changes at the top

[kazu]

7 hours ago, *Miss G* said:

 

Wait a minute.  They have Caesars?

[mame42]

On 11/9/2019 at 2:33 PM, iancal said:

That is the issue...excellent for the price I pay.  More and more when I look at the 90 day price sheet I see HAL cruises discounted heavily.  Even the newer ships.

 

The problem I suspect, among others,  is revenue per passenger per day.  Us oldies don't spend as much as  others.  Jumping on the ship in an inside, outside, or even verandah balcony cabin at a discounted rate .  And let's face it, when you  start eliminating good entertainment I suspect that bar revenues also decrease.  HAL needs people in the bar spending money past 10PM....perhaps even until 1 or 2.  And not nursing the same drink all night.

As a confessed oldie who often retires early, I invite anyone to compare my onboard spending with any person of any age or gender holding up the bar past 10PM.  Hint: I enjoy premium lunches and dining and generous amounts of good wine at HH and at meals.

[HappyInVan]

4 hours ago, mame42 said:

As a confessed oldie who often retires early, I invite anyone to compare my onboard spending with any person of any age or gender holding up the bar past 10PM. 

 

+1

 

I retire early, and my onboard spending (excursions and internet etc) amount to 30% of the double occupancy fare.

 

The problem are the 'cheap' passengers. They board on heavily discounted fares, and it becomes impossible to spend enough to make up for the discounts.

[iancal]

Those cheap customers are are providing revenue on cabins that would otherwise go vacant.  No different than the hotel business or the airline business.  The inventory goes stale.  That fact is built into the business plan of all three.

 

We do the cruise lines a favour by buying last minute cabins.  And we do ourselves a favor.   Once we are on board we have no problem spending money on wine,  liquer, alternate dining venues, and some services, etc.  But zero on cruise excursions, transfers, or packaged pre/post cruise hotels.

 

I believe that HAL is simply having trouble attracting a new base of customers.   Their existing older product has been depreciated plus it does not offer some of the features that some want.   We should be a target market for HAL but they certainly not any more attractive to us than a Princess or a Celebrity.  Depending on the ship, HAL is a less attractive buy based on our personal preferences.

Edited November 20, 2019 by iancal

[sail7seas]

 

 

HOW MUCH ACTIVE marketing does HAL do?   once in a blue moon  I get an unimaginative not particularly attractive piece of folded paper with what seem to  be the same old photos recyled again  sigh ............   I have seen nothing presented by HAL   anywhere   close to 'recently'   to encourage a new cruiser to  try  their product or tempt  experienced cruisers to move over to HAL from whatever other cruise lines  they sail.  I have not seen or heard of a good idea from HAL in sooo long.  Same Old,  same old.   Anyone think think they go out of their way to not hire anyone with original, fun ideas?  I am starting to  think   the 'powers that be'   in Seattle sit back, take the easiest route and   put out nothing new.    What has worked for the last 20+ years should be 'good enough'  .    No, it isn't and who wants just   good enough?   I  want more than that!   I would guess most of us want some  new fresh ORIGINAL ideas on our cruises.   How about a  trained, experienced  (actual )  Cruise Director for a start ?

 

  After posting this, they likely will  ban me from s ailing their ships:-)

 

 

How nice if even one of them thinks a bout the truth of what we say/  write  here

 

 

FREE    feedback from real cruisers who are looking for nothing  but a good cruise  experience

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by sail7seas

[DeeniEncinitas]

Oh Sails!!! You said it perfectly! I so agree with you on this!! If they banned you they will have to ban me also! 
Denise😊

[sail7seas]

🙂  Denise.     my CC   soul mate.

 

 

 

 

[DeeniEncinitas]

1 hour ago, sail7seas said:

🙂  Denise.     my CC   soul mate.

 

 

 

 

🥰 right back at you my dear!!!

SOUL MATE 👯‍♀️ SISTERS

DENISE😊

[wwcruisers]

16 hours ago, sail7seas said:

  After posting this, they likely will  ban me from s ailing their ships:-)

 

LOL -- either that, or put you on the payroll! 😉

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by wwcruisers

[sail7seas]

On 11/11/2019 at 11:59 AM, leerathje said:

 

Unfortunately, it may not have been what you intended, but I did not participate BECAUSE of the question.  Sorry.

 

In the  Boston market, I see tv ads for Viking,and maybe one or  two other lines but never a  Tv ad for HAL.  I see no marketing for HAL   and most outrageous of all, is one has to just about  get down on a knee and BEG to get any new/current brochures...........  How is one to buy if one does not  know what they are  selling?   duh?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by sail7seas

[HappyInVan]

I had said in a thread (post 394) …

 

“That's pretty unbelievable. HAL is $400 cheaper than NCL on the Alaska itinerary, which should be one of HAL's strength. The customers are sending a clear signal, if you are willing to listen.

