Any signs of bankrupcy for any major cruiselines?

[Heidi13]

3 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

The current situation probably is going to speed up whatever plans there may have been.

 

So true. Other than being based in Seattle, I could never imagine why Seabourn was grouped with HAL & Princess. Lots of consolidation options. Fortunately most of the chaps that I know that moved ashore have retired, or are close.

 

In addition to brand consolidation, I have no doubt we will see a reduction in ships, which will put a damper on shipboard employment prospects and return promotions to a more normal level. Probably won't revert to my experience of the 70's & 80's, but the current crop of young officers will not get promoted every couple of contracts.  

[rkacruiser]

5 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

Other than being based in Seattle, I could never imagine why Seabourn was grouped with HAL & Princess. Lots of consolidation options.

 

Seabourn has a new President.  Its President retired at the same time as Mr. Ashford resigned.  No new President for HAL as of yet has been announced.  Ms. Schwarz is still hanging on at Princess as far as I know.  More shuffling of the Corporate Deck is yet to come, I think.  

[GrJ Berkshire]

On 7/5/2020 at 3:00 PM, evandbob said:

I've heard that NCL is the line most susceptible to "reorganization".  Other lines may survive by selling off or scrapping the oldest ships in their fleets and operating with reduced fixed overhead.

 

In any case, the longer the pandemic lasts, the harder it will be for cruise lines to re-open. And, as cruising is just a slice of the overall tourism dollar, some ports and countries may find themselves limiting access to ships from lines that do survive the effects of this virus.

 

Future cruising may evolve into a form none of us would have imagined pre-pandemic.  Remember that it is a voluntary leisure activity and therefore non-essential to the economic health of a country.  Tourism accounts for about 15% of a Caribbean Island's GDP, and cruising is a smaller % of that figure.

Who would buy a cruise ship in this climate? Only option will be breakers yard?

[GrJ Berkshire]

5 hours ago, drsel said:

I hope that those 20 sailings in October are really sold out and not cancelled.

if so, that is great news !

it just shows the pent up demand for cruising

 

Surely its transferred FCC from cancelled cruises and sold out at new max passenger numbers - maybe 60% of previous capacity?

 

[John Bull]

On 7/7/2020 at 2:22 AM, GrJ Berkshire said:

Who would buy a cruise ship in this climate? Only option will be breakers yard?

 

P&O have just sold Oceana, anticipated handover by the end of this month.

Launched in 2000, she's reckoned to be about half-way thro her cruising life.

P&O aren't disclosing the name of the buyer, or the buyer's intentions, but it's rumoured that it's a Greek ship-owner -one version says for sailings in the eastern Med, another that it's on behalf of Chinese interests. No doubt the truth will out in due course 

https://www.tradewindsnews.com/cruise-and-ferry/carnivals-p-o-cruises-uk-said-to-be-selling-oceana-cruiseship/2-1-838865

 

On another page, Tradewinds has confirmed that Costa Victoria (built 1998) is to be scrapped at an Italian yard, and two older RCI ships, Monarch otS and Sovereign otS are also scheduled to be scrapped.

https://www.tradewindsnews.com/cruise-and-ferry/carnival-sells-cruiseship-to-italian-yard-in-radical-step-for-european-scrapping/2-1-834191

 

JB 

[sverigecruiser]

 

Maybe two good things will come out of this:

 

1. If any of the major lines goes out of business the luxury lines may have more round trip cruises to fill that gap. When I have researched  there has been  very few roundtrips and hopefully that can change.

 

2. If prices go up a lot maybe the quality has to go up too to attract customers with more money.

[wowzz]

2 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

. If prices go up a lot maybe the quality has to go up too to attract customers with more money

Prices will go up, but quality will remain the same. The extra profit will be required to finance all the debt incurred over the last few months.

Those customers with more money can already go to the luxury lines if they want more quality than that offered by the mainstream lines.

Edited July 8, 2020 by wowzz

[sverigecruiser]

37 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Prices will go up, but quality will remain the same. The extra profit will be required to finance all the debt incurred over the last few months.

Those customers with more money can already go to the luxury lines if they want more quality than that offered by the mainstream lines.

 

I agree with you that some extra profil will be required to finance all dept but I hope that it can be both.

