Jump to content

Alaska 2021–CCL not giving up yet


Circlt
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, gtalum said:

On a side note, for anyone who wants to take an Alaska trip, you don't even need these tours.  A rental car and a triangle(ish) from Anchorage - Denali - Fairbanks - Valdez - Whittier - Anchorage is a heck of a trip and can be done pretty inexpensively (I bet even more so now than normal).  Add a side trip to Seward between Whittier and Anchorage and you've seen a lot.  

 

The big thing you miss is the Inside Passage.

With all this talk about Alaska, I am starting to think about such things, albeit a shorter version.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and some more good news

"Peter Pitts, president and co-founder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, said that given the current rate of vaccination—the U.S. is administering nearly 2 million shots a day—the country could reach herd immunity by Memorial Day on May 31 at the earliest or Independence Day on July 4 at the latest."

 

The CDC guidance could expire long before the currently scheduled date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlerkOne said:

And as I'm sure you know, the small ships don't object to a temporary waiver of PVSA this year for Alaskan cruises.

One cruise line says they don't object to a waiver, yet they are repositioning the majority of their fleet to serve Alaska this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

One cruise line says they don't object to a waiver, yet they are repositioning the majority of their fleet to serve Alaska this year.

Well, it's just good manners to say you don't object when you know there's not a chance in hell it's going to happen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

One cruise line says they don't object to a waiver, yet they are repositioning the majority of their fleet to serve Alaska this year.

AFAIK, no cruise line has objected. The small ship fleets could double the size of their fleets and it wouldn't make a dent in the demand. But they have a different target market compared to mass market cruise lines. There normally is any competition between the two.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

AFAIK, no cruise line has objected. The small ship fleets could double the size of their fleets and it wouldn't make a dent in the demand. But they have a different target market compared to mass market cruise lines. There normally isn't any competition between the two.

 

 

That's true, they're completely different markets.

 

Still, despite what they say, I'm sure the small ship operators aren't too upset that they'll have a monopoly this year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, while I'm sure that Senators Murkowski and Sullivan believe that their bill is limiting itself to large cruise ships, it isn't.  It states that the bill would apply to ships that sections 46USC3507 & 3508 apply to.  These sections don't include a definition of the vessels they apply to, so you go up the ladder to 46USC Subtitle II, Part B, and find that chapter 32 contains the definition of the vessels this applies to:  

 

46USC3202:

 

(a)Foreign Voyages and Foreign Vessels.—This chapter applies to a vessel that—

(1)(A)

is transporting more than 12 passengers described in section 2101(29)(A) of this title; or

(B)

is of at least 500 gross tons as measured under section 14302 of this title and is a tanker, freight vessel, bulk freight vessel, high speed freight vessel, or self-propelled mobile offshore drilling unit; and

(2)(A)

is engaged on a foreign voyage; or

(B)

is a foreign vessel departing from a place under the jurisdiction of the United States on a voyage, any part of which is on the high seas.

 

So, this opens the gate for any passenger vessel to operate as a foreign flag vessel between Washington and Alaska, and I would think that the Alaska Marine Highway would object to having to meet US regulations while the cruise ships don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, while I'm sure that Senators Murkowski and Sullivan believe that their bill is limiting itself to large cruise ships, it isn't.  It states that the bill would apply to ships that sections 46USC3507 & 3508 apply to.  These sections don't include a definition of the vessels they apply to, so you go up the ladder to 46USC Subtitle II, Part B, and find that chapter 32 contains the definition of the vessels this applies to:  

 

46USC3202:

 

(a)Foreign Voyages and Foreign Vessels.—This chapter applies to a vessel that—

(1)(A)

is transporting more than 12 passengers described in section 2101(29)(A) of this title; or

(B)

is of at least 500 gross tons as measured under section 14302 of this title and is a tanker, freight vessel, bulk freight vessel, high speed freight vessel, or self-propelled mobile offshore drilling unit; and

(2)(A)

is engaged on a foreign voyage; or

(B)

is a foreign vessel departing from a place under the jurisdiction of the United States on a voyage, any part of which is on the high seas.

 

So, this opens the gate for any passenger vessel to operate as a foreign flag vessel between Washington and Alaska, and I would think that the Alaska Marine Highway would object to having to meet US regulations while the cruise ships don't.

Why should they worry about the details of their proposed bill when they know it will not only not pass, but it is highly unlikely that it will even ever come up for a vote?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, while I'm sure that Senators Murkowski and Sullivan believe that their bill is limiting itself to large cruise ships, it isn't.  It states that the bill would apply to ships that sections 46USC3507 & 3508 apply to.  These sections don't include a definition of the vessels they apply to, so you go up the ladder to 46USC Subtitle II, Part B, and find that chapter 32 contains the definition of the vessels this applies to:  

 

If legitimate, now is your time to voice your concerns to your representatives. Very minor editing can address those concerns.

 

 

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 

So, this opens the gate for any passenger vessel to operate as a foreign flag vessel between Washington and Alaska, and I would think that the Alaska Marine Highway would object to having to meet US regulations while the cruise ships don't.

 

More fear mongering. How many would actually do that for a few months? I think about 0. Doesn't the state of Alaska also has rules and regulations for boats operated as ferries? But here is their contact info:

https://dot.alaska.gov/amhs/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

 

If legitimate, now is your time to voice your concerns to your representatives. Very minor editing can address those concerns.

 

 

 

More fear mongering. How many would actually do that for a few months? I think about 0. Doesn't the state of Alaska also has rules and regulations for boats operated as ferries? But here is their contact info:

https://dot.alaska.gov/amhs/

 

 

I have already done so, requesting that this bill not be passed.

