Love Boat

Blog Post
Riddle me this: The major cruise lines are asking the US Government, which is the same as the US Public to bail them out. They’re worried.

Is it our problem?

The flag of the Bahamas doesn’t look at all like an American
flag to me.

Disney Cruises sails under the Bahamian Flag.

Celebrity Cruises sails under the Maltese Flag.

Carnival Cruises sails under the Panamanian Flag.

They do this to avoid paying US Taxes.

27 thoughts on “Love Boat

  1. I don't think cruise ships are vital to our economy. But, then – this coming from someone who compares being locked up on a cruise for a week or two similar to what hell must be like.

  2. I've been wondering that myself.
    Let 'em rot and build Naval Vessels with the money.

  3. All the time. A lot of the crew are little better than slaves. I'm not talking about the executive crew, I'm talking about the people who do the work.

  4. They're floating hotels. They took the risk to build them. They can float them elsewhere if they want to. They don't need to support the US tourism market. I agree. Unessential.

  5. I'm not sure who actually owns them. They may be owned by pension funds. If a particular ship was owned by, say, the Teamsters or United Auto Workers or International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers pension funds and managed by Carnival or Disney, would it change how you felt?

  6. To throw out a different scenario, would you favor a situation where the taxpayers acquired an equity stake in the cruise line as part of the bailout package?

  7. That's how I feel too. I did posit some arguments to other commenters, and those arguments may be made, but those companies still own the ships. They can sell them to another cruise company if they BK out. Somebody will buy them.

  8. A lot of industries will take a big hit. A lot of people will take big hits. But the economy will rise from the ashes as before.

  9. Especially if as part of the aftermath, we hold an old-fashioned African machete party on useless, counter-productive business regulations and bureaucratic red-tape, at federal, state, and local levels. I fear the graft is too much to resist. For the moment I will resist calling for good old-fashioned African necklace parties for corrupt pols, but enough is enough! Unleash America!

  10. They are 'owned' for maritime rules, by the country that flags them.

    Who funded them and who is making the profit out of them is different than legal 'ownership.'

  11. Oh, I don't know…

    Sure, 'bail' them out, provided they switch their flag to the US of A and comply with all US merchant-marine crewing regulations. And make them subject to being mobilized for defense reasons (like the UK did with the QE2 for the Falklands campaign.)

    I feel sorry for all the support staff and support companies in the cruise terminals, but for the ship-running companies? They've been playing fast and furious with all US laws for a long time. Like discharging all sorts of things once they're 12 miles out. And, yes, employing 'indentured servitude' as a common hiring practice.

    And that's the thing. Most shipping companies, including within the Cruise Industry, use indentured servitude. Sign on and you get paid minus your expenses, which usually end up being about the same as your pay. Or worse. You sell yourself to the company. Thus, it is the very definition of indentured servitude.

    It's not slavery. Slaves have value. Slaves need to be coddled. Indentured Servants are a dime a dozen. They can and will be replaced at a moment's notice, still carrying a legal debt to the company, which the company will threaten to collect if the IS gets mouthy and starts telling tales.

    Just look at American History. Indentured Servants were historically treated worse than slaves. Slaves could buy themselves, or be set free. Indentured? Charges could be continually added, so that the Indentured 'contract' was extended, and extended and extended.

    Old English law allowed serfs to be free from their masters if they escaped and stayed escaped for a year and a day. Not so much with Indentured. There's a reason so many name changes happened in the US early on. Run away to the frontier, change your name on the way, and hope to stay free till you die.

  12. Absolutely true, Beans, and the financial profit or loss is the problem of the flag and the entity that controls the "value" and not the US taxpayer.

  13. If President Trump remains in office, we will see a streamlining. If corrupt, senile, old Joe and the DNC snatch power, things will become immeasurably worse.

  14. As you say, the cruise industry is built around the exploitation of rules and what amounts to a form of indentured servitude. All that should change, but it will not so long as they are allowed to continue in business as usual. My personal sympathy for their plight is exceptionally SMALL. It needs to be restructured and I wonder what that will all look like after this present crisis. Those are tea leaves that I can't read at the moment.

    You're 100% correct.

    But will the needed change happen?

  15. They are looking for a way forward and have offered themselves for that purpose, but I don't think that there are enough doctors, nurses and medical staff to pull that off in any big way.

  16. Fuck 'em.

    When they go bankrupt, we can seize the ships for taxes, and use them as hotels for those infiltrating the US. We can then sort the bad actors out of the bunch, segregate them on some of the ships, and use them for SINKEX.

    Win-win.

    -Kle.

  17. The old hulls could be used for SINKEX, but the new hulls could be pulled up to docks in places and simply used as hotels.

  18. I always felt the same way about them. I did two. One was on-the-job in the Eastern Mediterranean/Black Sea and the other was a Norwegian Cruise Line four day cruise. In both cases, I was bored and didn't much enjoy the experience. So yeah, I'm not a "cruise person". Neither am I a "Mr. Vegas type." Personal preference.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to top