Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I agree with those who urge a little constraint here. In that, if you are a long time HAL faithful, getting a little overheated and abandoning HAL for some other line might be a mistake. I still suggest that a good bet is this action is just a feeler put out there by Stein Kruse in an attempt to convince the rest of the cruise industry to go along. Similar to what the airlines have been doing for years, try out a new fare or program and if it doesn't take then junk it.

 

To me, this move isn't all that significant, compare this to what FDR is currently saying.  As I mentioned before, over the last few months  Frank Del Rio (FDR) (CEO of Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania and Regent)  has been working overtime in attempts to move other cruise lines and the entire industry to follow him, both price wise and policy wise. In the last week or so FDR announced this: "So we’re focusing on price; we’re pushing price higher everywhere we can both in 2019 and 2020,” he said. “While we still have a lot of cabins to fill, the emphasis will be on raising prices across all three brands.”

 

Do your due diligence in looking at other cruise lines, sometimes the grass looks greener on the other side, when it actually isn't.  Don't leap from the pan into the fire.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hawaiidan said:

It is not wise to plan the future based on this is how we used to do it..      For every old cruiser  who tells HAL to stuff it  there will be  several new customers for which the past is not a problem.

 

I guess I am an "old" cruiser to whom you are referring.  No offense taken with your choice of words.  I am thankful to be able to be so classified.

 

There have been changes in the HAL product since I first sailed on Rotterdam V in 1970.  Many changes, most of which, have led to a better cruise experience for me on HAL.  What I object is to "change for change sake" and I think that HAL's executives are guilty of that.  

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kazu said:

 

I don’t know where you are dreaming up your numbers from - probably the same place as all your other words of wisdom.

 

IF only .01% are reflected here, then please explain to me how I could have over 10% of the ship on a roll call?

 

And currently nearly 8%, on my upcoming cruise.

 

You can talk all the big talk you want but you have no facts.

 8% on a cruise of 2000 is still  leaves 92% that are not.  161 people VS  1893  Say  HAL has 7 or 8 ships of 2000 pax   Thats a lot  I did an estimate your right, I assumed too much, sorry. 

 

  I am thinking of the 92% on all ships  being their market      thats if your 8% holds   15,144  dont  care   Vs 1288  wh might care.      The numbers  are not that overwhelming  to impress  even If I miss it by a few hundred  its not going to make a dent in managements opinions     

 My point is statistically  the complaints are minuscule  Even 10% for 90% who care less is not a good negotiating position

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, AncientWanderer said:

Oddly enough, when I was in college in 1978, one of the cruise lines (Cunard, maybe?) had an ad in the paper for a "World Cruise."  It was right around a hundred thousand dollars.  (Was that an "inside," as they quote the least expensive staterooms now?)  Anyhow, dreaming, I clipped the ad and posted it on my college refrigerator.  That was a lot of money back then, but, weirdly, you can still do a world cruise for about that price -- or less.  So cruising, like air travel, has really become accessible to most people.  What's my point here?  I dunno.  Just laughing to myself that I was destined to be a cruise fanatic, and that I'm glad so much is available now.  So 10 bucks for that extra mushroom risotto?  Not sure I care.

 

 

My "world cruise" in 1977 on Lloyd Triestino was $900 -RTW - room and board, inside two bunk bed cabin, bathrooms down the hall. Ship also had a small first class segregated section, but I don't know the prices for those cabins.

 

Transatlantic passengers ships could be very grand, but limited itineraries. WWII converted many to troop ships. Airline travel post war cut deeply into passenger ship transportation. 1977 was the start of the Love Boat mythology about cruise ship life, but the shift of the cruise ship experience in itself and wider choices of destinations shift from ship for basic or refined  transportation did come into its own in the late 1970s.

 

Small regional cruise ships did exist as pointed out - Greek Islands etc, but the mass market cruise ship with its now global reach of destinations was a reaction to the airline competition in the 1960's/1970's - if just getting there was all shhips offered, for speed alone no one would not travel by ship.  For the onboard experience part of the overall vacation experience, a new era was born. 