 

No, the state of Alaska does not regulate ferries, as all navigable waters are the USCG's jurisdiction, right up to the dock where the ferry ties up, and as a passenger vessel carrying more than 12 people, they are "inspected passenger vessels" and subject to USCG regulations, not state law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I have already done so, requesting that this bill not be passed.

 

No, the state of Alaska does not regulate ferries, as all navigable waters are the USCG's jurisdiction, right up to the dock where the ferry ties up, and as a passenger vessel carrying more than 12 people, they are "inspected passenger vessels" and subject to USCG regulations, not state law.

Regulate was perhaps the wrong word, as I imaging both Washington St and Alaska want their share of revenue from commercial operations operating in their jurisdiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Regulate was perhaps the wrong word, as I imaging both Washington St and Alaska want their share of revenue from commercial operations operating in their jurisdiction.

Well, given that the Alaska Marine Highway and Washington State Ferries are both state owned, I would think that if they could reduce their operating cost by 2/3, they would be all for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, given that the Alaska Marine Highway and Washington State Ferries are both state owned, I would think that if they could reduce their operating cost by 2/3, they would be all for that.

Amazing that Alaska Marine Highway has no major competition even though some have threatened. Washington does have a number of private ferries. Both states have some ability to limit who can do what regardless of pending Federal legislature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, given that the Alaska Marine Highway and Washington State Ferries are both state owned, I would think that if they could reduce their operating cost by 2/3, they would be all for that.

Im not sure why you continue to engage this person. Just ignore him/her/nonbinary self like I do.  I am an airline pilot and dont engage with people that think they know more about flying or the airline industry than I do.  You are clearly an expert in the maritime industry and are well respected here on these boards.  Just ignore the armchair quarterbacks like I do.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stobe1 said:

Im not sure why you continue to engage this person. Just ignore him/her/nonbinary self like I do.  I am an airline pilot and dont engage with people that think they know more about flying or the airline industry than I do.  You are clearly an expert in the maritime industry and are well respected here on these boards.  Just ignore the armchair quarterbacks like I do.

I understand what you are saying to cheng, but it is also important to show the fallacies arguments he has been shooting down. I do agree that when it comes to him or her, it is like hitting a brick wall as nothing penetrates. But there are others who are interested in the truth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

I understand what you are saying to cheng, but it is also important to show the fallacies arguments he has been shooting down. I do agree that when it comes to him or her, it is like hitting a brick wall as nothing penetrates. But there are others who are interested in the truth.

That is true to an extent. But when someone argues just for the sake of arguing it is best to just not feed the trolls.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stobe1 said:

 

Yeah. You don't use facts and often just highlight overly sensational news headlines in a lame attempt to prove a point.  Hence the "T" word.  

 

I can't believe I am actually going against my own advice and even responding to you.

He (or she) really does make it easy to respond to him (or her) with the outrageous things he (or she) puts forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Yeah, protectionism that costs those protected 3 times the operating costs of those they are protected against.  How's that work?  What jobs, pray tell, are being hurt by the PVSA?  What are your statistics regarding the number of jobs that could be created without the PVSA, in comparison to the US jobs that would be lost?  Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, I haven't worked in passenger vessels in 12 years, and have 6 months to retirement, so what is my "vested interest"?  

Jobs being hurt are those in Alaska who might otherwise have income this summer.

 

I will ask again, for the third or fourth time - What jobs would be lost by allowing cruise ships to skip a stop in Canada for a season? Other than perhaps Canadian jobs that are already lost?

 

You seem to be worried about safety. I suggest there are no added safety concerns by skipping Canada.

 

Cost to the American taxpayers - nothing. No additional stimulus needed to implement.

 

All facts.

Edited by BlerkOne
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody seems to care about the jobs lost in the cruise industry in Florida, California, or Washington state for a year......and maybe a year and a half as it seems.

 

Why such a dire necessity to salvage the Alaska season for Alaska from June to September?

 

David

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

Jobs being hurt are those in Alaska who might otherwise have income this summer.

Very few of the 20,000 or so people who work in cruise-related areas of the tourism sector (restaurants, tours, and retail) are Alaskans.  I know several who drive buses at Denali (which is union with benefits), and several with US Coast Guard licenses who run boats, but the vast majority come from Outside to work for the summer. The pay is low, and the living conditions can be pretty awful. In addition, the lodges and other larger corporate-owned enterprises have a couple thousand foreigners, mostly from Eastern Europe employed on J-1 visas.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DAllenTCY said:

Nobody seems to care about the jobs lost in the cruise industry in Florida, California, or Washington state for a year......and maybe a year and a half as it seems.

 

Why such a dire necessity to salvage the Alaska season for Alaska from June to September?

 

David

 

 

 

 

I don't see the CDC allowing cruising in Alaska without allowing cruising from other US ports.

 

There are enough people lobbying for cruising from Florida in particular. Many island nations are at least partially open to Americans so cruising from Florida isn't running into an obsolete law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wolfie11 said:

Very few of the 20,000 or so people who work in cruise-related areas of the tourism sector (restaurants, tours, and retail) are Alaskans.  I know several who drive buses at Denali (which is union with benefits), and several with US Coast Guard licenses who run boats, but the vast majority come from Outside to work for the summer. The pay is low, and the living conditions can be pretty awful. In addition, the lodges and other larger corporate-owned enterprises have a couple thousand foreigners, mostly from Eastern Europe employed on J-1 visas.  

I think the population of Alaska plummets in winter. A number of employees are seasonal. Some I know work in Hawaii by winter and Alaska by summer. Neither one has had much of a tourist season for over a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • 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...