Mary Ellen

Doing a search on a screen name I know is very familiar with the PVSA, I found:

Both the PVSA and Jones Acts can trace their heritage back to the Steamboat Act of 1852. This act was passed due to the disastrous explosion of the boiler aboard the steamboat Sultana, resulting in a loss of 1500 lives. This act started the movement towards inspection of vessels and training and documentation of crew. The subsequent PVSA (and later Jones Act) were an outgrowth of this by restricting "coastwise" traffic (that traffic that is solely within US waters, to US flag shipping, so that all ships would meet the same standards of safety. The term "cabotage" means to protect domestic trade from outside interests. As the maritime acts allow, this protection does not cover a US ship owner from economic competition (US flag cargo ships cost an average of $2 million per year per ship more than a foreign flag ship), but it does restrict those ships to those that meet the safety requirements of the regulating agency (originally the Steamboat Inspection Service, and now the USCG). USCG regulations for shipping are far and away more stringent than the IMO regulations that foreign ships follow, and are a big reason for the cost differential. As another poster stated, there is a similar act that proscribes Air Canada from carrying a passenger directly from Detroit to New York (though that's why there are all these "partner airlines" with flights that have numbers from both airlines).

 

What most don't realize, and certainly most CC readers, is that the PVSA does not only affect the cruise industry, in fact there was no cruise industry when it was enacted. It does in fact regulate every ferry, dinner cruise, and charter fishing vessel in the US, and requires them to be US flag. Could you imagine if none of these ships were crewed by US crews, or had to meet USCG safety requirements? Or even pay US taxes?

 

Japan, Russia, China, and Brazil are some countries that I know of off the top of my head that have similar cabotage laws to the PVSA and Jones Act. About 40 countries around the world practice some form of maritime cabotage, even the EU disallows passenger carriage between EU ports within a member country unless the ship is flagged within the EU. Great Britain does not specifically have cabotage laws, but their laws place so many restrictions on foreign ships that it is not economically feasible to have a foreign flag coastwise ship.

What most don't understand is that the PVSA covers more than the cruise industry. If not for the PVSA, then every ferry, commuter boat, water taxi, whale watching boat, dinner cruise, casino boat, and charter fishing boat in the US would be capable of flagging to foreign flag, hiring non-US crew, not meeting US labor or tax laws, and not having to meet the stricter USCG safety regulations. US jobs would be lost, the economies of the ports would suffer, since the crew would not be living there but taking their salaries out of the country, and maritime accidents and incidents would increase.

 

The PVSA was enacted long before the cruise industry existed, to protect all US coastwise shipping.

 

Another point that most don't know is that many countries have cabotage laws like the PVSA and Jones Act, restricting coastwise traffic to ships flagged in their country. China has laws similar to the PVSA, which is why Carnival is looking to build ships in China and flag them in China, so that they can take advantage of strictly Chinese itineraries. The EU has similar laws, restricting coastwise traffic to EU members. So, you could not take a cruise from Naples to Genoa on a Bahamian flag cruise ship, but you could on a French flag ship (without going to a port in another country). Sound familiar?

Having read a good number of his posts on the topic over the years, I must say that I'm in no hurry to repeal the PVSA.

Here is a link to the terminal map. Normally with Delta you will come into and go out of A concourse - Gates 1 - 9.

That used to be the case, but they moved to the South Satellite (as the others have mentioned) a few years ago.

Like Keith, we also use Rome Cabs and have been very happy with both their transfer services and tours.

Is this the map you couldn't find? I just did a search using Delta SeaTac Map.

http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/airports-and-aircraft/airports/seattle.html

Is there general agreement that PVSA is an anachronism and should be repealed? It original intention was to protect U.S. merchant marine jobs and, for a long while, if anything, it has had exactly the opposite effect.

It also covers airlines. Thai airlines used to have a flight from DFW to Bangkok, with a stop in Seattle. They were not permitted to carry passengers between DFW and SEA - who did not continue on to Thailand.

We've cruised to all seven continents - and the Polar Ice Cap. Picking just one destination (as the OP specified ;)) - Antarctica. It was the most 'out of this world' experience.

The reason I said "essentially a sure thing" is because it isn't a sure thing. I believe it was 2002 that ships couldn't get near Hubbard as it had created an ice dam blocking a nearby inlet. That dam was going to break at some point, releasing a torrent of water and ice. No ship wanted to be in the way of that.

We've had a pitiful record trying to see the Sawyer Glaciers in Tracy Arm. One is going to see glacier more at Hubbard ten miles out than at even 5 miles out at Tracy Arm. To me it is, as I said earlier, a lovely fjord experience - with the possibility of seeing glaciers.

The OP concerns dealt with Hubbard vs. Tracy Arm. I limited my opinion to those locations. ;)

On one of our cruises to Glacier Bay the park rangers weren't able to safely board our ship. From my experience I wouldn't even say that is a sure thing. Much better odds there than the others though.

There are no Seward/ Seattle cruises- so why are you even using this as your "example"?

