With Canada now closed to cruises until 2022 is now the time to repeal Jones’ Law?

[JRG]

On 2/17/2021 at 9:42 AM, broberts said:

If you feel an exemption is justified please present your arguments. At least those that don't boil down to "because I want to cruise".

 

You've read the Juneau arguments,  they are not mine but I agree with them.

 

Here are the FMC arguments   they are the commissioners and not mine.

 

I posted this from another poster who recognized its significance.

 

Again,  it is not my argument,  although I agree.

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/people-opinions/fmcs-sola-calls-limited-pvsa-exemption-diplomatic-action-help-alaska

 

 

 

[CruiserBruce]

44 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

You've read the Juneau arguments,  they are not mine but I agree with them.

 

Here are the FMC arguments   they are the commissioners and not mine.

 

I posted this from another poster who recognized its significance.

 

Again,  it is not my argument,  although I agree.

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/people-opinions/fmcs-sola-calls-limited-pvsa-exemption-diplomatic-action-help-alaska

 

 

 

From a another source on the topic, last sentence of the Travel Weekly article:

 

The Federal Maritime Commission said that Sola's comments are his own and do not necessarily represent the position of the commission.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Cruzaholic41 ,   what don't you get about this.  All the other cruzaholics will get it.

 

It could be nothing,   but 1 cruiseline (Celebrity) is saying that they are trying to get  a workaround for the distant port requirement,  and they have put it in writing to their customers who have cruises booked.  (last time I checked a few days ago).   

 

Can you please go do the research yourself and discover what I am talking about,  because if it turns out the Celebrity knows something that you and I don't and they pull a rabbit out of their hat,  then somebody is going to be doing the bingo chicken dance and it isn't me.

 

Then come back and tell us me what you think when you are ready.

 

Thanks.

 

 

And what will you say when and if Celebrity does not get a workaround?

[neverbeenhere]

The Jones Act is quite entertaining. Saw him in Las Vegas many years ago.

[Aquahound]

3 hours ago, JRG said:

 

It could be nothing,   but 1 cruiseline (Celebrity) is saying that they are trying to get  a workaround for the distant port requirement,  and they have put it in writing to their customers who have cruises booked.  (last time I checked a few days ago).   

 

 

Can you please provide a link to this?  I don't see anything from searching, and I'd like to read their justification.  I'd also like to see to who in Congress they have submitted this proposed legislation.

[njhorseman]

56 minutes ago, neverbeenhere said:

The Jones Act is quite entertaining. Saw him in Las Vegas many years ago.

Tom Jones? I saw him in Las Vegas perhaps 45 or 50 years ago

[njhorseman]

26 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

Can you please provide a link to this?  I don't see anything from searching, and I'd like to read their justification.  I'd also like to see to who in Congress they have submitted this proposed legislation.

Celebrity has put a statement on their website that they're looking for alternative solutions, and say that they hope their guests will keep their existing reservations.

https://www.celebritycruises.com/travel-alert

"Friday, February 12th, 2021

The Government of Canada has recently announced continued port closures for all cruise ships through February 28, 2022.  In order to comply with these closures, Celebrity Cruises has placed all sailings with an embarkation or port of call in Canada, on hold while we explore itinerary options.  While this news is certainly disappointing, we certainly respect their decision and appreciate that they have their own set of COVID-19 circumstances to manage.  As we work on potential alternatives, we hope that guests will keep their existing vacation reservation with us. However, any guests who desire to adjust their booking will be provided the option to be re-accommodated on another Celebrity Cruises vacation in 2022, or they may cancel for a 125% Future Cruise Credit (FCC) or a 100% Refund.  While we are exploring alternatives, for guests who choose to maintain their booking, reservations approaching their final payment due dates will be adjusted to 45 days prior to departure.  We will continue to work with health and transportation officials around the world, and focus on what we can do to support our guests, the people who rely on the tourism industry and the regions in which we operate."

