Top-ranking members of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation are asking Canada to allow technical stops.

[chengkp75]

20 minutes ago, farmersfight said:

I think the snag is that the PVSA requirements can only be waived for national security.

The other requirement to approve a waiver is that there is no US flag vessel capable of providing the transportation.  To Alaska there is.

[DCGuy64]

21 minutes ago, farmersfight said:

 

 

I think the snag is that the PVSA requirements can only be waived for national security. The PVSA could be amended to remove the requirement that any waivers must be for national security. A world-wide pandemic is imo, a justification for this amendment.

 

Then, the PVSA requirement that foreign flag cruise ship call at a nearby foreign port (i.e. Victoria, BC) on a closed loop cruise (i.e. Alaska R/T cruise out of Seattle) could be temporarily waived until Canada opens up their ports to cruise ships again.

I'm with you. I can't for the life of me see how the PVSA couldn't or shouldn't be waived for the time being. Over and over for the past year, we've heard about the urgent need for stimulus checks, eviction forebearance, the Paycheck Protection Act, emergency authorization for vaccines, etc., all in the name of addressing an "unprecedented" global pandemic. So why should PVSA be the one "untouchable" regulation that can't be amended or suspended, even temporarily?

 

tl;dr: Government can do anything if it wants to. It just has to want to.

[broberts]

The letter is simply a political stunt and not worth the electrons used. 

[broberts]

1 minute ago, DCGuy64 said:

So why should PVSA be the one "untouchable" regulation that can't be amended or suspended, even temporarily?

 

Is cruising really in the same ballpark as evictions, unemployment, and vaccine distribution?

[DCGuy64]

22 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Is cruising really in the same ballpark as evictions, unemployment, and vaccine distribution?

Oh, it's far from just that. Leaving aside the fact that people on Cruise Critic tend to value the cruise industry and the economies that depend on it more than the average person, there is tons of pork in the stimulus bills. Rescuing badly run state and local governments, a NY bridge, Planned Parenthood, the Kennedy Center, gender programs in Pakistan? Seriously? So yeah, I think cruising is more important than those things, he** yeah I do. Take a look:

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/531294-congresss-pork-filled-covid-relief-bill

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/02/22/is-there-waste-or-bloated-spending-in-the-19-trillion-coronavirus-stimulus-bill/?sh=20c47f6439db

 

And by the way, unlike the "spending like a drunk sailor" aspect to these bills, I'm not saying the cruise industry should get a payout, not at all. I'm just saying FOR GOD'S SAKE, LET THEM GO BACK TO WORK. That's all.

 

 

[chengkp75]

23 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

And by the way, unlike the "spending like a drunk sailor" aspect to these bills, I'm not saying the cruise industry should get a payout, not at all. I'm just saying FOR GOD'S SAKE, LET THEM GO BACK TO WORK. That's all.

So, I'm a bit confused.  Which way is it that you lean?  Let my cruise vacation return, or let's support the struggling Alaska tourist economy.  Because if it is to support the Alaska economy, allowing the cruise industry to resume is a poor way to do it.  On another thread, I looked up, and CLIA has reported that 2019 the direct spending by the cruise industry in the US (goods and services bought, taxes, and wages for US employees) was $20 billion.  At the same time, they took in fares from 28.5 million passengers, so for every fare collected (let's say an average $700 fare), $1 is returned in direct spending.  Stimulus spending, while not perfect, returns nearly every dollar to the economy.

[broberts]

24 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Oh, it's far from just that. Leaving aside the fact that people on Cruise Critic tend to value the cruise industry and the economies that depend on it more than the average person, there is tons of pork in the stimulus bills. Rescuing badly run state and local governments, a NY bridge, Planned Parenthood, the Kennedy Center, gender programs in Pakistan? Seriously? So yeah, I think cruising is more important than those things, he** yeah I do. Take a look:

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/531294-congresss-pork-filled-covid-relief-bill

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/02/22/is-there-waste-or-bloated-spending-in-the-19-trillion-coronavirus-stimulus-bill/?sh=20c47f6439db

 

And by the way, unlike the "spending like a drunk sailor" aspect to these bills, I'm not saying the cruise industry should get a payout, not at all. I'm just saying FOR GOD'S SAKE, LET THEM GO BACK TO WORK. That's all.

