What is the original purpose of the PVSA?

[sharse]

I see lots of discussion about this act, and I googled it, read the wikipedia article, etc., and I still don't even understand what the intent of the law is? What is it supposed to protect or guard against?

[Shmoo here]

I see lots of discussion about this act, and I googled it, read the wikipedia article, etc., and I still don't even understand what the intent of the law is? What is it supposed to protect or guard against?

 

It was originally enacted to protect the US shipping industry (cargo & passengers). Back in those days, there was a fairly large US shipping industry.

 

Because foreign-flagged ships could have lower costs for transporting cargo and/or goods, the government said any foreign-flagged ship transporting passengers/cargo from one US port to a different US port had to make a stop at a distant foreign port. A US-flagged ship does not have this requirement. This would increase their (the foreign-flagged ship)costs and make the US-flagged shipping costs more equitable.

 

Nowadays, there's not much of a US-flagged fleet (except for NCL in Hawaii), so it seems antiquated.

 

However, it (the PVSA) also applies to air transportation. A non-US airline cannot transport passengers between different US airports without a stop in a distant foreign port, either. So, for example, a KLM flight originating in San Francisco, stopping in New York, and ending it's trip in Amsterdam, cannot book passengers for the San Francisco/New York leg of the trip (well, unless they also stop in some distant foreign port - and that ain't gonna happen).

Edited June 5, 2014 by Shmoo here

[Cruisin' Chick]

And about five years ago, give or take a year, NCLa's prez was trying to make the law more stricter in order to penalize the cruiselines that competed against NCL's Hawaiian cruises. Fortunately enough heavy weight politicians (including the governors of Hawaii and California) got VP Cherny to get the changes tabled indefinitely.

[ehfl]

The law was passed to protect union workers (at the time, the union bosses were big contributors to political candidates). The law requires ships transporting passengers within the US to be built in the US (union ship construction workers), and staffed by US crew (more union jobs). Even today, when there is no significant passenger shipbuilding in the US, the unions are the only ones still opposing the repeal of this act.

 

If repealed, it would open up a huge cruise travel industry along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts.

[SadieN]

And about five years ago' date=' give or take a year, NCLa's prez was trying to make the law more stricter in order to penalize the cruiselines that competed against NCL's Hawaiian cruises. Fortunately enough heavy weight politicians (including the governors of Hawaii and California) got VP Cherny to get the changes tabled indefinitely.[/quote']

 

 

It would have also heavily impacted the Alaska cruise industry.

[navybankerteacher]

Like many other examples of regulation, PVSA is an essentially irrelevant (and actually counter-productive) bit of legislation. It was originally enacted to protect domestic US shipbuilding and ship operators - and their US employees - from foreign competition. It was so successful that US labor costs made shipping which could not be so controlled (the real money making international shipping) so much more competitive that the US merchant marine simply withered on the vine. An earlier example was the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was originally created to protect US consumers from abusive practices in the early days of railroading. It's cumbersome regulation - stretching into the 1970's was a major element in the collapse of much of the US railroad system into bankruptcy- by requiring continuing money losing passenger and freight service - often beyond any real purpose.

 

Many of our agriculture subsidy programs are further ongoing examples.

 

The problem is that government programs take on lives of their own, and linger long past their useful lifetimes.

[sapete]

.

 

snip...However, it (the PVSA) also applies to air transportation. A non-US airline cannot transport passengers between different US airports without a stop in a distant foreign port, either. So, for example, a KLM flight originating in San Francisco, stopping in New York, and ending it's trip in Amsterdam, cannot book passengers for the San Francisco/New York leg of the trip (well, unless they also stop in some distant foreign port - and that ain't gonna happen).

19 CFR 4.80a - Coastwise transportation of passengers.--from the DOT PDF

 

For the purposes of this part:

 

(a)

Vessel. The word vessel includes

aircraft. (19 U.S.C. 1401.)

Let's be careful here--he PVSA does not address aircraft/airlines. There are government provisions that discuss 5th freedoms right and cabotage involving foreign air carriers but not the PVSA.

every description of water craft or

other contrivance used or capable of

being used as a means of transportation

on water, but does not include

[Shmoo here]

19 CFR 4.80a - Coastwise transportation of passengers.--from the DOT PDF

 

For the purposes of this part:

 

(a)

Vessel. The word vessel includes

aircraft. (19 U.S.C. 1401.)

Let's be careful here--he PVSA does not address aircraft/airlines. There are government provisions that discuss 5th freedoms right and cabotage involving foreign air carriers but not the PVSA.

every description of water craft or

other contrivance used or capable of

being used as a means of transportation

on water, but does not include

 

OK, thanks. The PVSA doc I have doesn't have that note in it. And I've been told by others (who I believe know the PVSA far better than I do) that it did include airlines.

 

I guess they mean the airlines fall under the same sort of restrictions, but just not under the PVSA.