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

[dockman]

20 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

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?

The constitution has been amended 27 times so far in 245 years.   It was never a perfect document and without changes and updates women and blacks would still not be allowed to vote , and slavery would still be legal. Thankfully documents and laws are often amended to reflect changing times and practices and common sense. 

 

As far as I know the PVSA has not been significantly amended since passed in 1886, except perhaps to allow NCL to get around the built in USA portions and granting them a virtual monopoly on interisland Hawaii cruises. 

 

I  think it is absurd that a 7 day cruise around the Hawaiian Islands sells for 3 to 4 times as much as a 7 day cruise in the Caribbean because of PVSA  protections of NCL.

 

I  think it is absurd that a cruise cannot go from a US port  to/from Alaska/ Hawaii  without a forced stop in Canada or Mexico.

[NavArch64]

To dockman .... following your logic ... you would allow, say Air China, with Chinese registered aircraft, with Chinese nationals as crew, to fly HNL-LAX, HNL-SFO and HNL-SEA and drive Hawaiian Airlines out of business. Interesting.

[NavArch64]

To dockman .... following your logic ... you would allow, say Evergreen or OOCL , to drive Matson Navigation out of business after a century of serving Hawaii. Interesting.

[NavArch64]

To dockman .... following your logic .... why not contract out the entire U.S. domestic transportation system to, say, Indonesia or the Philippines. Interesting

[dockman]

11 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

To dockman .... following your logic ... you would allow, say Air China, with Chinese registered aircraft, with Chinese nationals as crew, to fly HNL-LAX, HNL-SFO and HNL-SEA and drive Hawaiian Airlines out of business. Interesting.

  Matson has done very very well "serving" Hawaii...like the missionaries who came to do good in Hawaii and in fact did very well.  Laws can be rewritten in numerous ways allowing common sense exemptions.  It does not have to be all or nothing.

[chengkp75]

34 minutes ago, dockman said:

The constitution has been amended 27 times so far in 245 years.   It was never a perfect document and without changes and updates women and blacks would still not be allowed to vote , and slavery would still be legal. Thankfully documents and laws are often amended to reflect changing times and practices and common sense. 

 

As far as I know the PVSA has not been significantly amended since passed in 1886, except perhaps to allow NCL to get around the built in USA portions and granting them a virtual monopoly on interisland Hawaii cruises. 

 

I  think it is absurd that a 7 day cruise around the Hawaiian Islands sells for 3 to 4 times as much as a 7 day cruise in the Caribbean because of PVSA  protections of NCL.

 

I  think it is absurd that a cruise cannot go from a US port  to/from Alaska/ Hawaii  without a forced stop in Canada or Mexico.

The PVSA has been modified several times, allowing exemptions to various routes (like Puerto Rico to the mainland US), and to allow "cruises to nowhere", and to allow multiple US ports in a single cruise.

 

So, you think that the price of a cruise on POA is due to protectionism allowing them to set any price they want?  About 10 years ago, the US Maritime Administration (the federal agency mandated with promoting US flag shipping), came out with a study that showed just how difficult it is to get ship owners to flag into the US.  A cargo ship, with a crew of 20-25, not a cruise ship with a crew of 1000 or more, costs 3 times as much to operate (day to day operating expenses) as a foreign flag ship.  Why do you think NCL dropped two ships from the trade, if it was so profitable?  The POA barely breaks even, even given the increased price over a 14 day cruise from the West Coast.

 

A cruise can go to/from Hawaii or Alaska, but it would have to be a US flag vessel.  Even removing the US built requirement from the PVSA, as was done for POA, the cruise lines know that their operating costs would balloon, and their bottom line would be adversely affected.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, dockman said:

  Matson has done very very well "serving" Hawaii...like the missionaries who came to do good in Hawaii and in fact did very well.  Laws can be rewritten in numerous ways allowing common sense exemptions.  It does not have to be all or nothing.

