CCL releases Q423 Earnings Report

[HappyInVan]

2 hours ago, TRLD said:

Bottom line while people may ridicule such offers, without having access to the data that the cruise lines has, the cruise lines that have all of that information available do see value and economic benefit from them or they would not repeat them.

 

 

I formed my conclusion based on results in the real world. I enjoyed three 2023 HAL cruises in suites purchased as last minute deals. Much savings. Muchos Garcias HAL. 😄

 

Basically, a number of people used multiple $1-deposits as place-holders. Cancelling the ones they don't intend to make FP at the last moment. Leaving HAL with serious vacancies after FP. Requiring drastic price cuts, promotions and cheap upgrades.

 

As I said earlier this year, HAL used $1-deposits to fill its bookings. Other brands offered as much as 40% discounts upfront. No surprise that I was able to eventually sail for 40% less than HAL's retail price.

 

Any hotel or ship can fill its rooms if they offer prices low enough. The fact that CCL has only been able sell its rooms at a 2023 price just 4% above 2022 says its all. CCL has only been able to recover the cost of general inflation (4%) during the post-covid recovery. 🙄

Edited December 23, 2023 by HappyInVan

[TRLD]

44 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

I formed my conclusion based on results in the real world. I enjoyed three 2023 HAL cruises in suites purchased as last minute deals. Much savings. Muchos Garcias HAL. 😄

 

Basically, a number of people used multiple $1-deposits as place-holders. Cancelling the ones they don't intend to make FP at the last moment. Leaving HAL with serious vacancies after FP. Requiring drastic price cuts, promotions and cheap upgrades.

 

As I said earlier this year, HAL used $1-deposits to fill its bookings. Other brands offered as much as 40% discounts upfront. No surprise that I was able to eventually sail for 40% less than HAL's retail price.

 

Any hotel or ship can fill its rooms if they offer prices low enough. The fact that CCL has only been able sell its rooms at a 2023 price just 4% above 2022 says its all. CCL has only been able to recover the cost of general inflation (4%) during the post-covid recovery. 🙄

There is problem with your hypothesis that HAL uses it to fill booking.

 

A cruiseline or for that matter any company, that executes sales and reports those sales, when their expectations are that the sales will not in fact complete faces severe liability from both federal regulators, SEC, as will as a high risk from shareholder law suites for misrepresentation. The same applies to facts in filings and press releases.

 

Considering that the only value HAL would get from doing such a sale if it did not expect most of those booking actually to complete and since CCL does include future bookings as a key metric in its 8K filings. Including such information, if they expected the cancellation rates of those booking to deviate from historical norm, would create a regulatory and potential legal liability that would far out gain any short term potential benefits from inflating booking numbers.

 

So while you may know some people that book cruises that they have no intent to take, the set of data that HAL has would certainly seem to be different since neither their auditor, the SEC, or any shareholders have raised the issue. Cruise Critic is not really representative of the overall cruising public.

 

Princess has also made similar sales with minimal deposits.

 

Across all CCL lines fares per passenger per day was up 20% in Q4 2023  compared to the same quarter in 2022 so not sure where your 4% figure is coming from.  Q4 2023 was 9% higher than Q4 2019.

Edited December 23, 2023 by TRLD

[HappyInVan]

2 hours ago, TRLD said:

There is problem with your hypothesis that HAL uses it to fill booking.

 

 

The hypothesis works fine for me in real life! 😄

 

BTW, the real comparison is between the prices in 2019 and 2023, after inflation. To quote you

 

"As far as Revenue per passenger per day

                                    Q4 2023   Full Year 2023            Q4 2019    Full Year 2019

Passenger Fares           148.73          153.91                    135.33       151.09

Onboard                         79.29             82.34                      64.83         67.81

 

As far as some expense categories per passenger per day

Food                             14.19              14.61                      11.17         11.60

Fuel                              23.52              22.40                      15.27         16.73

total operational         153.77             156.64                   131.19        138.26"

 

So, cruise fare (average full year) is the same while operational costs is up 12%,. Bearing in mind that they have made cuts in quality and service in order to reduce costs.

 

What's really disappointing is that CCL isn't fully booked for 2024, after the slew of cheap deposits ($1/$25/$99). According to post 18...

