AL3XCruise

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Interesting, haven't been able to find gross tonnage on Comfort, but when using rough averages for tankers, using her deadweight of 89k, gives a GT of around 58k, so that's pretty close.  Never seen a displacement figure on a cruise ship, that's generally not commonly published, since it's not real important. Where did you get this?  And, again, using rough averages, based on the 89k deadweight, gives about a 108k displacement (full load), which I would think is way more than a Voyager.

The Navy states Mercy Class vessels displace 69,360 tons.  I'm sure that is less than when they were operating with a full load as tankers.

There are several articles from when Voyager was introduced claiming a displacement of around 68,000 tons, though I can't comment on their accuracy.  I've also seen 54K and 64K, but 68K is the most commonly cited number.  Regardless of the exact number, it certainly shows that the relationship between displacement and GT varies dramatically with different ship designs.

6 hours ago, bobmacliberty said:

By gross tonnage, she'd be similar to the Sovereign class.  Empress is the only current (for now) Royal ship smaller than the USNS Comfort.

Actually, she's around 55,000 gross tons, closest to Empress.

5 hours ago, Another_Critic said:

Pretty close to Grandeur of the Seas.

As said, closest to Empress in Gross Tonnage.  In terms of displacement she's actually closer to a Voyager Class ship.

Hotels, convention centers, and other land based facilities have been the overflow of choice thus far.  Cruise ships offer an interesting benefit in certain natural disaster scenarios: they don't rely on local utilities and infrastructure.  In the current situation that isn't particularly important.  The small rooms, narrow doors, carpeted floors, and other factors make has, thus far, made them less desirable than the alternatives that are being used on land.  Other threads on this board go into more detail on the challenges cruise ship present medical workers with.

9 hours ago, MJSailors said:

     A USNS Mercy  Hospital ship is going to be docking at Pier 90 in NYC. 

It comes with 1000 hospital beds,operating rooms, labs,x-ray equipment etc plus staff that includes doctors,nurses,orderlies and ship maintenance personnel.

      The ship will be used to care for non-virus patients. People needing operations and other medical care will be hospitalized on the ship. 

Just to avoid confusion, the USNS Comfort is headed to NYC.  The USNS Mercy will be conducting similar operations on the west coast as @CRUISEFOUR said.

Hopefully they will be able to put the resources and space of the Manhattan Cruise Terminal to good use in supporting the Comfort's mission.

7 hours ago, txart said:

Do those manufacturing plants you refer to employ over 400,000 people in the US plus create the need for the hotels, airlines etc.?

That number is incorrect, by a MASSIVE margin.  To be fair, the actual number is hard to find because the cruise lines prefer discussing estimated economic impact; the direct numbers are marginal.  RCCL, for instance, employs around 8,000 land based employees worldwide.

The Cruise Line Industry Association, and industry lobbying group, claims that 400,000 US jobs are supported by the cruise industry.  They, however, do not provide any information about how they generated these numbers.  I think it is fair to assume that is because they make many assumptions that help further their agenda.

Furthermore, they (of course) don't discuss which of these jobs would easily transition to supporting people taking domestic land vacations in lieu of cruising.

Keep in mind, someone vacationing in Florida for week spends 7 nights in a hotel, 7 days eating at local restaurants, 7 days shopping in Florida stores, etc... versus a cruiser that spends one pre-cruise night in a hotel and has a meal or two.  I'm not saying that certain people wouldn't be hurt by a reduction in cruising, but it isn't nearly as bad as what the cruise lines put out.

In short, I have nothing against the cruise lines and how they do business.  I have stock in one, and intend to take more cruises.  It is a simple question of how to do the must good for the most people with limited money.  We need to spend limited US dollars to generate the most possible US jobs and US economic growth, and that isn't with a cruise line.

2 hours ago, tommy said:

I asked about why NO one would try to help and 1would not even give me her name. Zoey said she was sorry,and her name is Zoey Wright.

Maybe they are hesitant to give out names because some people feel the need to turnaround and post those names on social media?  Just a thought...

55 minutes ago, Mr&MrsBee said:

As if writing LLP will do any good.  HA HA HA

People are looking for things to do.

