Jump to content

JRG

Members
  • Posts

    879
  • Joined

Everything posted by JRG

  1. I think we are all getting a little carried away with the drill-down here....that might be against the new CC rules too... not sure. How about we all just agree that cruising is a 'little more risky' than everyday life right now and leave it at that. (unless you wondering if you were on one of those infected cruises, that is different).
  2. Thank you for not lecturing. And Thank you for not referring to us passengers as " The Herd". (we never forget) And Thank you for umpiring softball games for 33 years, a truly remarkable achievement!
  3. It's been "Pump it and Dump it" for the cruiselines approach to Caribbean sailings since they restarted, everybody is caught up in the same "Value Trap" too. I'd put a "Trailing Stop" on this cruise if it gets worse and do what we did... book a week at Aviara Carlsbad or try Pelican Hill Resort in Newport Coast. Both are really nice resorts in good locations and you won't get the Q-tip up the nose.
  4. I'm not buying this notion that the new E-muster will fail. I'm not buying it this year and I didn't buy into it last year either. In fact, I specifically remember blowing this bad notion out of the airlock when the CC audience was being subjected to long pompous lectures which would dribble off into subjects that were not relevant (like the thickness of the polypropylene life rafts that mariners use to train with during emergencies). Its a good change and I'm glad it happened. Happy Cruising Everybody!
  5. The industry is still in duress but its good we haven't seen a second wave of ship dispositions, yet. Its basically like "any port in a storm" although its "any model in a storm" as far as the cruiselines and their business models are concerned. Be careful flaunting your expertise when it comes to discussing profitability, Also, It seems unorthodox to use the term 'PVSA Market' this way, that seems artificial. I see it as a potential market opportunity that may exist and if it does the market leaders will react and capitalize and the market followers will follow. It is a cruising market, and we are talking about a segment of that market, specifically Alaskan cruising. No need to muddy up the waters. `
  6. Your presentation and arguments are very effective. I agree with much of what you have presented here and I'm convinced the tide has turned in favor of diminishing PVSA and its counter-effectiveness. The Temporary Permanent Alaska Bill has been the first domino to fall, it will be followed by a reprieve of the restrictions holding back B2B bookings/sailings, and that be the catalyst for the elimination of Ensenada as a unnecessary stop followed by a change in the domestic routes for Gulf and Eastern Seaboard sailings. Everything is pointing to elimination of the distant and foreign port concept as the need to update laws 'specific' to cruising has emerged and will continue to be front and center. The need for Americans to sail within nearby coasts has been increased because of Covid -19 causing the vacation squeeze play that has gripped everybody. Insurance reasons notwithstanding, retired cruisers and those with marginal perhaps health issues may now prefer coastal sailings vs. worldwide longer sailings for more health reasons than existed pre-Covid. The market (cruiselines) will react to this opportunity by testing the waters to see if pent-up demand from drive-to-port customers can support a short-term impetus or become a viable part of their long-term strategic planning. This is one of the biggest legislative movements we have ever seen for cruising fans, there is no way to ignore that, and if you can't see that then you may be too close to the forest for the trees. p.s. if you are clueless enough to think that this is the 'marketing' people and the 'marketing research' that is speaking, you are wrong, it is about 'Product Management' and those people 'Product Managers' who call the shots these days. FYI. When you hear the phrase "The Market gets what it Wants' it is because of "Market Opportunities" or removal of "Barriers to Entry" help to make it work.
  7. @intr3pid has taken all of the air (and gas) out of the anti-PVSA change balloon. Every single point I have trying to make about CONFUSING THE DISCUSSION using global cabotage terms to address coastwise cruiseline transportation issues have now been spelled out in splendid detail. The mariners who claim to have knowledge in this area have not been able to understand the core principles and that has been confusing the the general cc audience, and the constant hand-wringing, gum-mashing and pining (whatever that is) from the snowbird gallery who support the status quo has finally met its twisted fate. The article that @Ken the cruiser shared has shed a broad light on the background issues, so that the average John and Jack cruiser can see what the real problem has been here on CC, that is, a gross perpertuation of wrong information regarding PVSA largely because of the confusion generated when you start applying global cabotage to coastline transportation for cruiseships in the US. Everyone is now much better updated with information and I expect the rest of the PVSA anti-change personnel to abandon that ship (if they have not already done so) .
  8. We need to say good-bye to the hyperbole, this is just pure comedy to me and its playing out like the TV series LOST where they just make up the script from week to week. Who threw the bone? The USCG?, DHS, somebody back in the 1800's maybe, Grover Cleveland Alexander? Get over it, PVSA, as it relates to cruising is changing before our very eyes and that is a good thing.
