Got my proxy statement. Voted against all the directors.

[ontheweb]

I think @Ombudposted something similar recently, and I replied that they would still win. And then he replied that it felt good. Now I totally understand. 😊

 

 

[stobe1]

Did you have a rational business justification for this? Did you really thoroughly read everything provided? Or was it just shooting from the hip because it made you feel good?

 

Most everyone on here probably has no rational business reasoning if they are voting against the Board's recommendations just for the hell of it. Armchair quarterbacking is easy when you have 100 or so shares just so you can get some OBC. Running a multibillion dollar corporation is not.

 

I am sure I will catch flak for saying this but that flak will be just as baseless as those that vote the way they do for uneducated reasoning.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, stobe1 said:

Did you have a rational business justification for this? Did you really thoroughly read everything provided? Or was it just shooting from the hip because it made you feel good?

 

Most everyone on here probably has no rational business reasoning if they are voting against the Board's recommendations just for the hell of it. Armchair quarterbacking is easy when you have 100 or so shares just so you can get some OBC. Running a multibillion dollar corporation is not.

 

I am sure I will catch flak for saying this but that flak will be just as baseless as those that vote the way they do for uneducated reasoning.

I did not say I voted against all their recommendations. I said I voted against re-electing all of them. Just a clarification.

[groundloop]

1 hour ago, stobe1 said:

 

 

I am sure I will catch flak for saying this but that flak will be just as baseless as those that vote the way they do for uneducated reasoning.

 

Nope, you're spot on.  I'm just glad you beat me to being the kermudgeon.  

[Ombud]

@stobe1 my opinion of cost cutting moves is just as valid as anyone else's.  A few issues for me re: Princess line:

1. Eliminating trading minibar for coffee is dumb. Stop trading a virtual no -> low cost item and permit a higher cost trade to continue for what??

1a. Should introduce a non-alcohol version of plus pkgs

2. Tech issues. Need I say more

3. Lack of notification re: lowest booking options now non-refundable. I think that's great but it needs to be clearer on the booking site

4. Lack of continuity. CVPs VS chat VS 1800Princess do not agree. If I don't like the answer I just try another route 

5. Opted to not trade a line for their Saudi debt

 

That's just in 1 of their 10 lines!!!!

 

 

[BlerkOne]

As most shares are held by institutions that vote rationally, individual shareholders have little say.

[Ombud]

24 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

As most shares are held by institutions that vote rationally, individual shareholders have little say.

Yes, we have no real say. That's why I rarely give a vote of NO CONFIDENCE 

[BlerkOne]

44 minutes ago, Ombud said:

Yes, we have no real say.

Typical of most large corporations. Money talks.

[staceyglow]

7 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Typical of most large corporations. Money talks.

Yes.  That's the way corporations are supposed to work.  Your "say" is proportional to the number of shares you hold.

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, stobe1 said:

Did you have a rational business justification for this? Did you really thoroughly read everything provided? Or was it just shooting from the hip because it made you feel good?

 

Most everyone on here probably has no rational business reasoning if they are voting against the Board's recommendations just for the hell of it. Armchair quarterbacking is easy when you have 100 or so shares just so you can get some OBC. Running a multibillion dollar corporation is not.

 

I am sure I will catch flak for saying this but that flak will be just as baseless as those that vote the way they do for uneducated reasoning.

OK, here's my rational reason. I do not like the way they are going about their business.

 

We took our first cruise in 2002 for our 25th anniversary, a Western Mediterranean cruise out of Barcelona. The entire travel industry including cruises were hurting as an aftermath of the horrific events of 9/11. All of us who had bought cruise line transfers were given a free tour of
Barcelona prior to embarkation instead of just being forced to wait. 10 years later for our 35th anniversary we did a very similar cruise itinerary from Barcelona. This time without the cruise lines hurting, we were just forced to wait with very few amenities.

 

My point is that when things are not going as well as you wish they were, the best way to recapture and keep customers is by making the product better, not worse. And yes, I know basically all cruise lines are doing these cutbacks and price increases, but Carnival claims to be a leader in the industry, not a follower. The best way to improve your business is to improve it, not degrade it. JMHO.

