Cruise Ship Blues
John Fisher
A cruise “junkie” exposes the industry’s dark side
By ROSS A. KLEIN
Cruising. A dream holiday. What could be better than lying on the deck
of
a modern cruise ship, soaking up the sun, and indulging whatever fits
your
mood? That is what sells cruises. But there are environmental and
social
costs one never discovers in a brochure. Over the years, I’ve probably
been on close to a dozen different lines with cruises in the
Mediterranean, Europe, the Caribbean, Hawaii, South America, and
Alaska.
Pulling into Cozumel, on one of my earliest cruises, one of the
officers
said: “You see that ship over there? The last time we were in the
harbour,
they took seven bodies off the ship.” He explained that the crew’s
dining
room had run out of rice and a food riot had erupted. People had died.
That’s a whole different perspective from what you read about. In
1996, I
started thinking, maybe there’s something to write about here. In
1998, I
finally put pen to paper. As a sociologist, I first became intrigued
with
the social life and social problems onboard. As I accumulated
additional
experiences, I began to uncover the underside of shipboard life.
Contrary
to positive media and industry representations. the harsh reality is
that
the industry is neither environmentally nor socially sustainable. It
also
has a history of misleading consumers through advertising. The
less-than-positive side has been occasionally identified, but the
industry’s economic power — it has an advertising budget of over a
half a
billion dollars — has been relatively successful in keeping bad press
to a
minimum. In 1978, it demonstrated this power following a story in the
Sunday Times that reported U.S. inspectors had found cockroaches and
other
filth in the galleys of the Queen Elizabeth II and sister Cunard Line
ships. In retribution, Cunard Line withdrew $100,000 in advertising
both
from the Sunday Times and the London Times. At the 2001 World Cruise
Tourism Summit in Miami, the industry’s attitude towards the media was
made clear in a session entitled Cruise Industry in the Media where
several industry executives discussed the politics of media relations.
Their view was that there are two types of media: good media and bad
media. The good media say good things about the industry. The bad
media
printed stories that looked at the underside of the industry. Several
stories printed by The New York Times, written by Douglas Frantz, were
singled out as examples of the bad media. The articles discussed
environmental assaults by the industry, inadequate medical care on
cruise
ships, and passenger and crew vulnerability to sexual assaults. The
“all-inclusive” illusion. Like other corporations, the cruise ship
industry is out to make money. Out of all the lines, Carnival Cruise
Lines
is one of the most effective. Most passengers, trusting the
advertising
that promotes the cruises, expect few, if any, expenses that have not
been
covered by the “all-inclusive” fare. They are quickly surprised by the
multitude methods used to separate them from their money. Almost
giving
their cruises away, the lines rely heavily on onboard spending for
their
profit margin. In 1999 — I don’t have current statistics as they’re
hard
to come by — the average person spent between $220-$232 per day on
onboard
spending: in bars, gift shops, and for onshore excursions. In the past
five years, Holland America has increased its take per passenger for
shore
excursions by over 70 percent. Very recently, I was on Carnival’s
newest
ship, the Carnival Legend. With its extra tariff dining room and à la
carte menu—minimum $25 per person—this “all inclusive” ship will make
over
a million dollars a year on that one dining room alone. In 1997, a
Princess ship — one of their smaller ones — was reported in an
industry
paper as taking in six million dollars a week from onboard spending.
It’s
mind boggling. To generate further revenue, the newer ships are
eliminating outdoor deck space and replacing it with cabins with
balconies. The older ships always had a back deck; now there’s very
little, if any, exterior deck space. It’s all in the interior with
enclosed glass that can be opened. When I was aboard the Carnival
Legend,
what struck me was that it’s the last step in the transition into the
cruise ship being a resort and not a ship. It used to be that if you
went
on a ship, you knew you were on a ship. The ships that were being
built in
the 90s were trying to mimic the resorts, but you still had a sense of
being on a ship. That sense is now almost entirely gone. Economic
domination. Tour operations, particularly in Alaska, have also become
the
domain of the cruise lines. In 1968, on one of my earliest cruises,
there
were no tour operations. We explored on our own, or in small groups.
Today, cruise lines increasingly are the owners of buses, railcars,
and
end-point resorts, controlling much of the shore side activity. Local
tour
operators are left to compete with the cruise line (which has the
passenger’s undivided attention for sales while onboard the ship) and
often have to undersell their product. The economic domination of the
cruise line means that little revenue trickles down to local
residents.