 

"He reported two thirds of all staterooms for 2024 are already sold and said that full profitability will occur in 2026 as debt is significantly reduced."

 

Bearing in mind that FP is due 3 months in advance. That means the first quarter is already paid up for 95% capacity. Therefore, the booking for the last 3 quarters is just 57%. 🙄

 

 

[TRLD]

40 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

The hypothesis works fine for me in real life! 😄

 

BTW, the real comparison is between the prices in 2019 and 2023, after inflation. To quote you

 

"As far as Revenue per passenger per day

                                    Q4 2023   Full Year 2023            Q4 2019    Full Year 2019

Passenger Fares           148.73          153.91                    135.33       151.09

Onboard                         79.29             82.34                      64.83         67.81

 

As far as some expense categories per passenger per day

Food                             14.19              14.61                      11.17         11.60

Fuel                              23.52              22.40                      15.27         16.73

total operational         153.77             156.64                   131.19        138.26"

 

So, cruise fare (average full year) is the same while operational costs is up 12%,. Bearing in mind that they have made cuts in quality and service in order to reduce costs.

 

What's really disappointing is that CCL isn't fully booked for 2024, after the slew of cheap deposits ($1/$25/$99). According to post 18...

 

"He reported two thirds of all staterooms for 2024 are already sold and said that full profitability will occur in 2026 as debt is significantly reduced."

 

Bearing in mind that FP is due 3 months in advance. That means the first quarter is already paid up for 95% capacity. Therefore, the booking for the last 3 quarters is just 57%. 🙄

 

 

On my HAL cruises most services back to 2019 level. Food certainly is better than the other lines I have been on except for Oceania, but certainly better than Royal, Celebrity, Princess. Food cost is also one of their increased cost areas along with fuel. 

 

 

Do you know the normal booking patterns for all of the different lines? From what I recall a fairly high percentage is booked withing 6 months of the date of the cruise. So the numbers you listed would not be below norm and most likely above.

 

People here on CC tend to book early, myself included, but CC does not represent the majority of cruisers. 

 

Based upon your hypothesis everything should be booked by people intending to cancel most of them.

 

Cruise fare 2023 compared to 2019 full year is up slightly. But 2019 was the golden age. Very full ships, and a high  point in  fare cost. 2023 over 2022 fares increased by 20% both for the full year as well as the last quarter.  So far it appears that fares are continuing to increase.  So now they have largely gotten the passengers back (while occupancy is a bit lower, capacity is up so there are actually more passenger days in 2023 than 2019. Have gotten fares back to or above 2019 with 2024 fars going higher.

[Desert Cruisers]

I also listened to the analyst call.  The two comments made by senior leadership that I found most interesting were:

 

• "Larger ships are more efficient."  How I interpreted this statement...No more new-build small ships except for Seabourn.  Our older small ships will eventually go away."
• Our focus is on "new to cruising" and "new to a cruise line" passengers.  "New to cruising passengers are more accepting of higher prices because they are comparing the cruise fare to what they might spend on a land-based vacation."   How I interpreted this statement...While we will still welcome them onboard, we are not going to cater to passengers who don't generate revenues beyond the cruise fare. Expect more non-complimentary services and offerings.  

[HappyInVan]

7 hours ago, TRLD said:

Cruise fare 2023 compared to 2019 full year is up slightly. But 2019 was the golden age. Very full ships, and a high  point in  fare cost. 2023 over 2022 fares increased by 20% both for the full year as well as the last quarter. 

 

CCL is going to need all of its Golden Age profits to pay for the $2b(?) in interest. Then, pay down the debt.

 

Here in the HAL forum, there is some concern that HAL is not performing. That there might be drastic changes in the future. Hopefully for the better!!!

 

In the meantime, I expect the pax to be recipients of good deals; with a little patience.

[OlsSalt]

9 hours ago, Desert Cruisers said:

I also listened to the analyst call.  The two comments made by senior leadership that I found most interesting were:

 

• "Larger ships are more efficient."  How I interpreted this statement...No more new-build small ships except for Seabourn.  Our older small ships will eventually go away."
• Our focus is on "new to cruising" and "new to a cruise line" passengers.  "New to cruising passengers are more accepting of higher prices because they are comparing the cruise fare to what they might spend on a land-based vacation."   How I interpreted this statement...While we will still welcome them onboard, we are not going to cater to passengers who don't generate revenues beyond the cruise fare. Expect more non-complimentary services and offerings.  