[EngIceDave]

Good idea, let's fire the people who kept the company afloat and alive during the worst economic downturn in the tourism industry, and a total shutdown of the cruise industry for more than a year.

Edited March 16, 2023 by EngIceDave

[EngIceDave]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

I know basically all cruise lines are doing these cutbacks and price increases, but Carnival claims to be a leader in the industry, not a follower. The best way to improve your business is to improve it, not degrade it. JMHO.

 

Who says they're not the leader and those others are following Carnival's lead, trying to keep the business afloat, passengers happy and not get fired by disgruntled stock holders pissed they don't get twice a day room cleanings.

[mz-s]

If there are awards for the fewest number of days where bacon is served on the buffet, Carnival would certainly lead that contest. Or the longest time of compulsory once a day cabin service. Otherwise I'm not seeing many areas where they're a leader these days.

Edited March 16, 2023 by mz-s

[BlerkOne]

10 minutes ago, mz-s said:

If there are awards for the fewest number of days where bacon is served on the buffet, Carnival would certainly lead that contest. Or the longest time of compulsory once a day cabin service. Otherwise I'm not seeing many areas where they're a leader these days.

and Royal has seen the light.

[stobe1]

4 hours ago, Ombud said:

@stobe1 my opinion of cost cutting moves is just as valid as anyone else's.  A few issues for me re: Princess line:

1. Eliminating trading minibar for coffee is dumb. Stop trading a virtual no -> low cost item and permit a higher cost trade to continue for what??

1a. Should introduce a non-alcohol version of plus pkgs

2. Tech issues. Need I say more

3. Lack of notification re: lowest booking options now non-refundable. I think that's great but it needs to be clearer on the booking site

4. Lack of continuity. CVPs VS chat VS 1800Princess do not agree. If I don't like the answer I just try another route 

5. Opted to not trade a line for their Saudi debt

 

That's just in 1 of their 10 lines!!!!

 

 

 

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

OK, here's my rational reason. I do not like the way they are going about their business.

 

We took our first cruise in 2002 for our 25th anniversary, a Western Mediterranean cruise out of Barcelona. The entire travel industry including cruises were hurting as an aftermath of the horrific events of 9/11. All of us who had bought cruise line transfers were given a free tour of
Barcelona prior to embarkation instead of just being forced to wait. 10 years later for our 35th anniversary we did a very similar cruise itinerary from Barcelona. This time without the cruise lines hurting, we were just forced to wait with very few amenities.

 

My point is that when things are not going as well as you wish they were, the best way to recapture and keep customers is by making the product better, not worse. And yes, I know basically all cruise lines are doing these cutbacks and price increases, but Carnival claims to be a leader in the industry, not a follower. The best way to improve your business is to improve it, not degrade it. JMHO.

 

Both of you proved my point to an extent. You made a front facing customer service oriented argument. Not a business minded shareholder one. 

 

Im not saying your points aren't valid -- because they are. And I agree with many of them. But that isn't anything that a shareholder looks at. They look at ROI.  Take Spirit Airlines for example. They are known for horrible experiences and poor customer service. Yet their shareholders look at the numbers. Their pending merger with JetBlue is an even better example.

[Ombud]

From an individual investor standpoint.  They were all basically the same last September, but not now. Go ahead and call me naive or dumb but I'm not sticking more dollars into them ... I've got mine at 6.50 and I'm good

[EngIceDave]

37 minutes ago, stobe1 said:

 

 

Both of you proved my point to an extent. You made a front facing customer service oriented argument. Not a business minded shareholder one. 

 

Im not saying your points aren't valid -- because they are. And I agree with many of them. But that isn't anything that a shareholder looks at. They look at ROI.  Take Spirit Airlines for example. They are known for horrible experiences and poor customer service. Yet their shareholders look at the numbers. Their pending merger with JetBlue is an even better example.

Right!

As a shareholder, they protected your INVESTMENT and kept the company alive, and if that's less bacon or once a day room care, so be it....THIS IS YOUR MONEY.

 

Normally, "customer is job 1," but in times of great company distress, keeping afloat (no pun intended) becomes priority one. I can't help my customers without a business.

