Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About chengkp75

  • Rank
    10,000+ Club

About Me

  • Location
    Maine or at sea
  • Interests
    Former cruise ship Chief Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That is the engine casing, as others have said, where the engine exhausts go up to the funnel. There may be some steward lockers around the periphery of this space, but the vast majority of that space is empty.
  2. Sparks, since it's you, I'll answer one more. Cargo ships that carry passengers carry 12 because that still classes them as cargo ships. You would have to carry 13 to be a passenger vessel, and then you have to meet all of the IMO regulations for passenger ships (construction, etc) not a cargo ship anymore. Plus dealing with the pax is a pain for the crew (they don't add any crew for the passengers), so the trade off just wouldn't be worth it.
  3. That would cause sewage on the deck, and I don't dispute that this happened, but when folks claim it was dripping from the ceiling and running down the walls, that is not sewage. I'd discount this as well, as I don't see how a leak at the azimuth seal would cause a problem with the motor. The azimuth seal that seals the rotating pod to the ship, is in the compartment inside the ship where the azimuthing equipment is, and this is completely separate from the entry down into the pod where the motor is. Even if there was leakage into the pod, it would have to be severe, and the bilge alarm would have to have failed, for it to cause a ground in the motor.
  4. Again, the act is not limited to cruise ships. And yes, foreign flag cruise ships have USCG inspections, called "Port State Control", that any nation can do to any foreign ship in their port, but only to ensure that SOLAS regulations are met. An example of the difference is that the USCG "target" is to inspect every foreign flag cruise ship that calls at US ports once a year, but ship scheduling, and USCG budgetary restraints make this a "target" only, and not always met, nor is it mandated under law. A US flag passenger vessel (whether the Pride of America, an American Cruise Line ship, or a Washington State Ferry) must have a USCG inspection every 3 months. An example of a European ferry is the Herald of Free Enterprise, a UK flag ferry that capsized virtually at the mouth of Zeebrugge harbor, killing 178 people. This disaster led to the implementation of the ISM (International Safety Management) Code by the IMO, the most sweeping regulation in the maritime industry since SOLAS (and we all know what prompted SOLAS). And with that, I will let this die.
  5. But, again, since you are dealing with ships of other countries, you must deal in international law, and the international definition of a "passenger" vessel (more than 12 passengers). If exemptions were granted for ships with a given pax count, others would sue as being discriminated against, since by law, they are "passenger" vessels as well. And what would cruise lines like the luxury lines that don't have ships as large as the arbitrary pax limit do? They'd sue as well. One large thing to note, is that CLIA, the cruise line group, which represents nearly all of the major cruise lines has stated that none of their members have any interest in repealing or modifying the PVSA, as they see no positive benefit to their bottom line.
  6. Other ships have been granted waivers of the construction or other aspects of the PVSA in the past, for various economic reasons, and anyone is free to build a ship in the US and compete with NCL in Hawaii, so no monopoly, and if the US were ever in another situation where it was holding onto a half finished ship that they could sell off to someone who wanted to finish it overseas and get a waiver, I'm sure that cruise line would get the waiver as well, so no monopoly. Besides, I'm not convinced that the POA does not meet the "substantial content" measure for being US built (PVSA and Jones Act compliant ships are allowed some portion of their materials and construction labor to be of foreign origin), the real advantage NCL got was allowing an existing foreign built ship (Norwegian Sky/Pride of Aloha), and a foreign built new ship (Norwegian Jade/Pride of Hawaii) to be given waivers, but after the losses NCL had with three ships in Hawaii, those ships reflagged back foreign and lost their waivers.
  7. I'll answer a few more, and then be done with this discussion. Do you really believe that in 1880's that riverboats and harbor craft were being built in foreign shipyards and transported across the ocean for use in the US? Because that would be the scenario if the original intent was to punish foreign shipyards. At the time of the act, those steamboats were still being built in the US, but were flagged foreign. As I've said, the original intent was for safety reasons, because at the time, no one else had any safety regulations, there was no SOLAS, no IMO. So, while safety concerns have closed the gap, but USCG regulations are still stricter for US flag ships than SOLAS is for everyone else, the act still preserves jobs for many US citizens, and provides money to the US economy. As for "bypassing" the act with a foreign port stop, there are legal distinctions between "coastwise" and "foreign" voyages, and the cruises that are allowed, meet these definitions, and are not "bypassing" anything.