 

Celebrity isn't the only cruise line making this type of statement to those holding reservations for the Alaska season. NCL has said something similar, and I imagine other cruise lines have also.

https://www.ncl.com/suspended-sailings

"2021 Alaska Cruises

Following The Government of Canada’s Interim Order which calls for the suspension of passenger cruising in Canadian waters through February 2022, we will temporarily halt the acceptance of bookings for our 2021 Alaska season. At this time we have not cancelled any voyages in our 2021 Alaska season and are currently exploring several initiatives that may allow such cruises to continue.

We are working through all available options as quickly as possible, and given the fluidity of the current environment, we will also continue to work with the Canadian government to amend the current suspension. We will continue to keep all travel partners and guests updated as the situation progresses, and we thank them for their patience."

 

The reality is that Celebrity, NCL and every other cruise line can say they're looking for solutions, but that doesn't mean they're going to find any.  As much as anything I view their statements as stalling tactics to justify their failure to cancel the entire Alaska season, which would cause another big drag on their cash reserves in order to make refunds. It's also a way to deflect attention from the fact that even if Canada or the US were to make some accommodation for the Alaska season the major cruise lines are still at present unable to conduct any cruises within US waters because they don't have  plans approved by the CDC for doing so. 

 

 

They're not the only cruise 

[Aquahound]

1 minute ago, njhorseman said:

Celebrity has put a statement on their website that they're looking for alternative solutions, and say that they hope their guests will keep their existing reservations.

https://www.celebritycruises.com/travel-alert

 

 

Yeah, I saw those.  I had a RCI cruise canceled that said something similar....exploring solutions....a very vague response.  

 

I'm just curious where JRG saw they were specifically looking for an exemption to "distant foreign port."  I'm not even sure why they would request such a thing because Alaska cruises don't visit a distant foreign port.  

[njhorseman]

1 minute ago, Aquahound said:

 

Yeah, I saw those.  I had a RCI cruise canceled that said something similar....exploring solutions....a very vague response.  

 

I'm just curious where JRG saw they were specifically looking for an exemption to "distant foreign port."  I'm not even sure why they would request such a thing because Alaska cruises don't visit a distant foreign port.  

I was going to ask JRG the same question about the distant foreign port requirement but frankly I figured he would just come up with something else not grounded in fact. I'm kind of tired of beating my head against the wall on topics like this.

[cruisemom42]

7 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

Yeah, I saw those.  I had a RCI cruise canceled that said something similar....exploring solutions....a very vague response.  

 

I'm just curious where JRG saw they were specifically looking for an exemption to "distant foreign port."  I'm not even sure why they would request such a thing because Alaska cruises don't visit a distant foreign port.  

 

I think he is (slightly mis) quoting this letter than Celebrity sent out to those booked on the Alaska cruises potentially impacted by the Canada decision (relevant part bolded):

 

"We are reaching out to provide an update on the status of your 2021 cruise vacation. The Government of Canada has recently announced continued port closures for all cruise ships through February 28, 2022. In order to comply with these closures Celebrity Cruises has placed your cruise on hold. Currently, we are working to determine if it may be possible to operate your sailing without a call to a foreign port. However, until a decision has been rendered in this matter, the sailing will remain closed, but your reservation will continue to be valid."

 

This post gives the full text of the letter: 

 

 

I note Celebrity does NOT provide any estimate of the potential for success of this approach.

[JRG]

On 2/17/2021 at 5:24 PM, Essiesmom said:

Uncruise also claims they will be doing Alaska this year, as they are US owned and crewed and don't need Canada. 

 

You may be interested to also know that the CEO of Uncruise has specifically stated that he favors a 4-months temporary exemption to the PVSA for purposes of helping the Alaskan Economy.  It is in the media.   Let me know if you need a link.   I believe he also stated that Uncruise is not in direct competition with major cruiselines

 

I believe that both  njhorseman and aquahound have stated that Uncruise would be one of the plaintiffs with standing filing an injunction should a PVSA exemption be granted.    This is not the case.

 

The CEO of Uncruise  is specifically contradicting what was said.   

