Is Holland America trying to drive away 4-star and above Mariners?

[nocl]

17 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

As a shareholder of more than 100 shares, it is impossible for one to obtain such information.  My Morgan Stanley advisor is unable to do so either.  

While all of the data on the individual lines is not publicly available there are market research reports that are commercially available that has data where one can tease out a lot of data concerning individual line performance.

[12cruise2]

On 11/18/2021 at 4:07 PM, KirkNC said:

 

 

Edited November 21, 2021 by 12cruise2

[iancal]

Do cruisers expect HAL and other cruise lines to stay static over the years?  Travel habits and preferences change over time.

 

One would expect those cruise lines to change in order to meet changing demands.  If not....they would end up where HAL was prior to the Carnival takeover.  Financial markets/lenders did not have enough confidence in them to extend the funds necessary to rebuild a tired fleet.

 

Don't blame Carnival for picking them up, blame the then HAL management for letting the cruise line fall into such a poor financial state.

Edited November 21, 2021 by iancal

[nocl]

30 minutes ago, iancal said:

Do cruisers expect HAL and other cruise lines to stay static over the years?  Travel habits and preferences change over time.

 

One would expect those cruise lines to change in order to meet changing demands.  If not....they would end up where HAL was prior to the Carnival takeover.  Financial markets/lenders did not have enough confidence in them to extend the funds necessary to rebuild a tired fleet.

 

Don't blame Carnival for picking them up, blame the then HAL management for letting the cruise line fall into such a poor financial state.

Not sure why you are saying that lenders were not willing to lend them money? At the time of the purchase of HAL by CCL they had just completed the purchase of Windstar.  They had just taken delivery of one new ship.  They had two new ships in planning.  They were in process of expanding their Alaska business.  They were in the process of buying failing cruise lines and assets themselves. Those are not ear marks of a company that could not get funding.

 

HAL was sold to CCL not because they were failing, but because the Van Der Vorm family decided that they could do better getting their money (625 million in 1989 dollars) and making other investments, that continuing in the cruise line business.  Bottom line CCL did not acquire HCL at a discount, it paid a premium to company value to get the company and assets, primarily the Alaskan investment and assets.

 

To put it simply the Van Der Vorms got a offer they were not willing to refuse just to stay in the cruise line business.

 

Just as a point of note the Van Der Vorms turned that 625 million from 1989 into more than 11 billion today.  

Edited November 21, 2021 by nocl

[OlsSalt]

HAL prior strength was its fleet of smaller ships, longer cruises and incredible itineraries.  That is what built its unique brand loyalty, long with its excellent staff selection and training programs.

 

Building larger ships put this wonderful cruise line into a new commercial model.  What will make HAL stand apart when it is no longer the cruise line of choice for the longer cruise, great itinerary, lower frills value passenger?  It had a unique niche and held its own for a long, long time in a rapidly changing market.

 

I still contend, every day someone else is turning age 70, so there is no shortage of "older passengers" who may still want to drop down into the low key atmosphere HAL ships were always known for.

 

Don't think HAL needed to change its previously winning formula to attract younger passengers so they would become their new base of over-age 70 passengers. Just sitting still and doing what they were doing best seemed to keep the ships full and "older" passengers (a renewable resource)  coming back for more, and more.  

 

Build ships for the older,  lower-key itinerary driven value passengers and they will come. They always do.  The wheel of life is like that.  

[nocl]

7 minutes ago, OlsSalt said:

HAL prior strength was its fleet of smaller ships, longer cruises and incredible itineraries.  That is what built its unique brand loyalty, long with its excellent staff selection and training programs.

 

Building larger ships put this wonderful cruise line into a new commercial model.  What will make HAL stand apart when it is no longer the cruise line of choice for the longer cruise, great itinerary, lower frills value passenger?  It had a unique niche and held its own for a long, long time in a rapidly changing market.

 

I still contend, every day someone else is turning age 70, so there is no shortage of "older passengers" who may still want to drop down into the low key atmosphere HAL ships were always known for.

 

Don't think HAL needed to change its previously winning formula to attract younger passengers so they would become their new base of over-age 70 passengers. Just sitting still and doing what they were doing best seemed to keep the ships full and "older" passengers (a renewable resource)  coming back for more, and more.  

