A Surprise Ending: Why Did Carnival Ditch Mobile with No Warning?

[richstowe]

So I guess if I told my boss I was quitting in 4 weeks he could say I didn't give him notice? I just don't understand what the folks in Mobile think they could have done differently to get Carnival to stay, unless they were willing to subsidize each passenger.

 

Well put. Carnival gave ample notice.

 

CC's article title seems like Carnival bashing.

 

Reading another related thread, I was amused to hear that financial basket case Baltimore

is "exploring" a second passenger port.Talk about gambling with public funds! It will not end well.

 

If they want more traffic, Baltimore should cut all fees (perhaps to zero) to convince cruise lines to

sail from Baltimore on Saturday's rather then build more port facility's.

[mcwebber]

Add Savannah to the list of cities "playing with fire":

Lawmakers voted 156-1 for a resolution supporting public- and private-sector efforts to make Savannah Georgia’s first cruise ship port.

 

How is passing a resolution "playing with fire?"

[Vanessa L]

So I guess if I told my boss I was quitting in 4 weeks he could say I didn't give him notice? I just don't understand what the folks in Mobile think they could have done differently to get Carnival to stay, unless they were willing to subsidize each passenger.

 

 

Apples to oranges. Corvette Lady's point (I believe this is the gist of it) is that they were not given an opportunity to correct what was wrong before Carnival pulled out.

 

Two examples come to mind: If I am divorcing my spouse, saying, "In 3 months I am outta here. Nothing you can do to change it," is NO notice. Just an end result statement. Versus saying, "If we do counseling and we just cannot seem to get it together in 3 months, I am going to have to move out and divorce you." The first example is what Carnival did to Mobile (as I understand it). In the second example, had Carnival actually given Mobile some notice as to what they needed changed exactly (whether Mobile could control it or not it not relevant to this topic) then I don't think it would have ruffled as many feathers had Carnival said, "We notified Mobile 8 months ago of exactly what we needed to stay and unfortunately, they have not been able to deliver so we are faced with pulling out of the city." I think the point is the sh*tty way they went about delivering the news without at least giving Mobile the opportunity to change things.

 

As a stock holder myself, and with a tiny bit of understanding that Carnival's ultimate responsibility is to it's stockholders and really, they could care less "who's feelings they hurt", I get why they did what they did. It doesn't make it any less sh*tty for the city of Mobile, however.

[mcwebber]

Apples to oranges. Corvette Lady's point (I believe this is the gist of it) is that they were not given an opportunity to correct what was wrong before Carnival pulled out.

 

Two examples come to mind: If I am divorcing my spouse, saying, "In 3 months I am outta here. Nothing you can do to change it," is NO notice. Just an end result statement. Versus saying, "If we do counseling and we just cannot seem to get it together in 3 months, I am going to have to move out and divorce you." The first example is what Carnival did to Mobile (as I understand it). In the second example, had Carnival actually given Mobile some notice as to what they needed changed exactly (whether Mobile could control it or not it not relevant to this topic) then I don't think it would have ruffled as many feathers had Carnival said, "We notified Mobile 8 months ago of exactly what we needed to stay and unfortunately, they have not been able to deliver so we are faced with pulling out of the city." I think the point is the sh*tty way they went about delivering the news without at least giving Mobile the opportunity to change things.

 

Actually, it's quite relevant since you're saying they should have asked them to fix something that Mobile apparently had no control over and then move the ship anyway. Like that would have been better? "Passengers in Mobile are not generating enough revenue. Unless Mobile subsidizes Carnival passengers by $X per cruise, Carnival will be moving out." How would that have gone over? I suspect, like a lead balloon.

[Tapi]

How is passing a resolution "playing with fire?"

 

Not the resolution. The prospect of spending MILLIONS of dollars on a venture that, at best, is a gamble, specially when they have Jacksonville and Charleston so close to them. And now that Jacksonville's temporary dump, I mean, warehouse style cruise terminal has extended its useful life until at least 2016, it doesn't seem like Carnival will be looking for an immediate new home for the Fascination...

