Yesterday I blogged about some of the efforts that have been directed towards Haiti and relief for the survivors of the January 12 quake. As mentioned there and in GT‘s January 21 edition of the eFlyer newsletter, a number of businesses in the travel industry have stepped up to offer large donations of supplies, money and aid. One company, Royal Caribbean International, has received a lot of attention over the past week for the decision it has made to continue port calls of its cruise ships at the line’s private resort in Haiti.

The company’s CEO, Richard D. Fain, in a letter on RCCL’s website, explained why they decided to continue to bring cruise guests to Labadee, located some 60 miles from Port au Prince and undamaged by the quake. He outlined the company’s ties to Haiti: a relationship that dates back over 20 years, hundreds of Haitians employed on the ships and at the resort, previous and future plans to provide humanitarian aid to the people. He noted that a broad spectrum of people, from taxi drivers to the U.N. Special Envoy of the Government of Haiti, had asked that Royal Caribbean continue to provide its vital revenue stream to the country in the form of tourist dollars. The website also notes the many ways that RCCL is providing aid beyond those dollars: a pledge of at least $1 million, supplies delivered with every ship docking, a promise that 100 percent of the net revenues from those port calls goes to relief efforts, and providing guests the opportunity to make donations directly by putting a charge on their onboard accounts.

In scanning through the comments to this letter and to the blog of Adam Goldstein, Royal Caribbean International’s CEO, I see that the majority of respondents are in favor of the company’s decision to continue its cruise visits to Labadee and praise the aid being provided. There are some sharp objections as well, though. One writer asks why at least one of the ships isn’t offered for use as a safe haven for Haitians and/or rescue workers. Another asks why Royal Caribbean places guests in proximity to “the Horror” and doesn’t simply provide monetary compensation to the vendors who would be impacted by the ships going elsewhere. One woman who is booked on a February cruise firmly states that she does not wish to go to Haiti but cannot get a refund from either the cruise line or her travel insurance if she cancels. I have to admit that I agree with her when she writes: “To vacation in such proximity to a disaster zone of this magnitude is disgusting. It’s not a zoo . . . .” Others express security concerns and worry about the spread of infectious diseases. Bizarrely, one man suggested that the company  organize special shore excursions which would allow cruise guests to tote backbacks loaded with relief supplies to areas in need!! (For a wise discussion of “Voluntourism,” see Richard Newton’s article on the subject in the January 2009 issue of Global Traveler.)

I’m curious what our educated and well-traveled readers think about this controversy. Do you think Royal Caribbean has made a wise decision in continuing its port calls to its resort on Haiti at this time? If you were booked on such a cruise, how would you feel about that part of the itinerary? Would you cancel the cruise? Go, but stay on the ship, or go ashore and spend liberally and donate heavily? What say you?

— Patty Vanikiotis, proofreader