Rumor has It ......

Sell the MQ and use the money to refurb the DQ!

I doubt that the DQ without the exemption is very valuable. Conversion to anything else will be expensive AND eliminate the Historical Landmark status too, IMHO. That may be our only saving grace!

text removed....................

MAL just doesn't get it - we've posted ad nauseum about the advantages of the DQ over the MQ: costs, revenue, probability of filling up each boat, interminable operating problems of the MQ, etc. But obviously the only thing MAL is looking at is the size of the MQ and its POTENTIAL to carry more passengers than the DQ. It has the POTENTIAL to bring in more revenue. That's it... no GUARANTEE or even REASONABLE PROBABILITY of more profit than the DQ... Size does matter apparently.... yet that goes against what they stated in their 3Q conference call, the desire to reduce berths to drive up per diem rates! duh... offer 718+ berths at 30 mil or so renovation costs, vs. offering 592 berths with NO major renovation costs... guess that's why the AMIE stock has gone from 48 to 12 in a year. Robert Mosier, get busy and straighten them out!!!!

I am in agreement with your summary. If one seeks to reduce, then the MQ should be the one to sit on the sidelines. But, in my opinion, it appears that they would rather pour money into a mistake and create another potential mistake. The DQ is the showpiece, even if it isn't the flagship of the company. It is a true original and a national landmark. The MQ is a phony and a national mistake. It is a product of it's times. The 70s were about phoniness and similarities. It is similar to a steamboat, but not quite. Pleather (plastic leather) is similar to leather, too. But, how many want a phony, when they can have the real thing? I know that others will point out that the AQ is not a true steamboat like the DQ, but it has more of the steamboat characteristics we like from the DQ than the MQ does. Wide open decks, unique public gathering rooms, places to sit outside, and a more steamboaty look. MAL has made positive sounding statements as of late, but if they really had a long term interest in the DQ, they would be $ending Congre$$ me$$age$ to save their boat. As was pointed out once before, if you own something you care about, and someone else wants to take that away, one normally fights. We haven't seen much of a fighting spirit from MAL. Could one infer something from the plummeting stock price? Does the current free fall indicate that Wall Street insiders think that the DQ should be saved and are displeased by what they've seen these past few months? Just an observation, but it would be interesting if research proved that this was one of the reasons.

Becky and I spent a night on the Delta King earlier this month. The rumor in Sacramento is that there are people in Stockton, California interested in returning the Delta Queen to that location.

Yes, that is true. Some of us have been contacted by them regarding info about the DQ...

Wouldn't that be a historic turn of events. The boat that traversed the Panama Canal once would do it again, and return to it's place of birth, California. I'm guessing that this would please MAL, in some respects, because a potential competitor (assuming a sale and a Congressional exemption) would be thousands of miles away.

But, if the DQ were to operate elsewhere in the US, the DQ faithful would follow, meaning lost business for MAL. Cousin Pete could elaborate on how people didn't necessarily flock to other GM car lines, when one of them was retired a few years back. GM thought that the customers would remain and consider the other GM car lines. They were wrong. Many have already expressed their love for the DQ. I doubt they would remain fiercely loyal MAL customers if the DQ was operated by another company, despite MAL still having the other Queens. How many are currently loyal Delaware North customers? Afterall, they have other vacation alternatives, just not cruises.

Keep the DQ on the Miss/Ohio system and grant the exemption!

The Sacramento situation would be a non-operating one, just a second hotel to partner with the DK...

I figured that, so that's why I pointed out a few what-ifs in my posting. Hey, a Sacramento-based DQ hotel could still operate as a steamboat, right? They just need less than 50 passengers! What silliness. You can cruise on a mostly wooden boat close to shore, only if it has less than 50 passengers. Or, you can operate as a stationary hotel, close to shore, with as many guests as you want. Of course, fires only occur on moving vessels, not stationary. And, the other stationary wooden vessels have all of the same fire retardant materials and safety precautions as the DQ, right? With that logic Congressman, would you like to purchase some swamp land in Florida? The DQ is and will continue to be safe, even as a cruising steamboat.

Non-operation would be a tragedy, Stockton does NOT have the demographics to support a DQ hotel, and they would have to modify her so much, remove the machinery, she would just be a shell of her former self. IF this happens, I would hope the machinery would go into a DQ2 built to the (or nearly so) lines and specs as the DQ, but of ugly metal (can they cover it with wood?).
The DK has financial problems too, according to folks onboard there last year. It is EXPENSIVE to restore and operate a boat as a hotel/convention center.
Much as I'd love to have her back here (and then maybe I could work on board???) there aren't enough interesting places to go on the Sacramento water systems to keep people onboard for a week. Keep her running and keep her on the Mississippi & nearby river systems--after all, she's been there 3 times longer than she was here.
S'
David D.

Potential new owner from here in the Nashville area? I can think of only one company, and I know what they would try to do with it.

I hope this news continues to be just a "rumor."