Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

npcl

Members
  • Content Count

    137
  • Joined

About npcl

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A few years ago Princess used to deliver ice automatically. From my experience (2-4 trips per year on Princess) this changed a few years ago. If one wants ice the best way is to directly notify your steward, we do the first day when the he introduces himself. As far as the robe goes we have found that on a small percentage of trips the request for robes do not make it from the personalizer to the ship. Easily fixed by telling the steward. Since the steward is the one that handles both issues best to contact them and not go round about through customer service.
  2. Airlines are covered by a different law, not PVSA even though there are some similarities
  3. Ferries, tour boats. etc. There are a lot of passenger vessels that fall under the law that are operating today.
  4. How many cases have you actually seen where a passenger was actually charged the fee? 1. The cruise lines worry more about the black mark then the fee. So in almost all cases the cruise line will deny boarding rather than break the law. 2. Most cases where it actually does happen are exceptions such as medical emergencies, weather related (such as hurricanes in the carribean) or ship mechanical failures such as the Celebrity ship that had to end a cruise unexpectedly. In those cases the fee either gets waived or the cruise line absorbs it. The only time it might and I say might is in the case of a passenger doing something unapproved by the cruise line, such as departing the ship early in a US port without approval. Since the cruise lines are very good about preventing violations the number of times where there is even the opportunity for a few to get passed on is exceedingly rare.
  5. If I recall correctly it is the cruise line, not the passenger that is fined, though the cruise line may pass it on to the passenger. More than the fine it becomes a black mark on the cruise lines record with CBP.
  6. The cruise lines really don't want the law changed. As far as they are concerned it doesn't really cost them any money. The last time there were discussions about changing the law, they focused on tightening the law not loosening it. The times where cruise lines have tried to get waivers, such as with Puerto Rico, it has not worked out very well. If it were to get loosened who knows what competition might come in and the cruise lines would rather not take the risk.
  7. A bit more information on HAL prior to the CCL purchase. https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/15249-holland-america-purchases-home-lines-ships.html As one can read HAL spent approximately 250 million for two ships in 1988. As the article continue HAL was also building two ships which in 1988 where planned to be fairly large ships for the day in the 1600 to 1800 range, committing HAL to a 500 million capital investment plan (between the new ships and their purchase of the two from Home lines. They also acquired an additional 6 hotels in Alaska giving them a total of 13 in the state. They had also acquired a 50% stake in Windstar and announced plans for building a private island and resort in the Caribbean. Yet less that a year later they sold out to CCL for $625 million. Lets see they paid 250 million for 2 ships from a failing Home lines. So for the 625 CCL got the 4 HAL ships, the 2 under construction, as well as all of the Alaska and Caribbean properties I suspect that after looking at what it would take to succeed as a stand alone company, in terms of capital investment, that they decided to sell out. Especially since HAL had $229 million in debt and would was on the line for their two new ships to the turn of $540 million. So in total HAL got a good premium to their stock price at the time. But they did sell. At the time HAL was profitable, but not nearly as profitable as CCL. They also had the previously mentioned debt load.
  8. Now how exactly did he manage to do that? All he posted is the sale price? So look at it this was. Lets follow the hypothesis that he is correct and HAL was doing well. Why would a line, started in the 1800's, that had purchased the Alaska land tour business sell out to CCL if it was doing well. One can see from the article that CCLs revenue went up by over $500 million from 1988 to 1989. Most of which would have been HAL and its tour business (the Casino was not even running for the full 1989 fiscal year so its revenue contribution, while probably material, would not have been that much most likely less than 50 million. So why would a cruise business that had a firm base in Alaska, that was doing well, decide to sell for what would have been at maximum 1-1.5 X 1 year revenue. Certainly not an overwhelming amount when one looks at other deals. If they were doing well and wanted to keep going they would have and would not have sold. It clear why CCL wanted the business. HAL was strong in Alaska and CCL was strong in the Caribbean. CCL has certainly leveraged that business in a big way with the total Alaska presence of HAL and Princess (both part of the HAL group under CCL). For all that one might to blame CCL management or rewrite history and want it as a not CCL brand, it has been part of CCL for 30 years. Almost all of the people on this board, all of their experience with HAL started after the CCL purchase, on ships built while CCL, operated as brand fully held by CCL. Nobody said that the only option to changes is to lose HAL completely because the line is here as a CCL brand. But the CCL management has certainly done well since the purchase in expanding both the size and the value of the brand. The line has changed, the industry has changed and it will continue to change. One can complain all they want but it is the managment of HAL, the HAL Group, and CCL as one goes up the change that does and will make the decisions about what changes will be made.
