Alaska Senators & "Alaska Tourism Recovery Act"; a technical fix for Alaska Cruises

[nini]

Last night, I came across the following article. These are just a few excerpts.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/08/alaskas-cruise-season-may-not-be-dead-after-all/?sh=561f73f16c35

 

"On Friday, both U.S. senators from Alaska threw out a lifeline. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Sen. Dan Sullivan, both Republicans, have introduced the “Alaska Tourism Recovery Act.” If passed, the new legislation would allow cruise ships to sail to Alaska without requiring a stop in Canada, as U.S. law would normally require.

The “Alaska Tourism Recovery Act” would alleviate the PVSA restrictions for cruise ships transporting passengers between Washington and Alaska. In a statement, Murkowski called her legislation a “technical fix” that would provide “economic certainty at a time when Alaskans need it most.”

[mcrcruiser]

1 hour ago, nini said:

Last night, I came across the following article. These are just a few excerpts.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/08/alaskas-cruise-season-may-not-be-dead-after-all/?sh=561f73f16c35

 

"On Friday, both U.S. senators from Alaska threw out a lifeline. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Sen. Dan Sullivan, both Republicans, have introduced the “Alaska Tourism Recovery Act.” If passed, the new legislation would allow cruise ships to sail to Alaska without requiring a stop in Canada, as U.S. law would normally require.

The “Alaska Tourism Recovery Act” would alleviate the PVSA restrictions for cruise ships transporting passengers between Washington and Alaska. In a statement, Murkowski called her legislation a “technical fix” that would provide “economic certainty at a time when Alaskans need it most.”

Imo a great idea if it can get through congress ASAP

[Astro Flyer]

Princess was hoping that would happen & that’s why they didn’t cancel the roundtrip Seattle cruises. Although in the 5 weeks since Canada banned large cruise ships few in Congress & none in the administration have supported waiving the foreign port requirement.

 

Hopefully it will allow the Seattle Alaska season however I’m skeptical that Congress & the administration would approve the change.

[chengkp75]

Between the time needed to get this passed by Congress and signed by the President, as well as getting the CDC to allow cruising, the Alaska season will be over.  I'm sure there will be several "interested parties" (including the USCG)  waiting to challenge this in courts for an immediate injunction as well.

[nocl]

25 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

Imo a great idea if it can get through congress ASAP

It's been sitting in subcommittee for two weeks without a vote. Doubt you will see it make it out of committee.

 

The members of the subcommittee (not the full committee) sent a letter to Canada asking them to reconsider their closure. Might be an indication of how likely they think it would move forward

[nini]

I very much tend to agree with your summation. I can see why the Senators thought it is is worth the effort for their constituents, however, I really do not have much faith in the necessary process at this time. I was surprised to find this article last night,

[mcrcruiser]

This  law needs to be changed  permanently  .Too many people in  Alaska are hurting because of this law  .Congress needs to address this asap imo

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, mcrcruiser said:

This  law needs to be changed  permanently  .Too many people in  Alaska are hurting because of this law  .Congress needs to address this asap imo

Sorry, but there are hundreds of thousands of US workers who depend on the PVSA fleet (which is not just cruise ships), and the PVSA fleet adds hundreds of thousands of dollars into the US economy.  Foreign flag cruise ships have a historically very low rate of direct investment back into the US economy compared to the dollars they take out in cruise fares.

[voljeep]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Sorry, but there are hundreds of thousands of US workers who depend on the PVSA fleet (which is not just cruise ships), and the PVSA fleet adds hundreds of thousands of dollars into the US economy.  Foreign flag cruise ships have a historically very low rate of direct investment back into the US economy compared to the dollars they take out in cruise fares.

are you currently one of those 'vested' workers who depend on the PVSA remaining in place ?

 

In your expert opinion, what would happen if the PVSA would be suspended until the end of the pandemic?

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, nini said:

Last night, I came across the following article. These are just a few excerpts.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/08/alaskas-cruise-season-may-not-be-dead-after-all/?sh=561f73f16c35

 

"On Friday, both U.S. senators from Alaska threw out a lifeline. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Sen. Dan Sullivan, both Republicans, have introduced the “Alaska Tourism Recovery Act.” If passed, the new legislation would allow cruise ships to sail to Alaska without requiring a stop in Canada, as U.S. law would normally require.

The “Alaska Tourism Recovery Act” would alleviate the PVSA restrictions for cruise ships transporting passengers between Washington and Alaska. In a statement, Murkowski called her legislation a “technical fix” that would provide “economic certainty at a time when Alaskans need it most.”

Does anyone really think the Senate majority is going to drop all other priorities to pass a bill sponsored by 2 members of the party in the minority? As someone else already wrote, the bill has not come out of a subcommittee. And it won't.

