Carnival Corporation has dissolved the Holland America Group...

[Colorado Klutch]

25 minutes ago, ldtr said:

Companies usually do not win fragmenting their brand. Going some ships adult only others not is a sure fire way to fragment their brand. As it is now there are too few children on the real long itineraries to operate club HAL, though children are still allowed and we have seen some on long trips. Though usually not many.

 

Christmas cruises seem to get the most complaints about children. I would assume a Christmas cruise is going to have a lot of younglings, but apparently many people are not expecting it and they get pretty peeved. 

 

I don't see offering adult-only cruises at fragmenting the brand. If HAL spun off another cruise line focusing on adults, that would be fragmenting the brand. But individual cruises or one or two ships designated for adults only is simply a different offering within the existing HAL brand. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Colorado Klutch

[Guest ldtr]

3 minutes ago, Colorado Klutch said:

 

Christmas cruises seem to get the most complaints about children. I would assume a Christmas cruise is going to have a lot of younglings, but apparently many people are not expecting it and they get pretty peeved. 

 

I don't see offering adult-only cruises at fragmenting the brand. If HAL spun off another cruise line focusing on adults, that would be fragmenting the brand. But individual cruises or one or two ships designated for adults only is simply a different offering within the existing HAL brand. 

Some ships being adult only others not would be fragmenting the consistency of the brand, just another cruise line tried making some ships non-smoking while other allowed it.  Created all kinds of problems when one booked a ship expecting A and found that they were on a ship with B.  A lot more problems then it would be worth.  That is why it tends to be all or nothing.  The brand either allows children or it does not.

 

 

[Colorado Klutch]

13 minutes ago, ldtr said:

Some ships being adult only others not would be fragmenting the consistency of the brand, just another cruise line tried making some ships non-smoking while other allowed it.  Created all kinds of problems when one booked a ship expecting A and found that they were on a ship with B.  A lot more problems then it would be worth.  That is why it tends to be all or nothing.  The brand either allows children or it does not.

 

 

 

Obviously I disagree. And all ships should be smoke free! 😀

 

When Disney opens a new theme park, it doesn't fragment the brand. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Colorado Klutch

[POA1]

As delightful as it is to read this thread, please take a look at where the HAL Group President went and what she's doing now. (Hint: It's still within C Corp and it's about bringing cross group efficiencies.) I love y'all, but you might not be my first choice for portfolio management.

 

Sorry for the interruption. Please get back to the Saudi cruise line 😁 discussion.

[travelholics]

P and O in the U.K. have some ships which are adult only, and it seems to work well.

HAL's solution of now stating that the kids club will not be offered on longer cruises seems like a good idea, as we found, on the 35 day South Pacific cruise, that 2 entertainment staff were required to run the kids club for approximately 7 children! It meant that there were only 4 staff available to organise events for the remaining 2400+ guests, during the day.

[PACD_JG]

46 minutes ago, travelholics said:

2 entertainment staff were required to run the kids club for approximately 7 children! It meant that there were only 4 staff available to organise events for the remaining 2400+ guests, during the day.

But suffer the children...

 

But all "kidding" aside.  Look at the prime real estate that Club HAL has.  Could be turned into Pinnacle Suites, or they could expand the Crow's Nest and bring back the dance floor and the band that I hear folks reminisce about.

[Guest ldtr]

1 hour ago, POA1 said:

As delightful as it is to read this thread, please take a look at where the HAL Group President went and what she's doing now. (Hint: It's still within C Corp and it's about bringing cross group efficiencies.) I love y'all, but you might not be my first choice for portfolio management.

 

Sorry for the interruption. Please get back to the Saudi cruise line 😁 discussion.

Certainly still with the company, but nolonger over 4 of the companies brands. No direct authority over any of the brands. While still in the C suite, now as EVP of strategic projects, with oversize of some administrative functions. Does not exactly come across as a upward career move.

 

Lets see oversite of Alaska land operations, port development.  Not exactly exciting positions upon  which one grows a career.

 

Then you have government affairs and communications.  Again not exactly positions known for moving up.

 

No direct authority over any of the brands.  No direct major financial responsibility over any of the brands.  All functions outside of the main business focus.

Edited June 10, 2023 by ldtr

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, ldtr said:

Companies usually do not win fragmenting their brand. Going some ships adult only others not is a sure fire way to fragment their brand. As it is now there are too few children on the real long itineraries to operate club HAL, though children are still allowed and we have seen some on long trips. Though usually not many.

 

P&O UK have operated adult only and kid-friendly ships since 2019. I don't believe it fragments the brand and it has been successfully implemented.

[Guest ldtr]

8 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

P&O UK have operated adult only and kid-friendly ships since 2019. I don't believe it fragments the brand and it has been successfully implemented.

