Let's Think About Suspending the Jones Act.

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

 

He is going to defend the PVSA and Jones Act no matter what because he is a part of the special interests that benefits from those protectionist laws. He will always come up with an argument and rational. The PVSA and Jones Act need to be changed but not to help the cruise industry. They need to be changed to help Americans.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

I'll make one more statement about the Jones Act, and then leave it alone, since it is not pertinent to this thread.  The article you link makes mention of the decline in coastwise shipping, and how this increases the need for land transportation, with wear on the infrastructure and increased pollution.  What they don't mention is that a trucker pays a highway use tax once a year for each truck, regardless of how much freight that truck carries.  Shippers wanting to transport goods by sea along our coasts must pay a harbor maintenance tax based on the value of the goods when it is loaded on the ship, and again when it is discharged at the new port.  So, not only does the value of goods determine the tax on maritime freight, unlike the truck, but the tax is applied twice.  Maritime industry has been trying for decades to build the "short sea shipping initiative" where, with simply cutting the harbor maintenance tax to once per shipment, it would become financially viable to ship by sea, but guess who opposes this measure?  The trucking industry.  Seaborne freight is by far the most fuel efficient means of shipping, but we can't get this off the ground.  The maritime industry is such a powerful lobby?

[weedpindle]

20 hours ago, frugaltravel said:

Don't hate the cruise lines. Shows how little you know 😀. I don't like corporations avoiding (not evading) taxes then crying when they lose tons of money. It is the business model they set up. But obviously you don't know much about business.

 

You do realize that it's not about the taxes, it's about the crew wages that take them to foreign registrations for the ships, don't you.

Don't assume, it makes you look bad.

[cr8tiv1]

On 4/23/2020 at 3:14 PM, npcl said:

Gee I thought it was because the state set milk price pretty forced forced the dairies out of business.  Now you import milk, but because the time for shipping is so long you cannot just ship milk from the west coast and pay milk cost plus transportation charges (shelf life is only 7-10 days) so the milk is brought in and is then reprocessed/re-pasteurized, packaged and sold by the single company that doe it.  

 

25 years ago there were 17 dairies on Oahu, but the state milk pricing forced them put them out of business one by one.  There is still one dairy on the big island.

 

If you want to see how milk is handled impacts price compare the price of milk in Hawaii to the price in CA.  Then compare the price of Cheese in each location.

 

I also seem to recall an effort for a company to start up an inter-island ferry which would have reduced inter island costs, but that seems have gotten nixed by environmental groups. Every thing was arranged, the ferry was actually in the islands then it was killed.

 

As of this week, Meadow Gold (milk processing plant) is out of business.  The "buyer" will keep the Hawaii Island plant, but the one on Oahu will be gone.  Forget the milk; no more POG.

 

There were a lot of "issues" with the Ferry from both sides.   

Edited April 25, 2020 by cr8tiv1

[cr8tiv1]

On 4/22/2020 at 7:27 PM, caribill said:

 

NCL had three ships that met (after Congressional approval) the provisions and sailed around Hawaii without needing a foreign port stop.

a) They had a hard time finding Americans willing to work the long hours, even at American level wages.

b) Higher pricing meant people would not book the cruise. When pricing was lowered to get more passengers onto the ship, NCL could not make money.

 

The result is that they are down to just one cruise ship in Hawaii now.  Looking at some upcoming cruises, ten day cruises start at $340/night per person for an inside cabin. Seven day cruises go for $271/night per person for an inside cabin. Plus taxes/fees.

 

I do not know how many takers there are at these prices.

 

(Note that the above pricing is current pricing,. not brochure pricing)

 

Don't forget to add the airfare, night before the cruise hotel accommodations, and pre-cruise meals.  I'll take a Princess Cruise anytime with Cultural Ambassadors, shows, and good food.  And yes, I have done the inter-island cruise.

[jagoffee]

The existing law(s) prevents most cruise ships from doing cruises to no where, cruising  from one US port to a different US port, and cruising round trip from a US port without stopping at a near foreign port.

It is not necessarily important as to which law or the reason for the laws during this crisis.

Congress should approve a temporary change to the appropriate law IMO.

Why?

Because it will potentially be the safest way for Americans to cruise.  Cruise companies support many jobs (off the ship).  The jobs are important as is Americans  being able to partake in leisurely activity.   It also supports crew members from around the world and provides some relief for a hard hit industry.  The crew members and their families that have returned home must be in terrible shape financially.  
 