[Vanessa L]

Actually, it's quite relevant since you're saying they should have asked them to fix something that Mobile apparently had no control over and then move the ship anyway. Like that would have been better? "Passengers in Mobile are not generating enough revenue. Unless Mobile subsidizes Carnival passengers by $X per cruise, Carnival will be moving out." How would that have gone over? I suspect, like a lead balloon.

 

Since I'm not talking about the big picture, rather, whether or not it was crappy for Carnival to pull out of Mobile without at least giving them the opportunity to change things. Right or wrong, human nature tends to side with the underdog. It has ruffled feathers in this case because the perception is that Carnival simply thumbed their nose at Mobile rather than being able to, in October saying, "We gave Mobile notice in March that they needed to change 'x' and they have not been able to fulfill that request so we are pulling out, effective immediately." At that point, it wouldn't seem like (again perception is important here) the "big, bad, company is pooping all over the little city". At that point, perception is, "Well, they gave Mobile notice that they had to make theses changes in 8 months and they couldn't, too bad for Mobile."

[futaba951]

Since I'm not talking about the big picture, rather, whether or not it was crappy for Carnival to pull out of Mobile without at least giving them the opportunity to change things. Right or wrong, human nature tends to side with the underdog. It has ruffled feathers in this case because the perception is that Carnival simply thumbed their nose at Mobile rather than being able to, in October saying, "We gave Mobile notice in March that they needed to change 'x' and they have not been able to fulfill that request so we are pulling out, effective immediately." At that point, it wouldn't seem like (again perception is important here) the "big, bad, company is pooping all over the little city". At that point, perception is, "Well, they gave Mobile notice that they had to make theses changes in 8 months and they couldn't, too bad for Mobile."

 

Carnival didn't want to fix Mobile, they wanted to move the ship to PC where they can operate at a much lower fixed cost. Can't say that I blame them for that. IMO it's NOLA that really got the thumb because they lose a ship with all the upgrades for a ship with less than half the upgrades, for no apparent reason. Mobile's situation is entirely understandable in a business sense, while NOLA's just seems spiteful IMO. Why couldn't they just move Elation to PC and leave NOLA out of the mix entirely? I have to think that if they'd left Fantasy in Mobile with all of it's upgrades, that it would have stood a far better chance of pulling in better money than Elation. I believe that this plan has been in the works for a lot longer than it appears. Again, I can't say that I blame Carnival for the move. It makes perfect business sense. It's a shame that Mobile didn't have the sense to have a contract in place where they could hold Carnival's feet to the fire in just this type of situation, but I'd bet that in any case the contract would have been stacked against the city and in their zeal to hold onto a ship would have felt compelled to sign on to whatever Carnival dictated.

[Vanessa L]

Carnival didn't want to fix Mobile, they wanted to move the ship to PC where they can operate at a much lower fixed cost. Can't say that I blame them for that. IMO it's NOLA that really got the thumb because they lose a ship with all the upgrades for a ship with less than half the upgrades, for no apparent reason. Mobile's situation is entirely understandable in a business sense, while NOLA's just seems spiteful IMO. Why couldn't they just move Elation to PC and leave NOLA out of the mix entirely? I have to think that if they'd left Fantasy in Mobile with all of it's upgrades, that it would have stood a far better chance of pulling in better money than Elation. I believe that this plan has been in the works for a lot longer than it appears. Again, I can't say that I blame Carnival for the move. It makes perfect business sense. It's a shame that Mobile didn't have the sense to have a contract in place where they could hold Carnival's feet to the fire in just this type of situation, but I'd bet that in any case the contract would have been stacked against the city and in their zeal to hold onto a ship would have felt compelled to sign on to whatever Carnival dictated.

 

Absolutely right. As a stock holder I get it. But there are still going to be a ton of posts about how Mobile got the shaft and "if onlys" going on for months. And it is still going to be "big, bad Carnival's fault". "Poor little Mobile."

[richstowe]

Absolutely right. As a stock holder I get it. But there are still going to be a ton of posts about how Mobile got the shaft and "if onlys" going on for months. And it is still going to be "big, bad Carnival's fault". "Poor little Mobile."

So far I haven't seen a ton of posts pro Mobile. Frankly most CCers care about their own dealings with Carnival and could care less about Carnival's

business dealings with Mobile ,or for that matter any port city.