 

Build ships for the older,  lower-key itinerary driven value passengers and they will come. They always do.  The wheel of life is like that.  

The problem is that if you look at data on what cruise lines have paid for ship builds, not even including operational cost differences per passenger, a cruise line cannot build small cruise ships for value passengers.  The revenue/costs makes it clear that new small ships will be in the premium pricing range, not the mass market value range.

 

You still have some lines in Europe sailing smaller ships, but they are ones that they purchased from other lines and are steadily growing older and soon or later they will also go away.  Any new builds below 1000 have tended to be in lines like Oceania, Viking Ocean, etc.   Viking Ocean seems to building the most smaller ships and they are clearly not in the value priced market.

Edited November 21, 2021 by nocl

[iancal]

9 minutes ago, OlsSalt said:

HAL prior strength was its fleet of smaller ships, longer cruises and incredible itineraries.  That is what built its unique brand loyalty, long with its excellent staff selection and training programs.

 

Building larger ships put this wonderful cruise line into a new commercial model.  What will make HAL stand apart when it is no longer the cruise line of choice for the longer cruise, great itinerary, lower frills value passenger?  It had a unique niche and held its own for a long, long time in a rapidly changing market.

 

I still contend, every day someone else is turning age 70, so there is no shortage of "older passengers" who may still want to drop down into the low key atmosphere HAL ships were always known for.

 

Don't think HAL needed to change its previously winning formula to attract younger passengers so they would become their new base of over-age 70 passengers. Just sitting still and doing what they were doing best seemed to keep the ships full and "older" passengers (a renewable resource)  coming back for more, and more.  

 

Build ships for the older,  lower-key itinerary driven value passengers and they will come. They always do.  The wheel of life is like that.  

That may be so but we do not know what the financials attached to such a marketing and business plan are.  HAL dumped some older smaller ships.  The were not sold because they were very profitable, because they were in good condition and not requiring substantial capital investment, or because they mirrored HAL's future direction. 

 

Emotion and sentimentality  is one thing.   Well thought out, well  executed business plans and shareholder return are quite another.

Edited November 21, 2021 by iancal

[OlsSalt]

Fred Olsen is the line to watch for the lower-frills smaller ships- who did pick up two of the HAL ship favorites (Amsterdam and Rotterdam). Not sure they have the same global itineraries yet.  

 

So glad most of my sailings were in the HAL golden days - and our last cruise was a Maasdam In-Depth cruise - transpacific and two weeks around Japan. I can die an go to travel heaven now.  Everything else will either pale in comparison or be out of my price range.

 

I appreciate economies of scale and Carnival was a master brining cruising to the mass market. HAL's prior uniqueness is just not in the Carnival DNA. 

 

Flirted recently with Silversea just to complete a longstanding travel wish to get to Tristan da Cuhna, even bit the bullet and put down the full fair with the understanding this would probably we our last big adventure cruise.

 

The level of luxury and attention was a bit too much for our own more pedestrian tastes, but they had the market and the itinerary and we had the built up travel budget for one last blow out.

 

"Covid" restrictions made any future travel planning too unstable for us, so we ultimately canceled. And with surprisingly few regrets considering we were paying three times as much as any similar HAL cruise.  We would not miss having a butler nor great food at every single meal.

 

To SilverSeas credit, they refunded our fare immediately. That is one benefit of the smaller luxury lines, the individual customer does get attention. However, seeing three other HAL cruises out there right now for the same total price makes me realize we did the right thing --except for the "covid" thing continuing to destabilize any future travel planning.

 

 HAL, long may you rule the smaller ship -great itinerary market. We do miss you. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by OlsSalt

[iancal]

7 minutes ago, OlsSalt said:

Fred Olsen is the line to watch for the lower-frills smaller ships- who did pick up two of the HAL ship favorites (Amsterdam and Rotterdam). Not sure they have the same global itineraries yet.  

 

So glad most of my sailings were in the HAL golden days - and our last cruise was a Maasdam In-Depth cruise - transpacific and two weeks around Japan. I can die an go to travel heaven now.  Everything else will either pale in comparison or be out of my price range.

 

I appreciate economies of scale and Carnival was a master brining cruising to the mass market. HAL's prior uniqueness is just not in the Carnival DNA. 

