Senate passes the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act

[rkacruiser]

3 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

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.

 

The Speaker would certainly be receptive to what they have to say.  

 

I stand by what I said.  It is in the best interest of the Speaker's House District, the economy of the hospitality/leisure/cruise industry of America's West Coast's citizens that this Senate passed Bill be put on the "fast track" for the House to consider.  "Fast track" has been very recently used before if you recall the events of January, 2021.  

[NavArch64]

In my 40 years of experience in Washington DC it is unusual for bills to be brought to the House floor without a Committee report based on Subcommittee hearings and markup.

[Kealy]

I have a cruise to Alaska booked in August, and I had pretty much given up hope that it would happen.  However with this news, and the CDC guidelines, I'm starting to feel jazzed and hopeful!

 

Let's go Alaska 2021!

[Brentt_M]

5 hours 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 am not sure there will be much push back from those groups. This is an extremely limited and restrictive exemption. The bill does nothing to threaten current union jobs.  It is opening up cruises from washington to alaska only for a very specific lists of cruise ships and it ends as soon as Canada lifts their restrictions.  

 

I get that the exemption might open thr

edoor for a more in depth look in the future, but I really do not believe there is any real interest in seeing it fully repealled.

 

[ontheweb]

13 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

 

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.  

The bill does nothing for her district or the state of California. The bill specifically says that it only applies to the state of Washington.

[St. Louis Sal]

There are a lot of moving pieces to the start up of Alaska cruising for this season including some we have little control over (like the ebb and flow of Covid-19).

One question I see is how a slightly shortened cruise season will play out for Alaska staffing of the tourist venues. The employees that staff stores, restaurants etc. are not all Alaskan citizens. (My pizza order to my hotel in Fairbanks was delivered by a guy from St Louis. He was working there for the summer.) Will people want to work in Alaska for a shortened season?

 

St Louis Sal

[cruisemom42]

14 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

It is in the best interest of the Speaker's House District, the economy of the hospitality/leisure/cruise industry of America's West Coast's citizens that this Senate passed Bill be put on the "fast track" for the House to consider.  "Fast track" has been very recently used before if you recall the events of January, 2021. 

 

I would hardly consider the two situations to be equivalent.

[Hlitner]

2 hours ago, St. Louis Sal said:

There are a lot of moving pieces to the start up of Alaska cruising for this season including some we have little control over (like the ebb and flow of Covid-19).

One question I see is how a slightly shortened cruise season will play out for Alaska staffing of the tourist venues. The employees that staff stores, restaurants etc. are not all Alaskan citizens. (My pizza order to my hotel in Fairbanks was delivered by a guy from St Louis. He was working there for the summer.) Will people want to work in Alaska for a shortened season?

 

St Louis Sal

All the way to Fairbanks to eat pizza in your hotel room?  We have to have a chat if we ever meet (I will buy the drinks...but not in a hotel room)  :).

 

Hank

[mcrcruiser]

On 5/13/2021 at 9:12 PM, Aquahound said:

 

Those are the kickers to this whole thing.  Some ships will come online much quicker because they weren't put in to a soft layup, but it still doesn't solve the CDC issue.  With CDC relaxing the guidelines, it's certainly possible this can all come together for a short season.  Then, there's the question of whether or not it's worth it to the cruise lines to bring their ships to Seattle for the very short season.  

 

 

It has to pass the House first.  There's no getting around that.  

Alaska cruises can also go from San  Pedro ,Southern Calif on Princess as well as San Francisco  on Princess ships    . Even Norwegian cpuld  launch from  the Los angeles area   to Alaska  if need be 

[Aquahound]

Just now, mcrcruiser said:

Alaska cruises can also go from San  Pedro ,Southern Calif on Princess as well as San Francisco  on Princess ships    . Even Norwegian cpuld  launch from  the Los angeles area   to Alaska  if need be 

 

No, they can't.  At least, not for the purpose of this discussion.  The bill specifies WA state.  

[mcrcruiser]

4 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

No, they can't.  At least, not for the purpose of this discussion.  The bill specifies WA state.  

So they stop in Washington  State & continue   .We would love to do Alaska as a continuance of say a  West coast  cruise ;which would then make it  a 14 to 16 day cruise  in  lieu of 7 days cruise .   Love Oregon  & Northern California ports as well as Seattle 

Edited May 15, 2021 by mcrcruiser

[Aquahound]

7 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

So they stop in Washington  State & continue   .We would love to do Alaska as a continuance of say a  West coast  cruise ;which would then make it  a 14 to 16 day cruise  in  lieu of 7 days cruise .   Love Oregon  & Northern California ports as well as Seattle 

 

This is a temporary waiver from the PVSA.  It specifies WA and AK.  Cruises cannot originate in CA under this exemption, if it passes. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Aquahound

[mcrcruiser]

3 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

This is a temporary waiver from the PVSA.  It specifies WA and AK.  Cruises cannot originate in CA under this exemption, if it passes. 

Why can;t they be B2B cruises   with  the Alaska leg originating from Seattle ?  Is there a law that says the ship can't cruise before Alaska ? Just seems to me there is a way around it . We prefer not to fly  ,so driving to a LA port would be easier 

Edited May 15, 2021 by mcrcruiser

[Aquahound]

Just now, mcrcruiser said:

Why can;t they be B2B cruises   with  the Alaska leg originating from Seattle ?  Is there a law that says the ship can't cruise before Alaska ?

