Alaska Senators & "Alaska Tourism Recovery Act"; a technical fix for Alaska Cruises

[mcrcruiser]

On 3/14/2021 at 4:29 AM, ontheweb said:

Even if the PVSA was waived ( an extremely thin possibility), there is still the fact that the test cruises mandated by the CDC have not even started yet. To have everything in place for cruises to start for the Alaska season is just not happening.

It takes a minimum of 90 days to get any cruise ship  ready with a vrew that has been laid up  .This is mid March  .That would mean the earliest if it was already waived  it would be mid June to early July . Just isn't   logical that any cruises will sail Alaska   in the 2021 season .2022 is the best  bet 

[Daniel A]

2 hours ago, donaldsc said:

BTW - how did this thread on modifying the PVSA which is a valid topic on a cruise board degrade to one trashing San Francisco. 

It was started by a San Francisco native writing a condescending post about Texas and their form governance.  My initial reply was meant to imply that "people who live in glass houses...."

[cruisequeen4ever]

I appreciate that the two Alaska senators created this bill. They are definitely representing their constituents by doing so. I understand that regulation is needed for safety, but we are not talking about an unregulated industry. We are talking about cruise ships, which are already heavily regulated. It’s not like the safety of going on a cruise would be impacted this summer if an accommodation being made.

[chengkp75]

8 minutes ago, cruisequeen4ever said:

I appreciate that the two Alaska senators created this bill. They are definitely representing their constituents by doing so. I understand that regulation is needed for safety, but we are not talking about an unregulated industry. We are talking about cruise ships, which are already heavily regulated. It’s not like the safety of going on a cruise would be impacted this summer if an accommodation being made.

IF this makes it out of committee, it will likely be challenged quite quickly as their attempt to "redefine" what a "foreign voyage" is, runs contradictory to what is in USC, as dictated by SOLAS, so unless the US wants to revoke our ratification of SOLAS, this is illegal.  And, if this passes, what would stop the US flag cruises that are planned for Alaska this season from firing all their US crew, reflagging, and hiring foreign crew to cut their operating costs by 2/3.  There are much more efficient ways of putting dollars into the Alaska tourist industry than the historically low rate of return shown by cruise lines.

[voljeep]

8 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Alaska this season

a very 'specific' temporary 'adjustment' that would ... nevermind ...

[chengkp75]

42 minutes ago, voljeep said:

a very 'specific' temporary 'adjustment' that would ... nevermind ...

The only thing "specific" about the bill is that it applies to voyages from Washington State to Alaska.  It does not preclude the small ships (as much as the Senator's think it might, if you actually read the sections of USC that are referenced).  And, while these cruise lines are waiting to start the season, if they were given the chance to operate their entire fleet (several are replanning on operating in Alaska rather than their traditional market) for one third the cost, even if just for one season?

 

And, again, despite how specific they feel they are in their language, the language of SOLAS cannot be rewritten in US law to allow any nation an advantage.  If, the Senators had actually researched the law, and decided to try to amend the actual sections of USC that apply, they may have learned about SOLAS, and thought twice about writing something that would revoke our ratification.

 

And, as I've said several times, the cruise lines return a very small portion of the money they take in to the US economy, so if the Senators really wanted to support their constituents, they could have focused on promoting tourism to Alaska in other ways, that would retain every dollar spent in the US.

[Thrak]

4 hours ago, voljeep said:

that why I don't lock the doors to the Jeep ( soft top ) - let them have anything they want in it, just don't cut the plastic windows in the rear to get whatever you want 

 

We spent 5 looooooooooooooong years living in Madera, CA. During our "intro period" I had an issue with my vehicle. I had the battery disconnected - the cables were just sitting there loose. My vehicle had the hood forced open, the battery cables cut with bolt cutters, and the battery stolen. Battery theft was a common problem as multiple batteries were "needed" to make low riders go up and down. It was bad enough having the battery stolen but why go ahead and destroy the cables when they weren't even connected? I despise thieves and vandals.