 

Also there are lots of " hurray another boat in Florida "postings.

[PaulMedik]

..............

 

If I am divorcing my spouse, saying, ........

 

 

 

Vanessa,

 

How about a third option; You do not feel your husband has the ability to change so you spare him the humiliation of trying by packing your bags and leaving? In Carnival's case they need eight months to pack, but they at least aren't dragging their 'partner' along thru a bitter separation and counseling when they can't change.

[PaulMedik]

So far I haven't seen a ton of posts pro Mobile. Frankly most CCers care about their own dealings with Carnival and could care less about Carnival's

business dealings with Mobile ,or for that matter any port city.

 

Also there are lots of " hurray another boat in Florida "postings.

 

 

Mobile was never an option for us, but having another option out of an easy fly to city with attractions nearby is always good news. :)

[Vanessa L]

Vanessa,

 

How about a third option; You do not feel your husband has the ability to change so you spare him the humiliation of trying by packing your bags and leaving? In Carnival's case they need eight months to pack, but they at least aren't dragging their 'partner' along thru a bitter separation and counseling when they can't change.

 

That gets way into trying to play God, lol! But in this case, Carnival has all the marbles, they ARE God, lol!

[richcrow]

I also question St Clair's figures of 125 jobs.

 

I would like to see the documentation on that.

 

Having family that will be one of those who will lose their job, I can tell you where the number 125 comes from. That is the approximate number of people who are on duty when the ship is in port - porters, gate agents (or whatever the correct term is), other terminal employees, etc.

 

Also, Mobile did have some can of contract with Carnival. I have no idea what all of the terms were, but it was published more than once that Carnival had first refusal rights if another cruise line wanted to move a ship to Mobile.

[PaulMedik]

That gets way into trying to play God, lol! But in this case, Carnival has all the marbles, they ARE God, lol!

 

 

Vanessa,

 

Women do have all the .......well marbles will do for lack of a better word. :p

[CorvetteLady]

If I am reading Corvette Lady correctly, I do think you missed the point. The point is not that it is a day, a week or a year, but that once told, it was a done deal. I don't care if you are given 5 years notice, if at the end of the time, the result is the same, then it can be said there was no notice. Notice would have been for Carnival to say to Mobile, "We are giving you 8 months to turn this around (with a clear definition of what "turned around" looks like) and THEN, if you have not met our goals, we are pulling out permanently." Telling someone the end result without first giving them the chance to change things, is NOT giving notice. It's simply stating the end result ahead of time. Now, if Carnival HAS already set those guidelines for Mobile, and they failed to meet them (I am not 100% versed on this story), then what I have written is irrelevant, as they were given a very clear directive and failed to meet it. That is not on Carnival, that one's on Mobile. But the way I am reading this story (I believe) is that Mobile was never given a either/or directive from Carnival. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Thanks Vanessa, you got my meaning.

[CorvetteLady]

Carnival didn't want to fix Mobile, they wanted to move the ship to PC where they can operate at a much lower fixed cost. Can't say that I blame them for that. IMO it's NOLA that really got the thumb because they lose a ship with all the upgrades for a ship with less than half the upgrades, for no apparent reason. Mobile's situation is entirely understandable in a business sense, while NOLA's just seems spiteful IMO. Why couldn't they just move Elation to PC and leave NOLA out of the mix entirely? I have to think that if they'd left Fantasy in Mobile with all of it's upgrades, that it would have stood a far better chance of pulling in better money than Elation. I believe that this plan has been in the works for a lot longer than it appears. Again, I can't say that I blame Carnival for the move. It makes perfect business sense. It's a shame that Mobile didn't have the sense to have a contract in place where they could hold Carnival's feet to the fire in just this type of situation, but I'd bet that in any case the contract would have been stacked against the city and in their zeal to hold onto a ship would have felt compelled to sign on to whatever Carnival dictated.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. Of course Carnival can move their ships to make "more" money. Corporate greed is everywhere.

 

One thing that no one has mentioned is how this affects the passengers that have their cruises changed. I would hesitate to book too far out because Carnival seems to like to move their ships around. I enjoy sailing from NOLA but if I had booked the Ecstasy and now had to sail on the Elation I would not be pleased, and those cruisers are not being offered a refund like the Mobile cruisers. I think cruising from the smaller ports has become risky, I wonder if they will start to offer insurance to cover ship relocation.

