Alaska Congresman Introduces Legislation Allowing the 2021 Cruise Season to Safely Commence

[rspro]

Keeping potential 2021 Alaska cruisers informed:

 

Today, Alaska Congressman Don Young introduced the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act. 

 

https://donyoung.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=401898

 

 

[phoenix_dream]

It would be a real blessing if this passes.  Unfortunately it doesn't help those of us who were sailing out of Vancouver, but shutting down the Alaska cruise season for yet another summer is devastating to their economy.

[Ken the cruiser]

9 minutes ago, rspro said:

Keeping potential 2021 Alaska cruisers informed:

 

Today, Alaska Congressman Don Young introduced the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act. 

 

https://donyoung.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=401898

 

 

Thanks for posting this!! Gives us something to hope for as we have an Alaska B2B cruise scheduled for May. I know there is slim chance it's going to happen, but you never know ...

 

BTW I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take much for Celebrity to change the Millennium embarkation port for its applicable cruises from Vancouver to Seattle.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Ken the cruiser

[markeb]

No text posted yet. 

 

H.R.1318 - To restrict the imposition by the Secretary of Homeland Security of fines, penalties, duties, or tariffs applicable only to coastwise voyages, or prohibit otherwise qualified non-United States citizens from serving as crew, on specified vessels transporting passengers between the State of Washington and the State of Alaska, to address a Canadian cruise ship ban and the extraordinary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Alaskan communities, and for other purposes.

 

Devil's in the details. If the measure includes visa waivers for crew to work within the US, I don't know where this goes. Some of those considerations go beyond "coastwise voyages". Note the title does not address the Secretary of the Treasury. Without reading the text, I don't know if he's suggesting to consider the entire cruise "foreign" for ALL the legal considerations (such as federal income tax)...

 

 

[phoenix_dream]

4 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Thanks for posting this!! Gives us something to hope for as we have an Alaska B2B cruise scheduled for May. I know there is slim chance it's going to happen, but you never know ...

 

BTW I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take much for Celebrity to change the Millennium embarkation port for its applicable cruises from Vancouver to Seattle.

I wish I could agree with point #2, I sincerely do, but I don't think that will happen, at least not widely.  There are just too many other cruise lines that will all be vying for the limited additional slots Seattle may have.  Additionally, we have already been advised from our travel agent that our two Vancouver based cruises were cancelled.  I don't think they can un-cancel them at this point.  The next biggest issue is that cruises are not yet sailing.  If Celebrity were able to do what you suggest, it starts out as a big logistical challenge, and then if the CDC does not allow ships to sail the challenge doubles.

 

That said, I think it is possible that Celebrity could create some cruises that leave on different days than the standard week-end days.   I will remain hopeful, for others if not for myself.

[Ken the cruiser]

1 minute ago, phoenix_dream said:

I wish I could agree with point #2, I sincerely do, but I don't think that will happen, at least not widely.  There are just too many other cruise lines that will all be vying for the limited additional slots Seattle may have.  Additionally, we have already been advised from our travel agent that our two Vancouver based cruises were cancelled.  I don't think they can un-cancel them at this point.  The next biggest issue is that cruises are not yet sailing.  If Celebrity were able to do what you suggest, it starts out as a big logistical challenge, and then if the CDC does not allow ships to sail the challenge doubles.

 

That said, I think it is possible that Celebrity could create some cruises that leave on different days than the standard week-end days.   I will remain hopeful, for others if not for myself.

I know our Millennium 5 day and follow-on 7 day Alaska cruises R/T Vancouver starting May 9th haven't been cancelled yet, with our FP date slipped to 45 days prior to sailing. I realize there is not a lot of hope, but for us any "twinkle of light" nowadays when it comes to cruising again is always something to get excited about. 🤞

[deadzone1003]

It refers only to voyages between Alaska and Washington state.  So, Princess and Carnival out of San Francisco cannot sail to Alaska.  Maybe, Congressman Don Young is unaware of the Alaska cruises out of San Francisco.  At one time, I believe Celebrity sailed out of San Francisco to Alaska, r/t.  

[phoenix_dream]

2 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

It refers only to voyages between Alaska and Washington state.  So, Princess and Carnival out of San Francisco cannot sail to Alaska.  Maybe, Congressman Don Young is unaware of the Alaska cruises out of San Francisco.  At one time, I believe Celebrity sailed out of San Francisco to Alaska, r/t.  

I didn't realize that.  Interesting.  I have been on coastal cruises out of SF but never an Alaska one on Celebrity (the only line I've sailed to Alaska).  I wonder if he doesn't realize the SF possibility or if for some reason it wasn't viable.  Maybe SF (or California in general) said no way.

