Jump to content

Alaska 2021 - Maybe NOT a total loss? (topic edit as of 2021-05-21)


Recommended Posts

Congress endorsing technical stops could have unintended consequences.  If this were to move forward it could make for some interesting attempts to abuse this new loophole.

For Congress to do the work to modify the law would be a massive effort that might get done in time for the next pandemic but no way it would get done in time for this one.  It is extremely complicated and tangles into international maritime treaties and conventions.  It's not just a slippery slope,  it's a slippery cliff.  There is no quick modification that doesn't push every commercial passenger vessel in America over that cliff if they get one little bit wrong.

1 hour ago, monctonguy said:

Why doesn't the US change their own stupid law and solve the problem...like really?......

Canada has their version of cabotage laws on their books.  So does Europe.  So does Australia.  So does 86% of the world's coastlines.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

POSTED ON MICHAEL BAYLEY’s FACEBOOK PAGE 1 HOUR AGO
Today, U.S Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan introduced the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act. This bill would allow cruise ships to sail to Alaska without requiring that they stop in Canada. If passed, this would represent a step in the right direction for the Alaskan communities that depend on the tourism industry. If you support the bill, please reach out to your representatives to make your voice heard! 

To read the bill, click here: 

https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03.04.21 PVSA Legislation.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jax said:

The act was introduced, now we get to see how far it gets.  It's been sent to committee.  

S.593 for those who want to follow along at home.  

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/593/all-info

 

 

29 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

I still can't believe politicians are more concerned about  the Canadian cruise ban than the American one.

Two Florida senators tried.  They introduced the Set Sail Safely Act on Oct. 1, 2020 which became H.R.8471

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8471/actions

It promptly went into committee where it went nowhere which is what I fear will happen with the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

I still can't believe politicians are more concerned about  the Canadian cruise ban than the American one.

Having an Alaskan Congresswoman advocating for "economic recovery" from the COVID pandemic in her state is entirely appropriate. The bill, if it makes it out of committee, has the possibility of impacting the current no sail order positively. It could revive interest in H.R.871. That's because I can't imagine the port of Seattle along with Alaskan ports being opened should this bill pass without howls of protest from congressional reps of Florida, Texas, NY, NJ and CA advocating to allow opening of their state's cruise ports. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JeffB said:

Having an Alaskan Congresswoman advocating for "economic recovery" from the COVID pandemic in her state is entirely appropriate. The bill, if it makes it out of committee, has the possibility of impacting the current no sail order positively. It could revive interest in H.R.871. That's because I can't imagine the port of Seattle along with Alaskan ports being opened should this bill pass without howls of protest from congressional reps of Florida, Texas, NY, NJ and CA advocating to allow opening of their state's cruise ports. 

I don't think S.593 circumvents the CDC orders, it simply stops a company from getting punished and fined for not stopping at a foreign port.  It's doesn't give ships in Seattle the green light to ignore the CDC order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct ....... but I can see impetus for opening the ports in question should S.593 be passed say, as an add on amendment to the COVID Relief Bill. What's the economic benefit to Alaska's tourism industry of passing S.593 if the no sail order isn't lifted allowing cruise ships to sail from Seattle and into and out of Alaskan ports?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JeffB said:

What's the economic benefit to Alaska's tourism industry of passing S.593 if the no sail order isn't lifted allowing cruise ships to sail from Seattle and into and out of Alaskan ports?

None, except the mere introduction of the bill allows those members to tell voters in their district they tried. 

Why would members of Congress from any other area give a hoot?  Unless they can negotiate support for something they want.  Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.  That's how stuff gets done in Congress.

 I Love You Snack GIF by Busythings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, twangster said:

For Congress #112 as an example, 2.7% of of the 5,395 bills introduced became law.

I have nothing but great hopes for the Alaskan Tourism Recovery Act but its chances of becoming law is not great.

it does give Royal a reason to not cancel Alaskan cruises and to retain payments so there is that.  

A more viable path is  that "act" survives is as a rider on a more passable piece of legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No question Twangster ....... still, my point stands. Anything that pushes the CDC off the turf it's staked out regarding the no-sail-order is a positive. I admit a strong bias toward re-openings in general but, IMO, the CDC's position on prohibiting the cruise industry from operating from US ports is becoming increasingly tenuous.

