Will Alaska Cruises Substitute Mexico for Canada When they Restart?

[d9704011]

6 minutes ago, jtwind said:

 

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.

The so-called workaround (dodge, end-run, special dispensation or whatever you’d like to call it) has nothing to do with ensuring Canadians aren’t exposed to the coronavirus; the suggestions are being made to enable cruisers to take an Alaska cruise from a US port without having to stop in Canada (which, for the time being) is not permitted by the Canadian Government.

[SelectSys]

20 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...

 

In a previous life, I worked in a company that had an office in BC. A remember a couple of people in that office who talked about the concept of "Cascadia."  I have never heard anyone in WA or OR speak of it or consider it.  Even the people in BC only talked about it from a economic point of view and never as a political association.

 

[rkacruiser]

21 hours ago, Hlitner said:

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.  

 

It's my understanding that Vancouver is at risk of not being able to port some of the large ships because of Lion's Gate Bridge.  

 

20 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Alaska Marine Highway, 

19 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

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

 

 

Am I incorrect in thinking that the Alaska Marine Highway has financial concerns, ferries that need to be retired/replaced?  More competition might be a good thing?

[d9704011]

34 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

In a previous life, I worked in a company that had an office in BC. A remember a couple of people in that office who talked about the concept of "Cascadia."  I have never heard anyone in WA or OR speak of it or consider it.  Even the people in BC only talked about it from a economic point of view and never as a political association.

 

Yes, you’re correct although I’ll bet you could find plenty of secessionists if you look hard enough!  What with Brexit, Frexit, Grexit and a host of other similar scenarios it’s time to think big don’t you know.  So, with special thanks to Elvis Gratton....

 

[rkacruiser]

21 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Perhaps it is time to revisit this 134 year old statute and make it more relevant to the current era.  

 

I ought to have kept count of the number of times I have "argued" that point on CC!

 

19 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

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.

 

"No simple amendment to complex Acts & Regulations":  Often, doing something "easy" is not worth doing.  Legislatively, it's like putting a Band-aid on a major wound.  Why do we elect Members of Parliament and Members of Congress?  Isn't it their job "to do the hard work that needs to be done"?  

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

Am I incorrect in thinking that the Alaska Marine Highway has financial concerns, ferries that need to be retired/replaced?  More competition might be a good thing?

It is not that AMH is losing money because they don't provide a service that people want, it is because they provide a service that no one else wants to provide.  AMH provides the only transportation option into and out of many rural locations in Alaska, and not only provide passenger service, but also most of the freight business to these locations (food, medicine, fuel, building supplies).  AMH is in trouble because the state of Alaska has relied for decades on payments from the oil companies for the North Slope oil, and those payments, at the height of the oil boom accounted for 80-90% of Alaska's state revenue.  Law required that at  least 25% of that money go into a trust for when the oil ran out, and this currently amounts to $45 billion.  This principal cannot be spent by the state for any reason, but the earnings can, and in the past it has been used to give each resident of the state a dividend of between $900-1900, currently at $992.  Alaska has no state income tax or sales tax, and the trust and petroleum taxes amount to 89% of the state's revenue.  As petroleum revenues fall, the state faces shortfalls, and budgetary constraints, and the operating subsidy to AMH is in jeopardy.  AMH is like any other public transportation system, in order to serve the residents of the state, it must provide services that mean it will never "make" money.

 

But, if you think that replacing a government subsidized transportation service with a for profit company that hires foreign workers and does not return a dime of their income would provide better service to the people of Alaska, well, then I don't have any argument to counter that viewpoint.

[Hlitner]

8 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

I ought to have kept count of the number of times I have "argued" that point on CC!

 

 

"No simple amendment to complex Acts & Regulations":  Often, doing something "easy" is not worth doing.  Legislatively, it's like putting a Band-aid on a major wound.  Why do we elect Members of Parliament and Members of Congress?  Isn't it their job "to do the hard work that needs to be done"?  

My goodness, if you only knew how it really works (at least here in the USA).  Most legislation is written by lobby folks who are often lawyers.  Enabling regulations (what makes a law actually work) are written bureaucrats/technocrats (what I was for a State government).  Most members of Congress do not even know the details of the Bills for which they vote.  They simply do what they are told by leadership and the lobby folks (where much of the real power lies).    

 

I recall a well used quote from Nancy Pelosi which was "we have to pass the bill so you can find out whats in it" which caused some ripples in the general public.  But Pelosi was just saying out loud what most who know the system have known for years.  The "hard working" members of Congress seldom know the details of what they pass but rely on staff and lobbyists to advise them how to vote.   In many cases the Senators and Congressfolks make commitments on how they will vote long before the Bill is even written!

