Captain_Morgan

I presume the ‘other site’ is a social media outlet that can’t be named here?  
No disrespect to the source but is it a reliable (ie. direct from those making the decisions) one or is it purely speculative like everything else we have to go on with these situations?

I think it's safe to say that the concept of 'social distancing' (SD) is here to stay and will very much be a part of any re-launch from any cruise line, especially those sailing to/from the hardest hit areas.

With that said, there is no practical way you can fill Britannia, or Iona (as examples) to their maximum capacity and adhere to SD, nevermind trying to accomplish the same on the likes of Oceana or Aurora.  I like the idea of separating the ships based on demographic but don't they already do that with the adults only ships?  Add to the fact that the Carnival Corporate model has been for the last number of years to build bigger, sell the fares cheaper, fill the ships with people and pick away at them for every little 'extra' which is where the $£€ are made.  It's no secret that someone can pay under $£€ 1000 per person on a 7 day cruise and walk away having spent at least double on the aforementioned 'extras' and that is how Carnival likes it even if it means a drop in quality.

I see a phased re-entry with the larger ships going into service first due solely to the fact they can fill more beds, albeit not to capacity and still earn on short runs.  The likes of the older and smaller ships will likely be shuttered for the time being with one or two possibly even being sold off either for scrap, or to independent lines (i.e. Saga Sapphire, Oriana) 

As for the future bookings and the touting of strong numbers moving forward its surely nothing more than smoke and mirrors to increase confidence in both investors and share holders, as well as the general public as lets face it we all need/want something to look forward to and if we hear there is an increase in demand we want to be part of it.  Will that demand (artificial or otherwise) be met or realized?  I'm sure it will in some ways but until there is a proven vaccine I think many will give cruising a wide berth (pun intended).

5 hours ago, Josy1953 said:

I feel very sorry for the people who have lost their jobs because it was out of their control. 

I wonder whether Paul Ludlow or any other of the higher ups are going to lose their positions.  The management should not be safe because they made the poor decisions about how the customers should be treated so are responsible for any loss of business as a result of the contempt that they have shown for customers

If its any indication of what might be on the cards, both Seabourn and HAL 'retired' their brand Presidents yesterday which might not seem a big deal to CUK, but the man at the top - Stein Kruse - is also responsible for CUK along with the HAL Group...

Didn't NCL initially say they too needed $600 million but ended up raising over $2 billion?  Albeit NCL didn't go the route of junk bonds and actually managed, from what I've read to get reasonably rated loans despite there being offers for much less desirable alternatives.  I'm sure their cost estimate of $70 million is a rough estimate based on operating cost (i.e. keeping the ships moored with lights on) and not taking into account all of the salaries, but even if it does I would think their number is going to be lower given their smaller crew compliment across their fleet of ocean ships seeing as how the river ship season didn't get started in Europe prior to the global shut down, or did it?

The only part of the Bloomberg article that I could see as offering some confidence in their ability to come out the other side is the remark about the target demographic.  Of course it goes without saying that money hasn't disappeared, its just stopped moving as freely as it did pre-pandemic but even then if you've got limited places to spend said money (i.e. destinations for a ship to visit)  I fail to see how businesses will survive in any industry.

Just a data point on the cruise industry, I saw both Seabourn and HAL 'retired' their brand presidents which is surely an indication that there is going to be a seismic shift in the industry across all brands in the not too distant future.

8 hours ago, Snow Hill said:

Don’t think P&O cruises Staff have been furloughed, P&O Ferries did.
 

Carnival UK has very much furloughed employees, and this has been happening since the beginning of April

Sorry to jump in at the tail end here, but I've heard from a family friend with reliable knowledge who has said that an internal announcement is coming as it relates to the future of some executives, which may or may not include the subject of this thread...watch this space as the saying goes!!

I like the comment about there being a 'slight majority' of people accepting future cruise credits....wonder how many are going to be so accepting after reading that article?

