Just returned from cruise - don't get it...

Benjamin Smith wrote:

If and when we go back to small lines being run not by big corporations,

and maybe Oceania is one of them and Dielsmann another, then we'll get
away from this common denominator, barely distinguishable, constantly
expanding cruise type "industry" we are currently in.


Turnabout's fair play. You got me earlier, now I get to return the favor. :-)

It's Peter Deilmann Cruises, or Deilmann for short.

"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
news


To bring this to cruising, the problem with the cruise lines we discuss
here is that they are corporate owned. Mass market you'll say, my
problem is more they are corporate, but in a sense it is the same thing.
Expand and standardize. I think this is fine for some of them, but not
all of them. I'm quite frankly tired of being told that if I want a
"different" cruise experience I have to go to expensive lines. That
should not be the case and it *does not* have to be the case. What we
need is not more expensive lines, but new lines that aren't corporate
owned. If you want real differentiation what is needed are people who
want to create something for a target clientele and aren't fueled by
expansion and stockholder values (which tend to not be related to
product). The income of the clientele need not be upper income but the
recognition of the clientele and their size is key. Also key is the
character you want in your town (town represented as a river or ocean
vessel), and when making changes what basic character stays constant
while some particulars change.

If and when we go back to small lines being run not by big corporations,
and maybe Oceania is one of them and Dielsmann another, then we'll get
away from this common denominator, barely distinguishable, constantly
expanding cruise type "industry" we are currently in.


Just from an economics standpoint... a store costs in the $1 million range.
A cruise ship costs in the $400 million range.

You're not going to find a lot of "mom an pop" entrepreneurs who can pony up
$400 million for a ship.

--Tom

Benjamin Smith wrote:

I guess it's I before E except after D And drop the "s".

Internet Exporer after dark? ;-)

"E.k.R." wrote:

I'm hoping MSC will become the Sitmar Cruises or Home Lines that
were once beloved by so many cruisers. Again these were standard cruise lines
and not considered "high end", but they offered something special and
unique. I'm hoping some of that special uniqueness can be captured by a
smaller modern day cruise line.

We didn't have the opportunity to cruise on Home Lines, but our first cruise
and some others were on Sitmar, and we loved the line and the Sitmar Fairsky.

What is it about MSC that reminds you of Sitmar aside from the Italian aspect?
Sitmar catered to an English-speaking clientele, mostly Americans. Isn't that
alone very different from MSC?

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 03:24:29 GMT, Benjamin Smith
wrote:

I'm saying there's a place for a
1000 or less passenger ship, and refurbished and mechanically overhauled
ships. There's a place for lines that have one or two ships and aren't
looking to introduce one every 6 months.

Hi Ben,

Unfortunately that place is bankruptcy court. When you spread the
cost of a cruise line over a small number of berths, then you have to
charge more than the North American market will pay for a refurbished
& mechanically overhauled ship(s). BTW, Chandris was losing their
shirts before Royal Caribbean came along to buy them out.


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

"Charles" wrote in message
news:110720041729337769%:
: On Celebrity, I seen a many, althought not a majority who were not
: "dressed" up.
:
: I have never seen very many who were not dressed up on a formal
evening
: on Celebrity. I have seen it break down from dress up on the
informal
: evenings, particularly the second and third one.

That's interesting...

Ray Goldenberg wrote:


Hi Ben,

Unfortunately that place is bankruptcy court. When you spread the
cost of a cruise line over a small number of berths, then you have to
charge more than the North American market will pay for a refurbished
& mechanically overhauled ship(s). BTW, Chandris was losing their
shirts before Royal Caribbean came along to buy them out.

Correct Ray. I really think some folks have lost sight of how
inexpensive cruising really is these days. On my first cruise in 1983,
I paid about $1100 pp. This was for the lowest level, inside
accommodation on the Carnival Mardi Gras for 7 days. The cruise was
fun, but certainly NOT luxurious. Given a very modest estimate of the
rate of inflation over the past 21 years, one could expect to pay at
least $3000 pp to repeat this experience in 2004. But at $428 pp/pd, I
can now cruise on a "luxury line" if I am so inclined.


Howie

A Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:38:55 -0400, "E.k.R."
escribió:
Frankly I feel we were all better off before the RCI/Celebrity and
Carnival/Princess mega-mergers.

Define "all". I believe the folks relying on those
corporations' value wouldn't fit into that category.

Shareholders gained value to be sure, but I think the individual
cruise passenger lost out.

Precisely right. For things I own, or investments I make, I
wouldn't have it any other way.


--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/D...ry_040602.html

A Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:10:32 -0400, Charles
escribió:
In article , *bicker*
wrote:
Marketing people are often very smart, and professionals
typically recognize when the market has changed, and adjust
their offerings as a result.
While some marketing people might be very smart many are pretty dumb.
The general tendency is to fall behind the market and then run and copy
everyone else when one of the few smart ones succeed with an idea.

Surely. Yet, that merely confirms that the market heads in
the right direction -- just that some innovators lead the
herd. Natural.


--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/D...ry_040602.html

It was expensive, and not at all what we had hoped for.

I would say EXACTLY the same thing about Emeril's, in Orlando... What a
disappointment...

Pam