3407 replies to this topic

[Blair M.]

The Fed's can declare Canada's Inside Passage as sovereign, internal Canadian waters, this as opposed to Canada's current agreement that it is an international waterway.

As much as the Americans can amend whatever act obliges them to call to port in Canadian waters when transiting North to Alaska, so too can Canada ban all cruise lines from transiting internal Canadian waters unless they have at least one port of call in Canada. 

In the above scenario, lots of useless bluster, but nothing changes!

 

Good luck to the cruise ships sailing in the constantly raging, open seas outside of Canada's Inside Passage, with all cruise passengers stuck inside their cabins for two days, heaving-up the previous nights dinner.

 

Of course the above is nothing more than a thought exercise, as nothing like banning American cruise ships from Canadian waters will ever happen, it's just a reminder that everything can, and does cut both ways.

But the thought exercise does lend weight to Canada's pre-negotiation stance with the U.S.

 

In this case I'm not seeing anything here but a blustery, solid red State (Alaska) putting forth a news release in response to Eby's transit tariff exercise.

It's no surprise to see Alaska contribute to Trumps ongoing efforts to wind Canada and Canadians up, as Alaska is hardly now, and never has been a friendly blue state to British Columbia and Canada, it certainly isn't is Washington, Oregon, or California.

 

So we get tit for tat, back and forth, and so it goes.

[Victoria Watcher]

^ Canada has many cruise ships leaving Montreal and going down the US coast, they can do the same.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 16 March 2025 - 09:31 AM.

[max.bravo]

^^Yes, Canadian politicians can say anything they want.

We still can’t back it up with anything.

[Blair M.]

^ Canada has many cruise ships leaving Montreal and going down the US coast, they can do the same.

Indeed, as I noted above, trade wars are always an endless word game of tit for tat, intermixed with actual actions (like the tariffs currently in place) - and that's really how trade wars go until such time as both sides declare their "peace".

When your "war" doesn't involve violence, it's a given that it then becomes a war of words, which is exactly what we're seeing every day in our news.

 

My point is only that it's a mistake to conflate the "words" (actions untaken), with any actions actually taken and having some sort of effect on Canada and Canadians.

To date there are no tariffs on semi's transiting B.C. to Alaska, nor are there any cruise ship cancellations to Canadian ports of call.

 

It makes for a great chat, and lots of "what if's", but it's currently moot, as words don't equate with actions, and because there's no actions, there's no requirement to back anything up.

[Victoria Watcher]

In almost all trade wars, the salary of politicians is never at risk.

[dasmo]

All wars actually.

[dasmo]

They profit tremendously

[Mike K.]

The Fed's can declare Canada's Inside Passage as sovereign, internal Canadian waters, this as opposed to Canada's current agreement that it is an international waterway.
As much as the Americans can amend whatever act obliges them to call to port in Canadian waters when transiting North to Alaska, so too can Canada ban all cruise lines from transiting internal Canadian waters unless they have at least one port of call in Canada.
In the above scenario, lots of useless bluster, but nothing changes!

Good luck to the cruise ships sailing in the constantly raging, open seas outside of Canada's Inside Passage, with all cruise passengers stuck inside their cabins for two days, heaving-up the previous nights dinner.

Only Canadian departures sail the inside passage as a general rule, I thought, which is also much more efficient for them.

The departures from Washington and the Lower 48, and return sailings, do not, for the most part sail the east coast of the Island unless they have a stopover in Vancouver or in Nanaimo or Campbell River, and the majority do not. Maybe a few will stop in Victoria when returning via IP but I don’t think that’s common.

[Mike K.]

99% of the time it's the last stop, with a leave at 12 midnight from Victoria, and a 7am unload in Seattle. I've said it a billion times, they just do it because they have to and after they have extracted maximum cash elsewhere.

I’m still not clear on whether they have to stop in Canada on the way up to Alaska, or only only the way down? If only on the way down, how can they sail between US ports on the way up?

[Victoria Watcher]

FFS. They can stop either way.

