AL3XCruise

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Since you are looking at the SEC filings, how much interest does CCL pay on their debt, and what does that work out to in terms of debt/passenger-day? 

Just glancing at the income statement and "statistical information" it looks like in 2018 there were about 89.7M passenger days with 200M in interest, so about 2.23/day/pax.  In 2023 91.4M passenger days with 2B in interest, so 21.88/day/pax.  So while interest isn't the number one cost, its big enough that getting rid of the high interest debt ahead of schedule could make the company try and squeeze some extra cash out of operations.  

Of course, they'd probably squeeze anyway...

I don't have time to go through all the notes and quarterly data so apologies if I'm missing something you saw, but as far as "passing the point of covering debt" the 4.3B is substantially exceeded by the 7.7B in long term debt repaid in 2023.  It looks like at least some of that was paid back ahead of schedule to avoid the ~10% interest rate on notes due in future years (as mentioned, I don't have time to dig in to the notes too much) so they may have had cashflow to cover maturing debt, but keep in mind they also issues 3B in new debt. This did contribute to the cash on hand dropping from 6B to 2.4B. 

All in all they are in a much better place than some thought they would be, but I think that 2B in interest expense on the income statement has a big impact on the numbers investors generally care about the most. A 4% reduction in interest expense would have made 2023 profitable for CCL.  Pumping more cash from operations will help retire that debt faster (not to mention cut operating expenses).  If anything, the fact that they have a stronger cashflow and more options to get cash if needed is going to decrease concerns about liquidity and move the focus more to income.

On 8/15/2022 at 10:19 AM, pierces said:

As for the higher end DSLRs, pros with a lot of legacy-mount glass without the budget to swap them for their mirrorless counterparts will want replacements available if their DSLR body dies.

Canon made the smart move of supporting legacy glass quite well, with most lenses performing as good or better on mirrorless bodies than they did on DSLRs.  It gave up some potential revenue, but made the barrier of switching to other brands (most notably Sony) much bigger.

There are a handful of reasons some photographers still want DSLRs.  The two I've heard most are battery life and physical size/layout.  Mirrorless are improving with battery performance, and it seems most photographer's are willing to carry an extra battery if needed.  Still, certain photographers or situations desire maximum endurance.

There are also some photographers that like larger cameras. Given the majority of the market seems to want smaller and lighter, I doubt we are going to see mirrorless units get bigger.  If you favor the ergonomics of a larger camera, a DSLR is going to be worth investigating.

Other early issues, like EVFs vs optical viewfinders, seem to be going away with the advancement of tech.  

On 8/17/2022 at 9:23 AM, pierces said:

I still maintain that it is a great time to be a photographer.

Its hard to argue with that, at least if you are a serious amateur or pro.  Point and shoot fans may not have as much to look forward too!

On 8/13/2022 at 1:43 PM, Oceansaway17 said:

i guess the short bow makes me wonder if the ship bounces more instead of gliding in waves.

In theory, this bow design should reduce the tendency to pitch up and down in waves.  Hydrodynamics are complex and ship behavior is the result of a lot of design decisions, but it shouldn't make things any worse than angled bow.

6 hours ago, Tall-Cruiser said:

Royal would never do that. Generally speaking all Royal shops look very nice and smooth.

Epic- Now that is just ugly. So ugly that they knew it and stopped any new sister builds (from what I heard).

The lack of a sister ship to the Epic stems from issues between NCL and the Shipyard and has nothing to do with the design.  Still, it seems like the cloud had a silver lining.  While I don't know if Epic's design has materially impacted her financial performance, it is hard to argue that the Breakaway based ships are generally more popular and less polarizing amongst cruisers.

2 hours ago, alfaeric said:

Not sure if that link will show up or not, but they start fueling 2 hours before the scheduled launch.  But they have also scrubbed or delayed plenty of launches before.  Sure, they want to be as close as possible, and there's a specific window, but the time isn't actually fixed to the second.

