The Alaskan Tourism Recovery Act passes

[TeeRick]

17 hours ago, onlyslightlymad said:

Thank you.  While there is no denying that the loss of tourists has had an economic impact, particular within certain sectors (eg hospo), it has been somewhat mitigated by domestic tourism.  Because we have freedom of movement and assembly within our borders, those New Zealanders who would have been going offshore on holiday have instead been holidaying in their own country.  As to how long such spending patterns can continue, that's a different matter.

We visited your beautiful country in 2018 and would love to be able to travel back there soon.

[K.T.B.]

When cruises all start again in Alaska: LINK

[markeb]

3 hours ago, K.T.B. said:

When cruises all start again in Alaska: LINK

 

There's also some interesting commentary in there, very small, that gets to Seattle being Seattle. We've had family in the area and have travelled out there at least once a year for probably 30 years, and outside the immediate tourist areas that serve them, cruise ships just don't seem that popular. So along with just not having the capacity for long term, I suspect there would be a lot of resistance to seriously expanding that capacity if there were a move to make the current change more permanent. And I won't pretend I can predict which side would win. Our cruising has been East Coast and European, so I don't have a feel for how many cruises go out of Vancouver in a normal season, but people's comments in this and other threads give the impression it's a lot more than historically departed from Seattle.

 

But, for folks who want to cruise to Alaska this summer, things seem to be moving along.

[JRG]

2 hours ago, markeb said:

1)So along with just not having the capacity for long term,

2)I suspect there would be a lot of resistance to seriously expanding that capacity if there were a move to make the current change more permanent.

 

1.  You would have to look at their  existing cruise dock capacity utilization census to ascertain this brave declaration.   My guess would be that they have excess capacity right now because PVSA laws send most cruises thru Vancouver and they've never been maxed out.   It would be interesting to know the ratio of sailings Seattle vs. BC.

 

2.   Not with $4.2 billion dollars at stake,   time to start floating the Port Authority bonds.  They do need to make some improvements for disembarking though as it can suck at rush hour.

 

 

[Fouremco]

3 hours ago, markeb said:

I don't have a feel for how many cruises go out of Vancouver in a normal season

Between Alaskan, Hawaiian and Pacific Coast cruises, Vancouver accommodates over 300 cruises annually. 

[markeb]

16 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

Between Alaskan, Hawaiian and Pacific Coast cruises, Vancouver accommodates over 300 cruises annually. 

 

Port of Seattle says 200 a year to Alaska. So 1.5X as many from Vancouver.

[Fouremco]

3 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

Port of Seattle says 200 a year to Alaska. So 1.5X as many from Vancouver.

It will be a very busy port! 

[markeb]

54 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

1.  You would have to look at their  existing cruise dock capacity utilization census to ascertain this brave declaration.   My guess would be that they have excess capacity right now because PVSA laws send most cruises thru Vancouver and they've never been maxed out.   It would be interesting to know the ratio of sailings Seattle vs. BC.

 

2.   Not with $4.2 billion dollars at stake,   time to start floating the Port Authority bonds.  They do need to make some improvements for disembarking though as it can suck at rush hour.

 

 

 

1) Concerns about capacity in Seattle have been raised on every thread dealing with the Canadian shutdown for months; that's nothing new. Seattle was scheduled to build a new terminal, but that went on hold last year. I don't know what they're planning for actual capacity, but if Foremeco's numbers are correct, Vancouver has over 300 cruises a year, and Seattle has about 200.

 

2) According to the article K.T.B. linked: 

 

"Before the pandemic shutdown, the cruise industry was credited with generating about $894 million in local revenue and contributing to 5,500 jobs each season, according to estimates."

 

Not a lot of jobs for a city the size of Seattle. And I wonder how much of the revenue is fuel. And there's a pretty major commercial shipping operation in Seattle that could offset a lot of the maritime jobs. Not so much the day traveler tourist traps; no one's buying fish in Pike Place Market to take back on their ship (which in spite of the act is an absolutely amazing fish market, and they get very serious about fish when you talk to them about buying one...). 

