Will Alaska Cruises Substitute Mexico for Canada When they Restart?

[rkacruiser]

2 hours ago, crzndeb said:

I’m booked on Ovation of the Seas TP next May, that stops in Petropavlovsk, on its way to Seattle. (Leaves from Yokohama). Whether it comes to fruition is another question. Guess we will see.

 

I hope that you will be able to visit this city.  The welcome that we received at the tender dock was unique.  The citizens were friendly and their English was good.  The natural scenery was great.  Their Museum was interesting.  Their housing that I saw was what I think Stalinist Russia was like.  Interesting place to visit--no interest in living there, however!

[lax19]

Thinking outside the box here: have the cruise lines band together and buy a port in Alaska. Then leave the union and set up there own foreign country. Now they can round trip from Seattle and skip Canada!  🤓

[Aquahound]

59 minutes ago, lax19 said:

Thinking outside the box here: have the cruise lines band together and buy a port in Alaska. Then leave the union and set up there own foreign country. Now they can round trip from Seattle and skip Canada!  🤓

 

Or better yet, reinstate CHOP and move it down to Pier 91in Seattle.  Boom.  Cruises will embark in a foreign port.  😉

[ontheweb]

11 hours ago, lax19 said:

Thinking outside the box here: have the cruise lines band together and buy a port in Alaska. Then leave the union and set up there own foreign country. Now they can round trip from Seattle and skip Canada!  🤓

But it would not be a DISTANT foreign port.😢

[chengkp75]

15 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

But it would not be a DISTANT foreign port.😢

Not needed for a round trip from Seattle.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Not needed for a round trip from Seattle.

Of course, you are right. My bad.😢

[Hlitner]

Have enjoyed this thread :).  So lets assume that BC decides to stay closed to cruise ships and Alaska really wants ships to return (not everyone in AK wants cruise ships).  The obvious solution would be for AK, CA, and WA to lobby Congress for an amendment to the PVSA.   

 

Hank

[rkacruiser]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Have enjoyed this thread :).  So lets assume that BC decides to stay closed to cruise ships and Alaska really wants ships to return (not everyone in AK wants cruise ships).  The obvious solution would be for AK, CA, and WA to lobby Congress for an amendment to the PVSA.   

 

Hank

 

Have I not advocated such in many, many previous CC posts?  

 

Nope.  Can't be done.  Impossible.  Those are the messages that I have received.  

 

Is this a case where the officials cannot see the "forest because of the trees"?  

 

Honestly, no, I don't think that my above sentence is correct at this time.  The country, the cruise industry, the economy, probably has still much negativity to experience before this type of "thinking outside of the box" begins to take place.  

[d9704011]

20 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

"thinking outside of the box"

I think it’s about time that BC, Washington and Oregon form the independent and sovereign nation of Cascadia freeing themselves from the yoke of Canadian and US laws and policies.  Of course, the Cascadian government may choose to adopt its own no cruise ship policy while CV-19 remains pandemic.

[Hlitner]

48 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Have I not advocated such in many, many previous CC posts?  

 

Nope.  Can't be done.  Impossible.  Those are the messages that I have received.  

 

Is this a case where the officials cannot see the "forest because of the trees"?  

 

Honestly, no, I don't think that my above sentence is correct at this time.  The country, the cruise industry, the economy, probably has still much negativity to experience before this type of "thinking outside of the box" begins to take place.  

Amending the PVSA is really not a big deal and could easily be done if there was an effort on the part of a few States and the cruise industry.  Until now, the cruise industry has not done any major lobbying to change PVSA because it really was not that important to the industry.  Perhaps it is best expressed as some things are better left alone.  But Canada could force the issue and the big loser (in the long run) would be Vancouver.  The big winner could be Seattle which would truly benefit appropriate changes to PVSA.  Seattle would get the benefit of more ships while Vancouver's port would see far fewer ships.  

 

The PVSA has outlived its usefulness and should be amended to benefit the US cruise industry and its customers.  

 

Hank .  

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

The PVSA has outlived its usefulness and should be amended to benefit the US cruise industry and its customers

And the couple of hundred thousand US citizens employed in PVSA trade would disagree with you.

[Hlitner]

13 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And the couple of hundred thousand US citizens employed in PVSA trade would disagree with you.

This is not a black and white issue.  I did not say "repeal" PVSA but rather "amend" PVSA!  It is a pretty complex law (with even more complex regulations).  For example, it would only take a simple amendment to allow cruise lines to bypass Canadian ports on Alaska cruises.  Such an amendment need not impact other aspects of the law.   And many parts of PVSA (and also the Jones Act) have indeed outlived its usefulness.  Cabotage Laws certainly have their place in this complex world,  but they should be constantly tweaked to benefit the country.  As a simple example, insisting that a ship be built in the USA does not make it happen.  In fact amendments could even be used to protect more American jobs if that is a goal.  

