Canadian government CANCELS 2021 Alaska cruise Season

[cantstopingcruising]

56 minutes ago, maryann2 said:

 

The Canadian Rockies are similar to the Swiss Alps without people.

And without the cows and the cowbells!

[wrk2cruise]

21 hours ago, Oregonhiker said:

Davekathy, thanks for the reply. It appears to be refundable.  I'm just concerned that once the letter come out in a week or so, there's going to be a lot of lifting and shifting going on. Oh well.

 

If it is refundable then it's easy.  You call Celebrity or your TA and say you want to move your reservation to another ship/sail date.   It will be repriced at the prevailing rates which would include AI at this point.  Your deposit just stays on the reservation.   Just be aware that if you select NRD pricing on the new cruise the reservation will switch to a NRD and will be subject to those terms in the future.

 

The only time this is not the best thing to do is if there is some "New Bookings Only" promotion.  In that case you would have to make a new booking with a new deposit and cancel the existing booking and wait for the deposit to be refunded.

 

Now if it were a NRD then you could still move the ship/sail date but there would be a $100 pp admin fee which would not be waived as the new sailing is past the 5/4/2022 deadline of CwC.

[Bourbon Believer]

I’m no expert on “The Jones Act” 

It’s been described as ancient law relating to open access between U. S. Ports with Canada. 
Does The requirement for vessels returning from Alaska to make a stop in a foreign port have to be a Canadian port. 

Could extending Alaska itineraries to include cruising outside Canadian waters and moving the mandatory foreign country stop to Ensenada MX. All Hawaii cruises make a stop in Ensenada. 
I’m all for cutting Canada out of the loop all together and then let them grovel when U.S. ship lines enjoy safe Covid Free cruises to Alaska by just going around them. 

[WestLakeGirl]

Bourbon Believer, admitting that you are no expert on the Jones Act is a good start.  If you read the various posts in this thread you will see some which are written by posters who are, and who know the difference between it and PVSA,

 

A simple look at a map will show you why, with the current CDC Restrictions on the length of cruise not to exceed seven days, Ensenada is not the solution to the Alaska cruise conundrum

Edited February 8, 2021 by WestLakeGirl

[Fouremco]

31 minutes ago, Bourbon Believer said:

I’m no expert on “The Jones Act” Wrong act

 

It’s been described as ancient law relating to open access between U. S. Ports with Canada. Incorrect

Does The requirement for vessels returning from Alaska to make a stop in a foreign port have to be a Canadian port. No, and the PVSA does not require the visit to a foreign port to be on the return leg instead of the outbound leg.

Could extending Alaska itineraries to include cruising outside Canadian waters and moving the mandatory foreign country stop to Ensenada MX. Yes, once there is no longer a limit on the length of cruises

 

All Hawaii cruises make a stop in Ensenada.  Incorrect

I’m all for cutting Canada out of the loop all together and then let them grovel when U.S. ship lines enjoy safe Covid Free cruises to Alaska by just going around them. Not deserving of comment

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Fouremco

[GateGuardian]

Canadian here. No hard feelings if they suspend PVSA. I think if that is what Alaska wants, then they should push for it.

 

However, I'm not sure if that will happen. If you look at Alaska's (or even British Columbia's) economy, it's not primarily tourism. Their economy is primarily in the Energy sector and government spending. Tourism only takes up about 10-15%, with half of that from cruise lines. Keep in mind you can still visit Alaska with a negative COVID test.

 

I love cruising and I can't wait to get back on a cruise ship, but lets me honest, the cruise line only makes a small dent in AK's economy and it's not going to bankrupt the state or even BC any time soon.

 

 

[Ride-The-Waves]

The real unmentioned point is that the PVSA deals with non-US flagged vessels.

 

No foreign vessels shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $200 [now $778] for each passenger so transported and landed.

 

This means that ships of non-U.S registry are barred from taking on and debarking guests at two different U.S ports. An example is that a cruise ship can not sail non-stop from New York to Miami.

