FYI, the current ship in the NCL fleet which will be re-flagged in the USA will be NORWEGIAN SKY. They are also calling her the second Project America ship which makes me wonder if a sister to PA1 will every be built? Very interesting news!

Ernie

-----------------------------------------

From Seatrade Insider:

NCL launches US-flag brand
6/5/2003

Norwegian Cruise Line will call its new US-flag brand NCL America, the company announced today. In addition, NCL detailed its largest ever Hawaii deployment for 2004: two NCL America ships sailing inter-island cruises and two NCL ships sailing Hawaii/Fanning Island itineraries. The new deployment will boost NCL's projected passenger carry in Hawaii to almost 200,000, a 40% increase over 2003.

Though the itineraries and the crews will be different, NCL said the common theme across all four ships will be the Freestyle Cruising trademark. NCL's first Project America ship (PA1) will begin Hawaii service in Hawaii in July 2004, offering seven-night inter-island cruises roundtrip from Honolulu. The second Project America ship (PA2) will be the reflagged Norwegian Sky, entering Hawaii service in October 2004, with three- and four-night inter-island jaunts roundtrip from Honolulu. Starting rates on the NCL America ships will be at the same level as the 2001 pricing that launched Norwegian Star: seven-night cruises begin at $899 and three-night at $499.

Norwegian Wind will return to Hawaii in May 2004 to resume its 10- and 11-day itineraries including Fanning Island, but deployment will become
year-round rather than seasonal, as in the past. Norwegian Star will continue its seven-day Fanning Island cruises through April 2004 when it
will then make way for the new seven-day inter-island cruises offered by PA1. As earlier reported, Norwegian Star will move to Alaska deployment in
Summer '04.

I still don't think it's fair NCL got this monopoly either.

So it will be PROJECT AMERICA 1 and NORWEGIAN SKY in Hawaii?

http://www.ncl.com/fleet/15/pj_amer1.htm

A couple examples:
Holland America Line
Swedish America Line
Norwegian America Line

Remember when Cunard took over Norwegian America? It was Cunard/NAC.

One thing the NCL America line name will do is create cross-awareness between the two lines. Customers will know right from the start if they cruise on NCL America, the same Freestyle concept will be available on regular NCL to the Caribbean or where ever... and the other way around.

Ernie

[ 05-06-2003: Message edited by: eroller ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:
Well, interesting enough there have been a lot of dual nationality cruise/shipping names over the years. I guess NCL/America is really not that different.

A couple examples:
Holland America Line
Swedish America Line
Norwegian America Line

---

Not quite the same. "Holland America Line" is basically a "generic" name that was adopted by HAL. They started out as a shipping route from Holland to America so people called it "the Holland-America line" and the name stuck.

I think it was a matter of being a shipping line running from Holland to America, not a dual-nationality company.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomeLines:
Lame name! Not impressed NCL!

---

Perhaps- but a brilliant marketing move. Remember people- its a business.

I just hope we don't see names like:
American Sky
American Dawn
American Sun

I'd much rather see:
Constitution
Liberty
Independence
United States
Patriot

quote:

---

Originally posted by cruiseny:

Not quite the same. "Holland America Line" is basically a "generic" name that was adopted by HAL. They started out as a shipping route from Holland to America so people called it "the Holland-America line" and the name stuck.

I think it was a matter of being a shipping line running from Holland to America, not a dual-nationality company.

Same with SAL, NAL, etc. I imagine.

---

I really don't care how HAL started, the fact remains there were several dual nationality names for cruise lines/shipping companies in the past. That is my point. The NCL America name should not come as a surprise, and from a brand awareness and marketing perspective it is probably a brilliant move. NCL has invested a lot of money in the "new" NCL and what it stands for (Freestyle Cruising), so why not expand on the synergies that already exist with the name? Makes perfect sense to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairsky:

I have a feeling the former is more likely.

---

I think you are right!

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:
The NCL America name should not come as a surprise, and from a brand awareness and marketing perspective it is probably a brilliant move. NCL has invested a lot of money in the "new" NCL and what it stands for (Freestyle Cruising), so why not expand on the synergies that already exist with the name? Makes perfect sense to me.

---

NCL have spent years and a lot of dollars creating their brand (NCL) so they obviously do not want to create a second brand to compete with it and create confusion in the market place. That would be shooting themselves in the foot.

