Charles wrote:
> In article <5SP1f.11350$QE1.1265@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Benjamin Smith wrote:
>
>
>>However, they are currently sailing and will for years to come.
>
>
> But maybe not with Celebrity. Horizon is already sold.
>
>
>>>Bigger is not better but it appeal to the accountants.
>>>
>>
>>That is what too many things boil down to. And it doesn't have to be
>>this way.
>
>
> But it does have to be this way. Not the accountants but the investors.
When I say it doesn't have to be this way it is in a philisophical,
looking-way-down-the-road way, not in any current manifestation of our
socio/economic structure. We are going down this same road and I have no
interest going down it. What *has* to be a certain way has to do with
what is natural, the sun has to shine, it has to rain for life to
survive. All of the structures that have been created, as I see it, are
means, and means can be changed as well as the thinking that created
such means. They are *artificial*.
What I want to see is more of a back-to-basics approach. I'm not saying
it's going to happen, I'm throwing that out there. The point of the
vacation, not the business, is my focus.
>
> I think if Celebrity is to survive it will have to build at least four
> of the over 100,000 ton ships like the two they have on order. On the
> new class they should build a specialty venue for Cirque de Soleil to
> do acrobatic acts. If you can have ice skating rinks, something like
> that for Cirque can be built on ships. Actual acts will draw as opposed
> to what they tried on Summit and Constellation. I bet they would draw
> more customers than ice skating shows.
>
Charles, what you say isn't inaccurate or unknown to me. This all about
business approach is one that turns me way off. That's why I'm
interested in going elsewhere from cruising with my time and energy that
I will support with my dollars--such as retreats.
Ben S. |