ACL Great Lakes Opportunity

[bob brown]

I am still hoping ACL takes the opportunity to increase their presence on the Great Lakes and upper St. Lawrence via their Pearl Seas subsidiary, hopefully with a pair of new ships, to replace the former Victory pair...

 

And sail into Chicago instead of Milwaukee on most sailings...

Edited April 20 by bob brown

[chengkp75]

47 minutes ago, bob brown said:

I am still hoping ACL takes the opportunity to increase their presence on the Great Lakes and upper St. Lawrence via their Pearl Seas subsidiary, hopefully with a pair of new ships, to replace the former Victory pair...

 

And sail into Chicago instead of Milwaukee on most sailings...

ACL would not use the AQV ships in their Pearl Seas subsidiary, as this would eliminate their ability to bypass the PVSA.  The ships need to be US owned, and Pearl is not a US company.  Why initiate a US subsidiary to a non-US subsidiary, when they can operate US flag Great Lake ships directly under ACL.

[bob brown]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

ACL would not use the AQV ships in their Pearl Seas subsidiary, as this would eliminate their ability to bypass the PVSA.  The ships need to be US owned, and Pearl is not a US company.  Why initiate a US subsidiary to a non-US subsidiary, when they can operate US flag Great Lake ships directly under ACL.

Okay...then just divert some of their new coastal ACL ships to cover the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence itineraries.  Then keep or get rid of the Pearl Seas ship.   🤷‍♂️

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, bob brown said:

Okay...then just divert some of their new coastal ACL ships to cover the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence itineraries.  Then keep or get rid of the Pearl Seas ship.   🤷‍♂️

As the Pearl Mist is a newer ship, and Canadian built, I'm sure ACL will retain the ship, as reflagging to Canadian would avail them of the ability to meet the Canadian Coastal Shipping Act (analogous to PVSA), and sail exclusively to Canadian ports.  Or, maintaining the Marshall Island flag would give them significant tax advantage.

 

I have no doubt that ACL, with its ambitious building program, will target the Great Lakes market, using US flag vessels where appropriate, and Canadian vessels where appropriate.  The AQV ocean ships were too old for economical usage (IMHO), and the river boats were bought at near scrap prices to keep them from competitors, while ACL powers over Viking in the US river market.

[GottaKnowWhen]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

As the Pearl Mist is a newer ship, and Canadian built, I'm sure ACL will retain the ship, as reflagging to Canadian would avail them of the ability to meet the Canadian Coastal Shipping Act (analogous to PVSA), and sail exclusively to Canadian ports.  Or, maintaining the Marshall Island flag would give them significant tax advantage.

 

I have no doubt that ACL, with its ambitious building program, will target the Great Lakes market, using US flag vessels where appropriate, and Canadian vessels where appropriate.  The AQV ocean ships were too old for economical usage (IMHO), and the river boats were bought at near scrap prices to keep them from competitors, while ACL powers over Viking in the US river market.

I thought I understood the PVSA etc but am now lost! I have reservations on Pearl Mist next summer, starts in Toronto, ends in Duluth, touches both U.S. and Canadian ports along the way.Would such a route be ok for a U.S. flagged ship? Is it actually ok for Pearl Mist with Canadian or whatever flag now? 

[chengkp75]

11 hours ago, GottaKnowWhen said:

I thought I understood the PVSA etc but am now lost! I have reservations on Pearl Mist next summer, starts in Toronto, ends in Duluth, touches both U.S. and Canadian ports along the way.Would such a route be ok for a U.S. flagged ship? Is it actually ok for Pearl Mist with Canadian or whatever flag now? 

Because your trip starts in a foreign country (Canada), and ends in the US, it is a foreign voyage, and not subject to the PVSA.  PVSA is only concerned with domestic voyages, ones that start and end in a US port.  Yes, your cruise would be legal for a US flag ship, again because it is a foreign voyage.  The advantage that a US flag ship would have is to be able to sail a cruise that only includes US ports (no Canadian ports), or one that started in one US port and ended in another US port, whether or not it included a Canadian port.  It is far more costly to operate a US flag vessel than a Marshall Island flag vessel, which is why Pearl Cruises has flagged the Mist there.  Because she was built in Canada, that gives the ship an advantage in becoming Canadian flag, which is also much more expensive than MI flag, but would allow the ship to cruise exclusively Canadian ports, just like the PVSA allows US flag ships to cruise exclusively US ports.

[GottaKnowWhen]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Because your trip starts in a foreign country (Canada), and ends in the US, it is a foreign voyage, and not subject to the PVSA.  PVSA is only concerned with domestic voyages, ones that start and end in a US port.  Yes, your cruise would be legal for a US flag ship, again because it is a foreign voyage.  The advantage that a US flag ship would have is to be able to sail a cruise that only includes US ports (no Canadian ports), or one that started in one US port and ended in another US port, whether or not it included a Canadian port.  It is far more costly to operate a US flag vessel than a Marshall Island flag vessel, which is why Pearl Cruises has flagged the Mist there.  Because she was built in Canada, that gives the ship an advantage in becoming Canadian flag, which is also much more expensive than MI flag, but would allow the ship to cruise exclusively Canadian ports, just like the PVSA allows US flag ships to cruise exclusively US ports.

Thanks! 

[BaumD]

Is there any reason a US flagged ACL ship could not do a Great Lakes cruise that stops in both US and Canadian ports? Ships that are registered in the Marshall Islands, Bahamas, England, etc. do it every day on ocean cruises. What legalities prevent an ACL ship from stopping in Canada, Mexico or the Bahamas?

[chengkp75]

58 minutes ago, BaumD said:

Is there any reason a US flagged ACL ship could not do a Great Lakes cruise that stops in both US and Canadian ports? Ships that are registered in the Marshall Islands, Bahamas, England, etc. do it every day on ocean cruises. What legalities prevent an ACL ship from stopping in Canada, Mexico or the Bahamas?

Nothing, never said there was.  It is just that a MI flag ship (like Pearl Mist) has significant operating cost and tax benefits doing a Canadian and US itinerary over a US flag ship.  Just as a US flag ship could do a Caribbean cruise itinerary, but would have competitive drawbacks compared to their foreign flag rivals. 

 

I expect that ACL will use US flag vessels on the Great Lakes, simply because it will give them flexibility in itineraries.

Edited April 21 by chengkp75