[AF-1]

According to the Alaskan Newspaper;  Alaska is getting a lot of money from the Covid19 bill.  I am sure some of this is because of their loss of tourism dollars.  

Alaska will get a massive injection of money from the COVID-19 aid bill. Here’s where it’ll go. - Anchorage Daily News (adn.com)

Edited March 16, 2021 by AF-1

[Ken the cruiser]

It doesn't look good for the Senate bill as this was just recently posted. 

 

No Vote Scheduled on Bill That Could Help Save the Alaska Cruise Season - Cruise Industry News | Cruise News

[chengkp75]

14 minutes ago, AF-1 said:

According to the Alaskan Newspaper;  Alaska is getting a lot of money from the Covid19 bill.  I am sure some of this is because of their loss of tourism dollars.  

Alaska will get a massive injection of money from the COVID-19 aid bill. Here’s where it’ll go. - Anchorage Daily News (adn.com)

This is what I've been talking about.  Every single dollar of the money sent to families in Alaska will be spent in Alaska or the US, giving a 100% return on direct spending.  Cruise lines, themselves, through CLIA, admit that they only provide about $1/passenger in direct spending to the US, with the rest of the passenger fare leaving the US.  This will have far more effect on the tourist industry than cruises will.

[AF-1]

chengkp75;  you are correct;  the citizens of Alaska will benefit from this bill and it will help everyone 

[Potstech]

On 3/13/2021 at 8:23 PM, Iamcruzin said:

What are the Senators going to do about the CDC requirements that the cruise lines haven't addressed yet?  It's a moot point if the CDC won't allow ships to sail.

Check the CDC site and see what the cruise lines have done and even the CDC admits there are numerous ships including 9 Princess ships that have meet the requirements to start cruising as soon as the latest CDC guidlines, nowhere to be seen, come out.

[Potstech]

On 3/14/2021 at 6:05 PM, brisalta said:

 

On top of that in 2019 there was the, Conception, dive boat incident off of Santa Cruz Island. The Conception rapidly burnt late at night and 34 people died. The investigation indicated that there were grey areas in the regulation of vessels under 100 gross tons and a change in the safety laws was made as a result. It seems some of the existing regulations had been skirted.

 

https://www.noozhawk.com/article/small_vessel_rule_changes_following_conception_dive_boat_disaster_20210110

 

This change will also improve safety for people that go on small boat excursions in Alaska.

 

 

The Conception boat was found to be violating numerous regulations that were in force at the time. No grey areas at all. Yes some changes were made after the fact.

[Potstech]

23 hours ago, HaveWeMetYet said:

What was the cause of the wildfires before the climate changed?

Very bad and no forest management.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

It doesn't look good for the Senate bill as this was just recently posted. 

 

No Vote Scheduled on Bill That Could Help Save the Alaska Cruise Season - Cruise Industry News | Cruise News

No surprise, I've been posting all along that it will never pass and very likely not even get to the Senate floor.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Potstech said:

Check the CDC site and see what the cruise lines have done and even the CDC admits there are numerous ships including 9 Princess ships that have meet the requirements to start cruising as soon as the latest CDC guidlines, nowhere to be seen, come out.

If you are referring to the "green status" on the CDC website, that does not indicate that the ships have met all the requirements to resume sailing.  It means that they have met the requirements to have a plan to mediate covid among crew according to a submitted plan, and that they have submitted weekly health reports on crew, and therefore the ships are allowed to make crew changes by commercial transportation.  That's all.  Phase 1.  The next phase, as stated weeks ago by the CDC is to have the cruise lines submit their contracts with the ports and local health, transportation, and accommodation systems in the ports.  Then, once those are approved, there are the simulated cruises, and once those are approved, happen, and are reviewed, will cruising restart.

