The Jones Act

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

And in 2021, you still have significant unemployment in the US service industries...

 

MAYBE better arguments for engineering and technical staff, but that would be a fun hearing explaining why there's a shortage of employees in the  US hotel and restaurant industry to fill those rolls on the ships!

Oh, the maritime labor unions would work miracles to find crew for the deck and engine departments, and the maritime academies turn out more graduates every year than there are job slots for.

[Fouremco]

4 minutes ago, markeb said:

No, there's not enough time in 2021 with everything else going on to make any serious change here. But it could start if there's any will.

And that's the crux of the matter: is there any will? The current Canadian ban is unlikely to be renewed  beyond its February 2022 expiry date, which means that Alaskan, Hawaiian and East Coast cruises can sail as they did pre-pandemic. As neither the cruise lines nor other potentially interested parties were pushing for changes before COVID arrived on the scene, I really don't see them devoting any effort to changing the PVSA. 

[nocl]

2 hours ago, phoenix_dream said:

Sadly, I agree.  Unfortunate that they are potentially willing to just completely kill an industry that provides so much financial support to several states, and employs tens of thousands of citizens either directly or indirectly (hotels, taxi, Uber, restaurants, travel agents etc.) .  IMHO it is more about the optics than the actual safety.  But regardless of the party, optics always seem to take the top priority.

While it does provide some support, it is small compared to even the full tourist industry for example in Florida the tourism industry was around 90 billion per year, generating 13.3 billion in federal tax revenue, and 11.4 billion in state and local tax revenue.

 

Compared to the cruise industry which according to a CLIA paper had around 9 billion in Florida. So only around 10% of the Florida tourism industry. According to a detailed state report on Florida ports  it was around 7.5 billion.  The taxes generated was 213 million.

 

In addition money spent on fares and on board does not remain in the area (except for supplies purchased by the cruise lines) compared to money spent on land based tourism where the money remains in the state. Far more important to get land based tourism back on track.  

[nocl]

6 hours ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

You're probably correct, but it wouldn't be the first time an executive order would be used to just ignore the law.

Often resulting in court cases being filed within a few days along with requests for injunctions.  Often successfully.

[ipeeinthepool]

16 minutes ago, nocl said:

Often resulting in court cases being filed within a few days along with requests for injunctions.  Often successfully.

 

Sometimes... Sometimes the executive branch finds a friendly court and the executive orders to not enforce the law remain in effect until they lose an election.

[nocl]

2 hours ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

Sometimes... Sometimes the executive branch finds a friendly court and the executive orders to not enforce the law remain in effect until they lose an election.

Usually the ones filing the lawsuit picks the venue. Any one with a federal court and an appeals court they would like.

Edited February 10, 2021 by nocl

[ipeeinthepool]

13 minutes ago, nocl said:

Usually the ones filing the lawsuit picks the venue. Any one with a federal court and an appeals court they would like.

 

Even with this disadvantage, the executive branch often finds judges at the appellate courts to sustain their orders to ignore the enforcement of laws.

[nocl]

45 minutes ago, ipeeinthepool said:

 

Even with this disadvantage, the executive branch often finds judges at the appellate courts to sustain their orders to ignore the enforcement of laws.

That is why you pick a venue whose appellate court is likely to support your case.  In some cases the action is legal and the executive branch wins. but usually if it violates the law it gets stopped.

[JRG]

23 hours ago, markeb said:

I'm not sure about JRG, but I'm asking long term. If the CDC lifted the US restrictions, and Canada did nothing, then the PVSA and the assorted issues related to it would apply. But yes, for this year, if nothing changes with the virus and the health restrictions, then this is a moot discussion. And I really don't anticipate anything changing enough to impact the Alaska or New England cruise season. But oddly enough, that might give an opportunity to at least discuss changes for the future.

 

Mark,  here is an idea you gave me.   

 

It is based the information provided in the link by Chengpk to the US law.

