[enriquto]

Of all the really bad things that can be said about cruise ships you have chosen one that is 100% identical with airlines. Moreover, it has a certain air of "gatekeeping" that is fairly ridiculous.

It is impossible to "blend" somewhere in vacation. You have to live many years somewhere to blend. You are exactly like the cruise ship tourists if you stay for a few weeks.

[alkonaut]

Few people fly in and flood the streets of tourist hotspot cities for just a couple of hours and then disappear again without spending any money on hotels, and often not even restaurants.

You can do that as a plane tourist too, but it's far less common.

As soon as you stay even one night you are NOT like cruise tourists. You probably had at least one dinner and one hotel stay. Good tourist.

[lmm]

Why are the hotels a worthy way to spend the money? They push up the house prices for those who actually live there. Someone who isn't taking up a bed that a local could sleep in is being a better tourist IMO.

[alkonaut]

Yours is an argument against tourism. Sure a lot of people dislike tourism but it’s a major source of income in many places where there are few other industries. When people pay local businesses then at least money stays where they are spent, helping locals who don’t work in the tourist industry by providing funding for services etc. Thats why hotels and restaurants are a good way to spend money.

Cruise tourism usually pays very little to local business but the crowds and pollution is there anyway.

[lmm]

I believe in the greatest happiness of the greatest number, so I'm in favour of making sure as many people as possible get to experience these places - Venice, Everest, Jamaica, wherever people want to go - with the minimum disruption to others. Cruises seem like the best way to minimise the per-person "footprint" of visiting a place - just as container ships are the most efficient way of transporting goods.

[c22]

I went on a Caribbean cruise once (the trip was bought for me, I would never have paid for it). The thing I found most striking was the same-ness of every stop. We stopped in Jamaica, but it felt the same as every single other stop: Busy "shopping area" right near the cruise terminal, with many of the exact same stores as the last stop. A variety of the same tired cruise-approved "activities" ("touch a dolphin", "ride a zipline through the forest", "snorkel adventure!") available with just a 1-2 hour cramped bus ride. And, in my experience, not enough time at each stop to actually see much or any of the place we'd landed. The boat stopped in Belize, so I guess I can stick that pin up on my big world-map. Except the "island" we stopped at was wholly-owned by the cruise line and we were only there for four hours, so we mostly gained the experience of buying the same overpriced drinks they had available on the boat, but out of a coconut.

I disagree that cruises are an effective way to visit a place at all, let alone on a low footprint.

[lmm]

In my experience you can find sameness anywhere if you look for it, or you can find the interesting differences. Four hours is pretty short, true, but it's time enough to wander around a place and experience something unique (I had around that long in Vienna on one trip, but I ate a lovely "sushi burrito" for lunch, saw some amazing paintings, and drank in a wonderfully traditional cafe). I'd argue that a cruise can be worthwhile precisely because long bus rides suck; I've done similar trips around Eastern Europe as a road trip, sleeper train trip and river cruise, and the cruise was when I spent the least time moving luggage around or staring out of a window and the most time actually in the cities I was visiting.

[lentil_soup]

in reality is the opposite, the footprint is huge in terms of environmental impact, the cruises pollute the air of the city. Also, cruise visitors use the city's facilities (roads, trash collection, beaches, etc) but don't leave much money behind to compensate. Sure we maximize the amount of people that get to visit the place, but they leave locals worse off as they have to foot the bill

[lmm]

> the cruises pollute the air of the city

Per-person? Surely anyone arriving by car, aeroplane or even bus is causing a lot more pollution, just on the sheer physics of how much more efficient sea transport is.

> Also, cruise visitors use the city's facilities (roads, trash collection, beaches, etc) but don't leave much money behind to compensate.

Surely that can be balanced with appropriate taxation - I believe a lot of places already levy a per-passenger tax for cruise ships berthing there.

[michaelt]

If the aim of supporting tourism is to "bring money into the local economy" then hotel rooms are one of the biggest ticket items when booking a holiday. Almost always the biggest when you ignore flights, which don't contribute directly to the local economy anyway.

[xiphias2]

If you look at Santorini for example, all of the revenue of locals is from tourism. Actually many of the people don't have jobs during winter, so they have to close the restaurants and the hotels when they are out of season.

[namdnay]

That's a bit unfair, when you fly somehwere you sleep there, you eat there, you spend there. Whereas on a cruise ship the tourist is spending 99% of their money on the ship, and 1% in the city that they're flooding

[sytelus]

Not true. Cruise passengers practically run the economy of many cities around the world including US. For example, a lot of towns in Alaska basically live off of cruise ship docking there. If they stop, many of them flat out collapse. I don't have actual data but my anecdata from several cruise ship regulars is that they spend at least as much on "excursions" and touring the ports as on cruise ship ticket.

[namdnay]

Sorry maybe that's true, I was thinking of European/Mediterranean cruises, and the impact they have on Venice, Dubrovnik etc