- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Italy banning large cruise ships from Venetian Harbor
Posted on 7/14/21 at 6:50 pm to hungryone
Posted on 7/14/21 at 6:50 pm to hungryone
Yes, that's the situation now. Most limitations aren't reducing crowds by a whole lot.
My concern is once you limit so much, there is going to be a pressure to increase costs somewhere in my opinion. If you can't visit the museums and cultural sites, that means less Hotels needed to house guests, less flights and so on. Hotels, airfare, restaurant costs whatever go up. All the ancillary services going up will push out less wealthy tourists. Not that I'm being negative at you, but you just said that's what you wanted to happen in Italy.
Less guests have to be made up somewhere.
I don't think this is necessarily close to occuring or will happen in a way that will create stark differences in life experiences, but there are definitely certain groups pushing this sort of thing that want it to happen.
My concern is once you limit so much, there is going to be a pressure to increase costs somewhere in my opinion. If you can't visit the museums and cultural sites, that means less Hotels needed to house guests, less flights and so on. Hotels, airfare, restaurant costs whatever go up. All the ancillary services going up will push out less wealthy tourists. Not that I'm being negative at you, but you just said that's what you wanted to happen in Italy.
Less guests have to be made up somewhere.
I don't think this is necessarily close to occuring or will happen in a way that will create stark differences in life experiences, but there are definitely certain groups pushing this sort of thing that want it to happen.
This post was edited on 7/14/21 at 6:59 pm
1
Posted on 7/14/21 at 7:02 pm to Saint Alfonzo
It’s a valid point. Will this change behavior? As it is, I’d imagine most cruisers love walking off the ship and being in the midst of the heart of Venice. If now they have to disembark, get to a train station, wait for a train and get into the outskirts of the city, and then walk a decent trek to St. Mark’s or wherever, will they eventually give up on that? And if so, does the cruise line shift ports of call?
I love Venice. Have spent many a trip on the backside in the Jewish quarters bouncing around to wine bars and waiting for cruise ships to leave to really explore that peach light filled city. But the cruise ships make it no different a stop than Cozumel.
I love Venice. Have spent many a trip on the backside in the Jewish quarters bouncing around to wine bars and waiting for cruise ships to leave to really explore that peach light filled city. But the cruise ships make it no different a stop than Cozumel.
Posted on 7/14/21 at 7:13 pm to BlackenedOut
Ya some of these cruises have very short stops of maybe 7 hours or something like that.
If you have to spend 2 to 3 hours traveling that's gonna make it less worth it. The cruise line will have to extend port times but other ships are coming in too. If they extend port time that means less stops which is a marketing tool.
If you have to spend 2 to 3 hours traveling that's gonna make it less worth it. The cruise line will have to extend port times but other ships are coming in too. If they extend port time that means less stops which is a marketing tool.
Posted on 7/15/21 at 6:59 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
My concern is once you limit so much, there is going to be a pressure to increase costs somewhere in my opinion. If you can't visit the museums and cultural sites, that means less Hotels needed to house guests, less flights and so on. Hotels, airfare, restaurant costs whatever go up. All the ancillary services going up will push out less wealthy tourists. Not that I'm being negative at you, but you just said that's what you wanted to happen in Italy.
Less guests have to be made up somewhere.
Fewer guests will force a shift in local economy...so much of the mass tourism at key sites in Italy (and other top destinations like Santorini) happens at a density that is destructive to the very place people are keen to see. I don't think a place needs to be expensive to manage tourism effectively. Making places harder to get to doesn't favor the wealthy---it favors those with more time to spend.
Italy is full of half-empty places that are lovely to look at & delightful to experience: yet package tour operators cram people into cliches like Pisa, when Palermo or Perugia are just as interesting/more scenic.
Posted on 7/15/21 at 8:15 am to hungryone
quote:
Fewer guests will force a shift in local economy...so much of the mass tourism at key sites in Italy (and other top destinations like Santorini) happens at a density that is destructive to the very place people are keen to see.
Again, you are looking at this wrong. Force a change to what? Potentially poverty, you realize that right? You can't just force an economy to happen, especially one that requires the amount of money that a place like Italy requires in order to maintain their infrastructure.
If there was an ability to produce income outside of tourism, that would happen already naturally. Forcing the hand while losing the revenue and taxes is a really bad idea.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News