Carnival Corp appears to be able to operate  Carnival Cruise Lines, Cunard, and  Seabourn. 

 

These are savvy business people.  They have the knowledge and the experience.  100 plus ships pre covid.  

 

Their exec team may have a little more insight into successfully operating cruise lines and cruise ships than the average cruiser. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by iancal

[nocl]

9 minutes ago, iancal said:

That may be so but we do not know what the financials attached to such a marketing and business plan are.  HAL dumped some older smaller ships.  The were not sold because they were very profitable, because they were in good condition and not requiring substantial capital investment, or because they mirrored HAL's future direction. 

 

Emotion and sentimentality  is one thing.   Well thought out, well  executed business plans and shareholder return are quite another.

The US cruise lines tend to sell ships as they age out when they get close to the time when additional inspections and maintenance is required.  They could have profitably (just not as profitable as their larger ships) continued to sail them for a longer period of time but such a decision would have had some impact on their overall profit margin and would have been counter to their desire to expand margin (correspondingly their stock price) instead of keeping the ships and potentially shrinking their margin.

[nocl]

Just now, iancal said:

Carnival Corp appears to be able to operate  Carnival Cruise Lines, Cunard, and  Seabourn. 

 

These are savvy business people.  They have the knowledge and the experience.  100 plus ships pre covid.

Don't forget P&O, Costa, Princess, Aida.  Of course Seabourn pretty much the only remaining finger in the smaller ship market.

[iancal]

6 minutes ago, nocl said:

Don't forget P&O, Costa, Princess, Aida.  Of course Seabourn pretty much the only remaining finger in the smaller ship market.

Exactly.  100 plus ships pre covid.   

 

I have no doubt  that they are well aware of where the market is going, what the market demands will be five years down the line as they plan for new builds, and how to turn a decent return for their shareholders.  They know where the market sweet spots are and how to exploit them.   Carnival knows just a little more about customer demographics, current and future,  than the average Joe.

 

They have had years of proven success.  I doubt very much that they put up with substandard performance from any of their cruise line management teams.

Edited November 21, 2021 by iancal

[nocl]

30 minutes ago, iancal said:

Exactly.  100 plus ships pre covid.   

 

I have no doubt  that they are well aware of where the market is going, what the market demands will be five years down the line as they plan for new builds, and how to turn a decent return for their shareholders.  They know where the market sweet spots are and how to exploit them.   Carnival knows just a little more about customer demographics, current and future,  than the average Joe.

 

They have had years of proven success.  I doubt very much that they put up with substandard performance from any of their cruise line management teams.

Clearly CCL and RCL have done well with the mass market model.  However it will be interesting to see how long the model with its ever increasing number or ever larger ships can continue expanding or if the push back that is starting to take place in some port cities requires some major change and the model shifts from appealing to more and more people by keeping the price low, even at the expense of some of the quality, to one more focused on stable number of of ships and passengers.

[terrydtx]

30 minutes ago, nocl said:

Clearly CCL and RCL have done well with the mass market model.  However it will be interesting to see how long the model with its ever increasing number or ever larger ships can continue expanding or if the push back that is starting to take place in some port cities requires some major change and the model shifts from appealing to more and more people by keeping the price low, even at the expense of some of the quality, to one more focused on stable number of of ships and passengers.

On our first HAL cruise in 2000 on the Volendam was a great cruise but no regular Verandah cabins. We cruised on the Veendam next and were happy. Then in 2008 we tried Celebrity on the old Century and they did have a balcony cabin but we were not impressed with Celebrity. We then cruised on the N. Amsterdam, Eurodam, Noordam (First Neptune Suite) and Westerdam (First in Signature Suite) all cruises we were happy with. Then we sailed on the Equinox in a Sky suite with Celebrity and absolutely fell in love with the Retreat and Celebrity. 

 

Since 2000 HAL is still the same old HAL with very few improvements other than bigger ships in 20 years. HAL has become the cruise line for the geriatric cruiser, and we are both in out early 70's but HAL has gotten too old for us. Since 2008 Celebrity has made huge improvements in ships, service and the Retreat and has adapted to what some people want in a more luxury experience on a mass marketed cruise line. We are 3 star on HAL, will be 4 star after our last HAL cruise next year. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by terrydtx

[Tennessee Titan]

Just another forum for the complainers ans naysayers to gather. If you really don'r like HAL any more, move on! 

