Carnival Corp In Talks To Sell Seabourn

[SLSD]

1 hour ago, Sunprince said:

+1

 

And just to add to this….Today it is an aversion to patronizing a Saudi owned business but that is just one example where personal beliefs/preferences guide one’s spending decisions. Russia, China etc also come to mind.  Also, for ex, as Canadians, we have friends who have avoided travelling and spending their money in the US, and more specifically certain states, because their personal beliefs/preferences are at conflict with the (political) environment in those areas. So this can be applied more broadly….but where does it end? 

But everyone gets to decide what they are comfortable with and what they are not.  You are free to buy from whomever and sail with whomever.  No one is restricting your access.  And others have not criticized you for making whatever decision you are comfortable with.  All of us are free agents in the game--and free to change our minds as well.  

[FlyerTalker]

19 minutes ago, SLSD said:

But everyone gets to decide what they are comfortable with and what they are not.  You are free to buy from whomever and sail with whomever.  No one is restricting your access.  And others have not criticized you for making whatever decision you are comfortable with.  All of us are free agents in the game--and free to change our minds as well.  

 

Granted.

 

Just that some seem to make it a big deal in certain cases, yet are remarkably fine with less "virtuous" choices in the opposite direction.

[cruiseej]

13 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Hypocrisy is the true pandemic of our time and nowhere does it bare its fangs more than when it comes to folks who claim to base many of their day to day decisions on who owns/invests in what!  The world of major capital investments is so complex that few have a clue as to who actually owns various entities... So when folks tell me they make their day to day spending decisions based on who owns what it just makes me laugh.  Few folks have a clue as to who is really underwriting their favorite companies.

 

Hank, I think the distinction here is that there is a significant difference between having a company which is wholly owned by the Saudi investment fund and a company in which the Saudi fund has a small minority investment. You're correct that it would be difficult to boycott, let alone find out, every company in which the Saudi fund has investments, as it is known for not being very transparent. But that's different than if the Saudis outright purchase an entire cruise line.

 

I'd also note that even if one wouldn't object to traveling on a Saudi-owned cruise line, the separation of Seabourn from CCL would have lots of impact, because many pieces of Seabourn's operations are currently integrated with the parent company and especially corporate sibling Holland America (with which it shares headquarters). From procurement to IT to HR, it would be a huge job to separate Seabourn from Carnival and Holland America, and it would take time to see how this might impact everything from reservations to onboard provisions and staff.

[Hlitner]

17 minutes ago, cruiseej said:

 

Hank, I think the distinction here is that there is a significant difference between having a company which is wholly owned by the Saudi investment fund and a company in which the Saudi fund has a small minority investment. You're correct that it would be difficult to boycott, let alone find out, every company in which the Saudi fund has investments, as it is known for not being very transparent. But that's different than if the Saudis outright purchase an entire cruise line.

 

I'd also note that even if one wouldn't object to traveling on a Saudi-owned cruise line, the separation of Seabourn from CCL would have lots of impact, because many pieces of Seabourn's operations are currently integrated with the parent company and especially corporate sibling Holland America (with which it shares headquarters). From procurement to IT to HR, it would be a huge job to separate Seabourn from Carnival and Holland America, and it would take time to see how this might impact everything from reservations to onboard provisions and staff.

We hear you.  We can only speculate as to whether SB would improve or decline with a different owner.  It is also possible that Saudi interests would purchase the line and perhaps contract with a cruise line (such as CCL) to handle the day to day operations.  At this time we simply do not know.  

 

I have been reading some of the recent reports (posted here)  and it sounds somewhat alarming.  On the other hand, we have been on 3 SB cruises in the past 10 months (most recently 27 days on the Ovation) and thought much onboard was close to normal SB (we can all debate whether SB cuisine meets luxury standards).  Our only major complaint on the Ovation (March-April) was the lack of communication regarding the onboard COVID situation and abysmal way that SB handled a major itinerary change (substituting Gibraltar and Malaga for Morocco) by refusing to even acknowledge the change (this caused some major problems for folks who had booked private tours in Morocco).  