If everyone was tested before embarking on a ship (including the crew), many of us would be willing to just enjoy the ship.  Sometime in the future US cities may be the safest places to visit.  
 

If this change is only temporary, the protections built into the law will survive.

 

 

[wolfie11]

On 4/23/2020 at 9:15 PM, Charles4515 said:

 

He is going to defend the PVSA and Jones Act no matter what because he is a part of the special interests that benefits from those protectionist laws. He will always come up with an argument and rational. The PVSA and Jones Act need to be changed but not to help the cruise industry. They need to be changed to help Americans.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Actually, the Jones Act should not be changed because it really helps Americans. It was enacted in 1920 to address the problems the US had in WWI transporting and supplying troops to Europe.  It is in place as part of our national defense system.  We’re we to get rid of these acts, virtually all transportation of people and goods around the US could be taken over by whoever would do it the cheapest.  I don’t mind being a bit inconvenienced on my cruise if it means that in a time of war, the vessels who will be called on to transport supplies and the tankers that will keep the US Navy afloat are not all Chinese-flagged.

As for a US mariner being “protectionist” I don’t suppose you’d be very happy if someone from a third world country replaced you at your job and did it for half of what you’re being paid...

 

[chengkp75]

14 minutes ago, wolfie11 said:

Actually, the Jones Act should not be changed because it really helps Americans. It was enacted in 1920 to address the problems the US had in WWI transporting and supplying troops to Europe.

Actually, the Jones Act was passed to protect the interests of US shipowners in the Pacific Northwest, at a time when shipments between the lower 48 and Alaska were being taken over by Canadian shipping.  It really had nothing to do with national security, or transporting supplies or troops in war.

 

I believe you are thinking of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, which was proposed by Franklin Roosevelt to stimulate the US Merchant Marine at a time when he knew we would need the largest merchant marine in the world to prosecute WW2.

 

And, you are correct as far as national security is concerned.  As the Gulf War showed, when US military supplies were being shipped to Saudi Arabia on foreign flag ships, many of those ships refused to enter the war zone, leaving the troops without vital supplies, while all US flag ships went.

 

Do we really want ferries in the US to be operated as they are in Korea or the Philippines, or Indonesia, where sinkings are almost a routine occurrence?

[Charles4515]

Actually, the Jones Act should not be changed because it really helps Americans. It was enacted in 1920 to address the problems the US had in WWI transporting and supplying troops to Europe.  It is in place as part of our national defense system.  We’re we to get rid of these acts, virtually all transportation of people and goods around the US could be taken over by whoever would do it the cheapest.  I don’t mind being a bit inconvenienced on my cruise if it means that in a time of war, the vessels who will be called on to transport supplies and the tankers that will keep the US Navy afloat are not all Chinese-flagged. 

As for a US mariner being “protectionist” I don’t suppose you’d be very happy if someone from a third world country replaced you at your job and did it for half of what you’re being paid...

 

 

 

The Jones Act is really off topic to cruises. As far as the Jones Act there are many good arguments against the Jones Act and the security argument in this article https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear

 

Yes, I mentioned that our mariner contributor has a special interest in supporting the Jones Act. The act is great for the special interests but not for all Americans.

 

I am not in favor of suspending the PSVA to support any special interest of cruise lines although they don’t seem to think repealing it is in their interest. Only some cruise pundits here are hot on that. Jones Act and PSA are a red herring to the current situation.

 

 

 

 Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

[jagoffee]

58 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

The Jones Act is really off topic to cruises. As far as the Jones Act there are many good arguments against the Jones Act and the security argument in this article https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear

 

Yes, I mentioned that our mariner contributor has a special interest in supporting the Jones Act. The act is great for the special interests but not for all Americans.

 

I am not in favor of suspending the PSVA to support any special interest of cruise lines although they don’t seem to think repealing it is in their interest. Only some cruise pundits here are hot on that. Jones Act and PSA are a red herring to the current situation.

 

 

 

 Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

I was suggesting a temporary adjustment for the benefit and safety of fellow Americans and those affected by loss of jobs.

Edited April 28, 2020 by jagoffee

[caribill]

10 hours ago, jagoffee said:

If everyone was tested before embarking on a ship (including the crew), many of us would be willing to just enjoy the ship.  Sometime in the future US cities may be the safest places to visit. 

 

 

Someone who has recently acquired the virus may not show positive status yet when it is embarkation time.

 

All the tests have some false positives and some false negatives.

 

And even if everyone on the ship is virus free, the people that passengers encounter at port stops may not be.