Good luck.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Tennessee Titan

[terrydtx]

Next up the regular HAL cheerleaders!!

[zgscl]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

The US cruise lines tend to sell ships as they age out when they get close to the time when additional inspections and maintenance is required.  They could have profitably (just not as profitable as their larger ships) continued to sail them for a longer period of time but such a decision would have had some impact on their overall profit margin and would have been counter to their desire to expand margin (correspondingly their stock price) instead of keeping the ships and potentially shrinking their margin.

It was fascinating hearing the captain on Nieuw Amsterdam talk about this and some of the required maintenance and safety updates required around the 20-25 year mark which is why they sell the ships and build new ones rather than retrofit. I was also shocked to learn the Zuiderdam turns 20 next year. Boy how time flies. 

[nocl]

23 minutes ago, terrydtx said:

On our first HAL cruise in 2000 on the Volendam was a great cruise but no regular Verandah cabins. We cruised on the Veendam next and were happy. Then in 2008 we tried Celebrity on the old Century and they did have a balcony cabin but we were not impressed with Celebrity. We then cruised on the N. Amsterdam, Eurodam, Noordam (First Neptune Suite) and Westerdam (First in Signature Suite) all cruises we were happy with. Then we sailed on the Equinox in a Sky suite with Celebrity and absolutely fell in love with the Retreat and Celebrity. 

 

Since 2000 HAL is still the same old HAL with very few improvements other than bigger ships in 20 years. HAL has become the cruise line for the geriatric cruiser, and we are both in out early 70's but HAL has gotten too old for us. Since 2008 Celebrity has made huge improvements in ships, service and the Retreat and has adapted to what some people want in a more luxury experience on a mass marketed cruise line. We are 3 star on HAL, will be 4 star after our last HAL cruise next year. 

 

Our view is rather different.

My first cruise was on one of the old NCL ships (prior to the reboot under NCLH) back around 2000 as part of a business conference.  My first vacation cruise was on Celebrity Infinity.  Celebrity was our main cruise line until they went full speed into the ship within a ship model. As well as noticed that Celebrity was pretty much repeating the same relative short routes. So the same things that brought you to Celebrity, is why we left Celebrity

 

We then booked a number of Princess Cruises, during which we also tried HAL.  Princess has a far wider selection of routes than we found with Celebrity. Though by this time we have done almost all of them. The first time we tried HAL we liked the ships, but did not like the entertainment (considered the production shows to be less Broadway and more Lawrence Welk). So we went primarily with Princess with some cruises on other lines.  Then a couple of years ago we tried HAL again, primarily because we could catch one of their ships from Sydney to Honolulu at the end of a lengthy trip to Australia.   We found that we have liked the changes HAL has made, the number of different music venues such as Lincoln Center, the specialty restaurant Tamarind, while still keeping the cruise low key and retaining some of the old ship features to be quite attractive.  All at the same time keeping some itineraries that are not the same 7-14 day routes that every other cruise line seems to be doing.

Doing on those routes on ships that while not as small as what they used to use is still smaller than what most other lines are using. As a result we expect to be spending more time on HAL, at least until we exhaust some of their more unique routes.

 

 

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

Clearly CCL and RCL have done well with the mass market model...

 

I just took a cruise on RCL after a long hiatus from them.  Returning to them after several HAL cruises, I was blown away at their level of service and entertainment, no to mention the amazing ship (Ovation).  Many years ago, it was said that HAL had some of the best service in the mainstream cruise market.  I can confidently say that is no longer true.   

[cruisemom42]

11 minutes ago, nocl said:

Doing on those routes on ships that while not as small as what they used to use is still smaller than what most other lines are using. As a result we expect to be spending more time on HAL, at least until we exhaust some of their more unique routes.

 

Isn't it great that there are a number of choices -- I've also been cruising long enough to know sometimes cruise lines move down on my list but they can also move back up again. 

 

I like HAL itineraries, but I find recently that I prefer Celebrity's onboard experience. (Though like you, the continuing segmentation of passengers bothers me.). For now I'll certainly continue to sail with both.