Because as Ruth was CORRECTLY pointing out, that a DISTANT foreign port is required for a Seward/Seattle cruise to be legal. Thus, Seward cruises either begin or end in Vancouver. You know this. I know this. However, there are newbies who want to know why there aren't one-way cruises between Alaska and Seattle. Ruth pointed out 'why'. You stated:

Wrong information- there is NEVER a same ship- cruise between "Seward/Seattle or reverse", that is allowed.

That is "wrong information". While there are currently no itineraries that sail between Seattle and Seward, it can be done - should a cruise line again offer an itinerary again similar to what Ruth remembers from the 90s. Can that be done in one week? No. But a number of us take cruises longer than one week. ;)

Wrong information- there is NEVER a same ship- cruise between "Seward/Seattle or reverse", that is allowed.

No, if you'll reread Ruth's post she IS correct. She stated that a distant foreign port would be required if sailing on a one-way from Seattle to/from Seward. Since there are none that qualify in the region, ships doing the one-way cruises have to have Vancouver (instead of Seattle) as one of the terminus. Surely you aren't disputing that. :rolleyes:

A cruise from Seattle to Japan and on to Seward would certainly be allowed - should a cruise line ever offer it.

If the price was right, we'd consider it. Our first cruise, decades ago, was a late September Alaska cruise. We had 40' seas coming out of Sitka. That ship was only 9,000 GRT. While todays ships are much larger, seas that rough would still impact your cruise, particularly as the Seattle cruises spend much more time out in the open Pacific.

Tracy Arm is a lovely fjord experience, with the possibility of seeing a tidewater glacier. Going to Hubbard Glacier is essentially a sure thing to see a glacier - and a huge one at that. While we've always enjoyed Tracy Arm, if I had to choose between one or the other there isn't a contest. Hubbard Glacier, hands down.

I can't speak for HAL's reasoning, but I'd never recommend a cruise to a friend where the only chance to see a tidewater glacier from the ship would be Tracy Arm.

Also make sure you are not booked with a charter okay?

One can only book a charter if they go through the particular agency handling the charter. It isn't something one can accidentally book.

Princess tends to have a "younger" demographic.

The facts don't back up this opinion. We sail on both cruise lines and haven't noticed any appreciable age difference ourselves.

For the past 8 consecutive years, the average age of a Princess passenger, fleetwide, year round has been 58.

 

For the past 8 consecutive years, the average age of a HAL passenger, fleetwide, year round has been 57.

Somethings we like better on HAL. Somethings we like better on Princess. I'd have to know more about what type of cabin the OP would like to give an opinion on those. I'd also want to know more about what they want to do in general.

Fact is for inaugural/christening/premier cruises that things are not set in stone. We did the first three cruises on the Eurodam. We don't plan on ever sailing a brand new ship again. ;)

We've sailed a couple of times on the Volendam in Asia during April/May. One time we boarded in Kobe.

DH is also tall. We like the shower stall cabins on HAL. Those on the Prinsendam are particularly nice. We stay away from the tub/shower combos as there isn't enough headroom for DH.

We have sailed on the Oceania Riviera in a Concierge cabin. That shower stall was 'ok' for headroom, but still a bit 'cozy' in circumference. Not having sailed on the Insignia I can't speak from first hand knowledge, but we ruled that class of ship out because of reports of low shower heads (DH wouldn't have been able to fully stand up in the shower). We found the cabins on the Riviera very nice overall, but didn't enjoy the service or food.

That shareholder difference matters, too.

Exactly. My next HAL cruise can be booked in variety of individual segments and Collectors cruises. Depending upon how it is booked means receiving $250 vs. $750 of OBC. The question became would the savings of booking collectors cruises be more or less than $500, or $250/pp.

If you want actual information from a knowledgable source, rather than the opinion of a newspaper editor :rolleyes::

I will start off saying that I have been in the maritime industry for 40 years, and have worked on nearly every type of commercial sea-going vessel, including cruise ships, and deal with pollution requirements on a daily basis. Environmental regulations have changed drastically over that 40 years, and despite the problems faced in meeting them, I applaud every one, even ones that make no sense. I also find that the cruise industry is far more pro-active in environmental issues than any segment of the industry. Why? First because it is right, and also good PR. Second, because they invite thousands of people armed with phone cameras onboard every week, a large segment of whom are looking for any way to get something "comped", and know about the 10% reward for reporting pollution, which could be the jackpot of all cruise "comps".

 

My first question to this organization that put out the above story is why are you singling out the cruise industry, which despite the undisputed growth presented, is still only a very small percentage of the world's shipping tonnage? The answer is simple. Money. They know that if they took on the entire maritime industry, then the fuel for their hybrid cars, and their laptops, iphones, clothes, and much of their food would increase in price dramatically. So lets go for a small, easily identifiable segment of the market.

