Senate passes the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act

[NavArch64]

IMO, S.593 is a "weird" bill. Read it and decide for yourself.

[POA1]

Color me shocked! 😀 Washington Senator Patty Murray blocked what was pretty much this same legislation recently.

 

https://mustreadalaska.com/kill-shot-to-tourism-sen-patty-murray-blocks-bill-that-would-help-alaskas-cruise-economy/

 

[Horizon chaser 1957]

10 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

IMO, S.593 is a "weird" bill. Read it and decide for yourself.

Very interesting, and extremely specific. It states a timeframe, an exclusive ‘guest list’ of ships by name, and applies only to ships cruising between Washington State and Alaska. The chance of loopholes is limited to limit debate and facilitate quick passing of the bill.

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, Euby said:

Thanks for letting me know.  I actually pulled that statement from another cruise companies website when I searched on the Jones Act to make sure I had the name right.  LOL
Makes me wonder why the Jones Act is heard about more often than the other one when it comes to cruises...

It seems to be a common mistake. Don't beat yourself up about it. Instead just live and learn.

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

When we suggested, last Fall, that a good option for Alaskan cruises was to make exceptions to the PVSA we got blasted by our favorite Chief Engineer who tossed out all kinds of reasons why this was not a good idea. 

 

Hank, I normally agree with your posts, but I think you have this one wrong.  I believe past discussion and responses from the chief were more about a total repeal of the law.  What's being pushed in AK is a temporary waiver.  There are many examples of temporary waivers being passed, such as in Puerto Rico and in New York, so I don't believe anyone, including the chief, said this couldn't be done or that it was a bad idea.  I do recall having to educate some of our CC friends, however, on the manner in which it had to be done.  Some seemed to think POTUS could issue a waiver through executive order, and that simply is not correct.

 

For what it's worth, I too oppose a total repeal of the law.  However, I support temporary waivers such as this.  

[Sunburg1]

9 hours ago, NavArch64 said:

S.593 allows the following ships to operate .... but they still will need to have a CSC under the CSO issued by the CDC. ...

 

I don't see the Oosterdam on the list! I am booked on that ship to Alaska on August 15. 2021.

Am I just not seeing it or does thsi mean that the Oosterdam has no chance of sailing?

 

[NavArch64]

Oosterdam is currently anchored off Torquay, England. She definitely isn't sailing to Alaska in 2021.

[NavArch64]

IMO, the US maritime labor unions will not like S.593 at all. The bill may not pass in the D-controlled US HOR. We shall see.

[Cruise Suzy]

I think those booked on Oosterdam will be switched to either the Westerdam or Zuiderdam as was the case for those on Eurodam (to Nieuw Amsterdam). No sense in sending Oosterdam through the Panama Canal empty. Eurodam is scheduled to sail in Europe and Niew Amsterdam was off the West Coast. Noordam has a slightly different stateroom configuration than the other 3 Vista ships, so I don't think it will be a substitute for Oosterdam.

Edited May 14, 2021 by Cruise Suzy

[idiebabe]

3 hours ago, Mary229 said:

I hope they never bypass Vancouver.  I would rather sail from there than Seattle. 

I'm the opposite.  I rather Sail from Seattle.  Vancouver is a lovely City and we've been there a couple of times but found Seattle was so much easier for us with the flight times and that awesome "luggage direct" Service.  The  last time I cruised out of Vancouver Customs was a nightmare.  I don't know if it  has improved but another plus for sailing out of Seattle.

[NavArch64]

The companion bill, H.R.1318 has not even had a hearing yet in the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. That is when and where all of the legal and political subtleties will be discussed.

[JRG]

41 minutes ago, idiebabe said:

I'm the opposite.  I rather Sail from Seattle.  Vancouver is a lovely City and we've been there a couple of times but found Seattle was so much easier for us with the flight times and that awesome "luggage direct" Service.  The  last time I cruised out of Vancouver Customs was a nightmare.  I don't know if it  has improved but another plus for sailing out of Seattle.

 

It's nice once or twice,   but not everytime you want to visit Alaska from the US.

 

Its adds a couple of hundred bucks and a waste of a travel day.

[Gail & Marty sailing away]

I hope it works ...

[Tampa Girl]

17 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

 

Good question...I have been thinking about that since this news broke. The CDC and the cruiselines still need to make some progress on agreeing how to cruise. Then the cruise lines need to get their ships fully operational, and most importantly, staffed and vaccinated. They have estimated 60-90 days to do this. I can see them being more motivated, but it might not be until later July.

 

Will they start this process before Biden signs it? Another interesting question.

 

My guess is that they would because I also guess that Biden would sign it.  

