Jump to content

Bill to exempt Alaska from PVSA


dockman
 Share

Recommended Posts

By-passing Canada makes sense.  

 

Thinking thru this...is there a downside or unintended consequences?  I can't think of one.  There must be some rational reason this was the law/requirement?  Is it the labor issue?

 

We've got smart folks on here who can enlighten us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the Senator’s words a bit ironic - “at Canada’s mercy”?  

 

Upset that Canada closed borders in a pandemic.  Many countries closed their borders in the pandemic and for good reason.  And now, Canada’s borders are open to the fully vaccinated and the U.S. land borders still remain closed to Canadians and many others.

 

A sail in and sail out of Vancouver is very pretty as is the city and I’m sorry to hear that people want to miss it.  JMO.

  • Like 18
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kazu said:

I find the Senator’s words a bit ironic - “at Canada’s mercy”?  

 

Upset that Canada closed borders in a pandemic.  Many countries closed their borders in the pandemic and good reason.  And now, Canada’s borders are open to the fully vaccinated and the U.S. land borders still remain closed to Canadians.

 

A sail in and sail out of Vancouver is very pretty as is the city and I’m sorry to hear that people want to miss it.  JMO.

Alot of politics going on with the author of this bill who isn't too popular imo.  This has little to do with Canada but more to do with reaching out to Alaskans who lost alot of their season and playing that card to improve popularity. Couple that with a tough primary where you are behind in 2022 and you get this bill.

The downside is you could have a cruise booked and really want to go to Vancouver and they would be allowed to sail right past it.

No reason at all for this as they could do an emergency bill again.  It isn't Canada who forced the US Congress to wait so long to get Alaska season open.

Sorry for the politics.  We now return to our regularly scheduled program.......

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PVSA is an antiquated law that benefits Canada & Mexico only. You can't sail the USWC or

cruise to Alaska unless you make a stop at either of those countries first. If you could skip Canada or Mexico you could add a U.S. port instead, especially for a coastal cruise. There is certainly a financial benefit to USWC ports and for both state and federal taxes.

I have no love for the senator from Alaska but citizens of this countries should support this bill.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atanac said:

The PVSA is an antiquated law that benefits Canada & Mexico only. You can't sail the USWC or

cruise to Alaska unless you make a stop at either of those countries first. If you could skip Canada or Mexico you could add a U.S. port instead, especially for a coastal cruise. There is certainly a financial benefit to USWC ports and for both state and federal taxes.

I have no love for the senator from Alaska but citizens of this countries should support this bill.

 

I suggest you read some of the posts that @chengkp75 (who has reason for expertise in this area) has made over the years before deciding that the PVSA is an "antiquated law".

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atanac said:

The PVSA is an antiquated law

 

Agree.  Reformation is needed at this time in history.

 

1 hour ago, Nymich said:

It isn't Canada who forced the US Congress to wait so long to get Alaska season open.

 

Canada has no responsibility for why it takes our Congress to do anything that they finally get around to doing.  Waiting to the latest possible minute to do anything is to be expected by our Congress and my State's General Assembly.  

 

2 hours ago, kazu said:

 Many countries closed their borders in the pandemic and for good reason.  And now, Canada’s borders are open to the fully vaccinated and the U.S. land borders still remain closed to Canadians and many others.

 

I don't understand this either.

 

1 hour ago, Nymich said:

Alot of politics going on with the author of this bill

 

The Senator is up for re-election in 2022.  The Primary is on the horizon.  Her standing in Alaska?  No idea, but, my opinion, she has represented her constituents well.  If Alaska cruising for this season had not begun, her constituents in the Southeastern part of the State whose businesses are helped by the tourists' money that they earn would have been harmed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Host Kat changed the title to Bill to exempt Alaska from PVSA
4 hours ago, FlaMariner said:

By-passing Canada makes sense.  

 

Thinking thru this...is there a downside or unintended consequences?  I can't think of one.  There must be some rational reason this was the law/requirement?  Is it the labor issue?

 

We've got smart folks on here who can enlighten us.

There are dozens and dozens of discussions here on the whys and wherefores of the PVSA. Recently, like so many other things, the discussions become politically divided...facts disappear into politics, rather than based on facts. The FACT is the PVSA exists (and there are factual reasons for it's existence). Speculation is it could be amended or dropped...depending on the benefits to the poster, where politics come in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

The maritime industry has somehow survived the suspension of some key PVSA provisions vis-a-vis Alaska and if the current law (it is not a waiver but an actual statute) is expanded and made permeant the maritime industry will survive. 

Any waiver of the PVSA is a "statute" in that it needs to be approved by vote of Congress, so yes, this is a waiver of the PVSA, for a specific time frame, and for specific ships.  It will be interesting to see the wording of the bill, since the PVSA states that any waiver granted to a foreign flag ship will exist only until a US flag ship enters the market.

