Bill to exempt Alaska from PVSA

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

As Paul says, the longshoremen would survive without the cruise ships.  And, you could either take a car on the ferries between Juneau and Skagway and Ketchikan, or go without a car on either ferry or flight and rent a car in each city.

🤦‍♂️Such practical advice. If it is followed Alaska's tourist season can be saved.😉

[rkacruiser]

20 hours ago, Aquahound said:

Are you saying nations shouldn't claim territorial waters?

 

No.

 

What I have not understood as the Alaska cruise season began from Seattle is this.

 

It's my understanding that Canadian pilots are required for ships sailing to the Pacific Ocean in the Strait of San Juan de Fuca from Seattle will be sailing in Canadian waters.  Thus, Canadian pilots are required.  Yes?  No?

 

If this is not being done and the ships are sailing to the Pacific Ocean in that Strait, they are remaining in American territorial waters with an American pilot.  If this is so,  these vessels are sailing against  the maritime traffic scheme for those waters.  That is unsafe.  (An Andrea Doria vs Stockholm situation when the Stockholm was sailing "against the maritime traffic scheme".)

 

If Canadian waters are closed to cruise ships, yet these territorial "water restrictions" that are supposed to exist are ignored, what do these "territorial waters" really mean?  

 

 

[rkacruiser]

8 hours ago, Aquahound said:

American Constellation. 

 

I would prefer not to sail on this ship from the mainland to Hawaii when King Neptune is having a bad day.  

[chengkp75]

14 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

No.

 

What I have not understood as the Alaska cruise season began from Seattle is this.

 

It's my understanding that Canadian pilots are required for ships sailing to the Pacific Ocean in the Strait of San Juan de Fuca from Seattle will be sailing in Canadian waters.  Thus, Canadian pilots are required.  Yes?  No?

 

If this is not being done and the ships are sailing to the Pacific Ocean in that Strait, they are remaining in American territorial waters with an American pilot.  If this is so,  these vessels are sailing against  the maritime traffic scheme for those waters.  That is unsafe.  (An Andrea Doria vs Stockholm situation when the Stockholm was sailing "against the maritime traffic scheme".)

 

If Canadian waters are closed to cruise ships, yet these territorial "water restrictions" that are supposed to exist are ignored, what do these "territorial waters" really mean?  

 

 

First off, again, Canadian waters are not "off limits to cruise ships" that are in the process of "innocent passage".  Canada has been a supporter of the concept of "innocent passage" for decades, and the cruise ship ban did nothing to stop that.  So, even if the ships require a Canadian pilot, that is allowed, as they are in "innocent passage" in the Strait.  But, I don't believe they require a Canadian pilot if the ship leaves from Seattle, only if leaving from Vancouver.  I have transited the Strait many times, and we always use the Port Angeles pilots for both inbound and outbound transits.

[kazu]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

First off, again, Canadian waters are not "off limits to cruise ships" that are in the process of "innocent passage".  Canada has been a supporter of the concept of "innocent passage" for decades, and the cruise ship ban did nothing to stop that.  So, even if the ships require a Canadian pilot, that is allowed, as they are in "innocent passage" in the Strait.  But, I don't believe they require a Canadian pilot if the ship leaves from Seattle, only if leaving from Vancouver.  I have transited the Strait many times, and we always use the Port Angeles pilots for both inbound and outbound transits.

 

Thank you for clearing up some misconceptions. 👍 

[nocl]

On 9/19/2021 at 1:52 PM, igraf said:

 

This has been explained before, but here it is again.  In brief, the cruise industry relies heavily on political support and so they are reluctant to stir up the mud.   The cost to the passengers is more apparent.  Unwanted port stops or the "too short to be enjoyed" technical stops, but these port stops still incur costs.  No one-way trips to Hawaii from the US.  Practical restrictions on US coastal cruise routes. 

 

igraf

 

 

relies on support, more like pays heavily in contributions and lobbying for support. They have not hesitated in the past to make their voice heard if they thought it benefited them financially.

 

Any major change in US law is more likely to change a US cruise market that is their core financial driver. Major change could easily mean more players that currently stay out of the US market entering it and impacting their profitability. The changes that some are suggesting are unlikely to impact their pricing power once the market returns to normal, but certainly could negatively impact their expense structure.

 

The cruise lines don't push for it, because it is unlikely to benefit them in any significant way, and is likely to negatively impact their business in the long term.

