Canada no cruise ships til Feb 28 2022

[Snowrose]

5 hours ago, MsTabbyKats said:

And once again...I got burned at the stake for being realistic.

 

Oh well...going to cancel my 10/2021 to Canada.  

I think if NCL cancels you get 125% back, so might want to let them cancel.

[Snowrose]

3 hours ago, ilovetotravel1977 said:

Try September at best.  Now, some of the Atlantic Provinces are saying by year end.  Either way, it's all slow as molasses!

Just yesterday I was reading the US is currently vaccinating people at a rate of 1.3 million per day. Canada is vaccinating at a rate of about 6,000 per day.

 

Canada has 1/10 the population of the US, roughly.

[Snowrose]

4 hours ago, SouthLyonCruiser said:

There is no way the current administration is going to do that.

I'm not so sure I agree with that. But somebody needs to put it on Biden's radar before it'll get done.

[roger001]

In the total scheme of things, I don't think cruises and foreign flagged cruise lines are a very high priority, regardless of the economic benefits for US ports.  When all else is done, then they might catch the attention of a member of his staff.  Returning to cruising is totally in the hands of the virus and then it being contained.  

[julig22]

2 hours ago, Snowrose said:

I think if NCL cancels you get 125% back, so might want to let them cancel.

Nope.  My January and April cancellations just had a 10% certificate for a future cruise.

[SeaHunt]

2 hours ago, Snowrose said:

I'm not so sure I agree with that. But somebody needs to put it on Biden's radar before it'll get done.

 

Of course no way to tell if it will make any difference, but efforts are being made, such as Congressman Don Young's letter to Jeffrey Zients (Counselor to the President Biden, Covid-19 Response - note that he also sent it to Dr Walensky, the CDC Director). 

 

From the ADN news:

"In addition, the U.S. government could waive the federal law that requires Canadian stopovers. Mike Tibbles, director of CLIA Alaska, a trade group, said the industry could ask for such a waiver.

 

In the Alaska State Capitol on Thursday afternoon, members of the Legislature were circulating a letter that asks the federal government to issue such a waiver, and U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, sent a letter to the White House asking for support of an effort “to prioritize the resumption of large cruise ship operations.” 

 

https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2021/02/04/canada-bans-cruise-ships-until-2022-likely-halting-most-of-alaskas-tourist-season/

 

https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20472892-alaska_cruise_impacts_letter_rep_don_young

 

Portion of his letter:

 

 

 

[julig22]

2 hours ago, roger001 said:

In the total scheme of things, I don't think cruises and foreign flagged cruise lines are a very high priority, regardless of the economic benefits for US ports.  When all else is done, then they might catch the attention of a member of his staff.  Returning to cruising is totally in the hands of the virus and then it being contained. 

Alaska might disagree.  Seems like an executive order to temporarily suspend the foreign port requirement might be fairly simple.

But if I recall correctly, passengers don't have to disembark.  So if that's the case, Canada could allow a ship to dock, all the passengers wave to the Canadians and then the ship moves on.  Canada collects port fees for their trouble.

[HaveWeMetYet]

15 minutes ago, julig22 said:

Alaska might disagree.  Seems like an executive order to temporarily suspend the foreign port requirement might be fairly simple.

But if I recall correctly, passengers don't have to disembark.  So if that's the case, Canada could allow a ship to dock, all the passengers wave to the Canadians and then the ship moves on.  Canada collects port fees for their trouble.

There will be no executive order to temporarily suspend the foreign port requirement.

Canada is not allowing cruise ships to enter Canadian waters.

Who says the CDC will allow cruise ships to leave the US before Canada lifts the cruise ban?

 

 

[MsTabbyKats]

3 hours ago, Snowrose said:

I think if NCL cancels you get 125% back, so might want to let them cancel.

You're thinking wrong....unless they change things.  It's "all the money back" plus a 10% off the price of a future cruise.  If I cancel what I have, my 10% gets put back into "my inventory".

I don't add any "new money" so it really doesn't matter if I cancel and book something else.  The only difference is that if I let them cancel, they may extend the length of the "10% discount".

 

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, julig22 said:

Alaska might disagree.  Seems like an executive order to temporarily suspend the foreign port requirement might be fairly simple.

But if I recall correctly, passengers don't have to disembark.  So if that's the case, Canada could allow a ship to dock, all the passengers wave to the Canadians and then the ship moves on.  Canada collects port fees for their trouble.

Technically the PVSA can be waived by executive order only in the interest of national defense.

You're wrong about passengers not having to disembark in order for a foreign port call to qualify . The rules were changed many years ago to disallow technical port calls as qualifying and the rule now requires passenger disembarkation .

[ceilidh1]

8 hours ago, All-ready2cruise said:

Amazing how some are thinking these days.   

The decision to keep cruise ships away from our ports is strictly based on Covid-19 infections and how easily they can spread, especially these new variations of the virus.  

 

Canada's population is not even close to that of the US and we don't want to lose as many citizens as some other countries.  Why shouldn't Canada protect itself?