And, I'm sure you are aware that not everything coming to Hawaii needs to be on a US flag ship, right?  Anything carried from overseas can be on a foreign ship, contrary to what most Jones Act/PVSA critics claim.  And, where does the US get most of its consumer products?  From overseas.

[chengkp75]

10 minutes ago, NavArch64 said:

To dockman .... following your logic .... why not contract out the entire U.S. domestic transportation system to, say, Indonesia or the Philippines. Interesting

Yep, lets allow all kinds of foreign workers to work in the US without a work visa, without paying taxes, and without the protections of US labor laws, in all kinds of transportation industries like shipping, airlines, trucking, rail, let's go whole hog, why stop at cruise ships?  And, I'm certain that most folks would not mind that the USCG cannot enforce regulations on ships in domestic trade, just because folks want a cheap vacation.

[dockman]

I should know better than to suggest that there can be a few common sense adjustments that don't require an alaska cruise go to canada or a hawaii cruise go to mexico.

 

I suggested NONE of the items you outlined and no I don't want to turn the entire USA transportation system over to Indonesia.

 

So can you PVSA "experts" explain to me and many others why oh why it would be so terrible to not force stops in canada for alaska cruises or to allow a ship to sail from the west coast to hawaii without a canada or mexico stop?

 

 

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, dockman said:

I should know better than to suggest that there can be a few common sense adjustments that don't require an alaska cruise go to canada or a hawaii cruise go to mexico.

 

I suggested NONE of the items you outlined and no I don't want to turn the entire USA transportation system over to Indonesia.

 

So can you PVSA "experts" explain to me and many others why oh why it would be so terrible to not force stops in canada for alaska cruises or to allow a ship to sail from the west coast to hawaii without a canada or mexico stop?

 

 

By international law, the definition of a voyage with ports only in one nation is considered to be a "coastwise" or domestic voyage.  As such, they fall within the limitations of a "coastwise qualified" vessel, and therefore comes under various laws that govern "coastwise trade".  Some of these include the fact that vessels in domestic trade are subject to USCG regulations, but foreign flag ships do not, the USCG can only enforce the less strict SOLAS safety, training, and certification regulations.  Another is that someone working "in the US" (and since this voyage does not leave the US, they are working in the US), that is not a citizen or resident alien, needs to have a work visa, not a crew visa.  Workers working under a work visa  are required to be paid US wages, and work under US labor laws (things like overtime, OSHA, FMLA, etc).  And, finally, the ship would lose its duty free status on all parts and supplies shipped in from overseas, including bonded liquor.  So, if the cruise lines want to meet all of these requirements, and if the US could work out the international legal problems with having foreign flag ships do this, by all means let them sail to Alaska and Hawaii without a foreign stop.  See how many cruise lines will do this, as the expenses for the cruise will double to triple, with commensurate increases in fares.  Ask yourself, if this was such a boon to the cruise lines, why haven't they lobbied for it for decades?

 

And, I won't get into the harm this would likely do to the existing PVSA industry (which is far larger than cruise ships), if the international legalese is not worked out.  

[seaside sally]

On 6/12/2021 at 7:47 AM, DaveOKC said:

This would be great for cruisers I think.  No more needless stops or out of the way routes.

 

 

As a cruiser on the west coast of Canada, I will be disappointed if this passes.   My home town of Victoria B C will be greatly impacted

 

I am so hoping something can be agreed upon for next year🤔

[nocl]

36 minutes ago, dockman said:

I should know better than to suggest that there can be a few common sense adjustments that don't require an alaska cruise go to canada or a hawaii cruise go to mexico.

 

I suggested NONE of the items you outlined and no I don't want to turn the entire USA transportation system over to Indonesia.

 

So can you PVSA "experts" explain to me and many others why oh why it would be so terrible to not force stops in canada for alaska cruises or to allow a ship to sail from the west coast to hawaii without a canada or mexico stop?