Some may argue being exposed as making unreliable or scientifically unsupportable COVID recommendations and mandates hasn't stopped them from doing so in the past and even currently if it serves an administration's political purposes and they'd be right.  Still, I think the cruise industry's willingness to explore sailing from less restrictive foreign destinations is a threat to a vital sector of the US economy that involves travel and leisure activities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, JeffB said:

Having an Alaskan Congresswoman advocating for "economic recovery" from the COVID pandemic in her state is entirely appropriate. The bill, if it makes it out of committee, has the possibility of impacting the current no sail order positively. It could revive interest in H.R.871. That's because I can't imagine the port of Seattle along with Alaskan ports being opened should this bill pass without howls of protest from congressional reps of Florida, Texas, NY, NJ and CA advocating to allow opening of their state's cruise ports. 

No doubt, but the odds of it getting out of committee are slim to none anyway. Plus it all may be moot anyway for the Alaskan cruise season if the CDC continues its ban through the fall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twangster said:

Two Florida senators tried.  They introduced the Set Sail Safely Act on Oct. 1, 2020 which became H.R.8471

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8471/actions

It promptly went into committee where it went nowhere which is what I fear will happen with the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act.

+1 on this.  I fear that both the Florida and Alaska proposals were more for show than anything else.  They can say, "we TRIED to do something but nobody else cared....".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course cruises getting approval from CDC to sail again is top priority, but that isn't to say CDC approval and lifting PVSA are mutually exclusive efforts.

I don't see any problem with cruise lines working both ends of the problem.  They both need addressing, but they don't need to be fixed linearly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Matt said:

Of course cruises getting approval from CDC to sail again is top priority, but that isn't to say CDC approval and lifting PVSA are mutually exclusive efforts.

I don't see any problem with cruise lines working both ends of the problem.  They both need addressing, but they don't need to be fixed linearly. 

The cruise lines, yes. But politicians seeking workarounds to the Canadian cruise ban while the American cruise ban still lingers seems counter productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smokeybandit said:

The cruise lines, yes. But politicians seeking workarounds to the Canadian cruise ban while the American cruise ban still lingers seems counter productive.

Politicians aren’t the ones who can change the CDC’s ban directly.  It’s a Department of Health and Human Services issue.

But more to your point, more and more I’m getting the sense the unsaid “truth” is things are moving for cruises to get closer to restart with test sailings and whatnot.  I say this based on recent cruise line comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Matt said:

Politicians aren’t the ones who can change the CDC’s ban directly.  It’s a Department of Health and Human Services issue.

It's all politics (both left and right) at that point once you get to the tops of those agencies.

I think we'll all throw a virtual party when word finally gets out that test cruises are beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Matt for your front page post on S.593 - Representative Murkoski's push to get past the 1886 PVSA Law for her home state, Alaska.  I can't disagree with others here who've posted that the bill has little chance of passing and fixing the technical problems in PVSA, unless it's a rider added in the House to the latest COVID Relief Package. 

The biggest thing for me is that presenting legislation like this continues to challenge the unnecessary and economically burdensome provisions of the CDC's no-sail-order. Fain's comments, although milk toast, coupled with the fact that RCL is still holding on to most of it's summer Alaska itineraries, tells me that, well, there's still a chance. Maybe he knows stuff he can't talk about. That would go right along with the secrecy and what I consider a lack of transparency about the state of cruising from RCG/RCL execs.

Regarding an opportunity to start test sailings in May, I remain seriously concerned with the direction that the Biden administration appears to be headed with it's pandemic messaging via Fauci and Walenski (CDC). IMO, enough observational data from the UK, Israel, the UAE, even the US (third behind Israel and the UK for vaccine roll-out success), places that have had a high percentage of their populations inoculated, demonstrates the vaccines are reducing disease burden and spread of the virus.

Moreover, after more than a year of this thing, there's a ton of facts and expert views that lock-downs and shuttering businesses don't change COVID metric outcomes greatly while the economic costs aren't off-set by benefits derived therefrom. Yet, the CDC, even Biden himself, pushes back when states start sensibly lifting them and waits for more studies before they can endorse such moves. That approach isn't helping to push the CDC off the turf they've staked out with the no-sail-order. Frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

Now that the covid relief bill is officially passed, we'll see if that changes the message from the CDC.