[nocl]

8 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I stand corrected.  Those ships will certainly keep the Alaska tourism economy afloat.  😒

 

That is what this legislation is about, not whether some small vessels can transit to Alaska with a U.S. flag.

 

More the economy of Juneau, Sitka, and the 4 or 5 other cruise ports, than the economy of Alaska as a whole. Even then, except for the native owned corporations, many of businesses that benefit for the cruise lines, are not owned by Alaskian residents, but instead non resident companies that follow the cruise ships from region to region. Mostly using temporary workers, also non resident, brought in for the season.

 

The largest impact is on the ports and local government budgets that collect the fees and taxes at each stop.

 

 

[nocl]

8 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, cruising only accounts for about 50% of Alaska tourism, could they do more to attract customers via flights?  Do you think that if the Murkowski bill passes, and that it requires US flag for the "waived" ships, as it appears to, that the cheap fares will continue on the larger ships?  Why do you think that NCL's Hawaii cruises are so expensive?

 

As for Hawaii, is there really a sustainable market for one way transport from the mainland to Hawaii by sea?  If there was, those ships could go there.  And, ships smaller than the Constellation could easily sail to Hawaii, as the NatGeo Endeavour II sails from the Galapagos to Peru regularly.

The flights to Alaska were pretty busy this summer. Most of the business owners that I talked with indicated that their biggest problems were related to getting enough workers. That they could not get the foreign workers that they normally get each season. Even problem getting college students to come for the summer.

 

Did not visit Kitchikan, Juneau, Skagway, Sitka, but did visit Homer, Seward, Anchorage among other places in the core of the state. Was surprised by how busy many places were in June.

 

The hotels the cruise lines own and use were closed, but they are their own enclaves, using mostly seasonal workers.

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, rkacruiser said:

 

No.

 

What I have not understood as the Alaska cruise season began from Seattle is this.

 

It's my understanding that Canadian pilots are required for ships sailing to the Pacific Ocean in the Strait of San Juan de Fuca from Seattle will be sailing in Canadian waters.  Thus, Canadian pilots are required.  Yes?  No?

 

If this is not being done and the ships are sailing to the Pacific Ocean in that Strait, they are remaining in American territorial waters with an American pilot.  If this is so,  these vessels are sailing against  the maritime traffic scheme for those waters.  That is unsafe.  (An Andrea Doria vs Stockholm situation when the Stockholm was sailing "against the maritime traffic scheme".)

 

If Canadian waters are closed to cruise ships, yet these territorial "water restrictions" that are supposed to exist are ignored, what do these "territorial waters" really mean?  

 

 

Cruise ships out of Seattle use US pilots that debark (or embark when returning) at Port Angeles.  The outbound traffic separation scheme does enter Canadian waters but like the chief said, it’s exempted by the rule of innocent passage. 

[Aardvaark]

On 9/21/2021 at 9:12 AM, chengkp75 said:

Yes.  That is one of the true accidents, while the majority of them have been due to overloading and improper stability (tipping over).  Much like the Golden Ray, a Ro/Ro that capsized off Savannah, GA a couple years back, and which the NTSB attributed to "improper stability calculations" (duh).

We loved the passages on QotN. 

[rafinmd]

On 9/21/2021 at 9:12 AM, chengkp75 said:

Yes.  That is one of the true accidents, while the majority of them have been due to overloading and improper stability (tipping over).  Much like the Golden Ray, a Ro/Ro that capsized off Savannah, GA a couple years back, and which the NTSB attributed to "improper stability calculations" (duh).

Refresh my memory here.  I thought Queen of the North was a grounding due to inattention to navigation on the bridge.  Is my memory getting foggy.?

 

Roy

[chengkp75]

36 minutes ago, rafinmd said:

Refresh my memory here.  I thought Queen of the North was a grounding due to inattention to navigation on the bridge.  Is my memory getting foggy.?

 

Roy

Yes, that's why I differentiated it from the roll-over disasters.

[JRG]

Meanwhile,  there are two very pleasant posters discussing this very topic on the Viking board right now.

 

I mention that to all HAL and Celebrity passengers and other passengers who follow the PVSA saga.   I think that they have expressed things in a manner that all can appreciate.

 

[Boytjie]

On 9/20/2021 at 7:39 PM, rkacruiser said:

Alaska's other industries went into hibernation as well as tourism?  No work in the oil fields?  (Granted, the drop in oil prices did not help.)  The fishing industry came to a halt?  Why, then am I paying more for seafood in my grocery than I did 18 months ago?  

