Technical Stop Only requested in Canada 2/25/21

[Ombud]

4 hours ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

That is so true how people like some rules to apply to others but not themselves.....with all that is going on in the world some how a cruise to Alaska is the most important event that absolutely must happen at all costs in some people's world!! 

Especially since flights this summer are wide open and inexpensive.  So I can't cruise, will just fly

[cruisequeen4ever]

Governor Dunleavy, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and Congressman Don Young have all expressed support for getting the AK cruise season fixed. It seems like Senator Dan Sullivan did, too, but I don’t remember for sure. With more and more places opening back up, surely there can be a solution found for cruising. 

[azbirdmom]

3 minutes ago, cruisequeen4ever said:

Governor Dunleavy, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and Congressman Don Young have all expressed support for getting the AK cruise season fixed. It seems like Senator Dan Sullivan did, too, but I don’t remember for sure. With more and more places opening back up, surely there can be a solution found for cruising. 

 

Confirmed, both Senators introduced the act https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/release/murkowski-sullivan-introduce-legislation-to-help-alaska-cruise-season

[ontheweb]

55 minutes ago, azbirdmom said:

 

Confirmed, both Senators introduced the act https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/release/murkowski-sullivan-introduce-legislation-to-help-alaska-cruise-season

And I suppose the party presently in the majority will drop all other priorities to get this bill proposed by 2 Senators in the party presently in the minority passed.

 

The proposed legislation is to make them look good to their constituents. They know it will not pass, or even get to the Senate floor for a vote.

[paul929207]

Probably the best chance to get anything done this year would have been if the Congressman and the two senators had offered to support the Covid legislation.

[HappyInVan]

22 hours ago, Potstech said:

Infer all you want that does not make it a fact.

 

You are very entertaining when you put your mind to work. 😊

[Potstech]

4 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

You are very entertaining when you put your mind to work. 😊

Don't you wish you were entertaining too?  Work on it a whole lot and it might happen.  Even without the charts.

[Bgwest]

33 minutes ago, Potstech said:

Don't you wish you were entertaining too?  Work on it a whole lot and it might happen.  Even without the charts.

Don’t forget the graphs! 😂😂😂

[Tucker in Texas]

I can see a win/win  here.  Congress agrees to a temporary waiver of the PSA if the ships actually "call" at a port in Canada.  "Call" being defined as a crew member going from the ship out in Canadian waters into the port and get paperwork done that they did indeed "visit" the port without any passengers actually disembarking..   Canada might agree to that if they got paid as if they did indeed dock by collecting port charges for every passenger or a charge for the unused pier they would have used.  .  I know, in the past, It has sometimes happened when the ship could not get into port due to weather conditions or other factors.  

[memoak]

14 minutes ago, Tucker in Texas said:

I can see a win/win  here.  Congress agrees to a temporary waiver of the PSA if the ships actually "call" at a port in Canada.  "Call" being defined as a crew member going from the ship out in Canadian waters into the port and get paperwork done that they did indeed "visit" the port without any passengers actually disembarking..   Canada might agree to that if they got paid as if they did indeed dock by collecting port charges for every passenger or a charge for the unused pier they would have used.  .  I know, in the past, It has sometimes happened when the ship could not get into port due to weather conditions or other factors.  

Dream on

[Shmoo here]

1 hour ago, Tucker in Texas said:

I can see a win/win  here.  Congress agrees to a temporary waiver of the PSA if the ships actually "call" at a port in Canada.  "Call" being defined as a crew member going from the ship out in Canadian waters into the port and get paperwork done that they did indeed "visit" the port without any passengers actually disembarking..   Canada might agree to that if they got paid as if they did indeed dock by collecting port charges for every passenger or a charge for the unused pier they would have used.  .  I know, in the past, It has sometimes happened when the ship could not get into port due to weather conditions or other factors.  

Such "calls" were deemed not in compliance with the intent of the law.  A cruise that does not port in a foreign port, and allow passengers to debark the ship, is illegal.  It's been proposed/suggested/whined about/demanded for YEARS to waver/revoke/change this law.  The cruise industry has shown no interest in doing so.  

 

It's not up to Canada to "agree" with such a proposal, it's a US law.

 

A ship unable to port in the required foreign port for such things as bad weather is allowable.  A ship full of passengers that just want to cruise to Alaska is not.

[ontheweb]

7 hours ago, Shmoo here said:

Such "calls" were deemed not in compliance with the intent of the law.  A cruise that does not port in a foreign port, and allow passengers to debark the ship, is illegal.  It's been proposed/suggested/whined about/demanded for YEARS to waver/revoke/change this law.  The cruise industry has shown no interest in doing so.  

 

It's not up to Canada to "agree" with such a proposal, it's a US law.

 

A ship unable to port in the required foreign port for such things as bad weather is allowable.  A ship full of passengers that just want to cruise to Alaska is not.

Yes, one should not equate an emergency like weather may cause with intentionally scheduling a violation of the law.

