So youve just had an earthquake....

[Vagabond]

If you are on a Cruise, the Cruise decides where it will or won't stop. Now, you can book a cruise that says it's going to these places, but it can change its itinerary.

As someone whos been on a few cruises (and researched them obsessively as I was planning) Ports of call are changed ALL the time, last minute and no refunds are issued, though the changes are usually weather related.

So, while you're at sea, place X got hit by a Storm, the cruise line decides if it is going to stop there or not. Or allow it's passengers to disembark or not. You always have the option of not getting off the ship, if they allow you to disembark.

As for the 'typical bad American Tourist' stereotype - I think that might be over-hyped a bit. Those that are going to be ignorant buttholes back home, are going to be that way overseas also. Those that are a bit more mature and generally don't display butthole-ish behaviour back home, generally won't display that behaviour overseas.

As for people suffering, people are suffering the whole world over, all the time. We just never hear about it unless it pops up on the 'web, BBC, FOX, CNN, NBC, or what have you.

[protege]

Should all vacations in the United States have been cancelled after 9/11 and how long should people have waited before they did anything enjoyable again?

I didn't cancel my trip the week after 9/11. Yes, I knew people who were killed--one of the planes landed in their fucking office As sad as that was, I was *NOT* going to let the terrorists win. That is, I wasn't going to sit at home, or change my plans. Selfish? I don't think so.

But, I will say this--would I choose to vacation in an area where thousands had just perished? Of course not! That's pretty fucking rude.

[jackfaire]

But, I will say this--would I choose to vacation in an area where thousands had just perished? Of course not! That's pretty fucking rude.

Good god neither would I.

[Vagabond]

I would guess that the cruise ship had set sail before the earthquake struck.

I wouldn't necessarily choose to vacation in a disaster area, but sometimes you may not have a choice - like the disaster happening after you've already set sail and can't exactly change your course. Your plane lands in your vacation area, and then the next day a disaster strikes, for example. (No, I don't know of anyone who would vacation in Haiti. I was thinking of the Tsunami in Southeast asia.)

[Fire_on_High]

I read elsewhere that it's ~10 hrs driving from where the quake happened. Dunno how accurate that is, but that'd be like refusing to see a movie in Atlanta or Charlotte if Key West got flattened in a hurricane. Counterproductive to the area that just lost your money, with ZERO benefit to the disaster area.

Furthermore, unlike the hypothetical movie theater that didn't get your $15, the Haitians working at the port are gonna suffer for the loss of that money.

By all means, stay out of areas directly affected and let rescue and cleanup teams work! But "shunning" an entire country that frankly can use tourist dollars pretty badly isn't helping anyone.

[lordlundar]

That'd be a pretty narrow-minded POV from outsiders then. As jack already pointed out, tourists are still going to bring in much needed money. Should we deny them this source of income? Destroy their tourism market with guilt and shame? If people feel bad about it, they don't have to get off the ship, but there's no reason people who will go and spend money should be denied.

Not the strongest argument there greenday. The only way the incoming tourist money will help the people is if there's an infrastructure to ensure the money flows to those who need it.. There isn't anymore. The only money flow is through relief efforts, which are not running on tourist money.

As far as the cruise liner's choice to park, was it already underway to Haiti when the quake hit, or had it not left port yet? If it's the former and the iteniery couldn't be changed, I can understand the decision but they could have made it abundantly clear of the situation. If it hadn't left port or could have avoided Haiti, then it should have, and explained why. A cruise ship is NOT a rescue relief ship and under normal operations (which it is under) is not capable of it. The docking at Haiti to drop off the extra supplies they had (which is all they could spare, and is a pittance of what they carry) and to "promote tourism" is self centered at best.

[jackfaire]

(which is all they could spare, and is a pittance of what they carry) and to "promote tourism" is self centered at best.

Were I in a similar situation I would rather have a pittance than nothing.

[draggar]

The weekend after 9/11 I took my family to the lake. After Hurricane Katrina I went and visited my brother. My life was not directly affected by those disasters. I will give to relief funds where and when I can but I will not stop living my life for them.

I didn't cancel my trip the week after 9/11. Yes, I knew people who were killed--one of the planes landed in their fucking office As sad as that was, I was *NOT* going to let the terrorists win. That is, I wasn't going to sit at home, or change my plans. Selfish? I don't think so.

But, I will say this--would I choose to vacation in an area where thousands had just perished? Of course not! That's pretty fucking rude.

