Alaska cruises 'essentially' cancelled till July

[travelingla]

Canada Bans Cruise Ships

In a move that could lead to an early halt of the Alaska season, the Canadian government has temporarily barred all cruise ships and ferries that carry more than 500 people, including crew, from docking in Canada until July to protect against the growing COVID-19 pandemic.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in a speech earlier today that "cruise season is suspended until July."

 

[scottbee]

To expand on why this is important, even to Seattle based vessels, in order for a foreign flagged ship to sail to Alaska (and back), it needs to make a foreign port stop to comply with the PVSA.

 

For Seattle based Alaska cruises that means Victoria (mostly) or Vancouver.  Both ports will be closed to vessels of more than 500 persons until July 1

Full Transport Canada press release here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2020/03/government-of-canada-announces-intention-to-defer-the-start-of-cruise-ship-season-in-canada-as-covid-19-response-measure.html

 

[maissie]

We were booked to leave Vancouver on June 28th.  Missed by a couple days.  Who knows what will happen in July and the rest of the season.  Honestly, I'm relieved the choice was taken out of my hands.  We (14 of us) will go another time.

[lx200gps]

Regarding the July 1 date, there may be a little bit of leeway here. The original announcement from Marc Garneau, the Transport Minister, was clumsily worded but did seem to be a bit more flexible:

 

“We will be reexamining the situation after the 30th of June, or in anticipation, if things have improved, and at that moment we'll make a decision about whether we can allow the cruise ship season to resume.”

[maissie]

Thanks.   In our case I believe it's best to cancel before our final payment is due and rebook when we can.  It also would involve cross country flights that we haven't booked yet.

[Gardyloo]

I would not be surprised at all if the US government were to suspend enforcement of the PVSA foreign port requirement temporarily.  So far the Port of Seattle hasn't followed the Canadian lead, beyond canceling the first two Alaska sailings of the year next month.

[Blizzard54]

I would hope we could get a waiver on the PVSA requirements.  The Seattle economy is taking a big hit for at least the next 2 months.  Extending it farther will only make things worst.  It will also be a big hit on the economy in Alaska.

[VentureMan_2000]

Our Alaska cruise is out of San Francisco.

 

I'm hoping Carnival changes the itinerary to replace Victoria with Ensenada Mexico. There are three cruise days after Alaska where we were to stop at Victoria.  In it's place, Carnival could cruise two Sea days down to Ensenada, 4 hours in port, and one sea day back to San Francisco.

 

Would rather have those sea days than stop in Victoria.

 

[webzila]

8 hours ago, Gardyloo said:

I would not be surprised at all if the US government were to suspend enforcement of the PVSA foreign port requirement temporarily.  So far the Port of Seattle hasn't followed the Canadian lead, beyond canceling the first two Alaska sailings of the year next month.

 

That's what I'm thinking the US govt should definitely do. Temporarily or forever. What's the point of that law, I don't quite understand.

Edited March 14, 2020 by webzila

[Blizzard54]

9 hours ago, Gardyloo said:

I would not be surprised at all if the US government were to suspend enforcement of the PVSA foreign port requirement temporarily.  So far the Port of Seattle hasn't followed the Canadian lead, beyond canceling the first two Alaska sailings of the year next month.

Actually, those 2 were port stops, not sailings.  Although Port of Seattle has taken any action, without a waiver on the PVSA, the ships can not sail to Alaska without going down to Mexico first.

[scottbee]

On 3/14/2020 at 12:08 PM, VentureMan_2000 said:

Our Alaska cruise is out of San Francisco.

 

I'm hoping Carnival changes the itinerary to replace Victoria with Ensenada Mexico. There are three cruise days after Alaska where we were to stop at Victoria.  In it's place, Carnival could cruise two Sea days down to Ensenada, 4 hours in port, and one sea day back to San Francisco.

 

Would rather have those sea days than stop in Victoria.

 

 

LOL.  You'd be looking at adding 3 days to your cruise to get down to Mexico and back to San Francisco.

 

[Blizzard54]

3 hours ago, scottbee said:

 

LOL.  You'd be looking at adding 3 days to your cruise to get down to Mexico and back to San Francisco.

 

As crazy as it sounds, with Canada Closed they may have little choice.  More likely they will turn the sailings into Mexico cruises.  Unless Mexico closes it's ports.

 

I am beginning to wonder if there even will be a restart in April.

[VentureMan_2000]

14 hours ago, scottbee said:

 

LOL.  You'd be looking at adding 3 days to your cruise to get down to Mexico and back to San Francisco.

 

Isn't that what I said ? 

 

Once more...