[NavArch64]

This is not so simple. S.593 allows foreign ship crew to essentially serve in US domestic maritime service. That has been against US policy for at least 135 years. As I said earlier, US maritime labor unions will not be happy with this legislation. A  President who supports US labor, US jobs, and US unions, may not be so quick to sign this even if it reaches his desk in the oval office. But, we shall see. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by NavArch64

[POA1]

14 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

This is not so simple. S.593 allows foreign ship crew to essentially serve in US domestic maritime service. That has been against US policy for at least 135 years. As I said earlier, US maritime labor unions will not be happy with this legislation. A  President who supports US labor, US jobs, and US unions, may not be so quick to sign this even if it reaches his desk in the oval office. But, we shall see. 

 

I tend to think that there will be some flexibility. Ask the union pipefitters who used to work on pipelines. They'll give you an earful on "support".

[igraf]

5 hours ago, Horizon chaser 1957 said:

Probably not. Canada is lagging behind on vaccinations. Our government is relying on the controversial move of delaying the second dose to 16 weeks to get that first shot into as many people as possible. Most Canadians won’t be fully vaccinated until late July to mid September at best. Large cruise ships aren’t likely to be allowed before then.

 

It's not really controversial anymore.  Data from Great Britain (and elsewhere) has clearly shown that vaccinating more people with one mRNA injection produced significantly superior results.  The only controversy is that delaying the second injection is a variance from what was originally approved, even if it is an overall improvement.

 

The protection from receiving one shot of a mRNA type vaccine is actually quite good.  Better, in fact, than being "fully vaccinated" by some of the other approved vaccines.

 

igraf

 

[john2003]

12 minutes ago, igraf said:

It's not really controversial anymore.  Data from Great Britain (and elsewhere) has clearly shown that vaccinating more people with one mRNA injection produced significantly superior results.  The only controversy is that delaying the second injection is a variance from what was originally approved, even if it is an overall improvement.

 

The protection from receiving one shot of a mRNA type vaccine is actually quite good.  Better, in fact, than being "fully vaccinated" by some of the other approved vaccines.

 

igraf

 

The latest data from the UK also supports the delay in our second dose. This will be no surprise to our MHO, Dr Henry as she has been suggesting this for months. I think we are also catching up on vaccinations after a really slow start.

Parts of the UK are having to tighten again. Cases doubled in the last week.

[Horizon chaser 1957]

2 hours ago, igraf said:

It's not really controversial anymore.  Data from Great Britain (and elsewhere) has clearly shown that vaccinating more people with one mRNA injection produced significantly superior results.  The only controversy is that delaying the second injection is a variance from what was originally approved, even if it is an overall improvement.

 

The protection from receiving one shot of a mRNA type vaccine is actually quite good.  Better, in fact, than being "fully vaccinated" by some of the other approved vaccines.

 

igraf

 

I agree with your points. But controversial doesn’t mean true or not true, it means there are proponents and opponents who will argue the issue at the drop of a hat.

[rkacruiser]

6 hours ago, Aquahound said:

For what it's worth, I too oppose a total repeal of the law. 

 

I respectfully disagree.  The era when the law was passed is in our rear view mirror.  Time to move on.

 

5 hours ago, NavArch64 said:

The companion bill, H.R.1318 has not even had a hearing yet in the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. That is when and where all of the legal and political subtleties will be discussed.

 

The Speaker of the House of Representatives has the power to expedite the consideration of this Bill by the House.  It would be in the interest of her California Congressional District that she represents for the Bill to be speedily improved.  Alaska cruises could possibly resume from the Port of San Francisco.  

[rkacruiser]

3 hours ago, POA1 said:

I tend to think that there will be some flexibility

 

I agree.  Bipartisanship, at least in the Senate, seems to have "broken out" on an issue that potentially benefits the Members of Congress of both Parties who represent States where tourism/cruising/hospitality employment need a "shot in the arm" along with a full dose of Covid vaccine.   

[Aquahound]

10 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

I respectfully disagree.  The era when the law was passed is in our rear view mirror.  Time to move on.

 

 

You really support a total repeal, opening the door to foreign flagged ships, ferries, etc, with 100% foreign crews running in exclusive US commerce?  I'm genuinely curious why? 

 

To be clear, I didn't say I don't support changes.  I said I don't support total repeal.  

[NavArch64]

I suspect that US maritime labor unions might want to present their objections. I would be surprised if Nancy Pelosi did not allow that to happen.

[rkacruiser]

4 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

You really support a total repeal, opening the door to foreign flagged ships, ferries, etc, with 100% foreign crews running in exclusive US commerce?  I'm genuinely curious why? 

 

I would prefer American crews earning American labor wages on America flagged ships be maintained.  

 

It seems to me that the recent realities of these requirements, 2021 with the gasoline issues currently and so many previous restrictions that prevent cruise companies from selling itineraries that are forbidden, i.e. cruises to nowhere, it's time for a reexamination of the laws/rules/regulations/whatever that seem to me to be too restrictive for the time in which we live.   

[NavArch64]

It is not only maritime ... It is aviation as well. Only US registered [flag] aircraft [Nxxx tail number] with US citizen crew can serve domestic US city-pairs [such as Seattle - Anchorage]. Would you change that as well?