The problem is further compounded in terms of employment. The seasonal
nature of the stores means that they hire mainly college students,
arriving in Alaska for summer work. For those in the local community,
jobs
are not only few in number, but are often minimum wage, available only
during the peak tourist season. Tourists displace locals from their
quiet
community, and outsiders wanting summer employment displace employment
opportunities. Hiring outsiders is also common for those providing
shore
excursions. The result for visitors is that they are given inaccurate
and
incomplete information. A message posted on a Usenet newsgroup in July
by
a person living in the Yukon Territory is revealing. The author tells
of
several cruise ship passengers who approached him while sitting
outside a
general store in Carcross (Yukon Territory), which is where the White
Pass
Railroad stops to offload cruise passengers. One young woman asked if
his
home had a dirt floor – he laughed, assuming she was joking, but she
wasn’t. Not only had their driver told them that many of the people
have
dirt floors, he said that they suspend babies in a sort of hammock
above
the floor. The man pointed out that he had no running water as it’s
too
remote, but he does have electricity, high-speed Web access, a gas
kitchen, and wood floors. This wasn’t the view given by their tour
guide.
Industry pays virtually no tax. Many ships have stores and boutiques
that
are owned and run by Miami Cruiseline (100 ships, 26 cruise lines
including Carnival and RCI – Royal Caribbean International), a
subsidiary
of Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy, which possesses 60 well known brand
names,
including Dom Pérignon, Louis Vuitton, Givenchy, and Christian Dior.
Many
of its brand names are sold in onboard stores, and these stores often
guarantee that onshore merchants will not undersell them. It’s an easy
guarantee to make when the wholesaler and manufacturer of many of the
products own the onboard retailer. Miami Cruiseline (through Onboard
Media) is also responsible on many cruise ships for port lecturers,
marketing shore excursions, and the shopping program (i.e., providing
a
list of preferred stores for shopping). Merchants, tour providers,
taxis,
and local guides are all at the mercy of multinational companies for
their
livelihood. They have to compete with the multinational, or if they
sell
their product to the multinational it is often at a price that leaves
little real profit. Stores pay considerable sums to be included in the
ship’s shopping program. The effect: the cruise line and the company
marketing the shore excursion and the onshore stores make sizable
profits.
These profits end up in the coffers of a faceless corporation with
headquarters thousands of miles away; relatively little remains in the
local community. The irony is that the cruise lines, because they are
foreign-registered, play virtually no corporate income tax. Even a
corporation like Carnival, earning a billion dollars every year, pays
virtually no corporate income tax because it is registered in Panama.
Royal Caribbean, which also owns Celebrity Cruises, is registered in
Liberia where there are no taxes. Few regulations. Revenue isn’t the
only
important factor. Given the waste that is produced on a cruise ship —
100
gallons of wastewater per day per person, including 10 gallons of
sewage,
as well as 3.5 kilograms of solid waste per person per day —ships have
an
interest in remaining in areas where waste can be legally discharged.
International regulations limit the discharge of sewage within four or
twelve miles of the coast (depending on whether the sewage is treated)
and
disposal of other waste within three or twelve miles (depending on
whether
it has been ground and fits through a 25 mm screen). There are no
regulations pertaining to grey water — wastewater from showers and
sinks,
the galley, the spa and beauty parlour — almost anything that goes
down a
drain other than a toilet. As much as possible, ships remain in areas
where discharges are allowed. Beginning January 1, 2001, Canada began
prohibiting discharge of sewage in ten marine sites in the Strait of
Georgia, and disposal of garbage in the Inside Passage within Canadian
waters. Otherwise, there are no regulations other than those specified
by
international conventions, and unfortunately, these international
conventions are not vigorously enforced. I have been on many ships,
standing on deck and taking in the fresh salt air, and had the putrid
stench of sewage being pumped overboard into the sea. I’ve watched sea
gulls and other scavengers follow the ship’s wake, picking out food
and
other waste being discharged. Not a pretty sight. Alaska’s love-hate
relationship. Visiting Alaska today is a stark contrast to 1968. Then,
we
would get off the ship, which had no preplanned shore excursions, and
either wander through town or hire a car to explore a bit further.
