Talk:Carnival Corporation & plc

Name

"Carnival Corporation & plc", is that a UK subsidiary?--Jerryseinfeld 00:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• No it's a dual listed company. Carina22 5 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)

Merger and the surviving corporate name

In regards to a statement made in Carnival Corporation & plc by User:Carina22 stating that Carnival Corporation & plc was formerly known as P&O Princess is incorrect! Carnival Corporation was a separate independently operated cruise line owned by Micky Arison and his family for nearly 40 years and P&O Princess was a United Kingdom publicly traded cruise line to which Mr. Arison and his family had absolutely NO affiliation with until the Carnival-P&O Princess merger occurred. So basically after the merger was completed P&O Princess became a subsidary of Carnival and the P&O name was dropped in favor of the Carnival name but the way you wrote it, it made it look like Carnival was always called P&O Princess which as stated before is an incorrect statement to make. User:Misterrick 05:10, 05 July 2005 (UTC).

No it isn't a subsidiary, it is a dual listed company. This is an unusual arrangement, so read the article if you don't know what it means. So far as I know Carnival is the only major "American" dual listed company, but we have several in the UK so we are more familiar with the concept. Carina22 06:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, In accurate statements being made by Carina22. Yes, P&O Princess did become a subsidary under the new dual listed company and again Carnival was never formerly known as P&O Princess, As stated before P&O Princess was a separate company that mergered with Carnival, In fact Carnival was started 40 years before Princess even existed so how can Carnival have been formerly known as P&O Princess when P&O Princess didn't even exist when Carnival was first started by Micky Arison's father? Additionally on the Carnival Corporation & plc website it states, "On April 17, 2003, Carnival Corporation (NYSE: CCL) and P&O Princess Cruises plc (LSE: POC) merged via a dual listed company structure (DLC). Subsequently, P&O Princess Cruises plc has changed its name to Carnival plc." so there is no way that Carnival could ever have been formerly known as P&O Princess. Misterrick 19:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC).

No, Carnival plc was formerly P&O Princess Cruises. The problem is that you still don't understand what a dual listed company is. The quotation you give does not state or imply that P&O Princess Cruises plc became a subsidiary of Carnival Corporation, because it didn't. They both became holding companies of a dual listed company. Carnival Corporation was never called P&O Princess, but Carnival plc was. This is possible because Carnival Corporation and Carnival plc are two separate, independently quoted companies. Carnival plc is the same legal entity as P&O Princess Cruises with the same shareholder body but a different name, just the same as if Ford changed its name to Detroit Motors it would be the same legal entity with the same shareholder body. The only difference is that now Carnival plc is one of the two holding companies of Carnival Corporation & plc. Corporation and plc are two companies with separate shareholder bodies and neither owns the other, which is a what being a dual listed company is about.

Deleting a paragraph and marking that as a minor edit is not appropriate.

And finally P&O is a lot older than Carnival Corporation. The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company was founded in 1837, and P&O Princess Cruises demerged from it on 23 October 2000.Carina22 09:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You know Carina22, I'll let you have it because your being such an a--hole, I do know what a dual listed company is but you can't get it through your head what I am trying to tell you and by the way P&O doesn't stand for Princess and Orient, it's Pacific and Orient and P&O didn't found Princess they acquired it in the 60s or 70s so Carnival Cruise Lines is older. Misterrick 21:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Carina22 on this one as well. This demerger thing is giving me a headache. From what I understand using my own knowledge:

• Carnival Cruise Lines is formed by Arison
• P&O Princess Cruises is formed later by P&O
• Carnival Corp/PLC is formed after Carnival gobbles up a bunch of other cruise lines. The Corp/PLC puts all of the lines (Carnival/HAL/Costa) under one umbrella)
• Princess Cruises demerges from the main P&O and becomes it's own company dealing only with cruises (The company has several cruise brands under its umbrella)
• Carnival and Princess merge, or perhaps Princess is bought out. Anyway, Princess becomes another cruise brand under the umbrella of Carnival Corp/PLC

I don't think Carnival was ever called P&O BEFORE the two companies merged. They had no relations with each other until the merger.

Here is the company history website: [[1]]

• It says that in 2003, Carnival Corp (including brands Carnival/HAL etc) merged with P&O Princess Cruises plc (consisting of Princess, P&O, and AIDA cruises). Perhaps the names were merged to become Carnival Corporation & plc

After further research, I found this confusing text from cruisecritic.com about Princess:

• Princess is now part of the industry's giant Carnival Corporation a move that occurred when Carnival acquired the cruise line's parent company -- U.K.-based P&O Cruises.

