Let's Think About Suspending the Jones Act.

[dag144]

This act requires that cruise ships stop in at least one foreign port before embarking or disembarking in a US port.  While it is more complex than this in its entirety, it is a damper on cruising in this environment.  If the act is suspended cruises can have domestic itineraries with stops on both coasts and the Gulf.  This could create much needed land based jobs in restaurants, transportation (taxis and buses etc.) and attractions.  An added benefit would to give the CDC control of all health aspects of this type of cruise.  I can't see a downside, and it might be a way to make a small start for the cruise industry and cruisers who would like to take safe cruises overseen by our government.

[LARGIN]

Not the Jones Act, it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act

 

Edited April 22, 2020 by LARGIN

[dag144]

Sort of the same thing.  Most viewers will know what I am talking about.  But thanks for the correction.

[ldubs]

I understand the potential economic boost that you are considering.  The potential for enhanced control by CDC is an interesting thought .  But, personally I would be against suspending the Jones Act (or in this case PSA) because of the protections it provides to Americans and because I would be opposed to a business operating in America that was not bound by American wage/hour regulations.   

Edited April 22, 2020 by ldubs

[dag144]

When I get on and off a cruise in the USA (with a stop in a foreign port say Nassau or Mexico I am cruising with a business that is not bound by American wage and hour regulations.  What's the difference?

[getting older slowly]

Here is link you may like to read

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/cruise-industry-bailout-washington-should-give-repeal-passenger-vessel-services-act

 

From an outside point of view it is an interesting thing  Carnival Corporation is American but registers all its ship outside the US so to reduce Taxes paid... is this right ?? 

and because of the PSA they can't do only US port cruises or cruises to nowhere  ??  like in Australia

 

It is an interesting situation......   past in 1886  ... it is still relative in 2020  ??  

 

Please I am not having a go at anybody or anything.....  just interested 

 

Cheers DOn

[ldubs]

19 minutes ago, dag144 said:

When I get on and off a cruise in the USA (with a stop in a foreign port say Nassau or Mexico I am cruising with a business that is not bound by American wage and hour regulations.  What's the difference?

 

I think you are asking me.  It is an interesting question.  The only difference I know of is the cruise you describe is in compliance with PVSA because of the foreign ports.  My point is I would personally be opposed to widening the loophole that allows avoidance of American crews and associated wage levels..

 

Whether that loophole should exist at all is a huge subject maybe for another discussion, though I think I can guess where most avid cruise passengers would stand on the subject.    

 

Edit: You know, I don't even know if wage/hour laws for land based employees apply to the maritime industry.  But I'm pretty comfortable that the wages paid to an American crew would be higher than those currently paid on cruise ships.  

Edited April 22, 2020 by ldubs

[2 cruises a year]

I'm against suspending the PVSA, but I am open to looking into modifying it. Maybe there is a way to differentiate between ferrying passengers and cargo and cruising. A good start would be a cruise beginning and ending in the same port without visiting a foreign port if no passengers or cargo are disembarked. 

Thoughts?

[HUNKY]

Seems very simple to me,

 

US flagged ships must follow US wage/labor/tax laws if visiting/embarking/disembarking at US ports.

 

Non US flagged ships do NOT have to follow US wage/labor/tax laws if visiting/embarking/disembarking at US ports.

 

Will travel on US flagged ships cost more?   Yes, but it will give consumers more choices.

Edited April 22, 2020 by HUNKY

[pms4104]

6 hours ago, getting older slowly said:

Here is link you may like to read

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/cruise-industry-bailout-washington-should-give-repeal-passenger-vessel-services-act

 

From an outside point of view it is an interesting thing  Carnival Corporation is American but registers all its ship outside the US so to reduce Taxes paid... is this right ?? 

and because of the PSA they can't do only US port cruises or cruises to nowhere  ??  like in Australia

 

It is an interesting situation......   past in 1886  ... it is still relative in 2020  ??  

