If carnival truly cared they would lower capacity to 50%

[pokerguy90]

If carnival truly cared they would lower capacity to 50%.  They launched  with the highest passenger count of the restarts.  Now that numbers are rising due to Delta. Lowering pax capacity is the prudent thing to do.  They are headed for a breakout with the current level of guest capacity. Those numbers are proven with simple  math.  

[firefly333]

In order to survive and make a profit they will push it. These protocols arent to protect you, they are so carnival can survive and not go bankrupt. It's not about you. That's your first mistake. 

 

Then maybe lower capacity coming up as I can tell it's getting harder and harder to fill ships. A 8 day cruise on dream starting at 499, plus fees, price dropped now to 479, forma 1a, solo rate for sept 25. I think people just arent booking anymore. All these harsher and harsher protocols are putting people off. They are giving casino cabins away and tons of obc to get adults to board. 

 

People are cancelling in droves. 

 

Be careful what you wish for .. I dont want bankruptcy.

 

Personally even at $100 dont think I'd book anything new. Everything booked before rha hammer came down. 

[Brew12]

24 minutes ago, pokerguy90 said:

If carnival truly cared they would lower capacity to 50%.  They launched  with the highest passenger count of the restarts.  Now that numbers are rising due to Delta. Lowering pax capacity is the prudent thing to do.  They are headed for a breakout with the current level of guest capacity. Those numbers are proven with simple  math.  

I don't disagree that Carnival should reduce the head count. The flip side is that cruise lines sailing around 50% right now also don't require vaccines. Carnival was hoping that by requiring vaccines they could safely sail with higher passenger density. 

I think both methods are having to adjust right now as theory meets real world. 

[BlerkOne]

Simple math proves that cruise ships at any capacity are safer than staying on land.

[Dadofsix]

Firefly333 I agree that Carnival is doing their best to survive. I see 8 day cruises as low as 449 and that spells pure survival mode to keep the lights on. 50% capacity I don't think will operational cost of the voyage even with all the onboard revenue included basically putting the company further in debt. Carnival is trying to find the sweet spot limiting liabilities and ensuring a path to positive revenue streams. Would less people onboard reduce risk? Sure will but will those passengers pay more or be willing to accept reduced offerings at current prices?

[MMastell]

At 50% capacity they could not survive. They would lose less money just shutting the3 ships down. They could survive if they increased the fares by 150% - 200%.  Then they would still fail because they couldn't get 50% capacity at that price.

 

[Brew12]

Right now I doubt profitable cruises are what the goal is. I suspect they are just hoping to lose less by cruising than they do by not cruising. Profitability will come later.

 

[Joe817]

7 minutes ago, Brew12 said:

Right now I doubt profitable cruises are what the goal is. I suspect they are just hoping to lose less by cruising than they do by not cruising. Profitability will come later.

 

Damn! Logic prevails! Yes! 

[BlerkOne]

Pre-cruise testing and mask wearing addresses the concern 

[Illbcruzn4life]

3 hours ago, pokerguy90 said:

If carnival truly cared they would lower capacity to 50%.  They launched  with the highest passenger count of the restarts.  Now that numbers are rising due to Delta. Lowering pax capacity is the prudent thing to do.  They are headed for a breakout with the current level of guest capacity. Those numbers are proven with simple  math.  

 

If Carnival truly cared they would suspend operations. 

[balcony bound]

If the passenger count is reduced, then IF (and I don't think it can be helped)  there are cases onboard, the percentage would be higher... no win situation.

[bucfan2]

5 hours ago, Illbcruzn4life said:

 

If Carnival truly cared they would suspend operations. 

Very simple...you suspend ops for yourself.  They'll run their business w/in the accepted protocols and attempt to survive.  

[LouChamp]

9 hours ago, pokerguy90 said:

If carnival truly cared they would lower capacity to 50%.  They launched  with the highest passenger count of the restarts.  Now that numbers are rising due to Delta. Lowering pax capacity is the prudent thing to do.  They are headed for a breakout with the current level of guest capacity. Those numbers are proven with simple  math.  

 

31 minutes ago, bucfan2 said:

Very simple...you suspend ops for yourself.  They'll run their business w/in the accepted protocols and attempt to survive.  

this is why we wont cruise yet. will not risk my wifes safety. we will wait.  they just want money. its not a cruise its stress and aggravation  

[Computer Nerd]

9 hours ago, pokerguy90 said:

If carnival truly cared they would lower capacity to 50%.  They launched  with the highest passenger count of the restarts.  Now that numbers are rising due to Delta. Lowering pax capacity is the prudent thing to do.  They are headed for a breakout with the current level of guest capacity. Those numbers are proven with simple  math.  

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[tallnthensome]

3 minutes ago, LouChamp said:

 

this is why we wont cruise yet. will not risk my wifes safety. we will wait.  they just want money. its not a cruise its stress and aggravation  

I've never seen a moment in 20 years where any and all cruise lines didn't want money. They are not in business to try and go out of business. Best to avoid if you wish. 

Edited August 7, 2021 by tallnthensome

[Honolulu Blue]

9 hours ago, pokerguy90 said:

If carnival truly cared they would lower capacity to 50%.  They launched  with the highest passenger count of the restarts.  Now that numbers are rising due to Delta. Lowering pax capacity is the prudent thing to do.  They are headed for a breakout with the current level of guest capacity. Those numbers are proven with simple  math.  