 

 

 

I have no idea what the proposed covid relief bill has to do with the importance of cruising today. In any case I'm not at all interested in discussing domestic US spending policy in this forum.

[DCGuy64]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

So, I'm a bit confused.  Which way is it that you lean?  Let my cruise vacation return, or let's support the struggling Alaska tourist economy.  Because if it is to support the Alaska economy, allowing the cruise industry to resume is a poor way to do it.  On another thread, I looked up, and CLIA has reported that 2019 the direct spending by the cruise industry in the US (goods and services bought, taxes, and wages for US employees) was $20 billion.  At the same time, they took in fares from 28.5 million passengers, so for every fare collected (let's say an average $700 fare), $1 is returned in direct spending.  Stimulus spending, while not perfect, returns nearly every dollar to the economy.

Like I said, let the industry reopen and get ships sailing again from the US. Florida's economy benefits to the tune of some $53 billion per annum from cruising. That's no small potatoes. And the tourism industry in Alaska is very concerned about its long term viability if it has to endure a second year of no large cruise ships.

1 minute ago, broberts said:

 

I have no idea what the proposed covid relief bill has to do with the importance of cruising today. In any case I'm not at all interested in discussing domestic US spending policy in this forum.

But you didn't mind trying to tell me that vaccines, eviction forebearance and cash payments were okay while cruising isn't. OK, I'm confused.

Anyway, I'm not talking about domestic SPENDING policy, I'm talking about simply allowing an idle industry the regulatory ability to reopen. That's it.

 

Thanks for the spirited debate. I have to sign off for now, the boss is calling. Have a great day!

 

 

[broberts]

3 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

But you didn't mind trying to tell me that vaccines, eviction forebearance and cash payments were okay while cruising isn't. OK, I'm confused.

 

I too would be confused had I actually said what you claim. 

[chengkp75]

28 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Like I said, let the industry reopen and get ships sailing again from the US. Florida's economy benefits to the tune of some $53 billion per annum from cruising. That's no small potatoes. And the tourism industry in Alaska is very concerned about its long term viability if it has to endure a second year of no large cruise ships.

And, as noted, most of that $53 billion is indirect spending, resulting from the original direct spending.  Stimulus money provides a larger percentage return of direct spending, which would result in more indirect spending, unless you think that the people and businesses that are receiving the stimulus money are hoarding it, or sending it to offshore bank accounts.

[julig22]

5 hours ago, d9704011 said:

OK.  Maybe it should be the cruise line operators doing the work instead of US legislators trying to convince a foreign, sovereign country to change its rules so people can take (currently illegal due to a long-existing US law) cruises out of the US to other parts of the US.

Do you actually believe that the cruise lines aren't also doing their best to try to convince Canada to open their ports?  Come at a problem from all directions in the hope that something happens.

[macandlucy]

I wonder if any elected reps are getting any pressure from the public to restart cruising? I can't imagine there's much, if any, since so many people still seem to be under the impression that risk from cruising in 2021 is going to be the same as it was in 2020.

 

[farmersfight]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The other requirement to approve a waiver is that there is no US flag vessel capable of providing the transportation.  To Alaska there is.

 

Would that be the PoA? I thought she could only operate in the Hawaiian islands?

[chengkp75]

Just now, farmersfight said:

 

Would that be the PoA? I thought she could only operate in the Hawaiian islands?

Once again, folks look at a narrow interpretation of the PVSA.  The PVSA pertains to "passenger transportation", not a cruise experience.  CBP doesn't care how much you enjoy getting from one port to the other, just that you did.  The Alaska Marine Highway system provides transportation to Alaska.  American Cruise Line, UnCruise Adventures, Lindblad Adventures and Alaska Dream Cruises all provide transportation services to Alaska.  In fact, while UnCruise CEO stated that he is all for a waiver of the PVSA, and that they do not compete with the major cruise lines, they are offering a $500 discount for anyone who books with them and can provide proof of a canceled cruise with a large ship company.  All of these entities would have legal standing in a court challenge to any waiver of the PVSA specifically for Alaska.

[njhorseman]

10 minutes ago, farmersfight said:

 

Would that be the PoA? I thought she could only operate in the Hawaiian islands?

American Cruise Lines, Uncruise Adventures and I think a couple of even smaller cruise lines whose names I don't recall provide cruises to Alaska on multiple US-flagged ships.

Edit: I see the chief posted this information an instant before I did.

