Brooklyn Welcomes Cruise Ships!

George Leppla wrote:


Carnival Corp does a lot of things that I am not happy about, but their main
function as a company is to make a profit and they do that by providing
cruise vacation products that will appeal to as many people as possible.
They are not in business to perpetuate or replicate a "tradition".



You're a wonderful mouthpiece for Carnival Corp., they must love you.
Carnival may not be in the business to perpetuate or replicate a
"tradition" so they go out and buy HAL and Cunard, two companies that
were in the business to do so, or at least providing a contemporary
flavor of aspects of tradition (not tradition in toto). The theme is,
what in life transcends money-making? What is priceless? What feeds the
human spirit and search for people's niche in life? A CEO should
consider this, there are some that do.

I'm interested in uniqueness qualities of lifestyle products and not
necessarily replicating anything. I'm interested in providing for
varying tastes and lifestyles. Just because, say, TGIF is successful,
does that mean all neighborhood pubs should go away?

IMO, Carnival goes way beyond making a profit. There are plenty
businesses that make profits. Carnival is about growth and influence in
their industry and will use buzzwords you are so fond of, like "changing
marketplace" to justify wrecking the personalities of the brands they
acquired. I won't single them out though, other powerful companies do
the same thing. My position is not to justify them, but point out how it
impacts customers. I'm not interested in defending companies and oohing
and ahhing on their numbers performance.

Ben S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/nyregion/16ship.html

Red Hook is artsy, not seedy. It's funky, richly
textured.

That does not quite jibe with the descriptions of the area that number 6
and others have given us in this newsgroup.

"George Leppla" wrote in message
news

Yes, yes, yes. I love all these people who are essentially saying that if
the cruise lines don't do it **their way** then they would be better off
going out of business.

Who are "all these people"? So far I've seen comments from myself, Karen,
Ben, and a few others. We have every right to feel the way we do just as
you may feel the opposite. I'm not certain I'm better off as a cruiser
having lines like HAL, P&O, and Cunard as choices when I can essentially
experience the same product on all three. As I stated before, the crews
have become interchangeable (Costa on Carnival and Princess on Cunard), some
of the entertainment is the same, and don't even get me started on the "one
size fits all" Spirit/Vista Class ships. Why bother having different brands
if all you are going to do is dilute them? Sure the average cruiser doesn't
realize this, but anyone that cruises multiple times on multiple brands
can't help but notice how similar they have all become. If you really want
something different you have to cruise a niche line or stay away from
Carnival Corp. brands all together.





And I wonder where were all these people when HAL was down to a few
rusting hulks and didn't have any ships on order because their cash flow
was so poor that they couldn't afford to maintain the ships they had.
Anyone care to remember the rust streaked hulls of some of the HAL ships
prior to Carnival Corp's purchase? Ah yes, that certainly was unique.

I was there, sailing on STATENDAM and NIUEW AMSTERDAM. This was in the late
70's and 80's. HAL was a great product. I certainly don't remember the
"rusting hulks". I don't think ROTTERDAM V was ever in really poor
condition. She was treasured up the very end and HAL took immaculate care
of her. In fact my latest cruise on HAL (2 years ago on MAASDAM) I recall
the ship was rather rusty. There were rust streaks on the hull, bulkheads,
etc. Certainly not the "spotless fleet" as I recalled. And imagine, all
this under the reigns of Carnival Corp! I guess Carnival's corporate
pressures to increase brand profitability hit hard with the ship maintenance
program, at least during my cruise on MAASDAM. I also don't think HAL was
"so poor" before Carnival came along as you would like us to believe.
Lanterman was in charge, moved the line to Seattle, and ordered new ships.
He also bought out Home Lines and their two ships. That doesn't sound all
that poor to me. HAL was turning around which is why Carnival was
interested in the first place. Carnival Corp. is not interested in fledging
lines like Premier, Regency, and Dolphin were ... obviously HAL was
something different. In the case of Cunard, it was simply the name they
were after.