Well, it goes back to the House now for their stamp of approval before it goes to the President's desk to get signed into law. Then, it will be official. It should get passed (D's have a 10 vote margin) but don't be surprised if there's some R shenanigan's designed to prolong passage.

Unless the Biden administration can no longer stand on their caution about easing mitigation measures, even about sensible easing of them like Texas is doing and FL has done from the gitgo, unless there's unequivocal proof in the next week or so that, despite this state level easing, downward trends in COVID metrics are persisting, I don't think the messaging will change much. Just small hic-ups are going to cause over-reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

Maybe he knows stuff he can't talk about. That would go right along with the secrecy and what I consider a lack of transparency about the state of cruising from RCG/RCL execs.

There's little doubt there are things he cant say.

All companies have internal discussions, dialogues with outside entities, and projections/plans they don't share publicly. This doesn't make them untransparent, this makes them good businessmen.

As cruise fans, we need to remind ourselves this is a business about making as much money as possible.

I believe they are absolutely doing everything they can to get cruises going, and comments about Royal Caribbean's dialogue with the CDC point to a behind-the-scenes relationship that is ongoing.

Among other reasons, we aren't getting regular updates not because they don't want to be transparent, but because many conversations between government and companies are private conversations contingent on a lot of factors.

Moreover, if Royal were to give us every single update, more than likely things will change and consequently expectations will be set and then broken. That's bad for business.

When Royal Caribbean has cold hard facts, they publicize them once they are confidence things are "set in stone" to ensure their messaging is consistent and not "changing with the wind", so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good question. Watch COVID metrics nationally and internationally - continuing declines in these will foreshadow changes in government public health policy. The opposite is also in play. Upward trends in the metrics, problems with vaccine distribution will cause retrenchment. The CDC will respond to those and different messaging from Fauci and Walenski will signal that the CDC may take a different stance on their no-sail-order. That will be well before RCL makes any major announcements if they make any.  

Assuming metrics are favorable, before RCL or any of the lines make major announcements, we will know when crews start moving from their homes back to points of embarkation for re-training and I'd expect this will be on a pretty small scale but large enough so that leaks on crew movement will make it to cruise blogs like this.

I don't expect RCL to announce test-cruises, JMO. That's because what do they say if the make a major announcement about them and then the CDC fails a ship or 2? As ships pass muster, I would assume RCL will announce that and at the same time name ships and their itineraries. We're a ways off from that.

For now, my advice is to watch COVID metrics nationally and internationally and then pay attention to the chatter on the various cruise web sites and blogs. Informative stuff will leak and be reported.....one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JeffB said:

Well, it goes back to the House now for their stamp of approval before it goes to the President's desk to get signed into law. Then, it will be official. It should get passed (D's have a 10 vote margin) but don't be surprised if there's some R shenanigan's designed to prolong passage.

Unless the Biden administration can no longer stand on their caution about easing mitigation measures, even about sensible easing of them like Texas is doing and FL has done from the gitgo, unless there's unequivocal proof in the next week or so that, despite this state level easing, downward trends in COVID metrics are persisting, I don't think the messaging will change much. Just small hic-ups are going to cause over-reaction.

Yes - has to go through reconciliation between both houses so still not sure what will end up in it.  Probably not much that addresses what we're interested in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matt said:

There's little doubt there are things he cant say.

All companies have internal discussions, dialogues with outside entities, and projections/plans they don't share publicly. This doesn't make them untransparent, this makes them good businessmen.

As cruise fans, we need to remind ourselves this is a business about making as much money as possible.

I believe they are absolutely doing everything they can to get cruises going, and comments about Royal Caribbean's dialogue with the CDC point to a behind-the-scenes relationship that is ongoing.

Among other reasons, we aren't getting regular updates not because they don't want to be transparent, but because many conversations between government and companies are private conversations contingent on a lot of factors.

Moreover, if Royal were to give us every single update, more than likely things will change and consequently expectations will be set and then broken. That's bad for business.

When Royal Caribbean has cold hard facts, they publicize them once they are confidence things are "set in stone" to ensure their messaging is consistent and not "changing with the wind", so to speak.

