Jump to content

Why do you hate HAL so much?


LoveHAL
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, npcl said:

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.

 

 

 

Hang on! You guys make it sound like HAL was insolvent and incompetent. Fact is that HAL had plenty of earning assets, and an attractive Alaska cruise business.

 

You have to be careful what you say on CC forum. Do your research. This is not twitter where you can say what you like.

 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-11-26-fi-237-story.html

Fact is that the owners of HAL had a great buy-out. Forced HAL to buy the whole package $625m in cash. At a time when Carnival's net earning was just $190m a year. The Chairman of  HAL even joined Carnival's BoD.

 

Today, that $625m invested in the S&P would be worth $2.6 billion (1989 SPX @700). Today, the market capitalization of CCL is only $30b after all the mergers and acquisitions.

 

BTW, I don't think that HAL's Alaska business was worth $625m in 1989. HAL had only 4 ships on that route, and anyone could add ships to that route. As a matter of fact, P&O Princess Cruises were expanding at the time into Alaska.

 

Eventually, Carnival and P&O Princess Cruises would merge and become the world #1. That gave Carnival Corp a majority share of the Alaska business. But, there are plenty of competitors.

 

Everyone take note!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Hang on! You guys make it sound like HAL was insolvent and incompetent. Fact is that HAL had plenty of earning assets, and an attractive Alaska cruise business.

 

You have to be careful what you say on CC forum. Do your research. This is not twitter where you can say what you like.

 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-11-26-fi-237-story.html

Fact is that the owners of HAL had a great buy-out. Forced HAL to buy the whole package $625m in cash. At a time when Carnival's net earning was just $190m a year. The Chairman of  HAL even joined Carnival's BoD.

 

Today, that $625m invested in the S&P would be worth $2.6 billion (1989 SPX @700). Today, the market capitalization of CCL is only $30b after all the mergers and acquisitions.

 

BTW, I don't think that HAL's Alaska business was worth $625m in 1989. HAL had only 4 ships on that route, and anyone could add ships to that route. As a matter of fact, P&O Princess Cruises were expanding at the time into Alaska.

 

Eventually, Carnival and P&O Princess Cruises would merge and become the world #1. That gave Carnival Corp a majority share of the Alaska business. But, there are plenty of competitors.

 

Everyone take note!!!!!

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, npcl said:

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.

 

 

Apparently, you don't check your references. What I quoted in post 167 was 

 

“It ceased operating as a Dutch line in 1989, when it was purchased by Carnival for 1.2 billion guilders (€530 million). The proceeds were put into an investment company (HAL Investments), the majority of which is owned by the van der Vorm family.”

 

The amount $625m is from the LA Times article. The amount euro 530m was a conversion from 1.2 billion guilders. Sound about right, one euro to @$1.20 United States Dollar.

 

Please be careful. This is so distracting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Hang on! You guys make it sound like HAL was insolvent and incompetent. Fact is that HAL had plenty of earning assets, and an attractive Alaska cruise business.

 

You have to be careful what you say on CC forum. Do your research. This is not twitter where you can say what you like.

 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-11-26-fi-237-story.html

Fact is that the owners of HAL had a great buy-out. Forced HAL to buy the whole package $625m in cash. At a time when Carnival's net earning was just $190m a year. The Chairman of  HAL even joined Carnival's BoD.

 

Today, that $625m invested in the S&P would be worth $2.6 billion (1989 SPX @700). Today, the market capitalization of CCL is only $30b after all the mergers and acquisitions.

 

BTW, I don't think that HAL's Alaska business was worth $625m in 1989. HAL had only 4 ships on that route, and anyone could add ships to that route. As a matter of fact, P&O Princess Cruises were expanding at the time into Alaska.

 

Eventually, Carnival and P&O Princess Cruises would merge and become the world #1. That gave Carnival Corp a majority share of the Alaska business. But, there are plenty of competitors.

 

Everyone take note!!!!!

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, npcl said:

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,”.  

