Will Alaska Cruises Substitute Mexico for Canada When they Restart?

[JRG]

Chengpk,  here is a question for you.

 

Don't you think the fuel savings (alone) on my trip would be significant if we did not have to go to Cozumel,  how can you argue the economics of that one.

 

It is a whole new ballgame, isn't it?

[ontheweb]

16 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

 

I believe that quotation from Nancy Pelosi is about the ACA, better known as Obama Care. If she did not say that, somebody else did about that at the time proposed law.

[Aquahound]

Oh for heaven's sake.  Here we go with the milkshake theory again. 

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, JRG said:

Chengpk,  here is a question for you.

 

Don't you think the fuel savings (alone) on my trip would be significant if we did not have to go to Cozumel,  how can you argue the economics of that one.

 

It is a whole new ballgame, isn't it?

Not if you are comparing apples to apples.  If you are willing to allow the ships to just operate as they do now, with no further application of US jurisdiction (labor, safety, tax laws), then sure there is no comparison that it is more economical for the cruise line to do your domestic only cruise.  But, if as even CLIA suspects, when given an exemption to the PVSA, the law states that they must hire say 50% of crew to be US citizens, follow USCG regulations for safety, training, and certification, and pay US corporate tax, then I would say that Cozumel looks pretty inviting from the cruise lines' perspective.  MARAD has studied and shown that operating a US flag cargo ship (with only a crew of 20-25, not hundreds or thousands like a cruise ship), is 3.7 times as expensive to operate than a foreign flag ship, and of that 3.7 times, the majority is crew cost, which is over 5 times higher.  What CLIA expects to get from any amendment of the PVSA is a waiver of at most the US built requirement, but they would have to essentially, if not in fact, have to become US flag vessels in order to comply.

[Heidi13]

16 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.

 

Departing Seattle, the outbound lanes of the traffic separation scheme in Juan de Fuca transit Canadian waters, so yes Canada does have jurisdiction. Unlikely they would stop a ship, but it must transit Canadian waters to reach the Pacific Ocean.

 

Inbound ships transit through US waters.

[jtwind]

54 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Departing Seattle, the outbound lanes of the traffic separation scheme in Juan de Fuca transit Canadian waters, so yes Canada does have jurisdiction. Unlikely they would stop a ship, but it must transit Canadian waters to reach the Pacific Ocean.

 

Inbound ships transit through US waters.

 

But Canada most likely has not denied transit of a single ship through this channel due to virus concerns.

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, Aquahound said:

Oh for heaven's sake.  Here we go with the milkshake theory again. 

I blame that theory for my bad case of lactose intolerance. 

[JRG]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

If you are willing to allow the ships to just operate as they do now, with no further application of US jurisdiction (labor, safety, tax laws), then sure there is no comparison that it is more economical for the cruise line to do your domestic only cruise. 

 

Thank you for agreeing on this point.  

 

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

But, if as even CLIA suspects, when given an exemption to the PVSA, the law states that they must hire say 50% of crew to be US citizens, follow USCG regulations for safety, training, and certification, and pay US corporate tax, then I would say that Cozumel looks pretty inviting from the cruise lines' perspective.

 

I bolded the word "law" here because this is what Hank is talking about,   we want to change the law and then your 50% crew requirement goes away along with alot of other redundancies and there will be NO court cases to worry about because the law will not have been broken.

 

When you agree that if the law changes,   it will be a good thing for the cruise industry.  You could even make the argument that it would be better for the US cruise workforce because they wouldn't have to make that extra ridiculous stop in Ensenada, or Cozumel, or Vancouver.  So you would make the quality of cruising life better not just for the PAX,  but also for your own US crew personnel.

 

When the law is changed,   the sky will not come falling down....

Edited October 19, 2020 by JRG

[Aquahound]

32 minutes ago, JRG said:

You could even make the argument that it would be better for the US cruise workforce because they wouldn't have to make that extra ridiculous stop in Ensenada, or Cozumel, or Vancouver.  So you would make the quality of cruising life better not just for the PAX,  but also for your own US crew personnel.

