I Guess Alaska Cruises Will Be Cancelled Soon

[Minoushka]

But Covid is not under control yet ...ifpeople get sick where will they go .Can hospitals take in a great influxof pax who get the disease 

What about natives and exposure to virus ?they are very vulnerable 

covid needs to be tamed a lot more before anyone can travel 

ifyou can get vaccines to Canada quickly ....do so and Alaska .Yukon .

i too would like borders opened but only if very safe

 

 

[ziggyuk]

11 hours ago, atanac said:

 

A waiver would be in support of United States workers. Not being forced to call at Victoria or Vancouver would mean the cruise lines could add an extra port in Alaska instead. Money that

would have went into Canada's bank accounts could be shifted to ones in Alaska and federal taxes.

 

I think that's about all we can hope for now, if they are adjusting the itinerary it would also be the opportunity for an adjustment to bring the 9 days down to 7 to be compliant.
That's certainly the only hope left for my 9 day September Alaska out of Seattle now.

 

I'm sure my odds of winning the lottery are better.

Edited February 5, 2021 by ziggyuk

[DCGuy64]

6 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

I’m just thinking outside the box here and someone will probably explain to me why this won’t work, but.....

 

NCL has one American flagged ship (POA). Since Hawaii has so many restrictions for inner island travel (that I don’t see ending anytime soon): could NCL move the POA to Alaska for the summer season? I believe they can sail to Alaska from Seattle without entertain Canadian water. Of course, that means Seattle would need to open up to cruising (which appears unlikely). Anchorage mayor seems pretty conservative but I think the governor is more open. People could fly to anchorage and bypass Seattle. 
 

of course, that all hinges on the POA meeting current cdc return to sailing orders which, imo, is highly unlikely to happen before the Alaska season ends. 

 

nevermind- this was a stupid idea- I’m laughing at myself  :). 

Not stupid, not at all. I think at this point we'd all like to have something positive to think about.

I mean, it's not out of the realm of possibility for the cruise industry to ask for a special, one-time waiver. And, as you say, the POA would not be beholden to the PVSA. I like your thinking here!

 

 

 

[TSUmom]

13 hours ago, farmersfight said:

 

Hmmm...why does this sound familiar?

You beat me with this response 

[disneykins]

I'm sure the cruise lines have thought about all our proposals, amend the TVSA, move the POA to Alaska, home-port in the Caribbean. I wonder if they are reluctant to be the first to start, they would get lots of praise from cc'ers but the possible downside of a positive case and the ensuing panic, lol, might be enough to sink the company. I think they realize they are not all going to survive in the same format, with the same number of ships so it becomes survival of the fittest. Whoever can last the longest with no cruises will be the only one left standing and control the market. 

If they are losing $100 million a month now, why would they start sailing with 2 or 3 ships at maybe 50%? Maybe that cuts their monthly loss to $50 million but they are risking much more if they get a single positive test.

Canada, like everyone else, will adjust their policies as they see fit, whenever it suits them. The cruise lines won't cancel the Alaska season because of this, they haven't cancelled anything until the very last minute so they can keep our money. Good for them, they're a business, that's what they're supposed to do for their shareholders. They need to get Reddit to help them boost the stock price, lol.

[SouthLyonCruiser]

21 hours ago, Lost Sailor said:

Would the cruise ship be allowed to dock, but no one get on or off to satisfy the international port requirement.

The Canadian government said that the ships were not even allowed to cruise in Canadian waters; so, no docking.

[DCGuy64]

2 hours ago, disneykins said:

I'm sure the cruise lines have thought about all our proposals, amend the TVSA, move the POA to Alaska, home-port in the Caribbean. I wonder if they are reluctant to be the first to start, they would get lots of praise from cc'ers but the possible downside of a positive case and the ensuing panic, lol, might be enough to sink the company. I think they realize they are not all going to survive in the same format, with the same number of ships so it becomes survival of the fittest. Whoever can last the longest with no cruises will be the only one left standing and control the market. 

If they are losing $100 million a month now, why would they start sailing with 2 or 3 ships at maybe 50%? Maybe that cuts their monthly loss to $50 million but they are risking much more if they get a single positive test.

Canada, like everyone else, will adjust their policies as they see fit, whenever it suits them. The cruise lines won't cancel the Alaska season because of this, they haven't cancelled anything until the very last minute so they can keep our money. Good for them, they're a business, that's what they're supposed to do for their shareholders. They need to get Reddit to help them boost the stock price, lol.

"they are risking much more if they get a single positive test."

"possible downside of a positive case and the ensuing panic, lol, might be enough to sink the company."

