FEMA paying 236 million for the ships

[Alicnwondrln]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9507503/
this is an interestng read
both parites say this deal is awful and that it would be cheaper to send people away on 5 night cruises than pay what fema set up
so basically the gov got screwed

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Maybe so, but if FEMA didn't make arrangements there would be complaints that some people would still be homeless. Caught between a rock and a hard place in the aftermath of a disaster like Katrina.

 

[JimB.]

The leasing of the ships was (IMHO) probably a good, short - term aid to the lack of suitable housing in the area.

The thing that really bothers me though is that there seems to be very little, if indeed any, oversight into how OUR money we SEND to the federal (and probably state & local) governments is spent.

This is a bad deal for taxpayers? Well, where the heck are the bean counters that should be looking out for the taxpayers (i.e., US ) in all of this??

And some people are talking about rolling back tax cuts when THIS is going on?

Fat Chance. Prove to the taxpayers you are spending OUR money wisely FIRST. Not pissing it away.

 

[bsnyder]

The leasing of the ships was (IMHO) probably a good, short - term aid to the lack of suitable housing in the area.

The thing that really bothers me though is that there seems to be very little, if indeed any, oversight into how OUR money we SEND to the federal (and probably state & local) governments is spent.

This is a bad deal for taxpayers? Well, where the heck are the bean counters that should be looking out for the taxpayers (i.e., US ) in all of this??

And some people are talking about rolling back tax cuts when THIS is going on?

Fat Chance. Prove to the taxpayers you are spending OUR money wisely FIRST. Not pissing it away.

ITA!!

And some people are talking about this type of waste being unique to the Bush Administration.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

I do not think it is as easy - or as one-sided as this article presents it.

Sure the ships don't have to move and sure, they don't need to provide entertainment. However, there are circumstances on the other side that are being left out. Right off the top I can find a couple things this article convenieintly does not address:

1. Cruises START at $599 and go up from there - average it out and you are approaching the $1200 - $1300

2. Most of the workers rely on tips - the cruise line would have to cover this to pay the workers a salary comparable to what they would make. I think that the workers would be working harder, not less under these circumstances. If you factor this in - you can also see why the amt per person is highter than the $599 they list....

3. Alcohol sales - aren't these a big money maker?....cruisers probably lay down big money for this....I doubt the hurricane survivors would - nor should the cruise line soak them in the way they do the cruise traveller....

I think it was wonderful for the cruise line to step in a time of need. I bet if you ask them to itemize their needs - and justify the dollar amt - they could. If the gov't made the deal without that kind of info in front of them - then whose fault is that? I am dismayed at who these comments are coming from - ie, democrats.

Please remember when things were bad - many, many people were asking - "why don't we bring in cruise ships?" - the problem was the unforeseen fact that the survivors did not want to use them - the cruise line did a good thing. I don't think they are to blame here.

 

[Planogirl]

I wonder why FEMA hasn't brought in those little trailers like they did in Florida? Those seemed nice and they even have many empty now from what I understand.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I saw an article--basically they are saying that is is $20,000 per person per month of use of the ship. That is a awful a lot of money for a temporary housing situation.

 

[jgmklmhem]

I wonder why FEMA hasn't brought in those little trailers like they did in Florida? Those seemed nice and they even have many empty now from what I understand.

There was an article posted many moons ago in this saga saying many of them had been trashed by last years occupants and had not been repaired. Also there are still some people living in them from last year.

 

[DawnCt1]

I do not think it is as easy - or as one-sided as this article presents it.

Sure the ships don't have to move and sure, they don't need to provide entertainment. However, there are circumstances on the other side that are being left out. Right off the top I can find a couple things this article convenieintly does not address:

1. Cruises START at $599 and go up from there - average it out and you are approaching the $1200 - $1300

2. Most of the workers rely on tips - the cruise line would have to cover this to pay the workers a salary comparable to what they would make. I think that the workers would be working harder, not less under these circumstances. If you factor this in - you can also see why the amt per person is highter than the $599 they list....

