Will Alaska Cruises Substitute Mexico for Canada When they Restart?

[chengkp75]

45 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

No private island they can create in Canada😜?

Even private islands have to conform to the country's immigration policies.

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, jtwind said:

Does the cruise line actually have to let passengers go ashore at a foreign port?

Yes. Years ago they used to do a "sail by" at Ensenada to satisfy the PVSA foreign port requirement, but DHS put a stop to that practice .

[mom says]

If people are that desperate for Alaskan cruises, then why not just have closed loop cruises out of one of the Alaska ports? Solves the problem of finding a foreign port and eliminates too many sea days just to get there and back.

[njhorseman]

6 minutes ago, mom says said:

If people are that desperate for Alaskan cruises, then why not just have closed loop cruises out of one of the Alaska ports? Solves the problem of finding a foreign port and eliminates too many sea days just to get there and back.

Because a foreign-flagged ship...which means every ship owned by the major cruise lines (except NCL's  POA, which is restricted to Hawaii cruises) must make a foreign port call. Starting and ending the cruise in the same US port doesn't eliminate that requirement. That's why all the Alaskan cruises that start and end in Seattle make a port call in Canada.

Edited October 9, 2020 by njhorseman

[ilikeanswers]

25 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Even private islands have to conform to the country's immigration policies.

 

TBH it was a joke because I keep seeing that suggestion as a solution with Caribbean islands but countries do make execeptions so it wouldn't be far fetched to think of making a private island stop to keep cruisers away from the population. But I guess it would depend if cruise lines have something worthwhile to offer Canada to warrant making such an exception😝.

Edited October 9, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[SelectSys]

9 hours ago, sanger727 said:

...

Don’t forget that Mexico is not a distant foreign port so cruise would either be round trip from LA or would have to start in Mexico to incorporate Mexico into an Alaska cruise.

 

That was my original assumption, the cruise would start in LA or better yet in San Diego.

 

6 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 so let's say you plan to get to Russia from Anchorage.  It's 500 miles to the end of the Katmai Peninsula (so, two days steaming), and then another 500+ miles to the closest point of land in Russia, let alone a port.  So, figure 5 days each way to Russia, added to the Alaska part of the cruise.  Or, continue the Alaska adventure by going 1300 miles from Anchorage to Nome, and then Russia is only a stone's throw away.

 

I thought about Russia as well.  It might work for an Alaska based cruise but I dismissed it based on:

- distance to Russia from the Alaskan Peninsula

- seas may be rough

- limited port infrastructure in the north Pacific

- politics

 

6 hours ago, sanger727 said:

yes, I understand all that. I was more addressing the idea that IF Canada never allows cruise ships to return and they wanted to return sailing to Alaska. 

 

My assumption was that this was a temporary situation.  However, BC politics is quite progressive and there is a growing anti-cruise sentiment in the province and consideration of banning ships on the inside of Vancouver Island.  Maybe BC will attempt to limit cruising in the province although it would probably be challenged federally.

 

 

[Heidi13]

15 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

Maybe BC will attempt to limit cruising in the province although it would probably be challenged federally.

 

 

 

In Canada,  shipping and management of the navigable waterways is not within the Provincial Govt jurisdiction. It is a Federal Govt responsibility, so the Province would have to challenge/lobby the Federal Govt, if they wanted to restrict shipping on the West Coast.

 

The Provincial Govt however is responsible for health issues, so may continue to impose the current 14-day quarantine, which would prevent anyone from going ashore.

[Toofarfromthesea]

7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Someone's been listening to Sarah Palin too much.  "Isn't far from Alaska"?  Few cruise ships go north of Anchorage, as far as I know (some expeditions, yes), so let's say you plan to get to Russia from Anchorage.  It's 500 miles to the end of the Katmai Peninsula (so, two days steaming), and then another 500+ miles to the closest point of land in Russia, let alone a port.  So, figure 5 days each way to Russia, added to the Alaska part of the cruise.  Or, continue the Alaska adventure by going 1300 miles from Anchorage to Nome, and then Russia is only a stone's throw away.

 

The demographic and demand for cruises longer than 7 days is totally different than the 7 day or less cruises, so even a one way from Mexico to Alaska would have a somewhat limited demand.

How incredibly disappointing that someone who has provided so much accurate and knowledgable information to this board would gratuitously repeat a thoroughly discredited and debunked political canard to this board.  You know or should know that the proximity of Alaska and Russia was never said by her.  It was said by Tina Fey, playing her, on Saturday Night Live.  Be better.