 

Please I am not having a go at anybody or anything.....  just interested 

 

Cheers DOn

In reality, Carnival Corp is incorporated in Panama and registers the entire fleet for its various lines in foreign countries ... each line has operational offices/headquarters in the U.S. ... all to avoid our labor laws and taxes ... read they paid corporate income taxes inna recent year to Panama of $70 million on $30 billion in revenue ... it's all about the money, isn't it?

[Essiesmom]

Current thread on another board says it all

 

 

7 minutes ago, pms4104 said:

In reality, Carnival Corp is incorporated in Panama and registers the entire fleet for its various lines in foreign countries ... each line has operational offices/headquarters in the U.S. ... all to avoid our labor laws and taxes ... read they paid corporate income taxes inna recent year to Panama of $70 million on $30 billion in revenue ... it's all about the money, isn't it?

All of the large cruise lines register their ships in foreign countries.  They cannot register them in the US because they are not built in US shipyards.  There have not been shipyards building large passenger vessels in the US for at least a generation.  Read the latest post from @chengkp75 in the thread linked above.  EM

[Earthworm Jim]

5 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

My point is I would personally be opposed to widening the loophole that allows avoidance of American crews and associated wage levels..

 

 

They're already avoiding American crews and associated wage levels. The group you're protecting is virtually non-existent among major cruise lines, save Norwegian's Pride of America.

[ontheweb]

If this was such a good idea, don't you think the CLIA would be lobbying for it? Instead they have no interest in having it repealed.

[skynight]

Suspension of the PVSA may help a little in getting the cruise line industry back, but I don't think it would be that significant. 

Believe the entire PVSA and related laws requiring construction, staffing and flagging could be reviewed and updated with an eye toward operating a profitable business, not an eye toward protectionism. Basically it isn't very profitable to construct and operate as a U.S. flagged vessel. If it was then there would be a lot more ships than the one large NCL vessel and the 10 or so small vessels. When you add both cargo and passenger ships together U.S. flagged and staffed vessels are less than 2% of the world's fleet. The number alone tells you something is out of balance in the regulations and tax laws.

Many corporations that operate successfully in the U.S. are incorporated in other countries. Cruise lines are just one of them. 

[pms4104]

1 hour ago, Essiesmom said:

Current thread on another board says it all

 

 

All of the large cruise lines register their ships in foreign countries.  They cannot register them in the US because they are not built in US shipyards.  There have not been shipyards building large passenger vessels in the US for at least a generation.  Read the latest post from @chengkp75 in the thread linked above.  EM

Yes, I am fully aware of all that ... makes me proud to pay my taxes

[hobbyfarmer2]

The PVSA was passed a very long time ago for specific purposes.  I think many are approaching this from the wrong angle.

 

I would list the pros and the cons.

 

For the pros, I would ask, has the act achieved its purpose?  The answer here seems to be a definite NO as the cruise line industry has many avbl loopholes to circumvent the act.

 

For the cons, I would ask, what is the Act costing the USA?

 

The cruise business is a business and should legally reduce its cost and taxes as a business.  No surprise that ships are not built or flagged in the USA when there are much better alternatives.

[frugaltravel]

The cruise lines built their bed. Now let them sleep in it. They wanted to avoid US tax and labor laws. Now they suffer the consequences.

 

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

They're already avoiding American crews and associated wage levels. The group you're protecting is virtually non-existent among major cruise lines, save Norwegian's Pride of America.

 

Yes, because of the international component in itineraries.  I would not be in favor or eliminating that requirement for reasons already given.   But I would be interested in listening to the pros & cons Hobbyfarmer refers to.  

Edited April 22, 2020 by ldubs

[cruising deacon]

9 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

I think you are asking me.  It is an interesting question.  The only difference I know of is the cruise you describe is in compliance with PVSA because of the foreign ports.  My point is I would personally be opposed to widening the loophole that allows avoidance of American crews and associated wage levels..

 

Whether that loophole should exist at all is a huge subject maybe for another discussion, though I think I can guess where most avid cruise passengers would stand on the subject.    

 

Edit: You know, I don't even know if wage/hour laws for land based employees apply to the maritime industry.  But I'm pretty comfortable that the wages paid to an American crew would be higher than those currently paid on cruise ships.  

