Comments on: The Roaming Gnome Busted for 1,458 Trips to Cuba

By: Edward Hasbrouck

Edward Hasbrouck — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:15:00 +0000

You refer to the recipinet of the 2002 letter form OFAC as, “probably Travelocity, Orbitz or Expedia”.

I think it actually highly unlikely, based on on my knowledge of the industry (particularly the online market for discounted international airline tickets) and the reference in the OFAC letter to “a business model in which [redacted] acquires inventory at discounted wholesale prices from suppliers for resale at more competitive prices to customers. [Redacted] transactions include the sale of negotiated rate air tickets, hotel rooms and trip packages….”

Orbitz was create by airlines precisely to give them control over pricing, and to avoid what they perceived as a problem of prices to end customers being set by intermediaries (including online and offline travel agencies). Orbitz sells air tickets only at prices published by airlines, and never at prices based on “negotiated rates”. So the recipient of the 2002 letter definitely wasn’t Orbitz.

Particularly since 11 September 2001, Travelocity and Expedia have sold a significant volume of *hotel nights” obtained at negotiated rates, but that segment of their business was small, and definitely not something they would have described (particularly when requesting an OPAC opinion that was isseud in April 2002, and was presumably requested some time earlier) as a significant part of their business model. Moreover, sales of *air tickets* obtained at negotiated rates by Expedia and Travelocity are a small portion of their air ticket sales, were an even smaller portion of their air sales in 2002, and have never been a central part of their business model.

I suspect that the recipient of the 2002 letter was some other travel agency (with an online presence) more focused on the discount market including sales of “consolidator” tickets, rather than an exclusively published-fare agency (Orbitz) or one for whom international air tickets were a minor and low-priority portion of their product mix (Travelocity or Expedia). There are many possible candidates (Priceline would be the largest), and no real clue in the OFAC letter as to which it was.

By: Willie Suarez

Willie Suarez — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:53:52 +0000

First of all, I not only respect but love the idea of people like Henry fighting for the Freedom of my Island.
However Henry, the embargo is old news. Listen, unlike you I do have almost my entire family in Cuba, and they and they alone are suffering the consecuense of the strugle between Castro and those whom are keeping the embargo alive.
With out a doubt Castro deserve to die now, with out a doubt he was and is a dictator, but I hardly doubt that him and him alone are responsibles for the destruction of my Island. Castro and his people along those of you whom for years have been fighthing for the Cuba that no longer exist and us, the Cubans like me whom decided to scape the Island instead of stay and fight the goverment are responsible for everything that happen to Cuba.

Henry I am sure you do have the best intentions in your heart when it come to your fight for Cuba, but brother I think you are fighting for the Cuba of your Mom and Dad, and that Cuba is long gone thanks to Castro, thanks to all of those Cuban like your parents whom scape early on, thanks to me for doing the same.

No more embargo please. At this point I don’t give rat shit if Castro people get some or most of my money, all I care if for my family and littler sister to eat while they are alive. (But what do you care, your twins are going to have a great meal every evening here in Miami righgt)