[ColeThornton]

7 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

How incredibly disappointing that someone who has provided so much accurate and knowledgable information to this board would gratuitously repeat a thoroughly discredited and debunked political canard to this board.  You know or should know that the proximity of Alaska and Russia was never said by her.  It was said by Tina Fey, playing her, on Saturday Night Live.  Be better.

 

I'm pretty sure the Chief was making a joke.   Calm down, everything's fine.

[njhorseman]

19 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

How incredibly disappointing that someone who has provided so much accurate and knowledgable information to this board would gratuitously repeat a thoroughly discredited and debunked political canard to this board.  You know or should know that the proximity of Alaska and Russia was never said by her.  It was said by Tina Fey, playing her, on Saturday Night Live.  Be better.

But...the SNL joke  was based on a statement Palin actually made:

 

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0603/Political-misquotes-The-10-most-famous-things-never-actually-said/I-can-see-Russia-from-my-house!-Sarah-Palin

 

"It was actually comedian Tina Fey, who was impersonating Ms. Palin on Saturday Night Live, who uttered the line that is now widely attributed to the former Alaska governor.

The basis for this line comes from a September 2008 interview with ABC News's Charles Gibson, who asked Palin what insights she had from her state being so close to Russia. She responded: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

This is true. As Slate has pointed out, on a clear day, those on the Alaskan island of Little Diomede can see the Russian island of Big Diomede, located across the International Date Line some two and a half miles away. Given that Big Diomede has no permanent population, the amount of foreign policy experience one can gain from staring at it is debatable. But you can see Russian soil while standing in Alaska."

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by njhorseman

[martincath]

Actually Palin did indeed speak about Russia being visible from Alaska - she just didn't utter the commonly-referenced phrase about being able to see it from her house which was indeed Tina Fey's line. Full fact-checking, including video of Palin's actual statement, can be found on Snopes.

 

On the cruising Alaska via Mexico front - sure, for LA cruises that sounds feasible and if there are no other options to cruise AK from the US west coast it might even be popular enough to be financially viable... but I would not like to be the person who decides to take that risk!

 

Edit - somewhat redundant thanks to the post above which appeared while I was typing, but since I linked a different source I'll leave it in ;-)

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by martincath

[ontheweb]

40 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

In Canada,  shipping and management of the navigable waterways is not within the Provincial Govt jurisdiction. It is a Federal Govt responsibility, so the Province would have to challenge/lobby the Federal Govt, if they wanted to restrict shipping on the West Coast.

 

The Provincial Govt however is responsible for health issues, so may continue to impose the current 14-day quarantine, which would prevent anyone from going ashore.

And a 14 day quarantine would end having Vancouver as a foreign port for the purpose of following the PVSA, so it would in effect close down the port for cruise ships.

[SelectSys]

44 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

In Canada,  shipping and management of the navigable waterways is not within the Provincial Govt jurisdiction. It is a Federal Govt responsibility, so the Province would have to challenge/lobby the Federal Govt, if they wanted to restrict shipping on the West Coast.

 

Thanks for this insight.  I have seen the BC government try and stop pipeline projects from Alberta that were ultimately determined within the scope of the federal government to authorize. 

 

I wonder if BC could outlaw foreign flagged passenger vessels from berthing in their port cities such as Vancouver and Victoria...

 

14 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

 

The basis for this line comes from a September 2008 interview with ABC News's Charles Gibson, who asked Palin what insights she had from her state being so close to Russia. She responded: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

This is true.

 

 

Yep - totally non-issue.  There is a reason that "Seward's Folly" was previously Russian territory - assuming one wishes to ignore the property rights of the original inhabitants.

 

3 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And a 14 day quarantine would end having Vancouver as a foreign port for the purpose of following the PVSA, so it would in effect close down the port for cruise ships.

 

Really, the current travel restrictions between the US and Canada eliminate any possibility for any Alaska cruising to commence without a Mexican or Russian port stop.

 

I assume that COVID will pass and things will return to "normal" and my suggestion was meant as a near term "work around."  It could be that things change and BC seeks to limit cruising long term.  Here is at least one story suggesting that support for cruising in the province isn't universal:

https://thetyee.ca/News/2020/03/31/Cruise-Ships-Not-Vital-Part-Of-BC-Economy-Say-Critics/

[Heidi13]

19 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And a 14 day quarantine would end having Vancouver as a foreign port for the purpose of following the PVSA, so it would in effect close down the port for cruise ships.

 

Correct. The 14-day quarantine also applies to other BC Ports, as well as Vancouver.