 

 

 Yes, slogans are very nice. But, I would rather work with facts.

 

As I said, the owners of HAL had a great buy-out. Walked away with $625m in cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, npcl said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, you should check your typo. That $1,148 million, not billion. I doubt that the 4 small HAL contributed $548 million to revenues in 1989. The entire revenue for HAL in 2018 was just $2.5 BILLION.

 

I strongly suggest that you post a link to your source material so that someone competent can look at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Hang on! You guys make it sound like HAL was insolvent and incompetent. Fact is that HAL had plenty of earning assets, and an attractive Alaska cruise business.

 

You have to be careful what you say on CC forum. Do your research. This is not twitter where you can say what you like.

 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-11-26-fi-237-story.html

Fact is that the owners of HAL had a great buy-out. Forced HAL to buy the whole package $625m in cash. At a time when Carnival's net earning was just $190m a year. The Chairman of  HAL even joined Carnival's BoD.

 

Today, that $625m invested in the S&P would be worth $2.6 billion (1989 SPX @700). Today, the market capitalization of CCL is only $30b after all the mergers and acquisitions.

 

BTW, I don't think that HAL's Alaska business was worth $625m in 1989. HAL had only 4 ships on that route, and anyone could add ships to that route. As a matter of fact, P&O Princess Cruises were expanding at the time into Alaska.

 

Eventually, Carnival and P&O Princess Cruises would merge and become the world #1. That gave Carnival Corp a majority share of the Alaska business. But, there are plenty of competitors.

 

Everyone take note!!!!!

 

 

Princess is also   a Carnival corp cruiseline,   they, too, have a long history in Alaska.

 

Why rehash a business deal of decades ago now?  W hat is the pertinence to this  thread or these times, for that matter?

 

image.png.f0c317a946704bf5f084b3940a27acef.png

 

 

 

Edited by sail7seas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Actually, you should check your typo. That $1,148 million, not billion. I doubt that the 4 small HAL contributed $548 million to revenues in 1989. The entire revenue for HAL in 2018 was just $2.5 BILLION.

 

I strongly suggest that you post a link to your source material so that someone competent can look at it?

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.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the boards HAL is the most negative. The good news is Cruise Critic has an awesome "block user" feature. I use it liberally to avoid my cheerful cruise planning getting all stinky with rotten eggs!

I am a TA. I have traveled on all the cruise lines. HAL is my favorite. Classic luxury at an affordable price is hard to find. HAL is great at it!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, npcl said:

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ahhhh! I thought so.

 

You were quoting from a news report, not from the actual financial report.

 

In fact, you quoted them wrongly...

 

"The revenue increase was primarily attributed to the additional capacity provided by the cruise ships of Holland America Line and its tour businesses, which Carnival acquired last January, and to the opening of Carnival's Crystal Palace Resort & Casino in the Bahamas."

 

There is also the tour business, and the resort and casino in the Bahamas. 

 

I'm sorry. In view of the lack of reliability of your assertions, I have to block you. This is not an un-friend. I just cannot afford the distractions. Bye Bye.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Peckishpixie said:

Of all the boards HAL is the most negative. The good news is Cruise Critic has an awesome "block user" feature. I use it liberally to avoid my cheerful cruise planning getting all stinky with rotten eggs!

I am a TA. I have traveled on all the cruise lines. HAL is my favorite. Classic luxury at an affordable price is hard to find. HAL is great at it!

 

Ummmm....No.  HAL is definitely NOT  "luxury."  And if,  as a  TA,  you are promoting HAL cruises as luxury cruises ;  you are doing a great disservice to your  clients. The HAL board is negative for a reason. The cutbacks are many and the cost keeps going up. Definitely not luxury.

 

The  4  prominent luxury cruise lines include:  Seabourn,  SilverSea,  Regent,  and Crystal. 

