Jump to content

chengkp75

Members
  • Posts

    21,832
  • Joined

Everything posted by chengkp75

  1. Please check this very carefully. Most hubs that have both power outlets and USB ports are surge protected. While useful for land use in Europe, it is a fire hazard on ships. If it has a "protected" LED, or has a "VPN" in the specifications on the back, then it is surge protected.
  2. This states it is a surge protector, so it is not compatible with shipboard systems, and is a fire hazard.
  3. While you may have "been allowed" to use a surge protector in the past, they were a danger then and are a danger now. For things that can charge from USB, use a multi-USB hub (one without power outlets, as these tend to be surge protected) for 3-8 devices. Make sure it only has a two prong plug, as this ensures it is not surge protected. USB external chargers are another option, as noted in #5 above.
  4. Yes, that's why I differentiated it from the roll-over disasters.
  5. Plus all the moose and grizzly bears doing their business in the pristine stream.
  6. First off, again, Canadian waters are not "off limits to cruise ships" that are in the process of "innocent passage". Canada has been a supporter of the concept of "innocent passage" for decades, and the cruise ship ban did nothing to stop that. So, even if the ships require a Canadian pilot, that is allowed, as they are in "innocent passage" in the Strait. But, I don't believe they require a Canadian pilot if the ship leaves from Seattle, only if leaving from Vancouver. I have transited the Strait many times, and we always use the Port Angeles pilots for both inbound and outbound transits.
  7. As Paul says, the longshoremen would survive without the cruise ships. And, you could either take a car on the ferries between Juneau and Skagway and Ketchikan, or go without a car on either ferry or flight and rent a car in each city.
  8. And, so the "boutique" American Constellation offers an 8 day for $7000 for a balcony, and the Uncruise Safari Endeavour (which doesn't have balconies) offers a 13 day for $5000. Makes them really exclusive.
  9. 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 (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, as the laws of unintended consequences will lead to many issues down the road. 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. 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. 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.
  10. So, you would prefer to see that tourism support an industry where the vast majority of the tourist dollars spent by the passenger go out of the US economy, rather than promoting anything that would keep more money in the US? Come on, its all about a cheap vacation.
  11. Well, cruising only accounts for about 50% of Alaska tourism, could they do more to attract customers via flights? Do you think that if the Murkowski bill passes, and that it requires US flag for the "waived" ships, as it appears to, that the cheap fares will continue on the larger ships? Why do you think that NCL's Hawaii cruises are so expensive? As for Hawaii, is there really a sustainable market for one way transport from the mainland to Hawaii by sea? If there was, those ships could go there. And, ships smaller than the Constellation could easily sail to Hawaii, as the NatGeo Endeavour II sails from the Galapagos to Peru regularly.
  12. This is correct, and since CC makes up only a small percentage of the cruising demographic, CLIA sees no great demand for a change to something that could negatively affect their business. Look at the CBP decision back in 2007 (IIRC) when NCL wanted a change to the PVSA, and CBP decided that in addition to disallowing technical stops, they would require that the majority of port time be spent in foreign ports to qualify for closed loop cruises. That would really have dealt a death blow to the Alaska cruise market.
  13. Again, you don't understand international maritime law. Even the current ban on cruise vessels "in Canadian waters" specifically mentions the precedent of "innocent passage", and states that "innocent passage" still applies. Innocent passage means that even when a country claims jurisdiction over coastal waters, any ship of any nation, engaged in simple transit through those waters cannot be prohibited. There are definitions of actions that a ship claiming "innocent passage" cannot take, like stopping at a port, anchoring, engaging in fishing, etc, and in fact, the cruise ships currently leaving Seattle for Alaska transit Canadian waters, as the outbound traffic separation lane from Seattle runs through Canadian waters. And, no, the Constellation and Independence class of ships for American Cruise lines are "Coastal Ships" by their own description. And, the Constellation is currently making the voyage from Washington to Alaska without stopping in Canada, and does so through Canadian waters. Her sister ship, the Constitution, sails from Newport, RI to Bucksport, ME, in the open ocean. And, finally, remember that it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, not the Cruise Vessel Services Act, so even if you don't consider American Cruise line's ships to be "cruise ships", they are still covered by the PVSA.
  14. First off, if you knew the US maritime industry, you would know that it wasn't the "protectionist" laws like the PVSA or the Jones Act that decimated the industry, but the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, which actually gave subsidies to US flag ships (covering the entire difference in construction and operating a US flag ship compared to a foreign flag ship), which encouraged growth of the US merchant marine before WW2, but which stifled innovation in favor of easy subsidies, which killed our fleet. The Jones Act fleet has not been decimated by the Jones Act, but the foreign-going fleet of US flag ships has been. Tell me what in the Jones Act affects a US flag ship that trades to foreign countries? Not a thing, because the Jones Act or the PVSA apply strictly to domestic trade. Do you know that you can have a US flag ship that is built overseas? That ship cannot trade domestically, but it can trade internationally, but must meet all US laws, other than the Jones Act or PVSA. But, let's not let details get in the way. American Constellation, Safari Endeavour, Wilderness Discoverer, Wilderness Explorer, Safari Explorer, Wilderness Adventurer, Legacy, National Geographic Quest and Venture, three or four ships from Alaskan Dream cruises, to name some US flag cruise vessels, without going to the AMH ships you denigrate. And, if tourism to Alaska, for those who wish to stay and really spend some money in the state, rather than a few hours at the shops in cruise ports, was that important to the state, they would increase the fleet of AMH vessels, or at least subsidize them properly. Why do you think that Sen. Murkowski has placed a minimum passenger size on her attempt to waive the PVSA? Because all of those ships named above are below that limit, and she doesn't want them to reflag out, while the cheap, foreign ships are all larger.