Cruise
passengers were welcomed because they arrived in small numbers. They
were
also different than those who cruise to Alaska today. People going in
1968
were a bit adventuresome — the cruises were not luxury and they were
not
cheap. Today, people go on a cruise to be shown the sites so they can
go
home and tell friends that they have seen Alaska. The influx of up to
10,000 visitors in a single day to a community of 1000 year-round
residents is not trivial — sidewalks are congested (if passable at
all),
noise volume is high, and the site is far from the reality of the town
when cruise ships are not visiting. During my 1996 cruise, I was told
numerous times of the love-hate relationship with cruise passengers
and
the cruise industry. While there was conscious awareness of the
economic
value of the cruise industry, there was also contempt for the huge
numbers
of people who would overrun the town for the day and leave their
refuse
behind. The feeling of being invaded was commonly expressed and I
often
heard: “The cruise season has just begun, but I can’t wait until it is
over so I can walk down the street or enjoy a quiet meal at a
restaurant.”
These were simple pleasures, impossible to indulge in from May through
September. My biggest surprise during my 1996 cruise was when I got
off
the ship in Ketchikan. My memory of a totem pole next to a 60s era
Western
Auto store didn’t fit. Ketchikan was now a modern city with some of
the
largest stores in town the same as those found at ports in the
Caribbean:
Little Switzerland, Diamonds International, and other familiar names
had
prime locations. Name recognition and their ability to discount
merchandise means that much of the cruise passenger business goes to
them
rather than to the locally owned and operated shops. The Backlash. The
reaction to environmental assaults, combined with the broader economic
issues, is visible in many Alaskan communities. Some communities limit
cruise ship visits. For example, residents of Sitka overwhelmingly
voted
down a proposal to construct a wharf that would enable ships to
offload
passengers directly into the downtown area. The town of 8800 people
believed that the need to transport passengers ashore via lifeboats
would
keep a lid on its more than 225,000 cruise passenger visits per year.
The
town of Tenakee Springs was more aggressive. It proclaimed that cruise
ship tourism is incompatible with the community’s lifestyle,
facilities,
and services, and vowed to take whatever steps necessary to prevent
this
type of tourism in the town. When the first cruise ship came to visit
in
August 1998 — a small ship with only 120 passengers — the city tried
to
persuade the ship to cancel the visit. After that effort failed,
cruise
passengers were handed leaflets as they disembarked, and were told
they
were not welcome as part of an organized tour, but they would be
welcome
to return on their own. Most businesses closed during the visit. In
other
communities, the publicity around cruise ship pollution tipped the
balance
in favour of new taxes on cruise ship passengers. In 1999, voters in
Juneau approved, with a 70 percent majority, a five dollar head tax
for
each cruise passenger landing in the city. A similar tax had been
defeated
just three years earlier. The five dollar head tax was the first time
any
port of call in an American state had imposed such a fee. Holland
America
Line responded to the tax by withdrawing much of its support to Juneau
charities. Al Parrish, a Holland America Line Vice President was
quoted by
the Juneau Empire, “We’re reassessing our whole involvement in Juneau
… In
the past we’ve had a good, informal relationship with Juneau. But it’s
been made clear by Juneau citizens that the relationship needs to be
reassessed.” Citing economic hardship, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
announced in March 2002 that it had halted its cash contributions to
Alaska communities. The decision means a loss of tens of thousands of
dollars to nonprofit organizations, including arts councils in Juneau
and
Ketchikan and the United Way. What Does the Future Hold? As I look to
the
future, I have great concern for Alaska and British Columbia’s
environment, and for the environmental impacts in general. While the
cruise industry argues that international regulations and local
initiatives such as Alaska’s are enough, the simple fact is that
restrictions are inadequate and the environment continues to be
threatened. The industry presents other environmental risks. Reports
of
discharges in Alaska’s ports continue. As recently as August 2002, a
Holland America ship discharged more than 40,000 gallons of partially
treated sewage into Juneau Harbour. Groundings and shipboard fires
have
resulted in spills of oil and other pollutants in the inside passage.
There is great potential for a major calamity. In August 2002, Holland
America Line’s Ryndam lost all power and drifted for twenty minutes
down
the Lynn Canal. With no navigation, it was pure luck that it didn’t
hit a
rock. Earlier in the year, a near-miss involving Celebrity Cruises’
Infinity and Royal Caribbean’s Legend of the Seas was reported by
Juneau
residents. Either of these could have resulted in massive damage to
the
environment and local ecology. Events such as these are not limited to
Alaska. In August 1996, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada
investigated a near miss in Discovery Channel (between Vancouver
Island
and the mainland) that involved Holland America Line’s Statendam and
the
Belle Isle Sound/Radium 622. The collision was narrowly averted when
the
Belle Isle Sound/Radium 622, a tug-barge unit carrying a cargo of
dynamite
and propane took evasive action. The investigation laid blame for the
near
miss on the cruise ship’s bridge officers and the pilot. There is also
the
cost to the environment. It isn’t just the discharge of pollutants
into
the sea, but collisions of ships with whales, discharging waste with
known
and unknown effects in ecologically fragile fish beds, and what are
often
described as “accidental” discharges in harbours and ports. Many of
these
accidents never reach public attention, as the case of one in the Port
of
Vancouver early in the 2002 cruise season. My concerns go beyond
environmental issues. While the cruise industry has positive economic
impacts on many ports, these benefits rarely come for free. The
industry
plays ports off against one another — the future holds an unknown
contest
between Seattle and Vancouver for the finite cruise business. When I
embarked at Vancouver in 1968, the port was small and uncongested.
