European rules for restart of cruising.

[Joebucks]

10 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Everything eventually get replaced. If they didn't we would still be using horse and carriage, communicating by telegram and computers would be people. I don't think cruising will die but if it changes it changes. Philippines has endured much change they are more adaptable than you think and the Caribbeans have already been looking at being less dependent on the cruising economy, this might accelerate that movement. Change is scary and there are people who lose out and others who will win from this. That is just life 💁

 

 

Opportunities will always come and go. I don't think cruising will die, but who knows where it goes from here. As for travel being replaced if it does, I find that harder to believe. Cruising brings thousands of people to ports per day that probably wouldn't be there otherwise. A cruise is more affordable to more people than flying to the Caribbean and staying there. Obviously, not all ports would be impacted the same way. Cozumel and Nassau would be examples of larger impacts.

 

The Philippines is a very poor area. Some areas more than others. It is not by chance that you see so many Filipino workers on the ships. It is a great opportunity for them to provide for their family. If there were better options, do you think so many of them would spend months away from their family working long hours?

 

10 hours ago, clo said:

Maybe they'll reply. I reread it before posting. I suppose could go either way.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was talking about the workers.

[evandbob]

I think that many of us, myself included, have an exaggerated sense of how important cruising is to the economic health of the countries we like to visit.  

 

I've read that total travel contributes about 15% to the Caribbean islands GDP.  Obviously cruising is only a part of that total.  While there would be a negative impact on an economy if cruising ceases, it would not be "devastating" except to those workers directly and immediately affected.  The country will manage and perhaps even prosper just as well as it finds alternatives to the cruising industry.  (Some countries, like Curacao, are investing in infrastructure to support the growing data industry like cloud storage).

 

Also, some countries are now factoring in a monetary cost that over-cruising brings on, and that factor will lower the economic benefit of cruising that was previously computed.  If cruising does cease, some formerly cruise only folk will transfer to the general travel section, so there would be an even lower impact.

 

It does against my overblown sense of self worth that my cruising dollars may be sorely missed by local Caribbean cruise tour personnel, but perhaps I can adjust as well.

 

 

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, Joebucks said:

 

Opportunities will always come and go. I don't think cruising will die, but who knows where it goes from here. As for travel being replaced if it does, I find that harder to believe. Cruising brings thousands of people to ports per day that probably wouldn't be there otherwise. A cruise is more affordable to more people than flying to the Caribbean and staying there. Obviously, not all ports would be impacted the same way. Cozumel and Nassau would be examples of larger impacts.

 

The Caribbean does get a lot of land visitors otherwise why would anyone invest so much in building resorts? I did read an article about how the Caribbean could reduce the cost of flights so if cruising did disappear I am sure they would do that. Before cruising existed they already had a tourism industry so I am sure they could adapt if cruising wasn't an option. People on the islands have been questioning the contribution of cruises to their economy so there seems to be enough people not benefiting that perhaps some sort of change is required. They are already saying they won't let cruises in till there has been some sort of renegotiation of contracts. 

1 hour ago, Joebucks said:

The Philippines is a very poor area. Some areas more than others. It is not by chance that you see so many Filipino workers on the ships. It is a great opportunity for them to provide for their family. If there were better options, do you think so many of them would spend months away from their family working long hours?

 

There are way more Filipinos working on land in countries around the world who spend years never seeing their family. Cruises are the better job for sure since you only spend a few months from family and still get equivalent pay but if cruising stopped they will most likely move back to those on land jobs. It sucks but they would not be completely left with no option. 

[clo]

5 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

The Caribbean does get a lot of land visitors otherwise why would anyone invest so much in building resorts? I did read an article about how the Caribbean could reduce the cost of flights so if cruising did disappear I am sure they would do that. Before cruising existed they already had a tourism industry so I am sure they could adapt if cruising wasn't an option. People on the islands have been questioning the contribution of cruises to their economy so there seems to be enough people not benefiting that perhaps some sort of change is required. They are already saying they won't let cruises in till there has been some sort of renegotiation of contracts. 

