Why do you hate HAL so much?

[Himself]

Inspite of the changes I have seen over the years, I must say I LOVE THE HOLLAND AMERICA LINE.  PERIOD!

[ChinaShrek]

18 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

How do you know that the number is shrinking? As kazu pointed out, lots of people borrow books from the shelves. I do, while spending little time in the library. In fact, this is what differentiates HAL from other companies. The strength of its library.

 

I would not cruise on a ship that has no quiet space. Where is that quiet space once the library is gone?

 

 

I assume many people go to the library because that is what they are used to doing.  They are creatures of habit.  Yes, maybe they enjoy reading, but they would enjoy gaming or vloging just as well if they tried it.  Replace the library with Oculus Rift devices and they wouldn't remember what a book was

[iancal]

We treat HAL like any other vendor.  We cherry pick according to our preferences.

 

Would we select a cruise on one of HAL’s newer ships.  Absolutely.  And there would be trade offs similar to those on competing cruise lines/ships. 

 

Would we select a cruise on one of HAL’s older ships.  Never. This is down to our preferences and our perceptions.  We do exactly the same when considering other ships on other cruise lines.  It does not mean that we ‘hate’ the cruise line or the cruise line management team.

 

Plus, we accept that the industry is changing and the chances of any cruise line building and operating a ship that hits or exceeds all of our wants as we age is completely unrealistic.

Edited September 2, 2019 by iancal

[Aquahound]

21 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

So on a HAL cruise now, where can you go for a good laugh? I've heard all about the different music venues they're introducing on they're various ships, but where can you go nightly to have a good laugh? Are there any interactive game shows anymore or comedy central style venues? I've even heard the CD isn't even allowed to tell jokes on stage anymore?

 

Those occur on your port days.  Of course, it requires you somehow getting on to one of the other non-HAL ships at the dock.  😉

[npcl]

10 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

At this point, some of us are questioning Carnival Corp and Hal's business decisions.

 

From the customer's POV, change is positive when it improves value to the customer. There is innovation in reducing wait time, improving quality and choice.

 

On the other hand, there is change that improves the company's profitability. For example, bigger ships are being launched because bigger ships are apparently cheaper to run. Economies of scale.

 

The problem is that a big ship experience is different from a  mid-size ship experience. So, change in this respect has a negative impact on passengers who favour mid-size classic ships. And the new ships have smaller cabins and fewer quiet areas. 

 

Why is Carnival/HAL launching bigger and bigger ships for the HAL brand? The latest HAL ships are 100k gross tonnes and carry 2,650 passengers. Meanwhile, CCL's smaller  ships (Carnival Legend/Pride/Spirit) are 88k gross tonnes and only carry 2,124 passengers.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Legend

Do the maths on passenger/tonne. In addition to Carnival's problems with the law, this muddle throws doubt on Carnival management's vision for the future.

 

We all have in mind the concept of our perfect cruise line.  

 

You ignoring age.  The Carnival Sprit, Pride and Legend were all built in 2001-2002 about the same times as HAL built the Amsterdam.

 

If you look at published building costs a new ship in the 1000 person range costs almost twice as much per person as a the latest 2600 sized ship.  A new 250 passenger ship costs almost    $1,000,000 per passenger, a 750 passenger ship  around $525,000 per passenger, and a $2500 passenger ship at 222,000 per passenger. Quite a difference in capital costs, not even getting into the operational costs.  One of the main reasons that there are very few new small ships getting built, even for the premium and luxury line.  About the only company doing so with any regularity is Viking and they have some unique business practices such as requiring full payment a year in advance.  While one cannot get the balance sheet on each line individually you can get the market and revenue share numbers.  If you look at that ratio one can get a relative idea at the amount of revenue per passenger. CCL and RCL get pushed down a bit due to number of short cruises and families.  Viking at 2.2 is interesting because their fare structure would imply that their ratio should be higher.  At least in the 3.0 range.  Their market share numbers are pretty small and they are privately held so it could be a data artifact.