Then let the cruise line hire an American crew, put our own citizens back to work, and charge the cruisers whatever the additional cost.  I would be in favor of that.

[Fat Albert]

The simple solution is the cruise lines need to be  Corporations of the country they want to home port in . The Australian PM told the ships to leave his country's shoreline, while the USA just allowed Princess to bring another ship to port. In the Philippines the Princess ship sailed there to disembark crew and they are being denied docking. The rules will change for the USA because the past health care system relied on the home port for most of crew medical needs and passenger too. We in the USA are not going to allow a virus to come into our shores like the Wuhan virus did so the cruise lines need to establish better medical control. The will need more medical staff and they will need to build hospitals on the small islands they have for private escape days and furnish them with staff for sick passengers and crew. These costs will destroy the business model for any profit. The smartest minds are now tryin to figure this out . I say we can start with each crusie line files to be a business in the country they home port and then follow the employment laws of that country and fly the flag of that country and pay that country their due taxes from revenue. So all ship from the US will have the US Flag flying. The workers can come from other countries but the labor laws will need to be changed  so they have the same rights and protections as all American have like Occupational safety and health requirements provided by the employer.. The foreign countries will have to provide for these workers to receive American workers rights even create a union for them so they get pensions and medical and dental like we do for all other occupations in America.

[Earthworm Jim]

30 minutes ago, cruising deacon said:

Then let the cruise line hire an American crew, put our own citizens back to work, and charge the cruisers whatever the additional cost.  I would be in favor of that.

 

That wouldn't help. The ship has to be built in the US to be American flagged, as I under stand it. Even Pride of America needed a waiver because most of the work was done in Germany after the US based shipyard failed and they was no other US shipyard capable of doing it.

[Earthworm Jim]

40 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

Yes, because of the international component in itineraries.  I would not be in favor or eliminating that requirement for reasons already given.   But I would be interested in listening to the pros & cons Hobbyfarmer refers to.  

 

Yeah, so how would letting them temporarily sail between US ports change any of that? They employ next to no US citizens now, and they'd employ next to no US citizens if they allowed this for a while. Where's the loss?

 

Short of starting a new US shipyard capable of building large cruise ships, the cruise lines couldn't create US flagged ships even if they wanted to.

[skynight]

1 hour ago, frugaltravel said:

The cruise lines built their bed. Now let them sleep in it. They wanted to avoid US tax and labor laws. Now they suffer the consequences.

 

What bed is that? They have operated efficiently as international businesses, just like other international business. 

[ldubs]

15 minutes ago, Earthworm Jim said:

 

Yeah, so how would letting them temporarily sail between US ports change any of that? They employ next to no US citizens now, and they'd employ next to no US citizens if they allowed this for a while. Where's the loss?

 

Short of starting a new US shipyard capable of building large cruise ships, the cruise lines couldn't create US flagged ships even if they wanted to.

 

I understand what you are saying, but conceptually we have to draw the line somewhere.  What we are talking about is a business operating solely on American soil (or ports in this case) and not subject to our wage/hour laws.  It does not matter that they are not a US company.  Other international companies operate on American soil and do not get an exempt from our laws.  This is an admittedly extreme example, but should we allow a business to bring non-US citizens to the US and pay them $2/hour to make shoes. There would be no loss to us because those would be the same people currently making the shoes in another country.  Our gain would be additional factory space, rents, etc. The answer is obviously not.   I realize the cruise industry is unique compared to land-based businesses, but at present I lean against giving up what little protection we have in place.   As said earlier I would be interested in a  discussion of pros & cons.  This is a hairy subject to be sure.      

[Hawaiidan]

13 hours ago, LARGIN said:

Not the Jones Act, it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act

 

The Jones act is kept  in place  by pressure from the Hawaiian politicians to protect 3shipping lines  MATSON  and HORIZON and Young brothers local....  Who are BIG contributors  to various politicians pockets.....  How do you think NCL  got a waiver to the Passenger Service act  to sail in Hawaii.....?????   Crooked Hawaiian politics..