 

Now, to the article itself. It deals primarily with sewage pollution, and its first statement and entire premise is false. It states that when in international waters, ships are legally allowed to dump raw sewage into the sea. Since the implementation of MARPOL in 1973, every ship, every where in the world is required to have a Marine Sanitation Device, or sewage treatment system. And every nation that is a member of the IMO (99% of the world) has the right to inspect this system when a ship calls at one of their ports, and to see documentation of any time the system is not in operation for maintenance. Most ships have what amounts to a shoreside septic tank system, since crew size is so small, and this is only required to handle the "black water" from toilets, not the "gray water" from sinks, showers, galleys or laundries. Virtually every cruise ship built within the last 20 years has an "advanced waste water treatment" system, that processes every drop of water used onboard, black and gray, to quality even better than Alaskan municipalities are required to meet. And they have to be tested by third party testing labs every two weeks. I have worked these systems, and the water quality coming from them is nearly drinking quality.

 

I laugh at the, to the informed, media tactics of using photos with no provenance to show "pollution" like the ships with the brown water around the stern, which is from maneuvering the ship and stirring up the bottom mud.

 

I realize that this type of agenda-driven slanted journalism is out there, it has been for decades, and has been part of the environmental movement for decades. Even if the cruise industry was to spend money for counter-articles and even present data and statistics, it would not sway the hard-core environmentalist, so why should they bother to spend hundreds of millions on exceeding requirements in areas where the environmental lobbies have no ability to enforce anything.

 

I respect your questioning whether the ships are updating to meet new requirements. I also respect the cruise lines for meeting those requirements, but like any business, also being fiscally responsible by not spending money to exceed those requirements that the electorate has decided are sufficient.

Meanwhile the fishes are doing all their business in the ocean. ;)

I sometimes cruise with a microbiologist friend. She doesn't like to get in the ocean because of "whale poo". :D

Given all of the ocean life doing their business in the water, the service dogs would have less than minimal impact. For all we know, those loudly complaining louts could have been relieving themselves in the water. :rolleyes:

We like the note in addition to an extra tip for anyone who has gone 'above and beyond'. This might come in handy for them to show management they were appreciated. Of course, mentioning them in the post cruise survey also helps, but one can't go wrong with written documentation. There is nothing in a handshake they can show their supervisor. ;)

You'll get a better response to this if you post to the Roll Call for your cruise.

They posted first in the proper location, to their Roll Call.

Have you checked for any transfer/tours your cruiseline is offering?One of those will probably still get you to the airport hours early, but if I had to spend hours at an airport anywhere in the world, Singapore would be a top choice. ;)

I have to say that I strongly disagree with the sentiment expressed.

 

I have found the front office staff on numerous HAL cruises to be professional and (Karen and I have kidded about there being a huge stash of tranquilizers that they use) capable of keeping cool even under rather stressful situations.

 

Scott & Karen

Did I say they didn't keep their cool? :confused: They keep their cool, they just can't handle anything out of the ordinary. ;)

I'm fine if this is a rule, and thank you indeed for clarifying, but it did seem very 'arbitrary' when we were on board. The crew and front office staff seemed very vague in their responses also, which raised my concerns.

The shop staff was 100% correct in saying that it was at the insistence of the Spanish authorities. I don't know what more they could have said, as you were confident that wasn't the case. The front office staff have nothing to do with if the VAT is charged or not. Actually, I believe they have had training in 'vague' as that seems to be a specialty there. ;) They are very capable of handling mundane matters, but anything out of the ordinary - well.... (I'm not a big fan of the HAL front desk and avoid it if at all possible.)

At least now you know to avoid EU cruises sailing from Spain if you don't want to pay their VAT.

It's not about scrimping and saving money necessarily. At least not for me. It's about not paying for something you don't want or need. For example, if I don't really enjoy swimming much, why would I buy a house with a pool? (Probably a bad example as I understand pools don't generally add much value, but best I could come up with....)

 

I know some people find it hard to understand, but having a balcony really doesn't ADD anything to my enjoyment of my vacation. And not having one doesn't subtract one iota from my enjoyment of my trip.

Exactly. I get the impression that 'some' here think that anyone who doesn't have a balcony is counting pennies.

We've done a number of cruises involving trans-Pacific flights. We've paid more for our first or business seats on the plane than we paid for our inside cabin. For us, the extra room on the plane was important. Just as important to us as having a shower stall in our inside cabin (outsides and up had bathtubs on those ships). For others having a suite, for less than we paid for our air, would have been more important to them. We don't "settle" for an inside cabin. That cabin fits our needs. Our vacation. Our money. Our call. It really makes NO difference that some put down inside cabins as "sleeping in a closet". :rolleyes:

Well, actually, that Panama Canal cruise (and the one in 2005) were done on the Magic. She was repositioning to do the Mexican Riviera cruises.

 

The Wonder didn't start coming to the west coast until DCL started doing the Alaska cruises. I believe that was in 2011.

I knew both of our west coast DCL cruises were on the Wonder, but I wasn't sure if she was the only DCL ship that had gone through the canal. Thanks for clearing that up.