Are Cruise Lines Paying Their Way in the Caribbean?

Article reviews the cruise industry's contribution to the Caribbean
Region:

http://www.virginislandsdailynews.co...al?id=11400666

Aloha

This article was written by Sir Ronald Sanders, a former diplomat.
"Diplomat" is a nice way of saying "bleeding heart liberal."


"Mark O. Polo" wrote in message
...
Article reviews the cruise industry's contribution to the Caribbean
Region:


http://www.virginislandsdailynews.co...al?id=11400666

Aloha

What a change has ocurred in the cruise industry. During the 70"s and
80's you stay in port for longer periods of time, When some islands like
Martinique VI, Guadalope raised docking fees the industry cut short
or eliminated some stops. More time to nickel and dime you onboard.

In article ,
(Mark O. Polo) wrote:
Article reviews the cruise industry's contribution to the Caribbean
Region:

http://www.virginislandsdailynews.co...al?id=11400666

The big hole in the discussion is what I would call
"support". The cruise ship denizens require relatively little in the
way of infrastructure to support them. They require no sprawling
hotels (interestingly the persons who paid for the study), they
don't use roads, have an impact on utilities, generate less trash,
etc, etc., anywhere near as intensively as those who stay. Yet they
spend a bunch. As long as the governments get their money back in
docking fees, they are ahead of the game.

--
"Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
--PJ O'Rourke

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:18:42 -0500, Lauren wrote:

This article was written by Sir Ronald Sanders, a former diplomat.
"Diplomat" is a nice way of saying "bleeding heart liberal."

Gee, at least we have hearts.

http://www.punkvoter.com/anim/anim-idiot.html

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
nk.net...
In article ,
The big hole in the discussion is what I would call
"support". The cruise ship denizens require relatively little in the
way of infrastructure to support them. They require no sprawling
hotels (interestingly the persons who paid for the study), they
don't use roads, have an impact on utilities, generate less trash,
etc, etc., anywhere near as intensively as those who stay. Yet they
spend a bunch. As long as the governments get their money back in
docking fees, they are ahead of the game.

They don't require hotels, they do require docks, preferably piers so the
ships don't have to tender. They do require roads, and enough roads to get
all the people off the ship and to destinations. To see how much
infrastructure cruises require look at the Skagway in Alaska. Without
cruise ships that town would pretty much not exist, all that was
infrastructure, from the ports to the roads to the shops was built for
cruise lines. Look at the private islands, all that was built was for the
cruise ships. Even look at ports like San Francisco or Lahaina, read the
local papers and see what the local government has to spend on port
infrastructure to get the cruise lines to make them a permanent stop. As
the ships get bigger the port facilities need to expand to be able to handle
the bigger ships and larger number of people, which costs the ports more
money.

It also does not surprise me that the hotels are the ones that paid for the
study. The hotels are the ones the ones on these small islands that will
lose clientele if the island is over run from 10am to 6pm by 20K day
tourists. People looking for resorts on small quiet islands with uncrowded
beaches will skip those that take in many large ships and go for the resorts
on islands the large cruise ships can't make it to. So, for the hotels,
unless they can provide a relaxing ambienance, they won't be able to fill
their hotels.

And the island economy may depend on their tourism model. Skagway closes in
the winter, during cruise season they bring in seasonal workers. Can the
islanders make this type of economy work for them? Or do they need the year
round (and 24 hour) economy provided by hotel resorts?

Cathy:

While you are right on when you say that Skagway has thrived on cruise
visits that cannot be said for Lahaina which was much as it is today
before the cruise ships restarted visiting Maui.

Aloha

Lahaina is an example of a port that isn't interested in making the big
changes, and so aren't winning the big ships. When ships first restarted
anchoring in Lahaina (and other Hawaiian ports) I remember reading on this
list about how cruisers were disappointed how long it took to tender to
Lahaina, and how there were not enough facilities (read rental cars and
tours) once they got there. They did add tenders, which causes boating
traffic jams in the harbor with the whale watching/snorkeling ships. (The
whale watching ships alone can cause traffic jams, adding the tenders just
make it worse.) They do bring rental cars closer to the docks, but they
still lose out to Kahalui on the bigger, non-weekly ships. And I wonder how
Lahaina does economy-wise with these ships. I know due to bad experiences
last time I wandered into Lahaina on a ship in port day, we look carefully
before we travel from Wailea down to Lahaina. Often we skip Lahaina if we
can't fit a non-ship day into our schedule, and take whale watching or
snorkeling trips out of Maalea harbor. (Which is closer, but not as fun to
wander around afterwards.) So the ships do scare away some tourists. It's
a question of whether it is a net gain for Lahaina.