3. Alcohol sales - aren't these a big money maker?....cruisers probably lay down big money for this....I doubt the hurricane survivors would - nor should the cruise line soak them in the way they do the cruise traveller....

I think it was wonderful for the cruise line to step in a time of need. I bet if you ask them to itemize their needs - and justify the dollar amt - they could. If the gov't made the deal without that kind of info in front of them - then whose fault is that? I am dismayed at who these comments are coming from - ie, democrats.

Please remember when things were bad - many, many people were asking - "why don't we bring in cruise ships?" - the problem was the unforeseen fact that the survivors did not want to use them - the cruise line did a good thing. I don't think they are to blame here.

You took the words right out of my keyboard. $599 is the bottom of the barrel, that doesn't include the outside cabins, the suites, etc, and all of the other "stuff" that is the actual money maker for the cruise lines, spa services for one. The person who is quoting $599 isn't considering that it is room and board only, not the fluff that cruise lines depend upon.

 

[ThAnswr]

I wonder why FEMA hasn't brought in those little trailers like they did in Florida? Those seemed nice and they even have many empty now from what I understand.

They are kicking people out of the trailers in this area to send them to the "Katrina" area. Of course, many folks homes still aren't repaired, snowbird season is starting so the price of living accomodations has gone up and is scarce,...............

Btw, those FEMA trailer parks were a hell hole of violence, crime, drugs, etc. What looked pretty on television didn't reflect on what was really happening.

 

[ThAnswr]

There was an article posted many moons ago in this saga saying many of them had been trashed by last years occupants and had not been repaired. Also there are still some people living in them from last year.

Yes, there are people still living in the trailers. Many people are not aware of the fact that this area still has many places that have to be repaired. Less than half of my neighbors, who's homes were destroyed, have had their homes repaired and have moved back in. Our school district still cannot place over 1700 children.

And it's still amazing just how much has been accomplished. You had to be here on August 14, 2004 (the day after Charley) to realize what a miracle it is.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Someone in my neighborhood still has one--last I checked. I'll have to see if it is still there next time I get out and about.

 

[Geoff_M]

this is an interestng read
both parites say this deal is awful and that it would be cheaper to send people away on 5 night cruises than pay what fema set up
so basically the gov got screwed

Well, when people start saying things like "cut the red tape", "do whatever it takes", "get it done now", etc. sometimes stuff like this can result. Little review and approval, no time for competitive bidding, etc. It's like the business saying about Low Cost/Fast Delivery/High Quality... "Pick which two you want!"

 

[LMC]

Are the ships they are using the ones that use the New Orleans and Mobile Bay as ports? If so, the cruise lines are getting a really sweet deal as no one is getting into NO to go on a cruise so that is lost revenue and I am not sure about the Mobile port. I know part of the port is open but probably to essential usage only.

So rather than having lost revenues the cruise lines "stepped up" and made their ships available; how thoughtful of them!

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

If true, there are plenty of other ports available - they could have just sent them out of other ports - and avoided losing their revenues. I do believe they stepped up - to be fair, I don't think the bottom line was their first thought here.

To add to the costs/ inconvenience to the cruise line - they had to cancel/rebook/reroute existing reservations - again, when they simply could have sent them out of other ports rather than cancelling them outright to do this - I don't remember the details, but I would bet they also compensated those travellers who were incovenienced - I am having a hard time believing they would have come out ahead had the original plan gone through. Of course now with the ships not actually being used - who knows - but that is not the fault of the cruise line - they were there when they were needed - I think that should be applauded. The failure here was not theirs and I really can not understand why people feel the need to slam them. Like I said - the gov't made the deal....part of it was due to quickly scrambling to do what was needed - the money part, maybe they could have done something different/better - hindsight is great...

one more thought - I am no expert on taxes and loses - but if the ships were down due to port closure, etc - couldn't they have just sat back - taken the loses...on their taxes etc - and on top of that whined and complained and applied for financial compensation/help from FEMA or whoever - without lifting a finger - instead of, yes "stepping up" at a great deal of inconveience to themselves - it amazes me how someone can take a great gesture and make it something ugly!? At the time we were all moved to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to help - maybe the cruise line felt the same way...why would anyone feel the need to twist it around to be anything else?

