Alaska 2021–CCL not giving up yet

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, gtalum said:

 

Then I apologize for getting that wrong.  

 

At any rate, I doubt any of the big cruise lines are willing to reflag their ships to the US and hire American crews to save their Alaska seasons.

Well, that's a different argument.  A waiver of the PVSA would allow the ship to remain foreign flag, but it would require either a US crew or a foreign crew with H2-B work visas, and paid US wages.  But, reflagging would still require a waiver of the PVSA, since the "US built" clause would still need to be waived.  

[Balliett]

I am booked on a HAL cruise to Alaska  for August.  I thought this news might be of interest here

 This quote below is from the website of the Federal Maritime Commission, dated Feb 10.  The writer is Commissioner Sola.

 

...In short, this action by the Canadian government may very well result in the loss of a second season for a significant portion of the Alaska cruise business.  Another lost season represents a potentially devastating blow to the livelihoods of thousands of Alaskans.  As noted in my report, the cruise industry generates tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Alaska annually. It is because of this that I encourage both the Biden administration and Congress to quickly review this issue and consider a limited exception to the PVSA while simultaneously engaging the Canadian government on the diplomatic front to address this particular problem"

[chengkp75]

15 minutes ago, Balliett said:

I am booked on a HAL cruise to Alaska  for August.  I thought this news might be of interest here

 

 This quote below is from the website of the Federal Maritime Commission, dated Feb 10.  The writer is Commissioner Sola.

 

...In short, this action by the Canadian government may very well result in the loss of a second season for a significant portion of the Alaska cruise business.  Another lost season represents a potentially devastating blow to the livelihoods of thousands of Alaskans.  As noted in my report, the cruise industry generates tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Alaska annually. It is because of this that I encourage both the Biden administration and Congress to quickly review this issue and consider a limited exception to the PVSA while simultaneously engaging the Canadian government on the diplomatic front to address this particular problem"

That is a report of one of five commissioners, the one with the least time on the commission, and arguably the one with the least maritime experience.  It does not reflect the views of the commission as a whole.

 

The other commissioners know that waivers, which must be passed by Congress, are only proposed for "national security reasons", and if no US flag operator is providing the service.

Edited February 16, 2021 by chengkp75

[Balliett]

11 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

That is a report of one of five commissioners, the one with the least time on the commission, and arguably the one with the least maritime experience.  It does not reflect the views of the commission as a whole.

 

The other commissioners know that waivers, which must be passed by Congress, are only proposed for "national security reasons", and if no US flag operator is providing the service.

 

[Balliett]

Thank you for the additional information, Chengkp75.  Your depth of knowlege is welcome, although discouraging  in this case.  I can only hope that we, and our Canadian friends, are vaccinated soon enough to salvage part of the Alaska season.  

[chengkp75]

Both the Jones Act and the PVSA share many sections of the USC, including 46 USC 501 which covers waivers.  In the past, any request from the Secretary of Defense for a waiver had to be granted, if it used the term "national security" as the reason.  The new National Defense Authorization bill passed by Congress in January, changes that section of 46USC501 to require that the requested waiver also show that it is in "direct support of active military operations".  This further limits the ability of the Executive branch in granting Jones Act/PVSA waivers.

[BlerkOne]

If the President can terminate, why can't he enable? In any event, cruise is half of cruise missile. Ba da bing!

 

(c) Termination of Authority.—

The authority granted by this section shall terminate at such time as the Congress by concurrent resolution or the President may designate.

[BlerkOne]

Alaska isn't giving up yet, either.

 

https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/alaska-tourism-restrictions-canada-cruise-ship-ban

[Linsuesue]

6 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

Alaska isn't giving up yet, either.

 

https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/alaska-tourism-restrictions-canada-cruise-ship-ban

60% of the tourists come by cruise ships. Just think how drastically reduced capacity will whittle those percentages down even more!

