The Jones Act

[JRG]

On 1/27/2021 at 11:29 AM, Fouremco said:

LOL. Yup, the PVSA resurfaces like clockwork. 

 

 

On 1/27/2021 at 1:54 PM, grandgeezer said:

What market wants it besides the cruising industry? That's just a small percentage of the overall picture. The tail won't wag the dog.

 

Dear Grandgeezer,   thank you for asking the right question.  I have posted the comment that markets get what they want a few times but you are the first one with the presents of mind to ask "what market want to see the PVSA relaxed for cruising?

 

Fouremco answers the question for you with his observation in this thread.   The fact that the PVSA comes up so regularly means that many people are adversely affected by it,  most probably  in the B2B planning process.    

 

How many thousands of cruisers have had their dreamtrip harpooned by the travel agent over the years uttering those terrible words  (hold your nose when you say it) "The Jones Act (or PVSA) won't let you do that,  you have to book another cruiseship,   I can help you do that too".     

 

How do we get all these tails to wag the dog?     If you can get the tails wagging in sync then you have a market speaking out for what they want.   Hence markets get what they want.

 

Kudos to Fouremco for pointing readers to the CC article.

 

For the legal eagles who  dare,   a SCOTUS argument may exist.  You have to read the PVSA and evaluate the definition of 'passenger' during the steamboat transportation days, when the law was written.   Back in the steamship boat era,   there was no automobile,  airplane or other means that allowed 'passengers' to get to embarkation seaports quickly the way we do today.   Coastal and river passengers back in those days  were landlocked so the PVSA made total sense to prevent foreign parties setting up shop and stealing coastal or river  transportation routes domestically.   

 

Today however,  passengers can drive, fly,  rail or Uber to ports and there is no fear of foreign parties coming in and setting up shop to steal transportation routes,   the times have changed and the law is now obsolete as it relates to modern cruising from US ports.

 

According to CLIA in one of their recent monthly publications,   they are saying that  "all options are on the table with respect to PVSA.   

 

Thats my bottom line......

 

 

 

 

    

[grandgeezer]

4 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

 

 

Dear Grandgeezer,   thank you for asking the right question.  I have posted the comment that markets get what they want a few times but you are the first one with the presents of mind to ask "what market want to see the PVSA relaxed for cruising?

 

Fouremco answers the question for you with his observation in this thread.   The fact that the PVSA comes up so regularly means that many people are adversely affected by it,  most probably  in the B2B planning process.    

 

How many thousands of cruisers have had their dreamtrip harpooned by the travel agent over the years uttering those terrible words  (hold your nose when you say it) "The Jones Act (or PVSA) won't let you do that,  you have to book another cruiseship,   I can help you do that too".     

 

How do we get all these tails to wag the dog?     If you can get the tails wagging in sync then you have a market speaking out for what they want.   Hence markets get what they want.

 

Kudos to Fouremco for pointing readers to the CC article.

 

For the legal eagles who  dare,   a SCOTUS argument may exist.  You have to read the PVSA and evaluate the definition of 'passenger' during the steamboat transportation days, when the law was written.   Back in the steamship boat era,   there was no automobile,  airplane or other means that allowed 'passengers' to get to embarkation seaports quickly the way we do today.   Coastal and river passengers back in those days  were landlocked so the PVSA made total sense to prevent foreign parties setting up shop and stealing coastal or river  transportation routes domestically.   

 

Today however,  passengers can drive, fly,  rail or Uber to ports and there is no fear of foreign parties coming in and setting up shop to steal transportation routes,   the times have changed and the law is now obsolete as it relates to modern cruising from US ports.

 

According to CLIA in one of their recent monthly publications,   they are saying that  "all options are on the table with respect to PVSA.   

 

Thats my bottom line......

 

 

 

 

    

Very good post. It's refreshing to see someone explain their reasoning rather than just stating their belief. I still can't see it happening based on my original response.

[Fouremco]

21 minutes ago, JRG said:

Fouremco answers the question for you with his observation in this thread.   The fact that the PVSA comes up so regularly means that many people are adversely affected by it,  most probably  in the B2B planning process. 

