Captain_Morgan

I think people in this sphere are willing in some cases to pay more for the sense of exclusivity compared to mass-market...case in point, Seabourn has been known to charge on average $1000pp per day so do the math based on the length of trip you want to take.  What do you get for the money apart from a cruise?  They are truly all inclusive when it comes to food and drink but you pay extra for everything else (i.e. tours, WiFi, onboard boutiques) so for someone who wants the exclusive atmosphere of being on a ship with 400 people and having a large suite with endless food and drink that might be worth the cost.

Others however might think that spending $100pp per day to sail on a mega ship with 4000 other strangers, standing in endless queues, eating cafeteria style food, paying extra for everything including drinks and 'decent' meal options not in a cafeteria and going to mainstream destinations with every other ship in existence is worth the perception of having spent less, although i'm sure they find they spend a great deal more at the end of the trip after the 'extras' are tallied. 

Personally, I don't think the 'get what you pay for' applies to cruising any more (if it ever did) because the concept is the same regardless of the brand....you're on a ship, sailing to foreign ports, returning home after X number of days...so whether you're taking photos with a giant mouse or eating caviar it simply comes back to the effectiveness of the marketing and how they manage to separate you from your money and whether you're happy with the result at the end of it all.

1 minute ago, wowzz said:

That's probably true, but drsel will now want to know why Crystal can charge even more than Viking !

Touche! 

7 minutes ago, wowzz said:

You pay more because you get a more luxurious all round experience. In the same way that you pay more to stay in the Dorchester than you do in a Premier Inn.

I would consider Viking to be more in line with a Marriott or Hilton vs Premier Inn if we're comparing land based hotel chains to cruise operations.  Luxury is a vastly over used term in this industry as someone who sails exclusively with Crystal or Seabourn would likely not refer to Viking as being luxurious, whereas those sailing on more budget-friendly ships would likely call Viking luxurious.

3 hours ago, drsel said:

At these prices, they should offer 1 free massage everyday along with a complementary shore excursion of your choice at every port

They do offer included tours in each port, albeit they're usually a panoramic bus tour or something very basic and because they're 'included' or 'free' it means they fill up fast and are always crowded

2 hours ago, drsel said:

If, as you say, their bonds are rated " junk" , then there is a high risk of them defaulting, right?

 

'Junk' Bonds do in fact have a higher risk of default in comparison to other offerings and are typically offered by companies that are struggling financially.  As Viking is a privately owned company there is no way to know for sure what their status is, although its public information that they were recently downgraded by Moody's 

10 hours ago, drsel said:

Why would anyone pay so much more for a Viking cruise? Is it really worth so much more?

What is the rationale?

 

Viking has pros and cons like every line, with the some pros already mentioned; however, there are cons as well such as their policy of having to pay in full at least 6 months prior to sailing (used to be payment in full at the time of booking).   Yes they are newer ships and are nicely decorated with very good food, no kids, casinos, etc.  and I would argue the value for price paid is very good but they are far from perfect.  
 

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist I would believe their motivation is more closely linked to the fact they just recently secured funding by way of high interest junk bonds so they are looking to pay that back sooner rather than later and what better way than to try and drum up additional business, get money coming in and then they can issue FCC’s while keeping the money on the balance sheet.  Add to the fact that the CDC has a no sail order, Australia and Canada have closed to ships, Asia is still a tenuous market, and the Med is still relatively closed to most tourism too so what’s left?  
 

Their ships are smaller relative to P&O when it comes to passenger count but there are plenty of other smaller ships not following suit so I think that is less of an issue as distancing onboard will be an issue regardless of the ship size.  Surely it would be more conceivable for a large ship to sail half full in order to maximize space than it would for a small ship to sail full simply because they offer all balcony cabins?

22 minutes ago, photopro2 said:

That would certainly be absurd and was not what I was trying to say, I apologise for not been clear. 

My point related to your suggestion that having a case of COVID would "damage the brand" and I was not postulating that intelligent Viking cruisers are less likely to become infected, onboard or off! 

I was putting forward the suggestion that the Viking target market are maybe less likely than the general population to think worse of the Viking brand if there were to be a case or cases found on board. That is not due to some blind faith in the brand but the outcome of a more educated understanding that, the nature of pandemics being what it is, any infection is just as likely to have taken place off the ship. An infection occurring on-shore would not be attributed to Viking in their minds and so there would be little or no detrimental impact on the perception of the brand image.