 

 

They could eliminate the foreign port requirement and not a single cruise line would take advantage of it. Because PVSA is not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is because such cruises would not be foreign cruises and the cruise lines would have to pay US taxes on revenue from such cruises, comply with US labor laws, etc.  No cruise line would be willing to do that.

 

If you go down the slippery slope of those laws then you do run into areas where you start crossing over into all kinds of consequences, including ferries, smaller cruise boats, tour boats, etc.

 

The cruise lines want to get back pre covid. They know that if  the changes you are suggesting were made it would potentially threaten their market, not enhance it. Would cruise lines as they exist benefit for port to port sailings in the US or would you get a whole new class of competition from the companies in Europe that already do those kinds of sailings, including the large multiday ferry companies. One way cruise from New York to Florida on a EU style ferry bringing your car along would be attractive as an example. Not sure how many passengers the cruise lines would pick up, but adding that type competition could certainly cost them some.

 

The cruise lines like what they had and want to get back to it, not do something that might give them limited gain, but also the potential for new competitors entering the passenger boat market in the US.

[dockman]

33 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

By international law, the definition of a voyage with ports only in one nation is considered to be a "coastwise" or domestic voyage.  As such, they fall within the limitations of a "coastwise qualified" vessel, and therefore comes under various laws that govern "coastwise trade".  Some of these include the fact that vessels in domestic trade are subject to USCG regulations, but foreign flag ships do not, the USCG can only enforce the less strict SOLAS safety, training, and certification regulations.  Another is that someone working "in the US" (and since this voyage does not leave the US, they are working in the US), that is not a citizen or resident alien, needs to have a work visa, not a crew visa.  Workers working under a work visa  are required to be paid US wages, and work under US labor laws (things like overtime, OSHA, FMLA, etc).  And, finally, the ship would lose its duty free status on all parts and supplies shipped in from overseas, including bonded liquor.  So, if the cruise lines want to meet all of these requirements, and if the US could work out the international legal problems with having foreign flag ships do this, by all means let them sail to Alaska and Hawaii without a foreign stop.  See how many cruise lines will do this, as the expenses for the cruise will double to triple, with commensurate increases in fares.  Ask yourself, if this was such a boon to the cruise lines, why haven't they lobbied for it for decades?

 

And, I won't get into the harm this would likely do to the existing PVSA industry (which is far larger than cruise ships), if the international legalese is not worked out.  

so how did they get around all of that with this summers exemption allowing seattle/alaska/seattle roundtrips?

 

[Aquahound]

18 minutes ago, dockman said:

so how did they get around all of that with this summers exemption allowing seattle/alaska/seattle roundtrips?

 

Because what’s happening this summer is only a temporary waiver from the current law for specific named ships. That’s it. An all out repeal of the law means US coastwise trade would need to permanently abide by whatever applicable US laws, such as US labor laws, come into effect by the PVSA no longer existing. Big difference. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Aquahound

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, dockman said:

so how did they get around all of that with this summers exemption allowing seattle/alaska/seattle roundtrips?

 

Specific ships, on specific routes, for a specific limited time were granted exemptions.  Whether all of the clauses in the ATRA are legal or not has not been determined.  The visa requirement has been "worked around" by "deeming" that the foreign crew have "left the US" simply by submitting a crew list to the Canadian authorities (regardless of whether the Canadians accept that these crew have "entered" Canada)(and despite the fact that the passengers are not considered to have left the US since the passenger manifest is not submitted to any foreign country for entry), so that could be challenged by either the State Department, Homeland Security, or organized labor.  The duty free status was exempted by the act, but this could be challenged by CBP (Homeland), or by other industries for unfair advantage created by waiving the customs duty.  And, the USCG regulations were "worked around" by "deeming" the voyage to be a foreign voyage, and I know for sure (and Paul (Aquahound) will agree) that the USCG would have something to say about this, even for the limited exemption granted.