 

The truth is that a majority of Senators and Congressfolks do not bother to read most of the Bills on which they vote but simply rely on others to tell them how to vote.  When the leadership (only a handful of people) tell them to vote a certain way that is what most do!  To do otherwise could get them lousy committee assignments and no support if and when they wanted to do something for their constituents or lobbyist friends.

 

Hank

 

[rkacruiser]

1 minute ago, Hlitner said:

My goodness, if you only knew how it really works (at least here in the USA).  Most legislation is written by lobby folks who are often lawyers.  Enabling regulations (what makes a law actually work) are written bureaucrats/technocrats (what I was for a State government).  Most members of Congress do not even know the details of the Bills for which they vote.  They simply do what they are told by leadership and the lobby folks (where much of the real power lies).    

 

I recall a well used quote from Nancy Pelosi which was "we have to pass the bill so you can find out whats in it" which caused some ripples in the general public.  But Pelosi was just saying out loud what most who know the system have known for years.  The "hard working" members of Congress seldom know the details of what they pass but rely on staff and lobbyists to advise them how to vote.   In many cases the Senators and Congressfolks make commitments on how they will vote long before the Bill is even written!

 

The truth is that a majority of Senators and Congressfolks do not bother to read most of the Bills on which they vote but simply rely on others to tell them how to vote.  When the leadership (only a handful of people) tell them to vote a certain way that is what most do!  To do otherwise could get them lousy committee assignments and no support if and when they wanted to do something for their constituents or lobbyist friends.

 

Hank

 

 

You speak the truth.  That truth is why the United States of America is in the mess that it is on so many issues.  

[jtwind]

3 hours ago, d9704011 said:

The so-called workaround (dodge, end-run, special dispensation or whatever you’d like to call it) has nothing to do with ensuring Canadians aren’t exposed to the coronavirus; the suggestions are being made to enable cruisers to take an Alaska cruise from a US port without having to stop in Canada (which, for the time being) is not permitted by the Canadian Government.

 

But, if a temporary exemption was made, and the cruise ship didn't stop in Canada, Canadians wouldn't be exposed.

 

The Canadian government can't stop a ship from sailing from Seattle to Alaska.

[Shmoo here]

2 minutes ago, jtwind said:

 

But, if a temporary exemption was made, and the cruise ship didn't stop in Canada, Canadians wouldn't be exposed.

 

The Canadian government can't stop a ship from sailing from Seattle to Alaska.

No, but US laws can charge a fine, and other penalties for breaking the law.  Most cruise lines will not allow a captain to knowingly break the law.

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

It's my understanding that Vancouver is at risk of not being able to port some of the large ships because of Lion's Gate Bridge.  

 

 

Am I incorrect in thinking that the Alaska Marine Highway has financial concerns, ferries that need to be retired/replaced?  More competition might be a good thing?

 

Affirmative, the Lion's Gate Bridge is a limiting factor in the size of cruise ship that can enter Vancouver. We did have one of the NCL ships in once last year, but if memory is correct, it was limited by the tide, needing LW to enter the harbour.

 

With a lack of cruise berths, especially since they closed Ballantine, Vancouver has already handed Seattle most of the business. They are considering options for a cruise terminal outside Burrard Inlet, but I don't see anywhere that is feasible. They have mentioned both the Fraser River and Robert's Bank Coal/Container Terminal, but on shallow draft high freeboard vessels, these can be tricky approaches in high winds and tides. Roberts Bank has space, but it is also 30 miles from downtown.

 

AMH did build some high speed craft about the same time we built them in BC, but I believe much of their tonnage is older. I recall racing the Columbia a few nights back in the 1980's and she wasn't a new ship, so she must be over 40 yrs old. The other ships we passed in BC waters were even older - Matanuska, which is probably about 60 yrs old by now.

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

It is not that AMH is losing money because they don't provide a service that people want, it is because they provide a service that no one else wants to provide.  AMH provides the only transportation option into and out of many rural locations in Alaska, and not only provide passenger service, but also most of the freight business to these locations (food, medicine, fuel, building supplies).  AMH is in trouble because the state of Alaska has relied for decades on payments from the oil companies for the North Slope oil, and those payments, at the height of the oil boom accounted for 80-90% of Alaska's state revenue.  Law required that at  least 25% of that money go into a trust for when the oil ran out, and this currently amounts to $45 billion.  This principal cannot be spent by the state for any reason, but the earnings can, and in the past it has been used to give each resident of the state a dividend of between $900-1900, currently at $992.  Alaska has no state income tax or sales tax, and the trust and petroleum taxes amount to 89% of the state's revenue.  As petroleum revenues fall, the state faces shortfalls, and budgetary constraints, and the operating subsidy to AMH is in jeopardy.  AMH is like any other public transportation system, in order to serve the residents of the state, it must provide services that mean it will never "make" money.