 

CCL  .4

RCL .73

Norwegian  .96

 

Princess  1.42

Celebrity  1.51

HAL    1.75

 

Viking 2.2

Cunard 2.6

 

Oceania 4.6

Crystal 6.0

Regent 6.3

 

One can still get small ship experiences, but you are not going to get them at mid to large ship pricing. Even the new Virgin ships are in the 2600 range.

 

The cruise industry is a highly capital intensive business, in a very competitive market segment (one has to include hotel, resorts and other travel businesses in the market segment), with limited pricing power.  More cruise lines have failed, then exist today.  The main reason HAL, Princess, Cunard, P&O, etc. are part of CCL, that Celebrity is part of RCL, and that Oceania and Regent are part of NCLH is because they would not have survived on their own.

 

The cruise industry in in a rather unique period with low fuel costs, low interest rates, and a reasonably robust economy.  They have shown a good profit margin with some pricing power the last few years. It is not a coincidence that the airlines, which are pretty similar capital intensive, highly competitive businesses have also shown record profits. However, with the amount of new capacity coming online, I expect that the profit margin will shrink tremendously in the case of any economic downturn.

 

You say that you question their decisions.  Yet they have built a tremendously successful business, built from brands that were failing at the time they acquired them.  HAL, if it had not been acquired, by CCL would probably not exist today.  It would be bankrupt and its ships sold just as happened to Regency in 1995. HAL would have actually failed first since it was purchased in 1989 by CCL.  CCL provided the capital infusion that allow HAL to build its current line of ships.

 

The industry is changing, has always been changing and will continue to change.  

 

 

[npcl]

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Why does HAL want more family groups? You answered your own question immediately -- revenue. Family groups are probably more likely to purchase photos (how often do you get the whole family together?) and specialty dining (to celebrate the occasion). Among other things...

 

As to additional food costs, many people seem not to know (or acknowledge, as the numbers have been posted many times) how small a portion of the daily expenses the food costs are per person on a cruise.

 

No, the profit model on cruise lines is based on online expenditures, not fares. And it's also been suggested by industry insiders that "repeat mature cruisers" are less profitable than new cruisers to the line. They know to look for lower fares. They purchase fewer things onboard (spa services, photos, souvenirs in the shops, shorex through the ship). So why would the cruise line WANT to retain them? 

 

Does Carnival need another economy brand -- I can't profess to know that. But at the moment HAL is not doing anything so different from her close competitors Princess and Celebrity, which I wouldn't call 'economy' brands either. From many reports of those who've sailed a number of different lines, HAL's food holds up well with the other two, and each of the three has individual strengths -- IMO, HAL'S is mainly in her itineraries but management has also invested quite a bit in new types of musical experiences. 

 

 

Yes, almost all of the cruiselines costs are fixed by route not number of passengers (fuel, personnel, ship operational costs are all fixed) with food being the only variable costs and that runs in the $11 to $12 per passenger per day range (that number would include all food, including crew and specialty dining) in all 3 major cruise line companies (CCL, RCL and NCLH) according to the 10Q and 10K filings.

[JeffElizabeth]

On 8/31/2019 at 8:01 AM, ricka47 said:

Since 1991, we've never had a bad cruise and we've tried all of the mainstream lines except for Carnival and NCL.  But, it's obvious that the quality found in the mainstream cruise lines has dropped over time.  It appears to be a fact that no cruise line gets better; instead they all get worse over time.  We're trying Oceania next month but the complaints of declining quality are there as well.

 

I think that if the quality that we saw in our first cruise in 1991 was here today, we couldn't afford our 2 or 3 cruises per year.  So, I'll accept a certain level of decline in return for a pretty good value for what we pay.  When the price/quality ratio isn't worth it to us, we can look elsewhere both on land and the sea.

Great points. I remember our first cruises twenty years ago were quite expensive! We were lucky to afford a two week cruise every two to three years. Now we go twice a year. So maybe what was making everything so expensive back then I didn't need, like the cold fruit soup course. 

[npcl]

3 hours ago, dockman said:

One person's "complaining" is another person's suggestion for improvement.

