PVSA again

[JRG]

On 8/6/2023 at 9:11 AM, Charles4515 said:

Change could occur but there is no political will to do it.

 

And this is one of a few topics covered in PVSA Snafu 201. This is when we examine the 'truth's about the PVSA Snafu.    There is no ill will and name-calling in level 201 courses, it is big-league discussion and those who miss the cut will get left behind like something that fell off the last ship in the convoy.  The critical mass is moving forward.

 

There is no need to bandy around the same old slippery grease pole every time as is being done in the previous 10 or 15 posts before this one; listen to some fresh ideas and say good-bye to the same old malarkey and kool-aid and other propaganda.

 

Develop a sense of Deductive Reasoning, as taught to us by Sherlock Holmes, and then you can defend and counter-persuade the weakest of arguments and not waste your precious time.  That would be my message to the general reader.

 

I think I can teach a 201-level class and graduate some students and have fun at the same time doing it.

 

p.s.   Please remember to include credible citing and (credible) references if you have ideas to beat the PVSA Snafu.

 

[Guest ldtr]

On 8/5/2023 at 5:45 PM, NMTraveller said:

So this is a union protection political thing?

10 Ferry services in Michigan seems rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I understand protecting USA jobs,  but perhaps there is a better way to go forward and at the same time boosting the USA economy!

A bit more than that.  

 

It does not require jobs to be union, but it does require those jobs follow US labor laws and meet  other requirements.  It does mean that those ships have to be built in the US.

 

While Michigan was an example you can apply it to every ferry in the US that carries 12 or more people, including New York, Alaska and others.  It also applies to tour boats, charter fishing boats and any other commercial boat carrying 12 or more people.

[Guest ldtr]

On 8/6/2023 at 9:11 AM, Charles4515 said:

I agree with you. Change could occur but there is no political will to do it. There is also no economic reason to change the status quo for the PVSA. There was the unique Alaska situation during Covid which shows that it could be changed for economic and political reasons but there was no political and economic reason to make it permanent. And I don't see most cruise passengers or most US citizens demanding a change either. We have a lot of obsolete law on the regulations that stay on the books for years and I don't see any momentum to change the PVSA. 

Actually you really do not see the cruise lines lobbying for a change either.  They have their market.  Making a change in the law would upset their apple cart and who knows how things would pan out.

[JRG]

29 minutes ago, ldtr said:

Actually you really do not see the cruise lines lobbying for a change either.  They have their market. 

 

The cruise lines will jump on it like a flying Armada of Spanish Med-flies in a grove of Valencia Oranges.

 

They are just going to let the offices of Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah do the heavy lifting.

 

As for the labor forces, yes that topic will be covered in PVSA Snafu 201, but only after I confer with numerous union family members in my immediate family who know what to say because they have been there and done that and because their fathers (my uncles) were the deal-makers.

 

I will suggest that the bigger impediment (pre-requisite to be solved) may be with the port workers in that they are afraid of 'Port Automation' because they are afraid it will lead to job loss even though it can be shown that the increased bandwidth of output or through-put in this case will conversely create of additional jobs and that they will benefit and they can maintain the precious birth-right of handing down their jobs to their children like they were season tickets to the Green Bay Packers.   

 

Solve this domino and the PVSA Snafu challenge is easier to tackle and to digest.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by JRG

[chengkp75]

28 minutes ago, JRG said:

The cruise lines will jump on it like a flying Armada of Spanish Med-flies in a grove of Valencia Oranges.

Yeah, this is why over the last couple of decades the cruise industry association CLIA has stated that their member companies are not interested in changes to the PVSA, since they see very little benefit to their bottom lines, and see likely restrictions added that would adversely affect their bottom line.

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

Develop a sense of Deductive Reasoning, as taught to us by Sherlock Holmes, and then you can defend and counter-persuade the weakest of arguments and not waste your precious time.  That would be my message to the general reader.

 

Sherlock Holmes was a fictional charector and your message is too. 