Cunard was a joke. Carnival's biggest mistake with Cunard was by trying
to design a ship that would please the traditional ocean liner "purists"
and still be a modern cruise ship. The hybrid they came up with didn't
please either. The"liner" people started their pooh-poohing before the
keel was even laid and the cruise passengers don't necessarily find
crossing the North Atlantic a fun vacation.


Yes, Cunard was a joke and essentially still is. They are a two ship
operation with the QM2 basically being run as a Princess Grand Class ship.
Plans for the new QUEEN VICTORIA are all but on hold as Carnival Corp.
performs a complete strategic review of exactly what to do with Cunard. QM2
is selling transatlantic crossings at $699 per person and certainly this was
not the intent for the "flagship" of the fleet.




The bottom line is that HAL and Cunard couldn't adapt to a changing
market. Carnival Corp can and did and all the moaning about decreased this
and cookie cutter that won't change anything.

I think HAL was adapting to a changing market. Cunard is another story.







I also find it hilarious how people have talked about how Princess is
changing since Carnival bought them. Of course, the changes they mostly
talk about like Personal Choice dining and pooled tipping were in place
long before Carnival was involved, but why let a trivial fact like that
get in the way of a passionate argument.

You never heard this from me. I am well aware the direction Princess is
taking was formed well before Carnival came along. They decided to become a
mass-market line rather than Premium when GRAND PRINCESS was ordered.
Personal Choice and pooled tipping were also in place before Carnival. The
only thing Carnival has really changed concerning Princess is the fact they
can now order more mega-ships, on a faster time table. Mind you Princess
never needed rescuing from Carnival. They were extremely profitable on
their own and certainly gave Carnival a run for their money. Carnival
wanted Princess simply to keep it out of the hands of Royal Caribbean, which
would have seriously eroded Carnival's market dominance. I don't blame
them, but I do want to make it clear that Princess did not need Carnival to
survive.




Carnival Corp does a lot of things that I am not happy about, but their
main function as a company is to make a profit and they do that by
providing cruise vacation products that will appeal to as many people as
possible.

True, but if the cruise product becomes as generic as a seat on any given
airline, then I see problems. Decisions made today will shape the cruise
industry 10 years from now. In 10 years, I don't want a homogenized,
generic cruise product where the only differences are the logos on the
smokestack. We are already seeing the beginning of this disturbing trend.
Certainly those of us who are passionate about the cruise industry have
every right to moan and groan about the way certain elements within the
industry are developing. As a strong supporter of the cruise industry and
an avid passenger of all lines, I feel I am within my right to share my
displeasures about the direction of cruising. I can't speak about what is
right for everyone, but I sure as hell know what is right for me. So far I
still love cruising and the industry as a whole, but someday that may change
if things continue as they are (which they probably will). Then I will be
forced to cruise on only smaller, more specialty lines which of course are
more expensive. I don't really see this is a viable alternative.




They are not in business to perpetuate or replicate a "tradition".

Oh but they are! Why do you think Carnival bought Cunard to begin with?
It's all about "tradition" and the old style of ocean crossings. At least
this is what Carnival advertises whenever you read a HAL or Cunard brochure.
How many times do I read the word "tradition" in every HAL brochure? Cunard
was bought and QM2 built on the tail end of "Titanic mania". Arison saw
dollar signs after he watched the movie "Titanic" and decided to capitalize
on it. Arison could care less about tradition, but being the smart man he
is he saw that others actually relish in it. Let's hope he doesn't screw it
up.


Ernie

"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
nk.net...

Isn't Ernie in the travel industry?

Ben



Ben,
Yes I am in the travel industry, and even the cruise industy although I
don't talk about here.

Ernie

In article , Jeff
Gersten wrote:

Red Hook is artsy, not seedy. It's funky, richly
textured.

That does not quite jibe with the descriptions of the area that number 6
and others have given us in this newsgroup.

The area may have changed. Areas that were once run down become
gentrified. And fast in New York area. A lot of people have been priced
out of Manhatten. I don't know if the discription of the current Red
Hook from the Times is correct. Have not been there in many years.
Possibly someone can take a field trip and report back. Sorta like the
trip to Wal-Mart

--
Charles

George Leppla wrote:

"E.k.R." wrote


I feel the same way Karen. Maybe we all would have been better off
without several diluted brands which are each advertised as something
unique, but essentially offer the same product on identical ships ....
that is what Carnival Corp. brands are becoming.


Yes, yes, yes. I love all these people who are essentially saying that if
the cruise lines don't do it **their way** then they would be better off
going out of business.


The **their way** is the way of the established cruise line. Sometimes,
eras end. I take Karen and Ernie to say they would rather see
established lines that had an established identity go out of business
rather than see them turn into a version of a parent company's product.
That's a valid opinion.

Millions of people go on these ships and enjoy
themselves but let's face it... they are uneducated boobs who only THINK
they are having a good time because they don't know any better.

When you target new customers, or new-to customers, you go after a
customer that lacks the knowledge of a different time and standard and
aren't aware of how the industry and product has changed.



Why, Ben
goes so far as to exclaim that "people expect to cruise too often". Better
they should sit at home and dream of the golden days of yore than actually
go out and have a good time. Of course, Ben bemoans the loss of small,
unique ships and the class, elegance and ambiance of days past, but I seem
to remember that he was part of a group cruise on a mega-liner and wore a
tin-foil Viking hat to dinner one night.


On a megaliner (whatever that is, I guess it is the ship considered
large for the times), though I didn't wear the hat to dinner. On RCI. I
didn't like the idea on Celebrity, but on today's Celebrity I wasn't
sure how it would go over. There's room in my personality for different
types of cruises.

The way you connect me to days past is where both you and Sunny
misrepresent my position. I don't want the supermarket approach to life
at all times. Supermarkets are fine but sometimes small,
specialized--and specialized not necessarily meaning
expensive--approaches and environments have their own appeal and feel.

This is a social statement I'm making. So what if things are done a
certain way now or for a few years? I'll argue that life is to live and
learn and get perspective from your years on Earth, including those you
encounter that you feel possess wisdom and knowledge of times before
your birth or at least before your experience with a lifestyle. There's
plenty ugly in the past. Not everything done today benefits people in
the way it can so we can look at how things were done as an alternative
and are done in other industries and cultures and see if what is in
practice today is real choice and opportunity for people's lifestyle,
rather than stating this "go with the commercial flow" mantra in vogue
mindlessly repeated.


People expect to cruise too much? Yes, I feel that way when they take
the already low prices of cruising and complain that if they go higher
they can only cruise 3 times a year rather than 4.

Overall, I think something is more meaningful and memorable done
sparingly or moderately.


Ben S.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:51:59 -0400, (Jeff
Gersten) wrote:

That does not quite jibe with the descriptions of the area that number 6
and others have given us in this newsgroup.

Hi Jeff,

Who ya' gonna' believe, r.t.cruises or the NYTimes? vbg
BTW, my money is on r.t.cruises. :+)

Best regards,
Ray
LIGHTHOUSE TRAVEL
800-719-9917 or 805-566-3905
http://www.lighthousetravel.com

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:24:57 -0400, Tom K wrote:

You can be stuck in traffic up on the bridge and watch your ship sail out of
the harbor. At least you'll get good pictures, even if you miss the cruise.

Cruel shoe, Tom, cruel shoe.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:44:16 GMT, Karen Segboer wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/nyregion/16ship.html

Sow's ear, silk purse?

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:48:51 GMT, Karen Segboer wrote:

At least, sailing out of Philly, you'd get to see the SS US. The best
you'd get from Red Hook is a garbage barge and floating used condoms
left behind by the "sidewalk hostesses."

cough yes, well.....