I Guess Alaska Cruises Will Be Cancelled Soon

[AstoriaPreppy]

23 hours ago, Yo Adrienne said:

I just received an email from NCL saying that instead of final payment being due 120 or even 90 days out, they're reducing it to being due 60 days out.  I guess I understand that they're still hopeful there will be an Alaskan season (somehow)...

Is this new?

I may be confused, but I thought part of their "Peace of Mind" policy from July 2020 was that cruises through October 31, 2021 could be canceled 61 days out with a full refund, and final payment was shortened too?  

I know my Nov 2021 cruise still has a 120 day final payment schedule, which is... dubious at best based on their cancelation timeframes. 

[MsTabbyKats]

6 hours ago, LaCal said:

Royal stated they will be announcing This Friday what is happening with the Alaska cruise season....they have been trying to get a work around like NCL has to still be able to go 

 

So if they cancel the season we can rest assured NCL, Carnival etc will be as well 

So far nobody mentioned the New England/Canada season.  I hope they announce something about that too.

[farmersfight]

1 hour ago, AstoriaPreppy said:

Is this new?

I may be confused, but I thought part of their "Peace of Mind" policy from July 2020 was that cruises through October 31, 2021 could be canceled 61 days out with a full refund, and final payment was shortened too?  

I know my Nov 2021 cruise still has a 120 day final payment schedule, which is... dubious at best based on their cancelation timeframes. 

 

It is fairly new. I just got the letter (attached to an e-mail) from NCL stating that they have reduced the final payment date from 120 days to 60 days out from departure. I'm definitely "good" with this change.

[SouthLyonCruiser]

On 2/9/2021 at 4:35 PM, Aquahound said:

 

In the past, technical stops were permitted, but it was determined by CBP that short stops that were not part of legitimate objective of the cruise were not legal, and that they were intended to evade the PVSA.  

 

Here you go.  It's a long and informative read.  The key line in the conclusion summary says: (3) The passengers are permitted to go ashore temporarily at the foreign port.

 

E7-22788.pdf (govinfo.gov)

If that were truly the case, then all those cruises that go to Hawaii that make a couple of hour stop in Ensanada would be used as evidence against the cruise lines that use this practice.

[Yo Adrienne]

21 hours ago, AstoriaPreppy said:

Is this new?

I may be confused, but I thought part of their "Peace of Mind" policy from July 2020 was that cruises through October 31, 2021 could be canceled 61 days out with a full refund, and final payment was shortened too?  

I know my Nov 2021 cruise still has a 120 day final payment schedule, which is... dubious at best based on their cancelation timeframes. 

I don't know if it's new...our cruise last year was cancelled before it became an issue.  For this year, we're just waiting to hear a final decision for our September cruise.  The cruise lines seem to be modifying their payment and cancellations policies often...so we always wait to hear specifically from the cruise line (in our case, NCL) directly.  I just got the email related to our booking this week.

 

Sadly, I still think our cruise will eventually be cancelled. 

[reeinaz]

On 2/10/2021 at 2:27 PM, MsTabbyKats said:

So far nobody mentioned the New England/Canada season.  I hope they announce something about that too.

I have a Canada/NE booked for September. There is a possibility some of those get changed to Bermuda. I had a cruise booked on the Encore last fall to Canada that was changed to Bermuda. Both were leaving from NYC.

[AtlantaCruiser72]

On 2/10/2021 at 12:49 PM, AstoriaPreppy said:

Is this new?

I may be confused, but I thought part of their "Peace of Mind" policy from July 2020 was that cruises through October 31, 2021 could be canceled 61 days out with a full refund, and final payment was shortened too?  

I know my Nov 2021 cruise still has a 120 day final payment schedule, which is... dubious at best based on their cancelation timeframes. 

 

The previous reduced final pay deadline applied to cruises departing on or before 4/30/21.  This is a 6 month extension to that revised payment/penalty structure

[GA Dave]

The story is finally hitting the major press outlets.  It should be interesting to see if anything comes out of DC on this.

 

Washington Post

[chengkp75]

On 2/9/2021 at 6:24 PM, Aquahound said:

 

Yeah, it's a lot easier to find laws than it is to find subsequent interpretations of the law.  I do know that CBP determined technical stops, similar to cruises to nowhere, to be illegal.  However, finding that exact interpretation in CBP's writings can be difficult.

 

One thing to remember is, the PVSA and CBP regulate coastwise trade.  If passengers cannot disembark, there is no trade.  

It was NCL's original intention to request that the "technical stop", which was not advertised as a port call in the cruise itinerary, nor were passengers allowed to go ashore, be disallowed, and that the port call needed to be advertised as such, and the passengers allowed to disembark.  CBP took this, and created the substantive ruling that required the 48 hour stop, and 50% foreign port time rules.  All cruise lines, even NCL reacted against this, and CBP responded by going with NCL's original request as meeting the "intent" of the PVSA.  I can't find any documentation of this, but I know it is a fact for now.

[hoops71]

I am sure what I am about to ask is stupid, especially since I work in the law, but here it goes anyway.

