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

[JRG]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

Of course they have to make a foreign port call. What I'm objecting to is your incomprehensible comment "drinking 100% of our milkshake."

 

Ok,  my opinion is that we need a feasibility study on the matter to determine if someone is drinking 100% of our milkshake.

 

If milkshake is too strong then I should have said "someone is benefiting dis-proportionately from our PVSA redundant port snafu.   I say 100% because 100% of one of my travel days is given up for this redundant purpose.   I say 100% percent of my travel costs,  including fees and taxes for 1 full day (including the daily cost of the cruise) because 100% is given up for this redundant purpose.  Point is I didn't just make up some grab ass number.

 

I hope you can comprehend with my added detail and no hard feelings.    If you are objecting to the 100% being too high then just say so.

 

Furthermore,  if it is happening solely because ports are mis-classified,  then that should be rectified and if somebody in the Coast Guard or elsewhere could do it then they could be heroes.   Furthermore,   if they could do it in such a way that the US Coast Guard increases its share of the "milkshake" then why not?.   They deserve and need the resources more than the person drinking our milkshake.

 

My opinion is it takes a feasibility study to answer alot the questions put forth on the thread.   I'm motivated by the fact that the environment and time is ripe for such a concept and favorable outcome would be nice.

 

 

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Ok,  my opinion is that we need a feasibility study on the matter to determine if someone is drinking 100% of our milkshake.

 

If milkshake is too strong then I should have said "someone is benefiting dis-proportionately from our PVSA redundant port snafu.   I say 100% because 100% of one of my travel days is given up for this redundant purpose.   I say 100% percent of my travel costs,  including fees and taxes for 1 full day (including the daily cost of the cruise) because 100% is given up for this redundant purpose.  Point is I didn't just make up some grab ass number.

 

I hope you can comprehend with my added detail and no hard feelings.    If you are objecting to the 100% being too high then just say so.

 

Furthermore,  if it is happening solely because ports are mis-classified,  then that should be rectified and if somebody in the Coast Guard or elsewhere could do it then they could be heroes.   Furthermore,   if they could do it in such a way that the US Coast Guard increases its share of the "milkshake" then why not?.   They deserve and need the resources more than the person drinking our milkshake.

 

My opinion is it takes a feasibility study to answer alot the questions put forth on the thread.   I'm motivated by the fact that the environment and time is ripe for such a concept and favorable outcome would be nice.

 

 

You still open with an unfathomable statement about "100% of our milk shake" then you you say "100% of one day", which is not the same as the 100% you stated.  I have no idea what you mean by "redundant port snafu"...you're trying to declare the foreign port as redundant as if it's fact but it's just your opinion....plus why is it a snafu?  And what does it mean for ports to be "mis-classified" ? 

 

Sorry..I'm not wasting any more of my time trying to decode what you're saying.

[JRG]

29 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

And what does it mean for ports to be "mis-classified" ? 

 

Ok,  I was referring to  an earlier post who made this suggestion.  Good point as I do not know this for a fact,  I am just repeating it so I see what you are saying.    If I remember correctly,  somebody said that by changing the definition of distant or foreign port,  that cruiseline voyages discussed in this thread would be a moot point,  or good to go, as far as this whole PVSA Snafu is concerned.

 

That is forward progress from my point of view which I tried my best to explain in my opinion

 

I think it is forward progress for the OP who started this thread if I understand the original intent which I agreed with.

 

 

Over and out.

Edited June 20, 2020 by JRG

[JRG]

On 6/18/2020 at 8:17 PM, Joebucks said:

I doubt this this is the first thing on anyone's list in congress to change. However, if the struggling cruise lines came to them with concessions that could benefit both parties in exchange for rethinking some old laws, I don't think it is that far fetched anymore.

 

I thought this quote really summed up the situation and deserves attention.

 

Over and out again.

