Juneau, AK – Eleven guests from the Seven Seas Mariner participating on a dog sledding shore excursion were stranded overnight on a glacier when their return helicopter was unable to take off from Juneau due to foul weather. The group spent the night of August 16, in tents provided for the dog sled camp employees. According to an ERA Helicopters employee, this was the first time such a thing had happened in twenty-two years of operation.

Prior to leaving Juneau guests on the tour were given thick jackets and snow boots so during the long wait on the glacier everyone remained warm and dry. As evening approached and the clouds grew thicker, the camp employees started to make arrangements for the eventuality of overnight visitors. Communication from the heliport in Juneau confirmed that no more helicopters would go out that night. Tents were prepared while a hot dinner of meatloaf with spinach and green beans was served. There was even chocolate cake for dessert. The camp has a generator that pumps water through an on-demand heater for hot water which is used for dishes and basic hygiene and there is an eco-friendly chemical toilet. After word came through that all the guests’ family and friends back onboard had been advised that they were safe and comfortable, everyone settled in for an evening of what they described as “simple pleasures” - cards, chess, board games and real conversation. At ten o’clock they retired to their heavy canvas tents which had elevated wooden plank floors, raised cots with ample sleeping bags and small gas stoves – reminiscent of the same tents used by Alaska’s earliest prospectors and pioneers. As the dogs were fed and put down for the night, one of the guests reported that they howled in a progressive chorus that according to one of the handlers was a sign of appreciation; the dogs’ way of saying thank you and good-night.

The next day the clouds were still low, no helicopters flying. A hot “stick to your ribs” breakfast of baked oatmeal and fruit was served with piping hot coffee. The eleven guests used the time to get to know the dogs and take another whack at mushing while others hiked with the camp employees to look at the spot where water is collected from the glacier ice. By late afternoon concerns were rising that the eleven would have to spend another night on the glacier. From the standpoint of the ship this was getting problematic; the Mariner had already left Juneau and was now getting ready to leave Skagway. Were the guests not able to join the ship they would have to fly to our next port in Canada. Without passports this could be tricky.

Upon our departure from Skagway, Capt. Fichet-Delavault made an announcement that we would be proceeding to Auk Bay north of Juneau. There we would either pick-up our guests were they able to get off the glacier in time or leave their passports and personal belongings so that they could comfortably make their way to Vancouver the next day. Two hours before we arrived we heard that the group had been taken off the glacier but they were being waylaid at Taku Lodge. Just one hour before dark, to the relief of all, we received news that they were now in Juneau and on their way to the ship. Once onboard we learned that the pilot who picked-up the group from the dog sled camp was young and did not feel comfortable going beyond Taku Lodge. Knowing the situation ERA sent up a forty year veteran pilot to complete the transfer. He expertly surveyed the cloud cover and found a way to take everyone safely back to Juneau. Upon their arrival the group unanimously agreed that this was one of the best experiences they had ever had in their lives; they didn’t want to leave and they would pay to do it again. One of the young women was so moved by her experience she applied to work for the camp next year! What could have been a terrible disaster ended up being a wonderful experience that no one will ever forget.

The following observation was submitted by a reader. Your comments are always welcome as this site does get read by the cruise lines!

My husband and I have enjoyed your talks on several Regent trips.  Many of the Regent passengers seem to enjoy extended cruises.  With your very insightful comments regarding fuel usage, perhaps you might comment on my idea of having consecutive segments in loops over shorter distances.  For example, in Europe, part 1 might go from Southampton down the coast of France, Portugal, and Spain in a leisurely manner with many ports, ending in a Spanish port.  Part 2 would continue with Spain, and continue say along France and western Italy to perhaps Rome.  Part 3 would continue to southern Italy and thence to the Adriatic and Athens.  Part 4 could do the Greek Isles, Turkey, etc.  If possible, a continuation could go along the northern coast of Africa.  This same sort of option would, of course, work in the Baltic/Scandinavia/Northern Europe/Iceland routes as well as South America or any other destination.

Folks would be able to choose a long or short journey depending on the number of segments, and the cruise line would be doing the more intensive treatment to which you referred.  Many folks, especially Regent’s clientele, do not care for a 10 or 12 day cruise far away with the air travel – the experience as well as the expense and carbon footprint.  Giving them options to lengthen their vacation might work.

On our southbound cruise, we have been forgoing a stop in Ketchikan, Alaska in favor of a visit to Campbell River, British Columbia. Located on Vancouver Island just south of Seymour Narrows and north of Vancouver, many guests question the reasoning of the stop as, in their words, “there is not much there.” So, why do we go?

