Early Del Rio Legacy vs the Sheehan Legacy

[sfaaa]

Seriously? Debt / Equity ratio = profitability now?

 

 

Look at it this way: if your income covers your expenses, you are profitable. So if you pay your mortgage, car payment, heat & hydro etc. and have anything left over, you are profitable.

 

 

 

.

 

Yes but profit is heavily discounted due to outstanding debt obligation and financial risk.

[hondorner]

Yes but profit is heavily discounted due to outstanding debt obligation and financial risk.

 

Profit is profit. It is the net income after expenses, including the expense of debt service. If they are paying their debts and have any money left over, they are profitable. It doesn't matter how much debt there is. If they are profitable that debt will eventually be paid. If they are not profitable, they would eventually be bankrupt.

 

Apollo bought Oceania because it was profitable; I doubt they would have been interested in a money loser.

 

Most of the debt was because of financing to build Marina and Riviera, and to buy the three R ships they had been chartering. Has anyone looked into the debt to equity ratio of NCL, with all the new construction?

[abe3]

It's funny how someone who has NEVER stepped foot on an NCL ship is telling everyone how they're creating a better environment for us. You've never experienced a cruise on ANY NCL ship EVER. Its like doing brain surgery because you've read up on it.

 

 

 

Ridiculous.

 

 

I think and know NCL is creating a better environment. I like the changes.

Edited August 11, 2015 by abe3

[maywell]

I think and know NCL is creating a better environment. I like the changes.

 

Ditto, that's the beauty of the cruise industry in general - No one line fits all. Personally, I feel NCL gives people the choice of a bare-bones cruise with options to add on top if they want and that okay with me because i just mostly want a bare-bones cruise. If I want specialty dining of just a main entree only without being charged for 3 course meal cover charge - they finally give it. If I just want to dine completely in the complimentary places at anytime/ anywhere I want - I can do that.

 

Royal can do that as well with anytime plus activities as well and perhaps down the road in the near future, i cruise with them. But I'm liking NCL product especially for the solo travelers on Breakaway-class ships more - it just gives me more for lower / similar price. :)

[pizzalady1]

I think and know NCL is creating a better environment. I like the changes.

 

I know what the changes are, but please elaborate on your other statement, giving specific examples of the "better environment".

Edited August 12, 2015 by pizzalady1

[abe3]

Don't need to elaborate. You can just read all these posts of people leaving and going elsewhere. This make getting the cabin I want easier, and don't have to be around as many snobbish people complaining about petty details.

[janpo]

I think and know NCL is creating a better environment. I like the changes.

 

And what about the environment is better?

[abe3]

And what about the environment is better?

 

 

They are putting scrubbers on their ships to improve the environment.

[SuiteCruiser]

They are putting scrubbers on their ships to improve the environment.

 

Actually they missed the deadline, so they're cutting our port time shorter to save on their higher fuel costs on the cleaner fuel that they're being forced to purchase.

[abe3]

Actually they missed the deadline, so they're cutting our port time shorter to save on their higher fuel costs on the cleaner fuel that they're being forced to purchase.

 

 

So you don't like to help the environment by cutting port time?

[SuiteCruiser]

So you don't like to help the environment by cutting port time?

 

Ummm, it's not helping the environment to cut the port time. It's ONLY helping NCL save some money.

[abe3]

Lol. You need to read your previous post about cleaner fuel.

Edited August 12, 2015 by abe3

[rochelle_s]

Lol. You need to read your previous post about cleaner fuel.

 

NCL must use the cleaner fuel no matter what speed they are cruising at. Speculation is that the port times have been reduced so that the ships sail at a slower speed therefore saving the cruise line money on the fuel costs. There is no benefit to this for the customer. It is just another cost saving measure that benefits NCL's bottom line.

 

I thought SuiteCruiser's earlier post was quite clear on the matter.

 

 

Rochelle

[abe3]

It is funny how people think NCL should be a not for profit company and just thrash a company for making changes. If you don't like what NCL is doing or any other cruise line is doing you have the right to go where you want to.

 

I like what NCL is doing and I have been in many cruises with them including with all the changes. I know others can't take change, but I leave the petty stuff behind when I am on vacation and not worry about how I am going to eat breakfast on my balcony, or if I have to pay a couple dollars more for DSC, or whatever else they might do.

[swedish weave]

Profit is profit. It is the net income after expenses, including the expense of debt service. If they are paying their debts and have any money left over, they are profitable. It doesn't matter how much debt there is. If they are profitable that debt will eventually be paid. If they are not profitable, they would eventually be bankrupt.

 

Apollo bought Oceania because it was profitable; I doubt they would have been interested in a money loser.

 

Most of the debt was because of financing to build Marina and Riviera, and to buy the three R ships they had been chartering. Has anyone looked into the debt to equity ratio of NCL, with all the new construction?