And regarding P&O Cruises ...

• It acquired Los Angeles-based Princess Cruises in 1974 and Sitmar Cruises in 1988, which P&O chose to merge. Even more expansion followed for its Princess Cruises subsidiary. In October 2000, the company underwent another major change: P&O's parent company was acquired by Carnival Corporation and is now known as P&O Princess.

And Taken from P&O Cruises' website:

• In April 2004 P&O Princess plc, the parent company of P&O Cruises, joined together with Carnival Corporation, bringing together two of the best known and most successful organisations in the cruise industry. Already Britain’s market leading cruise company, P&O Cruises is now part of one of the world’s largest leisure travel companies.

• P&O Princess Cruises demerged from the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company on 23 October 2000 when it started trading as an independent company on the London and New York Stock Exchanges. Carnival Plc is now the third largest cruise company in the world by revenue

In conclusion, I'm totally confused!

Clarification

Carina22 is more or less spot on here, Carnival Corporation & plc is made up of TWO companies (dual listing) as indicated above. Carnival Corporation, which is the US listed company originally formed by Arison, and Carnival plc, which is the UK listed company formerly known as P&O Princess Cruises plc, which originates from P&O. These two companies are effectively run as one (Carnival Group), operating all the cruise brands in the group.

More specifically, Carnival plc is literally P&O Princess Cruises plc with a new name. When Carnival Corp and P&O Princess plc merged, it was agreed that P&O Princess would remain as a separate company, retaining the predominantly British shareholder body and management team; it was simply re-listed as Carnival plc. Carnival plc is NOT the company founded by Arison, Carnival plc is P&O's old cruise ship business with a new name!

The P&O Princess article goes into more detail about the background of the company, but again Carina22 is correct, P&O Princess plc was created from the old passenger division of P&O (Peninsular & Oriental). Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ships

you listed historic cunard ships like RMS Queen Elizabeth 1940 and old Carpathia under Carnival Corp. ships. What's that? It's wrong! QE 2 and QM 2 are okay. 10:01, July,29th 2005 DEF

I'd argue that since Cunard is now a subsidiary of Carnival Corporation, that these were correctly placed. As would RMS Titanic for example. However it would have to be properly noted. JonEastham 15:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So, how come I can't get to a P&O Cruises (Australia) or a P&O Cruises (UK) page where I would find info on the ships Pacific Sky, Pacific Star, Pacific Sun or Arcadia, Artemis, Aurora, Oceana, Oriana and soon Ventura? Where is all this located? Because when I search for P&O Cruises, I'm basically told it doesn't exist, when it does. --Eeclwa 21:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that P&O cruises should have it's own page, Carnival may own P&O, but it owns Princess to and they have their own page (incidentally P&O took over Princess before both brands were taken over by Carnival, deepening the injustice!) P&O Cruises has a history of over 100 years that stretches back way before Carnival comes along. Just because we trade as Carnival now (ok, so the cat's out of the bag, I work for P&O, well, Cunard, but that's another rant...) we still trade as P&O in the UK, most people don't know who Carnival are!

I'll agree to the last two comments. Definately something that needs doing one day. Newda898 21:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I started a separate article for P&O Cruises. It's a tad shortish as I didn't dare to get into the company history after all this confusion... so if anyone can wrap their heards around this better than me, go and improve the article right now! - Kjet 11:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea, it was the pain of taking a leap and starting it that seemed so daunting. Ah well, there's a project for the Easter holidays! Newda898 18:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Titanic

Yes Carnival did not own Titanic, but threw the purchase of Cunard, it has become part of its history. Please do not just revert back with talking about it. -Ben 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to support this? It seems to be a very tenuous link. Newda898 15:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence? Cunard bought White Star, years later Carnival brough Cunard. As a result you can - theoretically at least - say the Titanic was in a way a Carnival ship. However I have to point out it wasn't a cruise liner and therefore shouldn't belong in the list. - Kjet 14:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Operating income netincome and Revenues

1. Are the figuresin the right handside box in million or billion . because the data in the left side in the paragraph says billion . can someone please verify this.

Missing Financials

I've noticed that on numerous articles, someone is going around deleting useful financial data about the companies. Please leave financial data intact as it is indespensible to financial research. In this case, it looks like they selectively removed one company's more extensive and focused financial analysis and replaced it with yahoo's more general information. However, to not get into an editing war as to which external link is more useful to wikipedia viewrs, I'll leave both.192.114.4.36 (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see User talk:192.114.4.36#Seekingalpha.com spam and likely sockpuppetry. Thanks. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dianne Brimble

Why is there a mention of Dianne Brimble who died on a P&O cruise in Australia on the Wikipedia entry for Carnival Lines?

