Top-ranking members of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation are asking Canada to allow technical stops.

[DCGuy64]

1 minute ago, Sweetnspicy said:

I personally like the mask mandates. I haven’t been sick in over a year, I don’t have to smell anyone’s stinky breath or see janky teeth and no has spit on me while they are talking. Glorious. 

Good for you. I miss being able to look at people and smile at them. Masks dehumanize. I hate them. But good for you, you seem to see the upsides and there's nothing wrong with that. I do like the personalization, though, it wasn't long before every sports team, university, etc. had their logos on them. Good old ingenuity!

[Sweetnspicy]

1 minute ago, DCGuy64 said:

Good for you. I miss being able to look at people and smile at them. Masks dehumanize. I hate them. But good for you, you seem to see the upsides and there's nothing wrong with that. I do like the personalization, though, it wasn't long before every sports team, university, etc. had their logos on them. Good old ingenuity!

I know people are frustrated and over all of this. I can see a light at the end of the tunnel. We are so close. Removing the mandates could push that even further away. Someday this will all be a crazy memory and we will be drinking and toasting on the pool deck. 

[broberts]

16 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Right? The same people who, when I said I didn't like wearing a mask last year told me "don't worry, we'll have a vaccine and then you won't have to" are now saying "well, actually, you'll still have to wear one." More goal post moving. 🙄

That kind of stuff is what makes me say "enough is enough, I'm taking the mask off and there's nothing you can do about it." Which is why I'm glad governors are starting to end the mask mandates. I'm sure that's infuriating the mask brigade, and I'm enjoying every delicious moment of it. 🤣

 

You should stop moving the goal posts then.

 

You keep mentioning how you were told something then claiming it turned out not to be true. Given how often this seems to happen, have you considered the possibility of an extremely faulty memory? You can easily check, just try to find the quote "don't worry, we'll have a vaccine and then you won't have to". 

[DCGuy64]

Just now, broberts said:

 

You should stop moving the goal posts then.

 

You keep mentioning how you were told something then claiming it turned out not to be true. Given how often this seems to happen, have you considered the possibility of an extremely faulty memory? You can easily check, just try to find the quote "don't worry, we'll have a vaccine and then you won't have to". 

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. I moved no goal posts. Maybe my brain is fried! LOL

[GA Dave]

My son and I have been following all the mask mandates/recommendations since this whole thing started.  However, we have also agreed that, once they say that everyone in the country has been offered the vaccine (now in May, according to the President), we are done with the masks.  The people who choose not to get vaccinated are responsible for any risk that comes with that decision, same as someone driving down the interstate at 90 miles per hour without a seatbelt on. 

[DCGuy64]

10 minutes ago, Sweetnspicy said:

I know people are frustrated and over all of this. I can see a light at the end of the tunnel. We are so close. Removing the mandates could push that even further away. Someday this will all be a crazy memory and we will be drinking and toasting on the pool deck. 

Serious question for you (and yes, you're right, pandemic fatigue is a real thing): You say that removing mandates could push that away. Do you believe there should be metrics in order to show how far we've gotten, that could then be used to lessen restrictions? Because here's how I see it: every time the public is told that we just have to get to Statistic X, and then we do just that, there's a loud group that says "still not safe enough." So what's the point of even reassuring the public that restrictions will end once we achieve a certain level of safety, only to have that promise broken once we have? Cases are coming down, people are getting vaccinated, and yes, some governors and mayors are beginning to relax the mandates, just like they promised they would. Which is a good thing. Yet some people are still nervous and want the restrictions to remain in place, for some indefinite period of time which will get magically extended forever. Wouldn't you be annoyed if a cruise line promised you a benefit after X number of sailings, and then kept increasing it that so you never attained it? I sure would. And we haven't even touched on the many terrible costs the lock downs and mandates have had on our society in terms of mental health and economic disaster.

I'm ready for the mandates to end, and I'm encouraged to see those in power doing just that.

