Alaska 2021–CCL not giving up yet

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, sfaaa said:

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.  

Like I've said, so it's about the cruiser not the unemployed "support industry".  Sorry, apologies, should not have been snippy, but when everyone claims that this is all for the benefit of the struggling economy, I get a little "brain-twisted".

Edited February 28, 2021 by chengkp75

[BlerkOne]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

Like I've said, so it's about the cruiser not the unemployed "support industry".

 

It isn't about the cruiser, it is about Alaska and a primary source of revenue. It is a lot more than $1

https://akcruise.org/economy/economic-q-a/

Economic Q & A

Q. How much do cruise lines pay to state and local governments?

A. $121.8 million in taxes and fees. This includes a $34.50 passenger fee that is shared with local ports. Other state revenues include environmental fees, corporate income tax and a casino tax. Many municipalities collect sales tax and property tax, along with bed and vehicle rental taxes.

State of Alaska revenues, 2019

Total:$125.6 million
Cruise line payments: $38.6 million

[chengkp75]

6 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

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.

No, the direct spending that I quoted, from a CLIA report is direct spending by the cruise line for goods and services ($18.1 billion) and wages for US employees and taxes ($1.9 billion).  That is what comes from the ticket price.  Yes, there is indirect spending, but there is the same thing when the money comes from other sources.  Let's say the average cruise fare is $700/person.  So, only $1 of that is spent directly in the US, prompting indirect spending by the suppliers and employees.  Now, instead of $699 per person leaving the US and our economy getting $1 back, we support the ailing companies in the US with the equivalent of $50 per passenger, where $50 of those dollars goes back into the US economy to stimulate 50 times the indirect spending.

 

No, the PVSA is not antiquated, and it's protectionist nature is to protect the citizens of the US, not an industry, as opponents would have it.  And, there is a whole lot of contradictory evidence about the "cost of the PVSA".  Really?  The right to spend money how they please?  Should I be able to buy explosives, just because I want to? Should I be able to send money to a terrorist organization in another country, just because I want to?  Everyone forgets that the cruise industry is international, and therefore, not all US laws, and US rights apply.

[d9704011]

21 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

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

It’s a US law at the root of the Alaska cruising difficulty.  Not up to Canada to fix or accommodate that.

[BlerkOne]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

No, the direct spending that I quoted, from a CLIA report is direct spending by the cruise line for goods and services ($18.1 billion) and wages for US employees and taxes ($1.9 billion).  That is what comes from the ticket price.  Yes, there is indirect spending, but there is the same thing when the money comes from other sources.  Let's say the average cruise fare is $700/person.  So, only $1 of that is spent directly in the US, prompting indirect spending by the suppliers and employees.  Now, instead of $699 per person leaving the US and our economy getting $1 back, we support the ailing companies in the US with the equivalent of $50 per passenger, where $50 of those dollars goes back into the US economy to stimulate 50 times the indirect spending.

 

No, the PVSA is not antiquated, and it's protectionist nature is to protect the citizens of the US, not an industry, as opponents would have it.  And, there is a whole lot of contradictory evidence about the "cost of the PVSA".  Really?  The right to spend money how they please?  Should I be able to buy explosives, just because I want to? Should I be able to send money to a terrorist organization in another country, just because I want to?  Everyone forgets that the cruise industry is international, and therefore, not all US laws, and US rights apply.

 

The topic is Alaska cruising and the Alaska economy - what you quoted is for the US cruising industry and is not applicable, but would be misleading if it was. Alaska (and Panama Canal) taxes are much higher than taxes in general. In addition, as I tried to point out, cruise line spending does not include spending by passengers on many excursions, hotels, meals, souvenirs, travel, new clothes. etc.

 

Of course the PVSA is antiquated right down to the language used and attempts to protect nonexistent industry. If you want to buy explosives, go ahead. And you have a right to free room and board in prison. Don't be so dramatic or discriminator against the largest state in the US simply because there is only one practical choice for foreign country stop which is temporarily unavailable.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Of course the PVSA is antiquated right down to the language used and attempts to protect nonexistent industry.

Please expound on the antiquated language.  Also think the couple of hundred thousand US jobs that are supported by the PVSA would not thank you for considering them as non-existent.

[RD64]

I would think that if the American government wanted to resolve this issue - they would have done so by now. Elimination of the PVSA would also allow ships to sail from Florida, California, Texas, to nowhere (assuming the CDC allows them to) without the necessity of a foreign port. However it does not seem as if your government is intent on doing so - and everyone will continue to blame Canada for upholding their laws - which is exactly what the USA is doing.