Due to laws the guiding disclosures of industry execs of publicly owned companies, execs (officers of the company) have to be very careful what they say as to not artificially influence stock transactions one way or the other.  ie they have to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cruisellama said:

Due to laws the guiding disclosures of industry execs of publicly owned companies, execs (officers of the company) have to be very careful what they say as to not artificially influence stock transactions one way or the other.  ie they have to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Understood ....... I should have been less specific when I named "execs" as being less than transparent.

I believe cruise fanatics like us, the people the lines are depending on to keep making advance bookings in the face of COVID uncertainty, that we might get information more detailed than we are optimistic or that we are expecting technical information from the CDC any day now.

It doesn't have to come from Fain's lips or any one in his immediate chain. It could come in the form of information releases in the COVID sections of the RCL web site or as personal letters to loyalists who want to feel like their continued loyalty is important to those execs. That we know virtually nothing about contingency planning or plans being considered beyond pop-up announcements via emails that your cruise has been cancelled or modified or whatever bothers me.

On every cruise I have been on in the last 5 years or so, there's been a future cruise plans presentation that identified where ships would be, what itinerary's would be offered and what new plans were in the works. It was detailed. Now, you'd think ships movements and plans, upcoming itineraries and so forth a military secrets ..... and they may be for proprietary and competitive reasons. But, if I were in charge, I'd ease up on the secrecy if only to keep those advanced bookings coming. There's a way to do that I would think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JeffB said:

Understood ....... I should have been less specific when I named "execs" as being less than transparent.

I believe cruise fanatics like us, the people the lines are depending on to keep making advance bookings in the face of COVID uncertainty, that we might get information more detailed than we are optimistic or that we are expecting technical information from the CDC any day now.

It doesn't have to come from Fain's lips or any one in his immediate chain. It could come in the form of information releases in the COVID sections of the RCL web site or as personal letters to loyalists who want to feel like their continued loyalty is important to those execs. That we know virtually nothing about contingency planning or plans being considered beyond pop-up announcements via emails that your cruise has been cancelled or modified or whatever bothers me.

On every cruise I have been on in the last 5 years or so, there's been a future cruise plans presentation that identified where ships would be, what itinerary's would be offered and what new plans were in the works. It was detailed. Now, you'd think ships movements and plans, upcoming itineraries and so forth a military secrets ..... and they may be for proprietary and competitive reasons. But, if I were in charge, I'd ease up on the secrecy if only to keep those advanced bookings coming. There's a way to do that I would think. 

I get it, I wish we had more information too and the uncertainty is annoying to deal with.  The problem is releasing information or even giving a deadline for when they're going to release more information is setting a baseline for expectations.  If they miss the deadline because we're in a situation that's extremely fluid there will be backlash, if they release expected guidelines and people consider them excessive, backlash.  If they release guidelines and then have to change them, backlash. If they release expected timelines/itineraries for ships to restart and they have to change, more backlash.

Right now, not releasing details is their best option (in my opinion, subject to change depending on how my gin supply dwindles through the day).  It's frustrating but until things are more certain there's little upside and a lot of downside to releasing any information beyond what we have.

Once things are more set though I'd hope for and expect a deluge of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I get it, I wish we had more information too and the uncertainty is annoying to deal with.  The problem is releasing information or even giving a deadline for when they're going to release more information is setting a baseline for expectations.

Sure. I spent 20 years in the USMC and commanded a fighter squadron before I retired in 1990. The best leaders operate with controlled boldness. That means you evaluate the facts at hand affecting a course of action, look at risks and benefits then embark on it. Most importantly, if your plan fails, you accept responsibility for it and make no excuses. 

In general today's leaders, and I include Fain in that group, are overly timid fearing the consequences and the need to be accountable for failure. No successful military campaign, no successful program implemented in the public or private sector was undertaken fearing failure and the need for accountability if such an undertaking failed. There isn't nearly enough of that around. So, RCL doesn't get a pass from me when it comes to telling a loyal following what's up. YMMV.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeffB said:

Sure. I spent 20 years in the USMC and commanded a fighter squadron before I retired in 1990. The best leaders operate with controlled boldness. That means you evaluate the facts at hand affecting a course of action, look at risks and benefits then embark on it. Most importantly, if your plan fails, you accept responsibility for it and make no excuses. 

