Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 1/26/2021 at 11:39 PM, Arizona Wildcat said:

Won't happen.  There is no need as cruising is not an essential activity.  Would ask hypothetically if you could run "cruises to nowhere" or between only US ports where would that be?

On the West Coast all ports from San Diego to Seattle have huge COVID numbers.  Same on the East Coast unless you can cruise from Maine.

What is essential is having US flagged ships to move fuel and other goods between ports.  Do we want to depend on other countries?  Not likely as There are almost 41000 Jones Act vessels with thousands of US employees.  Many of those jobs would be lost to non US workers.

 It may not be essential, but if that law affects the economy in a highly negative way (which it currently does) it should be changed.  Don't forget, because of the Jones Act, vital assistance to Puerto Rico was delayed until the US government issued a waiver of the law temporarily.  The same can be done for PSVA until they ultimately change it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 3:54 PM, grandgeezer said:

What market wants it besides the cruising industry? That's just a small percentage of the overall picture. The tail won't wag the dog.

 

Well, there are several cities in Alaska that would want it.  Many ports in the US.  Not just the cruising industry is affected by this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TFree said:

Like @markeb, I am not sure if I can really see it happening.  But the Alaskan cruise ports and everybody working in or adjacent to the cruise industry, will be devastated by this.  We will see if the President or the Congress cares.  On the other hand, the announcement of the suspension of the Alaskan cruises, posted yesterday, has disappeared from the Celebrity page.  Voluntary Suspension of Cruising.  (The cruises themselves are still off the website if you search for 2021 cruises.)  But why was this announcement taken down?  Could something be going on behind the scenes?

 

Tom & Judy

Adding speculation on to my own speculation, might they have removed the announcement because they are about to make another announcement (like suspending all May cruises) and they decided to consolidate both?  We will see.

 

Tom & Judy

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, TFree said:

Like @markeb, I am not sure if I can really see it happening.  But the Alaskan cruise ports and everybody working in or adjacent to the cruise industry, will be devastated by this.  We will see if the President or the Congress cares.  On the other hand, the announcement of the suspension of the Alaskan cruises, posted yesterday, has disappeared from the Celebrity page.  Voluntary Suspension of Cruising.  (The cruises themselves are still off the website if you search for 2021 cruises.)  But why was this announcement taken down?  Could something be going on behind the scenes?

 

Tom & Judy

This should be fun as we have 2 cancelled Alaska cruises in May and were thinking of using them as place holders to book a couple of Caribbean cruises in the summer before they are removed from our account. And now there is the mysterious adding and then removal of the Alaska/Canadian cruise cancellation notice on the X website and the slim potential for some sort of enabling waiver to the PVSA, maybe. Leave it to RCG to keep things interesting! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

This should be fun as we have 2 cancelled Alaska cruises in May and were thinking of using them as place holders to book a couple of Caribbean cruises in the summer before they are removed from our account. And now there is the mysterious adding and then removal of the Alaska/Canadian cruise cancellation notice on the X website and the slim potential for some sort of enabling waiver to the PVSA, maybe. Leave it to RCG to keep things interesting! 

You can waiver PVSA, but most Alaskan communities do not want cruise ships now.  Maybe this fall.  They have almost no COVID and want to keep it that way.  Why would a small community want a few thousand visitors to come in a pandemic.  Just a couple of people could spread COVID widely.

The Biden administration is going to send out more money and extend unemployment.  

Cruising is both seasonal and non essential.  About half the workers in the souvenir shops come from overseas with visas.

Some say a "significant impact" from not cruising.  Impact yes.  Significant to the overall economy.  No.

Check out the self quarantine and testing requirements.  Alaska is not welcoming tourism today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, K.T.B. said:

 

Well, there are several cities in Alaska that would want it.  Many ports in the US.  Not just the cruising industry is affected by this.

With 360 million people in the U.S., that's not near enough to even get more than a mention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

With 360 million people in the U.S., that's not near enough to even get more than a mention.

 

Tourism in Alaska accounts for nearly $2.2 billion.  A large chunk of that is cruising.  

 

You may want to reconsider.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, K.T.B. said:

 

Tourism in Alaska accounts for nearly $2.2 billion.  A large chunk of that is cruising.  

