ESCAPE - September 9th Bermuda - TS/H Florence

You can armchair make business decisions all you want, but I assume they have an education team onboard who makes these decisions with facts and not emotions. Every time this happens with changes in itinerary, charters, etc. passengers complain that they weren’t given enough compensation (NCL appears to give less than other companies), and how their business is going to suffer, and then it doesn’t. I’ve heard that this industry relies on new customers who add more to the bottom line than repeat customers. This is their business model, they are still filling ships, and until that changes, business as usual.

That's fine. It's their company and if people cruise with them and they make a profit then so be it. Just won't be with any of my money.

If they had offered a good percentage off a future cruise, in the beginning, we would have booked onboard. But after all the run around and miscommunication and lack of response as the cruise went on, any offers like that will fall on deaf ears. Any percentage off is still money in their pocket and now we have no desire to give them any more of our money. At this point, they owe us. Period!

 

We were on that Disney cruise in 2004 -- when our 7-day became a 10-day and we were the first 10-day Disney cruise LOL. The care and communication they showed was outstanding. Even if you didn't book your air through them, they took care of everything, including ground transportation (we had to port in Fort Lauderdale instead) and hotels the day we finally docked. They stopped in Galveston to restock, got permission ahead of time for passengers to be allowed to get off the ship and look around, and even offered free bus service to Houston for those who wanted to fly home. While in Galveston, they had made arrangements to fly more entertainment in from L.A. and we had there new shows for the next three nights. It was amazing. We went through another hurricane with them in 2005 (Hurricane Hillary) from L.A. that cancelled a port, but they quickly booked another and added new excursions. I guess I was foolish enough to expect the same kind of care and communication from NCL. Lesson learned!

It really is a small world isn't it?

You got it all correct about what dcl did for us but you forgot the best part lol

They offered free transport to Orlando and I believe a free night or 2 in the Disney onsite hotels to those pax that couldn't secure flights back for several days. I recall those pax on air Canada couldn't get flights until Friday

I loved it when the CD announced that they were bring on some Disney movie that had been released either while we were on the cruise or was set to be released shortly thereafter...because as he said.."we own it".

Loved that the mayor of Galveston woke the town shopkeepers up that morning too.....because DISNEY was coming to port!!!!

They also offered 20% off the next cruise if booked on board..but of course every time I tried to go to that desk they shut it down because the captain came on announcing an additional day was being added to the cruise so all crew had to go do something regarding that.

Also dcl kept all pax apprised of the parking at PC and the conditions of cars parked there

So I never got to book onboard but a month later when I was able to think straight again I called dcl and explained what happened and they said not to worry we are taking good care of all of the pax from that cruise and gave me the 20% off and then some

So many pax on that ship missed 1st day of school for the kids and there were lots of teachers missing their 1st day as well and Disney realized this and did what they could. The free busses to Houston is a perfect example. I recall them saying 600 pax took advantage. Lots of brain surgeons and rocket scientists had to get back I'm guessing. Lol

Kudos to jet blue for getting us home the day we docked as well. They actually sent planes to FLL to accommodate the 20,000 stranded cruise pax that couldn't debark in their original port

Thumbs down to FLL airport though for letting a drunk pax cut the security line because he was running late ...but...actually put my then 3yo through secondary security all because our plane tickets...which had just been issued as our original flights home were long cancelled...showed one way last minute booking status..

Other than FLL not using common sense (I still can't believe they graciously let an irate obnoxious drunk cut the line and skip secondary screening just because he was getting loud but my demur 3yo had to step aside..and I had to stand 6 feet from her while they

used the wand over her and asked her ridiculous questions.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I was on this cruise and don't expect any refund from what has already been said, though it would be nice. I was also on the Gem last year when we were all flown back from Barbados. we were immediately given future credit of 25% while still on the Gem. NCL did pretty good job then considering chartering planes at last minute to a rather small carib airport, and small incidental refunds, cab/car service, sandwich, sodas. and i'm sure people will complain on that cruise, not me.

I wonder if we will hear soon if some letter writers will/did get any type of compensation.

