A lot of people complain about Carnival, Princess, P&O and NCL on here, but at least their innovation make sense. The trends from RCI / Celebrity of late have not been well thought out and are costing them money and passengers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sunviking82:
Good value, not gimmics is going to win passengers.

---

As for the price of the cruise, I totally agree with you. Princess and Carnival offer an excellent value for the money. You probably pay more on RCCL ships because of the entertainement facilities available (ice skating, rock climbimg, etc.)

In my opinion, the overall food service and dining ammenities for Carnival ships are of higher quality. For example, on the Carnival "Lido" buffets you are served in fine china AND trays. On RCCL ships, you have a huge plastic tray-platter to pile up different foods on the same place. There is full grill open for most of the day and night on Carnival and Princess ships, instead of the not-complimentary "Johnny Rocket's" restaurants.

[ 02-16-2009: Message edited by: Atlantic ]

[ 02-16-2009: Message edited by: Atlantic ]

Most reviews of Solstice tend to say the lawn was basically unused or out of action. It seems you can only walk on it or sit on it without a towel so it is not very attractive as it is. Other reviews say there is a shortage of deckchairs. The solution is simple.

Celebrity will probably eventually admit defeat and create an Oasis type area on the top of its Solstice class ships. This will solve the seat issue and may also turn what is an underused cost centre into another revenue opportunity and we know that RCI (like Carnival) just love revenue opportunities.

Istanbul in the background

On my sailing, finding deck space was not a major issue. No worse then any new ship I have sailed, and frankly they all have deck space issues on sea days in the Caribbean. The Carnival Destiny/Conquest Class is the very worst I have experienced.

What set SOLSTICE apart was EVERY deck chair had a very nice cushion, and unlimited towels were available pool side. This is very much a luxury ship feature IMO. The pools themselves were heated a nice size.

I agree with other posters that Carnival does have decent food, service, and entertainment. But why should I sail on a new Carnival ship when I can sail on Celebrity for basically the same price? I don't have to deal with the Carnival passengers (yes, much of the stereotype still applies) or the tacky decor?

It's a no brainer for me. If Carnival were substantially less expensive for an equivalent cruise, I would understand the rationale of sailing on Carnival. The fact is, Carnival is not substantially cheaper than Celebrity and sometimes it's even more expensive.

Ernie

quote:

---

How come the grass on the Galaxy looks dead? That is certainly not a pretty sight from inside that nice glass wall.

---

This is the appropriate use of a lawn. As ornament a lawn is a lot of labor and not environmentally friendly. In England where it is a year round damp and temperate climate, a lawn is natural. In Arizona and Vegas where is is not indiginous; it is crass. It takes too much precious water, uses toxic fertilizers, and adds pollen to the air where there was none, which aggrivates allergies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:


Istanbul in the background

---

quote:

---

I love the garden hose and lawn roller next to the bulkhead. By the look of that lawn, I'd say the gardener should be let go.

---

Maybe he connected the hose to the tap marked "Sea Water" rather than the one marked "Fresh Water"

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:

I love the garden hose and lawn roller next to the bulkhead. By the look of that lawn, I'd say the gardener should be let go.

---

I'm guessing they did. No doubt they also wanted to see what conditions would kill the grass, which is why it's dead now. Also the test is probably long over, but no doubt Celebrity didn't want to spend the money to remove the patch of grass since the ship is going in for a major refit anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sunviking82:
Doesn't it make you ask, why is Celebrity now pricing themselves at Carnival's level? Word on the street is that RCI needs cash and is dropping fairs to full ships. But they are also cutting out services and the complaints are up.

---

No, I don't wonder why Celebrity is pricing itself at Carnival's level. The fact is, Holland America has to do the same thing. Both these products are under-priced but the bottom line is people are not willing to spend more for so-called "premium" cruise lines. It's not a phenomenon unique to Celebrity. Right now all cruise lines are suffering, the luxury lines more so than the mass-market lines. Seabourn, Regent, Oceania, Silversea, etc. are having to discount to levels not seen since 9/11.