In fact, the majority of the threads that I have read over the years deal more with a clarification of the PVSA and its many requirements, rather than complaints from aggrieved cruisers.  And, of course, attempts to educate people and have them understand the fact that the PVSA and the Jones Act are totally separate pieces of legislation, only one applying to cruising. I would immediately drop any travel agent who would say " 'The Jones Act (or PVSA) won't let you do that,  you have to book another cruiseship,  I can help you do that too' " 

 

The US and foreign marine industry, including its small cruise component, has made no effort to get rid of the PVSA. Furthermore, as has been pointed out in this and other threads, Celebrity and other lines always have the option of registering one or more ships in the US, with all of the labour and other issues such a decision would entail, but with the exception of NCL, none have seen this as a worthwhile venture. 

 

The real problem right now isn't the PVSA, it's the pandemic. Cruise lines had been able to manage Hawaiian and Alaskan cruises with no particular difficulty until last year, when the closure of Canadian ports created a major problem. Agreed, there were some b2b issues previously, mostly relating to passengers trying to combine Hawaii and Alaska on the same itinerary, but the number of passengers affected would be minuscule compared to the overall number of passengers cruising these two regions.

 

Once the pandemic passes and Canadian ports reopen, any current impetus to amend the PVSA will disappear IMO.

[jagoffee]

Furthermore, as has been pointed out in this and other threads, Celebrity and other lines always have the option of registering one or more ships in the US, with all of the labour and other issues such a decision would entail, but with the exception of NCL, none have seen this as a worthwhile venture. 

Fouremco,  

 

isn’t there an issue concerning where the ships are built?

 

Does Canada have similar laws?

 

 

 

[Fouremco]

7 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

Furthermore, as has been pointed out in this and other threads, Celebrity and other lines always have the option of registering one or more ships in the US, with all of the labour and other issues such a decision would entail, but with the exception of NCL, none have seen this as a worthwhile venture. 

Fouremco,  

 

isn’t there an issue concerning where the ships are built?

 

Does Canada have similar laws?

 

 

 

Yes, the ship would have to be built in the US. I included that under "other issues", as I did with the requirement for the ship to be US-owned. 

 

I'm not aware of a similar act ever having been passed in Canada, although elements of the PVSA might be found in other legislation. Good question.

 

[d9704011]

49 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

Yes, the ship would have to be built in the US. I included that under "other issues", as I did with the requirement for the ship to be US-owned. 

 

I'm not aware of a similar act ever having been passed in Canada, although elements of the PVSA might be found in other legislation. Good question.

 

In Canada, it’s a bit more of a mish-mash but cabotage is alive and well!  See the Coasting Trade Act:

 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-33.3/page-1.html

[nocl]

3 hours ago, JRG said:

 

 

 

Dear Grandgeezer,   thank you for asking the right question.  I have posted the comment that markets get what they want a few times but you are the first one with the presents of mind to ask "what market want to see the PVSA relaxed for cruising?

 

Fouremco answers the question for you with his observation in this thread.   The fact that the PVSA comes up so regularly means that many people are adversely affected by it,  most probably  in the B2B planning process.    

 

How many thousands of cruisers have had their dreamtrip harpooned by the travel agent over the years uttering those terrible words  (hold your nose when you say it) "The Jones Act (or PVSA) won't let you do that,  you have to book another cruiseship,   I can help you do that too".     

 

How do we get all these tails to wag the dog?     If you can get the tails wagging in sync then you have a market speaking out for what they want.   Hence markets get what they want.

 

Kudos to Fouremco for pointing readers to the CC article.

 

For the legal eagles who  dare,   a SCOTUS argument may exist.  You have to read the PVSA and evaluate the definition of 'passenger' during the steamboat transportation days, when the law was written.   Back in the steamship boat era,   there was no automobile,  airplane or other means that allowed 'passengers' to get to embarkation seaports quickly the way we do today.   Coastal and river passengers back in those days  were landlocked so the PVSA made total sense to prevent foreign parties setting up shop and stealing coastal or river  transportation routes domestically.   

 

Today however,  passengers can drive, fly,  rail or Uber to ports and there is no fear of foreign parties coming in and setting up shop to steal transportation routes,   the times have changed and the law is now obsolete as it relates to modern cruising from US ports.

 

According to CLIA in one of their recent monthly publications,   they are saying that  "all options are on the table with respect to PVSA.   

 

Thats my bottom line......

 

 

 

 

    

Addressing your points

 

1. The percentage of cruisers that have been impacted by PVSA is a very very small percentage of all cruisers.

 

2. PVSA impacts far more than large foreign owned cruise ships.  It also impacts ferry boats, tour boats, etc.  Basically any commercial boat in the US that carries a few tens of passengers (have seen one report as low as 12).  So over all far more jobs than involved in the cruise industry.  As such it is not the tail wagging the dog.  The cruise industry is the tail and the dog is not letting it move it.