5 minutes ago, Miaminice said:

I understand that´s what he´s trying... but as of the past, to the best of my knowledge and as per all that can be read about the FCC that´s not possible. One FCC (per person) per cruise only.

I will say, given circumstances, it would seem reasonable for X to reconsider FCC related policies and try to make them more flexible.  I also understand that allowing combinations reduces additional revenues on fares, as well as onboard revenue, so in these times of limited liquidity they are hesitant.  

11 minutes ago, fstuff1 said:

+60% on no news.

guess people are expecting a cruise bailout in the $2T stimulus package

I'm wondering why they are leading the other lines so dramatically today.  

While I hope it will last, I have my doubts.

19 minutes ago, npcl said:

I would also expect the government take an equity position in the cruise lines as part of any package, limit executive pay, remove dividends and stock buy backs, as part of any bailout arrangement.

I agree with your points.  I'm not typically a big fan on heavy handed controls, but if a company requires a government investment, the public's interest need to be considered as they now have equity.  In the case of cruise lines, your points seem like reasonable measures to ensure that happens.

It will be interesting if, beyond the immediate financial issues, we see structural changes to how cruise lines operate in the United States.  Of course, that applies to many other industries.  While I'm sure the will continue to play an important role in the global economy, I could see certain aspects of international supply chains, just in time inventory, etc., coming under increased scrutiny.  

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

They might only pay a little over 1% in taxes, but how much did Amazon pay?  Netflix?  Facebook?  General Motors was mentioned in this thread.  Well, you might want to look in to how much they paid in taxes.  It might surprise you.

It isn't just a question of corporate tax rate.  GM alone employs nearly 100,000 US residents who are subject to US income taxes.  These people and their families spend money at other US businesses, resulting in additional jobs and tax revenue.

We are in a situation where we need to put our dollars where they have the most impact.  I'm not trying to take a protectionist stand against how the cruise industry does business (I wouldn't cruise with them if I had such animosity against them), but I don't see them as providing an essential service or providing a return in US jobs or US tax revenue.  

I do see RCCL's new financing as a big step forward for them, and hope that CCL and NCLH continue to improve their positions.

20 hours ago, DaveRRT said:

yep im sure they pay no taxes , port fees and all the employees are tax exempt all the cabs and ubers that take you there pay no tax the food people that supply the produce and drinks pay no tax also , plus the crew will make much more in their home country. Could we try to think a little before we destroy our country please

They pay far less in taxes than US based hotels, entertainment venues, and restaurants.  The employ far fewer US citizens and residents than US based hotels, entertainment venues, and restaurants.  And, incidentally, if cruising were to see a downturn, many cruisers would be spending their money at US based hotels, entertainment venues, and restaurants. 

A roundtrip ticket, a night in a hotel, a couple meals, and an uber ride don't compare to a week or two vacation on the Florida cost in terms of the benefit in jobs and tax revenue.  Even if a significant portion of cruisers elect to vacation overseas, it is likely the domestic hospitality industry would see a boost. 

People seem to assume that all cruisers would just stay home, and all businesses that work with cruise lines would be unable to provide service to any other customers.  Industry organizations push data that reinforces this view, using spurious analysis to try and claim the impact they have on the US economy.

I do feel for the vast number of people that would be impacted by a severe decline in the cruise industry, and I'd personally miss the opportunity to cruise.  I don't want to see any line fail or its employees suffer.  But in times where dollars are short and needs are long, I think governments need to focus on propping up industries that provide essential services and/or offer substantial employment opportunities for their residents.  In the grand scheme of things, cruise lines do neither.

I look forward to supporting them by cruising in the future.  

19 minutes ago, caribill said:

And I have seen a detailed analysis from another source that concludes

 

"Carnival Cruise Line has the best liquidity, interest coverage, and is the most solvent out of all three companies. If any of them were to survive, I would put my money on Carnival Corporation."

And, to the best of my knowledge, no one outside of these companies has detailed knowledge of what the current cash burn actually is, what it is projected to be, what percentage of cancellations will require cash refunds, etc.  From the broadest possible view, CCL does seem to have a stronger balance sheet, but cutting expenses, deferring liabilities, and securing additional financing are all ongoing unknowns.  I have not seen any evidence that analysts are coming to a consensus on how that is all going to shake out for CCL, RCCL, NCLH, etc.