 

Some people send their complaints/concerns directly to HAL executives in the hope that the complaints/concerns might actually be addressed by management. Others seem to prefer to post their observations and  opinions on sites like cruise critic. Some do both.  Some "hope" that just maybe some of  the cruise line execs might actually review sites like cruise critic as well as passengers comments and have serious discussions to fix or improve the areas that consistently impact the most passengers.

 

  A perfect example that seems to draw the ire of a lot of HAL customers is their website....this has been beat to death but for some very strange reason the problems go on and on and on.  How many direct bookings or completely lost bookings this has cost HAL is unknown but it really is unimaginable that a seattle based company can't seem to hire competent web designers to make booking with HAL a piece of cake rather than a pain in the butt.

 

My "complaints/concerns" may well not mean anything to others.....but keep in mind that your complaints may not mean much to me as I don't care about or utilize that feature.

 

My pet peeves are the elimination of real libraries as well as the cut back on proper promenade walking decks equipped with teak deck chairs.  I also dislike music being played in most every lounge non stop making it difficult to find a quiet place to sit and read or just enjoy a bit of silence.  I also don't care for being bombarded with all the sale promotion literature and announcements but I have learned to try and just ignore it.

 

If you prefer e readers and/or non stop music and don't ever use or care about a good prom deck then good for you.  We all have our opinions on what is important to us.

 

It does seem to me that almost all HAL pax do agree that overall the service provided by the vast majority of the crew is exceptional.

 

As we all likely know sometimes you can read a review of a cruise that you were on that is full of complaints and you ask yourself, "gee were they on the same cruise as me?"   

 

While I certainly do not HATE HAL I see nothing wrong with attempting to let HAL know what I most enjoy as well as things that I do not enjoy.
 

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I certainly don't disagree with people making their wants and desires known.

 

Only pointing out that cruise line management must go with the numbers.  Their first responsibility is to make sure that the brand survives and is profitable because if it is not, it will not survive.  

 

So far the change that I have seen HAL make, might be unpopular with some and make them feel like their favorite toy has been taken away, seem to make sense in light of the industry.  They need to have a competitive cost structure when it comes to ship operations (by the way the 2600  size ships they are building today, is not far off in ratio to industry standard, to what the 1000 passenger ships were in 2000 compared to what was sailing at that time).  They are still in a niche of smaller than the other mainstream cruise lines, with the closest being Celebrity and less than half the of size of the latest MSC and RCCL ships.  The ships do need to sail full. That mean having competitive fares. The norm for all of the CCL, RCL and NCLH companies is at 105%.  Mainstream lines including Celebrity/Princess get around 25% of their revenue from on board sales. That means that excursion, photographs, stores, casino, alcohol sales are a critical part of the revenue.

 

In making decision cruise line management needs to consider their entire customer base, potential customers, and competition. Not every decision will be successful, but they are not being made without data and the cruiselines have far far more data than what we have individuals have.

You say that the libraries are important to you, but how important are they to the entire set of existing and potential passengers?  I am pretty sure all of the cruise lines know and they are fairly consistent in removing or reducing them. They will still exist in higher cost cruise lines because they have a considerably different fare/revenue structure (i.e. the revenue/passenger ratio info I posted earlier)

Edited September 2, 2019 by npcl

[mcrcruiser]

We never had a bad cruise in 84 cruises & now we cruise 2 lines HAL & Princess only ;because we can drive to where they port  ,San Diego  for HAL & Sam Pedro Ca for Princess  . We  try to do 2 or 3 cruises each year .We are finding the newer ships ,Koningsdam & Royal Princess more to our liking  ; because  of the extra entertainment  & special restaurants  now on these newer ships  .We won't fly any longer 

[sail7seas]

On 8/31/2019 at 8:55 AM, LoveHAL said:

Well, the title that got your attention!

 

I started cruising when I was 17 years old, realizing how fortunate I was to have this wonderful experience.  In 2002 I discovered Holland America on a 7-day Alaska cruise.  Since then, HAL has been my exclusive cruise company (35-cruises, five star mariner). Why? A quality product for a reasonable price. I have always started every cruise with a positive attitude, and realized that not everything can be perfect. Regardless what we do in life, things can go wrong. Gosh darn, they don't want to give me TWO main courses for dinner. The prices on drinks have gone up. They no longer provide this or that. The ships are showing wear, or I hate the larger ships. 

