Alaska legislation request

[tottenhamfc]

Is it me or does anyone find the proposal full of arrogance? It is not as if the Americans own the cruiselines are are able to dictate their stops. Vancouver and Victoria are extremely appealing as port stops and the cruiselines know this. The trip up the coast outside of Canadian waters would not be that appealing.

[Fouremco]

To what legislative proposal are you referring? Could you provide a link?

[broberts]

1 hour ago, tottenhamfc said:

Is it me or does anyone find the proposal full of arrogance? It is not as if the Americans own the cruiselines are are able to dictate their stops. Vancouver and Victoria are extremely appealing as port stops and the cruiselines know this. The trip up the coast outside of Canadian waters would not be that appealing.

 

Are you referring to the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act, signed into law in March 2021?

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by broberts

[tottenhamfc]

Apparently a couple of politicians from Alaska are asking to make this permanent. They are proposing it next week. This was on BC Global news today. Both our Premier and the head of cruise activity in Victoria were interviewed.

Edited September 16, 2021 by tottenhamfc

[Alberta Quilter]

Well, given how many people in Vancouver and Victoria were against cruise ships, this could be a blessing for them.  Or has this opinion changed since the cruise ban was announced and the economic impact has been realized?  (Of course, my information is based on news reports so it could have been a vocal minority voicing their anti cruise opinions and sounding like a majority.)  

Edited September 16, 2021 by Alberta Quilter

[Fouremco]

13 hours ago, Fouremco said:

To what legislative proposal are you referring? Could you provide a link?

Never mind, I found this on Senator Murkowski's website, publish later in the day yesterday: https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/release/murkowski-announces-bill-to-protect-alaska-tourism-industry_

 

It will be interesting to see whether this proposal gets much traction. The original bill seeking a temporary exemption to the PVSA garnered enough support in the house and senate because Canada's ban on cruise ships was real and had a definite impact on Alaska's tourism and economy. It undoubtedly also received support from those opposed to any foreign legislation curbing American interests. With that ban soon to expire, Murkowski's newest proposal addresses a future problem that doesn't and may never exist. With no immediate economic gain to be realized, Murkowski (R-AK) may be fighting an uphill battle to get this permanent exemption passed.  

Edited September 16, 2021 by Fouremco

[ilovetotravel1977]

https://news.paxeditions.com/news/cruise/bc-bypass-option-cruise-ships-would-be-devastating-victoria-harbour-auth-ceo

 

Just read this article.  

 

Well, our government just shot us in the foot again. 

[MsDolly]

1 hour ago, ilovetotravel1977 said:

https://news.paxeditions.com/news/cruise/bc-bypass-option-cruise-ships-would-be-devastating-victoria-harbour-auth-ceo

 

Just read this article.  

 

Well, our government just shot us in the foot again. 

Visiting our son in Victoria right now, tourism is down many businesses have closed up, sad but of course that could have happened even without the cruise ship ban.

 

Of course AK wants this to continue, means more stops and dollars for their state.  Does it make for a great cruise, perhaps but Vancouver/Victoria have plenty to occupy cruise passengers time in port.

 

Once all the ships are back up and running Vancouver will be needed as an Embarkation point to handle the volume so I don’t see this proceeding .

[ilovetotravel1977]

That's true. The cruise line's can operate more ships if they also have the Canadian home ports. That also means more money pouring into Alaska.

Edited September 17, 2021 by ilovetotravel1977

[tottenhamfc]

Why are some people assuming that this has anything to do with what Alaska wants? The cruise lines (most) are not owned and operated by US corporations. They alone will decide if a port is beneficial to an itinerary. The only reason that our ports are not in this years itinerary is because we are serious about getting this virus under control. Nothing less nothing more. That is why I inferred that it reeks of arrogance that Alaskan politicians think they are the ones dictating what the cruiselines can will or should do. In fact Alaska is better off than BC this year.