 

[S. C.]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9507503/
this is an interestng read
both parites say this deal is awful and that it would be cheaper to send people away on 5 night cruises than pay what fema set up
so basically the gov got screwed

CNN reported that Greece offered 2 cruise ships for FREE but the government decided to pay for carnival ships instead. It was also reported that the ships are only half full.

 

[LMC]

Well considering that when first approached the cruise lines said NO, I think perhaps they went back and looked at their situation and came to the conclusion that this would be their best deal. Don't the CL's have insurance to reimburse them for losses when something like this happens and their cruises must be cancelled due to weather, etc? If not, then I would think they would loose alot of $$ when these situations arise. Yes, there are other ports they could use, but then they would have to get bookings out of those ports in addition to their regular sailings. So since they first declined to help, it was widely reported in the news media that they did, I think the bottom line is what they did eventually think about. They are all about making profits right?

Assuming they did not loose their ability to sail from one of these ports but a hurricane victim could not make their trip would the CL be so kind as to refund their $$ and be so understanding and step up? No, of course not, they are a business and a cruiser without trip insurance would be tough out of luck in that situation.

If they truly have stepped up to the plate to assist in a time of need, then they should bow out of this horrendous contract and alternative housing can be made. The ships obviously are not being used to the fullest potential and we can probably serve these people better by getting them set up in more permanent housing.

I am not twisting this into anything, I am giving my view point as to how I see it.

If true, there are plenty of other ports available - they could have just sent them out of other ports - and avoided losing their revenues. I do believe they stepped up - to be fair, I don't think the bottom line was their first thought here.

To add to the costs/ inconvenience to the cruise line - they had to cancel/rebook/reroute existing reservations - again, when they simply could have sent them out of other ports rather than cancelling them outright to do this - I don't remember the details, but I would bet they also compensated those travellers who were incovenienced - I am having a hard time believing they would have come out ahead had the original plan gone through. Of course now with the ships not actually being used - who knows - but that is not the fault of the cruise line - they were there when they were needed - I think that should be applauded. The failure here was not theirs and I really can not understand why people feel the need to slam them. Like I said - the gov't made the deal....part of it was due to quickly scrambling to do what was needed - the money part, maybe they could have done something different/better - hindsight is great...

one more thought - I am no expert on taxes and loses - but if the ships were down due to port closure, etc - couldn't they have just sat back - taken the loses...on their taxes etc - and on top of that whined and complained and applied for financial compensation/help from FEMA or whoever - without lifting a finger - instead of, yes "stepping up" at a great deal of inconveience to themselves - it amazes me how someone can take a great gesture and make it something ugly!? At the time we were all moved to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to help - maybe the cruise line felt the same way...why would anyone feel the need to twist it around to be anything else?

 

[LMC]

I just read an article in the newspaper that said the govt signed a contract on 9/3 and Greece made their offer on 9/4. So it was too late then to back out. I would think the govt could cancel a contract if they wanted. They are the govt and you can't sue them right?

I've heard the 1/2 full reports too. I just think we could do better for those folks if they were on dry land and in a "home" wether it be a rented property (which is doubtful since everything is gone or rented) or a mobile home.
I can't wait for habitat for humanity to go in. I am planning on my DH and I going for a week to help build (IF I can get someone to come take care of my kids!).

CNN reported that Greece offered 2 cruise ships for FREE but the government decided to pay for carnival ships instead. It was also reported that the ships are only half full.

 

[bcvillastwo]

Well, where the heck are the bean counters that should be looking out for the taxpayers (i.e., US ) in all of this??

This seems like a good question. It is certainly a reasonable question. Unfortunately it is a question based on assumptions that probably aren't correct.

How can you stay that, they ask? Well as an auditor who has worked for the federal government most of my adult life I know that the "bean counters" can only do so much, that they can't look at every transaction, and that the scale of spending on this is going to be huge beyond a normal person's comprehension. In order for a "bean counter" to be really effective there must be orderly systems and processes established for authorizing, accounting for, and reporting on funds that are spent by an entity.

