Jump to content

Would this make Alaskan cruises legal?


RCIfan1912

Recommended Posts

If the cruise lines could work it out with the Canadian government to allow ships to stop in their ports but not allow passengers off and then go off to Alaska would that make Alaskan cruise legal? I've wanted to ask that for a while now. Seems like a simple thing to work out with Canada if it would make Alaskan cruises legal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure it would even be necessary. An Alaskan cruise can start/stop in Seattle and make all the routine stops in Alaska and never port in Canada. The difference between Vancouver and Seattle is less than 3 hours by car. Ships have some leeway with speed. Obviously a ship will not go 52knots (60mph).  More like 20 knots so estimate 9 additional cruise hours. This means burning a bit extra fuel or perhaps dropping a stop or spending a hour less at each stop. I've been on cruises where itinerary or times change and are made up one way or another. Making up about 9 hours on a week long cruise by moving a port from Vancouver to Seattle should not be too difficult.

No doubt there are other logistics in the supply chain but RCCL has plenty of people to figure that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like a reasonable request but it depends how committed the Canadian government is to sticking with their original statements:

Today, the Minister of Transport, the Honourable Omar Alghabra, announced two new Interim Orders, which prohibit pleasure craft in Canadian Arctic waters and cruise vessels in all Canadian waters until February 28, 2022. This means:

  • Adventure-seeking pleasure craft are still prohibited from entering Arctic waters.
  • Passenger vessels carrying more than 12 people are still prohibited from entering Arctic coastal waters, including Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, and the Labrador Coast.
  • Cruise vessels carrying more than 100 people are still prohibited from operating in Canadian waters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ability to go faster and mature it to Seattle is not the major issue. What is at issue is the law that requires any ship departing from the US to dock at a foreign port. 

 

https://www.smslegal.com/legal-news/cant-sail-one-port-another-america/

 

Either the US maritime law will have to be changed in some way or a concession for temp docking in Canada will have to happen. It's a good idea but at the same time may end up being irrelevant anyway by the time cruising actually restarts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MuttMutt said:

The ability to go faster and mature it to Seattle is not the major issue. What is at issue is the law that requires any ship departing from the US to dock at a foreign port. 

 

https://www.smslegal.com/legal-news/cant-sail-one-port-another-america/

 

Either the US maritime law will have to be changed in some way or a concession for temp docking in Canada will have to happen. It's a good idea but at the same time may end up being irrelevant anyway by the time cruising actually restarts. 

Yes this is what I was talking about, and I guess I thought everyone knew about this law. Would just stopping in a Canadian port but not allowing passengers off get around the law? Would it count because to me it would. Nothing in the law says passengers must get off the ship, just to visit a foreign port. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ditchdoc said:

Not sure it would even be necessary. An Alaskan cruise can start/stop in Seattle and make all the routine stops in Alaska and never port in Canada. The difference between Vancouver and Seattle is less than 3 hours by car. Ships have some leeway with speed. Obviously a ship will not go 52knots (60mph).  More like 20 knots so estimate 9 additional cruise hours. This means burning a bit extra fuel or perhaps dropping a stop or spending a hour less at each stop. I've been on cruises where itinerary or times change and are made up one way or another. Making up about 9 hours on a week long cruise by moving a port from Vancouver to Seattle should not be too difficult.

No doubt there are other logistics in the supply chain but RCCL has plenty of people to figure that out.

I don’t think you have full understanding of the trade regulations and immigration issues in what you propose. The route you have described would be illegal for any of the major large cruise lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RCIfan1912 said:

If the cruise lines could work it out with the Canadian government to allow ships to stop in their ports but not allow passengers off and then go off to Alaska would that make Alaskan cruise legal? I've wanted to ask that for a while now. Seems like a simple thing to work out with Canada if it would make Alaskan cruises legal. 

I read on another board that these “technical stops” as the industry calls them, do not satisfy the PVSA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TXcruzer said:

I don’t think you have full understanding of the trade regulations and immigration issues in what you propose. The route you have described would be illegal for any of the major large cruise lines. 

No doubt there are things I do not understand but I do not see what the issue would be for a ship sailing from a US port to a US port. RCCL sails from Miami to Key West (or did) on a regular basis. The major issue I see from a previous post is "Cruise vessels carrying more than 100 people are still prohibited from operating in Canadian waters. " It might be hard to get from the state of Washington to the state of Alaska without going through Canadian waters  since the inside passage does go though British Columbia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ditchdoc said:

No doubt there are things I do not understand but I do not see what the issue would be for a ship sailing from a US port to a US port. RCCL sails from Miami to Key West (or did) on a regular basis. The major issue I see from a previous post is "Cruise vessels carrying more than 100 people are still prohibited from operating in Canadian waters. " It might be hard to get from the state of Washington to the state of Alaska without going through Canadian waters  since the inside passage does go though British Columbia.