 

There are way more Filipinos working on land in countries around the world who spend years never seeing their family. Cruises are the better job for sure since you only spend a few months from family and still get equivalent pay but if cruising stopped they will most likely move back to those on land jobs. It sucks but they would not be completely left with no option. 

I can't imagine how many companies customer service areas are heavily in the Philippines. I like to 'establish rapport' when I'm dealing with these folks so I frequently ask where they're located. Seems the majority of the time it's the Philippines.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, clo said:

I can't imagine how many companies customer service areas are heavily in the Philippines. I like to 'establish rapport' when I'm dealing with these folks so I frequently ask where they're located. Seems the majority of the time it's the Philippines.

Our area's newspaper once had an editorial about hiring locally while at the same time if you called their customer service the person who answered was in the Philippines.  I wrote them a letter calling them out on this. They of course did not print it. They wrote me a reply in which they basically said not our fault as we are part of a chain and that's their policy.

[K32682]

No one should get to excited about the EU Healthy Gateways report.  It is not a regulatory agency and what they've provided are not "rules" but mere recommendations for member states.  Individual countries can and will determine the terms under which ships and passengers land in their territory not the European Union. 

[clo]

28 minutes ago, K32682 said:

No one should get to excited about the EU Healthy Gateways report.  It is not a regulatory agency and what they've provided are not "rules" but mere recommendations for member states.  Individual countries can and will determine the terms under which ships and passengers land in their territory not the European Union. 

https://www.healthygateways.eu/

[navybankerteacher]

11 hours ago, evandbob said:

...

 

I've read that total travel contributes about 15% to the Caribbean islands GDP.  Obviously cruising is only a part of that total.  While there would be a negative impact on an economy if cruising ceases, it would not be "devastating" except to those workers directly and immediately affected.  The country will manage and perhaps even prosper just as well as it finds alternatives to the cruising industry.  (Some countries, like Curacao, are investing in infrastructure to support the growing data industry like cloud storage).

 

...

 

 

I think your 15% figure is off - the World Bank reports that about 45% of St. Martin’s GDP, for example, is tourism related.   But you are right in recognizing that cruising’s contribution is very small.  The real contribution that the travel industry makes to an island’s economy involves visitors who stay at hotels and patronize restaurants;  and possibly even buy property.

[clo]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

The real contribution that the travel industry makes to an island’s economy involves visitors who stay at hotels and patronize restaurants;  and possibly even buy property.

I get the sense that 'cruisers' are resistant to that idea.  I agree with you.

[davecttr]

7 hours ago, clo said:

https://www.healthygateways.eu/

The recommendations will carry some weight as 'Europe has' 26? countries that can be cruise destinations. If one country decides on more lax rules they may find no cruise lines prepared to call because it compromises their scheduling in other countries. 

[evandbob]

8 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I think your 15% figure is off - the World Bank reports that about 45% of St. Martin’s GDP, for example, is tourism related.   But you are right in recognizing that cruising’s contribution is very small.  The real contribution that the travel industry makes to an island’s economy involves visitors who stay at hotels and patronize restaurants;  and possibly even buy property.

 

Actually, according to the report below, you are right - my 15% figure is indeed off by 10% the OTHER way.

 

Caribbean: direct contribution of travel and tourism to GDP by country 2018

Published by Ana M. López, Jun 26, 2020

 In 2018, the direct contribution of the travel and tourism sector to the GDP of the whole Caribbean region was 5.1 percent. Nevertheless, the majority of Caribbean islands registered higher shares of direct contribution to their GDPs that year. For instance, the travel and tourism sector accounted for nearly one third of Aruba's GDP as well as almost one forth of the GDPs in the British and US Virgin Islands and the Former Netherlands Antilles. Bahamas, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis and St Lucia registered percentages of direct contribution of travel and tourism to GDP of over 15 percent.

