Jump to content

A ray of hope from Alaska?


kangforpres
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, pennyroyal00 said:

I only booked because, worst case scenario, I would get 125% FCC. 

So you booked a cruise that you didn't want in hopes of getting a bonus FCC?

I am pleased that HAL is attempting to offer replacement cruises in 2022 for 2021 prices and protecting promotions and incentives they offered.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question on the PSVA...my understanding is that not following it leads to a monetary penalty for every passenger. 

Would it be possible to simply ignore the law and add a $200 fee to every passenger who wanted to travel? 

Also, I seem to recall seeing cruises to nowhere in the past out of FL. Perhaps a 7 night trip out of Seattle or Seward/Whittier with a lot of scenic cruising in Glacier Bay, Tracy Arm, Hubbard Glacier, etc. Not sure if this would get around the PSVA or how many would do it without any ports. Of course if you did it out of the north they could do a shorter 3-4 night cruise with scenic cruising plus 3-4 days on land. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zgscl said:

Question on the PSVA...my understanding is that not following it leads to a monetary penalty for every passenger. 

Would it be possible to simply ignore the law and add a $200 fee to every passenger who wanted to travel? 

Also, I seem to recall seeing cruises to nowhere in the past out of FL. Perhaps a 7 night trip out of Seattle or Seward/Whittier with a lot of scenic cruising in Glacier Bay, Tracy Arm, Hubbard Glacier, etc. Not sure if this would get around the PSVA or how many would do it without any ports. Of course if you did it out of the north they could do a shorter 3-4 night cruise with scenic cruising plus 3-4 days on land. 

 

The fines are against the cruise line for violating the law.  The ticket contract is where you give the cruise line the right to pass the fine on to you.  In a case of blatant violation of the law (as you suggest, just doing the cruise and paying the fine), the USCG can place both the cruise line and the Captain under further civil fines, and criminal charges, and can refuse the ship entry into US waters in future.  They can even seize and hold the ship until such time as the fines are paid.

 

The fine is currently $762 per person.

Edited by chengkp75
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, zgscl said:

Question on the PSVA...my understanding is that not following it leads to a monetary penalty for every passenger. 

Would it be possible to simply ignore the law and add a $200 fee to every passenger who wanted to travel? 

Also, I seem to recall seeing cruises to nowhere in the past out of FL. Perhaps a 7 night trip out of Seattle or Seward/Whittier with a lot of scenic cruising in Glacier Bay, Tracy Arm, Hubbard Glacier, etc. Not sure if this would get around the PSVA or how many would do it without any ports. Of course if you did it out of the north they could do a shorter 3-4 night cruise with scenic cruising plus 3-4 days on land. 

 

chengkp75 has covered the fines aspect, but didn't mention the 'cruise to nowhere' problems.  CBP has ruled them illegal under current practices.  Since the ships would not be visiting a foreign port, the crew would be considered US employees, subject to US regulations and pay US taxes, and need a different type of visa.  chengkp75 has covered this in multiple other threads about cruises to nowhere..  EM

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, zgscl said:

Question on the PSVA...my understanding is that not following it leads to a monetary penalty for every passenger. 

Would it be possible to simply ignore the law and add a $200 fee to every passenger who wanted to travel? 

Also, I seem to recall seeing cruises to nowhere in the past out of FL. Perhaps a 7 night trip out of Seattle or Seward/Whittier with a lot of scenic cruising in Glacier Bay, Tracy Arm, Hubbard Glacier, etc. Not sure if this would get around the PSVA or how many would do it without any ports. Of course if you did it out of the north they could do a shorter 3-4 night cruise with scenic cruising plus 3-4 days on land. 

 

Sorry,  not to offend, but this topic has been discussed about 42,000 times in the past few weeks.  Chengpk has explained this to us so often, I’m sure he must be exhausted.  Let’s not speculate on anymore pie in the sky ideas to the already mountainous offerings that we’ve read on these boards.  Alaska will welcome us back in 2022!  

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LocoLoco1 said:

The Holland-America cruiseline has CANCELLED cruises to Alaska for 2021.  It’s done for them. Period. 

 

Except cruises out of Seattle are NOT cancelled.  They are hoping to work something out with the two governments.

 

897A443A-0757-4B58-A6A1-836C6454D1C6.jpeg.cabe73b9c54720994cd4b50b6f2cacc4.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The fines are against the cruise line for violating the law.  The ticket contract is where you give the cruise line the right to pass the fine on to you.  In a case of blatant violation of the law (as you suggest, just doing the cruise and paying the fine), the USCG can place both the cruise line and the Captain under further civil fines, and criminal charges, and can refuse the ship entry into US waters in future.  They can even seize and hold the ship until such time as the fines are paid.

 

The fine is currently $762 per person.

Thank you, I did not think blatantly violating the law could be a good solution. I know you have posted in the path that sometimes the law is violated because of a hurricane or mechanical problems and then the cruise line asks for and is granted an exemption. But breaking the law with the intent to break the law is a whole different situation. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, HAL4NOW said:

So you booked a cruise that you didn't want in hopes of getting a bonus FCC?