Edited March 1, 2021 by njhorseman

[farmersfight]

4 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

he** yeah I do.

 

I think it's o.k. to spell the "h" word out here on CC. Notice, I didn't spell it out in case I'm wrong. Don't want to get suspended (again).

 

4 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

"spending like a drunk sailor"

 

Hey, I resemble that remark...

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

American Cruise Lines, Uncruise Adventures and I think a couple of even smaller cruise lines whose names I don't recall provide cruises to Alaska on multiple US-flagged ships.

Edit: I see the chief posted this information an instant before I did.

And any exemption to the PVSA has the clause "until a coastwise qualified (meaning US flag) vessel operates the service".  So, if I had Gates' or Musk's money, and bought the SS United States and fixed her up to sail again, losing money by the trainload, I could instantly wipe out any exemption for the Alaska season, and could permanently wipe out (until Congress passed it again) the exemption for Puerto Rico.

[DCGuy64]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, as noted, most of that $53 billion is indirect spending, resulting from the original direct spending.  Stimulus money provides a larger percentage return of direct spending, which would result in more indirect spending, unless you think that the people and businesses that are receiving the stimulus money are hoarding it, or sending it to offshore bank accounts.

Seems odd to think this, but are you seriously saying that an industry that provides $billions in economic activity (directly or indirectly) isn't worth giving a crap about? And bear in mind, I do not believe that leisure tourism deserves a handout, I just believe it's wrong to keep it essentially shut down in this part of the world. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, because I hold you in deep regard due to your expertise and knowledge of the industry, but what you're saying sounds like: "cruising is no big deal, there's no reason to try and get it going again anytime soon because it doesn't matter." I really hope I'm just misunderstanding you. What I am advocating is for government to take its regulatory foot off the throat of the cruise industry and to a) allow passengers like me to sail again and b) allow money to flow once again to the tourism industry that depends on cruising. That's all.

[d9704011]

2 hours ago, julig22 said:

Do you actually believe that the cruise lines aren't also doing their best to try to convince Canada to open their ports?  Come at a problem from all directions in the hope that something happens.

No, I don’t.  I find it unseemly that US legislators are lobbying the Canadian government to change an Order established to protect the health of Canadian citizens and the health care system.

[mianmike]

8 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

While I admire your dogged research, I will go with the definition of an "interpretive" ruling that I posted earlier, and which states that these rulings do not need to be published in the Federal Register, and may only be available from the agency involved.  

 

I will also point out that the cruise lines are abiding by the ruling for the Hawaii cruises for the last 13 years, and you would think their lawyers would have found out whether they needed to or not.

We will have to agree to disagree.  You are correct, an interpretive rule does not have to be published, BUT an interpretive rule must not set new legal standards or impose new requirements.  CBP can’t just sneak in a new requirement under the guise of an unpublished rule interpretation.  CBP knows this and that’s why they tried to amend the CFR to add the requirement that passengers must be allowed to temporarily leave the ship while in the nearby foreign port.  Obviously their OGC advised them a CFR amendment was necessary.  I can tell you from firsthand experience, amending CFRs is a very arduous process and not taken lightly.  CBP would not have attempted to amend the CFR to add the passenger visitation requirement or the 48 hour stay if it wasn't absolutely necessary .      

 

As far as cruise lines abiding by CBP’s Hawaii rule (which OMB rejected), cruise lines have not entirely "abided."  There have been several instances where ships have skipped their nearby foreign ports.   The typical reason they have skipped the nearby port was a medical evac.  If CBP was serious and had a valid regulation re: passengers visiting a nearby foreign port, they could easily argue it’s 100% within a cruise line’s control to schedule a cruise such that there is enough time allocated at nearby foreign ports that should there be a medical there would still be time to comply with the “regulation.”  They would then slap the cruise line on the wrist each time they skipped a nearby foreign port. 

 

I would argue that since cruise ships must “touch” a nearby foreign port, it would be impractical for them to not allow passengers (who would want to get off the ship) to visit the port and the host country/ports would want/require the potential passenger revenue.  

 

 

 

[broberts]

6 minutes ago, mianmike said:

If CBP was serious and had a valid regulation re: passengers visiting a nearby foreign port, they could easily argue it’s 100% within a cruise line’s control to schedule a cruise such that there is enough time allocated at nearby foreign ports that should there be a medical there would still be time to comply with the “regulation.” 

