Can someone simplifly the PVSA act?

[paul929207]

Hello Yank,

 

Replies from my representatives are likewise nebulous. For once, I would like to see one of our good politicians outline exactly how the PVSA / Jones Acts have benefitted the good citizens in the last 10 years. Specifically, how many jobs has it saved? How many accidents in US waters has it prevented? These laws have long ago outlived their usefulness, if they were ever useful. My head explodes when I get these responses. In those rare moments when a representative gets back via phone I challenge them to give me precisely what the values are for their support of / against a bill. There, I said it and I can pet a cat without fear of injury.

You could make a case the PVSA helps our airlines. We don't have Air France or British Airways flying from Chicago to Houston.

[Pam in CA]

I wrote an email to my Congressman about the PVSA asking that they look into changing it, and got a call back from one of his staffers who was the maritime law "guy". He said that my Congressman is both aware of the PVSA and fully supports the PVSA as it is because "it's good for the country and its workers", and they had absoutely no interest in changing it. They were nice about it, and I was actually surprised to get a call back, but it was disappointing that they didn't even want to look into it. I was more surprised they even knew about it--frankly, I just figured this was one of those ancient laws that no one realized was still on the books. The staffer did mention they seldom get emails or calls about the PVSA and that they get more calls about the Jones Act.

The Jones Act applies to cabotage and for cruising, affects the crew.

 

Highly unlikely that the PVSA will be repealed or modified. They do look at it from time-to-time but it's one of those laws that so benefits the US shipping industry and commerce that its perfunctory. Several years ago, John McCain proposed an amendment that would annul the Act but it was defeated. I read an article recently that there was another attempt to repeal the Act but that doing so would so damage US commerce and the economy that it died pretty quickly.

 

Yes, it's an old law but still effective and considered necessary. After all, some of our laws are almost 240 years old. :)

Edited September 24, 2015 by Pam in CA

[tailspintom]

You could make a case the PVSA helps our airlines. We don't have Air France or British Airways flying from Chicago to Houston.

 

Hey Paul,

Yes one could make that case. Yet, I have flown those two fine airlines and was safely delivered to my destination in the very same type of aircraft that was flown by domestic airways here in the States. Without belaboring the issue, because I am not in the position to change or influence the laws, if we took the same approach to automobiles, we woud be denied the ability to drive those automobiles produced all over the world. It is a protectionist thing with me.

Regards,

Tom

[tailspintom]

The Jones Act applies to cabotage and for cruising, affects the crew.

 

Highly unlikely that the PVSA will be repealed or modified. They do look at it from time-to-time but it's one of those laws that so benefits the US shipping industry and commerce that its perfunctory. Several years ago, John McCain proposed an amendment that would annul the Act but it was defeated. I read an article recently that there was another attempt to repeal the Act but that doing so would so damage US commerce and the economy that it died pretty quickly.

 

Yes, it's an old law but still effective and considered necessary. After all, some of our laws are almost 240 years old. :)

Hello Pam,

I didn't mean to start a ferfuffle (sp?) over this. I recognize that some laws old are still beneficial. These protectionist commerce laws are long overdue for updating. If they have increased the number of commercial ships being produced or flagged out of the States, it is lost on me. It has, however, produced some interesting cruise logistics with Hawaiian Island cruises visiting Kiribati and Ensenada as well as California, Oregon and Washington wine themed cruises including Vancouver.:)

Regards,

Tom

[lax19]

, if we took the same approach to automobiles, we would be denied the ability to drive those automobiles produced all over the world. It is a protectionist thing with me.

Regards,

Tom

 

Tom isn't it a matter of where the vehicle is registered, not where it is manufactured? Several US domestic airlines fly aircraft made in Canada and Europe all over the US.

I would guess that a bus that is registered in Canada could not take people from Detroit to Chicago, but a US registered bus can (even if the bus was made in Japan).

[lax19]

It has, however, produced some interesting cruise logistics with Hawaiian Island cruises visiting Kiribati and Ensenada as well as California, Oregon and Washington wine themed cruises including Vancouver.:)

Regards,

Tom

 

I looks as if the US laws have benefited the economy of several foreign cities! :)

[Steelers36]

I get all the commerce aspect recent posters have mentioned. But if just cruise ships were excluded and commercial vessels remain "protected", where is the harm in that?

 

Of course, as a Canadian, I should not be questioning this as my country does gain some benefit with 2 or 3 cruise ports in regular use each summer. That might disappear completely.

[Pam in CA]

I get all the commerce aspect recent posters have mentioned. But if just cruise ships were excluded and commercial vessels remain "protected", where is the harm in that?

Good question. However, NCL would fight that tooth and nail to protect their one exclusive non-PVSA ship that sails around Hawaii. A few years ago, they were willing to cost CA, WA, AK, NY and FL millions of jobs and mega-millions in revenue to protect three of their ships. They were unsuccessful. And then you get into the definition of what a "cruise ship" is... is it any ship carrying passengers? It's complicated.