 

Now cruising is confronted with having trashed out many destinations, necessity to provide safe private islands or compounds as the travel destination on those trashed out routes and making staying on the ship itself the main reason for choosing cruising; and not for the experience of travel itself.  

 

This is another major shift in the ship travel market. Bigger ships mean less interesting real destination travel experiences. That market is now left to the much smaller ships. How this will sort out over  time and pricing remains to be seen. More smaller luxury brands and more major mega ships. HAL caught somewhere in the middle -pulled in two opposite directions. 

Edited by OlsSalt
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was very amused to see this. On our recent 2 week HAL cruise, one of the people at the table next to ours in the MDR over ordered every night. She normally ordered all of the appetizers, a salad, multiple entree items (she order 4 lobster tails when they were available as surf and turf) and several desserts. She was a woman in her 70's with a much older husband, and unlike many of the people onboard, she was not obese or disabled. But she did just taste many of the the things she ordered and moved on to the next one. There was definitely plenty of waste. Having lived on a boat for 6 months a year for quite a number of years, getting rid of food waste at sea means grinding it up offshore and dumping it. If you can't go far enough offshore you have to find a port that will take it,  which isn't likely in remote areas. Why wouldn't a cruise line want to avoid food waste, even if it isn't for the cost.

We have always been overfed on cruises and we've never ordered a second item of any course. We always try to lose a few pounds before we go, and need to loose those and more when we get back to return to our usual weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hawaiidan said:

 8% on a cruise of 2000 is still  leaves 92% that are not.  161 people VS  1893  Say  HAL has 7 or 8 ships of 2000 pax   Thats a lot  I did an estimate your right, I assumed too much, sorry. 

 

  I am thinking of the 92% on all ships  being their market      thats if your 8% holds   15,144  dont  care   Vs 1288  wh might care.      The numbers  are not that overwhelming  to impress  even If I miss it by a few hundred  its not going to make a dent in managements opinions     

 My point is statistically  the complaints are minuscule  Even 10% for 90% who care less is not a good negotiating position

 

10% with a ship with 800 passengers is lot IMO.

 

14% in a Vista ship is nothing to be sneezed at.

 

And what you don’t GET is that those not on CC are being caught off guard but this test.

 

Totally unfair.  No emails to anyone warning them of this.

 

It’s just all ludicrous.  

 

And this is from a person who usually doesn’t get a 2nd entree unless she is unhappy,

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hawaiidan said:

 8% on a cruise of 2000 is still  leaves 92% that are not.  161 people VS  1893  Say  HAL has 7 or 8 ships of 2000 pax   Thats a lot  I did an estimate your right, I assumed too much, sorry. 

 

  I am thinking of the 92% on all ships  being their market      thats if your 8% holds   15,144  dont  care   Vs 1288  wh might care.      The numbers  are not that overwhelming  to impress  even If I miss it by a few hundred  its not going to make a dent in managements opinions     

 My point is statistically  the complaints are minuscule  Even 10% for 90% who care less is not a good negotiating position

 

Poster is talking about the higher % number Prinsendam meet and greets, which skews the percentages in that unique setting, plus the ship being on its final swan song voyage so there will be a lot higher numbers of CC fans onboard. Your over all numbers speculating about CC numbers on board are probably a lot closer to the truth. Depending on size of ship and destinations too - the larger the ship, the more generic the itinerary I suspect the fewer CC meet and greet participation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OlsSalt said:

 

Poster is talking about the higher % number Prinsendam meet and greets, which skews the percentages in that unique setting, plus the ship being on its final swan song voyage so there will be a lot higher numbers of CC fans onboard. Your over all numbers speculating about CC numbers on board are probably a lot closer to the truth. Depending on size of ship and destinations too - the larger the ship, the more generic the itinerary I suspect the fewer CC meet and greet participation.

 

Nope, read the post above Old Salt.