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, evandbob said:

 

Actually, according to the report below, you are right - my 15% figure is indeed off by 10% the OTHER way.

 

Caribbean: direct contribution of travel and tourism to GDP by country 2018

Published by Ana M. López, Jun 26, 2020

 In 2018, the direct contribution of the travel and tourism sector to the GDP of the whole Caribbean region was 5.1 percent. Nevertheless, the majority of Caribbean islands registered higher shares of direct contribution to their GDPs that year. For instance, the travel and tourism sector accounted for nearly one third of Aruba's GDP as well as almost one forth of the GDPs in the British and US Virgin Islands and the Former Netherlands Antilles. Bahamas, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis and St Lucia registered percentages of direct contribution of travel and tourism to GDP of over 15 percent.

We seem to  be talking about apples and oranges - the World Bank figure I mentioned was “tourism related”, while you referred to a  “direct contribution” of the travel and tourism sector.  Construction activity - of  airports, port facilities, hotels, retail establishments, even roads while obviously “tourism related”, would not be seen as a “direct contribution”— which would mean just dollars actually spent by tourists.

 

If you spend any time on most Caribbean islands, you will see that there is little to no manufacturing, that the income levels of much of the population would be unlikely to support a thriving retail economy, that much, if not most, of their food is imported - so there is is very little agricultural production contributing to the economy.

 

Cruise passengers largely fall into the category of “direct contribution” - and the few dollars they spend are, in fact, very minor contributions.

Edited July 7, 2020 by navybankerteacher

[Joebucks]

25 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

We seem to  be talking about apples and oranges - the World Bank figure I mentioned was “tourism related”, while you referred to a  “direct contribution” of the travel and tourism sector.  Construction activity - of  airports, port facilities, hotels, retail establishments, even roads while obviously “tourism related”, would not be seen as a “direct contribution”— which would mean just dollars actually spent by tourists.

 

If you spend any time on most Caribbean islands, you will see that there is little to no manufacturing, that the income levels of much of the population would be unlikely to support a thriving retail economy, that much, if not most, of their food is imported - so there is is very little agricultural production contributing to the economy.

 

Cruise passengers largely fall into the category of “direct contribution” - and the few dollars they spend are, in fact, very minor contributions.

 

Very well said.

 

Really think about what the Caribbean would thrive on if they didn't have tourism. Many of them would likely be similar to 3rd world countries, even though they already are in many aspects.

[evandbob]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Cruise passengers largely fall into the category of “direct contribution” - and the few dollars they spend are, in fact, very minor contributions.

 

And many of the dollars spent by cruisers do not remain on the island - they are returned to the cruise line.  Think of those who only visit the immediate port area or only use ship sponsored excursions.  The islands benefits are truly in a trickle down mode.

 

2 hours ago, Joebucks said:

 

Really think about what the Caribbean would thrive on if they didn't have tourism. Many of them would likely be similar to 3rd world countries, even though they already are in many aspects.

 

I'll repeat my opinion that many of us, myself included, have an overly exaggerated sense of how islanders in the Caribbean would be impoverished if cruisers didn't contribute to their economy.  Cruising benefits are greatly outweighed by the overall travel industry, and many cruisers dollars go right back to the cruise lines.  Do we contribute to their well being?  Of course, but not to the extent of their economic survival.  Just as we voluntarily cruise as a leisure activity, the islands can survive without us cruisers.  Will they need to adapt their ways?  Sure:  cloud storage, off shore banking, gambling on line, etc. come immediately to mind.  

 

The attitude and mind set of many cruisers may change as ports limit or do away with cruising and day trippers who may cost the ports more than the cruisers actually spend there.  JMO & YMMV.

[iancal]

If many of these islands are given a choice between the health of their population and tourist dollars I have little doubt that they will err on the side of public health.  

