Could lifting the ''Jones act'' be a help in this mess.

[JRG]

1 hour ago, jan-n-john said:

PS  As an aside, one of the jobs I did in the distant past was to manage a port master plan study for the Port of San Juan.

 

Thank you for a brilliant primer.  And kudos to the poster who suggested it be posted here.   

 

Granularity of detail is important,  but not if you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

Solutions to complicated problems often run counter to conventional wisdom and thinking.   And they are often based on simplicity.  

 

 

 

 

 

[sparks1093]

And at the end of the day we find that cruise lines aren't interested in making the effort that it would take in order to amend or repeal the PVSA because they don't see it increasing their bottom line in the long run. Until that changes I don't see any changes being made to the law no matter how well a passenger might justify such a thing.

[Charles4515]

 
Thank you for a brilliant primer.  And kudos to the poster who suggested it be posted here.   
 
Granularity of detail is important,  but not if you can't see the forest for the trees.
 
Solutions to complicated problems often run counter to conventional wisdom and thinking.   And they are often based on simplicity.  
 
 

It is funny reading your posts to see you preaching simplicity however if any changes are to be made to Jones or PVSA the changes are going to have to be complicated.




Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[JRG]

On 4/29/2020 at 9:23 AM, Charles4515 said:

I am in favor of making some changes in the act but in the future and slowly and carefully. It is not an emergency to make any changes now in the PVSA.

 

I am in partial agreement with your comments here.   I favor a feasibility study first.     

 

Can you explain to the audience why you are in favor of making some changes in the act....?  

 

Surely there must be a good reason.......Please tell us in your own words why you want to make a change.....

 

 

 

[INeedAMaiTai]

I wonder if they will add waivers to the Jones act this year with all of the ports being closed, especially with Alaska cruises and East Coast fall cruises....  just a thought.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Host Kat
Threads merged.

[Aquahound]

 

[ColeThornton]

Highly doubtful and just an FYI...it's the PVSA, not the Jones Act.  Common mistake.  Jones Act is for cargo ships.

 

 

[Host Kat]

11 minutes ago, INeedAMaiTai said:

I wonder if they will add waivers to the Jones act this year with all of the ports being closed, especially with Alaska cruises and East Coast fall cruises....  just a thought.

 

@INeedAMaiTai Howdy Liz!  

 

To help you out, I have merged your thread into the existing thread regarding this matter.

 

Happy sails,

 

Host Kat 

[pris993]

I heard someone talking about this issue on TV a few weeks back, there is some real national security issues behind this law... so not good reason to change it just to satisfy vacation cruisers.

[ontheweb]

3 minutes ago, pris993 said:

I heard someone talking about this issue on TV a few weeks back, there is some real national security issues behind this law... so not good reason to change it just to satisfy vacation cruisers.

And there has been no push from the cruise lines to change it. The issue is moot; it's not happening.

[Charles4515]

I heard someone talking about this issue on TV a few weeks back, there is some real national security issues behind this law... so not good reason to change it just to satisfy vacation cruisers.

A case could be made for national security issues with the Jones Act (I don’t agree) but what security issues would there be that required the PVSA regulations? The PVSA is purely protectionist. However what would motivate a change to the law? To allow them not to call at foreign ports for the convenience of the few cruise passengers who would be interested in the itineraries that would be allowed? Changes to the PVSA should be more oversight and regulation of the cruise lines. Labor and consumer regulations. No doubt the cruise lines don’t want that and that is why they have had little interest in changing the PVSA.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

46 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

Changes to the PVSA should be more oversight and regulation of the cruise lines

Here you miss the whole point of the PVSA.  The US cannot have more oversight of the foreign flag cruise lines, as they are involved in international trade, while the PVSA is solely involved with domestic trade.  We can make laws and regulations regarding domestic trade, but since we are members of the IMO, and have adopted the IMO conventions (SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, ISPS) as law in the US, we bind ourselves to the clauses of those treaties and conventions that prohibit one member from placing stricter requirements on another member's vessels.  Changes to oversight and regulation of the cruise lines requires action from the IMO, not the US Congress.  The PVSA cannot be amended to cover foreign flag ships on foreign voyages.

[Charles4515]

Here you miss the whole point of the PVSA.  The US cannot have more oversight of the foreign flag cruise lines, as they are involved in international trade, while the PVSA is solely involved with domestic trade.  We can make laws and regulations regarding domestic trade, but since we are members of the IMO, and have adopted the IMO conventions (SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, ISPS) as law in the US, we bind ourselves to the clauses of those treaties and conventions that prohibit one member from placing stricter requirements on another member's vessels.  Changes to oversight and regulation of the cruise lines requires action from the IMO, not the US Congress.  The PVSA cannot be amended to cover foreign flag ships on foreign voyages.

When there is a will to change it there will be a way. Just like an exception was made for NCL to do Hawaiian Island cruises. There is no will right now to make changes. The cruise industry is not asking for change. And I don’t see any immediate reason to change it.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

40 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

When there is a will to change it there will be a way. Just like an exception was made for NCL to do Hawaiian Island cruises. There is no will right now to make changes. The cruise industry is not asking for change. And I don’t see any immediate reason to change it.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Sorry, getting mixed messages.  POA has more oversight and regulation because it is a US flag ship, not because of any change to the PVSA.  PVSA has nothing to do with oversight and regulation, except that it requires a US flag vessel.  So, what you are saying is that the PVSA should be amended to allow foreign ships to sail domestically, if they become subject to more intense oversight and regulation?  Am I reading you right?  Well, again, there is no mechanism outside of the IMO for the US to place additional regulation on a foreign flag ship, so you would be requiring US flag ships.  Does this mean you only want to waive the construction clause of the PVSA, but keep the other requirements to be US owned and US flag?

