Normandie Interiors Today

[Brent Holt]

This is a valid point. The Rex, Conte De Savoia, Normandie, Bremen, and Europa were conceived as prestige vessels and profit was a secondary consideration.
On the other hand, some of the older ships were built without subsidies and expected to turn a profit. Looking at data from the Depression year, it is safe to say that Olympic made a profit from 1911-1932. She operated at a loss from 1933-1935. (Although her numbers were climbing in 1935-compared to 1934-when Olympic was laid up and retired.
The Imperator Class liners most certainly made $$$ in the 1920s. The Berengaria tended to lead the pack with higher revenues, with Majestic not too far behind. The Leviathan was very popular, contrary to what many believe, but her profitability is a difference question since she ran under government operation from 1923-1929. Using that info, she was profitable from the mid-20s until the Depression hit the big ships hard. The Imperator Class liners were very expensive to operate. Olympic had the lowest operating costs of them all. She could carry fewer passengers than them and yet make more $$$$.
I wish more info was available on the other ships, but it may have been lost.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>I wish more info was available on the other ships, but it may have been lost.<<

So do I, but I'd be greatly surprised if any of the financial records from that time have survived to the present day. I think they'ed make some very interesting and revealing reading.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>>You've claimed that the Normandie was both popular and profitable, but I dont see any strong evidence for either.

>Actually I claimed that a book said she was profitable and that that burst the myth. Not exactly the same thing,

?????????????????????????????????????????

>I am having a hard time understanding the attitude that Normandie was such a flop. I do not think the passenger data backs that up,

Well, apart from the facts that the passenger totals started out weak (around 950- 1935) weakened (908) 1936, rallied a bit in 1937 (around 1050- and her best crossing that year, a summer sailing, had approx 1400 on board) slumped in 1938 back to the mid 900s; she was sailing half empty with a crew of 1300; she was out of service more than she was in service 1935-1938, and the portion of her debt NOT absorbed by the French Government could have built a large liner, she had all the hallmarks of a runaway success.

>You can infer from the data above that Olympic and Majestic earned good profits in the 20s when they carried higher passenger loads.

Well...no, you really can't. The introdcution of the Depression makes this, again, a case of apples and oranges. I'm not a fan of either ship and so can't answer this myself, but by 1932 (the depths of the depression~ 1933 would be equally bad)I'd be willing to guess that severe cost cutting measures were in effect. Were their crews reduced? How large a pay cut did the remaining crew take to keep their jobs? Were onboard services maintained at 1929 levels, or would passengers have noticed a new austerity? Did the ships maintain full seasons, or were they withdrawn during the off seasons to cut costs? Did they cruise? It was not impossible for a ship to turn a profit in the depression~ for most of the decade they remained the only way to cross, Zeppelin travel notwithstanding- but those that did, did so by extensive belt tightening.

What, or who, was the original source for the profit and loss figures given and why was this source created to begin with? Believe it or not, even internal documents are sometimes....creative.... particularly when a company is in trouble, which by 1933 White Star certainly was.

So, extrapolating from figures compiled in 1933 to assume profits were made pre-1929 can't really be done. The Depression, like WW2, created such a unique economy that its statistics stand alone and can't cross over to reenforce (or negate)points being made about pre depression or postwar profits and losses.

All of which has little or nothing to do with whether or not a brand new $60 million liner, sailing half empty- and only half of the time- with a large crew, and subject to a massive first season rebuild could possibly have generated a net profit as you originally claimed. You introduced the word "myth." Now, expand a bit on the hows and the whys.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>The Rex, Conte De Savoia, Normandie, Bremen, and Europa were conceived as prestige vessels and profit was a secondary consideration.

Well....no. the Rex, Conte di Savoia, Bremen, Europa, Normandie and Empress of Britain were all conceived in, and for, a boom economy. No company or goverment creates a ship simply for prestige. When they were conceived, there was a logical reason for their being. It was gone by the time they made their respective debuts, except in the case of the Bremen. They became "Ships of State" in the literal sense, because by the time the depression really started getting horrendous (ca 1931) there was no turning back for any of them, and State Subsidy was the only way that they could have survived.

