New Canadian Cruise Requirements - Alaska Cruise Season in Jeopardy Again?

[JT1962]

Hopefully Congress will step in and permanently eliminate the law requiring a stop in a foreign port so we don’t have to deal with this each year going forward. 
 

https://www.cruisehive.com/alaska-cruises-at-risk-due-to-canada-requirements/66809

Edited March 1, 2022 by JT1962

[Ferry_Watcher]

The Seattle or San Francisco RT ships could easily skip the port-of-call in Victoria (with the extension of that foreign stop exemption from the  2022 season).

 

I think the greatest impact will be on non-Canadian passengers (particularly US passengers) who plan to do either the Vancouver RTs, or those non-Canadian passengers on the one-way cruises between Whittier/Anchorage and Vancouver, BC.  Many more hoops to jump through, and probably a no-go for any non-Canadian family with  children' under the age of 5 years old.  

 

I also wonder how this will impact the sea/land cruise trips?

 

 

[strickerj]

At this point we're not really sure what Canada's intent was with these guidelines; it's possible the backlash will prompt them to "clarify" them down to match the CDC. Or, the limited PVSA waiver could be extended, which would result in very little impact to U.S. round-trips that stop in Victoria.

 

I don't agree with permanently rescinding cabotage laws; this would open up American domestic ferries, sightseeing tours, etc. and their workers to unfair competition, and just about every other country has similar laws on the books. (A similar law also applies to freight shippers.)

[Heidi13]

10 hours ago, strickerj said:

At this point we're not really sure what Canada's intent was with these guidelines; it's possible the backlash will prompt them to "clarify" them down to match the CDC. Or, the limited PVSA waiver could be extended, which would result in very little impact to U.S. round-trips that stop in Victoria.

 

I don't agree with permanently rescinding cabotage laws; this would open up American domestic ferries, sightseeing tours, etc. and their workers to unfair competition, and just about every other country has similar laws on the books. (A similar law also applies to freight shippers.)

 

The intent of the Canadian Regulations are clearly to endeavour to create a safer environment aboard cruise ships operating in our waters. This is consistent with the current requirement for travel by plane and train within Canada.

 

Why should we lower our standards to what we consider as the ineffective standards of the US CDC?

 

At present, the standard for fully vaccinated is everyone 12 yrs + 4 months and older, which is hardly onerous, at least for us locally. The Canadian standard, at present, is only 2 shots, no requirement for a booster.

 

I also note our preferred cruise line takes pax health & safety seriously, requiring 100% of all crew & pax be fully vaccinated (no exceptions). Their definition of fully vaccinated now includes booster shots. They also require daily testing onboard the ship.

 

Since we have vaccinated 5 yr olds since early December, I personally hope the Govt lowers the age to 5.

[Ashland]

Hoping we'll be able to sail RT from Vancouver this Sept....Cruises scheduled for May will hopefully make this question clearer.

[strickerj]

6 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

The intent of the Canadian Regulations are clearly to endeavour to create a safer environment aboard cruise ships operating in our waters. This is consistent with the current requirement for travel by plane and train within Canada.

 

Why should we lower our standards to what we consider as the ineffective standards of the US CDC?

 

At present, the standard for fully vaccinated is everyone 12 yrs + 4 months and older, which is hardly onerous, at least for us locally. The Canadian standard, at present, is only 2 shots, no requirement for a booster.

 

I also note our preferred cruise line takes pax health & safety seriously, requiring 100% of all crew & pax be fully vaccinated (no exceptions). Their definition of fully vaccinated now includes booster shots. They also require daily testing onboard the ship.

 

Since we have vaccinated 5 yr olds since early December, I personally hope the Govt lowers the age to 5.

Thanks for the snark, but Canada's proposed requirement for cruise ship passengers isn't consistent with arrivals by air and land though if they're requiring the entire ship (including children under 5) to be vaccinated.

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, strickerj said:

Thanks for the snark, but Canada's proposed requirement for cruise ship passengers isn't consistent with arrivals by air and land though if they're requiring the entire ship (including children under 5) to be vaccinated.

