Passenger Vessels Services Act Help - Boston, Montreal, FLL & So. Caribbean

Was it the QE II that was sent to house troops when there was conflict in Falkland Islands?

My recollection is that QE2 was not primarily to house troops at the Falklands but to take them there. In any case, it made a major contribution to the war effort.

Roy

Not at all, surely Congress can decide what they mean by a passenger vessel and what kind of services need protecting. As soon as Congress would decide that one type of passenger vessel did not need to have the protection of the PVSA (cruise ships in your instance), the small vessel operators, and ferry operators (especially the Alaska Marine Highway) would petition the courts that they were being discriminated against, since they are passenger vessels as well.

 

 

Not much, except that cruiselines do offer different itineraries when they are allowed to, so maybe, they would offer a cruise from New York to Miami when they could. Actually I think it would be really weird if they wouldn't offer cruises like that.

 

 

 

American Cruise Line? Cruise West? Indeed, I was thinking about 500+ ships. And if there was that much demand for US coastal cruises, don't you think these small vessel operators would jump in and take advantage of the benefits of US flag, like construction loan guarantees, to build more and larger vessels?

 

 

 

Well, my first cruise was Rotterdam to Malaga and back. My second one was Amsterdam to Petersburg and back. My third was Amsterdam, around the British Isles and back. Those market driven cruises would be very similar (length wise) to New York - Baltimore - Charleston and back. European countries are simply too small to offer cruises visiting ports in just one country.

 

 

 

I didn't even mention the ABC islands, I was saying that itineraries are actually designed to include a foreign port. Let me quote you on Canadian's "PVSA":

 

 

 

Apperently not because Greenland is such a fantastic destination.

 

Rafinmd was on the Crystal cruise, and he can tell you that Greenland was not that far out of the way. And the Canadian Coasting Act had nothing to do with that cruise, since it started and ended in the US.

 

Besides not being a lawer, I'm not an economist either. Yet I think that the billions Carnival earns, the amount they spend on US food, pilots, training, port taxes, thousands of shore side employees in the us, exceeds the effect of hiring US crew on those few ships by far. I also think that all the US ports that would love to see the rich cruise passengers coming, but happen to be too far from distant ports for a viable itinerary, don't like it that people are spending their vacation money on the ABC islands. Which happen to be Dutch. I'm glad our tourism industry is protected by US Congress. :D

As I said, the cruise industry is very large, but would the inclusion of a few coastwise cruises add greatly to the amount they contribute to the US economy? Port taxes are a pittance. What training? They get free USCG medical evacuation and search and rescue services. And if there were "all the US ports" looking for rich cruise passengers (and its been shown that the spending by cruise passengers in ports of call does not have as much effect on the local economy as the cost to services), but why aren't they out lobbying for a ship to home port there, or call on the way from NYC to the Bahamas, because the ports with the infrastructure existing are rare, and the desire of the public to spend on that infrastructure is slight.

What do you mean by that? Secrecy of correspondence is also based on long-standing definitions, but telephones and WhatApp have lead to new laws. I don't see why lawmakers couldn't make a rule about "vessels having more than 1500 berths".

 

 

 

I completely agree. I wish there was a way to ask the lawmakers from 1886 what they would think of the current situation. My guess is that they would wave their arms in despair and yell "You got it all WRONG! Ships going to far ports so they can hire Philipinos is NOT what we wanted!"

 

And I believe, based on what the original intent of the PVSA was (to ensure enforcement of the Steamboat Act of 1838 (a maritime safety issue), that they would have said, "I want all ships that homeport in US ports to be US flag.

 

You know that I didn't mean a river boat on the Mississippi either. If the PVSA gets abolished, I'm quite sure the operators of Mississippi cruiselines can tell how the new, more specific, 21st century law can make a precise distinction between The Harmony of the Seas and a paddlewheeler that is more or less loophole free.

 

Tell that to Viking River, who tried to circumvent the PVSA by planning on building river boats for the Mississippi in foreign shipyards.

 

 

National security is helped by ships visiting a distant port? How?

National security is helped by having a trained force of merchant mariners, and a shipbuilding and repair capability to meet national security needs. Currently, the US is subsidizing about 20 ships that were built foreign to be flagged US and trade internationally (therefore not Jones Act or PVSA trades), in order to have these militarily useful vessels under US flag. I was part of the first Gulf War, and I remember the US using foreign flag ships to carry military cargo to the Gulf, and those crews refusing to enter the war zone. That didn't happen with US flag, US crewed vessels.

Was it the QE II that was sent to house troops when there was conflict in Falkland Islands?

My recollection is that QE2 was not primarily to house troops at the Falklands but to take them there. In any case, it made a major contribution to the war effort.

 

Roy

Actually, part of the design of the QE2 was for her to be readily converted to a troopship. For many years, up until the Falklands War, there was a warehouse in Southampton with pre-made crates for the artwork and chandeliers, and plywood sheets pre-cut and marked for use in covering the carpeting. I believe there were extra bunks stored as well.

