Why didn't Viking etc get bailed out?

[Cienfuegos]

The NY Times has an article  about the failure of the cruise ship industry to be included in the recent US bail out.  They cite three major reasons.

 

First, the cruise industry is not incorporated in the US, and has labor practices which some in Congress find inappropriate.  Viking, Carnival, etc are foreign companies for purposes of law.

The cruise industry already enjoys significant, century old tax breaks unavailable to many "American" companies.

 

Second, the cruise industry has (allegedly) engaged in substantial and continuing health / environmental damage. The industry's failure to resolve these practices has attracted the attention of many in Congress. Members of Congress examined this problem last year.

 

Third, The Princess situation in Japan served to highlight the failure of the cruise line to rapidly address serious health issues on board.  Compounded by the reluctance of foreign countries to accept risks they have not measured. The reluctance of several US ports to accept "infected" cruise ships would be a corollary of this

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/travel/cruises-coronavirus-stimulus.html

[Captain_Morgan]

Seems you answered your own question, assuming of course the thread title was meant to be a question?

[Baron Barracuda]

While Washington is spending huge sums to prop up the economy the gov't checkbook isn't unlimited and decisions have to  be made as to where it will do the most good.  Even if you believe the CLIA's assertions of how much economic activity the cruise industry generates that total pales in comparison to the contributions of other players in the travel industry such as airlines and hotels.  Also bear in mind that while cruise lines mostly benefit a few port cities every congressional district has airports and hotels screaming for assistance.

[clojacks]

33 minutes ago, Captain_Morgan said:

Seems you answered your own question, assuming of course the thread title was meant to be a question?

Agreed...Maybe the OP meant the title to be "Why Viking didn't get bailed out..."

[duquephart]

45 minutes ago, Captain_Morgan said:

Seems you answered your own question, assuming of course the thread title was meant to be a question?

 

Well ----- it did end with a "?".

[duquephart]

1 hour ago, Cienfuegos said:

The NY Times has an article  about the failure of the cruise ship industry to be included in the recent US bail out.  They cite three major reasons.

 

First, the cruise industry is not incorporated in the US, and has labor practices which some in Congress find inappropriate.  Viking, Carnival, etc are foreign companies for purposes of law.

The cruise industry already enjoys significant, century old tax breaks unavailable to many "American" companies.

 

Second, the cruise industry has (allegedly) engaged in substantial and continuing health / environmental damage. The industry's failure to resolve these practices has attracted the attention of many in Congress. Members of Congress examined this problem last year.

 

Third, The Princess situation in Japan served to highlight the failure of the cruise line to rapidly address serious health issues on board.  Compounded by the reluctance of foreign countries to accept risks they have not measured. The reluctance of several US ports to accept "infected" cruise ships would be a corollary of this

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/travel/cruises-coronavirus-stimulus.html

 

In a nutshell, beause they don't deserve it.