But there are some exemptions that relate to the cruise industry:

 

• Foreign-flagged ships can depart from and return to the same U.S. port, provided there’s a stop in between at a foreign port. An example is an Alaska cruise out of Seattle, which can stop at Alaskan ports provided a stop is made in Vancouver or another Canadian west coast port before returning to Seattle.
• Foreign-flagged ships can depart from a U.S. port, stop at a ‘distant’ foreign port, and then continue to a second U.S. port. But to qualify for the exemption they must visit a port outside of North America and the Caribbean. For example, a cruise departing New York and circumnavigating South America, with stops on that continent, can then send passengers home from Los Angeles.

The only current large oceangoing cruise ship to fly the flag of U.S. registration is Norwegian Cruise Line’s Pride of America, which offers multiple-stop cruises in the Hawaiian islands. It was inaugurated in 2005 as the first new U.S.-flagged cruise ship in nearly fifty years.

Pride of America was partially built in Mississippi, with significant federal subsidies, and completed in Germany. It still required a special federal exemption to attain U.S. registration.

 

As a U.S.-flagged ship, Pride of America is subject to American labor laws and staffed by a mostly American crew, in contrast to the vast majority of cruise ships.

 

Cruise lines could flag several ships in the US and easily sail between Seattle and Alaskan ports.  They choose to not register ships in the US for tax purposes.

[nocl]

18 minutes ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

The real unmentioned point is that the PVSA deals with non-US flagged vessels.

 

No foreign vessels shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $200 [now $778] for each passenger so transported and landed.

 

This means that ships of non-U.S registry are barred from taking on and debarking guests at two different U.S ports. An example is that a cruise ship can not sail non-stop from New York to Miami.

But there are some exemptions that relate to the cruise industry:

 

• Foreign-flagged ships can depart from and return to the same U.S. port, provided there’s a stop in between at a foreign port. An example is an Alaska cruise out of Seattle, which can stop at Alaskan ports provided a stop is made in Vancouver or another Canadian west coast port before returning to Seattle.
• Foreign-flagged ships can depart from a U.S. port, stop at a ‘distant’ foreign port, and then continue to a second U.S. port. But to qualify for the exemption they must visit a port outside of North America and the Caribbean. For example, a cruise departing New York and circumnavigating South America, with stops on that continent, can then send passengers home from Los Angeles.

The only current large oceangoing cruise ship to fly the flag of U.S. registration is Norwegian Cruise Line’s Pride of America, which offers multiple-stop cruises in the Hawaiian islands. It was inaugurated in 2005 as the first new U.S.-flagged cruise ship in nearly fifty years.

Pride of America was partially built in Mississippi, with significant federal subsidies, and completed in Germany. It still required a special federal exemption to attain U.S. registration.

 

As a U.S.-flagged ship, Pride of America is subject to American labor laws and staffed by a mostly American crew, in contrast to the vast majority of cruise ships.

 

Cruise lines could flag several ships in the US and easily sail between Seattle and Alaskan ports.  They choose to not register ships in the US for tax purposes.

Far more than just taxes.

[markeb]

42 minutes ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

This means that ships of non-U.S registry are barred from taking on and debarking guests at two different U.S ports. An example is that a cruise ship can not sail non-stop from New York to Miami.

 

 

42 minutes ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

Cruise lines could flag several ships in the US and easily sail between Seattle and Alaskan ports.  They choose to not register ships in the US for tax purposes.

 

A foreign flagged cruise ship can cruise non-stop from New York to Miami. It can't transport passengers from New York that disembark (leave the ship permanently) in Miami, or begin in New York and end in Miami, under the PVSA without a stop at a distant foreign port. It can go round trip from New York with a stop in Miami as long as it makes a stop at a foreign port, and pretty much anywhere in the Caribbean will qualify.

 

There's an entire thread on CC right now that's titled the Jones Act, which is actually the cargo counterpart to the PVSA, and really addressing the PVSA. You can flag a foreign built vessel in the US, but it wouldn't meet the PVSA requirements for cabotage; without some sort of waiver, those vessels have to be built in the US. And US flagged vessels would have to be operated by US crews. And to work in the US (which crew would be doing if a foreign flagged cruise ship went from Seattle to Alaska without a foreign stop), you'd need either a US crew, or work visas for the crew, meet any USCG requirements, comply with US labor laws, and probably minimum wager requirements, and then the final hurdle would be the taxes. And the probably 3-5X increase in cruise fares.