 

HAL?  Barely  "premium" and I have taken a dozen HAL cruises over the years.  Oceania I would consider Premium Plus.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt say it was luxury class. I said it had classic luxury. I sleep on "luxury cotton" sheets. That doesn't mean my bed is a cruise ship. 

I have a 100% return client record, so I dont think I have misled any of my clients. I didn't say I sold my clients Holland as a "luxury" ship. Holland isnt right for everyone. After experiencing all the cruiselines including Paul Gauguin, Cunard, Crystal and other Luxury brands, my go to is Holland. It is MY favorite cruise line 

It could be that Holland is a terrible cruiseline and really going down hill. It also could be that somehow this board attracts the crankiest of individuals on all of Cruise Critic. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Peckishpixie said:

I didnt say it was luxury class. I said it had classic luxury. I sleep on "luxury cotton" sheets. That doesn't mean my bed is a cruise ship. 

 

 

I'm sorry. I'm confused. I take it that 'classic luxury' is not the same as 'luxury classic'?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

I'm sorry. I'm confused. I take it that 'classic luxury' is not the same as 'luxury classic'?

 

 

Cruisetheworld67 is trying to derail the conversation by talking about a confusing industry rating system. On order to better match travelers to the best vacation cruiseline are divided in to economy/contemporary, premium (which Holland is sorted in to) and Luxury. Cruisetheworld is hoping to make me look incompetent by saying that I am sorting Holland in to the luxury cruise category. I'm pretty sure all he did was confuse people who arent aware of that category system. I think it's pretty clear I think that Holland is affordable and luxurious, on account of that is what I actually said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, sail7seas said:

 

 

HuH?

 

You say you don't want to discuss this subject with any of us who have sailed HAL  for years, Yet,  You are the OP of this thread  are you not?  Why did you ask  an   argumentative  sort of question of people with   whom you do not wish to discuss  the question?

 

 

image.png.5217440bb9a016030bca928c770d80b3.png

 

 

 

 

 


I am not the OP of this thread.   

That is quite clear.   

 

This is a teachable moment, and the only reason I am replying.

Your reply to my post starts off the track before you even hit the keyboard, with not first determining whether or not I was the OP. 

 

It then opens with what could be considered a pejorative interjection, leading to an incorrect assumption, all of which could have been prevented by a more careful reading of the discussion or asking a question about my meaning or intent with a measure of civility.

Example;

"I don't understand your post, could you clarify?  It doesn't make sense to me that as the OP,  that you post something that you would expect would get replies, but don't appear to wish to discuss these issues.  Can you explain that, it doesn't really make sense to me?"

I won't have anything else to say on this

 






 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Ahhhh! I thought so.

 

You were quoting from a news report, not from the actual financial report.

 

In fact, you quoted them wrongly...

 

"The revenue increase was primarily attributed to the additional capacity provided by the cruise ships of Holland America Line and its tour businesses, which Carnival acquired last January, and to the opening of Carnival's Crystal Palace Resort & Casino in the Bahamas."

 

There is also the tour business, and the resort and casino in the Bahamas. 

 

I'm sorry. In view of the lack of reliability of your assertions, I have to block you. This is not an un-friend. I just cannot afford the distractions. Bye Bye.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Edited by npcl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, npcl said:

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.

If someone is planning to do  their  thesis  on the speciic business transaction being  dscussed here, fin e but   KEP in mind,,,,, this is an entertainment and casual info seeking forum and not requiring hours of research such as for  thesis.  Enough with the 'assignments and  orders re: research you would likedone.     Here we have  conversations and no deep business transaction

 analysis 😕

 

Let's keep this on a casual level, if you please.

 

 image.png.0108049f74d23ad54e7dfec3fbd7441e.png    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by sail7seas
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really quite simple:

 

If you love, like, prefer, Holland then sail with them.

 

If you hate, dislike HAL,or prefer another cruise line sail with them.

 

If you don't want to cruise or can't afford the ones you want then stay home or find another vacation option.

 

I have over 350 days on Holland so it appears that I must certainly at least like it. 