Even under normal circumstances without orderly systems and processes things often happen that shouldn't happen. This is not a normal situation so not having orderly systems and processes in place to manage and oversee this spending simply increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse.

So the real question is, will they impose orderly systems and processes? If they don't, well the chances of figuring out where all this money goes and whether it is/was spent for the purposes intended are not real good.

My quess is that some agencies will do a good job, while others won't. For the record, the Department of Defense still can not obtain a clean opinion on its financial statements, it continues to have serious financial management problems, and its fnancial systems do a terrible job of tracking costs associated with he GWOT.

So, when you look to the "bean counters" to sort this all out remember they are only as good as the underlying systems and processes put in place by management.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Cruise lines pay more for fuel after Katrina, but demand steady
MIAMI (AP) — Even-higher fuel costs caused by Hurricane Katrina are expected to cut into cruise lines' profits, but industry officials said they haven't noticed a drop in passengers because of the deadly and disruptive hurricane season.
Carnival, the world's largest cruise operator, and No. 2 Royal Caribbean Cruises both reported much higher profits last year despite a record hurricane season that forced cancellations and itinerary changes. While rising oil prices this year are hurting, the companies still expect stronger earnings.

Fuel costs were already up to 37% higher for the companies in the second quarter, and those increases have continued since then. Crude oil futures hit $70 a barrel last week as Gulf of Mexico rigs and refineries were damaged or closed, but have backed off to around $66 now.

UBS analyst Robin Farley estimates that every additional 10% increase in fuel costs would reduce next year's earnings per share by 15 cents for Royal Caribbean and 10 cents for Carnival. A.G. Edwards & Sons analyst Tim Conder puts it at 6 cents a share for Carnival and 10 cents for Royal Caribbean.

An A.G. Edwards survey from Aug. 29 found that despite the rising fuel costs, ticket prices have been mostly flat or even slightly lower for travel over the rest of the year.

Miami-based Carnival hasn't seen any significant drop-off in reservations since Katrina, except in the hard-hit areas of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, company spokesman Tim Gallagher said.

The cities hit hard by Katrina didn't handle that much cruise traffic, so the overall impact on Carnival and Royal Caribbean shouldn't be significant, Standard & Poor's credit analyst Craig Parmelee said.

"There may be some decline in demand from consumers in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. But we don't think that's enough of their business that it would be more than a blip," he said.

Carnival expects costs from renting three Carnival Cruise Lines ships to the federal government for refugee housing, scheduling disruptions and other hurricane-related charges to reduce earnings per share by a penny to 3 cents, mostly in the fourth quarter. But that doesn't include the impact of higher fuel costs, which Gallagher said would be disclosed later this month when third-quarter results are announced.

Before the hurricane, Carnival expected earnings per share to be $2.70 for the full year, up from $2.24 last year. Royal Caribbean expected a range of $2.70 to $2.80, up from $2.26 last year. Royal Caribbean spokesman Michael Sheehan declined to comment about Katrina's effect on the company.

The busiest cruise port damaged by Katrina is New Orleans. Gary P. LaGrange, president and chief executive of the Port of New Orleans, predicts it will be at least three or four months before cruise ships will be sailing normal voyages from there.

Carnival Cruise Lines had two ships based in New Orleans — Sensation is now being used as a shelter in Galveston, Texas, where the Conquest will also sail from. Royal Caribbean has one ship that was scheduled to sail from New Orleans from December to April. Sheehan declined to say whether the Grandeur of the Seas would still follow that schedule.

Norwegian Cruise Line said Tuesday that it moved a ship from its home port of New Orleans to Houston until January. The Norwegian Sun will then sail from Miami.

Carnival shares rose 4 cents to $49.29 and Royal Caribbean shares rose 10 cents to $42.40 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.


Doesn't sound like they are looking to profit big time.

Seems like it was no hassle for the other lines to move their ships to other ports. I also found that only one of the three Carnival ships had its home port in NO - the other two were out of Galveston and this deal was done before Rita)