[Host Jazzbeau]

1 hour ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

Cruise lines could flag several ships in the US and easily sail between Seattle and Alaskan ports.  They choose to not register ships in the US for tax purposes.

 

They could flag them, but that still wouldn't comply with PSVA so they couldn't sail between Seattle and Alaska w/o Canada.  NCL had to get an act of Congress to bring its half-US-built ship under PSVA.  No other ship has even that provenance – because there are no shipyards in the US capable of building the current size of cruise ships (nor do any other existing ships have the US government on the hook for their construction loans, which MAY have had something to do with the exemption, ya think???).  So sorry, your corporate greed theory doesn't work.

[nocl]

7 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

 

They could flag them, but that still wouldn't comply with PSVA so they couldn't sail between Seattle and Alaska w/o Canada.  NCL had to get an act of Congress to bring its half-US-built ship under PSVA.  No other ship has even that provenance – because there are no shipyards in the US capable of building the current size of cruise ships (nor do any other existing ships have the US government on the hook for their construction loans, which MAY have had something to do with the exemption, ya think???).  So sorry, your corporate greed theory doesn't work.

Except in 2001 there was a bill in Congress to allow cruise lines to reflag foreign built ships as US ships and allow them to be used in the US.  It did have other requirements including that the cruise lines would also commit to building future ships in the to replace the reflagged ships in the future.  The bill went nowhere and was dropped when the cruise lines refused to support it.

 

Basically the cruise lines have not had any interest to changing PVSA because they have no interest in following US labor laws, minimum wage, pay US taxes and all of the other expenses that come from operating a ship inside the US.

 

The same reason that cruise lines stopped offering cruises to nowhere once the CBP determined that they had been incorrectly allowing them without the crew having US work visas, and US taxes collected and paid.  The cruise lines could do them but they would need US work visas, pay US taxes, and comply with US labor law.  Result no cruises to nowhere.  No talk of cruise lines doing them when they restart either.

[Host Jazzbeau]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

Except in 2001 there was a bill in Congress to allow cruise lines to reflag foreign built ships as US ships and allow them to be used in the US.  It did have other requirements including that the cruise lines would also commit to building future ships in the to replace the reflagged ships in the future.  The bill went nowhere and was dropped when the cruise lines refused to support it.

 

Basically the cruise lines have not had any interest to changing PVSA because they have no interest in following US labor laws, minimum wage, pay US taxes and all of the other expenses that come from operating a ship inside the US.

 

The same reason that cruise lines stopped offering cruises to nowhere once the CBP determined that they had been incorrectly allowing them without the crew having US work visas, and US taxes collected and paid.  The cruise lines could do them but they would need US work visas, pay US taxes, and comply with US labor law.  Result no cruises to nowhere.  No talk of cruise lines doing them when they restart either.

 

Would you be willing to pay 5x the price to cruise under those circumstances?  That was an estimate of what cruises to nowhere would cost under the terms you outline above.

[Ride-The-Waves]

From Cruiseradio.net:

 

Under international law, all merchant ships must be part of a registry created by a country, and ships are subject to the laws of the country where they are registered.

 

Although the practice is now common around the world, it is often contentious. Vessels registered in places like the Bahamas, Panama, Liberia and Malta are often referred to negatively as flying “flags of convenience.” To have a cruise ship flagged in the United States, it must be built, owned, and crewed by Americans.

 

The modern practice of ships being registered in a foreign country began in the U.S. in the 1920s, when shipowners who wanted to serve alcohol to passengers during Prohibition began registering vessels in Panama.

 

They soon discovered other advantages, including less-burdensome regulations as well as lower taxes and labor costs. As a result, many continued to register their ships in Panama and elsewhere long after Prohibition ended.

 

The rise of river cruising in the U.S. has breathed some new life into American shipbuilding and created American crew jobs, as those ships must be U.S.-registered in order to stop at multiple domestic ports.

 

For cruise lines, one drawback of foreign-flagging was demonstrated earlier this year, when some argued that the companies should not qualify for government assistance during the global health crisis because they had chosen to register their ships abroad.

