Corporate Headquarters—is it a Place?

[indigosails]

Just curious about something. I had long assumed the cruise lines were headquartered in Miami, in big beautiful offices, so I was mildly surprised to see that HAL is Seattle-based. So, out of curiosity, I looked up Princess—mailing address is in Santa Clarita, CA. Huh? Maybe nowadays they no longer have glass and steel offices because everyone works remotely? 
 

 

[Pyrate13]

Last time I was down there Carnival had a huge office in Miami (Doral), don't know if they still do.

[mom says]

The first question would be why did you assume they were all HQ'd in Miami. The second would be why you would think that huge corporations like this wouldn't have a physical location somewhere.

[Schoifmom]

Here is a photo of the Princess offices in California.  Also, Princess is a Carnival Corporation brand (as is Cunard, Carnival, Holland America, Seabourn, Aida, Costa, and P&O).  Each brand has their own offices, with the Carnival Corporation offices being in Miami, as well as the Carnival brand offices.

[CruiserBruce]

I have been to the Seattle offices of HAL, so they definitely have a physical office building.

[rkacruiser]

Given the financial conditions of the cruise lines, are all of these separate offices needed?  Along with each company having their own Executive Vice-Presidents (at al) of "this, that, and the other".  

[mom says]

17 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

Given the financial conditions of the cruise lines, are all of these separate offices needed?  Along with each company having their own Executive Vice-Presidents (at al) of "this, that, and the other".  

Don't you think these executives by and large know how to run their businesses?

[rkacruiser]

1 minute ago, mom says said:

Don't you think these executives by and large know how to run their businesses?

 

Based on some of the decisions that have been made by some of these executives in the past, no, I don't.  What I alluded to in part of the post that you have quoted is the probable duplication of functions by many executives with the same "title/responsibility".  The cruise line companies need belt tightening without harming the guest experience.  Why couldn't the Senior Vice-President for "this, that, and the other" for, let's say, P&O also do the same job for P&O Australia?  

[wowzz]

1 hour ago, rkacruiser said:

Why couldn't the Senior Vice-President for "this, that, and the other" for, let's say, P&O also do the same job for P&O Australia?  

Not easy having to work out of offices in Sydney and Southampton !  The incumbent would be permanently jet lagged. 

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, mom says said:

Don't you think these executives by and large know how to run their businesses?

That is a very good question, and I would give it a very mixed answer.   But you might consider that CCL lost about $4.5 Billion in 2022!  And their debt-equity ratio has risen from a pretty healthy 0.7 to a very unhealthy 3.7.  I think Arnold Donald was happy to get out of that CEO hotseat.

 

Hank

[CruiserBruce]

27 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

That is a very good question, and I would give it a very mixed answer.   But you might consider that CCL lost about $4.5 Billion in 2022!  And their debt-equity ratio has risen from a pretty healthy 0.7 to a very unhealthy 3.7.  I think Arnold Donald was happy to get out of that CEO hotseat.

 

Hank

And those losses don't have anything to do with Covid? I would say they are far more than 90% due to Covid.

[chengkp75]

33 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

I think Arnold Donald was happy to get out of that CEO hotseat.

I think he was happy to get out of the CEO hotseat before any further environmental sanctions were place against him personally.  He came within a whisker of criminal contempt.

[Hlitner]

25 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

And those losses don't have anything to do with Covid? I would say they are far more than 90% due to Covid.

It absolutely has everything to do with COVID.  But it is up to senior management to manage a crisis and we could argue all day about whether this was properly handled.  Some would argue that in our society, senior management is too often focused on the short-term bottom line (and their relatied bounues) rather than effective long-range planning.   We posted about our perception (and one can certainly disagree with me) of the poor management/planning of several cruise lines...years before COVID.  Go back a few years ago you will likely find some of my posts where I said that HAL was like a "ship without a rudder" in that the company seemed to have no clue as to where it was going and its target customers.  I was also very critical of Lisa Lutoff-Perlo (CEO of Celebrity) because I thought she was working hard to take a fine (perhaps the best) mass market line and downgrade it to mediocre.  

