Amsterdam being replaced by Rotterdam - P&O approach?

[Harry Peterson]

An interesting report below (https://www.cruise.co.uk/bulletin/new-tourist-tax-forces-cruise-lines-cancel-calls-amsterdam/):

 

"It has just been revealed that a new daily €8 tax will be charged for cruise passengers staying overnight in Amsterdam.  The new policy will kick in from January 1st 2019 for every day any person is visiting the city mid-cruise with river or ocean lines; those embarking or disembarking will avoid the fee.  The Municipality of Amsterdam‘s website reveals the increased tax is in response to heavy demands on the city and its public spaces, as a result of large numbers of tourists.

 

Cruise & Maritime Voyages and MSC Cruises have both announced it will replace most of its scheduled Amsterdam calls with a stop in Rotterdam instead.

For MSC the changes have been applied to seven 2019 arrivals and 11 in 2020 whilst for CMV, the ports have been switched for 37 calls in 2019 and 2020, affecting more than 50,000 passengers.

Chris Coates, CMV’s group commercial director, has commented on the change: “A three-year deal has now been concluded with Cruise Port Rotterdam.

We are extremely pleased with the support and cooperation we have received and look forward to forging a long-term and mutually beneficial business partnership with Cruise Port Rotterdam and bringing many thousands of passengers to this attractive and dynamic waterfront city.”

 

However, Holland America has confirmed their decision to continue to call and turn cruises in Amsterdam as scheduled.

 

Fred.Olsen Cruise Lines’ commercial director, Peter Deer, said: “We look at the overall cost of the call, guest satisfaction and a balanced itinerary, in order to give our guests the very best experience."

 

Anyone have any information as to P&O's approach to this?  Having booked a cruise with Amsterdam on the schedule I'd be really angry if P&O decided to save a bit of money by diverting to Rotterdam instead - time to check the T&C I think.  I know both cities, and to suggest that Rotterdam is any kind of acceptable replacement for Amsterdam is just laughable.  A bit like substituting Southend for London!
 

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by docco

[daiB]

P&O have no plans to change any cruises to Amsterdam.

 

CC have already reported this.

[Harry Peterson]

55 minutes ago, daiB said:

P&O have no plans to change any cruises to Amsterdam.

 

CC have already reported this.

That's a relief, then.  Looks like the cruise.co.uk report (issued 19 December) was already out of date then.  Do you happen to have a link?

[yorkshirephil]

Here is a link regarding CMV moving from Amsterdam. Maybe someone saw this and put 2 and 2 together and got 5? or it could just be more fake news?

http://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/news-headlines/amsterdam-loses-cmv-to-rotterdam-on-new-cruise-head-tax.html

[Harry Peterson]

10 minutes ago, yorkshirephil said:

Here is a link regarding CMV moving from Amsterdam. Maybe someone saw this and put 2 and 2 together and got 5? or it could just be more fake news?

http://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/news-headlines/amsterdam-loses-cmv-to-rotterdam-on-new-cruise-head-tax.html

That's the original story - nobody's suggested yet that P&O are following suit, but they don't seem to have put out an official statement either way.  I imagine they will at some point soon.

[P-L-B]

Just returned from a pleasant cruise on board Aurora where we had an overnight in Amsterdam.

 

We left earlier than planned the following morning due to Captain Neil Turnbull wanting to avoid bad weather on our return journey back to Southampton.

 

It did give us the opportunity though to experience our journey back through the locks in daylight.

[jeanlyon]

Well surely 8 Euros per passenger could be put into the fare, for goodness sake!

[Scriv]

4 minutes ago, jeanlyon said:

Well surely 8 Euros per passenger could be put into the fare, for goodness sake!

Quite!

[fishnchips]

13 minutes ago, jeanlyon said:

Well surely 8 Euros per passenger could be put into the fare, for goodness sake!

Why should it be ... Just cave in and pay it ... Soon all ports will do it ...it should be transparent so you can see who wants to rip off the tourist again and avoid it .

Would I have to pay if I wasn't on a cruise ship ?

So why should I be penalised for bringing my tourist money with another say 3000 passengers to there city .

You'd think they'd be HAPPY if we turned up with money to spend instead of mugging us for €8 as we got of a ship !!!

[Harry Peterson]

32 minutes ago, fishnchips said:

Why should it be ... Just cave in and pay it ... Soon all ports will do it ...it should be transparent so you can see who wants to rip off the tourist again and avoid it .

Would I have to pay if I wasn't on a cruise ship ?

So why should I be penalised for bringing my tourist money with another say 3000 passengers to there city .

You'd think they'd be HAPPY if we turned up with money to spend instead of mugging us for €8 as we got of a ship !!!

Would you have to pay it if you weren’t on a cruise ship? Well actually, yes you would, as an addition to your hotel costs.

 

They’re bringing this in to enable the tax to be charged on cruise passengers, who stay of course on the ship and don’t pay hotel charges.

 

In reality, cruise passengers spend far less than tourists who actually stay in the city, so it makes financial sense - as do most things they do in the Netherlands. Unlike here.

[AndyMichelle]

4 hours ago, P-L-B said:

Just returned from a pleasant cruise on board Aurora where we had an overnight in Amsterdam.

 

We left earlier than planned the following morning due to Captain Neil Turnbull wanting to avoid bad weather on our return journey back to Southampton.

 

It did give us the opportunity though to experience our journey back through the locks in daylight.

We were on the same cruise. What it did make us realise was why many cruises in to Amsterdam are cancelled. The lock is very tight, so high winds would make it very difficult to manoeuvre.

The equivalent cruise next year has swapped Amsterdam for Brugge. I think this is probably the reason for the change and not so much the charge. Aurora has failed numerous times in recent years to get in, so something had to be done.

Andy

[jeanlyon]

I would be quite happy to pay 8 Euros to visit the beautiful Amsterdam.  Whole thing is rubbish.

[grapau27]

1 hour ago, AndyMichelle said:

We were on the same cruise. What it did make us realise was why many cruises in to Amsterdam are cancelled. The lock is very tight, so high winds would make it very difficult to manoeuvre.

The equivalent cruise next year has swapped Amsterdam for Brugge. I think this is probably the reason for the change and not so much the charge. Aurora has failed numerous times in recent years to get in, so something had to be done.

Andy

Our new years eve Cruise to Amsterdam on Ventura in 2016 was aborted because of high winds.

[terrierjohn]

4 hours ago, docco said:

Would you have to pay it if you weren’t on a cruise ship? Well actually, yes you would, as an addition to your hotel costs.

 

They’re bringing this in to enable the tax to be charged on cruise passengers, who stay of course on the ship and don’t pay hotel charges.

 

In reality, cruise passengers spend far less than tourists who actually stay in the city, so it makes financial sense - as do most things they do in the Netherlands. Unlike here.

If you read the article carefully you will note that this tax only applies to cruise passengers where Amsterdam is not its turnround port.  You will also note that due to the high port charges, and other sundry fees paid by cruise ships, that cruise passengers contribute over 40% of the tourist income to Amsterdam and yet are only 1% of the total visitors.   

This tax seems to be a total rip off and I support those cruise lines choosing not to be fleeced by the burghers of Amsterdam.

[Harry Peterson]

7 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

If you read the article carefully you will note that this tax only applies to cruise passengers where Amsterdam is not its turnround port.  You will also note that due to the high port charges, and other sundry fees paid by cruise ships, that cruise passengers contribute over 40% of the tourist income to Amsterdam and yet are only 1% of the total visitors.   

This tax seems to be a total rip off and I support those cruise lines choosing not to be fleeced by the burghers of Amsterdam.

Certainly it applies only to transit passengers, which is what you'd expect.  As to 1% of the total number of visitors providing 40% of Amsterdam's tourist income, that's a wild claim coming, unsurprisingly, from the cruise operators (CLIA) and there's no evidence to support it.

 

Given that people who actually stay in Amsterdam are paying for their hotel, plus all their food, it's very unlikely to have a firm basis in fact.  Cruise passengers are notorious (ask the Venetians, who complain that all they buy is a couple of ice creams and a couple of slices of pizza!) for spending very little, by comparison with tourists who actually stay there.

 

People who stay in hotels pay a 6% tourist tax (likely to increase to 7%) and the 8 Euros is in line with that.  Amsterdammers have become fed up with the number of tourists in their beautiful, but quite small, city - as have the Venetians.  8 Euros is a very small price to pay - a couple of drinks - and I'd happily pay it.  I doubt adding 8 Euros to the average cruise price is going to have a huge impact, but what the CLIA is really beefing about is the lack of advance warning, meaning the cost would have to come not from passengers, but cruise operators.

 

 

[terrierjohn]

3 hours ago, docco said:

Certainly it applies only to transit passengers, which is what you'd expect.  As to 1% of the total number of visitors providing 40% of Amsterdam's tourist income, that's a wild claim coming, unsurprisingly, from the cruise operators (CLIA) and there's no evidence to support it.