 

[nocl]

8 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

 

Would you be willing to pay 5x the price to cruise under those circumstances?  That was an estimate of what cruises to nowhere would cost under the terms you outline above.

Just pointing out that in your response above to someone else's comment about taxes that the reason was not due to corporate greed, that certainly was due to economics and costs.

[markeb]

8 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

 

Would you be willing to pay 5x the price to cruise under those circumstances?  That was an estimate of what cruises to nowhere would cost under the terms you outline above.

 

No. And that estimate and some version of the steps actually required needs to be cut and pasted into every PVSA topic and after every cruise industry PVSA article (including the Cruise Radio article just quoted) that continues to act as though simply changing the foreign port requirement would solve all issues.

 

The Cruise Radio article goes through an OK discussion of the evolution of the PVSA, then ends by throwing out cruises to nowhere as a possible solution. Fine with the PVSA, but considered working in the US by CBP, and requiring US work visas. Which would make income subject to taxation according to the IRS. And apply US labor laws. All of which can be figured out in a 2 minute Google search (in fact most of that is in the CBP info paper on the PVSA, available on the web). And, as you say, increase fares on a cruise out into the ocean and back by 5X.

 

I'll argue (and have) that even if the requirements of the PVSA went away, the immigration and tax implications are such that the cruise lines would STILL make a foreign stop to avoid those actions. The only thing they might realistically change would be the distant foreign stop for cruises originating and terminating at different US ports, since that probably wouldn't create immigration or tax implications. But for Alaska cruises without a Canadian stop, you'd be cruising from Alaska to probably San Diego by way of Mexico...

[nocl]

9 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

 

Would you be willing to pay 5x the price to cruise under those circumstances?  That was an estimate of what cruises to nowhere would cost under the terms you outline above.

A little more about your 5X.  First of all it would not be 5X.  NCL certainly is not charging fares that are 5 X higher in Hawaii and they not only have to deal with some higher payroll costs as well as the US flag costs.

 

The 5X comes from posts concerning the ships operations costs of a US flag ship compared to foreign.

However those costs are only a fraction of a cruise lines costs of operating a cruise.

 

For example on a cruise to nowhere the ships did not need to be reflagged so the additional costs would come in the personnel area, not the additional safety and inspection requirements.  Looking at CCLs 10k from before the pandemic.  Payroll and related amounted to 17% of cruise operating costs and expenses (fuel, food, etc would not change).  So if the full 5X came into play it would only increase costs by .68% so the fare would only be 1.68 X previous fare not 5X at worse.  After all the rest of the operating costs would remain the same. It is unclear if the costs would even be that high since the 5X was with a reflag, where as the cruise to nowhere can be done with current crews, only with the increased costs of work Visa's and following US labor laws and taxes, not the requirements for 70% US employees and 30% green card so it is unlikely that the full 5X would be reached.

 

Even with a reflag other ship operating costs amount to 22.7% of cruise costs. So again if the full 5X is used that would have an increase of .91%.  So if you combine those elements you get an actual increase for reflagged cruises in the range of 2.59 X as a worst case, if the cruise lines kept to the current profit margin. If they reduced the margin from the pre-pandemic 14.3% but kept the same amount of dollars in profit that would allow them to accept a lower margin of 5.5% which means to generate the same profit in dollars the fare would be 2.36 times non-flagged fares. if they were unable to find any way to come in below the 5X number.

 

Would be interesting to see exactly where the NCL Hawaii fares come in compared to their other ships since they are US flagged and deal with all of those expenses.

[Ride-The-Waves]

13 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

 

They could flag them, but that still wouldn't comply with PSVA so they couldn't sail between Seattle and Alaska w/o Canada.  NCL had to get an act of Congress to bring its half-US-built ship under PSVA.  No other ship has even that provenance – because there are no shipyards in the US capable of building the current size of cruise ships (nor do any other existing ships have the US government on the hook for their construction loans, which MAY have had something to do with the exemption, ya think???).  So sorry, your corporate greed theory doesn't work.