 

You may want to reconsider.

I have no say to how this shakes out so there is nothing to consider. It is what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking from a town that is absolutely overrun by tourists, I think there is sometimes the notion that because tourism brings $XXX into an economy, that the larger population supports it.

 

In many instances, that is not the case.  That bulk of that money, in the majority of cases, flows to a limited number of people (shop, restaurant owners and the like).

 

Just look at Key West to get a feel for how the general population feels about overtourism.

Or Venice. Or Barcelona. Or Amsterdam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, K.T.B. said:

 

Tourism in Alaska accounts for nearly $2.2 billion.  A large chunk of that is cruising.  

 

You may want to reconsider.

A chunk of that is cruising, lack of reports to finding out how much.

 

One of the biggest issue is how much of the money actually remains there.  For example the port most dependent upon cruising - Skagway.  Also has the lowest year round population.  CCL now owns the port and the White Pass Railway.  Most of the shops are seasonal and are cruise line camp followers.  Own stores in multiple cruise ports, aimed totally at cruise line passengers, run the stores in Alaska in the summer and run the stores in the Caribbean in the winter, staffed by people that come into town for the season and leave the state when the season is over.  

 

Same with the HAL and Princess properties.  Staffed by worked that are hired and come into Alaska for the season. 

 

So to a large degree cruise line passengers do day stop as ports, but some trinkets, maybe buy a meal or two, often take excursions of which the cruise line gets a cut, and in many cases owned by non-Alaska businesses (the major exceptions being those run by the Indian Companies).  Whose workers are low paid and are season workers from outside of the state. 

 

When they take the land tours they ride in cruise line busses, stay in cruise line owned properties, eating at cruise line run dinning facilities, with workers that are seasonal that are to a large degree from outside of the state.

 

When the cruise lines find that they are have to use properties they do not own or pay too much in fees (such as hotels in Anchorage) their answer is simple, they buy or build their own.

 

Other than the cruise lines themselves, and the cruise line camp follower businesses, the biggest impact is on the governments that collect tax on the cruise line businesses.  A total 125.6 million was collected in taxes of which payments from cruise lines totaled 33.3 million.

 

 

There is some money that remains in the state and in local hands, just as there are some exceptions with local ownership, but the locals (except for the local governments) benefit far less than one might think

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

Good article. Thanks. 

I don't think there is any chance that the PVSA will be changed in time to salvage the Alaskan season.  Too much would have to be done in less than 90 days.

 

Interesting that the article closes with "Asia and Europe are bending the rules to get cruise ships sailings again, will the United States?" and then gives zero evidence of that.  Nor can I find any citation that would even be roughly analogous to overturning the PVSA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, K.T.B. said:

 

Tourism in Alaska accounts for nearly $2.2 billion.  A large chunk of that is cruising.  

 

You may want to reconsider.

 

1 hour ago, LGW59 said:

 

While I think the PVSA should be modified it is not going to happen. Those who support the PVSA and the Jones Act have more clout than the cruise industry and cruise enthusiasts. Alaska tourism....that can be adapted to land vacations. Really it is awful to visit the Alaskan ports and see Diamonds International and other non local business with seasonal non local labor dominating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arizona Wildcat said:

You can waiver PVSA, but most Alaskan communities do not want cruise ships now.  Maybe this fall.  They have almost no COVID and want to keep it that way.  Why would a small community want a few thousand visitors to come in a pandemic.  Just a couple of people could spread COVID widely.

 

I don't know what they want, but this article seems to indicate otherwise:

Southeast residents fear what a second summer with no cruise ships could mean (alaskasnewssource.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phoenix_dream said:

I don't know what they want, but this article seems to indicate otherwise:

Southeast residents fear what a second summer with no cruise ships could mean (alaskasnewssource.com)

My acceptance of that news story fell with this quote:

"It’s going to be really hard on the bushiness that did whatever they could do to get through this year"  Emphasis added.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nocl said:

A chunk of that is cruising, lack of reports to finding out how much.

