Technical Stop Only requested in Canada 2/25/21

[Ombud]

Interesting link .... if allowed no one disembarks but satisfies PVSA 

 

https://www.royalcaribbean blog .com/2021/02/25/congress-sends-bipartisan-letter-canada-asking-compromise-cruise-ship-ban

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Ombud
Need to put together. It omits part of link otherwise

[Pamster]

10 minutes ago, Ombud said:

Interesting link .... if allowed no one disembarks but satisfies PVSA 

 

https://www.royalcaribbean blog .com/2021/02/25/congress-sends-bipartisan-letter-canada-asking-compromise-cruise-ship-ban

 

Was hoping someone would do something like that. 

[oskidunker]

Why dont they just waive the requirement. I don't get it. What harm would it do?

[beg3yrs]

4 minutes ago, oskidunker said:

Why dont they just waive the requirement. I don't get it. What harm would it do?

It takes a passed Act of Congress and a signature from the president to make this happen and they all (except for the elected officials from Alaska) seem to have other priorities these days.

[Shmoo here]

51 minutes ago, Ombud said:

Interesting link .... if allowed no one disembarks but satisfies PVSA 

 

https://www.royalcaribbean blog .com/2021/02/25/congress-sends-bipartisan-letter-canada-asking-compromise-cruise-ship-ban

 

That has been addressed previously (several years ago) with the elimination of "technical stops".  It was determined that such cruises are not meeting the criteria if they don't allow passengers to debark the ship.  

[Pamster]

1 hour ago, Shmoo here said:

That has been addressed previously (several years ago) with the elimination of "technical stops".  It was determined that such cruises are not meeting the criteria if they don't allow passengers to debark the ship.  

Determined by whom, I wonder?  

[chengkp75]

51 minutes ago, Pamster said:

Determined by whom, I wonder?  

CBP, who decides what is and what is not a violation of the PVSA, ruled in 2007 that technical stops did not meet the "intent" of the PVSA, and so they are not allowed.  So, even if Canada were to agree to this, you would still need to get CBP to change their interpretation of the PVSA, and you might also need to meet the meager requirements of the CDC.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, oskidunker said:

Why dont they just waive the requirement. I don't get it. What harm would it do?

Well, first off, the law states that the only waivers can be granted if two conditions exist:

1.  The waiver is pursuant to "national security" (not sure cruises fall into that category)

2.  There is no US flag vessel capable of providing the transportation (there are)

 

 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, beg3yrs said:

It takes a passed Act of Congress and a signature from the president to make this happen and they all (except for the elected officials from Alaska) seem to have other priorities these days.

And, its only one member of the Alaskan Congressional delegation that signed either the letter to Canada, or sponsored the bill to work around the PVSA.  Apparently, his two Alaskan Senatorial colleagues don't believe there is any traction here.

[Thrak]

I thought this whole "technical stop" question was hashed out here on CC quite some time back. I'm surprised it's being brought up again not only here but by the "powers that be" who should know better.

[beg3yrs]

27 minutes ago, Thrak said:

I thought this whole "technical stop" question was hashed out here on CC quite some time back. I'm surprised it's being brought up again not only here but by the "powers that be" who should know better.

You're right, it was hashed out. However you've been around on CC long enough to know that won't stop people. Look how many times the Jones Act is still referenced! 😅

Edited February 27, 2021 by beg3yrs

[Thrak]

13 minutes ago, beg3yrs said:

You're right, it was hashed out. However you've been around on CC long enough to know that won't stop people. Look how many times the Jones Act is still referenced! 😅

 

That one always boggles me. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when folks use the wrong terminology. At work I was always completely blown away by people who thought their monitor was the computer, called their computer the "modem", called their computer the "hard drive", etc. I also cringe horribly when I see or hear "interwebs" and garbage terms like that.

Edited February 27, 2021 by Thrak

[Ombud]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

CBP, who decides what is and what is not a violation of the PVSA, ruled in 2007 that technical stops did not meet the "intent" of the PVSA, and so they are not allowed.  So, even if Canada were to agree to this, you would still need to get CBP to change their interpretation of the PVSA, and you might also need to meet the meager requirements of the CDC.