 

The inconsistency is based on risk assessment, as Canada is no different from many other countries that require higher standards for cruise ship travel. If fact, I believe your US CDC also requires different standards for cruise ship travel.

 

Not sure where you are getting the information regarding age, but the Govt of Canada regulation I found last night clearly states everyone over 12 yrs + 4 months. Hopefully that will be reduced to 5, since we are now well into vaccinations for 5+.

 

Hardly an onerous requirement, as if a cruise line wasn't requiring 100% vaccinations, I certainly wouldn't be giving them my business.

[strickerj]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

 

The inconsistency is based on risk assessment, as Canada is no different from many other countries that require higher standards for cruise ship travel. If fact, I believe your US CDC also requires different standards for cruise ship travel.

 

Not sure where you are getting the information regarding age, but the Govt of Canada regulation I found last night clearly states everyone over 12 yrs + 4 months. Hopefully that will be reduced to 5, since we are now well into vaccinations for 5+.

 

Hardly an onerous requirement, as if a cruise line wasn't requiring 100% vaccinations, I certainly wouldn't be giving them my business.

I assume "everyone vaccinated" includes children. If that wasn't the intent, hopefully they'll clarify. I definitely disagree with the CDC's onerous restrictions on cruises, but it's a little different in the U.S. since the CDC doesn't have jurisdiction over flights (that's the FAA, part of DOT) or hotels and restaurants (that's at the state and local level). If the CDC did have that level of jurisdiction, I think we'd have seen similar restrictions there too.

 

As for risk assessment, I don't see any data that supports requiring vaccines for children; we've known for a year they're at very low risk of contracting and spreading the virus. Of course a sovereign nation can control its borders as it wishes, but it sounds to me as though this is just because they felt like it, not because of any science. It seems to have come as a surprise to the industry as well, considering requirements for land and air crossings are fairly similar between the U.S. and Canada.

 

Apologies to all for hijacking the thread.

Edited March 2, 2022 by strickerj

[barbeyg]

Hopefully the AK delegation will get an extension on ships bypassing Canada.  While it doesn't bother me that the two countries have differing Covid guidelines (to each their own),  my hope is that AK has a great, productive season this year.   That could require bypassing Canadian ports. 

[J0Y0US]

41 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

I guess we will agree to disagree, as I am shocked that the US CDC requirements for cruise ships are so lax.

 

 

Lax? What would you want them to be to be "safe" in your mind?

[magicsoccer]

What will they do with the cruises from Seward to Vancouver.  Bypassing Canada wouldn't be possible with that.  I hope we hear some decisions soon.  I hate "not knowing"

[J0Y0US]

6 minutes ago, barbeyg said:

Hopefully the AK delegation will get an extension on ships bypassing Canada.  While it doesn't bother me that the two countries have differing Covid guidelines (to each their own),  my hope is that AK has a great, productive season this year.   That could require bypassing Canadian ports. 

 

You can track the progress of the proposed amendment here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3683

[J0Y0US]

4 minutes ago, magicsoccer said:

What will they do with the cruises from Seward to Vancouver.  Bypassing Canada wouldn't be possible with that.  I hope we hear some decisions soon.  I hate "not knowing"

 

They would likely need to turn those in to round trips by making it a 14 days cruises if they even do those cruises. Maybe I misread it but the original exemption only allowed for round trips not for one ways.

[Heidi13]

12 minutes ago, J0Y0US said:

 

Lax? What would you want them to be to be "safe" in your mind?

 

We are happy with the standards on our preferred cruise line:

• 100% vaccinations (no exemptions) and that now includes a booster shot, if eligible
• Daily non-invasive PCR testing onboard the ship for the entire cruise
• Contact tracing devices to identify close contacts, should quarantine be required
• Masks indoors, except eating/drinking

These standards have eliminated COVID onboard their ship currently sailing a World Cruise. They are also the only cruise line currently cruising in Chile, due to their robust standards. I note the CEO's of mass market cruise lines declined to follow this standard due to cost.

 

In our opinion, none of those requirements are onerous.