Having done an excursion to an oyster farm in Ketchikan (excellent excursion, by the way!), it was explained that the market for fresh oysters came to a halt at the beginning of the pandemic. So, with no demand, what are they supposed to do?

 

Luckily for them, they could control the oyster growth by dropping them deeper into colder water to force an almost hibernation, so they at least did nto lose their inventory. Demand is still not what it was before.

 

On 9/20/2021 at 7:39 PM, rkacruiser said:

 

 

[chengkp75]

On 9/20/2021 at 7:26 PM, pms4104 said:

Sure ... so much of the Alaska economy depends on tourism, a 6-month season.  Too many eggs in one basket becomes problematic when there is a tourism interruption, as we have been seeing for a year and a half.  

 

Then again, I may be misguided in my assessment.

 

On 9/20/2021 at 7:39 PM, rkacruiser said:

 

I appreciate your response.  Alaska's other industries went into hibernation as well as tourism?  No work in the oil fields?  (Granted, the drop in oil prices did not help.)  The fishing industry came to a halt?  Why, then am I paying more for seafood in my grocery than I did 18 months ago?  

 

I wish my Senator of the same political party as Senator Murkowski was as effective as she has been in helping an increase of tourist dollars into the 49th State.  

Just looked up some statistics.  Pre-pandemic, the tourism and fisheries industries were a very small portion of Alaska's GDP:  3% tourism and hospitality, 4% retail (which includes non-tourist revenue), and 1% for agriculture, forestry and fishing.  The major movers of the Alaska economy are oil/gas industry, and federal government spending.  Even in southeast Alaska (the cruise destinations), the "visitor industry" accounts for only 17% of jobs.

[darstamp]

On 9/17/2021 at 2:03 PM, kazu said:

I find the Senator’s words a bit ironic - “at Canada’s mercy”?  

 

Upset that Canada closed borders in a pandemic.  Many countries closed their borders in the pandemic and for good reason.  And now, Canada’s borders are open to the fully vaccinated and the U.S. land borders still remain closed to Canadians and many others.

 

A sail in and sail out of Vancouver is very pretty as is the city and I’m sorry to hear that people want to miss it.  JMO.

As Canadians, we are very disappointed to know that some travellers don't want to stop in Canada on their way to Alaska. Stopping in the beautiful, welcoming cities of Victoria and Vancouver should be a highlight of your trip.  Canadians have supported the Alaska travel season for years, many returning time and time again to our friendly neighbour to the north.  We love it that we can board a ship in Vancouver, travel to Alaska through our gorgeous inside passage and return home to Vancouver without having to take a plane ride.  I can assure you this family will not be travelling to Seattle to get on a ship.  Please don't hold it against us that our idiot government 4,000 miles away wouldn't let you stop here during the pandemic.  

[Tiggerwudz]

On 9/19/2021 at 8:37 PM, 12cruise2 said:

Oh, my goodness.  It's not that Victoria and Vancouver aren't lovely cities.  It's that it isn't fair that a foreign port/country stop is able to stop/control all cruising to Alaska from the U.S.  It doesn't mean that the ships will never stop in Canada again.  I hope they do stop there again.

You have it all wrong. Canada is not responsible for stopping cruises to Alaska, the PVSA is.

Which is why the temporary change to PVSA allowed cruises to Alaska from Seattle, even though Canadian ports are still closed.

Maybe you should say it isn’t fair that the PVSA stops cruises from going to Alaska, or any other US to Us port for that matter. 

[kazu]

36 minutes ago, Tiggerwudz said:

You have it all wrong. Canada is not responsible for stopping cruises to Alaska, the PVSA is.

Which is why the temporary change to PVSA allowed cruises to Alaska from Seattle, even though Canadian ports are still closed.

Maybe you should say it isn’t fair that the PVSA stops cruises from going to Alaska, or any other US to Us port for that matter. 

 

I disagree.  Covid stopped the cruises.  It they wanted to give an exemption/waiver /permit - whatever the right term is -  to the PVSA then it could have been done earlier.

 

It wasn’t safe in May - simple. And it’s only safe now thanks to the vaccines and precautions.

A pandemic is no reason to dump on the PVSA nor Canada.  Recognize we were and are in extraordinary circumstances.  

Covid is not gone yet and it is to blame along with those that won’t protect others or can’t due to lack of vaccine.  Simple.

