Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Guest wrote:By the way, the average cruise passenger on these vessels is very wealthy.

While a higher end cruise is more economical valuable then the mass market ones they are still a fairly pow value type of tourist. They stay for a short time, do not pay for accommodation, and while many eat ashore not all will.

I think Diver Dan is more on the mark as to the original question though.

By the way, the average cruise passenger on these vessels is very wealthy. Hapag-Lloyd has a surprising number of European aristocracy and other high-rollers onboard their trips, it is not unusual for one of shore excursions guests to be dressed in jacket-and-tie. This will be true for Viking, also. The kind of passengers on these cruises in no way whatsoever relates to the average CARNIVAL/Celebrity/NCL crowd. Comments from City people making such comparisons are just embarrassing.

The city of Traverse City did not reject the cruise ships, it was the non-profit that owns the private dock that decided they did not want to deal with the liability and other issues related to repeated ship visits that have no connection with their core purpose.

It's not automatic that the most convenient dock is willing to accept unsolicited visitors. It's up to the cruise lines and the community to come up with a workable docking solution. I'm sure the local business community is very willing to have the extra visitors, they just need to work out the landing site.

My money is on no cruise ships on the lakes this year.
Seriously, would you board a cruise ship now or in the near future? Might as well book a cheap flight to northern Italy.

While I respect your view and opinion I disagree. I live in Traverse. There is plenty of demand for more tourism but the attitude of the city leaders is one of contempt. The business community supports the cruise ship business. If cruise passengers are not reliable as an economic stimulus why do other cities welcome them and their $. Traverse has been a wealthy community for many years but that wealth is now hurting the future outlook of the city and it’s average citizen. I have finally been priced out of my marina due to the cost and restrictions that cater to the more wealthy, leaving us average people without. I am not a poor man, am above average. From my perspective I maintain, one smart city , one not. Just my opinion.

Guest wrote:Sure not hard to understand. Muskegon is in need of economic stimulus and wisely wants the cruise ship business. Traverse is a wealthy community that is somewhat snobbish and they think ship tourists will somehow degrade or ruin their community. Tale of two cities. One smart , one not,lol

I do not think it a case of one being smart and one not. They are, as you point out, different and thus the decisions are different. Traverse city is wealthier as you point out but also smaller and already has a robust tourist trade. Cruise ship passengers are very low value and inconsistent tourists. The economic case for cruise ships in each city is quite different.

Sure not hard to understand. Muskegon is in need of economic stimulus and wisely wants the cruise ship business. Traverse is a wealthy community that is somewhat snobbish and they think ship tourists will somehow degrade or ruin their community. Tale of two cities. One smart , one not,lol

Would anybody care to venture an opinion/comment/question on the two rather diametrically opposed articles on the News Channel?

Cruise ships not welcome: Discovery Center votes against use of Traverse City port

VS.

Muskegon cruise ship stops to double, with some days two in port at once