Cruise lines and the development of ports

[SLSD]

On our recent Kobe to Vancouver Seabourn cruise, the tiny town of Wrangell, Alaska (pop. 1800) was one of our ports.  On that day, my husband and I chose to take a fishing excursion.  We were joined by another couple from the ship--so it was six of us-- two fishing guides and two couples.  During the time we spent cruising the area trying to find the spot where fish were biting, we had a lot of time to talk to our guides, both of whom lived in Wrangell. 

 

They told us an interesting story---perhaps a story known by many of you already.  They told us that large cruise lines (they did not mention which) had spent millions of dollars building the pier in Wrangell so that large cruise ships could dock there.  They said the cruise lines had other plans for the development of Wrangell into a more substantial destination for the larger ships (think Ketchikan).  Discussions were had (perhaps with the city council of Wrangell) and proposals were made.  Evidently, the cruise lines were willing to pump more money into the town to include more upscale shops etc.  The caveat was that the shops would owe the cruise line(s?) 10-15% of their profits.  The people of Wrangell rejected this plan according to our guides--and then the cruise lines told them that, because of this, the large ships would no longer be stopping in Wrangell.  Our guide told us that most people in the town were relieved--as they wanted Wrangell to stay just as it was. 

 

At this point, I don't remember the specifics, but I think our guides told us that there are a few ships that stop in Wrangell during the Alaska season--but none of the large ships stop there now.  

 

This was an interesting story to me.  It made more sense when we saw Ketchikan and all the diamond shops and other touristy shops.  Am I right to think that Ketchikan made the choice to accept cruise line money for development (along with the 10-15% of profits given back to the lines) where Wrangell did not?  

 

I recognize that many of us who cruise  Seabourn  (and other lines with smaller ships) are looking for something different than some who may prefer the massive mass market ships.  I know for myself that I would rather see a small village exactly as it has always been rather than a small town on steroids fueled by cruise line money.  But perhaps a town like Wrangell holds no interest for some if left in its natural state.  

 

Our ship did not stop at Icy Point, but it seems I've read that it is a place developed for cruise ships.  

 

What is your view on this topic?  I don't know that I have a question, but would enjoy a discussion--perhaps around the topic of how has the cruising industry changed ports around the world.  I do find it ironic that some cruise lines say they are looking for the off the beaten path ports for its itineraries.  Cases  in point would be our stops in Lithuania and on an island of Estonia last year.  We loved these non touristy ports which were still trying to recover from the privations of the Soviet era--while others on our ship kept saying, "there's nothing here." One of the ports had a magnificent medieval fortress/castle.  Other than that, there was the town which was extremely basic.  For the Lithuanian port, the SB message was--"they are going to show us the best that they have--but they don't have much".  I don't think that SB returned to these ports this year---which I find to be a little sad.  Maybe the feedback from passengers was not glowing.  I know  that I treasured the opportunity to go to both of these places.  

 

I hope that some of you will have some comments.  

Edited July 17, 2019 by SLSD

[arzz]

We entirely agree that we enjoy ports that are less influenced by the large cruise lines. We don’t travel to Alaska or the Caribbean to go to Diamonds International. It is the little quirky ports that keep us traveling. We do not travel to shop. We travel to see, smell and taste the world. 

 

We took many many cruises on Holland America's Prinsendam because of her ability to get into some of these small, out of the way ports - and we are now slowly switching our allegiance to Seabourn for the access to these smaller destinations - though, admittedly due to the tariffs on Seabourn there will be fewer days at sea for us. 

[nolatravelgirl]

I don't believe that people who are sailing the larger mass market ships are particularly interested in these made up cruise towns either. The MM lines are trying to keep people on the ship where they spend their money in the ship casinos, restaurants, etc. The MM make their money on all the extras people purchase onboard. The big ships are now like mini cities with ice rinks, bowling alleys, rock walls, zip lines, Broadway shows, 25 restaurants, water shows and the like. They call on plenty of these made up ports like Labadee, Falmouth and others just so they can say that they have some ports but really want to keep people on the ship. They don't even stay very long in these ports since it takes so long for people to embark and disembark. Many of them leave these made up towns by 3pm. Seabourn caters to the patron who is more interested in the ports, hence why there is less emphasis placed on onboard activities. With Seabourn they already have your money so there is incentive for you to be off the ship where you aren't drinking their liquor or eating their food or needing services from the staff. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by nolatravelgirl

[Fletcher]

2 minutes ago, nolatravelgirl said:

They call on plenty of these made up ports like Labadee, Falmouth and others. 