 

I understand the basics of the PSVA and its structure and rules.  But what is its purpose?  What is the benefit to the USA or its citizens to require the stop in a foreign port?  It seems the benefit is to the foreign port of calls.  

 

 I guess if I understood the laws motives it would be easier to know whether there would be any resistance to getting it changed.  Essentially tacking on the change as an amendment to some Covid relief bill or any other legislation.

 

Who out there would fight it?  and why?

[MsTabbyKats]

15 hours ago, reeinaz said:

I have a Canada/NE booked for September. There is a possibility some of those get changed to Bermuda. I had a cruise booked on the Encore last fall to Canada that was changed to Bermuda. Both were leaving from NYC.

Yeah....I was thinking that.  But Bermuda may not be open for cruise ships.  I know they are allowing "tourists"....but a boatload of 3000 people is something else.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, hoops71 said:

I am sure what I am about to ask is stupid, especially since I work in the law, but here it goes anyway.

 

I understand the basics of the PSVA and its structure and rules.  But what is its purpose?  What is the benefit to the USA or its citizens to require the stop in a foreign port?  It seems the benefit is to the foreign port of calls.  

 

 I guess if I understood the laws motives it would be easier to know whether there would be any resistance to getting it changed.  Essentially tacking on the change as an amendment to some Covid relief bill or any other legislation.

 

Who out there would fight it?  and why?

As with most people on CC, you are looking at the PVSA from the narrow viewpoint of large, ocean-going cruise ships.  However, it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, not the Cruise Vessel Services Act.  The distinction rests in maritime law, where the definition of "passenger" vessel is "any vessel that carries more than 12 people for hire.  So, the PVSA covers every ferry, commuter boat, water taxi, dinner cruise, casino boat, whale watching, and even large charter fishing vessels in the US.

 

I'll repeat my primer on the PVSA.  Despite most accounts of the PVSA being a protectionist bill, it was actually originated to protect US citizens' lives.  During the 1800's, there were many, many fires, explosions, and sinkings of the steamboats that carried passengers on US rivers and in US harbors.  The US enacted a series of increasingly strict "Steamboat Acts" to require safety equipment, training, and inspection (the Steamboat Inspection Service is the predecessor of today's USCG Marine Inspection Division) to reduce the occurrence of these incidents, and save lives.  The vessel owners reacted by changing the steamboats to foreign flag, getting around the requirements of the Steamboat Acts.  Thus, the US passed the PVSA, which required that all domestic, or "coastwise" passenger traffic must be on US built, US owned, and US flag vessels, so that they are subject to the Steamboat Acts.  

 

While many say, "well, there are no steamboats anymore", this requirement for strict regulations of US vessels has a modern equivalent.  SOLAS is the international convention on Safety of Life at Sea, and the US is signatory to it.  As part of any of these maritime conventions, signatory nations are required to pass "enabling legislation" making the provisions of the convention into law.  The US has done this.  One provision of SOLAS is that no nation can pass stricter regulations for ships than what is contained in SOLAS, except for ships of that country's flag.  This is what the USCG has done since the days of the PVSA, where US flag ships are subject to stricter construction, safety equipment, training, competency, and inspection requirements than foreign flag ships.

 

As part of the "port state control" allowed under SOLAS, the USCG can board any foreign flag ship in a US port (including cruise ships), and inspect them to ensure that the ship meets SOLAS requirements.  This, however, is not mandatory, and can be skipped if the ship's itinerary or the USCG budget does not allow for these inspections.  However, a US flag passenger vessel is subject to 4 mandatory, statutory, inspections every year.

 

Repealing the PVSA would allow every type of passenger vessel I noted above to be eligible to reflag to foreign flag, avoid US labor laws, US tax laws, and USCG regulations.  Given the number and severity of ferry accidents around the world, that is something I don't want to see.

[chengkp75]

I'll also add that the PVSA uses other legal terms from maritime law like;  foreign voyage, or "coastwise voyage", along with the definition of "passenger vessel", and once you invoke laws regarding other nations (the foreign flag ships belong to the country of registry), you remove yourself from strictly US law, and enter into maritime law.  Further, getting conventions like SOLAS changed (for instance to change the definition of "passenger vessel"), you would need the agreement of the majority of 165 nations.

[hoops71]

Thank you.  That helps me understand the ultimate purpose.  I warned you it was a stupid question! 

[chengkp75]

Just now, hoops71 said:

Thank you.  That helps me understand the ultimate purpose.  I warned you it was a stupid question! 

Not stupid at all, when sources like Wikipedia claim that the PVSA was passed to protect US shipbuilding and US maritime labor, when for instance organized maritime labor in 1886 was in its infancy, and big business (who controlled Congress) was violently against it.

[DCGuy64]

27 minutes ago, hoops71 said:

Thank you.  That helps me understand the ultimate purpose.  I warned you it was a stupid question! 

I'm glad you asked it, too. @chengkp75 is one of the most knowledgeable people on Cruise Critic, and I was glad to read his usual informative answer to your question.

I wonder if there's any chance the PVSA might be somehow updated. I see constant ads on TV for reforming laws governing the internet that were passed in the 1990s, so it would seem reasonable to think that since the PVSA came into existence long ago, there might be some room for improvement or updates. At this stage, even a temporary waiver to its conditions in order to help the cruise industry (and, by extension, the communities that rely on it) would be sensible.