  9. The time for hyperbole has come and gone.(I hope). The facts that remain are that legislature is addressing the very issues about PVSA that adversely affect cruising and US port economies. Most of the talking points have been championed already and are now beyond worthwhile discussion with the naysayers. Nobody has been able to "Pull out the Sword from the Stone", that is, explaining how PVSA helps cruising, it doesn't. It's time for the naysayers who oppose updating the law to finally, (metaphorically speaking) , Fall on the Sword and admit that the times have changed and they have been wrong about their opinions on PVSA, and now is the time to jump on the winning bandwagon.
  10. This is where you make the critical error. The tax and immigration issues are being treated the same way viz a viz as they would be currently (or pre-covid). Nothing more is gained or lost (to those who would collect such taxes )except for the re-distribution of cruising booty ($4billion annually) more going back to the US ports, so that Seattle and the WC get a larger proportion of the current cruising revenue at current capacities. It is folly to think that other foreign states or bad guys will suddenly appear with a cruise ship and paying passengers from another country ready to crash our ports, it is just not going to happen as this part of the sky is definitely going to come falling down. So, you cannot defend any argument which says that there will be tax or immigration or duty sales tax issue because they are being dealt with in the corresponding legislature. They are being dealt with and you will have no worries. In other words, it was beautifully sidestepped because the law is obsolete for this century, cruising came into existence in the 60's and was 'Grandfathered' into the web of leftover PVSA coastline transportation law. It needs to be updated to reflect the times so that the itineraries are not restricted as they have been, including B2B's. I'd be happy to spend the extra day skipping V&V and just circum-navigating Vancouver Island in the long days of summer, as one alternative. Covid 19 exposed the vulnerability of the US and Alaskan economies to its PVSA laws and when Canada closed ports there was no choice but to make the changes and the extension or waiver will probably be extended if not replaced by the bills in play.
  11. I'm going to re-print part of your quote here as I think you have described it precisely. Public awareness is a big part of encouraging the change. With 5 bills now having been played, 1 unanimously passed, 3 in the hopper and 1 freshly introduced I see alot of legislative momentum and bi-partisan support (believe it or not). The time is right to make the changes to the PVSA and finally free Willy. Somebody please wake up the Rip Van Winkles of the world.
  12. That's a great article Ken and it is fresh. I actually remember somebody posting a comment that the US should deem one of the Indian lands a foreign port to satisfy the PVSA and it went over like a lead balloon. It just goes to show that lawmakers are intent on dismantling the restrictions PVSA imposes on cruising one way or another and the bills are going to keep and keep coming. Interesting to see that the article closes with the comment that Canada needs to start lobbying with the cruise industry to make sure the bill does not pass. That is hilarious to me that Canada wants to lobby to prevent us from passing laws.
  13. I almost forgot....Fresh Halibut at $29.99 a pound, slow-cooked on med/low heat in cast iron butter works well and you can flip it to your flaky perfection. Thank you Alaska!
  14. And, the PVSA is still doing the job it was intended for, in the 21st century. It is protecting US waterways and keeping money in the US economy (How so? The Milkshake Theory says millions are being denied US ports) (though the latter was not one of the reasons the act was passed). If this bill is going to merely make permanent the waiver for foreign flag ships to operate domestically, then I have a supreme heartache with it(It will only allow for cruiseships not all ships with foreign flags), as the laws of unintended consequences will lead to many issues down the road. (It has already been ascertained The Sky Will Not come falling down, as it hasn't in Season 1 and probably won't in Season 2 of Covid 19) If this is, as the wording in Sen. Murkowski's release says, going to benefit US mariners, it will require US flagging of these foreign built ships, and as I've said, I don't have any real problem with that. Whether any cruise line will take advantage of such a situation is a different question. (This is why I keep saying Markets get what they want l and if CC can get a consensus voice maybe they can encourage the Travel Agents of America to do something.) If everyone was so concerned about the state of Alaska's tourism industry, they could have flown to Alaska (without a stop in Canada), and spent loads of money there. (there are many ways to support Alaska and its industries, we had fresh Alaskan Halibut $29.99 a pound yesterday. Using airline examples do not suffice as comparative analysis when looking at the PVSA for its coastline transportation restrictions. As far as CC is concerned, this has nothing to do with Alaska tourism, and everything to do with a cheap vacation of their choice. I believe Daniel A has a winning argument here. It is not about Cheap Vacations (evidenced by folks on the Viking Board who don't typically portray the bargain-hunting cheap vacation hunters). Its about updating a law, which can be argued at the Constitutional level for the 'need to change' Jeffersonian concept. It's about defending our soverignity so that we are not impeded by other nations denying access to or depriving economic benefit to the US amongst its own states through its waterways, however they may be classified. And it's about making clearer distinction between laws of Coastline Transportation(cruising, PVSA) and laws of Maritime significance (the Jones Act) to the audience in CC.