The obvious answer is that it adds a new port which means guests wishing to combine back to back cruises have a least two ports which are not repeated. But there is more to it than that; by skipping Ketchikan southbound the ship is able to reach the very picturesque Inside Passage of British Columbia earlier allowing a full day to explore the scenic waterways between Vancouver Island and the mainland. During the summer this is the home to pods of resident orca that can be seen around place like Blackney Pass and Robson Bight. In addition, there is the daytime transit through historic Seymour Narrows where the undersea pinnacle of Ripple Rock was exploded; a highlight for buffs of navigation and engineering.

Though we dock in Campbell River in the late afternoon, the community rearranges its schedule to accommodate our arrival. Businesses stay open longer. A shuttle bus is provided to transfer guests into town including a stop at the museum. Admittedly, with disembarkation looming for an early morning the next day, many of our guests are not keen on doing much in Campbell River. Unlike most other towns visited on an Alaskan cruise, Campbell River is not touristy. However, with the pulp mill soon to be closing the community will probably be setting its sights on developing tourism infrastructure in the near future to attract more ships. In the meantime – it’s real.

Going past the strip malls and chain stores, the downtown of Campbell River is a charming area situated along the harbor with cute restaurants and storefronts. The town looks very much like any small town on Vancouver Island with one exception; the pier is on a First Nations Reserve. Dancers from the local “kwan” or village, welcome guests ashore. There are local Native vendors on the quayside. For those on foot, interpretative signs dot the sidewalks. In town the city museum is excellent. It contains a truly extraordinary collection on the Northwest Coast People of Vancouver Island including a historical time line that takes you through the introduction of the logging and fishing industries. Worth the $6 admission. You won’t find Diamonds International in Campbell River, but you will find friendly people who are proud of their community and happy to share it with visitors.

A guest forwarded this New York Times article to me regarding art purchased onboard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/arts/design/16crui.html?_r=1&ex=1216872000&en=1ebd6efdc22b4087&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin

Last week a lady came up to me and expressed how “disgusted” she was with the commercialism of the towns in SE Alaska. She said, “I did not come to Alaska to go shopping for jewelry.” I asked if she had noticed any difference in Sitka as the community has fought for years to keep multi-nationals out in support of local business owners. She said, “I was so disappointed by Ketchikan, Juneau and Skagway I did not even get off the ship in Sitka.” It made me wonder how many other people feel the same way.

With that in mind I started to notice that many of the big name jewelry stores are actually leaving Alaska, or at least downsizing their operations. That could be a sign of hard economic times and the cost of luxury goods. Still there is a disproportionate number of jewelry stores in Ketchikan, Juneau and Skagway; that said there is also a growing number of locally owned and operated stores that are extolling the virtues of goods “Made in Alaska.” Signs in windows are popping up everywhere advertising “locally owned and operated.” More artisans are taking advantage of the Made in Alaska polar bear sticker that authenticates articles made by local Alaskans; as well as the Silver Hand sticker which is the symbol of Native Alaskan arts and handicrafts.

It is good to see the resurgence of local businesses and the preference of consumers asking for locally made goods. Local businesses have a vested interest in the community; they help keep the cost of doing business down which enables more local businesses to open and compete. It will be interesting to see what the retail landscape looks like next year.

Think about what it would be like if you were filling up your tank with 110 tons of fuel a day! Yup, that’s how much a 48 ton cruise ship carrying 700 guests consumes in one day at sea. On a seven day Alaskan itinerary with four port stops that translates to about $1 million dollars a month in fuel costs. Short of passing on those charges to the consumer in surcharges and taxes, what can be done if anything to keep ships afloat and people cruising?

I asked that question to senior deck and engine officers; the answers I received were very interesting. We all remember (well, most of us that is) the gas crisis of the 1970’s when the United States interstate speed limit was reduced to 55 mph. It drove many of us crazy having to inch along the freeway after years of flying by at break-neck speeds but the fact remains; reducing your speed by 20% saves up to 40% of fuel. Same is true for a cruise ship. Reducing the ship’s speed from 21 knots to 17 knots saves $200,000 off that $1 million dollar a month bill. Over one year that equals $2.4 million dollars saved; in a company with five ships that is $12 million dollars! Reducing the speed also means that not all three engines need to run; another cost saving as they can be rotated less frequently thereby extending the period in which they must undergo mandatory overhaul for maintenance.

To realize the savings available by reducing speed, itineraries must be better planned. As a consumer how might this affect your cruise? Answer: smarter, greener itineraries – that means shorter distances and courses set with rather than against strong currents. Developing marketable itineraries using reduced sailing speeds will require research and creativity but there are plenty of destinations and regions that could be cultivated – including right here in Alaska where places like Prince William Sound offer a myriad of attractions from small towns with deep water ports to beautiful shipboard scenery without days at sea pushing full speed. Another added bonus of shorter runs is reducing the chance for late arrivals that result in tour cancellations or missed flights.

If you enjoy cruising let your favorite cruise line know that you want to see these fuel savings measures put into place. Planning and pricing departments along with sales and marketing teams need to know that you are willing to explore new destinations and can adjust to changes in published itineraries if it means saving costs and saving the planet. This is a simply solution to a big problem but we need to hear from you.

When it comes to the carbon footprint of your vacation, is it “greener” to fly or to cruise? Anyway you look at it modern-day travel is “dirty business” whether you travel by car, plane, boat or train. Because cruise ships carry thousands of passengers and thousands of crew, divided out per person the carbon emission from a cruise ship is less than that of an airplane. Critics point out that most passengers fly to reach their cruise ship thereby combining both air and sea travel making the carbon footprint high; however, there are things the industry is trying to reduce its carbon emissions. Holland-America is in the process of introducing new “scrubbers” that will reduce carbon emissions from their ships – a very positive step in the right direction and the State of California requires that cruise ships burn diesel rather than heavy fuel within California state waters.

As more travelers become aware and concerned about the down line affect of their holiday choices, perhaps we will see the cruise industry put into effect the same conservation efforts found in major hotels i.e. linen changes upon request, reusing towels, and the addition of key card activated room lighting. One of the oldest jokes on a cruise ship is, “does the ship generate its own power?” Yes, of course it does; and as a self-contained power generating source most people on holiday feel no guilt in leaving on the television or the lights. However, to generate that energy the engines must run – which means more emissions and more fuel consumption. For those who love to cruise, maybe its time we tell the executives of our favorite lines that we can do without clean linens everyday and that we don’t mind being asked to turn off lights when not in use. If that will help keep the costs down and the industry going, I think everyone would be happy to comply.

Welcome to Nowhere, Alaska! Add that to all the colorful monikers for which the town of Ketchikan is known. After years of ridicule and harassment for the planned bridge that would link Ketchikan with isolated Gravina Island (aka “Nowhere”), the project has officially been scrapped, so said Ketchikan’s mayor Joe Williams, Jr.� West of Ketchikan, Gravina is a large, essentially uninhabited island; with the exception of some industry on the eastern shore and the world famous Ketchikan International Airport (only place in the world where the control tower is lower than the runway!) no one lives there. It is an open expanse of green trees and black bears. Yet today if you look over at Gravina Island, you will see heavy equipment cutting down trees and building roads. So, what’s going on? I asked Mr. Williams. � He said though the bridge will not be built, a new ferry system will go into service connecting the southeast portion of the island. He went on to point out that Ketchikan’s future lies on Gravina Island; the borough of Ketchikan located on Revillagigedo Island is hemmed in on the east by the Tongass National Forest and on the west by Tongass Narrows; the only direction the city can grow is north-south along the narrow strip of land parallel to the sea. Soon all the available land will be gone and the city will need to move west onto Gravina Island if it is ever to expand. Mr. Williams said the roads being built are for logging and will eventually include helicopter logging – good for Ketchikan’s lagging economy. Cynics in the capital city of Juneau have a different opinion about the roads and point to the fact that most of the land to which they will lead belong to influential Anchorage lawmakers who stand to gain the most from Ketchikan’s eventual population overflow. It was their urging that Congress approve the pork-barrel “Bridge to Nowhere” and it will be them not the residents of Ketchikan who will benefit the most. Hmmm… politics.

One of the biggest complaints by local officials in communities affected by cruise ships is that the whole proposition is an economic bust for the local economy. With the exception of paying port fees the presence of cruise ships generates very little revenue for local business. Passengers sleep onboard thereby avoiding a lodging bed-tax; most meals are taken onboard thereby avoiding food sales tax; and most shopping is done in stores that are only open seasonally and employee workers from outside the local community. All the while life is disrupted as the city or town is inundated with hundreds of thousands of people every day. Officials go on to cite that waterways and wilderness areas are adversely affected as well; increased marine traffic means more air, water and noise pollution with an increased chance of accident. Pristine parks and wilderness areas host a continuous parade of mega-ships belching smoke and non-stop chatter that echoes for miles. It’s no wonder locals in Southeast Alaska do not look forward to the cruise ship season.