[tombec1]

NCL is now showing 0 Alaska cruises for 2021:  https://www.ncl.com/vacations?cruise-destination=alaska&date=may-2021,jun-2021,jul-2021,aug-2021,sep-2021

 

Btw , I can still see my May 2021 Alaska cruise in my reservations, I can still see the summary, and I can still make a payment against it.

 

It's only a matter of time now before they're officially canceled.

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by tombec1

[SeaOfTranquility]

25 minutes ago, tombec1 said:

Btw , I can still see my May 2021 Alaska cruise in my reservations, I can still see the summary, and I can still make a payment against it.

 

It's only a matter of time now before they're officially canceled.

 

My May 2021 Alaska cruise shows the same.  But the name of the cruise is now "Default Itinerary Name" while my other, later Mediterranean cruises show the actual cruise name.

[MsTabbyKats]

15 minutes ago, SeaOfTranquility said:

My May 2021 Alaska cruise shows the same.  But the name of the cruise is now "Default Itinerary Name" while my other, later Mediterranean cruises show the actual cruise name.

That was the name of my Bahamas cruise for a couple of weeks before the official cancellation!

[chengkp75]

58 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I'm glad you asked it, too. @chengkp75 is one of the most knowledgeable people on Cruise Critic, and I was glad to read his usual informative answer to your question.

I wonder if there's any chance the PVSA might be somehow updated. I see constant ads on TV for reforming laws governing the internet that were passed in the 1990s, so it would seem reasonable to think that since the PVSA came into existence long ago, there might be some room for improvement or updates. At this stage, even a temporary waiver to its conditions in order to help the cruise industry (and, by extension, the communities that rely on it) would be sensible.

Well, again, "updating" the PVSA travels into the realm of maritime law, so actions taken by the US solely may not hold up to interpretations (which is after all the basis of English common law) by judges in maritime courts, either in the US or other countries.  The biggest problem is again that those entities that have complied with the PVSA all along (small cruise lines, ferries, tour boats, etc, etc) will swap to foreign flag, and the US could then say nothing about it, since they are all "passenger vessels", and US law has to be applied to everyone equally.

 

Even with a waiver to the PVSA, and a resolution of the resulting visa problems (don't believe this has been discussed on this thread) for crew members, I don't foresee any large numbers of cruises, or large capacity cruises getting going before the end of the Alaskan season.  Given the CDC's concentration of effort in other areas than addressing the cruise industry's needs, I don't think that the required port and health care system agreements, and then the simulated cruises will result in more than a handful of cruises possible before the season is over.

[Yo Adrienne]

1 hour ago, tombec1 said:

NCL is now showing 0 Alaska cruises for 2021:  https://www.ncl.com/vacations?cruise-destination=alaska&date=may-2021,jun-2021,jul-2021,aug-2021,sep-2021

 

Btw , I can still see my May 2021 Alaska cruise in my reservations, I can still see the summary, and I can still make a payment against it.

 

 

33 minutes ago, SeaOfTranquility said:

My May 2021 Alaska cruise shows the same.  But the name of the cruise is now "Default Itinerary Name" while my other, later Mediterranean cruises show the actual cruise name.

 

Same here...no Alaska cruises showing for 2021 when I look at the NCL (repositioning cruises still show)...and our September Alaska cruise reservation is now also showing in our account as "Default Intinerary Name."  

 

We have actually had this happen before...when NCL was just updating their website...and eventually everything reappeared.  But in this case, I'm not as optimistic. 😞 

[tombec1]

3 hours ago, SeaOfTranquility said:

My May 2021 Alaska cruise shows the same.  But the name of the cruise is now "Default Itinerary Name" while my other, later Mediterranean cruises show the actual cruise name.

 

Good catch.   I missed that. My Alaska cruise shows the "Default Itinerary Name" too.

My July 2021 Scandinavia cruise still shows "9-Day Scandinavia", but I still have doubts about that one taking place.

Edited February 12, 2021 by tombec1

[ohiocruisemom]

Hubs and I are booked for Encore’s repositioning Panama Canal Cruise in late October. Guess this is the nail in the coffin.  No reason to reposition a ship from Alaska to Miami if no Alaska. :( 

[Yo Adrienne]

Current update listed on the NCL website on 2/12/2021...

 

2021 Alaska Cruises

 

Following The Government of Canada’s Interim Order which calls for the suspension of passenger cruising in Canadian waters through February 2022, we will temporarily halt the acceptance of bookings for our 2021 Alaska season. At this time we have not cancelled any voyages in our 2021 Alaska season and are currently exploring several initiatives that may allow such cruises to continue.

 

We are working through all available options as quickly as possible, and given the fluidity of the current environment, we will also continue to work with the Canadian government to amend the current suspension. We will continue to keep all travel partners and guests updated as the situation progresses, and we thank them for their patience.

[gkbiiii]

Why not lobby the government, to give the Hawaiian ship an exception, allowing her to sail Alaska for the 21 season?