[Jeremiah1212]

Good attempt at optics for him, but in reality by the time the CDC and cruise lines work out their plan and all of the legalities of this legislation are sorted out....the season is over anyway. 

[phoenix_dream]

6 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

I know our Millennium 5 day and follow-on 7 day Alaska cruises R/T Vancouver starting May 9th haven't been cancelled yet, with our FP date slipped to 45 days prior to sailing. I realize there is not a lot of hope, but for us any "twinkle of light" nowadays when it comes to cruising again is always something to get excited about. 🤞

Truthfully, sometimes I wonder if our TA jumped the gun as it were and told us it was cancelled when it was really "on hold".  Regardless, we lifted and shifted to next year.  Our second cruise was a coastal cruise out of Vancouver, but that one was 9 or 10 nights if I remember so I doubt that one would sail.  Fingers crossed for you and anyone else still hoping to get to Alaska!

[LGW59]

1 minute ago, Jeremiah1212 said:

Good attempt at optics for him, but in reality by the time the CDC and cruise lines work out their plan and all of the legalities of this legislation are sorted out....the season is over anyway. 

Jeez he was just re-sworn in in Jan, already the re-election campaign has begun.

[Arizona Wildcat]

35 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Thanks for posting this!! Gives us something to hope for as we have an Alaska B2B cruise scheduled for May. I know there is slim chance it's going to happen, but you never know ...

 

BTW I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take much for Celebrity to change the Millennium embarkation port for its applicable cruises from Vancouver to Seattle.

Where in Seattle area would it dock?  

[LGW59]

4 minutes ago, Arizona Wildcat said:

Where in Seattle area would it dock?  

That would be Smith Cove...

[nocl]

28 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

It refers only to voyages between Alaska and Washington state.  So, Princess and Carnival out of San Francisco cannot sail to Alaska.  Maybe, Congressman Don Young is unaware of the Alaska cruises out of San Francisco.  At one time, I believe Celebrity sailed out of San Francisco to Alaska, r/t.  

The Alaska cruises out of SF are longer than the CDC 7 day limit.

[deadzone1003]

11 minutes ago, nocl said:

The Alaska cruises out of SF are longer than the CDC 7 day limit.

Forgot about that one, thanks.

[Arizona Wildcat]

2 hours ago, Jeremiah1212 said:

Good attempt at optics for him, but in reality by the time the CDC and cruise lines work out their plan and all of the legalities of this legislation are sorted out....the season is over anyway. 

Agree.  Seattle RT or Seward RT are certainly readable but for or wonderful legislators in Washington DC that cannot even agree when to schedule committee meetings cannot see this happening.  Too many different areas where exemptions and modifications need to be put into place.  Then you have the inevitable court challenges.  Cannot see this season happening.

[Ken the cruiser]

1 minute ago, Arizona Wildcat said:

Then you have the inevitable court challenges.  Cannot see this season happening.

Just curious, who would challenge it in court?

[deadzone1003]

58 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

We may not like not being able to cruise, but the CDC order has saved many lives

How many people have died who gotten sick on cruise ships since cruising resumed in Europe and Singapore?

[markeb]

5 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Just curious, who would challenge it in court?

Let’s see.  Various groups representing engineering, navigation, and other merchant marine specialties. And US service industry workers, many of whom are out of work. Anyone with a general immigration argument. Anyone who can find standing with an income tax beef. 
 

It’s not the PVSA. It’s the immigrant and tax issues. 

[LGW59]

21 minutes ago, Arizona Wildcat said:

Agree.  Seattle RT or Seward RT are certainly readable but for or wonderful legislators in Washington DC that cannot even agree when to schedule committee meetings cannot see this happening.  Too many different areas where exemptions and modifications need to be put into place.  Then you have the inevitable court challenges.  Cannot see this season happening.

Cruising is, IMO, very rightly so way down on the list of priorities the President, Congress and the Senate.  In all due time...

[Ken the cruiser]

37 minutes ago, markeb said:

Let’s see.  Various groups representing engineering, navigation, and other merchant marine specialties. And US service industry workers, many of whom are out of work. Anyone with a general immigration argument. Anyone who can find standing with an income tax beef. 
 

It’s not the PVSA. It’s the immigrant and tax issues. 

So just because the cruise lines are temporarily allowed to not stop at a Canadian port because Canada has closed their ports because of COVID to allow Alaska a tourist season, everyone is going to come out of the woodwork to try to block it? To me that's just wrong. But, you know us over in the peanut gallery, what do we know.

[LGW59]

49 minutes ago, deadzone1003 said:

How many people have died who gotten sick on cruise ships since cruising resumed in Europe and Singapore?

deadzone1003  good name choice, apt choice

[markeb]

16 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

So just because the cruise lines are temporarily allowed to not stop at a Canadian port because Canada has closed their ports because of COVID to allow Alaska a tourist season, everyone is going to come out of the woodwork to try to block it? To me that's just wrong. But, you know us over in the peanut gallery, what do we know.