 

That "efficient" model could have the makings of another Bud Light backlash. I can see bean counters liking the idea, but a reliable passenger base rejecting it. Then one is forced to compete for the their lowest common denominator share among the floating behemoths. 

 

Spinning off the smaller older ships into a Fred Olsen type model, has some possibilities rather than all CCL brands competing with each other being bigger and better floating hotels, plying canned ports stops.  

[TRLD]

5 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

CCL is going to need all of its Golden Age profits to pay for the $2b(?) in interest. Then, pay down the debt.

 

Here in the HAL forum, there is some concern that HAL is not performing. That there might be drastic changes in the future. Hopefully for the better!!!

 

In the meantime, I expect the pax to be recipients of good deals; with a little patience.

Not a problem paying the interest.  In 2023 they showed a 1956 million operating profit.  Add to that the 2370 million of their expense was depreciation (an accounting function for money spent previously not during the current period) and you get 4.24 billion in free cash flow.  Enough to easily pay the interest as well as reduce the debt level each year. 2024 should have even better numbers. The question is no longer if they can pay the debt, only when they have reduced it enough to start building new ships.

 

As far as HAL one needs to look at it in two portions.  It is very clear what HALs market positioning is  Live music, Smallest average ship size of the mainstream lines, longest average itineraries, in a classic cruise environment.  For example HAL goes to almost 600 unique ports and destinations, Princess is in the 400s, Celebrity is in the 300s.  One needs to look at HALS business in 2 segments.  The unique longer cruises and the shorter cruises in the crowded cruise markets (Alaska, Caribbean, Europe).  They have higher prices on a per day basis on the unique routes that is the core of their market positioning.  ON the shorter crowded areas they discount because of the competition.  ON the other hand those cruises in the crowded areas, especially Alaska, are good for introducing HAL to new cruisers.

 

Early in the restart all of the lines had quality problems.  In late 2023 the quality on most of the lines we have sailed seem to be back at or near 2019 levels.  There are some changes, but they are not so much quality, but changes in the business model.  The move to packages, the move to more non-refundable bookings, the move to more room guarantees instead of selecting specific rooms, increased cost of onboard items.  For that matter in some lines like Oceania you have the removal of cruise only fare considerably increasing the minimum cost of a cruise.

 

Before 2019 HAL went to the Live Music model using their entertainer space for those musicians.  Lately they have reduced some of the live music options such as Lincoln Center, but added in additional staff in the theater productions.  Not going all the way back to production shows, but making the dance shows more production show like with the addition of singers.

 

From what I have seen on HAL the ships have seemed full, especially on the long itineraries where cabins go quickly.  So there are two possibilities 1, That HAL is doing well in their market niche.  The one that I feel is likely or 2. That HAL is not doing well.  The one that you seem to favor.  If it is one HAL will continue as it is, maybe attracting a couple more ships in the 2000-3000 size range in the next 3-5 years.  If your view is correct and HAL falters it will change, but it will not change to the old HAL of 10 to 15 years ago.  It will change by becoming more like the other main stream lines.  Larger more economically efficient ships, passenger class structure, shorter more repetitive routes, etc.

 

 

[TRLD]

1 hour ago, OlsSalt said:

 

That "efficient" model could have the makings of another Bud Light backlash. I can see bean counters liking the idea, but a reliable passenger base rejecting it. Then one is forced to compete for the their lowest common denominator share among the floating behemoths. 

 

Spinning off the smaller older ships into a Fred Olsen type model, has some possibilities rather than all CCL brands competing with each other being bigger and better floating hotels, plying canned ports stops.  

The CCL call was more about all of the CCL brands.  Most of which are building larger more efficient ships.  HAL is a fairly small subset of the entire CCL business.  HAL has around 2.8% of the cruise industry market share all of the CCL lines have about 42%.  So one would expect a CCL call to focus more on the other 94% rather than the 6 percent that is HAL.

 

HAL is in a unique niche.  Still mass market, but smaller average ship size and more unique itineraries than the other main stream lines.  Cunard has some similar characteristic but is focused on the UK market where as HAL is focused on the US market.