 

I think the passenger count on cruises after August 14 will be down significantly - perhaps to near the 50% mark you suggest - because of the changes Carnival made this week.

 

9 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

Simple math proves that cruise ships at any capacity are safer than staying on land.

 

Maybe for some, but in my case it's simply not true.  The ship itself may be safe, but the problem is you have to get to it, and eventually they kick you off and you have to go home.

[LouChamp]

18 minutes ago, tallnthensome said:

I've never seen a moment in 20 years where any and all cruise lines didn't want money. They are not in business to try and go out of business. Best to avoid if you wish. 

and i shall 

[firefly333]

30 minutes ago, Honolulu Blue said:

 

I think the passenger count on cruises after August 14 will be down significantly - perhaps to near the 50% mark you suggest - because of the changes Carnival made this week.

 

 

Maybe for some, but in my case it's simply not true.  The ship itself may be safe, but the problem is you have to get to it, and eventually they kick you off and you have to go home.

Galveston is a mostly drive to port. Most of us at most encounter a gas station along the way.

 

Maybe we come in early, maybe not. Today will be interesting about the positive vista pax, and if they drive home or quarantine .. and if we even know or they fade into the woodwork.

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, Brew12 said:

Right now I doubt profitable cruises are what the goal is. I suspect they are just hoping to lose less by cruising than they do by not cruising. Profitability will come later.

 

Profitability will HOPEFULLY come later. 

[EngIceDave]

12 minutes ago, RWolver672 said:

I have to disagree with you on that one.  On land, I'm not in close contact with 2000+ other people..

I hate crowds. I avoid them on cruises. Only time it's an issue is in a line for something.

 

But I always manage to keep away and avoid it

 

BTW, I am not a germophobe or anything, I just hate people....LOL

[pokerguy90]

7 hours ago, Illbcruzn4life said:

 

If Carnival truly cared they would suspend operations. 

My title was to hook people in. The true spirit of the post was that the head count must be reduced to continue operations during this phase of covid. Stopping would be financial suicide.

[firefly333]

3 minutes ago, pokerguy90 said:

My title was to hook people in. The true spirit of the post was that the head count must be reduced to continue operations during this phase of covid. Stopping would be financial suicide.

If YOU dont like the head count it's your personal feelings not carnivals or those who booked. Book a line you prefer. Simple. I am ok with what they are doing enough to book and not cancel.

[pokerguy90]

10 hours ago, firefly333 said:

In order to survive and make a profit they will push it. These protocols arent to protect you, they are so carnival can survive and not go bankrupt. It's not about you. That's your first mistake. 

 

Then maybe lower capacity coming up as I can tell it's getting harder and harder to fill ships. A 8 day cruise on dream starting at 499, plus fees, price dropped now to 479, forma 1a, solo rate for sept 25. I think people just arent booking anymore. All these harsher and harsher protocols are putting people off. They are giving casino cabins away and tons of obc to get adults to board. 

 

People are cancelling in droves. 

 

Be careful what you wish for .. I dont want bankruptcy.

 

Personally even at $100 dont think I'd book anything new. Everything booked before rha hammer came down. 

Your not correct.  I said the math is simple.  According to Carnival Corp. Past 5 year annual reports. There per diem daily to break even was averaging 48.7% guest capacity at double occupancy per ship, per sailing on cruises 5-8 days. Which is there sweet spot. Food cost, docking fees, bunkering ect are variable costs. Brew12 was spot on that post. “The profits will come later”. The trick is sailing smart to avoid a shutdown. They can survive. But only by reducing the head count until this calms down. Even if this costs them short term in cancelations.  

[firefly333]

10 minutes ago, pokerguy90 said:

Your not correct.  I said the math is simple.  According to Carnival Corp. Past 5 year annual reports. There per diem daily to break even was averaging 48.7% guest capacity at double occupancy per ship, per sailing on cruises 5-8 days. Which is there sweet spot. Food cost, docking fees, bunkering ect are variable costs. Brew12 was spot on that post. “The profits will come later”. The trick is sailing smart to avoid a shutdown. They can survive. But only by reducing the head count until this calms down. Even if this costs them short term in cancelations.  

Clearly what the break even pt was last 5 years is out the window. Lower cruise fares, lot of casino fares, tons of obc. I can guarantee 48% is not the break even pt. Throw in extra cleaning and testing and isolation protocols.. you cant judge by previous break even. Meaningless. And math is my thing, education wise. 

 

But do what YOU want. It doesnt matter. I'm going to be watching the vista debark today and how the positive pax are handled, or if we even know and its quietly handled and we know nothing. The press are sniffing around this time. That's what matters how positives are handled imo. We just see this differently. Imo as a business they need to get thru as many of these bookings with large obc as possible so they can move in... .thinking as a shareholder. 500 more or less onboard isnt going to change the dynamics for me. If it bothers you rcl will book you. Go for it. I'm a ccl shareholder and want what is best for ccl. Not for one person. 

 

PS I dont see a lot of support for your viewpoint. Mixed at best.

Edited August 7, 2021 by firefly333

[bucfan2]

37 minutes ago, firefly333 said:

If YOU dont like the head count it's your personal feelings not carnivals or those who booked. Book a line you prefer. Simple. I am ok with what they are doing enough to book and not cancel.

Spot on!  .2-.3% testing positive.....really??  Who honestly expected anything near these %'s?  If the protocols work/continue to work, cruising seems to have been very successful thus far to me.