The Jones Act

[nocl]

20 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

Because you can't drive to Glacier Bay, Hubbard Glacier, Icy Strait Point, etc.

 

And – I like cruising.

You can fly to Gustavus, stay at Glacier Bay lodge and that an 8 hour boat tour.

[nocl]

10 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Interesting points about airlines and international routes.  And code-shares with them being common place at least for many flights I have travelled.  So can cruise ships have more than one flag?  Or can they have something akin to how the airline industry does it with code-shares?

While there is code sharing my understanding the actual aircraft must be operated (leased or owned) and crewed by the airline that can legally fly that leg. So you might have a BA code share between LA and NY for example, the plane flying that route would be a US airlines aircraft. 

Edited February 8, 2021 by nocl

[Host Jazzbeau]

I also don't think that you can book just that leg on BA, even as a code share.  [But I may be wrong.  There is a CC forum called Cruise Air where there are real mavens on this stuff.]

[jagoffee]

2 hours ago, nocl said:

While there is code sharing my understanding the actual aircraft must be operated (leased or owned) and crewed by the airline that can legally fly that leg. So you might have a BA code share between LA and NY for example, the plane flying that route would be a US airlines aircraft. 

You are correct.

[JRG]

Its interesting to note that the Mayor of Skagway,   just indicated that he spoke with an Alaskan State senator and they are also working with the state of Hawaii to help find a workaround for the PVSA.

 

This was in response to Canada folding the tent thru 2022 or whenever for cruising.

 

This article came out Friday p.m just about when this thread started getting spun.

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5867/

 

 

[JRG]

On 2/6/2021 at 6:07 PM, Host Jazzbeau said:

I know all about the PSVA, and accept @chengkp75's explanations of why it isn't likely to change – but I can still hope.

 

Also in the article from CC I linked above,   it mentions that CruiseCritic is involved in the discussions as well.   It then mentioned that CLIA then got more involved.

 

I'm beginning to think that CruiseCritic is taking the lead over CLIA in PVSA reform but I am glad CLIA is showing interest here.

 

But I'm guessing just from what is being reported here.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by JRG

[Fouremco]

20 minutes ago, JRG said:

Its interesting to note that the Mayor of Skagway,   just indicated that he spoke with an Alaskan State senator and they are also working with the state of Hawaii to help find a workaround for the PVSA.

 

This was in response to Canada folding the tent thru 2022 or whenever for cruising.

 

This article came out Friday p.m just about when this thread started getting spun.

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5867/

 

 

Unfortunately, the articles suffers from a number of glaring errors and is filled with obvious bias. The most germane paragraphs:

 

Even then, continued requirements on the part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention toward the cruise industry could make any potential changes to the act a moot point.

 

To date, the CDC has not stated how, or when, it expects large cruise ships to be reasonably allowed to resume from U.S. ports of call.

[cruisestitch]

PVSA changes can’t work independently of CBP regulations which affect visas and employment options, and CDC mandates regarding length of cruise and shoreside medical facilities. Otherwise they are spinning their wheels, aren’t they?

Edited February 8, 2021 by cruisestitch

[Fouremco]

25 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

Also in the article from CC I linked above,   it mentions that CruiseCritic is involved in the discussions as well.   It then mentioned that CLIA then got more involved.

 

I'm beginning to think that CruiseCritic is taking the lead over CLIA in PVSA reform but I am glad CLIA is showing interest here.

 

But I'm guessing just from what is being reported here.

 

 

Could you provide a reference? I see no mention of Cruise Critic being involved in any discussions.

[Arizona Wildcat]

41 minutes ago, JRG said:

Its interesting to note that the Mayor of Skagway,   just indicated that he spoke with an Alaskan State senator and they are also working with the state of Hawaii to help find a workaround for the PVSA.

 

This was in response to Canada folding the tent thru 2022 or whenever for cruising.

 

This article came out Friday p.m just about when this thread started getting spun.

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5867/

 

 

Absolutely understandable for Skag way as the Canadian border is under 10 miles from town.  Canada has Most of the medical facilities and Skag way also has only ferries and charter air.

Again most of the shops have seasonal workers and owners.  Full time population is in the area of 400.

[Host Jazzbeau]

32 minutes ago, cruisestitch said:

PVSA changes can’t work independently of CBP regulations which affect visas and employment options, and CDC mandates regarding length of cruise and shoreside medical facilities. Otherwise they are spinning their wheels, aren’t they?

You could look at it as exercising our sovereignty.  Canada has the sovereign right to protect their population and decide who can visit and use their waters.  But should that dictate what the US can do?

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

Its interesting to note that the Mayor of Skagway,   just indicated that he spoke with an Alaskan State senator and they are also working with the state of Hawaii to help find a workaround for the PVSA.