 

One might want to consider how many modern cruise ships have been built in USA yards in the past 50 years.  That was one of the original goals of the PVSA (to encourage US built vessels crewed with US crews) and how is that working for the industry?  Perhaps it is time to revisit this 134 year old statute and make it more relevant to the current era.  

 

Hank

[Ashland]

52 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

I think it’s about time that BC, Washington and Oregon form the independent and sovereign nation of Cascadia freeing themselves from the yoke of Canadian and US laws and policies.  Of course, the Cascadian government may choose to adopt its own no cruise ship policy while CV-19 remains pandemic.

What about Cascadiafornia....Don't forget about us Californians...we could bring a bit of strength to that table 😉

[chengkp75]

15 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

This is not a black and white issue.  I did not say "repeal" PVSA but rather "amend" PVSA!  It is a pretty complex law (with even more complex regulations).  For example, it would only take a simple amendment to allow cruise lines to bypass Canadian ports on Alaska cruises.  Such an amendment need not impact other aspects of the law.   And many parts of PVSA (and also the Jones Act) have indeed outlived its usefulness.  Cabotage Laws certainly have their place in this complex world,  but they should be constantly tweaked to benefit the country.  As a simple example, insisting that a ship be built in the USA does not make it happen.  In fact amendments could even be used to protect more American jobs if that is a goal.  

 

One might want to consider how many modern cruise ships have been built in USA yards in the past 50 years.  That was one of the original goals of the PVSA (to encourage US built vessels crewed with US crews) and how is that working for the industry?  Perhaps it is time to revisit this 134 year old statute and make it more relevant to the current era.  

 

Hank

Your simple amendment would say what?  That foreign flag cruise ships are allowed to make cruises to Alaska without calling at a foreign port?  Then how do you tell Alaska Marine Highway, Uncruise, Alaska Dream Cruises, and American Cruise Lines that they have to remain US flag operators, and operating under restrictions that you are allowing other companies to bypass?

 

And, again, I dispute the history of the PVSA as put forth by Wikipedia as a protectionist law designed to encourage US built ships.  The Act was designed to force ship owners to meet US safety laws.

 

And, if the US built clause of the PVSA is your only problem with the act, then fine, let foreign built, US flag and US crewed ships do the Alaska cruises.  

 

Again, it is the Passenger not Cruise Vessel Services Act, so it covers much more than cruise ships.

[Hlitner]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Your simple amendment would say what?  That foreign flag cruise ships are allowed to make cruises to Alaska without calling at a foreign port?  Then how do you tell Alaska Marine Highway, Uncruise, Alaska Dream Cruises, and American Cruise Lines that they have to remain US flag operators, and operating under restrictions that you are allowing other companies to bypass?

 

And, again, I dispute the history of the PVSA as put forth by Wikipedia as a protectionist law designed to encourage US built ships.  The Act was designed to force ship owners to meet US safety laws.

 

And, if the US built clause of the PVSA is your only problem with the act, then fine, let foreign built, US flag and US crewed ships do the Alaska cruises.  

 

Again, it is the Passenger not Cruise Vessel Services Act, so it covers much more than cruise ships.

Oh my, we could get into an interesting discussion about "protectionism" but you might not love me anymore :).  Amendments can be carefully crafted (I used to do some of that work in the healthcare world).  When it comes to writing legislation (or enabling regulations) where there is a will there is a way.   There are also other means within the government but using "waivers" also has its drawback.

 

Hank

[Heidi13]

38 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Your simple amendment would say what?  That foreign flag cruise ships are allowed to make cruises to Alaska without calling at a foreign port?  Then how do you tell Alaska Marine Highway, Uncruise, Alaska Dream Cruises, and American Cruise Lines that they have to remain US flag operators, and operating under restrictions that you are allowing other companies to bypass?

 

And, again, I dispute the history of the PVSA as put forth by Wikipedia as a protectionist law designed to encourage US built ships.  The Act was designed to force ship owners to meet US safety laws.

 

And, if the US built clause of the PVSA is your only problem with the act, then fine, let foreign built, US flag and US crewed ships do the Alaska cruises.  

 

Again, it is the Passenger not Cruise Vessel Services Act, so it covers much more than cruise ships.

 

Chief - you hit the nail on the head with PVSA not "Cruise Vessel" SA. Any changes to the PVSA for Alaska cruises could open up the Alaska ferry market, with BC Ferries Ro/PAX vessels then able to enter the Alaska market. Post COVID, especially in the non-summer months they certainly have tonnage available to compete with Alaska Marine Highways.