Oh the joy of online forums with limited context due to written text!  I completely understand and agree with your point, re. the view of the brand from those familiar with it in the event of an outbreak of COVID as if this forum is any indication, suffice it to say that there are many who believe the company 'walk on water' and can do no wrong...whether this be due to their alleged higher education or realization that Viking offers exceptional value for dollar is another question entirely.

1 hour ago, photopro2 said:

I understand and appreciate your healthy skepticism but I am not aware of any evidence that P&O has even seriously considered UK only sailings let alone sought specific guidance on what might be possible and when. While P&O say in their statement that they are "working with" Public Health England there is nothing to suggest that this relates to cruising in UK waters only.

It may be that by "gauging interest" Viking are demonstrating more creative thinking than P&O and are getting ahead of the game by exploring options that could take advantage of opportunities as they arise. 

There are undoubted difficulties of course. As things stand border crossings from England to Scotland or Wales are not permitted for recreation. But that and other limitations will change as lock down is eased and there is the same economic pressure across all nations to revive the tourist and leisure industry just as soon as safety will allow.

 

You may well be right about the scrutiny but perhaps less so about damage to brand. The public are now aware that COVID is everywhere, that is the definition of a pandemic. The sort of sensible and educated people that Viking markets to will understand that just because a case is identified on a ship it does not mean that it was contracted there. Cases on ships will need to be taken seriously and dealt with appropriately but testing is now easily available which makes that much more possible than it was at the start of the outbreak. Another of the advantages of what Viking are proposing is that we would never be far away from our wonderful National Health Service should the worst happen.

I agree that there has not been an open invitation to seek opinions from P&O as it relates to UK only sailing; however, if I may be so bold as to speculate I think it would be very safe to say that a British cruise company catering to a majority British clientele wouldn't have to try to gauge interest from it's passenger base as it relates to whether or not 'local' cruising would be popular as it would seemingly go without saying.  Look no further than the P&O forum on here where people are literally visiting the port of Newcastle where one of the ships is currently berthed and talking about how good it would be to sail locally.

I honestly don't think Viking has a single creative streak in their planning process as they quite literally visit each and every other port that the 'big three' corporations do.  If anything, they're likely scrambling to try and cobble together potentially viable itineraries given that Australia and Canada have closed their doors, Asia is likely to cause some consternation, South America is the current global hot-spot for COVID and the CDC is not going to roll over and rescind their no-sail order just because cruise lines make wild claims saying they have more robust measures in place without actually proving it.  Add to the fact that the current regulations in place for the majority of Viking's passenger base (non-UK residents) would require anyone entering the country to enter a mandatory 14 day quarantine so it only makes sense to try and target a local market.

I agree that the public is very much aware of the presence of COVID, but to suggest that Viking passengers are 'too smart' to get it is, with all due respect simply absurd.  It's like saying Viking is immune to getting Noro-virus too because everyone is sensible and educated enough to know they need to wash their hands and use hand sanitizer, but I've been on a Viking cruise where people were sick, people didn't wash their hands when entering the World Cafe or before picking up their burger at the pool grill.  Lets not forget as well the average incubation period of the virus which could mean someone might embark, contract the virus half-way through the cruise and be asymptomatic, all the while spreading it to the other passengers and crew and then finally becoming fully symptomatic once they returned home, as was the case onboard Grand Princess and look how that damaged Princess' brand appeal?

There is no doubt that sailing 'close to home' for people is going to be the most ideal scenario in the event that the worst case scenario occurs and an outbreak of any degree becomes a reality!

7 minutes ago, old biddy said:

It hasn't been stated when this cruise may go  it could be September, when Sky should be doing Eastern Seaboard Explorer, which wont happen due to Canadian restrictions. A lot can happen in 3 to4 months, nobody knows, hopefully the world will be in a better place, if it isn't I wouldn't give the cruise a first glance let alone a second. 

 

As I see it Viking are testing the water to see what the interest might be, no point in trying to organise something if everybody is negative and there will be zero uptake. A lot of hoops will have to be jumped through and at the end of the day the decision may be it's not possible. Let's wait and see.

i completely agree that a lot can happen in the coming months, but I can't help but think its a bit rushed for any company to be guaging interest in the current climate when there are a multitude of obstacles in place.