[Charles4515]

I was suggesting a temporary adjustment for the benefit and safety of fellow Americans and those affected by loss of jobs.

While I think in the long run those laws need change I don’t see any safety benefit or job benefit to a temporary adjustment. What Americans need is a social safety net to get us through economic or national disasters. Thinking cruise ships not having to comply with the PSVA is going to have an impact is off kilter.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[jagoffee]

21 hours ago, caribill said:

 

Someone who has recently acquired the virus may not show positive status yet when it is embarkation time.

 

All the tests have some false positives and some false negatives.

 

And even if everyone on the ship is virus free, the people that passengers encounter at port stops may not be.

Yep, you would need to be tested every time that you returned to the ship.

[caribill]

1 hour ago, jagoffee said:

Yep, you would need to be tested every time that you returned to the ship.

 

If you were infected at a port stop, a test would not show positive until 5 to 14 days later. And if you did not show symptoms during that time but had the virus, you could infect other passengers if still on the ship or people on shore once the cruise ends.

[jagoffee]

9 hours ago, caribill said:

 

If you were infected at a port stop, a test would not show positive until 5 to 14 days later. And if you did not show symptoms during that time but had the virus, you could infect other passengers if still on the ship or people on shore once the cruise ends.

Really?  You are saying people that are infected, do not test positive for the virus until 5 to 14 days after they are infected?  
I find that hard to believe, but I will do some research.  I cannot even imagine that they would have completed trials to determine such a thing.  Perhaps your 5 to 14 day number is how long it might take people to show symptoms?  Thus is reference to temperature checks?

You do have a good point that the test might not be immediate.

 

Let’s hope the world experts can break the barrier of creating the first effective COVID virus vaccine.  It will be the first time ever.  

[chengkp75]

58 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

Really?  You are saying people that are infected, do not test positive for the virus until 5 to 14 days after they are infected?  
I find that hard to believe, but I will do some research.  I cannot even imagine that they would have completed trials to determine such a thing.  Perhaps your 5 to 14 day number is how long it might take people to show symptoms?  Thus is reference to temperature checks?

You do have a good point that the test might not be immediate.

 

Let’s hope the world experts can break the barrier of creating the first effective COVID virus vaccine.  It will be the first time ever.  

Currently, they do not know how soon after being exposed to the virus that someone becomes contagious, nor how soon the virus is detectable to testing.  This is "false negative" testing, and there is significant worry about this, and warnings about not relying on a negative test to determine the best treatment for someone who feels they have been exposed.

[land lover]

OMG the old PVSA..every time I see this it brings back memories...Yes,  paid a fee of 300 bucks to allow my to friend disembark a RCI ship, back in 2008. If anyone is curious I'll relay the story...

 

Has anyone else had to pay the fee?.....I see it has gone up in recent years...

 

The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (sometimes abbreviated to PVSA, Passenger Services Act, or PSA) is a protectionist piece of United States legislation which came into force in 1886 relating to cabotage. Essentially, it says:

No foreign vessels shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $200 [now $762] for each passenger so transported and landed.

BTW....I so hate it, when people call it the J😵nes Act....after getting stuck paying the fee I really would prefer that people know what they are talking about...LOL

 

Didn't read any posts....so sorry if my question about anyone having to pay the fee has been answered....

Edited May 1, 2020 by land lover

[npcl]

On 4/29/2020 at 9:11 AM, chengkp75 said:

Currently, they do not know how soon after being exposed to the virus that someone becomes contagious, nor how soon the virus is detectable to testing.  This is "false negative" testing, and there is significant worry about this, and warnings about not relying on a negative test to determine the best treatment for someone who feels they have been exposed.

In addition there are numerous cases where people are showing symptoms, even serious ones, test negative more than once only to test positive a few days later.

[Robinsoncruiseso]

On 4/22/2020 at 3:46 AM, HUNKY said:

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.

IF a cruise ship were able to get a waiver for not being built in the US (as did NCL POA) and was flagged in the US, it would have to carry a staff of at least 75% US citizens and up to 25% Permanent US Residents (Green Card).  It could have some on work visas but that would reduce the amount of Permanent Residents.  Take a look at some US flagged ships.  How about the new VIking Mississippi cruises, or American Cruise Line.  Better yet, price out a one way trip from Bellingham to Juneau with bunk beds and no meals on the Alaska Ferry.  You will see that it would price out many of the current cruisers. Even those that could comfortably afford may no longer see the value of the cruise.  Oh, and it is not only the labor laws, but also the coast guard regulations which would greatly hamper the schedules of the cruise lines.

