Bill to exempt Alaska from PVSA

[Aquahound]

17 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Can you name a single U.S. Flagged Cruise Ship I can take directly from the Mainland to Alaska or Hawaii? 

 

American Constellation. 

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

That's hyperbole.  Can you name a single U.S. Flagged Cruise Ship I can take directly from the Mainland to Alaska or Hawaii?  I don't want protectionist laws which only permit me to travel on a ferry with a pup tent pitched on the deck.  It is those very same protectionist regulations which decimated the U.S. Maritime industry over the years.

 

 

First off, if you knew the US maritime industry, you would know that it wasn't the "protectionist" laws like the PVSA or the Jones Act that decimated the industry, but the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, which actually gave subsidies to US flag ships (covering the entire difference in construction and operating a US flag ship compared to a foreign flag ship), which encouraged growth of the US merchant marine before WW2, but which stifled innovation in favor of easy subsidies, which killed our fleet.  The Jones Act fleet has not been decimated by the Jones Act, but the foreign-going fleet of US flag ships has been.  Tell me what in the Jones Act affects a US flag ship that trades to foreign countries?  Not a thing, because the Jones Act or the PVSA apply strictly to domestic trade.  Do you know that you can have a US flag ship that is built overseas?  That ship cannot trade domestically, but it can trade internationally, but must meet all US laws, other than the Jones Act or PVSA.  But, let's not let details get in the way.

 

American Constellation, Safari Endeavour, Wilderness Discoverer, Wilderness Explorer, Safari Explorer, Wilderness Adventurer, Legacy, National Geographic Quest and Venture, three or four ships from Alaskan Dream cruises, to name some US flag cruise vessels, without going to the AMH ships you denigrate.  And, if tourism to Alaska, for those who wish to stay and really spend some money in the state, rather than a few hours at the shops in cruise ports, was that important to the state, they would increase the fleet of AMH vessels, or at least subsidize them properly.  Why do you think that Sen. Murkowski has placed a minimum passenger size on her attempt to waive the PVSA?  Because all of those ships named above are below that limit, and she doesn't want them to reflag out, while the cheap, foreign ships are all larger.

[Daniel A]

13 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

American Constellation. 

Even American Cruise Lines refer to it's vessels as 'river boats' - not cruise ships.  If Canada closed its waters to all foreign flagged passenger vessels, would the American Constellation be able to sail in open ocean waters from Mainland to Alaska without transiting Canadian waters?

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Thanks.  The exemption was passed in 1984.  I was not aware of those services, but each lasted about a year, from what I see, and ended due to lack of demand.  So, in 37 years, three cruise lines tried PVSA cruises, and all failed within a year.  Sort of shows how little the demand for PVSA cruises actually is, as CLIA has noted.

The only place you see demand for the cruises that are stopped by the PVSA seems to be on the cc newsgroups.😉

[ontheweb]

13 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

American Constellation, Safari Endeavour, Wilderness Discoverer, Wilderness Explorer, Safari Explorer, Wilderness Adventurer, Legacy, National Geographic Quest and Venture, three or four ships from Alaskan Dream cruises, to name some US flag cruise vessels, without going to the AMH ships you denigrate.  And, if tourism to Alaska, for those who wish to stay and really spend some money in the state, rather than a few hours at the shops in cruise ports, was that important to the state, they would increase the fleet of AMH vessels, or at least subsidize them properly.  Why do you think that Sen. Murkowski has placed a minimum passenger size on her attempt to waive the PVSA?  Because all of those ships named above are below that limit, and she doesn't want them to reflag out, while the cheap, foreign ships are all larger.

He asked for one, not a whole multitude of ships.🤣

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Even American Cruise Lines refer to it's vessels as 'river boats' - not cruise ships.  If Canada closed its waters to all foreign flagged passenger vessels, would the American Constellation be able to sail in open ocean waters from Mainland to Alaska without transiting Canadian waters?

Again, you don't understand international maritime law.  Even the current ban on cruise vessels "in Canadian waters" specifically mentions the precedent of "innocent passage", and states that "innocent passage" still applies.  Innocent passage means that even when a country claims jurisdiction over coastal waters, any ship of any nation, engaged in simple transit through those waters cannot be prohibited.  There are definitions of actions that a ship claiming "innocent passage" cannot take, like stopping at a port, anchoring, engaging in fishing, etc, and in fact, the cruise ships currently leaving Seattle for Alaska transit Canadian waters, as the outbound traffic separation lane from Seattle runs through Canadian waters.