You can armchair make business decisions all you want, but I assume they have an education team onboard who makes these decisions with facts and not emotions. Every time this happens with changes in itinerary, charters, etc. passengers complain that they weren’t given enough compensation (NCL appears to give less than other companies), and how their business is going to suffer, and then it doesn’t.

I’ve heard that this industry relies on new customers who add more to the bottom line than repeat customers.

This is their business model, they are still filling ships, and until that changes, business as usual.

And how do you know their business doesn't suffer?

Interesting. Source? I suspect what you've heard is the industry needs to keep generating new customers to fill all the new ships they are bringing on line. What is not said but is equally important is keeping their existing customer base as well.

Filling ships does not equal good business. Anyone can fill a ship. Fill a ship and make money is a whole different matter.

If business was suffering due to their compensation policies, they’d change them. They’ve been pretty consistent over the years. New cruisers spend more than repeat cruisers. I’ve been reading these vents for over 10 years, nothing has changed.

Call me crazy but I think it would be fun just sailing all around and away from a hurricane. Give me all the sea days I can take.

We are also you're kind of crazy,

Marion

If business was suffering due to their compensation policies, they’d change them. They’ve been pretty consistent over the years. New cruisers spend more than repeat cruisers. I’ve been reading these vents for over 10 years, nothing has changed.

So have I been reading these vents and adding a few myself and I can honestly say I feel good about leaving ncl for at least the time being and not staying with them out of some misguided sense of loyalty.

And before others post the worn out phrase...."it's good to have choices" ....let me add that I'm jumping ship next time because I didn't like some of the choices ncl has made with their itins and especially their prices. So it's all good. Lol

Sent from my iPad using Forums

So have I been reading these vents and adding a few myself and I can honestly say I feel good about leaving ncl for at least the time being and not staying with them out of some misguided sense of loyalty.

 

And before others post the worn out phrase...."it's good to have choices" ....let me add that I'm jumping ship next time because I didn't like some of the choices ncl has made with their itins and especially their prices. So it's all good. Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

And I don’t blame you, there are companies I choose not to do business with because I don’t agree with their policies or have had bad customer service. However, I don’t think I’m messin* with their bottom line.

If business was suffering due to their compensation policies, they’d change them. They’ve been pretty consistent over the years. New cruisers spend more than repeat cruisers. I’ve been reading these vents for over 10 years, nothing has changed.

I do think that word of mouth is vital for good business, and several co-workers -- young 'uns -- who were planning their first cruise on NCL have changed their mind when they saw how we were treated. But I'm not the only naysayer, there are plenty of places online that have posted arguments and blogs about all this and the way it was handled and there are many people either cancelling future cruises or deciding not to choose NCL.

As a PP said, it may not hit their pocketbook right off, but if people feel nickel and dimed AND also aren't getting good service, then they will find somewhere else to spend their money where they don't feel ignored, gypped or overpriced!

Ummm, yeah, this does not in any way explain why, a couple of days later during the Captain's Q&A, it slipped that the reason we didn't go to Nassau WAS NOT weather related, but instead because they couldn't get a berth. Hence leading to the build up of anger and frustration that NCL may have known full well before departing NYC that we were never going to Nassau. Which leads many to find the deceit and hard-nosed corporate attitude just another reason not to trust them for future ventures :confused:

As far as not being able to secure a berth in Nassau, NCL could have requested to go to Freeport instead. On a sailing 2 years ago that did visit Freeport as a scheduled stop we were told that if Nassau has an "overflow" of ships, the ones without a berth are sent to Freeport. Freeport is used to this process. Carnival and Disney are given priority in Nassau over NCL.

Compensation for the changes seem to be very lacking.

MARAPRINCE

That is easily explained. NCL has screwed up, people have pointed out the screw ups, and the NCL loyalists have come in attacking people for saying negative things about NCL. It's downhill from there.

Very well said. And it's not like many of the people criticizing NCL aren't also pointing out positives. I pointed them out. I said I enjoyed the ship itself and I thought the crew made a really bad situation better. The funny/sad thing is NCL as a company did absolutely nothing in terms of customer service, and at the same time, they made the jobs of their employees on the ship more difficult and put them in a bad situation. Too bad an NCL executive wasn't onboard the ship to tell the angry customers they weren't going to be compensated at all. I don't see why it's so hard for some people to accept that the itinerary is important to some people (not everyone - I get that), and those people are going to be upset at the unprofessional changes/lack of communication/0 regard to customer experience/customer service.

