PVSA

[Wine-O]

Sorry, but for the case the OP describes, jobs or no jobs, it just doesn't make sense to me.  🍷

[Fouremco]

34 minutes ago, Wine-O said:

Sorry, but for the case the OP describes, jobs or no jobs, it just doesn't make sense to me.  🍷

Easy to say when it's not your job that might be in jeopardy. 

[markeb]

37 minutes ago, Wine-O said:

Sorry, but for the case the OP describes, jobs or no jobs, it just doesn't make sense to me.  🍷

 

You can start the letter writing campaign today. If you can get the entire SC delegation to vote to repeal or amend, you only need 212 more votes in the House and 49 in the Senate. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if it makes sense; it's the law.

[Wine-O]

1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

Easy to say when it's not your job that might be in jeopardy. 

Common sense is really easy to say.  🍷

[Fouremco]

3 minutes ago, Wine-O said:

Common sense is really easy to say.  🍷

And really easy to incorporate in legislation that helps protect jobs held my Americans. 

[npcl]

2 hours ago, Wine-O said:

Sorry, but for the case the OP describes, jobs or no jobs, it just doesn't make sense to me.  🍷

If you try real hard and study, it might, if you really work at it, make sense then.

[Wine-O]

2 hours ago, npcl said:

If you try real hard and study, it might, if you really work at it, make sense then.

You have a cruise ship that leaves a U.S. port to do an Hawaiian cruise, then returns to the same U.S. port and has to spend a couple of hours in Ensenada, Mexico, to fulfill some antiquated law, makes Zero sense to me.  And I'm sorry, you can't convince me otherwise.  Maybe some of these stupid laws should be overturned.    🍷

[markeb]

41 minutes ago, Wine-O said:

You have a cruise ship that leaves a U.S. port to do an Hawaiian cruise, then returns to the same U.S. port and has to spend a couple of hours in Ensenada, Mexico, to fulfill some antiquated law, makes Zero sense to me.  And I'm sorry, you can't convince me otherwise.  Maybe some of these stupid laws should be overturned.    🍷

They’re Constitutional. There’s no overturning. 
 

7th Congressional District. Two US Senators. Mailing addresses easily found on Google. Change the law if it’s important to you. 

[Wine-O]

44 minutes ago, markeb said:

They’re Constitutional. There’s no overturning. 
 

7th Congressional District. Two US Senators. Mailing addresses easily found on Google. Change the law if it’s important to you. 

I know that.  Probably not going to change.    I'm just saying that's it's stupid!!!  I see no logic in it.  🍷

[npcl]

1 hour ago, Wine-O said:

You have a cruise ship that leaves a U.S. port to do an Hawaiian cruise, then returns to the same U.S. port and has to spend a couple of hours in Ensenada, Mexico, to fulfill some antiquated law, makes Zero sense to me.  And I'm sorry, you can't convince me otherwise.  Maybe some of these stupid laws should be overturned.    🍷

Not surprising since you also think quarantine = lockdown

 

The entire maritime world does not rotate around major cruise ships.  The economic impact of the cruise industry is rather small compared to cargo and all of the other maritime activities.

 

Funny thing not even the cruise lines want to change them. 

[Wine-O]

1 minute ago, npcl said:

Not surprising since you also think quarantine = lockdown

 

The entire maritime world does not rotate around major cruise ships.  The economic impact of the cruise industry is rather small compared to cargo and all of the other maritime activities.

 

Funny thing not even the cruise lines want to change them. 

I'm talking cruise ships, not maritime ships/cargo.  It may be the law, but it's freaking stupid with regard to cruise ships.  It's probably a union thingy, but it's antiquated.  🍷

[npcl]

3 minutes ago, Wine-O said:

I'm talking cruise ships, not maritime ships/cargo.  It may be the law, but it's freaking stupid with regard to cruise ships.  It's probably a union thingy, but it's antiquated.  🍷

That is the issue the law is not just for cruise ships.  Because cruise ships fall under the international definition of passenger vessel, it applies to much more than just cruise ships. Also because if that legal definition cruise lines cannot just be carved out.

 

If you were to look up the law, the international aspects, the legal history, etc. you might understand it

[Wine-O]

6 minutes ago, npcl said:

That is the issue the law is not just for cruise ships.  Because cruise ships fall under the international definition of passenger vessel, it applies to much more than just cruise ships. Also because if that legal definition cruise lines cannot just be carved out.

 

If you were to look up the law, the international aspects, the legal history, etc. you might understand it

Oh, I understand it.  I know what the issue is.    I just think the law is stupid with regard to cruise ships, that's all.  🍷

[markeb]

21 minutes ago, Wine-O said:

I know that.  Probably not going to change.    I'm just saying that's it's stupid!!!  I see no logic in it.  🍷

Oddly enough, there are plenty of others that largely agree with you. LA Times, CATO Institute, among others. But if you read their arguments, dissecting out an industry that really is the poster child, 114 years later, for the PVSA, would not be insignificant. It applies to a lot of passenger transport, and if memory serves it’s also the precedent that keeps foreign air carriers from transporting passengers within the US. 

 

In 1886, it was supposed to support a US passenger shipbuilding industry (and jobs). Which is  nearly 60 years before the US had the largest Navy in the world.
 

