAL plans to lay off 2,000 employees

[VennDiagram]

On 5/15/2020 at 10:52 AM, 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

 

I was part of a mass layoff that saw several thousand people laid off. 

 

The people who were still employed at the end of it all suffered at least as much as, probably more than,  those of us who were let go.  The "survivors" have guilt, and they are expected to do the work of 4 or 5 people, often being demoted in the process, working for less money than they were accustomed to.  I'd see the "survivors" out and about occasionally, and every one of them had aged 10 years in a year, were exhausted, and many had developed serious health problems. 

 

So really, everyone is in trouble in one way or another. 😞 

[eroller]

1 hour ago, rkacruiser said:

 

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.

 

 

You know back then, the 70's, was such a different time.  I'm not even sure Cunard knew what it was doing or had much direction in those days.  Personally I never thought CUNARD PRINCESS or COUNTESS fit the brand, but back then there wasn't much of a brand to begin with.  QE2 and that was about it.  So those two ships actually did ok, but I think it was because of the times and also due to the fact there was very little new tonnage back then.  I remember in the late 70's it was all doom and gloom for the cruise industry, and speculation that no new ships would ever be built again.  Then low and behold TROPICALE was ordered and that changed everything.   

Edited May 16, 2020 by eroller

[eroller]

19 minutes ago, VennDiagram said:

 

I was part of a mass layoff that saw several thousand people laid off. 

 

The people who were still employed at the end of it all suffered at least as much as, probably more than,  those of us who were let go.  The "survivors" have guilt, and they are expected to do the work of 4 or 5 people, often being demoted in the process, working for less money than they were accustomed to.  I'd see the "survivors" out and about occasionally, and every one of them had aged 10 years in a year, were exhausted, and many had developed serious health problems. 

 

So really, everyone is in trouble in one way or another. 😞 

 

 

I think you are spot on.  It can be pretty bad for those staying on, in some cases worse than if you were laid off or furloughed and just collect unemployment.  

[rkacruiser]

58 minutes ago, VennDiagram said:

So really, everyone is in trouble in one way or another. 😞 

 

In my profession, I had significant enough seniority to avoid a couple of RIF's that took place.  To see those who were doing a proficient job, often an excellent job, being RIFed was terrible.  To the best of my knowledge, all whom I know re-gained their "feet".  But, a few left their previous profession.  That was a loss for my profession.

[rkacruiser]

46 minutes ago, eroller said:

 

 

You know back then, the 70's, was such a different time.  I'm not even sure Cunard knew what it was doing or had much direction in those days.  Personally I never thought CUNARD PRINCESS or COUNTESS fit the brand, but back then there wasn't much of a brand to begin with.  QE2 and that was about it.  So those two ships actually did ok, but I think it was because of the times and also due to the fact there was very little new tonnage back then.  I remember in the late 70's it was all doom and gloom for the cruise industry, and speculation that no new ships would ever be built again.  Then low and behold TROPICALE was ordered and that changed everything.   

 

"You know back then, the 70's, was such a different time."  

 

It was my cruise experiences in the '70's that have resulted in my cruising history.  Rotterdam V, Statendam IV, Oceanic, PFEL's Monterey, NCL's Sunward II:  those sailings interspersed with ship visits such as Cunard Princess and Vistafjord in Fort Lauderdale as well as others in the Port of New York have kept me sailing.  

 

The cruise industry of the 1970's obviously appealed to me as a member of my generation.  If this pandemic requires a new reiteration of the cruise industry, as I think it will do, future guests will find the same enjoyment of a cruise as many of us have experienced.

[AV8rix]

Whee!  Good news today.  My awesome PCC tells me that he has survived the cut.  Don't know what I'd do without him.  He's been taking good care of me for the past 10 years.  I suspect that, like him, it's the senior ones with many years of employment with HAL that are the ones that made it through.  Could be wrong about that though.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Av8rix

[canadianbear]

1 hour ago, Av8rix said:

Whee!  Good news today.  My awesome PCC tells me that he has survived the cut.  Don't know what I'd do without him.  He's been taking good care of me for the past 10 years.  I suspect that, like him, it's the senior ones with many years of employment with HAL that are the ones that made it through.  Could be wrong about that though.

I also reached out to our PCC and with his 25 years of working there survived the cut too.  I’d sure miss him as he’s been a great PCC.  

[shrimp56]

On 5/15/2020 at 7:37 PM, 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.  