Amen to that. It works in most industries. Those that provide excellent customer service retain customer business. I will give you a great example. September 11th ,2001. That tragic day and my office was in WTC 1. We had to relocate to a back up site in New Jersey and I had to drive everyday to work where I normally would have taken public transportation. I quickly realized that I was going to go over my car lease mileage limit so I contacted Chrysler and told them what happened. Their immediate response was " don't worry we got your back"

That's a great example of customer service that creates and keeps a loyal customer. Just look years later, you're still telling the story.

If they had offered a good percentage off a future cruise, in the beginning, we would have booked onboard. But after all the run around and miscommunication and lack of response as the cruise went on, any offers like that will fall on deaf ears. Any percentage off is still money in their pocket and now we have no desire to give them any more of our money. At this point, they owe us. Period!

Same here. Based on my on-ship experience, if they had offered me something like 25% on a future cruise, I would have been a customer and booked another cruise with them for next year. Now, I'll probably never sail with them again.

You can armchair make business decisions all you want, but I assume they have an education team onboard who makes these decisions with facts and not emotions. Every time this happens with changes in itinerary, charters, etc. passengers complain that they weren’t given enough compensation (NCL appears to give less than other companies), and how their business is going to suffer, and then it doesn’t. I’ve heard that this industry relies on new customers who add more to the bottom line than repeat customers. This is their business model, they are still filling ships, and until that changes, business as usual.

Wait a second. What metric are we using to validate this? Who says their business is strong? They are a public company. How are their numbers? I'm not going to take the time to look because I'll never invest a dollar in their company, but the stock over the last 3 years paints a different picture from what you're saying. A stock price less than what it was 3 years ago does not indicate a strong business. Maybe their trending up now, but if you're someone who invested in NCL 3 years ago, you're extremely disappointed with the business at this point in time. So their business decisions? There seems to be little actual evidence that they are running an effective business. Over the last 3 years it's been a drain for investors.

If business was suffering due to their compensation policies, they’d change them. They’ve been pretty consistent over the years. New cruisers spend more than repeat cruisers. I’ve been reading these vents for over 10 years, nothing has changed.

You're right, little has changed - their stock price has been stagnant since late 2015... The business isn't growing, clearly. So maybe they aren't doing everything right?

I could be wrong because I haven't dug into their financials, but all I know is their stock seems like a terrible buy right now and there's little there right now it seems to indicate a growing business.

Wait a second. What metric are we using to validate this?

Who says their business is strong? They are a public company. How are their numbers? I'm not going to take the time to look because I'll never invest a dollar in their company, but the stock over the last 3 years paints a different picture from what you're saying. A stock price less than what it was 3 years ago does not indicate a strong business. Maybe their trending up now, but if you're someone who invested in NCL 3 years ago, you're extremely disappointed with the business at this point in time. So their business decisions? There seems to be little actual evidence that they are running an effective business. Over the last 3 years it's been a drain for investors.

I have looked, and to my untrained eye, NCL doesn't look good, especially when you compare to other cruise lines. More importantly, when I asked my financial adviser to buy 100 shares of NCL so I could get the on-board credit, he advised very strongly against investing in NCL - none of their research indicated it was a company to invest in.

Doubtful they were using any metric other than their love of NCL

Haha, yeah, I kind of feel like that. And "filled ships" and selling out cruises is not a direct indicator of a strong business. It speaks nothing to their retention, profitability, etc. You can fill as many ships as you want if you invest tons in marketing, but that's the difference between profitability and margins. Going back to what you pointed out before, retention is extremely important. I think someone got confused about customer acquisition costs. From my understanding, it is sometimes cheaper to acquire a new customer compared to bringing back a customer who has stopped using your service or who has a negative opinion of your service. That's not to be confused though with customer retention. Retaining customers (ones who have generally enjoyed your service) is significantly cheaper than acquiring new ones, from everything I know. Retaining vs bringing back customers who have moved on is not the same thing, and I think the person before might have confused the two. I'm guessing, by many of the posts in this forum, NCL has a retention problem and that's going a long way to sinking their valuation.