Reading the article in the Daily Echo, I couldn't help but notice this quote:

Mr Weinstein said: “I am truly sorry for the pain that this is going to cause but the hard truth is that if we don’t right-size the company and significantly reduce our cash burn during this devastating crisis, we may not successfully get to the other side of this – and I certainly don’t want to see the proud 180-year histories of P&O Cruises and Cunard wind down on our watch.”

So as someone who's been the Corporate Treasurer for 10 years prior to taking his current role, you would think he would have his finger on the pulse when it comes to financials and the 'cash burn' long before getting to the point of sacking people, unless they're using this pandemic as an excuse to cull?  I know that's a bit sinister to suggest but it wouldn't be the first time a large company took advantage of an economic downturn to thin the herd.  I wonder if Ludlow and Palethorpe are going to take a 20% reduction in their salaries??  Clearly a rhetorical question but i would expect to see those earning the most taking the cuts in order to save at least some jobs otherwise how can they use 'cash burn' as an excuse to sack people?  Perhaps that's just wishful thinking, although I did notice there was no mention from Mr. Weinstein of the fact Carnival UK is taking advantage of the government furlough scheme meaning they're surely 'saving' money somewhere or is that just more wishful thinking?!?

1 minute ago, caribill said:

 

Or earlier if cruise lines submitted appropriate plans.

 

And it only applied to USA ports.

Which is exactly where they plan to embark people from....Galveston, Miami, Port Canaveral I believe were those mentioned...and does anyone really think for a second that the Bahamas, Mexico, or any other destinations remotely close are going to welcome thousands of people into their countries with the possibility of further spreading the virus?

I see their move and any others similar as being nothing but an attempt to gain additional revenues for their balance sheet which they will then refund in the form of a cruise credit.

As for cruise lines submitting appropriate plans, they can't even pull their fingers out of their collective backsides long enough to sort the repatriation of crew in US ports because it costs too much!  At the end of the day its $ above all else

1 hour ago, caribill said:

 

How about NCL officially telling the SEC that it has "substantial doubt" it will be able to continue as a going concern?

 

Later in the same day they did announce obtaining financing to help them.

That's well and good saying something which sends ripples through the media, but then totally negating the comments by managing to secure loans / funding to see them through at least 12 months...it all seemed a bit anticlimactic IMO which is not dissimilar in a way to Carnival making their pie in the sky announcements about cruising from 01 August.  Last I checked, one of the tennants of the CDC's no-sail order was that it would remain in place until COVID-19 was no longer a public health concern as lets face it, we've not seen the back of it and won't for the foreseeable future.

If a comment about NCL possibly going bankrupt resulted in a drop of at least 20% in their stock prices despite nothing actually happening to support the claim, I can only imagine what CCL's stock is going to look like this morning with 3 brands cancelling cruises through the majority of the year with more brands likely to follow...

How long now until we see another video from Ludlow's sitting room in light of the fact Princess, HAL and Seabourn have now extended their 'pause' through the majority of the year??

https://www.princess.com/news/notices_and_advisories/notices/global-ship-operations-pause-2020-summer-season.html

https://www.hollandamerica.com/en_US/news/coronavirus-travel-advisory.html

https://www.seabourn.com/en_US/news/press-release/2020-press-releases/pr-20200505-seabourn-extends-pause-to-global-ship-operations-into-october-november-2020.html

1 hour ago, gmjc2 said:

WoW! How incredibly outrageous!!  Was this the shopper or the worker?

Customer...its a still from a short video where the woman said it was to help her breathe....speaks volumes of humanities finest on display....and they wonder why cases spike when mitigation isn't followed properly

Photos have surfaced of the first passenger in the queue to book their cruise once Carnival opens up on August 1....when asked why they cut their mask, they said it was to make it 'easier to breathe' and so they could sip a drink by the pool with ease 😏 😷

These are the sort of people who will be rushing to get on ships before a vaccine....the same ones that cut holes in their mask to make it 'easier to breathe' will the ones lining up to get on a ship for 4 days because they 'need to cruise'.....SMH

Will NCL be the first domino to fall i wonder?  As a publicly traded company whose stock is down this morning as expected on that kind of news it doesn't bode well for the rest whether public or private given the costs remain and if a group of companies as diverse as NCL Holdings is staring down the barrel I don't think the future is bright for the rest...