 

Stay safe everyone. 

I 100% agree with you! Believe me, I want to see cruising start up as much as the next person and would not hesitate to take a cruise right now if I could. However, as someone that lives in Downtown Vancouver, less than 10 minutes walk from the port, I fully believe that the decision to not allow cruise ships is the right one. BC has lost control of the virus (sad, as we did so well initially and practically eliminated it). While our numbers are still not as dire as many other places, this is more than likely due to the fact that our testing rates are abysmal, it is next to impossible to actually qualify for a test, and contact tracing is failing miserably. Add to this the fact that our vaccination rollout has ceased, with folks who received the first dose in December still waiting for the second dose with no real timeline. It is unlikely the majority of us here will be vaccinated before the Fall. While I love seeing the ships outside of my window, allowing hundreds or thousands of tourists to flood into the province right now (or even during the summer) would be a disaster. Realistically, we will NOT be ready for tourist season at all this year...at least making the announcement now allows those that depend on tourism jobs/economy to try to plan for something else.

[mrlevin]

What is the BC economy going to look like after this pandemic has passed?  Anything left?  How about the Alberta economy; no tourists and awash in oil that they cannot ship?  Please think of the 99% of the people that even if they catch the virus it is not life threatening; we have to think of them. too.

[ceilidh1]

1 hour ago, mrlevin said:

What is the BC economy going to look like after this pandemic has passed?  Anything left?  How about the Alberta economy; no tourists and awash in oil that they cannot ship?  Please think of the 99% of the people that even if they catch the virus it is not life threatening; we have to think of them. too.

I get what you're saying but the best way to save the economy (not just BC, but anywhere) is to wipe out the virus. Look at Australia and New Zealand. They went in hard and made covid-zero the priority over the economy. Now they are pretty much functioning as normal. I honestly think BC dropped the ball - we were close to zero cases as we went into the summer and everyone trusted and respected our PHO. Then it became political and the economy took priority over health...and here we are...

[mianmike]

4 hours ago, njhorseman said:

 

You're wrong about passengers not having to disembark in order for a foreign port call to qualify . The rules were changed many years ago to disallow technical port calls as qualifying and the rule now requires passenger disembarkation .

 

I did not know that; good to know.  I had thought technical calls were not addressed and thus not specifically prohibited. I can't seem to find the pertinent citation.  Was the amendment disallowing of technical port calls a CFR or a USC change?  I'd like to read the citation.  Thanks.  

[julig22]

4 hours ago, njhorseman said:

Technically the PVSA can be waived by executive order only in the interest of national defense.

You're wrong about passengers not having to disembark in order for a foreign port call to qualify . The rules were changed many years ago to disallow technical port calls as qualifying and the rule now requires passenger disembarkation .

Just curious.  How many passengers, how long do they have to stay?  As in charter a couple of busses, drive around the city, back on board.  

Just throwing out ideas.....

[njhorseman]

5 hours ago, mianmike said:

 

I did not know that; good to know.  I had thought technical calls were not addressed and thus not specifically prohibited. I can't seem to find the pertinent citation.  Was the amendment disallowing of technical port calls a CFR or a USC change?  I'd like to read the citation.  Thanks.  

I believe it was a CFR change but its been so many years that it's hard to chase down the history . My recollection is that the change was made at NCL's request as other cruise lines were impinging on its Hawaii domestic cruise monopoly by running round trip cruises from California to Hawaii with only a technical call at Ensenada to satisfy the PVSA requirement for a foreign port call.

[njhorseman]

5 hours ago, julig22 said:

Just curious.  How many passengers, how long do they have to stay?  As in charter a couple of busses, drive around the city, back on board.  

Just throwing out ideas.....

I don't know the minute details of how long the stop has to be but as I recall all passengers must have a reasonable opportunity to disembark and spend time at the destination. 

Regardless, Canada is not going to permit what you're suggesting as even a bus trip exposes their residents to COVID . Someone has to drive the buses.

[Turtles06]

Here’s an article reporting that Canada will not be allowing “technical stops” (which in any event as noted above are not permissible under the PVSA).

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/legal-regulatory/canada-says-no-technical-calls-passengers-pvsa-exemption-seen-unlikely

[njkate]

21 hours ago, ilovetotravel1977 said:

Seriously?  You think this is a tit-for-tat decision?  lol

I seriously don't know anything anymore and nothing surprises me anymore either

[Named-Tawny]

3 hours ago, njhorseman said:

I don't know the minute details of how long the stop has to be but as I recall all passengers must have a reasonable opportunity to disembark and spend time at the destination. 

Regardless, Canada is not going to permit what you're suggesting as even a bus trip exposes their residents to COVID . Someone has to drive the buses.

 

Yup, and as importantly, that exposes Canada to the risks, but without getting the benefits of having the cruise actually stop there (tourism dollars, etc...)  it's pretty much a lose-lose for Canada that way.

[luckyinpa]

the cruises are still up so ncl must want us to book them. not bad pricing either 🙂