 

[Danny Adrianus Post]

The DVD is really bright and beautifully restored. It deals with onboard life and you get to see Normandie in a way you have never seen before. I've watched it twice already. Really bizarre to see full colour images of the 1930's.

 

[Brent Holt]

I assume this DVD is not for region 1? I would like to have it, regardless of what language it is in, but that would be pointless if it is not encoded for "my" part of the world.

 

[Danny Adrianus Post]

The DVD is for region 2 and totally in French. Since I am from The Netherlands my French is reasonably good, but the images are what is important. No subtitles unfortunately.

 

[Brent Holt]

>You can infer from the data above that Olympic and Majestic earned good profits in the 20s when they carried higher passenger loads. (BH)

Well...no, you really can't. The introduction of the Depression makes this, again, a case of apples and oranges. Did the ships maintain full seasons, or were they withdrawn during the off seasons to cut costs? Did they cruise? (JK)

I think you can. Olympic made 16 round trips in 1931 and several cruises. (The cruises were not included in the figures.) That schedule was cut to 11 in 1932-although this was less than originally planned since Olympic was pulled from service 2 months earlier than expected for a planned overhaul of her reciprocating engines that had not had significant work done on them since built. It is not a leap of faith to say that Olympic must have been very profitable if she made money in 1932 at 430 passengers per crossing & made a lot more in the 1920s when she did much better than that. (BH)

>Were their crews reduced? How large a pay cut did the remaining crew take to keep their jobs? (JK)

I have no info from the WS side of this. I do know that Cunard reduced crew wages on several occasions according to Berengaria: Cunard’s Happy Ship. (BH)

>What, or who, was the original source for the profit and loss figures given and why was this source created to begin with? Believe it or not, even internal documents are sometimes....creative.... particularly when a company is in trouble, which by 1933 White Star certainly was. (JK)

The original source comes from White Star documents. (There are still a few left-contrary to what many believe.) WS kept financial records-that is why they were created. (BH)

>So, extrapolating from figures compiled in 1933 to assume profits were made pre-1929 can't really be done. The Depression, like WW2, created such a unique economy that its statistics stand alone and can't cross over to reinforce (or negate) points being made about pre depression or postwar profits and losses. (JK)

If that is true, than the whole discussion is mute. In much of history it is necessary to take the info available and estimate in the absence of complete data. (BH)

> All of which has little or nothing to do with whether or not a brand new $60 million liner, sailing half empty- and only half of the time- with a large crew, and subject to a massive first season rebuild could possibly have generated a net profit as you originally claimed. You introduced the word "myth." Now, expand a bit on the hows and the whys. (JK)

You are doing the same thing you said I was doing. You are making assumptions. This debate is becoming circular. I never said net profit. There is also gross profit to consider. (Net profit factors in overhead costs while gross looks at the ship as a unit in itself) I have only seen actual financial data on Normandie from one book. Therefore there is no more data currently available to answer the question. (BH)

 

[Joe Russo]

Here are some close ups of some of the panels recently.

http://auction.igavel.com/AuctionHelp.taf?S=N&R=2&return=50&sort=4&ST=2&days=1000&bo=1&category_id=&skipkw=&keyword=L1GB&_start=1&_UserReference=7F000 00146B48F0A7A6DA68C29444490F2EE

 

[Brandon McKinney]

Perhaps what I've missed something - BUT here's a point that I think hasn't been brought to the discussion...

Normandie - in the months leading up to her maiden voyage and years afterward was WILDLY popular (Mr. Jim is shaking his head right now - hear me through.) Normandie certainly was a popular thing in her day - and the people I have spoken to who saw her firsthand testify it - my late Great Aunt (who interestingly served as a WAC member during WW2 - if its the right term) saw the ship when she was in NYC once and a few other people I've talked to remember her vividly - one lady watercolorist even remembering one of the (apparently many) instances that Normandie berthed herself without the use of any tugs or port assistance.

