chengkp75

And, Congress is not needed to grant an "exemption". CBP can grant "exemptions" for voyages that violate the PVSA, but where the cause of the violation is outside the cruise line's control (weather, mechanical issues, war).

A somewhat unique situation given Chile's geography, and it will take time to see if any major industry develops there, and I don't know what their current domestic passenger service industry (ferries and local boats) consists of, or whether they will be impacted.

Pretty basic, really. ACL pays US corporate tax. Pearl, as covered by Section 883 of the IRS code, does not pay any tax on revenue generated in the US on a foreign flag ship. This is just like the major cruise lines, whose revenue all comes from foreign flag ships, so they pay no taxes. ACL is a US corporation, as required by the PVSA, and if they took over Pearl, then Pearl would be subject to US taxes, since the IRS exemption only applies to foreign ships owned by foreign corporations. Conversely, if Pearl were to take over ACL, then ACL would lose their "US ownership", and not be PVSA compliant anymore. NCL had to create NCL America (a US corporation, owned by at least 75% US citizens) for their US flag vessel.

You will have to keep the curtains closed at night, as light pollution will affect the night vision of the bridge watch, and they will send crew to remind you if you forget. Balcony doors should never be left open, as this interferes with the AC system in surrounding cabins.

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.

As NA has azipods, there will be, in some environmental conditions, the "azipod shimmy", or a side to side movement as the pods swing back and forth to maintain course.

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. 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.

The Victoria Mansion is a museum, where they have outfitted an old Victorian house with all period furnishings. It is a national historical monument. Guided tours are given. You are referring, I think, to the grand Victorian houses on the Eastern Prom.

As a Portland resident, I'd say "huh?" to this. The Victoria Mansion is walkable from the pier, but it is over a mile. For the OP, most things in Portland are within a 1.5 mile radius from the pier. Don't use cabs downtown, but they are readily available, and certainly at the Victoria Mansion.

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.

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."

The difference is that in the US, sales tax is a state or local law, and the states only have jurisdiction out to 3 nautical miles from shore. If it was a US national tax, it would be applicable out to the edge of the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone), or 200 miles from shore. In the EU, each "state" is a sovereign nation, and therefore their taxes extend to the EEZ limit. Further, it has been discussed many times in the past, that while each EU nation can charge VAT for purchases within their waters, Spain has decided that if the cruise does not visit any non-EU nation, then Spain can charge VAT on purchases for the entire voyage, regardless of whose waters the ship is in at the time of the purchase. Not being an expert on EU taxation, I don't know if this is an unusual interpretation of the EU law on Spain's part, whether they are simply overstepping their jurisdiction, or whether this is correct under the EU law.

I wouldn't say there were "mistakes", just unforeseen design problems. Remember, it is very difficult to simulate 100,000 tons of force on a bearing surface in the design shop, so most data and experience is "anecdotal", gathered in the field from actual usage of the units. I would say that every year, at a minimum, there are upgrades to bearing metallurgy and design that are incorporated into bearings that are sent to the field, but again, the ship becomes the "test bed". I know that RCI has determined that the thrust bearings on the pods for the Oasis class ships currently will not last a full 5 years between dry dockings, so they have started having "mini" dockings to just renew the azipod "cartridge" (shaft, bearings, seal) at around the 3 year mark. The "cartridges" for all azipods are sent back to ABB for overhaul, so the manufacturer gets to see the parts taken out of service, knowing how long they were in service, and with operational data from the ship, to give them data points for further improvements. While bearing failure is the most common failure, some are bent blades, some are shaft seals, some are motor failures, some are azimuthing system failures, including the brakes, and some are to do with the electrical supply to the azipod motor, which must go through an inverter drive (which changes AC power to DC power and back to AC power) to allow the motor to operate at varying speeds, and these inverters are totally within the ship, but without them, the entire azipod is just a hunk of metal hanging under the ship.

The thing is, that once passed into law, they really are not "Acts" anymore. The Jones Act is technically "46 USC 55102", while the PVSA is technically "46 USC 55103", or the very next subchapter of the USC. So, they are both part of 46 USC (shipping), one right after the other.

Okay, one thing that folks need to understand about "podded propulsion systems" like Mermaids and Azipods, is that even though they have been around for 20+ years, that is still a "new" technology in shipbuilding. There are about 2-300 "azipods" installed on all kinds of vessels worldwide (so, say, about 6000 "unit-years" of maintenance data). This is a drop in the bucket compared to the (currently) 120,000 merchant ships with shafted propellers, that have operated for over 100 years (or over 1 million "unit-years"). So, reliability data is still being generated, and the technology constantly updated, so that each overhaul reflects the latest technology, but long term reliability data is still in its infancy. Yes, the biggest problem with azipods is bearing design. The large units on cruise ships were upscaled from smaller units previously fitted on ferries and ice breakers. There was no historical data on bearing performance on these much larger units, and so the manufacturers take data from each failure, and each overhaul, to determine what needs to be improved to improve bearing performance. While the power in each azipod has increased, the size does not, so the bearing has to take more loading on the same area, increasing the probability of wear earlier. This is another major problem with azipods, the physical size is limited, while thrust bearings for shafted propeller, which are inside the ship, have no such size limitation, and can therefore be designed with minimum loading. Remember, the thrust bearing of an azipod takes the entire force needed to push a ship like Oasis (which weighs about 100,000 metric tons) through the water, and the bearing area is only a few square feet. This bearing takes all the propulsive force generated by the propeller, and transmits it to the hull, to push the hull. Now, the other thing is that without knowing what the problems the Vista is having, saying that it has "propulsion issues" is like saying your car has "car issues". Azipods are complex systems, and failure of any part could cause the entire unit to stop operating, or need to be shut down because it is causing instability in steering and vibrations, like the Freedom (IIRC)had a few weeks ago in Europe. This appeared to be a problem with the azimuthing system, not the motor/propeller, so this is totally different from earlier failures. Could each of the Vista's propulsion problems be the same or different failures, so knowing whether they are "bandaged" and sent out again, or whether they are like a brake failure and a check engine light on your car, is unknown to anyone outside Carnival.

