Couple more questions... HAL's new tipping policy.

"Ray Goldenberg" wrote in message
...
On 10 Aug 2004 10:42:17 -0700, (Benjamin Smith)
wrote:

I think there are two ways to success. Make the most money by
appealing to a what they would call changing customer, or downsize and
go with your customer.

Hi Ben,

Could you cite an example of a cruise line that has "downsize and go
with your customer"? I can't think of any that have been successful.
Can you?


Cunard to some extent... though they weren't very successful.

And it was always the Sea Goddess ships and the Royal Viking Sun that seemed
(at least to me) to dress up Cunard. Especially with things like the
champagne and caviar served on the beach by the crew from the Sea Goddess
ships.

And of course, it was exactly those ships that Carnival management took away
from the Cunard fleet, making Cunard a mass market line, rather than an
ultra lux line with the Sea Goddess ships.

--Tom

"Charles" wrote in message
d...
In article , *bicker*
wrote:

Incorrect: Monopoly is when there is only one supplier for a
commodity. Not only are there multiple suppliers of
cruises, but many travel agents offer products from
competing suppliers, so customer can choose among the
competing offerings while working with a single sales
person.

I am using the word in the sense that an industry becomes dominated by
one company or group that has become so large it can dominate the whole
industry. Including suppliers, in this case travel agents. You can bet
that if it could Carnival would eat up the rest of the competitors.
Look at the many brands they own now---that is their history, aquire or
takeover. This is not good for consumers. That is my opinion.

--

Nobody cares about the consumers.

--Tom

"Charles" wrote in message
d...
In article , *bicker*
wrote:

Incorrect: Monopoly is when there is only one supplier for a
commodity. Not only are there multiple suppliers of
cruises, but many travel agents offer products from
competing suppliers, so customer can choose among the
competing offerings while working with a single sales
person.

I am using the word in the sense that an industry becomes dominated by
one company or group that has become so large it can dominate the whole
industry. Including suppliers, in this case travel agents. You can bet
that if it could Carnival would eat up the rest of the competitors.
Look at the many brands they own now---that is their history, aquire or
takeover. This is not good for consumers. That is my opinion.

--

Nobody cares about the consumers.

--Tom

Tom & Linda wrote:

"Ray Goldenberg" wrote in message
...

On 10 Aug 2004 10:42:17 -0700, (Benjamin Smith)
wrote:


I think there are two ways to success. Make the most money by
appealing to a what they would call changing customer, or downsize and
go with your customer.

Hi Ben,

Could you cite an example of a cruise line that has "downsize and go
with your customer"? I can't think of any that have been successful.
Can you?



Cunard to some extent... though they weren't very successful.

And it was always the Sea Goddess ships and the Royal Viking Sun that seemed
(at least to me) to dress up Cunard. Especially with things like the
champagne and caviar served on the beach by the crew from the Sea Goddess
ships.

And of course, it was exactly those ships that Carnival management took away
from the Cunard fleet, making Cunard a mass market line, rather than an
ultra lux line with the Sea Goddess ships.


I don't think Cunard is a mass market line, nor are they an ultra lux
line. I think Cunard is better with the QM2, QE2, and Caronia than with
the yachts. Now they have a distinct product, not one that is all over
the place.

Ben S.


--Tom

Tom & Linda wrote:

"Ray Goldenberg" wrote in message
...

On 10 Aug 2004 10:42:17 -0700, (Benjamin Smith)
wrote:


I think there are two ways to success. Make the most money by
appealing to a what they would call changing customer, or downsize and
go with your customer.

Hi Ben,

Could you cite an example of a cruise line that has "downsize and go
with your customer"? I can't think of any that have been successful.
Can you?



Cunard to some extent... though they weren't very successful.

And it was always the Sea Goddess ships and the Royal Viking Sun that seemed
(at least to me) to dress up Cunard. Especially with things like the
champagne and caviar served on the beach by the crew from the Sea Goddess
ships.

And of course, it was exactly those ships that Carnival management took away
from the Cunard fleet, making Cunard a mass market line, rather than an
ultra lux line with the Sea Goddess ships.


I don't think Cunard is a mass market line, nor are they an ultra lux
line. I think Cunard is better with the QM2, QE2, and Caronia than with
the yachts. Now they have a distinct product, not one that is all over
the place.

Ben S.


--Tom

A Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:18:06 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:
*bicker* wrote:
Incorrect: Monopoly is when there is only one supplier for a
commodity. Not only are there multiple suppliers of
cruises, but many travel agents offer products from
competing suppliers, so customer can choose among the
competing offerings while working with a single sales
person.
Is there another definition

Another definition of "monopoly"? What is with your
penchant for redefining words that already have
well-established definitions?

No. There isn't another definition of "monopoly".

where one company has a huge amount of
market share (considered disproportionate) and squeezes competitors out
with noncompetitive practices?

The term you're looking for is "dominant supplier". No one
has even thought to assert that Carnival was a dominant
supplier... it is that ludicrous to assert, given the actual
facts.