 

Hank

[richard_london]

7 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

We hear you.  We can only speculate as to whether SB would improve or decline with a different owner.  It is also possible that Saudi interests would purchase the line and perhaps contract with a cruise line (such as CCL) to handle the day to day operations.  At this time we simply do not know.  

 

I have been reading some of the recent reports (posted here)  and it sounds somewhat alarming.  On the other hand, we have been on 3 SB cruises in the past 10 months (most recently 27 days on the Ovation) and thought much onboard was close to normal SB (we can all debate whether SB cuisine meets luxury standards).  Our only major complaint on the Ovation (March-April) was the lack of communication regarding the onboard COVID situation and abysmal way that SB handled a major itinerary change (substituting Gibraltar and Malaga for Morocco) by refusing to even acknowledge the change (this caused some major problems for folks who had booked private tours in Morocco).  

 

Hank

Azamara have contracted V.Ships (https://vgrouplimited.com/our-brands/v-ships/) to manage their ships.  V.Ships looked after the QE2 in Dubai once she was sold by Cunard and before Dubai converted her to a hotel.  So they are a potential candidate.  I don't know how integrated Seabourn's operations are, but I imagine sales, marketing and crewing for all CCLs brands are centralised so it would be difficult carve out part of that for the sale.  It would make things simpler for the Saudis (if they buy the company) as they have no experience in this field.

[Xerxes10]

On 5/24/2022 at 1:02 PM, difranco said:

Will those with human rights values shun the brand if the deal goes through.

Good question! I think I will.

[cruiseej]

On 5/24/2022 at 4:02 PM, difranco said:

Will those with human rights values shun the brand if the deal goes through.

 

38 minutes ago, Xerxes10 said:

Good question! I think I will.

 

I wonder how this factor gets built into the price valuation? Surely the Saudis would know that some existing Seabourn customers would turn away and not sail on a Saudi-owned Seabourn line — but how many? That has to figure into the valuation from their end. From Carnival's end, though, they shouldn't be willing to build in a reduction in price because the new ownership would alienate and drive away some customers. So how do they arrive at a mutually agreeable price? Unless CCL is just eager to get cash and willing to part with their luxury brand at a discounted price… 

[Utopia1]

The other side of the coin is some customers might look at the sale to the Saudis as a plus- considering

that the airlines listed below offer some of the most luxurious business and first class flights.  I imagine the Saudis would elevate the luxury level on the ships.

 

I truly enjoy Seabourn "as is"- and as long as the standards are maintained I will be loyal to Seabourn whoever the owner is.

 

Etihad  airlines --- based in Abu Dhabi

Emirates airlines- owned by the government of Dubai

Qatar airlines    - owned by the Qatari government

[markham]

I am sure that a new owner would do far more than maintain standards. It’s the standards that over time have slipped, IMO, and now we wonder what could have been. You only have to look at the best on offer from other lines including what they have delivered in the past few years to see the trends.

 

A new investor will see what the brand’s potential is and then go about delivering it. Or they would not bother with the investment. They and other suitors as well as Carnival know what is at stake and Carnival is in a pickle financially. Seabourn is its outlier. 
 

I have grown to live the Ody class ships in particular, and the Encore class not so much. But different strokes for the Seabourn loyal. Now make them more “specifically” luxurious and sophisticated and thereby worth their fares. Otherwise they will be be denied their potential. The sale sounds logical and compelling with the parties driven to make a deal.
 

I am happy to stay the course for another year with some big ticket commitments, and I hope that this is concluded soon so we can see some “wow” changes to these 5 ships. I want to keep on sailing with those can-do and warm-hearted Seabourn crew. Also, I don’t know how any of this will effect the 2 expedition ships. I know that the Venture is a magnificent game-changing technical feat. Let’s see those reviews.

 

Happy and healthy sailing!