[BlerkOne]

1 hour ago, d9704011 said:

It’s a US law at the root of the Alaska cruising difficulty.  Not up to Canada to fix or accommodate that.

 

True, it is because of an antiquated US law and opposition by unrelated industry. However, the fact remains that Canada has ensured that the Alaska cruising season is doomed where it might not otherwise be doomed.

[chengkp75]

6 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

The topic is Alaska cruising and the Alaska economy - what you quoted is for the US cruising industry and is not applicable, but would be misleading if it was

Yes, definitely misleading.  CLIA says that they make direct payments in the US, total, of $20 billion, yet they claim to make payments to Alaska alone of $38.6 billion?

[atanac]

Until the CDC puts their thumb down on the spurting blood from the cruise lines I don't believe any real progress can be made with the PVSA. I have so many friends who generate the majority of their income in the Alaskan cruise ports. No unemployment or stimulus checks will cauterize two years of bloodletting and I believe the CDC just looks at the industry as collateral damage.

[chengkp75]

11 minutes ago, RD64 said:

I would think that if the American government wanted to resolve this issue - they would have done so by now. Elimination of the PVSA would also allow ships to sail from Florida, California, Texas, to nowhere (assuming the CDC allows them to) without the necessity of a foreign port. However it does not seem as if your government is intent on doing so - and everyone will continue to blame Canada for upholding their laws - which is exactly what the USA is doing.

Actually, cruises to nowhere are still legal under the PVSA.  It is a CBP ruling that foreign crew on foreign ships that engage in a cruise to nowhere would require a US work visa, not a crew visa, and be paid US wages and follow US labor laws.  The cruise lines have decided not to offer cruises to nowhere anymore, due to the cost involved meeting these requirements.

[BlerkOne]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Please expound on the antiquated language.  Also think the couple of hundred thousand US jobs that are supported by the PVSA would not thank you for considering them as non-existent.

Construction of cruise ships in the US is nonexistent as are major US cruise lines. How would any US cruise lines or nonexistent jobs they provide be impacted by a complete repeal? Something Alaska is not asking for. How would anything cruise (not transportation) related be significantly impacted?

 

Do you really think there will ever be ferry service between the mainland and Puerto Rico?  Why is there an exception for Puerto Rico?  How funny would it be if (when?) Puerto Rico becomes as state?

[BlerkOne]

7 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

Well, boo hoo hoo!!  Look, don’t blame Canada for taking care of its own business and, as an aside, make an effort to recognize your arguments are feeble and just move on.

 

I'm not blaming Canada, but it is their fault. I can't help but think some of it is in retaliation over cancellation over a poorly planned and antiquated pipeline.

[d9704011]

See ya....

[ontheweb]

20 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

 

I'm not blaming Canada, but it is their fault. I can't help but think some of it is in retaliation over cancellation over a poorly planned and antiquated pipeline.

And it has nothing to do with Covid? Could you please have a cite where their policy about no ships in Canadian waters only started when the pipeline construction was stopped by a presidential executive order?

[BlerkOne]

2 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And it has nothing to do with Covid? Could you please have a cite where their policy about no ships in Canadian waters only started when the pipeline construction was stopped by a presidential executive order?

Oh please. The only reason it was going forward was because of an executive order.

 

The ban was set to expire today, but was extended after the pipeline was killed. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

[OzCanuck]

6 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Oh please. The only reason it was going forward was because of an executive order.

 

The ban was set to expire today, but was extended after the pipeline was killed. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

Don’t kid yourself.  The current government was secretly thrilled about the pipeline being killed.  Solves a ton of problems for them. 

[BlerkOne]

24 minutes ago, OzCanuck said:

Don’t kid yourself.  The current government was secretly thrilled about the pipeline being killed.  Solves a ton of problems for them. 

No doubt, but I'm pretty sure Alberta isn't pleased.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, BlerkOne said:

Construction of cruise ships in the US is nonexistent as are major US cruise lines. How would any US cruise lines or nonexistent jobs they provide be impacted by a complete repeal? Something Alaska is not asking for. How would anything cruise (not transportation) related be significantly impacted?

 

Do you really think there will ever be ferry service between the mainland and Puerto Rico?  Why is there an exception for Puerto Rico?  How funny would it be if (when?) Puerto Rico becomes as state?

