I heard a real quick discussion of whether the government should save the cruise industry

[pacruise804]

On 3/13/2020 at 6:30 PM, navybankerteacher said:

In what way do you think cruise lines are important to the US economy?  They do not contribute in any significant way to tax revenues. A very small number of their employees are US citizens/residents, or pay US taxes.

 

What they do contribute is recreation off shore - leading to many US residents to spend their vacation dollars off-shore - not contributing a dime to the US economy.  Many thousands of US consumers spend their vacation dollars elsewhere: not contributing to the US economy.  It is fairly obvious that the existence of cruising actually has a negative impact on the US economy.  

 

Sure, it is great to have cruising as an optional means of disposing of discretionary funds - but the only way cruising is important to the US economy is by decreasing domestic spending without contributing in any significant way to the domestic economy or to government tax revenues.

 

 

I do not think the government should bail out the cruise lines.

 

I do think the industry as a whole (not just the lines) do contribute to the local economy as well as foreign.  I personally pay for services before a cruise that I probably wouldn't for other vacations, including pedicure and hotel stay.  If I am doing a domestic vacation then I wouldn't worry about my nails, and domestic lodging is likely to be lower cost campground instead of a pre-cruise hotel.  We also stock up on extra supplies for a cruise (sunscreen, meclizine, etc) that we wouldn't use as much on land. 

 

We don't purchase much on our cruises (got a $10 ornament in Bermuda last year instead of a $15 ornament from Hallmark), and don't spend much on excursions either.

[paul929207]

I think any bailout should be in the form of loans. These should carry reasonable interest rates to compensate the US and it taxpayers for the risk. In 2009, when President Obama bailed out the auto industry, the US made money. 

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, paul929207 said:

I think any bailout should be in the form of loans. These should carry reasonable interest rates to compensate the US and it taxpayers for the risk. In 2009, when President Obama bailed out the auto industry, the US made money. 

No - the US about broke even on the Chrysler bailout, but lost about 11 billion $ on the GM deal.  If you take into consideration the long term benefits of future income tax payments from workers who’s jobs were saved and from a profitable GM there may be full recovery far down the road - but that is FAR down the road if you take into consideration the carrying costs.

[Roger88]

Cruise industry will be alright. Its not only about sailing from point A to point B. Its the entertainment, food court, marketing and etc. Yes, their work is kinda postponed at the moment, but trust me Its nothing comparing to what they are capable of. Moreover, this industry bring tons of money to the government in terms of taxes. The government will never try to lose such a money bringer. Cruiser will be alright 

[CruisingAlong4Now]

Florida residents would be negatively impacted by failures in the cruise industry.  The residents rely on the tourist taxes (which are just shy of exorbitant and immoral) to subsidize the FL government and services.  The state caps increases in annual real estate and offers large Homestead exemptions.  If someone is in their house for a long time, they may be paying less than 1/2 the real estate taxes a newcomer would pay.  The tourists pay the difference.

[ed01106]

20 minutes ago, CruisingAlong4Now said:

Florida residents would be negatively impacted by failures in the cruise industry.  The residents rely on the tourist taxes (which are just shy of exorbitant and immoral) to subsidize the FL government and services.  The state caps increases in annual real estate and offers large Homestead exemptions.  If someone is in their house for a long time, they may be paying less than 1/2 the real estate taxes a newcomer would pay.  The tourists pay the difference.

Florida is dependent on tourism, not the cruise lines. The shutdown of the magic kingdom is a much bigger hit than DCL not sailing.

[ed01106]

Explain why anyone should bail out an industry whose own greed (not canceling sailing/ports in affected areas not offering full refunds and canceling the bookings of people traveling from effected areas) greatly increased the spread of the disease?

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, Roger88 said:

 Moreover, this industry bring tons of money to the government in terms of taxes. The government will never try to lose such a money bringer. Cruiser will be alright 

 

It sounds like you might think the cruise lines pay more in taxes than what they actually do. 