 

Also in the article K.T.B. linked: 

 

"Not everyone will welcome the return. Cruises have been a flashpoint for environmental concerns in Seattle.

 

We realize we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels and need to do so quickly. After a break like we’ve had, to jump back into a leisure activity that is so fossil-fuel intensive… does seem like going backwards,” said Stacy Oaks, a member of Seattle Cruise Control, a coalition opposing a new cruise terminal in Pioneer Square. “Unfortunately, we didn’t get to use this pause to think about how we could have more responsible tourism.”

 

Washington could go either way on supporting the cruise industry. Seattle itself, IMHO, from past activities, is unlikely to directly support an industry it views the way reflected in the previous quote. But I make no bets on what will actually happen, because it is Seattle.

 

Honestly, I'm 50:50 on striking while the iron's hot on extending this crazy definition to some form of permanence now. It's a crazy compromise that's going to work. But there's enough for both sides of the aisle to hate that I don't know what would happen to a proposal to make it permanent. I'm pretty confident that would need to happen in 2021 before everyone's campaigning for 2022. On the other hand, all that really needs to happen now is to amend the law by striking the expiration date (and creating a methodology for naming the ships; they're actually in there). That might actually be possible.

[K.T.B.]

40 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

1) Concerns about capacity in Seattle have been raised on every thread dealing with the Canadian shutdown for months; that's nothing new. Seattle was scheduled to build a new terminal, but that went on hold last year. I don't know what they're planning for actual capacity, but if Foremeco's numbers are correct, Vancouver has over 300 cruises a year, and Seattle has about 200.

 

2) According to the article K.T.B. linked: 

 

"Before the pandemic shutdown, the cruise industry was credited with generating about $894 million in local revenue and contributing to 5,500 jobs each season, according to estimates."

 

Not a lot of jobs for a city the size of Seattle. And I wonder how much of the revenue is fuel. And there's a pretty major commercial shipping operation in Seattle that could offset a lot of the maritime jobs. Not so much the day traveler tourist traps; no one's buying fish in Pike Place Market to take back on their ship (which in spite of the act is an absolutely amazing fish market, and they get very serious about fish when you talk to them about buying one...). 

 

Also in the article K.T.B. linked: 

 

"Not everyone will welcome the return. Cruises have been a flashpoint for environmental concerns in Seattle.

 

We realize we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels and need to do so quickly. After a break like we’ve had, to jump back into a leisure activity that is so fossil-fuel intensive… does seem like going backwards,” said Stacy Oaks, a member of Seattle Cruise Control, a coalition opposing a new cruise terminal in Pioneer Square. “Unfortunately, we didn’t get to use this pause to think about how we could have more responsible tourism.”

 

Washington could go either way on supporting the cruise industry. Seattle itself, IMHO, from past activities, is unlikely to directly support an industry it views the way reflected in the previous quote. But I make no bets on what will actually happen, because it is Seattle.

 

Honestly, I'm 50:50 on striking while the iron's hot on extending this crazy definition to some form of permanence now. It's a crazy compromise that's going to work. But there's enough for both sides of the aisle to hate that I don't know what would happen to a proposal to make it permanent. I'm pretty confident that would need to happen in 2021 before everyone's campaigning for 2022. On the other hand, all that really needs to happen now is to amend the law by striking the expiration date (and creating a methodology for naming the ships; they're actually in there). That might actually be possible.

 

Just focusing in your second point: It may "only" be 5,500 jobs, but each cruise brings in between 2,000 to 2,500 people to the city.  Right now it looks like about 7 cruises a week, possibly more, going out of Seattle. That's a lot of tourists coming in, a great many of them the day before their cruise departs.  Meaning more business for hotels, restaurants, cabs, etc.

 

As for the fossil fuel debate, there's not a lot of complaints about airplanes and cargo ships, which numbers in the tens of thousands every year.  Granted, it is an issue, but attacking the cruise industry on it is missing the mark by a wide margin.

