Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Turtles06 said:

 

Which is logical I think because if someone onboard in Canadian waters needed medical attention they might have to be evacuated to Canada. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, nocl said:

Ok, so the last time Congress was involved was 2001.  An attempt that was limited only to allowing foreign built vessels to be reflagged and that went down in flames so to speak.

Again, if that was McCain, it was the Jones Act, not the PVSA, as I don't think I've ever heard of him caring about the PVSA ever.  What many people don't know is that the majority of US flag, ocean-going ships are foreign built, as there is no restriction on where the ship is built to be simply US flag.  Foreign built US flag vessels can carry cargo to and from the US from other countries, just like foreign flag ships can, but they cannot engage in cabotage trade (coastwise or domestic) like the Jones Act or PVSA compliant US built, US flag ships can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Fouremco said:


Words matter ... without Canadian waters, take out the “inside passage” bottom half.  

Ships would have to go to the west of Vancouver Island into the Pacific Ocean international waters ,  past Haida Gwaii and then cut across into US waters,  n’est pas?  

see grey border line below Alaska

If ships cannot access Canadian waters - even with a round-trip out of Seattle (unlikely, but just using as an example) would be logistically challenging?  (but not impossible). 

 

Ships have gone around Vancouver Island (west side) in the past, but then usually cut across the top back and return to the inside passage (east of Haida Gwaii).oceanEcosystems_mpa_size_apr2013_noBorder_0.thumb.jpg.f455031e95422419854db9000c89c3e7.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, hvbaskey said:


Words matter ... without Canadian waters, take out the “inside passage” bottom half.  

Ships would have to go to the west of Vancouver Island into the Pacific Ocean international waters ,  past Haida Gwaii and then cut across into US waters,  n’est pas?  

see grey border line below Alaska

If ships cannot access Canadian waters - even with a round-trip out of Seattle (unlikely, but just using as an example) would be logistically challenging?  (but not impossible). 

 

Ships have gone around Vancouver Island (west side) in the past, but then usually cut across the top back and return to the inside passage (east of Haida Gwaii).oceanEcosystems_mpa_size_apr2013_noBorder_0.thumb.jpg.f455031e95422419854db9000c89c3e7.jpg

Absolutely correct. While the focus in this and other threads seems to be on "fixes" to the PVSA, few posters seem to be taking into account the full details of the ban or, more importantly, the impact on cruise routes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, hvbaskey said:


Words matter ... without Canadian waters, take out the “inside passage” bottom half.  

Ships would have to go to the west of Vancouver Island into the Pacific Ocean international waters ,  past Haida Gwaii and then cut across into US waters,  n’est pas?  

see grey border line below Alaska

If ships cannot access Canadian waters - even with a round-trip out of Seattle (unlikely, but just using as an example) would be logistically challenging?  (but not impossible). 

 

Ships have gone around Vancouver Island (west side) in the past, but then usually cut across the top back and return to the inside passage (east of Haida Gwaii).oceanEcosystems_mpa_size_apr2013_noBorder_0.thumb.jpg.f455031e95422419854db9000c89c3e7.jpg

Not challenging at all.  The "outside" route, staying to the west of both Vancouver and Haida Gwaii is the normal cargo route.  You only have to be out 12 miles from shore to be in international waters, regardless of what a country claims as an "Economic Exclusion Zone" (both US and Canada claim 200 miles).  Cruise ships tend to hug the coast for weather protection and scenic opportunities.  The distances are almost the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

Absolutely correct. While the focus in this and other threads seems to be on "fixes" to the PVSA, few posters seem to be taking into account the full details of the ban or, more importantly, the impact on cruise routes.

 

22 minutes ago, WestLakeGirl said:

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Elaborate?

 

I was referring to Fouremco's quote above.    

 

How can one poster possibly know what a few posters are taking into account from a few brief posts.

 

It just seems fishy to me.