[toseaornottosea]

58 minutes ago, markham said:

I am happy to stay the course for another year with some big ticket commitments, and I hope that this is concluded soon so we can see some “wow” changes to these 5 ships. I want to keep on sailing with those can-do and warm-hearted Seabourn crew. Also, I don’t know how any of this will effect the 2 expedition ships. I know that the Venture is a magnificent game-changing technical feat. Let’s see those reviews.

 As a longtime Seabourn sailor and fan, going back to the original triplets, I could not agree more.  I too "want to keep on sailing with those can-do and warm-hearted Seabourn crew."  Sailing on the Ovation in June and the Venture in January to the Antarctic.  

[cruiseej]

10 hours ago, Lois10028 said:

The other side of the coin is some customers might look at the sale to the Saudis as a plus- considering that the airlines listed below offer some of the most luxurious business and first class flights.  I imagine the Saudis would elevate the luxury level on the ships.

 

Etihad  airlines --- based in Abu Dhabi

Emirates airlines- owned by the government of Dubai

Qatar airlines    - owned by the Qatari government

 

The airlines you mention are from the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, two independent countries countries which are not the same as or part of Saudi Arabia. The UAE and Qatar are more modernized and considered much more progressive than Saudi Arabia. There are longstanding concerns with restrictive human rights policies in Saudi Arabia even before the assassination of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi by government agents in 2018.

 

A purchase by the Saudi investment fund might provide capital to improve the cruise line. Or it might  lead to measures to cost-cutting to improve profitability in their investment (fewer staff? no caviar? alcoholic beverages not included? who knows?) which would not make Seabourn loyalists happy. In any case, many people would not choose to spend money on a cruise line owned by the Saudi government.

[Mauzac]

9 hours ago, toseaornottosea said:

 As a longtime Seabourn sailor and fan, going back to the original triplets, I could not agree more.  I too "want to keep on sailing with those can-do and warm-hearted Seabourn crew."  Sailing on the Ovation in June and the Venture in January to the Antarctic.  

 

Ditto here too.  We have our 'big one' coming up in the Autumn.  I think it has been nincredibly hard for all sorts of commercial business in the wake of the pandemic, and I imagine there is some 'resetting' going on.  I will be remaining positive.  

[markham]

Let’s put the Saudi “thing” into perspective.

 

The Fund already owns 5.1% of Carnival after buying 8.2% in 2020. Their participation in a purchase of Seabourn would be a godsend to Carnival. Right now Carnival has to prioritize its strongest and most profitable brands eg Cunard where they are now building a new 3000 passenger ship.

 

The Fund would likely draw in other investors and specialists and sell on the brand, having it brought up to a better standard. They might as well buy other ships for the new brand. We just don’t know. But the bottom line is that the fund is an investment vehicle only. They are not in the cruise line business as such.

 

And remember that all of the large cruise lines are struggling, and none of them could acquire Seabourn at this time. Where would they get the funds? 
 

This transaction may well prove to be Seabourn’s salvation.

 

Happy and healthy sailing!
 

 

[Mr Luxury]

Markham,I agree with your facts and theories.

I sail on the product that suits my style and taste.

I do not go through life thinking about who owns what and if laws and rules of those countries effect my holiday plans and enjoyment.

If I did then I might not want to sail on any US owned vessel because I don't agree with the US gun laws.

Terrible and sad things happen all over the World,some of it will affect us and some of it will not.

[Fletcher]

The Saudi government already has a strange cruise arrangement with MSC and one or more of their ships, such as the Bellissima, is based in Saudi and does regular runs along the Red Sea coast and up to Aqaba and across to Egypt.  The weird thing is that these ships are mass-market, 2000-pax booze cruise things and I wouldn't think many of their core customers would be remotely interested in cruising to Saudi with all its restrictions.   I can't think that Saudi citizens would be interested, either.

 

Personally, I'd love to visit the Kingdom and I'm tempted by a Silversea cruise next Spring which sails from Dubai to Athens, calling at Djibouti (possibly a world first) and several Saudi ports.  