 

But, if you think that replacing a government subsidized transportation service with a for profit company that hires foreign workers and does not return a dime of their income would provide better service to the people of Alaska, well, then I don't have any argument to counter that viewpoint.

 

AMH is similar to the BC Ferries system and I have no doubt WSF. We had to provide pax/freight service to numerous islands for anywhere between 12 to 20 hrs per day. One per week, we also provided a Dangerous Cargo sailing, which in accordance with regs we could only carry 1 or 2 vehicles and their drivers. Cost recovery through fares on some routes was probably < 10%.

 

A couple of private outfits have tried pax only fast ferries between Vancouver & Victoria, but they never last more than a couple of years, as they must be Canadian Flag.

 

Even with heavily subsidised fares, we still get complaints the fares are too high. Can't imagine the costs if local ferries were operated on a for profit basis, with international crews.

 

AMH, BCF & WSF are all cabotage trades and are a very highly specialised area of the industry. I have had many very qualified and experienced deep sea mariners applying for work, but many of them couldn't handle doing 20 kts passing land at 480' on the beam, making 90 degree turns through a 3 cable gap in 6 kts of tide and docking in < 8 mins from first reduction at 1 mile out. I recall one very experience ULCC Master that every time he saw a boat he pulled the throttles back, just doesn't work when they are all around. He only survived 2 days. Just can't imagine introducing foreign crews into this environment.

[CruiserBruce]

2 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

You speak the truth.  That truth is why the United States of America is in the mess that it is on so many issues.  

Except neither of you actually know the truth. A law that Congress votes on is frequently an outline of what they want to happen. Then staff and regulators go to work on the "fine print", because if Congress had to approve the fine print of every law they debated and passed, they wouldn't have time to pass any laws. An outline of a law might be 10-50 pages. The final text, with all the required info, citations, enforcement issues and supporting data, can literally be a 1000 pages or many, many more. How long do you think it would take a law to be passed if each of over a thousand pages had to be discussed, rewritten, discussed some more, edited again, proofed, discussed again, edited again, etc, etc, and then approved?

 

We protest way too much, sometimes.

[SelectSys]

3 hours ago, Hlitner said:

... Enabling regulations (what makes a law actually work) are written bureaucrats/technocrats (what I was for a State government).  Most members of Congress do not even know the details of the Bills for which they vote.  They simply do what they are told by leadership and the lobby folks (where much of the real power lies).    

 

 

What is also interesting, at least in California, is that a lot of people flow back and forth between the state and private sector.  For example, the executive in charge of regulatory affairs at one of CA's largest investor owned utilities is a former commissioner of the public utilities commission that is in charge of regulating the very same industry in the state.  

[SelectSys]

3 hours ago, d9704011 said:

Yes, you’re correct although I’ll bet you could find plenty of secessionists if you look hard enough!  What with Brexit, Frexit, Grexit and a host of other similar scenarios it’s time to think big don’t you know.  So, with special thanks to Elvis Gratton....

 

 

Now you are truly channeling your inner Quebecker!  

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, jtwind said:

 

But, if a temporary exemption was made, and the cruise ship didn't stop in Canada, Canadians wouldn't be exposed.

 

The Canadian government can't stop a ship from sailing from Seattle to Alaska.

 

Very true, but my problem is why would we allow a business to operate that did not have to follow our laws.  

[ldubs]

4 hours ago, Hlitner said:

My goodness, if you only knew how it really works (at least here in the USA).  Most legislation is written by lobby folks who are often lawyers.  Enabling regulations (what makes a law actually work) are written bureaucrats/technocrats (what I was for a State government).  Most members of Congress do not even know the details of the Bills for which they vote.  They simply do what they are told by leadership and the lobby folks (where much of the real power lies).    

 

I recall a well used quote from Nancy Pelosi which was "we have to pass the bill so you can find out whats in it" which caused some ripples in the general public.  But Pelosi was just saying out loud what most who know the system have known for years.  The "hard working" members of Congress seldom know the details of what they pass but rely on staff and lobbyists to advise them how to vote.   In many cases the Senators and Congressfolks make commitments on how they will vote long before the Bill is even written!