 

Falmouth? In Cornwall? People were living in Falmouth long ago, before I was born, before you were born, before the Americas were discovered by Europeans.  

[nolatravelgirl]

2 minutes ago, Fletcher said:

 

Falmouth? In Cornwall? People were living in Falmouth long ago, before I was born, before you were born, before the Americas were discovered by Europeans.  

Jamaica

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/ports/newport.cfm?ID=510

Edited July 18, 2019 by nolatravelgirl

[Fletcher]

4 minutes ago, nolatravelgirl said:

Jamaica

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/ports/newport.cfm?ID=510

 

Well even that Falmouth has a considerable history dating back to the Georgian era and the slave trade but I bet most cruise passengers don't know that or care if they did know it.  It's the same with Labadee - I think most people don't even realise they are in Haiti and that arguably the world's greatest and most spectacular fortress is ten miles away.

[nolatravelgirl]

Just now, Fletcher said:

 

Well even that Falmouth has a considerable history dating back to the Georgian era and the slave trade but I bet most cruise passengers don't know that or care if they did know it.  It's the same with Labadee - I think most people don't even realise they are in Haiti and that arguably the world's greatest and most spectacular fortress is ten miles away.

I am not disagreeing with you that there are things there but the cruise ships developed a Disney style port that is closed to the locals. There is enough at the port to encourage the patrons not to leave the little mini fortress 

 

You are clearly trying to be contrary and not looking at the fact that the cruise lines build a faux city to encourage people to get off just long enough to have a small walkabout or cruise sponsored excursion and then get back on to continue spending their money.

[SLSD]

3 hours ago, nolatravelgirl said:

I don't believe that people who are sailing the larger mass market ships are particularly interested in these made up cruise towns either. The MM lines are trying to keep people on the ship where they spend their money in the ship casinos, restaurants, etc. The MM make their money on all the extras people purchase onboard. The big ships are now like mini cities with ice rinks, bowling alleys, rock walls, zip lines, Broadway shows, 25 restaurants, water shows and the like. They call on plenty of these made up ports like Labadee, Falmouth and others just so they can say that they have some ports but really want to keep people on the ship. They don't even stay very long in these ports since it takes so long for people to embark and disembark. Many of them leave these made up towns by 3pm. Seabourn caters to the patron who is more interested in the ports, hence why there is less emphasis placed on onboard activities. With Seabourn they already have your money so there is incentive for you to be off the ship where you aren't drinking their liquor or eating their food or needing services from the staff. 

You  make an interesting point, but it doesn't address why the big cruise lines have been willing to invest millions to "upgrade" a port--investing in new shops, boardwalks, etc. to make the port more appealing to passengers.  This is what Wrangell was turning down and what I think Ketchikan accepted.  I'm not making a moral judgment here at all---to each his own.  But, it does seem that cruise lines may have affected ports.  I've read that the Adriatic is suffering from over tourism.  This has to be as a result of cruise ships.  I haven't been to the Adriatic, but would we also find the ersatz shops there?  Or is that just Alaska?

[nolatravelgirl]

26 minutes ago, SLSD said:

You  make an interesting point, but it doesn't address why the big cruise lines have been willing to invest millions to "upgrade" a port--investing in new shops, boardwalks, etc. to make the port more appealing to passengers.  This is what Wrangell was turning down and what I think Ketchikan accepted.  I'm not making a moral judgment here at all---to each his own.  But, it does seem that cruise lines may have affected ports.  I've read that the Adriatic is suffering from over tourism.  This has to be as a result of cruise ships.  I haven't been to the Adriatic, but would we also find the ersatz shops there?  Or is that just Alaska?

When you basically want to dump 6000 people out for an experience there has to be infrastructure. There aren't that many ports which can handle these floating cities so they have to build a port that can  handle it. Some smaller towns like Wrangell aren't as dependent on tourist dollars to make a living where as I am sure Jamaica was given all kinds of concessions and funds to allow them to build this port. When you look at all the mega ships that sail 7 day itineraries out of Miami there are limited ports that can handle these floating cities. Trying to tender that many people would be near impossible. Those 7 day Caribbean itineraries are the bread and butter of the floating cities. It makes sense to build a place relatively close to minimize the fuel burn and having a built in port that they control just adds to the potential revenue. The passengers get to tick Jamaica off their bucket list even if they really never step foot outside of the Disney-fied port.  