Worldwide many areas are facing the same dilemma; well, Alaska has done something about it. A few years ago the city of Juneau was the first to restrict what ships could and could not do within the city limits including no broadcasts to the outside decks and use of no horns, whistles or bells. This was prompted by a call-in survey asking residents if cruise ships disrupt their daily routine and if so, how? Reaction of the community of 30,000 residents caused the restrictions to be put in place along with a $7 per person head tax to compensate for lost revenue. The new tax of $50 is to go to all communities that host cruise ships for the building and repair of dock facilities and other community related projects. (Please see USAToday article http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2006-08-31-tourist-taxes_x.htm)

Though this seems fair and equitable, I am confused. It is my understanding that most of the new docks in Alaska were built and are maintained at great cost by the cruise lines. If that is true, where is the money going? I have no doubt there are plenty of projects from which the communities could benefit; I think cruise ship guests paying this tax would feel better about helping the State of Alaska if they knew how their money was being spent. In my opinion, it could be very good for public relations for the state, the cruise industry and the travelling public to get this information out. What do you think?

For many the highlight of their cruise through Alaska’s Inside Passage is a visit to the pristine wilderness area of Tracy Arm. This glacially carved fjord winds its way past deep U-shaped valleys and dramatic granite cliffs to end dramatically at Sawyer Glacier. Over the past nineteen years that I have been on the bridge doing commentary through Tracy Arm, we rarely see another human soul. It is glorious and we do try to keep the chatter down so that the beauty can be appreciated. But now, due to a new program issued as a result of “a cooperative effort between vessel operators and the Tongass National Forest,” the new practices are meant to, “minimize the impact of tourism and vessel operations in the Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness in a manner that addresses both concerns for our natural resources and operators’ concerns for safety and passenger service.”

Under these practices to “Preserve Quiet” ships are prohibited from making any announcements before 8am. Announcements can only to be made in three designated areas not to exceed 5 minutes total. Longer explanations of the area will be allowed in Holkam Bay, before entering into the fjord. It is not clear whether or not this restrictions apply to the small locally operated tour boats that go to Sawyer Glacier – are they also included in these practices? Sound travels over water; regardless of whether you are 4,000 tons or 140,000 tons it will disturb anything on the shore.

Further “Environmental Precautions” to maintain clean air by minimizing visible emissions is a blessing. There have been more than one occasion that I have noticed the blue haze of a large ship’s emissions hours after it sailed through the fjord. Under “Protecting Wildlife,” every operator does his or her best to “conduct their business in a manner which, whenever possible avoids changing the natural behavior of wildlife,” however I think it will be hard to fully comply with some of the request regarding harbor seals. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, harbor seals are protected and every cruise ship knows that. Under this new set of procedures “operators agree to remain a minimum of 100 yards from seals on icebergs whenever possible” and “agree to reduce speed when approaching hauled out seals, and to gradually increase speed when leaving their site in order to reduce wake.” That is common sense; however many wonder what penalties will be faced when the inevitable happens – seals haul out onto to the ice in front of or next to the ship without warning. Will we be in violation? And who will be monitoring compliance?

All that said, I can understand wanting to set rules for conduct – I have seen things in Tracy Arm that warrant tighter measures and I applaud the environmental community for getting this out there. However, what doesn’t sit well with me is the final exhibit in this document that says; “ 1.) … Holkam Bay is a good place to introduce Tracy Arm. Since the waterway is wide, announcements would not impact campers, kayakers, fisherman on shore, beach walkers, hunters and other users of the wilderness area.” As a passenger on a cruise ship, are you not also a user of the wilderness area? Though I am all for peace and quiet, I also think that as the majority of cruise ship guests in Alaska are US tax paying citizen, they too have rights to use and enjoy their wilderness as well. I am not saying that we as an industry should not uphold these practices – I believe we should. I take offense to what seems to be preference given to the rights of a handful of kayakers and hunters over thousands of guests on a cruise ship.

Starting tomorrow morning, I will begin to abide by these new Practices and I hope that they will start to set a new more reverential tone for our visit to Tracy Arm. And I hope that in the future when decisions such as these that regulatory bodies will seek more input from more input from the cruise industry on how to make calls on places like Tracy Arm memorable for everyone lucky enough to visit.