Jump to content

Utah Senator's new bill would scrap PSVA, end need for stops in foreign ports for foreign-flagged ships


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, dockman said:

Yes there are many complicating rules and regulations written into the various laws...all of which COULD just as well be rewritten to do away with some of the more absurd provisions that have been in force for decades and defy logic.

I love the fact that everyone says the PVSA is archaic because it's been around for decades.  So has the Constitution, is it archaic?  What are the absurd provisions?

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dockman said:

Yes there are many complicating rules and regulations written into the various laws...all of which COULD just as well be rewritten to do away with some of the more absurd provisions that have been in force for decades and defy logic.

 

Personally I see PVSA as a normal result of a want for protectionism, an outcome of a discussion between people who are hurt by foreign competition and the rest that would like cheaper butter or cars or cruises. Where of course, the ones that buy butter make far less noise about a few cents extra than the ones whose livelihood is at stake when foreigners who are better and cheaper at making butter would be allowed to sell theirs.

 

The reason PVSA exists is that steamships exploded. That's how it started. When the ships stopped using steam as a means of propulsion, the law remained.

 

For the cruising industry: there's hardly anything to protect left. There are no shipyards building cruise ships in the US. There are a few people being crew on Pride of America, and even that ship needed an exemption because it wasn't built in the US.

 

I'm glad that PVSA itself is being at the table. Without specifying a spa and lobster night, even without a 800 berth limit,  the act could simply say "a cruise ship" and judges won't have a hard time to say that ship A is included, while B isn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Personally I see PVSA as a normal result of a want for protectionism, an outcome of a discussion between people who are hurt by foreign competition and the rest that would like cheaper butter or cars or cruises. Where of course, the ones that buy butter make far less noise about a few cents extra than the ones whose livelihood is at stake when foreigners who are better and cheaper at making butter would be allowed to sell theirs.

 

The reason PVSA exists is that steamships exploded. That's how it started. When the ships stopped using steam as a means of propulsion, the law remained.

 

For the cruising industry: there's hardly anything to protect left. There are no shipyards building cruise ships in the US. There are a few people being crew on Pride of America, and even that ship needed an exemption because it wasn't built in the US.

 

I'm glad that PVSA itself is being at the table. Without specifying a spa and lobster night, even without a 800 berth limit,  the act could simply say "a cruise ship" and judges won't have a hard time to say that ship A is included, while B isn't. 

Do a search on how many ferries have sunk around the world in the last 10 years.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nocl said:

Do a search on how many ferries have sunk around the world in the last 10 years.

 

We're talking about cruise ships and I suggested that judges can make a difference between a cruise ship and any other ship. What do ferries have got to do with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AmazedByCruising said:

 

We're talking about cruise ships and I suggested that judges can make a difference between a cruise ship and any other ship. What do ferries have got to do with it?

The rules for PVSA also are there to protect ferry operations. Now how exactly do you legally define the difference between a large ferry and a cruise ship that also meets international  treaty.  

 

The issue is that PVSA deals with far more than cruise ships and deals with far more safety issues that river boat boilers.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

We're talking about cruise ships and I suggested that judges can make a difference between a cruise ship and any other ship. What do ferries have got to do with it?

I will only take this up with you one more time.  What is the legal definition of a "cruise ship"?  Without a legal definition, a judge cannot make a "differentiation" as to what is a "cruise ship".  Is there an international definition of "cruise ship"?  Because, since you are dealing with ships of various nations, you are no longer dealing strictly with US laws.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zgscl said:

That is very interesting, I hadn’t read about the visa/work rule issue before. Certainly neither is insurmountable if congress writes exemptions into or amends current law. The bigger question is how much desire would there really be for this on the hill. It would be very different than a voice vote on a one time recovery act I would think.  I can’t imagine this is at the top of anyone’s to do list with the current state of things. Then again this could possibly something that garners bipartisan support and could be touted as an easy win on both sides (or could die in gridlock). We shall see.

 

If there's one thing I've learned working for the government, it's that things usually aren't as they appear.  I suspect this proposal for a PVSA repeal is in order to create a substantial tax base with the cruise industry.  If that's the case, the folks on this thread who were so happy to see this news won't be so happy when they see the sharp upward spike in cruise costs.  