This is what others have been trying to tell you is incorrect, not anything about your itinerary. The closed loop FLL cruise combined with the Panama Canal cruise (which by definition has to have a "distant" foreign port call to exist by itself), is PVSA compliant, just like the FLL to LA cruise is by itself. Virtually the only time the PVSA comes into question is on the West Coast, where the "distant" foreign ports are thousands of miles out of the way.

As others have noted, both cruises have a port call at a "distant" foreign port, so combining them is PVSA compliant, and even if the first cruise did not go to the ABC islands, it is a closed loop, so it does not need to. Combining the two still creates an "open jaw" cruise from one US port to another, with at least one port call at a "distant" foreign port, so it is also PVSA compliant. Tell your PVP to contact the Compliance Department to get the correct answer.

Yes, the crew needs to be 100% either US citizens, or US green card holders (limited to 25% of crew). NCL does have an exemption to allow non-green card aliens to get merchant mariner documents in the US, but again this is limited to 25% of the crew, including any green card holders. I have long said that I would not be seriously disturbed if the "US built" clause of the PVSA were to be repealed, since our shipbuilding industry is for the majority wedded to the US Navy, and not interested in commercial shipbuilding. Take a foreign built ship (like the Pride of Aloha (Norwegian Sky) or Pride of Hawaii (Norwegian Jade) that is retrofitted to meet USCG regulations, operate it under a US subsidiary (the "US owned" clause of the PVSA), so they pay US corporate taxes, crew it with US crew, pay US wages, and I'd be quite content with that. However, the cost of doing what I've listed above would so skew the economics of the cruise industry, so this is why the cruise industry does not wish to repeal or modify the PVSA, because they fear they would have to meet US standards in return. And, you are not quite correct. There are many, many US flag vessels that were built overseas. They just cannot engage in "coastwise" (domestic US) trade. In other words, a ship built in the US, under the US flag, would be "Jones Act" qualified, and could take cargo from Houston to New York, as well as from Houston to Amsterdam. A US flag ship that is built overseas, would not be "Jones Act" qualified, so while it could take cargo from Houston to Amsterdam, it could not take cargo from Houston to New York. The same applies to passenger vessels. The cruise lines could reflag their foreign built vessels to US flag, but they would not be "PVSA qualified", and could not do the one US port to another US port that people ask about.

Sorry, but the crew on the POA is not maxed at 40 hours per week.

The PVSA does not apply to aircraft. That is the Civil Aviation Act.

No, they don't. They tried that already with the Puerto Rico exemption. That took 10 years, and while the exemption still exists, there was only one line that started regular service between PR and the mainland US, and that closed down after about a year due to low interest. So, no, they don't have to lobby for it, because they know it doesn't benefit them in any way.

How's that? The cruises will be going to the same ports, regardless of whether the OP is on it for a B2B or not. One passenger, or even a whole slew of them doing legal (in your world) B2B's makes no difference to dock workers when the cruises are existing itineraries that a passenger just wants to couple together. You also assume that the cruise lines would make additional itineraries to increase the number of US port calls. Really don't see that happening, since most US cruise pax don't care about US ports.

The walls are metal. They may not be magnetic, though. Sometimes they are aluminum, and sometimes even steel walls have sufficiently thick vinyl covering to render most common magnets useless.

Short of being declared "out of class" (i.e. not fit to sail) by the classification society, they likely won't dry dock early to fix this. Even if they dock in January, that is the earliest window they can, and still get credit for a statutory docking. Any docking outside the Jan-Jun 2024 window would not count as a statutory dry docking, and they would need to dry dock again during that window. @rudyard is correct, that propulsion issues is a broad term, and may or may not require a drydocking, it may be a simple as staying alongside a pier for repairs for a couple of days. The example he gives was a Carnival ship that had a bow thruster fail, and they cut the hull out to renew the electric motor.

Given the chlorine level in cruise ship hot tubs, I doubt the hot tub is the culprit. Hot tubs on ships are required to maintain between 3-10ppm free chlorine at all times, which is far higher than private hot tubs on land. This chlorine level is monitored in real time, 24/7, and sounds an alarm when not in range.