In general today's leaders, and I include Fain in that group, are overly timid fearing the consequences and the need to be accountable for failure. No successful military campaign, no successful program implemented in the public or private sector was undertaken fearing failure and the need for accountability if such an undertaking failed. There isn't nearly enough of that around. So, RCL doesn't get a pass from me when it comes to telling a loyal following what's up. YMMV.  

We'll agree to disagree there.

That's great in abstract, and I agree to a point, but it's losing sight of the larger picture, especially when there's a significant difference between commanding a fighter squadron and running a multi billion dollar company that has to put a priority on customer experience and branding.  That's not an attempt to downplay your opinion and experience, just pointing out that they're two vastly different arenas. 

Today's situation is unprecedented and involves countless people, companies, and governments.  RCL has been somewhat open about what's going on including the safe sail procedures, but beyond that there's no real transparency to give for US based sailings.  We do see a significant amount of info in places where it does make sense, like Singapore and Israel.  

Right now they are at the complete mercy of the CDC for even starting test sailings out of the US, unilaterally releasing information isn't going to endear them to the people they're working with at all...and that's if they even can.  I work for a telecom and have NDA's with the vast majority of the companies I interact with, some to the point where I can't even mention that we're associated.  I would imagine similar agreements are in place when dealing with government agencies...or common sense to not antagonize the people that control when you can reopen.

Even outside of any talks and negotiations with the CDC you have to worry about staffing up ships, how are you going to vaccinate the crew, entertainment, resupplying ships (and we saw at least one article of a company/warehouse going out of business that services parts of FL), agreements with ports for how/if they'll be able to dock, communication with people running shore excursions at each port, any physical changes that have to be made with the ships themselves, etc etc.  There's near countless things in motion that are undoubtably changing constantly and will continue to.  A good number of them you can't even begin to firm up until there's an actual restart date in mind.

We all _want_ more information and sooner but the downsides of releasing plans that will inevitably change significantly outweighs the minor gain of their most dedicated loyalists being appeased...

That said, luckily we're all entitled to our opinions, so if we ever meet on board the first several drinks are on me as I'd love to hear more about your service ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great response, Joshgates. My unit had 120 officers and around 600 maintainers and support personnel supplying, repairing and flying 24 aircraft as well as doing the same things that typical human resource departments in large companies deal with and we did this all around the world. 

I dealt with all the things you listed that telecom (and I'd assume any large company) deals with including NDA, in my case classified information. I'd argue scale doesn't change the requirement for great leadership. General Eisenhower and Jack Welsh were cut from the same cloth - great leaders - you and I can both name people we've worked with in smaller organizations that were run by great leaders.

Yes, we disagree about RCL's stance on keeping future cruisers who have never cruised and loyalist informed. Love the friendly and informative interchange. Thanks.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, WAAAYTOOO said:

I'm married to a Naval Aviator (USMC) and my father was also a Marine Naval Aviator.

Both of them flew the A4's - my dad flew them when they first came into the Marine Corps and Dan flew them out.

This for you WAAAYTOOO. I couldn't upload this pic in my PM to you but this is the H&MS 32 OA4M your Dad flew.

A4.jpg.38cd958a81cb28edeef2f43be723716a.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2021 at 8:15 PM, Jax said:

POSTED ON MICHAEL BAYLEY’s FACEBOOK PAGE 1 HOUR AGO
Today, U.S Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan introduced the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act. This bill would allow cruise ships to sail to Alaska without requiring that they stop in Canada. If passed, this would represent a step in the right direction for the Alaskan communities that depend on the tourism industry. If you support the bill, please reach out to your representatives to make your voice heard! 

To read the bill, click here: 

https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03.04.21 PVSA Legislation.pdf

Ok, I see a potentail problem. Homeland Security applies the PVSA, the USGC (under the Department of Defense) applies the PVSA and the Jones Act. What the bill is applying if became law. It would be unlawful for Homeland Security to impose fines. (So are the cruise lines still violating the Act?) Well what if the USGS fined the cruise lines? According to the act only the Secretary of Defense can grant a waiver in a war time setting. Could and probably will be challenged in federal court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mattymay said:

So why is this PVSA so important? Many other countries allow cruising that doesn't stop in a foreign port. What is different about the US?