[Host Jazzbeau]

President Joe Biden Signs Bill to Save 2021 Alaska Cruise Season

[markeb]

15 minutes ago, K.T.B. said:

 

Just focusing in your second point: It may "only" be 5,500 jobs, but each cruise brings in between 2,000 to 2,500 people to the city.  Right now it looks like about 7 cruises a week, possibly more, going out of Seattle. That's a lot of tourists coming in, a great many of them the day before their cruise departs.  Meaning more business for hotels, restaurants, cabs, etc.

 

As for the fossil fuel debate, there's not a lot of complaints about airplanes and cargo ships, which numbers in the tens of thousands every year.  Granted, it is an issue, but attacking the cruise industry on it is missing the mark by a wide margin.

Honestly, I’m not attacking them. I’ve spent enough time in the area that I can’t predict the support or non-support. There’s apparently enough push back to get mentioned in a cruise industry article, but I don’t know if that’s real. I actually think there might be a path to a more permanent change on the Seattle to Alaska route. 

[Host Jazzbeau]

We did the Whittier to Vancouver route, which was fine but the ports were all one-and-done [Diamonds International everywhere!]  If I do another Alaska cruise it will be a small ship from Juneau. 

 

But I hope that this PSVA carve-out does become a precedent because it could open up more options for more people on more routes.  I would like a carve-out for one-way cruises from the West Coast to Hawaii, which would shorten the time and/or allow more time in Hawaii.  And Boston or New York to Florida, for an East Coast equivalent to the West Coast itineraries (which wouldn't need Ensenada or Vancouver). 

 

All possible now, with no threat to ferry safety or US shipping jobs [that are already lost] – because it has been proven that you can carve out cruise ships from the PSVA.

[markeb]

14 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

All possible now, with no threat to ferry safety or US shipping jobs [that are already lost] – because it has been proven that you can carve out cruise ships from the PSVA.

The act does so much more than that, though. Without ever mentioning the PVSA. They carved cruise ship crews out of current immigration law. 

[Blackduck59]

6 minutes ago, markeb said:

Honestly, I’m not attacking them. I’ve spent enough time in the area that I can’t predict the support or non-support. There’s apparently enough push back to get mentioned in a cruise industry article, but I don’t know if that’s real. I actually think there might be a path to a more permanent change on the Seattle to Alaska route. 

 

As stated earlier the PVSA has far reaching implications that would open up a pandora's box of trickle down problems.

Imagine when the Washington State ferries have to start to replace their aging fleet. No PVSA no need for the ships to be built in the USA suddenly millions of dollars going offshore to foreign shipyards and shipyard workers. This is not without precedent just look at our BC Ferries, we have replaced several of our ships large and small and they have been built off shore. British Columbia tax dollars going overseas while our own shipyards were closing.

I see so many subtle "screw the Canadians" references. I think that Vancouver will still be a very popular port for the Alaska run, it's a beautiful city with lots to see before or after the cruise. Funny thing about American protectionism it's alive and well and living in the 21st century. I suspect the "convenient"" exemption (which I think is appropriate at this time) will be allowed to expire as soon as Canadian ports are reopened hopefully soon.

[Host Jazzbeau]

1 minute ago, markeb said:

The act does so much more than that, though. Without ever mentioning the PVSA. They carved cruise ship crews out of current immigration law. 

Which 'couldn't be done.' 😉

[Host Jazzbeau]

1 minute ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

As stated earlier the PVSA has far reaching implications that would open up a pandora's box of trickle down problems.

Imagine when the Washington State ferries have to start to replace their aging fleet. No PVSA no need for the ships to be built in the USA suddenly millions of dollars going offshore to foreign shipyards and shipyard workers. This is not without precedent just look at our BC Ferries, we have replaced several of our ships large and small and they have been built off shore. British Columbia tax dollars going overseas while our own shipyards were closing.

I see so many subtle "screw the Canadians" references. I think that Vancouver will still be a very popular port for the Alaska run, it's a beautiful city with lots to see before or after the cruise. Funny thing about American protectionism it's alive and well and living in the 21st century. I suspect the "convenient"" exemption (which I think is appropriate at this time) will be allowed to expire as soon as Canadian ports are reopened hopefully soon.