Yep. I think Princess deserves to go with at least 4 ships with multiple coronavirus deaths. All the medallions in the world don't overcome that.

 

But I think HAL will be the sacrificial lamb, which is a pity given the professionalism of the HAL officers and crew. I always felt safe with HAL. I'll be royally pissed if our star status doesn't go with us to Princess. Although I'm not sure I could stomach Princess' big ships. Diamond Princess was too big for us, although a beautiful ship.

[Cruising-along]

2 hours ago, shrimp56 said:

I'll be royally pissed if our star status doesn't go with us

Whatever happens in the future I agree.  We just made 5-star on our last cruise. I'd even go back down to 4-star if necessary LOL!  (just don't take away my free laundry!)  😄

[DFD1]

I'm not sure I'd move over to Princess even if our 4 stars went with us. 

[rkacruiser]

4 hours ago, Av8rix said:

He's been taking good care of me for the past 10 years.  

3 hours ago, canadianbear said:

also reached out to our PCC and with his 25 years of working there survived the cut too.  

 

Maybe this situation will be a "teaching moment" for those who like to jump from job to job without a very good cause.  Seniority in one's job has some advantages, particularly when RIFs are needed.  

[iancal]

I believe that whatever happens will be financially driven.  As it should be.   

 

The  decisions Carnival Corp makes should be made in the absolute best financial  interests of the shareholders.

 

No doubt the executive will make the most advantageous decisions for their own financial benefit.  Whether that means separation bonuses, retention bonuses, or revised stock options and RSU's etc for those that will remain.

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by iancal

[richwmn]

5 hours ago, Av8rix said:

Whee!  Good news today.  My awesome PCC tells me that he has survived the cut.  Don't know what I'd do without him.  He's been taking good care of me for the past 10 years.  I suspect that, like him, it's the senior ones with many years of employment with HAL that are the ones that made it through.  Could be wrong about that though.

 

3 hours ago, canadianbear said:

I also reached out to our PCC and with his 25 years of working there survived the cut too.  I’d sure miss him as he’s been a great PCC.  

 

35 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Maybe this situation will be a "teaching moment" for those who like to jump from job to job without a very good cause.  Seniority in one's job has some advantages, particularly when RIFs are needed.  

On the other hand, I have been told that my PCC with over 15 years experience with HAL and Princess before that has been let go.

[rkacruiser]

10 minutes ago, richwmn said:

On the other hand, I have been told that my PCC with over 15 years experience with HAL and Princess before that has been let go.

 

I have seen that those years of service by good people having to experience that as well.

 

Reduction in Force is not a laughing matter for any that might experience it.  It's obviously worse for those who do get RIF'ed.   

[vswan]

We have a manufacturing facility in our community who has a reputation for resizing - laying off employees - every couple of years. It is usually the longer term employees who they can replace with newer, lower paid employees - from management to production. It's not always about seniority or even job performance. It's how they can save the most money. Don't know a lot about how PCC are paid, but would think there would be some type of commission involved. Can't understand why they would let any of them go right now when they are the ones booking future cruises with repeat customers.

[KirkNC]

I am amazed how many people use PCC 😳😳

[iancal]

I went through 15 plus years of downsizing.  Seniority had nothing whatsoever to do with who was on the cut list.  Decisions were made on the basis of performance and cost.  There would be a reorganization, some downsizing, and then another smaller dowsizing six months or two quarters later based on performance.
 

Long term employees were often at the most risk.  Why?  The current and future cost of benefits, pension entitlements, stock options, rsu’s etc. .  Long term employees tended to have higher salaries especially in a recession environment when new, younger people can be onboarded  at a lower cost.

Edited May 19, 2020 by iancal

[AV8rix]

1 hour ago, vswan said:

We have a manufacturing facility in our community who has a reputation for resizing - laying off employees - every couple of years. It is usually the longer term employees who they can replace with newer, lower paid employees - from management to production. It's not always about seniority or even job performance. It's how they can save the most money. Don't know a lot about how PCC are paid, but would think there would be some type of commission involved. Can't understand why they would let any of them go right now when they are the ones booking future cruises with repeat customers.

 

1 hour ago, iancal said:

I went through 15 plus years of downsizing.  Seniority had nothing whatsoever to do with who was on the cut list.  Decisions were made on the basis of performance and cost.  There would be a reorganization, some downsizing, and then another smaller dowsizing six months or two quarters later based on performance.
 