 

25 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

We're talking about cruise ships and I suggested that judges can make a difference between a cruise ship and any other ship. What do ferries have got to do with it?

 

Are you seriously asking what ferries have to do with the PVSA?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I will only take this up with you one more time.  What is the legal definition of a "cruise ship"?  Without a legal definition, a judge cannot make a "differentiation" as to what is a "cruise ship".  Is there an international definition of "cruise ship"?  Because, since you are dealing with ships of various nations, you are no longer dealing strictly with US laws.

 

We're talking about US only law because international law doesn't care about PVSA or Jones or whatever law the US wants in its own waters. If the US doesn't want to have cabotage laws, the UN doesn't care. If the US feels it should say some ports are "far" and other ports "not far enough", the UN doesn't care. It's completely up to the US itself to make it's own laws, and it's the US that can decide which ships are or are not meant to be subject to those. If the law simply says "cruise ship", it's the job of the judge to decide if the lawmakers meant ship X to be included or not. And only after ship X got prosecuted for not following US rules.

Edited by AmazedByCruising
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

If the law simply says "cruise ship", it's the job of the judge to decide if the lawmakers meant ship X to be included or not. And only after ship X got prosecuted for not following US rules.

Have you ever seen some of the ferries in Europe? They are every bit as large as many cruise ships I have sailed. They have cabins, dining rooms, casinos, entertainment. They sail the same seas as cruise ships, in the same kind of weather. 
It might be very difficult for a judge to differentiate between what you think of as two different types of vessels. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

We're talking about US only law because international law doesn't care about PVSA or Jones or whatever law the US wants in its own waters. If the US doesn't want to have cabotage laws, the UN doesn't care. If the US feels it should say some ports are "far" and other ports "not far enough", the UN doesn't care. It's completely up to the US itself to make it's own laws, and it's the US that can decide which ships are or are not meant to be subject to those. If the law simply says "cruise ship", it's the job of the judge to decide if the lawmakers meant ship X to be included or not. And only after ship X got prosecuted for not following US rules.

What you are forgetting is other countries have cabotage laws, and the world, in general, probably works to be at least somewhat consistent in these things. If you know your history, you know that a country suddenly breaking out of international norms has led to many a vicious disagreements, trade wars, embargos, and much, much worse. It pays to get along.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

We're talking about US only law because international law doesn't care about PVSA or Jones or whatever law the US wants in its own waters. If the US doesn't want to have cabotage laws, the UN doesn't care. If the US feels it should say some ports are "far" and other ports "not far enough", the UN doesn't care. It's completely up to the US itself to make it's own laws, and it's the US that can decide which ships are or are not meant to be subject to those. If the law simply says "cruise ship", it's the job of the judge to decide if the lawmakers meant ship X to be included or not. And only after ship X got prosecuted for not following US rules.

there are an entire series of maritime laws established by international treaties defining international operations of passenger vessels, including safety such as SOLAS, as will as how national laws such as tax laws and labor regulations impact international cruises. Those treaties impact all passenger vessels carrying more that 12 passengers. When one starts to do carve outside, they cannot ignore the definitions in those treaties.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nocl said:

there are an entire series of maritime laws established by international treaties defining international operations of passenger vessels, including safety such as SOLAS, as will as how national laws such as tax laws and labor regulations impact international cruises. Those treaties impact all passenger vessels carrying more that 12 passengers. When one starts to do carve outside, they cannot ignore the definitions in those treaties.

I guess you did not read post #34 (actually I'm sure you did). Some people do not care at all about any international treaties that the US has agreed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 6:33 AM, Heartgrove said:

Strange how a land-locked state's senator would care about the PVSA. But we haven' seen his name in the news lately.

 

It is strange on the surface...but if you think about it maybe not so strange....

 

...I think it is possible that somebody in the Senator's family may have actually taken a cruise to Alaska and actually realizes how silly the PVSA Steamboat Willy thing really is.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

It is strange on the surface...but if you think about it maybe not so strange....