 

3. While the act does impact modern cruising the law covers far far more than modern cruising

 

4. Of course the CLIA says all options are on the table as far as PVSA, would you expect them to give the real story which is that there is not a chance that it will change at a time when they are trying to sell more future cruises, even when they know they will probably not sail.

 

Now for a few others:

 

The current administration and congress is even less likely to change the law than the last.  The current administration has already in executive order stated support for the Jones Act. Rather unlikely that they will allow any change to PVSA.

 

The current administration wants to discourage travel during the pandemic.  As they should.  This is very clear in the restrictions on travel requiring tests on all international flights.  Very unlikely they will take action to encourage cruise ship travel between states until the pandemic ends.  Once it ends there is not need to change.

 

The last time there was an attempt to change it was is 2001 which would have allowed foreign built ships carrying over 800 passengers to be reflagged as American ships and used on domestic routes.  It would have left intact all of the employment, tax, safety criteria for US flagged ships.  It went down in flames. Several of its sponsors (the lead was John McCain) are no longer in Congress.  

 

Bottom line you are joisting at windmills Don Quixote

[JRG]

2 hours ago, Fouremco said:

In fact, the majority of the threads that I have read over the years deal more with a clarification of the PVSA and its many requirements, rather than complaints from aggrieved cruisers.

 

Upwarduk could care less about clarification,   he had a genuine grievance when his cruise ended in Ensenada and he had to truck it to TJ and then San Diego,   tell that to him.

 

 

[Arizona Wildcat]

2 hours ago, Fouremco said:

In fact, the majority of the threads that I have read over the years deal more with a clarification of the PVSA and its many requirements, rather than complaints from aggrieved cruisers.  And, of course, attempts to educate people and have them understand the fact that the PVSA and the Jones Act are totally separate pieces of legislation, only one applying to cruising. I would immediately drop any travel agent who would say " 'The Jones Act (or PVSA) won't let you do that,  you have to book another cruiseship,  I can help you do that too' " 

 

The US and foreign marine industry, including its small cruise component, has made no effort to get rid of the PVSA. Furthermore, as has been pointed out in this and other threads, Celebrity and other lines always have the option of registering one or more ships in the US, with all of the labour and other issues such a decision would entail, but with the exception of NCL, none have seen this as a worthwhile venture. 

 

The real problem right now isn't the PVSA, it's the pandemic. Cruise lines had been able to manage Hawaiian and Alaskan cruises with no particular difficulty until last year, when the closure of Canadian ports created a major problem. Agreed, there were some b2b issues previously, mostly relating to passengers trying to combine Hawaii and Alaska on the same itinerary, but the number of passengers affected would be minuscule compared to the overall number of passengers cruising these two regions.

 

Once the pandemic passes and Canadian ports reopen, any current impetus to amend the PVSA will disappear IMO.

There are almost no issues with B2B cruises and PVSA.  As already said it effects a very very few. - my TA suggested under 100 out of many millions of cruisers.

As for the Jones Act, there are thousands of US built ships transporting every commodity from oil to grain.  Those ships would be certainly mostly be replaced with foreign flagged ships.  There are US flagged ships cruising in normal times on both East and West.  As for cruising, until the pandemic is mostly over there will be no cruising from the US. 

Also if CLIA felt that a suspension of PVSA would help - why didn't they request a waiver?

 

[JRG]

19 minutes ago, nocl said:

Addressing your points

 

1. The percentage of cruisers that have been impacted by PVSA is a very very small percentage of all cruisers.

 

Virtually every cruise that sails from a US port is impacted by PVSA.   

 

No more chit chat for you.

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by JRG

[JRG]

3 hours ago, Fouremco said:

Agreed, there were some b2b issues previously, mostly relating to passengers trying to combine Hawaii and Alaska on the same itinerary, but the number of passengers affected would be minuscule compared to the overall number of passengers cruising these two regions

 

The B2B PVSA constraints you refer to are 1 example, there are more.   Don't forget about the East Coast and Gulf Coast sailings.    

 

Try to think past the pandemic and don't use that as an excuse to avoid the real question here,  does PVSA adversely cruise choice options.    Keep reminding people that this might be a change that helps the passenger experience.

 

Personally,  like alot of other posters, I don't think it will change.    But I think the ingredients for change are there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by JRG

[jagoffee]

3 hours ago, Fouremco said:

Yes, the ship would have to be built in the US. I included that under "other issues", as I did with the requirement for the ship to be US-owned. 