 

I had over 160 on the Westerdam - we had to use the Queen’s Lounge.

I’ve had 105 on the Prinsendam in 2013. 

 

this had NOTHING to do with the Prinsendam’s last sailing.

 

It has to do with the absurdity of the number of .01% that was originally stated by HawaiiDan.  If he and you don’t think that 10% + count so be it.

There’s lots of people on board.  few complain - in fact usually only 1 of 9 do fervently.  The rest just talk with their wallets and leave.

 

If HAL isn’t smart enough to listen to those that are complaining they are definitely going to be missing the boat.  JMVHO though of course.

 

Feel free to agree to disagree but it’s a fact.  I worked in business long enough to know that if someone spoke up and it was justified, they were doing you a favour.

 

If HAL wants to ignore this thread, it’s not our problem, it’s theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Hawaiidan said:

Your talking 2 very different companies   Disney VS Carnival  ( HAL  ir really a up scale Carnival)    Also given prices on Disney are among the highest.    AND  Disney raised them more.   They saw a 4-5% decline but a 9% increase in profit.

 

I really don't see your point.

 

My point is that the cruisers didn't acquiesce. They made their voices heard and that is relevant on any cruise line no matter how much they make or don't make.

 

You don't seem to think CC members can have much impact(re your responses to @kazu,) but I think they have to try. I think for every person on these boards, we all have some influence on many other cruisers that aren't here.

 

Finally, I think the cruisers that are being subjected to this "test" without prior notification are going to let HAL know what they think too. 

 

Edited by wombatKY
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OlsSalt said:
  • Traveling by ship was one thing; cruising as an enhanced onboard experience was another. As a new business model "cruising"  as we think of it today did not start allegedly until the company that became Celebrity converted the passenger ship Galleleo Gallilei to the Meridian. in the late 1970s.
  •  
  • Before that was often fairly bare bones to travel by ship, unless one purchased one of the few first class cabins. All our own ship travel experiences before those days  ( Greek Chandris - Grandparents - Lurline - Parents P&O) had little to do with the amenities one finds generally on mostly all cruise ships today -mainly the proliferation of mass market  ensuite cabins.
  •  
  • Before it was  bunk beds and bathrooms down the hall - were those really "cruise ships" - not by today's definition. But cruise the world we did, and the prices could be very modest. And the self-sufficient passenger, who arranged all other  travel activities on their own was the name of the game.

 

I think your timeline is a bit off.

 

Sitmar launched the Fairsea and Fairwind in 1971 and 1972, respectively, as "luxury cruise ships". These two previous Cunard-built ships were far from spartan, at least by the standards of the time. Gracious dining rooms with multi-course meals (it's where I first had caviar, escargot, and beef Wellington) and table-side cooking. A show lounge and a quiet mid-ship lounge, a "disco", gym, children's club, pool, even a real (and very large) movie theater. Not to mention a brick-oven pizzeria and mostly Italian crew. Here is great info including original renditions of the public rooms and cabins:  https://ssmaritime.com/TSS-Fairsea-Fairwind.htm

 

My first cruise on Fairwind was out of Fort Lauderdale in 1974, and she was not the only dedicated cruise ship coming in and out of port in those days. (I say that to distinguish from the liners like the Queen Elizabeth II, the Nieuw Amsterdam, etc.). She frequently shared the FLL port with Carnival's early ships Mardi Gras (1972), Carnivale (1976), and Festivale (1978).

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Just an FYI:  my grandmother used to take me occasionally onboard the Nieuw Amsterdam -- the second of that name -- for afternoon tea. This was permitted for past passengers. She was a gorgeous ship -- some have considered her to be the finest Holland American ship and she was the Dutch equivalent to the Normandie or the Queen Mary. The Art Deco interiors were deluxe, with lots of wood and brass, leather, Murano glass...

 

I'm not sure where your spartan days of early travel by ship took place, but they certainly aren't reflective of HAL's early history.  Nor do I think HAL should abandon their gracious traditions. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two authors views - ship travel from destinations to itineraries - history of modern cruise industry.