 

Please no feinting and no banging the head against the wall,   this is a no-brainer.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by JRG

[JRG]

2 hours ago, njhorseman said:

I was going to ask JRG the same question about the distant foreign port requirement but frankly I figured he would just come up with something else not grounded in fact. I'm kind of tired of beating my head against the wall on topics like this.

 

Yes,  I was referring to foreign port.   I have no idea where the distant thing came from.

[JRG]

3 hours ago, Aquahound said:

Yeah, I saw those.  I had a RCI cruise canceled that said something similar....exploring solutions....a very vague response.  

 

So you had this letter the whole time of this thread and didn't mention it...

 

Did you or they cancel it or did they ask you to put it on the mysterious 'hold' status,  just in case. 

 

I think this was unusual for a cruiseline to do this.  Very cloak and dagger.

 

 

[JRG]

6 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

From a another source on the topic, last sentence of the Travel Weekly article:

 

The Federal Maritime Commission said that Sola's comments are his own and do not necessarily represent the position of the commission.

 

Yes you are correct ,  this was included at the bottom of the article.   

[cruisemom42]

49 minutes ago, JRG said:

I believe that both  njhorseman and aquahound have stated that Uncruise would be one of the plaintiffs with standing filing an injunction should a PVSA exemption be granted.    This is not the case.

 

The CEO of Uncruise  is specifically contradicting what was said.   

 

You are rather careless in your posts and in how you remember things.

 

What was said is that Un-Cruise WOULD be a plaintiff with standing SHOULD they decide to protest. Which appears to be borne out by the article that I think you are citing (hard to tell since you didn't give a link but I am referring to the one in Sea Trade).

 

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

 

That is not the same thing as saying that they WOULD take action.

 

Details matter. Especially in areas like this.

[JRG]

2 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

What was said is that Un-Cruise WOULD be a plaintiff with standing SHOULD they decide to protest. Which appears to be borne out by the article that I think you are citing (hard to tell since you didn't give a link but I am referring to the one in Sea Trade).

 

Au contraire,     I did give the link but it was deleted.     Looks like I need to clear up a few details too or you may have co-mingled two talking points.

 

The CEO of Un-Cruise says in the article (paraphrasing)  that he supports a 4-6 month PVSA exemption to help the economy (not to help some desperate cruiser get to Alaska) and avoid the 'Devastating Impact on Communities".   I remember a few posters were saying this was someone' selfish and desperate desire to do anything to get an Alaska cruise.    This is the misleading.

 

This position statement put forth by the CEO of UnCruise is crystal clear.  I'm choosing to believe my own research skills on this one.

 

This evidence contradicts the argument that our esteemed colleagues posted early on in this thread under the premise that both American Cruiselines and UnCruise would object.   At the time our esteemed colleagues were trying to convince Hlitner that both of these lines would put up a fight via an injunction if an exemption was granted.     This is what I meant when I said "this is not the case".  Sorry to make my post sound like I am being careless but I believe my point still remains intact .   It further substantiates my observation that we are not getting  good reliable information due to conflicts of interest from our perceived subject matter experts some of whom are not American and this is an American law.     I can't pledge fealty the way others do.   

 

Secondly....

American Cruiselines has specifically acknowledged (in a different article) that they do not compete with the big cruiselines.     I'll pass the link along when I remember where I saw it.

 

Details matter for sure,  but honest posting matters even more.

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by JRG

[chengkp75]

A few things that our friend fails to acknowledge.  While the CEO of UnCruise correctly states that they do not compete with the major cruise lines, because they have different demographics, they are still in competition for passenger service to Alaska.  And, while he states he supports a waiver of the PVSA, does he say that his company will not take advantage of the waiver to reflag and hope the waiver becomes permanent?  Didn't think so.  Also, there are far more entities with standing than the two cruise lines that our friend has harped on.

[broberts]

Would not being able to use the inside passage seriously impact CDC mandated 7 day itineraries? 

[chengkp75]

14 minutes ago, broberts said:

Would not being able to use the inside passage seriously impact CDC mandated 7 day itineraries? 

Not a great deal of difference in distance for Seattle to Juneau.

[CruiserBruce]

40 minutes ago, broberts said:

Would not being able to use the inside passage seriously impact CDC mandated 7 day itineraries? 