Not sure if I would agree.  You are starting to see some divergence between the smaller P&O ships and the newer larger, more family focused ships where there is starting to be divergence beyond the children  - no children factor.  People are commenting that P&O is not enforcing dress codes on the larger ships compared to the smaller - child free ships.  While the policy started in 2019, much of that time was during the shutdown and periods with rather low occupancy.  Will be interesting to see how much more divergence takes place as time goes on.  You are already seeing their customer base making decisions that eliminates one side (child/no child) or the other.  

 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by ldtr

[Heidi13]

7 minutes ago, ldtr said:

Not sure if I would agree.  You are starting to see some divergence between the smaller P&O ships and the newer larger, more family focused ships where there is starting to be divergence beyond the children  - no children factor.  People are commenting that P&O is not enforcing dress codes on the larger ships compared to the smaller - child free ships.  While the policy started in 2019, much of that time was during the shutdown and periods with rather low occupancy.  Will be interesting to see how much more divergence takes place as time goes on.  You are already seeing their customer base making decisions that eliminates one side (child/no child) or the other.  

 

Having divergence between different ships in a brand is nothing new and has been around since I started going to sea. Back in the 70's, when P&O had 6 ships, although all operated as a single brand, they had 3 distinct groups.

 - Oriana & Canberra - although totally different ships, were reasonably close. Note - Oriana always had a divergence based on location - the life onboard changed considerably when it sailed to Sydney for the Aussie cruising season. This was not fragmenting the brand, it was providing the pax what they wanted.

 - Uganda - totally different class of cruising with 1,000 kids and 300 pax who never saw the kids. Although it had 1,000 kids, as far as the adult pax were concerned, it was a kid free ship.

 - The 3 ships with Princess names were even different, with the Sun having a different vibe from the Island/Pacific.

 

I'll suggest it clearly worked well, since in the 70's/80's, P&O was the world's largest shipping company.

 

Regardless of which ship we worked on, it was a reasonably standard operation, even if the mix of pax was different. Personally, I don't see how the current mix of adult only and kid friendly P&O ships is any different to what I experienced. Selective enforcement of dress codes is also nothing new, as on Oriana the dress code when cruising from Southampton was different from cruising from Sydney.

 

If a cruise line is small they can survive with a small, focused pax experience. However, if the cruise line expands, they usually expand the experience to appeal to a larger demographic. Personally, I don't consider this fragmenting the brand, but expanding, or growing the brand. All within reason.

 

Clearly your higher level mainstream, premium or luxury brands won't grow to include party and/or booze cruises, but having some ships adult only and others kid friendly has worked in the past. Could HAL operate some vessels adult only and still maintain brand consistency, personally I don't see a problem, if they make that change. Based on what I have read, some of the ships/cruises are predominantly kid free already without a formal policy. 

[OlsSalt]

When HAL offered the EXC In-Depth Cruises on the old Maasdam a few years back, Club Hal was turned into a prep room for the dazzling array of enrichment speakers, where they could prepare their talks, slides, videos and do any research.

 

I believe it was also used the same during the Zaandam Antarctica cruise 2021 - and used to also write daily penguin jokes.

[Guest ldtr]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Having divergence between different ships in a brand is nothing new and has been around since I started going to sea. Back in the 70's, when P&O had 6 ships, although all operated as a single brand, they had 3 distinct groups.

 - Oriana & Canberra - although totally different ships, were reasonably close. Note - Oriana always had a divergence based on location - the life onboard changed considerably when it sailed to Sydney for the Aussie cruising season. This was not fragmenting the brand, it was providing the pax what they wanted.

 - Uganda - totally different class of cruising with 1,000 kids and 300 pax who never saw the kids. Although it had 1,000 kids, as far as the adult pax were concerned, it was a kid free ship.

 - The 3 ships with Princess names were even different, with the Sun having a different vibe from the Island/Pacific.

 

I'll suggest it clearly worked well, since in the 70's/80's, P&O was the world's largest shipping company.

 

Regardless of which ship we worked on, it was a reasonably standard operation, even if the mix of pax was different. Personally, I don't see how the current mix of adult only and kid friendly P&O ships is any different to what I experienced. Selective enforcement of dress codes is also nothing new, as on Oriana the dress code when cruising from Southampton was different from cruising from Sydney.

 

If a cruise line is small they can survive with a small, focused pax experience. However, if the cruise line expands, they usually expand the experience to appeal to a larger demographic. Personally, I don't consider this fragmenting the brand, but expanding, or growing the brand. All within reason.

 

Clearly your higher level mainstream, premium or luxury brands won't grow to include party and/or booze cruises, but having some ships adult only and others kid friendly has worked in the past. Could HAL operate some vessels adult only and still maintain brand consistency, personally I don't see a problem, if they make that change. Based on what I have read, some of the ships/cruises are predominantly kid free already without a formal policy. 

The cruises are predominantly kid free because they are 1 very long itineraries and 2 during the time of the year when children are in school.  As a result one would expect the number of children to be pretty  low/  Though even then there are often  still some children on board, either home school families or where the children are young enough that the school year does not come into play.