But wouldn't the senators have the authority to bring it up? Or doesn't whomever controls the CBP talk to the US Senate?? I'm not trying to be argumentative but I thought the hill was influential. And this is 5 senators (none from Alaska) bringing it up in a time when they're distracted 

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Ombud

[memoak]

17 minutes ago, Ombud said:

But wouldn't the senators have the authority to bring it up? Or doesn't whomever controls the CBP talk to the US Senate?? I'm not trying to be argumentative but I thought the hill was influential. And this is 5 senators (none from Alaska) bringing it up in a time when they're distracted 

 

5 out of a 100 is not going anywhere. Kiss off Alaska for this year and book as soon as you can for 2022. I did that as a backup as soon as the season came out

[chengkp75]

27 minutes ago, Ombud said:

But wouldn't the senators have the authority to bring it up? Or doesn't whomever controls the CBP talk to the US Senate?? I'm not trying to be argumentative but I thought the hill was influential. And this is 5 senators (none from Alaska) bringing it up in a time when they're distracted 

 

Sure the Congressmen can talk to the CBP (neither of the Alaska Senators have signed the letter, and I think it is a House committee, not the Senate), but at the end of the day, it is CBP's decision, and the letter of the law that determines what is done.  And given CBP's desire at the last time the "technical port call" was investigated, to require that foreign port calls be at least 48 hours long, and that the majority of port time on a cruise be in foreign ports, I don't see them changing this.

[Ombud]

If they want Alaska (as well as other areas) to get back to work, it's time for the Hill to think outside the box during extraordinary times 

 

Ok, back to cruising posts only

Edited February 27, 2021 by Ombud

[chengkp75]

16 minutes ago, Ombud said:

If they want Alaska (as well as other areas) to get back to work, it's time for the Hill to think outside the box during extraordinary times 

 

Ok, back to cruising posts only

No, if they want to get Alaska back to work, they can target aid to those businesses in Alaska that are impacted, and work with the state to set guidelines for travel there, and push airlines to increase capacity, using currently unused planes, to Alaska.  Cruising is less than half of Alaska's tourist industry, they need to look at other ways, as long as cruising has the CDC, the PVSA, and the Canadian government ranged against it.

[KeepCalmBearOn]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

CBP, who decides what is .....

 

CBP can't decide Shite anymore. They are virtually powerless on the Southern border. Not even sure what their function is right now.

 

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, first off, the law states that the only waivers can be granted if two conditions exist:

1.  The waiver is pursuant to "national security" (not sure cruises fall into that category)

2.  There is no US flag vessel capable of providing the transportation (there are)

 

No one is talking about a waiver. We are talking about a suspension of the act for 2 years.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, scottca075 said:

 

CBP can't decide Shite anymore. They are virtually powerless on the Southern border. Not even sure what their function is right now.

 

 

No one is talking about a waiver. We are talking about a suspension of the act for 2 years.

Well, that would take passage by both houses of Congress, and the President.

[KeepCalmBearOn]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, that would take passage by both houses of Congress, and the President.

 

One party controls both the House and Senate and Presidency. Seems pretty simple to me.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, scottca075 said:

 

One party controls both the House and Senate and Presidency. Seems pretty simple to me.

Considering that the Alaskan Congressman has not found anyone else to sponsor his bill, to just work around the PVSA, do you really think that either party, whether they control Congress and/or the White House, has any interest in granting an exemption (by suspending the Act) to the cruise lines?  I don't see the interest anywhere in Washington.

 

And, if you completely suspend the Act, especially for as long as you say, you open up the whole box of unintended consequences with the Coronado ferry reflagging and hiring non-US crew, and not being subject to USCG regulations.

[KeepCalmBearOn]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And, if you completely suspend the Act, especially for as long as you say, you open up the whole box of unintended consequences with the Coronado ferry reflagging and hiring non-US crew, and not being subject to USCG regulations.

 

The Coronado ferry already has a non-US crew now along with about 50% of the workers in hotels and restaurants 40% in construction, 70% in gardening and landscape services in San Diego.

[nocl]

So you have 5 members of Congress signing a letter

 

The letter was signed by  Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Congressman Sam Graves (R-MO), Congressman Salud Carbajal (D-CA), Congressman Bob Gibbs (R-OH), and  Congressman Don Young (R-AK).

 

Really doesn't mean much.  I wonder if that signifies the scope of those interested.

 

If the request was coming from the state department, that is actually responsible for official diplomatic communications it might mean something.  A letter from 5 members of Congress would carry about as much weight as a member of the Canadian Parliament writing to the US asking to reconsider the pipeline.

[KeepCalmBearOn]

6 minutes ago, nocl said:

So you have 5 members of Congress signing a letter

 

Maybe Nancy Pelosi's constituents should put some heat on her. Or maybe she should just slip it into the Covid bill.

[Thrak]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Sure the Congressmen can talk to the CBP (neither of the Alaska Senators have signed the letter, and I think it is a House committee, not the Senate), but at the end of the day, it is CBP's decision, and the letter of the law that determines what is done.  And given CBP's desire at the last time the "technical port call" was investigated, to require that foreign port calls be at least 48 hours long, and that the majority of port time on a cruise be in foreign ports, I don't see them changing this.

 

I'm confused. We have had port stops in Ensenada that were only 4 hours or 9 hours long and very short stops in Canada. I must be missing something here...

Edited February 28, 2021 by Thrak