 

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Fletcher

[lincslady]

I read that the Saudi government wanted more cruises and tourists in the Red Sea area, which is the only aspect which would concern me over this takeover.  Not many Seabourn regulars would want to be cruising this area too often, I would have thought.  The other thought is would the ships specialise in attracting the sort of Saudis who spend so much time in London, gambling and drinking?

[Utopia1]

The Saudi citizens could be on any ship if they wanted to drink and gamble-- as far as gambling the Seabourn casinos are not particularly appealing to "big" gamblers.

This is business-- and any buyer would try to keep the Seabourn base and expand on that. Seabourn needs a cash infusion to keep up its standards and  hopefully improve.

Let's wait and see--

I am hopeful because I just made my final payment for the world cruise.
 

 

[SLSD]

6 hours ago, markham said:

Let’s put the Saudi “thing” into perspective.

 

The Fund already owns 5.1% of Carnival after buying 8.2% in 2020. Their participation in a purchase of Seabourn would be a godsend to Carnival. Right now Carnival has to prioritize its strongest and most profitable brands eg Cunard where they are now building a new 3000 passenger ship.

 

The Fund would likely draw in other investors and specialists and sell on the brand, having it brought up to a better standard. They might as well buy other ships for the new brand. We just don’t know. But the bottom line is that the fund is an investment vehicle only. They are not in the cruise line business as such.

 

And remember that all of the large cruise lines are struggling, and none of them could acquire Seabourn at this time. Where would they get the funds? 
 

This transaction may well prove to be Seabourn’s salvation.

 

Happy and healthy sailing!
 

 

I have a lot of respect for your opinions Markham.  I have met you and know that you are an erudite person.  I even have an inkling that we may share at least some political views--so I am listening.  You say that the Fund is just an investment vehicle.  I understand that, but am concerned about what I  have read as it seems to imply that the Fund would be buying the brand.  I know that you are not indifferent to human rights--so I am just asking how you think about a major investment in a brand we all know and love and the human rights brutalities of the owners of the Fund.  I'm still working through these thoughts myself.  

Edited May 27, 2022 by SLSD

[Ken the cruiser]

Here’s a more basic question. We booked the Dec 2021 Antarctica cruise on the Quest and PIF before it was canceled due to C19 concerns. We then transferred those $$$, as well as getting the excess refunded in $$$, to pay in full our July 2023 Sojourn cruise. If the line is sold to any company, will we automatically be given the option of getting our $$$ back if we decide not to cruise with the new line, whom ever it might be?

[FlyerTalker]

24 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

If the line is sold to any company, will we automatically be given the option of getting our $$$ back if we decide not to cruise with the new line, whom ever it might be?

 

Why would you think that?  Your contract is with the corporation, not who may have ownership interest. 

 

You have a mortgage contract with a bank.  It gets bought.  You still have the same obligation as before.  You have a rental lease with a company.  They sell out to a different company, but the contractual arrangements carry through to the new entity.

 

If contracts were automatically subject to cancellation if there is an ownership change, could you picture how this would completely throw the principles of business law out the window?  (And yes, if there are specific provisions in the contract addressing such issues - as you might find with a contract where the expertise of the owner is of significant value in the transaction - then we would turn to those provisions for answers).

[Ken the cruiser]

36 minutes ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

Why would you think that?  Your contract is with the corporation, not who may have ownership interest. 

 

You have a mortgage contract with a bank.  It gets bought.  You still have the same obligation as before.  You have a rental lease with a company.  They sell out to a different company, but the contractual arrangements carry through to the new entity.

 

If contracts were automatically subject to cancellation if there is an ownership change, could you picture how this would completely throw the principles of business law out the window?  (And yes, if there are specific provisions in the contract addressing such issues - as you might find with a contract where the expertise of the owner is of significant value in the transaction - then we would turn to those provisions for answers).

Thanks. Just thought I’d ask. So basically as long as we cancel before final payment due date, if we decide to do so, whatever is in our current contract would still apply. Sounds fair. 
 