With
more than one million passengers (either embarking or disembarking)
passing through the Port of Vancouver in 2002 – a fifty percent
increase
over 1996 – the port has further expanded port facilities, most
recently
spending $89 million to expand Canada Place. However, the Port of
Vancouver may not see further growth. With new ships that cruise at
faster
speeds, the Port of Seattle began to attract cruise ship business in
1999.
In 2002, with a new $38 million cruise terminal on Puget Sound,
Seattle
had 79 cruise ship visits, bringing 250,000 passengers. In 2003, this
number is expected to double — business that traditionally would have
passed through Vancouver. On the assumption that it would continue to
be
the primary port for Alaska cruises, the Port of Vancouver invested
considerable money. Aggressive marketing by Seattle and the looser
environmental controls in the port are challenging that assumption.
The
Port of Vancouver may recover some business if its efforts to change
Canada’s cabotage laws are successful. Cabotage laws prohibit
foreign-flag
vessels from carrying passengers between domestic ports without
visiting
an international destination – that is why Vancouver has been the
centre
of Alaska cruises and also why cruises that originate in Seattle make
a
quick stop in either Victoria or Vancouver en route to Alaska. Nanaimo
is
supporting Vancouver’s efforts to change the cabotage laws in hopes
that
it can expand significantly cruise ship visits to the port. The
industry
also plays vendors in those ports against one another. I can’t
criticize
them for doing business in a way that maximizes profits, but I can
criticize them for their lack of concern for local issues, local
needs,
and the environment. While ports in British Columbia such as Nanaimo,
Prince Rupert, and others are trying to attract the cruise industry
with a
belief that it is a cash cow, there is little consideration of the
downside. A careful look at Alaska to see who is making the money on
cruise ship visits should be sobering to aspiring ports and
established
ports alike. Ross A. Klein is the author of Cruise Ship Blues (New
Society
Publishers, November 2002) and a Professor of Social Work at Memorial
University of Newfoundland in St. John’s, Newfoundland. Visit his
website
at www.cruisejunkie.com
bissonm
-Monte
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
WendeC
Carnival et al don't pay any taxes to the U.S.? Just because the ships are
registered in Panama or Liberia doesn't mean it is a foreign corporation.
Typically, a corporation with offices and revenues within the U.S. will pay
some tax, assuming that the corporation shows a "tax profit."
"John Fisher" <clo...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:fgjgsusll0ll5ivhh...@4ax.com...
> industry's economic power - it has an advertising budget of over a
> half a
> billion dollars - has been relatively successful in keeping bad press
> profit margin. In 1999 - I don't have current statistics as they're
> hard
> to come by - the average person spent between $220-$232 per day on
> onboard
> spending: in bars, gift shops, and for onshore excursions. In the past
> five years, Holland America has increased its take per passenger for
> shore
> excursions by over 70 percent. Very recently, I was on Carnival's
> newest
> ship, the Carnival Legend. With its extra tariff dining room and à la
> carte menu-minimum $25 per person-this "all inclusive" ship will make
> over
> a million dollars a year on that one dining room alone. In 1997, a
> Princess ship - one of their smaller ones - was reported in an
> home had a dirt floor - he laughed, assuming she was joking, but she
> wasn't. Not only had their driver told them that many of the people
> have
> dirt floors, he said that they suspend babies in a sort of hammock
> above
> the floor. The man pointed out that he had no running water as it's
> too
> remote, but he does have electricity, high-speed Web access, a gas
> kitchen, and wood floors. This wasn't the view given by their tour
> guide.
> Industry pays virtually no tax. Many ships have stores and boutiques
> that
> are owned and run by Miami Cruiseline (100 ships, 26 cruise lines
> including Carnival and RCI - Royal Caribbean International), a
> important factor. Given the waste that is produced on a cruise ship -
> 100
> gallons of wastewater per day per person, including 10 gallons of
> sewage,
> as well as 3.5 kilograms of solid waste per person per day -ships have
> an
> interest in remaining in areas where waste can be legally discharged.
