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

*bicker* wrote:
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?


Cool it, Bicker. Charles uses the word in that way as short for
"virtual" monopoly. No, it isn't the "strict" definition of the term.

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.


I'm not claiming that Carnival is a monopoly. The argument is impact on
consumers, Carnival's savvy enough not to break the law, yet.

Ben S.

*bicker* wrote:
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?


Cool it, Bicker. Charles uses the word in that way as short for
"virtual" monopoly. No, it isn't the "strict" definition of the term.

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.


I'm not claiming that Carnival is a monopoly. The argument is impact on
consumers, Carnival's savvy enough not to break the law, yet.

Ben S.

*bicker* wrote:

A Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:03:42 -0400, "George Leppla"
escribió:

"*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?


What I think is irrelevant; what you think is also
irrelevant. Status as a dominant supplier is a decision
made by legal authorities. Carnival was investigated.
They're clear.


Scary. Sounds Borg like.

Ben S.

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

*bicker* wrote:

A Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:03:42 -0400, "George Leppla"
escribió:

"*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?


What I think is irrelevant; what you think is also
irrelevant. Status as a dominant supplier is a decision
made by legal authorities. Carnival was investigated.
They're clear.


Scary. Sounds Borg like.

Ben S.

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

Tom & Linda wrote:

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

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.



The yachts were very special though, based on what I saw. We were next to
one in St. Thomas. There was a line of limos dropping off and picking up
the rich boys and girls all day. And the airport was busy with all the Lear
jets flying them in and out all day.

I'm sure they were, they just had little to do with the Cunard core
product, which remains liners and traditional ships.

Cunard is much more distinct now... but nowhere in that league (with the
yachts). Now, to me, they're just mass market like Celebrity or HAL.
Nothing more. You may think so, but I don't.

Based on? Have you sailed them? They aren't lux, but they are in a
higher price scale the Celebrity and HAL and have their own clientele,
known as Cunarders. I don't really know the product but I know their
size and pricing, which differ from a Celebrity or HAL.

Ben

Tom & Linda wrote:

"*bicker*" wrote in message
...


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:

-----



George W. appointed a moron who was pro merger. He didn't give a rat's ass
about the consumers. He was doing his job for the corporations, not his job
for the consumers.


Who's the consumer's advocate?

Ben S.

--Tom

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

Based on? Have you sailed them? They aren't lux, but they are in a
higher price scale the Celebrity and HAL and have their own clientele,
known as Cunarders. I don't really know the product but I know their
size and pricing, which differ from a Celebrity or HAL.


I have co-workers and have met people who've gone on Cunard.

Voyager ships also have pricing higher than Celebrity and HAL.

--Tom

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

Based on? Have you sailed them? They aren't lux, but they are in a
higher price scale the Celebrity and HAL and have their own clientele,
known as Cunarders. I don't really know the product but I know their
size and pricing, which differ from a Celebrity or HAL.


I have co-workers and have met people who've gone on Cunard.

Voyager ships also have pricing higher than Celebrity and HAL.

--Tom

"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Tom & Linda wrote:

"*bicker*" wrote in message
...


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:

-----



George W. appointed a moron who was pro merger. He didn't give a rat's
ass
about the consumers. He was doing his job for the corporations, not his
job
for the consumers.


Who's the consumer's advocate?

Ben S.


There are none.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:44:49 GMT, "Tom & Linda"
wrote:


"*bicker*" wrote in message
.. .
A Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:03:42 -0400, "George Leppla"
escribió:
"*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?

What I think is irrelevant; what you think is also
irrelevant. Status as a dominant supplier is a decision
made by legal authorities. Carnival was investigated.
They're clear.


So was OJ

But he'll find the real killer. Of that I'm sure.

Someday he'll look in the mirror.

--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.