 

....The first dedicated cruise ships began to appear in the 1970s and could carry about 1,000 passengers. By the 1980s, economies of scale were further expanded with cruise ships that could carry more than 2,000 passengers.The current largest cruise ships have a capacity of about 6,000 passengers.

 

The cruise industry finds its business model

The modern cruise industry began in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the founding of Norwegian Cruise Line (1966), Royal Caribbean International (1968) and Carnival Cruise Lines (1972), which have remained the largest cruise lines. The early goal of the cruise industry was to develop a mass market, since cruising was until then an activity for the elite. In doing so, it developed a business model reflecting the mobility of its assets: the cruise industry sells itineraries, not destinations, implying a greater flexibility in the selection of ports of call and adaptability to changing market conditions.

 

Applying this business model in the past decades, the cruise industry developed into a mass market using large vessels and adding more revenue generating passenger services onboard.......

Edited by OlsSalt
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roz said:

Lots of companies and industries have gone out of business because they misread the market, and/or were out of touch with their customers.  Just because someone works in an industry doesn't make them an expert or indicate they have their pulse on their customers' needs and opinions.

 

Roz

Sorry, I suppose your right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, boards said:

Sorry, I suppose your right.

No apology needed, just a difference of opinion.  But now I see you're from Canada.  :classic_biggrin:

 

Roz

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, OlsSalt said:

History of Sitmar from passenger carriers to cruise liner - mid 1970's. https://www.cruiselinehistory.com/cruise-history-sitmar-lines-and-sitmar-cruises/  

 

Quibbles here are probably semantic. Modern mass market cruise industry versus passenger transport ships, which could be quite luxurious.  

I suppose, then, that the glamorous world cruise I saw advertised back around 1978 must have been on a "passenger transport ship."  Not a "cruise ship."  H'mmm.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, OlsSalt said:

Two authors views - ship travel from destinations to itineraries - history of modern cruise industry.

 

....The first dedicated cruise ships began to appear in the 1970s and could carry about 1,000 passengers. By the 1980s, economies of scale were further expanded with cruise ships that could carry more than 2,000 passengers.The current largest cruise ships have a capacity of about 6,000 passengers.

 

The cruise industry finds its business model

The modern cruise industry began in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the founding of Norwegian Cruise Line (1966), Royal Caribbean International (1968) and Carnival Cruise Lines (1972), which have remained the largest cruise lines. The early goal of the cruise industry was to develop a mass market, since cruising was until then an activity for the elite. In doing so, it developed a business model reflecting the mobility of its assets: the cruise industry sells itineraries, not destinations, implying a greater flexibility in the selection of ports of call and adaptability to changing market conditions.

 

Applying this business model in the past decades, the cruise industry developed into a mass market using large vessels and adding more revenue generating passenger services onboard.......

What we find interesting is that quite a few of us here on CC have personally lived through this entire history.  Our first cruise was in the mid- 70s on NCL...  Many of us have experienced, first hand, the growth and changes in the industry (especially those of us who cruise on many different lines).  

 

But watch out because there is one very big change happening right before your eyes and it is called MSC!  By my count, this company will have 29 cruise ships (nearly all of which will be relatively new) by 2027.  This would make it the largest cruise line  (notwithstanding the fact that this company also operates over 900 container ships).  MSC is very different from both CCL and RCI in terms of structure because MSC remains privately owned (primarily by a single Italian family).  Not being a "public" company gives them a degree of flexibility not enjoyed by large public corporations.   MSC can make a decision (such as building 10 more ships) quickly whereas public corporations must jump through all kinds of hoops.   

 

I specifically focused on MSC because their onboard product is quite different from what we have experienced on the other 14 lines upon which we have cruised.   They are using a fresh approach aimed at attracting a very international clientele on all of their ships.  This allows them to market to the world rather then to a single country or folks speaking a single language.   Even their ships cruising out of Miami (soon to be 3) attract a majority of passengers from Europe.  This passenger mix will change as more Americans become familiar with their product and some of us are praying that they do not "Americanize" to a great degree.  They have been smart enough to make some changes for the North American market, but we found their European approach quite refreshing.