 

Anyway it seems best to get the thread back on track.   I think we should hear more from the B2B limitations that have been dogging cruisers for years.  

 

I truly think Travel Agents will benefit immensely if they could book back to back cruises.

 

You can fly round-trip from LA to San Francisco,   You can Drive round-trip from LA to San Francisco,  You can Greyhound round-trip from LA to San Francisco (almost)  but you can't Cruise round-trip from LA to San Francisco unless you go to Ensenada or Vancouver along the way.

 

Its that simple and people want to argue against even considering a change?  That is hilarious to me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

 

I was referring to Fouremco's quote above.    

 

How can one poster possibly know what a few posters are taking into account from a few brief posts.

 

It just seems fishy to me.

 

Anyway it seems best to get the thread back on track.   I think we should hear more from the B2B limitations that have been dogging cruisers for years.  

 

I truly think Travel Agents will benefit immensely if they could book back to back cruises.

 

You can fly round-trip from LA to San Francisco,   You can Drive round-trip from LA to San Francisco,  You can Greyhound round-trip from LA to San Francisco (almost)  but you can't Cruise round-trip from LA to San Francisco unless you go to Ensenada or Vancouver along the way.

 

Its that simple and people want to argue against even considering a change?  That is hilarious to me.

 

We can all have opinions on this for sure, but at end of the day it does not matter for this topic, Jones Act and PVSA are what they are.  Suggest you enjoy your various RT methods of getting around CA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

We can all have opinions on this for sure, but at end of the day it does not matter for this topic, Jones Act and PVSA are what they are.  Suggest you enjoy your various RT methods of getting around CA.

 

thanks.

 

I think the term wishful thinking sums it up best for me.     

 

Suggest you stay tuned for better examples maybe from your area or the Gulf perhaps.  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

 

I was referring to Fouremco's quote above.    

 

How can one poster possibly know what a few posters are taking into account from a few brief posts.

 

It just seems fishy to me.

 

Anyway it seems best to get the thread back on track.   I think we should hear more from the B2B limitations that have been dogging cruisers for years.  

 

I truly think Travel Agents will benefit immensely if they could book back to back cruises.

 

You can fly round-trip from LA to San Francisco,   You can Drive round-trip from LA to San Francisco,  You can Greyhound round-trip from LA to San Francisco (almost)  but you can't Cruise round-trip from LA to San Francisco unless you go to Ensenada or Vancouver along the way.

 

Its that simple and people want to argue against even considering a change?  That is hilarious to me.

 

With 140 or so posts on this thread, and at least as many on other threads that have drifted to this topic, there have only been one or two that make any mention of the ban applying to Canadian waters. Conversely, there are many talking about the ban from Canadian ports (which it isn't) and such things as allowing technical stops in Canadian ports. I stand by my comment that "few posters seem to be taking into account the full details of the ban".

 

Your paragraph on round-trips by plane, bus, etc. only serves to show that you have a less than thorough understanding of the PVSA. Tell me, how many LA-San Francisco or other US domestic flights are offered by foreign companies flying foreign made airplanes crewed by foreign citizens with no US status? Zero.

Edited by Fouremco
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JRG said:

You can fly round-trip from LA to San Francisco,   You can Drive round-trip from LA to San Francisco,  You can Greyhound round-trip from LA to San Francisco (almost)  but you can't Cruise round-trip from LA to San Francisco unless you go to Ensenada or Vancouver along the way.

 

 

Irrelevant.

 

Relevant question: Can you fly Qantas (or KAL, JAL, Air Canada, BA, Lufthansa, etc.) from LA to San Francisco? No. You'll be on a US flagged carrier: AA, Delta, United, etc. 

 

Can you fly United from Frankfurt to Milan. No. You'll be on Lufthansa, or one of their Italian codeshares that can fly within the EU.

 

The ONLY route I'm aware of that allows a non flagged air carrier to fly in country is Melbourne to Sydney. There are probably others, but they're very rare.