Cruises 25 Days Or Less:

Days Prior to Departure	Cancellation Fee
120-91 days	15% of full fare
90-46 days	50% of full fare
45-31 days	75% of full fare
30 days or less, or non-appearance	100% of full fare

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Ken the cruiser

[markham]

SLSD, I understand where you are coming from, and we all have to think through what the ownership change may mean broadly. But we don’t know what the new owner’s intentions may be and that knowledge is needed to take an initial, informed view on the whole thing.

I imagine that this transaction will involve an ownership change and one that will evolve as the brand becomes valuable. That might mean that the Fund will reduce its share. I doubt that the Fund will have sole ownership responsibility (if it ever does) for long. This is probably an interim step to save the line and build value. As I mentioned earlier, the Fund is not in the business of cruise line operations,. It is only interested in creating and retaining value. 
 

And back to Carnival, we don’t know who the bond holders are now, and they may well include a lot of names with big investments that one might not care for. It has not made a difference to me. But I do wish the brand well, and as long as its superb crew retain and enhance their work prospects, we have a positive outcome - alongside our opportunity to cruise. No one wants a repeat of the poor performance via private equity purchase of Crystal which is another story. 
 

So we have to wait and see what comes out of this investment. If the Fund is primarily managing this as a financial opportunity - restructuring it and then selling it to a major cruise operator (that are now unable to do this themselves) - then I have no issues. However, if the Saudi state intends to operate Seabourn on a long term basis with their own management team and board of directors that  would likely create issues for me and probably many other veteran cruisers. Which begs the question as to why the Fund wouldn’t realize, accept and avoid making taking that stance.

That’s it for now. 
 

Happy and healthy sailing!

 

 

 

 

[SLSD]

31 minutes ago, markham said:

 

So we have to wait and see what comes out of this investment. If the Fund is primarily managing this as a financial opportunity - restructuring it and then selling it to a major cruise operator (that are now unable to do this themselves) - then I have no issues. However, if the Saudi state intends to operate Seabourn on a long term basis with their own management team and board of directors that  would likely create issues for me and probably many other veteran cruisers. Which begs the question as to why the Fund wouldn’t realize, accept and avoid making taking that stance.

That’s it for now. 
 

Happy and healthy sailing!

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your comments.  I find them to be reasonable in that you see several different ways this could go and have your own concerns if the Fund intends to manage SB long term.  I'm with you on wishing Seabourn as a brand well.  We love sailing on Seabourn and care what happens to its many wonderful employees. 

 

[saminina]

3 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Thanks. Just thought I’d ask. So basically as long as we cancel before final payment due date, if we decide to do so, whatever is in our current contract would still apply. Sounds fair. 
 

Cruises 25 Days Or Less:

Days Prior to Departure	Cancellation Fee
120-91 days	15% of full fare
90-46 days	50% of full fare
45-31 days	75% of full fare
30 days or less, or non-appearance	100% of full fare

 

 

Not sure this is the place to seek such advise.   A few years ago we had a $5,000 deposit on an Orion cruise.  National Geographic purchased Orion six  months prior to departure.   We wanted to cancel.

NG refused to return deposit.

Edited May 28, 2022 by saminina

[Ken the cruiser]

29 minutes ago, saminina said:

 

Not sure this is the place to seek such advise.   A few years ago we had a $5,000 deposit on an Orion cruise.  National Geographic purchased Orion six  months prior to departure.   We wanted to cancel.

NG refused to return deposit.

No worries. We’re more than likely going to go on our 20 day July 2023 cruise as it’s with family and a great itinerary! I was just reading all the back and forth on this thread about the pros and cons of the “Fund” purchasing Seabourn, and thought I’d ask the question.

 

We've never sailed with Seabourn yet, so we will probably think it’s a fantastic cruise line once we go, regardless of who the owner is, as we won’t have any previous Seabourn “memories” from past cruises to compare it with. 😁