[CruiserBruce]

51 minutes ago, ed01106 said:

Explain why anyone should bail out an industry whose own greed (not canceling sailing/ports in affected areas not offering full refunds and canceling the bookings of people traveling from effected areas) greatly increased the spread of the disease?

Greatly increased the spread? Really? Do you have knowledge or experience in the forecasting pandemics business, so you can officially say when they should have canceled cruises? I truly don't think you can say the cruise industry "greatly" increased the spread. Hindsight is always 20-20.

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

Greatly increased the spread? Really? Do you have knowledge or experience in the forecasting pandemics business, so you can officially say when they should have canceled cruises? I truly don't think you can say the cruise industry "greatly" increased the spread. Hindsight is always 20-20.

You really do not think that having 4,000 or so people in a fairly enclosed environment: eating meals by the hundreds, sitting butt by butt in theatres, lined up for boarding check in, etc. might not have increased the spread?  

 

WOW, JUST WOW!!!!!

[K32682]

America will survive if cruise companies go under.  They don't provide much more than leisure pursuits for the financially comfortable.  People with discretionary money to spend on cruises will spend it on other tourism-related activities.   

 

America needs airlines far more than cruise ships and they will be well ahead of cruise lines should government support be required. 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2020 by K32682

[CruiserBruce]

27 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

You really do not think that having 4,000 or so people in a fairly enclosed environment: eating meals by the hundreds, sitting butt by butt in theatres, lined up for boarding check in, etc. might not have increased the spread?  

 

WOW, JUST WOW!!!!!

"Greatly increased". No. Did it result in some more cases...yes, no doubt. As of now, there are something like 160K cases in the world. I think you would be hard pressed to say 1000 cases are definitely "spread" by cruise ships. Diamond Princess is obviously the highlighted case, but how much of that problem was caused by the Japanese government refusing to let people off the ship, for what, 7 or 8 days? If Princess was as "greedy" as the poster screamed, they would have dumped the sick passengers unannounced, picked up another load, and departed like nothing happened, leaving the local government to deal with the sick passengers. I suspect that would have spread the disease much more rapidly, at least in that immediate area.

 

And my other point is, it is easy to say the cruise lines "could have, should have" etc. Hindsight is always 20-20, and everyone is an expert. 

[navybankerteacher]

40 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

"Greatly increased". No. Did it result in some more cases...yes, no doubt. As of now, there are something like 160K cases in the world. I think you would be hard pressed to say 1000 cases are definitely "spread" by cruise ships. Diamond Princess is obviously the highlighted case, but how much of that problem was caused by the Japanese government refusing to let people off the ship, for what, 7 or 8 days? If Princess was as "greedy" as the poster screamed, they would have dumped the sick passengers unannounced, picked up another load, and departed like nothing happened, leaving the local government to deal with the sick passengers. I suspect that would have spread the disease much more rapidly, at least in that immediate area.

 

And my other point is, it is easy to say the cruise lines "could have, should have" etc. Hindsight is always 20-20, and everyone is an expert. 

All it takes is a few of those “...some more cases...” to spread.  Sure, there were other elements — but recreational cruising is one of the first UNNECESSARY activities which could have been curtailed.

 

Of course, raising that point on these threads is heresy:   cruising seems to be the most important thing - seen worthy of government bailouts, if necessary, to expedite the return of cruising as normal. 

 

The fact is: cruising, while enjoyable, is not at all necessary. And, not only does it contribute to atmospheric and oceanic pollution, it trashed many once spectacular places which can only be properly experienced by hundreds at a time - not the thousands who inundate places

 

Sure, cruising may only have contributed a small bit to the spread of corona - but it was a source of spread which could have been completely avoided with very little downside.

[chipmaster]

While the cruise ships are American Corporations with many US employees but the impact if they folded is but a rounding error for the larger US economy and have no strategic value like Car, Airplane or other like Construction companies.

 

I'd say the economic impact to where most of the crew come is far larger than the corporate employees in the US, they are all highly skilled and those management, finance, IT, marketing, sales are easily moved to other US companies.

 

NO bailout is my opinion.