> International regulations limit the discharge of sewage within four or
> twelve miles of the coast (depending on whether the sewage is treated)
> and
> disposal of other waste within three or twelve miles (depending on
> whether
> it has been ground and fits through a 25 mm screen). There are no
> regulations pertaining to grey water - wastewater from showers and
> sinks,
> the galley, the spa and beauty parlour - almost anything that goes
> down a
> drain other than a toilet. As much as possible, ships remain in areas
> where discharges are allowed. Beginning January 1, 2001, Canada began
> prohibiting discharge of sewage in ten marine sites in the Strait of
> Georgia, and disposal of garbage in the Inside Passage within Canadian
> waters. Otherwise, there are no regulations other than those specified
> by
> international conventions, and unfortunately, these international
> conventions are not vigorously enforced. I have been on many ships,
> standing on deck and taking in the fresh salt air, and had the putrid
> stench of sewage being pumped overboard into the sea. I've watched sea
> gulls and other scavengers follow the ship's wake, picking out food
> and
> other waste being discharged. Not a pretty sight. Alaska's love-hate
> relationship. Visiting Alaska today is a stark contrast to 1968. Then,
> we
> would get off the ship, which had no preplanned shore excursions, and
> either wander through town or hire a car to explore a bit further.
> Cruise
> passengers were welcomed because they arrived in small numbers. They
> were
> also different than those who cruise to Alaska today. People going in
> 1968
> were a bit adventuresome - the cruises were not luxury and they were
> not
> cheap. Today, people go on a cruise to be shown the sites so they can
> go
> home and tell friends that they have seen Alaska. The influx of up to
> 10,000 visitors in a single day to a community of 1000 year-round
> residents is not trivial - sidewalks are congested (if passable at
> August 1998 - a small ship with only 120 passengers - the city tried
> to
> persuade the ship to cancel the visit. After that effort failed,
> cruise
> passengers were handed leaflets as they disembarked, and were told
> they
> were not welcome as part of an organized tour, but they would be
> welcome
> to return on their own. Most businesses closed during the visit. In
> other
> communities, the publicity around cruise ship pollution tipped the
> balance
> in favour of new taxes on cruise ship passengers. In 1999, voters in
> Juneau approved, with a 70 percent majority, a five dollar head tax
> for
> each cruise passenger landing in the city. A similar tax had been
> defeated
> just three years earlier. The five dollar head tax was the first time
> any
> port of call in an American state had imposed such a fee. Holland
> America
> Line responded to the tax by withdrawing much of its support to Juneau
> charities. Al Parrish, a Holland America Line Vice President was
> quoted by
> the Juneau Empire, "We're reassessing our whole involvement in Juneau
> . In
> plays ports off against one another - the future holds an unknown
> contest
> between Seattle and Vancouver for the finite cruise business. When I
> embarked at Vancouver in 1968, the port was small and uncongested.
> With
> more than one million passengers (either embarking or disembarking)
> passing through the Port of Vancouver in 2002 - a fifty percent
> increase
> over 1996 - the port has further expanded port facilities, most
> recently
> spending $89 million to expand Canada Place. However, the Port of
> Vancouver may not see further growth. With new ships that cruise at
> faster
> speeds, the Port of Seattle began to attract cruise ship business in
> 1999.
> In 2002, with a new $38 million cruise terminal on Puget Sound,
> Seattle
> had 79 cruise ship visits, bringing 250,000 passengers. In 2003, this
> number is expected to double - business that traditionally would have
> passed through Vancouver. On the assumption that it would continue to
> be
> the primary port for Alaska cruises, the Port of Vancouver invested
> considerable money. Aggressive marketing by Seattle and the looser
> environmental controls in the port are challenging that assumption.
> The
> Port of Vancouver may recover some business if its efforts to change
> Canada's cabotage laws are successful. Cabotage laws prohibit
> foreign-flag
> vessels from carrying passengers between domestic ports without
> visiting
> an international destination - that is why Vancouver has been the
Teo
numbers of cruise ships this year is being heralded as all good for us
natives!
Annabell
> half a
> billion dollars - has been relatively successful in keeping bad press
> hard
> to come by - the average person spent between $220-$232 per day on
> onboard
> spending: in bars, gift shops, and for onshore excursions. In the past
> five years, Holland America has increased its take per passenger for
> shore
> excursions by over 70 percent. Very recently, I was on Carnival's
> newest
> ship, the Carnival Legend. With its extra tariff dining room and à la
> over
> a million dollars a year on that one dining room alone. In 1997, a
> wasn't. Not only had their driver told them that many of the people
> have
> dirt floors, he said that they suspend babies in a sort of hammock
> above
> the floor. The man pointed out that he had no running water as it's
> too
> remote, but he does have electricity, high-speed Web access, a gas
> kitchen, and wood floors. This wasn't the view given by their tour
> guide.