  15. What is barring free passage between the mainland and two of our states? Nothing. Can you take a foreign airline between two of our states? What you really want is cheap passage between the mainland and two states. Let's call it what it really is.
  16. Regarding LNG bunkering. A ship takes far too much LNG for trucking to be a viable source. Currently, Carnival is using an LNG barge to bring product from Savannah, GA, to Port Canaveral. I believe there is a "terminal" here that takes the LNG from the barge, and then discharges it to the ship, rather than a straight barge to ship transfer, or at least that is the plan. There are also plans for LNG storage tanks there. With regards to PEV, the reason it may not be getting LNG fueling capability, or not have it yet, is it requires an EPA license, and you need storage facilities. Even using an existing gas pipeline, of which there may not be sufficient excess capacity, you would need a re-liquifaction plant as well as storage facilities. The liquifaction plant needs EPA approval as well. Residents' reluctance to have a natural gas plant in the city is also a concern. Yes, the ships are "dual fuel", as are all marine diesels utilizing LNG, since LNG will not self-ignite (diesel engine cycle) without a spark plug. The ship can operate on any blend of fuel from 95% LNG to 100% liquid fuel (just to mention that LNG is a fossil fuel as well), and while the class societies require sufficient liquid fuel to get the ship back to port if the LNG system fails, not sure that there is sufficient tankage of diesel/residual fuel to make up for lack of LNG completely during a cruise. I don't know what they've been doing on Mardi Gras, but I would assume that there are even more stringent restrictions on passengers during LNG bunkering.
  17. Yes. That is one of the true accidents, while the majority of them have been due to overloading and improper stability (tipping over). Much like the Golden Ray, a Ro/Ro that capsized off Savannah, GA a couple years back, and which the NTSB attributed to "improper stability calculations" (duh).
  18. Thanks. The exemption was passed in 1984. I was not aware of those services, but each lasted about a year, from what I see, and ended due to lack of demand. So, in 37 years, three cruise lines tried PVSA cruises, and all failed within a year. Sort of shows how little the demand for PVSA cruises actually is, as CLIA has noted.
  19. What was the itinerary of those cruises? Did they include the ABC islands?
  20. Because all the foreign flag ships are larger than this, and the existing US flag cruise ships are smaller than this, and the Senator does not want to create the opportunity for those small cruise ship lines to flag their ships foreign. If her bill only wants to give waivers to foreign flag ships, and not to only waive the US built clause, then the bill is a bit of hypocrisy, in that it forces the smaller ships to still operate under the economic hardship of US flag, while giving the store away to the foreign ships.
  21. Simplistically, and from a cruise only viewpoint, it might work. The first problem is that I don't believe the current waiver is on sound legal ground, with the wording that the cruises are "deemed" to be foreign because the ship sent an email to Canada's immigration agency, and the foreign crew are "deemed" to be leaving the US again simply because the ship sent an email to Canada. The next problem is that you are creating a precedent for allowing foreign flag ships to operate domestically, without having to adhere to US law. Even though the existing US flag cruise ships that operate to Alaska have a different demographic from the mainstream cruise lines, why should they be held to a large economic hardship of having to meet all the requirements of being US flag, when the other cruise lines aren't. Secondly, foreign flag ships operating domestically fall afoul of more than just the PVSA. The crew are not allowed to work in the US, except as crew on foreign voyages, so even if US labor organizations agreed to allow this to happen, the crew would need work visas, not crew visas. While the existing Alaska Tourism Recovery Act passed easily because it was seen as a covid relief measure, future extensions would require a whole lot more lobbying and support than before. Any further extension of this waiver would, as the Congressman from Colorado(?) (Nevada?) proposed, would get sent to committee where USCG, Homeland, and State departments would weigh in, and also lobby groups like the maritime labor unions, the US Chamber of Shipping, and others.
  22. At least 12 true ferries or passenger vessels.
  23. No, what he is proposing is that no nation, anywhere, has jurisdiction over any part of the ocean. Great, then tankers can go back to cleaning tanks by dumping crude oil in buckets over the side, and cruise ships can go back to dumping tons of plastic bags full of trash into the ocean every night. Sure would make my life easier.
  24. You can tell the EU what to do about as much as I can tell our government what to do. But, even setting the EU aside, if passengers don't need protection from "exploding steamboats", then why does the Netherlands have different safety regulations for Dutch flag ships, and not just follow the IMO like the "flags of convenience" ships do?
  25. Be sure to send your cruise expense math to the cruise lines, they obviously don't understand that it would be so inexpensive to hire US crew. As I've explained many times, even the US Maritime Administration, which is supposed to support and promote US flag shipping, has found that it costs over 3 times as much, total operating cost, to operate a US flag ship over a foreign flag ship. Of that 3 times cost, the largest is the crew cost, which even for a ship with only 20-25 crew, is nearly 5 times what a foreign crew would make. And, again, before you cast your stones about the PVSA, tell the EU to end their cabotage laws as well. Don't see any big furor over that. But, I decline to be dragged into another fruitless argument with you.
×
×
  • Create New...