45 minutes ago, bonsai3s said:

I must add that there will be Americans that will be affected and suffer if the cruise industry "sinks".

* Purveyors and suppliers.

* Hotels and restaurants.

* Airlines and other transportation.

First off, I don't think the industry is going away.  While a bailout may be unlikely, I don't think many people expect the demand for cruising to disappear.  Most, if not all, major lines will likely continue to exist either through extensive borrowing or bankruptcy reorganization.  

If there was a major drop in capacity, there would still be demand for vacations.  Many of the businesses you mentioned would adapt.  Some, like hotels and restaurants, could actually benefit from a decrease in cruising as people turn to land-based alternatives.  A few, of course, would be squeezed out.  Overall, though, the demand for the kind of services a cruise provides would continue, and US based business would step into the void.

However, as I said, I most if not all operations to continue similar to how they were.  How exactly they get there is a bit less certain.

1 hour ago, ldubs said:

 

Or maybe use it to quarantine all of those knucklehead spring breakers.  🤔

Now that is a valuable, out of the box idea! 🙂

44 minutes ago, ldubs said:

Huh, a lot of interesting and sometimes successful ideas come from thinking outside of the box.  They don't all work, but it is generally a very good practice and should be encouraged.  

On 3/18/2020 at 2:12 PM, Milt Baker said:

A great think-outside-the-box friend just sent me this:

Being unaware that something has been tried before doesn't make an idea outside the box.  There have been many discussions, and some attempts, to use cruise ships in disaster response.  The results have generally been less than favorable. 

If someone had a new, creative way to leverage cruise ships that hasn't been attempted previously, that would be a great outside the box idea.  Given the sheer number of empty hotels, vacant real estate, and other options available, I think you'd need to come up with some kind of rational that supports using ships other these other options.  Arguably the ships biggest benefit is its ability to operate independently of public utilities and be more self sufficient than a hotel.  That advantage is less important in our current emergency. 

4 hours ago, Farts said:

Hawaii govt is calling for a ban of cruising for 60 days. so maybe the stock will take another hit today.

Hawaii doesn't have the authority to implement such a ban; it would need to be done at the Federal level.  If they did step in, I don't see why they would limit the action to just Hawaii.  Thus, I don't think comments from the Hawaii government will have any impact on top of others who are already clamoring for government action.

1 hour ago, roger001 said:

Yes they will have no choice but to shed their debt via chapter 11.  Likely they will wait to get debt at its max before filing.  They are a good candidate for what us called a “pre-packaged” bankruptcy meaning they file their restructuring plan at the get go and are out of bankruptcy in 90 days.

While I respect the expertise, I tend to think it is a little early to say they will have no choice.  We really don't know how long this will continue, or how long people will be hesitant to cruise after the immediate threat has faded.  The last financials from NCLH definitely don't look great in terms of withstanding a decline in cash flow, but they have already secured substantial additional credit.  That suggests at least some lenders are inclined to believe in the industry's viability.  After all, I doubt anyone who thinks cruising is in for an extended downturn would secure a loan using a ship.

All of that said, CCL and RCCL have stronger balance sheets.  If I was going to try and make some cash from a market rebound, I'd probably look to them first.

2 minutes ago, drowelf said:

How much consolidation can actually go on? CCL/RCL have dozens of brands under each of their umbrellas. Who are the major players outside of them. I know that NCL, Viking and now Virgin are not under the CCL/RCL brand, any others? 

Viking, Virgin, MSC, and Disney come to mind, in a addition to dozens of smaller brands.  Disney and MSC have corporate parents with deep pockets.  I'm not sure how Virgin is financed; I think Bain was involved but I don't know how much capital they are others want to throw at it.  I know little about Viking.

That said, my gut tells me the big three (CCL, RCCL, and NCLH) will be able to find capital, even if they have to pay dearly for it.  That may be harder for the smaller players, forcing bankruptcy or sales to companies that can weather the storm.