 

This is not unique to the cruise industry. You can theoretically fly Ensenada or Vancouver to LA on any of those airlines, although they probably don't have those routes. But you can't fly a non US flagged carrier (for tax, immigration, and other reasons) within the US.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Again, if that was McCain, it was the Jones Act, not the PVSA, as I don't think I've ever heard of him caring about the PVSA ever.  What many people don't know is that the majority of US flag, ocean-going ships are foreign built, as there is no restriction on where the ship is built to be simply US flag.  Foreign built US flag vessels can carry cargo to and from the US from other countries, just like foreign flag ships can, but they cannot engage in cabotage trade (coastwise or domestic) like the Jones Act or PVSA compliant US built, US flag ships can.

No the act was called the American Cruise Ship act. It was sponsored by McCain and was intended to allow foreign built ships carrying over 800 passengers to be able to reflagged as US ships. The only change to PVSA was to allow reflagging. The other requirements for a US flagged ship remained. I can send you the link to both the bill and the congressional report.

 

It is certainly PVSA , passenger focus, not Jones act. Unless there are cargo ships carrying more that 800 passengers.

Edited by nocl
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

It was not a bill, it was a request for change to a federal regulation.  It was in 2007-2008.  McCain was always opposed to the Jones Act, got too much money from big agriculture, I suspect.

 

Whereas outlawing peacefully bringing stuff from one port to another on a ship built in Finland is something that  lawmakers simply felt would benefit Americans?

 

Why Toyotas and Volkswagens aren't outlawed yet is a mystery to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Whereas outlawing peacefully bringing stuff from one port to another on a ship built in Finland is something that  lawmakers simply felt would benefit Americans?

 

Why Toyotas and Volkswagens aren't outlawed yet is a mystery to me. 

Huh?

 

While the reasons behind the Jones Act (which is what I think you are referring to) are somewhat suspect, since they were simply to protect the shipowners in the US, the result is not.  While I really have no objection to a relaxation of the US built clause of both the Jones Act and the PVSA, since there is no way that our shipyards, given their decline over the last few decades (due to other maritime laws, not the Jones Act or PVSA), can compete with foreign shipyards.  However, restricting coastwise shipping to US owned and US flag ships allows the US to more closely control the safety of our ports and waterways through application of specific US safety laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

 

How many of these Alaskan cities have the facilities and infrastructure to handle the thousands of people who cruise on a singles ship? Meaning hotels, restaurants public transportation  and most of all flights from all over the world. At best, Juneau and Anchorage, at that would be one bigger ship max.

Yes  --  This is a real challenge for both AK & HI...

At this time, the Fishing/Seafood Industry tends to move their positive/exposed/isolation cases to a feeder city, which is close enough to use the road system &/or quick life flight to a major hospital if necessary...

For instance they may end up in Seward or Whittier to be close to ANC...

Edited by Von & John
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cruisestitch said:

Von and John, 

 

your idea to have complete round trips entirely consisting of Alaska ports violates the PVSA.  
 

Without a stop at a Canadian port, there can be no round trip Cruises beginning and ending at any American city.

 

Yes  --  I realized that, after thinking about it last night 🙂 
I was thinking of the distant foreign port for the One Way cruises & skipped right over the foreign port requirement for the RT cruises...

 

And, I should have added in my original post - not sure the state of AK nor the Port Cities would be interested in this solution - even if it were possible. 

Just as in Hawaii, our Port City hospital & medical facilities may experience   challenges providing service to a large # of C-19 cases disembarked from a cruise ship...

 

 

10 hours ago, d9704011 said:

Anchorage is well on its way to being able to handle the volume of cruisers making their way in and out of the state.  If there is such a burning desire on the part of state and local government, business and citizens to promote a sustainable Alaskan cruise industry perhaps they can put a coupe billion dollars of investment money into the whole thing and expand the airport(s) a bit, build a couple more hotels and work on transportation to/from modernized and expanded port facilities.  None of this will get the industry around the PVSA but when Canada reopens, a stop in Prince Rupert can be set up and more time available for cruising the Alaskan coast instead of using Vancouver and Victoria.