I am paraphrasing here but essentially the PVSA disallows a foreign flagged ship from transporting passengers between US ports without a stop in at least one foreign port. 
 

In order to accomplish what you have proposed, one would need a US flagged ship, manufactured wholly within the USA, manned by an American crew to be compliant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TXcruzer said:

I am paraphrasing here but essentially the PVSA disallows a foreign flagged ship from transporting passengers between US ports without a stop in at least one foreign port. 
 

In order to accomplish what you have proposed, one would need a US flagged ship, manufactured wholly within the USA, manned by an American crew to be compliant. 

I see. Now I understand better why most of the Alaskan cruises depart from Vancouver. Its kind of a goofy rule to me.  I guess the second part is what covers the various "river cruises" is the US.

II also cruised from Baltimore to Bar Harbor Main and then on to Nova Scotia and back. So that makes sense as well with this PVSA. Still kinda of goofy to me but it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timely to the conversation

 

https://www.cruisehive.com/royal-caribbean-not-to-cancel-any-canada-and-alaska-cruises/47061

 

"Royal Caribbean has now announced it will not be canceling any voyages. This includes cruises embarking/debarking from Canadian ports and those itineraries touching on Canadian ports of call."

 

“As the state with the most extensive shared border with Canada, the Alaska Delegation has worked in good faith to seek a compromise over border crossing restrictions due to COVID-19, keeping in mind the health and safety of Alaskans and Canadians. Canada’s announcement to ban all cruise sailings carrying 100 people or more traveling through Canadian waters, without so much as a courtesy conversation with the Alaska Delegation, is not only unexpected—it is unacceptable.” Senators from Alaska

 

"An amendment to the passenger PVSA seems to be one viable option if Canada refuses to budge."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Ditchdoc said:

Timely to the conversation

 

https://www.cruisehive.com/royal-caribbean-not-to-cancel-any-canada-and-alaska-cruises/47061

 

"Royal Caribbean has now announced it will not be canceling any voyages. This includes cruises embarking/debarking from Canadian ports and those itineraries touching on Canadian ports of call."

 

“As the state with the most extensive shared border with Canada, the Alaska Delegation has worked in good faith to seek a compromise over border crossing restrictions due to COVID-19, keeping in mind the health and safety of Alaskans and Canadians. Canada’s announcement to ban all cruise sailings carrying 100 people or more traveling through Canadian waters, without so much as a courtesy conversation with the Alaska Delegation, is not only unexpected—it is unacceptable.” Senators from Alaska

 

"An amendment to the passenger PVSA seems to be one viable option if Canada refuses to budge."

 

 

I hate to be the cynic, but this is almost certainly another way Royal is holding onto money as long as possible. 

I can’t imagine why the Alaskan senate delegation could expect the Canadian government to consult with them regarding their own domestic policies. 


Ammending the PVSA is just one step (and an unlikely one at that) Immigration issues for the crew are an even bigger challenge, as the Visa that crew members are on do not permit them to do an all USA itinerary. Royal would have to get the crew a H1B visa, of which only 30,000 a year are granted, and the current wait time is 36 months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RCIfan1912 said:

I have to say it would be extremely foolish for the Canadian government not to allow ships to just dock, collect taxes and fees for passengers that done even get off the ship. Then they can sail off to Alaska. 

Keep in mind that traditionally these cruises start or end in Vancouver. So many are entering Canada to stay for a day or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Alaskan delegation can convince US Congress and administration to waive or amend the current PVSA then it can happen.  This is a USG self-imposed restriction - totally fixable by 2 branches of the US gov't.  Canada can remain closed to traffic as long as they need or want....   IMO - I do not think the USG has any hint of sympathy toward the cruise industry - outside the local politics of major port cities that need the revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The crux of the issue is that the mass market cruise lines are foreign companies that operate foreign flagged ships with foreign crew.

Decades ago foreign flagged cruise ships were using Ensenada in the manner proposed.  The ship would arrive in port late in the night, spend a few hours, no passenger was allowed off and then the ship continued to a US port.  A complaint was filed and the hearing determined that this Ensenada stop was being done specifically with the intent to circumvent the PVSA.  The result is that this use of a technical stop immediately ceased.  If I am not mistaken a factor in the ruling is that there was a "coastwise qualified" US flagged ship that was operating in the same waters that the foreign ships were.  It was the owner of a coastwise qualified ship that filed the complaint.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are at least 3 US companies that have US flagged passenger ships with US crew that are not subject to the PVSA that offer passenger service in Alaskan waters so waiving the PVSA for foreign ships would likely be challenged in court by these companies.  To be exempt from the PVSA and be "coastwise qualified" they incur more stringent regulations and inspections by the USCG and they incur higher labor costs to employ US workers. 

Foreign ships are held to international standards and by international maritime convention the USCG can not apply the same standards and regulations that are used for US flagged ships to foreign ships.  It would be hard to imagine any court not siding with these US companies since the law exists to protect these companies and to prevent foreign flagged ships from competing with them given that foreign flagged ship don't have to meet more stringent US standards.  The size of the vessels is irrelevant, the PVSA applies to almost every vessel that isn't a pleasurecraft and can carry more than 12 passengers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unrelated to the PVSA many years ago a gambling boat company was offering cruises to nowhere from the US.  They would sail into international water, open gambling and spend a few hours puttering around before returning to the port they left from.  They applied for a permit to start a new operation in South Florida at which time CBP became involved.  The permit was denied because the company was employing foreign workers.  The determination was that the foreign workers would be essentially working in America.  Briefly visiting international waters did not satisfy the crew visa requirements they were using.  These types of visa limit the amount of time ship crew can stay in America.  Since the crew never entered another country, they never left the US and their employment was found to violate the foreign ship crew visa that only allows temporary entry as part of a ship's crew. 

Not only did this company fail to get their new business venture going, they had to shut down their existing cruises to nowhere gambling operation.   Foreign cruise lines were notified they too cannot operate cruise to nowhere which they had been doing from the port of Miami since they too were not using US workers.  The inability to offer cruises to nowhere is not rooted in the PVSA but immigration law unrelated to the PVSA.

This is relevant now because if, somehow, the PVSA was waived in 2021 the new challenge facing the foreign cruise lines would be the same that prevents cruises to nowhere - the foreign crew would violate their ship crew visas because they would overstay their foreign ship crew visas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any effort to have foreign flagged cruise ships sail past Canada to Alaska not only would require the PVSA be modified, separately immigration law would need to be modified. 

Millions of US workers in the service industry are out of work.  On land bartenders, wait staff, housekeeping positions in hotels, cooks in restaurants and so on are facing reduced hours or have been let go in every state.  What politician would ever endorse a plan to allow foreign ship crew to do the same jobs?  Foreign crew don't pay US tax.  They don't pay state tax.  They don't pay FICA like the rest of us.  Foreign crew aren't subject to any federal or state labor laws.  What elected official would ever sign their name to a plan that allowed foreign workers to work in America in this manner.  It would be political suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A recurring sentiment is that these are unprecedented times and crazy things are needed.  Indeed they are, $1.9T crazy in addition to the already spent trillions.

However I expect that will be response... pass the relief plan and put money in the hands of the people impacted by this tragedy.  Then we don't need to allow foreign companies with foreign ships and foreign crew, the people will be saved by the relief plan.

That's not my position, but that is the response I expect we will receive.

I get it - we want to cruise.  We want our Alaska and our Canada/NE cruises to go as booked. I do as well. In the spirit of Never Say Never I'm not going to say it will never happen, but... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possible solution would still require the Canadian Government to allow cruise ships into its waters but this could be as simple as crossing the boundary, whatever that distance from shore is and stop and drop anchor, logging the drop and then move on back into international or Alaskan waters. In Australia we don't have a PVSA so we can cruise to nowhere however I have been on a few cruises where the ship would cross into international waters, just off a wind swept rocky island called Willis Island which is in the Coral Sea about 280 miles east of Cairns, Queenlamd, Australia. The ship stops and drops anchor so it can log an intertnation stop which allows the ship to sell duty free merchandise. Should this be allowed, the ship goes nowhere near land but still fulfils the PVSA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CruisingOz said:

Possible solution would still require the Canadian Government to allow cruise ships into its waters but this could be as simple as crossing the boundary, whatever that distance from shore is and stop and drop anchor, logging the drop and then move on back into international or Alaskan waters. In Australia we don't have a PVSA so we can cruise to nowhere however I have been on a few cruises where the ship would cross into international waters, just off a wind swept rocky island called Willis Island which is in the Coral Sea about 280 miles east of Cairns, Queenlamd, Australia. The ship stops and drops anchor so it can log an intertnation stop which allows the ship to sell duty free merchandise. Should this be allowed, the ship goes nowhere near land but still fulfils the PVSA. 

Entering within the jurisdiction of another nation without guests or crew having an opportunity to leave the ship to visit that country is pretty much the definition of a "technical stop".   That is no different compared to actually pulling up to a pier and waiting an hour then leaving.  The purpose is to circumvent the PVSA which makes it violate the PVSA.  

Remember in the United States cruises to nowhere are not restricted because of the PVSA.  Cruises to nowhere are now impossible because foreign ship crew visas do not allow them stay and work in the United States.  A crew that never leaves the United States (never enters another country) overstays their foreign ship crew visa.  Immigration laws prevent cruises to nowhere in the United States.

The ruling against the small gambling operations that used foreign crew in this manner came about in part because the ship owners were doing something that many people found intolerable.  They were circumventing other laws including state level bans and controls about gambling.  Once their boat was in international water the laws of the state they departed from no longer applied.  State taxes didn't have to be paid on any gaming profit.  Some states don't allow gambling at all.  The state governments were outraged that these US companies could set up shop in their state then advertise and offer gambling from their shores.  The home states were powerless to stop it until CBP determined that their foreign crew were found to be overstaying their ship's crew visas.  These states were thrilled the federal government was able to stop what the states themselves could not.

The end of cruises to nowhere was triggered not by the mass market cruise lines.  It was a gaming company that caused this.  It's all about money and companies trying to work around the intent of law for profit.  That is what ended cruises to nowhere in the United States.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the problem with calls to modify law such as the Jones Act and/or the PVSA.

We cruisers only see the issue through a lens that is focused on the mass market cruise industry but many of these regulations and laws apply to nearly all commercial vessels sailing on rivers and lakes and oceans across America.  There is always someone trying to find ways around regulations and laws in the pursuit of profit.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another very important piece of the puzzle for the 2021 cruise ship season involving Alaska and New England surrounds our old friends at the CDC.  Remember no passenger ship with over 250 combined crew and passenger count can sail from a US port right now because of the CDC.

It's well known that when cruising does resume it will not be a light switch with all ships suddenly allowed to sail.  The restart will likely begin with one or two ships performing 3 or 4 night cruises for several months.  This is being contemplated to reduce the potential for the CDC's worst case scenario - an entire or majority of a ship becoming infected.  Many of us are hoping that these small short initial restart cruises occur during or before this summer.  Some don't think they will.  It will be some time before the next and subsequent phases of the restart will be allowed.

Alaska is a beautiful destination in no small part because it is remote and lightly populated.  That may not work in our favor.  There are no medical facilities in Alaska that can handle mass events should the majority of a ship become infected.  If an outbreak occurred a cruise ship it would need to return to the lower 48 and that would take days.  In the meanwhile more ship crew and passengers would become infected.  This is exactly the outcome that the CDC desires to avoid.  

We will all be very fortunate to have short cruises up and running on a repeating basis by August.  August is nearing the end of the Alaskan cruise ship season.  

All of this talk about waiving the PVSA and modifying immigration law is moot because the CDC is unlikely to allow such cruises to sail in time for the 2021 Alaska or Canada/NE season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ditchdoc said:

Keep in mind that traditionally these cruises start or end in Vancouver. So many are entering Canada to stay for a day or two.

We took an Alaska cruise that departed from and returned to Seattle. Victoria, BC was one of the ports of call.

The 7 night round trip cruises could still operate out of Seattle with a "touch and go" stop in Victoria, but the northbound or southbound trips would have to be made longer to add such a stop (those are the ones that depart from or return to Vancouver).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, HeWhoWaits said:

We took an Alaska cruise that departed from and returned to Seattle. Victoria, BC was one of the ports of call.

The 7 night round trip cruises could still operate out of Seattle with a "touch and go" stop in Victoria, but the northbound or southbound trips would have to be made longer to add such a stop (those are the ones that depart from or return to Vancouver).

There is no "touch and go" stop to be had, Canada will not allow ships to disembark people, this is required to satisfy the requirements of federal law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, HeWhoWaits said:

northbound or southbound trips would have to be made longer to add such a stop (those are the ones that depart from or return to Vancouver)

Actually the one-way cruises don't need another stop added as the PVSA is only pertaining to round-trip USA trips. 

The Vancouver <> Seattle route isn't going to happen until Canada allows foreign passenger ship travel again.  If Canada opens up again, then the RT Seattle <> Seattle trips can go on as usual since they would be able to make their PVSA compliant calls in Victoria, BC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AshleyDillo said:

Actually the one-way cruises don't need another stop added as the PVSA is only pertaining to round-trip USA trips. 

Technically the PVSA also applies to one way voyages between US cities as well.  That's why they can't sail directly from Honolulu and Seattle for example or something like New York to Miami.

One way voyages that start or end in another country are not subject to the PVSA.

They could offer Ensenada to Juneau, or Ensenada to Anchorage (Seward) one way and then offer the opposite as the next voyage.  People would need to be good with embarking or debarking in Mexico.  

They could also leave from California, run down to Ensenada then go North to Alaska on a round trip but they'd need more than 7 days - way too far for an Alaskan round trip in 7 days that includes MX as the foreign country to satisfy the PVSA.

Then they run into the 7 day limit of the CSO that expires on Nov. 1 assuming that doesn't get extended so that's kind of moot as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, another crazy idea of what they could do and fit within existing laws...

One way to/from Ensenda with a cruise tour in Alaska by land to make up for losing time at sea.   Seward is probably too far so Juneau or Sitka come to mind.  Both have decent airports that can handle medium sized airline jets.

That's still assuming the CDC allows such cruises in 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2021 at 2:52 PM, TXcruzer said:

I am paraphrasing here but essentially the PVSA disallows a foreign flagged ship from transporting passengers between US ports without a stop in at least one foreign port. 
 

In order to accomplish what you have proposed, one would need a US flagged ship, manufactured wholly within the USA, manned by an American crew to be compliant. 

Not a requirement. Norwegian has a US flagged ship that wanders around the Hawaiian Islands only. The idea being you fly to HI and then cruise around the Islands for xx days and then fly back to US mainland. Given the archipellago's isolation, there is no opportunity for foreign port of call.

The US would not (maybe could not) grant them exemption, so NCL did the work. They took an existing ship, certainly not built in the US, and flagged it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MrB said:

Not a requirement. Norwegian has a US flagged ship that wanders around the Hawaiian Islands only. They took an existing ship, certainly not built in the US, and flagged it.

 

With a special waiver issued by Congress. 

The ship construction was started in the US until the new ship owner failed.  The US gov't had backed them with loan guarantees.  When the future owner went under the US gov't found itself in possession of a partially completed hull and in a bid to sweep the failure under the rug they found a new buyer but had to agree to allow the ship to be finished in Germany and qualify as a coastwise qualified vessel.  It went to a vote and specific to the ship by name Congress granted a waiver for Hawaiian waters only.  The PoA isn't coastwise qualified anywhere else i.e. she can't sail to Alaska exempt from the PVSA despite flying a US flag. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrB said:

Not a requirement. Norwegian has a US flagged ship that wanders around the Hawaiian Islands only. The idea being you fly to HI and then cruise around the Islands for xx days and then fly back to US mainland. Given the archipellago's isolation, there is no opportunity for foreign port of call.

The US would not (maybe could not) grant them exemption, so NCL did the work. They took an existing ship, certainly not built in the US, and flagged it.

@twangster beat me to it, but as you see, you didn't have all the facts, the POA is a one off special circumstance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
8 minutes ago, Ditchdoc said:

https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/alaska-tourism-recovery-act-canada-cruise-ship-ban

 

Alaska Senators Introduce New Legislation to Bypass Canada’s Cruise Ship Ban

If passed, cruise ships would be allowed to travel between the state of Washington and Alaska without stopping in Canada.

If this were to pass (a snowball in he** comes to mind), will the Alaskan congressional contingent then petition the CBP to waive visa requirements for the ships, or will they be staffing them from Alaska's citizens?

 

Moot point, as the Alaskan season is being cancelled one month at a time by the CDC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TXcruzer said:

Moot point, as the Alaskan season is being cancelled one month at a time by the CDC.

For some cruise lines that have ships in the vicinity they may cancel Alaska a month at a time and carry on but Royal is different.  Royal's ships aren't anywhere close to Alaska.  

By eliminating long cruises with passengers and by eliminating May the CDC has nearly all but sunk Royal's Alaska season in 2021. 

It would take one heck of a hail Mary play to save Royal's 2021 Alaska cruise season but with the CDC as our quarterback barely warming the bench on the sidelines it doesn't look good. The last time I checked a quarterback does much better when they have a pulse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...
×
×
  • Create New...