 

I also think that NOLA has gotten the shaft, they will now have the oldest Conquest class ship and a Fantasy class ship with only the Serenity upgrade. It's making me think it's time to give RCCL a try. If I'm going to the same ports at least I can do it on a different ship.

[mcwebber]

Not the resolution. The prospect of spending MILLIONS of dollars on a venture that, at best, is a gamble, specially when they have Jacksonville and Charleston so close to them. And now that Jacksonville's temporary dump, I mean, warehouse style cruise terminal has extended its useful life until at least 2016, it doesn't seem like Carnival will be looking for an immediate new home for the Fascination...

 

Go back and read the resolution. It's not playing with fire to pass a resolution supporting an outcome. If they passed a resolution supporting spending millions of taxpayer money, maybe then it would be playing with fire. If they can convince private parties to finance it, good for them.

[mcwebber]

Since I'm not talking about the big picture, rather, whether or not it was crappy for Carnival to pull out of Mobile without at least giving them the opportunity to change things. Right or wrong, human nature tends to side with the underdog. It has ruffled feathers in this case because the perception is that Carnival simply thumbed their nose at Mobile rather than being able to, in October saying, "We gave Mobile notice in March that they needed to change 'x' and they have not been able to fulfill that request so we are pulling out, effective immediately." At that point, it wouldn't seem like (again perception is important here) the "big, bad, company is pooping all over the little city". At that point, perception is, "Well, they gave Mobile notice that they had to make theses changes in 8 months and they couldn't, too bad for Mobile."

 

You keep saying that. But what was Mobile going to change? Why is perception important and who is it important to? What exactly was Carnival supposed to tell Mobile to change since you seem to think Mobile had the power to change something. If you don't know what that is, why do you keep insisting that Carnival should have given them an opportunity to change something beyond their control?

[mcwebber]

Carnival didn't want to fix Mobile, they wanted to move the ship to PC where they can operate at a much lower fixed cost. Can't say that I blame them for that. IMO it's NOLA that really got the thumb because they lose a ship with all the upgrades for a ship with less than half the upgrades, for no apparent reason. Mobile's situation is entirely understandable in a business sense, while NOLA's just seems spiteful IMO. Why couldn't they just move Elation to PC and leave NOLA out of the mix entirely? I have to think that if they'd left Fantasy in Mobile with all of it's upgrades, that it would have stood a far better chance of pulling in better money than Elation. I believe that this plan has been in the works for a lot longer than it appears. Again, I can't say that I blame Carnival for the move. It makes perfect business sense. It's a shame that Mobile didn't have the sense to have a contract in place where they could hold Carnival's feet to the fire in just this type of situation, but I'd bet that in any case the contract would have been stacked against the city and in their zeal to hold onto a ship would have felt compelled to sign on to whatever Carnival dictated.

I don't think they'll move Elation to PC because then someone would have to admit they never should have moved it out of PC when they did.

[richstowe]

In the words of Michael Corleone when he proposes killing someone,"It's not personal,Sonny. It's strictly business."

 

For those who believe Carnival should have done this or not done that -

For those who believe Carnival would never do this because that would prove that -

 

Hello Carnival is all about what they believe is good for the company. Period !

 

They will move ,change ,alter and possibly return if it meets their goals.

 

If Mobile could have read the signs ,could they have changed Carnival's mind?

Well given what posters have said about Mobile's leadership , no.

Even if they read the signs, the answer was still going to be no.

 

End of story!

[Vanessa L]

You keep saying that. But what was Mobile going to change? Why is perception important and who is it important to? What exactly was Carnival supposed to tell Mobile to change since you seem to think Mobile had the power to change something. If you don't know what that is, why do you keep insisting that Carnival should have given them an opportunity to change something beyond their control?

 

If you'll go back to my original post to Paul, you will see what you have written here is incorrect. The ONLY reason I posted to Paul was to say that he did miss Corvette Lady's point, which is, the way Carnival handled this was sh*tty to Mobile. It was no more complicated than that. I never said Mobile COULD change anything, in fact, I said that the fact that they couldn't was not relevant to why I was answering Paul.