 

This was in response to Canada folding the tent thru 2022 or whenever for cruising.

 

This article came out Friday p.m just about when this thread started getting spun.

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5867/

 

 

 

Hawaii for a workaround? What could that possibly be?

 

As things are now probably all this is  moot. Likely the Alaska cruise season will be over before cruises restart from US ports.  

 

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Charles4515

[WestLakeGirl]

Without changing the need for all shipboard employees to have US citizenship or a green card, what good does changing the PVSA to eliminate the need for the foreign port do?  
 

 

[chengkp75]

40 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

You could look at it as exercising our sovereignty.  Canada has the sovereign right to protect their population and decide who can visit and use their waters.  But should that dictate what the US can do?

Not sure where you are going here.  Sure we have the sovereign right to allow foreign flag cruise ships to travel to Alaska without stopping at Canada, but that right must be expressed by Congress, not a waiver that does not meet the waiver requirements written into the law by Congress, nor by an Executive Order that tries to change those waiver requirements.  The only way this would happen is if Congress amends the PVSA, even on a temporary basis.

19 minutes ago, WestLakeGirl said:

Without changing the need for all shipboard employees to have US citizenship or a green card, what good does changing the PVSA to eliminate the need for the foreign port do?  
 

 

Well, actually if the PVSA were waived, and with an application to CBP/State for work visas for the crew, they could remain non-residents, but getting both is a stretch.  But, even with a waiver of the PVSA, I doubt that the CDC and the cruise lines could get everything together and worked out to restart cruising in time for the Alaskan season.

[markeb]

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, actually if the PVSA were waived, and with an application to CBP/State for work visas for the crew, they could remain non-residents, but getting both is a stretch.  But, even with a waiver of the PVSA, I doubt that the CDC and the cruise lines could get everything together and worked out to restart cruising in time for the Alaskan season.

 

I was in the process of typing something remarkably similar, but fortunately you beat me to it!

[Host Jazzbeau]

25 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not sure where you are going here.  Sure we have the sovereign right to allow foreign flag cruise ships to travel to Alaska without stopping at Canada, but that right must be expressed by Congress, not a waiver that does not meet the waiver requirements written into the law by Congress, nor by an Executive Order that tries to change those waiver requirements.  The only way this would happen is if Congress amends the PVSA, even on a temporary basis.

 

Wasn't really going anywhere with it, just pointing out that there are many reasons for doing things.

[JRG]

47 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, actually if the PVSA were waived, and with an application to CBP/State for work visas for the crew, they could remain non-residents, but getting both is a stretch.  But, even with a waiver of the PVSA, I doubt that the CDC and the cruise lines could get everything together and worked out to restart cruising in time for the Alaskan season.

 

Finally its good to hear you speak of possible solutions to the problem versus taking a don't need the change leave the status-quo intact approach.   

 

I bet A lot of posters will follow your lead if  you change your position.  I'm not going to bet my Goldtop on it though.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by JRG

[markeb]

This is turning into a Monty Python argument clinic sketch.

 

I don't think anyone, including @chengkp75, blindly supports everything in the PVSA. He certainly has much more knowledge of the actual maritime legal considerations than I have, or than I've seen anyone else post here. What most people are saying, including him, and you in an earlier post, is that changing the PVSA would NOT result in cruises going from a US port to another US port, Alaska or Hawaii in this case, without significant other changes, many of which not even the cruise lines are likely to support.

 

Does anyone actually think that with the rate of US unemployment of service industry workers that a change in immigration law to allow what will be viewed as service industry workers to apply for and receive non-resident work visas has any chance of passing??? I don't think DHS or CBP have the legal authority to just change that without Congressional action, and by the time that happens, the "emergency" driving action will likely be gone, or frankly, this will be moot because the cruise industry will have reorganized.

 

I'd actually love to see legislation proposed to change the PVSA and eliminate the foreign port call requirement, but not touch any of the other issues. I think the cruise lines would suddenly be saying, whoa, we really didn't mean that! 

[cruisestitch]

As Chengkp75 said, “Getting both is a stretch” and add getting the CDC on board lowers the odds even more.  
 

with limited berth space in Seattle, it’s really grasping at straws to think there will be any Alaska season.

 

However, the Canadian pronouncement doesn’t just affect Alaska.

 

There’s also cruising to the Maritimes, Montreal and Quebec, which MIGHT be feasible with all the proposed waivers?

 

and what of Great Lakes cruising?

Edited February 8, 2021 by cruisestitch

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Finally its good to hear you speak of possible solutions to the problem versus taking a don't need the change leave the status-quo intact approach.   