 

If the major cruiselines survive they will probably have to raise their prices to finance all dept but if they shall get enough customers willing to pay more they may have to  raise the quality too. If every cruise is raised $1000 and half of the money is used to pay debts and the other half is used to raise the qualite the cruise will be better. I understand that not everyone agree with me but I'm prepared to pay more if the cruise is better.

 

If more of the luxury lines had more roundtrips it might be easier for me to try one of them.  

[wowzz]

55 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I agree with you that some extra profil will be required to finance all dept but I hope that it can be both.

 

If the major cruiselines survive they will probably have to raise their prices to finance all dept but if they shall get enough customers willing to pay more they may have to  raise the quality too. If every cruise is raised $1000 and half of the money is used to pay debts and the other half is used to raise the qualite the cruise will be better. I understand that not everyone agree with me but I'm prepared to pay more if the cruise is better.

 

If more of the luxury lines had more roundtrips it might be easier for me to try one of them.  

You also have to factor in the fact that ships will sailing with around 25% fewer passengers, so again there will be pressure on to maximise profits.

Whilst I do not disagree about improving quality, you cannot just hoick up prices and say that you have improved quality. The improved quality message has to experienced and reflected in reviews before you can start increasing prices as a result.  So a hit to the bottom line for at least a couple of years.

[PORT ROYAL]

2 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I agree with you that some extra profil will be required to finance all dept but I hope that it can be both.

 

If the major cruiselines survive they will probably have to raise their prices to finance all dept but if they shall get enough customers willing to pay more they may have to  raise the quality too. If every cruise is raised $1000 and half of the money is used to pay debts and the other half is used to raise the qualite the cruise will be better. I understand that not everyone agree with me but I'm prepared to pay more if the cruise is better.

 

If more of the luxury lines had more roundtrips it might be easier for me to try one of them.  

 

Totally agree, we would be happy to pay the $1000.00 to ensure the elements of our Cunard Cruise experiences are not dimished. 

In addition, there are thousands of Cunarders who will agree with your premise and be hapoy to pay.  Cunard prices have substantially reduced in real terms over the years, it's time to rebalance.

 

[drsel]

I think there has been no inflation in Cruise prices for almost 30 years

[sverigecruiser]

2 hours ago, wowzz said:

You also have to factor in the fact that ships will sailing with around 25% fewer passengers, so again there will be pressure on to maximise profits.

Whilst I do not disagree about improving quality, you cannot just hoick up prices and say that you have improved quality. The improved quality message has to experienced and reflected in reviews before you can start increasing prices as a result.  So a hit to the bottom line for at least a couple of years.

 

I think that it's easier to increase the fares if you can say that you also have raised the quality. It must be harder to increase fares if all you can say is that you do it to pay your debts.

[wowzz]

2 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I think that it's easier to increase the fares if you can say that you also have raised the quality. It must be harder to increase fares if all you can say is that you do it to pay your debts.

You don't have to say anything.

But you can't just say you are increasing prices because you are improving quality - that implies poor quality in the past. 

Easier to increase the costs of discretionary services, so that those who want extra quality can pay for them. 

[sverigecruiser]

3 minutes ago, wowzz said:

You don't have to say anything.

But you can't just say you are increasing prices because you are improving quality - that implies poor quality in the past. 

Easier to increase the costs of discretionary services, so that those who want extra quality can pay for them. 

 

You can choose not to say anything but when people ask it's good to be able to answer.

[Joebucks]

On 7/6/2020 at 9:22 PM, GrJ Berkshire said:

Who would buy a cruise ship in this climate? Only option will be breakers yard?

 

While I agree that this probably isn't the time to buy a cruise ship, understand why anyone would ever buy one in the first place. As an investment that they think they can get more out of vs what they put in. Being in the right place at the right time is one of those opportunities.

 

3 hours ago, wowzz said:

You also have to factor in the fact that ships will sailing with around 25% fewer passengers, so again there will be pressure on to maximise profits.

Whilst I do not disagree about improving quality, you cannot just hoick up prices and say that you have improved quality. The improved quality message has to experienced and reflected in reviews before you can start increasing prices as a result.  So a hit to the bottom line for at least a couple of years.