So far I believe Carnival UK (Cunard & P&O) are the only brand to thus far extend their pause further then the rest in that they’ve closed until 31 July with one ship (Queen Elizabeth) suspended until 8 September. 
 

No way I can see Viking or any other line cruising by 01 July of this year.  
 

I think there's a higher likelihood they will be SAILING their crew home as opposed to flying given that India is still 'closed' for a further 14 days (at least) and I recall reading something yesterday which said the Philippines is closing their doors as well to international arrivals for a further 14 days because their quarantine facilities are maxed out.

Looking at how many Carnival Corp. ships that have already undertaken the journey it seems the most logical response when compared to the logistics and cost of organizing a variety of charter flights.

Dukefan - I don’t disagree that cost associated with repatriation is no doubt a major factor in the decision making process and even with parked planes I don’t see the charter angle being ‘cheap’ even for massive numbers of crew, hence the reason ships are sailing now from North America to SE Asia full of crew.  
 

Was this sailing repatriation ‘late’ in comparison..yes..but as I’ve said at the end of the day every line including Viking is going to be subject to red tape and with the majority of ships returning to US ports to disembark passengers it only stands to reason that they remained there in the hopes they could shift the crew as well.  Could they have sailed to Europe in the hopes of finding an ‘open’ country and port to disembark their 20k crew?  Possibly, but when all companies are cautiously optimistic that their future itineraries will resume they’re not going to be thousands of miles away from where their ‘next’ itinerary is going to be.

Unfortunately for them the CDC dropped the hammer and all of those other ships that weren’t infected got tarred with the same brush as those that had positive cases.  Now what might the tone be if/when Viking reports their first case...

7 hours ago, Dukefan said:

Captain_Morgan - You have an interesting perspective.   That said,  even though the the University of Washington Covid-19 projection model has British Columbia 7 days past its peak of hospitalizations and has Alaska 27 days past its peak of hospitalizations, I agree that the Alaska cruise season is very 'iffy".   We will find out more over the next couple of months.  In any case Vikings ships have to be some where and Alaska is as good a place as any other, maybe even better.  Their Covid-19 numbers are significantly lower than most other places.  

 

It has been posted by folks on several of the Cruise Critic sites about Viking being able to disembark their non-essential crew to return home by sources that I consider creditable.  You may not regard them as such, that is of course your choice.  I'm not sure I fully understand your logic that getting crew home from 6 ships (disregarding their 75+ river ships) is significantly easier than 18 ships, since it is managed on a ship by ship basis.  The larger companies that you believe under the circumstances are doing as good a job as Viking, all have more ocean cruise line experience and a significantly larger staff with resources in many more ports.   With this, I have not seen anything that says that they are handling this situation well as Viking.

 

I, like many other Viking Passengers, am an experienced cruiser  having cruised on many on the other cruise lines.  I currently happen to believe that the Viking experience for the dollar paid is the best I have found.   I had two cruises with them booked for this year and they have worked with me fairly in delaying both these cruises.   I have had great experiences on several non-Viking cruises, which is why we enjoy our cruise vacations.   If Viking would go away, I would return to several of these other lines, but until I find a more customer focused cruise line with equal value I will be cruising Viking if they are going to the places we wish to travel.

I agree completely that Viking's value for dollar is superb in comparison to other lines and its truly mind boggling (in a good way) how they manage to provide high quality food & beverage for example at the same value.  My mouth is watering at the thought of a steak in Manfredi's or the crab legs and sushi offered in the World Cafe as if it were nothing...yes, they offer much better value than the majority of the mainstream lines!