 

And, no, the Constellation and Independence class of ships for American Cruise lines are "Coastal Ships" by their own description.  And, the Constellation is currently making the voyage from Washington to Alaska without stopping in Canada, and does so through Canadian waters.  Her sister ship, the Constitution, sails from Newport, RI to Bucksport, ME, in the open ocean.

 

And, finally, remember that it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, not the Cruise Vessel Services Act, so even if you don't consider American Cruise line's ships to be "cruise ships", they are still covered by the PVSA.

[Daniel A]

8 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

American Constellation, Safari Endeavour, Wilderness Discoverer, Wilderness Explorer, Safari Explorer, Wilderness Adventurer, Legacy, National Geographic Quest and Venture, three or four ships from Alaskan Dream cruises, to name some US flag cruise vessels

Are all of these vessels capable of carrying the numbers of tourists to keep the Alaska tourism economy healthy?  They are certainly specialty cruise ships which can go to places where the larger cruise ships can go.  Keeping the types of vessels to the boutique lines certainly keeps Alaska tourism limited to the rich.

 

Do the above vessels trans[port passengers from the Mainland to Hawaii?

[Aquahound]

13 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Even American Cruise Lines refer to it's vessels as 'river boats' - not cruise ships.  If Canada closed its waters to all foreign flagged passenger vessels, would the American Constellation be able to sail in open ocean waters from Mainland to Alaska without transiting Canadian waters?

They do not refer to Constellation as a river boat. It’s part of their Constellation Class Coastal fleet. The other is the American Constitution. They also have 3 ships in their Independence Class Coastal fleet. So yes, they are cruise ships. 

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

The only place you see demand for the cruises that are stopped by the PVSA seems to be on the cc newsgroups.😉

This is correct, and since CC makes up only a small percentage of the cruising demographic, CLIA sees no great demand for a change to something that could negatively affect their business.  Look at the CBP decision back in 2007 (IIRC) when NCL wanted a change to the PVSA, and CBP decided that in addition to disallowing technical stops, they would require that the majority of port time be spent in foreign ports to qualify for closed loop cruises. That would really have dealt a death blow to the Alaska cruise market.

[ontheweb]

9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Again, you don't understand international maritime law.  Even the current ban on cruise vessels "in Canadian waters" specifically mentions the precedent of "innocent passage", and states that "innocent passage" still applies.  Innocent passage means that even when a country claims jurisdiction over coastal waters, any ship of any nation, engaged in simple transit through those waters cannot be prohibited.  There are definitions of actions that a ship claiming "innocent passage" cannot take, like stopping at a port, anchoring, engaging in fishing, etc, and in fact, the cruise ships currently leaving Seattle for Alaska transit Canadian waters, as the outbound traffic separation lane from Seattle runs through Canadian waters.

 

And, no, the Constellation and Independence class of ships for American Cruise lines are "Coastal Ships" by their own description.  And, the Constellation is currently making the voyage from Washington to Alaska without stopping in Canada, and does so through Canadian waters.  Her sister ship, the Constitution, sails from Newport, RI to Bucksport, ME, in the open ocean.

 

And, finally, remember that it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, not the Cruise Vessel Services Act, so even if you don't consider American Cruise line's ships to be "cruise ships", they are still covered by the PVSA.

Neither US law or maritime law seems to make any impression at all on some who post on these boards. They want what they want, and pointing out any negative consequences is immediately dismissed as irrelevant.

[Daniel A]

4 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

They do not refer to Constellation as a river boat. It’s part of their Constellation Class Coastal fleet. The other is the American Constitution. They also have 3 ships in their Independence Class Coastal fleet. So yes, they are cruise ships. 

I stand corrected.  Those ships will certainly keep the Alaska tourism economy afloat.  😒

 

That is what this legislation is about, not whether some small vessels can transit to Alaska with a U.S. flag.

