Bill Overview
Title: Cruising for Alaska's Workforce Act
Description: This bill authorizes foreign vessels that carry more than 1,000 passengers (e.g., cruise ships) to transport passengers between a port in Alaska and another U.S. port, either directly or by way of a foreign port. The authorization generally expires 270 days after a notification that a U.S. vessel offers the same transport.
Sponsors: Rep. Peltola, Mary Sattler [D-AK-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Global population impacted by changes in cruise ship operations under the bill
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill affects the cruise industry, particularly the segment dealing with large ships carrying more than 1,000 passengers.
- Alaska is a significant hub for cruise ship activities, meaning local economies that rely on tourism may experience changes due to altered cruise operations.
- U.S. ports engaging in cruise activities, especially those in Alaska, will be impacted economically by the increased or decreased port activities.
- Local businesses that depend on tourist foot traffic from cruise ships will be impacted by the volume of cruise operations.
- The legislation may offer more flexibility and opportunities for foreign vessels to operate in U.S. waters, potentially impacting U.S.-based cruise companies.
- Given its association with U.S. regions, particularly Alaska, the legislation may change competitive dynamics in the cruise industry, affecting market participants globally.
Reasoning
- The Cruising for Alaska's Workforce Act primarily affects individuals and businesses involved in the cruise industry, especially those in Alaska and other U.S. ports. These stakeholders include local business owners, cruise industry employees, and the U.S. ports themselves.
- The policy's impact scope is relatively narrow and focused, hence not all Americans will experience direct effects from this policy. Instead, the primary impact will likely be felt among those directly linked or working in relation to the cruise industry.
- Budget constraints limit extensive economic support or subsidies through this policy, thus mitigating the direct economic uplift some local stakeholders might expect.
- Given that the act is designed to offer flexibility to foreign vessels, it might result in increased competition for U.S.-based cruise operators.
- The well-being scores will reflect perceived impacts of job security, economic opportunities, and potential fears of increased competition among those directly involved.
- Local businesses may experience either an increase in traffic due to more cruise arrivals or a decrease if foreign vessels choose not to dock at U.S. ports.
Simulated Interviews
Tourism business owner (Juneau, Alaska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might bring more business if more foreign cruise lines come by.
- Concerned about increased competition if U.S. vessels undercut prices or service quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Cruise line employee (Miami, Florida)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about potential job cuts if foreign competitors take market share.
- Expecting some operational adjustments but hopeful for stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Port authority staff (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see potential for increased port activity which can be good for jobs.
- Logistics might get more complex with more international ships.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Environmental activist (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about potential environmental impacts of increased cruise traffic.
- Looks forward to possible stricter regulations if U.S. vessels are encouraged to operate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Travel blogger (New York, New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could provide more exciting travel options if foreign ships include new routes.
- Curious about how the U.S. cruise market will adapt.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired, cruise enthusiast (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopeful for more cruise options and possibly lower prices.
- Skeptical about service quality from foreign operators.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
U.S. cruise company executive (Houston, Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Need to navigate more competition, but it opens up strategic partnership possibilities.
- Worried about market pressures and regulatory complexity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Local government official (Ketchikan, Alaska)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could boost the local economy by attracting more tourists.
- Need to ensure infrastructure can handle potentially increased pressures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Independent travel agent (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Could offer more options to clients, but might disrupt current booking trends.
- Uncertain about how my business agreements with U.S. operators may change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Dock worker (Tampa, Florida)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Prospects could improve with more ships passing through.
- Worried about job security if reduced activity occurs due to foreign competition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Year 3: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $40000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- This policy could impact U.S.-based cruise lines by altering competitive dynamics.
- Potential increase in foreign ship traffic could strain local infrastructure and require upgrades.
- The bill could lead to temporary economic boosts in certain port towns, contingent on increased cruise operations.