By: Joe Shea

Joe Shea — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 07:20:12 +0000

I was in Cuba in June. It’s a sad place, but Old Havana is booming – the hotels were full of young tourists, and the restaurants were doing well. I really enjoyed my stay. I was there under a US Treasury license for journalists. From my perspective, the embargo and sanctions are just ridiculous. We placed them on Cuba because we felt betrayed by its brief liaison with Russian nuclear warheads, and the punishment was well-deserved. 30 years later, it’s just proof we have mntop grown an inch as a nation, and our foreign policy is as bad as always – that’s all it proves. Cuba, meanwhile, does the best it can, struggling forward as mcuh as tourist dollars will permit. There is almost no crime, which is a nice thing, and the people are more open about their lives and circumstances than capitalists would be. It’s efreshing to hear them as they talk constantly – conversation is a dead art hjere, while they’re living in what is almsot a pre-television age. They have tremendous artists and chefs who make do with very little and can really forget about any kind of fame of financial reward, which ironically has taken the money re off and let them bloom, however much in isolation. They are completely unindated by adveretising. To the same degree that we have it absolutely everywhere, they have it nowehere, and that is wonderful. Also, and this is the greatest thing, going to Cuba is very much lkike taking a trip back into the 1950’s. That was an era I really liked, and it was wonderful to travel back in time and be there again. On the expropriations, frankly, the gangsters are all in Miami now and they complain the loudest. Sorry about your casino, Mo Dalitz – that’s life. The United States ahould have a foreign policy uindepndent of all lobbyists, whether for Korea or China or Israel or Cuba – let’s have a foreign policy that is good for all Americans, not just a few. I say, end the sanctions and embargo now and begin a new “Era of Good Feeling” with all our Latin neighbors. Otherwise, let’s watch Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and others peel away from our sphere of influence into that of homegrown socialists like Chavez, relationships that will then be fully exploited by the Chinese. Just to buttress that, China is Cuba;s strongest ally now – even though there are few Chinese in Cuba, there are three 24-hour Chinese stations on Cuban TV. We’re not any better off vis a vis the Russian influence because the Chinese influence is potentially far worse and far more dangerous, if faer more subtle, long term and insidious.

By: Matthew J. Lancaster

Matthew J. Lancaster — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:00:14 +0000

Anyone care to shed some light on Guantanamo Bay? How do US companies, under the existing US regulatory framework, supply the needs of a US military presence in a country which is the subject of a unilateral embargo?

I’d be interested to know if anyone has had any practical experience in this area and wisdom to share.

By: Tony Economou

Tony Economou — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:11:22 +0000

Forget your foreign policy arguments, this embargo is about electoral votes in Florida (hinging on the Cuban-Americans opposed to Castro). Everything else is just for show.

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:21:05 +0000

rsnlk, you seem to be all over the place. You say that we need to embargo Cuba to protect some principle about seizing American property (in which case, of course, we need to embargo many more countries) but that it’s okay to ship agricultural products under TSRA. Which is it?

And your South Africa argument is a bit of a straw man. My opposition is to unilateral sanctions, not multilateral sanctions such as were imposed on South Africa. Even so, I have reservations about multilateral sanctions as well inasmuch as they often harm people that are not the intended targets of the sanctions.

By: rsnlk

rsnlk — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:27:43 +0000

Mr. Burns, I see you have introduced new factors. So, here goes:
1. Food, interpreted quite liberally to include items such as lumber, and medicine are not covered by the embargo.
2. Shipping costs may be related to distance shipped, but China doesn’t seem to have any difficulty in stocking our shelves at lower prices than we could ever provide to Cuba. By the way, that was coy.

The embargo was placed on Cuba for seizing millions of dollars of American holdings in Cuba and refusing to pay for it. As the regime continues to refuse to negotiate the point, lifting it would essentially establish the principle that American property in foreign countries can be seized with impunity.

There is another dimension here from my perspective as a Cuban American. It was deemed laudable to apply sanctions in South Africa over apartheid, but a faux embargo against a regime that holds its citizens hostage is somehow wrong.

I do not hope to convince you, but rather I want to make sure that other readers of this blog know that there are two sides to this story. Oh, and I was taught Cuba is ninety miles away.

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:51:06 +0000

Of course, rsnlk, you are right — an embargo by a country 60 miles from Cuba has absolutely no impact upon the economic well-being of Cuba. Fortunately for Cuba, shipping costs are unrelated to distance shipped. How silly of me not to realize this.

Of course, since the embargo, therefore, has no economic impact on Cuba, then what is the point of the embargo? What does it accomplish in that case?

By: rsnlk

rsnlk — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:45:01 +0000

Clif Burns:
If Cuba is free to trade with the rest of the world, isn’t it a bit presumptuous to think that the low wages and impoverishment of ordinary Cubans is linked to the embargo?
Rather more likely, they are linked to mismanagement and a failed economic system which has flourished nowhere in the world it has been tried. To anticipate the next objhection, as Cuban Pete indicates, both Vietnam and China have moved away from economic marxism.

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:04:53 +0000

CA Sandra: I’m certainly not saying that Cuba is a nice place. But more than 40 years of a unilateral embargo haven’t made it any nicer either