[Twickenham]

2 hours ago, JRG said:

My opinion is it takes a feasibility study to answer alot the questions put forth on the thread.

 

I totally agree with you on this point. I am also quite certain that the major cruise companies have each conducted such a feasibility study, and that their inaction with regard to changing the PVSA is a clear indication of what these studies concluded.

 

If it was economically profitable for them to change the law, they would be working to do just that. The fact that it isn't even on their radar tells me that they have determined that it is not.

[cruisemom42]

I admit I am no expert in this topic, though I have read many discussions about it over the years.

 

Here's the summary I take away every time, and so far no one has provided the missing piece:

 

-- The cruise lines are well aware of what the PVSA entails and in what ways it impacts them, but have not strenuously sought to have the PVSA changed or new legislation enacted that would change those impacts. It seems to me that their legistlative priorities lie elsewhere (e.g., continuing to ensure that most cruise line operations fall outside the sphere of US regulations).

 

-- Cruisers periodically insist that the PVSA restrictions should be lifted.

 

-- There are a certain number of relatively arcane but arguably favorable reasons for leaving the PVSA in place.

 

The missing piece:  If cruise lines thought it was to their advantage to change this, I cannot imagine why they would not or have not aggressively pursued it, either individually or through their association, CLIA. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that it would be of no significant benefit to change it OR that it would be so extraordinarily difficult to do so that the ends would not justify the means.

 

Can anyone provide any proof to the contrary ASIDE FROM individuals "wishing" that it was so?

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by cruisemom42

[cruisemom42]

8 minutes ago, Twickenham said:

 

I totally agree with you on this point. I am also quite certain that the major cruise companies have each conducted such a feasibility study, and that their inaction with regard to changing the PVSA is a clear indication of what these studies concluded.

 

If it was economically profitable for them to change the law, they would be working to do just that. The fact that it isn't even on their radar tells me that they have determined that it is not.

 

Well said. You beat me to it while I was posting my response.

[JRG]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

Can anyone provide any proof to the contrary ASIDE FROM individuals "wishing" that it was so?

 

 

and this is why I leave my opinion at generating another study,  given the delta in the environment.  That would be my proof.

[Cruzaholic41]

9 hours ago, JRG said:

 

Or prove to me there is a cruiseline that sales from Seattle to Los Angeles (along the coast) that does not make a foreign stop.     Feel welcome to substitute any  other west coast US port.

 

 If you can prove this then I will be the first to fall on the sword.

 

Well, so much for that. Your question was answered, yet you continue. 

[sparks1093]

20 hours ago, JRG said:

 

It is a fair question and here is a fair answer.

 

We are the market and we are here.  We are a drive-to port prospect.   I would love to do a San Diego to Alaska  and not have to stop in Vancouver and instead visit family in Seattle, maybe eat at my favorite Thai restaurant on Lake Union.

 

Don't get me wrong,  I love the quaintness of Vancouver ,  but I don't need to see it every time I want to go to Alaska.

 

Here is the great inequity of the PVSA as it relates to west coast cruising.   For every cruise that an American takes in Alaska,  they have to stop in Vancouver,  and that means 1 day of every single travel trip,  and hundreds if not thousands of dollars spend in Vancouver only to satisfy the PVSA.   We waste vacation time and vacation dollars because of the PVSA.   Seattle is losing out on this potential revenue stream.   

 

In other words, Vancouver is drinking our milkshake.   100% of it and they have been since cruising began and it will remain that way until the PVSA exempts or excludes this very small segment of the industry.     I don't mind sharing some of our milkshake,  but please,  not 100%.   Lets keep some of that money for the Seattle port district terminal and open up some new cruising options.     Not having to stop in Vancouver would open up sailings to Alaska from San Diego, LA, San Francisco and Seattle.

 

The same argument for wasting a day holds for having to stop in Ensenada,  you are wasting 1 day of a cruisers voyage needlessly.    Similar inequities trap East coast and Gulf cruisers who are also lucky enough to live within driving distant of a port.

