Alaska Tourism Recovery Act Passes U.S. Senate

[d9704011]

13 minutes ago, nini said:

Thanks. I did not realize that about the waters too. Your water, your rules. I wonder why they are allowing the ferries?

Best to look at the entire Interim Order, not the News Release.  Here is an excerpt from the Order...

Prohibition

Prohibition — Canadian waters other than arctic waters

3 It is prohibited to navigate, moor, anchor or berth in Canadian waters, other than arctic waters, if

• (a) the passenger vessel is certified to carry more than 100 persons as indicated on its inspection certificate or Passenger Ship Safety Certificate issued under the Vessel Certificates Regulations or on an equivalent certificate issued by a foreign government; and
• (b) the passenger vessel is equipped with berths or cabins for overnight travel by passengers.

Prohibition — arctic waters

4 It is prohibited for a passenger vessel to enter arctic waters from any other waters.

Exceptions

5 (1) Sections 3 and 4 do not apply to

• (a) a vessel that is in distress or providing assistance to a vessel or person in distress;
• (b) a vessel that is forced to navigate, moor, anchor or berth to avoid immediate danger;
• (c)a vessel that is engaged in research and that is operated by or under the authority of the Government of Canada, or at its request, or operated by a provincial government, a local authority or a government, council or other entity authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group;
• (d) a vessel that carries
  • (i) employees of the Government of Canada or a provincial or territorial government, or
  • (ii) peace officers who require a transportation service in the course of performing their duties or functions;
• (e) a foreign vessel in the territorial sea of Canada that is exercising the right of innocent passage in accordance with international law and article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, done at Montego Bay on 10 December 1982; and
• (f) a vessel that is not in service.

Foreign vessels in certain waters

(2) Despite section 3, a foreign vessel may, in the Great Lakes, the Inside Passage, the St. Lawrence River, the Gulf of St. Lawrence or the St. Lawrence Seaway

• (a) navigate, if passage is expeditious; and
• (b) moor, berth or anchor if those activities are incidental to the passage.

[joepeka]

Just saw some posts over on the Princess board that HR 1318 has passed the U.S. House and will be on it's way to the White House for (hopefully) Biden's signature.

[rkacruiser]

59 minutes ago, joepeka said:

Just saw some posts over on the Princess board that HR 1318 has passed the U.S. House and will be on it's way to the White House for (hopefully) Biden's signature.

 

Alaska's Representative Young has issued a statement that the minor differences between SB583 (passed by the Senate) and HR 1318 have already been resolved and that the Senate will pass HR 1318 ASAP.  

 

Surely great news for the good people of Alaska, for those who work in the cruise industry, for the citizens of the State of Washington who have been and will be employed in cruise related jobs, and for those of us who want to return to our 49th State!

[CruiserBruce]

1 hour ago, joepeka said:

Just saw some posts over on the Princess board that HR 1318 has passed the U.S. House and will be on it's way to the White House for (hopefully) Biden's signature.

Nope...Senate needs to do a procedural vote. Soon...but not yet.

[joepeka]

2 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

Nope...Senate needs to do a procedural vote. Soon...but not yet.

Well maybe that happened when no one was watching:

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/legal-regulatory/alaska-cruise-ship-waiver-bill-passes-congress-heads-biden-signing-law

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/25059-alaska-season-inches-closer-as-house-passes-bill-biden-to-sign-next.html

Edited May 20, 2021 by joepeka

[Donald]

Many of the cruisers going to Alaska this summer are the same people - raised by wolves - whose poor hygiene and unclean behaviors previously caused Norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships.

But now they have new tools at their disposal; counterfeit Coronavirus vaccine cards, masks worn improperly (or not at all), lack of social distancing, and the Coronavirus and its many variants.

How many days  - or hours - before we see the first Corona Virus outbreak on an Alaska Cruise?

Shall we set up a betting pool to make it more interesting?