[CruiserBruce]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

All it takes is a few of those “...some more cases...” to spread.  Sure, there were other elements — but recreational cruising is one of the first UNNECESSARY activities which could have been curtailed.

 

Of course, raising that point on these threads is heresy:   cruising seems to be the most important thing - seen worthy of government bailouts, if necessary, to expedite the return of cruising as normal. 

 

The fact is: cruising, while enjoyable, is not at all necessary. And, not only does it contribute to atmospheric and oceanic pollution, it trashed many once spectacular places which can only be properly experienced by hundreds at a time - not the thousands who inundate places

 

Sure, cruising may only have contributed a small bit to the spread of corona - but it was a source of spread which could have been completely avoided with very little downside.

Thanks for making my point and changing the topic to bail outs, which was not the point of my comments,  nor those of the absurdly hyperbolic comments that I was commenting on.

 

By the way, there was a story on the news tonight that said, in summary, the thing that is driving the spread is being contagious before you are symptomatic. 

[navybankerteacher]

26 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

...

 

By the way, there was a story on the news tonight that said, in summary, the thing that is driving the spread is being contagious before you are symptomatic. 

Not news -  this was commented upon weeks ago;  which is why unnecessary travel and being in close contact with large groups (both key  elements of cruising) should have been closed down weeks ago.

[CruiserBruce]

21 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Not news -  this was commented upon weeks ago;  which is why unnecessary travel and being in close contact with large groups (both key  elements of cruising) should have been closed down weeks ago.

But flight, which is far more "closely packed " is not? We flew home from Hawaii on March 9. Was that essential...we were on vacation. Again, some just seem to want to pick on cruising and make hyperbolic claims about cruising.

[navybankerteacher]

20 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

But flight, which is far more "closely packed " is not? We flew home from Hawaii on March 9. Was that essential...we were on vacation. Again, some just seem to want to pick on cruising and make hyperbolic claims about cruising.

Unnecessary flight, involving closer packing than cruising is of course to be avoided.  We recently cancelled a three week trip to Florida - at some cost - because we were smart enough to recognize that such unnecessary contact was best avoided.  I like cruising as much as the next CC’er — but it is unnecessary.

 

Why is any less-than-laudatory comment about cruising designated as “hyperbolic”?

[Joebucks]

10 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Unnecessary flight, involving closer packing than cruising is of course to be avoided.  We recently cancelled a three week trip to Florida - at some cost - because we were smart enough to recognize that such unnecessary contact was best avoided.  I like cruising as much as the next CC’er — but it is unnecessary.

 

Why is any less-than-laudatory comment about cruising designated as “hyperbolic”?

 

Because cruising has not been proven to be anymore dangerous than say, going to the grocery store. We had a handful of ships that had issues. Those were largely ships traveling overseas with travelers that came from hot zones, larger percentage of older people, etc. I was on a Bahamas cruise last week. There were zero confirmed cases. The act of cruising was no more dangerous than going out to the bars, airport, etc. It is being attacked for a precaution more than anything else. Not to say that there is no merit to it.

 

14 hours ago, K32682 said:

America will survive if cruise companies go under.  They don't provide much more than leisure pursuits for the financially comfortable.  People with discretionary money to spend on cruises will spend it on other tourism-related activities.   

 

America needs airlines far more than cruise ships and they will be well ahead of cruise lines should government support be required. 

 

 

 

Still a narrow view. America could theoretically "go on" if any company went under. Who's to say we wouldn't survive if all of the airlines went under? Why wouldn't some other company use that opportunity to buy up all of the assets and take over?

 

There is a big picture aspect to it all. Do you think these countries that rely on cruises for their economy just say oh well? Do you think the US ports that have so many jobs tied into their life just vanish? Mark my words that Trump will not let all of the big cruise companies go under.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, Joebucks said:

 

Because cruising has not been proven to be anymore dangerous than say, going to the grocery store. 

Going to the grocery store is essential, getting on a cruise ship is not

1 hour ago, Joebucks said:

 

Still a narrow view. America could theoretically "go on" if any company went under. Who's to say we wouldn't survive if all of the airlines went under? Why wouldn't some other company use that opportunity to buy up all of the assets and take over?