 

The general customer consensus seems to be either abandon HAL (exit) or stay and bear it (remainders).

 

There is an option for the shareholders. Carnival Corp can spin off and list its major brands (Princess, CCL, HAL, AIDA, Costa).

 

Shareholders would get shares in each brand. Have the choice of which to keep and which to sell. This way, the market rewards the out-perform brands (Princess), and downgrades the under-perform brands.”

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2695407-do-you-like-the-direction/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-58543151

 

As this thread shows, Carnival is looking for a way to turn HAL around. There are management problems in the way Carnival runs its brands. Mid level changes will not be enough.

 

Carnival need so spin off its surplus brands. Chrysler-Fiat has a success story with its RAM business. Can Carnival emulate this successful strategy?

 

“Ram has gone from a third-place also-ran in America's truck wars to a serious challenger”

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/companies/ram-pickups-are-taking-food-out-of-ford-and-gms-mouths/ar-BBXcW8R

 

 

[*Miss G*]

Let it go.

[iancal]

I think that anyone who thinks these changes are all due to the current HAL management are fooling themselves.

 

I think it goes higher.  To the group level VP's and to to Carnival Corporate VP's.  

[rkacruiser]

8 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

There is an option for the shareholders. Carnival Corp can spin off and list its major brands (Princess, CCL, HAL, AIDA, Costa).

 

Shareholders would get shares in each brand. Have the choice of which to keep and which to sell. This way, the market rewards the out-perform brands (Princess), and downgrades the under-perform brands.”

 

Absolutely not!  

 

I made initial investments in two companies decades ago:  AT&T and Anheuser-Busch.  AB, even when it was bought by ImBev and my shares had to be redeemed, provided a much more significant gain--including dividend and capital gain re-investment--than what I experienced with the same amount of $$ invested in AT&T.

 

AT&T spun off their Operating Companies, i.e. SWB, Ameritech, etc., and we shareholders received shares in these smaller entities.  Then, the "business tide" must have turned and all of the little Bells returned to Mama Bell, today's At&T.  The value of my original AT&T investment today is less than what I received when I had to sell my AB shares.   

[HappyInVan]

12 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Absolutely not!  

 

 

 

AT&T spun off their Operating Companies, i.e. SWB, Ameritech, etc., and we shareholders received shares in these smaller entities.  Then, the "business tide" must have turned and all of the little Bells returned to Mama Bell, today's At&T.  The value of my original AT&T investment today is less than what I received when I had to sell my AB shares.   

 

Sorry to hear about your investment loss. Fiat-Chrysler has had better luck with RAM. That's what happens when management picks a better strategy, rather than doing the same thing again and again.

 

IMO, independence is HAL's only real option. The way things are going, HAL could be out of business in less than 10 years. 

[Brad1185]

On a past Hal cruise with my dad we went to our room after dinner and watched tv for a while. Went up to the lounges around 10pm. We thought we missed an abandon ship call. Everything was empty. Fortunately the lifeboat we’re still there so we summarized that everyone was in their rooms sleeping.
 

My 87 year old dad said he felt like a youngster on the cruise.  Hal def has an older following.  I’m the dining room my dad said he felt like he was in a retirement home. 

 

hal lost us for now with their ridiculous $10 2nd entree trial. 

[kazu]

8 minutes ago, Brad1185 said:

hal lost us for now with their ridiculous $10 2nd entree trial. 

 

The trial has been over with for some time and the fee has not been implemented.

[3rdGenCunarder]

19 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Absolutely not!  

 

I made initial investments in two companies decades ago:  AT&T and Anheuser-Busch.  AB, even when it was bought by ImBev and my shares had to be redeemed, provided a much more significant gain--including dividend and capital gain re-investment--than what I experienced with the same amount of $$ invested in AT&T.

 

AT&T spun off their Operating Companies, i.e. SWB, Ameritech, etc., and we shareholders received shares in these smaller entities.  Then, the "business tide" must have turned and all of the little Bells returned to Mama Bell, today's At&T.  The value of my original AT&T investment today is less than what I received when I had to sell my AB shares.   

 

I agree with you.  Carnival is not going to spin off it's various lines. All those different lines benefit from the parent company's economy of scale. Large scale purchasing means they can negotiate with suppliers from a strong point. Ports, too. I doubt Cunard would have been able to get Glacier Bay slots when they returned to Alaska after a long time if Carnival hadn't been there to arrange it. 