> Industry pays virtually no tax. Many ships have stores and boutiques
> that
> are owned and run by Miami Cruiseline (100 ships, 26 cruise lines
> 100
> gallons of wastewater per day per person, including 10 gallons of
> sewage,
> an
> interest in remaining in areas where waste can be legally discharged.
> International regulations limit the discharge of sewage within four or
> twelve miles of the coast (depending on whether the sewage is treated)
> and
> disposal of other waste within three or twelve miles (depending on
> whether
> it has been ground and fits through a 25 mm screen). There are no
> sinks,
> the galley, the spa and beauty parlour - almost anything that goes
> down a
> drain other than a toilet. As much as possible, ships remain in areas
> where discharges are allowed. Beginning January 1, 2001, Canada began
> prohibiting discharge of sewage in ten marine sites in the Strait of
> Georgia, and disposal of garbage in the Inside Passage within Canadian
> waters. Otherwise, there are no regulations other than those specified
> by
> international conventions, and unfortunately, these international
> conventions are not vigorously enforced. I have been on many ships,
> standing on deck and taking in the fresh salt air, and had the putrid
> stench of sewage being pumped overboard into the sea. I've watched sea
> gulls and other scavengers follow the ship's wake, picking out food
> and
> other waste being discharged. Not a pretty sight. Alaska's love-hate
> relationship. Visiting Alaska today is a stark contrast to 1968. Then,
> we
> would get off the ship, which had no preplanned shore excursions, and
> either wander through town or hire a car to explore a bit further.
> Cruise
> passengers were welcomed because they arrived in small numbers. They
> were
> also different than those who cruise to Alaska today. People going in
> 1968
> not
> cheap. Today, people go on a cruise to be shown the sites so they can
> go
> home and tell friends that they have seen Alaska. The influx of up to
> 10,000 visitors in a single day to a community of 1000 year-round
> to
> persuade the ship to cancel the visit. After that effort failed,
> cruise
> passengers were handed leaflets as they disembarked, and were told
> they
> were not welcome as part of an organized tour, but they would be
> welcome
> to return on their own. Most businesses closed during the visit. In
> other
> communities, the publicity around cruise ship pollution tipped the
> balance
> in favour of new taxes on cruise ship passengers. In 1999, voters in
> Juneau approved, with a 70 percent majority, a five dollar head tax
> for
> each cruise passenger landing in the city. A similar tax had been
> defeated
> just three years earlier. The five dollar head tax was the first time
> any
> port of call in an American state had imposed such a fee. Holland
> America
> Line responded to the tax by withdrawing much of its support to Juneau
> charities. Al Parrish, a Holland America Line Vice President was
> quoted by
> the Juneau Empire, "We're reassessing our whole involvement in Juneau
> contest
> between Seattle and Vancouver for the finite cruise business. When I
> embarked at Vancouver in 1968, the port was small and uncongested.
> With
> more than one million passengers (either embarking or disembarking)
> increase
> over 1996 - the port has further expanded port facilities, most
> recently
> spending $89 million to expand Canada Place. However, the Port of
> Vancouver may not see further growth. With new ships that cruise at
> faster
> speeds, the Port of Seattle began to attract cruise ship business in
> 1999.
> In 2002, with a new $38 million cruise terminal on Puget Sound,
> Seattle
> had 79 cruise ship visits, bringing 250,000 passengers. In 2003, this
> passed through Vancouver. On the assumption that it would continue to
> be
> the primary port for Alaska cruises, the Port of Vancouver invested
> considerable money. Aggressive marketing by Seattle and the looser
> environmental controls in the port are challenging that assumption.
> The
> Port of Vancouver may recover some business if its efforts to change
> Canada's cabotage laws are successful. Cabotage laws prohibit
> foreign-flag
> vessels from carrying passengers between domestic ports without
> visiting
Ross Klein
liability is for tour operations through Holland America-Westours, and
these taxes only apply to properties own on land (e.g., Westmark Hotels,
Gray Line buses, etc). The corporation's total income tax bill is less
than 1% on a net income of $1 billion. Royal Caribbean doesn't include
taxes as a line item in their report. P&O Princess was reported in the
Wall Street Journal this past August to pay corporate income taxes
equivalent to approximately 5% of their worldwide net income.