 

Cruisers need to step up and vote with their feet to kick down the barriers to market that the PVSA imposes.   

 

"The sky will not come falling down if cruiselines are allowed to sail US port to US port"

 

 

 

Again, the cruise lines don't see the profit in this and until they do there won't be any changes to the PVSA. (And also again, cruise lines only make up a small fraction of worldwide shipping so this impacts more than just that small segment. And also again, from the responses in this thread you appear to be in the minority when it comes to wanting a US only itinerary. Here on the east coast I can think of no port city that I'd like to visit on a cruise that I wouldn't prefer seeing as a stand alone vacation.)

[sparks1093]

15 hours ago, JRG said:

 

Ok,  my opinion is that we need a feasibility study on the matter to determine if someone is drinking 100% of our milkshake.

 

If milkshake is too strong then I should have said "someone is benefiting dis-proportionately from our PVSA redundant port snafu.   I say 100% because 100% of one of my travel days is given up for this redundant purpose.   I say 100% percent of my travel costs,  including fees and taxes for 1 full day (including the daily cost of the cruise) because 100% is given up for this redundant purpose.  Point is I didn't just make up some grab ass number.

 

I hope you can comprehend with my added detail and no hard feelings.    If you are objecting to the 100% being too high then just say so.

 

Furthermore,  if it is happening solely because ports are mis-classified,  then that should be rectified and if somebody in the Coast Guard or elsewhere could do it then they could be heroes.   Furthermore,   if they could do it in such a way that the US Coast Guard increases its share of the "milkshake" then why not?.   They deserve and need the resources more than the person drinking our milkshake.

 

My opinion is it takes a feasibility study to answer alot the questions put forth on the thread.   I'm motivated by the fact that the environment and time is ripe for such a concept and favorable outcome would be nice.

 

 

On a 7 day cruise at best it's 1/7th of the milkshake and the passenger decides how much money to spend ashore and if they decide not to spend it in Vancouver than this further diminishes the percentage. As for a feasibility study, conducted by whom and paid for by whom? I don't want my tax dollars spent on such an endeavor. As a business I'm sure that the cruise lines have their finger on the pulse of their customers and if this prospect looked like it would substantially increase their bottom line they themselves would be pushing for the change, which is where the push needs to primarily come from.

Edited June 21, 2020 by sparks1093

[ontheweb]

35 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

On a 7 day cruise at best it's 1/7th of the milkshake and the passenger decides how much money to spend ashore and if they decide not to spend it in Vancouver than this further diminishes the percentage. As for a feasibility study, conducted by whom and paid for by whom? I don't want my tax dollars spent on such an endeavor. As a business I'm sure that the cruise lines have their finger on the pulse of their customers and if this prospect looked like it would substantially increase their bottom line they themselves would be pushing for the change, which is where the push needs to primarily come from.

And when they thought it would make economic sense to have cruises between Puerto Rico and the mainland without a foreign stop, they managed to get that. And then they gave it up as they did not make the profits they envisioned.

 

And when NCL was able to do Hawaiian Island cruises without a foreign stop, they put 3 ships there. And soon learned that there was not a market for 3 ships and cut it back to 1 ship.

 

I think the demand for US port only cruises that the OP sees is really not nearly there to the extent that he believes.

[sparks1093]

57 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And when they thought it would make economic sense to have cruises between Puerto Rico and the mainland without a foreign stop, they managed to get that. And then they gave it up as they did not make the profits they envisioned.

 

And when NCL was able to do Hawaiian Island cruises without a foreign stop, they put 3 ships there. And soon learned that there was not a market for 3 ships and cut it back to 1 ship.

 

I think the demand for US port only cruises that the OP sees is really not nearly there to the extent that he believes.

I'm not sure how much influence the cruise lines had with the Puerto Rico exclusion, I believe that Puerto Rico itself might have had more to do with it.