 

Many HAL passengers want the old smaller ships, but do not want the per day fare cost that comes with them.  Fred Olsen buys older smaller ships, and is willing to eat the higher costs that come with them.  CCL has not been willing to do that with any of its lines and usually gets rid of ships at 24 years.  I expect that they will make an exception for the next few years due to their pause in new ship orders while they pay down debt, trading higher maintenance costs to keep capacity.

[HappyInVan]

2 hours ago, OlsSalt said:

 

That "efficient" model could have the makings of another Bud Light backlash. I can see bean counters liking the idea, but a reliable passenger base rejecting it. Then one is forced to compete for the their lowest common denominator share among the floating behemoths. 

 

Spinning off the smaller older ships into a Fred Olsen type model, has some possibilities rather than all CCL brands competing with each other being bigger and better floating hotels, plying canned ports stops.  

 

Just so. I fear that it is too late for HAL. It takes 3-5 years to launch a ship of a new design. Should CCL/HAL wait till 2026 to rebuilt; all of the R and V ships will be gone or on the chopping board by the time that one replacement can be launched.

 

IMHO, a strategic mistake. Of course, the whole house of cards would come tumbling down if there's another vaccine requirement or mask mandate. Still strategic mistakes tend to be enduring and possibly fatal.

[TRLD]

1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Just so. I fear that it is too late for HAL. It takes 3-5 years to launch a ship of a new design. Should CCL/HAL wait till 2026 to rebuilt; all of the R and V ships will be gone or on the chopping board by the time that one replacement can be launched.

 

IMHO, a strategic mistake. Of course, the whole house of cards would come tumbling down if there's another vaccine requirement or mask mandate. Still strategic mistakes tend to be enduring and possibly fatal.

That assumes that they retire them as they have in the past.  More likely that they will keep them for a few extra years while they fill the gap until they order more ships.  After all other lines have kept older ships in service.  In the past CCL has not because they were constantly growing Capacity.

 

They could also shift a couple of 2100 to 2700 size ships that are less than 14 years old from Aida.  Aida has had the largest increase in capacity out of all of the CCL lines due to the 5000 passenger ships that they have added in the last couple of years.  Since they have made it clear that new ships for P&O UK and Aida are going to be new large ships, they can shift some of the Aida capacity to HAL and remodel 1 or 2 of their 10-14 year old ships that are similar in size with HALs fleet.

 

Interesting how you talk about them not being able to service debt, then you say that it is a mistake for them to not build ships while they are focusing on retiring debt.

[HappyInVan]

1 hour ago, TRLD said:

That assumes that they retire them as they have in the past.  More likely that they will keep them for a few extra years while they fill the gap until they order more ships.  After all other lines have kept older ships in service. 

 

Thanks for your opinion.

 

Recently, we heard from a former shipmaster about why it becomes impractical for first tier brands to continue using their old ships. The cost of re-certifying the hull against metal fatigue becomes prohibitive under current insurance requirements.

 

I hope that you can see the differences between a pro and an amateur?

 

I'm sure that you know why the mid-price market ($500-$700 pp) is important. Whilst CCL is cash strapped, there is plenty of capital available for good ideas. HAL/CCL could accept a minority partner (Norwegian/Saudi national fund) for a project investing in medium-size ships.

 

Interestingly, NCL has Oceania while RCL has Silversea.

 

Once the project is successful, there is the potential to expand. MSC Explora is so optimistic that they plan to have 6 luxury ships by 2028.

 

Here's the benefit to CCL. They could eventually sell their interest in the project for billions. Immediately paying down a chunk of debt.

 

Management is a difficult job. Senior managers have to stay focused on the future even during a crisis. It is important to stay alive. But, the company needs to understand where it needs to be in 5 years time.

 

I hope you see the difference between a pro and an amateur?

 

 

[TRLD]

42 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Thanks for your opinion.

 

Recently, we heard from a former shipmaster about why it becomes impractical for first tier brands to continue using their old ships. The cost of re-certifying the hull against metal fatigue becomes prohibitive under current insurance requirements.

 

I hope that you can see the differences between a pro and an amateur?