I have looked, and to my untrained eye, NCL doesn't look good, especially when you compare to other cruise lines. More importantly, when I asked my financial adviser to buy 100 shares of NCL so I could get the on-board credit, he advised very strongly against investing in NCL - none of their research indicated it was a company to invest in.

Very interesting. Seems to make sense - after 2015 now or any time recently seems like a bad time to buy. It wouldn't be surprising if the stock took another dive I think. Also interesting about other cruise lines. You're definitely correct. RCL just seems to be a much stronger, high growth stock. I guess their customer-centric approach is working... I wonder what their retention looks like compared to NCL.

It's also easy to fill ships when you cut the prices for the locals week before the cruise because cabins are still unsold

From what I gather everyone I speak to on cruises these days "just booked last week"

Maybe so...maybe not but the point is many pax apparently can and do wait for last minute bargains

I guess that's why ncl accepted my "poor" bid on my spring break 2018 cruise and upgraded us from inside to balcony for close to no extra $$ and sold my inside to a local and brought more heads on the ship which in turn means more dsc more casino revenue more bingo cards sold etc

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Haha, yeah, I kind of feel like that. And "filled ships" and selling out cruises is not a direct indicator of a strong business. It speaks nothing to their retention, profitability, etc. You can fill as many ships as you want if you invest tons in marketing, but that's the difference between profitability and margins. Going back to what you pointed out before, retention is extremely important. I think someone got confused about customer acquisition costs. From my understanding, it is sometimes cheaper to acquire a new customer compared to bringing back a customer who has stopped using your service or who has a negative opinion of your service. That's not to be confused though with customer retention. Retaining customers (ones who have generally enjoyed your service) is significantly cheaper than acquiring new ones, from everything I know. Retaining vs bringing back customers who have moved on is not the same thing, and I think the person before might have confused the two. I'm guessing, by many of the posts in this forum, NCL has a retention problem and that's going a long way to sinking their valuation.

 

 

 

Very interesting. Seems to make sense - after 2015 now or any time recently seems like a bad time to buy. It wouldn't be surprising if the stock took another dive I think. Also interesting about other cruise lines. You're definitely correct. RCL just seems to be a much stronger, high growth stock. I guess their customer-centric approach is working... I wonder what their retention looks like compared to NCL.

They are taking my dollars away from ncl in 2019 this I will tell you

Sent from my iPad using Forums

They are taking my dollars away from ncl in 2019 this I will tell you

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

We only used NCL because they spent the most time in Bermuda. But now Carnival goes there for the same amount of time, so next spring we plan to give Carnival our money because we always had a great time on their ships. Much cheaper (plus their cases of water only cost $4.99, not $27), and we thought their food was better. I have even unsubscribed from NCL's emails -- just not interested in their "sales" and promos. Since we don't do drink packages, and their specialty dining this last cruise was just so-so, NCL is no longer attractive nor cost-effective to us plain and simple.

Doubtful they were using any metric other than their love of NCL.

I have looked, and to my untrained eye, NCL doesn't look good, especially when you compare to other cruise lines. More importantly, when I asked my financial adviser to buy 100 shares of NCL so I could get the on-board credit, he advised very strongly against investing in NCL - none of their research indicated it was a company to invest in.

I know I said I was done with this thread, but statements like this warrant a response. The key to your response is "untrained eye." And if your financial adviser simply said "don't buy" without asking further questions about your goals/strategy, you should consider firing him/her. Are you a growth investor? A GARP investor? A value investor? Are you looking for a tex efficient portfolio? These are HUGE facts that one needs to consider. I ask because I work at one of the nation's largest asset managers and, in my role, I am fortunate enough to sit in on certain Board committee meetings where PMs discuss their funds, holdings, and philosophy on a annual basis with the Trustees (and I have learned a ton). As you would imagine, a few of these funds have leisure exposure. NCLH is in almost all our value strategies. CCL and RCL are in certain of our growth portfolios (sometimes RCL makes it into a value portfolio, but never CCL).