[chengkp75]

32 minutes ago, JRG said:

I will suggest that the bigger impediment (pre-requisite to be solved) may be with the port workers in that they are afraid of 'Port Automation' because they are afraid it will lead to job loss even though it can be shown that the increased bandwidth of output or through-put in this case will conversely create of additional jobs and that they will benefit and they can maintain the precious birth-right of handing down their jobs to their children like they were season tickets to the Green Bay Packers. 

And, how would allowing the foreign flag ships to access US ports without a foreign port affect the port workers?  According to your logic, it would allow more port calls, with more work for the port workers, since the PVSA has no effect on port workers.  Though maybe you should discuss this with the union experts that you are related to.  But, maybe the laws of mathematics come into effect here, like you propose.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

p.s.   Please remember to include credible citing and (credible) references if you have ideas to beat the PVSA Snafu.

Maybe you should follow this requirement as well, which you never seem to do.

[D C]

On 8/5/2023 at 8:24 PM, chengkp75 said:

Sure, because you would not be one of the tens of thousands of US citizens affected, including the 10+ ferry services in Michigan.

Still. No horror.  Valueless protectionism. 

[D C]

On 8/7/2023 at 8:11 PM, chengkp75 said:

And, how would allowing the foreign flag ships to access US ports without a foreign port affect the port workers?  According to your logic, it would allow more port calls, with more work for the port workers, since the PVSA has no effect on port workers.  Though maybe you should discuss this with the union experts that you are related to.  But, maybe the laws of mathematics come into effect here, like you propose.

So MORE US citizens would be employed across various ports without the PVSA and that's somehow a horrific thing? 

[D C]

On 8/5/2023 at 9:23 PM, JRG said:

 

Agreed and let me just add to that that the US would not be ignorant enough eliminate the PVSA without first replacing it with a modern state of the art Passenger cabotage act so that domestic economies are not adversely affected.    If one is too close to the trees they will not see the forest.

 

So we can live with more exceptions until we can't.  I don't' like the way PVSA was written because it preceded modern transportation and is obsolete and thus hurts Cruisers in the wallet.

 

Its has been easier to band-aid it together over the years and that in and of itself is the symptom of a poorly designed law for the current time.

It doesn't hurt cruisers in the wallet because the then-unforseen loopholes are big enough to sail a ship through.  The PVSA could vanish entirely and the worst thing would be an extra US port or two would be added to an itinerary. 

[JRG]

On 8/10/2023 at 6:15 PM, D C said:

Still. No horror.  Valueless protectionism. 

 

You are so correct D C ,  more and more cruisers need to educate themselves as to the real issues.

 

Effect of the Passenger Services Act on the Domestic Cruise Industry (house.gov)

 

So, if a retired Admiral of the United States Coast Guard is willing to go into a House of Representatives subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation and admit that the US Maritime industry has "missed the boat", then who should the Cruise Critic Committee believe, the protectionists or a retired Coast Guard Admiral.

 

 

The rest of the maritime world must be laughing in the face of the protectionists in the US who cannot see the big picture at 40,000 feet.

 

This transcript from the sub-committee is hilarious.  The Admirals testimony begins on page 35 and it echoes everything I have been saying for 3 years.  

 

Keep in mind that this occurred in 1998, and even back then they are talking about new potential markets that could be established.  Many many many things have changed since and I will be covering that in a post that I will call PVSA Snafu 201.

 

 

We are missing the boat with PVSA

 

I don't waste my time in dialogues with the protectionists anymore.   I have had so many posters tell me that I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to PVSA and finding this transcript is very very vindicating for me.

 

The real x-factor which has yet to be revealed will be looking at how the USCG uses an adoptive interpretation of the vaguely codified language.  

 

Let's see what the cat brings in on that one.

  

 

 

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

42 minutes ago, JRG said:

So, if a retired Admiral of the United States Coast Guard is willing to go into a House of Representatives subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation and admit that the US Maritime industry has "missed the boat", then who should the Cruise Critic Committee believe, the protectionists or a retired Coast Guard Admiral.