[BlerkOne]

Congress hasn't given up

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/24458-congress-asks-canada-for-cruising-compromise.html

 

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, BlerkOne said:

Congress hasn't given up

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/24458-congress-asks-canada-for-cruising-compromise.html

 

 

Yet, while the House Committee feels that making technical stops in Canada is "meeting the requirements of US maritime law, they would still have to get CBP to change their ruling that technical stops do not meet the requirements of US maritime law, in addition to getting Canada to agree.

[BlerkOne]

11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Yet, while the House Committee feels that making technical stops in Canada is "meeting the requirements of US maritime law, they would still have to get CBP to change their ruling that technical stops do not meet the requirements of US maritime law, in addition to getting Canada to agree.

I think Congress knows the CBP boss and rulings are not law, they are interpretations and subject to change, including temporary waivers. I'm not convinced an Executive Order couldn't take care of it.

[BlerkOne]

22 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Yet, while the House Committee feels that making technical stops in Canada is "meeting the requirements of US maritime law, they would still have to get CBP to change their ruling that technical stops do not meet the requirements of US maritime law, in addition to getting Canada to agree.

 

Aha!

 

On Wednesday, Young introduced the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act that would provide a temporary Passenger Vessel Services Act workaround by deeming round-trip voyages between Alaska and Washington state as foreign voyages for the purposes of US law. The provisions are temporary and would only apply during the closure of Canadian waters and ports.

[chengkp75]

50 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

 

Aha!

 

On Wednesday, Young introduced the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act that would provide a temporary Passenger Vessel Services Act workaround by deeming round-trip voyages between Alaska and Washington state as foreign voyages for the purposes of US law. The provisions are temporary and would only apply during the closure of Canadian waters and ports.

Yet, in US law, 46 CFR 42.05-45, an international voyage is defined in terms of Article 2(4) of the International Convention on Load Lines, to which the US is signatory.  According to that definition, an "international voyage" ("foreign voyage" really has no meaning in legal terms) is one where the ship passages from one country to another.  So, unless Congressman Young wants to remove the sections of the USC and CFR that relate to the ICLL, and withdraw the US from the ICLL (which may have repercussions with regards to other international conventions, like SOLAS), there is no way that a voyage strictly between two US ports can be called a "domestic" voyage.

 

I saw this days ago, and dismissed it as posturing by the Congressman for his constituents.  No one, not even his colleagues from the Alaska Congressional delegation have signed on to sponsor this bill.

 

To me, the chances of this bill passing both houses is about the same as the Jets winning the Super Bowl this year.

Edited February 27, 2021 by chengkp75

[BlerkOne]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

To me, the chances of this bill passing both houses is about the same as the Jets winning the Super Bowl this year.

 

So you are saying there is a chance!

[d9704011]

7 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

 

So you are saying there is a chance!

No.  Next Super Bowl is in 2022.

[BlerkOne]

1 minute ago, d9704011 said:

No.  Next Super Bowl is in 2022.

 

So chengkp75 wasn't an English major.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Yet, in US law, 46 CFR 42.05-45, an international voyage is defined in terms of Article 2(4) of the International Convention on Load Lines, to which the US is signatory.  According to that definition, an "international voyage" ("foreign voyage" really has no meaning in legal terms) is one where the ship passages from one country to another.  So, unless Congressman Young wants to remove the sections of the USC and CFR that relate to the ICLL, and withdraw the US from the ICLL (which may have repercussions with regards to other international conventions, like SOLAS), there is no way that a voyage strictly between two US ports can be called a "domestic" voyage.

 

I saw this days ago, and dismissed it as posturing by the Congressman for his constituents.  No one, not even his colleagues from the Alaska Congressional delegation have signed on to sponsor this bill.

 

To me, the chances of this bill passing both houses is about the same as the Jets winning the Super Bowl this year.

I think the poster you quoted is confusing offering a bill with getting it passed into law.

 

And to be technical--the jets have never won a Super Bowl. The game did not yet have that name when they beat the Colts. And to his dying day, Bubba Smith of the Colts maintained that game was fixed. How could a Hall of Fame coach start Earl Morral over Johnny Unitas? How much money did the owners make when that game led to the leagues merging and no longer bid against one another for players?

