Potential Permanent PVSA Exemption for Alaska Until ...

[Ken the cruiser]

We cannot let that happen again,” said Senator Murkowski. “Next week, I intend to introduce legislation that will permanently exempt Alaskan cruises carrying more than 1,000 passengers from the PVSA. This legislation will create jobs for American merchant mariners in the cruise industry, and to ensure foreign-built cruise ships do not compete with U.S.-built ships, this waiver will end once there is a U.S.-built cruise ship that carries more than 1,000 passengers. 

 

Murkowski Announces Bill to Protect Alaska Tourism Industry (senate.gov)

 

[rhblake]

There already is a 1,000 passenger US cruise ship - Pride of America sailing around Hawaii. I guess the waiver ends before it starts.

[Lady Arwen]

2 minutes ago, rhblake said:

There already is a 1,000 passenger US cruise ship - Pride of America sailing around Hawaii. I guess the waiver ends before it starts.

No.  You need to do your homework on this one regarding POA.

[rhblake]

6 minutes ago, Lady Arwen said:

No.  You need to do your homework on this one regarding POA.

I think if you read the POA's history, it got an exemption and was considered a US built ship so it could sail exclusively to US ports (Hawaii) without having to go to a foreign port. If that is incorrect, I stand corrected.

[Ken the cruiser]

12 minutes ago, rhblake said:

I think if you read the POA's history, it got an exemption and was considered a US built ship so it could sail exclusively to US ports (Hawaii) without having to go to a foreign port. If that is incorrect, I stand corrected.

You are correct, the POA got a special waiver according to its Wikipedia posting. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out. 😎

 

Pride of America - Wikipedia

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Ken the cruiser

[Fouremco]

There was bipartisan support for the temporary exemption passed back in May because of the economic impact on Alaska of the Canadian ban on cruise ships. With that ban about to expire in a few weeks, it will be interesting to see whether Senator Murkowski (R-AK) can garner the necessary support for her "just in case" permanent exemption.   

[Lady Arwen]

3 hours ago, rhblake said:

I think if you read the POA's history, it got an exemption and was considered a US built ship so it could sail exclusively to US ports (Hawaii) without having to go to a foreign port. If that is incorrect, I stand corrected.

I believe the operative word is “ built”.  Actually built.  Not just considered built to receive an exemption.  I certainly hope that we can get this all worked out for both our countries.  Alaska is a magical place and we love sailing out of Vancouver.  

Edited September 17, 2021 by Lady Arwen
Spell

[TeaBag]

52 minutes ago, Lady Arwen said:

I believe the operative word is “ built”.  Actually built.  Not just considered built to receive an exemption.  I certainly hope that we can get this all worked out for both our countries.  Alaska is a magical place and we love sailing out of Vancouver.  

So do we!

[Ken the cruiser]

OTOH it would be nice for the cruise lines to at least have the option for their authorized ships to be able to at least offer a 7 day northbound or southbound cruise between Seward and Seattle, with maybe a stop or two at Canadian ports.

[verizon]

We need competition to bring down the prices.

[Mark_K]

I believe the exemption Pride of America received was from having to be built in the US.  It was never really considered to be built in the US, it was just allowed to receive a limited US registry despite being foreign-built.

[JamieLogical]

I thought Mike Lee of Utah had already introduced a similar bill?

[Fouremco]

1 hour ago, JamieLogical said:

I thought Mike Lee of Utah had already introduced a similar bill?

He actually introduced three separate bills back in June intended to gut the PVSA:

• Open America's Ports Act
• Safeguarding American Tourism Act
• Protecting Jobs in American Ports Act

I'm guessing that they gained little or no traction or we might have heard more about them.

[markeb]

Ken,

 

Really curious to see the actual language once this bill is introduced. This year's bill worked because of an elegant (more or less) solution to declare Seattle to Alaska cruises "international" under ALL provisions of the law, not just the PVSA. The presser's language suggests something less in this bill, because she also talks about Merchant Marine jobs. Which would at least suggest she's not pushing for immigration, visa, and tax changes that the current bill sidestepped. So I don't know that relief from the PVSA will accomplish what CC members want. You could end up with US crews, US labor laws, state sales taxes, and US prices...