It is not hard to see why. In terms of financial ratios and overall corporate health CCL is currently far better off than either RCL or NCLH (their debt to equity ratio is amazingly low). RCL and NCLH are considered value plays because their investments in their products far outpaces CCL (and is why their debt to equity ratios are far higher). CCL is a solid growth stock, but RCL and NCLH are considered by many analysts to be solid value picks.

The cruise line that is by far the worst positioned for the future is MSC. Although they are a private company, they do make available financial statements annually and their debt to equity ratio is astronomical. Like 300-400% higher than all major cruise lines. They are making a big gamble that their extensive investment in an effort to expand to North America will pay off. If the economy stays solid for the next 5-8 years I think they should do very well, but if the economy turns, their debt leverage is crushing.

All this is just to say, no stock is a buy, hold or a sell simply based on its price. Further, the price of a stock has absolutely zero to do with perceived customer service standards (prices are set in the market based on underlying fundamentals). Also, any investment adviser worth his or her salt will tell you the role that the security would play in your portfolio is as important as anything. Hell, in some of our managed accounts we purposely buy stocks we think will decrease in value so we can harvest the losses for tax purposes to offset unrealized gains in other positions in the portfolio.

I know I said I was done with this thread, but statements like this warrant a response.

Hmmm, interesting. You said you were done with the thread yet felt the need to refute the single statement which was “I was told NCL stock was a bad buy.” I wonder why that might be. Combined with your NCL-can-do-no-wrong attitude, I think I see what’s going on here. How many shares of NCL do you own?

You also seemed to not address the original point, which was “NCL must be running a good business because they fill lots of ships, so everything they are doing is perfect including their customer service.” My argument against that was simple - NCL’s stock price is lower now than it was 3 years ago. Is that the trend of a company that’s executed perfectly and has no room for improvement? I’m sure investors who bought the stock 3-4 years ago and purchased a dud to-date wouldn’t think they are executing perfectly.

Hmmm, interesting. You said you were done with the thread yet felt the need to refute the single statement which was “I was told NCL stock was a bad buy.” I wonder why that might be. Combined with your NCL-can-do-no-wrong attitude, I think I see what’s going on here. How many shares of NCL do you own?

 

You also seemed to not address the original point, which was “NCL must be running a good business because they fill lots of ships, so everything they are doing is perfect including their customer service.” My argument against that was simple - NCL’s stock price is lower now than it was 3 years ago. Is that the trend of a company that’s executed perfectly and has no room for improvement? I’m sure investors who bought the stock 3-4 years ago and purchased a dud to-date wouldn’t think they are executing perfectly.

NCL's stock 3 years ago today was around $61/share. Four years ago it was around $36/share. Today, it closed at $57.46 a share...

Do you even bother to research things before you comment on them?

NCL's stock 3 years ago today was around $61/share. Four years ago it was around $36/share. Today, it closed at $57.46 a share...

What's your point? It's still not even at its all-time high and has been working its way back there (and still isn't there) for 3 years. Does a stock trading below it's all-time high which was about 3 years ago shout high-growth, well-executed business to you? In 2015 the company was worth almost $15 billion. It's now worth less than $13 billion. Again, is that the indicator of a company that's done everything correctly and who's piss poor customer service shouldn't be called out because they are "filling ships"?

Hmmm, interesting. You said you were done with the thread yet felt the need to refute the single statement which was “I was told NCL stock was a bad buy.” I wonder why that might be. Combined with your NCL-can-do-no-wrong attitude, I think I see what’s going on here. How many shares of NCL do you own?

 

You also seemed to not address the original point, which was “NCL must be running a good business because they fill lots of ships, so everything they are doing is perfect including their customer service.” My argument against that was simple - NCL’s stock price is lower now than it was 3 years ago. Is that the trend of a company that’s executed perfectly and has no room for improvement? I’m sure investors who bought the stock 3-4 years ago and purchased a dud to-date wouldn’t think they are executing perfectly.

I own 0 shares of NCLH, or any individual securities for that matter. Pre-clearance is basically impossible at my firm as one of our funds is most certainly trading that day (or has within the past 7 days or expects to within the next 7). My accounts are mutual fund-only accounts. And it's not a "NCL can do no wrong attitude" I have, it's a more realistic understanding of rational business behavior and I understand the terms and conditions of what I buy.