7 day cruises sail out of Seattle regularly (pre-Covid) and need to make that one stop in Canada...typically Victoria, but occasionally other locations. Most Seattle trips DON'T sail standard, Canadian Inside Passage. Remove the sailing and extra time in a Canadian port, and it would seem they actually might have time for an extra port.

[Aquahound]

10 hours ago, JRG said:

 

So you had this letter the whole time of this thread and didn't mention it...

 

Why mention it?  It’s irrelevant. Nothing in my correspondence with RCI mentioned their proposal to skip distant foreign ports, or even foreign ports, as you claimed. 
 

My posts on this thread, especially those in response to you, have been factual, not opinion.   I do not care if the cruise lines find a legal alternative to the current law. I would applaud if they legalized cruises to AK this year. But what I and numerous others keep trying to convey to you is, your ideas for alternatives simply aren’t realistic....and frankly, aren’t legal. If they were, don’t you think an alternative would have been reached by now?  The mere fact that there is no alternative only supports what we all are trying to tell you. You just don’t listen and with every comment, you try to move the goal posts to something even more bizarre. 

[JRG]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

A few things that our friend fails to acknowledge.  While the CEO of UnCruise correctly states that they do not compete with the major cruise lines, because they have different demographics, they are still in competition for passenger service to Alaska.  And, while he states he supports a waiver of the PVSA, does he say that his company will not take advantage of the waiver to reflag and hope the waiver becomes permanent?  Didn't think so.  Also, there are far more entities with standing than the two cruise lines that our friend has harped on.

 

I am ok with the beginning paragraph but you lost me halfway thru at 'does'.   Let me think that part thru to better understand your position if I am to respond.

 

I'm obligated to share some professional courtesy with everybody and step back from the FM clause (aka Force Majeure) ever so slightly because I have also learned the following:

 

The silver bullet that overrides an FM ruling would be used for the insurance policies which specify 'for all risks'  (or the equivalent) as they would then not be subject to FM.   All other claims for loss,  unless they have this rider,  would be ruled this way without further explanation from the judge.  That is what is happening right now.

 

Lloyds of London and other underwriters are grateful that alot of policies are not written this way as it will reduce insurance payouts but in the long run,   I believe this helps keeps premiums from going thru the roof.  

 

FM.....No Static at all.

 

Meanwhile.....on the subject of the carbon footprint differential  (I added a word),  it is going to to have an effect on individuals who are sympathetic to global climate change,  as we all should be and when you discuss hurdles involved in reducing emissions you quickly understand that improvements will probably come in small increments over an extended period of time.   

 

It snowballs from there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by JRG

[JRG]

1 hour ago, CruiserBruce said:

Remove the sailing and extra time in a Canadian port, and it would seem they actually might have time for an extra port.

 

This idea would (or could)....(or should) save the average cruiser,  potentially another day to spend money tourist dollars within the Alaskan coastal economy.

 

Even at 24.99 a pound,   the fresh halibut is worth it.  so is the king crab.  and the salmon...

[JRG]

12 minutes ago, JRG said:

does he say that his company will not take advantage of the waiver to reflag and hope the waiver becomes permanent?  Didn't think so.

 

To answer your question.  No he does not say that,   and neither did I although you are correct to recognize that I have some ideas along those lines.

 

It would premature on his part and he would not be able to buy at beer in town if he did.

 

 

[JRG]

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

Why mention it?  It’s irrelevant. Nothing in my correspondence with RCI mentioned their proposal to skip distant foreign ports, or even foreign ports, as you claimed. 

 

It was just an oversight Paul.   I included 'distant' port inadvertently. instead of 'foreign port'

 

I have no way of confirming what letter you may have gotten from RCI but I believe that Cruisemom42 found a copy and posted it here.   scroll back a few pages to find it.

 

Also, listen to what CruiserBruce is suggesting,  just suggesting.   I think those ideas are worth discussing.

 

I am not putting him on the spot here because maybe I misread his post and am okay if he clarifies his position,  but that is what I read into his post today.