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, kazu said:

 

I disagree.  Covid stopped the cruises.  It they wanted to give an exemption/waiver /permit - whatever the right term is -  to the PVSA then it could have been done earlier.

 

It wasn’t safe in May - simple. And it’s only safe now thanks to the vaccines and precautions.

A pandemic is no reason to dump on the PVSA nor Canada.  Recognize we were and are in extraordinary circumstances.  

Covid is not gone yet and it is to blame along with those that won’t protect others or can’t due to lack of vaccine.  Simple.

Just to add one thing to your post. There is no lack of vaccine, at least in first world countries. It is all on those who will not get the vaccinations for whatever reason they conjure up.

[stairMaster]

If the PVSA were to be repealed, would foreign flagged ships be permitted to compete with say the Washington State ferries ( https://wsdot.wa.gov/ferries ) and Staten Island Ferry ?  I am interested to hear @chengkp75 views on this.

[Aquahound]

15 minutes ago, stairMaster said:

If the PVSA were to be repealed, would foreign flagged ships be permitted to compete with say the Washington State ferries ( https://wsdot.wa.gov/ferries ) and Staten Island Ferry ?  I am interested to hear @chengkp75 views on this.

 

Yes.  If there is no law preventing foreign carriers from operating in exclusive US coastwise trade of passengers, then foreign flagged ships absolutely could compete for those routes.  Imagine a foreign carrier operating the Alaska Marine Highway System, or in the examples you gave.  I see you're from BC.  Imagine if your cabotage laws were repealed and another country took over your BC ferries.  It just wouldn't make sense to let that happen.  

Edited September 24, 2021 by Aquahound

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, stairMaster said:

If the PVSA were to be repealed, would foreign flagged ships be permitted to compete with say the Washington State ferries ( https://wsdot.wa.gov/ferries ) and Staten Island Ferry ?  I am interested to hear @chengkp75 views on this.

Paul is quite correct, and it would extend down to the dinner cruise boats, casino boats, water taxis and commuter boats, and even charter fishing boats, anything that carries more than 12 passengers.  This is why Sen. Murkowski added the minimum passenger number to her bill, to keep the existing small cruise vessels that already serve Alaska from reflagging, as well as the Alaska Marine Highway.

[nocl]

3 hours ago, stairMaster said:

If the PVSA were to be repealed, would foreign flagged ships be permitted to compete with say the Washington State ferries ( https://wsdot.wa.gov/ferries ) and Staten Island Ferry ?  I am interested to hear @chengkp75 views on this.

yes, as well as local tour boats, river boats, fishing charter boats, etc. basically anything that the law currently applies to, which is any passenger vessel that carriers 12 ot more passengers.

 

Of course PVSA is not the only law restricting. There are also immigration and tax laws that impact the area as well.

[Hlitner]

4 hours ago, stairMaster said:

If the PVSA were to be repealed, would foreign flagged ships be permitted to compete with say the Washington State ferries ( https://wsdot.wa.gov/ferries ) and Staten Island Ferry ?  I am interested to hear @chengkp75 views on this.

I do not think anyone in Congress has been talking (or considering) a repeal of the PVSA.  What is being considered are changes (amendments).  Some predicted the sky would fall if there was any tampering with the PVSA but the 2021 change that impacted Alaskan cruises caused barely a whimper.  Somehow the world survived, the sky did not fall, the seas did not rise, etc.  Apparently Senator Murkowski's proposal (and we have not seen the actual language) would only impact large ships (over 100,000 tons) and only on Alaskan itineraries.  

 

Hank

 

 

[nocl]

14 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

I do not think anyone in Congress has been talking (or considering) a repeal of the PVSA.  What is being considered are changes (amendments).  Some predicted the sky would fall if there was any tampering with the PVSA but the 2021 change that impacted Alaskan cruises caused barely a whimper.  Somehow the world survived, the sky did not fall, the seas did not rise, etc.  Apparently Senator Murkowski's proposal (and we have not seen the actual language) would only impact large ships (over 100,000 tons) and only on Alaskan itineraries.  

 

Hank

 

 

the press release suggested 1000 passengers, not a ship size. At that you could get an entirely new class of competition to both the ferry system and the cruise ships. The large European style ferries that carry cars, as well as large numbers of passengers with nice amenities.

 

That would be an interesting competition for both the existing ferries and cruise ships, particularly with the cruise land tour portion. just bring you car along.