 

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Are all of these vessels capable of carrying the numbers of tourists to keep the Alaska tourism economy healthy?  They are certainly specialty cruise ships which can go to places where the larger cruise ships can go.  Keeping the types of vessels to the boutique lines certainly keeps Alaska tourism limited to the rich.

 

Do the above vessels trans[port passengers from the Mainland to Hawaii?

Well, cruising only accounts for about 50% of Alaska tourism, could they do more to attract customers via flights?  Do you think that if the Murkowski bill passes, and that it requires US flag for the "waived" ships, as it appears to, that the cheap fares will continue on the larger ships?  Why do you think that NCL's Hawaii cruises are so expensive?

 

As for Hawaii, is there really a sustainable market for one way transport from the mainland to Hawaii by sea?  If there was, those ships could go there.  And, ships smaller than the Constellation could easily sail to Hawaii, as the NatGeo Endeavour II sails from the Galapagos to Peru regularly.

[Aquahound]

4 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I stand corrected.  Those ships will certainly keep the Alaska tourism economy afloat.  😒

 

That is what this legislation is about, not whether some small vessels can transit to Alaska with a U.S. flag.

 

Well, ok. You keep moving the goal posts with your questions. A PVSA waiver was granted due to Canada’s COVID closure. Post COVID when Canada’s ports are open, why do you think Alaska needs help keeping their tourism afloat? 🤔

Edited September 21, 2021 by Aquahound

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I stand corrected.  Those ships will certainly keep the Alaska tourism economy afloat.  😒

 

That is what this legislation is about, not whether some small vessels can transit to Alaska with a U.S. flag.

 

So, you would prefer to see that tourism support an industry where the vast majority of the tourist dollars spent by the passenger go out of the US economy, rather than promoting anything that would keep more money in the US?  Come on, its all about a cheap vacation.

[Daniel A]

17 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Again, you don't understand international maritime law.  Even the current ban on cruise vessels "in Canadian waters" specifically mentions the precedent of "innocent passage", and states that "innocent passage" still applies.  Innocent passage means that even when a country claims jurisdiction over coastal waters, any ship of any nation, engaged in simple transit through those waters cannot be prohibited. 

I always value your input on these boards.  I think we're getting into the area where "we are forgetting that the objective was to drain the swamp in the first place."

 

It wasn't the Canadian decision to close their ports that caused such hardship in one of our states, it was the PVSA which caused the hardship.  That is what this bill is about.  And the PVSA needs to be brought into the realities of the 21st century, not the 19th century.

[Daniel A]

5 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

Well, ok. You keep moving the goal posts with your questions. A PVSA waiver was granted due to Canada’s COVID closure. Post COVID when Canada’s ports are open, why do you think Alaska needs help keeping their tourism afloat? 🤔

I'm not moving the goalposts at all.  Your question clarifies the main purpose of the legislation.  "Post COVID when Canada’s ports are open, why do you think Alaska needs help keeping their tourism afloat? "

 

The purpose of the legislation is to eliminate the need for action on the part of Canada to keep a segment of the economy of Alaska afloat.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I always value your input on these boards.  I think we're getting into the area where "we are forgetting that the objective was to drain the swamp in the first place."

 

It wasn't the Canadian decision to close their ports that caused such hardship in one of our states, it was the PVSA which caused the hardship.  That is what this bill is about.  And the PVSA needs to be brought into the realities of the 21st century, not the 19th century.

And, the PVSA is still doing the job it was intended for, in the 21st century.  It is protecting US waterways and keeping money in the US economy (though the latter was not one of the reasons the act was passed).  If this bill is going to merely make permanent the waiver for foreign flag ships to operate domestically, then I have a supreme heartache with it, as the laws of unintended consequences will lead to many issues down the road.  If this is, as the wording in Sen. Murkowski's release says, going to benefit US mariners, it will require US flagging of these foreign built ships, and as I've said, I don't have any real problem with that.  Whether any cruise line will take advantage of such a situation is a different question.

 

If everyone was so concerned about the state of Alaska's tourism industry, they could have flown to Alaska (without a stop in Canada), and spent loads of money there.  As far as CC is concerned, this has nothing to do with Alaska tourism, and everything to do with a cheap vacation of their choice.

[Daniel A]

13 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Come on, its all about a cheap vacation.