 

Perception is important to the people of the city getting the shaft. And really, it's important to a lot of other people too. I am from Alabama, and quite frankly, have no feelings one way or the other about Carnival pulling out of Mobile. I am a stock holder with that "over 100 shares" check mark in the Vanessa column. I GET why they pulled out of Mobile. I was merely trying to explain to Paul what CorvetteLady's point was when I posted back to him. I KNOW Mobile could not have changed a thing. My only point is that Carnival could have gone through the motions to give Mobile time to change what they couldn't and then public perception that Carnival gave Mobile the shaft would have been non-existent. While I am not someone who cares one iota about "big, bad companies hurting the little guy" (I still shop at Wal-Mart because they have the lowest prices, their business practices are none of my business), there are a LOT of people who do care about that sort of thing and Carnival's PR Dept. dropped the ball on this one.

[LHP]

Having family that will be one of those who will lose their job, I can tell you where the number 125 comes from. That is the approximate number of people who are on duty when the ship is in port - porters, gate agents (or whatever the correct term is), other terminal employees, etc.

 

Also, Mobile did have some can of contract with Carnival. I have no idea what all of the terms were, but it was published more than once that Carnival had first refusal rights if another cruise line wanted to move a ship to Mobile.

 

 

THAT is the key. After having been to that terminal over and over again, I just don't see 125 people.......50 max.

 

You don't have to be a math wiz to see when with the gate agents, porters and cleaning staff....no way was there 125 people.

 

IF there was, they were way overstaffed...yet another mismanagment by Mobile.....

 

A better explanation is that St Clair pulled a "fluffery" number out of the air counting the number of waitresses and hotel maids that "might" lose their jobs when the ship pulls out.

[LHP]

Here is an article about the Jacksonville port.....

 

http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-03-18/story/jacksonville-will-surpass-1-million-cruise-passengers-saturday

 

Carnival's contract with them expires in May.....

 

In less than 2 months, Carnival could be the one that gets "ditched" if Jacksonville can make more money on containers.

 

The same number of employees (Carnival Reps, gate agents and porters) would lose their jobs in Jacksonville.

 

IT will be interesting to see IF anyone on these boards cares about the loss of their jobs when it isn't Carnival causing it.

[Vanessa L]

Here is an article about the Jacksonville port.....

 

http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-03-18/story/jacksonville-will-surpass-1-million-cruise-passengers-saturday

 

Carnival's contract with them expires in May.....

 

In less than 2 months, Carnival could be the one that gets "ditched" if Jacksonville can make more money on containers.

 

The same number of employees (Carnival Reps, gate agents and porters) would lose their jobs in Jacksonville.

 

IT will be interesting to see IF anyone on these boards cares about the loss of their jobs when it isn't Carnival causing it.

 

You hit the nail on the head, Linda. It will be interesting, indeed. And if there is not an "outcry", my point that perception is important will be made.

[LHP]

You keep saying that. But what was Mobile going to change? Why is perception important and who is it important to? What exactly was Carnival supposed to tell Mobile to change since you seem to think Mobile had the power to change something. If you don't know what that is, why do you keep insisting that Carnival should have given them an opportunity to change something beyond their control?

 

You are correct.

 

Again, according to a VP at Carnival.....

 

Carnival expressed their disappointment in the lagging revenues to Mobile.

Mobile ignored it.

 

(probably because Mobile understood there was nothing they could do about it...they can't order people to spend more money on the ship)....

 

But now to act all "surprised" .... gives the perception that Mobile is being less that honest.

 

Now everyone on this board knows that Carnival would have preferred to have been given the opportunity to sit down with the Mobile officials (I can't say leadership after everything I have read to date) in a formal setting to say :

 

" we have expressed our disappointment in the revenues and sadly due to the new 2012 fuel regulations....we are going to have to make some major adjustments. We are going to have to leave as of October 2011."

 

But because the PC official announced the Ecstasy was coming there, Carnival did not get the opportunity to do that. It all came spilling out in the media and the only responsible thing for Carnival to do was confirm.

 

 

But the result would have been the same....