Will More Cruise Ships Leave Alaska?

[LauraS]

Cruise Critic has just posted the following news:

Will More Cruise Ships Leave Alaska?

Read the entire news article...

[KL&KR]

It's just the economy, and they're trying to take a dig at Alaska as they trim back.

Kristen

[c-legs]

Hi,

CCL's announcement has already come out.
HAL is re-arranging its itineraries but not taking a vessel out of the overall Alaska market; it will however reduce the ''7 day north // 7 day south '' deployment by one vessel.
Princess is removing one vessel from the market place altogether ( Star ) and doing same as HAL in re-arranging its itineraries and reducing the ''7 day north // 7 day south '' deployment by one vessel ( Sapphire ).
So far: two 2 '' net loss'' for the Alaska market ( Rccl's Serenade & Star Princess )....
Another trend is even more evident: ''7 day north // 7 day south '' sailings are being reduced noticeably....not an insignificant loss for the Alaska tourism industry, in area of cruise tours and the inherent $$$ contribution.
Also, the lines themselves, as owners of their own infrastructure up there
( resorts, busses, rail cars, etc...) will suffer from the reduced asset utilization resulting from the drop in land tours that are always tied in solid with the ''north/south'' cruise influx.
That head tax that those guys in Fairbanks voted in a couple of years ago is really showing its true ''value'' (sic)...a real case of killing the goose that lays the golden egg....
I still maintain Mickey Arison ( & other execs.) is doing a rather clever bit of sabre rattling with these moves....Things may change right in Fairbanks....ergo with the cruise industry, sooner than we think...

Cheers

[Kagehitokiri]

so maybe this is why regent is changing ships, from larger all-balcony to smaller.

[aussie2324]

I have also been told that you can not do a B2B alaska then Hawaii cruise for september 2010 because CS does not return to same port that it departed for Glacier Bay. Why? I would like to know. Realllly wanted to do the B2B. All I was told was it is a new rule.

[bovs]

[quote=KL&KR;18828869]It's just the economy, and they're trying to take a dig at Alaska as they trim back.

Kristen[/QUOTE
-----------------------------------

You have to understand Alaskans. They don't like crowds! That's why most of them moved to Alaska or being born there, loved the place, and now each year, here come more and more cruise ships, and each year they keep getting larger and larger, with more and more people, and some days there are multiple shiploads of tourists in town, with more and more crowds. It makes it very difficult for the average Alaskan to come to town to take care of his business, and leave, because of all the crowds always there from May until September! That is the purpose of the head tax; to try and discourage cruise lines from bringing more and more larger ships into each port all summer long. If $50 a head won't discourage it, then they will increase the price, to a point where the cruise lines greatly reduce the crowds, and the wear and tear and scars upon the land, etc. This is an ongoing story to follow in the coming years, I think. Are there some Alaskans out there that can confirm or deny this story as I perceive it? Have I got it right? I would appreciate your input.

-Gene-

[Aplmac]

Two months ago, I did a very interesting behind-the-scenes tour of an RCCL ship
with a group of local hoteliers interested in finding out more
about how systems generally work on board cruise ships.

For four hours we had a frank and forthright Environmental Officer
who broadened our knowledge about matters we never knew we were interested in
and while we had lunch together in Windjammer
I questioned him a bit further about the future of cruises to Alaska
given the strict environmental parameters already in place
to prevent or restrict ships pumping off waste products in Alaska waters.

He indicated that the Alaska environmental discharge rules only got stricter and more prohibitive
and it was his opinion that the future for cruises to Alaska can only get more and more grim
to the point where environmental law will eventually stop cruises altogether
because it'll simply make life so incredibly difficult for cruise lines to comply.

His bottom line was...do your Alaska cruise soon
while the cruise lines still find it worthwhile and feasible.

The amount of years he gave it ..can be counted on one hand.


.

[johnlcruise]

[quote=bovs;19362892]

Originally Posted by KL&KR

It's just the economy, and they're trying to take a dig at Alaska as they trim back.

Kristen[/QUOTE
-----------------------------------

You have to understand Alaskans. They don't like crowds! That's why most of them moved to Alaska or being born there, loved the place, and now each year, here come more and more cruise ships, and each year they keep getting larger and larger, with more and more people, and some days there are multiple shiploads of tourists in town, with more and more crowds. It makes it very difficult for the average Alaskan to come to town to take care of his business, and leave, because of all the crowds always there from May until September! That is the purpose of the head tax; to try and discourage cruise lines from bringing more and more larger ships into each port all summer long. If $50 a head won't discourage it, then they will increase the price, to a point where the cruise lines greatly reduce the crowds, and the wear and tear and scars upon the land, etc. This is an ongoing story to follow in the coming years, I think. Are there some Alaskans out there that can confirm or deny this story as I perceive it? Have I got it right? I would appreciate your input. -Gene-

Please note that alot of these ports in Alaska want the ships to come. The owners of business of these port stops rely on the tourists to make there money to get them through the slow time of year. Oct. through May when there is no money to be made. Alot of people in the Alaska ports really want the tourists. Its the people that live, in-land that could care less about this.

[oysterdam]

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/...38614255.shtml

Here's an interesting article, albeit from the business point of view.

Key point:
The visitor loss is estimated at 140,000 in 2010, which translates to 1,800 tourism-related jobs lost statewide, and a loss of $72 million per year in annual payroll.

Joe