Your reference refers to a Falcon 9 V1.1 which did not use pre-cooled fuel, so the fueling procedure was completed earlier.  The newer versions require fueling closer to launch.  The cold fuel has a higher density, effectively allowing more to be pumped into the rocket.  As fuel warms it expands and vents overboard, reducing the amount the rocket has available for launch.  This is why it can't be given much time to warm, meaning options for delay are much more limited than with previous generation rockets, including older Falcons.  Keep in mind a delay before fueling starts is still possible, and the launch can obviously be scrubbed at any time.  SpaceX also has a procedure to defuel and refuel in the event of a delay, but I don't know if that has ever been done in practice.

1 hour ago, alfaeric said:

The last call to the ship to change directions didn't make it to someone, somewhere- no idea where it broke down, and I'm not going to speculate.  But, IMHO, it wasn't a surprise at all.  Perhaps the SpaceX group was gambling that it would not make it, and they could launch?  Dunno.  Again, this needs to be looked into so that this can be prevented in the future- especially if the scrub call costs more when it happens at 30 seconds vs. 5 min (an example- I honestly have no idea if that's even true).

One of the CC members with more direct experience to SpaceX ops could probably answer, but based on my knowledge it went exactly as designed.  A time is set for when the range MUST be clear, and if it isn't clear at that time you abort.  Its a systematic approach designed to eliminate errors.  Things may have appeared clear cut, but this is not a one-off scenario.  Having a procedure that works every time and sticking to it provides a higher level of safety.

I get that 30 seconds sounds close, but keep in mind last second aborts are possible.  The Shuttle has aborted in the window between main engine ignition and booster start.

31 minutes ago, alfaeric said:

According to SpaceX, fuelling starts 2 hours before launch.  And since they've bumped plenty of launches for various reasons, they can bump the launch even when it's fueled.   I've watched plenty of launches where it was delayed for 5-30 min.   Or until the next day if the clouds don't clear up.  Scrubbing or delaying a launch has happened plenty of times before.  

 

Again, the ship takes a long time to change directions- so someone dropped the ball when the ship went autonomous (10min from launch)- as it would have been pretty clear sometime between 10 and 0 min that the ship was going in the direction to the zone.  Did someone thing it was going slow enough to not make it and hoped?  

I'm not sure where you are getting that, I've seen quoted from SpaceX engineers discussing the fueling closet to launch and the very limited or non-existent option for delays.  Keep in mind this applies to the Falcon 9FT and possibly some older variants (I don't know if all F9 models have used cold fueling).  At about 10 minutes prior to launch fueling is complete or nearly so.  

I'm trying to understand the concern that they waited to cancel the launch.  It isn't like someone was going to forget about the ship, nor were they going to save money by sending everyone home eight minutes sooner.  My guess would be 30 seconds is a procedural check point where a go/no go is made regarding range safety, and that is why they made the call then.  Up until that point there is no downside to waiting.

3 hours ago, wayne_trisha said:

These launches with southern trajectories have hazard areas hugging the coast for quite a distance.

I wonder if the southern trajectory had something to do with it; my understanding is from 1969 to 2020 no polar launches were made from the Cape, meaning the exclusion zone did not stretch to the south.  Even today the polar launches are less common then east-bound launches. Could the fact the officers were familiar with procedures for launches but rarely (possibly never) saw this type of exclusion zone be a contributing factor?  I would think they would have a procedure for charting the exclusion zone (either manually or automatically) that would be sufficiently redundant to prevent mistakes, but it certainly appears something went wrong.

31 minutes ago, fredmdcruisers said:

IMHO, Royal saw a chance to increase profits by cutting out entertainment and hoping no one would complain.

 Because Royal would pick the Christmas cruise on their largest ship to suddenly employ this new "strategy".

With Royal touting a revolutionary design, I keep thinking back to the World City Phoenix concept from the 80s.  At that time the idea of a 250,000GT cruise ship was considered absurd by a lot of folks, but here we are today.  The Phoenix's multi tower design offers more sea views from more places, and is generally more outwardly focused than Royal's latest ships.  Of course, a lot has changed in the industry and I doubt the design would be practical anymore, but I'd love to see certain concepts brought to a modern ship.

22 hours ago, twangster said:

It may also be that azipod ships can maneuver the port better.  

 

At lunch with the Captain for Empress he stated it was a very challenging port to dock.  He talked about missed calls due to wind and the challenge of steering rudder based ships in Havana. 