I wish my tax rates were so low.
Ross
Linda Coffman
> Cruise Ship Blues
> A cruise "junkie" exposes the industry's dark side
> By ROSS A. KLEIN
> At the 2001 World Cruise
> Tourism Summit in Miami, the industry's attitude towards the media was
> made clear in a session entitled Cruise Industry in the Media where
> several industry executives discussed the politics of media relations.
> Their view was that there are two types of media: good media and bad
I was at the "Cruise Industry in the Media" session at Seatrade last year
and don't remember it quite that way. The panel did include cruise industry
corporate representatives, but also included journalists. There was never
any pressure applied to travel journalists to not write about mishaps. The
point of the session was how to communicate more effectively in order to
present factual and balanced information.
Linda
Mason Barge
>Cruise Ship Blues
>A cruise “junkie” exposes the industry’s dark side
While I don't agree with all the conclusions, this is certainly much better
founded and fact-based than any other general "problems with the cruise
industry" articles that one usually sees. Very provocative and interesting.
The post was hard to read, though, due to formatting -- you might want to
shorten your line length in your newsreader.
I think my basic disagreement with the article is this: An assumption that
residents of Alaska have a right not to have tourists visit at all, or have a
right to a "pristine" environment free of population/tourism pressures while the
rest of us suffer an ongoing battle with contaminated water, air, etc.
--
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln
John Szeto
>
The
Port of Vancouver may recover some business if its efforts to change
Canada’s cabotage laws are successful. Cabotage laws prohibit
foreign-flag
vessels from carrying passengers between domestic ports without
visiting
an international destination – that is why Vancouver has been the
centre
of Alaska cruises and also why cruises that originate in Seattle make
a
quick stop in either Victoria or Vancouver en route to Alaska
John Fisher wrote:
--
Best regards,
John Szeto --------------> We treat your cruise booking as if we were
going ourselves.
Cruise and Travel Company
If you don't book from us, you're paying too much!
E-mail me at: webm...@cruisereview.net
Cruise Review Library http://www.cruisereview.net
Miste...@webtv.net
"The harsh reality is that the industry is neither environmentally nor
socially sustainable."
What a laugh!
The harsh reality is that the anti-cruise coalition puts out more
garbage than a whole fleet of ships.
This tiring litany is rehashed nonsense. It's been refuted here over and
over again.
Jim
Kim
> officers
> said: “You see that ship over there? The last time we were in the
> harbour,
> they took seven bodies off the ship.” He explained that the crew’s
> dining
> room had run out of rice and a food riot had erupted. People had died.
Who was the officer? What ship? When?
Kim
just wants to know if this is fact or fiction...
Da Parrot-chick
"Kim" <kfra...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Pxdy9.36796$Lu1.41645@sccrnsc01...
Pure fiction. Never happened. An utter fabrication.
Ross Klein
I was on and then validated by two individuals (a purser and another
senior officer) on different ships and at different times. I wouldn't
write it if I had just one source. I'd rather not name the ship because
it really isn't important.
Ross
Teo
and lifestyle from the "contaminated water air etc" that the rest of you
have failed to do.........
Little Gems
could you tell me what i need to look out for when chossing a cruise.
what are the signs of a bad cruise.
when looking through the holidays books about cruises, i can't tell if
the picture is lieing. what are the qusetions i need to ask the person
i am booking to to make sure that my holiday will be a good one and
that i wont die on the cruise.
Thank you Gems.
Mark O. Polo
Thanks for your provocative comments concerning Ross Klein's book which
takes the cruise lines to task for some of their shortcomings. We need
voices like yours but I don't think it will sell well in this audience
which gets a bit uncomfortable with the darkside. I used to do a lot of
search and rescue work and occasionally we would come upon a small
sinking boat with the operator refusing to admit he had a problem. We
used to call it the "it isn't happening to me" syndrome.
I used to be a cruise director and did a lot of port lectures but the
climate aboard the newer ships has changed and outfits like Princess now
use their employees to offer a combination shore excursion/shopping
presentation that is highly tailored to cruise line business interests
and, at times, interlaced with misinformation. Much of the material is
biased in many ways and I can offer numerous examples. Shore excursion
prices have mushroomed and in some cases verge on extortion. We even
went so far as to charge for free shuttles that were offered at no cost
by the port community. I think there is no question that there will be
more organizations springing up, independent of the cruise lines, that
will begin offering the savvy cruiser an alternative shore experience at
reduced costs. And they will be successful as the cruise lines will not
lower their costs since they pretty well control their captive audience.