I am pleased that HAL is attempting to offer replacement cruises in 2022 for 2021 prices and protecting promotions and incentives they offered.

That was not the motivation.  The motivation was to, finally, go on a cruise!  But, with everything being so uncertain, I still had to consider the "worse case scenario", which at the time of booking I had thought would be FCC (with or without the bonus) and that was acceptable to me.  The rebooking of it to 2022, when I will not be in North America, is worse for me than the worse case scenario I factored in.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, HAL4NOW said:

I am pleased that HAL is attempting to offer replacement cruises in 2022 for 2021 prices and protecting promotions and incentives they offered.

Holland America is NOT offering replacement cruises for canceled 2021 to 2022, that is Princess Cruise Line that is offering to move the canceled Alaska cruises that departed or disembarked or both in a Canadian port. Holland America has made No Such offer.

Plus it needs to be REPEATED, Holland America and Princess have ONLY canceled  cruises that were Embarking or Disembarking in a Canadian Port. Those include the repositioning cruises that would sail from Vancouver. As of right now ALL Seattle Alaska Sailings are still NOT canceled, all the cruise lines are working hard at at least salvages 8 weeks toward the end of the season of Alaska and working at getting a work around to make at least the last half of the season a go.

My Crystal Ball is a bit cloudy but I am guessing that if they can arrange a work around cruises may start out of Seattle in July but the ships that were to sail from Seattle Pier 91 which were Eurodam and Oosterdam may be replaced with the canceled Nieuw Amsterdam and Zuiderdam or Westerdam since those ships are already sailing in the Pacific and have had the preliminary approval of the CDC. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LAFFNVEGAS said:

Holland America is NOT offering replacement cruises for canceled 2021 to 2022, that is Princess Cruise Line that is offering to move the canceled Alaska cruises that departed or disembarked or both in a Canadian port. Holland America has made No Such offer

Their press release states that they have! 

https://www.carnivalcorp.com/news-releases/news-release-details/holland-america-line-extends-cruise-pause-include-all-0

 

Guests Automatically Rebooked in 2022 on Similar Cruise
Holland America Line is notifying guests and their travel advisors of their options. Guests on Alaska and Canada/New England canceled departures that are paid in full automatically will be rebooked on an equivalent cruise or Land+Sea Journey in 2022 at the fare paid for 2021 – with all cash and FCC funds moved to the new booking. No other action is needed when accepting the rebooked itinerary. Replacement 2022 booking confirmations will be automatically sent within 30 days of this announcement.

All guests receive the following options:

  • Paid in Full: Those who have paid in full will be automatically rebooked to the same cruise or Land+Sea Journey in 2022 at the fare paid for 2021.
  • Not Paid in Full: Those with bookings not paid in full may elect to be moved to the same cruise type or Land+Sea Journey in 2022 at the fare paid for 2021.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, LAFFNVEGAS said:

My Crystal Ball is a bit cloudy but I am guessing that if they can arrange a work around cruises may start out of Seattle in July but the ships that were to sail from Seattle Pier 91 which were Eurodam and Oosterdam may be replaced with the canceled Nieuw Amsterdam and Zuiderdam or Westerdam since those ships are already sailing in the Pacific and have had the preliminary approval of the CDC. 

 

What preliminary approval from the CDC are you referring to?

Edited by KirkNC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KirkNC said:

What preliminary approval from the CDC are you referring to?

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/crew-disembarkations-commercial-travel.html

 

Note that listed in Green were HAL ships that were to sail from Canada and neither the Eurodam or Oosterdam were listed. They are currently still in Europe. But the ships that are all currently sailing in the Pacific were the ships that were to sail from Vancouver. If the cruise lines can make progress to be able to sail from Seattle it would make sense to use the ships sailing in the Pacific and have already met the Framework for Conditional Sailing.

  

Holland America Line Complete and accurate with signed acknowledgement Koningsdam Green Yes
Nieuw Amsterdam Green Yes
Nieuw Statendam Green Yes
Noordam Green Yes
Westerdam Green Yes
Zuiderdam Green Yes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LAFFNVEGAS said:

Note that listed in Green were HAL ships that were to sail from Canada and neither the Eurodam or Oosterdam were listed. They are currently still in Europe. But the ships that are all currently sailing in the Pacific were the ships that were to sail from Vancouver. If the cruise lines can make progress to be able to sail from Seattle it would make sense to use the ships sailing in the Pacific and have already met the Framework for Conditional Sailing.

While I agree with you regarding the logistics of ship deployment, let me just correct something.  Those ships that are listed as "green", have met the first phase only of the Conditional Sail Order framework.  There is quite a lot of work still to be done to meet the CDC CSO, let alone try to get a PVSA work-around.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

While I agree with you regarding the logistics of ship deployment, let me just correct something.  Those ships that are listed as "green", have met the first phase only of the Conditional Sail Order framework.  There is quite a lot of work still to be done to meet the CDC CSO, let alone try to get a PVSA work-around.

Thanks, beat me to it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, LocoLoco1 said:

My phone conversation today with HAL about my ALASKA cruises cancelled for 2021 never mentioned ‘moving’ me to 2022.  Just told me mine was No-Go. Hmm. 