 

I also come from a Coast Guard family,  so I am a big supporter of the job they do and I think they have a great opportunity to raise a revenue stream and be part of the solution.   I think they have been getting the short end of the deal financially and this might help.

 

If Chengpk is correct,   then all the U.S.  Coast Guard has to do is change the fine from $300 to ANYTHING they want,    say $30.    The Cruiselines then pass on the measly $30 fee to the cruise passenger in the booking process.      The US Coast Guard can modify the fine.

 

That way,  the US Coast guard would collect $30 from EVERY SINGLE PASSENGER ON EVERY SINGLE CRUISE AFFECTED BY PVSA.   That is alot of Milkshake Money for the US Coast Guard.

 

This way,  none of the labor and tax laws have to change at all.    Cabotage would not be affected.

 

The only thing that would be happening is the the PVSA would be violated,   but who cares, the violation fees are now going to the US Coast Guard but they have a MULTIPLIER now,   the number of passengers who cruise.

 

Bigger than that are  submerged markets like the B2B,  or the LA-SF,  Boston-FLL or New Orleans-Tampa could suddenly appear as likely candidates for the test cruises. 

 

Many cruises would gain an entire day without having to needless stop to satisfy the PVSA.

 

I'm going to thank The fine Lady who had to endure the Ensenada-TJ Bus-Ride to San Diego for inspiring my creativity.   Hopefully it passes the CFR regs and I have not yet looked at this.

 

 

It sounds too good to be true,  so what did I miss.   I take criticism well but please be courteous.

 

The entire coastline of SE Alaska is watching for a PVSA  miracle.   They have lit a beacon for help and we the PASSENGERS need to respond.  We trample their ports year after year and we finally may have a chance to help them.

 

All options should be on the table.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by JRG

[Charles4515]

3 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

The only thing that would be happening is the the PVSA would be violated,   but who cares, the violation fees are now going to the US Coast Guard but they have a MULTIPLIER now,   the number of passengers who cruise.

 

 

 

The cruise lines will not violate the law. As to who cares......duh,  the PVSA has supporters. That is why it still exists. They will sue. 

[chengkp75]

Except that the PVSA fines do not go to the USCG.

[markeb]

The amount of the fine's in the law, and it's indexed to inflation. It's actually $798/passenger today.

 

As soon as you drop the foreign stop, near or distant, the visa issues kick in. That's why I don't see the cruise lines dropping the foreign stop even if they can. At that point, especially this year, you've gone from action to help a "privileged few" (cruisers) in a lot of the public's eye, to action that actually disadvantages tax paying citizens (all those people who could fill those jobs).

 

Intentionally avoiding foreign stops and paying the fines would be a fascinating idea (need a good Leonard Nimoy meme for that...).

 

There's a reasonably good information paper from CBP that goes through a lot of the interrelated issues. Not perfect by any means, but worth a read.

 

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Sep/PVSA-ICP.pdf

[JRG]

2 minutes ago, markeb said:

Intentionally avoiding foreign stops and paying the fines would be a fascinating idea (need a good Leonard Nimoy meme for that...).

 

"The Needs of the Many.....outweigh the Needs of the Few.....or the One"

[nocl]

15 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

Mark,  here is an idea you gave me.   

 

It is based the information provided in the link by Chengpk to the US law.

 

I also come from a Coast Guard family,  so I am a big supporter of the job they do and I think they have a great opportunity to raise a revenue stream and be part of the solution.   I think they have been getting the short end of the deal financially and this might help.

 

If Chengpk is correct,   then all the U.S.  Coast Guard has to do is change the fine from $300 to ANYTHING they want,    say $30.    The Cruiselines then pass on the measly $30 fee to the cruise passenger in the booking process.      The US Coast Guard can modify the fine.

 

That way,  the US Coast guard would collect $30 from EVERY SINGLE PASSENGER ON EVERY SINGLE CRUISE AFFECTED BY PVSA.   That is alot of Milkshake Money for the US Coast Guard.