  15. What ruined the US Maritime Industry in its infancy was losing the 1-2 punch of FDR and Vice Admiral Howard L. Vickery, who died of a heart attack in 1946. He was the the mover and the shaker and the loss of his leadership, coupled with the red-tape congressional oversighting into the building of Liberty and Victory shipbuilding, which were NOT put out to contract overseas, left the Merchant Marine floundering. The incentive was first to build ships faster than subs could sink them first (for England) so they could be lent and leased to allies and then so that we could build them (Liberty and Victory ships) so that we could provide transportation for the war materiel and men and women needed to win the war. Everything fell apart after Admiral Vickery died at the age of 53. There is more to the history but at this moment in US shipbuilding it didn't have anything to do with what the what flag you were flying, there was only one flag that mattered.
  16. Meanwhile, there are two very pleasant posters discussing this very topic on the Viking board right now. I mention that to all HAL and Celebrity passengers and other passengers who follow the PVSA saga. I think that they have expressed things in a manner that all can appreciate.
  17. Unless, of course, the product management groups of the mass cruiselines are eavesdropping in hope of finding a good idea or two. That is what I would do. Nobody wants to see another loss of industry, like the Big Tuna, and Big Cruising came close and is still in dire straights, IMO, so as CLIA puts it, something like all options are on the table. Laws and Treatys can come and go in a NY minute, just ask France and Australia. I'd be curious what @Songbird would say about the PVSA snafu, he (she) had an interesting view of the world and I'd give a penny for their thoughts. Maybe it would help get the thread back on track too.
  18. For what reason though? Under normal circumstances when cruise ships can satisfy the law by a port stop in Canada, what would be the reason for exempting specific ships? I am going to respond to the post above, because I don't think @atanac received an accurate response, but I make it in declarative statement format as I have no intention of responding back. What @atanacis describing is the need to change the law, and the response to his post is talking about trying to SATISFY the Very LAW that needs to be changed. That is a redundant response to his question because he is not interested in satisfying the law, he (or she) is interested in changing it or deleting or revising it or whatever adjective a reader is using to describe the waiver.
  19. The examples for Puerto Rio are old hat, and I have dismissed them a few times before as they are not relevant for time and place and context. To derive the conclusion that CLIA has no interest in changing PVSA because of Puerto Rico is a side-bar distractive argument, at best.
  20. My gut feeling is that this is the meat and potatoes of the 3 bills that were introduced from the Honorable Senator from Utah, who is also a lawyer. There is strong connection between Utah and Hawaii, and I support the 3 bills he has championed.
  21. Thank you for echoing my thesis statement, which is not subject to change from peer pressure. Our country is cycling between nationalistic mode from its imperialism, as it has done a few times in our short history. Poor foreign policy, Brexit, Afganistexit, Covid-19 are just some of the catalysts. We need to maintain our sovereignty on principle alone but more importantly for domestic economic management. Thank you for keeping the pecking order visible.
  22. Wait till you see the higher fares that Canadian and all travelers encounter in the BNB marketplace, once they are free to travel around the country, and the rental cars, and the etc..etc..etc. Point being that everything is costing more, Vacation dollars and time demand are so pent up that desperate vacationers will pay the price, and for Americans giving up these ports in an Alaskan, West Coast or even a Hawaiian cruise will be a no brainer even if it is a higher cost, right now. I'm willing to bet that UK travelers would enjoy skipping Ensenada on the longer voyages, once they commence. So this is not just an American thing, it benefits everybody. I'm going to double down on my prediction that the Carbon Footprint Differential will take the decision out of everybody hands anyways. For now it seems like 'extensions' and "deeming' are the way to go.
  23. Not with the way the market will react when they ease out of unnecessary stops at Ensenada, Victoria and Vancouver. All the cruiselines have to do to test this is update the intinerary for planned sailings and they can watch the customers shuffle to take advantage. Especially true if the B2B restriction goes bye-bye. It would be like fishing in a barrel. The cruiselines will be chomping at the bit to eliminate Ensenada from the WC sailings and they will be just as happy to cut down on the Vancouver and Victoria stops by enabling Seattle to carry the load, they will never eliminate Vancouver or Victoria, just re-allocate the tourism booty back to the US. Maybe we can cleanup the infra-structure of the Alaskan Marine Highway which appears to have been grossly neglected over the years with re-allocated tourism tax dollars and actually be able to SAIL ON OUR OWN US HIGHWAY WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE A FORIEGN STOP.
  24. I've referred to this 'inequity' as the Milkshake Theory, with Canada and Mexico enjoying the benefit of drinking our Milkshake (the tourism dollars associated herein). Congress just needs to re-distribute and the USGA and DHS will follow the law that is handed down to them. Let's not forget the pecking order here folks. Good post @atanac!
×
×
  • Create New...