 

This bill will see significant opposition from the USCG, CBP, maritime labor, and industry groups like the Chamber of Shipping of America and the American Maritime Congress.  Also, while the small US flag cruise lines have not opposed the current waiver, I suspect that if they see the slightest decline in their market due to increased competition from foreign ships, they will join the fight against this bill.

 

I would expect the government agencies involved to exact more measures from the foreign flag cruise lines in order to agree to Murkowski's bill.  This would go beyond the customs free status already denied these ships under the waiver.  I would suspect that the USCG and Homeland Security to require the ships to be US flagged, and merely waive the US built clause of the PVSA, and limit the ships to Alaska trade exclusively, just as NCL's POA is.  That is why I disagree with Sen. Murkowski that Canada is "holding Alaska hostage", there is a way to both help Alaska's economy and the US economy as well, and that is to have the ships US owned, US flagged, and US crewed.  The cruise lines know this is a likely requirement for permanent waivers of the PVSA, which is why they don't pursue them.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the replies on this thread give the impression that no-one wants to sail to Alaska from a Canadian port.  From my two fairly recent experiences it was not just Canadians who liked to board in Vancouver.

 

On a HAL Alaska cruise a few years ago there were more passengers from the UK than any other country. Australians were second. Those from the U.S. were third. All of those could have sailed from Seattle if they wished but they chose to sail from Vancouver.

 

On a more recent Vancouver-based cruise on Cunard those from the UK were the largest group. Those from the U.S. were second and from Canada third.

 

I think there will always be some interest in cruises from Vancouver. As for me, if there are none we are through with Alaska cruises.  We prefer Norway anyway, despite the longer flight.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Any waiver of the PVSA is a "statute" in that it needs to be approved by vote of Congress, so yes, this is a waiver of the PVSA, for a specific time frame, and for specific ships.  It will be interesting to see the wording of the bill, since the PVSA states that any waiver granted to a foreign flag ship will exist only until a US flag ship enters the market.

 

This bill will see significant opposition from the USCG, CBP, maritime labor, and industry groups like the Chamber of Shipping of America and the American Maritime Congress.  Also, while the small US flag cruise lines have not opposed the current waiver, I suspect that if they see the slightest decline in their market due to increased competition from foreign ships, they will join the fight against this bill.

 

I would expect the government agencies involved to exact more measures from the foreign flag cruise lines in order to agree to Murkowski's bill.  This would go beyond the customs free status already denied these ships under the waiver.  I would suspect that the USCG and Homeland Security to require the ships to be US flagged, and merely waive the US built clause of the PVSA, and limit the ships to Alaska trade exclusively, just as NCL's POA is.  That is why I disagree with Sen. Murkowski that Canada is "holding Alaska hostage", there is a way to both help Alaska's economy and the US economy as well, and that is to have the ships US owned, US flagged, and US crewed.  The cruise lines know this is a likely requirement for permanent waivers of the PVSA, which is why they don't pursue them.

I will keep this short although I could write a chapter on the subject.  But Congress passes Laws (statutes) and does not ever issue "waivers."  "Waivers" are a tool used by the Executive Branch and Administrative Agencies.    While this seems like a silly distinction it has huge ramifications within our legal system.   What Congress did (last year) to the PVSA was to amend the actual Law (Statute) which was then codified in the US Code.  The Executive Branch was then free to issue regulations based on that amendment.

 

What Senator Murkowski is proposing is another statutory change to the existing Law.

 

Hank

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

I will keep this short although I could write a chapter on the subject.  But Congress passes Laws (statutes) and does not ever issue "waivers."  "Waivers" are a tool used by the Executive Branch and Administrative Agencies.    While this seems like a silly distinction it has huge ramifications within our legal system.   What Congress did (last year) to the PVSA was to amend the actual Law (Statute) which was then codified in the US Code.  The Executive Branch was then free to issue regulations based on that amendment.

 

What Senator Murkowski is proposing is another statutory change to the existing Law.

 

Hank

Well, then to continue to pick your nits, the Pride of America does not have a waiver of the PVSA, but a change in statute.  It is granted by a bill in Congress.  Other ships in the past have received "waivers" of certain aspects of the PVSA all by act of Congress.  Call it what you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

There are dozens and dozens of discussions here on the whys and wherefores of the PVSA. Recently, like so many other things, the discussions become politically divided...facts disappear into politics, rather than based on facts.

 

It was never political with me,  it is strictly business.    Think of it as our right to passage within our own 'eminent domain' of the 50 states.   

 

Markets get what they want and that is what we are seeing.   The PVSA diehards can have whatever is leftover or any new legislation that is needed to preserve their precious cabotage laws, then everyone is better off.