 

As to HAL, their business model seems to be almost no model at all :(.  Different ships seem to operate with different rules/standards.  They still operate ships that have such an ancient design that there are no balcony cabins other then for expensive suites.   They maintained their old smoking policy long after the rest of the industry had reacted to the anti-smoking trend.  They were about the last mass market line to adopt an open seating system (in their MDR) and we sometimes think they still have not grasped how to operate this system.   They removed the 2nd swimming pools from two of their vessels in an era when more and more "families" are cruising with their children.  I am not even going to get into the dining hours on HAL...which are among the most limited of any mass market line.  And "dark nights" on some cruises (this is when there is no major entertainment other then a movie) is something you will not experience on any other mass market line.    It is only on HAL where they think that showing a documentary film suffices for the main entertainment.  This would be fine on a special nature cruise, but we are talking about a "mass market" cruise line.  And HAL has been very slow to upgrade to reasonably priced high speed Internet....something demanded by many cruisers these days.  Yes, we know it is starting to be seen on some HAL ships although the pricing is a bit steep.  But competitors have been offering this for some time...and at far lower cost.  HAL should be a leader, not a follower!  

 

Hank

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 billion people in the world - HAL only needs 13,000 a year per ship ---and can maintain a unique niche  in the cruise world.  

 

Selling itineraries and preserving efficient maritime traditions instead of labor intensive,  free-for-all competitive onboard distractions surely can find 13,000 passengers each year per ship..

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wombatKY said:

 

I really don't see your point.

 

My point is that the cruisers didn't acquiesce. They made their voices heard and that is relevant on any cruise line no matter how much they make or don't make.

 

You don't seem to think CC members can have much impact(re your responses to @kazu,) but I think they have to try. I think for every person on these boards, we all have some influence on many other cruisers that aren't here.

 

Finally, I think the cruisers that are being subjected to this "test" without prior notification are going to let HAL know what they think too. 

 

 

Yes  your right ...I think the  complaints posted here  will only serve to allow people to vent. 

In the big picture, I dont think  management will be affected  to any extent. 

 

 Seriously I think the $10 is both minuscule and appropriate to the situation.   Hey don't they charge $15 for Caneleo ( the worst Italian I have ever tasted)  that used to be free?   Don't they charge like $20 on top of  $35  for the pinnacle for some entrees or a second course ?       No one is complaining about  those..... that is my point about $10 ( which people lay down close to that. without a second thought for a happy meal without a second thought)

 

 I will confess that personally, I feel ordering 2 of anything is just plain excessive and poor manners.   In a 4 course dinner I seldom order more than 2 or 3 courses and savor them.  The exception being tasting menus..    That's me, that's where I am coming from...you dont have to agree..that's OK... if you disagree I dont hate you !

Link to post
Share on other sites

We almost always take 2 starters or a starter and a soup ( pet peeve, waiters should learn to always serve the cold starter first, and then the warm one, or first the starter and then the soup. They normally do not hother with proper serving sequence on HAL)

 

then 1 main course ( people, Entrée means STARTER in French, who on Earth started this wrong naming in the USA?!) and then a dessert with coffee.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Despegue said:

people, Entrée means STARTER in French, who on Earth started this wrong naming in the USA?!

 

The French, who then changed its meaning for themselves :classic_biggrin: 

 

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-22/sure-you-are-what-you-eatbut-youre-also-how-you-translate-menu

 

Part of what makes up a meal are the words that we use to describe it. Take the word entrée, for example. Americans think of an entrée as the main course — the meatloaf or the roast chicken. But the French word actually means "entrance." On a menu in France, an entrée is more of an appetizer.