[dockman]

well that is sure one complicated mish mash of rules and regulations and agencies for sure...and i suspect that there are /were a lot of lobbyists and big money interest involved....so bottom line is the current exemption has little or no chance of being extended it seems

 

[rkacruiser]

Well, if nothing else, the Senior Senator from Utah has attracted quite a lot of attention on this Message Board with his proposal.

 

Cue the late George Burns and Gracie Allen.

 

Mr. Burns:  "Say goodnight, Gracie"

 

Ms. Allen:  "Goodnight".    

 

 

Edited June 14, 2021 by rkacruiser

[nocl]

1 hour ago, dockman said:

so how did they get around all of that with this summers exemption allowing seattle/alaska/seattle roundtrips?

 

by providing a very specific short term exemption, form 1 port, covering specific routes, that includes having to comply with the CDC during a pandemic.  basically a pandemic relief act for Alaska for the next 4 months. A general change would be far more complex to write as well as to pass.

[richwmn]

30 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

 

 

turned out I was wrong

Edited June 15, 2021 by richwmn

[zgscl]

7 hours ago, lazey1 said:

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.  

If there is no foreign port requirement I think we would see at least some of the 15-18 day round trips from the west coast shifted to 7 day round trips similar to POA particularly on cruise lines geared for working age people. 

[lazey1]

On 6/14/2021 at 8:39 PM, zgscl said:

If there is no foreign port requirement I think we would see at least some of the 15-18 day round trips from the west coast shifted to 7 day round trips similar to POA particularly on cruise lines geared for working age people. 

7 day trip would have to be around the islands as it takes several day to get to Hawaii and several days to come back.  That said I fail to see that more 7 day interisland round trips would be a bad thing for the economy of Hawaii or the U.S. economy in general.

[chengkp75]

15 minutes ago, lazey1 said:

7 day trip would have to be around the islands as it takes several day to get to Hawaii and several days to come back.  That said I fail to see that more 7 day interisland round trips would be a bad thing for the economy of Hawaii or the U.S. economy in general.

NCL tried to increase capacity with three ships, and removed two due to lack of demand.  And, at the price point a foreign flag ship would have to charge (virtually the same as POA), that demand would not be there.

[lazey1]

41 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

NCL tried to increase capacity with three ships, and removed two due to lack of demand.  And, at the price point a foreign flag ship would have to charge (virtually the same as POA), that demand would not be there.

I did a POA cruise around the islands and while the itinery was breathtaking the service aboard was practically non-existant and very rude. Never again will I ever cruise on any NCL ship because of that bad experience. I know that I am not alone in that evaluation. Perhaps that is why NCL had to remove two of their 3 ships.

 

[Ken the cruiser]

Maybe someone can explain why in today's leisure cruising environment, when it is much easier and cheaper to fly between US cities, is it still necessary to go to a "distant foreign port" when cruising between US ports, but only to a "foreign port" when doing a R/T from the same US port. I can understand the "foreign port" issue, but is going to a "distant foreign port" really necessary to protect the US shipping industry anymore?

 

For us we just hope one day we'll be able to book a B2B cruise from NY or Boston to Quebec and then from Quebec to Ft Lauderdale, without having to worry that the PVSA would prevent that from happening. Also, having to stop in Cartagena, Colombia when cruising through the Panama Canal from a Florida port to a California port or vice versa is kind of corny as well, especially since we would have already stopped at a variety of countries along the way. 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, lazey1 said:

I did a POA cruise around the islands and while the itinery was breathtaking the service aboard was practically non-existant and very rude. Never again will I ever cruise on any NCL ship because of that bad experience. I know that I am not alone in that evaluation. Perhaps that is why NCL had to remove two of their 3 ships.

 

POA crew, being almost entirely US, are very different from all other NCL ships.  The capacity of three ships was too much for demand, particularly when the cruises were priced more than a 14 day cruise from the West Coast.