 

You seem to be looking at the very narrow picture that some keep falling for; that being the PVSA's impact on only the cruise industry.  As rightfully noted earlier, it's the PVSA, not CVSA.  The law is applicable to cruise ships; it's not about cruise ships.  You also seem to be ignoring the fact the cruise industry does not want to be excluded from the PVSA.  While I agree it would be nice to cruise on major cost effective cruise lines without the obligation of a foreign port, I'm also aware enough to know my selfish desires do not trump those of the industry who are not asking for such. 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Thank you for agreeing on this point.  

 

 

I bolded the word "law" here because this is what Hank is talking about,   we want to change the law and then your 50% crew requirement goes away along with alot of other redundancies and there will be NO court cases to worry about because the law will not have been broken.

 

When you agree that if the law changes,   it will be a good thing for the cruise industry.  You could even make the argument that it would be better for the US cruise workforce because they wouldn't have to make that extra ridiculous stop in Ensenada, or Cozumel, or Vancouver.  So you would make the quality of cruising life better not just for the PAX,  but also for your own US crew personnel.

 

When the law is changed,   the sky will not come falling down....

Well, I don't want to get into the semantics arguments with you again, so I will answer this, and then back to ignore.

 

And, again, I believe you misunderstood my statement about the law being changed.  What I meant to say is that while the law does not currently require any percentage of crew to be US, that CLIA fears that if the law is changed, the change will include additional restrictions, like having to hire US crew.  This fear is what they have stated in the past regarding changes to the PVSA.  I've never agreed that "if the law changes, it will be a good thing for the cruise industry", why?  Because CLIA does not feel it would be a good thing (because of the potential restrictions likely to be imposed pursuant to a change), and they don't see any great potential market.

 

Your arguments are tending to get confused again, since you talk about the US crew being better off without the Cozumel stop.  If the ship is going to Cozumel to meet the PVSA, then there is likely no US crew onboard.  If there is US crew onboard, due to a restriction placed pursuant to a change in the PVSA, then you wouldn't need to go to Cozumel.  And, what difference does it make to the crew whether the ship travels to Cozumel or not?  You are onboard to work a given number of days, regardless of where the ship travels to.  You have a serious misunderstanding of what crew life is like on a cruise ship, or any ship.

 

And, now we get to the "court cases".  Of course there would be court cases, since the US flag cruise and ferry lines would sue if they were not allowed to be foreign flag operations, or if the PVSA was changed to allow all passenger vessels to be foreign flag, then those lines would flag out, fire their US crew, and thumb their noses at the USCG.

 

Sure, for the cruise industry, the sky will not fall down, but for the rest of the PVSA trade, and those US citizens who derive their income from it, and which contributes to the US economy, it will, and safety of passengers and the quality of our waters will decrease when this "rest of the PVSA" trade goes foreign flag.

 

Oh, and I don't agree on the first point, since I don't agree that allowing foreign ships into domestic trade without extending any further US jurisdiction.  A company operating in the US (which is what you want the cruise lines to do), should meet all US laws, and that takes away the financial advantage of being foreign flag, and why the cruise lines are not interested in changes to the PVSA.

Edited October 19, 2020 by chengkp75

[K32682]

22 hours ago, JRG said:

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.

 

The economic benefit of the American cruise "milkshake" to Canada is insignificant relative to the risk that the shake is riddled with COVID-19.  Attempts to reinstate Vancouver as a port of convenience to thwart American laws are unlikely to be well received until the pandemic subsides.   

[Aquahound]

3 hours ago, K32682 said:

 

The economic benefit of the American cruise "milkshake" to Canada is insignificant relative to the risk that the shake is riddled with COVID-19.  Attempts to reinstate Vancouver as a port of convenience to thwart American laws are unlikely to be well received until the pandemic subsides.   

 

Reinstating Vancouver wouldn't be to thwart the law; it would be to satisfy the law.  But yes, as long as COVID-19 is still a significant thing, I don't see Canada accepting cruise ships.  

[K32682]

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

 

Reinstating Vancouver wouldn't be to thwart the law; it would be to satisfy the law.  But yes, as long as COVID-19 is still a significant thing, I don't see Canada accepting cruise ships.  

 

The distance from the cruise ship terminal in Vancouver to the U.S. border is 32 miles. It's a loophole foreign cruise companies have used to "satisfy" the letter of the law but hardly the spirit. 