 

[Sweetnspicy]

31 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Serious question for you (and yes, you're right, pandemic fatigue is a real thing): You say that removing mandates could push that away. Do you believe there should be metrics in order to show how far we've gotten, that could then be used to lessen restrictions? Because here's how I see it: every time the public is told that we just have to get to Statistic X, and then we do just that, there's a loud group that says "still not safe enough." So what's the point of even reassuring the public that restrictions will end once we achieve a certain level of safety, only to have that promise broken once we have? Cases are coming down, people are getting vaccinated, and yes, some governors and mayors are beginning to relax the mandates, just like they promised they would. Which is a good thing. Yet some people are still nervous and want the restrictions to remain in place, for some indefinite period of time which will get magically extended forever. Wouldn't you be annoyed if a cruise line promised you a benefit after X number of sailings, and then kept increasing it that so you never attained it? I sure would. And we haven't even touched on the many terrible costs the lock downs and mandates have had on our society in terms of mental health and economic disaster.

I'm ready for the mandates to end, and I'm encouraged to see those in power doing just that.

 

I’m not sure where you live but I live in WA state. We haven’t  been given a date where things would go back to normal or when mask mandates would end. We ended our quarantine in June of last year just like they said and we were put on a phased approach to reopening. We can’t meet the metrics here so we stay in phase 1. After more studies and science showed they could scale back some of the metrics, the phases were changed and were much more lenient. We STILL cannot meet the lower metrics so we stay in place in phase 1. 

Now when our state is as fully vaccinated as it can be, we can look forward to low or no restrictions. 

 

I don’t feel like I have been lied to or misled in anyway. I don’t feel that it’s dehumanizing to wear a mask or that it’s unnecessary right now. My days are much the same as before the pandemic. I just wear a mask now. I can see that you are extremely passionate about this and nothing I say will change your mind and I am fine with that. I feel and see progress even on my most pandemic fatigue of days. 

 

[DCGuy64]

5 minutes ago, Sweetnspicy said:

I’m not sure where you live but I live in WA state

I live in the "other" Washington, the DC one.

Our home is in the Virginia suburbs, but few people know of Burke, VA, while most people have heard of Washington, DC. 😊

Our governor was pretty heavy-handed with the restrictions last year, but they've gradually begun to ease. However, things have been rough on small businesses, especially places that rely on in-person visits like nail salons or restaurants (people don't tip as well when getting carryout as they would dining in, for example). My wife lost her job last year and hasn't been able to find another. Companies just aren't hiring. And a host of other issues like stores limiting how many customers they'll have at one time, so a quick run to my bike shop turns into an hour ordeal. Those are just a few examples, but the inconvenience has gotten ridiculous. For months we've heard "follow the science," but public school teachers around the country refuse to go back into the classroom, despite the SCIENCE saying it's safe to do so. Our local Metrorail system is barely functioning, as it's limited to "essential travel only." The board is considering closing 22 stations due to lack of demand. I'm sick and tired of it. Enough is enough for me, I want society to return to normal ASAP. It cannot continue like this. Yes, I'm passionate about this, but I'm mostly just sick and tired at this point. (literally and figuratively)

[don't-use-real-name]

3 hours ago, farmersfight said:

 

Let me get this straight, even after getting vaccinated we'll still be required to wear face diapers? Funny, we don't do that with the flu.

You missed the last line of my post - - -

 

Will this be enough to enlighten the minds of CDC and other authorities ?

 

Facetious point taken about getting back to cruising !

[farmersfight]

2 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

Which is why I'm glad governors are starting to end the mask mandates. I'm sure that's infuriating the mask brigade

 

Must be that Neanderthal thinking...

[DCGuy64]

1 hour ago, farmersfight said:

 

Must be that Neanderthal thinking...