"There are three cruise days after Alaska where we were to stop at Victoria.  In it's place, Carnival could cruise two Sea days down to Ensenada, 4 hours in port, and one sea day back to San Francisco. "

[Roger88]

My friend, it was way too predictable. I am surprised that it got canceled just now. I also wouldnt say that this route was that popular. Also, due to the recent news concerning you all know what, the country has closed its borders for 30 days. Even though Alaska is a part of the US, I would risk getting on board with random people anyway. Also, please be sure to check all the availble flights and ports in cities you are about to visit. It may turn out so you wouldnt be able to escape from Alaska (or any other part of the world you are going to) lol. Just be aware

[scottbee]

31 minutes ago, VentureMan_2000 said:

Isn't that what I said ? 

 

Once more...

"There are three cruise days after Alaska where we were to stop at Victoria.  In it's place, Carnival could cruise two Sea days down to Ensenada, 4 hours in port, and one sea day back to San Francisco. "

 

No, it's not what I said, and you're assuming that cruise ships are faster than they are.  Assume something like just over 400 miles/day for a cruise ship, and it's not like they can sail "as the crow flies".  To put that in perspective, Juneau to Ensenada is right around 2000 miles as the crow flies.

 

Ensenada is a good DAY AND A HALF SOUTH of San Francisco (the opposite direction to Alaska); Victoria is pretty close to along the way from Alaska to San Francisco.  You'd need to bypass Victoria, sail straight to San Francisco, sail an ADDITIONAL 1½ days to Ensenada, stop, sail 1½ days BACK to San Francisco. 

 

1½ + 1½ = 3 extra days. 

 

Which then screws the scheduling for the next cruise, etc etc.  I'm guessing that all cruise lines follow, and basically cancel the beginning of the Alaska cruise season.

 

 

 

[fastpitchdad]

It is moot. If the threat still merits closure of Canadian ports there is no way any cruises will be operating. 

[crzndeb]

On 3/14/2020 at 4:14 PM, webzila said:

 

That's what I'm thinking the US govt should definitely do. Temporarily or forever. What's the point of that law, I don't quite understand.

It’s actually a very important US law. You might want to research, or do a search on Cruise Critic for PVSA, Passenger Vessel Service Act, or Jones Act (cargo). Chengkp75 has some very good explanations.

Also see Cabotage laws. That is what it is.

[webzila]

I did look online but still don't understand how this act from 1886 is helpful or beneficial

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-buchholz-pvsa-cruise-20170803-story.html

[Blizzard54]

13 minutes ago, crzndeb said:

It’s actually a very important US law. You might want to research, or do a search on Cruise Critic for PVSA, Passenger Vessel Service Act, or Jones Act (cargo). Chengkp75 has some very good explanations.

Also see Cabotage laws. That is what it is.

I would agree that there may be some value left in the Jones Act but I really do not see much if any value in the PVSA.

[crzndeb]

10 minutes ago, Blizzard54 said:

I would agree that there may be some value left in the Jones Act but I really do not see much if any value in the PVSA.

Every time this comes up, I wish I would have saved Chengkp75’s answers as to why it’s important. He can explain so much better. It’s not just cruise ships it protects. Ferries, sightseeing boats (think Duck), local dinner cruises, etc.

Next time, I will save his response. I learn a lot from his posts.

[fastpitchdad]

5 minutes ago, crzndeb said:

Every time this comes up, I wish I would have saved Chengkp75’s answers as to why it’s important. He can explain so much better. It’s not just cruise ships it protects. Ferries, sightseeing boats (think Duck), local dinner cruises, etc.

Next time, I will save his response. I learn a lot from his posts.

 

Way off topic, but did you see the Ducks have permanently shut down in Seattle? 

[crzndeb]

1 minute ago, fastpitchdad said:

 

Way off topic, but did you see the Ducks have permanently shut down in Seattle? 

I did see that. I would imagine most cities where they operate have shut down...

 

OK...back on topic now. LOL

[Blizzard54]

14 minutes ago, crzndeb said:

I did see that. I would imagine most cities where they operate have shut down...

 

OK...back on topic now. LOL

 

17 minutes ago, fastpitchdad said:

 

Way off topic, but did you see the Ducks have permanently shut down in Seattle? 

The Ducks are permanently shut down in Seattle. The primary reason is the results of the lawsuits after a head on accident with a tour bus a couple years back. 

[Blizzard54]

25 minutes ago, crzndeb said:

Every time this comes up, I wish I would have saved Chengkp75’s answers as to why it’s important. He can explain so much better. It’s not just cruise ships it protects. Ferries, sightseeing boats (think Duck), local dinner cruises, etc.

Next time, I will save his response. I learn a lot from his posts.

I had not considered the effects on those other operators.  In theory the law could be modified to exclude large cruise ships.

[scottbee]

1 hour ago, webzila said:

I did look online but still don't understand how this act from 1886 is helpful or beneficial

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-buchholz-pvsa-cruise-20170803-story.html

 

Without this act, the Staten Island ferry would be operated by a foreign company, paying foreign wages, equipping vessels to foreign standards.  It exists to prevent foreign companies operating purely domestic routes within the United States.