[d9704011]

36 minutes ago, K32682 said:

 

The distance from the cruise ship terminal in Vancouver to the U.S. border is 32 miles. It's a loophole foreign cruise companies have used to "satisfy" the letter of the law but hardly the spirit. 

Sure it satisfies the spirit of the law.  From the US perspective Vancouver is a foreign port and that’s the end of it. 

[chengkp75]

Yeah.  Like trucking merchandise from Calais, ME to Saint Stephen, New Brunswick, or Brownsville, TX to Matagordos, Mexico, only yards across a river, doesn't satisfy the "spirit" of "international trade".  Hoo boy.

[K32682]

1 hour ago, d9704011 said:

Sure it satisfies the spirit of the law.  From the US perspective Vancouver is a foreign port and that’s the end of it. 

 

Those ships aren't stopping in Vancouver for the sights or the delights of the city.  They are exploiting Vancouver to meet the legal requirements. 

[navybankerteacher]

If 50% of crew must be US and US labor laws apply - fares are likely to be significantly higher -- and the on board experience might also be different - as has been reported concerning NCL's Hawaiian itineraries.

[chengkp75]

20 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

If 50% of crew must be US and US labor laws apply - fares are likely to be significantly higher -- and the on board experience might also be different - as has been reported concerning NCL's Hawaiian itineraries.

Realize that I picked the 50% number from thin air, heck an amendment to the PVSA could require 100% US crew.

[Aquahound]

2 hours ago, K32682 said:

 

The distance from the cruise ship terminal in Vancouver to the U.S. border is 32 miles. It's a loophole foreign cruise companies have used to "satisfy" the letter of the law but hardly the spirit. 

 

33 minutes ago, K32682 said:

 

Those ships aren't stopping in Vancouver for the sights or the delights of the city.  They are exploiting Vancouver to meet the legal requirements. 

 

Most (but not all) cruises out of Seattle stop in Victoria, not Vancouver.  Either way, it's still not an exploitation or loophole.  It is perfectly within the letter of the law.  

[navybankerteacher]

52 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Realize that I picked the 50% number from thin air, heck an amendment to the PVSA could require 100% US crew.

Then, of course, the increase in fares would have to be that much higher - possibly off-set by a reduction in staff, which then would further degrade the on-board experience.

[K32682]

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

Most (but not all) cruises out of Seattle stop in Victoria, not Vancouver.  Either way, it's still not an exploitation or loophole.  It is perfectly within the letter of the law.  

 

Either way it is cruise ships using Canada so they can take Americans to Alaska. The very topic of this thread is trying to identify another foreign country to exploit to take American leisure cruisers to a distant U.S. state during a global pandemic. Mexico is the wrong way. Russia is too far.  

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by K32682

[rkacruiser]

53 minutes ago, K32682 said:

 

Either way it is cruise ships using Canada so they can take Americans to Alaska. The very topic of this thread is trying to identify another foreign country to exploit to take American leisure cruisers to a distant U.S. state during a global pandemic. Mexico is the wrong way. Russia is too far.  

 

 

A visit to a Russian port would be much more interesting to this cruiser than any port in Mexico if a Canadian port is not able to be visited.  

[K32682]

12 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

A visit to a Russian port would be much more interesting to this cruiser than any port in Mexico if a Canadian port is not able to be visited.  

 

It would be much more interesting but harder to get to. The nearest acceptable Russian port according to posts earlier in this thread would require several seas days to reach. Additional the Bering Sea is not known for smooth sailing which would appeal to those of us who like heavy seas but might dissuade those with less hearty constitutions. 

 

Instead of casting about for another nearby foreign country to take advantage of Americans should lobby their own government for exclusions to the PVSA. 

[navybankerteacher]

14 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

A visit to a Russian port would be much more interesting to this cruiser than any port in Mexico if a Canadian port is not able to be visited.  

What Russian Port can you suggest as a stop-over between Seattle and Alaska?  We are not talking about multi-week itineraries.

[Cruzaholic41]

1 hour ago, K32682 said:

Instead of casting about for another nearby foreign country to take advantage of Americans should lobby their own government for exclusions to the PVSA. 

Why in the world would Americans lobby on behalf of an industry that hasn’t asked for it?  Sorry, but your posts have been a little over sensational on this thread.