I will remove it (18 August 2008 22:13hrs AEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.215.201 (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with its removal; but, keep in mind that Carnival Corporation & plc (this article) owns P&O Cruises as well as Carnival Cruise Lines and several other cruise line brands, so that's likely why it's in this article. This article is about the parent company, not the cruise line which it owns, which has its own article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Carnival Corporation & plc. Aervanath (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Carnival Corporation & PLC → Carnival Corporation & plc — The version with lower case "plc" is that used by the company itself, and is also otherwise the far more commonly used version.  --Lambiam 14:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What the company's publicity office uses is largely irrelevant, under WP:MOSTRADE; what is the evidence on what other people do? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no easy way of excluding web pages produced by the company, so I can only report on the results of overall searches. A Google search for ["Carnival Corporation & PLC" +PLC -wikipedia] resulted in 601 entries, where Google "omitted some entries very similar to the 601 already displayed". A large majority of these entries is obviously from third parties. Not following the links, but just looking for occurrences of "Carnival Corporation & PLC" in any combination of lower and upper case in the snippets displayed, and discarding those occurrences with "CARNIVAL" in allcaps or "carnival" all in lower case, resulted in:

       81 entries have "Carnival Corporation & PLC" (14%)
       37 entries have "Carnival Corporation & Plc" ( 6%)
      482 entries have "Carnival Corporation & plc" (80%)

This includes double counts of snippets that have more than one type. Confined to snippets with a unique type, the preference for "plc" is marginally stronger: 82%.  --Lambiam 15:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You can cite works of general reference, or well-edited journalism; what does the BBC use? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of the nature of the company you normally expect only attention in business sections. I could not find references to "Carnival Corporation & plc" on the BBC website except in comments by visitors. The markets section of nytimes.com systematically uses "plc", but these items are essentially parroted press releases. Same for timesonline.co.uk; this has clearly not been run by any MOS. The name is shorthand for "Carnival Corporation & Carnival plc" (the company is double-listed, as the Miami-based "Carnival Corpation" (see NYSE/CCL) and the London-based "Carnival plc" (see NYSE/CUK), and NYSE gives the latter as "Carnival plc", with lower case "plc". This is the closest I can find to an authoritative source. I can't say I care enough about the business to delve further into the issue; I just thought it would be better to use the commonly encountered version of the name as the article title and don't see why there is not an equal need to cite works of general reference, or well-edited journalism, for "PLC".  --Lambiam 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - like "Company", "Corporation", "Inc.", "LLC", "Ltd." and other descriptions of a company's type included in the formal name, "PLC" should be capitalized. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  By dint of what rule? The use of "plc" is conventional, unlike "PLC". I see only 12 Wikipedia articles that have "PLC" in the title, of which a majority uses plc in the lede. For articles with "plc" in the title, we have: AWG plc · Abcam plc ·Alvis plc · Amersham plc · Amey plc · Arcadis AYH plc · BPB plc · BTR plc · Bango plc · Biocompatibles plc · British Gas plc · Brixton plc · CDC Group plc · CGU plc · CRH plc · CSR plc · Cadbury plc · Cobham plc · Connaught plc · Courts plc · Cranswick plc · Crosslee plc · Dalgety plc · Dignity plc · Eidos plc · Eircom Group plc · Elektron plc · Fenner plc · Findel plc · Fresnillo plc · Future plc · GTS plc · General Electric Company plc · Genus plc · Gondola Holdings plc · Grainger plc · Halma plc · Hanson plc · Hays plc · Hunting plc · IMI plc · ITV plc · Inchcape plc · Invu plc · Jarvis plc · John Holt plc · John Laing plc · Kingfisher plc · Laird plc · Laporte plc · MEPC plc · Marshalls plc · McBride plc · Melrose plc · NTR plc · National Grid plc · Nichols plc · Novar plc · Ocean Group plc · Pace plc · Persimmon plc · Prudential plc · RAC plc · RM plc · Redland plc · Renishaw plc · Renovo plc · Resolution plc · Ricardo plc · Rolls-Royce plc · SIG plc · STV Group plc · Score Group plc · Sears plc · Senior plc · Shaftesbury plc · Shire plc · Sky Television plc · Spice plc · Storehouse plc · TBI plc · TDG plc · TMN Group plc · The Mortgage Works (UK) plc · Tomkins plc · Ultramar plc · Uniq plc · Vickers plc · Wincanton plc. I rest my case.  --Lambiam 16:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I was mistaken, so I withdraw my opposition. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the use of lowercase "plc" appears to be both the de facto standard used on Wikipedia, and as it appears the more accurate official version, I have no objection to the move. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Header

Iberocruceros needs to be included in the listing in the lead para. 174.112.72.98 (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DONE Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Who is CEO?