 

You could also get other foreign flag high speed ferries operating in Alaska waters.

 

Totally agree, there is no such thing as a simple amendment to complex Acts & Regulations.

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Oh my, we could get into an interesting discussion about "protectionism" but you might not love me anymore :).  Amendments can be carefully crafted (I used to do some of that work in the healthcare world).  When it comes to writing legislation (or enabling regulations) where there is a will there is a way.   There are also other means within the government but using "waivers" also has its drawback.

 

Hank

All arguments about carving out niche amendments to the PVSA fall apart on the fact that once you deal with foreign flag vessels, you venture into international law, and jurisdictional overlap, and this forces you to recognize the international definition of a "passenger" vessel, which is "any vessel that carries more than 12 people for hire".  Once you start saying that "this passenger vessel" (cruise ship) can do this, but "this passenger vessel" cannot do that, you open the entire thing to a discriminatory or unfair business practice law suit, and the amendment gets tossed, or the floodgates of unintended consequences open.  How many "carefully crafted" bills or amendments have gone on to provide a rash of unintended consequences?

 

As for "protectionism", while I will agree that the Jones Act was enacted as protectionist legislation (but designed to protect the interests of Seattle shipowners, not the shipbuilding or maritime labor industries, the PVSA was enacted long before there was any need for "protectionism", and was a result of originally US flag vessels flagging out of the US to circumvent safety measures designed to protect US citizens.  And, why is there no great outcry to amend the cabotage laws of about 80% of the world's countries that have ocean shorelines, including major cruise destinations like the EU, Japan, Brazil, and China?

Edited October 18, 2020 by chengkp75

[ilikeanswers]

20 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And, why is there no great outcry to amend the cabotage laws of about 80% of the world's countries that have ocean shorelines, including major cruise destinations like the EU, Japan, Brazil, and China?

 

Maybe those cruisers aren't as fanatical 😜. 

[jtwind]

Be very specific on the amendment.  One could propose:

 

'Starting from this date until the end of 2022, all previously scheduled Alaskan cruises originating in a US port will not need to visit a foreign port.'

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, jtwind said:

Be very specific on the amendment.  One could propose:

 

'Starting from this date until the end of 2022, all previously scheduled Alaskan cruises originating in a US port will not need to visit a foreign port.'

And what would then prevent those cruise lines and ferry operations that I mentioned, from firing their US crew and hiring foreign crew for that period?  And, what if Canada does not allow cruise ships in 2023?

Edited October 18, 2020 by chengkp75

[K32682]

15 hours ago, d9704011 said:

I think it’s about time that BC, Washington and Oregon form the independent and sovereign nation of Cascadia freeing themselves from the yoke of Canadian and US laws and policies.  Of course, the Cascadian government may choose to adopt its own no cruise ship policy while CV-19 remains pandemic.

 

It's been tried. The appearance of British battleships off the coast convinced America they didn't really mean "54-40 or fight."  😉

[Glaciers]

It does seem reflective of attitudes towards covid that Canada has taken a proactive stance in mitigating confirmed cases and deaths and some in the US are trying to do a work-around to PVSA that may increase cases and deaths when cruises resume.

 

At least on the surface, I like the idea of not having to stop in a foreign port but not at the expense of undermining Canada’s efforts to control covid.   Good topic but for another time.

[Aquahound]

15 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Again, it is the Passenger not Cruise Vessel Services Act, so it covers much more than cruise ships.

 

I think that's the quote of the day regarding the PVSA.  

 

On the surface a waiver or all out repeal might seem like a good idea to those wanting to cruise but a deep dive into what all the PVSA entails paints a different picture.  You and Heidi13 made excellent points regarding ferries.  Plus, I can't see lines like American Cruise Lines and Adventure Smith sitting idly by while while the big boys get a waiver from federal law.  

 

[ontheweb]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And what would then prevent those cruise lines and ferry operations that I mentioned, from firing their US crew and hiring foreign crew for that period?  And, what if Canada does not allow cruise ships in 2023?

Thank you for not ignoring all the possible negative consequences of the not well thought out proposals of some in here.

 

Too many only look at their own short term interests.

[jtwind]

4 hours ago, Glaciers said:

It does seem reflective of attitudes towards covid that Canada has taken a proactive stance in mitigating confirmed cases and deaths and some in the US are trying to do a work-around to PVSA that may increase cases and deaths when cruises resume.

 

 

 

At least on the surface, I like the idea of not having to stop in a foreign port but not at the expense of undermining Canada’s efforts to control covid.   Good topic but for another time.

 

 

But everyone is trying to come up with a workaround so that cruise ships wouldn't have to stop in Canada.  so Canadians wouldn't be exposed.