Jump to content

Will Alaska Cruises Substitute Mexico for Canada When they Restart?


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The Wiki article about the PVSA, especially its origins and intent are not correct.    If you believe Wiki is incorrect, and believe your information is more correct,  then Wiki will encourage you to correct and/or edit the artiicle you deem incorrect or misleading.   You must be able to cite relevant facts or provide supporting data though.  

 

 The PVSA made it mandatory that domestic steamboats (passenger vessels) be US flag, so that the safety measures could be enforced.   And the passing of the steamboat era left behind the PVSA law which is why cruisers, or passengers may want to see it changed.      This an obsolete safety  law written for steamboats passenger safety , not cruiseships passenger safety.

 

Red inking is mine.

Edited by JRG
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

And the passing of the steamboat era left behind the PVSA law which is why cruisers, or passengers may want to see it changed.      This an obsolete safety  law written for steamboats passenger safety , not cruiseships passenger safety.

 

It seems that once again, you are failing to understand the purpose and evolution of the law(s).  PVSA is a cabotage law.  Safety laws are laws written to pertain to US flagged vessels.  Saying the passing of steamboats leaves behind the PVSA is like saying the passing of the Ford Pinto leaves behind the NHTSA.  

 

Edited by Aquahound
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2020 at 8:51 AM, chengkp75 said:

Not if you are comparing apples to apples.  If you are willing to allow the ships to just operate as they do now, with no further application of US jurisdiction (labor, safety, tax laws), then sure there is no comparison that it is more economical for the cruise line to do your domestic only cruise.  But, if as even CLIA suspects, when given an exemption to the PVSA, the law states that they must hire say 50% of crew to be US citizens, follow USCG regulations for safety, training, and certification, and pay US corporate tax, then I would say that Cozumel looks pretty inviting from the cruise lines' perspective.

 

What is confusing to me about this post is that it says that 50% is the law,  and yet,  there is another post where it is indicated that the 50% was pulled from thin air.

 

I feel there is an obligation to ask posters in general to watch out for these inconsistencies because they can influence people in the wrong direction.

 

I don't make alot of posts and I like to make them count when good subjects come up and it is unfortunate to have to navigate through this type of white noise if I have a good point to make.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

What is confusing to me about this post is that it says that 50% is the law,  and yet,  there is another post where it is indicated that the 50% was pulled from thin air.

 

Read his post again.  He said "say 50%."  The word "say" means just spit balling a number.  He did not say it as a matter of fact.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JRG said:

 And the passing of the steamboat era left behind the PVSA law which is why cruisers, or passengers may want to see it changed.      This an obsolete safety  law written for steamboats passenger safety , not cruiseships passenger safety.

 

13 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

It seems that once again, you are failing to understand the purpose and evolution of the law(s).  PVSA is a cabotage law.  Safety laws are laws written to pertain to US flagged vessels.  Saying the passing of steamboats leaves behind the PVSA is like saying the passing of the Ford Pinto leaves behind NHTSA laws.  

 

Paul, I believe this guy is one of those who think the USCG has absolute jurisdiction over cruise ships, since he sees them inspecting the foreign flag ships, and gets put out because of the delays in boarding.

 

In fact, as SOLAS is the international convention regarding ship safety, and the US is signatory to SOLAS, the USCG has  Port State Control jurisdiction to enforce only those requirements set forth in SOLAS (and the other international conventions).  However, SOLAS also allows a flag state to enact stricter requirements, but these are applicable only to ships of that nation.  This is what the USCG has done, and one of the big reasons that cruise ships dread being forced to follow US laws.

 

To take one simple example, those USCG inspectors.  As Port State Control, the USCG has the authority to board and inspect foreign ships, but it is not mandatory to do so, and due to budgetary constraints or cruise ship itineraries, the USCG may or may not get to board and inspect every single foreign flag cruise ship that calls at US ports.  So, some ships may go a year or two between inspections.  However, a US flag passenger vessel (whether a cruise ship or a ferry, or a smaller passenger vessel), is required to be inspected by the USCG 4 times a year.  So, the PVSA allows the USCG to continue to this day to enforce some of the strictest safety regulations in the maritime world, by forcing coastwise shipping to be US flag.

 

I guess you never heard of the SS Norway?  Cruise ship explosion?  Gee, only 17 years ago.  Star Princess?  Cruise ship fire? 14 years ago.  Nordlys, cruise ship fire, 9 years ago.  But, hey, safety regulations are only for steamboats, and there aren't any of them around, are there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 10/19/2020 at 2:32 PM, chengkp75 said:

Your arguments are tending to get confused again, since you talk about the US crew being better off without the Cozumel stop.  If the ship is going to Cozumel to meet the PVSA, then there is likely no US crew onboard.  If there is US crew onboard, due to a restriction placed pursuant to a change in the PVSA, then you wouldn't need to go to Cozumel.  And, what difference does it make to the crew whether the ship travels to Cozumel or not? 

 

You answer here got me thinking about the wasted fuel on the Cozumel trip.   Lets say New Orleans was substituted for Cozumel,  so its still a 5-day trip,  but shorter,  maybe 20% shorter and thus a 20% Fuel savings,  Right?

