>>1499841Skagway is a terrible example because there is nothing there other than old buildings and a historic railroad that cruise lines have turned into their version of Disney Land. It has about 500 year around residents, which don't really benefit much from cruise tourism because the cruise lines double that population with seasonal workers. The wealth and spending doesn't stay in town except for a handful of local businesses. Meanwhile Ketchikan is actually a working, if remote, town that serves as a major commercial fishing port as well as an air and water transportation hub for SE Alaska.
Both of these towns see a miniscule fraction of the actual cruise passenger spending. Most people book their excursions with the cruise line, and the actual operators either get payed a fraction after the cruise takes it's cut, or were on cruise line payroll all along. Similar story for most of the tourist shops within 1/4-1/2 mile of the docks. They're all owned by the same big companies, some cruise-line owned some not. They all sell the exact same shit with a different port's name emblazoned on it. Almost none of that money is going to locals, and you will constantly hear about local businesses getting bought out by the travel chains and rarely seeing cruise customers as a result because people either pack into a cruise-branded excursion bus or won't walk more than 1000 yards from the boat.
Without the cruise industry, you'd still have tourism to Alaska because you'd still have the shitload of seaplane airlines and the government ferry that make transportation possible at all, and you'd still have the natural beauty that's the primary reason people go to Alaska to begin with. It'd be much healthier for both the environment and the region though, because now you've cut out a shitload of pollution, store properties near the port aren't inflated so high that locals can't afford it, and tourists are now actually spending in more local shops.