Perhaps because HAL is concerned that Canada might remain locked down (cruise wise) for several years.  While I will try to not be critical of government decisions there does seem to be a tendency of certain governments (around the world) to lead towards a zero-risk strategy.  Such thinking could keep some countries locked-down for many years to come.

 

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LAFFNVEGAS said:

 

My Crystal Ball is a bit cloudy but I am guessing that if they can arrange a work around cruises may start out of Seattle in July but the ships that were to sail from Seattle Pier 91 which were Eurodam and Oosterdam may be replaced with the canceled Nieuw Amsterdam and Zuiderdam or Westerdam since those ships are already sailing in the Pacific and have had the preliminary approval of the CDC. 

 

"If they can arrange a work around"---that's a huge if. No one has come around yet with a workaround that would seem to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Perhaps because HAL is concerned that Canada might remain locked down (cruise wise) for several years.  While I will try to not be critical of government decisions there does seem to be a tendency of certain governments (around the world) to lead towards a zero-risk strategy.  Such thinking could keep some countries locked-down for many years to come.

 

Hank

A lot of countries have tied reopening to international tourism to when they expect to have the bulk of their citizens vaccinated. The optimistic estimate for Canada is to have most of the population vaccinated by the end of September. Even without considering our problems with actually procuring vaccine, that washes out the 2021 cruise season here. Even the pessimistic estimates don’t anticipate a vaccine delay of ‘several years’.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Thank you, I did not think blatantly violating the law could be a good solution. I know you have posted in the path that sometimes the law is violated because of a hurricane or mechanical problems and then the cruise line asks for and is granted an exemption. But breaking the law with the intent to break the law is a whole different situation. 

I suspect the various insurance companies would not be supportive of intentional and pre-planned violations of law by Captains and cruise lines...no matter how trivial some on Cruise Critic feel the law might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

I suspect the various insurance companies would not be supportive of intentional and pre-planned violations of law by Captains and cruise lines...no matter how trivial some on Cruise Critic feel the law might be.

And once you break one law, the next violation becomes easier to justify to oneself. I remember in college a professor stating that the worst laws ever are speeding and alternate side of the street parking because everyone breaks them with little or no consequences.

 

So, if you can just ignore the PVSA, why not just also ignore all the environmental laws? I don't think that would be appreciated in Alaska.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

I suspect the various insurance companies would not be supportive of intentional and pre-planned violations of law by Captains and cruise lines...no matter how trivial some on Cruise Critic feel the law might be.

Well, most of this would be under their P&I insurance, which is essentially a mutual insurance cover.

4 hours ago, ontheweb said:

And once you break one law, the next violation becomes easier to justify to oneself. I remember in college a professor stating that the worst laws ever are speeding and alternate side of the street parking because everyone breaks them with little or no consequences.

 

So, if you can just ignore the PVSA, why not just also ignore all the environmental laws? I don't think that would be appreciated in Alaska.

And, gee, who has a record of ignoring and violating environmental laws?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Perhaps because HAL is concerned that Canada might remain locked down (cruise wise) for several years.  While I will try to not be critical of government decisions there does seem to be a tendency of certain governments (around the world) to lead towards a zero-risk strategy.  Such thinking could keep some countries locked-down for many years to come.

 

Hank

Grand Cayman which already announced no cruises until 2022 is now considering a limit on the number of cruisers per day.

 

https://cruiseradio.net/grand-cayman-considers-limiting-number-of-cruise-visitors/

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KirkNC said:

Grand Cayman which already announced no cruises until 2022 is now considering a limit on the number of cruisers per day.

 

https://cruiseradio.net/grand-cayman-considers-limiting-number-of-cruise-visitors/

 

We enjoy the Cayman's but would not be upset if they were to severely restrict or even eliminate cruise ships from their island.   One has to only look at St Thomas to see how too many cruisers can ruin a paradise.  The last time we cruised to the Cayman's we were shocked to see 5 vessels (4 of them very large ships) anchored off shore.   GC can certainly handle a few thousand cruise passengers, but the island is just not well suited to 15,000+ and it makes it a less desirable location for folks who want to vacation or buy property on the island.  

 

We live part of the year in a cruise port (Puerto Vallarta) and our community can easily handle 3 ships (that is the maximum number that can dock in our port).   But we have been here on a few days when there were 5 ships (2 had to tender) and the extra folks did make a difference in town with extra traffic problems (from too many tour buses who double park and block traffic lanes), too many walking tours making it difficult to simply walk on a sidewalk, etc.   Like many things in life too much of a good thing is not always a good idea.   Since the cruise lines seem to be unwilling to limit their impact on ports it just makes sense that some localities are trying to impose their own restrictions.  We have seen this in Santorini, Key West,  Charleston, Venice, and other places.  Now I guess the Cayman's may get added to the list.

 

Being a cruise lover I have mixed emotions about restrictions, but have also done a lot of land travel where we have seen the negative impact of too many ships/cruisers.

 

Hank

  • Like 1
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...