The comment about their ability to better repatriate their crew is the question however, because they are at the same mercy as every other cruise line when it comes to dealing with government red tape.  If Hagen flew crew home on his private jet I would tip my hat and say they've gone above and beyond, but to say they as a company have limited experience is a bit of a cop out given all of their staff both onboard and in the office have been compiled from other cruise lines so is not like they're going in blind.  As for the fleet size, surely you've got to accept that repatriating 2000 crew (round number for arguments sake) is a much easier task than having to repatriate 20,000 crew and with a large number of Europeans onboard the logistics would be a much easier to accomplish and likely more cost effective if the ships are 'closer' to 'home'.  

As for the Alaska season i think the true barometer should be what the likes of HAL and Princess do in that sector given they've had the itinerary locked down for decades.  Although there might be a willingness for companies or passengers or states to re-open, I don't think any company with half a clue is going to willingly walk into the lion's den that is dealing with Coronavirus without some kind of vaccine.  Look at Cunard for example who were meant to have one of their ships (Queen Elizabeth) sailing in Alaska and since the parent company (Carnival UK) recently extended their operational pause until 31 July they decided to scrap the entire itinerary for Queen Elizabeth which I think is a smart move, albeit a tough one no doubt.

There seems to be this notion that Viking are overflowing with cash to swan around and scoop up another operating line, when the reality seems to be they're leveraged to the hilt and are at the point of considering 'junk' bonds....how is that disconnect not obvious?

I get desire to see Viking thrive and expand into new markets, but in the current global climate under Coronavirus and all of the ripples being sent through the industry I think there's a greater likelihood that companies (Viking included) are more likely to recede as opposed to expand.

4 hours ago, Dukefan said:

Captain_Morgan - I do not know for sure but I would think that Viking let its non-essential crew disembark and head home during the extended period it was docked in Melbourne, Australia.    I would also believe the stop in Singapore is to refuel and restock before heading on to the US/Alaska and that no crew will be leaving or getting on the Orion while it is in Singapore.   Even though the fact that Viking is smaller than some of the other Ocean Cruise Lines, it does not take away from the very positive way they have treated their passengers and crew.  For example, Viking sailed their ships to places they could disembark their non-essential crew so they could get home before heading to a location to park their ships during this period of cruise uncertainty Their priorities, their attention to detail and the way they have managed this situation has been impressive. 

The stop in Singapore might very well be a service call for bunkers, but if they think there's going to be an Alaska season to sail to I think they're in for a shock!  Canada has stood by its decision to close ports to all cruise traffic until 01 July and there's nothing to say it won't be extended if the situation doesn't improve.  Furthermore, if anyone thinks the industry as a whole will just come roaring back to life on 01 July they're living on a cloud...

As for the repatriation of the crew, considering India is still closed and has been for some time I find it hard to believe that Viking have somehow managed to disembark and repatriate their Indian crew.  Even most Eastern European countries are still 'closed' and the last time we sailed on the Sea I seem to recall a lot of crew were from the Balkan countries so there's a likelihood as well that some of them might still be waiting to be sent home.

Sailing somewhere to lay up a ship is not the same as being able to disembark and repatriate crew, which as mentioned with 5 ships (not including Orion) sitting in Europe its hardly the same as 18 ships from a single company having to try and repatriate crew and find somewhere to 'park' 

As there are no passengers onboard ANY ships at the minute, any guess as to the compliment of essential vs non essential is nothing but that so until Viking fill a ship and sail it to the Philippines or India I would say they've done nothing any more exceptional than any other company of similar size.

34 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

Royal Caribbean have now aborted the plan to get all over 70s and people with health conditions to get a doctor to sign their fitness to travel form.