 

There are already a few sad examples of what happens when short term economic issues are placed ahead of public health and safety.

[ilikeanswers]

1 minute ago, iancal said:

If many of these islands are given a choice between the health of their population and tourist dollars I have little doubt that they will err on the side of public health.  

 

There are already a few sad examples of what happens when short term economic issues are placed ahead of public health and safety.

 

I read an interview with Jamaica's minister of health and in February he wanted to implement a ban on anyone who had travelled to China and health screenings for everyone entering Jamaica. He said Carnival put a lot of pressure on him to exempt cruise ships from his protocols and that cruisers who had been to China should still be allowed in. From what I understand it didn't work and Jamaica eventually went ahead with their changes.

[ontheweb]

10 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I read an interview with Jamaica's minister of health and in February he wanted to implement a ban on anyone who had travelled to China and health screenings for everyone entering Jamaica. He said Carnival put a lot of pressure on him to exempt cruise ships from his protocols and that cruisers who had been to China should still be allowed in. From what I understand it didn't work and Jamaica eventually went ahead with their changes.

If he was from Jamaica he probably just delayed and delayed until Carnival could no longer wait. It's called Jamaica time.

[ilikeanswers]

3 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

If he was from Jamaica he probably just delayed and delayed until Carnival could no longer wait. It's called Jamaica time.

 

I'm confused😟 what would Carnival have been waiting for?

[ontheweb]

6 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I'm confused😟 what would Carnival have been waiting for?

Permission for their ships to dock in Jamaica even with passengers from China aboard.

[pc_load_letter]

On 7/2/2020 at 11:55 AM, steveweese said:

Yes it makes the CDC look bad. I have no experience with the CDC but I do with the FDA. When there is a problem they tell you to make a plan to fix it and we will see if we approve it. 

 

They can't be that intelligent. The virus can't live in a chlorinated pool so closing pools is stupid to say the least. 

[pc_load_letter]

On 7/6/2020 at 7:24 AM, evandbob said:

I think that many of us, myself included, have an exaggerated sense of how important cruising is to the economic health of the countries we like to visit.  

 

 

 

Cruising may not be important to some of those countries but it is surely big for some of the cities they serve. Catalina is suffering terrible losses from no ships. Bar Harbor in Maine during the summer makes almost all of it's money from cruises. Not to mention Alaska. Their state government is handing out additional stimulant money to offset the monies lost from the cruises not coming.

 

[clo]

40 minutes ago, pc_load_letter said:

 

They can't be that intelligent. The virus can't live in a chlorinated pool so closing pools is stupid to say the least. 

No, but it can live on the edges of the pool  as well as a number of 'cooties.'

[clo]

45 minutes ago, pc_load_letter said:

 

Cruising may not be important to some of those countries but it is surely big for some of the cities they serve. Catalina is suffering terrible losses from no ships. Bar Harbor in Maine during the summer makes almost all of it's money from cruises. Not to mention Alaska. Their state government is handing out additional stimulant money to offset the monies lost from the cruises not coming.

 

These places have to consider the what if of what if there's an outbreak. A lot of smaller places don't have enough staff and equipment. So if they open up and just one passenger shares with some locals they could have a bigger mess than a budget short fall.

 

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, clo said:

No, but it can live on the edges of the pool  as well as a number of 'cooties.'

So instead of going to a chlorinated pool, people will swim in a less safe place???? At some point life must start again. There will never be no risk. Every time you drive or ride in a car or cross a street, a fatal accident could happen. When do you say take reasonable precautions, but you cannot live forever in a cave?

 

And what kind of scientific term is "cooties"?

Edited July 9, 2020 by ontheweb

[clo]

2 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And what kind of scientific term is "cooties"?

It's not and that's why I use it occasionally. A broad bit of slang for contagious 'stuff'.

 

I only know about the edges of pools because we have a spa/hot tub. But we're pretty much the only ones who use it.

 

We're not pool people so it doesn't matter to us.