As I say, there is no doubt going to be considerable interest in ANY cruising being offered as is evidenced on each and every thread of this entire site so it seems a bit silly of Viking to think they need to test the waters when a) the British cruising public prefer not to fly as part of a cruise and b) they have such a rabid customer base who believe they as a company walk on water

6 hours ago, old biddy said:

P&O doesn't specifically operate cruises round the UK and islands. It might have a UK clientele but operates further afield. IF Viking can come up with a viable cruise, that wont involve any pre or post isolation, and the cruise experience is not diminished we are definitely interested. There are lots of elements that have to be right before we would go, but certainly worth considering. How else are we going to get our cruise fix this year otherwise?

I realize P&O don’t specifically operate cruises around the UK,  but they sail FROM the UK (i.e. Southampton) with at least a 90%  British clientele meaning they are taking their guidance from a multitude of sources including Public Health England as cited in their recent cancellation update.  
It should come as no surprise that there would be interest in the resumption of cruises, but I think it’s very careless for any cruise line to attempt a rush back to service for the sake of attempting to clear mounting incurred costs.  
 

Whichever line is first to return will face a mountain of scrutiny, especially if/when the first case of COVID is reported onboard as it will surely damage the brand in question, perhaps beyond recovery!

8 hours ago, flashfearless said:

 

Not sure I have the faith in Viking to risk it.  Although perhaps on a VO ship might be the safest place to be right now unless you're on the space station

Fair comment!  As for Viking being the safest place, I don’t think they’re any safer than any other ship given the lack of passengers.   Add to the fact they’re no more immune than any other company and that will surely be proven if they try to start UK cruises given the fact there’s no sign of the virus disappearing anytime soon.  

21 minutes ago, flashfearless said:

 

They're doing a junk bond at 14%

Next question....were you able to get in on that action? 😏

18 hours ago, Clay Clayton said:

Mr Hagen states in his latest video on Viking TV that they have obtained additional financing.  

But at what cost i wonder...

Sounds to me like nothing but marketing strategy to try and gin up some interest and cobble together some kind of itinerary to help pay off their mounting costs of new ships on order by way of selling cruises and then refunding cruise credits.

If a UK based line like P&O have cancelled all cruises until at least the middle of October they wouldn't have done so without making a calculated choice so good luck to Viking if they think the guidance used by P&O doesn't apply to them...

Bizarre to think i was reading the other thread this morning where someone referenced the ill informed page on CC which cited P&O as returning 01 August, which of course was referred to as rubbish...oh how prophetic that remark was!!

Carnival Cruises  might still think they can sail some of their ships on 01 August from select US ports but I think the cold hand of reality is going to slap them as it should especially given the current climate in the US with the burning, looting, rioting, etc. all in spite of a highly contagious virus with no effective treatment or vaccine...

i wasn't having a go, just asking if there was a reputable source or was it more tongue in cheek...

seems some appear to have an 'inside' knowledge of what's happening and others not so much, but both are prevalent so its difficult to sort through the facts from fiction without context

2 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

I’ve not managed to get a definitive answer but the two comments made were ‘long term layup’ and ‘bye bye Oceana’.

comments from whom, exactly?  unless its coming from someone very high up the food chain i'd say any comments about future planning are best guesses and speculation much like everything else here on CC.

Best guess is that, much like everything else driving decisions in this current climate is that its likely cheaper to berth in Newcastle than it is Southampton or Dover for any extended period of time. 

Add to the fact that Portland / Weymouth has more closely resembled a car park as of late and I'm sure the optics of having all ships just sat idle for the world to watch is not something the powers that be want. 

1 hour ago, Nymich said:

You said OLD was good you also said large was good.  You said New was bad earlier in your post.

My guess is you are just another VV (Branson) hater.  We have seen your type.

Again, parsing words to make an agreeable argument in your own mind....

What I said, was the older ships are more than likely paid off which means they are generally going to produce a higher percentage of profit versus a brand new ship which has to be paid off.  I also said that it wouldn't make sense to get rid of a proven revenue stream in response to your baseless claim that old ships will be done away with.  What part of those points entered your brain and came out as the gobbledygook you've written?   

As for being a VV/Branson hater, how can I possibly claim that status when I've never met the man, nor have I (or anyone else on this site) sailed on one of their ships?