Believe me, I know, I started a business and there were times where we teetered on the edge of disaster a few times, but we made it through....by tightening up. 

 

That's what you're mad about and complaining about, their tightening up to save your investment and make you money on that investment

 

</ end rant >

[BlerkOne]

8 minutes ago, EngIceDave said:

Normally, "customer is job 1," but in times of great company distress, keeping afloat (no pun intended) becomes priority one. I can't help my customers without a business.

Believe me, I know, I started a business and there were times where we teetered on the edge of disaster a few times, but we made it through....by tightening up. 

 

 

The investor, like the customer, isn't always right, quite frequently is wrong, and frankly some need to be fired.

[EngIceDave]

38 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

The investor, like the customer, isn't always right, quite frequently is wrong, and frankly some need to be fired.

Most of the time, the customer is wrong. 

Customer's opinion is also usually wrong.

 

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, stobe1 said:

 

 

Both of you proved my point to an extent. You made a front facing customer service oriented argument. Not a business minded shareholder one. 

 

Im not saying your points aren't valid -- because they are. And I agree with many of them. But that isn't anything that a shareholder looks at. They look at ROI.  Take Spirit Airlines for example. They are known for horrible experiences and poor customer service. Yet their shareholders look at the numbers. Their pending merger with JetBlue is an even better example.

If you cannot keep your customers, you will not in the long run keep your ships afloat (pun intended).

 

Read the board for Princess and Holland America, both part of the Carnival Corporation, and see how many after finishing their cruise say they are now done with that cruise line and will either try someone else or do a land vacation.

 

I cannot believe anyone would dispute that keeping customers happy is the most important part of the tourist industry.

[BlerkOne]

10 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

If you cannot keep your customers, you will not in the long run keep your ships afloat (pun intended).

 

No company has a 100% retention rate. If you kowtow to repeat customers and lose your new customers, you will soon have neither.

 

10 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

 

Read the board for Princess and Holland America, both part of the Carnival Corporation, and see how many after finishing their cruise say they are now done with that cruise line and will either try someone else or do a land vacation.

or any other cruise line. Some have been swearing off XYZ line for years, but only fool themselves.

 

10 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

 

I cannot believe anyone would dispute that keeping customers happy is the most important part of the tourist industry.

Carnival knows they can't please everyone and knows better than to go down that rabbit hole. No matter what they do, complainers gonna complain. Carnival does an amazing balancing act for most.

[EngIceDave]

9 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

I cannot believe anyone would dispute that keeping customers happy is the most important part of the tourist industry.

 

No one really disputes that, but there's a balance.

For every person mad about missing their daily bacon fix, there's someone else mad about the 15 drink limit and another person mad they have to pay to use the Therapy Pools "Because it's just another pool" or some foolishness.

 

You will NEVER, ever make every customer happy, ever. This is why they're not always right.

 

There's a general rule of internet forums and those on them, those on them represent less than 1% of the total business.

A tenth of that are the ones who actually follow through on anything they claim or threaten. 

[Ombud]

2 hours ago, EngIceDave said:

A tenth of that are the ones who actually follow through on anything they claim or threaten. 

Voting against them was cathartic  .... and now I'm leaving this forum. 

[icft]

Well, I support the OP. His first post kind of put me off, but his follow-up explanation aligns with my feelings.

 

Carnival management did an outstanding job at the beginning of the pandemic. They were ahead of the other lines in securing financing for the coming catastrophe. But that was then and this is now.

 

The right leaders in one situation are not necessarily the right leaders for another. Winston Churchill was perhaps the greatest wartime political leader in history. He lost the 1945 election having just orchestrated the defeat of Germany (greatly due to his ability to draw the U.S. into the war). Why did he lose? His plans for peace did not fit the voter's ideas for peace.

 

Carnival's board handled the war extremely well, but their ideas for rebuilding the business are, in my opinion, a path to failure.

[BlerkOne]

Once cruising restarted and there was light at the end of the tunnel, Carnival Corp's leader through the pandemic gracefully exited. There is a new sheriff and it will take time to overcome the next hurdle. There is no magic bullet.