 

What is getting harder to find are smaller ships that are not "luxury" ships. I do miss that niche as I strongly prefer to be on the smallest ships reasonable rather than those of 2,000 pax or more.

 

[nocl]

Just now, Aquahound said:

 

I just took a cruise on RCL after a long hiatus from them.  Returning to them after several HAL cruises, I was blown away at their level of service and entertainment, no to mention the amazing ship (Ovation).  Many years ago, it was said that HAL had some of the best service in the mainstream cruise market.  I can confidently say that is no longer true.   

I have found service to be pretty consistent on all of the mass market lines RCL, Celebrity, HAL Princess, all about the same.  Though Celebrity bar service seem be be a bit slower.  RCL with their focus on families certainly makes entertainment their focus.  But then again wouldn't you expect more choices for entertainment in a town size of 4000-5000 than in a town of 2000.

 

Which each of the lines there are pros and cons with more things the same than differences.  We pick mostly route.  The larger the ships the less variation in the routes.

 

We do like RCL , which we sail when grand children are along.  Then again other than NCL, have not run into a cruise line that I really do not like.

[terrydtx]

13 minutes ago, nocl said:

 

Our view is rather different.

My first cruise was on one of the old NCL ships (prior to the reboot under NCLH) back around 2000 as part of a business conference.  My first vacation cruise was on Celebrity Infinity.  Celebrity was our main cruise line until they went full speed into the ship within a ship model. As well as noticed that Celebrity was pretty much repeating the same relative short routes. So the same things that brought you to Celebrity, is why we left Celebrity

 

We then booked a number of Princess Cruises, during which we also tried HAL.  Princess has a far wider selection of routes than we found with Celebrity. Though by this time we have done almost all of them. The first time we tried HAL we liked the ships, but did not like the entertainment (considered the production shows to be less Broadway and more Lawrence Welk). So we went primarily with Princess with some cruises on other lines.  Then a couple of years ago we tried HAL again, primarily because we could catch one of their ships from Sydney to Honolulu at the end of a lengthy trip to Australia.   We found that we have liked the changes HAL has made, the number of different music venues such as Lincoln Center, the specialty restaurant Tamarind, while still keeping the cruise low key and retaining some of the old ship features to be quite attractive.  All at the same time keeping some itineraries that are not the same 7-14 day routes that every other cruise line seems to be doing.

Doing on those routes on ships that while not as small as what they used to use is still smaller than what most other lines are using. As a result we expect to be spending more time on HAL, at least until we exhaust some of their more unique routes.

 

 

That is why there are so many different cruise lines, no one cruise line takes care of everybody. I agree we love Tamarind but only the newest ships have this specialty restaurant.

[nocl]

1 minute ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Isn't it great that there are a number of choices -- I've also been cruising long enough to know sometimes cruise lines move down on my list but they can also move back up again. 

 

I like HAL itineraries, but I find recently that I prefer Celebrity's onboard experience. (Though like you, the continuing segmentation of passengers bothers me.). For now I'll certainly continue to sail with both.

 

What is getting harder to find are smaller ships that are not "luxury" ships. I do miss that niche as I strongly prefer to be on the smallest ships reasonable rather than those of 2,000 pax or more.

 

Unfortunately as more of the small ships age out, it is going to be more and more the premium fare lines.  Unfortunately, even though they are smaller ships, they do not seem to offer that much more variation in destinations (length and ports) than the large ships.  Spent this morning looking at Viking Ocean world cruises and most of the ports I have already hit on Celebrity and Princess.

 

 

[cruisemom42]

1 minute ago, nocl said:

Unfortunately as more of the small ships age out, it is going to be more and more the premium fare lines.  Unfortunately, even though they are smaller ships, they do not seem to offer that much more variation in destinations (length and ports) than the large ships.  Spent this morning looking at Viking Ocean world cruises and most of the ports I have already hit on Celebrity and Princess.

 

 

 

Viking's itineraries are cookie cutter and not very exciting. Have you looked at Azamara?  They have some interesting cruises. Most are not long but you can string several together and not get the same ports over and over.

[nocl]

12 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Viking's itineraries are cookie cutter and not very exciting. Have you looked at Azamara?  They have some interesting cruises. Most are not long but you can string several together and not get the same ports over and over.

They are on my list.  Waiting to see how they stabilize under the new owner.