Fixing Carnival Corp and its Brands

[LMaxwell]

For those who pay a lot for the higher priced cabins, they may be at a point where the cruise may no longer be a good value for the money they are spending? Perhaps the lowering of quality of the product discourages some people who might have considered booking but are not accepting of so many cutbacks?

 

Anyone see that as possible?

 

 

I agree. To make an analogy, I want a better steak, not more cheap gravy poured on it. What that means is I want a cruise to be fundamentally good at it's core. Good service. Good food. Good condition rooms/ship facilities.

 

When I have taken more expensive rooms except for some more elbow room (granted, I've not stayed in big suites) I got basically the same exact cruise experience as anyone else. The extra money did not translate into better steak, it was more cheap gravy. To me that's not great value.

 

Do you know which mainstream company will win in the battle for bigger slices of people's money? The ones that focus on less glitz, less nickle and dime approaches, less one time cash grab, and more on solid foundations of service, experience, and inclusiveness (Yes, I know a cruise is not ALL inclusive, but it has long been mostly inclusive)

[kennicott]

Except that what may be a "rat hole" to some (say, pax) can also be music to the ears of others (say, Wall Street analysts eager to hear corporate plans to remediate unhappy quarterly results).

 

Sorry, I screwed up my satire there, I guess. I meant, "down the the rat hole" to reflect the ridiculous prevailing opinion on this and other threads. That assumption being the absurd belief that HAL and Kruse were/was/is a business and economic failure.

 

Moving on, so then, why did they, Carnival Corp, single out Kruse, just recently, to lead a combine of other subsidiary lines? If Kruse was doing so badly, why did they elevate him to such lofty management responsibilities as #2 top dog? Did Wall Street have objections to the Stein Kruse appointment(s)? If so, I didn't hear any.

Edited June 7, 2014 by kennicott

[SoCal Cruiser78]

Interestingly, (at least to me) is the idea that the low cruise ticket prices may be a reason some people don't book a cruise.

 

For those who pay a lot for the higher priced cabins, they may be at a point where the cruise may no longer be a good value for the money they are spending? Perhaps the lowering of quality of the product discourages some people who might have considered booking but are not accepting of so many cutbacks?

 

Anyone see that as possible?

 

That is an interesting thought. One option would be to take the Cunard route, and have separate dining venues for higher-category pax. This could bridge the gap between the mainstream lines and Crystal, Seabourn, etc. Just don't say 1st, 2nd and 3rd class ;).

Edited June 7, 2014 by Ryndam2002

[cbr663]

<snip>

 

When I have taken more expensive rooms except for some more elbow room (granted, I've not stayed in big suites) I got basically the same exact cruise experience as anyone else. The extra money did not translate into better steak, it was more cheap gravy. To me that's not great value.

 

 

You've hot the nail on the head for us also. When we booked our first Neptune Suite, we were expecting something special, not just more elbow room. We received anything but special and came to the conclusion that HAL does not offer a true suite experience. So, our next cruise was back to a veranda and we loved it. Twice the experience at half the cost. Our recent Volendam Alaska cruise was a Vista suite, which is nothing more than a over-marketed veranda IMO, and we loved it also.

 

For our upcoming winter cruise on the Westerdam, my DW and I had a long discussion on whether we would book a Neptune again. We decided no - and booked the SS category instead. For us, there is much more value in booking an SS and adding a suite amenities package than booking a SA category.

[sppunk]

That is an interesting thought. One option would be to take the Cunard route, and have separate dining venues for higher-category pax. This could bridge the gap between the mainstream lines and Crystal, Seabourn, etc. Just don't say 1st, 2nd and 3rd class ;).

 

But this isn't right either. While Grills gets you a better dining experience, everything else you do is w/ the masses and watered down/catered to the mainstream.

 

You can sail a true luxury line (Seabourn, Crystal, Regent, Silversea, etc) for very often cheaper than many Grills voyages and your cruise experience will overall be much more tailored to the higher end.

 

On main linens you can be in the greatest cabin on the boat, but on e you walk out that door you and the guy paying $299 have essentially the same experience. That isn't the case on luxury lines.

[POA1]

I would think that those people would simply abandon the mass market lines-HAL, Celebrity, Princess- and move up to the higher end cruise lines.

 

And I strongly suspect that the people who do that would get much better value for their money on the higher end lines.

 

If we were going to pay top dollar on a high end cabin I suspect that it would not be on a mass market line.

 

We're going to have to have a serious discussion on what constitutes each of the cruise line segments: Contemporary, Premium, Luxury, and Adventure/Specialty.

 

It's not you. It's me.

 

It's driving me nuts. :eek: Of course, if this is the goal, you are succeeding admirably every time you type "mass market." :cool:

[POA1]

Even more interesting is the CLIA's identification of 2014 trends: more emphasis on technology,.... growth in Millennials cruising...

 

Mom and Dad will be sending their 28 year old children on cruises and moving while the kids are at sea. It's the only way to get them out of the basement. :D