A balcony cabin on Eurodam for a one week costs about $5,000.00 before adding in airfare and pre and post hotels.  That's not a cheap vacation in my world.  Maybe for some people, but not me.

[Daniel A]

13 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

If everyone was so concerned about the state of Alaska's tourism industry, they could have flown to Alaska (without a stop in Canada), and spent loads of money there.  

So, do you want people to fly into Alaska and eliminate jobs of the port workers who service the cruise ships?  If I fly into Juneau, I can't rent a car and drive to Skagway and Ketchikan.  Flying into Alaska and touring around just isn't the same thing as flying into Boston and vacationing in New England.

 

Whatever the case, unless we're both congressmen or senators, what we think isn't very likely to affect the outcome of this proposal.  As usual, you've given me a clear rational view of another side of the issue. 

 

Stay safe at sea (and on land..)

Edited September 21, 2021 by Daniel A

[chengkp75]

6 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

A balcony cabin on Eurodam for a one week costs about $5,000.00 before adding in airfare and pre and post hotels.  That's not a cheap vacation in my world.  Maybe for some people, but not me.

And, so the "boutique" American Constellation offers an 8 day for $7000 for a balcony, and the Uncruise Safari Endeavour (which doesn't have balconies) offers a 13 day for $5000.  Makes them really exclusive.

[Aquahound]

5 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

So, do you want people to fly into Alaska and eliminate jobs of the port workers who service the cruise ships? 

Port workers are not exclusive to cruise ships. Perhaps you’re not aware of how much commercial traffic moves through Alaska. How do you think port workers survive the 7 month non-cruise season?

[JRG]

26 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Whatever the case, unless we're both congressmen or senators, what we think isn't very likely to affect the outcome of this proposal.  As usual, you've given me a clear rational view of another side of the issue. 

 

Unless,  of course,   the product management groups of the mass cruiselines are eavesdropping in hope of finding a good idea or two.    That is what I would do.

 

Nobody wants to see another loss of industry,  like the Big Tuna,   and Big Cruising came close and is still in dire straights,  IMO,  so as CLIA puts it,  something like all options are on the table.

 

Laws and Treatys can come and go in a NY minute,   just ask France and Australia.

 

I'd be curious what @Songbird would say about the PVSA snafu,   he (she) had an interesting view of the world and I'd give a penny for their thoughts.   Maybe it would help get the thread  back on track too.

Edited September 21, 2021 by JRG

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

So, do you want people to fly into Alaska and eliminate jobs of the port workers who service the cruise ships?  If I fly into Juneau, I can't rent a car and drive to Skagway and Ketchikan.  Flying into Alaska and touring around just isn't the same thing as flying into Boston and vacationing in New England.

 

Whatever the case, unless we're both congressmen or senators, what we think isn't very likely to affect the outcome of this proposal.  As usual, you've given me a clear rational view of another side of the issue. 

 

Stay safe at sea (and on land..)

As Paul says, the longshoremen would survive without the cruise ships.  And, you could either take a car on the ferries between Juneau and Skagway and Ketchikan, or go without a car on either ferry or flight and rent a car in each city.

[Daniel A]

20 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

Port workers are not exclusive to cruise ships. Perhaps you’re not aware of how much commercial traffic moves through Alaska. How do you think port workers survive the 7 month non-cruise season?

I was very specific to only mention those port workers who service the cruise ships - not all port workers.  Many port workers are not stevedores and longshoremen, they are taxi drivers, bartenders, waiters and cooks and other unseen service support personnel.  Many lose their jobs during the off season and return to the Mainland, but still out of work relying on what they earned while working at an Alaska port.  They are people too and deserving of recognition and consideration.

[Daniel A]

44 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

As Paul says, the longshoremen would survive without the cruise ships.  And, you could either take a car on the ferries between Juneau and Skagway and Ketchikan, or go without a car on either ferry or flight and rent a car in each city.

Just to finish off my part in this discussion, I am not advocating repeal of the PVSA.  If the PVSA as written is still viable as a means of taking care of all Americans affected by it, then it should be able to stand up to congressional hearings examining the current relevance of the Act.  If not, then possibly some modifications could be in order.  We shouldn't be afraid of a review and oversight of any of our laws.  Good discussion.