 

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The CDC doesn't expect there never to be a single positive test onboard, as you state. The Conditional Sailing Order they drafted only requires that the cruise lines have procedures in place to DEAL with cases onboard. No one is under any illusion that not a single person will ever get sick. Actually, I'd argue the opposite: if a given cruise line sees a few cases or even an outbreak and deals with it properly, it'd be a win for them.

[happytotravel]

21 hours ago, Lost Sailor said:

Thank you, was just a thought.  I had originally booked for 09/20 on the Encore a few months back, but then changed it a few days later for 5/22, hopefully we'll be sailing by then!

 

7 hours ago, hamrag said:

Nope, the issue is COVID-19 as clearly stated in the announcement.....although some Canadians have posted, in their opinion, it's Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government to blame!

Hi Lost Sailor,

I did the same thing a few months back.  I had an April 2021 cruise and had a feeling of cancellation so I went ahead and booked a 9/22 Canada/New England.  Hope we both make it!

 

Hi Hamrag,

Unfortunately as things are going with Covid throughout the world we in Canada want to stay as safe as possible. Can't blame us.  But I do sympatise with you.  I too would like it to be different.

 

Take care and keep on planning your cruise someday we will be able to go.

Keep the faith!

Happytotravel

 

[Shattered__minds]

um but how would canada enforce this if someone didnt want to play nice? Do they have a Navy? and does it consist of anything more then a couple canoes? sorry just something to lighten the mood.

[All-ready2cruise]

Just now, Shattered__minds said:

um but how would canada enforce this if someone didnt want to play nice? Do they have a Navy? and does it consist of anything more then a couple canoes? sorry just something to lighten the mood.

You're not lightening the mood, you're just adding to the insults. Take a break. 

[DCGuy64]

12 minutes ago, Shattered__minds said:

um but how would canada enforce this if someone didnt want to play nice? Do they have a Navy? and does it consist of anything more then a couple canoes? sorry just something to lighten the mood.

I thought it was funny... 😁

[BermudaBound2014]

56 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

"they are risking much more if they get a single positive test."

"possible downside of a positive case and the ensuing panic, lol, might be enough to sink the company."

 

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The CDC doesn't expect there never to be a single positive test onboard, as you state. The Conditional Sailing Order they drafted only requires that the cruise lines have procedures in place to DEAL with cases onboard. No one is under any illusion that not a single person will ever get sick. Actually, I'd argue the opposite: if a given cruise line sees a few cases or even an outbreak and deals with it properly, it'd be a win for them.

I would ageee that the CDC has procedure in place to deal with positive cases. HOwever; IMO- those procedures come with extreme financial risk.
 

I keep getting hung up on the  paragraph in the Conditional Sailing Order that suggests that if a cAse is found onboard then all travelers must be returned home using non-commercial transport. Unless I’m reading that paragraph wrong, I see sailing as a tremendous financial risk until that requirement is removed.

 

There is also the section about cruise ships having housing available for all who may have been in contact with the infected passenger while they wait out the 10 days (or something along those lines). It’s been awhile since I read the Conditions document, but my conclusion was that zero ships would sail under those orders simply because it was too risky financially. I could be wrong, but it seems to me the cdc wrote the “conditions” document to stop ships from sailing :(. 

[bookbabe]

44 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I thought it was funny... 😁

Me too...and my brother is in the Canadian Navy.  Then again, years ago when he was assigned to one of the subs I sent him a roll of duct tape for Christmas, so I’m told my sense of humour is edgy to say the least...

[farmersfight]

11 hours ago, BermudaBound2014 said:

I’m just thinking outside the box here and someone will probably explain to me why this won’t work, but.....

 

NCL has one American flagged ship (POA). Since Hawaii has so many restrictions for inner island travel (that I don’t see ending anytime soon): could NCL move the POA to Alaska for the summer season? I believe they can sail to Alaska from Seattle without entertain Canadian water. Of course, that means Seattle would need to open up to cruising (which appears unlikely). Anchorage mayor seems pretty conservative but I think the governor is more open. People could fly to anchorage and bypass Seattle. 
 

of course, that all hinges on the POA meeting current cdc return to sailing orders which, imo, is highly unlikely to happen before the Alaska season ends. 

 

nevermind- this was a stupid idea- I’m laughing at myself  :). 

 

Not a stupid idea at all. But, I think the PoA has a restriction on her (even though she's U.S. flag) that she can only operate in and around the Hawaiian islands. I think this restriction was because her construction was allowed to be completed in a foreign shipyard.

 

Maybe @chengkp75can way in here?