  9. Just so you know the tour business was part of the HAL acquisition just as the HAL ships, that is why it says HAL and its tour businesses. There is not a separate breakout for the casino. But only half of it was open during 1989, the second tour opened in December of that year. I doubt that the Casino would have contributed more than $50,000,000 (only contributed about 3/4 of the fiscal year). So even if your stand is correct the purchase price would have been at most 1.5 times revenue. You can get the actual annual report from Nexis, if you have an account with them, I do. The report is also available at the library of congress if you are in DC. I referenced the article, because it could be quoted. The Nexis data was not. It basically says the same thing. Look at it this way either HAL was having problems and their management was smart for selling to CCL or it was going well and they were dumb for selling in either case they have been part of CCL for 30 years.
  10. Left out the decimal point. CCL in their annual report attributed the different to the acquisition of HAL so I am not going to argue with their filing. If it was not due to HAL then they managed to get tremendous growth during one year. You can get it from their annual report or there are a few news stories from that time frame such as https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/15101-carnival-reports-1989-earnings.html One can argue over the details from a 30 year old transaction. But the reality is the deal was made. CCL purchased HAL. HAL has had tremendous growth and success under CCL. It has changed as a brand under CCL, and will continue to do so.
  11. A single LA times does not full research make. From CCL's report that year CCL in 1989 had revenue of $1148 billion up from 599.7 million the year before. Profits that year was 193.6 million down from 196.4 million the previous year. The reason for the increase was the additional revenue from the HAL ships. The decline in net income was attributed to increased interest expense and reduced interest income associated with the use of funds for the HAL acquisition, and higher costs incurred in connection with the start-up of the resort and casino. So HAL basically sold itself to CCL for what amounts to 1 year revenue (the increase in CCL revenue was 548.3). At the same time that CCL was not only buying them but building and starting the Crystal Palace Casino in the Bahamas so they certainly had the cash and the ability to borrow money. Much more so then HAL did alone at that time. If you go back and read business reports from that time frame HAL's business was very much linked to Alaska and they did very well there during the summer season, but during the winter season they were not as well positioned and were not doing well.
  12. Interesting jump a few posts ago you were saying the deal was $530 million, now $625 how much will it grow in your next post? There are conflicting sources some list it as $530 and some at $625. Would be interesting to see what the real numbers are. The Alaska business was more then just the cruise portion. It also include land properties, government contracts, etc. It also included the premier Alaska travel company that HAL purchased a few years before. While one could look at the business on the day and sale and say that it might not have been worth the entire purchase cost, one could look back and see what CCL built on that business and say that it was worth every bit of the that it paid for HAL. That the Alaska business was the prime driver was reflected in the statement by by CCL at the time "They control Alaska in the summer, we control the Caribbean in the summer,”. Today HAL still hold the lion share of the legacy Glacier Bay entry slots. Princess holds the second largest quantity.
  13. You were the one that asked for proof when someone posted that HAL's profit comes from on board spend.
  14. Carnival paid a substantial price, but relatively pennies on the dollar for the assets. The value of the Alaska business was worth more than what they paid for the entire line. The really funny thing is how you talk about CCL ruining HAL, yet it has grown significantly in the 30 years since purchased. Right along with the rest of the cruise industry. Over expansion would mean ships sailing empty, which they are not doing. Bottom line is they acquired HAL for pennies on the dollar. They have executed a business model that has grown the business significantly. HAL has to work to a budget. However, while entertainment has changed I doubt they spend less money on it. Musicians have moved to the music venues. Production shows replaced by modern dance productions. Crew slots have been moved around (crew bunks is a limited asset so if you add a new position you pretty much have to remove another). The food on HAL is as good as any of the lines it competes with Princess, Celebrity primarily. The line is changing and leaving you behind. In the mean time it seems to be attracting others that would not have sailed on it 5 years ago. I am one of them. From the postings others are now trying it as well. Tried HAL 10 years ago. Had not come back until 2 years ago. Have done 50-100 days per year on various cruise lines for several years. Found the production shows on the old HAL to be too much like watching Lawrence Welk. Two years ago had found them much improved to at least the level of Princess. Now they are gone but the new dance shows are as interesting. Now if we want old style production shows we can book Princess. When we want Lincoln center and the new dance productions we have HAL. With the grand kids it is RCL. At other times Oceania. Primarily we book by route and circumstances but are not tied to any particular cruise line, even though we have high frequent cruiser status on several.
  15. Last time I looked Seabourn has a similar model to Silversea and it is owned by CCL. So does Crystal and it was sold to a Chinese conglomerate. Regent does as well and it is owned by NCLH. Why do you think Silverseas sold itself to RCL? It needed the capital that a large cruise holding company can provide. Bottom line even the luxury brands have problems with small ships, even with their fares. They need the borrowing power that an RCL, CCL and NCLH has.
×
×
  • Create New...