[Charles4515]

 
I think the demand for US port only cruises that the OP sees is really not nearly there to the extent that he believes.

I agree there is not as much demand as some believe. Last summer I did a cruise that was almost US only. We did Newport, Boston, Portland, Bar Harbor and final port Bermuda. I booked it because it had two days in Bermuda. I booked it 8 days before the sailing because it was Bermuda and very cheap because it was not selling. Even with low fares it did not sell out. Plenty of empty cabins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JRG]

Thank you both for the previous posts because I agree with virtually all you summarize as valid pros and cons.

I am not arguing against your points of view, they are well described and they illustrate the complexity.

 

It's a good time to acknowledge I know this a small piece of the pie we're talking about,  but even a small slice (5%) is a big chunk of change when you consider billions spent.     

 

The cruiselines are now using the term drive-to-port customers to reference a specific segment of the market,   that is driving my thought process here.

 

Cruisemom zeroed in on the apex of the problem IMO.  It's not the missing link is the obvious link.  It is the labor cost component of the formula to causes the fail in the pass/fail feasibility,   it makes total sense to understanding the problem.

 

I'm thinking pro-forma because that is what I do.  CDC will eventually give cruising a flashing green light.   If CDC never intends to give cruising the green light,  then they would have made that announcement to minimize industry salvation and prevent stock price evaporation.   

 

That is the premise for my thoughts.

 

The financial observation that the idea has been discussed before in previous feasibility studies it correct .  However, the fact it was on the radar at means there was some merit underneath it all and therefore,  could conceivably come back onto the radar screen.   

 

When dealing with pro-forma financial statements,   you have to take significant events into account and grappling with the aftershocks from COVID-19 it forces you to think things thru.

 

When you look at the internals of the 'financial feasibility',  intelligent people can see that the labor is the biggest component problem.   Even the Chief will admit this.  I've always known that and providing a solution to this particular component changes the potential "financial feasibility" 

 

There are two solutions I would propose to address the labor cost component of the "financial feasibility".   My first instinct was to change the wages structure for ship personnel to approximate state wages for similar type of employment.   And yes that would mean minimum wages plus tips.   This is the world shocker to CLIA but it is one of the prime chips thing they can bring to the table if they had to change or position on PVSA exclusion.

 

I'm lucky enough to also have an industrialist's background and I can tell you that ships need to sail.   Opening up the drive-to port market has certain built in advantages to cruiselines who need to manage the ramp up that redeployment requires.    The cost of the labor here is the biggest cog in the wheel in feasibility question and if that changed the suddenly changing law makes more sense.  

 

My second solution would be to follow the Canadian heath system model,  it has the best of both worlds.   That would mean government intervention similar in form to how the National Parks were commissioned.   We would need a US Cruising Commission just like we needed a US National Park Service,  similar to how we needed a US Maritime commission back in the mid-to late 1930's.  

 

A Cruising commission would have the leverage to combat special interest groups to get laws passed and they would have the governance to solve the port snafu issue.  

 

I'd create a new wage structure for the cruise ships (doing this particular type of cruise) to solve the labor component because I believe in solving those types of inequities and it affects my quality of cruise life if it is artificially driving the cost of shipboard maintenance.      

 

I'd write to Congress to create a US Cruising Commission first.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by JRG

[Cruzaholic41]

What in the world are you talking about?

[Aquahound]

47 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

The financial observation that the idea has been discussed before in previous feasibility studies it correct .  However, the fact it was on the radar at means there was some merit underneath it all and therefore,  could conceivably come back onto the radar screen.   

 

 

I don't recall this ever being on the radar.  I recall waivers granted to foreign flagged ferries in certain venues until such time US flagged vessels existed, but I do not recall there ever being discussion for blanket exclusion of major cruise corporations from the PVSA.  