 

All of which were avoided by declaring Seattle to Alaska cruises "international". And which the cruise lines can avoid (on closed loop cruises) by stopping in Canada. And closed loop cruises don't fall under the PVSA...

[Ken the cruiser]

31 minutes ago, markeb said:

So I don't know that relief from the PVSA will accomplish what CC members want. You could end up with US crews, US labor laws, state sales taxes, and US prices...

Not forgetting, of course, the Alaska season is definitely not year around. Yup, as you highlighted earlier this year, this is definitely a complicated issue. It will be interesting to see how far this bill actually makes it through the process.

[cruisequeen4ever]

I hope this passes. It’s not wise for us to be at the mercy of another country in order to operate Alaska cruises. 

[phoenix_dream]

45 minutes ago, cruisequeen4ever said:

I hope this passes. It’s not wise for us to be at the mercy of another country in order to operate Alaska cruises. 

I hope it does as well, and not just for Alaska.  My bucket list fall colors cruise out of Boston has been lifted and shifted two years in a row due to Canada restrictions.  I'm not getting any younger!

Edited September 18, 2021 by phoenix_dream

[Fouremco]

1 hour ago, cruisequeen4ever said:

I hope this passes. It’s not wise for us to be at the mercy of another country in order to operate Alaska cruises. 

Canadian restrictions were both temporary and designed to provide protection for its citizens during the pandemic, just as the ongoing US border restrictions are designed to protect its citizens. When the restriction on cruise ships disappears in a few weeks, the only real problem you face is your own legislation: the PVSA.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2021 by Fouremco

[Fouremco]

24 minutes ago, phoenix_dream said:

I hope it does as well, and not just for Alaska.  My bucket list fall colors cruise out of Boston has been lifted and shifted two years in a row due to Canada restrictions.  I'm not getting any younger!

Senator Murkowski's bill does nothing for the east coast. Her sole interest is in Alaska.

[jagoffee]

20 hours ago, Fouremco said:

Canadian restrictions were both temporary and designed to provide protection for its citizens during the pandemic, just as the ongoing US border restrictions are designed to protect its citizens. When the restriction on cruise ships disappears in a few weeks, the only real problem you face is your own legislation: the PVSA.

 

 

Didn’t Canada refuse to allow a technical stop where no one left the ship?  It might be a stretch to consider this protecting their citizens.  Seems more like protecting their business interests.

[JamieLogical]

5 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

Didn’t Canada refuse to allow a technical stop where no one left the ship?  It might be a stretch to consider this protecting their citizens.  Seems more like protecting their business interests.

 

A technical stop would not have satisfied the PVSA anyway.

[Fouremco]

2 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

Didn’t Canada refuse to allow a technical stop where no one left the ship?  It might be a stretch to consider this protecting their citizens.  Seems more like protecting their business interests.

Technical stops are not allowed under the PVSA. Contrary to what you are saying, it would have been beneficial from a Canadian business perspective to allow technical stops because of port fees that would have been paid.

[jagoffee]

5 minutes ago, JamieLogical said:

 

A technical stop would not have satisfied the PVSA anyway.

 

3 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

Technical stops are not allowed under the PVSA. Contrary to what you are saying, it would have been beneficial from a Canadian business perspective to allow technical stops because of port fees that would have been paid.

Occasionally I forget the PVSA is too confusing for me, because I thought for sure that a technical stop could be used under certain circumstances.  I need to quit posting about this topic.

[JamieLogical]

3 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

 

Occasionally I forget the PVSA is too confusing for me, because I thought for sure that a technical stop could be used under certain circumstances.  I need to quit posting about this topic.

 

Don't feel bad! It is super confusing and complicated for me as well.

[phoenix_dream]

On 9/18/2021 at 5:00 PM, Fouremco said:

Senator Murkowski's bill does nothing for the east coast. Her sole interest is in Alaska.

I understand that.  I am hoping that if it gets anywhere, discussion will expand to include Canadian exemptions as well.  Frankly, I don't have high hopes for either, but I can wish.