I wish Puerto Penasco all the best, but I believe their numbers and analysis is wrong and this will not be as big a deal as they think. Why do you
think San Diego, a city of 3 million people, cannot get itself on more cruise line ports of call? Because the cruise lines for the west coast are home
ported in Long Beach and San Pedro. There are many facilities available to service cruise ships in Southern California. To be home ported, you need
staffing, food and available transit for incoming/ougoing passengers from all over. Cruise ships ae filled with people from all ovr the world. I can
see where a cruise ship port would be helpful for new cruise routes along the eastern coast of Mexico, but whether 3,000 passengers a week will be
visiting Pto. Penasco is a stretch. Also, they expect this to be a departure point for passengers living in Arizona (California is just as close ??),
yet passengers won't be swarming through town spending money - they will be boarding and leaving town. And definitely not a good thing to have an
adverse impact on the environment (one person relocating a reef?). And to add a port of call waaay up there at Pto Penasco after, say, Mazatlan?
that's more than 1 day at sea, and return as well, which adds to the cost of any cruise. And to state that "80 percent of cruise goers choose land
vacations based on the destinations they visit on a cruise trip." Highly doubtful. The people who will be taking this cruise is doing so because they
don't want to do it by land, or drive in Mexico, or really want to see much of Mexico - they want a getaway on a US cruise ship that offers 3 meals a
day, shopping, dancing, entertainment, gambling. They say they are working on contracts with cruise lines - will be interesting to see what develops.
|