 

Soon after my first HAL cruise I discovered Cruise Critic. It was a place to share information and, meet people prior to the cruise , and on occasion, save some money on private excursions. Roll Calls have been a wonderful resource for me. BUT, it seems that over the past few years, Cruise Critic has turned into a place where many people have become so negative about seemingly everything HAL management does. In my opinion, the enjoyment and benefit of this Forum has declined significantly. Sure, not everything is perfect, but there are a number of Cruise Critic members that seemingly NEVER have anything positive to say. You know who you/they are..... "Orlando is trying to ruin the company"; "HAL is nickel and diming us"; "They are taking away....."; How can I sneak on alcohol or will HAL carry on my cases of waters/soda? At the end of the cruise, why doesn't HAL pay me back in cash the on-board credit that they didn't buy, but that HAL as given to them?  , and so many other things. The irony is that they seem to continue to cruise with HAL (how else would they know what is going on now?). They continue to look for the cheapest fare (nothing wrong there), but still expect all the things they got in the "good old days".  

 

My question is, if it is so bad, why complain so much? Why not just spend your travel dollars elsewhere? Or, is it just fun to complain? 

 

 

 

I hope those who have a legitimate complaints continue to  inform us here.    I find that to   be  helpful and  information  I wish to learn.  Perhaps some   our more  experienced ages and comparisons are  situations a very young person may not  have encountered yet.   I  only mean, that some of us who have sailed  HAL for  decades know how  things may   have been done in the  past  We know it can b done because we saw it done  band we miss it.    Life is full of comparisons.  It is called experience and acquired wisdom.  Maybe some of the complaints here are worthy   Little  is perfect in travel  and to only read about perfection on ships would have no value, to me.  Unrealistic.  

 

I know many persons who work for HAL in various capacities 'used' to readCC.  Whether they  posted themselves? Maybe?  Do they still read here?  Maybe?  How better for them to learn what many appreciate and like about their product or do not care much for? 

 

Because I may say I did not like my d inner in Pinnacle, does not equate to  'hating HAL'.    Too  extreme a  leap

 

 

. 

 

 

 

A comment re: the title of t he thread, if I may? To transtion from a complaint  or negative comparison   to  it b eing  Hate is a giant leap,  too big  to accept as legitimate, IMO  Hate is a very strong word.

[dockman]

12 minutes ago, npcl said:

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I certainly don't disagree with people making their wants and desires known.

 

Only pointing out that cruise line management must go with the numbers.  Their first responsibility is to make sure that the brand survives and is profitable because if it is not, it will not survive.  

 

So far the change that I have seen HAL make, might be unpopular with some and make them feel like their favorite toy has been taken away, seem to make sense in light of the industry.  They need to have a competitive cost structure when it comes to ship operations (by the way the 2600  size ships they are building today, is not far off in ratio to industry standard, to what the 1000 passenger ships were in 2000 compared to what was sailing at that time).  They are still in a niche of smaller than the other mainstream cruise lines, with the closest being Celebrity and less than half the of size of the latest MSC and RCCL ships.  The ships do need to sail full. That mean having competitive fares. The norm for all of the CCL, RCL and NCLH companies is at 105%.  Mainstream lines including Celebrity/Princess get around 25% of their revenue from on board sales. That means that excursion, photographs, stores, casino, alcohol sales are a critical part of the revenue.

 

In making decision cruise line management needs to consider their entire customer base, potential customers, and competition. Not every decision will be successful, but they are not being made without data and the cruiselines have far far more data than what we have individuals have.

