Jump to content

Crazy idea to save the 2021 Alaska cruise season


Elvis1001
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know it’s a long shot (or Hail Mary pass in honor of Super Bowl Sunday) and it probably will not work for various legal reasons, but here is my crazy idea. There is one federally recognized Native Tribe in Alaska which governs the only Indian Reservation in Alaska.  The Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) governs the Annette Island Reserve (AIR), located about 15 miles south of Ketchikan.   The AIR has a deep water port (Port Chester) adjacent to the MIC as well as an airport. The AIR also includes the seabed out to 3000 feet from shore. Maybe the lawyers in Miami and Juneau can get together and make a case that Metlakatla/Port Chester is actually a foreign port because it is on an Indian Reservation with its’ own territorial waters.  If successful, the MIC could generate significant revenue from port fees as well as helping save the tourism industry in Southeast Alaska. The MIC is very small so shore excursions would be very limited, but air/sea tour operators in nearby Ketchikan could provide excursions from the AIR for a licensing fee to the MIC. I also realize the CDC guidelines to return to cruising may not let any cruises happen until too late in 2021 for Alaska anyway.  Just a crazy idea.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting idea but not being subject to some US state and federal laws does not equate to being a foreign country.  

 

The PVSA is written with the concept of starting or ending in a foreign country.  

 

Does the world recognize this land and it's people as a sovereign country with diplomatic relations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if there was a legal way for this to happen, I can’t imagine the community of Metlakatla would allow it. Although they do have a very limited amount of cruise traffic they do not benefit economically as the larger ports do. The risk of covid spread in the community would be too great.  Things may change this year and although the large port towns are hungry for cruising to resume, the attitude of many small towns that don’t benefit directly would be to wait before allowing cruising in Alaska.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

Interesting, but is the rest of Alaska ready to open up as well?

Yep. We are ready for business.

 

As far as cruises go, I think the easiest answer would be to get Congress to temporarily suspend the requirements of the Passenger Vessel Service Act so ships could go directly between Seattle & Alaska without a stop in Canada.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AKStafford said:

Yep. We are ready for business.

 

As far as cruises go, I think the easiest answer would be to get Congress to temporarily suspend the requirements of the Passenger Vessel Service Act so ships could go directly between Seattle & Alaska without a stop in Canada.

If such a bill were to be signed into law before the ink was dry on the president's signature I think American Cruise Lines would be in court and  obtaining an injunction preventing that because of the irreparable harm it would cause to their business .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lax19 said:

Would summer in Alaska be more lucrative that summer in Hawaii?  NCL Pride of America can sail R/T from Seattle without having to stop in Canada.

No it can't. By law the ship's domestic operations are limited to the Hawaiian Islands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, lax19 said:

Would summer in Alaska be more lucrative that summer in Hawaii?  NCL Pride of America can sail R/T from Seattle without having to stop in Canada.

 

Since the POA was completed in a German S/Y, she requires dispensations from the PVSA for coastwise trade. While she can sail to the mainland for drydocking, I believe she is restricted to Hawaii for pax operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, njhorseman said:

If such a bill were to be signed into law before the ink was dry on the president's signature I think American Cruise Lines would be in court and  obtaining an injunction preventing that because of the irreparable harm it would cause to their business .

What harm would it cause to the Cruise Lines.  I cannot understand your reasoning.  The cruises out of Seattle would be able to have a full schedule this summer. 

Edited by cheone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, cheone said:

What harm would it cause to the Cruise Lines.  I cannot understand your reasoning.  The cruises out of Seattle would be able to have a full schedule this summer. 

American Cruise Lines is a company that does river cruises in the US, and as such, has to employ all US citizens , pay much higher employee costs as a result, and have other requirements that add complexity and cost to their operation that Carnival and Royal Caribbean do not. The comment was not referring to a generic "American cruise line". Cruise lines such as Carnival and Royal Caribbean are "American oriented" but not considered as "American" cruise lines.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way I see any cruise lines getting PVSA wavers is to commit to having future ships built in and incorporating in America. That way the government can boast about bring jobs to USA and gains further Union support.