 

This way,  none of the labor and tax laws have to change at all.    Cabotage would not be affected.

 

The only thing that would be happening is the the PVSA would be violated,   but who cares, the violation fees are now going to the US Coast Guard but they have a MULTIPLIER now,   the number of passengers who cruise.

 

Bigger than that are  submerged markets like the B2B,  or the LA-SF,  Boston-FLL or New Orleans-Tampa could suddenly appear as likely candidates for the test cruises. 

 

Many cruises would gain an entire day without having to needless stop to satisfy the PVSA.

 

I'm going to thank The fine Lady who had to endure the Ensenada-TJ Bus-Ride to San Diego for inspiring my creativity.   Hopefully it passes the CFR regs and I have not yet looked at this.

 

 

It sounds too good to be true,  so what did I miss.   I take criticism well but please be courteous.

 

The entire coastline of SE Alaska is watching for a PVSA  miracle.   They have lit a beacon for help and we the PASSENGERS need to respond.  We trample their ports year after year and we finally may have a chance to help them.

 

All options should be on the table.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually labor laws would still be a problem since the ships would still not be calling at a foreign port. By charging all of the passengers it would clearly be by intent.

 

I believe that in the addition to the fines there are also the potential for other penalties for chronic abusers. The fines are to intended to enforce the law, not to be a pay for play revenue enhancement.

I seem to recall up to and including ban from US waters.

 

Again failure to enforce a law can be and most likely will be grounds for a court case.  Any sign of collaboration between the Coast Guard and the cruise lines would make it an easy case.

[Arizona Wildcat]

Since it is likely that COVID numbers and The many other issues will make it impossible to have test cruises until June - just one biggie is assembling, 14day quarantine and training of crew - PVSA will likely make no difference in 2021 for Alaska.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Arizona Wildcat said:

Since it is likely that COVID numbers and The many other issues will make it impossible to have test cruises until June - just one biggie is assembling, 14day quarantine and training of crew - PVSA will likely make no difference in 2021 for Alaska.

Considering that other countries such as the UK are tightening their travel restrictions doesn't look like there will be much anywhere else either.

[JRG]

20 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Except that the PVSA fines do not go to the USCG.

I meant to say CBP.    I'm interested in your thoughts on this possible loophole that is coming up.

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/people-opinions/fmcs-sola-calls-limited-pvsa-exemption-diplomatic-action-help-alaska

 

This just came off the wires.

 

It looks like the Marine Industry and SOLA is coming to the rescue.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by JRG

[JRG]

20 hours ago, markeb said:

Intentionally avoiding foreign stops and paying the fines would be a fascinating idea (need a good Leonard Nimoy meme for that...).

 

It might fly if the underlying reciprocity agreements with the proper participants existed.  Think of the upside cashflow for CBP.  We are taught in upper division tax classes one golden rule,  and its the only Tax statement you should ever make at the dinner table. .   Tax evasion is illegal.   Tax avoidance is good and legal but it requires specific knowledge and application..   That is how loopholes work, correct.  

 

In the meantime,   the rumor is that a letter has been sent to Biden requesting the same waiver that is being supported by a Federal US Maritime Commissioner in my last post.

 

If you have a Beltway porthole into the Executive Order application process if would be interesting to monitor communications on this.  

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by JRG

[chengkp75]

13 minutes ago, JRG said:

I meant to say CBP.    I'm interested in your thoughts on this possible loophole.

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/people-opinions/fmcs-sola-calls-limited-pvsa-exemption-diplomatic-action-help-alaska

 

This just came off the wires.

 

It looks like the Marine Industry and SOLA is coming to the rescue.

 

 

Sola is one of 5 commissioners, and the one with probably the least experience in the maritime industry, unless of course you think yacht sales is part of the industry.  And, I don't see where the "Marine Industry" has joined with Sola?