 

 

 

Edited by JRG
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

You answer here got me thinking about the wasted fuel on the Cozumel trip.   Lets say New Orleans was substituted for Cozumel,  so its still a 5-day trip,  but more shorter,  may 20% and thus a 20% Fuel savings,  Right?

 

 

New Orleans is a farther distance from Key West than Cozumel.  Plus, it requires sailing over 100 miles up a river.  That's not a good example.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

What is confusing to me about this post is that it says that 50% is the law,  and yet,  there is another post where it is indicated that the 50% was pulled from thin air.

 

I feel there is an obligation to ask posters in general to watch out for these inconsistencies because they can influence people in the wrong direction.

 

I don't make alot of posts and I like to make them count when good subjects come up and it is unfortunate to have to navigate through this type of white noise if I have a good point to make.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

Read his post again.  He said "say 50%."  The word "say" means just spit balling a number.  He did not say it as a matter of fact.  

Well, your "white noise" detector must not point in your direction much, and your reading comprehension meter is widly off, because, in addition to the inaccuracy in your post that Paul points out above, read it again (I will annotate this as I go, to help you out:

 

This is my sentence:

 

"But, if (note this is a qualifying word, denoting that what follows is a possibility) as even CLIA suspects, when (another qualifying word indicating that what follows has not happened yet) given an exemption to the PVSA (watch out, here is another qualifier, stating that a condition must be met), the law states (this would be the law after all the qualifiers are met, like granting an exemption, which has not occurred yet)  that they must hire say (here's that guessing word) 50% of crew to be US citizens, follow USCG regulations for safety, training, and certification, and pay US corporate tax, then I would say that Cozumel looks pretty inviting from the cruise lines' perspective."  (the last part is the conclusion, drawn from meeting all the qualifying conditions earlier in the sentence.)

 

Hope this helps with your comprehension of what I actually said, and hope this helps your future posts "make them count".

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

What is confusing to me about this post is that it says that 50% is the law,  and yet,  there is another post where it is indicated that the 50% was pulled from thin air.

 

I feel there is an obligation to ask posters in general to watch out for these inconsistencies because they can influence people in the wrong direction.

 

I don't make alot of posts and I like to make them count when good subjects come up and it is unfortunate to have to navigate through this type of white noise if I have a good point to make.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the real issue impacting cruise passengers is not the precise percentage but the fact that any such change to US labor law compliance will result in significant fare increases to CC posters (and likely related change in service level).

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

New Orleans is a farther distance from Key West than Cozumel.  Plus, it requires sailing over 100 miles up a river.  That's not a good example.  

Yep, Key West to Cozumel is 376 nm, while Key West to New Orleans is 616 nm.  And pilotage on the Mississippi isn't cheap considering that the 122 river pilots earn over $500k/year, and are looking for a raise to $700k.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

...while Key West to New Orleans is 616 nm.  

 

I think it might even be farther because you can't sail north from KW.   It's about a 8 mile trip south, followed by about 100 miles west past the dry Tortugas before the ship can even turn north.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

I think it might even be farther because you can't sail north from KW.   It's about a 8 mile trip south, followed by about 100 miles west past the dry Tortugas before the ship can even turn north.  

You lived there, I can't argue, but I did use SeaDistances.org, not a mapping site.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

You lived there, I can't argue, but I did use SeaDistances.org, not a mapping site.

 

Yeah, smaller vessels can navigate north from the island in a channel called Northwest Passage.  That's the route the ferry takes to Marco Island.  So it makes sense that's the numeric being figured on SeaDistances.

 

Unfortunately, deep drafts have to go the long way around, thus making the distance twice what it would be to Cozumel.  It would require an extra day at sea.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Perhaps the real issue impacting cruise passengers is not the precise percentage but the fact that any such change to US labor law compliance will result in significant fare increases to CC posters (and likely related change in service level).

 

What has yet to be revealed is the carbon footprint impact of the PVSA,  due to the excess fuels and emissions generated and remember it has been going on for a long time,  not just my example.

 

I used a bad example of New Orleans in my Miami to Miami 5-day tripper,   I should have said something like Tampa Bay or another US city that yielded the business case here.       I can't anticipate every possible detail of minutia that may be contested by the staunch opponents of the PVSA detour amendment discussion.   Analyzing this problem from the carbon footprint should change everybody's point of view.   How could it not?

 

It's not difficult to interpolate,  or extrapolate that the PVSA has had a significant measurable negative effect on our environment.

Why,  because it has forced itineraries to go extra furlongs.  When this  pre-prohibition law for passenger steamboat safety in the late 19th century was written there was no concept of global carbon or other fossil fuel emissions.

 

So when posters ask why should the US should back the cruising industry that is largely foreign owned,   and that was a good argument for a long ; the answer because it is detrimental to the environment.    

 

The US needs to acknowledge that the PVSA has inadvertently increased the amount of carbon gases released into the atmosphere.   

 

The opponents of the PVSA discussion threads need to acknowledge that this takes precedent over cabotage and labor laws.