[Aquahound]

20 hours ago, JRG said:

 

Furthermore,  if it is happening solely because ports are mis-classified,  then that should be rectified and if somebody in the Coast Guard or elsewhere could do it then they could be heroes.   Furthermore,   if they could do it in such a way that the US Coast Guard increases its share of the "milkshake" then why not?.   They deserve and need the resources more than the person drinking our milkshake.

 

 

You're going to have to help me out with this one.  Momma tells me I'm a pretty smart lad but you've totally lost me with this milkshake stuff.  Perhaps that's just a figure of speech I've never heard before.  I'm also lost on what this has to do with the Coast Guard and what you're suggesting would be a benefit to the USCG.  🤔

[SRF]

On 6/19/2020 at 11:14 AM, sparks1093 said:

I think what is being proposed is sailing from one US city to another and returning to the port of embarkation, with no call on a nearby foreign port. I'm not sure because we've covered an awful lot of ground in this thread. As for that particular potential itinerary I'm not sure it would help much at all.

 

That, and cruises to nowhere are NOT stopped by PVSA.

 

That is based on CBP requirements for the crew visas.  Without a stop at a foreign port, they are working within the US and need a higher class of visa (harder to get and more expensive).

[njhorseman]

4 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

That, and cruises to nowhere are NOT stopped by PVSA.

 

That is based on CBP requirements for the crew visas.  Without a stop at a foreign port, they are working within the US and need a higher class of visa (harder to get and more expensive).

No, the first type of cruise mentioned by Sparks is covered by the PVSA. It's  cruises to nowhere that are permitted by the PVSA but run afoul of visa requirements for the crew.

[SRF]

1 minute ago, njhorseman said:

No, the first type of cruise mentioned by Sparks is covered by the PVSA. It's  cruises to nowhere that are permitted by the PVSA but run afoul of visa requirements for the crew.

 

Not as I understand the act.

 

They cannot transport passengers BETWEEN US ports.  They may be from Port A to Port B and back to Port A.   They just would not be able to let someone off, that does not reboard, at Port B.

 

Here is the actual law -

(a)In General.—Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or chapter 121 of this title, a vessel may not transport passengers between ports or places in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, either directly or via a foreign port, unless the vessel—

(1)

is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of engaging in the coastwise trade; and

(2)

has been issued a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement under chapter 121 or is exempt from documentation but would otherwise be eligible for such a certificate and endorsement.

(b)Penalty.—

The penalty for violating subsection (a) is $300 for each passenger transported and landed.

 

For more reading - https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pvsa_icp_3.pdf

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

I'm not sure how much influence the cruise lines had with the Puerto Rico exclusion, I believe that Puerto Rico itself might have had more to do with it.

CLIA was a partner with the Puerto Rico government in lobbying for the exclusion.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

 

You're going to have to help me out with this one.  Momma tells me I'm a pretty smart lad but you've totally lost me with this milkshake stuff.  Perhaps that's just a figure of speech I've never heard before.  I'm also lost on what this has to do with the Coast Guard and what you're suggesting would be a benefit to the USCG.  🤔

Paul, can you enlighten me as to how "ports are classified"?

[njhorseman]

54 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

Not as I understand the act.

 

They cannot transport passengers BETWEEN US ports.  They may be from Port A to Port B and back to Port A.   They just would not be able to let someone off, that does not reboard, at Port B.

 

Here is the actual law -

 

Your understanding is incorrect. I suggest you read the complete and current CBP interpretation of the PVSA : https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Sep/PVSA-ICP.pdf

Foreign-flagged cruise lines were never permitted to take passengers from Port A to Port B and back to Port A without making a foreign port call. That's why those types of cruises were never offered, while cruises to nowhere were offered until the visa ruling was made a couple of years ago.

Edited June 21, 2020 by njhorseman

[Aquahound]

35 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Paul, can you enlighten me as to how "ports are classified"?

 

Beats the heck out of me.