Airlines provide necessary transportation - for commerce, even for getting to medical care not available locally.

If the cruise lines did go under, their assets would most likely be bought up and new owners would operate them

1 hour ago, Joebucks said:

There is a big picture aspect to it all. Do you think these countries that rely on cruises for their economy just say oh well? Do you think the US ports that have so many jobs tied into their life just vanish? Mark my words that Trump will not let all of the big cruise companies go under.

I do not think Trump has imperial powers -- he would have to convince Congress that an elective, non-essential industry needs support before many others.

 

Yes, it would be too bad for the equity owners of Carnival, RCCI and NCL lost their shirts - but that is a risk they took when investing in a non-essential industry -- whose activity would quickly be picked up by other investors.  What do you think happened to all the no longer sailing cruise lines often mentioned on these threads -- their ships and operations were taken over by new owners.

[Extra Kim]

On 3/13/2020 at 5:55 PM, CruiserBruce said:

On the other hand, the cruise lines buy a tremendous amount of supplies, particularly food and fuel products, at the big US cruise ports, like Ft Lauderdale.

^^^ This!

Then add all other things that cruise passangers spend money on to be able to cruise. Flights, rental cars, hotels, food etc.

 

I have been in the U.S several times and every time because of cruises. I don't think that I would go to the U.S if all cruise ships left from another country.

[chengkp75]

On 3/17/2020 at 3:28 PM, Roger88 said:

Moreover, this industry bring tons of money to the government in terms of taxes

Uh, no.  A CLIA report I looked at a couple of days ago, for the year 2018, showed that the cruise industry paid about $1.4 million in taxes to all US governments, and the note stated that the majority of that was Social Security taxes for US employees, and property taxes on US headquarters.

On 3/17/2020 at 9:43 PM, chipmaster said:

While the cruise ships are American Corporations with many US employees

Uh, no.  None of them are "American" corporations.  RCI is incorporated in Liberia, Carnival in Panama, and NCLH in Bermuda.

[navybankerteacher]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Uh, no.  A CLIA report I looked at a couple of days ago, for the year 2018, showed that the cruise industry paid about $1.4 million in taxes to all US governments, and the note stated that the majority of that was Social Security taxes for US employees, and property taxes on US headquarters.

Uh, no.  None of them are "American" corporations.  RCI is incorporated in Liberia, Carnival in Panama, and NCLH in Bermuda.

Helpful to point this out.   It also should be noted that if cruising were not an option, much of what is now spent on cruises would likely go to alternative domestic recreational spending.  People are not sufficiently dependent on cruising to warrant US intervention to support the equity investors (at the cost of failing to support more important sectors).

If all major lines went under, their assets would most likely be picked up by new entities - government support might expedite resumption of scheduled sailings - but the industry does not need saving.

[sparks1093]

4 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Helpful to point this out.   It also should be noted that if cruising were not an option, much of what is now spent on cruises would likely go to alternative domestic recreational spending.  People are not sufficiently dependent on cruising to warrant US intervention to support the equity investors (at the cost of failing to support more important sectors).

If all major lines went under, their assets would most likely be picked up by new entities - government support might expedite resumption of scheduled sailings - but the industry does not need saving.

I agree with this. Big companies that file bankruptcy typically continue operations and are sometimes broken up into smaller business entities. I would miss cruising if the cruise lines did go away (or if they started charging more than I was willing to pay) but as you point out there are vacation alternatives available (and we are now at the point where we are exploring those options anyway, DW and I are discussing two land trips for 2021 with no cruise- one trip to Rome and another to Germany or maybe even both in one trip if DW can arrange for that much time off).

[ed01106]

18 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

It also should be noted that if cruising were not an option, much of what is now spent on cruises would likely go to alternative domestic recreational spending. 

 

I would go as far as to say if cruise lines disappeared, it would have a net positive effect on the domestic tourism industry.  More money stays in Florida/USA if I fly to Miami and spend a week in hotels, eat at restaurants, visit local attractions etc than if I go on a cruise.