Could you please identify, by name, the retired USCG admiral that you say is critical of the PVSA?  Because when I look at the testimony, there is Gene Taylor, a retired USCG officer and member of Congress, at that time, and Admiral Kime, who was a VP at Totem (a US flag container ship operator), both of whom are fully supportive of the Act.  Maybe the designation as a retired admiral is tucked away in the transcript somewhere, but I don't see it, and would like to have it pointed out.

 

But, anyway, there are two retired USCG officers, one an admiral, who fully support the PVSA, in the same transcript.

 

And, a telling comment from Mr. Taylor:  "I'd like to remind Mr. Smith and others that a beginning welder getting his very first paycheck at Ingalls Shipbuilding this week will pay more in Federal taxes than the entire foreign cruise ship industry that makes about $9 billion off of Americans this year will pay collectively. One welder will pay more than the entire cruise foreign ship industry collectively."

[Guest ldtr]

On 8/10/2023 at 5:17 PM, D C said:

So MORE US citizens would be employed across various ports without the PVSA and that's somehow a horrific thing? 

Actually probably less. It would allow ferries, tour boats, fishing charters, etc to use foreign built boats and foreign crews since they all fall.under the same rules and restrictions.

 

Are ports going to see more ports calls? Maybe. But by who. The same existing cruise lies that are already getting complaints about the number of ship calls. Or new foreign entries into the market who would be competing with the existing cruise lines (I am certain they would not want that) into only the major ports.

 

If they are there are there is far more port jobs tied to cargo than there is passenger vessels. So even if there was an increase doubt the number of jobs in the ports would change much.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, JRG said:

So, if a retired Admiral of the United States Coast Guard is willing to go into a House of Representatives subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation and admit that the US Maritime industry has "missed the boat", then who should the Cruise Critic Committee believe, the protectionists or a retired Coast Guard Admiral.

So, I looked more carefully, and it is Admiral Kime who's testimony starts at page 35, as you said, and l don't see anywhere where he says we "missed the boat" or is in any way critical of the PVSA.  Let me quote the admiral:

 

"But America certainly should have no interest in further rewarding them by giving away to these foreign fleets an American domestic market protected by the Passenger Service Act, which can be the foundation for America's own entry into the lucrative cruise industry."

 

"In short, these markets should be built upon, harnessed to create jobs for Americans on land and at sea, to stimulate increased economic activity along our coastal communities and to generate new tax revenues and to bolster our balance of trade."

 

"This is certainly not the time to give these markets away so that we can earn a few more dollars serving foreign-flag ships, mere crumbs by comparison with the money to be made and the national benefits generated by a revived American-flag fleet serving domestic markets"

 

Doesn't sound like a man critical of the PVSA to me.

[JRG]

Admiral KIME. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

    The thrust of my prepared statement, which I have submitted to the committee, is simply this: America and its maritime industries are missing the boat. For years, we've yielded a booming cruise market and its millions of American passengers to foreign-built, foreign-subsidized, foreign-owned, foreign-flag, foreign-crewed passenger ships.

 

Bolding is mine.

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

"But America certainly should have no interest in further rewarding them by giving away to these foreign fleets an American domestic market protected by the Passenger Service Act, which can be the foundation for America's own entry into the lucrative cruise industry.

And how has that worked out? 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

Admiral KIME. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

    The thrust of my prepared statement, which I have submitted to the committee, is simply this: America and its maritime industries are missing the boat. For years, we've yielded a booming cruise market and its millions of American passengers to foreign-built, foreign-subsidized, foreign-owned, foreign-flag, foreign-crewed passenger ships.

 

Bolding is mine.

Yes, and his point is that we are "missing the boat" by allowing foreign flag cruise ships to operate out of US ports.  How do you read this as a recommendation to eliminate the PVSA?  He's saying that the PVSA should be "enhanced", perhaps by going back to the old construction and operating subsidies that were part of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (not that I'm a big fan of those subsidies as they existed before, but they could be crafted differently to boost the industry).

 

What I find interesting is your take that this is somehow a condemnation of the PVSA.  This from a VP of a company operating under the Jones Act.

6 hours ago, JRG said:

The real x-factor which has yet to be revealed will be looking at how the USCG uses an adoptive interpretation of the vaguely codified language. 

