Alaska cruise tax initiative passes!

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:55:30 GMT in .cruises, "Thomas
Smith" <thomas.smith19@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> it could be argued that any
> tariff imposed on passengers is in fact an import tariff.

nope, sorry, it's a port fee, perfectly legal. the industry will
finally have to pay the full cost of accomodating them, and will
pay taxes like every other business here.

>> Here, Juneau was trying to figure out how to scrape up $750K that was
>> needed to update their docks to support the then-new "Panamex" ships.
>> Because docking fees weren't high enough to pay that amount, the town
>> was looking towards the cruise lines and State to potentially help out
>> in a 'thirds' cost-sharing arrangement.

Who was holding a gun to their head to upgrade the docks? Why did
they bother or want to??? Hmmmm??? I think they wanted the boats,
and the tourist dollars that come with them.

jim wrote:
>
> Well you wouldn't want to give up that yearly stipend that Alaska sends to
> all of it's residents each year would you?

Alaska's 2005 PFD Dividend was a mere $845.76

Compare that with their heating bill: the average annual heating for
Fairbanks is 13,980 heating degree days

That's twice that of Chicago (7000), Detroit (6500), Denver (6000),
Reno (5700), Boston (5600), Philadelphia (4950), Seattle (4900), etc,

Its still a long ways from well known "chilly" spots Great Falls
(7700), Minneapolis-St Paul (8000), Green Bay (8100), and even Bismark,
North Dakota (9000). Even the famous "icy" spot in the Lower 48,
International Falls is only 10487 degree days, which falls 33% short of
Fairbanks.

Just yesterday (24 August), Fairbanks had 15 *heating* degree-days. It
shouldn't take you long at all to figure out where that $845.76 PFD
check really goes.


-hh

X-No-archive: yes

-hh wrote:
> jim wrote:
>> Well you wouldn't want to give up that yearly stipend that Alaska sends to
>> all of it's residents each year would you?
>
> Alaska's 2005 PFD Dividend was a mere $845.76
>
> Compare that with their heating bill: the average annual heating for
> Fairbanks is 13,980 heating degree days
>
> That's twice that of Chicago (7000), Detroit (6500), Denver (6000),
> Reno (5700), Boston (5600), Philadelphia (4950), Seattle (4900), etc,
>
> Its still a long ways from well known "chilly" spots Great Falls
> (7700), Minneapolis-St Paul (8000), Green Bay (8100), and even Bismark,
> North Dakota (9000). Even the famous "icy" spot in the Lower 48,
> International Falls is only 10487 degree days, which falls 33% short of
> Fairbanks.
>
> Just yesterday (24 August), Fairbanks had 15 *heating* degree-days. It
> shouldn't take you long at all to figure out where that $845.76 PFD
> check really goes.

We live at the other extreme- in the desert. We pay the price in
electricity for cooling. We don't get any government subsidy.

I've long contended that Nevada should stop wasting money fighting the
US nuclear waste depository being built at Yucca Mountain, and merely
charge large amounts of money to let folks store their wastes here in
our state. The money could be used to subsidize our high cooling bills,
as Alaskans do with their oil money.

As far as visiting Alaska again, I doubt if we'll ever go back. It's
not the tax on tourists thing, but rather the ho-hum nature of the ports
of call. Once you've seen them make a totem pole, watched a dead,
bloated salmon float downstream and ridden the train, all that's left is
a lot of overpriced souvenirs sold by people who were born in some other
country and don't even speak English.

Nonnymus---
For those of you who might
not have guessed it, this
Is not my real name.

In article <P%mHg.8387$Oh1.6501@news01.roc.ny>, Henry Sniadoch
<sniadoch@frontiernet.net> wrote:

> I'm not worried because I know many people will NOT go on cruises to
> Alaska any more .... this will impact the industry so much that it will
> be repealed some day. For now, I'll cruise the Caribbean instead.

We shall see but I think people will continue to cruise to Alaska. And
in about the same numbers. The cruise lines will pass the costs on and
as usual it will be those of us who work for a living and have a little
hard earned vacation or retirement that will pay regressive taxes like
this one. Possibly we will spend less in Alaska when we get there but
we will still take the cruises. In the end I doubt it will have much
effect on cruise line profits, the effect will be on consumer
pocketbooks.

--
Charles

Where do you get your heating degree day information ??

