Jump to content

Bill to exempt Alaska from PVSA


dockman
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, nocl said:

the press release suggested 1000 passengers, not a ship size. At that you could get an entirely new class of competition to both the ferry system and the cruise ships. The large European style ferries that carry cars, as well as large numbers of passengers with nice amenities.

 

That would be an interesting competition for both the existing ferries and cruise ships, particularly with the cruise land tour portion. just bring you car along.

Guess I am an antique because I have long favored competition.

 

Hank

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Guess I am an antique because I have long favored competition.

 

Hank

Competition which would eliminate the jobs related to the Alaska Ferry system due to foreign built ships with foreign crews pricing out the US built ferried with US workers. Exactly what the law was designed to prevent.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, nocl said:

Competition which would eliminate the jobs related to the Alaska Ferry system due to foreign built ships with foreign crews pricing out the US built ferried with US workers. Exactly what the law was designed to prevent.

 

 

While the end result would be what you describe, the intent of the PVSA was to require domestic passenger vessels to meet US safety regulations, not protecting jobs.  At the time the act was passed, the ship crews would still be US citizens, but there were no labor laws at the time, but the shipowners would avoid the expense of additional safety equipment as required by previous laws of the US, relating to US flag vessels.  And, as someone who has worked under those stricter USCG regulations for 46 years, I see every advantage to the US public to continue to require all ships operating domestically to adhere to those regulations.

Edited by chengkp75
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Guess I am an antique because I have long favored competition.

 

Hank

 

Have not sailed on any of the Alaskan ferries, so no personal knowledge.  But, I have sailed on one European ferry.  The Alaskan ferries offerings sound so very bare bones. but adequate for their purposes.  Adding a bit of an upscale competition might improve the experience of those passengers who choose to book them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Have not sailed on any of the Alaskan ferries, so no personal knowledge.  But, I have sailed on one European ferry.  The Alaskan ferries offerings sound so very bare bones. but adequate for their purposes.  Adding a bit of an upscale competition might improve the experience of those passengers who choose to book them.  

For many communities in Alaska, the AMH system is the equivalent of a municipal bus service, and the only way, short of private boat, in and out of these communities.  As such, the state subsidizes these heavily relied on, but sparsely used, routes.  Therefore, the "bare bones" approach, just like there are no restrooms on city buses.  The system is losing money, and the state is losing it's "buffer" account from the oil industry, so there is little incentive to upgrade the accommodations on the ferries.  However, with some market research, and will, they might find that making the ships more attractive could result in more revenue.

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

On 9/21/2021 at 8:57 AM, chengkp75 said:
On 9/21/2021 at 8:46 AM, 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 (How so?  The Milkshake Theory says millions are being denied US ports) (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(It will only allow for cruiseships not all ships with foreign flags), as the laws of unintended consequences will lead to many issues down the road. (It has already been ascertained The Sky Will Not come falling down, as it hasn't in Season 1 and probably won't in Season 2 of Covid 19) 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. (This is why I keep saying Markets get what they want l and if CC can get a consensus voice maybe they can encourage the Travel Agents of America to do something.)

 

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.  (there are many ways to support Alaska and its industries,  we had fresh Alaskan Halibut $29.99 a pound yesterday.    Using airline examples do not suffice as comparative analysis when looking at the PVSA for its coastline transportation restrictions.  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.

 

I believe Daniel A has a winning argument here.  It is not about Cheap Vacations (evidenced by folks on the Viking Board who don't typically portray the bargain-hunting cheap vacation hunters).

 

Its about updating a law,  which can be argued at the Constitutional level for the 'need to change' Jeffersonian concept.   It's about defending our soverignity so that we are not impeded by other nations denying access to or depriving economic benefit to the US amongst its own states through its waterways, however they may be classified.   And it's about making clearer distinction between laws of Coastline Transportation(cruising, PVSA) and laws of Maritime significance (the Jones Act) to the audience in CC.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost forgot....Fresh Halibut at $29.99 a pound,  slow-cooked on med/low heat in cast iron butter works well and you can flip it to your flaky perfection.

 

Thank you Alaska!

halibut.jpg

  • Like 1
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
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: PONANT Cruises & Expeditions
      • 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...