[Arizona Wildcat]

25 minutes ago, JRG said:

I meant to say CBP.    I'm interested in your thoughts on this possible loophole that is coming up.

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/people-opinions/fmcs-sola-calls-limited-pvsa-exemption-diplomatic-action-help-alaska

 

This just came off the wires.

 

It looks like the Marine Industry and SOLA is coming to the rescue.

 

 

Do you think Sola will assist in getting crew to the ships?  Getting them all vaccinated - won't happen till maybe July.  Vaccine should be widely available in the US and Europe by July.  Thus my date.  Speeding up a 14 day quarantine and 4-6 weeks of crew training?

Cruising likely to resume with test cruises in maybe July.  7 day cruises August or September.

Would like to hear how it happen faster?

Sola's support is great but the timeline impossible.  Do you think the CDC will declare cruising "safe" by ________?  Pick a month April or after and start the timeline.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Arizona Wildcat

[Fouremco]

32 minutes ago, JRG said:

I meant to say CBP.    I'm interested in your thoughts on this possible loophole that is coming up.

 

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/people-opinions/fmcs-sola-calls-limited-pvsa-exemption-diplomatic-action-help-alaska

 

This just came off the wires.

 

It looks like the Marine Industry and SOLA is coming to the rescue.

 

 

The most pertinent paragraph of the article:

 

There's quite a bit of talk about a temporary PVSA exemption and proponents in Congress include Alaska Rep. Don Young. However, cruise industry sources and legal experts consider this a high hurdle.

 

There are two major hurdles. The first is the time that it would take to successfully secure a PVSA exemption, as well as addressing the many related issues that have been discussed on this thread. The second is the time that it will take for cruise lines to get ready to restart cruising of any type. It is highly unlikely that either one of these hurdles will be overcome in time for a worthwhile 2021 Alaska cruise season, let alone both hurdles.

 

I'm not sure what is driving your interest in circumventing the PVSA, but you really should look at the broad picture and not ignore the many obstacles. 

 

[nocl]

55 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

The most pertinent paragraph of the article:

 

There's quite a bit of talk about a temporary PVSA exemption and proponents in Congress include Alaska Rep. Don Young. However, cruise industry sources and legal experts consider this a high hurdle.

 

There are two major hurdles. The first is the time that it would take to successfully secure a PVSA exemption, as well as addressing the many related issues that have been discussed on this thread. The second is the time that it will take for cruise lines to get ready to restart cruising of any type. It is highly unlikely that either one of these hurdles will be overcome in time for a worthwhile 2021 Alaska cruise season, let alone both hurdles.

 

I'm not sure what is driving your interest in circumventing the PVSA, but you really should look at the broad picture and not ignore the many obstacles. 

 

Kind of like when the Senators in Florida talked about removing CDC's ability to restrict cruise lines.  That did not happen and neither will this.

[Arizona Wildcat]

1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

The most pertinent paragraph of the article:

 

There's quite a bit of talk about a temporary PVSA exemption and proponents in Congress include Alaska Rep. Don Young. However, cruise industry sources and legal experts consider this a high hurdle.

 

There are two major hurdles. The first is the time that it would take to successfully secure a PVSA exemption, as well as addressing the many related issues that have been discussed on this thread. The second is the time that it will take for cruise lines to get ready to restart cruising of any type. It is highly unlikely that either one of these hurdles will be overcome in time for a worthwhile 2021 Alaska cruise season, let alone both hurdles.

 

I'm not sure what is driving your interest in circumventing the PVSA, but you really should look at the broad picture and not ignore the many obstacles. 

 

Absolutely.  If PVSA was waived for 2021 tomorrow it would make no difference for the Alaska cruise season this year.

 

[ECCruise]

This gives a fun place to discuss things but the 2021 Alaska season is a non-starter.

Do you thing =X= would be allowing people to move their sailings to 2022 if they thought there really was still hope for 2021?  This was a recent change, like this week.

[mo&fran]

And you still have the visa requirements for the crew.