[SLSD]

1 minute ago, nolatravelgirl said:

When you basically want to dump 6000 people out for an experience there has to be infrastructure. There aren't that many ports which can handle these floating cities so they have to build a port that can  handle it. Some smaller towns like Wrangell aren't as dependent on tourist dollars to make a living where as I am sure Jamaica was given all kinds of concessions and funds to allow them to build this port. When you look at all the mega ships that sail 7 day itineraries out of Miami there are limited ports that can handle these floating cities. Trying to tender that many people would be near impossible. Those 7 day Caribbean itineraries are the bread and butter of the floating cities. It makes sense to build a place relatively close to minimize the fuel burn and having a built in port that they control just adds to the potential revenue. The passengers get to tick Jamaica off their bucket list even if they really never step foot outside of the Disney-fied port.  

You explain it well nolatravelgirl.  But, is there still a place for the port where people say "there is nothing here".  There is always something there---something to observe, experience, and remember.  That's how I saw our Lithuanian port and our island Estonian port (so different from Tallinn).  I know--it's all about the money--and only the truly adventurous can really experience the off the beaten path special.  I find myself wishing I was among the truly adventurous (sometimes).  

[nolatravelgirl]

25 minutes ago, SLSD said:

You explain it well nolatravelgirl.  But, is there still a place for the port where people say "there is nothing here".  There is always something there---something to observe, experience, and remember.  That's how I saw our Lithuanian port and our island Estonian port (so different from Tallinn).  I know--it's all about the money--and only the truly adventurous can really experience the off the beaten path special.  I find myself wishing I was among the truly adventurous (sometimes).  

I agree that there is always something to see at any port but take the small port you mention, what would happen if one of the mega ships via tender dumped 6000 people into the small town. It wouldn't be able to handle that amount people. Folks would be on top of each other since there would be no way for them to effectively get around, nor would there be adequate restaurants, bars or sites that would be able to accommodate that many people. 

[SLSD]

Just now, nolatravelgirl said:

I agree that there is always something to see at any port but take the small port you mention, what would happen if one of the mega ships via tender dumped 6000 people into the small town. It wouldn't be able to handle that amount people. Folks would be on top of each other since there would be no way for them to effectively get around, nor would there be adequate restaurants, bars or sites that would be able to accommodate that many people. 

I agree, but look at my original post.  I talk about a port in Lithuania and a port on an island of Estonia.  We (Ovation) were the only ship in port---and SB has chosen not to return.  It is true that these were  not razzle dazzle ports, but are among the ports I think about the most often.  Seabourn has chosen not to return.  I'm not casting aspersions at SB.  Just observing.  

[Hoyaheel]

Some money for port infrastructure in Alaska comes from the state. For instance, when we were in Wrangell last September, a store owner told us the sidewalk being constructed to Petroglyph Beach was coming from that fund. I think we were told about another project in Juneau.

 

As for ISP, I believe the new megaship dock is being co-sponsored by NCL and the village corporation. Can't remember who built the new dock we used - though I want to say it was the village corporation, not a cruise company....

[SLSD]

Ou

3 hours ago, Hoyaheel said:

Some money for port infrastructure in Alaska comes from the state. For instance, when we were in Wrangell last September, a store owner told us the sidewalk being constructed to Petroglyph Beach was coming from that fund. I think we were told about another project in Juneau.

 

As for ISP, I believe the new megaship dock is being co-sponsored by NCL and the village corporation. Can't remember who built the new dock we used - though I want to say it was the village corporation, not a cruise company....

Our Wrangell fishing guide told us that the pier for cruise ships was built by one or several (I don't remember) of the big cruise lines. 

 

Back to another comment though---I'm not talking about 6,000 passengers being dumped on a port.  That is part of the issue--over tourism.  How has it affected ports?  And, are there ports worth going to (by smaller ships obviously) even if they are not built up for shopping and tourism.  

[raphael360]

We've been to Juneau Alaska 5 times on cruises.  Three times we were 'one of 5' cruise ships in port and 2 times we were the only ship in port.  It is a totally different experience visiting Juneau with 10,000 passengers milling around vs 450 SB passengers. 

 

We especially like the places that are legions of a town - like the long established Red Dog Saloon in Juneau for example.  When our SB ship was the only ship in port, we could 'belly up to the bar' and have a pint with our friends and the locals at the Red Dog.  The times we were one of 5 ships in town, we could only stand at a distance, across the street, and see the Red Dog Saloon sign above the sea of people.

 

For whatever reason the big box cruise lines choose to avoid small towns, it benefits us SB passengers.  Wherever the big ships go, Diamonds International will be there.