I'm not sure what "street" you are getting your word from, but Royal Caribbean has recently made public statements pointing to a pricing strategy just the opposite of what you mention. Of course they will have to discount like everyone else, but they have decided to retain some pricing integrity even if it means not filling every berth on the ship. This is just the opposite of the previous strategy which was to discount until every berth was filled.

Also, just today Royal Caribbean announced a series of new suite amenities and a refurbishment of every suite in the fleet.

quote:

---

but they have decided to retain some pricing integrity even if it means not filling every berth on the ship. This is just the opposite of the previous strategy which was to discount until every berth was filled.

---

Probably a worthy strategy but only works if everyone else plays by the same rules. If everyone else goes for deep discounting RCI have no option but to follow them. The only other option is to park the ship. The yield model is not so elastic that they can maintain pricing but sail with a ship that is only 30% full. This is a loss-making proposition.

In some respects discounting is probably more attractive to cruiselines than sailing with largely empty ships but with pricing integrity maintained. At least when the ship is full you are getting the around 100% of normal onboard revenue which does not have to be discounted. For example a 30% full ship means only 30% onboard revenue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by reeves35:

Probably a worthy strategy but only works if everyone else plays by the same rules. If everyone else goes for deep discounting RCI have no option but to follow them. The only other option is to park the ship. The yield model is not so elastic that they can maintain pricing but sail with a ship that is only 30% full. This is a loss-making proposition.

---

You are talking extremes here and that is not the intent of Royal Caribbean. In no way are they planning a pricing model based on 30% occupancy. That would be suicide. Their occupancy levels are historically at 105%. They expect to see this drop a couple points, nothing more. The company sees diminishing returns when it slashes fares at the last minute to fill every last berth. Royal Caribbean is now willing to accept slightly lower occupancy levels in order to maintain pricing and yields.

quote:

---

Their occupancy levels are historically at 105%. They expect to see this drop a couple points, nothing more. The company sees diminishing returns when it slashes fares at the last minute to fill every last berth. Royal Caribbean is now willing to accept slightly lower occupancy levels in order to maintain pricing and yields.

---

Not doubting your stats here Ernie but surely this cannot be right. RCI produces a fairly average return on capital employed and you are saying they make this average return is achieved with occupancy levels over 100% of lower berths occupied. On these figures RCI could never produce investment grade returns even in boom times. I would have thought their model would have shown break even at something around 75-80% occupancy with everything above that cream.

As a comparison, airlines, with which I am more familiar, tend to have their yield models built around about 68-70% of seats being full. Large loss making airlines such as AA and UA tended to suffer because they needed 98% of seats sold which is statistically impossible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by reeves35:

Not doubting your stats here Ernie but surely this cannot be right. RCI produces a fairly average return on capital employed and you are saying they make this average return is achieved with occupancy levels over 100% of lower berths occupied. On these figures RCI could never produce investment grade returns even in boom times. I would have thought their model would have shown break even at something around 75-80% occupancy with everything above that cream.

---

Brad,
I have no idea what Royal Caribbean's break even load factor is. I imagine very few people do. The "standard 105% occupancy" comes directly from Brian Rice, CFO of the line. I suggest you do a search of recent Royal Caribbean press releases and you should find it. All this was announced during the last earnings call.

Typical occupancy levels at 105% over the last few years should come as no surprise. Not just for Royal Caribbean for all cruise lines. This is one reason why so many ships were ordered. The demand was there, and with occupancy levels at that level it certainly justified investing in capital expenditures like capacity increases.

Of course today times are very different. Like I said, I don't know what RCCL's break even point is, but hopefully it's well below 105% or we can expect the line to announce losses the next few quarters.

Now to more important things. I have to run a catch a flight to Hawaii. Seven days in bliss ahead!

However IMHO opinion I would rather see this area done as a sort of club area similar to that forward up top on Oasis, a sort of club that can used all day and night, already has the bar, in/out door restaurant of some type, nice sunbeds, mix of lounging furniture, couple of hot tubs mix of sun and shade etc. late night or evening dance music.........