[atanac]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I saw this days ago, and dismissed it as posturing by the Congressman for his constituents.  No one, not even his colleagues from the Alaska Congressional delegation have signed on to sponsor this bill.

 

Who sets the dollar amount for a PVSA violation? Could they leave the PVSA alone and just access a $1.00 penalty to the cruise lines?

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, atanac said:

Who sets the dollar amount for a PVSA violation? Could they leave the PVSA alone and just access a $1.00 penalty to the cruise lines?

The USC sets the fine at $300/passenger, CFR's have clarified this to allow for adjustments due to inflation (it is now $762).  So, while they possibly could reduce the fine back to $300, it would take Congress to lower it below that.  I don't see both houses and the President caring enough about the cruise industry to make this possible.

[atanac]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

The USC sets the fine at $300/passenger, CFR's have clarified this to allow for adjustments due to inflation (it is now $762).  So, while they possibly could reduce the fine back to $300, it would take Congress to lower it below that.  I don't see both houses and the President caring enough about the cruise industry to make this possible.

Thanks for your response. I've read all your comments and it does seem like quite a hill to climb in order to formalize a waiver. If you are correct that Congress have the ability to make the fine irrelevant that seems like an easy work-around. They may not care much for the cruise industry but there are thousands of U.S. jobs from all the ancillary support operations that they should care about.

 

Of course if I thought of this option I'm sure there are more well heeled politicians and trade groups who have floated this idea. 

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, atanac said:

They may not care much for the cruise industry but there are thousands of U.S. jobs from all the ancillary support operations that they should care about.

And, there are ways to support those US jobs without funding the offshore cruise lines at the same time.  Is all of this about cruisers being able to cruise, or truly about supporting the support industries in the US?  Because as soon as you do waivers or "work arounds" of the PVSA, and then have to work around visa requirements, giving jobs to foreign crew, there will be just as many US folks complaining about why the US is supporting those foreign crew, when unemployment is so high currently.  There are other ways to support the "support industry" of the cruise lines, much is already in motion from the past and future covid relief bills that do the same thing without the cruise lines.

[chengkp75]

39 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Simple solutions are quick to implement or modify. The industry doesn't need more endless debate and obstruction.

No, what you are really saying is "my vacation does not need more debate and obstruction".  Those affected in the US by the shutdown of the cruise industry are already receiving stimulus money, and every dollar of that remains in the US.  What percentage of the money you pay for a cruise do you feel really is put back into the US economy?

 

Bit of quick research shows that in 2019, cruise industry direct spending in the US was $20.1 billion.  At the same time, they carried 28.5 billion passengers from North America.  So, less than $1 of your cruise fare is returned to the US economy.  That's worse than Uncle Sam.

Edited February 28, 2021 by chengkp75

[sfaaa]

11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

Bit of quick research shows that in 2019, cruise industry direct spending in the US was $20.1 billion.  At the same time, they carried 28.5 billion passengers from North America.  So, less than $1 of your cruise fare is returned to the US economy.  That's worse than Uncle Sam.

True but you can't measure the intangible solely based on monetary terms. The fun, pleasure  and wonderful memories of cruising to 28.5B N American cruisers are priceless.  

[BlerkOne]

14 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

No, what you are really saying is "my vacation does not need more debate and obstruction".  Those affected in the US by the shutdown of the cruise industry are already receiving stimulus money, and every dollar of that remains in the US.  What percentage of the money you pay for a cruise do you feel really is put back into the US economy?

 

Bit of quick research shows that in 2019, cruise industry direct spending in the US was $20.1 billion.  At the same time, they carried 28.5 billion passengers from North America.  So, less than $1 of your cruise fare is returned to the US economy.  That's worse than Uncle Sam.

What I am saying is Canada should not be able to decide the fate of Alaska cruising.

 

Besides direct spending by cruise lines there is direct spending by all those passengers, and indirect spending by both.

 

What you are saying is you are in favor of antiquated protectionist laws no matter the cost to Americans, including the freedom to spend their money how they please.