Bill to exempt Alaska from PVSA

[T8NCruise]

22 hours 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 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.

I understand the senator wanting to protect her state, but some of the reasoning seems not to have been thought through and although I have admired her, her contention that the US is at Canada's mercy was ignorant and arrogant.  Did she not realise there was a pandemic?

As to your point about the border only being open one way - I hope there is no connection but ever since the border was opened to US citizen (whilst the US kept the border closed to Canadians), our Covid numbers here in BC have increased, while previously it seemed under control.  Thankfully, the majority of our citizens are double-vaxxed, but this breakthrough virus suddenly took hold shortly thereafter.

[Tiggerwudz]

5 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.

Very well said. Some people are being very naive if they think the cruise lines will want to delete Victoria or Vancouver from their itineraries if this bill is passed. They are very popular ports of call or embarkation points for international cruisers. 

[Nymich]

14 minutes ago, Tiggerwudz said:

Very well said. Some people are being very naive if they think the cruise lines will want to delete Victoria or Vancouver from their itineraries if this bill is passed. They are very popular ports of call or embarkation points for international cruisers. 

I agree but they could skip stops then and be within the law.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Nymich

[mtnlvr53]

3 hours 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

I love Vancouver: beautiful city. But right now, it would be nice not to have to worry about covid testing in and out of Canada.  I would love to go to Canada again as soon as all the Covid restrictions are gone. Believe me, I don't blame Canada for wanting to keep US citizens out (right now) but it does put a crimp in travel plans.

I don't know all the ins and outs of why we have to travel to a foreign port-assuming it might have to do with labor laws to some extent, at least, but it does seem silly that we can't go from Seattle to Alaska without a Canada stop...

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, mtnlvr53 said:

but it does seem silly that we can't go from Seattle to Alaska without a Canada stop...

Just like you cannot go from Seattle to Alaska on Air Canada, but you can on Delta, you can go there without a Canadian stop, on a US flag ship.

[mtnlvr53]

5 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Just like you cannot go from Seattle to Alaska on Air Canada, but you can on Delta, you can go there without a Canadian stop, on a US flag ship.

I didn't intend to argue with the application of the law, I just don't fully understand it. (I even started reading it and still just went 🤷‍♂️)  I'm sure there was a very good reason for its initial application, it just seems odd, that's all.

[cruisequeen4ever]

DH and I enjoy our visits to Vancouver for cruises, but I completely disagree that a visit must be required to Canada in order to operate an Alaska cruise. It should be an option, not a requirement. I really hope this passes. 

[Tiggerwudz]

3 minutes ago, cruisequeen4ever said:

DH and I enjoy our visits to Vancouver for cruises, but I completely disagree that a visit must be required to Canada in order to operate an Alaska cruise. It should be an option, not a requirement. I really hope this passes. 

If this bill passes it will be an option, for the cruise lines. The cruise lines will cater to their international passengers, not just a few Americans that do not want to go to the Canadian ports.

[ontheweb]

41 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Just like you cannot go from Seattle to Alaska on Air Canada, but you can on Delta, you can go there without a Canadian stop, on a US flag ship.

But, but there are no US flag ships (except the one in Hawaii). I think your point is that the cruise lines have no intention of flagging their ships with the US flag.

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

But, but there are no US flag ships (except the one in Hawaii). I think your point is that the cruise lines have no intention of flagging their ships with the US flag.

My point is that Sen. Murkowski has another option, that would benefit the US more, than merely allowing foreign flag ships to cruise to Alaska.  If she was really serious about benefiting the economy, she would merely ask that ships have the foreign built clause waived, and require US flag ships to sail to Alaska without "being held hostage by Canada".

 

Oh, and yes, there are US flag cruise ships going to Alaska.

Edited September 18, 2021 by chengkp75

[ontheweb]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

My point is that Sen. Murkowski has another option, that would benefit the US more, than merely allowing foreign flag ships to cruise to Alaska.  If she was really serious about benefiting the economy, she would merely ask that ships have the foreign built clause waived, and require US flag ships to sail to Alaska without "being held hostage by Canada".

And we all know that every cruise line would vehemently oppose that as they would be required to follow US labor laws.

[kazu]

1 hour ago, mtnlvr53 said:

I don't blame Canada for wanting to keep US citizens out (right now) but it does put a crimp in travel plans.

 

Canada is not keeping any fully vaccinated people from crossing their border.  They opened it to the fully vaccinated a few weeks ago.

Right now if you want to travel internationally, it seems a covid test is a requirement no matter where you go.  It stops some but isn’t stopping others. 😉 

[FlaMariner]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

And we all know that every cruise line would vehemently oppose that as they would be required to follow US labor laws.

 

The secret sauce of cruises is the foreign labor.....I'll gladly allow a tip toe stop into Canada to not disrupt that.....That's the one unintended consequence that scares me....If the cruise lines had to follow US labor laws, it's game over except for the elites as far as cruising.......But if that issue could be avoided, it would be nice to by-pass Canada.

[Nymich]

13 minutes ago, FlaMariner said:

 

The secret sauce of cruises is the foreign labor.....

I had no idea that was called the secret sauce.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Nymich

[nocl]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

My point is that Sen. Murkowski has another option, that would benefit the US more, than merely allowing foreign flag ships to cruise to Alaska.  If she was really serious about benefiting the economy, she would merely ask that ships have the foreign built clause waived, and require US flag ships to sail to Alaska without "being held hostage by Canada".

 

Oh, and yes, there are US flag cruise ships going to Alaska.

if this were to be a permanent change I wonder how long it would take before the large northern Europe ferry/passenger type boats set up service. They would provide a level of service between the existing ferries and cruise ships and certainly be price competitive to the existing Alaskian Ferry system.