  8. And again, looking at the PVSA through the narrow lens of the cruise industry is wrong. US passenger vessel operators can afford to comply with US laws because they are protected against the foreign competition. Many are in operation around the country today. And, as I said, that was the original intent of the act, to force ship owners to meet the safety standards (those US laws), and to protect them while forcing them to spend the money.
  9. Never said it had nothing to do with cruise ships, where was that? I said it had nothing to do with building large passenger vessels today, since that is no longer an economically viable industry. And again, it is the "passenger" vessel act, not the "cruise" vessel act, and this goes to the international definition of a passenger vessel, as noted above. To change that definition, you would need the IMO to do it. Barring a change in definition of a passenger vessel, if you changed the PVSA to allow foreign cruise ships to do coastwise transportation, then the Alaskan Marine Highway and the Washington State Ferries, and the Staten Island ferries would all sue in court to be able to reflag to Panama, since they are passenger vessels as well. And those would just be the largest companies to sue for this, it would get down to every small passenger boat in the US. Since Puerto Rico is part of the US, then transportation between Puerto Rico and the mainland is "coastwise", since it doesn't go to any other country. Just as transportation between England and Northern Ireland, or the Faroe Islands and Denmark, Okinawa and Japan, France and Corsica and Italy and Sardinia are examples of "coastwise" trade. The Virgin Islands are also part of the US, but are subject to the PVSA. The exemption to the PVSA for Puerto Rico was granted because there was no US flag operation providing passenger service to the mainland. The exemption expires as soon as someone starts up a US flag passenger service there. Which unions were consulted? The vast majority of the steelwork was done (most cruise ship cabin outfitting is done by subcontractors, not shipyard workers) so the yard workers job was done. The maritime unions were gaining a ship, so they would be winning.
  10. My bad, didn't read the post thoroughly, still a bit muzzy from late maneuvering out of Houston last night.
  11. Well, as the National Park Service is part of the US government, then yes, it is a US regulation, but is not specific to cruise ships. It is not, however, a part of the USPH requirements for cruise ships.
  12. This appears to be a special requirement for lobster obtained within a National Park.
  13. Uh, no. There was no discussion between the US and the unions regarding the Pride of America. The US government was on the hook for the loan guarantees to the shipyard, and were looking at either being the proud owner of a partially completed cruise ship hull, or paying more money to scrap it, when NCL offered to buy the hull for the amount of the loan guarantees, and the PVSA waivers. You are right, there is no reason to protect non-existent jobs, which is why the PVSA has virtually nothing to do with shipbuilding of large vessels, but does protect the jobs of those that build small coastwise passenger vessels, which is what the PVSA was designed to do. The PVSA does not preclude any cruise line from building a ship in the US, flagging it foreign, and then competing in the foreign cruise ship trade (i.e. ships that call at foreign ports). As for a "virtual monopoly", just this month, while NCL had 4 port calls at Honolulu, the mass market lines Princess, Carnival, and HAL had 8 port calls. While NCL is the only line that can offer Hawaii only cruises, their cruises for 7 days are more expensive than the other lines' 12-14 day cruises from the West Coast, which is why they continue. If there was a demand for a foreign flag cruise almost strictly in Hawaii, they would have to do what NCL did with the Star back in 2004, and go to Fanning Island in Kiribati.
  14. Yep, protectionist for passengers on vessels in the US. Do you know the story of the duck boats, and how the USCG has fought to ban them or seriously modify them for years? Because they fall both under USCG and DOT (road vehicle) regulations, there are areas where each side has to step back. We agree that the ship building industry in the US is almost defunct, except for a few tankers and container vessels, so what would the unions' interest be in protecting something that has no jobs? And what clout would those unions have, if they don't have members to vote for Congress.
  15. How does it protect an industry, if that industry doesn't build anything? Is it giving subsidies to the shipyards to remain in business and pay their workers who have no work? Nope. Why aren't US passenger vessels built in the US? Because it is too expensive, so how is the PVSA protecting that industry? It remains to protect the several hundred thousand jobs that US citizens hold on all the passenger vessels I named in my previous post. It also remains to protect US waters by ensuring that US flag vessels meet the strictest safety standards in the world.
  • Create New...