The 'lame name' is a clever compromise. NCL are obviously hoping that people who enjoy a ‘NCL America’ cruise go on to take a regular NCL one, and vice-versa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cruiseny:

Personally I think it's a brilliant marketing move to cover up a not-so-brilliant marketing move ... That is, they should have dumped the NCL name altogether, and come up with a new Star Cruises global brand. The fact is today's NCL, as you pointed out has almost nothing in common with the "old" NCL except the name and the ships (even the crews have changed from West Indian to East Asian from what I hear). So really I don't see where the NCL name is good for anything, except of course that they dumped so much money into it that now they can't get rid of it even if the name itself says nothing about their product.

---

Can't argue with you! I agree with what you are saying, but getting rid of the NCL name now could be a PR disaster. Although there is very little Norwegian about NCL anymore except maybe the Officers, the name does have a history.

The same might be said about other lines as well. There is not too much Dutch about HAL anymore, same for Costa and the Italian's. Celebrity doesn't feel "Greek" and Princess doesn't feel very British anymore. I did still feel like I was on a British ship when sailing QE2, as many of the bar staff are still British. Of course it's nothing like it used to be. I wonder just how British QM2 will feel?

In any case, what NCL did with the NCL America name is probably the best thing considering the circumstances. They are sticking with the Freestyle concept even on the American line, so much of the PR work is already done, and they have a good foundation to build upon.

It is the initials, not the fact that the once stood for "Norwegian Carribean Line," that carry the corporate message!

Who remembers that RCA was (and is no longer)"the Radio Corporation of America?"
Or that "FMC Corp" used to be "the Food Machinery Corporation?" Or that the "MC" in MCI stood for "Motor Carriers?" (they were originally a trucking communication firm). Or that the "SP" in "Sprint" stood for "Southern Pacific?" Yes the railroad, they originally were a railroad communications entity.

Wall Street firms have been going from corporate titles to initials for years, and so have many other entities.

Sure "GE" still resonates as "General Electric," but in years to come, "NCL" will be just that, handy corporate-identifier initials which establishes the brand name, and to which new identities and ventures can be attached.

A good move!!

[ 05-06-2003: Message edited by: Cambodge ]

Regarless, at least HAL still flies the Dutch flag.

Celebrity flies the Bahamian flag.

Plus HAL, SAL, and NAL were flag carriers of those coutries, running line voyages from those countries to America. Cruiseny is right, it's not the same thing.

CGT

[ 05-06-2003: Message edited by: CGT ]

That would be totally pathetic.

They don't have a web site up but they seem to have one under construchion.

http://www.ncl-america.com/
http://www.nclamerica.com/

[ 05-06-2003: Message edited by: Ðraikar ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CGT:

Plus HAL, SAL, and NAL were flag carriers of those coutries, running line voyages from those countries to America. Cruiseny is right, it's <i>not</i> the same thing.

CGT

[ 05-06-2003: Message edited by: CGT ]

---

My point *again* was not how those other lines were formed, or what their history was. I was merely pointing out the *fact* that dual nationality names of cruise lines/shipping companies have existed in the past. It's nothing new. I'm simply taking about names here, not history.

I was not interested in a history lesson. I'm fully aware of how SAL, NAC, HAL, etc. were formed and what their operations were, and no, they were not like NCL in how they operated or why their names were created. Of course NCL was originally Norwegian Caribbean Lines... a name with identified both the Nationality of the cruise line and where they cruised to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CGT:

I still don't think it's fair NCL got this monopoly either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:
Yes, I too favour 'Norwegian American' line.

---

Noo... That's worse! The whole reason I don't like this name is that the "N" is still there standing for Norwegian. The brand should sound American not Norwegian!

If they have to keep the Norwegian business, they should at least keep NCL as it is NCL that is their brand identity, not "Norwegian"...

quote:

---

NCL have spent years and a lot of dollars creating their brand (NCL)

---

No, Star Cruises has spent a couple of years and a lot of dollars trying to keep the NCL brand while getting rid of the negative connotation. In the end it works, but I still wonder whether it wouldn't have been easier and better to just dump the whole NCL business altogether, except maybe for NORWAY.

Yeah except "Caribbean" is a region, not a sovereign country.

The point is, that HAL, SAL, and NAL were not lame name choices, whereas "NCL America", is.

CGT

[ 05-06-2003: Message edited by: CGT ]

Absolutely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cambodge:
It is the initials, not the fact that the once stood for "Norwegian Carribean Line," that carry the corporate message!

Who remembers that RCA was (and is no longer)"the Radio Corporation of America?"
Or that "FMC Corp" used to be "the Food Machinery Corporation?" Or that the "MC" in MCI stood for "Motor Carriers?" (they were originally a trucking communication firm). Or that the "SP" in "Sprint" stood for "Southern Pacific?" Yes the railroad, they originally were a railroad communications entity.

---