|
Cruise ships from Seattle travel the Pacific all the time, for timeliness if nothing else. That was the standard routing pre-COVID, with the stop at Victoria to fulfil PVSA requirements. Inside Passage will also add to pilotage costs (must run close to or more than $100k for that length of transit), and very likely speed reduction (in addition to timing the tide at Campbell River). The wide-open ocean is used as the ships can go at full speed.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 33217460)
Not suggesting such action, just wondering why Canada would keep the transit restriction in place if the U.S. resumes cruising.
Originally Posted by YVR Cockroach
(Post 33217768)
Cruise ships from Seattle travel the Pacific all the time, for timeliness if nothing else. That was the standard routing pre-COVID, with the stop at Victoria to fulfil PVSA requirements.
|
The latest update from CDC.
Test cruises with volunteer passengers are on the horizon as CDC issues new guidance On Wednesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released additional guidance for cruise ships with instructions for trial voyages with volunteer passengers meant to take place in advance of sailings that include paying passengers. "With the issuance of these next two phases, cruise ship operators now have all the necessary requirements and recommendations they need to start simulated voyages before resuming restricted passenger voyages and apply for a COVID-19 conditional sailing certificate to begin sailing with restricted passenger voyages," the CDC said on its website, noting it may adjust requirements and recommendations in the future. As a stockholder of one cruise line I hope a successful resumption of operations can resume. Who's up for a test cruise? |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 33229895)
Ships requiring a high level of vaccinated crew and passengers can bypass the test cruise phase.
If Florida won’t allow Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings to require proof of COVID-19 vaccination for passengers and crew, the company’s CEO says it will take its ships elsewhere. CEO Frank Del Rio made the threat during an earnings call Thursday, just days after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill passed by the Republican-controlled state Legislature that bans businesses, schools and government entities in Florida from asking anyone to provide proof of a COVID-19 vaccination. Looks like no cruise lines had filed for test cruises as of yesterday. |
Originally Posted by jmastron
(Post 33217488)
I suspect there's either a real or perceived fear that if a ship transiting their waters has an outbreak, there'd be pressure for Canada to assist/let the ship dock. It might take international or per-cruiseline agreements that the ship won't even hint that Canada should accept them, and perhaps waivers signed by the passengers saying they accept the risk of being on a cruise is...being stuck on a cruise until they clear their cases. You don't want a repeat of the Zaandam with people who got on a cruise in *March* after the risks were crystal clear crying that nobody would accept poor infected them.
|
Originally Posted by BamaVol
(Post 33251346)
Given the CDC requirements for vaccinations of pax and crew, the ships would be safer than the Province where they would have to dock. At 95% & 98%, what’s the likelihood of a massive outbreak on board?
|
Originally Posted by Badenoch
(Post 33251451)
Canada is far behind the U.S. on vaccinations and we continue to face elevated case loads and hospitalizations. The federal government continues to impose quarantine restrictions on anyone entering the country regardless of their vaccination status. Therefore allowing leisure cruisers to enter the country with no restrictions is not going to happen until returning Canadians can do the same.
|
Originally Posted by BamaVol
(Post 33253053)
I’m just trying to understand why cruise ships would be kept out of Canadian waters.
|
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
(Post 33253723)
Every country is possessive about their waters. I'd say most (if not all) countries would reject the idea of giving away something they "own" (the waters) when there's only a downside (environmental damage) and no benefit (port calls).
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 33253932)
I don't see an environmental downside of a ship solely transiting territorial waters.
|
Here a historical reason why not:
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 33217320)
It's understood that Canada has banned cruise ships from their ports and waters until some later date. I was wondering what harm would be caused by a transiting ship with no scheduled port calls?
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...38ad22cb18.jpg Crash of the MV Sundancer from Seattle in Campbell River. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...6361d65663.jpg |
Originally Posted by reflektia
(Post 33253986)
Possibly refers to waste discharging: https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresource...0Annex%20V.pdf
There's also the matter of what to do with the acids, heavy metals and other nasty byproducts of bunker fuel. https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2019/0...ter-pollution/ Last cruise I did, the cruise line went to exclusively using marine diesel worldwide. |
Originally Posted by ijkh
(Post 33254032)
P.S. I WAS onboard.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...38ad22cb18.jpg Crash of the MV Sundancer from Seattle in Campbell River. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...6361d65663.jpg |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 33253932)
I don't see an environmental downside of a ship solely transiting territorial waters.
Originally Posted by reflektia
(Post 33253986)
Possibly refers to waste discharging
|
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
(Post 33254238)
I'm glad that not everyone is that blind.
That's part of it, but it goes much further. Aren't there regulations imposed by many countries regulating what can be discharged from ships if X miles from shore? Were ships transiting these waters pre-COVID? What's different now? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:34 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.