The article on Micky Arison states that he is the current CEO, but this article states that it is Cahill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.18.52 (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Cruise line brand logos

Only the logo of the the parent company (in the infobox) should be used here. All the cruise brand logos fail WP:NFC on the following counts:

• None meet WP:NFCC#10c (no rationales for this article on their image description page)
• None meet WP:NFCC#8 (no contextual significance in this article: this article is not about those brands, it's about their parent company Carnival Corporation & plc; the logos are not the object of critical sourced commentary, they are only decorative elements here)
• None meet WP:NFCC#3 (it is not minimal use to sport 10 non-free images in this article; it's not minimal use to sport those logos here as well as in the articles on those cruise brands; if people need to see the logo, they can access the article on the specific cruise line they are looking for)

N.B. File:P&O Cruises Australia.svg is too simple to pass the threshold of originality and has been determined ineligible for copyright, you can do as you please with it here. All other logos are non-free images. Will Angelgreat, who most recently added them, agree to their removal? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sorry Finnusertop, I'll Remove the logos. I'm sorry. Please forgive me, and thank you for reading this message.

Thanks, Angelgreat (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2016 (CST)

It's okay. And thank you for addressing this issue, Angelgreat. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Side Panel (Brands)

The link for P&O goes to P&O Australia. I would correct it, but I am unsure of the format being used and don't want to break it (Newbie).

Jgw321 (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC) JGW321

Sorted. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carnival Corporation & plc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://shipbuildingtribune.com/2011/06/02/usa-fincantieri-receives-order-from-carnival-corps-to-build-new-cruise-ship/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carnival Corporation & plc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=200767&p=irol-corporatetimeline
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=200767&p=irol-products
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101011100326/http://chriscunard.com/qe2.php to http://www.chriscunard.com/qe2.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"PLC"/"plc" capitalisation

I have submitted an uncontroversial technical move request to change it back to "& PLC" as per User:Murgatroyd49's undo. It may not actually be uncontroversial as I just noticed the Requested move section above. I honestly don't care either way as long as the article title and body are consistent. 9³ (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: In case the move does not go through, I would ask you to start another move request below if you are not convinced by the previous discussion. 9³ (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree (as above) that the use of lowercase "plc" appears to be the de facto standard used on Wikipedia. Also if you look at the Memorandum of Association of the company it appears to have been registered as "Carnival plc". Dormskirk (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, general use trumps (sorry!) the niceties of English grammar. As the de facto standard leave it as plc. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Carnival Corporation & plc → Carnival Corporation & PLC – Proper capitalisation as per User:Murgatroyd49's reverting my decapitalisation of the bolded title in the lede. 9³ (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Dormskirk (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose The use of lowercase "plc" appears to be the de facto standard used on Wikipedia. Also if you look at the Memorandum of Association of the company it appears to have been registered as "Carnival plc". Dormskirk (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw: I have withdrawn my original technical move per discussion above. 9³ (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pollution and Cover-Up Case

Hi!

Can we have a new section detailing the Pollution and Cover-Up Case reported by the NYT on June 4th?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/business/carnival-cruise-pollution.html

Thank you! Andreas Wuschelweich (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone get a more recent picture?

I've noticed that people in certain second-tier cities seem to have no civic pride, in terms of the paucity of excellent photos on WP of landmarks around their cities. It's amazing that a photo I took 12 years ago on an entirely overcast day is still in this article because no one in South Florida apparently has the time to drive by Carnival Place with a camera on a sunny morning. For that reason, I no longer upload photos on cloudy days to WP and I shoot photos for WP only on sunny or partially overcast days. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

rumors about newbuilts from Italy / Fincantieri

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/shipbuilding-refurb-equipment/carnival-signals-cruise-newbuild-orders-cards-probable-2027-delivery 93.237.123.189 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Rumours, dressed up with common sense and non-committal answers to questions, remain rumours. WP is not a newspaper. - Davidships (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

All see WP:RUMOUR: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions." Dormskirk (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)