Cruise Industry Exaggerates Effect of $50 Alaska Tax and Hides Financial Information
The so-called "Alaska Cruise Association" (more properly called the Miami Cruise Association) has been caught exaggerating the effects of Alaska's $50 per person "head tax."
The Juneau Empire reports in an article by Pat Forgey entitled "Attack On A Tax" that the cruise industry is misleading the public. Cruise lines claim that cruise prices have dropped as low as $300, and the $50 tax is driving passengers away from cruising to Alaska.
The newspaper reports that cruise passengers actually pay around $2,000 a cruise. Also, most passengers believe that a $50 tax is negligible and has no have an effect on their decision to book a cruise.
The most revealing and disturbing part of the article is that cruise industry spokesman, John Binkley, considers financial information regarding cruises to Alaska to be "proprietary and confidential." The cruise industry keeps the information secret notwithstanding the fact that both Carnival and Royal Caribbean, which carry 80 percent of the cruise ship passengers to Alaska, are publicly traded companies which are required to report financial data to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
This is business as usual for the cruise industry. Its credibility for facts is historically dubious. Cruise lines are the least transparent industry by far. As I have reported in previous articles, the non-tax paying and polluting cruise industry's real motivation to to punish Alaska for its strict pollution regulations.
Another newspaper in Alaska reported on the cruise industry's big lies. The Alaska Daily News calls the $300 cruise ticket a "myth" perpetuated by the cruise industry. The two comments to the story sum up the truth about the cruise industry's attack on Alaska:
- "Multi-national cruise ship hirelings in Alaska beat this big lie about the $50 head tax and its impact on passenger decisions to death and lost all credibility as a result . . . Alaska's regulations are a model for other places and this scares the industry."
- "No surprise here, other than the cruise industry got caught telling tall tales."
Photo credit:
Polluting cruise ship www.ecollo.com
There is nothing remotely "Alaskan" about the "Alaska Cruise Association" (ACA). The ACA is comprised of nine cruise lines, none of which are based in Alaska. Six of the cruise lines - Carnival, Celebrity, Norwegian, Regent Seven Seas, Royal Caribbean, and Silverseas - are based in Miami or Fort Lauderdale. The other three line, Holland America, Princess, and Windstar Cruises, are all owned by Miami-based Carnival or its subsidiaries.
The lawsuit is revenge against Alaska by Carnival and other cruise lines in South Florida. Unlike Florida and the struggling islands in the Caribbean which for years have rolled over and played dead for the pollution spewing cruise industry, Alaska has enacted a number of measures to protect the state from the foreign flagged cruise lines' predatory practices. Earlier in the year, it was
help but to think about Mickey's father, Ted Arison. He collected billions of dollars from tax paying U.S. passengers and lived the good life in Miami but he registered his Miami based cruise line and his cruise ships in Panama to avoid all U.S. taxes. In 1990, he abandoned Miami,
The timing of the lawsuit in Alaska is odd. Yesterday, an environmental organization called the Friends of the Earth issued what they are calling the Cruise Ship Environmental Report Card. The report card grades the cruise lines' impact on the air and water. I first learned of the report in an article entitled
Jim Walker practices admiralty and maritime personal injury law. He has been involved in maritime litigation since 1983. Based in