1 hour ago, npcl said:

Over 9 billion in in current debt, including 4.5 billion in customer deposits for cruises not yet taken, vs 500 million in cash, 450 million in accounts receivables and trade, and a 2.8 billion untapped in a 3 billion revolving line of credit.

 

Lots of assets but pretty much all in ships and land based tourist facilities, not liquid and with the entire industry under fire not sure how much anyone would lend against them.

I think it comes down to three big questions that have no firm answer.

1) How long until the industry recovers.  In addition to the immediate threat of corona virus, there may be lingering loss of confidence in the industry.  Examples like the Concordia suggest cruise lines can weather a big hit and still retain their customers, but no one knows for sure how this will ultimately shake out.

2) We know that they are going to take a major cash flow hit, but as of now I doubt anyone can accurately project how bad it will be.  Obviously the longer this is the bigger the hit, but also the more steps lines can take to mitigate losses.

3) How willing are lenders going to be to step in.  If they are assuming strong positive cash flow is likely in a couple years, its hard to imagine them turning down the opportunity to make some money by lending to CCL and others.  If they think this could have long lasting repercussions, it draws into question both repayment and the value of the collateral cruise lines can put up.  A billion dollar ship won't be worth nearly that if demand for cruising drops 50%.

Personally I think it is likely CCL can navigate this mess, but it will be a very painful proposition involving big revenue hits and being forced to take on a lot of debt on unfavorable terms.

24 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I'm not arguing with you but I am interested in your thoughts on why you think CCL even gives the OBC across all of it's lines if it isn't to keep the small investors?  Wouldn't not offering the OBC increase the amount of profit going to the 87%?

A fair question.  As careless and ed01106 mentioned, there is a marketing/loyalty component to it.  There are half a billion or so shares of CCL outstanding, so investors buying 100 shares at a time are unlikely to make a big dent.  But if you keep those folks coming back onboard by offering an added incentive, it is a win for the bigger investors as well.

I'm sure CCL periodically reviews what the OBC benefits cost, what it brings in (in terms of both investment and business), and how that compares to other options.  Reading CC threads about the OBC benefit it certainly sounds like people are spending a lot of money with Carnival.

30 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I think that there are many more individual investors who buy for the OBC than there are individual institutions that own CCL.  You are saying that the large majority of shares are owned by institutions.  I believe Colo Cruiser is absolutely correct when he states there are more investors that want the OBC.  Because you misunderstood what Colo Cruiser was saying doesn't make him wrong and you right.

Of course there are more individuals; but how much does that matter?  87% of the stock is held by institutions, meaning they own the vast majority of the company.  While the remaining stock holders aren't inconsequential, I think we all know who has the board's ear.  How exactly that plays out, though, none of us can say at the moment.  

1 hour ago, ed01106 said:

That has nothing to do with liquidity, which is what CCL needs to worry about at the moment.  The problem for CCL is short term liabilities compared to cash.  

For their last fiscal year, the net cash flow was poor.  However, when you consider that was after $1.4 billion in dividends and $600 million in stock repurchasing, they have some cushion before they can't pay short term debt.  Even if Net Income does drop by $2+ billion, I doubt they will have trouble finding financing.  At the moment I don't see any evidence the cruise industry is going to evaporate in the long term, and there is going to be someone willing to provide capital in the short term.  It could be expensive, but it will be there.

In addition to the general travel slowdown's impact on revenue, the stock price is likely reflecting concerns about cut dividends and expensive financing driving down profits in years to come.  I don't seen any evidence of bankruptcy driving investors to sell.

1 hour ago, oskidunker said:

This has been going on for many years. I would think they would want people to buy the stock so I doubt they cancel the benefit.

Considering 87% of CCL stock is currently held by institutional investors, I have a feeling they will prioritize dividends over OBC if it comes down to it.  But we just don't know how tightly CCL will need to reign things in yet.

On 2/19/2020 at 1:15 PM, WorldTraveler151208 said:

The advantages of rotating azipods are clear: greater maneuverability and no need to install thrusters on the stern of the ship.