 

Given that people who actually stay in Amsterdam are paying for their hotel, plus all their food, it's very unlikely to have a firm basis in fact.  Cruise passengers are notorious (ask the Venetians, who complain that all they buy is a couple of ice creams and a couple of slices of pizza!) for spending very little, by comparison with tourists who actually stay there.

 

People who stay in hotels pay a 6% tourist tax (likely to increase to 7%) and the 8 Euros is in line with that.  Amsterdammers have become fed up with the number of tourists in their beautiful, but quite small, city - as have the Venetians.  8 Euros is a very small price to pay - a couple of drinks - and I'd happily pay it.  I doubt adding 8 Euros to the average cruise price is going to have a huge impact, but what the CLIA is really beefing about is the lack of advance warning, meaning the cost would have to come not from passengers, but cruise operators.

 

 

Docco, since you seem to have such a poor opinion of cruise passengers and cruise operators and their impact on tourist destinations, I fail to understand why you would ever entertain cruising at all?

[Harry Peterson]

44 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

Docco, since you seem to have such a poor opinion of cruise passengers and cruise operators and their impact on tourist destinations, I fail to understand why you would ever entertain cruising at all?

If you’re happy to believe whatever the CLIA puts out, good luck to you. Some of us are just a little more sceptical about their motives.

 

And as for cruise passengers, I’m one of them, but I’m realistic enough to appreciate the arguments on both sides. We do have an impact, and the hard facts are that cruise passengers spend far less than other holidaymakers.

[jeanlyon]

Yes I would agree that cruise pax spend very little in general ashore and I am one of them.  We go ashore, have a look round, have a coffee or maybe lunch, but don't buy anything.  There's not much we need, so we are not good tourists at spending money.

[kerryincork]

I too am a cruise passenger and i know when we we are ashore we do not spend much, usually only a coffee or a cake, some times the entrance price of a museum or the hop on bus. Certainly no where near the amount we spend in a city when we weekend away.

 

Also i live in in a cruise port town, we see more crew spending money than the passengers. (before anyone asks for evidence I speak to my local shop owners who tell me this). They make more money from the locals who come in to town to view the ship and for the atmosphere,

 

So I don't think individuals cruisers bring much money to a town. I would think the tour operators do very well from us though. But not nearly enough to say 1% of tourists who are cruise passengers = 40% of the revenue.

[jeanlyon]

We don't do excursions either.  I hate being on a bus with 50 others.  would rather be up top on a Hop On or just DIY.  We have found some wonderful places by doing it ourselves.   

[kerryincork]

Just found an article that argues that cruise ships bring in less money and an argument that places should ban them altogether 😏

http://www.destinationdevelopmentwatch.com/can-destinations-increase-revenue-limiting-banning-cruise-ships-yes-keep-reading/

 

[Denarius]

1 hour ago, kerryincork said:

Just found an article that argues that cruise ships bring in less money and an argument that places should ban them altogether 😏

http://www.destinationdevelopmentwatch.com/can-destinations-increase-revenue-limiting-banning-cruise-ships-yes-keep-reading/

 

Interesting article. I have heard similarthings at grass roots level. A couple of years ago I visited Dubrovnik on a small coastal cruiser. Our locally based cruise director told us that the city was becoming increasingly disenchanted with cruise ship visits. It was ok twenty years ago when they typically carried 700 pax, so four ships wound bring in say 3000 visitors, which the city could easily absorb. Nowadays however, four ships are likely to bring in 15000, which it strugles to do. And we come ashore clutching our little bottles of water and neither eat nor drink in the cafes (well its free on the ship isnt it?) and spend precious little elsewhere. Meanwhile other visitors either stay away when there are several ships in port or do not stay as long. He told us that they were considering putting a limit on the size of each ship or on the total numbers of berths to reduce the number of cruise ship visitors to an economically  acceptable level.

[kerryincork]

I've read this too about other port towns/cities too.

 

The town where I live we only have one ship at a time, so it's not to bothersome to us locals and I would be a hypocrite if I complained 😊

[Eglesbrech]

19 minutes ago, kerryincork said:

I've read this too about other port towns/cities too.

 

The town where I live we only have one ship at a time, so it's not to bothersome to us locals and I would be a hypocrite if I complained 😊

 

Beautiful part of the world to visit and very welcoming locals. 

[Pennbank]

The present Amsterdam Cruise Terminal in the city, which is well situated is going to be moved when The City build the new Bridges across the IJ. It will be a shame as The new build will be further North if Built and not as convenient for the City,

Edited December 26, 2018 by Pennbank