Passenger Vessel Services Act/Jones Act

[Aquahound]

9 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 

Now, to the PVSA.  The first point to be made is that the Act is the "Passenger" Vessel Services Act, not the "Cruise" vessel act. 

 

 

Bingo.  

 

I honestly have nothing to add.  As always, my chief engineer friend nailed it. 

[grabowcp]

16 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The Jones Act was sponsored by the Senator of that name from Washington state, and was because the Seattle shipowners saw the lucrative Alaska gold rush traffic moving to base out of Canada.  

 

The Jones Act was not related to the AK gold rush, which had been over for ~20 years by the time the JA was passed in 1920. Rather it was an attempt by Seattle ship operators to fend of Canadian competition in the Alaska trade. Until the JA was passed, goods could be transported between the Lower 48 and Alaska via Vancouver. Seattle shipping companies—more specifically, the Pacific Steamship Company—hated this competition and enlisted the help of Sen. Wesley Jones of Washington state to get the law changed. What was eventually adopted as the JA—Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920—is almost exactly what William Clark of the PSC proposed during a February 1920 congressional hearing. You can read more about that here: 

 

 

As for the PVSA, a GAO report identifies competition from Canadian vessels on the Great Lakes as the impetus for the legislation's passage: https://www.gao.gov/assets/a241568.html

 

"The PVSA was originally designed to prevent U.S.-based vessels from  facing strong competition in the domestic transportation market from maritime nations, such as Great Britain and Canada. Specifically, there was a concern about competition from Canadian vessels that were transporting passengers across the Great Lakes. The PVSA originally stated "no foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $2[Footnote 19] for each passenger so transported and landed." Congress originally thought that the $2 penalty per passenger would discourage this practice."

 

This comports with Charlie Papavizas's new book Journey to the Jones Act: https://www.amazon.com/JOURNEY-JONES-ACT-Merchant-1776-1920-ebook/dp/B0CZPD797V

 

Edited May 3 by grabowcp

[grabowcp]

33 minutes ago, grabowcp said:

 

Rather it was an attempt by Seattle ship operators to fend of Canadian competition in the Alaska trade.

 

Sorry, this should read "But it was indeed an attempt..."

[capriccio]

On 5/1/2024 at 8:02 PM, HALrunner said:

I'm asking about the PVSA specifically, but wasn't sure if I would get any bites without including the term Jones Act. So glad to see it must be a hot topic if others are getting popcorn! 

 

Honestly, I'm asking for a high school student's assignment. He just thought I might know because we cruise frequently. When I think of PVSA, I think of the annoying port stop in Ensenada on Hawaii cruises. But I'm guessing it has more to do with foreign flagged ships, taxes, foreign worker wages/visa issues, etc than just adding a foreign port to an otherwise domestic itinerary?

I'm eager to learn and operating under the assumption the only stupid question is the one that isn't asked. 😉🤞 🫣 🍿

I hope your high school student appreciates all the primary source material contributed on this thread and provides appropriate footnotes in his assignment. 

[Heidi13]

On 5/1/2024 at 1:56 PM, HALrunner said:

Can anyone play devil's advocate for me as to why the PVSA/Jones Act should not be repealed? Does it provide any benefits to anyone involved? It seems like the cruise lines and fellow cruisers are only harmed by this antiquated law, I'm just wondering why it hasn't been repealed yet.

 

Further to the exceptional posts from our resident Chief Engineer, while not an American, I can provide examples from serving as a Master on Cabotage tonnage in Canadian Waters. Yes, we have similar Acts, as do most maritime nations.

 

As a Senior Master for many years, I have been provided hundreds of candidates to familiarise with the vessel and route navigation. All candidates had valid certificates of competency and were cleared to sail on any foreign-flagged vessel, up to the rank of their certification.

 

I have experienced numerous foreign-going Masters with many years of command experience, who I wouldn't even consider as my most junior officer - 3rd Officer. I recall a ULCC Master, who could not adapt to coastal navigation, as every time he saw another vessel he wanted to slow down. This was in waters over 1 mile wide, which we considered open ocean. If he could have been retrained, it would have taken many, many years, before he could be left on the Bridge alone as a junior watchkeeper. This individual could never accept our routine of navigating a narrow channel with 2 ninety degree turns and high tides at 20 kts. We did this 8 times per day.

 

All of my many rejects are operating FoC ships. Without the Cabotage Acts, these officers and Masters could be operating ships sailing in local coastal waters and harbours.

 

Are you prepared to accept the significant increase in accidents and the resultant coastal pollution to eliminate the Cabotage Acts. Based on my 30 + years sailing these waters, I most certainly am not in favour. 

[grabowcp]

8 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

Without the Cabotage Acts, these officers and Masters could be operating ships sailing in local coastal waters and harbours.

 

Not sure about Canada, but US coastal waters are already filled with internationally-flagged vessels. They operate all along our coasts and even inland waterways such as the Lower Mississippi and Columbia Rivers. They also go from one US port to another, dropping off imports or picking up cargo for export. US cabotage laws prohibit what these vessels can do (e.g. transport people and cargo between US ports), not where they can go. 