 

One of the unintended consequences

[Aquahound]

10 hours ago, kazu said:

 

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

 

Agreed.  I'm sure Canadian dollars spent in the US and in US ports far exceed the benefit of a ship making one Canadian port.  

 

11 hours ago, david,Mississauga said:

 

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.

 

 

Vancouver cruises are more attractive because of the itinerary.  Typically, Vancouver cruises sail the Inside Passage while Seattle cruises sail the Pacific outside of Vancouver Island.  Also, one-way cruises to Whittier or Seward are very popular, and those ships have to sail from Vancouver.  As long as that's the case, Vancouver will likely continue to be more favorable.  

[Tiggerwudz]

I find it amusing that some people on this thread think that Canada is “holding them hostage” when in fact it is the made in America PVSA act that is holding them hostage. Canada makes no demands on cruise ships to visit her ports from the USA, they choose to do so because they are beautiful and interesting places to visit, just like many other places in this world.

We all choose cruise itineraries based on what we like to do and see, if I go on a cruise with ten ports of call I have never felt like a “hostage” if one of them is not on my bucket list, I just stay on the ship.

It is unfortunate that Canada, like many other countries had to close her ports and borders during this pandemic, and we all hope that will change soon, so we can travel freely again.

As outlined in some informed posts above, I think the PVSA act is here to stay, which is unfortunate for those poor hostages.

[SilvertoGold]

Can we distinguish between "port of call" (Victoria) and "home port" (Vancouver)?

 

Cruise lines need Vancouver as one of the home ports for Alaska. Could Seattle, alone, take all of the Carnival Corp ships, week after week, let alone all the other many cruise lines that sail to Alaska? 

 

Fly pax to Juneau and/or Anchorage as homeports in addition to Seattle?  Do those airports/cities have the capacity for the number of pax that would be coming through on a daily basis?

 

HAL does all their CruiseTours using Vancouver/Anchorage as embarkation/disembarkation ports (northbound or southbound). From looking at the different itineraries HAL has for departures from Seattle and Vancouver, I would think there would be a major redo of the itinerary needed to use Seattle. 

 

I think Victoria may be out, but Vancouver will need to remain in to make the Alaska cruise season viable.

Edited September 19, 2021 by SilvertoGold

[igraf]

On 9/18/2021 at 7:54 AM, chengkp75 said:

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.

 

The Pride of America is US flagged and employs per US requirements.  The waiver was due to the construction of the ship (built with foreign parts) rather than the operation of the ship.

 

Hawaii is a special case due to popularity and extreme geographical isolation.  There is zero market for a significant (in size) US flagged cruise ship anywhere else.  The PVSA is protecting nothing in the cruise industry at great inconvenience and cost to the industry and passengers.

 

igraf

 

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by igraf

[dockman]

If PVSA was as often stated to protect the US ship building it has been a dismal failure as far as passenger cruise ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_passenger_ships_built_in_the_United_States

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, igraf said:

 

The Pride of America is US flagged and employs per US requirements.  The waiver was due to the construction of the ship (built with foreign parts) rather than the operation of the ship.

 

Hawaii is a special case due to popularity and extreme geographical isolation.  There is zero market for a significant (in size) US flagged cruise ship anywhere else.  The PVSA is protecting nothing in the cruise industry at great inconvenience and cost to the industry and passengers.

 

igraf

 

 

The V in PVSA stands for vessel not cruise ship. @chengkp75 has explained many times about other US flagged ships that would be affected negatively by the repeal of the PVSA.

 

And could you explain why if it causes great inconvenience and cost to the industry that the CLIA or in fact any cruise line have not lobbied to have it repealed or at least amended?

[igraf]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

The V in PVSA stands for vessel not cruise ship. @chengkp75 has explained many times about other US flagged ships that would be affected negatively by the repeal of the PVSA.

 

And could you explain why if it causes great inconvenience and cost to the industry that the CLIA or in fact any cruise line have not lobbied to have it repealed or at least amended?

 

This has been explained before, but here it is again.  In brief, the cruise industry relies heavily on political support and so they are reluctant to stir up the mud.   The cost to the passengers is more apparent.  Unwanted port stops or the "too short to be enjoyed" technical stops, but these port stops still incur costs.  No one-way trips to Hawaii from the US.  Practical restrictions on US coastal cruise routes. 

 

igraf

 

 

[nocl]

3 hours ago, dockman said:

If PVSA was as often stated to protect the US ship building it has been a dismal failure as far as passenger cruise ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_passenger_ships_built_in_the_United_States

It protects quite a bit including but not limited to the ferries operating in the US, tour boats, river boats, etc. Far more out there outside of large cruise ships.

 

 By itself changing the PVSA  for large cruise ships would not change a thing.

 

For the cruise lines to be willing to sail under the change it would also have to change immigration, tax and employment law.

 

The law this year got around that by declaring the cruises between Seattle and Alaska to be foreign cruises. 

 

Doubt it would fly for a permanent change.

[Aquahound]

I think some people are forgetting that it's the PVSA, not the CVSA.  The PVSA absolutely does protect American industry....that is when you look at it properly and not just specific to cruise ships.  Personally, I think it would be a travesty to see foreign operators undercut the US flagged ferry systems just because someone, somewhere thinks the PVSA is outdated and inconveniences their cruise vacation.  🙄

[12cruise2]

Oh, my goodness.  It's not that Victoria and Vancouver aren't lovely cities.  It's that it isn't fair that a foreign port/country stop is able to stop/control all cruising to Alaska from the U.S.  It doesn't mean that the ships will never stop in Canada again.  I hope they do stop there again.

Edited September 20, 2021 by 12cruise2
wording