 

The Street shows NCLH debt equity ratio as 1.71 in May of this year. By comparison, CCL was 0.35 durng this period.

 

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13158956/1/norwegian-cruise-line-nclh-stock-falls-on-secondary-offering-pricing.html

[rochelle_s]

It is funny how people think NCL should be a not for profit company and just thrash a company for making changes. If you don't like what NCL is doing or any other cruise line is doing you have the right to go where you want to.

 

I like what NCL is doing and I have been in many cruises with them including with all the changes. I know others can't take change, but I leave the petty stuff behind when I am on vacation and not worry about how I am going to eat breakfast on my balcony, or if I have to pay a couple dollars more for DSC, or whatever else they might do.

 

I don't think you will hear anyone saying that they don't want NCL to be profitable.

 

Have you read this from a Cruise Critic article about the ECA and the cruise industry?

 

"What is ECA?

 

Beginning in January 2015, the industry will have to contend with a 200-nautical-mile low-emission zone stretching the length of the U.S. and Canadian coasts. The industry has been aware of the approaching deadline since 2009. Ships sailing within zone will be required to operate on fuel containing less than 0.1 percent sulfur -- significantly lower than the 1.0 percent previously permitted. The new fuel requirements are intended to reduce the industry's carbon footprint, as low-sulfur fuel produces cleaner emissions.

 

Higher Costs

 

Low-sulfur fuel costs significantly more than the traditional fuel cruise ships are designed to use. According to the Cruise Lines International Association, fuel costs in the ECA zone could increase by as much as 140 percent under the 0.1-percent standards. Cruise ships that sail in destinations like Alaska, Canada and New England need to comply if they want to stay."

 

 

They have known about the requirements since 2009. Why are the ships not outfitted with the proper equipment? The customers lose out because the company dragged its heels.

 

I like NCL as a cruise line but I don't love everything they do just because I like the line. I don't have to accept everything said by a cruise line and their champions as gospel. I can use my own brain, read, research and discuss with others and thankfully I can form my own opinion.

 

 

Rochelle

[Jane Don]

I don't think you will hear anyone saying that they don't want NCL to be profitable.

 

Have you read this from a Cruise Critic article about the ECA and the cruise industry?

 

"What is ECA?

 

Beginning in January 2015, the industry will have to contend with a 200-nautical-mile low-emission zone stretching the length of the U.S. and Canadian coasts. The industry has been aware of the approaching deadline since 2009. Ships sailing within zone will be required to operate on fuel containing less than 0.1 percent sulfur -- significantly lower than the 1.0 percent previously permitted. The new fuel requirements are intended to reduce the industry's carbon footprint, as low-sulfur fuel produces cleaner emissions.

 

Higher Costs

 

Low-sulfur fuel costs significantly more than the traditional fuel cruise ships are designed to use. According to the Cruise Lines International Association, fuel costs in the ECA zone could increase by as much as 140 percent under the 0.1-percent standards. Cruise ships that sail in destinations like Alaska, Canada and New England need to comply if they want to stay."

 

 

They have known about the requirements since 2009. Why are the ships not outfitted with the proper equipment? The customers lose out because the company dragged its heels.

 

I like NCL as a cruise line but I don't love everything they do just because I like the line. I don't have to accept everything said by a cruise line and their champions as gospel. I can use my own brain, read, research and discuss with others and thankfully I can form my own opinion.

 

 

Rochelle

 

 

They started installing but someone made the decision, for the good of the long term, to switch from an open to closed loop - whatever that means. So everything was wrong and had to be redone. They missed the EPA deadlines and waivers to burn the low quality fuel were revoked. NCL told investors that they anticipate the higher grade fuel to cost an extra 10 million. Hence, in an attempt to mitigate that cost, the boats will to move slower until they can burn the dirtier fuel again.

 

Essentially, there was some poor decision making early in the process but nobody knows why. Now, instead of the shareholders eating it, the customers are. How many 18% service charges equal 10 million?

 

Most of this was explained in the Q2 conference call.

[Travelcat2]

It's funny how someone who has NEVER stepped foot on an NCL ship is telling everyone how they're creating a better environment for us. You've never experienced a cruise on ANY NCL ship EVER. Its like doing brain surgery because you've read up on it.

 

Ridiculous.

 

And most people on this thread have never met or spoken with FDR (I have). Additionally, the posters that it appears that NCL customers want to shut up are the ones that have years of experience cruising with companies that have been run by Apollo and Frank Del Rio. We understand changes - we have at least some understanding of the type of man FDR is and where he is coming from.

 

Mostly what I read on the NCL board is name calling (FDR and anyone that has a kind word to say about him). Anyone that likes Sheehan is fine - unless you remember the cuts he put forth and was disliked for.