You say that the libraries are important to you, but how important are they to the entire set of existing and potential passengers?  I am pretty sure all of the cruise lines know and they are fairly consistent in removing or reducing them. They will still exist in higher cost cruise lines because they have a considerably different fare/revenue structure (i.e. the revenue/passenger ratio info I posted earlier)

 

Maybe the cruise lines don't really "know" how many pax like the libraries or more likely they don't really care as the library is not a source of revenue and naturally they want to maximize revenues and reduce expenses as much as they can while still attracting and maintaining customers.

 

I for one would prefer that the cruise lines would stop paying big box stores and OTAs 15+++ % commissions on bookings being transferred after they were already booked and deposited direct with HAL PC staff who have done the work. This practice means HAL pays staff to answer phones, questions etc etc which is what a travel agent is supposedly being paid via commissions to do....Ends up as a double expense for HAL.   Eliminate some of that expense and you can afford a lot of non revenue spaces such as prom deck and libraries.  Profits are not only determined by increased onboard revenues but also by decreased cost of sales like commissions.

[iancal]

I do not think that HAL can eliminate the sales commissions that they pay to big box stores. 

 

I have no doubt that HAL actually pays these larger agencies anincreased commission rate or adders of some sort based on high volume/high sales than they would a locally owned, low volume agency.

 

This challenge is well within HAL's control.  They could simply either eliminate the ability to transfer bookings or they could charge and fee for it.  There must be a good business reason HAL does not do this.  They are not a bunch of dummies.

Edited September 2, 2019 by iancal

[npcl]

13 minutes ago, dockman said:

 

Maybe the cruise lines don't really "know" how many pax like the libraries or more likely they don't really care as the library is not a source of revenue and naturally they want to maximize revenues and reduce expenses as much as they can while still attracting and maintaining customers.

 

I for one would prefer that the cruise lines would stop paying big box stores and OTAs 15+++ % commissions on bookings being transferred after they were already booked and deposited direct with HAL PC staff who have done the work. This practice means HAL pays staff to answer phones, questions etc etc which is what a travel agent is supposedly being paid via commissions to do....Ends up as a double expense for HAL.   Eliminate some of that expense and you can afford a lot of non revenue spaces such as prom deck and libraries.  Profits are not only determined by increased onboard revenues but also by decreased cost of sales like commissions.

 

Great idea.  Why not put it into practice.  Go out raise a few billion, build some new ships to your model and show them how easy it is to pay for things by eliminating TA commissions. I am sure that with your ideas you can build and run a successful cruise line built around the things you like.

[slidergirl]

4 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Why does HAL want more family groups? You answered your own question immediately -- revenue. Family groups are probably more likely to purchase photos (how often do you get the whole family together?) and specialty dining (to celebrate the occasion). Among other things...

 

As to additional food costs, many people seem not to know (or acknowledge, as the numbers have been posted many times) how small a portion of the daily expenses the food costs are per person on a cruise.

 

No, the profit model on cruise lines is based on online expenditures, not fares. And it's also been suggested by industry insiders that "repeat mature cruisers" are less profitable than new cruisers to the line. They know to look for lower fares. They purchase fewer things onboard (spa services, photos, souvenirs in the shops, shorex through the ship). So why would the cruise line WANT to retain them? 

 

Does Carnival need another economy brand -- I can't profess to know that. But at the moment HAL is not doing anything so different from her close competitors Princess and Celebrity, which I wouldn't call 'economy' brands either. From many reports of those who've sailed a number of different lines, HAL's food holds up well with the other two, and each of the three has individual strengths -- IMO, HAL'S is mainly in her itineraries but management has also invested quite a bit in new types of musical experiences. 

 

 

Spot on, as usual...

 Any business has to attract new customers to stay in business.  As generations and demographics change, the offerings have to change.  We see posts from those 4and 5* folks who boast of their free or heavily discounted meals at the pay-for restaurants, the free laundry.  They aren't bringing any decent on-board revenue.  Families, new cruisers bring all that on-board spending.  Our resort town also did a survey on how to entice new people - turns out the LGBTQ community on the whole do quite a high amount of spend on vacations.  Our LGBTQ week is highly profitable for the town.   