 

Yes. Probably.

 

This is the problem with living in the Beltway, Ken. First, there is no Senate companion bill. Second, there are no (opposite party) co-sponsors from Washington. Either of those would make this a serious legislative effort. So it's really not serious.

 

The PVSA prohibits transportation of passengers between US ports; it arguably doesn't even apply to a round trip from Seattle. The foreign stop allows the cruise line to claim it's not operating in the United States for immigration and tax purposes. If the cruise wholly operates within the US, even if this legislation suspends the coastwise endorsement requirements, then the crew can no longer travel on a crew visa; they're working in the US. The types of visa theoretically available (H-2B) have caps, and you have to demonstrate that US citizens and permanent residents can't fill those jobs; they probably can't do that. Visas are issued by the State Department; the title of the bill addresses DHS only (haven't seen the text). There are plenty of US citizen engineers, navigators, etc., who could fill those jobs. There are also plenty of US citizens (unemployed, probably in Washington) who could fill the service jobs (food service, housekeeping, etc.), so getting legislation passed that would grant some sort of special immigration status, even temporarily, to allow the current crew to work in the US on a crew visa is almost certainly not going to happen, and without that legislation, the cruise lines would have to hire US citizens or permanent residents for the Alaska cruise season.

 

Also, because they theoretically are operating internationally (same as US flight crew flying to Europe or Asia, BTW), the crew (other than US citizens) are not subject to US income tax; as soon as you change things to allow non-citizens to work "in the United States", they're subject to US income tax, and probably other taxes.

 

Another interesting tidbit is the "distant foreign port" is not in the PVSA (actually 46 U.S. Code § 55103.Transportation of passengers) either. That's based on an Attorney General ruling from I think 1910 in regards to a round the world cruise where the Attorney General held that purpose of the cruise that as I recall transported passengers from New York to San Francisco, was recreation, not transport. Apparently that's never been challenged.

 

The bill has one sponsor, and has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Do you remember the final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark...

 

 

[curmudgeon98]

As far as port space in Seattle goes (for ships moving from Vancouver), I wouldn't expect a really full schedule of cruises this year in any case.  Moving some departures into mid-week would make some space, as well as doing RTs out of Seward.  Seattle is physically a large port, and if they really wanted, they could probably set up an additional temporary cruise dock.  

 

I personally think the "technical stops" have set a precedent for doing something like this in unusual circumstances.  If the weather can make you do that, why not COVID?  

[Ken the cruiser]

7 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

Yes. Probably.

 

This is the problem with living in the Beltway, Ken. First, there is no Senate companion bill. Second, there are no (opposite party) co-sponsors from Washington. Either of those would make this a serious legislative effort. So it's really not serious.

 

The PVSA prohibits transportation of passengers between US ports; it arguably doesn't even apply to a round trip from Seattle. The foreign stop allows the cruise line to claim it's not operating in the United States for immigration and tax purposes. If the cruise wholly operates within the US, even if this legislation suspends the coastwise endorsement requirements, then the crew can no longer travel on a crew visa; they're working in the US. The types of visa theoretically available (H-2B) have caps, and you have to demonstrate that US citizens and permanent residents can't fill those jobs; they probably can't do that. Visas are issued by the State Department; the title of the bill addresses DHS only (haven't seen the text). There are plenty of US citizen engineers, navigators, etc., who could fill those jobs. There are also plenty of US citizens (unemployed, probably in Washington) who could fill the service jobs (food service, housekeeping, etc.), so getting legislation passed that would grant some sort of special immigration status, even temporarily, to allow the current crew to work in the US on a crew visa is almost certainly not going to happen, and without that legislation, the cruise lines would have to hire US citizens or permanent residents for the Alaska cruise season.

 

Also, because they theoretically are operating internationally (same as US flight crew flying to Europe or Asia, BTW), the crew (other than US citizens) are not subject to US income tax; as soon as you change things to allow non-citizens to work "in the United States", they're subject to US income tax, and probably other taxes.

 

Another interesting tidbit is the "distant foreign port" is not in the PVSA (actually 46 U.S. Code § 55103.Transportation of passengers) either. That's based on an Attorney General ruling from I think 1910 in egards to a round the world cruise where the Attorney General held that purpose of the cruise that as I recall transported passengers from New York to San Francisco, was recreation, not transport. Apparently that's never been challenged.

 

The bill has one sponsor, and has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Do you remember the final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark...

As usual, Mark, you definitely know your stuff in so many different areas! Thanks for taking the time to explain "the rest of the story".