I will leave you to your 'alternate facts' and wish you the best of luck with your re-creating of narratives in order to suit your view...

3 minutes ago, Nymich said:

So what VV really needed was OLD Larger ships...…...unreal.

Where did you get that from my statement?  If you actually read what was written you might be able to discern that the point I made was about RCCL being in a less than desirable financial situation and as such it would be in their best interest to use their larger, newer ships which they could theoretically sail at a reduced capacity in order to generate income to help pay them off...

Again, comparing an unknown quantity (VV) to an established and proven brand is illogical but I'm sure that probably means something entirely different to you based on your remarks.

I am insinuating nothing, short of what you said in your original post, which for the record and a reminder was the following, 

"If anyone survives it is Virgin because they only have two ships.  Add to that the fact that they are both brand new."

If making a statement like that is not wishful thinking, i'm not sure what else to call it as it seems a pretty absolute thing to say about the viability of an unproven product with a single ship in the water doing nothing.

4 minutes ago, ownedbypets said:

 

Royal Caribbean has said that their newer ships will probably sail first and be more profitable than the older ones. The older ones  are smaller and more compact which doesn't allow for much social distancing. They are also changing the windjammer buffet. Virgin has most of these things already in place. A big plus for them.

I agree that larger ships offer better chance for social distancing as there's no way they can fill them and accomplish the same; however, at the same time they're likely still paying for said ships so it would be in their best interest to generate revenue to pay for them as from what I understand they're not doing so well financially.  

Comparing that example to a company with one ship in the water, with an unproven concept hardly seems logical

21 hours ago, Nymich said:

If anyone survives it is Virgin because they only have two ships.  Add to that the fact that they are both brand new.  I see the other lines dumping their older ships if this drags on much longer.  

I think this is a bit of wishful thinking to associate the newness of a vessel with the viability of the company which uses it.  If you look at the brand new ships versus a ship that's say 20 years old, the biggest difference apart from the shiny interior/exterior is the fact the older ship is most likely owned outright by the company unlike the new one which is still being financed.

From a business perspective, if your main focus is being profitable it goes without saying that if your ship (in this example) is generating 100% profit versus 20% profit (estimate for example sake) it wouldn't make sense to get rid of the guaranteed profit stream in favor of a much reduced one simply because its 'new'.

Considering that VV is majority financed by a private equity firm (Bain Capital) its going to be in their best interest to maximize profit which would stand to reason that the longer this venture goes without generating ANY revenue, the better the chances they cut their losses and move on.  Despite what some might want to believe, even the brand recognition of Branson's name stands no chance against a virus that is completely unbiased in who/what it attacks as i'm sure the cruise industry as a whole will come out looking a lot different from when it went in...

7 hours ago, wowzz said:

Well Ventura is not returning any crew back to India,  so they are flying back. A stupid decision by the Indian government in my opinion,  as the crew will be totally clear of any virus by the time they would have arrived.  

But the fact that P&O is repatriating staff just demonstrates that cruising for the next 6 months (at least) is out of the question. 

If this is the case it would seem there’s either been a very large ‘donation’ made to someone high up in the Indian govt or the following news article is flawed...or perhaps even both

https://zeenews.india.com/india/lockdown-4-0-domestic-international-flights-now-barred-till-may-31-2284343.html/amp

SoA - completely agree that if anyone on-board was positive they would have shown symptoms by now and for those crew who were recently transferred from other ships, they too would have been symptomatic by now as well if they had it so why the hassle with respect to getting them home?

Ultimately it comes back to the govt in question which in this instance is India.  According to the most recent news from India they’re preparing phase 4.0 of the lockdown which, from what I’ve read has said they’re planning on resuming domestic flights but nothing about international and many of the states are not actually in favor of relaxing the current conditions.  
At the end of the day it’s the local govt which holds all the cards so until they say they’re going to open international flights I would say they’re just as likely to sail a ship down there especially given Princess is loading up one of theirs to do the exact same thing.  

12 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Looking at Ventura's current speed and position, she doesn't look as if she's heading for India.

Her current position is off the coast of Falmouth with a destination registered as Southampton, neither of which are near India indeed but she's likely dumping gray water after being anchored in Weymouth for the last few days.

Your original comment that I queried had specific information regarding government permissions and plans to fly crew home which is why I asked if it was from a reliable source, or was it more speculation?