 

Its the carbon footprint differential that will tip the balance, IMO.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, atanac said:

The PVSA is an antiquated law that benefits Canada & Mexico only. You can't sail the USWC or

cruise to Alaska unless you make a stop at either of those countries first. If you could skip Canada or Mexico you could add a U.S. port instead, especially for a coastal cruise. There is certainly a financial benefit to USWC ports and for both state and federal taxes.

I have no love for the senator from Alaska but citizens of this countries should support this bill.

 

I've referred to this 'inequity' as the Milkshake Theory,   with Canada and Mexico enjoying the benefit of drinking our Milkshake  (the tourism dollars associated herein).

 

Congress just needs to re-distribute and the USGA and DHS will follow the law that is handed down to them.  Let's not forget the pecking order here folks.

 

Good post @atanac!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Any waiver of the PVSA is a "statute" in that it needs to be approved by vote of Congress, so yes, this is a waiver of the PVSA, for a specific time frame, and for specific ships.  It will be interesting to see the wording of the bill, since the PVSA states that any waiver granted to a foreign flag ship will exist only until a US flag ship enters the market.

 

This bill will see significant opposition from the USCG, CBP, maritime labor, and industry groups like the Chamber of Shipping of America and the American Maritime Congress.  Also, while the small US flag cruise lines have not opposed the current waiver, I suspect that if they see the slightest decline in their market due to increased competition from foreign ships, they will join the fight against this bill.

 

I would expect the government agencies involved to exact more measures from the foreign flag cruise lines in order to agree to Murkowski's bill.  This would go beyond the customs free status already denied these ships under the waiver.  I would suspect that the USCG and Homeland Security to require the ships to be US flagged, and merely waive the US built clause of the PVSA, and limit the ships to Alaska trade exclusively, just as NCL's POA is.  That is why I disagree with Sen. Murkowski that Canada is "holding Alaska hostage", there is a way to both help Alaska's economy and the US economy as well, and that is to have the ships US owned, US flagged, and US crewed.  The cruise lines know this is a likely requirement for permanent waivers of the PVSA, which is why they don't pursue them.

Thanks as always. 

 

All those who cruise and support waiving the PVSA without considering its other consequences should read this. Also it goes far in explaining why the cruise lines have never been gung ho in asking for its repeal.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, JRG said:

I've referred to this 'inequity' as the Milkshake Theory,   with Canada and Mexico enjoying the benefit of drinking our Milkshake  (the tourism dollars associated herein).

 

A bit of an inequitable statement IMO considering how many Canadians spend tourism dollars in the United States - both cruising, travelling and visiting.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, 12cruise2 said:

Oh, I hope this bill gets introduced and passes.  This would be great for cruising and for Alaska.

I also hope this bill gets introduced and passed!  It was so nice not having the stop in Victoria (been there, done that) and having more time in Ketchikan.  Also, prefer having a full Sea Day on the last day back to Seattle!

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, idiebabe said:

I also hope this bill gets introduced and passed!  It was so nice not having the stop in Victoria (been there, done that) and having more time in Ketchikan.  Also, prefer having a full Sea Day on the last day back to Seattle!

 

 

Such a disappointment to read that you do not want to spend time in my home town.......as you say, been there done that......hopefully others do not feel the same way

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, david,Mississauga said:

Some of the replies on this thread give the impression that no-one wants to sail to Alaska from a Canadian port.  From my two fairly recent experiences it was not just Canadians who liked to board in Vancouver.

 

On a HAL Alaska cruise a few years ago there were more passengers from the UK than any other country. Australians were second. Those from the U.S. were third. All of those could have sailed from Seattle if they wished but they chose to sail from Vancouver.

 

On a more recent Vancouver-based cruise on Cunard those from the UK were the largest group. Those from the U.S. were second and from Canada third.

 

I think there will always be some interest in cruises from Vancouver. As for me, if there are none we are through with Alaska cruises.  We prefer Norway anyway, despite the longer flight.


 

The inside passage is one of the most beautiful waterways in the world,  and it’s calm clear waters a delight.  I will always avoid cruises outside of Vancouver island  that lack scenery but Can be much rougher seas.  
 

While I enjoy Seattle,  I find Vancouver magnificent in terms of scenery and amazing food.  

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, seaside sally said:

Such a disappointment to read that you do not want to spend time in my home town.......as you say, been there done that......hopefully others do not feel the same way

 

Don't worry!  There are plenty of people waiting for the opportunity to visit Vancouver and Victoria again.  🙂

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, seaside sally said:

Such a disappointment to read that you do not want to spend time in my home town.......as you say, been there done that......hopefully others do not feel the same way

Please don't take it personal and consider Victoria a lovely Town!  In July we enjoyed having more time in Ketchikan and also the Full Sea Day before arriving in Seattle.  I also enjoyed Sailing from Vancouver in the past but prefer now to go from Seattle for flight convenience, no Customs and Port Valet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Q&A with American Queen Voyages
      • 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...