The second and third order effects of rewriting or repealing at this point are probably much messier than the actual PVSA. As @chengkp75 mentioned earlier, there would be significant immigration implications as well as labor law implications. And I really don’t see overwhelming public support for the change. There are exceptions, but I don’t see that support either, and don’t know how the few exceptions impact crew requirements for visas, taxes, pay, etc.  

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, markeb said:

In 1886, it was supposed to support a US passenger shipbuilding industry (and jobs). Which is  nearly 60 years before the US had the largest Navy in the world.

If you really study the origins of the PVSA, and not rely on simplistic and often slanted entries in Wiki, this is not what the PVSA was supposed to do.  First off, the types of ships that the PVSA applied to in 1886 were not the types of ships that could be built overseas and brought to the US for service, these were steam paddlewheelers.  Second, maritime labor organizations were in their infancy, with little to no political clout.

 

In the 19th century, there were many explosions and fires on the steamboats that plied the waters of the US.  In order to protect the lives of US citizens, Congress passed a series of "Steamboat Acts", which made progressively stricter safety regulations on these steamboats, and which the ship owners fought against because of the cost involved.  Finally, with the Steamboat Act of 1871, Congress created the Steamboat Inspection Service (the predecessor of today's USCG Marine Inspection Division, those Coasties you see inspecting the cruise ships) to enforce the safety regulations.  This led the ship owners to change the flag on their steamboats to foreign, so they would not be accountable to the safety regulations, and the fires and explosions continued.  As a result, the PVSA was enacted, requiring that all passenger vessels operating within coastal and inland waters of the US be US flag, and therefore subject to those safety regulations of the Steamboat Acts.  The requirement to be US built was put in so that the SIS could oversee the construction of the ships to ensure they met with all safety regulations.  Unfortunately, even with the SIS, unscrupulous owners could circumvent the regulations, and this led to the fire on the steam paddlewheeler General Slocum in NY harbor, with the loss of over a thousand lives.

[markeb]

15 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

If you really study the origins of the PVSA, and not rely on simplistic and often slanted entries in Wiki, this is not what the PVSA was supposed to do.  First off, the types of ships that the PVSA applied to in 1886 were not the types of ships that could be built overseas and brought to the US for service, these were steam paddlewheelers.  Second, maritime labor organizations were in their infancy, with little to no political clout.

Thanks! That’s what I was looking for last night and couldn’t find. Logic suggested exactly what you posted, but that history didn’t come out in what I found. Outside a few communities, the history seems somewhat obscure in 2020. I’d put you in one of those communities. Curiosity will probably have me looking for Steamship Acts today!

[sanger727]

14 hours ago, Wine-O said:

I'm talking cruise ships, not maritime ships/cargo.  It may be the law, but it's freaking stupid with regard to cruise ships.  It's probably a union thingy, but it's antiquated.  🍷

 

It's already been explained to you that it's not a union thing. And it's a law that applies to all passenger vessels for good reasons. It's easy to believe common sense says something shouldn't be true when you have no knowledge or experience in a field. 

[Wine-O]

You can show me all the bars & graphs, but I don't care.   You don't need to be condescending about it.     I still think it is antiquated and stupid in today's day and age.  🍷 

[verizon]

The world is changing by seconds,can the stupid rule be changed.

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, Wine-O said:

You can show me all the bars & graphs, but I don't care.   You don't need to be condescending about it.     I still think it is antiquated and stupid in today's day and age.  🍷 

Trying not to be condescending, please describe how you would change the law, and perhaps we can show you the "unintended consequences" of those changes.

[Wine-O]

Look, we have lots of laws on the books that are antiquated and stupid, and they will probably never be changed.   Some of them are just not enforced.  It's much easier to ignore some laws than to actually change them.   🍷

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, Wine-O said:

Look, we have lots of laws on the books that are antiquated and stupid, and they will probably never be changed.   Some of them are just not enforced.  It's much easier to ignore some laws than to actually change them.   🍷

So, tell me, if we just "don't enforce" the PVSA for cruise ships, what is to prevent the Circle Line Ferry in NYC, or the Alaska Marine Highway, or the Fort Sumter ferry from reflagging to Panama and claiming that they can continue to provide their services with foreign crew and with foreign labor laws and foreign taxes?  They will go to court and argue that the cruise lines are allowed to do it, so not allowing them is discriminatory business practices, and they would win.

[Wine-O]

You know, cheng, I think it is stupid that someone sailing from Hawaii to Vancouver can't stay on the same ship to cruise Alaska.  I don't care what you say and what laws you quote or what unintended consequences, yada, yada, yada, it still won't change my mind -- it's pure, unadulterated stupid.  🍷

[chengkp75]

35 minutes ago, Wine-O said:

You know, cheng, I think it is stupid that someone sailing from Hawaii to Vancouver can't stay on the same ship to cruise Alaska.  I don't care what you say and what laws you quote or what unintended consequences, yada, yada, yada, it still won't change my mind -- it's pure, unadulterated stupid.  🍷

Gotta love pure, unadulterated logical thinking processes.

[Wine-O]

22 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Gotta love pure, unadulterated logical thinking processes.

Has a lot to do with logical thinking.  For example, a cruise ship leaving San Diego to Hawaii and return has to stop at Ensenada, Mexico, for a few hours prior to returning to San Diego.  There is no logical reason for that other than an antiquated law.    On its face value, it's stupid.  I don't really care why it "is."  You can spout all the reasons why this has to be that way, but looking at it without rose colored glasses, I see no logic in it.  🍷