 

Maybe he was full of it and just pontificating but watching our approach and hard turn into the slip made it clear the bridge crew were earning their pay that day.  

Its been a while, but I had a conversation with the Master of Empress back in 2005/2006 discussing docking her versus the then new Voyager class.  He (quite humbly) explained that someone with his experience can easily dock a properly designed ship regardless of propulsion, but most of the azipod ships had much more installed power.  This allowed him to oppose stronger winds and currents with a Voyager lass than with Empress.

At that time no one was thinking about docking in Cuba, but I've heard the point reiterated by other officers since.  I'm guess that differences in design and the demands of different ports make it difficult to draw a clear and consistent "truth" on when azipods vs conventional propulsion is the deciding factor on making it into port.

23 hours ago, Biker19 said:

All of the Vision and Radiance class would fit. Virgin's ships fit there (110KGT vs 90KGT for Radiance and ~75KGT for Vision).

Virgin's vessel is wide and short for its tonnage (shorter but wider than old Panamax).  She is slightly longer than Majesty somewhat shorter than Radiance class ships.  I believe some of the smaller Vision class are shorter, but I think most of them have been divested.

Of cruise ships currently in service, Gas Turbines seem to have been chosen for a few reasons.

5 hours ago, TheOldBear said:

There are advantages to having multiple prime movers - during an eastbound crossing a few years back one of the diesels was offline for scheduled maintenance - but the only impact was burning the more expensive gas turbine fuel ['marine gas oil'] in one of the gas turbines instead of the cheaper fuel used by the big diesels .

Indeed, and having different types can be beneficial on a ship like the QM2.  Because power required increases exponentially with speed, a ship like the QM2 takes A LOT of generating capacity to squeak out the last couple knots.  QM2 doesn't need to hit her top speed very often, so lugging around a couple of extra heavy and space-consuming diesels for the occasional need isn't the best solution.  Thus, the designers put a couple of powerful but compact and lightweight gas turbines up on deck.  As you noted, QM2 can fire these up when a higher speed is needed, or when a diesel is down for some reason.

Turbines also tend to have better emissions profiles.  Celebrity's Millennium class, for instance, used turbines to meet emission standards in Alaska.  Of course, it seems that other technologies (scrubbers, LNG, etc.) have become more popular in recent years.

I'm curious if newer engineering methods and materials helped allow for more balconies.  A tall, thin, superstructure allows more balconies and fewer interior cabins.  I know lightweight metals and similar improvements help allow a taller superstructure, but I'm not sure if those changes were developed concurrently with the move to more balconies or if they were already in place and allowed for more balconies when the market dictated the change.

5 hours ago, ALWAYS CRUZIN said:

Stats as of April 6, 2020 USA

39-55 million came down with the flu

Only 170 million got the vaccine or about half of the US population.

400,000 Hospitalized

63,000 Deaths

162 were children.

Of course we all live with risk every time we do pretty much anything, but trying to compare statistics outside of proper context is challenging.  

First, CDC numbers are all in ranges.  Deaths, for instance, are estimated at between 24,000 to 62,000 for the 2019-2020 flu season.  On the low end, that is HALF the current COVID-19 death tool, and even looking at a mid-range number puts the loss at a similar level.

Regardless of which number you want to believe, the fact is 1) the COVID-19 epidemic is ongoing, with death tolls increasing, and 2) this death rate has occurred despite the most aggressive actions any of us have seen, including the closing of entire industries and a huge portion of the population rarely leaving home. 

If, despite all of this mitigation, COVID-19 can cause fatality numbers that are comparable to the flu, and likely to be worse, its hard to argue that the risk assessment one makes with regard to flu can be directed compared to COVID-19.  

I do agree that a lot of the other preventative steps you mentioned are smart ideas, even before the current problems.  I wish you safe cruising.

2 hours ago, BlueRiband said:

Then I found the crux of its demise: 5-6 hours to navigate the Delaware River before entering open ocean.  Piloting and/or tug charges for that amount of time would mean high very operating costs. 

Baltimore and New Orleans have seemed to manage with similar issues, so while that may be a contributing factor I doubt it is the only one.

24 minutes ago, donaldsc said:

My understanding that that the acts were enacted to preserve the American owned shipping companies and passenger ship companies.  Are there any significant numbers of them left?  Or do I have it wrong?