Long term employees were often at the most risk.  Why?  The current and future cost of benefits, pension entitlements, stock options, rsu’s etc. .  Long term employees tended to have higher salaries especially in a recession environment when new, younger people can be onboarded  at a lower cost.

 

I have observed that phenomenon in my years in Boeing engineering.  They have a LONG history of periodic RIFs.  I have always been laid off first....but that's because I was a contract engineer.   We are cut before the direct hires, and that's as it should be.  I've had four multi-year contracts with Boeing and I had many direct-hire friends.  And what you both say is true.  A few of my friends were close enough to see full retirement on the horizon, but they didn't make it.  Some were forced to take early retirement at reduced benefits but some didn't even make it that far.  I suppose it makes sense to the corporations -- and their shareholders -- but I still feel it's a tragedy.  

[AV8rix]

2 hours ago, richwmn said:

 

 

On the other hand, I have been told that my PCC with over 15 years experience with HAL and Princess before that has been let go.

BUMMER!  Wonder what he/she will do now? 

[DaveSJ711]

48 minutes ago, Av8rix said:

 

 

I have observed that phenomenon in my years in Boeing engineering.  They have a LONG history of periodic RIFs.  I have always been laid off first....but that's because I was a contract engineer.   We are cut before the direct hires, and that's as it should be.  I've had four multi-year contracts with Boeing and I had many direct-hire friends.  And what you both say is true.  A few of my friends were close enough to see full retirement on the horizon, but they didn't make it.  Some were forced to take early retirement at reduced benefits but some didn't even make it that far.  I suppose it makes sense to the corporations -- and their shareholders -- but I still feel it's a tragedy.  

 

Welcome to the thread I started, my Western Washington friend!  I'm glad it piqued your interest.

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

4 hours ago, iancal said:

I believe that whatever happens will be financially driven.  As it should be.   

 

The  decisions Carnival Corp makes should be made in the absolute best financial  interests of the shareholders.

 

No doubt the executive will make the most advantageous decisions for their own financial benefit.  Whether that means separation bonuses, retention bonuses, or revised stock options and RSU's etc for those that will remain.

 

Well, it can be only one or the other ... decisions either benefit the shareholders or the nitwits from the executive offices.
 

Many decades ago when management actually worked for the company, the directors would've cut loose clown car that is Arnold, Swartz, Duffy and the HAL exec team many weeks ago.  But of course, capitalism has been mutated since then.

[Caribbean Chris]

12 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Maybe this situation will be a "teaching moment" for those who like to jump from job to job without a very good cause.  Seniority in one's job has some advantages, particularly when RIFs are needed.  

I jumped from job to job a couple of times in the 1980s, good decisions both times. A few years later, Sitmar and Royal Viking Line both ceased to exist. 

[Tampa Girl]

Curious - to those of you who think HAL will get chopped, rather than Princess, why?  HAL has been around along time and has, arguably, the better itineraries.  Would like to hear your reasons - but hope that you will be proven wrong.

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Tampa Girl
Misspelling

[rkacruiser]

10 hours ago, Caribbean Chris said:

I jumped from job to job a couple of times in the 1980s, good decisions both times.

 

Surely, such decisions can work out well.

 

10 hours ago, Caribbean Chris said:

A few years later, Sitmar and Royal Viking Line both ceased to exist. 

 

I don't understand what you were trying to say in relation to your previous sentence.

[Mandalay1903]

5 hours ago, Tampa Girl said:

Curious - to those of you who think HAL will get chopped, rather than Princess, why?  HAL has been around along time and has, arguably, the better itineraries.  Would like to hear your reasons - but hope that you will be proven wrong.

 

I'm not one of those suggesting either HAL or Princess would get chopped. Personally I'd like to see Carnival keep them both because I think they serve different markets and, especially, different itineraries. 

 

That said, the benefit that Princess brings to Carnival is their larger ("huge") ship sizes. They have much larger ships than HAL and I think that makes them more profitable on a per passenger basis. Koningsdam, Nieuw Statendam, and Ryndam fit that mold ("ilk").

 

I can safely say that my wife and I wouldn't want to sail on the large Princess-sized cruise ships. We've sailed the Koningsdam twice, and don't want to sail a ship that large again. Too many people--too little space. We're very happy with the Vista class ships, and after sailing the Veendam and Zaandam we don't want to go big.  No Princess for us...