Got my proxy statement. Voted against all the directors.

[icft]

7 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.

And Spirit shareholders who bought five years ago are sitting on a 61.5% loss. Those unlucky enough to have bought early December 2018 are down 69%...

Edited March 17, 2023 by icft

[ontheweb]

11 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

 

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

 

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

 

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.

This is about as funny a post as I have ever read. Somehow putting out a quality product seems to be a problem for you. Why would making your repeat customers happy cause you to lose your new customers?

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, Ombud said:

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

Exactly how I felt! 😊 

[EngIceDave]

[BlerkOne]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

This is about as funny a post as I have ever read. Somehow putting out a quality product seems to be a problem for you. Why would making your repeat customers happy cause you to lose your new customers?

Because as cruisers mature in various ways, they are no longer in Carnival's target market. What appeals to the target market changes as society changes and Carnival needs to address that. The two are usually opposites.

 

What is funny are those who label change as cutbacks or changes they don't like as quality issues.

 

Breathe in, breathe out, move on.

[ontheweb]

On 3/16/2023 at 11:09 AM, 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.

Yes, corporate boards always have a "rational reason" for what they do. So if you are the on the board of directors for a train company you work to get as few safety regulations as possible. I mean what could possibly go wrong. It's not like you will have a derailment with a massive toxic spill. 😢

 

Or if you are on the board of directors for a bank you try to get regulations rolled back and give massive bonuses. It's not like your bank is going to fail. 😢

 

Or if you are on the board of Southwest Airlines, you do not invest in the most modern technology and instead just give it all back in dividends. It's not like on a holiday weekend your outdated technology will fail and basically all your passengers will be stranded without flights and who knows where their luggage is. 😢

 

I'm sure there are more examples, but those should suffice that just because a corporate board makes recommendations does not make them automatically right.

[EngIceDave]

ENRON

[stobe1]

23 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, corporate boards always have a "rational reason" for what they do. So if you are the on the board of directors for a train company you work to get as few safety regulations as possible. I mean what could possibly go wrong. It's not like you will have a derailment with a massive toxic spill. 😢

 

Or if you are on the board of directors for a bank you try to get regulations rolled back and give massive bonuses. It's not like your bank is going to fail. 😢

 

Or if you are on the board of Southwest Airlines, you do not invest in the most modern technology and instead just give it all back in dividends. It's not like on a holiday weekend your outdated technology will fail and basically all your passengers will be stranded without flights and who knows where their luggage is. 😢

 

I'm sure there are more examples, but those should suffice that just because a corporate board makes recommendations does not make them automatically right.

 

I think you don't know the difference of the roles between the Board of Directors and Executive Management.

 

And the comparisons you tried to make are beyond asinine.

Edited March 17, 2023 by stobe1

[stobe1]

16 hours ago, icft said:

And Spirit shareholders who bought five years ago are sitting on a 61.5% loss. Those unlucky enough to have bought early December 2018 are down 69%...

Did have to dig hard on Google to find that info? Most of the travel industry has taken a hit in the last several years. I wonder why that is? 🤔

 

Spirit's drop had nothing to do with their customer service experience (or lack thereof).

[icft]

45 minutes ago, stobe1 said:

 

I think you don't know the difference of the roles between the Board of Directors and Executive Management.

 

And the comparisons you tried to make are beyond asinine.

When it comes to corporate strategy there should be no difference between the board of directors and executive management. If there a difference in corporate strategy the board isn't doing one of its basic jobs if it does not replace executive management.

[Illbcruzn4life]

On 3/16/2023 at 3:46 PM, 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.

when is the bacon shortage predicted to end?

[Illbcruzn4life]

On 3/16/2023 at 3:57 PM, BlerkOne said:

and Royal has seen the light.

 

Isn't this what they call a whataboutism?

[stobe1]

32 minutes ago, icft said:

When it comes to corporate strategy there should be no difference between the board of directors and executive management. If there a difference in corporate strategy the board isn't doing one of its basic jobs if it does not replace executive management.

 

Ok.

 

Go grab a Guinness or two and pound a few Irish Car Bombs like we are about to go do and enjoy your St Paddy's Day.

 

Why did God invent whiskey? So the Irish wouldn't take over the world.