Edited May 20, 2021 by Donald

[joepeka]

2 hours ago, Donald said:

Many of the cruisers going to Alaska this summer are the same people - raised by wolves - whose poor hygiene and unclean behaviors previously caused Norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships.

But now they have new tools at their disposal; counterfeit Coronavirus vaccine cards, masks worn improperly (or not at all), lack of social distancing, and the Coronavirus and its many variants.

How many days  - or hours - before we see the first Corona Virus outbreak on an Alaska Cruise?

Shall we set up a betting pool to make it more interesting?

I suppose someone had to bring an off topic, little dark cloud over an otherwise sunny good cruise news day. You win the prize and I'm sure the Grinch would approve.

Edited May 21, 2021 by joepeka

[CynCyn]

On 5/13/2021 at 10:33 PM, mexicobob said:

Pigs will fly before the government changes the law to bypass Canada for a cruise to Alaska from the US. Do not get your hopes up. 

I am amazed that it happened, but 🐖 did ✈️! Totally believed the same as you that it would never happen.  

[LadyMac72]

13 hours ago, Donald said:

Many of the cruisers going to Alaska this summer are the same people - raised by wolves - whose poor hygiene and unclean behaviors previously caused Norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships.

But now they have new tools at their disposal; counterfeit Coronavirus vaccine cards, masks worn improperly (or not at all), lack of social distancing, and the Coronavirus and its many variants.

How many days  - or hours - before we see the first Corona Virus outbreak on an Alaska Cruise?

Shall we set up a betting pool to make it more interesting?

As apparently one of the unwashed, uncouth masses you are referring to.... I have a valid vaccine card and will follow all hygiene protocols set by the cruise line or the ports set.  I think most of us will.  I hope your putting people down makes you feel better about yourself.  As for me, I choose to be positive.  Enjoy!

[rkacruiser]

20 hours ago, Donald said:

Many of the cruisers going to Alaska this summer are the same people - raised by wolves -

 

Sir:  This is a very unnecessary remark.  It's insulting to those who choose to travel to our 49th State on a cruise.  

[rkacruiser]

21 hours ago, joepeka said:

Well maybe that happened when no one was watching:

 

 

I watching C-Span for awhile late Wednesday afternoon when a HB that was made of 21 other Bills passed the House.  I wondered at the time what were the topics of those 21 Bills?  Maybe a cruise related Bill was among them?  

 

I thought this action by the House unusual.  I am a frequent C-Span and C-Span 2 viewer and I don't recall observing such an action by either House.  

[mexicobob]

On 5/21/2021 at 6:33 AM, CynCyn said:

I am amazed that it happened, but 🐖 did ✈️! Totally believed the same as you that it would never happen.  

Glad that I was hopefully, wrong. But........still not seeing pigs fly or ships sailing.

[GTJ]

The Alaska Tourism Restoration Act was signed by the president on May 24, 2021, becoming Public Law no. 117-14. The law permits round-trip cruises from Seattle to Alaska, under certain specified conditions, but no one-way cruises (which, to comply with the Passenger Vessel Services Act, serve Vancouver rather than Seattle) are authorized. Thus, the legislation helps the economy of the panhandle of Alaska, but really does nothing to help central Alaska, including the economies of the Kenai peninsula, Anchorage, and Denali (Talkeetna). Determined travelers could still travel by sea between Bellingham, Washington, and Whittier, Alaska, using the Alaska Marine Highway, but its sole vessel on this route, the M.V. Kennicott, makes the voyage only once every two weeks (typically, there is at least one cruise ship between Vancouver and either Whittier or Seward operating every day of the week during the summer). Some relief for Alaska, even if not full relief.

[don't-use-real-name]

but no one-way cruises (which, to comply with the Passenger Vessel Services Act, serve Vancouver rather than Seattle) are authorized. 

 

 

Rats !!! that doesn't help one bit for cruises to Anchorage (Seward & Whittier) in the interim !

 

It could have been better worded planned to have cruises departing S or W and visiting a few

glaciers a few port calls and returning back to S or W !

