The Cruise and Travel Industry is in a very bad place!

[navybankerteacher]

13 hours ago, chipmaster said:

For those with WSJ subscriptions an excellent article:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-long-shadow-of-the-pandemic-2024-and-beyond-11602860214

 

Basically anyone who thinks vaccine at WARP speed is going to change anything is blind and living in an alternative wishful reality.

 

The title says it all, BTW even after 2024 somethings will NEVER be the same.  

 

When you think about it, things never really remain the same.  Cruising certainly evolved - from the rare few ships which for more than a century offered cruises for the wealthy to the emerging mass-market .

 

The existence of mass market cruising has impacted the ports visited, so that experience has evolved - and will continue to do so.  Perhaps the age of the large (4,000 to 6,000 pax) ship is going to fade - replaced by smaller ships - or maybe ever larger ones.

 

The fact is : things NEVER remain the same - so “normal” is an ever changing concept. COVID has just accelerated the process.

[ilikeanswers]

A lot of people afraid of the changes to come in travel. I know there will be some losers but perhaps this time to pause can also be a good way to re-evaluate the industry. Lets face it mass market tourism whilst it has increased the opportunity for travel it has also brought with it problems that can't be ignored forever. At the end of the day even without the pandemic the boom times would have hit an unsustaniable point. The fact that there are destinations that have literally become unlivable due to tourism points to a terrible imbalance. I love to travel but I also don't want to be contributing to something that is causing great negative impacts to a destination. I try my best to pick options that should be as positive an imapct as I can find but there are numerous destinations that are so geared to exploiting every nook and crany in the tourism industry that no option is really beneficial. Maybe this interruption to the tourism industry is what we need to bring forth the much needed changes to make this a sustainable and truely beneficial industry. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that something good comes out of this🤗.

[sverigecruiser]

10 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

In this case, what I personally prefer just happens to be good for the environment. I think you'll find it is also the personal preference of the general population of cruise locations like Venice (for exactly the same reason).

 

No cruising at all should probably be good for the environment. Do we want that?

 

If poor people stay poor it's also good for the environment but I still don't want that. 

[sverigecruiser]

15 hours ago, drsel said:

 

Not supergood ???
It's absolutely incredible and amazing under the circumstances!!!
I am happy for you!

 

I said maybe not supergood because I know that some people want more. Some of my investments have been much better than that so different decisions made by me a year ago could have been better, or worse. The stock market is always a question about what to buy, what to sell and what to keep.

 

Personally I'm always happy to get 30% in less than a year but under normal circumstances I'm more happy than this year. The reason for that is that I believe that much of the increase on the stock market this year is because lots of governments in rich countries around the world has spent billions of dollars to try to keep the economy up. Noone knows what will happen in the future. How much more can our governments afford to spend? Will it take us through a second wave? A third wave?

[Flatbush Flyer]

12 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

No cruising at all should probably be good for the environment.  

Not necessarily as regards small ships (for all of the obvious reasons).

[sverigecruiser]

1 minute ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Not necessarily as regards small ships (for all of the obvious reasons).

 

Can you explain that?

 

Every time I start my car it's bad for the environment. Isn't it the same for every cruiseship, even the small ones?

[ilikeanswers]

6 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Not necessarily as regards small ships (for all of the obvious reasons).

 

It not always that simple. If you have five ships carrying a maximum of 1000 pax it can be worst for the environment than having one mega ship carrying 5000 pax. It is no different to having four people pooling in car vs four cars on the road🙄. 

[ilikeanswers]

9 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

Can you explain that?

 

Every time I start my car it's bad for the environment. Isn't it the same for every cruiseship, even the small ones?

 

Side by side comparison smaller cruise ships overall use less energy and resources to run a trip. Just like a big car can be more petrol thirsty than a small car. However if you look at it per person basis the stats start to become a bit murky. Really small ships can be more energy inefficient per person than a large mega ship where it is distributed between thousands of people. Then you add in things like infrastructure, for example a mega cruise needs larger docks, wharfs, terminals and you could argue that adds to damaging the environment. On the other hand if that is replaced with many small ships arriving on the same day well you need additional infrastructure for that too. When it comes to cruise ships because there is so many parts to the operation it is hard to get a true gauge of what is the more environmentally friendly option 🤔. 

[chipmaster]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

Very early into this pandemic, I was of the opinion that if we had really buckled down early, we could've stopped the spread of this thing, as they've done in a few other countries (and not all of them totalitarian; e.g., New Zealand). But I've accepted now that this was never likely in the US -- such a large country with so many points of entry, no government will to act early and decisively and a large population of scofflaws.

 

 

 

 

Sadly the US was once the greatest country the model of the world, but that comes with leadership, stewardship and a unifying leader.    This was an opportunity to show how America could unify and become great, but it is nothing but petty blaming going around.    

 

There is still hope as like life, it is never too late to change your attitude and approach.  

 

Cruise in 2022 probably, sadly. 

[iancal]

I believe that the industry will undergo significant change and re-organization over the next two-three years.  More ships gone, perhaps one or more of the cruise conglomerates re-organized and re-shaped through bankruptcy.  Some subsidiary cruise lines may end up in the history books instead of on the seas.

 

There is a fairly long list of new build deliveries in 2021.  Cruising will not be back to normal for at least 2 years..  But the financial costs of accepting delivery and operating these ships when the industry is on its uppers will, I believe, lead to more measures by the industry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by iancal

[Flatbush Flyer]

51 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Can you explain that?