I lived in eastern NJ when 9-11 happened - I had to smell it for two weeks.

We had planned to get married on Sept 22, 2001 (yes, 11 days afterwards). We discussed canceling it but didn't even though we had people coming in from CA to France. Everyone made it and we all had a great time.

The hotel we were supposed to stay at was partially destroyed so what did we do? We changed hotels. Cutting out the tourism dollars would severely hut the people who make their living off of it. Sure, let's show our support for one disaster relief by cutting out an incoming flow of money.

Out cruise (for honeymoon) was supposed to leave out of NYC but they moved it to Philly and we lost a full day in Bermuda. Oh well.

After hurricane Wilma went though our area (Broward county, FL) we had no power, infrastructure (roads etc..) was a mess, etc.. What did we do? We went to orlando for a couple of days to have fun at Sea World. There wasn't much we could do in our area so we left.

I didnt say to STOP living life...but I personally wouldnt even get off the ship if it stopped there. Its almost a perfect example of how others view americans. Rich Opportunists who dont care about anything but their own enjoyment, others be damned. Im not talking about anyone personally, but to an outsider, i could see this thought train leaving the station.

Some of the news stories are making it sound like the cruise ships are stopping at Port Au Prince and letting people out to do whatever - this is not the case.

It seems like the area is not close to the disaster area. They're saying that 1/3 of the population was affected by the earthquake. While that seems a lot, most of the people lived near the capital city and a lot of the geographic area wasn't affected too much.

Edit: The stories are saying it is Labadee and I looked that up on Google Maps. It is about as far from Port Au Prince and the disaster area as you can get.

It's like saying much of the population of New York (state)was affected by 9-11 which is true but most of New York state wasn't affected by it geographically. Should people over at Niagara Falls have canceled their plans because of 9-11? What about people going to the Catskills?

The area seems far from the disaster area so the ships stopping at a port of call is bringing in much needed money and is helping money move. I would also hope that people at this port of call would spend a little extra money (like buy two little trinkets as opposed to one) to help out.

Here's another view - no one is complaining about people vacationing in the Dominican Republic right now. It's the same island - should that country's tourism come to a screeching halt also? What about Cuba that isn't too far away?

Where should we draw the line? An earthquake happened in the Caymans (M 5.9) the other day - should tourism there stop, too? We have a big storm going over CA now - should it stop there, too? A big Nor'Easter hits New England - so no one should go up there to go skiing?

Most countries love tourism dollars - it's money coming in from outside. New Orleans' economy stopped after hurricane Katrina and what helped bring it back? Tourism. Hurricane Andrew ravished Miami and what helped bring it back? Tourism. If no one is spending money there then the economy stops and it is very hard to get people back. Haiti needs it's tourism more than ever (outside of the disaster area).

[Boozy]

I read elsewhere that it's ~10 hrs driving from where the quake happened. Dunno how accurate that is, but that'd be like refusing to see a movie in Atlanta or Charlotte if Key West got flattened in a hurricane.

Should people over at Niagara Falls have canceled their plans because of 9-11? What about people going to the Catskills?

Excellent points.

I think many people hear "island nation of Haiti" and picture some cute little piece of land like Gilligan's Island. It's a fair bit larger than that.

There is no logical reason to avoid ports in Haiti that distant from the quake. There's no reason to punish the local merchants on that end of the country to avoid looking bad.

[lordlundar]

Yes, I do stand corrected in part, as I thought that the cruise ships were going into the rescue critical zone, which is at the very best, a bad idea.

Still the excuse that it's being done to "help them recover by stimulating the economy" is full of bunk for the very same reason I mentioned before. At current, their is no real functioning government. Rescue crews are being told to go through official channels, only to find that those channels are buried under tons of former buildings. If rescue crews are being stymied like that, what hope is there for standard economy paths? None.

(add to the fact that more recent information is resulting in theft of all sorts, including human, and rioting for food is going on, and you have serious issues to deal with which do go further than just the damaged zone)

[draggar]

The port of call is an area that Royal Caribbean spent over $50 million to build up for their use. Considering it is not econominical to fly in workers and to house them there it's safe to assume the majority of the workers there are Haitans.

These people are still working and getting paid, unlike the millions in the disaster area. If tourism stops, then they become unemployed.

Considering the number of people affected by this event, some saying as high as 1/3 of the total population (3 million out of 9 million) chances are they know somone affected by the disaster - some may even be fostering / housing disaster refugees.