91 UN member states and 80% of the world's coastlines of UN member states are subject to cabotage laws according to this study:

https://www.americanmaritimepartnership.com/studies/world-cabotage-study/

The US has it's Passenger Vessel Service Act, Canada has it's Coasting Trade Act, Australia has it's Navigation Act of 1912 and the UK... has some of the oldest maritime acts that have been revised again and again.  The Merchant Shipping Act 1796, the Merchant Shipping act 1894, The Merchant Shipping Act 1995, etc.  In some cases the UK acts were the basis of what other nations later implemented in some form. 

Basically if you are going to block our ships in the UK, we are going to block foreign ships in our country too.  An 1800's tit for tat, you block us, we block you.

The PVSA just represents America's version of the laws that many developed nations have.

So what's different about the US?

First thing to note is the the PVSA doesn't ban cruises to nowhere.  That's an entirely different matter.

Why then is the PVSA well known by cruisers and why do we hear about so much?

The vast majority of cruising occurs in the US.  It is the cruise ship capital of the world, at least right now.  Because of that the PVSA has been tested many more times and applied many more times.  Similar laws exist elsewhere but the number of foreign ships embarking passengers in the US greatly exceeds other regions so passengers find themselves bumping into cabotage laws more in the US.  

In previous generations there wasn't the internet to discuss such matters ad nauseum.  When a passenger in 1938 bought passage on the Queen Mary they had no idea the ship was only allowed to sail on that route because the voyage started and ended in different countries.  They just bought a ticket on a passenger vessel.  Cruising as we know it didn't exist then and folks like you and I were not writing letters to each other to discuss it.

European countries have cabotage laws as well and prior to the EU being formed they did block a lot of cruising by passengers as we know cruising today.  Once the EU was created it started to ease restrictions of cabotage within the or between EU member countries.  Greece has some of the highest domestic passenger services due to the large number of islands.  Even Greece has evolved it's cabotage laws and slowly moved in line with EU policy to a large extent but it wasn't very long ago that many passengers were being impacted by their cabotage laws, they just didn't know it.   

So what's different about the US?  it's just in the news more among modern cruisers compared to other regions but that doesn't mean it isn't happening in other regions, it just isn't as impactful particularly in the EU and the Med.  If the EU had never been formed and cruising gained in popularity as it has there we would be hearing about it a lot more in Europe.

Check out Australia's version: 

Australia has the  Navigation Act of 1912.  Many parts of this act read very similar to other cabotage protectionist laws around the globe.  For example:

Application of Act.

  • 2.—(1.)   This Act shall not apply in relation to any Australian-trade ship, limited coast-trade ship, or river and bay ship, or her master or crew, unless the ship—
  • (a) is engaged in trade or commerce with other countries or among the States; or
  • (b) is on the high seas, or in waters which are used by ships engaged in trade or commerce with other countries or among the States; or
  • (c) is in the territorial waters of any Territory which is part of the Commonwealth.

Definition of coasting trade.

  • 7.   A ship shall be deemed to be engaged in the coasting trade, within the meaning of this Act, if she takes on board passengers or cargo at any port in a State, or a Territory which is part of the Commonwealth, to be carried to, and landed or delivered at, any other port in the same State or Territory or in any other State or other such Territory:
  • Provided that a ship shall not be deemed to be engaged in the coasting trade by reason of the fact that she carries—
  • (a) passengers who hold through tickets to or from a port beyond Australia and the Territories under the authority of the Commonwealth; or
  • (b) cargo consigned on a through bill of lading to or from a port beyond Australia and those Territories and which is not transhipped to or from any ship trading exclusively in Australian waters which is not licensed under this Act; or
  • (c) mails between any ports in Australia or in any of those Territories:
  • Provided further that the Governor-General may by order declare that the carrying of passengers or cargo between ports in any Territory which is part of the Commonwealth, or between ports in any such Territory and any other Australian ports, shall not be deemed engaging in the coasting trade.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • AshleyDillo changed the title to Alaska 2021 - Maybe NOT a total loss? (topic edit as of 2021-05-21)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...