Right? Odd that people keep flocking to Texas despite their backward thinking! 🤣😂

[Topdog52]

2 hours ago, don't-use-real-name said:

You missed the last line of my post - - -

 

Will this be enough to enlighten the minds of CDC and other authorities ?

 

Facetious point taken about getting back to cruising !

I hope it is enough to enlighten Canada and Trudeau!!! 

[broberts]

4 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

Serious question for you (and yes, you're right, pandemic fatigue is a real thing): You say that removing mandates could push that away. Do you believe there should be metrics in order to show how far we've gotten, that could then be used to lessen restrictions? Because here's how I see it: every time the public is told that we just have to get to Statistic X, and then we do just that, there's a loud group that says "still not safe enough." So what's the point of even reassuring the public that restrictions will end once we achieve a certain level of safety, only to have that promise broken once we have? Cases are coming down, people are getting vaccinated, and yes, some governors and mayors are beginning to relax the mandates, just like they promised they would. Which is a good thing. Yet some people are still nervous and want the restrictions to remain in place, for some indefinite period of time which will get magically extended forever. Wouldn't you be annoyed if a cruise line promised you a benefit after X number of sailings, and then kept increasing it that so you never attained it? I sure would. And we haven't even touched on the many terrible costs the lock downs and mandates have had on our society in terms of mental health and economic disaster.

I'm ready for the mandates to end, and I'm encouraged to see those in power doing just that.

 

 

You seem to think that public health is a corporate enterprise. It isnt.

 

You assume that public health officials are making promises. They don't and any reasonable person understands that phrases like "we think", "the data suggests", "if ...", "it's likely", etc. are qualifiers. Ignoring those qualifiers seems to be a problem.

 

Whiny kids are so irritating.

[DCGuy64]

6 minutes ago, broberts said:

Whiny kids are so irritating

I agree, whiny kids are very irritating. Fortunately, I'm neither.

 

[farmersfight]

13 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

Right? Odd that people keep flocking to Texas despite their backward thinking! 🤣😂

 

...and flocking to Florida, South Dakota, Mississippi. Man, real estate prices in Florida must be sky rocketing (supply & demand)!

[farmersfight]

17 hours ago, GA Dave said:

My son and I have been following all the mask mandates/recommendations since this whole thing started.  However, we have also agreed that, once they say that everyone in the country has been offered the vaccine (now in May, according to the President), we are done with the masks.  The people who choose not to get vaccinated are responsible for any risk that comes with that decision, same as someone driving down the interstate at 90 miles per hour without a seatbelt on. 

 

[mianmike]

12 minutes ago, farmersfight said:

 

...and flocking to Florida, South Dakota, Mississippi. Man, real estate prices in Florida must be sky rocketing (supply & demand)!

They are also flocking here to Arizona.  We're kinda anti-science and we like our freedumbs.  Hold my beer; watch this . . . is our state motto.  

[farmersfight]

17 minutes ago, mianmike said:

They are also flocking here to Arizona.  We're kinda anti-science and we like our freedumbs.  Hold my beer; watch this . . . is our state motto.  

 

Yes, I can imagine the many that are fleeing California. My younger son goes to University of Arizona (go Wildcats!) and I was fortunate to be able to fly down there and visit him (& his older brother who attends Washington State University) in late Dec 2019. I bought tickets and took them to see the Arizona Coyotes play the St. Louis Blues in Phoenix. Still hard to compute that they play ice hockey in the desert. Same for playing ice hockey in Miami and Tampa. Guess it doesn't matter if you have a nice arena and appropriate ice making/maintaining systems in the rink. Isn't technology wonderful?

 

I look forward to the day when I can return to Arizona and see my younger (and maybe older) son(s) again.

 

P.S. I just Google mapped where Gilbert, AZ is. Looks like you're right there by Phoenix. You're all set if you're a professional sports fan as you've got the Cardinals (NFL), Suns (NBA), Diamondbacks (MLB) & Coyotes (NHL).