 

I'm sure that you know why the mid-price market ($500-$700 pp) is important. Whilst CCL is cash strapped, there is plenty of capital available for good ideas. HAL/CCL could accept a minority partner (Norwegian/Saudi national fund) for a project investing in medium-size ships.

 

Interestingly, NCL has Oceania while RCL has Silversea.

 

Once the project is successful, there is the potential to expand. MSC Explora is so optimistic that they plan to have 6 luxury ships by 2028.

 

Here's the benefit to CCL. They could eventually sell their interest in the project for billions. Immediately paying down a chunk of debt.

 

Management is a difficult job. Senior managers have to stay focused on the future even during a crisis. It is important to stay alive. But, the company needs to understand where it needs to be in 5 years time.

 

I hope you see the difference between a pro and an amateur?

 

 

Heidi13  talked about the increased cost and maintenance requirements.  Not that they could not continue if you read what they said in detail.  They also were talking about the difference with older ships and newer ones and the quality of the metal.  There are plenty of ships that are older than HALs fleet still in service..  They have increased maintenance costs, largely because of increased scanning and more intensive dry docks taking them out of service for longer periods on a more frequent schedule.  That said there are plenty of lines that have purchased older smaller ships that CCL lines have gotten rid of and are using them today.  Would not be much of an issue for CCL to change their normal retirement dates from 24 years to 30 years with the higher maintenance costs to fill the gap.

 

Just a few examples, All of these are continuing in service

 

Azamara four ships were built in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2000.

Oceania  Regatta 1998, Sirena 1999, Insignia 1998, Nautica 2000

Fred Olsen  Boletti   2000 formerly Amsterdam, Borealis  1997 formerly Rotterdam, Balmoral 1988

 

 

There are many others on other lines.  So are they unsafe or merely where those lines (usually premium price lines) have chosen to pay the higher maintenance cost to keep them in service.  In the past CCL has opted for operational cost efficiency and chosen not to deal with the costs.  With their current gap in ordering new ships that policy might change temporarily.

 

Considering that HALS oldest two ships were built in 1999 and 2000, They could decide to keep them in service for a few years longer than normal.

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by TRLD

[OlsSalt]

Didn't Crystal just revive their former two ships, now under new ownership Crystal Symphony was pretty clunky back in 2007, and now she is back as the epitome of "luxury cruising". 

[TRLD]

3 minutes ago, OlsSalt said:

Didn't Crystal just revive their former two ships, now under new ownership Crystal Symphony was pretty clunky back in 2007, and now she is back as the epitome of "luxury cruising". 

Yep the Crystal ships were built in 1995 (Symphony) and 2003 (Serenity)

 

 

[HappyInVan]

14 minutes ago, TRLD said:

Heidi13  talked about the increased cost.  Not that they could not continue if you read what they said in detail.  They also were talking about the difference with older ships and newer ones and the quality of the metal.  There are plenty of ships that are older than HALs fleet still in service..  They have increased maintenance costs, largely because of increased scanning and more intensive dry docks taking them out of service for longer periods on a more frequent schedule.  That said there are plenty of lines that have purchased older smaller ships that CCL lines have gotten rid of and are using them today.  Would not be much of an issue for CCL to change their normal retirement dates from 24 years to 30 years with the higher maintenance costs to fill the gap.

 

 

As I recall, heidi13 mentioned that the level of insurance coverage would be lower. Of course, some brands are running old ships. However, the cruise quality would be quite different from HAL.

 

Sorry, you won't get me on one of these ships.

 

The reality is that HAL can't justify recertifying and modernizing the old ships on the prices they currently charge in Alaska and the Caribbean. Possibly, HAL could keep on or two of the old ships in service for WC etc. But, a new ship with a modern design would be more appealing and generate more $.

 

They are no freebies. Invest more and earn more. Or invest less and earn less.

[Haljo1935]

On 12/21/2023 at 9:08 AM, kazu said:

Thanks for sharing 👍 

+1 @BermudaBound2014

[HappyInVan]

14 minutes ago, TRLD said:

Yep the Crystal ships were built in 1995 (Symphony) and 2003 (Serenity)

 

 

 

Right. The Crystal ships underwent a major major rebuild for the new owners. Not sure if HAL is willing to spend months of drydock work on the old ships...