 

I have also praised MSC for its forward thinking (along with NCLH) with its entire "Experience" concept and "ship within a ship" design/marketing.  So, I am not always negative but simply call it like I see it! 

 

And now, the way I see it is that CCL is in a lot of financial trouble!  I suspect that the CCL of the future will either be substantially different from the CCL of today.  Whether the management team can stay ahead of the creditors and navigate the troubled waters or fall into the awful world of Chapter 11, remains to be seen.  As a fanatical cruiser (and big fan of the industry) we wish all the cruise companies the best but have a lot of reasons to be pessimistic.

 

Hank

[rkacruiser]

17 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Go back a few years ago you will likely find some of my posts where I said that HAL was like a "ship without a rudder" in that the company seemed to have no clue as to where it was going and its target customers.  I was also very critical of Lisa Lutoff-Perlo (CEO of Celebrity) because I thought she was working hard to take a fine (perhaps the best) mass market line and downgrade it to mediocre.  

 

I remember and I agreed.  Executives were being but in place of some of the operating companies who had wonderful resumes, but, lacked the cruise industry experience.  This began at the President level, and at least for HAL, those executives who had long served retired, that's when decisions were made that impacted the guest experience in negative ways.  (And, according to the Officers on the ships with whom I have spoken, the micro-management began.)  

 

2 hours ago, wowzz said:

Not easy having to work out of offices in Sydney and Southampton !  The incumbent would be permanently jet lagged. 

 

In these days of Zoom, etc., I disagree.  Not to pick on P&O and P&O Australia, such a combination of executives could be done with Princess and HAL.  Some of this has already been accomplished, I think.  

 

I am in favor of the concept of "full employment" when "full employment" is warranted.  Like many aspects of national and state government, there is "corporate fat" that ought to be excised and the cruise lines' are prime examples of that.  In my opinion.  

[navybankerteacher]

5 hours ago, mom says said:

Don't you think these executives by and large know how to run their businesses?

They know how to take care of themselves - primarily by operating profitably for the benefit of the stockholders (their owners and bosses) - but at the end of the day their motivation is to benefit themselves (just as your efforts at work are basically aimed at benefitting yourself — unless, of course you are a Mother Theresa kind of person).

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

I remember and I agreed.  Executives were being but in place of some of the operating companies who had wonderful resumes, but, lacked the cruise industry experience.  This began at the President level, and at least for HAL, those executives who had long served retired, that's when decisions were made that impacted the guest experience in negative ways.  (And, according to the Officers on the ships with whom I have spoken, the micro-management began.)  

 

 

In these days of Zoom, etc., I disagree.  Not to pick on P&O and P&O Australia, such a combination of executives could be done with Princess and HAL.  Some of this has already been accomplished, I think.  

 

I am in favor of the concept of "full employment" when "full employment" is warranted.  Like many aspects of national and state government, there is "corporate fat" that ought to be excised and the cruise lines' are prime examples of that.  In my opinion.  

 

At least with the Carnival Brands, some of the brands do share managers.

 

A number of years ago, HAL and Princess downsized and combined a number of positions, with the same position in both brands filled by 1 person.

 

Same with P&O, Cunard and P&O Australia.. For officer crewing, it hasn't changed since pre-Carnival, with officers assigned to Princess, P&O and P&O Australia ships, with Cunard also added. All are crewed from the same department. As a Princess Deck Officer, our son worked on all brands except Cunard.

[wowzz]

8 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

In these days of Zoom, etc., I disagree

That can work to a certain extent, but as we all know (I assume !) Zoom meetings are very restrictive when it comes to personal interaction. Also, not helped by the enormous time difference between the UK and Oz.

[Joebucks]

Cruise companies are very fortunate. If they are ever in a bind for executive recruitment, they have many, tenured experts available on these forums, ready to step into a CEO position tomorrow.

 

Traditionally, all companies had a corporate office stationed somewhere. They will likely continue that trend in the future. However, with the growth of tech, change from COVID, and ever-evolving workforce, I expect to see more and more remote work. It opens companies up to larger pools of candidates. It can even save lots of money on wages. You could undoubtably hire people for cheaper throughout the country than those in high cost of living areas like Miami or New York.  

Edited October 4, 2022 by Joebucks