 

Every time I start my car it's bad for the environment. Isn't it the same for every cruiseship, even the small ones?

See post #83. People are not going to stop traveling from A to B. The issue becomes how best to get there (environmentally). 

 

[sverigecruiser]

43 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Side by side comparison smaller cruise ships overall use less energy and resources to run a trip. Just like a big car can be more petrol thirsty than a small car. However if you look at it per person basis the stats start to become a bit murky. Really small ships can be more energy inefficient per person than a large mega ship where it is distributed between thousands of people. Then you add in things like infrastructure, for example a mega cruise needs larger docks, wharfs, terminals and you could argue that adds to damaging the environment. On the other hand if that is replaced with many small ships arriving on the same day well you need additional infrastructure for that too. When it comes to cruise ships because there is so many parts to the operation it is hard to get a true gauge of what is the more environmentally friendly option 🤔. 

 

No travel is still best for the environment. 

[sverigecruiser]

14 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

See post #83. People are not going to stop traveling from A to B. The issue becomes how best to get there (environmentally). 

 

 

I agree with you that the issue is how to get there as good as possible, environmentally.

 

But no travelling "for fun" is still the best for the environment. 

[Flatbush Flyer]

10 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

But no travelling "for fun" is still the best for the environment. 

That will never happen.

[sverigecruiser]

27 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

That will never happen.

 

I agree with that but as I said, no cruising is still the best for the environment.

[mnocket]

22 hours ago, drsel said:

regarding economic impact-- the stock markets all around the world are booming.

MOST OF THEM ARE CLOSE TO THEIR ALL-TIME HIGHS.

 

That's true.  It's also true that there is a huge disconnect between the economy and the stock market.  Does anyone actually believe that the economy is in better shape now than pre-Covid?  That's what the stock market would have you believe.

[mnocket]

2 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

If poor people stay poor it's also good for the environment but I still don't want that. 

Then cheer up.  As I posted above, the poverty rate in the USA has been in decline.

Edited October 17, 2020 by mnocket

[navybankerteacher]

20 minutes ago, mnocket said:

That's true.  It's also true that there is a huge disconnect between the economy and the stock market.  Does anyone actually believe that the economy is in better shape now than pre-Covid?  That's what the stock market would have you believe.

There are many factors which enable the stock market to fail to parallel the larger economy.   One reason why it is doing well is that people can borrow money very cheaply so they can participate — but more directly:  the fact that the US government is spending itself into a massive hole of debt is virtually certain to result in a loss of value for the dollar in the coming unavoidable cycle of inflation.  Owning a piece of the economy rather than a pile of dollars is one good way to protect yourself from the almost certain devaluation of those dollars.

Edited October 17, 2020 by navybankerteacher

[drsel]

The "Grand classica" (formerly Costa neoclassica) of Bahamas Paradise is expected to be among the first cruise ships to sail out of USA on 18th December 2020.

[drsel]

 

 

 

No.  Actually the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer

if everyone is getting richer then that's great news, because people will have more disposable income to enjoy life

 

 

[dogs4fun]

21 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Of course people with greater wealth are likely to have more invested in the stock market than those with less;  but the fact remains that anyone with an IRA or a 401k  account will benefit proportionately - and that involves a lot more than the upper 10%.  

Yes, thank you - exactly my point. 

Many of us, including myself, have investments in the stock market - usually in the form of an IRA or 401K. I am not yet withdrawing from my investments but when I do, I will benefit from my investments even though I am not in the top 10%.

My original comment was distorted to "NO ONE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES owns a 401k or IRA product from which they pull a retirement income unless they're in the upper 10%".

I was simply pointing out the obvious -  the greatest benefit is derived from those that have the most invested - the top 10%. 

[sfaaa]

19 hours ago, drsel said:

 

I agree with you, but does it imply that the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

It can also mean the smart ones get richer and dumb fools or suckers lose their shirt. 

[drsel]

 That is what I get from reading posts backwards.   

How do you manage to read posts backwards ?
It must be really tough..[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[drsel]

It can also mean the smart ones get richer and dumb fools or suckers lose their shirt. 

Absolutely! along with their pants I must add.

[evandbob]

2 hours ago, mnocket said:

No.  Actually the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer......

 

The official poverty rate in 2019 was 10.5%, a decrease of 1.3 percentage points from 11.8% in 2018. This is the fifth consecutive annual decline in the national poverty rate. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 4.3 percentage points, from 14.8% to 10.5%.

 

 Perhaps true if you quote just your one year old source.   5 others that are newer show higher rates: it all depends on who is doing the calculation, what method they use, what level of poverty (annual salary) is agreed to, the time of the survey, etc.  Sometimes we just have to accept a range as not many of these estimates are in agreement.

 

COVID has increased the % of folks living in poverty, 20 million were estimated to have lost their jobs, 10 million have so far gotten them back.  6 Million jobs have disappeared for good.  We have long lines at all of our food banks here in "wealthy" SW Florida, way longer than the line queued up for political events.  A quick google search shows 12 -15% national poverty ranges.

 

While we can quibble about the # of poor, up, down or whatever, no one I think can argue that the ultra rich have increased their vast wealth and widened the gap between them and even the semi rich, let alone your average worker.

 

With COVID rates rising again, expect more disappointing news and another delay in sailing resumption.

Edited October 17, 2020 by evandbob