 

The truth is that a majority of Senators and Congressfolks do not bother to read most of the Bills on which they vote but simply rely on others to tell them how to vote.  When the leadership (only a handful of people) tell them to vote a certain way that is what most do!  To do otherwise could get them lousy committee assignments and no support if and when they wanted to do something for their constituents or lobbyist friends.

 

Hank

 

 

That is why I think we should replace voting for politicians with selection by lottery.  😄

[Hlitner]

10 hours ago, SelectSys said:

 

What is also interesting, at least in California, is that a lot of people flow back and forth between the state and private sector.  For example, the executive in charge of regulatory affairs at one of CA's largest investor owned utilities is a former commissioner of the public utilities commission that is in charge of regulating the very same industry in the state.  

In PA it is even worse.  When I was just starting out as a healthcare financial planner I was called for a small meeting with a Nursing Home owner (we regulated them) about an expansion plan.  The meeting was with the owner and his attorney who happened to be one of the most powerful State Senators.  At the meeting my boss ask the Senator if he was "here as a Senator or as the attorney for the Nursing Home chain."  His quick answer was "both."  In PA we technically consider our legislature to be part-time and it is common for lawyers who are elected officials to also represent constituents as attorneys.   You might think this is a conflict of interest but it is legal.  In D.C, it is much worse.  Politicians all need to raise money for their campaigns and the lobbyists fulfill that function by providing funds from themselves and their clients.  The politicians are expected to help out those folks (quid pro quo) and this is how our system functions.  

 

So where does this leave PVSA?  If the cruise industry (its primary lobby group is CLIA) wanted to get the PVSA amended it would just be a matter of spreading around a pot of money and looking for some co sponsors (i.e. affected States).  And yes, I understand that one of our posters can find lots of reasons NOT to amend the PVSA but lets consider that he works in the Marine industry as a Chief Engineer.  So like many others, he does have his own point of view/agenda which is likely protecting American jobs within his industry.  But consider that changing the PVSA would also create new jobs at the ports and elsewhere.  I would still raise the question "is a law from 1886 (PVSA) out-of-date in today's world.

 

Hank

[JRG]

45 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

And yes, I understand that one of our posters can find lots of reasons NOT to amend the PVSA but lets consider that he works in the Marine industry as a Chief Engineer.  So like many others, he does have his own point of view/agenda which is likely protecting American jobs within his industry.  But consider that changing the PVSA would also create new jobs at the ports and elsewhere.  I would still raise the question "is a law from 1886 (PVSA) out-of-date in today's world.

 

Hank,  thank you for encapsulating the truth.   

 

There may have never been a need (necessity) to amend the PVSA with respect to cruising before now...but now there is.

 

The unemployed individuals in the travel and leisure indiustry would greatly appreciate anything that could stimulate the US and Canadian cruise passenger interests.   

 

 

[JRG]

55 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

So where does this leave PVSA?  If the cruise industry (its primary lobby group is CLIA) wanted to get the PVSA amended it would just be a matter of spreading around a pot of money and looking for some co sponsors (i.e. affected States).

 

There are other SIG's who pack more clout though than CLIA that would oppose.

 

You also need to have a bona fide economic benefit or benefits  that can be quantified to drive the process, such as opening up more port itinerary combinations that exclude foreign stops.

 

Markets get what they want.   The cruiselines will figure it out too,  (I think)

 

 

[Hlitner]

3 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

There are other SIG's who pack more clout though than CLIA that would oppose.

 

You also need to have a bona fide economic benefit or benefits  that can be quantified to drive the process, such as opening up more port itinerary combinations that exclude foreign stops.

 

Markets get what they want.   The cruiselines will figure it out too,  (I think)

 

 

I have long thought that the cruise industry is missing a big market because of PVSA issues.  There is the potential for cruises up and down the East Coast of the USA (which could include or exclude Canadian ports).  It is estimated that at least 40% of the US Population lives on or close to the East Coast.  We also have many ports and potential ports along the eastern seacoast from Maine to Key West.  Proper amendments to the PVSA (and CBP rules) could open up this region to cruises without the necessity of folks needing a Passport (this would require modifications to CBP and possibly Dept of State regulations).  Imagine 7-14 day cruises along the coast stopping at ports such as Bar Harbor, Boston, Newport, New York, Phila, Charleston, Savanah, etc.  This kind of itinerary would attract folks who are afraid to go outside the USA (there are many folks who have this fear), would allow over 130 million easy access to these cruises without flying (many folks do not like to fly), etc.   One could also develop some interesting West Coast itineraries (without the need for a distant foreign port).