Conversion of cruise ships to troopships was always a consideration, the SSUS was also specially designed for this. And the old SS Queen Elizabeth, which was rated at 2280 passengers, managed to carry over 11,000 troops at one time.

Cruise ships have also been used as temporary housing, like after Katrina, and those foreign flag ships had to obtain PVSA exemptions.

Another obstacle to your desire to have foreign flag cruise ships do strictly US coastwise voyages would be the same reason "cruises to nowhere" are no longer allowed. This is not because of the PVSA, as many believe, but due to CBP's interpretation that since the ships do not make foreign voyages (no foreign port call), they are operating within the US (our economic exclusion zone, as most nations, goes out to 200 miles), and the crew would need B1 work visas instead of the C1 crew visa. This would open them up to suits from US maritime labor unions as to why the work visas were being granted when there are qualified US citizens available to take the jobs. This is in addition to the extensive cost and documentation required for a B1 visa over a C1. These crew would then be liable for US taxes on the earnings made while in the US (on the ship).

Another obstacle to your desire to have foreign flag cruise ships do strictly US coastwise voyages would be the same reason "cruises to nowhere" are no longer allowed. This is not because of the PVSA, as many believe, but due to CBP's interpretation that since the ships do not make foreign voyages (no foreign port call), they are operating within the US (our economic exclusion zone, as most nations, goes out to 200 miles), and the crew would need B1 work visas instead of the C1 crew visa. This would open them up to suits from US maritime labor unions as to why the work visas were being granted when there are qualified US citizens available to take the jobs. This is in addition to the extensive cost and documentation required for a B1 visa over a C1. These crew would then be liable for US taxes on the earnings made while in the US (on the ship).

Chengkp 75.......... As always. Fab ulous post sand so helpful. thsnk you for all you contriibute here. I learn so much from your posts.

There are different PVSA rules depending on the itinerary. On a "closed loop" cruise where the ship returns to the port of origin any foreign port will satisfy the PVSA requirement. A distant foreign port is only required when a ship (or more relevantly a passenger) starts in one us port and ends in a different US port.

 

Roy

Thank you for the explanation.

Actually, part of the design of the QE2 was for her to be readily converted to a troopship. For many years, up until the Falklands War, there was a warehouse in Southampton with pre-made crates for the artwork and chandeliers, and plywood sheets pre-cut and marked for use in covering the carpeting. I believe there were extra bunks stored as well.

 

Conversion of cruise ships to troopships was always a consideration, the SSUS was also specially designed for this. And the old SS Queen Elizabeth, which was rated at 2280 passengers, managed to carry over 11,000 troops at one time.

 

Cruise ships have also been used as temporary housing, like after Katrina, and those foreign flag ships had to obtain PVSA exemptions.

I think the British government compensated Cunard for QE2's service by paying for a major refit after that. Not just the cosmetic repairs, but also changing steam to diesel-electric propulsion.

My father came home from WWII on the Mauretania as a troopship, so that's another liner the was converted for the war effort. When he was almost platinum in their loyalty program, Dad called Cunard to ask if they would give him credit for his "cruise" and they did!

Another obstacle to your desire to have foreign flag cruise ships do strictly US coastwise voyages would be the same reason "cruises to nowhere" are no longer allowed. This is not because of the PVSA, as many believe, but due to CBP's interpretation that since the ships do not make foreign voyages (no foreign port call), they are operating within the US (our economic exclusion zone, as most nations, goes out to 200 miles), and the crew would need B1 work visas instead of the C1 crew visa. This would open them up to suits from US maritime labor unions as to why the work visas were being granted when there are qualified US citizens available to take the jobs. This is in addition to the extensive cost and documentation required for a B1 visa over a C1. These crew would then be liable for US taxes on the earnings made while in the US (on the ship).

Wow, that's a whole level of complication I never knew about.

I would love to see coastal cruises, but I do understand the need for them to be on small ships in order to get into small ports. I guess if they could make money on those cruises with US built, flagged, crewed ships they would do so. There was a very interesting itinerary that followed the coast of Florida a few years ago. We wanted to do it, but the line got into money trouble and had to drop the cruise and get out of their lease on the ship.

My recollection is that QE2 was not primarily to house troops at the Falklands but to take them there. In any case, it made a major contribution to the war effort.

 

Roy

I appreciate this is getting off-topic (but I didn't start it:)). For various reasons, the British government did not want the QE2 to go to the Falklands, so the troops were transferred to P&O's older - and therefore less-valuable - ship S.S. Canberra at South Georgia. The Canberra was attacked but fortunately not struck.

On our first cruise aboard the Canberra in 1986 I noticed a very large photograph of the ship returning to Southampton. The caption read: "Canberra cruises where QE2 refuses." Unfair, to be sure, but the humour was appreciated by P&O fans.