[voljeep]

2 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Does anyone really think the Senate majority is going to drop all other priorities to pass a bill sponsored by 2 members of the party in the minority? As someone else already wrote, the bill has not come out of a subcommittee. And it won't.

emergency legislation ... 

[chengkp75]

Just now, voljeep said:

are you currently one of those 'vested' workers who depend on the PVSA remaining in place ?

 

In your expert opinion, what would happen if the PVSA would be suspended until the end of the pandemic?

No, I am not.  I have not worked in the passenger industry in over 12 years, and am about 6 months from retirement, anyway, as I told you in another thread, where you questioned my standing.

 

There are quite a few things that could happen if the PVSA is suspended for Alaska cruises.  While I believe that the two Senators believe that their bill is limited to large foreign flag cruise ships, because they tie it to language of the sections of the USC that are part of the "cruise ship safety and security act", it ultimately refers back to the part of the USC that defines the applicability to "any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers".  So, even limiting a suspension to the Washington State to Alaska market (which I don't think would be either Constitutional (restricting one set of entities (US flag passenger vessel operators) over another set of entities (cruise ships)), nor legal under the terms of SOLAS, which was made into law when it was ratified by the US (placing more stringent restrictions on ships of one nation over another).  But, entities like the Washington State Ferry, Alaska Marine Highway, and the small cruise lines that are planning on serving Alaska in greater numbers this year, would sue in court for an injunction, since they would be required to operate under more stringent regulations, requiring about 3 times the operating cost than if they were foreign flag, then those foreign flag cruise ships.   These "interested parties" could also reflag to foreign to cut their operating cost for the duration of the pandemic, or then petition for extension, perhaps indefinitely.

 

This also sets a very dangerous precedent in allowing ships that do not meet USCG regulations into the domestic trade, allowing for future attempts to do this again.  As I've noted in other threads about the PVSA, it is not a protectionist bill, despite what Wikipedia and many libertarian sites say, since it requires those it is "protecting" to operate at much higher cost than their potential competition.  It is about vessel safety, and why the USCG has stricter safety, training, and certification requirements for US flag ships than they can enforce on foreign flag ships, even cruise ships that "home port" in the US.

 

Another potential legal hurdle to this bill, is that calling a domestic voyage to Alaska "foreign voyage", they go against CBP and their ruling that foreign crew working in strictly US voyages need to be on H2-B work visas, and not C1/D crew visas, and be paid US wages.  So, I think CBP might have something to say about this.

 

If they want to allow the foreign ships into a domestic market, they should require the ships to meet all other requirements of US flag, PVSA compliant vessels.

 

As I've noted, the cruise industry has a very low rate of return.  CLIA has stated that the direct spending of cruise lines in the US is about $28 million (that is for goods and services, taxes, social security for US employees, everything they actually spend in the US), while at the same time carrying 25 million passengers from the US.  So, think about that.  Out of the fare each passenger pays, say $700 per cruise, only about $1 comes back to the US in direct spending, which is then available for indirect spending and total economic impact.  However, targeted assistance, or even means to get the  tourists to Alaska so that their money is spent in Alaska, if using US resources (US relief funds, or US airline subsidies) would result in every single dollar of money invested being returned as direct spending.

[chengkp75]

Just now, voljeep said:

emergency legislation ... 

That would require overwhelming support, and I haven't heard anyone jumping on this bandwagon.

[ontheweb]

Just now, voljeep said:

emergency legislation ... 

Don't hold your breath, it's not happening.

 

Emergency legislation dealing with the pandemic just passed, and neither of the Alaskan Senators voted for it.

[voljeep]

I look for ways to happen - some other look the other way

 

I look for limited government regulations and let 'the people' be people - like Texas is doing, and Florida has been doing all along

[chengkp75]

23 minutes ago, voljeep said:

I look for ways to happen - some other look the other way

 

I look for limited government regulations and let 'the people' be people - like Texas is doing, and Florida has been doing all along

And I look at "limited government regulations" and "letting people be people" and see over 9000 deaths in ferry accidents (what are PVSA vessels in the US) around the world just in the last 20 years.

[voljeep]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And I look at "limited government regulations" and "letting people be people" and see over 9000 deaths in ferry accidents (what are PVSA vessels in the US) around the world just in the last 20 years.

and those "9000 deaths" involved how many passengers and vessel miles ?

[chengkp75]

8 minutes ago, voljeep said:

and those "9000 deaths" involved how many passengers and vessel miles ?

That is unknown, since it relates to many different countries.  However, in the same 20 years, the US has transported over 2.3 billion passengers by ferry, and had a total of 2 deaths, and a total of 19 deaths if you include the duck boat incidents, which are not ferries.

 

You merely need to look at some of the worst disasters going back 50 years, to see:

 

Le Joula:  capacity of 536 pax and 44 crew, sank with 1863 pax onboard, only 66 survived.