Normandie WAS popular - but here's where the difference is and explains how a ship could be so popular and spoken of on both sides of the Atlantic and not be able to be called anything financially resembling "profitable."

Normandie was popular on LAND and not at sea. People loved her, yes - but no one could afford to travel on her and hardly anyone had the money to even think about traveling on her. The numerous bars, hotels, nightclubs, and restaurants that were named after her during her period can testify to that fact. Of course the Avante-Garde couldn't stand the interiors - but apparently the general public didn't seem to mind.

Does this make any sense? I think it does - and it answers a couple questions that are being debated - not all mind you, but some. How a ship could be so talked about in her time and still be the financial Skidoo/Can't Stop the Music! of the French Line.

Perhaps someone disagrees?

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>Normandie WAS popular - but here's where the difference is and explains how a ship could be so popular and spoken of on both sides of the Atlantic and not be able to be called anything financially resembling "profitable."

Using that rationale, Sylvester Stallone's recurring attempts at becoming a singing star were popular since so many people know of them. Known and popular are not the same thing.

>People loved her, yes - but no one could afford to travel on her and hardly anyone had the money to even think about traveling on her.

Her basic rates were only about $25-$50 per cabin higher than aboard the Champlain or Lafayette, to judge by the 1937 price schedule. So it was not a matter of being priced out of the market for a basic cabin that kept travellers away.

>How a ship could be so talked about in her time and still be the financial Skidoo/Can't Stop the Music! of the French Line.

Skidoo, Can''t Stop the Music and Stallone's country and western musical Rhinestone were all talked about in their day, as well. People talked about them, but did not pay to see them. Talk, after all, is cheap~ it is action at the box office that counts.

 

[Brandon McKinney]

>Using that rationale, Sylvester Stallone's recurring attempts at becoming a singing star were popular since so many people know of them. Known and popular are not the same thing.

I have to disagree with you here actually. People talked about Sylvester Stallone's attempts at being a singer-star, yes - but the tone of that talk was - I assume - not positive! Normandie's talk wasn't all positive I'm sure, but I don't think there was all that many actually liking Stallone's 'singing' if it can be called that.

>Her basic rates were only about $25-$50 per cabin higher than aboard the Champlain or Lafayette, to judge by the 1937 price schedule. So it was not a matter of being priced out of the market for a basic cabin that kept travellers away.

Then I don't think that it was her interiors that scared people away alone - people aren't THAT finicky. I don't believe Normandie's interiors could be blamed completely for her financial implosion, I've always heard that traveling on the Normandie was expensive - so perhaps I had been listening to the wrong person. I'm not insinuating you were saying that Normandie's interiors were to blame - but I wanted to clarify that it couldn't have been the interiors that kept people away.

What were the passenger carrying averages for the Ile de France, Paris, Lafayette and Champlain for 1935 to 1938? Were they as rotten as Normandie's? It would be interesting to see how the whole French Line's transat ships did during Normandie's run. Perhaps it was the political situation in Europe that kept people away? Or perhaps it was just the fact that not everyone wanted to go to France? I'm not making statements - but rather I'm asking questions. If it wasn't Normandie's interiors that kept people away and I don't believe it was - it may have contributed but I don't think it was the main culprit - then WHY was Normandie such a financial flop?

I know its construction cost was astronomical, but even then Normandie COULD have done a lot better than she did - she still wouldn't have made a profit but she could have made a good step towards a profit had it not been for that intangible factor that kept people away. Why?

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>Then I don't think that it was her interiors that scared people away alone - people aren't THAT finicky.

I say "Carnival" and you say....?

(Let's call the whole thing off?)

Back later, to further beat this dead horse

 

[Olivier Alexander Dochez]

The only great thing missing in the first class public rooms interiors of the Normandie was furniture of le Corbusier, I think the LC1, and so on, would have been amazing in those interiors. for example it would have looked better than those, even for the late 30's, tacky embroided red seats of the smoking room

 

[Grant Carman]

Quick question. Does anyone know what happened to the light pillars from the First Class Dining Room? I understand that there is a lot of CGT stuff in storage, property of the French Governement I believe, and maybe they still have them there?