Like the rest, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if it meant knowingly giving up potential revenues, but that said I wouldn't put too much faith in RCCL's ability to practice good moral judgement given their CEO recently took home a $14 million bonus from 2019 days after laying off 26% of the corporate workforce....but that's ok somehow because for 2020 he's allegedly not taking a salary or very little?!?

As for Ludlow's comments about new screening procedures and possible changes to the way the onboard operation is rolled out, I honestly believe this is just a case of pandering to the larger powers that be in order to at the very least attempt to show they've got a 'plan' in place to mitigate future PR disasters.  I'm sure its not been lost on anyone not living under a rock that as soon as the outbreaks happened on Diamond and Grand Princess, the President of Princess was out doing the charm offensive on social media because the reach is so much further than conventional news.  When HAL had their debacle recently there were all kinds of hash tag slogans popping up all over the place because thats the trendy thing to do when appealing to a mass market stuck at home glued to their devices.  And now the latest was the Carnival Corp CEO doing the rounds on cable news networks in America trying to downplay the fact that ships have proven to be very successful vectors for infectious illness, likening the risk of getting COVID-19 on a cruise ship to be the same as if you were in a restaurant or taxi. 

Now we've got Ludlow likening a reduced passenger capacity and so-called stringent health screening to paying for hand luggage on an airline?  I have to say its a woeful comparison which has missed the mark entirely as the only reassurance I think most people will have is when there's a proven vaccine, which will no doubt be mandatory to have prior to sailing.

Before the other lines are vilified and Viking anointed as the greatest of all (I know its too late for some on this forum) I think it needs to be said that no individual cruise line has been able to influence the repatriation of the passengers and crew and all lines are subject to government rules and regulations.  

Furthermore, the perspective needs to be changed somewhat to accept and acknowledge that Viking by comparison are a much smaller operation compared to the likes of Princess, HAL, RCCL, etc. so naturally they will have significantly less crew (approx 460 per ship x 6 = 2760 total minus approx. 300 total essential crew) in comparison so they no doubt had a much 'easier' time in comparison when it came to arranging commercial and/or charter flights for their crew.  

Looking at Marine Traffic and I see Viking Orion is anchored in Singapore....a country that just recently had a huge spike in cases of COVID after believing they had peaked and were past the worst of it....is that really somewhere you would want to disembark from??

Looking at the same site, you can see that Manila Bay is like a ship parking lot with various ships from various companies all parked, waiting to repatriate their crew but they're being held in a mandatory 14 day government sanctioned quarantine before they can disembark anyone.  Looking at the coast of India there is an Indian crewed cruise ship Karnika from Jalesh Cruises which is at anchor and can't repatriate their crew because India is on lock down until at least 03 May when their Prime Minister is said to re-evaluate but its believed he will further extend the closure which means every Indian crew member onboard Viking ships (and others) can't get home.

As I say, there is no company or cruise line that is doing any better or worse when it comes to repatriation IMO because its completely outside of their control the relatively small numbers are always going to be 'easier' to move than the tens of thousands spread across the larger ships.  As has been said on another thread in this forum, sheer luck is playing a factor in many aspects.  

One thing that is without argument is the fact that Viking's passenger base is extremely loyal and they will no doubt be back in droves provided they're not being priced out of the market or are subject to being blocked as a result of medical regulations, etc. which it seems like could become a new reality if the CDC has any influence on the reopening of the industry.

As for the cash burn, I'm sure Viking's isn't as much as the bigger brands but that's not to say they're coming out of this unscathed.  In fact, I think its safe to say they were being hammered long before their last ship stopped moving as a result of the cancellations and refunds from the world cruise.  For a company that clearly relies on having cash infusions from their passengers in the form of full payments 10 months in advance, the only logical reason behind that practice would be to have cash on hand which would then indicate that if they're refunding all of that money AND offering credits it would seem they're balance sheet is trending in the wrong direction.  Add to the fact now that although they've downsized crew where possible like the other lines, they're still paying at least 50% of their salaries which you can argue is putting them in a good position to retain crew, but how long can that realistically last?