You might have a better chance of pursuing an FTC-related
issue by asserting oligopoly (in this case duopoly).
However, Carnival's acquisition of Princess was reviewed by
the FTC. Here's what the experts said:

-----

Statement of the Federal Trade Commission

These matters presented important, albeit firmly settled,
issues of merger policy. The issues were complex and the
ultimate decision depended on a close analysis of
industry-specific facts. ... Contrary to the position some
have expressed, these transactions would not result in a
merger to duopoly. Absent extraordinary circumstances, there
is a strong presumption that a three-to-two merger of
significant competitors in a properly delineated relevant
market is likely to harm consumers. In this situation,
however, there are now four major firms and a "fringe" of
other competitors. In addition, there is considerable
competitive interaction between the cruise industry and
alternative vacation options.

....

This investigation provides a compelling illustration of the
principle that our review of mergers is intensely
fact-specific, driven by the dynamics of the relevant
industry and the impact of the specific transactions under
review. After an extensive investigation, we have concluded,
as did our counterparts in Europe (who considered these
mergers' potential effects on Europeans), that the facts do
not warrant enforcement action.


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

A Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:18:06 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:
*bicker* wrote:
Incorrect: Monopoly is when there is only one supplier for a
commodity. Not only are there multiple suppliers of
cruises, but many travel agents offer products from
competing suppliers, so customer can choose among the
competing offerings while working with a single sales
person.
Is there another definition

Another definition of "monopoly"? What is with your
penchant for redefining words that already have
well-established definitions?

No. There isn't another definition of "monopoly".

where one company has a huge amount of
market share (considered disproportionate) and squeezes competitors out
with noncompetitive practices?

The term you're looking for is "dominant supplier". No one
has even thought to assert that Carnival was a dominant
supplier... it is that ludicrous to assert, given the actual
facts.

You might have a better chance of pursuing an FTC-related
issue by asserting oligopoly (in this case duopoly).
However, Carnival's acquisition of Princess was reviewed by
the FTC. Here's what the experts said:

-----

Statement of the Federal Trade Commission

These matters presented important, albeit firmly settled,
issues of merger policy. The issues were complex and the
ultimate decision depended on a close analysis of
industry-specific facts. ... Contrary to the position some
have expressed, these transactions would not result in a
merger to duopoly. Absent extraordinary circumstances, there
is a strong presumption that a three-to-two merger of
significant competitors in a properly delineated relevant
market is likely to harm consumers. In this situation,
however, there are now four major firms and a "fringe" of
other competitors. In addition, there is considerable
competitive interaction between the cruise industry and
alternative vacation options.

....

This investigation provides a compelling illustration of the
principle that our review of mergers is intensely
fact-specific, driven by the dynamics of the relevant
industry and the impact of the specific transactions under
review. After an extensive investigation, we have concluded,
as did our counterparts in Europe (who considered these
mergers' potential effects on Europeans), that the facts do
not warrant enforcement action.


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

A Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:15:09 -0400, Charles
escribió:
In article , *bicker*
wrote:
Incorrect: Monopoly is when there is only one supplier for a
commodity. Not only are there multiple suppliers of
cruises, but many travel agents offer products from
competing suppliers, so customer can choose among the
competing offerings while working with a single sales
person.
I am using the word in the sense that an industry becomes dominated by
one company or group that has become so large it can dominate the whole
industry. Including suppliers, in this case travel agents. You can bet
that if it could Carnival would eat up the rest of the competitors.

There are two big stumbling blocks: (1) Carnival isn't a
dominant supplier; (2) RCI.

Look at the many brands they own now---that is their history, aquire or
takeover. This is not good for consumers. That is my opinion.

If Carnival buys RCI, we can start to worry about this.


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

"*bicker*" wrote

There are two big stumbling blocks: (1) Carnival isn't a
dominant supplier;

You don't think that Carnival Corp isn't a dominant supplier? Carnival
Corp owns and controls:

Carnival
Princess
Holland America
Costa
Cunard
Windstar
Seabourn

Count up the ships and berths and compare with all cruise companies. In the
North American market, Carnival Corp. is overwhelmingly dominant. I am not
saying that is good... but it is a fact.


--
George in PA http://www.countryside-travel.com

r.t.c. Great Land Cruise-Las Vegas http://www.cruisemaster.com/lvbash.htm
Sleazy 3 - Carnival Conquest http://www.cruisemaster.com/sleazy3.htm
The Mother of All Group Cruises http://www.motherofallgroupcruises.com
Miracle in May - http://www.cruisemaster.com/miracle.htm

"*bicker*" wrote

There are two big stumbling blocks: (1) Carnival isn't a
dominant supplier;

You don't think that Carnival Corp isn't a dominant supplier? Carnival
Corp owns and controls:

Carnival
Princess
Holland America
Costa
Cunard
Windstar
Seabourn

Count up the ships and berths and compare with all cruise companies. In the
North American market, Carnival Corp. is overwhelmingly dominant. I am not
saying that is good... but it is a fact.


--
George in PA http://www.countryside-travel.com

r.t.c. Great Land Cruise-Las Vegas http://www.cruisemaster.com/lvbash.htm
Sleazy 3 - Carnival Conquest http://www.cruisemaster.com/sleazy3.htm
The Mother of All Group Cruises http://www.motherofallgroupcruises.com
Miracle in May - http://www.cruisemaster.com/miracle.htm