 

I'm not aware of a similar act ever having been passed in Canada, although elements of the PVSA might be found in other legislation. Good question.

 

Thanks.  

[Fouremco]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Upwarduk could care less about clarification,   he had a genuine grievance when his cruise ended in Ensenada and he had to truck it to TJ and then San Diego,   tell that to him.

 

 

While the PVSA required a stop in Ensenada, there was no requirement under the Act for the passengers to disembark and take the bus to San Diego. As @nocl has already pointed out several pages ago, the problem resulted from poor communication from Celebrity, not from the PVSA.

 

 

2 hours ago, JRG said:

Virtually every cruise that sails from a US port is impacted by PVSA. 

Would you care to elaborate? I take a Caribbean cruise every year to get away from the Canadian winter for a couple of weeks, and I've yet to be affected by the PVSA. Theoretically, an Eastern Caribbean RT cruise out of Port Everglades is affected, I suppose, as it can't start in Port Everglades and finish in Tampa. However, cruise lines are quite happy with having ships working out of a single home port for the season and are by no means negatively impacted because of this.

 

2 hours ago, nocl said:

Addressing your points

 

1. The percentage of cruisers that have been impacted by PVSA is a very very small percentage of all cruisers.

 

2. PVSA impacts far more than large foreign owned cruise ships.  It also impacts ferry boats, tour boats, etc.  Basically any commercial boat in the US that carries a few tens of passengers (have seen one report as low as 12).  So over all far more jobs than involved in the cruise industry.  As such it is not the tail wagging the dog.  The cruise industry is the tail and the dog is not letting it move it.

 

3. While the act does impact modern cruising the law covers far far more than modern cruising

 

4. Of course the CLIA says all options are on the table as far as PVSA, would you expect them to give the real story which is that there is not a chance that it will change at a time when they are trying to sell more future cruises, even when they know they will probably not sail.

 

Now for a few others:

 

The current administration and congress is even less likely to change the law than the last.  The current administration has already in executive order stated support for the Jones Act. Rather unlikely that they will allow any change to PVSA.

 

The current administration wants to discourage travel during the pandemic.  As they should.  This is very clear in the restrictions on travel requiring tests on all international flights.  Very unlikely they will take action to encourage cruise ship travel between states until the pandemic ends.  Once it ends there is not need to change.

 

The last time there was an attempt to change it was is 2001 which would have allowed foreign built ships carrying over 800 passengers to be reflagged as American ships and used on domestic routes.  It would have left intact all of the employment, tax, safety criteria for US flagged ships.  It went down in flames. Several of its sponsors (the lead was John McCain) are no longer in Congress.  

 

Bottom line you are joisting at windmills Don Quixote

All excellent points.

[upwarduk]

2 hours ago, JRG said:

 

Upwarduk could care less about clarification,   he had a genuine grievance when his cruise ended in Ensenada and he had to truck it to TJ and then San Diego,   tell that to him.

 

 

A ship load of cruisers in fact had no idea about this law until we had a letter from the Captain on day 10. Many of the passengers had come from Australia and had thought that was far enough to have been a ‘distant foreign port.’ The entire ship load of passengers had to disembark in Ensenada and be bussed to San Diego airport. The ship sailed virtually empty, except for some crew and in fact arrived before we did.

Celebrity in my opinion were at fault, they should have warned cruisers prior to boarding. They do it if there is an itinerary change. Many cruisers had wanted to see San Diego, as the cruise was advertised as finishing in San Diego- not San Diego airport.

.I mentioned the circumstances to my TA when we returned to UK. She was unaware of the law and she was one of the best TA’s we have ever dealt with. Again, I think CelebrityCruises were at fault, not informing TA’ s from countries other than those that operate out of US.

 

BTW, I am female

Edited February 3, 2021 by upwarduk

[JRG]

6 minutes ago, upwarduk said:

A ship load of cruisers in fact had no idea about this law until we had a letter from the Captain on day 10. Many of the passengers had come from Australia and had thought that was far enough to have been a ‘distant foreign port.’

Celebrity in my opinion were at fault, they should have warned cruisers prior to boarding. They do it if there is an itinerary change. Many cruisers had wanted to see San Diego, as the cruise was advertised as finishing in San Diego- not San Diego airport.

 

BTW, I am female and mentioned the fact to my TA when we returned to UK. She was unaware of the law and she was one of the best TA’s we have ever dealt with. Again, I think CelebrityCruises were at fault, not informing TA’ s from countries other than those that operate out of US.