But if you think Americans simply messed up the original French, you're wrong. Americans actually got it right, according to Jurafsky. The original meaning of entrée — as it was used during the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance — was much closer to the American meaning. It meant a heavy meat course that was just the first of many meat courses to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Despegue said:

We almost always take 2 starters or a starter and a soup ( pet peeve, waiters should learn to always serve the cold starter first, and then the warm one, or first the starter and then the soup. They normally do not hother with proper serving sequence on HAL)

 

then 1 main course ( people, Entrée means STARTER in French, who on Earth started this wrong naming in the USA?!) and then a dessert with coffee.

 

 

The same people  that felt Michelin 3*** was not good enough  and  in the USA we have 4****  and 5*****  most of whom would rate a 1* with Michelin     

  As far as serving sequence... the crew is Asian  and this is a job.     I doubt many  would feel it was a problem     The main difference between Americans and European, specifically the French, is that Americans eat ...  Europeans Dine. I am told , and tend to agree.    Quantity is not interchangeable with a quality experience..   In the US It is common to do a whole dinner in less than an Hour.   In Europe, my experience has been 2 to 3 hours for a evening meal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

The French, who then changed its meaning for themselves :classic_biggrin: 

 

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-22/sure-you-are-what-you-eatbut-youre-also-how-you-translate-menu

 

Part of what makes up a meal are the words that we use to describe it. Take the word entrée, for example. Americans think of an entrée as the main course — the meatloaf or the roast chicken. But the French word actually means "entrance." On a menu in France, an entrée is more of an appetizer.

But if you think Americans simply messed up the original French, you're wrong. Americans actually got it right, according to Jurafsky. The original meaning of entrée — as it was used during the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance — was much closer to the American meaning. It meant a heavy meat course that was just the first of many meat courses to come.

 

High School French from the Reina Geerligs Prinsen HAVO in Amsterdam; "Entree" inviting someone to come in :classic_wink: - And now back to this fascinating topic and discussion

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, OlsSalt said:

Two authors views - ship travel from destinations to itineraries - history of modern cruise industry.

 

....The first dedicated cruise ships began to appear in the 1970s and could carry about 1,000 passengers. By the 1980s, economies of scale were further expanded with cruise ships that could carry more than 2,000 passengers.The current largest cruise ships have a capacity of about 6,000 passengers.

 

The cruise industry finds its business model

The modern cruise industry began in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the founding of Norwegian Cruise Line (1966), Royal Caribbean International (1968) and Carnival Cruise Lines (1972), which have remained the largest cruise lines. The early goal of the cruise industry was to develop a mass market, since cruising was until then an activity for the elite. In doing so, it developed a business model reflecting the mobility of its assets: the cruise industry sells itineraries, not destinations, implying a greater flexibility in the selection of ports of call and adaptability to changing market conditions.

 

Applying this business model in the past decades, the cruise industry developed into a mass market using large vessels and adding more revenue generating passenger services onboard.......

This looks like an interesting read. Can you provide the link so I can read the full thing. 

 

Thanks 

Edited by drowelf
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, drowelf said:

This looks like an interesting read. Can you provide the link so I can read the full thing. 

 

Thanks 

 

There is a restriction on 3P links so I did not include it -- but it is a cruise oriented website - on the history of the industry. I find if I cut out a part of the text above and put that verbatim text into a search function line it will bring up the original article.  

 

Having problems with posting and this was included on another post that failed to load - but also an interesting statistic from what appears to be a travel agency umbrella group:

 

Screen Shot 2019-03-07 at 8.25.15 AM.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-07 at 8.24.59 AM.png

Edited by OlsSalt
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, drowelf said:

This looks like an interesting read. Can you provide the link so I can read the full thing. 

 

Thanks 

 

There is a restriction on 3P links so I did not include it -- but it is a cruise oriented website - on the history of the industry. I find if I cut out a part of the text above and put that verbatim text into a search function line it will bring up the original article.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • Q&A with the Quark Expeditions Team: New Ship Ultramarine
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...