 

[MisterBill99]

On 11/23/2019 at 5:05 PM, rkacruiser said:

AT&T spun off their Operating Companies, i.e. SWB, Ameritech, etc., and we shareholders received shares in these smaller entities.  Then, the "business tide" must have turned and all of the little Bells returned to Mama Bell, today's At&T.  The value of my original AT&T investment today is less than what I received when I had to sell my AB shares.   

 

I think that Verizon would disagree with  your claim that all of the little Bells are part of AT&T again. Most of the others are part of AT&T but in reality one of them (Southwestern Bell) bought AT&T, not the other way around.

[rkacruiser]

18 minutes ago, MisterBill99 said:

 

I think that Verizon would disagree with  your claim that all of the little Bells are part of AT&T again. Most of the others are part of AT&T but in reality one of them (Southwestern Bell) bought AT&T, not the other way around.

 

Thanks for your post.  You are being more "precise" in what happened than what I described.  Verizon is a good company; I'm a shareholder.  

 

However, given my equal original $$ investment in AB and AT&T, reinvesting all dividends in both and in the spin-offs of AT&T, investing in beer was better than investing in Ma Bell.

 

I have wondered how much shareholder value loss was experienced from the dissolution of AT&T, the formation and operation of the Baby Bells, the re-acquisition of the Baby Bells into SWB and today's AT&T.  Attorneys, top executives of ALL the companies, and others that facilitated the dissolution, the mergers, etc. profited, I have no doubt.  We, the small shareholders, what did we gain? 

 

What we gained?  When we decide to sell the current AT&T shares and those that were acquired from all of the past transactions in order to determine the proper Capital Gains tax:  that is a problem that I am bequeathing to the Executor of my Estate and my Attorney.    

[HappyInVan]

10 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

What we gained?  When we decide to sell the current AT&T shares and those that were acquired from all of the past transactions in order to determine the proper Capital Gains tax:  that is a problem that I am bequeathing to the Executor of my Estate and my Attorney.    

 

 

As I understand it, AT&T was forced to break up the business because of anti-trust considerations...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T

 

What should you do when you receive shares in the independent units. Make a choice. Keep the growth companies and sell the rest, even at a loss.

 

Today, Southwest Bell has been allowed to reconstitute itself because there are new competitors. When to divest yourself of this communication asset? Years ago with the rise of mobility competitors.

 

I hope this provides perspective.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2019 by HappyInVan

[rkacruiser]

10 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

 

As I understand it, AT&T was forced to break up the business because of anti-trust considerations...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T

 

What should you do when you receive shares in the independent units. Make a choice. Keep the growth companies and sell the rest, even at a loss.

 

Today, Southwest Bell has been allowed to reconstitute itself because there are new competitors. When to divest yourself of this communication asset? Years ago with the rise of mobility competitors.

 

I hope this provides perspective.

 

 

 

Thank you for this post.  "When to divest......years ago":  hindsight is always 20/20.  

[Hlitner]

On 11/20/2019 at 4:22 PM, HappyInVan said:

 

+1

 

I retire early, and my onboard spending (excursions and internet etc) amount to 30% of the double occupancy fare.

 

The problem are the 'cheap' passengers. They board on heavily discounted fares, and it becomes impossible to spend enough to make up for the discounts.

Cheap Passengers?  I suppose you support the idea of paying more then necessary when you make any major purchase.  Do you pay "sticker price" when you purchase a car?  If not, why would you pay "sticker price" for a cruise.  If a cruise cabin is "heavily discounted"  (to use your words) one would assume that it is priced to sell because there are no buyers at a higher price.   One solution would be for HAL to deliver a better product which would encourage more folks to pay higher prices.

 

But as a long time stockholder I salute you for paying higher prices for your cabin, buying those overpriced excursions (which contribute nicely to the bottom line) and spending other funds onboard :).  And after you are "retired" early to your cabin I will be in the Crow's Nest (or another bar) toasting your big time spending :).  But since we are talking HAL, I will likely be one of the few at the bar if its after 9:30.

 

Hank

[HappyInVan]

1 hour ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Thank you for this post.  "When to divest......years ago":  hindsight is always 20/20.  

 

Don't you wish that you had the foresight or discipline? Then, you wouldn't have to moan and groan in this thread.

 

BTW, the AT&T problem is not related to the HAL/Carnival situation.

[rkacruiser]

10 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Don't you wish that you had the foresight or discipline? Then, you wouldn't have to moan and groan in this thread.

 

BTW, the AT&T problem is not related to the HAL/Carnival situation.

 

My response was due to a poster suggesting  CCL divesting itself of its separate Operating Companies just as AT&T had to do.  My response was meant to educate others what my experience was with such a divestiture.  (Of course, your experience may be different from mine.)  I am sorry if you think that my post was a "moaning and groaning" post.  It was not meant as such.  It was to share my experiences.  

 

I remain an AT&T shareholder.