[Heidi13]

2 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

Thanks for this insight.  I have seen the BC government try and stop pipeline projects from Alberta that were ultimately determined within the scope of the federal government to authorize. 

 

I wonder if BC could outlaw foreign flagged passenger vessels from berthing in their port cities such as Vancouver and Victoria...

 

 

Affirmative, our current Provincial Govt is fighting the Feds over the approved expansion of a existing pipeline from Alberta to tidewater. However, we are currently in a Provincial election campaign. Until the election was called, the Green party were keeping a minority Govt in power, so that may have impacted views on tanker traffic and cruise ships. Once we receive a new Govt the focus may change.

 

Our ports are also a Federal responsibility, with the operation and management delegated to a local Federal Port Authority. Therefore, the BC Govt has no direct authority over the port management. Even when working on local ferries, which were owned by the Provincial Govt, anytime I took my ship to Vancouver or Victoria, we followed Federal guidelines for access and docking.

 

While the BC Govt can't directly impact the safe navigation of ships on the high seas/navigable waters, they could impact the servicing of the ships and while COVID remains an issue, they can prevent pax going ashore. With respect to health management, it is predominantly driven by our excellent Provincial Health Officer. In my opinion, she has done an amazing job in managing risks and keeping our numbers low. Personally, I don't see her removing or relaxing the 14-day quarantine for a number of months and probably not until they have a readily available vaccine/cure.

 

Therefore, I suggest the potential for Alaska cruises next year could rest with BC's Provincial Health Officer and whether she relaxes the current 14-day quarantine. 

 

 

[sanger727]

1 hour ago, martincath said:

Actually Palin did indeed speak about Russia being visible from Alaska - she just didn't utter the commonly-referenced phrase about being able to see it from her house which was indeed Tina Fey's line. Full fact-checking, including video of Palin's actual statement, can be found on Snopes.

 

On the cruising Alaska via Mexico front - sure, for LA cruises that sounds feasible and if there are no other options to cruise AK from the US west coast it might even be popular enough to be financially viable... but I would not like to be the person who decides to take that risk!

 

Edit - somewhat redundant thanks to the post above which appeared while I was typing, but since I linked a different source I'll leave it in 😉

 

so that would be LA to Mexico to Alaska, around Alaska, and back to LA? That would have to be at least a 3 week cruise if it ever stopped anywhere 

[SelectSys]

6 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

so that would be LA to Mexico to Alaska, around Alaska, and back to LA? That would have to be at least a 3 week cruise if it ever stopped anywhere 

 

Princess has 2 cruise scheduled between LA and Alaska for next summer. Both trips are 14-days .  I believe it would be easy to substitute the planned Prince Rupert with Ensenada and keep the rest of the cruise intact.  Other stops/destinations on this Princess cruise are Ketchikan, Icy Strait, Juneau, Hubbard Glacier, Skagway and Sitka. 

 

Maybe the speed of the ship would be upped slightly, but I doubt that is even really necessary.

 

Again, this cruise won't appeal to everyone, but I would bet it will appeal to some if the traditional Alaskan cruises weren't available next summer due to lingering COVID issues.

[SelectSys]

28 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Therefore, I suggest the potential for Alaska cruises next year could rest with BC's Provincial Health Officer and whether she relaxes the current 14-day quarantine. 

 

 

Thanks.  I agree that BC really has a lot of influence/control over whether traditional Alaska cruises can restart at scale.   Work arounds from places like LA would certainly result in much less overall demand by passengers.

[martincath]

3 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

so that would be LA to Mexico to Alaska, around Alaska, and back to LA? That would have to be at least a 3 week cruise if it ever stopped anywhere 

Yup - and not even close to three weeks needed, considering there have been 14-day or less LA round-trips to AK offered for years. Ensenada can be swapped in for Victoria with 2 days added at most (<150nm, so <300nm extra RT, cruising speed of even 15 knots could technically manage to add 24hrs total including the required 4 hours minimum docked time) - it would definitely add only one day, including legal minimum port stop time, to SD-based itineraries.

 

And that's assuming they otherwise stuck to the same current routing - Victoria actually involves significant deviation back toward the mainland compared to just heading straight for Ensenada from off the west coast of Vancouver Island.

[sanger727]

31 minutes ago, martincath said:

Yup - and not even close to three weeks needed, considering there have been 14-day or less LA round-trips to AK offered for years. Ensenada can be swapped in for Victoria with 2 days added at most (<150nm, so <300nm extra RT, cruising speed of even 15 knots could technically manage to add 24hrs total including the required 4 hours minimum docked time) - it would definitely add only one day, including legal minimum port stop time, to SD-based itineraries.