 

DON

You don't see huge numbers of US container ships, and, of course, only a single large US cruise ship, but there is still a major US shipping industry.  Inland shipping, domestic ferry routes, much of the shipping on the Great Lakes, small domestics cruises, and coastal shipping are all serviced by US ships that would likely face foreign competition.

Some would argue that more competition is a good thing, but I think there is also a case to be made in ensuring the most robust possible system is in place when it plays such a critical role in economy and safety.  Domestic ownership allows for more direct control of safety, quality, and reliability as well as avoiding any possible foreign influence on operations.  Many foreign companies certainly meet exceptionally high standards, and the international issues are somewhat hypothetical, but given the importance of the infrastructure I understand the desire to be cautious.

Jobs, of course, are another factor.  It is hard to quantify that impact, though.  Some folks in the industry can probably give you more specific numbers and economic data.  Much like with cruise lines, I'm hesitant to repost "economic impact" numbers and the like without reading through the underlying assumptions.  CLIA, for example, makes some questionable assumptions in order to estimate the number of jobs cruise lines create in the US.

Edit: Looks like the Chief already added some good numbers.

Two thoughts I had, which overlap/reinforce some comments made before.

1) Major lines have flexibility under current rules to operate the vast majority of the routes they want.  They can hit multiple US Ports in a row as long as they visit a foreign port (or a distant foreign port if the is not a closed-loop cruise).  CLIA, which never hesitates to raise a ruckus, has not made PVSA modifications a priority, suggesting its members are happy as is.

2) While I don't want to start a debate a protectionism and politics, we are seeing right now why ensuring a robust transportation/logistics system is essential.  Changes to the PVSA (or Jones Act for that matter) could have significant impacts on this.  Any change, even a small one, needs to be carefully considered in a broader context.

I feel when it comes to the PVSA/Jones Act many people don't understand the intent and impact of the requirements they impose yet feel compelled to argue for changes.  Of course, change can be good, but understanding is key to ensuring it is!

20 hours ago, npcl said:

I have seen far crazier things from people that have been serious.

Indeed:

23 hours ago, mscdivina2016 said:

Better to be diluted and afloat is it not? But we are kidding ourselves if we don't think this would be a good purchase by someone.

Eventually, perhaps.  I think those with deep pockets and a vested interest have no real need to jump in yet.  Right now they'd be buying a bunch of expensive to run ships that won't generate revenue for an unknown amount of time.  With the cruise market so uncertain, plus the general economic issues, I can't imagine many investors beating down the door to put their money into NCLH or another line.  Of course, the Saudi investment in CCL was an interesting move that doesn't quite fit with that view, so who knows!

I do think there is a scenario where the future starts looking brighter for cruising yet the lines are still in a cash crunch waiting for that future to arrive.  If debt and equity options dry up or prove impractical, I could see someone acquiring them at dirt cheap price, knowing that they'll need to burn cash for a while.

19 hours ago, EscapeFromConnecticut said:

Hank is absolutely correct.

 

From Carnival's own SEC statement:

 

 "We currently estimate the substantial majority of our fleet will be in prolonged ship layup."

Actually, there isn't really enough information to know who is correct.  CCL has not, to my knowledge, explicitly defined what type of layup the ships will be in.  "Cold Layup" has a specific meaning within the industry, and I haven't seen any major cruise line use that term.  Some media outlets have, but reporters frequently use industry terms incorrectly so I'd be hesitant to put much weight on those claims.

3 hours ago, CaribbeanJen said:

However, if the cruiseline goes bankrupt I don't know what happens.  Hopefully the insurance will cover us?  

No one knows for sure.  In chapter 11, it is possible that commitments to customers will still be honored as failing to do so would severely impact the company's reputation as it emerged from bankruptcy.  In the past some bankruptcies have protected customers, others have not.  My guess is company leadership, as well as others involved in the bankruptcy who would be getting equity stakes, would try to honor deposits and FCCs.

Sadly, Chapter 7 would likely leave customers with nothing.

I can't speak to insurance, I would suggest referring to your policy to see what protections you have or asking at CC's insurance board.