Flights and land tours to the Alaska interior could be coordinated with cruising.

 

[GTJ]

2 hours ago, don't-use-real-name said:

It could have been better worded planned to have cruises departing S or W and visiting a few

glaciers a few port calls and returning back to S or W !

 

 I can provide a reason, even if not entirely satisfying. Round-trip cruises do not really provide transportation; they provide for an excursion. As a provider of an excursion service, there is less of a threat to American industry from foreign entities providing such service. On the other hand, one-way cruises do constitute legitimate transportation, from one port to another port. And domestic transportation has long been strictly regulated to protect American industry. It is okay for a foreign flag vessel to transport passengers from Canada to the United States, and vice versa. But it is not okay for such a vessel to transport passengers from one United States port to another distinct port also in the United States. Unless there is an exception. One such exception is when the vessel stops at a "distant" foreign port: a vessel could transport passengers from Seattle to Whittier or Seward if it stopped enroute at, say, Tokyo, Japan. Not going to happen (except on a very few Circle Pacific itineraries). Another exception is transportation between the mainland United States and Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. This exception is based on the practical reason that there are no U.S. flag vessels providing service on these routes, and the exception will persist only until such time as a U.S. flag vessel does begin providing such service. It seems to me that this second exception could have been expanded to include Alaska alongside Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, at least until such time as Canadian ports open. But Congress did not do that. I don't think this is a very satisfying reason.

 

I think the legislation is clumsy as written. For example, the text describing the criteria reads: "A roundtrip voyage of a covered cruise ship transporting passengers between a port or place in the State of Alaska and a port or place in the State of Washington . . . ," which is odd because a roundtrip cruise does not really transport passengers between any ports (it operates from one port and returns the passengers to the same port from which it departed, effectively providing no transportation but only an excursion). The statutory text also enumerates specific vessels, which precludes a vessel operator from substituting one vessel for another if patronage forecasts prove to be inaccurate. In sum, the legislation looks rushed, not drafted by persons well-versed in transportation law. Fortunately, it is short-term legislation, and should not have long-lasting effects.

[d9704011]

7 hours ago, GTJ said:

which is odd because a roundtrip cruise does not really transport passengers between any ports (it operates from one port and returns the passengers to the same port from which it departed, effectively providing no transportation but only an excursion).

Your thesis is highly dependent on what you mean by ‘transport’.  In my view, the word is being used in a more generic sense.... moving people from one place to another.  It’s not necessary that they be left at a different location than where they started off from.

[GTJ]

7 hours ago, d9704011 said:

Your thesis is highly dependent on what you mean by ‘transport’.

 

A point well-taken. What does the word "transport" mean? To take someone from here to there? Or to take them around in a circle and return from whence they had started?

 

The regulations implementing the PVSA, 19 C.F.R. § 4.80a, do not define "transportation" as such, but rather defines the term "embark" and uses the term "disembark," and implement the opinion of the attorney general, 28 O.A.G. 204 (Feb. 26, 1910), to describe the conditions under which that act is violated. Under section 4.80a(b)(2), a violation occurs when "the passenger disembarks at a coastwise port other than the port of embarkation," but there is no violation when embarkation and disembarkation are at the same port. The 1910 opinion upon which the regulation was adopted concerned "a foreign-vessel [that] transported 615 passengers between New York and San Francisco," and "the Attorney General stated that since the passengers were so transported on a cruise around the world, the primary object of the passengers was to visit various parts of the world on a pleasure tour and then return home via California, not to be transported in domestic commerce, and therefore the transportation was not in violation . . . ." 50 Fed. Reg. 1060 (Jan. 9, 1985). So I summarize the essence of the regulation by describing the embarkation and disembarkation at the same port as being other than "real" transportation, and in the nature of an excursion (or as the attorney general labeled it, a "pleasure tour"). But true, I am simply using my own descriptive term, "transport," but I take no offense in having some other term used to describe the circumstances. Any suggestions?