But they stop here after the guests are tired and spent up.

Why are you all so naive to see it?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 16 March 2025 - 10:58 AM.

[Mike K.]

Different issue.

I just want to know why they stop in only one direction, if they’re prohibited from sailing between two US ports.

[Victoria Watcher]

Different issue.

I just want to know why they stop in only one direction, if they’re prohibited from sailing between two US ports.

 

They must stop at one non-US port.  Either way, does not matter.

 

They choose Victoria, as Vancouver is too busy with originating and ending trips.

 

They choose to come here at the very last day and the very last hours, so they have already scrubbed most money out of the passengers.   It's very clear to see.

 

You are all blind to it.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 16 March 2025 - 11:21 AM.

[Blair M.]

Only Canadian departures sail the inside passage as a general rule, I thought, which is also much more efficient for them.

I believe it’s a bit of both, depending on what you’re hoping to see:

https://www.alaska.o...a-cruise-routes

[Barrister]

I really dont think that it is right to get into some sort of trade war thing with Alaska. The highway thing is just stupid. 

 

Ebby should cancel it, admit it was stupid, apologize to Alaska and point out it was a measure of how hurt and attacked we feel by the guys in Washington. Emphasize that we are neighbours and neighbours look after each other.

[Mike K.]

They must stop at one non-US port. Either way, does not matter.

They choose Victoria, as Vancouver is too busy with originating and ending trips.

They choose to come here at the very last day and the very last hours, so they have already scrubbed most money out of the passengers. It's very clear to see.

You are all blind to it.

Oh, so it’s just one stop in a back and forth trip? Interesting.

[Mike K.]

I believe it’s a bit of both, depending on what you’re hoping to see:
https://www.alaska.o...a-cruise-routes

Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant our inside passage, as in Georgia Strait.

[Grk]

All the vessels that stop here weekly are round tripping frme Seattle. They depart their last Alaskan port as late as possible in order to maximum revenue from shore tours. They are in no hurry to get to Victoria as they make more money from casino/shops/activities on board than from the few shore tours available here late in the evening. They only stop here because they legally must. If the US drops that requirement I would guess almost all of our port calls would disappear. Blame the Premier for starting the threat.

[Mike K.]

What do you think that would do to the Vancouver industry long term? Short term Seattle would have to expand its port facilities, probably? Those vessels are full of Americans when they depart Vancouver.

[Victoria Watcher]

What do you think that would do to the Vancouver industry long term? Short term Seattle would have to expand its port facilities, probably? Those vessels are full of Americans when they depart Vancouver.

 

I think it would take longer to decay the Vancouver business, yes.  But I dare say that Seattle is slightly more attractive based on flights into that city, compared to Vancouver.   Frequency, more direct flights.   If you are starting out in a smaller US city with no direct flights to the Pacific Northwest, you can bet you really want your first transfer to be to a direct flight to Seattle or Vancouver. 

 

However, if they drop the requirement altogether, perhaps some cruises will depart and return to Anchorage.   Maybe one or two ships can do 3 and 4-day cruises this way.

 

 

This morning, Seatac has arrivals from:

 

Washington, DC

Anchorage

Portland

Wenatchee

Bellingham

Spokane

Walla Walla

Yakima 

Pasco

Honolulu

Fairbanks

Hawaii

Eugene

Boise

Vancouver

Victoria

Pullman

Another Hawaii

Missoula

Medford

Redmond

San Francisco

Oakland

Denver

Salt Lake City

Reno

Cincinatti

Kansas city

Las Vegas

Ontario, CA

San Jose

Sacramento

Austin

Bozeman

Billings

Idaho Falls

Phoenix

Kansas City

Minneapolis

Danver

San Diego

 

And I'm only at 9:30am

 

 

Seatac:  52 million in 2024

YVR:  26.2M in 2024

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 16 March 2025 - 09:33 PM.

[Mike K.]

Yes, the two airports are not comparable.

Now do Seattle GDP!