 

https://cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/2023/05/crystal-serenity-enters-drydock-ahead-of-ak-debut/

 

 

Assuming that the hull is salvageable. Of course, New Crystal is in a different price level from HAL.

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by HappyInVan

[TRLD]

2 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Right. The Crystal underwent a major major rebuild for the new owners. Not sure if HAL is willing to spend months of drydock work on the old ships...

 

https://cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/2023/05/crystal-serenity-enters-drydock-ahead-of-ak-debut/

 

 

Keep reaching.  Even in CCLs brands there are ships older than HALs, even with the accelerated retirement of ships during the shutdown

 

Grand Princess  1998

P&O Australia Pacific Explorer 1997

Carnival Elation 1998

Carnival Sunshine 1996

 

Crystal did extensive dry dock because those ship sat unused for several months while the bankruptcy worked through.  Prior to that Crystal was not exactly keeping up with requirements.  Considering that for all practical purposes Crystal is now an entirely different company, trying to woo back people that sailed with the old Crystal, as well as others a major make over would be expected.

 

ON the other hand the HAL ships have been in service, been going through dry dock and refit schedules so they just need to deal with more intensive dry dock and maintenance requirement. 

[TRLD]

13 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

As I recall, heidi13 mentioned that the level of insurance coverage would be lower. Of course, some brands are running old ships. However, the cruise quality would be quite different from HAL.

 

Sorry, you won't get me on one of these ships.

 

The reality is that HAL can't justify recertifying and modernizing the old ships on the prices they currently charge in Alaska and the Caribbean. Possibly, HAL could keep on or two of the old ships in service for WC etc. But, a new ship with a modern design would be more appealing and generate more $.

 

They are no freebies. Invest more and earn more. Or invest less and earn less.

The good things is that those older smaller ships are the ones that they are using for the longer, unique routes where they get higher per day fares.  While  they do sail some of the more competitive routes to fill in times in their schedules between the major routes, their primary function in the fleet is the longer more unique routes,  

 

As I pointed out Princess, P&O Australia and Carnival are sailing even older ships and their fares are not any higher than HAL.

[HappyInVan]

1 minute ago, TRLD said:

Keep reaching.  Even in CCLs brands there are ships older than HALs, even with the accelerated retirement of ships during the shutdown

 

Grand Princess  1998

P&O Australia Pacific Explorer 1997

Carnival Elation 1998

Carnival Sunshine 1996

 

Crystal did extensive dry dock because those ship sat unused for several months while the bankruptcy worked through. 

 

No, I wouldn't sail with P&O Australia or Carnival. Sorry. Have you?

 

Actually, the article saïd that ...

 

"As part of Crystal’s new vision, the ship is seeing a full update of its public areas and staterooms, as well as a reduction in its passenger capacity – from the current 1,070 to just 740 guests."

 

So, the modernized ships are quite different from the old. So, a modernized HAL ship would be quite different from the old, and require a lot of work and $$$. Have you ever sailed on the Rotterdam class ships?

 

 

[TRLD]

1 minute ago, HappyInVan said:

 

No, I wouldn't sail with P&O Australia or Carnival. Sorry. Have you?

 

Actually, the article saïd that ...

 

"As part of Crystal’s new vision, the ship is seeing a full update of its public areas and staterooms, as well as a reduction in its passenger capacity – from the current 1,070 to just 740 guests."

 

So, the modernized ships are quite different from the old. So, a modernized HAL ship would be quite different from the old, and require a lot of work and $$$. Have you ever sailed on the Rotterdam class ships?

 

 

Not P&O Australia or Carnival, but I have sailed on P&O UK just about 2 months ago.  Just as I have sailed on Viking, Oceania, Celebrity, Princess, Paul Gaugin, Elixir, Windstar and a number of other lines.

 

Yes I have sailed on the older Rotterdam class ships, as I have on the old Prinsendam as well which his also still in service for another line.  I have sailed on most of HALs older ships, including the Volendam and all four of the Vista class ships.  Have not been on the Zaandam.

 

They would not modernize the ships to keep them in service for a few years longer to fill the gap.  Just continue to sail them in their current configuration with higher maintenance cost and a similar schedule for indoor space updates.

 

In the short term  more economically beneficial for the cruise lines to pay the higher maintenance for 2-3 years than to give up the routes and capacity retiring those ships, until the next ships get ordered and built.  Basically they might keep them about two to three years longer than normal.