[bcwife76]

1 hour ago, barbeyg said:

Hopefully the AK delegation will get an extension on ships bypassing Canada.  While it doesn't bother me that the two countries have differing Covid guidelines (to each their own),  my hope is that AK has a great, productive season this year.   That could require bypassing Canadian ports. 

That would only affect cruises that leave from Seattle or San Fran so they could bypass Victoria BC. This would have no bearing on the 300+ cruise ship stops that are scheduled to begin and/or end in Vancouver BC this year.

[Italy52]

We have been through the Canada problem before.  Last time our round trip 14-day Alaska cruise that left and ended in Vancouver was cancelled.  Our two Seattle to Seattle 7-day Alaska cruises sailed but omitted Victoria. 

[barbeyg]

50 minutes ago, bcwife76 said:

That would only affect cruises that leave from Seattle or San Fran so they could bypass Victoria BC. This would have no bearing on the 300+ cruise ship stops that are scheduled to begin and/or end in Vancouver BC this year.

Yeah, my heart goes out to those booked to sail from Vancouver.  I'd hate to be up in the air right now about that.   We are eager to return to Vancouver as well, fell in love with the city the last time we were there.  We considered sailing from Vancouver, but after 3 years of trying to sail AK, opted for a RT from Seattle for this year.  I wish the best for all in their travel plans.  🙂 

[barbeyg]

2 hours ago, J0Y0US said:

 

You can track the progress of the proposed amendment here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3683

Thank you!  🙂

[barbeyg]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

In our opinion, none of those requirements are onerous.

I guess we can all agree to disagree about that. 🙂

[atanac]

2 hours ago, magicsoccer said:

What will they do with the cruises from Seward to Vancouver.  Bypassing Canada wouldn't be possible with that.  I hope we hear some decisions soon.  I hate "not knowing"

Ezz Pzz...Seward to Seattle.

[J0Y0US]

15 minutes ago, atanac said:

Ezz Pzz...Seward to Seattle.

 

Right now they can not do that. The exemption bill only stated round trip. I doubt they would push for an exemption for 1 way cruises at this point.

[atanac]

1 minute ago, J0Y0US said:

 

Right now they can not do that. The exemption bill only stated round trip. I doubt they would push for an exemption for 1 way cruises at this point.

Since it's still a U.S. to U.S. itinerary the only real difference is the duration. If a cruise line wanted to do a four night Seattle>Ketchikan>Seattle I'm sure they could do a work around for a seven night Seward>Seattle. We'll have to see if Canada relaxes their entry requirements prior to the start of the Alaska cruise season. I'm sure the senators from Alaska don't want to shut out the ports in Seward

and Whittier.

[J0Y0US]

9 minutes ago, atanac said:

Since it's still a U.S. to U.S. itinerary the only real difference is the duration. If a cruise line wanted to do a four night Seattle>Ketchikan>Seattle I'm sure they could do a work around for a seven night Seward>Seattle. We'll have to see if Canada relaxes their entry requirements prior to the start of the Alaska cruise season. I'm sure the senators from Alaska don't want to shut out the ports in Seward

and Whittier.

 

The only work around is if the ship returns you back to the origination port. Passengers have to start and end on the cruise from the same port.

[cruisingrandy]

58 minutes ago, atanac said:

Ezz Pzz...Seward to Seattle.

Other problem is dock space at Seattle is limited, but It would love Seward to Seward RT

Edited March 2, 2022 by cruisingrandy
?

[atanac]

5 minutes ago, cruisingrandy said:

Other problem is dock space at Seattle is limited, but It would love Seward to Seward RT

Mondays & Tuesdays are usually not busy at all for a Seattle port call. I still feel the two Alaska senators could slightly amend the waiver to allow a U.S. to U.S. port itinerary bypassing Canada without requiring the ship return to the port of origin. If the cruise lines have to cancel their entire Vancouver cruises I'm sure the port of Seattle could accommodate many of those including the one way cruises with calls in Seward or Whittier.

 

It's an easy argument to make and doubtful any U.S. senator would try to block it.