Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About JRG

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
    Oceanside, California
  • Interests
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't agree with this statement. Caregivers are very much concerned with their own protection as they assist with the Covid patients.
  2. Objection your honor, if the language in the contract includes such a clause, then Force Majeure applies. Doesn't mean HAL or CCL shouldn't be held responsible for actions that seem questionable, but what else are they going to say in defense of a class action suit.
  3. For me this is the biggest question of how the new normal would look. We've seen some clues for how some things will differ, but I haven't seen anything about managing outbreaks on board. Its a deal-breaker for alot of people.
  4. If your stuck with a loss after all is said and done and you pay US taxes, you may be eligible to treat it as a casualty loss and deduct some of it now and carry the NOL forward too if need be. It would depend on your tax situation and your AGI but it is better than nothing.
  5. I'd suggest something that pairs well with the leftover Red Herring that keeps getting served here.
  6. Ok I see your point sorry for the rambling. I'm not thinking that way and I appreciate you pointing that out to me and I can see how it looks that way. Thank you for graciously handling that. I usually don't post that much but this topic triggered my interest. I should try writing in Haiku style to keep me in check.
  7. Thank you for posting the pertinent rule of law here, This is the applicable sub-chapter above in (2) This information belongs here and would be a cornerstone piece of a FAQ on the subject. And kudos for being an Akita rescue hero as I know what that means. Most people don't. And also, I have to ask, because I think you may travel on business (I have over 500 segments logged), have you ever tried to get from Southern California to Canada Place to catch a cruise? It is a pita because of the puddle jumping you have to due to Delta and Alaska connection routes. By the time travelers from SoCal get to Canada place we are worn out. If you live elsewhere you may not have experienced this. Point being it would be nice to have more cruising departures open up from Seattle (and other WC ports) and all of the tourist revenue dollars spent would stay in Seattle. I am not being fecetious but if you have flown from this direction northward to catch a cruise it really sucks unless you are leaving directly out of Seattle on your cruise, which is superb. That is a bonafide travel inconvenience travelers from our area face when looking at limited itinerary options for Alaska cruises.
  8. Thank you both for the previous posts because I agree with virtually all you summarize as valid pros and cons. I am not arguing against your points of view, they are well described and they illustrate the complexity. It's a good time to acknowledge I know this a small piece of the pie we're talking about, but even a small slice (5%) is a big chunk of change when you consider billions spent. The cruiselines are now using the term drive-to-port customers to reference a specific segment of the market, that is driving my thought process here. Cruisemom zeroed in on the apex of the problem IMO. It's not the missing link is the obvious link. It is the labor cost component of the formula to causes the fail in the pass/fail feasibility, it makes total sense to understanding the problem. I'm thinking pro-forma because that is what I do. CDC will eventually give cruising a flashing green light. If CDC never intends to give cruising the green light, then they would have made that announcement to minimize industry salvation and prevent stock price evaporation. That is the premise for my thoughts. The financial observation that the idea has been discussed before in previous feasibility studies it correct . However, the fact it was on the radar at means there was some merit underneath it all and therefore, could conceivably come back onto the radar screen. When dealing with pro-forma financial statements, you have to take significant events into account and grappling with the aftershocks from COVID-19 it forces you to think things thru. When you look at the internals of the 'financial feasibility', intelligent people can see that the labor is the biggest component problem. Even the Chief will admit this. I've always known that and providing a solution to this particular component changes the potential "financial feasibility" There are two solutions I would propose to address the labor cost component of the "financial feasibility". My first instinct was to change the wages structure for ship personnel to approximate state wages for similar type of employment. And yes that would mean minimum wages plus tips. This is the world shocker to CLIA but it is one of the prime chips thing they can bring to the table if they had to change or position on PVSA exclusion. I'm lucky enough to also have an industrialist's background and I can tell you that ships need to sail. Opening up the drive-to port market has certain built in advantages to cruiselines who need to manage the ramp up that redeployment requires. The cost of the labor here is the biggest cog in the wheel in feasibility question and if that changed the suddenly changing law makes more sense. My second solution would be to follow the Canadian heath system model, it has the best of both worlds. That would mean government intervention similar in form to how the National Parks were commissioned. We would need a US Cruising Commission just like we needed a US National Park Service, similar to how we needed a US Maritime commission back in the mid-to late 1930's. A Cruising commission would have the leverage to combat special interest groups to get laws passed and they would have the governance to solve the port snafu issue. I'd create a new wage structure for the cruise ships (doing this particular type of cruise) to solve the labor component because I believe in solving those types of inequities and it affects my quality of cruise life if it is artificially driving the cost of shipboard maintenance. I'd write to Congress to create a US Cruising Commission first.
  9. and this is why I leave my opinion at generating another study, given the delta in the environment. That would be my proof.
  10. I thought this quote really summed up the situation and deserves attention. Over and out again.
  11. Ok, I was referring to an earlier post who made this suggestion. Good point as I do not know this for a fact, I am just repeating it so I see what you are saying. If I remember correctly, somebody said that by changing the definition of distant or foreign port, that cruiseline voyages discussed in this thread would be a moot point, or good to go, as far as this whole PVSA Snafu is concerned. That is forward progress from my point of view which I tried my best to explain in my opinion I think it is forward progress for the OP who started this thread if I understand the original intent which I agreed with. Over and out.
  12. Ok, my opinion is that we need a feasibility study on the matter to determine if someone is drinking 100% of our milkshake. If milkshake is too strong then I should have said "someone is benefiting dis-proportionately from our PVSA redundant port snafu. I say 100% because 100% of one of my travel days is given up for this redundant purpose. I say 100% percent of my travel costs, including fees and taxes for 1 full day (including the daily cost of the cruise) because 100% is given up for this redundant purpose. Point is I didn't just make up some grab ass number. I hope you can comprehend with my added detail and no hard feelings. If you are objecting to the 100% being too high then just say so. Furthermore, if it is happening solely because ports are mis-classified, then that should be rectified and if somebody in the Coast Guard or elsewhere could do it then they could be heroes. Furthermore, if they could do it in such a way that the US Coast Guard increases its share of the "milkshake" then why not?. They deserve and need the resources more than the person drinking our milkshake. My opinion is it takes a feasibility study to answer alot the questions put forth on the thread. I'm motivated by the fact that the environment and time is ripe for such a concept and favorable outcome would be nice.
  13. You re probably right about this. It would have to be a top down type of thing. I also never vote with my feet as I was speaking metaphorically
  14. And they probably have to stop in Vancouver, or Victoria, or Valhalla, it doesn't matter they have to make a redundant stop so you are not bringing anything to the table here. Prove to me that there is a cruiseline that sails from San Diego to Seattle (along the coast) without stopping in Vancouver, Victoria or Valhalla. Or prove to me there is a cruiseline that sales from Seattle to Los Angeles (along the coast) that does not make a foreign stop. Feel welcome to substitute any other west coast US port. If you can prove this then I will be the first to fall on the sword. Otherwise my point remains, somebody is drinking 100% of our milkshake here.
  • Create New...