 

The bottom line is that sailing on NCL does not give you experience with the current management. It does not necessarily tell you what NCL was like a few years ago and what NCL will be like next year.

 

If you reread some of the posts on this page, you'll fine NCL cruisers that still like the product and will continue sailing on NCL. As they have indicated, if you are unhappy with NCL, there are other choices. Thanks abe3 and maywell for your sensible posts:)

 

Jane Don: It is a benefit for some passengers to have closed loop cruises (starting and ending at the same U.S. port) as these passengers do not have to have a passport (I think everyone should have one but it is a financial issue for some passengers with families).

Edited August 12, 2015 by Travelcat2

[Jane Don]

 

Jane Don: It is a benefit for some passengers to have closed loop cruises (starting and ending at the same U.S. port) as these passengers do not have to have a passport (I think everyone should have one but it is a financial issue for some passengers with families).

 

The point is that more than half of the nation's population have no interest in traveling. The fact that you can cruise without a passport is meaningless to them because they would never be inclined to even investigate the possibility.

 

Some people just don't travel. I wouldn't hang out them, but they exist. ;)

[fshagan]

The Street shows NCLH debt equity ratio as 1.71 in May of this year. By comparison, CCL was 0.35 durng this period.

 

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13158956/1/norwegian-cruise-line-nclh-stock-falls-on-secondary-offering-pricing.html

 

 

And yet ... the analysts have NCLH as a "Buy" or "Strong Buy", while the consensus on CCL is that it is a "Hold" (don't sell just yet, but don't buy any new shares either). So there's more to profit potential than the debt/equity ratio.

 

For NCLH, it will depend on how they manage the higher debt ratio. If it trends downward then the analysts will be very happy. Wall Street is more about the future than it is the present.

[pizzalady1]

They are putting scrubbers on their ships to improve the environment.

 

The New NCL is supposed to make a better environment for their customers. Yes, scrubbers helps the earth's environment, but does nothing for the people on board. So, can you please answer the question about how all the new changes improve the environment on board the ship for their customers.

 

How does shorter port times make for a better sailing? How does room service fees help make for a better sailing? How does lack of communication give us better customer service? Just a couple of questions for those that say how much better NCL is now since the new management took over. If you really believe it, and see the differences, give me some specifics.

[motleyfan]

The New NCL is supposed to make a better environment for their customers. Yes, scrubbers helps the earth's environment, but does nothing for the people on board. So, can you please answer the question about how all the new changes improve the environment on board the ship for their customers.

 

How does shorter port times make for a better sailing? How does room service fees help make for a better sailing? How does lack of communication give us better customer service? Just a couple of questions for those that say how much better NCL is now since the new management took over. If you really believe it, and see the differences, give me some specifics.

 

I've got one answer, room service fees well make some people less likely to order room service which will cut down on the clutter

[emcelh]

NCL must use the cleaner fuel no matter what speed they are cruising at. Speculation is that the port times have been reduced so that the ships sail at a slower speed therefore saving the cruise line money on the fuel costs. There is no benefit to this for the customer. It is just another cost saving measure that benefits NCL's bottom line.

 

I thought SuiteCruiser's earlier post was quite clear on the matter.

 

 

Rochelle

 

That's right, there is no benefit to the customer. They could have raised the fares to cover the extra fuel cost and no one would have noticed.

[Casino Comp Chick]

I've got one answer, room service fees well make some people less likely to order room service which will cut down on the clutter

 

Yes because clutter inside MY room is a first world problem lol

:rolleyes:

[Casino Comp Chick]

And most people on this thread have never met or spoken with FDR (I have). Additionally, the posters that it appears that NCL customers want to shut up are the ones that have years of experience cruising with companies that have been run by Apollo and Frank Del Rio. We understand changes - we have at least some understanding of the type of man FDR is and where he is coming from.

 

Mostly what I read on the NCL board is name calling (FDR and anyone that has a kind word to say about him). Anyone that likes Sheehan is fine - unless you remember the cuts he put forth and was disliked for.

 

The bottom line is that sailing on NCL does not give you experience with the current management. It does not necessarily tell you what NCL was like a few years ago and what NCL will be like next year.

 

If you reread some of the posts on this page, you'll fine NCL cruisers that still like the product and will continue sailing on NCL. As they have indicated, if you are unhappy with NCL, there are other choices. Thanks abe3 and maywell for your sensible posts:)

 

Jane Don: It is a benefit for some passengers to have closed loop cruises (starting and ending at the same U.S. port) as these passengers do not have to have a passport (I think everyone should have one but it is a financial issue for some passengers with families).

 

There is a reason Kevin is so well liked by NCL cruisers, he didn't have an over inflated view of himself and he never said or treated anyone with disdain, can your friend say the same? No because he feels all passengers are cattle/captive audiences.

I do not see him having the same goodwill of the people when he leaves NCL.