[Fouremco]

23 minutes ago, tottenhamfc said:

Why are some people assuming that this has anything to do with what Alaska wants? The cruise lines (most) are not owned and operated by US corporations. They alone will decide if a port is beneficial to an itinerary. The only reason that our ports are not in this years itinerary is because we are serious about getting this virus under control. Nothing less nothing more. That is why I inferred that it reeks of arrogance that Alaskan politicians think they are the ones dictating what the cruiselines can will or should do. In fact Alaska is better off than BC this year.

First of all, I don't think that there is any question that Alaskans will support any bill that will help avoid the hit on tourism and their economy that they saw this year. Yes, there is a very small faction that doesn't like cruises and the impact on the environment, but that's very much a minority opinion.

 

Your comment that cruise lines alone "will decide if a port is beneficial to an itinerary" is simply not the case, because the PVSA dictates that an Alaskan cruise starting in the US must stop at a Canadian port. When Canada banned cruise ships, they were no longer able to meet the requirements of the PVSA, which is why the exemption was granted in May of this year. What Senator Murkowski is trying to do now is create a permanent exemption to avoid any potential repetition in the future.

 

I don't view the proposal as reeking of arrogance. Murkowski was elected to represent the best interests of Alaskans, and that's what she is doing. Just as the GOC was representing the best interests of Canadians when it introduced the cruise ban. 

 

That said, the permanent exemption that she is seeking is only one of several bills. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced three separate bills in June to reform the PVSA: the Open America’s Ports Act; the Safeguarding American Tourism Act; and the Protecting Jobs in American Ports Act. The fact that we've heard very little about these bills since their introduction may well be an indication the the US congress has little interest in tinkering with the PVSA now that Alaskan cruises have restarted and the Canadian ban is due to expire within a few weeks. Whether Murkowski will have any better luck as the Alaska cruise season draws to an end remains to be seen.

[bcwife76]

Honestly no I don't see this happening. If the cruise lines want a FULL return of their ships to Alaska they NEED Vancouver, not just as a stop but as a point of embarkation and/or debarkation. Seattle will in no way be equipped to handle the amount of ships that go to Alaska during a "normal" season. Bypassing Victoria as a stop would of course be devastating to their economy as well.

[tottenhamfc]

I think what I was trying to say was that we sacrificed our economy by doing the right thing. Just because a politician attempts to retain (ownership) of their economy by threatening another country doesnt sound right to me. We had no intention of harming any other country, state city. We only wanted the best for our citizens and by the way we are 88% Ist Vacc and 79 2nd and we are still struggling to control it with very strong control mandates. You tell me who is doing the right thing. 

Edited September 18, 2021 by tottenhamfc

[broberts]

Republican legislative proposals in the US Senate are at best several years away from a vote, let alone enactment. The current proposals are more likely designed to attract voters.

[3Shelaghs]

• Just watched some blogger named Tony....I’ll admit I found him a tad sarcastic, and I guess other Cdns also did by his next vlog, commenting and “correcting” their interpretation of his words re this. He said Alaskans blame us for loss of biz, but it’s a US law they should toss their anger at. Will be interesting to watch this legal development.

[K_e_short]

7 hours ago, 3Shelaghs said:

• Just watched some blogger named Tony....I’ll admit I found him a tad sarcastic, and I guess other Cdns also did by his next vlog, commenting and “correcting” their interpretation of his words re this. He said Alaskans blame us for loss of biz, but it’s a US law they should toss their anger at. Will be interesting to watch this legal development.

 

I love that you called him "some blogger named Tony". 🙂

 

I follow him on Social Media. I didn't read the comments from his first video but yes it does seem that Canada is being blamed (cue South Park).

 

If we've learned anything in all this is things can change quickly. 

 

I went on an Alaskan cruise in 2019 and it was amazing and wonderful. We did not stop in Victoria and I was fine with that. I didn't even think of what country I was in. It was more about travellling and visiting different places.