 

 

[OlsSalt]

Love the interior feel of the older HAL ships and the connection to the outside as well as traffic flow and use of large windows for sea views - you know you are on a ship at sea,  compared to Crystal Symphony's very awkward floor plans, inwardly directed feel and lack of real usable outdoor space with sea vistas. You had to remind yourself there was actually a sea out there. 

 

Very cramped cabins on Crystal too, when booking down the food chain.Could a bathroom be smaller and the wardrobes opened up into the sleeping area rather than having a dressing are hallway.  

 

Just the opposite on HAL - their ocean view cabins can be some of the largest and the cabins on the older ships are spacious enough for even very long cruises.   I wonder if Crystal  changed their basic floor plans in their recent redo. Plus the upstairs Garden Court on the Symphony felt very tippy. The ship did not sail well, compared to HAL ships - the last one the Noordam sailed extremely well and we had some rough seas for a while.

 

Crystal does spend a lot more money on its interior finishings which are lovely,  and has good itineraries. Their size is good too.  Lots  of frou-frou evening dining touches, but that gets old fast. You can only eat so much on longer cruises. HAL Lido had more interesting choices for breakfast and lunch.

 

Hands down, HAL crews are the best. As DH noted between the two brands, the HAL crew is still nice to you even after you, hand them the end of cruise tips. But the sad fact is the smaller ships just may have to be very high-end premium ships, like Crystal prices,  in order to make the numbers work. 

[HappyInVan]

11 minutes ago, TRLD said:

Not P&O Australia or Carnival, but I have sailed on P&O UK just about 2 months ago.  Just as I have sailed on Viking, Oceania, Celebrity, Princess, Paul Gaugin, Elixir, Windstar and a number of other lines...

 

They would not modernize the ships to keep them in service for a few years longer to fill the gap.  Just continue to sail them in their current configuration with higher maintenance cost and a similar schedule for indoor space updates.

 

 

Suggest that you sail on P&O Australia or Elation/Sunshine before you recommend them to HAL customers.

 

Yes, HAL could run down the ships till they have to be sent to the scrapyard. But, what would it do to HAL's brand image? What about the suites without hot water? The clogged toilets. You can't fix those problems with just work on the decor.

 

Look at the old world elegance on the Noordam. Or the contemporary artwork on the Pinnacle ships. HAL should command a premium price from $$$ customers. HAL's forte has been comfort and service in an upmarket setting. 

 

HAL's brand value is greater than the value of all its ships. Vessels can be replaced or modernized. But the value of a brand had been built up over decades. And, a loss of brand image requires years to repair.

 

The reality is that new investments generates higher cruise fares. Lower cruise fares means insufficient money to upkeep the ships. Karma!

 

I hope that you see the difference between a pro and an amateur?

 

 

[TRLD]

30 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Suggest that you sail on P&O Australia or Elation/Sunshine before you recommend them to HAL customers.

 

Yes, HAL could run down the ships till they have to be sent to the scrapyard. But, what would it do to HAL's brand image? What about the suites without hot water? The clogged toilets. You can't fix those problems with just work on the decor.

 

Look at the old world elegance on the Noordam. Or the contemporary artwork on the Pinnacle ships. HAL should command a premium price from $$$ customers. HAL's forte has been comfort and service in an upmarket setting. 

 

HAL's brand value is greater than the value of all its ships. Vessels can be replaced or modernized. But the value of a brand had been built up over decades. And, a loss of brand image requires years to repair.

 

The reality is that new investments generates higher cruise fares. Lower cruise fares means insufficient money to upkeep the ships. Karma!

 

I hope that you see the difference between a pro and an amateur?

 

 

Talk about an absolutely absurd post. 

 

I at no time recommended P&O Australia or Carnival to anyone.  The discussion was about if HAL would keep their older ships is service to fill the Gap due to a lack of new ship orders.  The reference to those lines was to point out that other CCL owned lines are keeping ships in service that are even older than HALS ship.  Consequently HAL could, as those other CCL brands, keep their oldest ships in service if they choose.

 

Lets see some facts to back up your most instead of opinion with a few adhoc comments along with a few lines that really do not mean anything within context of the discussion.