[icft]

2 minutes ago, stobe1 said:

Did have to dig hard on Google to find that info? Most of the travel industry has taken a hit in the last several years. I wonder why that is? 🤔

 

Spirit's drop had nothing to do with their customer service experience (or lack thereof).

So why cite a company that lost its shareholders a boatload of money as an example of anything? I think you said: "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."

 

Spirit would not appear to be an example of the wisdom of investing on the basis of ROI. Things besides ROI often matter much more as Spirits stock performance over time show. You have alluded to such in citing the travel industry as a whole.

 

Perhaps Spirit shareholders did look at ROI at the time they bought. That would be their mistake. A wise investor does not buy based on current performance. The investor is concerned with future results and how the company can, and plans, to improve future results. Sometimes the facts of the world mean there is no "can" and sometimes the "plan" of management sucks. ROI is a result. The wise investor looks at the factors that will affect future ROI results.

 

Management's strategy for the future will impact future ROI much more than current ROI will affect future ROI. I happen to believe Carnival's strategy will lead to bad things and worse future ROI.

 

So, bottom line, I reject that investors place oversized value on current or past ROI. I believe the strategic plans of management are a more significant factor and I believe Carnival's strategy of "provide the worst experience customers will endure" is a losing strategy.

[mz-s]

31 minutes ago, Illbcruzn4life said:

when is the bacon shortage predicted to end?

Maybe in a few years they’ll come up with a song or dance they can make their crew perform while bringing out the bacon. 

[Earthworm Jim]

18 hours ago, icft said:

Winston Churchill...orchestrated the defeat of Germany (greatly due to his ability to draw the U.S. into the war).

 

Well, yes and no. The U.S. officially entered the war when Germany declared war on them. Not any doing of Churchill's.  But you could argue that the U.S. had been fighting a limited undeclared war prior to that point, and Churchill had influence there. And perhaps that undeclared war played a part in Germany's willingness to make it a declared one.

[BlerkOne]

42 minutes ago, Illbcruzn4life said:

 

Isn't this what they call a whataboutism?

More like follow the leader.

[BlerkOne]

46 minutes ago, Illbcruzn4life said:

when is the bacon shortage predicted to end?

If they stopped giving away cruises they could afford more bacon.

[Earthworm Jim]

4 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

If they stopped giving away cruises they could afford more bacon.

 

Hey, if we are going to trust that management knows what they are doing, we have to trust that includes that it's a financial plus to give cruises to casino players, no?

Edited March 17, 2023 by Earthworm Jim

[BlerkOne]

1 minute ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

Hey, if we are going to trust that management knows what we are doing, we have to trust that includes that it's a financial plus to give cruises to casino players, no?

The free cruises were a quick way to get on board spend a shot of adrenaline, but the novelty has worn off. Time to move to a different promotion with a different, and more grateful, target.

[Earthworm Jim]

11 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

The free cruises were a quick way to get on board spend a shot of adrenaline, but the novelty has worn off. Time to move to a different promotion with a different, and more grateful, target.

 

Maybe you're right, but I assume the Carnival brass knows what the numbers say and are acting accordingly.

 

I do wonder if all these casino players, having come to expect they'll cruise for free, will be willing to pay for cruises again in the future. It may be a difficult perk to wean people off of.

[BlerkOne]

Just now, Earthworm Jim said:

 

Maybe you're right, but I assume the Carnival brass knows what the numbers say and are acting accordingly.

 

I do wonder if all these casino players, having come to expect they'll cruise for free, will be willing to pay for cruises again in the future. It may be a difficult perk to wean people off of.

Gamblers are fickle and follow the wind. I can't imagine novice cruisers paying significantly more for a cruise approving of the entitlements.

[mz-s]

But I keep getting told in other threads that I am paying for my cruises through gambling even though I only cruise Carnival with free room offers. Which is it?

[icft]

2 minutes ago, mz-s said:

But I keep getting told in other threads that I am paying for my cruises through gambling even though I only cruise Carnival with free room offers. Which is it?

Careful! Don't step in that gum 😁

[BlerkOne]

3 hours ago, icft said:

Careful! Don't step in that gum 😁

I have no plans to.