<SNIP>

I would love to see coastal cruises, but I do understand the need for them to be on small ships in order to get into small ports. I guess if they could make money on those cruises with US built, flagged, crewed ships they would do so. There was a very interesting itinerary that followed the coast of Florida a few years ago. We wanted to do it, but the line got into money trouble and had to drop the cruise and get out of their lease on the ship.

Coastal cruises still are possible using the 2 companies chengkp75 mentioned earlier, Blount Small Ship Adventures and American Cruise Lines. I've sailed with Blount fairly extensively (and will again in August). Their ship amenities are rather spartan but the crews are among the friendlies I have ever seen. I haven't sailed with American Cruise Lines but they are more upscale. Passengers I have sailed with on Blount prefer their crews to ACL's although that may reflect some bias since they're the ones who have chosen to return to Blount.

Roy

I think the British government compensated Cunard for QE2's service by paying for a major refit after that. Not just the cosmetic repairs, but also changing steam to diesel-electric propulsion.

 

and they did!

[/u] My underline................. I love that Cunard gave your Dad credit for that 'cruise. :) Good for them. Thanks for sharing this with us. Two thumbs Up

 

 

 

Wow, that's a whole level of complication I never knew about.

 

I would love to see coastal cruises, but I do understand the need for them to be on small ships in order to get into small ports. I guess if they could make money on those cruises with US built, flagged, crewed ships they would do so. There was a very interesting itinerary that followed the coast of Florida a few years ago. We wanted to do it, but the line got into money trouble and had to drop the cruise and get out of their lease on the ship.

Coastal cruises still are possible using the 2 companies chengkp75 mentioned earlier, Blount Small Ship Adventures and American Cruise Lines. I've sailed with Blount fairly extensively (and will again in August). Their ship amenities are rather spartan but the crews are among the friendlies I have ever seen. I haven't sailed with American Cruise Lines but they are more upscale. Passengers I have sailed with on Blount prefer their crews to ACL's although that may reflect some bias since they're the ones who have chosen to return to Blount.

 

Roy

I sailed with ACL once and that was enough.

I haven't tried Blount, but I'm uncomfortable with the small companies that do these cruises--the Great Lakes, the Canada/NE, Coastals, etc. Company A owns the boat and leases it to Company B to run cruises. Company B then contracts with a few companies to sell the cruises. Every one of these sellers makes it sound like they own the boat. I don't like shell companies. That's the situation that caused the Florida cruise I wanted to take disappear.

I haven't tried Blount, but I'm uncomfortable with the small companies that do these cruises--the Great Lakes, the Canada/NE, Coastals, etc. Company A owns the boat and leases it to Company B to run cruises. Company B then contracts with a few companies to sell the cruises. Every one of these sellers makes it sound like they own the boat. I don't like shell companies. That's the situation that caused the Florida cruise I wanted to take disappear.

When Luther Blount owned the company, he was in charge of the whole shebang. After he died, his kids took over the various aspects of the business. One runs the cruise line, another took over the shipbuilding; still a family operation.

I think you would be safe going with them.

I used to love taking their day cruises, and dinner cruises, but the long cruises are more than my pocketbook can handle.

I sailed with ACL once and that was enough.

Cabins on Blount look tiny. Especially for one used to JS on Royal Caribbean.

Why didn't your care for ACL? Are there PVSA violations on most ACL cruises?

 

Cabins on Blount look tiny. Especially for one used to JS on Royal Caribbean.

ACL ships are US-registered and the crew are US. We did the Columbia and Snake river cruise. The waitstaff were also the cabin stewards, and most were quite young. Lots of college kids on summer break. They hadn't been given a lot of training, but they were pleasant.

I felt we were sold one thing and given another. The scenery was fantastic, as described. The ship was not. The brochure said "Most cabins are larger than xxx sq ft" No, we had the next to largest category and it was less than that. Other cabins were even smaller than ours. "Windows that open" Nope, they didn't. "DVD player in your room" Nope, gaping hole in the cabinet (and not just our cabin). Sagging mattress and beat-up furniture. The website and brochures show a sample menu with three choices at each course. We had only two choices most of the time, and the high-fallutin' descriptions didn't match what was served. These complaints sound kind of petty, but when it's a constant pattern of say one thing and provide another, it gets annoying, especially for the price we paid.

I was told because we booked early, our tours would be complimentary. Most were included anyway, but we took two extra tours. When we got a bill for them I said that I'd been told our tours were complimentary. The answer was "only the included ones." So much for our early-booking bonus.

[quote=knittinggirl;53143396 Are there PVSA violations on most ACL cruises?

As Cunarder says, since the ships are US flag, and PVSA compliant (US owned, US built, US registered, and US crew) there can be no PVSA violations. These small ships are free to carry passengers wherever and however they wish to and from any port in the US.

Not all US flag ships are PVSA or Jones Act (for cargo ships) compliant, and therefore cannot compete in those domestic trades. If the vessel meets the four requirements listed above, it can trade universally in US coastwise trade.