7 hours ago, KateQ22003 said:

I am talking about the money that should be in a accrual account for these cruises, I'm not talking about cash on hand.

So my question is what do you mean by "money".  I've never heard anyone refer to a liability as money.

Like @buckeyefrank, I'm not trying to argue or be disrespectful, and in fact think we are all agreed that there is a cash crunch.  However, the terminology you are using may detract from the point you are trying to make.  The way I, and evidently others, read your post is that the "money" is sitting in an account.  That suggests the cruise line has cash to cover refunds.

I'm also not trying to dig into semantics or technicalities, but as people make decisions with their money I think its important to be as clear as possible when making comments on the financial situation of the company.

7 hours ago, KateQ22003 said:

Yea, no. The money should all be sitting in one accrual account for cruises paid for but not taken. That's on the liability side of the balance sheet.

That isn't how that works.  A liability doesn't mean the company has liquid assets sitting in an account somewhere to pay it off.  Few companies due unless there is regulatory requirement to do so.  NCLH had $1.95 billion in "advanced ticket sales" as a liability on the balance sheet at the end of 2019, vs $252 million in cash and around $500 million other current assets.  So not only is the money not in one account, it doesn't exist.

You car argue all you want that they should have a bigger cash reserve to better handle downturns, but the fact is they don't. 

There was significant discussion regarding this back when it occurred, you may find answers to your questions using the search function.

In short, though, I doubt many people think this solves NCLH's liquidity problems.

I know some folks on this board have been kind enough to pick up items on the ship for kids and then ship them, but obviously that isn't a great option right now. 

There are a few other companies I've seen that produce models, but they are much higher quality models that come at a premium price (several hundred dollars to thousands).  I'm not sure if that is what you are looking for.

Good luck!

3 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

You do realize that FDR is not the CEO of Norwegian Cruise Line. Harry Sommer (and Andy Stuart before him) is the CEO of NCL and is responsible for management decisions. 

You do realize the OP specifically referenced NCLH, of which Mr. Del Rio is the CEO?

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

CCL is currently bleeding approximately $1 Billion per month.  Last week CCL worked at increasing their cash and credit and likely have access to over $7 Billion cash.  They are now contemplating  putting some of their vessels into what is known as "cold layup" which is a complex operation intended to prepare a vessel for many months of inactivity with only a minimum number of maintenance personnel aboard. 

 The last information I saw from CCL (not independent analysts) discussed removing hotel staff and possibly trimming other teams slightly, but keeping the ships capable of operating at sea.  My understanding is cold-layup is more akin with removing all but fire watch and a couple emergency techs and either docking or rafting up with other ships.  I haven't seen that proposed by any of the major lines yet, but I may have missed it.

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

As to reduced fares, we expect the opposite!  Why?  CCL cruise lines have been giving out very generous FCCs and now have a huge future liability related to those FCCs.  One easy way to devalue the FCCs is to increase prices...in a big way.  In fact, if they were to double the price of a cruise,  any applied FCC would essentially be worthless if you compared  it towhat you would eventually pay to the cruise you cancelled.  I am not sure this is what is going to happen, but there have been numerous posts that similar cruises a year from now have very high prices.  Since the FCC's generally must be used within one or two years it might be hard to find bargains during that time frame.

That is an interesting point, and I'm sure that it is being considered.  Keeping prices high at the moment is likely a strategy decisions as well; I'd hazard a guess that price sensitive customers are less likely to book during a period of uncertainty.  

Of course, the big question is what happens on return to service.  There are just to many questions for us to really make an informed opinion.  My gut tells me that FCCs will not make up for the drop in demand, forcing prices lower.  In addition, filling ships generates much needed on-board revenue.  But I don't have the data to back that up, so its an opinion that is worth what you are paying for it.

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Not only between ship types, but the higher the GT figure, the more it varies from the actual volume of the ship, it is not a linear relationship.

I actually made up a spreadsheet a while back to compare GT of cruise ships using the logarithmic function as I was curious how much impact it had.  While the difference between the logarithmic and conventional measure are relatively small in percentage terms, 5% or 10% makes a big difference on a 200,000GT ship.

Of course, the most important numbers regarding the Comfort right now are the 1,000 hospital beds and 1,000+  medical professionals and mariners who are keeping her running.