 

Somebody might argue this but it sure wouldn't be a reasonable argument. 

[mianmike]

20 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Somebody might argue this but it sure wouldn't be a reasonable argument. 

 

Very true.  CBP tried to amend the CFRs to require a 48 hour stay at a nearby port which would have effectively made a medical evac exception a moot point.  Not that that was CBP's intent. 

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

Seems odd to think this, but are you seriously saying that an industry that provides $billions in economic activity (directly or indirectly) isn't worth giving a crap about? And bear in mind, I do not believe that leisure tourism deserves a handout, I just believe it's wrong to keep it essentially shut down in this part of the world. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, because I hold you in deep regard due to your expertise and knowledge of the industry, but what you're saying sounds like: "cruising is no big deal, there's no reason to try and get it going again anytime soon because it doesn't matter." I really hope I'm just misunderstanding you. What I am advocating is for government to take its regulatory foot off the throat of the cruise industry and to a) allow passengers like me to sail again and b) allow money to flow once again to the tourism industry that depends on cruising. That's all.

No, but what I am saying is that in this economic slow-down caused by the pandemic, there are better ways to stimulate the tourism industry than allowing the cruise industry to restart, just for the sake of letting the cruise industry start.  What I am asking is:  "what is the main reason for your desire to allow the cruise industry to restart?"  Is it that you want to take a vacation, and by doing so, you stimulate an industry, and help the economy?  Or is it that you feel the need to help those who are struggling in this particular industry?  If the first, then that's your viewpoint, but I say wait on cruising until the science says it is safe.  If it is the second, then there are better ways to support all the jobs in the US that rely on the cruise industry than everyone giving their money to the cruise lines and having little of it returned to those industries you want to support.  Either way, I feel that cruising needs to wait until it is safe to do so, and efforts to get around existing laws to "jump start" it should not be disguised as means to help Alaska's tourist industry.

 

Let me put it this way.  As I've shown above, if you pay $700 in cruise fare, $1 of that is returned to the US economy, to start being re-spent to bring about the billions of economic impact that the cruise industry creates.  Let's say instead that the US government taxed you $2, but kept the cruise industry shut down for safety reasons, and used that $2 to stimulate the same businesses that got the $1 from the cruise lines.  That $2 would create more economic impact than the $1, wouldn't it?  What does that $699 that the cruise industry takes out of the country do for the US?

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, mianmike said:

The typical reason they have skipped the nearby port was a medical evac

This is called "force majeure", meaning that the problem is outside of the cruise line's control.  Your example of scheduling enough time to allow for a medical emergency is; really?  You can plan for every possible situation in your life?  Where did the emergency evacuation happen?  What medivac assets were available?  What was the weather conditions?  Come on.  This is "force majeure" or "act of God".

 

As for why they did the Ensenada technical stop, it was because they advertised the cruise as a Hawaiian cruise, did not mention Ensenada as a port of call, maximized the time in port in those ports that were advertised, and that were the "draw" for the cruise, and to keep the schedule they had to cut the Ensenada call down to 1 hour at midnight.

 

But, whatever, I've exhausted my ideas on presenting ideas to you, believe what you want, just know that the cruise lines' lawyers believe that technical stops are not allowed.

[AmazedByCruising]

52 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

This is "force majeure" or "act of God".

 

I really like "Act of God" as proper judicial reasoning. "It's not really our fault, God was suddenly messing with us!" 

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

What does that $699 that the cruise industry takes out of the country do for the US?

 

I believe it doesn't work like that. It's not "The US" that wants prosperity, it is the individuals who happen to live in the US. If American X wants to exchange $700 for a cruise, he expects at least $701 of fun in return. And he probably gets it as the industry has survived for a long time so people get more than what they pay for or they would have stopped buying cruises.

 

It really needs a long, and faulty, explanation to find out why it's better that X spends his $700 for another vacation, of which he expects less fun than a cruise. 

 

There's no reason why "buy American" shouldn't work for Kentucky just as well as for the US as a whole.  Not only posters "Buy from Kentuckians" everywhere but a law saying that you must. It would be a third world country in no time. 

 

 

Yes, the baker likes the business of the local B&B so it would seem nice if every American bought US only stuff. But the baker would have to buy very expensive phones, maybe a more expensive oven, and certainly couldn't afford a cruise in his lifetime. 

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by AmazedByCruising