 

On the other hand with US brands the ships have some difference, but the policies are pretty much the same.  The biggest divergence you get in most ship of the US brands are due to physical differences in the ships, not differences in policies.  Even then when you see if small differences in interpretations in policy you get numerous comments about how inconsistent the cruise line is.

[LarsenPNP]

On 6/10/2023 at 10:38 AM, ldtr said:

And that exactly is the problem. They want an experience, but not willing to pay for it.

 

No reason for CCL to convert HAL to.adults only or for that matter to start one. There are other adult only lines such as Viking and Virgin. One a premium line and one going after younger adults.  One very traditional and one anything but. Makes no sense at HALs current price point.

 

 

Exactly--- two distant ends of the spectrum. Seems to me there's a niche in the middle... albeit NOT at the current price point.

[Sir PMP]

A lot of speculation here.

[rodndonna]

47 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

They are a venture capital firm.  They do not take on the day to day operations.  They may put in an executive team and do some reorganization and de acquisition.  CCL is a much bigger company than they will swallow 
 

 I think their original CCL deal was collateralized by specific ships

 

I agree - I don't think they would want CCL in it's entity thankfully.

 

I guess what I was trying to highlight is that many of us (myself included) would like to hold a stance to avoid companies backed with Saudi money (in any proportion?), but inevitably that much money will always win and we would run the risk of becoming the PGA Rory's of cruising 😒

 

 

[Guest ldtr]

1 hour ago, Mary229 said:

They are a venture capital firm.  They do not take on the day to day operations.  They may put in an executive team and do some reorganization and de acquisition.  CCL is a much bigger company than they will swallow 
 

 I think their original CCL deal was collateralized by specific ships

Not really. They seldom take a controlling interest in anything. They invest in, they do not buy. They have on occasion gotten a board seat but usual they do not even ask for that, even with large investments. 

[Mary229]

1 hour ago, ldtr said:

Not really. They seldom take a controlling interest in anything. They invest in, they do not buy. They have on occasion gotten a board seat but usual they do not even ask for that, even with large investments. 

 I do think the loan was collateralized by ships.  It was posted on this board many moons ago.  But yes, they have very little hands on but may move the executive teams in non-public ways much as Carl Icahn does. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Mary229

[Guest ldtr]

1 hour ago, Mary229 said:

 I do think the loan was collateralized by ships.  It was posted on this board many moons ago.  But yes, they have very little hands on but may move the executive teams in non-public ways much as Carl Icahn does. 

Not so much. In most cases they prefer to be hands off. Unlike Carl Icahn and others they do not tend to seek control. They tend not to seek board seats and other management changes. They tend to actually be investors that companies like because they have lots of money, but do not want to be involved in the actual management details. In many ways they act like the details of actually running the businesses they invest in is somewhat beneath them and best left to others.

 

Do a search and see how many cases where the Saudi Sovereign Wealth fund investments have resulted in or triggered a change of management, board, or even taken a controlling stake. They have money they need to invest and as long as it generates a return they are happy and hands off. When they are unhappy they tend to sell and terminate the investment

 

Activists investors such as Icahn or Loeb do the opposite they try to get the most influence with the least amount of money to be able to trigger the most short term returns.

 

I have been involved with negotiations with both groups prior to my retirement. Major difference.

Edited June 12, 2023 by ldtr

[Colorado Klutch]

4 hours ago, Sir PMP said:

A lot of speculation here.

 

It's what we do. We drink and we speculate. 

[YXU AC*SE]

4 hours ago, rodndonna said:

I guess what I was trying to highlight is that many of us (myself included) would like to hold a stance to avoid companies backed with Saudi money (in any proportion?), but inevitably that much money will always win and we would run the risk of becoming the PGA Rory's of cruising 😒

 

I think you might want to look at the list of PIF's holdings  ...       Scott. 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1767640/000108514623002379/xslForm13F_X02/infotable.xml

[Destiny0315]

An interesting timing dynamic happening here with today's positive press on CCL just as their newest (remodeled) ship Carnival Venezia arrives stateside in NYC tomorrow morning and their conference call in two weeks with analysts set for 10am on the 26th to discuss 2nd qtr. financial results

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/carnival-leads-gains-cruise-stocks-analysts-eye-strong-travel-demand-2023-06-12/. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Destiny0315

[Guest ldtr]

1 hour ago, Destiny0315 said:

An interesting timing dynamic happening here with today's positive press on CCL just as their newest (remodeled) ship Carnival Venezia arrives stateside in NYC tomorrow morning and their conference call in two weeks with analysts set for 10am on the 26th to discuss 2nd qtr. financial results

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/carnival-leads-gains-cruise-stocks-analysts-eye-strong-travel-demand-2023-06-12/. 

Yep bookings are very strong and demand and occupancy are the most important indicator on the ability of all of the cruise holding companies to be able to manage their debt load and how fast they get beyond the current situation.