[cr8tiv1]

Good question. However, NCL would fight that tooth and nail to protect their one exclusive non-PVSA ship that sails around Hawaii. A few years ago, they were willing to cost CA, WA, AK, NY and FL millions of jobs and mega-millions in revenue to protect three of their ships. They were unsuccessful. And then you get into the definition of what a "cruise ship" is... is it any ship carrying passengers? It's complicated.

 

Yes, Pam, NCL put out quite a campaign and won. Then they could not support three ships. Being from the islands, I am so ready to have both the PVSA and Jones Act amended (not necessarily abandoned). Matson and Young Bros have a lock on shipping. I would love to see a ship cruise one way to the islands from the West Coast. I would do that instead of flying (except on an NCL ship). We need a ferry between the island. We need....

[abbydancer2003]

Good question. However, NCL would fight that tooth and nail to protect their one exclusive non-PVSA ship that sails around Hawaii. A few years ago, they were willing to cost CA, WA, AK, NY and FL millions of jobs and mega-millions in revenue to protect three of their ships. They were unsuccessful. And then you get into the definition of what a "cruise ship" is... is it any ship carrying passengers? It's complicated.

 

I remember their unsuccessful attempt. The Hawaii senator introduced a bill that would require ships to spend 50% of their time in foreign ports. That would essentially kill the cruise market in Alaska from San Francisco and Seattle. It would also kill the RT LA trips to Hawaii.

 

I'm not sure about the East Coast, are there New England cruises that spend most of their port stops in the US? And I don't know about Florida - aren't those mostly foreign stops anyway?

 

In any case, the CA and WA senators got the bill defeated.

[paul929207]

A few years ago Congress tried to revise the law. They were considering a proposal to require ships to spend at least as much time in foreign ports as US ports. While this would not be a problem for Caribbean and Mexican cruises, it would put an end to Hawaiian and Alaskan cruises. Fortunately, they gave up

[SoCal Cruiser78]

...Matson and Young Bros have a lock on shipping. I would love to see a ship cruise one way to the islands from the West Coast...

 

It was a sad day when Matson's SS Lurline sailed from SF for the last time. A friend of mine was on that trip. Matson could do this run again, but I'm guessing it would be cost-prohibitive these days.

 

I had great week aboard the long-gone SS Independence years ago. I have heard nothing good about the NCL Pride of America now doing that inter-island route, however, so not sure I would attempt a CA-HI one-way on her if it were offered as a one-off :(.

Edited September 25, 2015 by SoCal Cruiser78
clarity

[Pam in CA]

I remember their unsuccessful attempt. The Hawaii senator introduced a bill that would require ships to spend 50% of their time in foreign ports. That would essentially kill the cruise market in Alaska from San Francisco and Seattle. It would also kill the RT LA trips to Hawaii.

 

 

 

I'm not sure about the East Coast, are there New England cruises that spend most of their port stops in the US? And I don't know about Florida - aren't those mostly foreign stops anyway?

Interestingly, the Senator who proposed the amendment was Senator Inouye whose wife just happened to be Godmother to one of the three NCL-A ships sailing around HI at the time. When the governors and Senators of CA, WA, NY, AK, etc. strongly objected to the amendment, Senator Inouye said, "Oh, yeah. The amendment should just apply to ships sailing to HI." There was so much objection that it died in committee. No one won or lost. It died an unnatural death, probably to save face for Senator Inouye.

 

Cruising out of NY and Boston is similar to the Alaskan cruise market. The amendment as proposed by Senator Inouye would, as Paul rightly pointed out, required foreign-flagged ships to spend more than 50% of port time in non-US ports which would have essentially killed the US mainland cruise industry on both coasts except for one-way cruises to/from Canada, costing mega millions of $ and jobs. Only Bermuda and Caribbean cruises would have been legal as round-trip cruises out of US ports.

[caribill]

For once, I would like to see one of our good politicians outline exactly how the PVSA / Jones Acts have benefitted the good citizens in the last 10 years. Specifically, how many jobs has it saved? How many accidents in US waters has it prevented? These laws have long ago outlived their usefulness, if they were ever useful.

 

The PVSA also applies to cruises on the Mississippi River as well as to ferries that operate out of USA ports.

 

These currently have US made boats and are subject to USA wage laws.

[Skai]

Hello Yank,

 

Replies from my representatives are likewise nebulous. For once, I would like to see one of our good politicians outline exactly how the PVSA / Jones Acts have benefitted the good citizens in the last 10 years. Specifically, how many jobs has it saved? How many accidents in US waters has it prevented? These laws have long ago outlived their usefulness, if they were ever useful. My head explodes when I get these responses. In those rare moments when a representative gets back via phone I challenge them to give me precisely what the values are for their support of / against a bill. There, I said it and I can pet a cat without fear of injury.

 

Just think how many U.S. jobs would be created if there was a requirement that all cruise ships sailing to/from U.S. ports (RT) had to fly the U.S. flag and employ American workers? -- The price of cruising mainstream lines would be 3x more than it is now.

 

Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if we could just fly Cubana, Pakistan or China airlines cross country for a fraction of the cost that a domestic carrier would charge? Who needs nanny state safety regulations anyways?