As a "host" you should be more aware of cruising and ship building in the US.  Aircraft carriers today exceed 100,000 tons displacement and easily exceed 200,000 deadweight tons which is a calculated measure of volume (Allure of the Sea is estimated to displace 100,000 tons), and is currently building two of these ships (USS John F Kennedy CVN-79 and USS Enterprise CVN-80).  

Edited February 8, 2021 by Ride-The-Waves

[Host Jazzbeau]

1 minute ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

As a "host" you should be more aware of cruising and ship building in the US.  Aircraft carriers today exceed 100,000 tons displacement and easily exceed 200,000 deadweight tons which is a calculated measure of volume (Allure of the Sea is estimated to displace 100,000 tons), and is currently building two of these ships (USS John F Kennedy and USS Enterprise).  

 

I don't pretend to know what I don't know.  On maritime law and technical issues, I defer to @chengkp75

[Ride-The-Waves]

Just now, Host Jazzbeau said:

 

I don't pretend to know what I don't know.  On maritime law and technical issues, I defer to @chengkp75

This is basic cruising knowledge dealing with ship size...  Sorry.

[MarkWiltonM]

On 2/5/2021 at 12:01 PM, Turtles06 said:

 

No worries.  It's a commonly made mistake, including by Americans (which I realize you aren't, so at least you have a good excuse 🤣).

 

Royal Caribbean's website says the Jones Act and the Passenger Services Act are the same:

 

"The Jones Act (also known as the Passenger Services Act) does not allow ships of Non-U.S registry to embark and debark guests at two different U.S ports, since travel between U.S. ports is prohibited on foreign flagged ships."

 

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/questions/jones-act

 

Is this incorrect? I read the same thing on Crystal Cruises' website: https://www.crystalcruises.com/legal/jones-act-cabotage-law

Edited February 8, 2021 by MarkWiltonM
typo

[markeb]

1 minute ago, MarkWiltonM said:

 

Royal Caribbean's website says the Jones Act and the Passenger Services Act are the same:

 

"The Jones Act (also known as the Passenger Services Act) does not allow ships of Non-U.S registry to embark and debark guests at two different U.S ports, since travel between U.S. ports is prohibited on foreign flagged ships."

 

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/questions/jones-act

 

Is this incorrect? I read the same thing on Cristal Cruises' website: https://www.crystalcruises.com/legal/jones-act-cabotage-law

Thats incorrect. They have many of the same provisions, but they’re separate laws enacted 40+ years apart. 
 

Jones Act deals with cargo. PVSA with passengers. 
 

You would think cruise lines would get it right!

[cruisestitch]

Reminiscent of this conversation with Alice:

 

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less”

[Fouremco]

33 minutes ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

This is basic cruising knowledge dealing with ship size...  Sorry.

Really? Knowing US military shipbuilding capabilities and the displacement and deadweight of aircraft carriers is basic cruising knowledge? You may have that knowledge - with help from Google? - but the average cruiser has no interest in such information.

[Fouremco]

26 minutes ago, MarkWiltonM said:

 

Royal Caribbean's website says the Jones Act and the Passenger Services Act are the same:

 

"The Jones Act (also known as the Passenger Services Act) does not allow ships of Non-U.S registry to embark and debark guests at two different U.S ports, since travel between U.S. ports is prohibited on foreign flagged ships."

 

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/questions/jones-act

 

Is this incorrect? I read the same thing on Crystal Cruises' website: https://www.crystalcruises.com/legal/jones-act-cabotage-law

RCI and Crystal would benefit from reading Cruise Critic's article on the two separate acts. I've posted the link previously, but it appears that there is still confusion.

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=3363

[nocl]

35 minutes ago, MarkWiltonM said:

 

Royal Caribbean's website says the Jones Act and the Passenger Services Act are the same:

 

"The Jones Act (also known as the Passenger Services Act) does not allow ships of Non-U.S registry to embark and debark guests at two different U.S ports, since travel between U.S. ports is prohibited on foreign flagged ships."

 

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/questions/jones-act

 

Is this incorrect? I read the same thing on Crystal Cruises' website: https://www.crystalcruises.com/legal/jones-act-cabotage-law

Not the first time a cruise line has made an error in what they post.