 

One of the biggest issue is how much of the money actually remains there.  For example the port most dependent upon cruising - Skagway.  Also has the lowest year round population.  CCL now owns the port and the White Pass Railway.  Most of the shops are seasonal and are cruise line camp followers.  Own stores in multiple cruise ports, aimed totally at cruise line passengers, run the stores in Alaska in the summer and run the stores in the Caribbean in the winter, staffed by people that come into town for the season and leave the state when the season is over.  

 

Same with the HAL and Princess properties.  Staffed by worked that are hired and come into Alaska for the season. 

 

So to a large degree cruise line passengers do day stop as ports, but some trinkets, maybe buy a meal or two, often take excursions of which the cruise line gets a cut, and in many cases owned by non-Alaska businesses (the major exceptions being those run by the Indian Companies).  Whose workers are low paid and are season workers from outside of the state. 

 

When they take the land tours they ride in cruise line busses, stay in cruise line owned properties, eating at cruise line run dinning facilities, with workers that are seasonal that are to a large degree from outside of the state.

 

When the cruise lines find that they are have to use properties they do not own or pay too much in fees (such as hotels in Anchorage) their answer is simple, they buy or build their own.

 

Other than the cruise lines themselves, and the cruise line camp follower businesses, the biggest impact is on the governments that collect tax on the cruise line businesses.  A total 125.6 million was collected in taxes of which payments from cruise lines totaled 33.3 million.

 

 

There is some money that remains in the state and in local hands, just as there are some exceptions with local ownership, but the locals (except for the local governments) benefit far less than one might think

 

 

I don't know what the actual dollar amount lost would be, and it is certainly true that some of the money ends up in other pockets.  But there are indirect as well as direct monetary gains.  Yes, people come from other areas to work for the season.  But while they are there they need a place to live, and food to eat.  They likely pay some amount of payroll taxes to Alaska.  The local areas and the state benefit from all the sales tax collected, as well as the port fees and taxes.  Yes, the cruise lines own some of the properties, busses, etc..  But those had to be purchased somewhere, and some of those places were in Alaska.  And the supplies they use (gas, food for restaurants, cleaning supplies, and on and on) are also part of the Alaska economy (albeit understanding that some may come from other states, much like happens here in the lower 48).  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nocl said:

A chunk of that is cruising, lack of reports to finding out how much.

 

One of the biggest issue is how much of the money actually remains there.  For example the port most dependent upon cruising - Skagway.  Also has the lowest year round population.  CCL now owns the port and the White Pass Railway.  Most of the shops are seasonal and are cruise line camp followers.  Own stores in multiple cruise ports, aimed totally at cruise line passengers, run the stores in Alaska in the summer and run the stores in the Caribbean in the winter, staffed by people that come into town for the season and leave the state when the season is over.  

 

Same with the HAL and Princess properties.  Staffed by worked that are hired and come into Alaska for the season. 

 

So to a large degree cruise line passengers do day stop as ports, but some trinkets, maybe buy a meal or two, often take excursions of which the cruise line gets a cut, and in many cases owned by non-Alaska businesses (the major exceptions being those run by the Indian Companies).  Whose workers are low paid and are season workers from outside of the state. 

 

When they take the land tours they ride in cruise line busses, stay in cruise line owned properties, eating at cruise line run dinning facilities, with workers that are seasonal that are to a large degree from outside of the state.

 

When the cruise lines find that they are have to use properties they do not own or pay too much in fees (such as hotels in Anchorage) their answer is simple, they buy or build their own.

 

Other than the cruise lines themselves, and the cruise line camp follower businesses, the biggest impact is on the governments that collect tax on the cruise line businesses.  A total 125.6 million was collected in taxes of which payments from cruise lines totaled 33.3 million.

 

 

There is some money that remains in the state and in local hands, just as there are some exceptions with local ownership, but the locals (except for the local governments) benefit far less than one might think

 

 

Excellent summation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ECCruise said:

My acceptance of that news story fell with this quote:

"It’s going to be really hard on the bushiness that did whatever they could do to get through this year"  Emphasis added.