Edited March 5, 2021 by farmersfight

[ew101]

Back to a possibly silly technical question.  So if an NCL ship leaves Seattle and stops say near Roberts Bank Port near Boundary Bay.  They anchor and go whale watching.  The ship would be a mile from the US boundary.  And even two miles from the US mainland.  I think maybe the lines want a "wink and nod" PSVA exemption - so they went to Canada but did not get off the ship and endanger the Canadian public health or ask to fill up their hospitals.  Or if the anchor was on the US side and the ship happened to innocently swing over to the Canadian side of the line.  Any PVSA exception would be time -limited - you had to travel in the territorial waters of another country to meet the spirit of the rule for say the next 300 days.    We are not changing the policy here. 

 

The idea is "for the duration of the current COVID-19 pandemic, cruise lines can attempt to follow the legal routes established before the pandemic, subject to current international restrictions" 

Edited March 5, 2021 by ew101

[d9704011]

You can eliminate the ‘possibly’.

[chengkp75]

39 minutes ago, ew101 said:

Back to a possibly silly technical question.  So if an NCL ship leaves Seattle and stops say near Roberts Bank Port near Boundary Bay.  They anchor and go whale watching.  The ship would be a mile from the US boundary.  And even two miles from the US mainland.  I think maybe the lines want a "wink and nod" PSVA exemption - so they went to Canada but did not get off the ship and endanger the Canadian public health or ask to fill up their hospitals.  Or if the anchor was on the US side and the ship happened to innocently swing over to the Canadian side of the line.  Any PVSA exception would be time -limited - you had to travel in the territorial waters of another country to meet the spirit of the rule for say the next 300 days.    We are not changing the policy here. 

 

The idea is "for the duration of the current COVID-19 pandemic, cruise lines can attempt to follow the legal routes established before the pandemic, subject to current international restrictions" 

In order to be a "foreign port call", to satisfy the PVSA, whether it is an actual port call, or a "technical port call", the ship needs to "clear" into and out of the foreign port (i.e. have the ship's paperwork show that the ship stopped at a foreign port).  Now, as far as the Canadians are concerned, the ship stopping and anchoring in Canadian waters (don't get me started with "working the line" with where the anchor is) is a violation of their prohibition.  Anchoring is not "innocent passage".

[AmazedByCruising]

On 3/3/2021 at 1:34 PM, chengkp75 said:

The serious problem being solved by the PVSA is the decisions by Congress and the US Administrations, since the 1800's that vessel safety is not up to what the people of the US expect.  Therefore, the US government has adopted stricter safety regulations on shipping than what the rest of the world has adopted (via the international conventions like SOLAS, MARPOL, etc).  This problem continues today, despite the transition from steamboats to motor vessels.

 

When a vessel calls at a foreign port during it's voyage, that voyage, by definition in again various international conventions (of which the US is signatory, and therefore must pass enabling legislation incorporating the terms of the convention into US law) is a foreign voyage.  A foreign flag ship engaged in a foreign voyage cannot have any stricter regulations placed on it than what are required under the international conventions.  But, a vessel on a "coastwise" or "domestic" voyage, if the cabotage law  requires it to be US flag, can have the stricter regulations enforced.  So, requiring a foreign flag cruise ship to call at a foreign port, doesn't take the problem away, it just means the US no longer has jurisdiction over that problem.  We take the risk every time we allow a foreign ship into US waters, whether there will be an incident like the MV Bright Field that allided with the New Orleans Riverwalk or the Cosco Busan that allided with the San Francisco Bay Bridge.  Doesn't mean the USCG likes it, just that there is nothing they can do about it.

 

What kind of protectionist legislation makes it more difficult for the "protected" industry to compete?  Or just stay in business?  What business wants to pay 3 times as much to operate as another company?

 

Despite what other posters or you may think, I'm not attacking you. I respect you and your knowledge, and I've asked many questions directly and many times silently hoping you'd be answering.  