[3Shelaghs]

I actually typed “ some vlogger “, but auto correct did its thing, and I gave up! 
another vlogger, Don from Ottawa, (so we know that he knows his stuff),expressed his disgust with our current govt, and the issues this is causing. Both are correct. Just wish we had a big cruise industry here, summer & fall. Think colour of leaves, “Lost cities of the Seaway”, inside passage etc......

[Fouremco]

11 hours ago, 3Shelaghs said:

I actually typed “ some vlogger “, but auto correct did its thing, and I gave up! 
another vlogger, Don from Ottawa, (so we know that he knows his stuff),expressed his disgust with our current govt, and the issues this is causing. Both are correct. Just wish we had a big cruise industry here, summer & fall. Think colour of leaves, “Lost cities of the Seaway”, inside passage etc......

While small, we do have a domestic cruise industry offering summer and fall cruises along the Seaway and beyond. Due to ship size, they aren't subject to the current GOC restrictions on cruising. Here's a Fall Harvest and Colour Cruise, one of many offered by St. Lawrence Cruise Lines:

https://www.stlawrencecruiselines.com/cruises/fall-harvest-and-colour-cruise/

 

Would you like to sail a bit further afield? Here's one of several companies offering itineraries varying from exploring the east coast to sailing around Newfoundland to exploring the high arctic:

https://www.adventurecanada.com/

[3Shelaghs]

👍

[kdr69]

On 9/17/2021 at 3:38 PM, tottenhamfc said:

Why are some people assuming that this has anything to do with what Alaska wants? The cruise lines (most) are not owned and operated by US corporations. They alone will decide if a port is beneficial to an itinerary. The only reason that our ports are not in this years itinerary is because we are serious about getting this virus under control. Nothing less nothing more. That is why I inferred that it reeks of arrogance that Alaskan politicians think they are the ones dictating what the cruiselines can will or should do. In fact Alaska is better off than BC this year.

The ONLY reason they do stop is to satisfy US law regardless of where the ships are registered.  Its the same with Ensenada.  Im sure if they were given the opportunity to not have to stop there they would jump at it as well.  Also the Major Cruise lines are US corporations and pay US taxes, your confusing where a ship is registered with where the Company that owns them is registered.  It would allow for longer stays in Alaska if you didnt have to get off in Victoria or Vancouver.

[tottenhamfc]

I would suggest that that is a rubbish comment. If anyone honestly believes that Vancouver or Victoria have no merit as a stop then you haven't travelled much. 

[Fouremco]

8 hours ago, kdr69 said:

The ONLY reason they do stop is to satisfy US law regardless of where the ships are registered.  Its the same with Ensenada.  Im sure if they were given the opportunity to not have to stop there they would jump at it as well.  Also the Major Cruise lines are US corporations and pay US taxes, your confusing where a ship is registered with where the Company that owns them is registered.  It would allow for longer stays in Alaska if you didnt have to get off in Victoria or Vancouver.

I suggest that you read this article to get a more realistic appreciation of the role played by Vancouver with respect to Alaskan cruises: https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=2018

[kdr69]

1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

I suggest that you read this article to get a more realistic appreciation of the role played by Vancouver with respect to Alaskan cruises: https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=2018

Great article and has nothing to do with the PVSA but i did enjoy reading it so thanks for sharing.

[Fouremco]

15 minutes ago, kdr69 said:

Great article and has nothing to do with the PVSA but i did enjoy reading it so thanks for sharing.

You stated that "The ONLY reason they do stop is to satisfy US law regardless of where the ships are registered."  I just wanted to show that there are other reasons why major lines use Vancouver as their home port for the Alaskan cruise season.. Even if the PVSA was eliminated, or an Alaskan exemption created, Vancouver would continue to play a major role in the Alaskan cruise season.

 

I'm glad that you enjoyed the article.