Say a large number of people decide NOT to go there. Then many of these people will not get paid (bell hops, waiters, bartenders, and many others receive tips and earn only comissions / dollars coming in from their own businesses) so they are now earning a lot less money than they did before.

This means they can't help support the extra people they are housing (if they are) or to buy supplies and send them into the disaster area for their friends and family.

After Katrina New Orleans was ecstatic to see tourism starting to come back. While the relief dollars did help the tens of thousands affected by it it was a one time boost, that's it. They needed the tourism dollars to help their economy going again.

The same could be said for south Florida after the hurricanes hit (Charley, Jeanne, Frances, Wilma, even back to Andrew). Miami had a lot of economic trouble after Anrew that didn't come back until after the tourism came back.

Just because a catastrophic disaster hits one part of a country (and should we also stop tourism to the Dominican Republic also then since it is the same island and parts of that country are a lot closer to Port Au Prince than Labadee?) doesn't mean life stops in the rest of the country.

If someone is going there, tip the waiter $2 instead of $1 for that soda. Give the bellhop a few extra dollars. Give the bartender an extra $5 for your round of drinks. Unlike donations, none of this is going to overheard and payrolls, it is going into the hands of the economy that needs it the most.

Also, the cruise ships are helpig with the effort by bringing relief supplies into the country.

Don't forget also, these cruise ships have a lot of international employees on the boats (Americans ask for too much pay) and they try to get locals on the ships so they can talk to the tourists about where they're going.

Yes, I do stand corrected in part, as I thought that the cruise ships were going into the rescue critical zone, which is at the very best, a bad idea.

If they were going into critical areas then I would have an issue with them getting in the way of relief / rescue efforts and I would be right there saying they shouldn't be there - but they aren't.

[Greenday]

Not the strongest argument there greenday. The only way the incoming tourist money will help the people is if there's an infrastructure to ensure the money flows to those who need it.. There isn't anymore. The only money flow is through relief efforts, which are not running on tourist money.

You don't think Haiti's economy is going to take a major hit from this? Shop owners not being able to rebuild. People not going to be able to rebuild there homes. Bringing currency into their country is going to somewhat help with this issue.

[lordlundar]

You don't think Haiti's economy is going to take a major hit from this? Shop owners not being able to rebuild. People not going to be able to rebuild there homes. Bringing currency into their country is going to somewhat help with this issue.

I never said it won't take a hit. Where did I say that? I said that the only way for the tourist money to have any effect on other areas in the country, let alone the hazard zone, is through government guidance. Now let me repeat myself here:

THERE IS NO FUNCTIONING GOVERNMENT!!!

Now, given the security lockdowns being done to protect the people in the hazard zones, people from other areas of the country are finding it difficult to lend aid, let alone get money in the hazard zones. That said, for the most part, without a means of getting the money to areas that need it, and no infrastructure to get the money around, most of the money coming in from the cruise liner will simply be used in that area.

[Kheldarson]

Not to sound callous, but so what if there's no gov't?

As has been pointed out in other posts, the concern with people not going to be tourists is over the remaining 2/3 of the population, not the 1/3 that got most affected. The question here is not, will this money help those that have to rebuild, but instead will this money help those that can still work, so that they might be able to help rebuild?

Essentially, sure, we should be sending money in specifically to help the area affected by the tragedy. But we shouldn't be taking away their economic means at the same time. In this case, tourism. True, that money will be staying on the side of the island that's unaffected. But as was pointed out, maybe these people are now under a strain because they're taking in people from the other side. So they need money too. Do we deny them their right to make a living?

[lordlundar]

Not to sound callous, but so what if there's no gov't?

As has been pointed out in other posts, the concern with people not going to be tourists is over the remaining 2/3 of the population, not the 1/3 that got most affected. The question here is not, will this money help those that have to rebuild, but instead will this money help those that can still work, so that they might be able to help rebuild?

Essentially, sure, we should be sending money in specifically to help the area affected by the tragedy. But we shouldn't be taking away their economic means at the same time. In this case, tourism. True, that money will be staying on the side of the island that's unaffected. But as was pointed out, maybe these people are now under a strain because they're taking in people from the other side. So they need money too. Do we deny them their right to make a living?

No, but the excuse being used by the cruise liner is that they are helping the relief effort by keeping tourism going. That means they are saying that the money is getting to the hazard zone when it simply isn't. That's my beef with it.