 

...I think it is possible that somebody in the Senator's family may have actually taken a cruise to Alaska and actually realizes how silly the PVSA Steamboat Willy thing really is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really believe that 98% of people who cruised before 2020 knew what the PVSA was - and how it affected their cruise? I am sure the addition of Victoria, Ensenada, Bermuda, etc. added to the attraction of the cruise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Heartgrove said:

Do you really believe that 98% of people who cruised before 2020 knew what the PVSA was - and how it affected their cruise? I am sure the addition of Victoria, Ensenada, Bermuda, etc. added to the attraction of the cruise.

 

I believe that 98% of cruisers will be changing their mind about the PVSA.   

 

The other 2% will defend it to the bitter end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fact that it's being suggested confirms Canada's initial fear, that once the door opened it will be easier to make temporary changes permanent, one reason they fought so hard for allowing technical stops, which fell on deaf ears at their federal level.

 

However, I think Vancouver will be fine, Seattle will be maxed out on homeporting ships even after the new terminal is built, and Canadian's like the convenience of not having to go into the U.S. to board ships just like Americans prefer the convenience of boarding in Seattle, border crossing is a big pain in the butt, I can write a 3 page post on what two people with mobility issues had to do to get back to Seattle the last time we disembarked in Vancouver because we weren't flying out of Sea-Tac; the cruise line's accommodation's end the moment you leave Vancouver Place.  It took another 18 hours to get home.  Ugh, never again!

 

As to Victoria and Nanaimo, I think there will always be desire to stop in those ports, wouldn't they rather host people that want to be there rather being forced to go there? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JRG said:

 

It is strange on the surface...but if you think about it maybe not so strange....

 

...I think it is possible that somebody in the Senator's family may have actually taken a cruise to Alaska and actually realizes how silly the PVSA Steamboat Willy thing really is.

 

 

 

 

 

or more likely the Senator has received a large campaign contribution.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I guess you did not read post #34 (actually I'm sure you did). Some people do not care at all about any international treaties that the US has agreed to.

yes I did read it. The point is that US judges must also consider treaties signed by the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Cruising-along said:

Holy cow!  And I thought our 3-hour wait at the border was bad. 

We couldn't do the bus because we found out we would have had to lug everything (is that where the word luggage comes from?) into the border office to show passports and then lug it all back to the bus.  That left the train, the early departure we wouldn't have been ashore in time to catch, that left the evening train that required customs, then a stop at the border for them to walk the train looking at passports again.  We're now at 3 customs or immigration checks between getting off the ship and home.  There were countless other challenges and delays I won't bore everyone with.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who want a broader view, cabotage laws are not only maritime, but aviation as well. The  U.S. not only generally restricts our domestic maritime commerce to U.S. flag (registered) ships, but also generally restricts our domestic aviation commerce to U.S. flag (registered) aircraft. All of the aircraft that we fly on within the U.S. have Nxxxxx tail numbers and the stars and stripes on the tail. The only difference is that U.S airlines can buy their aircraft from Airbus, Bombardier and Embraer, as well as from Boeing. Having worked at the U.S. DOT in DC for many years, it is hard for me to understand why so many want it one way for ships (maritime), and another way for aircraft (aviation).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nocl said:

yes I did read it. The point is that US judges must also consider treaties signed by the US.

As I said, I pretty much knew you read it. And we both know judges must consider treaties signed by the US if they apply. But my point was that there are many who just don't care. They want the case to come out the way they want and the law be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2021 at 12:46 AM, zgscl said:


If this passes it will be very interesting to see. On the east coast I think it would be virtually unaffected as Canada is the highlight of Canada New England cruises. 
 

On the west coast you would almost certainly lose most of if not all of the Hawaii cruises plus some of the Alaska cruises. That being said Victoria is very popular and ideally situated for a short evening stop on the way back to Seattle as is Vancouver. Also I don’t think Seattle has the capacity to take all of the cruises that started or ended in Vancouver pre-pandemic. I still think Vancouver and Victoria would see quite a bit of traffic in the Alaska & west coast cruise season both because of location and popularity. 
 

Ensenada  on the other hand would probably lose a lot more. Also the US west coast would probably lose most of their Hawaii trips but could potentially gain on coastal and Alaska cruises. 


 

Sorry but I cannot fathom why you think that west coast cruises to Hawaii would be adversely affected. Ensenada  is not a very popular destination for cruisers to be required to stop at. If anything I think west coast cruises to Hawaii would become more popular.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • 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
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...