I can recall, when talking to a small commercial plane owner in one of
the Alaska ports why he didn't show up at the pier and offer his
services, he replied that the cruise lines personnel told him they
didn't want to see his face there. It is not hard to see why Alaska is
not entirely enthralled with big cruise line operations.
Perhaps Ross should start insinuating some solutions to these problems
in this rtc group. It might have some beneficial aspects.
Aloha
Ray Goldenberg
wrote:
>It is fact
Hi Ross,
I see you are still stirring folks up with your unfounded rumors.
Best regards,
Ray
LIGHTHOUSE TRAVEL
800-719-9917 or 805-566-3905
http://www.lighthousetravel.com
Pinelands3
>onboard
>spending: in bars, gift shops, and for onshore excursions.
I find this very hard to believe. The average Sail and Sign card for a couple
at the end of the week totals $3,200.00???? I don't think a bill that high
would fit under the door slot.
Jo-Ann
Ross Klein
I see you still espouse the view of "don't confuse me with the facts."
I don't attack you pandering for customers on this newsgroup -- I'd
appreciate if you didn't label facts as rumors simply because you don't
like the facts.
Happy cruising,
Ross
Charles
<ro...@cruisejunkie.com> wrote:
> I'd appreciate if you didn't label facts as rumors simply because you
> don't like the facts.
What you posted was not a fact, it was hearsay. Someone who was not
even on the ship in question told you the story. If it was a fact you
should be able to prove it as if there had been a food riot and seven
bodies there would be a record of the occurrence. You can't prove it
and never will because probably you either made up the story yourself,
or you are just plain gullible.
--
Charles
Linda Coffman
> >the average person spent between $220-$232 per day on
> >onboard
> >spending: in bars, gift shops, and for onshore excursions.
> I find this very hard to believe. The average Sail and Sign card for a
couple
> at the end of the week totals $3,200.00???? I don't think a bill that
high
> would fit under the door slot.
>
> Jo-Ann
Jo Ann, you pointed out just one of the exaggerations I noticed in the
original post. Heck, I got off the Enchantment of the Seas a few weeks ago
and my on board account for the week was only $320. My husband and I have
gone on 15 & 17-day cruises in Europe and didn't spend that much daily,
including shore excursions. Maybe the author is quoting Canadian dollars,
though?
Linda
NormaBM
>Thank you Gems.
Gems,
Have been cruising regularly since 1988 and haven't died yet.
Just being facetious, of course. What are you looking for in a cruise, where do
you want to go, how much do you want to spend?
Decide about all of that, go to a good cruise TA and gather lots of info to
make an informed decision. Read passenger reviews on many cruise sites.
Norma
Kim
don't
> like the facts.
Facts aren't facts just because you say they are. Facts are demonstrable
truths; what you've given us is unverified information, aka rumors. How
about citing a comfirmable source?
Kim
Ray Goldenberg
wrote:
>Hi Ray,
>
>I see you still espouse the view of "don't confuse me with the facts."
>I don't attack you pandering for customers on this newsgroup -- I'd
>appreciate if you didn't label facts as rumors simply because you don't
>like the facts.
>
Hi Ross,
I see you think 3rd hand information is a fact. I thank you for
proving my point.
Lone Haranguer
ones- bringing in 6 million dollars of passenger spending in a week. I mean,
that's $6,000 PER PASSENGER per week!
The entire article is fiction, written by someone with an ax to grind. Anyone
who gives it the slightest credence is truly pathetic.
Ross Klein
citation I would be happy to provide it.
The figure of $222 - $232 per day per pax is from a Wall Street Analyst
and was published by the Associated Press.
Ross
Lone Haranguer
> The source of that figure is Lloyd's List -- if you'd like the exact
> citation I would be happy to provide it.
>
> The figure of $222 - $232 per day per pax is from a Wall Street Analyst
> and was published by the Associated Press.
>
> Ross
Think about it, Ross, just think about it. It makes no difference what the source,
the numbers are impossible.
C.C. Petersen
I was just thinking that I've read similar articles exposing the dark side
of such industries as the Disney empire, various ski resorts, the film
industry, etc. There's a downside to every moneymaking enterprise. Why
should cruising be any different?
CC
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
CCPetersen
"I'd rather be stargazing."
(remove the ET from my username to send email.)
"John Fisher" <clo...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:fgjgsusll0ll5ivhh...@4ax.com...
Interesting article deleted to save bandwidth.