It also costs money to keep refurbishing and upgrading old ships - at some point it becomes not feasible.  Those cruisers who are in love with the old ships will b!tch and moan about the loss, but a company can't keep those ships around and make money. Remember - they are a publicly traded company and their loyalty is to their shareholders to bring the biggest bang for the buck, not to a special interest group of mature cruisers who don't appreciate the new customer demographics.   No one is talking about turning HAL ships into Carnival ships.  Carnival Corp could have let HAL sink instead of acquiring it.  Where would those die-hard 5*s be then?  

[Tennessee Titan]

9 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

Spot on, as usual...

   We see posts from those 4and 5* folks who boast of their free or heavily discounted meals at the pay-for restaurants, the free laundry.  .....  Where would those die-hard 5*s be then?  

Consider where we WERE for all of the many years/ cruises where we EARNED those five stars!!!!

[Aquahound]

You don't earn 5 stars.  You purchase them over time.  

[slidergirl]

9 minutes ago, Tennessee Titan said:

Consider where we WERE for all of the many years/ cruises where we EARNED those five stars!!!!

You were cruising HAL at the largess of Carnival, who kept HAL from going under.   If HAL had gone bankrupt, where you have have gone?  Would you have followed the ships to whatever line acquired them and asked for status?  

 

As the "mature" frequent cruisers go away, someone has to come up to replace that vanishing population.  HAL can't keep catering to just those cruisers and hope that a new generation will just magically replace them.  It has to occur over time, so changes to the product have to happen over time to keep attracting the new generation.   Crystal probably stays in business because it gets the older travelers who feel squeezed out on their lines by the new "kids" and want to keep cruising with the mature set - JMHO.

[dockman]

1 hour ago, npcl said:

 

Great idea.  Why not put it into practice.  Go out raise a few billion, build some new ships to your model and show them how easy it is to pay for things by eliminating TA commissions. I am sure that with your ideas you can build and run a successful cruise line built around the things you like.

 

Well thanks so much for your reply. 

 

I don't think it will be necessary for me to start my own cruise line to eventually have travel agent commissions cut.....you can bet your last banana that it is just a matter of time until it happens...in fact it is already happening and with improved AI web sites it will only result in more and more direct bookings and less and less commissions paid.  Whether the cruise lines take that expense savings to the bottom line or reinvests some of it into the end product remains to be seen.  I suspect the bulk of it will go to the bottom line. 

 

Oct 19, 2017 - According to the survey of Google search and Sojern travel intent data formed by 350 million unique and anonymized traveler profiles, 48 percent of past cruisers reported booking their last cruise online, with 34 percent booking on the cruise line's site directly and 14 percent booking on third party sites.

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by dockman

[iancal]

How do you 'earn' stars.  You get them gratis for your patronage.  Hardly an entitlement or a guarantee that the vendor will not change or eliminate the product.  

 

We punted our bank after 35 years because they were not performing and were not offering competitive services.  It was long overdue since we had been migrating services for a few years.  Did the same with our credit card points vendor.  And with our preferred hotel chain program.    We switched our airline points partner as well to another airline in the same association.

 

We have changed over the years, so have the vendors we have dealt with.  Just a normal progression.  It simply means that we need to stay open to competitive products and services than now serve us better.  Nothing whatsoever to do with hate, disloyalty, etc.

Edited September 2, 2019 by iancal

[npcl]

1 hour ago, dockman said:

 

Well thanks so much for your reply. 

 

I don't think it will be necessary for me to start my own cruise line to eventually have travel agent commissions cut.....you can bet your last banana that it is just a matter of time until it happens...in fact it is already happening and with improved AI web sites it will only result in more and more direct bookings and less and less commissions paid.  Whether the cruise lines take that expense savings to the bottom line or reinvests some of it into the end product remains to be seen.  I suspect the bulk of it will go to the bottom line. 

 

Oct 19, 2017 - According to the survey of Google search and Sojern travel intent data formed by 350 million unique and anonymized traveler profiles, 48 percent of past cruisers reported booking their last cruise online, with 34 percent booking on the cruise line's site directly and 14 percent booking on third party sites.

 

The point was that if it was that easy anyone could do it. Easy to criticize a business, not as easy to run a profitable business over the long term.