 

Also, I believe Canada has a program that allows some foreign mariners to sail on Canadian-flagged vessels engaged in cabotage trade: https://tc.canada.ca/en/marine-transportation/marine-safety/ship-safety-bulletins/filipino-seafarers-can-now-seek-canadian-recognition-their-stcw-certificates-ssb-no-04-2023

[chengkp75]

35 minutes ago, grabowcp said:

Also, I believe Canada has a program that allows some foreign mariners to sail on Canadian-flagged vessels engaged in cabotage trade:

Andy would know better than I, but I don't see anything in these links that suggests that the foreign seafarers are allowed in cabotage trade.  I know that US flag ships are not necessarily compliant for Jones Act/PVSA trade, as many of even the US government owned and operated US flag ships are not Jones Act compliant.  I served on one foreign built, US flag ship that was under charter to Military Sealift Command, and that was constantly being asked to carry military cargo from one US port to another, and we had to repeatedly deny this use, as we had been fined once for doing so.  I believe there are Canadian flag vessels, as well, that are not coastwise compliant.

[HALrunner]

Wow! Thank you all for sharing your expertise! I've been passing along this information to the student and he is so grateful! He is in a debate league and the topic this year is all about Department of Transportation issues. You all have given him a treasure trove of leads to research further! He even recognized grabowcp and said he has been quoted in many debate rounds this year! 

I also appreciate learning more about this often misunderstood topic, thanks again!!

[grabowcp]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I don't see anything in these links that suggests that the foreign seafarers are allowed in cabotage trade.

 

That BC Ferries hires international workers suggests to me that they can indeed work in cabotage trade: https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/bc-ferries-hires-hundreds-in-effort-to-prevent-sailing-cancellations-5364042

 

That's really interesting about MSC-chartered commercial ships engaging in coastwise commerce. Which, unless military cargo has a special exemption, would seem like a violation. 

[chengkp75]

51 minutes ago, grabowcp said:

That's really interesting about MSC-chartered commercial ships engaging in coastwise commerce. Which, unless military cargo has a special exemption, would seem like a violation. 

As I said, it was a violation, but MSC and the various commands that the cargo belonged to insisted that we could transport it.  Some of the MSC operated ships are US built so they are coastwise compliant, but many are not, and they don't understand the difference.

[Heidi13]

On 5/3/2024 at 4:42 AM, grabowcp said:

 

Not sure about Canada, but US coastal waters are already filled with internationally-flagged vessels. They operate all along our coasts and even inland waterways such as the Lower Mississippi and Columbia Rivers. They also go from one US port to another, dropping off imports or picking up cargo for export. US cabotage laws prohibit what these vessels can do (e.g. transport people and cargo between US ports), not where they can go. 

 

Also, I believe Canada has a program that allows some foreign mariners to sail on Canadian-flagged vessels engaged in cabotage trade: https://tc.canada.ca/en/marine-transportation/marine-safety/ship-safety-bulletins/filipino-seafarers-can-now-seek-canadian-recognition-their-stcw-certificates-ssb-no-04-2023

 

Yes, foreign-flagged tonnage sail in coastal waters, as permitted by UNCLOS, but they all have local coastal pilots aboard the vessel when the route is more challenging.

 

Foreign certificates of competency are NOT permitted aboard a Canadian flagged vessel. Until recently, Transport Canada did not recognise any foreign CoC and required those with foreign certificates to acquire a Canadian CoC.

 

To address the mariner shortage, Transport Canada are now simplifying the process of acquiring a Canadian CoC.

 

Our son is a classic example. As a dual citizen of Canada and UK, he opted for the vastly superior UK FG Master CoC. This permits him to sail worldwide on any tonnage, but even as a Canadian citizen, he cannot sail on a Canadian flagged vessel. Until recently, he would have to take all of the exams to acquire a Canadian certificate. Now they are reducing the number of exams required.

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

To address the mariner shortage, Transport Canada are now simplifying the process of acquiring a Canadian CoC.

And, if I read the regulation correctly, there can be no competent Canadian mariners available before they can issue certificates to foreigners.

[Heidi13]

On 5/3/2024 at 8:06 AM, grabowcp said:

 

That BC Ferries hires international workers suggests to me that they can indeed work in cabotage trade: https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/bc-ferries-hires-hundreds-in-effort-to-prevent-sailing-cancellations-5364042

 

That's really interesting about MSC-chartered commercial ships engaging in coastwise commerce. Which, unless military cargo has a special exemption, would seem like a violation. 

 

You may want to consider the age of the article you quoted, as Mark Collins was fired by BC Ferries almost 2 years ago - cant remember the exact month, but recall early summer 2022.

 

As I posted earlier today, Transport Canada has eased the requirements for some foreign CoC holders to acquire a Canadian CoC, but foreign CoC's still cannot work on Canadian tonnage. They have also reduced the citizenship requirements from landed immigrant to a work permit.

 

However, Mark Collins didn't discuss the BC Ferries familiarisation requirements, which to the best of my knowledge, have not changed and are quite onerous. The HR department can hire them, but operations may not deem them suitable for vessel operations.

 

Since BC Ferries sailings are still being cancelled due to lack of crew, I'll suggest the Mark Collins statement was no more than PR propoganda.

[Heidi13]

11 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, if I read the regulation correctly, there can be no competent Canadian mariners available before they can issue certificates to foreigners.

 

That is also my understanding.