 

To be honest  --  I'm not sure the state nor the people truly want to increase the cruise ship volume, which today overwhelms many small communities...

Edited by Von & John
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Another assumption that folks seem to be making in these threads, is that the port cities in the US will be willing to accept cruise passengers, if they were somehow allowed to do US port only cruises.  Most ports in the US have extreme limitations on allowing crew from cargo ships going ashore, and all crew changes (cargo and cruise) are escorted by bonded agents, and limited to transportation directly to the airport, not wandering around the town.  Places like Maine (some US ports) require either a negative test within 72 hours or 14 day self-quarantine for anyone (resident or non-resident) entering the state, I doubt they would allow a couple thousand passengers off a cruise ship for a day visit.

 

Thanks @chengkp75
This could truly be a challenge for many small ports, Alaska included...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Again, if that was McCain, it was the Jones Act, not the PVSA, as I don't think I've ever heard of him caring about the PVSA ever.  What many people don't know is that the majority of US flag, ocean-going ships are foreign built, as there is no restriction on where the ship is built to be simply US flag.  Foreign built US flag vessels can carry cargo to and from the US from other countries, just like foreign flag ships can, but they cannot engage in cabotage trade (coastwise or domestic) like the Jones Act or PVSA compliant US built, US flag ships can.

Here is a reference to the bill (now you have)

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/107th-congress/senate-report/47/1

 

S. 127--United States Cruise Vessel Act

    S. 127 would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to 
issue certificates of documentation with temporary coastwise 
endorsements for foreign-built cruise vessels under certain 
conditions.
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Huh?

 

While the reasons behind the Jones Act (which is what I think you are referring to) are somewhat suspect, since they were simply to protect the shipowners in the US, the result is not.  While I really have no objection to a relaxation of the US built clause of both the Jones Act and the PVSA, since there is no way that our shipyards, given their decline over the last few decades (due to other maritime laws, not the Jones Act or PVSA), can compete with foreign shipyards.  However, restricting coastwise shipping to US owned and US flag ships allows the US to more closely control the safety of our ports and waterways through application of specific US safety laws.

 

I was indeed referring to the US built clause. We seem to agree that abolishing that would be nice for constituents. Apparently there's even more money on the other side for that part than what big agriculture is willing to offer. 

 

Regarding the flag and ownership. It's hard for me to see that a ship owned by a Swiss company, flagged in Malta, sailing from Hawaii to New York, is somehow more dangerous to the Port of New York than when the very same ship arrives from Rotterdam. I can see that crew might sleep better, the ship is maintained better, etc. on an all American ship as those standards are compensated by higher prices without foreign competition that has lower standards. But is there any data that shows that all those non-US ships arriving each day pose a big threat that doesn't exist for coast wise transport because the owner is an American?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, d9704011 said:

Anchorage is well on its way to being able to handle the volume of cruisers making their way in and out of the state.  If there is such a burning desire on the part of state and local government, business and citizens to promote a sustainable Alaskan cruise industry perhaps they can put a coupe billion dollars of investment money into the whole thing and expand the airport(s) a bit, build a couple more hotels and work on transportation to/from modernized and expanded port facilities.  None of this will get the industry around the PVSA but when Canada reopens, a stop in Prince Rupert can be set up and more time available for cruising the Alaskan coast instead of using Vancouver and Victoria.

You do know that there is a reason why most cruise ships sending people to Anchorage actually dock in Seward and Whittier, not at Anchorage itself.  The Cook inlet where Anchorage is located has some rather interesting tides.  The port in Anchorage itself is a rather small industrial port. So I doubt all the cruise ships going to and from Alaska could port in Anchorage itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Crystal Cruises - New! Luxury Bahamas Escapes
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...