 

how of many of those that have complained about HAL cuts have also talked about the deals they have gotten from their TAs.

 

there were certainly plenty of complaints when they limited the time frame for transfer to the TA.

 

Take away the deals and you also lose a fair percentage of those customers. Unless you take the commissions and roll them all into fare cuts. similarly to what the airlines did when they eliminated TA commissions. Even so a 15% savings for 14% would allow the line to cut fares by a max of 2.1%

In doing so how many of those passengers would go away because they would lose their 8-10% rebate or discount? 

 

in any case they would not use the money to restore libraries, unless their showed a positive cost benefit analysis. which it doesn't because they are removing them.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by npcl

[sail7seas]

1 hour ago, slidergirl said:

You were cruising HAL at the largess of Carnival, who kept HAL from going under.   If HAL had gone bankrupt, where you have have gone?  Would you have followed the ships to whatever line acquired them and asked for status?  

 

As the "mature" frequent cruisers go away, someone has to come up to replace that vanishing population.  HAL can't keep catering to just those cruisers and hope that a new generation will just magically replace them.  It has to occur over time, so changes to the product have to happen over time to keep attracting the new generation.   Crystal probably stays in business because it gets the older travelers who feel squeezed out on their lines by the new "kids" and want to keep cruising with the mature set - JMHO.

 

 

 

PLEASE give he Board and officers a little credit,   they have been succesful  and a leader in the  passenger ship/ cruise ship indudstry for a great many years, I do not think they need us to tell them how to attract  new customers.  They have done so for many decades.   As to Carnival orp. rescuing HAL. THAT  was so long ago  it is silly to make it sound as though it approaches  being a 'current event.  HAL will survive just fine IMO, if a few  things happen.  The world  stays out of a huge war, the world economy continues to grow an cruisers have disposable cash to  spend on cruises and they maintain their international crew with special emphasis on Dutch,  Indonesian   and fillipino.  The   crews are so important to the identity, fine service and friendly atmosphere   we enjoy on the blue hulled beauties.  I am first to say I dislike some of the changes and omissions made on gthe ships but the crews make HAL  all that matters most to many of us when cruising .

 

 

 

[awhcruiser]

On 8/31/2019 at 8:55 AM, LoveHAL said:

Why complain about complainers?

 

 

 

My question is, if it is so bad, why complain so much? Why not just spend your travel dollars elsewhere? Or, is it just fun to complain? 

 

[dockman]

22 minutes ago, npcl said:

The point was that if it was that easy anyone could do it. Easy to criticize a business, not as easy to run a profitable business over the long term.

 

how of many of those that have complained about HAL cuts have also talked about the deals they have gotten from their TAs.

 

there were certainly plenty of complaints when they limited the time frame for transfer to the TA.

 

Take away the deals and you also lose a fair percentage of those customers. Unless you take the commissions and roll them all into fare cuts. similarly to what the airlines did when they eliminated TA commissions. Even so a 15% savings for 14% would allow the line to cut fares by a max of 2.1%

In doing so how many of those passengers would go away because they would lose their 8-10% rebate or discount? 

 

in any case they would not use the money to restore libraries, unless their showed a positive cost benefit analysis. which it doesn't because they are removing them.

 

 

 

66% are NOT booking direct with cruise line web site.  That is a massive amount of money being paid out in the form of commissions.  34% are booking direct and over time that number will continue to grow and grow...ESPECIALLY if the agents are rebating half or more of their commission to get the booking.

 

The original idea of paying agent commissions was that the agent would actually solicit clients, recommend a cruise vacation,  spend time answering clients questions , ask a lot of questions, and then make good solid recommendations as to the best ship, itinerary, room etc would best fit the client....in other words SELL the cruise, not just take an order or figure a way to intercept a direct booking made with the cruise line by rebating commissions.

 

The fact that so many people seem to love to go online and brag about what a big rebate they got from an OTA after they had booked and deposited direct will hasten the crackdown by cruise lines on the transfer of bookings.