A couple of ship handling experts on this forum have pointed out that a well designed system with high lift rudders and sufficient bow/stern thruster power isn't really any better or worse than azipods in terms of maneuvering, just different in terms of how the crew manages it.  I remember speaking with an RCI captain years ago about this.  He had recently commanded one of the early pod-equipped ships in the fleet and was now master of a conventional one.  His opinion was the pods themselves made no difference versus thrusters and rudders, but he did appreciate that the newer ship had a lot more horsepower. 

On 2/19/2020 at 4:09 PM, cruisesafer said:

Time ago I read somewhere that they are much more expensive than conventional propulsion and have a limitation on how much power they can transmit to the propeller, so for big ships it is not ideal. Also they offer different maneuvering characteristics than traditional shaft plus propeller systems that are not ideal for very large ships.

On 3/2/2020 at 12:39 AM, Hlitner said:

  While not getting into technical considerations you might consider that Azipod systems have a higher initial cost and come with their share of maintenance issues.  For example, Azipods will often require a drydock to make repairs that could easily be handled without drydock on fixed prop ships.

I can't claim to be an expert, but I've seen @chengkp75 mention several times they are generally less expensive to install than a system comprised of twin shafts, rudders and associated equipment, and two to four stern thrusters.  

@cruisesafer: you may be seeing articles that refer to large cargo ships.  They generally use a completely different propulsion system than the diesel electric configuration on cruise ships.  There are no cruise ships currently in service or on the drawing board that exceed the capability of azipods.  

Big cargo ships tend to operate contentiously at one speed for days at a time, and most are powered by a single (occasionally two) very large engines bolted directly to the prop(s).  Cruise ships have more variable speed profiles, higher tops speeds, higher non-propulsion electrical loads, and other factors that favor multiple (commonly four to six) diesel generators providing power for electric motors (either in azipods or attached to a shaft).

I know current generation azipods have dramatically improved reliability and serviceability.  Some tasks that used to require a drydock no longer do with the newer designs.  The Chief, however, would be far better at explaining the relative details of servicing a modern azipod versus a more conventional system.

It is also worth noting that some ships are employing things like Rolls Royce's Promas system, which are largely conventional designs with hydrodynamic tweaks for efficiency.  I'm always skeptical of the marketing hype when it comes to efficiency, but these "advanced" prop and rudder designs seem to be attracting customers, either due to delivering on promises or aggressive pricing.

Neat.  Though I can't promise my orientation is spot on; the telescope is on a German Equatorial Mount so the camera isn't always level with the horizon.  That needs to be fixed later!

More upper level distortion than I was hoping for, so my Venus picture did not come out great, but I did get a few snapshots of the moon.

6 minutes ago, MrMike45 said:

Being disappointed in paying a price that at the time you were ok with?  And months later, then starting a thread on this website bashing the company saying you will never give them business again unless they bend over backwards to give you thousands of dollars back after you paid (and were ok) with something months ago?   

A lot of people look for the best deal.  Even if they feel the price they paid is appropriate given the value of what they receive, they may be frustrated that they didn't find the best possible price.  I know I'm not happy when I pay more than I need to, even if it is a good deal.  But I don't find fault with a seller when that happens!

Too many people get angry and irrational, claiming they were misled or slighted even though the policies are explicitly laid out.  And, of course, anyone that tries to explain this, no matter how sympathetically, is inevitably deemed cold and heartless.

5 hours ago, RolandofGilead said:

They can reduce rates and fill ships.  Then they get probably break even rate, have a chance of additional on board spending and they can get the service charges to pay the staff. (i don't know how the staff compensation works but i would guess they get a lower guaranteed wage with and "expected" bonus or gratuity from service charges).  The question is, are these the kind of guests that you can make more on the back end with?  are they more likely to be more loyal?  

As you suggested, the marginal cost of additional passengers is very low.  Add in the possibility of on-board revenue, and it makes sense to fill rooms at a steep discount.  Even if they are less loyal or spend less onboard, they are better than an empty cabin.  Of course, if thousands of cruisers got frustrated with dynamic pricing and went elsewhere the practice would need to be reviewed, but given the general consensus on threads like these that seems unlikely.  Those who need certainty book early, those who are more flexible book later.