If you want to totally negate a news story because someone made a typo to support your argument I guess that's your right.  In response, I guess I would ask you nicely for some evidence of your statement that most Alaskan communities do not want cruise ships right now (allowing that if "right now" ends when cruising season begins the argument would not hold water - the real issue is do they want them for this summer).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, phoenix_dream said:

If you want to totally negate a news story because someone made a typo to support your argument I guess that's your right.  In response, I guess I would ask you nicely for some evidence of your statement that most Alaskan communities do not want cruise ships right now (allowing that if "right now" ends when cruising season begins the argument would not hold water - the real issue is do they want them for this summer).  

You will have to point me to where I said "most Alaskan communities do not want cruise ships right now."  I can't seem to find nor remember writing that. 

 

And yes, if you can't proofread an article, then I take your analysis with a grain of salt.   Especially if you have an axe to grind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charles4515 said:

 

 

While I think the PVSA should be modified it is not going to happen. Those who support the PVSA and the Jones Act have more clout than the cruise industry and cruise enthusiasts. Alaska tourism....that can be adapted to land vacations. Really it is awful to visit the Alaskan ports and see Diamonds International and other non local business with seasonal non local labor dominating.

Yep quite the change from 10 years ago.  Back then most businesses were locally owned, they tended to serve the local community as well as cruise ships.  As the industry increased its foot print local owners got bought out or forced out due to rents get raised.  Now in many ports most businesses are seasonal and could care less about the locals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, phoenix_dream said:

If you want to totally negate a news story because someone made a typo to support your argument I guess that's your right.  In response, I guess I would ask you nicely for some evidence of your statement that most Alaskan communities do not want cruise ships right now (allowing that if "right now" ends when cruising season begins the argument would not hold water - the real issue is do they want them for this summer).  

A lot depends upon how you define community.  If you define it as the local governments and the chamber of commerce then yes they really want the ships back.  If you define it as the year round residents the answer is far more mixed.  Some want them back, some are perfectly happy with them gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nocl said:

A lot depends upon how you define community.  If you define it as the local governments and the chamber of commerce then yes they really want the ships back.  If you define it as the year round residents the answer is far more mixed.  Some want them back, some are perfectly happy with them gone.

This sums it up for me.  I think the response would be mixed at best. 

 

As I said earlier, I can't speak directly for Alaska, but I can speak for here.  We are a small corner of Western NC that receives over 5 times the tourists that the entire state of Alaska does.  And millions more than the entire state of Hawai'i.  And there is a certain cadre of those who constantly tout the "advantages" of tourism (CofC, hoteliers, some restaurant owners) if you asked the average resident here, they would love to see the tourism cut by half or so.  More than enough to sustain most of the businesses, but would allow us to visit a local restaurant if we liked.  Or walked our city streets not having to contend with Disney like sidewalks in the middle of a pandemic. Or find a parking space downtown.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ECCruise said:

This sums it up for me.  I think the response would be mixed at best. 

 

As I said earlier, I can't speak directly for Alaska, but I can speak for here.  We are a small corner of Western NC that receives over 5 times the tourists that the entire state of Alaska does.  And millions more than the entire state of Hawai'i.  And there is a certain cadre of those who constantly tout the "advantages" of tourism (CofC, hoteliers, some restaurant owners) if you asked the average resident here, they would love to see the tourism cut by half or so.  More than enough to sustain most of the businesses, but would allow us to visit a local restaurant if we liked.  Or walked our city streets not having to contend with Disney like sidewalks in the middle of a pandemic. Or find a parking space downtown.

 

 

Then I guess you stay on board at ports when you cruise, so as not to inundate the locals, so they can visit restaurants etc without contending with Disney atmosphere??

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LGW59 said:

Then I guess you stay on board at ports when you cruise, so as not to inundate the locals, so they can visit restaurants etc without contending with Disney atmosphere??

Huh?

Most of the ports could perhaps do with half the number of cruise guests.  And most of the busiest cities agree.  Which would allow for both tourism and still be home for the residents.

 

And we don't visit ports that are like Disney parks.  Dubrovnik, e.g. Virtually all of the Caribbean. Otherwise we are in a rental car and off to the countryside (Barcelona, Civitavecchia/'Rome, Key West in the past, and in this discussion, Skagway and Juneau).

Edited by ECCruise
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Barbara Muckermann, CMO Silversea Cruises
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...