 

Indeed it sounds like Celebrity goofed here,   but the underlying law is silly in a Benny HIll sort of way.  

 

I'd like to see the law changed so you never had to go to Ensenada at all.   I'm not sure the TA's in the states are getting it right either.   

 

What is funny to me is watching posters defend this silly law on the forum,  it continues to crack me up. 

 

 

 

 

[nocl]

3 hours ago, JRG said:

 

Virtually every cruise that sails from a US port is impacted by PVSA.   

 

No more chit chat for you.

 

 

The cruises operate in accordance with laws.  Cruisers book those cruises as they are scheduled and happy to do so.  To say they are impacted is quite a stretch.

 

They are also bound by immigrations, taxation, port security, and a number of other laws, but one usually does not consider themselves to be impacted by them.

[markeb]

I honestly don't know how silly the law is in 2021. There are plenty of reports of what seem like silly applications (bussing to San Diego is a silly application, even if required).

 

What I haven't seen is a serious unwinding of all the bits that would be necessary to actually affect change. It's not just the PVSA. The exceptions now are pretty much for small tonnage vessels. For cruise ships, you'd be carving out a different exception, and that's just for the PVSA portion.

 

Then there's an immigration piece, that's probably an even bigger issue. The crew would now be working in the US, not on a crew visa or transit visa. Changing that would almost immediately get airlines at the table. They're also on crew visas. Can  you legislate a crew exemption for cruise ships without addressing air crew? Why would you? Does the US not have a hotel and restaurant industry that could supply workers? You can probably claim expertise for engineering, and there are already visas for reassignments within a company for senior personnel (mostly executives, but could probably be stretched for ship's masters, etc., but how far?). 

 

And then there's the whole tax thing. You're now earning income in the US, not transiting the US. 

 

And again, you have US flight crew who routinely travel on crew visas to the nations the cruise ship crew comes from.

 

Of course, the cruise lines could address all of that by:

 

Building cruise ships in the US

Hiring US citizen or permanent resident workers for cruise ships in the US

Withholding federal and state income tax, and FICA, etc.

Complying with all US FLSA requirements

etc.

 

Oh, and raise the cruise fares accordingly. Which without tax and immigration relief (ain't happening), would almost certainly be necessary with any change to the PVSA. Multiple laws to change, multiple committees to draft changes, significant Congressional Budget Office review as I don't see this as revenue neutral.

 

When someone unwinds all that AND the cruise industry pushes for it, I'll pay attention.

[nocl]

56 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

While the PVSA required a stop in Ensenada, there was no requirement under the Act for the passengers to disembark and take the bus to San Diego. As @nocl has already pointed out several pages ago, the problem resulted from poor communication from Celebrity, not from the PVSA.

 

 

Would you care to elaborate? I take a Caribbean cruise every year to get away from the Canadian winter for a couple of weeks, and I've yet to be affected by the PVSA. Theoretically, an Eastern Caribbean RT cruise out of Port Everglades is affected, I suppose, as it can't start in Port Everglades and finish in Tampa. However, cruise lines are quite happy with having ships working out of a single home port for the season and are by no means negatively impacted because of this.

 

All excellent points.

In his case he was on a one way from Hawaii.   As such any passenger had to disembark in Mexico and could not travel on to the US.  Those that boarded in Australia could have legally disembarked in San Diego.  I suspect that Celebrity did not want to pay the additional cost of disembarking a small number of passengers in San Diego or they go push back from CBP.  Possible they submitted a list as if everyone boarded in Hawaii and either Celebrity or CBP was not willing to allow changes to the data.  We will never know the exact reason.

[nocl]

1 minute ago, markeb said:

I honestly don't know how silly the law is in 2021. There are plenty of reports of what seem like silly applications (bussing to San Diego is a silly application, even if required).

 

What I haven't seen is a serious unwinding of all the bits that would be necessary to actually affect change. It's not just the PVSA. The exceptions now are pretty much for small tonnage vessels. For cruise ships, you'd be carving out a different exception, and that's just for the PVSA portion.

 

Then there's an immigration piece, that's probably an even bigger issue. The crew would now be working in the US, not on a crew visa or transit visa. Changing that would almost immediately get airlines at the table. They're also on crew visas. Can  you legislate a crew exemption for cruise ships without addressing air crew? Why would you? Does the US not have a hotel and restaurant industry that could supply workers? You can probably claim expertise for engineering, and there are already visas for reassignments within a company for senior personnel (mostly executives, but could probably be stretched for ship's masters, etc., but how far?). 