As for your continued reliance on stock price as some sort of barometer for customer service or any emotional variable, all I can say is that is severely misguided. Stock price is about fundamentals ... nothing else. I too can cherry pick arbitrary time periods to evaluate stock price in an attempt to bootstrap my argument. For example, CCL is down $4 per share over the past 1-year period, while both NCLH and RCL are up. NCLH and RCL currently have much higher momentum scores than CCL. CCL's issues have nothing to do with service levels or perceived customer harms, it relates to unique corporate charges they were required to take in 2017.

Finally, your 3-year period is also misleading. Yes, NCLH is down over that period, but that had absolutely nothing to do customer service concerns on NCL or some other systemic customer service failure. It fell because of a risky strategic decision. The price fell 40% in 2016 and is still recovering for one large reason . .. China. NCL took a bigger gamble than its competitors. It went more aggressively into China (including designing the Joy exclusively for China). When demand in China fell and the government considered taking over the cruising industry entirely, ALL cruise line stocks took a hit, but NCLH much more so than the others because of their aggressive play into China. NCLH has said on the record that was a mistake and it is one they are still paying for.

What's your point? It's still not even at its all-time high and has been working its way back there (and still isn't there) for 3 years. Does a stock trading below it's all-time high which was about 3 years ago shout high-growth, well-executed business to you? In 2015 the company was worth almost $15 billion. It's now worth less than $13 billion. Again, is that the indicator of a company that's done everything correctly and who's piss poor customer service shouldn't be called out because they are "filling ships"?

You do know there is a lot more to a companies financial health than just their "worth", right? Over the last four quarters they've had net profits in excess of $800 million on revenue approaching $6 billion. Their profits and revenues over the last four quarters have all been up year over year. And no, they may not be at their all time high but they are not far from it.

As for your continued reliance on stock price as some sort of barometer for customer service or any emotional variable

I never said stock price is a barometer for customer service. I merely said that it was an indicator of how strong the business has been in the past/is now, and a company who has a market cap that's lower now than it was 3 years ago hasn't made good business decisions along the way. You proved my point correct by pointing out their China misstep. It seems reasonable to believe they've made more than a single mistake in the history of their company that's put them in this position. Obviously I can't prove it's because of poor customer service, because I'd need additional numbers like marketing spend and retention rates relative to other cruise lines in order to calculate that.

The point is simple: you, and anyone else, has no grounds to argue that questioning NCL's business practices and customer service is a flawed premise just because they fill ships. Simple put, they are worth less money now than they were 3 years ago and there's various reasons for that, and almost all of them will boil down to bad business decisions, whether it be China like you described or a possible retention/high marketing cost problem. More than likely there are multiple factors. But there's literally nothing to suggest it's unfair to question their business practices, and it's clear numerous things have gone wrong for them and other cruise lines have grown their businesses better.

What's your point? It's still not even at its all-time high and has been working its way back there (and still isn't there) for 3 years. Does a stock trading below it's all-time high which was about 3 years ago shout high-growth, well-executed business to you? In 2015 the company was worth almost $15 billion. It's now worth less than $13 billion. Again, is that the indicator of a company that's done everything correctly and who's piss poor customer service shouldn't be called out because they are "filling ships"?

Your lack of financial literacy is showing. You cannot simply cherry pick time periods without a complete understanding of what the company was doing throughout the time period you select. You seem to do this quite a bit in an attempt to justify your arguments -- it's overly simplistic. You seem drawn to the "all-time highs," which shows you have little understanding of the concept of reinvestment.

Go back to 2013, NCLH net worth is almost 300% higher today than it was then (still means nothing to me, but whatever). Your time period is misleading because a simple review of their annual reports would show you why the net worth dropped in 2016; they took out a large amount of debt to finance their growth (it's right there in black and white). That debt is a direct hit to their net worth, but it is not because they are FAILING it is because they are GROWING. As my Dad always said . . . you have to spend a buck to make a buck.

And before you say look at CCL and RCL, don't. As for the product they offer it is a fair comparison, but NCLH is the younger sister of those two, just look at the market cap differences! NCLH has to grow at a rate greater than either CCL or RCL simply to catch up (again, why most analysts think NCLH is a great value pick while CCL and RCL are more suited to growth investors).