 

And that's assuming they otherwise stuck to the same current routing - Victoria actually involves significant deviation back toward the mainland compared to just heading straight for Ensenada from off the west coast of Vancouver Island.

so 14 days plus 1-2. I see that there are these itineraries; I was assuming that if you spent days sailing up the coast of California (now from ensendada) that you would stop along the coast. But apparently people book these cruises without that. I was getting to the 3 weeks by adding port stops along the way.

[martincath]

12 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

so 14 days plus 1-2. I see that there are these itineraries; I was assuming that if you spent days sailing up the coast of California (now from ensendada) that you would stop along the coast. But apparently people book these cruises without that. I was getting to the 3 weeks by adding port stops along the way.

That makes sense.

 

But given how few folks get more than 2 weeks vaycay in the US and the vast % of the market made up of US cruisers, a 15 day Saturday to Sunday schedule is about the max mainstream cruise lines could offer and hope to fill - so the 'direct to AK with the required legal foreign stop plus typical AK ports' strikes me as the only plan with even a remote possibility of working.

 

Doing one-way Ensenada-Anchorage routes of ~10 days, with folks boarding buses in San Diego or LA for the first or last part of the journey, to enable cruise-tours again might be a more enticing option for the lines. I believe there were 1-way Hawaiian cruises that operated this way in the past, based on a few posts over the years where folks forgot about the bus element and claimed to have done Hawaii one-way on foreign flag ships despite that being a PVSA violation.

[Aquahound]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Sure, 3 days from Anchorage for a tender stop in Nome, then another overnight (10 hours) for a tender stop at Big Diomede, and then 5-6 days back to Seattle.  All across the Bering Sea.  I can see the appeal to a Coastie.  😉

 

Heck yeah.  My kind of trip.  😁

 

Although, the wife would hate it.

[donaldsc]

On 10/8/2020 at 10:11 AM, SelectSys said:

Canada seems highly unlikely to permit cruising in their waters anytime soon.  In addition to COVID, local British Columbia politics are moving increasing against cruising on environmental grounds as well.  When you factor in the negligible contribution to the BC economy from cruising, it just seems that the restart of ocean cruising - especially simple port calls - seems suspect.

 

What do people think about US cruises for Alaska departing from Southern California and making a quick port call in Ensenada to satisfy the law?  HI cruises from CA do this from time to time and why not Alaska cruises as well? The ships would need to burn a lot of fuel, but the price of fuel these days is probably still pretty low.   It would also likely reduce the time in Alaska to about 2 days, but it would be something for summer 2021.

 

Of course this all assumes that CA will accept cruises as well which is by no means certain as the governor said yesterday that he "was going to be stubborn on opening theme parks" like Disneyland.

 

So you are suggesting that a cruise to AK should leave from southern California and head south to Mexico.  Then after a quick stop in Mexico, it turns around and heads north to Alaska.  Do I have it right?

 

DON

[K32682]

19 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

TBH it was a joke because I keep seeing that suggestion as a solution with Caribbean islands but countries do make execeptions so it wouldn't be far fetched to think of making a private island stop to keep cruisers away from the population. But I guess it would depend if cruise lines have something worthwhile to offer Canada to warrant making such an exception😝.

 

It's unlikely Canada is going to bend rules for cruise ships.  There will be no cruise ships landing in Canada at least until the border is opened to all non-essential travel.  Instead of attempting influence the Canadian government with "something worthwhile" the cruise lines would be better off lobbying the American government for temporary exemptions to the PVSA. 

 

16 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Therefore, I suggest the potential for Alaska cruises next year could rest with BC's Provincial Health Officer and whether she relaxes the current 14-day quarantine. 

 

The 14 quarantine for incoming travellers was imposed by the federal government and it is not within the authority of a single province to "relax" it.  She may well have some influence but the final decision rests with the government of Canada. The federal government problem is if it gives an exemption on the west coast it would have to do the same on the east coast which is probably more dependent on cruise ship revenue than Vancouver. 

[Glaciers]

I can’t imagine cruise lines would consider Mexico or Russia just to cruise Alaska.  Most regular Alaska cruisers wouldn’t want all of these sea days, they just want Alaska.  Another issue would be how many vendors and tour operators would even be in business if there were just a handful of ships to visit ports. It would be a different Alaska and not really worth a port stop.

 

Another alternative would be a small ship cruise for the diehard Alaska cruisers.  UnCruise and Alaskan Dream will most likely have trips within Alaska regardless of what Canada does. They depend much less on port communities.