Edited February 5, 2021 by farmersfight

[farmersfight]

1 hour ago, Shattered__minds said:

um but how would canada enforce this if someone didnt want to play nice? Do they have a Navy? and does it consist of anything more then a couple canoes? sorry just something to lighten the mood.

 

[ArthurUSCG]

5 minutes ago, farmersfight said:

 

Not a stupid idea at all. But, I think the PoA has a restriction on her (even though she's U.S. flag) that she can only operate in and around the Hawaiian islands. I think this restriction was because her construction was allowed to be completed in a foreign shipyard.

 

Maybe @chengkp75can way in here?

Yep, her exemption requires her to be in "regular service" in Hawaii.
 

Below is and excerpt from https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04421.pdf


NCL was recently granted a legislative exemption7 from the U.S.-built requirement of U.S. vessel documentation law to operate three foreign-built cruise ships in limited domestic itineraries under the U.S. flag.8 These ships must meet all other requirements to operate under the U.S. flag, including U.S. ownership requirements and operating with a U.S. crew. NCL has created a U.S. subsidiary, NCL America, to meet the U.S. ownership requirements to operate U.S.-flag vessels in domestic trade.9 Because the U.S.-built requirement is waived and the vessels will be operating under the U.S. flag, these ships will be considered qualified to operate in the domestic trade. These ships are therefore unaffected by the restrictions of the PVSA. However, the exemption limits the markets these ships may serve. NCL is required to keep the ships in “regular service” in Hawaii and is restricted from using the exempted vessels for transporting passengers to ports in the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, or Alaska.10 NCL is scheduled to begin service in Hawaii in July 2004.

[LCfromFL]

21 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

Royal cancelled their Alaska season on the Quantum of the Seas a few weeks back. Unlike NCL, they allow guest to lift and shift the reservation into next year with the same price and perks. 

If only....<sigh>

[Named-Tawny]

8 hours ago, Shattered__minds said:

um but how would canada enforce this if someone didnt want to play nice? Do they have a Navy? and does it consist of anything more then a couple canoes? sorry just something to lighten the mood.

I'm not sure that insulting Canada and lording Military supremacy over us is 'lightening the mood'.

More like being a jerk.

[SouthLyonCruiser]

On 2/4/2021 at 2:25 PM, ColeThornton said:

 

 

No.  That doesn't satisfy the requirement.

I don't believe that that is true. As long as the ship docks, it fulfills the requirement. Nothing says that anyone has to get off.

[ColeThornton]

40 minutes ago, SouthLyonCruiser said:

I don't believe that that is true. As long as the ship docks, it fulfills the requirement. Nothing says that anyone has to get off.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that isn't correct.  It's been discussed on here several times before.

Edited February 6, 2021 by ColeThornton

[SouthLyonCruiser]

On 2/6/2021 at 8:41 AM, ColeThornton said:

 

 

I'm pretty sure that isn't correct.  It's been discussed on here several times before.

After reading as much as I found available on the Jones Act; there is no mention of any passengers having to get off in order to comply with the law. The ship just has to stop at a foreign port.

[ColeThornton]

12 minutes ago, SouthLyonCruiser said:

After reading as much as I found available on the Jones Act; there is no mention of any passengers having to get off in order to comply with the law. The ship just has to stop at a foreign port.

 

The PVSA deals with passengers and the Jones Act deals with cargo.

 

p.s.  You're still wrong.  🙂

[Redtravel]

Just got email from NCL. You can still book Cruises with Canadian ports starting in May 21.   I know that Canada just pulled the plug.  Don’t the cruise lines keep up with new restrictions. Stop booking cruises to places that are off limits.

[Seafan22]

This is what NCL told me today:

 

We understand that The Government of Canada has announced an Interim Order which calls for the suspension of passenger cruising in Canadian waters through February 2022. We are currently studying the Order and its implications and have not canceled our cruises that visit Canadian ports.

 

We are currently exploring several initiatives that may allow such cruises to continue, especially for the important Alaska season. Given the fluidity of the current environment, we will also continue to work with the Canadian government to amend their current suspension. We are working through all available options as quickly as possible and as a result we have not canceled our 2021 cruises that visit Canadian ports. We will continue to keep all travel partners and guests updated as the situation progresses.

[AstoriaPreppy]

On 2/4/2021 at 9:13 PM, EleventyBangBang said:

You can apparently no longer book a 2021 Alaska cruise on Royal's site - I assume NCL will soon do the same. 

Eh, NCL has only canceled cruises a few months out on each go-round, compared to the other lines that have been more aggressive with cancelations. 
 

I’d assume NCL will continue taking reservations and money for at least several more months on 2021 Alaska sailings, even knowing they probably won’t be able to sail. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by AstoriaPreppy