 

And then there's the whole tax thing. You're now earning income in the US, not transiting the US. 

 

And again, you have US flight crew who routinely travel on crew visas to the nations the cruise ship crew comes from.

 

Of course, the cruise lines could address all of that by:

 

Building cruise ships in the US

Hiring US citizen or permanent resident workers for cruise ships in the US

Withholding federal and state income tax, and FICA, etc.

Complying with all US FLSA requirements

etc.

 

Oh, and raise the cruise fares accordingly. Which without tax and immigration relief (ain't happening), would almost certainly be necessary with any change to the PVSA. Multiple laws to change, multiple committees to draft changes, significant Congressional Budget Office review as I don't see this as revenue neutral.

 

When someone unwinds all that AND the cruise industry pushes for it, I'll pay attention.

The last run in PVSA was in 2001 with the change being to allow foreign built ships to be reflagged in the US with the rest of US labor and safety laws applying.  It failed and there is no sign that the cruise lines even supported it (since it would have increased their cruise costs significantly and potentially allow for other competition to enter the market).

 

 

[Fouremco]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

In his case he was on a one way from Hawaii.   As such any passenger had to disembark in Mexico and could not travel on to the US.  Those that boarded in Australia could have legally disembarked in San Diego.  I suspect that Celebrity did not want to pay the additional cost of disembarking a small number of passengers in San Diego or they go push back from CBP.  Possible they submitted a list as if everyone boarded in Hawaii and either Celebrity or CBP was not willing to allow changes to the data.  We will never know the exact reason.

Quite right, thanks for the catch. I failed to properly differentiate between the two sets of passengers in my post. I should have said that "there was no requirement under the Act for all of the passengers to disembark and take the bus to San Diego".

[nocl]

Looks like Canada has extended their cruise ship ban for another year.

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2021/02/government-of-canada-announces-one-year-ban-for-pleasure-craft-and-cruise-vessels.html

[TeeRick]

One wonders if the PVSA could be temporarily and very narrowly modified to allow Alaska cruises or Hawaii cruises as one aspect of a COVID economic package?  Possibly a straight forward Executive Order by the President?  With an expiration date say by 2023?  Just a thought.

[markeb]

5 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

One wonders if the PVSA could be temporarily and very narrowly modified to allow Alaska cruises or Hawaii cruises as one aspect of a COVID economic package?  Possibly a straight forward Executive Order by the President?  With an expiration date say by 2023?  Just a thought.

 

And with unemployment as high as it is in the US service industry, grant work visas to the crew? I honestly think that and the tax laws are the bigger issues.

 

I don't see it, Rick. And I haven't seen the cruise lines or the major cruise states asking for it, either.

[TFree]

1 hour ago, TeeRick said:

One wonders if the PVSA could be temporarily and very narrowly modified to allow Alaska cruises or Hawaii cruises as one aspect of a COVID economic package?  Possibly a straight forward Executive Order by the President?  With an expiration date say by 2023?  Just a thought.

Like @markeb, I am not sure if I can really see it happening.  But the Alaskan cruise ports and everybody working in or adjacent to the cruise industry, will be devastated by this.  We will see if the President or the Congress cares.  On the other hand, the announcement of the suspension of the Alaskan cruises, posted yesterday, has disappeared from the Celebrity page.  Voluntary Suspension of Cruising.  (The cruises themselves are still off the website if you search for 2021 cruises.)  But why was this announcement taken down?  Could something be going on behind the scenes?

 

Tom & Judy

[K.T.B.]

On 1/26/2021 at 10:47 PM, JRG said:

 

That argument fell apart like a new cheap suit.   Here is why:

 

You don't need to repeal it.    As soon as you say that some posters blow their smokestack because they can't differentiate between modification and repeal.

 

Think in terms of making the necessary adjustments to the law so that the cruises from North America are not adversely affected by this steamship period law.      

 

The need to change is there and its just a matter of time before the market gets what it wants.

 

 

 

 

Exactly.  The law can be changed and it would infinitely help the cruise lines.  Imagine a 2 week cruise leaving Seattle, going to Alaska then to Hawaii and then back to Seattle with no stops in Canada.  Zero need for a passport (though to fly you'd need it).  That would affect Canada negatively, but there could be many cruises leaving from the west coast going back and forth to Hawaii with no foreign ports needed.