[restasured]

On 3/10/2021 at 11:52 AM, nini said:

Last night, I came across the following article. These are just a few excerpts.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/08/alaskas-cruise-season-may-not-be-dead-after-all/?sh=561f73f16c35

 

"On Friday, both U.S. senators from Alaska threw out a lifeline. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Sen. Dan Sullivan, both Republicans, have introduced the “Alaska Tourism Recovery Act.” If passed, the new legislation would allow cruise ships to sail to Alaska without requiring a stop in Canada, as U.S. law would normally require.

The “Alaska Tourism Recovery Act” would alleviate the PVSA restrictions for cruise ships transporting passengers between Washington and Alaska. In a statement, Murkowski called her legislation a “technical fix” that would provide “economic certainty at a time when Alaskans need it most.”

The Jones Act is a law that's time has long past.  All cruise line, except NCL would love to see it rescinded.  NCL has Hawaii sewn up and would hate to see that.  

[restasured]

On 3/10/2021 at 3:14 PM, chengkp75 said:

No, I am not.  I have not worked in the passenger industry in over 12 years, and am about 6 months from retirement, anyway, as I told you in another thread, where you questioned my standing.

 

There are quite a few things that could happen if the PVSA is suspended for Alaska cruises.  While I believe that the two Senators believe that their bill is limited to large foreign flag cruise ships, because they tie it to language of the sections of the USC that are part of the "cruise ship safety and security act", it ultimately refers back to the part of the USC that defines the applicability to "any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers".  So, even limiting a suspension to the Washington State to Alaska market (which I don't think would be either Constitutional (restricting one set of entities (US flag passenger vessel operators) over another set of entities (cruise ships)), nor legal under the terms of SOLAS, which was made into law when it was ratified by the US (placing more stringent restrictions on ships of one nation over another).  But, entities like the Washington State Ferry, Alaska Marine Highway, and the small cruise lines that are planning on serving Alaska in greater numbers this year, would sue in court for an injunction, since they would be required to operate under more stringent regulations, requiring about 3 times the operating cost than if they were foreign flag, then those foreign flag cruise ships.   These "interested parties" could also reflag to foreign to cut their operating cost for the duration of the pandemic, or then petition for extension, perhaps indefinitely.

 

This also sets a very dangerous precedent in allowing ships that do not meet USCG regulations into the domestic trade, allowing for future attempts to do this again.  As I've noted in other threads about the PVSA, it is not a protectionist bill, despite what Wikipedia and many libertarian sites say, since it requires those it is "protecting" to operate at much higher cost than their potential competition.  It is about vessel safety, and why the USCG has stricter safety, training, and certification requirements for US flag ships than they can enforce on foreign flag ships, even cruise ships that "home port" in the US.

 

Another potential legal hurdle to this bill, is that calling a domestic voyage to Alaska "foreign voyage", they go against CBP and their ruling that foreign crew working in strictly US voyages need to be on H2-B work visas, and not C1/D crew visas, and be paid US wages.  So, I think CBP might have something to say about this.

 

If they want to allow the foreign ships into a domestic market, they should require the ships to meet all other requirements of US flag, PVSA compliant vessels.

 

As I've noted, the cruise industry has a very low rate of return.  CLIA has stated that the direct spending of cruise lines in the US is about $28 million (that is for goods and services, taxes, social security for US employees, everything they actually spend in the US), while at the same time carrying 25 million passengers from the US.  So, think about that.  Out of the fare each passenger pays, say $700 per cruise, only about $1 comes back to the US in direct spending, which is then available for indirect spending and total economic impact.  However, targeted assistance, or even means to get the  tourists to Alaska so that their money is spent in Alaska, if using US resources (US relief funds, or US airline subsidies) would result in every single dollar of money invested being returned as direct spending.

Anyone that believes out of all the cruise ships that dock and port in the US only put $28 million into goods and services, taxes, social security for US employees, everything they actually spend in the US, is quite gullible.  I don't know what you mean by direct spending but the money pumped int the US is a whole lot greater than $28 million dollars a year.  The fuel a cruise ship burns is about $1000 an hour, those gallons of fuel are all taxed by the feds and states.  So there are a lot of if you like, indirect, costs way above $28 million. And those indirect expenses, very much benefit the US.