 

The only thing we really disagree about, despite you being an authority both in real life and on this site is cabotage. 

 

 

I think there's not much to be done about international law, except negotiating when ships are dangerous. Obviously dangerous ships, posing a threat to the "safety of the port", can simply be barred from entry.  The incidents you name are "Jones Act" incidents. Is there any indication that PVSA ships, carrying passengers, occur more with foreign ships than the All American ones?

 

Every protectionist law is accompanied with "important reasons" why foreigners are not allowed to compete. The EU doesn't allow US chickens because they are washed with chlorine (which is a very good idea to deal with salmonella IMHO). "Chlorine chickens! Who would want poison in their chicken??" Of course it has more to do with a domestic chicken industry that doesn't like competition. 

 

It's not more difficult to compete when you have to abide by stricter rules than the competition, just make sure that the competition is not allowed in the race. The ones who are protected are the ones who had an expensive full-American crew in the first place, where the competition stores 4 Indonesians in a cabin paying them less than fuel cost. 

 

In reality, when it's just the cruise industry, the big companies are obviously as American as it can get. HQ based in Miami, owned by US pension funds, buying their food at US companies, hedging their fuel prices in New York, hiring US agencies to get and train their crew, having Oprah Winfrey sell their vacations to Americans. Except that all their ships are Maltese or Panamese so they can also buy their ship in Germany and hire Indonesians, too. They know that people who want to go on a cruise mainly want a cruise. And they just don't care that they have to sail to an island and back that happens to be on a list of "far" islands, instead they know sea days are golden and can blame PVSA for an otherwise absurd trip. They know that the competition also needs to sail to the same island so consumers don't have an option.  If PVSA were lifted, suddenly new companies might pop up doing much nicer itineraries and "rock the the boat". Let's say Carnival just invested in a 30 year lease of a "private island" based in Haiti, and everyone else made similar investments in ports, agreements with suppliers, etc. Now the Elon Musk Cruising Company allows people to visit Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles all in one trip, with an extension to visit Las Vegas. I reckon CCL, NCL and RC like it just the way it is.

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by AmazedByCruising

[ronrythm]

44 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Despite what other posters or you may think, I'm not attacking you. I respect you and your knowledge, and I've asked many questions directly and many times silently hoping you'd be answering.  

 

The only thing we really disagree about, despite you being an authority both in real life and on this site is cabotage. 

 

 

I think there's not much to be done about international law, except negotiating when ships are dangerous. Obviously dangerous ships, posing a threat to the "safety of the port", can simply be barred from entry.  The incidents you name are "Jones Act" incidents. Is there any indication that PVSA ships, carrying passengers, occur more with foreign ships than the All American ones?

 

Every protectionist law is accompanied with "important reasons" why foreigners are not allowed to compete. The EU doesn't allow US chickens because they are washed with chlorine (which is a very good idea to deal with salmonella IMHO). "Chlorine chickens! Who would want poison in their chicken??" Of course it has more to do with a domestic chicken industry that doesn't like competition. 

 

It's not more difficult to compete when you have to abide by stricter rules than the competition, just make sure that the competition is not allowed in the race. The ones who are protected are the ones who had an expensive full-American crew in the first place, where the competition stores 4 Indonesians in a cabin paying them less than fuel cost. 

 

In reality, when it's just the cruise industry, the big companies are obviously as American as it can get. HQ based in Miami, owned by US pension funds, buying their food at US companies, hedging their fuel prices in New York, hiring US agencies to get and train their crew, having Oprah Winfrey sell their vacations to Americans. Except that all their ships are Maltese or Panamese so they can also buy their ship in Germany and hire Indonesians, too. They know that people who want to go on a cruise mainly want a cruise. And they just don't care that they have to sail to an island and back that happens to be on a list of "far" islands, instead they know sea days are golden and can blame PVSA for an otherwise absurd trip. They know that the competition also needs to sail to the same island so consumers don't have an option.  If PVSA were lifted, suddenly new companies might pop up doing much nicer itineraries and "rock the the boat". Let's say Carnival just invested in a 30 year lease of a "private island" based in Haiti, and everyone else made similar investments in ports, agreements with suppliers, etc. Now the Elon Musk Cruising Company allows people to visit Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles all in one trip, with an extension to visit Las Vegas. I reckon CCL, NCL and RC like it just the way it is.