How would granting PVSA wavers as is, benefit Americans? It would help a handfull of dock workers, but not much else, since vast majority of the workers are not US citizen or pay US taxes, same for the companies.

Edited by ArthurUSCG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cheone said:

What harm would it cause to the Cruise Lines.  I cannot understand your reasoning.  The cruises out of Seattle would be able to have a full schedule this summer. 

 

Even if the US granted an exemption to cruise ships from the PVSA, there is no guarantee that cruise ships could operate from Seattle.

 

The current Canadian Government order prohibits cruise vessels with a compliment of >100 from operating in Canadian waters, not just docking at Canadian Ports. With the current Juan de Fuca Vessel Management Plan, ships using the traffic separation system Westbound (outbound) must transit trough Canadian Waters, regardless of the port of origin.

 

They do have an inshore option for small/slow craft, in US waters, but I doubt many cruise ship Masters would deem that a prudent option, especially in NW winds. Inshore zones for a transit may also contravene Company navigation standards in the Safety Management System.

 

In the event of a PVSA exemption, San Francisco could be an option, but that is also restricted by the CDC 7-day cruise limit. Could possibly base the ships in Seward/Whittier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why the Canadian government will not allow ships to go through their waters.  It's not like Covid (if there were to happen to be a case on board) is going to fly off the ship onto the mainland.  Anyone know what the reasoning is there?  I don't see why they wouldn't allow a ship to dock or drop anchor just offshore to satisfy the foreign port requirement with the stipulation that no one is to get off the ship, staff or passengers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dmdiver said:

I don't understand why the Canadian government will not allow ships to go through their waters.  It's not like Covid (if there were to happen to be a case on board) is going to fly off the ship onto the mainland.  Anyone know what the reasoning is there?  I don't see why they wouldn't allow a ship to dock or drop anchor just offshore to satisfy the foreign port requirement with the stipulation that no one is to get off the ship, staff or passengers.  

The "no one gets off the ship" idea is forbidden by the PVSA...that used to be called a "technical stop", and was removed as possible by a complaint from NCL when other cruise lines used Ensenada as a "technical stop. 

 

But, agree...sailing through their waters shouldn't be an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

But, agree...sailing through their waters shouldn't be an issue.

It's an issue because it carries the potential of Canada being responsible for the evacuation and hospitalization of extremely sick passengers requiring ICU treatment should there be a serious COVID-19 outbreak on a ship while it's in Canadian waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

It's an issue because it carries the potential of Canada being responsible for the evacuation and hospitalization of extremely sick passengers requiring ICU treatment should there be a serious COVID-19 outbreak on a ship while it's in Canadian waters.

 

An excellent point. In addition, a large portion of Inland Waters is compulsary pilotage, which increases the potential risk of spread ashore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create 14 day Alaska itineraries from Los Angeles that stop at Ensenada as the foreign port before heading north. The itinerary could include stops like San Francisco and Astoria before continuing north to Ketchikan, Juneau, Skagway, etc. 

 

It would be a long itinerary that may not be suitable to most people, but at least it would give those with the time a chance to still go to Alaska while injecting some much needed tourism income into the Alaska economy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tapi said:

Create 14 day Alaska itineraries from Los Angeles that stop at Ensenada as the foreign port before heading north. The itinerary could include stops like San Francisco and Astoria before continuing north to Ketchikan, Juneau, Skagway, etc.

Someone suggested that on the Ask a Cruise Question board. A responder calculated it would take 7 days, without stops, to get from Mexico to Alaska.  Someone else suggested Russia, which is closer, and that was out too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Glaciers said:

Someone suggested that on the Ask a Cruise Question board. A responder calculated it would take 7 days, without stops, to get from Mexico to Alaska.  Someone else suggested Russia, which is closer, and that was out too.

 

 

I think that 14 days would be sufficient to conduct an Alaska cruise from Los Angeles. Currently, there are 10 night round trip cruises from San Francisco. Add the additional  2 sea days that it takes to go from Los Angeles to San Francisco, replace the stop in Victoria with a stop in Ensenada, and add Astoria as an additional stop in order to not to spend too many sea days in a row, and it seems like such an itinerary could fit in a 14 night itinerary.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...