"Mark O. Polo" wrote in message
...
Cathy:

While you are right on when you say that Skagway has thrived on cruise
visits that cannot be said for Lahaina which was much as it is today
before the cruise ships restarted visiting Maui.

Aloha

In article , "Cathy
Kearns" wrote:

They don't require hotels, they do require docks, preferably piers so the
ships don't have to tender. They do require roads, and enough roads to get
all the people off the ship and to destinations. To see how much
infrastructure cruises require look at the Skagway in Alaska. Without
cruise ships that town would pretty much not exist, all that was
infrastructure, from the ports to the roads to the shops was built for
cruise lines. Look at the private islands, all that was built was for the
cruise ships. Even look at ports like San Francisco or Lahaina, read the
local papers and see what the local government has to spend on port
infrastructure to get the cruise lines to make them a permanent stop. As
the ships get bigger the port facilities need to expand to be able to handle
the bigger ships and larger number of people, which costs the ports more
money.


But that isn't the same as Caribbean that has to build everything
for the "regular" tourists. You don't see anyone suggesting that the
airlines should pay some great extra tarriff for the damage they
"inflict" yet they bring people to the island who stay there,
require hotels, lots of transportation, etc.
And you can make the same statements about the bigger and
bigger ships that you did with the airlines when the 747 came out
and all the worrying about how anyone can possibly land the new
Airbus jumbo w/o building all these new buildings,etc.
The private islands are just that. Also, many of the
incentives are very similar to what US cities do to bring in the
next big manufacturing plant or warehouse or whatever. When your
main biz is tourism you pay the incentives to bring in tourists
instead of auto plants.


It also does not surprise me that the hotels are the ones that paid for the
study. The hotels are the ones the ones on these small islands that will
lose clientele if the island is over run from 10am to 6pm by 20K day
tourists. People looking for resorts on small quiet islands with uncrowded
beaches will skip those that take in many large ships and go for the resorts
on islands the large cruise ships can't make it to. So, for the hotels,
unless they can provide a relaxing ambienance, they won't be able to fill
their hotels.

And the island economy may depend on their tourism model. Skagway closes in
the winter, during cruise season they bring in seasonal workers. Can the
islanders make this type of economy work for them? Or do they need the year
round (and 24 hour) economy provided by hotel resorts?



--
"Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
--PJ O'Rourke

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
nk.net...
But that isn't the same as Caribbean that has to build everything
for the "regular" tourists. You don't see anyone suggesting that the
airlines should pay some great extra tarriff for the damage they
"inflict" yet they bring people to the island who stay there,
require hotels, lots of transportation, etc.
And you can make the same statements about the bigger and
bigger ships that you did with the airlines when the 747 came out
and all the worrying about how anyone can possibly land the new
Airbus jumbo w/o building all these new buildings,etc.

I think the discussions in the Caribbean newspapers are very much the same
discussions cities have when they start thinking about expanding airports.
Do we want that many more planes/ships coming here? Would it be positive or
negative for our local economy? Airlines aren't the best example, as they
only come if people want to come. You don't see airlines building airports
in places there is not already a tourist infrastructure. Better examples
would be the mega resorts. And I'm sure the same articles pop up in the
papers. Do we want/need this many tourists?

The private islands are just that.

I only brought up the private islands for the guy who thought cruise ports
require no infrastructure. If that were true the cruise lines would not
have to build any infrastructure on their private island, and yet they do,
to make the stops pleasing to their guests.

Also, many of the
incentives are very similar to what US cities do to bring in the
next big manufacturing plant or warehouse or whatever. When your
main biz is tourism you pay the incentives to bring in tourists
instead of auto plants.

And that is the discussion the islands are having. Bringing in cruise
tourists make some amount of seasonal day trip money. Bringing in resort
tourists make some amount of year round (though there is likely a low
season) 24hour/7 day a week guests. Obviously the cruise tourists bring in
less money than those tourist staying on the island, as they don't need to
eat there, or pay for accomodations. Can they have both? Does having too
many cruise tourists cut into the resort tourists? Is is enough to want to
curb the cruise tourists?

I do think it's unfair to say cruises are less ecofriendly than the land
based resorts. I think on that score they run about even.