 

Yes, there would be a law.  This is a very specific proposal to exempt certain cruises from the PVSA.  Again, the cruises would only be allowed to run between WA and AK.  That's it.  No other states.  

[mcrcruiser]

Just now, Aquahound said:

 

Yes, there would be a law.  This is a very specific proposal to exempt certain cruises from the PVSA.  Again, the cruises would only be allowed to run between WA and AK.  That's it.  No other states.  

Let's see what come  out   when the law is passed . Be nice just to get rid of the PVSA  . Why  should we have to pay higher costs  for stopping in a Canadian port  . Don;t get me wrong we do like Vancouver & Vancouver Island .Been there 6 times   .Thus ,If I wanted to see those areas again I can take the ferry from Washington  .

Just imagine for a minute the possibilities  for  new cruise itineraries 

[Florida_gal_50]

3 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

Let's see what come  out   when the law is passed . Be nice just to get rid of the PVSA  . Why  should we have to pay higher costs  for stopping in a Canadian port  . Don;t get me wrong we do like Vancouver & Vancouver Island .Been there 6 times   .Thus ,If I wanted to see those areas again I can take the ferry from Washington  .

Just imagine for a minute the possibilities  for  new cruise itineraries 

Isn’t this a temporary measure?  This is my understanding.  

[mcrcruiser]

2 minutes ago, Florida_gal_50 said:

Isn’t this a temporary measure?  This is my understanding.  

Yes it seems to be leaning that way but one can wish the  PVSA be abolished 

[Aquahound]

14 minutes ago, Florida_gal_50 said:

Isn’t this a temporary measure?  This is my understanding.  

 

You are correct.  It's only a temporary measure and it has an expiration date.  

 

If it passes, we already know what will come out of it.  It's written in black and white. 

[bcummin]

No ferry from Washington to British Columbia, Canada while Canadian ports are closed during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Barbara

Edited May 15, 2021 by bcummin

[KirkNC]

17 hours ago, Kealy said:

I have a cruise to Alaska booked in August, and I had pretty much given up hope that it would happen.  However with this news, and the CDC guidelines, I'm starting to feel jazzed and hopeful!

 

Let's go Alaska 2021!

Any update on progress or lack there of in the House?  Let’s hope it doesn’t go into a black hole as sometimes happens with legislation.

[strickerj]

3 hours ago, mcrcruiser said:

Why can;t they be B2B cruises   with  the Alaska leg originating from Seattle ?  Is there a law that says the ship can't cruise before Alaska ? Just seems to me there is a way around it . We prefer not to fly  ,so driving to a LA port would be easier 

That would make the California to Seattle segment domestic, which remains prohibited by PVSA, correct?

 

FWIW, I'm in agreement that the PVSA shouldn't be repealed as it would effectively end the domestic maritime industry. This doesn't just apply to cruise ships but also tour boats, ferries, etc. I'm not aware of any other industry where foreign companies are allowed to employ non-U.S.-authorized labor for services entirely within the U.S., and our cabotage laws (in both maritime and aviation) are mostly consistent with the rest of the world.

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, Aquahound said:

 

This is a temporary waiver from the PVSA.  It specifies WA and AK.  Cruises cannot originate in CA under this exemption, if it passes. 

Some people just do not want to read what is written in black and white. And then when you try to explain it to them, they just reply why can't it be different.

[St. Louis Sal]

5 hours ago, Hlitner said:

All the way to Fairbanks to eat pizza in your hotel room?  We have to have a chat if we ever meet (I will buy the drinks...but not in a hotel room)  :).

 

Hank

There was a reason for that. I had done an evening flight to Fort Yukon as an excursion. It was not meant to arrive back so late, but one of the group had “issues” with flying. He knew this, but signed up anyway! He got very sick on the flight up. Really sick 🤮. Sick enough that when we arrived at Fort Yukon they wanted him to remain at the clinic. His wife said absolutely not, they had a flight home next day. After doing our tour and giving him some recovery time (and probably some plane clean up time) we finally loaded back up for the return flight back.  I was lucky enough to be sitting in the co-pilots seat so I missed much of the adventure in the back, both coming and going. By the time we arrived back, the hotel restaurants were closed and so were many other options. Plus, let’s just say my appetite was not great. So pizza it was. 
 

I would take you up on your offer next time.

 

St Louis Sal

[Host Jazzbeau]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

Some people just do not want to read what is written in black and white. And then when you try to explain it to them, they just reply why can't it be different.

We've been told for years and years that it is impossible to carve out cruise ships from the PSVA.  This bill does that.  With that major 'taboo' proven wrong, it is now possible to consider other cruise ship carve-outs without repealing the entire PSVA.  Politically very difficult to accomplish, but no one can now claim it is impossible.

[ontheweb]

10 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

We've been told for years and years that it is impossible to carve out cruise ships from the PSVA.  This bill does that.  With that major 'taboo' proven wrong, it is now possible to consider other cruise ship carve-outs without repealing the entire PSVA.  Politically very difficult to accomplish, but no one can now claim it is impossible.

Yes, but the discussion was about what could be done with the present carve out. 

 

And it should also be noted that the carve out is TEMPORARY.