Not sure what this is.  The USCG has nothing to do with the PVSA, or its implementation.  Nor is the PVSA a "vaguely codified" law.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

And how has that worked out? 

Not well, because Congress did nothing, as presented by some of the witnesses, to improve the climate for US flag operations, such as making foreign flag ships operating out of US ports pay US corporate taxes or be subject to US labor laws.  This would be leveling the playing field.

 

As noted in the testimony, the USCG and US Army Corps of Engineers, spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to maintain US ports, and the foreign flag companies don't pay a nickel for this service.

Edited August 18, 2023 by chengkp75

[ptcflyer]

Question:   I booked Seattle to Vancouver followed by Vancouver to Honolulu followed by Honolulu to Sydney on Celebrity Solstice.    Celebrity is saying this violates the Jones Act.   It does violate if you only take into consideration the first back-to-back.... Seattle to Honolulu without a "distant" foreign port.....  but should they consider the fact that my beginning is Seattle and my end point is in Sydney with a Back to Back to Back Itinerary? 

[Ken the cruiser]

20 minutes ago, ptcflyer said:

Question:   I booked Seattle to Vancouver followed by Vancouver to Honolulu followed by Honolulu to Sydney on Celebrity Solstice.    Celebrity is saying this violates the Jones Act.   It does violate if you only take into consideration the first back-to-back.... Seattle to Honolulu without a "distant" foreign port.....  but should they consider the fact that my beginning is Seattle and my end point is in Sydney with a Back to Back to Back Itinerary? 

As long as you’re on a continuous B3B from Seattle to Sydney, I agree, I’m not seeing where the violation is.

[markeb]

25 minutes ago, ptcflyer said:

Question:   I booked Seattle to Vancouver followed by Vancouver to Honolulu followed by Honolulu to Sydney on Celebrity Solstice.    Celebrity is saying this violates the Jones Act.   It does violate if you only take into consideration the first back-to-back.... Seattle to Honolulu without a "distant" foreign port.....  but should they consider the fact that my beginning is Seattle and my end point is in Sydney with a Back to Back to Back Itinerary? 

 

You're not cargo, so it wouldn't be the Jones Act. That's your first clue that something's wrong with what they're telling you. It would be the PVSA.

 

Where do you start and where do you end? Is it the same ship?

 

If you are going from Seattle to Sydney on the same ship without a break, then it's not a PVSA violation. If you are going from Seattle to Honolulu and BREAKING TRAVEL, to include changing ships, before continuing to Sydney, yes, it's a PVSA violation.

 

What's your actual itinerary in total? Including ship. Where do you start, where do you end, and do you change ships or have a break in travel (overnight or multiple days in Honolulu) along the way?

Edited August 21, 2023 by markeb

[cruisestitch]

You board in Seattle and end in Sydney so no PVSA problem.  Just don’t change your mind and decide to disembark in Honolulu….that would be a violation.

[Cruise Junky]

1 hour ago, ptcflyer said:

Question:   I booked Seattle to Vancouver followed by Vancouver to Honolulu followed by Honolulu to Sydney on Celebrity Solstice.    Celebrity is saying this violates the Jones Act.   It does violate if you only take into consideration the first back-to-back.... Seattle to Honolulu without a "distant" foreign port.....  but should they consider the fact that my beginning is Seattle and my end point is in Sydney with a Back to Back to Back Itinerary? 

You are correct. Booking the first two legs would be a violation. Adding the third puts you in the clear. Speak to their manager and ask what part of the PVSA is being violated by sailing Seattle to Sydney!   Someone likely didn’t see your Honolulu to Sydney booking.  

[ptcflyer]

16 hours ago, Cruise Junky said:

You are correct. Booking the first two legs would be a violation. Adding the third puts you in the clear. Speak to their manager and ask what part of the PVSA is being violated by sailing Seattle to Sydney!   Someone likely didn’t see your Honolulu to Sydney booking.  

Spoke with another Celebrity agent....   it is being reviewed by management.   But I suspect your advice is correct.  Should be good once all itineraries are accounted for.