[kiwimum]

Does this bill not also apply to the airlines?   Negating foreign airlines flying from one US city to another.   

[NavyVeteran]

1 hour ago, kiwimum said:

Does this bill not also apply to the airlines?   Negating foreign airlines flying from one US city to another.   

This bill only applies to cruise ships - not to airlines. It also only applies only to round trip cruises between the State of Alaska and the State of Washington - not to one way cruises.

 

Even if it were to apply to airlines (which it doesn't), I don't think there are many foreign flag airlines interested in flying round trip between Alaska and Washington - with passengers allowed to spend only part of one day before being required to fly the return trip on the same plane.😉

[NavyVeteran]

2 hours ago, restasured said:

The Jones Act is a law that's time has long past.  All cruise line, except NCL would love to see it rescinded.  NCL has Hawaii sewn up and would hate to see that.  

The Jones Act, also called the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, does not apply to cruise ships - only to cargo ships. The Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA) of 1886 applies to cruise ships.

 

The PVSA is the reason that American Queen Steamboat Company and American Cruise Lines do not have to compete with foreign flag cruise lines on the Mississippi and other United States rivers and why Viking had to build and staff a US flagged ship in order to sail on the Mississippi. Without the PVSA, the US flagged ships would not be able to compete on the US rivers.

[chengkp75]

12 hours ago, restasured said:

The Jones Act is a law that's time has long past.  All cruise line, except NCL would love to see it rescinded.  NCL has Hawaii sewn up and would hate to see that.  

Actually, CLIA has stated several times in the past that their member lines have no interest in modifying or rescinding the PVSA (they don't care about the Jones Act).

[voljeep]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Actually, CLIA has stated several times in the past that their member lines have no interest in modifying or rescinding the PVSA (they don't care about the Jones Act).

before or after 'coronavirus' ??

[chengkp75]

11 hours ago, restasured said:

Anyone that believes out of all the cruise ships that dock and port in the US only put $28 million into goods and services, taxes, social security for US employees, everything they actually spend in the US, is quite gullible.  I don't know what you mean by direct spending but the money pumped int the US is a whole lot greater than $28 million dollars a year.  The fuel a cruise ship burns is about $1000 an hour, those gallons of fuel are all taxed by the feds and states.  So there are a lot of if you like, indirect, costs way above $28 million. And those indirect expenses, very much benefit the US.

That figure is from CLIA.  Direct spending is for:  goods and services (food, fuel, booze, tugs, longshoremen, pilots) and taxes to local, state, and federal governments (property tax on their headquarters, and Social Security tax for their US employees).  What the goods and services providers, do with the money they get from the cruise line, is indirect spending, i.e. "re-spending" that money over and over through the economy.  Yes, the cruise line generates indirect spending, but so does a stimulus dollar, and at a much higher rate than the cruise lines.  I know perfectly well how much fuel a cruise ship burns, I signed for it for several years, as well as signing for fuel for the last 35 years every time my ship bunkered.  And, you know what?  Even when the ship is US flag, that fuel is not taxed by any entity, as the ship signs a form declaring it to be used in either interstate, or international commerce, and therefore not subject to state or federal governments.

 

So, if you spend $700 for a cruise, per person, about $1 of that comes from the cruise line as direct spending, or 0.14% is available to generate indirect spending.  While a stimulus dollar returns 100% to generate indirect spending.

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, voljeep said:

before or after 'coronavirus' ??

While CLIA has stated that they are working with governments to get a work around, possibly for the current Alaska season, they do not want permanent changes to the PVSA, because they don't see any potential benefit to their bottom line, and foresee vast additional costs due to other restrictions placed on the ship (work visas, US wages, etc) that would be placed on the ships if they were to do PVSA itineraries.  That still holds post covid.