 

I Just Googled ferry boat accidents” to see what the PVSA protects US citizens from. Remember, by international law, over 12 passengers makes it a passenger vessel and all of our ferry boats could be replaced if the PVSA were repealed. Here’s a couple of links

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/world/asia/sewol-ferry-accident.html

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/indonesian-relatives-wait-in-anxiety-after-the-ferry-disaster-1871787

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/13-dead-in-indonesias-second-fatal-boat-accident-in-a-week-1796369

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/indonesian-ferry-accident-death-toll-climbs-to-63-1258977

Need more?

Ron

[AmazedByCruising]

50 minutes ago, ronrythm said:

I Just Googled ferry boat accidents” to see what the PVSA protects US citizens from. Remember, by international law, over 12 passengers makes it a passenger vessel and all of our ferry boats could be replaced if the PVSA were repealed. Here’s a couple of links

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/world/asia/sewol-ferry-accident.html

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/indonesian-relatives-wait-in-anxiety-after-the-ferry-disaster-1871787

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/13-dead-in-indonesias-second-fatal-boat-accident-in-a-week-1796369

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/indonesian-ferry-accident-death-toll-climbs-to-63-1258977

Need more?

Ron

 

Do you want to suggest that without the PVSA similar accidents would happen (more) in the US? 

 

Anyway, accidents with boats happen, and of course there a lawless countries where 1000 people step on a ship built for 50 because it's cheap. But the subject is cruise ships. I've heard the definition of a passenger vessel before.

 

I did mention that I don't believe that an international 12 pax limit for an international definition of a passenger vessel, meant to say those need a doctor and such, has anything to do with what local cabotage laws need to apply to. IANAL, but the US makes it's own cabotage laws. For instance, there is no international definition for "a far port", it would be very US centric if it had. If PVSA is interpreted like Vancouver is not "far", but Ensenada is, or if Congress gets to decide that such and such ship (like the Pride of America) gets an exception without the UN having a say in this matter, why wouldn't the US be able to also say that The Important Act X does not apply to ships that have at least 600 pax, a minimum of 2 swimming pools, entertainment by at least one singer and always carry at least 3 ounces of caviar? Or more simply: are operated by members of CLIA. 

Edited March 6, 2021 by AmazedByCruising

[chengkp75]

10 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

The incidents you name are "Jones Act" incidents. Is there any indication that PVSA ships, carrying passengers, occur more with foreign ships than the All American ones?

 

8 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

But the subject is cruise ships. I've heard the definition of a passenger vessel before.

Here you contradict yourself.  First you ask for "PVSA ships" where foreign accidents are more common than US.  Then you discount the vast majority of "PVSA ships" by limiting the discussion to "cruise ships".  You can't have it both ways.

 

But, the last "passenger vessel" that meets your narrow definition (in my research, I did not include any vessels listed as "ferry", but had to include "passenger vessels" as "cruise ships" per se did not exist for much of this time frame, but I limited myself to vessels with a capacity over 500) involving a US flag passenger vessel was the Morro Castle in 1930.  In the time frame since then, there have been 3900 deaths in 11 "passenger vessel" incidents outside the US.

 

When looking at all PVSA vessels, in just this century, there have been nearly 9000 deaths outside the US, to 19 in the US (17 in a duck boat sinking, and 2 just last year in a Florida ferry).  And, the worst peacetime maritime disaster of all time is the Philippine "Dona Paz" which sank taking 4,386 people to their death, when registered for 1500.