Dona Paz: capacity of 1424 pax and 66 crew, sank with an estimated 4386 deaths, because there was no accurate passenger count, and 2000+ people were missing.  Only 24 survived.

 

And, so on and so on, one overloaded ferry after another.

[Astro Flyer]

chengkp75...appreciate your objective analysis of the PVSA issue.
 

Now I better understand that’s it’s more complicated than merely eliminating a foreign port stop...thanks. To me your credibility & objectivity are beyond reproach.

[voljeep]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

That is unknown, since it relates to many different countries.  However, in the same 20 years, the US has transported over 2.3 billion passengers by ferry, and had a total of 2 deaths, and a total of 19 deaths if you include the duck boat incidents, which are not ferries.

 

You merely need to look at some of the worst disasters going back 50 years, to see:

 

Le Joula:  capacity of 536 pax and 44 crew, sank with 1863 pax onboard, only 66 survived.

Dona Paz: capacity of 1424 pax and 66 crew, sank with an estimated 4386 deaths, because there was no accurate passenger count, and 2000+ people were missing.  Only 24 survived.

 

And, so on and so on, one overloaded ferry after another.

what do foreign ferrys have to do with cruise ships sailing from Seattle and bypassing canada

 

ab-so-lute-ly nothing, say it again - what is it good for ?

[chengkp75]

8 minutes ago, voljeep said:

what do foreign ferrys have to do with cruise ships sailing from Seattle and bypassing canada

 

ab-so-lute-ly nothing, say it again - what is it good for ?

Well, again, you look through a very narrow set of blinders.  When the US ratified SOLAS (and I don't think even you would like us not to be signatory to that), or any other international convention, the US was bound by the convention to pass "enabling legislation" that put the exact language of SOLAS into US law.  Part of SOLAS is a definition of "passenger vessel" that states that a passenger vessel is "any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers".  So, in law, there is no differentiation, nor can there be while the US is still recognizing SOLAS, MARPOL, and many other IMO conventions, between the Oasis of the Seas, and a duck boat.  They are both passenger vessels, and all must be handled in exactly the same legal connotation.  So, if you suspend the PVSA, you would allow ferries like the Washington State Ferry, or the Alaska Marine Highway to become foreign flag ships (not a lot of cost to reregister a ship in Panama (that's why they have the largest merchant fleet in the world), not follow USCG regulations anymore, hire foreign crew, adhere to safety regulations that are less strict, and possibly sail overloaded because the USCG inspection and regulation is now limited.  What I am saying, is that the PVSA requires all those "other" passenger vessels, that are covered by the PVSA, to adhere to US safety laws.  The PVSA was enacted to force ship owners adhere to safety regulations that cost them more than if they weren't US flag.

[franktown]

This has been brought up in congress at least for the last 20 years and it never gets out of committee.  The US shipbuilding industry doesn't want the law to changed and they are a very powerful lobby.

Edited March 10, 2021 by franktown
spelling

[chengkp75]

Just now, franktown said:

This has been brought up in congress at least for the last 20 years and it never gets out of committee.  The US shipbuilding industry doesn't want the law to change and they are a very powerful lobby.

The US shipbuilding industry could really care less about the PVSA and Jones Act.  There are very few yards in the US that even consider doing US newbuilding, they are virtually all grafted onto the US government for Navy contracts, where their inefficiency doesn't really matter.  The real reason it never changes is that CLIA does not show any interest in getting it changed, since they feel, rightly so, that if foreign built ships were allowed into the domestic trade, they would have to have, as I've said, crew with work visas in the US, and pay US wages and follow US labor laws, and possibly (hopefully), have to follow USCG regulations as well.  The cost would more than offset any revenue from PVSA itineraries.  Look at Puerto Rico.  CLIA and Puerto Rico lobbied for 10 years to get an exemption to the PVSA, and when it happened, only one cruise line decided to use the route, and it folded after a year due to low demand.

[donaldsc]

I have avoided political responses to CC posts for obvious reasons.  The moderator may remove this post because it is political but other people have posted political responses on this topic so here goes.  The 2 senators who have introduced this legislation are Republicans.  Reasonable republicans but still Republicans.  They have sided with their party on several issues where 100% of the Republicans including bills that would help the people of AK.  This has included Covid relief bills and other bills or amendments to bills that would appear to be non-political.  The current administration may think that if they are part of the 100% vote no block, why should the administration support this legislation.  It would be reasonable for the current administration to tell these 2 senators that if the support some bills instead of voting against all of them, the Biden administration might think about lifting the PVSA restrictions.

[ontheweb]

40 minutes ago, voljeep said:

what do foreign ferrys have to do with cruise ships sailing from Seattle and bypassing canada

 

ab-so-lute-ly nothing, say it again - what is it good for ?

And how much is Congress going to do to pass this bill by the two minority party Senators from Alaska?

 

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING