Carnival isn't keeping up

[kybluecruiser]

Finally I am outed.....

 

 

Lol

[jimbo5544]

I see by your sailings, you do not like Carnival!

 

 

I have a repetition thing, decided I have to keep on sailing with them till I get it right.

[cruizinisthebest]

Turning? Even the title suggests a comparison.

 

The TITLE didn't "suggest" anything. It was meant to be an insult.

 

And this thread, like most who go tit for tat for days on end, is pointless.

[jakeT]

Part of me saids, yes, smaller ship are ok, the cruise price are lower. Just about the same fun. The other part of me saids, I not going to be happy sailing some old outdated ship. I think someday in the not to distant future, Carnival is going to be in trouble. Seams like cruise ship life goes faster then normal life. Just in the last four years NCL and RCCL are building one ship a year and are taking over little by little

[Thorncroft]

The numbers that I find a bit troubling are Oasis OTS at 225,000 tons carries 5400 passengers while Vista at 133,000 tons carries 4000. Carnival is really packing the passengers into a significantly smaller ship.

[jimbo5544]

The numbers that I find a bit troubling are Oasis OTS at 225,000 tons carries 5400 passengers while Vista at 133,000 tons carries 4000. Carnival is really packing the passengers into a significantly smaller ship.

 

 

Not sure what any of that means.........

[Thorncroft]

Not sure what any of that means.........

 

Math is not your forte, huh? Carnival is really packing the passengers into a significantly smaller ship.

[LMaxwell]

The numbers that I find a bit troubling are Oasis OTS at 225,000 tons carries 5400 passengers while Vista at 133,000 tons carries 4000. Carnival is really packing the passengers into a significantly smaller ship.

 

More so than you realize at first because non-enclosed areas like Central Park and the Boardwalk and Aqua Theater don't "exist" in the gross tonnage measurements since they are open atmosphere.

[jimbo5544]

Math is not your forte, huh? Carnival is really packing the passengers into a significantly smaller ship.

 

 

Actually it is, my comment was in relation to the topic at hand.

[jimbo5544]

More so than you realize at first because non-enclosed areas like Central Park and the Boardwalk and Aqua Theater don't "exist" in the gross tonnage measurements since they are open atmosphere.

 

 

I am pretty sure nobody thought Royal was making people stay in open air areas, even they would not do that. But if that is what not keeping up is referring to, I can live with it.

[k2excursion]

Actually quite interesting:

 

Who is making better profit?

 

Carnival at $700ish pp on aging, but long ago paid off ships

Or

RCI at more than double that on state of the art, but likely debt laden ships?

 

Two totally different strategies, and I really wonder which one is better business.

 

Excellent point! I think that's what it really comes down to. Different strategies. Both can work, but I don't know which one is better. One might end up prevailing in the long run, or they may both be quite successful.

 

I don't necessarily see Carnival being slower to build new ships as them not keeping up. I just see it as a different strategy. Carnival's significant cutbacks/changes have bothered me, causing me to cutback on cruising, but again, it's just a strategy. Time will tell if it works for the long run. It seems to be working in the short run.

 

Carnival packing people onto smaller ships (worse space-to-guest ratios) is simply another strategy. It's pretty clear that they have never had much intent to decrease the crowds on their ships by comparison to other cruiselines. I sometimes do feel the crowding, but I have experienced far worse on land based vacations.

[whitshel]

Are these numbers fleet wide or did you pick out just 7 day cruises for example which I doubt you did. Carnival offers more 3/4 day cruises which would lower their cost per passenger tremendously' date=' than RCL and the short cruises are pretty much non existent for Princess. Of course these cruise lines will be higher not as bad as you make it out to be.[/quote']

 

These numbers are from a website that one of the posters on here posted about the market share for Carnival corp. Its just total revenue divided by pax count. Yes Carnival will be skewed more because of the short cruises but Rccl has a lot of short cruises as well, and this post had nothing to do with belittling of Carnival but to shed some light on why they aren't expanding as fast as some of their other lines. Princess seems to be their money maker.

 

If you look at the numbers Carnival has 21% of all cruise passengers but only 8% of the revenue. Princess has 7.9% of passengers and 8.8% of the revenue. I guess this says the Carnival has to work all lot harder to make the money that Princess does. Seems to me that you want those two percentages as close to each other as possible. Hence Princess getting newbuilds....

 

http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/market-share/

Edited March 25, 2016 by whitshel

[Je Souhaite]

The TITLE didn't "suggest" anything. It was meant to be an insult.

 

 

An insult? To whom? I disagree. Comparisons are done all the time.

From the time we are in the sandbox.

[cruizinisthebest]

An insult? To whom? I disagree. Comparisons are done all the time.

From the time we are in the sandbox.

"Carnival isn't keeping up" is not a comparitive statement. Now the initial post is a comparison. But not the title. It's fine if you disagree. Thanks for the enlightenment of the obvious.

 

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

[Je Souhaite]

Actually quite interesting:

 

Who is making better profit?

 

Carnival at $700ish pp on aging, but long ago paid off ships

Or

RCI at more than double that on state of the art, but likely debt laden ships?

 

Two totally different strategies, and I really wonder which one is better business.

 

Not a CPA or never worked a P&L, based on this post.

 

And yet, neither effecting the cruise experience UNLESS, the lower fare dictates that cruise experience. More insulting, would be the cruisers paying a premium fare, such as suites with zero perks, getting the same watered down experience as the pax that pays $299, simply because there's no extra value to the customer that pays the premium fares.

[vwrestler171]

If Carnival advertised suite perks then I would agree with you, but they don't so people who book suites have no right to complain about lack of perks when none were promised in the first place

[LMaxwell]

I am pretty sure nobody thought Royal was making people stay in open air areas, even they would not do that. But if that is what not keeping up is referring to, I can live with it.