Once again you fail to understand what a "passenger vessel" is, if you continue to think that the PVSA only applies to "major US cruise lines".  And, if you claim that there could be a "this only applies to passenger vessels that carry x number of passengers" exemption, that is incorrect as well.  As I've said, and you continue to ignore is the fact that the definition of "passenger vessel" is based on international conventions (like SOLAS), and there are also caveats in those conventions that nations cannot enact stricter regulations on vessels of another country.  So, if you say, a cruise ship can be exempt from the PVSA, but a Staten Island Ferry could not be Panamanian flag, that is placing a restriction on "passenger" vessels of Panama.  But, I'm real tired of trying to get you to give up the blinders for cruise ships in the PVSA.  There are hundreds of thousands of jobs, and millions of dollars in those "non-existent" industries that are served by the PVSA.

[RD64]

It is Canada’s fault because Canada is looking after its own people? How interesting - this is just like the protectionist PVSA looking after American interests.

[gtalum]

1 hour ago, BlerkOne said:

Oh please. The only reason it was going forward was because of an executive order.

 

The ban was set to expire today, but was extended after the pipeline was killed. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

 

I suspect Canada loses more revenue from the cruise ship ban than it ever hoped to gain from Keystone XL.  I seriously doubt there's any connection.

[BlerkOne]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Once again you fail to understand what a "passenger vessel" is, if you continue to think that the PVSA only applies to "major US cruise lines".  And, if you claim that there could be a "this only applies to passenger vessels that carry x number of passengers" exemption, that is incorrect as well.  As I've said, and you continue to ignore is the fact that the definition of "passenger vessel" is based on international conventions (like SOLAS), and there are also caveats in those conventions that nations cannot enact stricter regulations on vessels of another country.  So, if you say, a cruise ship can be exempt from the PVSA, but a Staten Island Ferry could not be Panamanian flag, that is placing a restriction on "passenger" vessels of Panama.  But, I'm real tired of trying to get you to give up the blinders for cruise ships in the PVSA.  There are hundreds of thousands of jobs, and millions of dollars in those "non-existent" industries that are served by the PVSA.

You continue to defend the obsolete archaic law to the death, twisting what others post, not to mention taking the thread further off topic. I am quite aware PVSA is not just for large, mass market cruise ships. Poof - there goes much of your argument. Congress HAS granted at least one waiver from PVSA in the past for cruise ships, so poof, there goes that argument.

 

Alaska is not asking for a repeal, but a very limited, temporary, waiver. Not for all boats but for large cruise ships.The cruise lines, cruise ships, and cruise  dates are known. They could be listed in the waiver and no jobs would be lost - NONE - and in fact many would be saved. The American flagged small Alaskan cruise ships and companies have stated they have no objection to a waiver being granted. They are not afraid - why are you? It is in their best interest for cruisers to come to Alaska, and for the tourist industry in Alaska in general. How many of the jobs you are so worried about are in Alaska?

[BlerkOne]

45 minutes ago, gtalum said:

 

I suspect Canada loses more revenue from the cruise ship ban than it ever hoped to gain from Keystone XL.

I doubt a temporary cruise  ban costs more than loss of a long term project to export more oil to the US, but other pipelines are already expanding to make up the difference. The billions invested in Keystone are going to be a hit to a pocketbook somewhere.

[chengkp75]

15 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Congress HAS granted at least one waiver from PVSA in the past for cruise ships, so poof, there goes that argument.

That was a partial waiver, of one clause of the PVSA, where the ship must meet everything else, like US owned, US crewed, so Poof, there goes your argument.

16 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Alaska is not asking for a repeal, but a very limited, temporary, waiver. Not for all boats but for large cruise ships.The cruise lines, cruise ships, and cruise  dates are known.

There is no parsing of "large cruise ships" from "passenger vessels", as we are bound by the definition of a "passenger vessel".  And then, there is the pesky little "national security" requirement of the waiver.

 

18 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

You continue to defend the obsolete archaic law to the death, twisting what others post, not to mention taking the thread further off topic.

Given that you have no submitted maritime experience, I find it hard to accept your description of the law as obsolete and archaic.  And, I do not "twist" posts, I point out the flaws in their thinking, and I don't take the thread off topic, I point out other aspects of the topic that influence how the desired result won't happen.

[atanac]

chengkp75 in reading...I have nothing but respect for your thoughtful and measured responses to all these questions & statements that people post. 

Once the CDC lifts it's No Sail order and cruise lines are free to resume full & complete operations we'll see what's left of the Alaskan & Canada New England voyages for 2021. For the present this talk about the PVSA is all just background noise.