 

I bet A lot of posters will follow your lead if  you change your position.  I'm not going to bet my Goldtop on it though.

 

 

I'm never quite sure whether reading comprehension or cognitive dissonance is the problem here.
 

I didn't say that either a waiver of the PVSA or the necessary changes to visa requirements were a "possible solution", as I said that getting both, which would be what is required, would be a stretch.

[Fouremco]

2 hours ago, cruisestitch said:

As Chengkp75 said, “Getting both is a stretch” and add getting the CDC on board lowers the odds even more.  
 

with limited berth space in Seattle, it’s really grasping at straws to think there will be any Alaska season.

 

However, the Canadian pronouncement doesn’t just affect Alaska.

 

There’s also cruising to the Maritimes, Montreal and Quebec, which MIGHT be feasible with all the proposed waivers?

 

and what of Great Lakes cruising?

I would think that there'd be a far greater chance of us allowing Alaskan cruises, with a single Canadian port stop, than us permitting cruises in the East with their multiple Canadian ports.

[JRG]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I'm never quite sure whether reading comprehension or cognitive dissonance is the problem here.
 

I didn't say that either a waiver of the PVSA or the necessary changes to visa requirements were a "possible solution", as I said that getting both, which would be what is required, would be a stretch.

 

no need to show the snarky side; this is the Celebrity board and it is usually pretty civil.  

 

From your newer posts It sounds like you are hedging your bet a little bit.  I think that would be a smart play given the way things are changing daily.     

 

 

 

[markeb]

5 hours ago, JRG said:

 

Finally its good to hear you speak of possible solutions to the problem versus taking a don't need the change leave the status-quo intact approach.   

 

I bet A lot of posters will follow your lead if  you change your position.  I'm not going to bet my Goldtop on it though.

 

 

 

Two glasses of Scotch tonight, and today's medical treatment creates insomnia, so...

 

What is the problem you want to solve? Too much time in the Army, and failure to define the problem is generally viewed as the single biggest impediment to problem solving. I don't know what problem you want to solve. "The PVSA requirements are stupid" is not a problem statement. It's probably an assumption necessary to move forward in defining courses of action. It's also probably not facts bearing on the problem. So what is the actual problem?

 

What facts impact the problem? What assumptions are necessary to move forward where there are no specific facts?

 

Given the above, what's your proposed endstate? That should be a solution to the actual problem. Is it foreign flagged cruise ships transport passengers between US ports without restriction? Or is it cruise ships transport passengers between US ports without restrictions? There are different possible solutions to those endstates.

 

What potential solutions address solving the problem? Repealing the PVSA is a possible solution. Amending the PVSA is a possible solution. Suspending the PVSA is a possible solution. There may be others. Each of those possible solution have specified and implied tasks once you peel them back. And they each have subordinate tasks, and most have cascading tasks, such as creating a process for a foreign built vessel to be reflagged in the United States, which cascades into citizenship requirements, or changes to citizenship requirements, which may create changes to work visa requirements. Or allowing a foreign flagged vessel to transport passengers between US ports without flag changes. What changes in law and regulation are necessary to do that? What laws and regulations impact implementation. Etc.

 

How do those solutions compare to actually address the problem that needs to be defined at the beginning. By some reasonable criteria. There are pros and cons to each solution. Always are. 

 

The result of all that is a proposal for action, in this case almost certainly legislative, regulatory, and private business (cruise line) practices. The legislative process would almost certainly require this to be researched by the Congressional Research Service and the financials scored by the Congressional Budget Office, because there's almost certainly a cost, and the CRS is probably going to find 100+ year old legislative and regulatory changes no one has thought about. Otherwise, you get the changes to the PVSA and everyone is happy, and suddenly there's no way to go from Boston to Bar Harbor to Manhattan without meeting all kinds of second and third order impacts that weren't researched. And the crap coming out of CLIA and the various cruise press articles suggests neither has taken the time to do that work, or they just plan on inertia and repeating the same incomplete and inaccurate information. Their actual endstate is a bunch of cruisers who've oversimplified the issues thanks to them repeating the same incomplete information over and over again.

 

This is not a one liner process. No, an internet forum isn't the place to actually solve something. Too many posts that sound like gotcha trolling. But a few that suggest this is something you've thought about.

 

In this case, step one is defining the problem...

 

If that doesn't interest you, then I don't know why you keep commenting.

 

[LGW59]

19 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

This is not a one liner process. No, an internet forum isn't the place to actually solve something.

You should consider heeding your own long winded "advice", it is still a cruise forum

[markeb]

1 minute ago, LGW59 said:

You should consider heeding your own long winded "advice", it is still a cruise forum

 

Just not going to bother. Have a great evening and enjoy your next cruise.