[Potstech]

10 hours ago, Tucker in Texas said:

I can see a win/win  here.  Congress agrees to a temporary waiver of the PSA if the ships actually "call" at a port in Canada.  "Call" being defined as a crew member going from the ship out in Canadian waters into the port and get paperwork done that they did indeed "visit" the port without any passengers actually disembarking..   Canada might agree to that if they got paid as if they did indeed dock by collecting port charges for every passenger or a charge for the unused pier they would have used.  .  I know, in the past, It has sometimes happened when the ship could not get into port due to weather conditions or other factors.  

Why should Canada get paid those kind of fees for doing nothing?   Sounds like a form of blackmail.

[tert333]

10 minutes ago, Potstech said:

Why should Canada get paid those kind of fees for doing nothing?   Sounds like a form of blackmail.

There is no blackmail.  Canada has said the ports are closed.  They have already said they will not accept a stop, with no people getting off.  The money is not the issue here.  Canada does not want cruiseships in any of their ports until the pandemic is over.

 

 

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, Potstech said:

Why should Canada get paid those kind of fees for doing nothing?   Sounds like a form of blackmail.

They are not asking for payments. They are closing their border including ships sailing in their territorial water.

[Potstech]

The poster of the idea is who I was replying too.  Nowhere did I indicate Canada asked for any kind of payment

[Potstech]

2 hours ago, tert333 said:

There is no blackmail.  Canada has said the ports are closed.  They have already said they will not accept a stop, with no people getting off.  The money is not the issue here.  Canada does not want cruiseships in any of their ports until the pandemic is over.

 

 

Nowhere did I say there was blackmail. I just INFERRED if there where any such payments the it "it sounds like a form of blackmail."  

[HappyInVan]

2 hours ago, Potstech said:

Why should Canada get paid those kind of fees for doing nothing?   Sounds like a form of blackmail.

 

This is hilarious! 🤣

 

Thanks to the tag team for the laughs.

[GonzoWCS]

On 3/7/2021 at 11:34 AM, ontheweb said:

And bills introduced by members of whatever party is in the minority do not get any priority. Do either of these bills have a cosponsor who is a member of the present majority party?

Unsure

[ontheweb]

19 hours ago, paul929207 said:

Probably the best chance to get anything done this year would have been if the Congressman and the two senators had offered to support the Covid legislation.

And Senator Murkowski probably just had that chance to engender some good will and maybe some support for her Alaska bill, but did not take it as she voted no on the stimulus package. (The other Alaskan Senator actually was out of town and did not vote, some sort of emergency trip home, possibly for a funeral.)

[KeepCalmBearOn]

On 2/28/2021 at 10:43 AM, chengkp75 said:

Actually, they can't, without rescinding various international maritime treaties like SOLAS.  So, you've done a meager amount of research into the PVSA, do you know why it was enacted?  It was enacted to protect passenger lives aboard steamboats in the US.  Do you know that the very same conditions exist today, where the USCG can enforce stricter regulations on US flag vessels than they can on foreign flag vessels, even ones that "homeport" in the US?  While I have no real issue with revising the "US built" clause of the PVSA, I have a whole lot of heartache with allowing foreign crew and foreign ships into the domestic market.  Given your jingoism, I would have thought you would feel the same, but I guess it all comes down to whether it gives you your vacation of choice.

 

Yes, I know VERY well why it was enacted and the same conditions most definitely do NOT exist today. In 1886 the U.S. had a commercial shipbuilding industry building passenger steamships, what today we would consider cruise ships.. The law was not about passenger safety, but was pure protectionism. There is no cruise ship shipbuilding industry in the U.S anymore. The last time a cruise ship was completed in the U.S. was 1958.

 

Then you have the audacity to accuse me of jingoism. Was that to cover your own? You are the who doesn't think that foreign crews are capable of operating cruise ships safely. I do. I cruise all the time on cruise ships with foreign crews and I've never felt unsafe.

 

There have only been two major cruise ship accidents in the last 50 years and only one of those was deemed to be the fault of the crew, the captain specifically. Almost the entire U.S cruise market IS foreign ships and foreign crews currently and that isn't going to change, not ever. It is time for the law to be modernized.  Ferries and cruises can easily be separated.

[macjunkie]

If the fine is just 762/pp don't know why they just don't add that to the fare price and go for it... 

[HappyInVan]

1 hour ago, macjunkie said:

If the fine is just 762/pp don't know why they just don't add that to the fare price and go for it... 

 

Why bother to pay a fine? Your country should require American-registered and crewed ships for the Alaska run. Just pay extra for American labor. 🙄

 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, macjunkie said:

If the fine is just 762/pp don't know why they just don't add that to the fare price and go for it... 

Because continued knowingly violating the act can lead to other civil fines against the cruise line and the Captain, personally, and ultimately the USCG banning the ship from entering US waters.

[2 cruises a year]

1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Why bother to pay a fine? Your country should require American-registered and crewed ships for the Alaska run. Just pay extra for American labor. 🙄

 

I believe that the ships also have to be built in America, and sadly, no American shipyards are geared anymore to build anything but military ships.