-hh wrote:
> jim wrote:
>> Well you wouldn't want to give up that yearly stipend that Alaska sends to
>> all of it's residents each year would you?
>
> Alaska's 2005 PFD Dividend was a mere $845.76
>
> Compare that with their heating bill: the average annual heating for
> Fairbanks is 13,980 heating degree days
>
> That's twice that of Chicago (7000), Detroit (6500), Denver (6000),
> Reno (5700), Boston (5600), Philadelphia (4950), Seattle (4900), etc,
>
> Its still a long ways from well known "chilly" spots Great Falls
> (7700), Minneapolis-St Paul (8000), Green Bay (8100), and even Bismark,
> North Dakota (9000). Even the famous "icy" spot in the Lower 48,
> International Falls is only 10487 degree days, which falls 33% short of
> Fairbanks.
>
> Just yesterday (24 August), Fairbanks had 15 *heating* degree-days. It
> shouldn't take you long at all to figure out where that $845.76 PFD
> check really goes.
>
>
> -hh
>

"Charles" <fort@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote in message
news:240820061833452255%fort@his.com.remove.invali d...
> In article <P%mHg.8387$Oh1.6501@news01.roc.ny>, Henry Sniadoch
> <sniadoch@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not worried because I know many people will NOT go on cruises to
>> Alaska any more .... this will impact the industry so much that it will
>> be repealed some day. For now, I'll cruise the Caribbean instead.
>
> We shall see but I think people will continue to cruise to Alaska. And
> in about the same numbers. The cruise lines will pass the costs on and
> as usual it will be those of us who work for a living and have a little
> hard earned vacation or retirement that will pay regressive taxes like
> this one. Possibly we will spend less in Alaska when we get there but
> we will still take the cruises. In the end I doubt it will have much
> effect on cruise line profits, the effect will be on consumer
> pocketbooks.
>

It may end up being both the passengers and the cruise lines that pay.
Early bookings will incorporate the surcharge. Last minute prices like
"happy hour" pricing will probably have to be the same price as they are now
to fill the ships, so that in order to incorporate the tax, the non tax
piece will have to be lower... so the cruise line may absorb some price
impact in that case.

--Tom

"Henry Sniadoch" <sniadoch@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:P%mHg.8387$Oh1.6501@news01.roc.ny...
> I'm not worried because I know many people will NOT go on cruises to
> Alaska any more .... this will impact the industry so much that it will be
> repealed some day. For now, I'll cruise the Caribbean instead.
>

I've been told that Europe's the hot commodity now. At the expense of both
Alaska and the Caribbean.

--Tom

Nonnymus wrote:
>
> We live at the other extreme- in the desert. We pay the price in
> electricity for cooling. We don't get any government subsidy.

A/C is biologically less necessary than heating.


> I've long contended that Nevada should stop wasting money fighting the
> US nuclear waste depository being built at Yucca Mountain, and merely
> charge large amounts of money to let folks store their wastes here in
> our state. The money could be used to subsidize our high cooling bills,
> as Alaskans do with their oil money.

No disagreement from me.


> As far as visiting Alaska again, I doubt if we'll ever go back. It's
> not the tax on tourists thing, but rather the ho-hum nature of the ports
> of call. Once you've seen them make a totem pole, watched a dead,
> bloated salmon float downstream and ridden the train, all that's left is
> a lot of overpriced souvenirs sold by people who were born in some other
> country and don't even speak English.

Sorry to hear that your visit was limited to the classical tourist
traps. Of course, Alaska isn't the only place that has these,
particularly when you go on the big ships. Better luck next time,
although if you want to get "off the beaten path", do more research
before you go, and generally be willing to pay a little more: there's
still many gems out there to be found.

For example, in Alaska, there's Harvard Glacier, at the head of College
Fjord's Harvard Arm in Prince William Sound and a boat that is of
shallow enough draft to get there (there's a 14ft shoal to cross) as
per Alaska's manouverability regulations, is allowed to approach the
tidewater glacier to only a 400m standoff (the standoff distance
mandated for normal cruise ships is a half mile).


-hh

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:39:58 GMT in .cruises, "Don &
Lynn" <dmcinnes@> wrote:

> Sounds like a good time to boycott Alaska!!! They are too greedy.

please do. many of us would like to see the number of pax below
100k per year. i'd be happy to go back to one ship per day,
using smaller ships.