The recent changes by HAL to somewhat restrict the transfer of already deposited direct bookings to OTAs as well as the beginning of the save the sale program are certainly attempts to stop this practice and increase direct bookings.  We shall see where this eventually leads.

 

Not so different from what was happening with agencies rebating airline commissions to corporate accounts which ultimately was a major reason that airines quit paying commissions to agents on air travel....and yes travel agents made all kinds of threats to move market share blah blah blah...didn't happen.

[iancal]

Why try to tell the cruise line how to run their business or structure their business processes???  

 

I believe that the folks at Carnival and at HAL know just a little more than the average joe above how to run a successful cruise line business.   Carnival Corp is anything but a failure.

 

Like anyone else I scratch my head at some of the things that HAL does or does not do.  Or a few other cruise lines as well from time to time.    But when I do not understand something it us usually because I do not have all of the pertinent data.  I have no doubt that there is a purpose to what HAL management is doing.  I am not savvy enough about the cruise business to understand it but these people are not fools. 

 

They may not be right all the time but if their batting average was not good or the if the  subsidiary company was missing their financial targets they would be out in the blink of an eye after two or three quarters.

 

For those who think HAL should eliminate TA commissions just think back to the Renaissance fiasco and subsequent bankruptcy when they decided to pull the plug on TA commissions.  That did not work out so well for them.  I have no doubt that the brain trusts at Carnival Corp, RCI, NCL, and all the others lay awake at night trying to figure out how to do this. 

 

One big difference between air and cruise.  AIr is a business and a personal necessity for many.  People may not have wanted to make direct reservations but when it came down to making an airline reservation on line or paying a TA another $50.or $75 to do it for them....they took the DIY route.

Edited September 2, 2019 by iancal

[npcl]

14 minutes ago, dockman said:

 

66% are NOT booking direct with cruise line web site.  That is a massive amount of money being paid out in the form of commissions.  34% are booking direct and over time that number will continue to grow and grow...ESPECIALLY if the agents are rebating half or more of their commission to get the booking.

 

The original idea of paying agent commissions was that the agent would actually solicit clients, recommend a cruise vacation,  spend time answering clients questions , ask a lot of questions, and then make good solid recommendations as to the best ship, itinerary, room etc would best fit the client....in other words SELL the cruise, not just take an order or figure a way to intercept a direct booking made with the cruise line by rebating commissions.

 

The fact that so many people seem to love to go online and brag about what a big rebate they got from an OTA after they had booked and deposited direct will hasten the crackdown by cruise lines on the transfer of bookings.

The recent changes by HAL to somewhat restrict the transfer of already deposited direct bookings to OTAs as well as the beginning of the save the sale program are certainly attempts to stop this practice and increase direct bookings.  We shall see where this eventually leads.

 

Not so different from what was happening with agencies rebating airline commissions to corporate accounts which ultimately was a major reason that airines quit paying commissions to agents on air travel....and yes travel agents made all kinds of threats to move market share blah blah blah...didn't happen.

Actually you cannot tell how many book through TA's  from the data you posted.  The only thing we know is that 14% that booked on 3rd party sites (TA) but we do not know out of the 52% that book online go through the cruise lines phone lines, or some other direct mechanism such as  on board bookings and how many go to a non-internet based TA. 

 

But lets assume it is a large number, then the cruise line places that many more bookings at risk.  Their costs are up, but so are the benefits in the percentages of passengers.  If it is low then the costs are lower but even at the 14% from the data it is still a material number of passengers.  

 

If we use what we know to establish boundaries you get 

 

At the high end   66% costing  9.9%   and  14% costing 2.1%.  In either case changing the model to save costs have the potential to cost them a substantial number of passengers that use the services.  

 

Of course how many stories have we heard from people about TA's discouraging people from sailing on HAL because of age demographics.

 

In either case I doubt that you will see a major change unless all of the majors make the same move as the airlines did.  If they were to do so the complaints here about such a change would be orders of magnitude larger than those about larger ships and libraries vanishing.  Even then the money would still go to priorities based upon cost benefit analysis, which does not include smaller ships and libraries.