 

Please feel welcome to offer up good counter discussion points,  I do listen to good posters who make good points.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Please feel welcome to offer up good counter discussion points,  I do listen to good posters who make good points.

 

 

No, you do not.  You are posting opinion while those of us you call "staunch opponents" are just giving you the facts. 

 

Tampa is also a bad example.  You really should open up Google Earth before making these assertions.  Due to the reason I mentioned earlier....having to sail south from Key West, then West around the Dry Tortugas, Tampa still is not close.

 

I'm confused about the carbon footprint thing.  How exactly are you relating the PVSA to carbon footprints?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2020 at 9:34 PM, navybankerteacher said:

Are you talking about “green water”  meaning solid sea water as opposed to spray going above the Crow’s Nest — that seems extremely unlikely.

 

Sir:  it may seem unlikely, but I remember seeing sheets of water coming down the windows of the Crow's Nest when the Volendam then rose on the next wave's crest. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Sir:  it may seem unlikely, but I remember seeing sheets of water coming down the windows of the Crow's Nest when the Volendam then rose on the next wave's crest. 

 

I have no doubt that you saw sheets of water coming down the windows of the Crows Nest on the Veendam - but If that had been the result of the Veendam plowing through a wave - with solid sea water needing to come down from that upper deck , rather than the quite possible heavy spray, I very much doubt you would be talking about it now.  Such heavy seas breaking above the Crows Nest would have meant many feet of solid water over the Promenade Deck, for one example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JRG said:

 

So when posters ask why should the US should back the cruising industry that is largely foreign owned,   and that was a good argument for a long ; the answer because it is detrimental to the environment.    

 

The US needs to acknowledge that the PVSA has inadvertently increased the amount of carbon gases released into the atmosphere.   

 

The opponents of the PVSA discussion threads need to acknowledge that this takes precedent over cabotage and labor laws.

 

You do realize that the cruising industry is in large part owned by US-based companies?  These companies simply flag their ships in such a manner to minimize costs and make cruising available to more people. 

 

Rather than eliminating the  PVSA, why not strengthen US laws such that all ships to be US flagged and crewed for any trip that both begins and ends in the US?  Unfortunately the likely net effect of this would be that lines would simply shift home ports into the Caribbean, Mexico and Canada and further reduce their spend in the US.   US airlines and hotels would lose out too as passengers will spend those revenues with foreign carriers and hotels for pre and post cruise stays.  This extra travel might even more GHG.

 

BTW - If you are worried about GHG emissions from cruising you should probably just stay home.  Same for air transportation to and from any cruise or for that matter any other vacation.   You can buy carbon offsets for certain flights, but I haven't seen this as of yet for cruises even though many of these schemes don't really offset any carbon long term.

 

 

 

Edited by SelectSys
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SelectSys said:

BTW - If you are worried about GHG emissions from cruising

 

Is there a correlation between fuel consumption and GHG?

 

The nature of scientific inquiry suggest that there should be.....

 

I'm not a gaseous subject matter expert,  but diesel fuel emits some type of gas.  (not to be confused with gases of the GI)

 

There are subject matter experts on board that could probably confirm the notion that maybe the PVSA detouring  does indeed cause cruiselines to expend more fuel by visiting a foreign port and this is a bona fide reason for lawmakers to consider a change and then usually one side or another side of the house gets on board.

 

I was truly just fishing as I was thinking about the excess waste that must have burned off for all of the voyages in the past 30-40 years ago from the PVSA impacted trips.

 

Not much more to say on it really.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2020 at 8:51 AM, njhorseman said:

I think it's similar to the milkshake thing...:classic_rolleyes:

 

Forget the milkshake thing for the moment...

 

Question:   "Is there a GHG emission effect from a cruiseship"

 

If yes,   acknowledge with one ping.   one ping only. 

if objective is to defect...then maintain radio silence.

 

over

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2020 at 9:58 AM, JRG said:

 I can't anticipate every possible detail of minutia that may be contested by the staunch opponents of the PVSA detour amendment discussion. 

And yet, you use distance to port, and the fuel consumption related to that as the centerpiece of your argument?  For a semantic professional you're not doing too well on this thread.  A little, tiny, bit of research should be prudent for a professional debater.

 

And then you dispute a poster who says that if you are worried about the GHG effect of cruising, why cruise? Why indeed?  And please let us know how many "PVSA impacted" cruises there are, and what the alternative itinerary would be that would draw the same demographic.

27 minutes ago, JRG said:

Not much more to say on it really.

And yet, two more posts.

 

Is the BS and self-importance meter working?

 

ping

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

Is there a correlation between fuel consumption and GHG?

...

 

Not much more to say on it really.

 

 

 

 

Obviously.  Let's just stick to CO2 to make it easy.  It is simple arithmetic to determine how much CO2 is emitted based on consumption of fuel.  A car that achieves double the fuel economy of another will produce 1/2 the CO2 compared to the other.

 

Below is a simple chart that will help show you the general amount of CO2 emitted from various fuel types.    See that some fuel types are cleaner than others. 

 

 

 

GHG for fuels.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • Holiday Exchange - Jingle and Mingle 2020
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com
      • Q&A with Chris Prelog, President of Windstar Cruises!
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...