As I noted above, there is no need to repeal the PSVA – just carve out cruise ships, which is a lost industry for the US anyway.  And no ill will toward Canada [you have chosen a different course on Covid and have to see it through].  Vancouver and Victoria are really good ports, but there is no reason that every single Alaska cruise should be forced to stop in a Canadian port – let the market decide.

[markeb]

8 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

Which 'couldn't be done.' 😉

In the current environment, I view that as the true miracle. What was your over/under on this a couple of months ago?

[markeb]

8 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

As I noted above, there is no need to repeal the PSVA – just carve out cruise ships, which is a lost industry for the US anyway.  And no ill will toward Canada [you have chosen a different course on Covid and have to see it through].  Vancouver and Victoria are really good ports, but there is no reason that every single Alaska cruise should be forced to stop in a Canadian port – let the market decide.

I love both Victoria and Vancouver. If I had a choice between a cruise that made one of those stops, especially if it was a long enough cruise to still make the Alaska stops, I’d probably pick that cruise. Actually I’d do a land vacation to Vancouver and Whistler any day. Before 2020, Vancouver offered so much, from scenery to an amazing culinary scene. And Whistler. Oh, my. 

[ChucktownSteve]

17 minutes ago, markeb said:

The act does so much more than that, though. Without ever mentioning the PVSA. They carved cruise ship crews out of current immigration law. 

 

What immigration law? Where are they enforcing that?

[markeb]

2 minutes ago, ChucktownSteve said:

 

What immigration law? Where are they enforcing that?

Post 20. With a link to the actual act. 

[K.T.B.]

4 hours ago, markeb said:

Honestly, I’m not attacking them. I’ve spent enough time in the area that I can’t predict the support or non-support. There’s apparently enough push back to get mentioned in a cruise industry article, but I don’t know if that’s real. I actually think there might be a path to a more permanent change on the Seattle to Alaska route. 

 

I didn't mean to come across in a negative way, I was just commenting on it.

 

3 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

We did the Whittier to Vancouver route, which was fine but the ports were all one-and-done [Diamonds International everywhere!]  If I do another Alaska cruise it will be a small ship from Juneau. 

 

But I hope that this PSVA carve-out does become a precedent because it could open up more options for more people on more routes.  I would like a carve-out for one-way cruises from the West Coast to Hawaii, which would shorten the time and/or allow more time in Hawaii.  And Boston or New York to Florida, for an East Coast equivalent to the West Coast itineraries (which wouldn't need Ensenada or Vancouver). 

 

All possible now, with no threat to ferry safety or US shipping jobs [that are already lost] – because it has been proven that you can carve out cruise ships from the PSVA.

 

If you're looking for a truly unique Alaskan trip, check out Gustavus, AK.

[TeeRick]

11 hours ago, markeb said:

In the current environment, I view that as the true miracle. What was your over/under on this a couple of months ago?

Mark- it all seems very good and moving in the right direction.  What is your over/under that the CDC will actually agree to ships going out of any US port like Seattle by end of June?  What do they do with the No Sail order?  It seems to me that the CDC is still driving the car (or sailing the ship).  

[markeb]

8 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Mark- it all seems very good and moving in the right direction.  What is your over/under that the CDC will actually agree to ships going out of any US port like Seattle by end of June?  What do they do with the No Sail order?  It seems to me that the CDC is still driving the car (or sailing the ship).  

It’s leaning a lot heavier to yes. Too much movement to envision a stop now. And a lot more public “cooperate and graduate” from the lines. Ironically, Seattle Alaska may have fewer roadblocks. But those aren’t part of the Act 😃

[TeeRick]

5 minutes ago, markeb said:

It’s leaning a lot heavier to yes. Too much movement to envision a stop now. And a lot more public “cooperate and graduate” from the lines. Ironically, Seattle Alaska may have fewer roadblocks. But those aren’t part of the Act 😃

Well I see that the earliest sailing on Summit to Alaska is June 30th on the Celebrity web site this morning.  So we will know by that time.

[gerelmx]

Bookings for Alaska are open, NO INSIDE