 

And, again, as long as the foreign flag ships participate in foreign itineraries, the PVSA has nothing to do with them, and the US cannot extend its oversight.  You may think that this is simply a function of US law, but it is not, it deals with the treaties and conventions of international law and maritime law, which is different from US law.

Edited May 16, 2020 by chengkp75

[Charles4515]

 

And, again, as long as the foreign flag ships participate in foreign itineraries, the PVSA has nothing to do with them, and the US cannot extend its oversight.  You may think that this is simply a function of US law, but it is not, it deals with the treaties and conventions of international law and maritime law, which is different from US law.

 

You don’t get it or want to get it that the cruise lines need to be regulated. If the treaties and conventions prevent that they need to be tossed. From your narrow craft union viewpoint they should not or can’t be changed.

 

The 100,000 crew stranded on cruise ships show the need for reform.

 

https://apple.news/ATq1ZbKTkRGW-Q435DNpjMA

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[SRF]

Another thing is, everyone keeps talking about amended PVSA for ports being closed.

 

PVSA is NOT why there are no longer cruises to nowhere.   PVSA has to do with cruising from one port to another, within the US.

 

Cruises to nowhere were stopped by DHS by changing the interpretation of the visa requirements for the shipboard workers.

[Charles4515]

Another thing is, everyone keeps talking about amended PVSA for ports being closed.
 
PVSA is NOT why there are no longer cruises to nowhere.   PVSA has to do with cruising from one port to another, within the US.
 
Cruises to nowhere were stopped by DHS by changing the interpretation of the visa requirements for the shipboard workers.

There could be cruises to nowhere if the cruise lines were willing to pay the cost to comply with the visa requirements.

Apparently some only cruise to fill up at the buffet or the bar so they would be happy with cruises to nowhere or between Baltimore and Bayonne. There may be a market for that but I doubt it would be large enough to be worthwhile to the cruise lines. If it were they would be pushing for repeal of the PSVA. They have not in the past and none of their current statements indicate they are pushing to change it now.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

 

You don’t get it or want to get it that the cruise lines need to be regulated. If the treaties and conventions prevent that they need to be tossed. From your narrow craft union viewpoint they should not or can’t be changed.

 

The 100,000 crew stranded on cruise ships show the need for reform.

 

https://apple.news/ATq1ZbKTkRGW-Q435DNpjMA

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

You still fail to understand the difference between domestic and international trade. And if my "narrow craft union viewpoint" is what you are complaining about, again, and again, that viewpoint would be to increase the oversight and regulations on foreign flag ships, as this would make my "narrow craft union"more attractive to the cruise lines, so your personal attacks fall apart.

 

Fine, scrap the treaties and see what happens to world trade when we remove ourselves from the world maritime community.  Also note that like all treaties, it requires a 2/3 Senate majority to renounce a treaty, this is not just changing the law.

[chengkp75]

11 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

There could be cruises to nowhere if the cruise lines were willing to pay the cost to comply with the visa requirements.

Apparently some only cruise to fill up at the buffet or the bar so they would be happy with cruises to nowhere or between Baltimore and Bayonne. There may be a market for that but I doubt it would be large enough to be worthwhile to the cruise lines. If it were they would be pushing for repeal of the PSVA. They have not in the past and none of their current statements indicate they are pushing to change it now.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

It is not just the cost of the visas, it is the limited nature of a work visa.  Especially this administration would not approve tens of thousands of work visas.

[Charles4515]

 
Fine, scrap the treaties and see what happens to world trade when we remove ourselves from the world maritime community.  Also note that like all treaties, it requires a 2/3 Senate majority to renounce a treaty, this is not just changing the law.

The current administration seems to be fine with scrapping treaties. You think that change can never take place. I don’t think change is on the agenda now but it could be someday.



Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Charles4515]

It is not just the cost of the visas, it is the limited nature of a work visa.  Especially this administration would not approve tens of thousands of work visas.

This administration is not forever.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[ColeThornton]

13 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

This administration is not forever.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

 

The PVSA was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland on June 19, 1886.   That's a lot of administrations and crises that have happened since then.   😉

Edited May 17, 2020 by ColeThornton

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

The current administration seems to be fine with scrapping treaties. You think that change can never take place. I don’t think change is on the agenda now but it could be someday.



Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Actually, I'm not aware of any TREATIES this administration has scrapped. Both the Paris agreement and NAFTA are "executive agreements" not treaties like SOLAS.

[Charles4515]

Actually, I'm not aware of any TREATIES this administration has scrapped. Both the Paris agreement and NAFTA are "executive agreements" not treaties like SOLAS.

The INF.

NAFTA was an agreement ratified by congress. It was not an executive agreement. It was replaced by agreement of all parties.

Congress can modify and repeal treaties even if it would be a violation of international law.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Charles4515]

 
 
The PVSA was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland on June 19, 1886.   That's a lot of administrations and crises that have happened since then.   [emoji6]

It has been modified and amended since then. It can be changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums