Brooklyn Welcomes Cruise Ships!

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:47:20 -0400, E.k.R. wrote:

People act like Carnival is some kind of big hero for "saving" lines like
Costa, Cunard, P&O, and Holland America. Frankly I don't see it that way
... at least not any longer. Maybe I did at one time. All these lines may
or may not have still been around even without Carnival, and that is
something we will never know.

I don't know how, in light of the immense growth in cruising, they could
have missed. Soembody had to take up the ball.

What we are left with today is an HAL, Costa,
P&O, and Cunard that have very little in common with their original
heritage. As time progresses the lines will become even more alike and
homogenized as Carnival orders identical ships and has interchangeable
crews/officers/entertainment for more and more of it's brands.

Which brings the chicken-egg question. Is CCL, because of the acquisitions
and identification of a mass cruising product, are they the chicken or the
egg in the growth. I think they are both.

Does it really matter if Carnival bought and "saved" these brands if they
essentially become mirror images of each other (with different logos of
course!)? I personally don't think so.

Back up. If they had not, where would we be now? With lower cruising
numbers? Probably. This is bad? No, I liked it much better in 2000 when I
first started cruising (for fun).

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:47:20 -0400, E.k.R. wrote:

People act like Carnival is some kind of big hero for "saving" lines like
Costa, Cunard, P&O, and Holland America. Frankly I don't see it that way
... at least not any longer. Maybe I did at one time. All these lines may
or may not have still been around even without Carnival, and that is
something we will never know.

I don't know how, in light of the immense growth in cruising, they could
have missed. Soembody had to take up the ball.

What we are left with today is an HAL, Costa,
P&O, and Cunard that have very little in common with their original
heritage. As time progresses the lines will become even more alike and
homogenized as Carnival orders identical ships and has interchangeable
crews/officers/entertainment for more and more of it's brands.

Which brings the chicken-egg question. Is CCL, because of the acquisitions
and identification of a mass cruising product, are they the chicken or the
egg in the growth. I think they are both.

Does it really matter if Carnival bought and "saved" these brands if they
essentially become mirror images of each other (with different logos of
course!)? I personally don't think so.

Back up. If they had not, where would we be now? With lower cruising
numbers? Probably. This is bad? No, I liked it much better in 2000 when I
first started cruising (for fun).

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:14:31 -0400, George Leppla wrote:

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. 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. 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.

Pics, please.

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.

Boy, no kidding, George. Talk about a dog that won't hunt.

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.

So true and so often do we see companies who lose their edge or the
existing management was fine...in 1965. You know, they say it takes a long
time to turn a big ship, it takes a decade to turn a cruise line around.

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.

I agree. I am not seeing any real difference in what Princess was and what
Princess is.

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".

I disagree. They traditionally love big profits.LOL

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:14:31 -0400, George Leppla wrote:

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. 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. 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.

Pics, please.

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.

Boy, no kidding, George. Talk about a dog that won't hunt.

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.

So true and so often do we see companies who lose their edge or the
existing management was fine...in 1965. You know, they say it takes a long
time to turn a big ship, it takes a decade to turn a cruise line around.

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.

I agree. I am not seeing any real difference in what Princess was and what
Princess is.

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".

I disagree. They traditionally love big profits.LOL

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:06:02 -0400, Tom K wrote:

I'm honestly very disappointed in both Carnival/Princes/Cunard and
RCI/Celebrity not sailing from Manhattan any longer from a "sailing past the
sights" perspective.

Who knows, Tom, it could have ben part of the NCL-Mobile Hull HawaiiGate.

"Chrissy Cruiser" wrote in message
...
Back up. If they had not, where would we be now? With lower cruising
numbers? Probably. This is bad? No, I liked it much better in 2000 when I
first started cruising (for fun).



Agreed. And I started cruising way before 2000 and it was even better yet.
Yes, cruises have become relatively cheap but at what cost? We are left
with large mega-ships that appeal to the masses and nickel and dime you
onboard to make up for lost ticket revenue.

Just like air travel, cruising has been opened up to the masses. This is
really a great thing for new cruisers that could never consider such a great
vacation before. Unfortunately there are some consequences for those of us
that cruise often and have been cruising for a long time. I'm usually an
advocate for change and I certainly understand how the cruise industry has
evolved, I just don't have to like everything about it. While cruising in
general is inexpensive compared to 25 years ago, my options have decreased
should I want anything more than a mass-market experience on a very large
mega-ship. For something smaller and more in line with the service I
received 25 years ago (on mainstream lines) I'm pretty much priced out of
the marketplace since I can't afford Silversea and Seabourn. That is how
times have changed.

Ernie

Tom,

I didn't know Bayonne was south of Liberty/Ellis! Your comments prompted me
to (finally) get out a map and study all of the NY harbor port facility
locations vis-a-vis Liberty/Ellis. I recall pax reviews of Royal Carib/Celeb
cruises out of Bayonne referring to the great view of Liberty/Ellis...I
assume the ships make a northerly arc on departure so folks can see the
sights?

Thanks,

Diana Ball
near Houston, TX

"Tom K" wrote:
Bayonne's terminal is also past Lady Liberty on the way out of NY Harbor.

Karen Segboer wrote:



Charles wants me to go to Red Hook now :-) Wal*Mart's was a safer
trip (I think.)

Heck, maybe I WILL take a ride over someday.
Call the police if you don't see any more posts from me.


Take the CRV, not the Mercedes.

Ben

Karen


__ /7__/7__/7__
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews ®
(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)

In article , Karen Segboer
wrote:

Charles wants me to go to Red Hook now :-) Wal*Mart's was a safer
trip (I think.)

Heck, maybe I WILL take a ride over someday.
Call the police if you don't see any more posts from me.

I would do it if I lived anywhere near there. I suspect the truth is
somewhere between the Times and Number 6, Number 6 may not have been
there for awhile.

--
Charles

Charles,

Thanks for your comments. I have (finally) looked at a map. I love your idea
of sailing up and around Governors Island as a solution. I think the view of
both Lady Liberty and the Manhattan skyline would be rather dramatic as you
come around the top of the island.

Here are a few shots that helped me visualize this approach:

http://www.rpa.org/projects/openspace/govisland.html
http://www.govisland.com/Images/View...atueAerial.jpg
http://www.govisland.com/Images/View...and/Aerial.jpg

Diana Ball
near Houston, TX


"Charles" wrote:
I don't think it will be so bad. My expectation is that they will sail
up and around Governers Island then back down past the statue of
Liberty.