1. That American-styles service was always the worst, lacking the finesse of European crews or the attentiveness of Caribbean crews. Is that true?

2. That the union rules would manage to interfere with the service. For example, on the Big U, you had to go through three separate stewards in order to get room service. Why would that be?

3. That US crews are highly paid, which cuts into a lines' profits. US Lines, APL, American Export and Matson, all the important US passenger lines, went under because it became increasingly difficult to turn a profit, not just because of airlines, but the high salaries they had to pay the crews.

Also, how do you think SeaAmerica and American Classic Voyages will fare? Is it too late for the Yanks to make a dent in the cruise industry now?

I am eager to hear all opinions....
I am eager to hear opinions.

Cheers,

re: your original question "Why no U. S. cruise ships?" THe simplest & mst correct answer is the U. S. Law commonly referred to as "The Jones Act."

Besides UNIONS...and an American liner would have members from up to 17 different unions working aboard a single vessel. Beyond that, the heyday of American flag shipping saw any "foreign-going" U.S. flag ship sail come under the jurisdiction of the rules of up to no less than 74 different agencies, bureaux, departments of the federal and state governments, not to mention port officials.

Add to that uncertain tax structures...

I comment on this topic rather extensively in some of my books, particularly in The "STATELY PRESIDENT" Liners American Passenger Liners of the Interwar Years Part 1, The "502s"

Let me start with the firt question. Built for the MARITIME COMMISSION for U.S. Lines - not built for the ownership of U.S. Lines, an important technicality, the AMERICA of 1940 was built for subsidized operation. Under the American government scheme of things, a ship was eligible for subsidy for a period of 20 years and the AMERICA was past that expiration date when she was sold to Chandris. As for the MANHATTAN and WASHINGTON, those marvellous Cabin liners were built for U.S. Lines with a Construction Loan Fund advance (up to 75% of building cost laid out by the U.S. Shipping Board, then the maritime agency of the federal Govt. As the transport WAKEFIELD, the MANHATTAN had a serious fire during World War II and reconversion to her prior status was financially out of the question. As for the WASHINGTON, you may know that she had a partial postwar conversion and operated through 1950 for US Lines and then did some work carrying military dependents. Debuting in 1933 by 1950, the not fully reconverted ship was no longer competitive in the high end of the trade so no one wanted to invest any money in her. U.S. Lines did not own her after the war, the government did.

The current builders of cruise ships i.e. France, Germany and Scandinavia are hardly countries of low wages! I'm sure that these yards have unions too. The whole issues is a very complex one. I don't claim to fully know the answer.

But to me, based on what I have read here, it seems like it IS primarily the unions and government bureacracy involved to keep American liners from operating. As many as 17 different unions on one ship? And the logistics surrounding the American liners, well, I had to read it TWICE, it was so confusing.

Well trained though American crews can be, the tradition of service is not really what it could be, and incidences of rudeness and union militancy wrecked the reputation of American liners... World over, the cry was heard.. "No one travels in an American ship"...

Vulcania, maybe America's failure to accept that all nations now form part of a globalised economy was there downfall?