 

The fact that I take the time to bring some of my observations as to MY OPINION as to both positive and negative changes to management is because as a frequent cruiser I do hope that if enough people happen to agree with my opinion and share those opinions with management it just might cause execs to take my observations into account as they contemplate changes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, HappyInVan, for calling into question, if not debunking, the popular narrative on this forum about the acquisition of HAL.  Some here seem to push the idea that the line was absolutely doomed before being rescued by CCL.  On this thread it was even stated that the acquisition was an act of CCL’s “largesse”.   The narrative seems to be proffered as if to say, the only alternative to any and all changes (made by all-wise, unerring management!) is to lose Holland America completely.

 

I expect the narrative to survive, though, and to be pushed again and again when a change is called into question.  It has been a handy stick to (try to) beat back the points that are made in opposition to specific changes.  Nevertheless, the narrative has been undermined.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ronbe65 said:

This is according to the ships. 

According to the ships. 🙂

The polls (an entertainment feature) mean very little. 

Most sites (not sure what sites you mean) have no clue about what they post.

The first and foremost source: the ships.

This is my ranking based on the ships. 

Ranking the ships is a work.

Carnival/HAL marketing people should do their work.

Happy cruising!

 

Got it. This, along with most of your other posts indicate you don’t seem to understand the difference between opinion and fact. 

Edited by Cruzaholic41
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SetAnOpenCourse said:

Thanks, HappyInVan, for calling into question, if not debunking, the popular narrative on this forum about the acquisition of HAL.  Some here seem to push the idea that the line was absolutely doomed before being rescued by CCL.  On this thread it was even stated that the acquisition was an act of CCL’s “largesse”.   The narrative seems to be proffered as if to say, the only alternative to any and all changes (made by all-wise, unerring management!) is to lose Holland America completely.

 

I expect the narrative to survive, though, and to be pushed again and again when a change is called into question.  It has been a handy stick to (try to) beat back the points that are made in opposition to specific changes.  Nevertheless, the narrative has been undermined.

 

I think this is super interesting, too.  It doesn't change outcomes; HAL sold to Carnival, and Carnival is free to do with it as they see fit.  But the narrative is definitely different than what I'd gleaned over the years, and just as an avid HAL cruiser, the history of the line is interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SetAnOpenCourse said:

Thanks, HappyInVan, for calling into question, if not debunking, the popular narrative on this forum about the acquisition of HAL.  Some here seem to push the idea that the line was absolutely doomed before being rescued by CCL.  On this thread it was even stated that the acquisition was an act of CCL’s “largesse”.   The narrative seems to be proffered as if to say, the only alternative to any and all changes (made by all-wise, unerring management!) is to lose Holland America completely.

 

I expect the narrative to survive, though, and to be pushed again and again when a change is called into question.  It has been a handy stick to (try to) beat back the points that are made in opposition to specific changes.  Nevertheless, the narrative has been undermined.

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.

 

 

Edited by npcl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

Edited by npcl
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add my perspective to the discussion: we love to cruise, in particular we love HAL - could be our Dutch heritage or the fact that we both came to Canada on a HAL ship many years ago.  But most of all we really love HAL, warts and all.  We’ve sailed other cruise lines but not nearly as much as HAL.  We love the crew, the ambience on the ships, the classiness of how they look.  We like the food and the presentation, even though we don’t eat very much.  You get the picture.  But we also part of that older demographic, and on a fixed income so our travel budget is limited.  So yes, we shop for cruises we can afford, we only take a few tours, we drink very moderately.  But we are never treated any differently than someone who does go all out.  We are grateful for being able to cruise, and we take bumps in our stride as they come.  Nothing and no one is perfect, we know that.  And finally, one thing we do is leave a generous tip for those who’ve looked after us so well, and write those comment cards and drop them off whenever called for.  Oh, and mention crew members by name in the post-cruise survey. And in the meanwhile, we are looking forward to our next cruise, later this month.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • 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
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...