 

The point was that in terms of how 'crowded' a ship may feel; much of the space that people occupy during the daytime events and activities on Oasis-class isn't even accounted for in the gross tonnage. So the reality is there is more room than the Passenger Space Ratio would seem to indicate. I know I have explained this before but you dismissed it because you did not understand it.

Edited March 26, 2016 by LMaxwell

[LMaxwell]

If Carnival advertised suite perks then I would agree with you, but they don't so people who book suites have no right to complain about lack of perks when none were promised in the first place

Poorly thought out argument; total cop out for trailing the pack.

[StolidCruiser]

Poorly thought out argument; total cop out for trailing the pack.

 

 

Neither is, actually.

 

Carnival has never offered significant "perks" to induce booking and have never promoted the price for a suite as anything more than what it is.

 

I don't believe this is trailing the pack; I view it as Carnival's market strategy. It works.

 

For some competitors to get bookings, they need a strategy of offering perks and amenities. It works.

 

Just because one strategy is different doesn't mean it lags behind the other and expressing that doesn't qualify as a poorly thought out argument.

[Je Souhaite]

Neither is, actually.

 

Carnival has never offered significant "perks" to induce booking and have never promoted the price for a suite as anything more than what it is.

 

I don't believe this is trailing the pack; I view it as Carnival's market strategy. It works.

 

For some competitors to get bookings, they need a strategy of offering perks and amenities. It works.

 

Just because one strategy is different doesn't mean it lags behind the other and expressing that doesn't qualify as a poorly thought out argument.

 

This makes ZERO sense, being that Carnival announced they are coming out with suite perks. At least 14 years overdue.

 

When you have people traditionally booking suites on all lines, and seeing and knowing those perks on those other lines, one can make an assumption when booking a Carnival suite. When you see NONE exost, their value plummets. And I can see how complaints can be made, or how passengers can feel gypped.

[LMaxwell]

Neither is, actually.

 

Carnival has never offered significant "perks" to induce booking and have never promoted the price for a suite as anything more than what it is.

 

I don't believe this is trailing the pack; I view it as Carnival's market strategy. It works.

 

For some competitors to get bookings, they need a strategy of offering perks and amenities. It works.

 

Just because one strategy is different doesn't mean it lags behind the other and expressing that doesn't qualify as a poorly thought out argument.

 

It is a strategy, but I must respectfully disagree with your assessment otherwise. I feel it is a cop out and letting them off the hook to NOT offer a competitive product.

[sparks1093]

It is a strategy, but I must respectfully disagree with your assessment otherwise. I feel it is a cop out and letting them off the hook to NOT offer a competitive product.

 

If they weren't offering a competive product they wouldn't be filling their ships.:)

[jimbo5544]

This makes ZERO sense, being that Carnival announced they are coming out with suite perks. At least 14 years overdue.

 

 

 

When you have people traditionally booking suites on all lines, and seeing and knowing those perks on those other lines, one can make an assumption when booking a Carnival suite. When you see NONE exost, their value plummets. And I can see how complaints can be made, or how passengers can feel gypped.

 

 

I will offer a counter to your comments. First off I sail on Carnival and I sail Carnival suites. The most significant difference between what others offer and what Carnival has is led by the price. I have sailed in most suite categories on Carnival ships, including Owner penthouse suites (on the Ecstasy) and Captain's Suites (their most expensive) on both the Liberty and the Sunshine is the price. You are paying for those extra perks.

 

You are correct in that Carnival will begin to offer some additional perks for suite customers on the Vista, but have not announced what these are and any additional plans to move these to any other ships. I doubt they will be significant in nature.

 

Not sure where you get the 14 years overdue stuff, is that when you last sailed on a Carnival ship.? Suite value (not sure how the heck you would know this) is just fine. As a passenger who does sail on a Carnival ship (first difference) and as one who sails in suites on their ships (another difference) I can tell you I never felt gypped. To give it some clarity for you, when we sailed Oasis we stayed in an adjoining join to my daughter and he family in a grand suite. For the price they paid, I sure felt gypped for them. Way way over priced for what you received. The only redeeming value I would like Carnival to adopt, is a concierge lounge, that is a nice touch.

 

We can discuss further or not.

Edited March 26, 2016 by jimbo5544

[LMaxwell]

If they weren't offering a competive product they wouldn't be filling their ships.:)

 

Filling a ship at a discount rate versus offering more perks and charging a higher premium.

 

Watching this play out currently at Royal Caribbean as well where people in suites have had complaints that the product does not match the offerings of NCL or MSC; whereas just a few years ago RC's offerings were arguably the top. Instead of RC saying 'well, we never promised what those cruise lines offer now' they are improving their suites game; and charging accordingly to respond to guest complaints about the offerings.

 

It is entirely up to Carnival if they offer more competitive perks at a higher price, or maintain lower prices and just sell real estate.

[LMaxwell]

To give it some clarity for you, when we sailed Oasis we stayed in an adjoining join to my daughter and he family in a grand suite. For the price they paid, I sure felt gypped for them. Way way over priced for what you received. The only redeeming value I would like Carnival to adopt, is a concierge lounge, that is a nice touch.

 

We can discuss further or not.

 

Why exactly did you feel gypped for them? Did they feel gypped? Clearly you saw something in the product offering that was lacking; and this after recent upgrades to convert the Oasis Viking Crown Lounge to a suites only enclave with free drinks for most of the day and a bespoke suites only restaurant. And yes, access to a concierge. But many felt this not enough to RC is rolling out a more comprehensive program, but I am curious what you felt was lacking.