 

While a company obviously wants to profit, the desire to profit does not actually get to come first. I don't know of any company that came out of hard economic times by raising their price. If anything, companies tend to give stuff away when they are desperate for business. You have to keep attracting customers, and adapt to the times. For as much as investors want Carnival to succeed, they are actually reasonable in their expectations. No one expects profit anytime soon. Stopping the massive bleeding of money and showing that cruising can get back to normal are the first priorities. Then build the rest from there.

 

Now what cruising does have going for it is supply and demand based pricing with supply greatly restrained. Some people are absolutely itching at the bit to get back on a ship and will pay higher prices when it returns. That may help the cruise lines collect higher revenues when cruising launches again for at least the first few months, if not longer.

[wowzz]

20 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

Some people are absolutely itching at the bit to get back on a ship and will pay higher prices when it returns

You mean "if" it returns.

[gerryuk]

Could we possibly see cruise lines merging? There could be substantial savings made, particularly at their corporate headquarters. 

[navybankerteacher]

4 hours ago, drsel said:

I think there has been no inflation in Cruise prices for almost 30 years

Are you serious?  

 

For the experience one used to get on HAL 30 years ago you now have to pay more for one of the premium lines.  Sure, HAL’s fares may have held steady but you get a whole lot less for them.  This holds true across the board.

 

To say there is no inflation in cruise prices is like saying the four pound bag of sugar you get now for the same money you used to pay for a five pound bag means there has been no price increase.

[drsel]

Teacher, the point is the prices have held steady for many years.

so considering inflation over 30 years, it is much cheaper to book a HAL Cruise now than it ever was over the last few decades.

 

No doubt the standards have deteriorated and there has been tremendous cost-cutting.

I was only referring to the prices, not the quality and standards.

 

 

[Heidi13]

5 hours ago, drsel said:

I think there has been no inflation in Cruise prices for almost 30 years

 

So true, at times you can find some cruises at the same base fare prices as the 80's. All achieved by economy of scale, dumbing down the product and onboard extras. 

[drsel]

considering almost zero price inflation along with the deterioration in standards and quality, whether it is better value now or in the past is debatable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Heidi13]

4 minutes ago, drsel said:

considering almost zero price inflation along with the deterioration in standards and quality, whether it is better value now or in the past is debatable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another factor to consider is the change in pax/crew ratio. In my days, we had 1 crew member for every 2 pax, now many of the new mega ships are almost 1 crew for every 3 pax.

 

Personally, the mainstream lines have already lowered the standards and value to below what we desire in a cruise. Yes, we pay a little more for premium/luxury brands, but the difference when all costs are considered, is surprisingly low.

[FredT]

6 hours ago, PORT ROYAL said:

 

Totally agree, we would be happy to pay the $1000.00 to ensure the elements of our Cunard Cruise experiences are not dimished. 

In addition, there are thousands of Cunarders who will agree with your premise and be hapoy to pay.  Cunard prices have substantially reduced in real terms over the years, it's time to rebalance.

 

The sad reality is that while many people like you SAY they would pay more for the product.....  The reality is that few do.  You see this time and time again with the airlines.  Everyone bitches about the size and legroom of the seats in tourist class... Then the same people refuse to pay additional for more room and book the cheapest seats available. 

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Another factor to consider is the change in pax/crew ratio. In my days, we had 1 crew member for every 2 pax, now many of the new mega ships are almost 1 crew for every 3 pax.

 

Personally, the mainstream lines have already lowered the standards and value to below what we desire in a cruise. Yes, we pay a little more for premium/luxury brands, but the difference when all costs are considered, is surprisingly low.

The deterioration of standards to keep fares down has taken virtually all mass market lines off our list.  Our first NCL cruise (on Norway) was a pleasure - later ones (repeated only because of great itinerary: Boston to St. George, Bermuda for several days in port) became less and less worth the fare. HAL, which used to be superior to other mass market lines, has joined Princess, Royal Caribbean, Carnival and Celebrity in cheapening the experience while increasing the crowding.  Only Cunard retains some interest - largely because of QM2’s trans-Atlantic service.

 

Low price alone, while great, does not warrant spending ANY amount on a shoddy product. The lines did not resist inflation - they simply cheapened their product.

[Heidi13]

3 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

 Only Cunard retains some interest - largely because of QM2’s trans-Atlantic service.

 

 

 

We also did consider Cunard, but opted for Viking. Having seen the Carnivalisation of a once brilliant company that I worked for🙁, we just won't support any of the Carnival Brands.