 

I have long thought that the cruise industry was missing a huge market by not seeking the necessary Regulatory changes to allow these kind of cruises.   Other countries (i.e. Australia and the UK) have already discovered the market for cruises around their countries but the USA seems to lack the imagination.  And then there is always the resistance of some because they see any modification of the PVSA creating a negative problem that might cost some US Mariner jobs.  Or course they tend to ignore that many of those potential jobs no longer exist and they also ignore the economic benefits of boosting traffic in and out of US ports.

 

Hank

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

 Other countries (i.e. Australia and the UK) have already discovered the market for cruises around their countries but the USA seems to lack the imagination.

Australia has cabotage laws just like the US, but in their instance, they make exemptions, on a temporary basis, for a defined number of voyages, to foreign flag ships, provided they hire at least a percentage of Australian crew (primarily deck and engine).  The UK, while it does not have cabotage laws, per se, does have legal restrictions that make it financially unsound to try to do domestic voyages with a ship that is not of UK (or a British Overseas Territory like Bermuda).

 

8 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

And then there is always the resistance of some because they see any modification of the PVSA creating a negative problem that might cost some US Mariner jobs.  Or course they tend to ignore that many of those potential jobs no longer exist and they also ignore the economic benefits of boosting traffic in and out of US ports.

I don't ignore that there are no potential cruise ship jobs available, but again, I stress that the P in PVSA stands for "passenger" not "cruise", and there are a couple of hundred thousand current, existing, real, however you want to state it, that would be lost if the PVSA allows foreign flag passenger vessels to operate domestically.

 

And as for market, let's look at the most recent exemption granted to the PVSA, Puerto Rico.  Both Puerto Rico and CLIA lobbied for over 10 years to get this exemption, and then one cruise line, Carnival, took on routine one way cruises to/from the mainland from San Juan, and this lasted for 2 years, max, before it folded for lack of demand.

 

CLIA stated at the time that NCL was complaining about violations of the PVSA by the "Ensenada" port call, that none of it's members were interested in amending or repealing the PVSA, since it could find no benefit to their bottom line (i.e. lack of interest) especially when they considered the possible added restrictions (US crew, US safety requirements, etc) that would likely come with any amendment.

 

Those who say there is demand for East or West Coast cruises, are merely saying they want a cut-rate vacation, in a foreign country (which is what the mainstream ships are), and are not willing to pay for those cruises using US assets.

[JRG]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

Those who say there is demand for East or West Coast cruises, are merely saying they want a cut-rate vacation,

 

Not true with us,  and nobody could possibly know what all vacation planners are thinking.  This is just not a valid statement.

 

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And as for market, let's look at the most recent exemption granted to the PVSA, Puerto Rico. 

 

Wrong, you have to consider the 'current' market context, not one from a past and irrevelant example.

 

 

[JRG]

25 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

This kind of itinerary would attract folks who are afraid to go outside the USA (there are many folks who have this fear), would allow over 130 million easy access to these cruises without flying (many folks do not like to fly), etc.   One could also develop some interesting West Coast itineraries (without the need for a distant foreign port).

 

 

And of course,  this brings us to the 'milkshake' theory.   Somebody,  and I think it might be Canada and Mexico are disproportionately benefiting (drinking) from the amount of dollars (milkshake) that are spent outside the US for purposes of satisfying this archaic prohibition-era law.

 

 

 

[JRG]

Here is a perfect example

 

We're booked on a Valentine cruise (maybe) that goes from Miami to Key West and back on our favorite cuiseline and it could be great.

 

But guess what,   we have to go to Cozumel (again),  can't tell you how many times.  Am I complaining, no,  probably stay on the ship anyway,  just enjoy the sea-air,  maybe have a 3rd budweiser.    The point is,  we really don't want to go to Cozumel,  we would rather spend another day in KW.  Or maybe to to New Orleans.

 

So who gets our money (milkshake) Cozumel from the fees and other PAX who excurse.

 

That is the way it works and I'm not bitching,  but it could be better without the stop in Cozumel.  I'd rather go on to New Orleans and watch people ride the mechanical bull at Bourbon Cowboy than swim  with the Dolphins in Mexico.

 

For those who want to do both,   all the cruiselines have to do is offer both options so If you are one of those who think this is an "all about me" type of thing then please go fish and have fun too.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by JRG