[Charles4515]

IF a cruise ship were able to get a waiver for not being built in the US (as did NCL POA) and was flagged in the US, it would have to carry a staff of at least 75% US citizens and up to 25% Permanent US Residents (Green Card).  It could have some on work visas but that would reduce the amount of Permanent Residents.  Take a look at some US flagged ships.  How about the new VIking Mississippi cruises, or American Cruise Line.  Better yet, price out a one way trip from Bellingham to Juneau with bunk beds and no meals on the Alaska Ferry.  You will see that it would price out many of the current cruisers. Even those that could comfortably afford may no longer see the value of the cruise.  Oh, and it is not only the labor laws, but also the coast guard regulations which would greatly hamper the schedules of the cruise lines.

Don’t assume prices will be much higher. Price will be set by supply and demand. The cruise lines would take less profits, and the cruise line executives might have to give up their $18 million dollar bonuses. Not a bad thing. Following the NCL Hawaii template is what I think should be done. A waiver so they can use their current fleets. Make them flag in the US and follow US laws. The crew should be US citizens and legal immigrants.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

 

Don’t assume prices will be much higher. Price will be set by supply and demand. The cruise lines would take less profits, and the cruise line executives might have to give up their $18 million dollar bonuses. Not a bad thing. Following the NCL Hawaii template is what I think should be done. A waiver so they can use their current fleets. Make them flag in the US and follow US laws. The crew should be US citizens and legal immigrants.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

So, why then is a 7 day cruise on POA more than a 12-14 day cruise to Hawaii from the West Coast on a foreign flag ship?  And throw in that the cruise from the West Coast burns about 3 times the fuel that the POA cruise does.  Don't you think NCL would drop the price to have kept more than one ship in the trade if there was room in the budget?  The ships were all sailing near capacity, and NCL was losing $174 million a year.  As much of a supporter of the Jones Act and PVSA as I am, NCL's Hawaii operation is a market aberration, and there is no way that a US flag fleet of cruise ships would be economically viable outside of that single instance.

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

 

Don’t assume prices will be much higher. Price will be set by supply and demand. The cruise lines would take less profits, and the cruise line executives might have to give up their $18 million dollar bonuses. Not a bad thing. Following the NCL Hawaii template is what I think should be done. A waiver so they can use their current fleets. Make them flag in the US and follow US laws. The crew should be US citizens and legal immigrants.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

I agree with your first statement about supply and demand determining prices. I don't agree with the rest as I do not think they could get enough employees who are willing to work both the hours and the high service demand required of them. In addition to the extra wages, IIRC that was also a problem NCL originally had with their fleet in Hawaii.

[Charles4515]

So, why then is a 7 day cruise on POA more than a 12-14 day cruise to Hawaii from the West Coast on a foreign flag ship?  And throw in that the cruise from the West Coast burns about 3 times the fuel that the POA cruise does.  Don't you think NCL would drop the price to have kept more than one ship in the trade if there was room in the budget?  The ships were all sailing near capacity, and NCL was losing $174 million a year.  As much of a supporter of the Jones Act and PVSA as I am, NCL's Hawaii operation is a market aberration, and there is no way that a US flag fleet of cruise ships would be economically viable outside of that single instance.

NCL didn’t have any competition for those 7 day Hawaii cruises so the supply was limited. The demand was also limited. It makes more sense for most to do Hawaii as a land vacation.

We looked at booking a Hawaii cruise and the NCL Hawaii itinerary in Hawaii looked better to us than those 14 day cruises. We would fly to Hawaii spend few days in Oahu and then cruise. We thought the 7 day would have been worth the price. In the end though we thought for Hawaii a land vacation made more sense than a cruise.

Saying 14 days should be less than 7 days is not the way it works. For example last summer I took an 11 day New England/Bermuda cruise and the cost was half what I usually pay for a 7 day Bermuda sailing. I booked it for Bermuda not the US ports. And while the US ports were okay I would not book a 7 day cruise only to those US ports if it were allowed. Cruise lines would be losing money on those itineraries like NCL was on Hawaii. While some cruise fans say they only want to be on a ship and don’t care about itinerary I don’t don’t think that is the case with the general public. They don’t want 7 day cruises to no where. When ports are canceled passengers scream bloody murder. One Princess Cruise I was on only made one port because of weather and it seemed like there might be a mutiny.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Charles4515]

I agree with your first statement about supply and demand determining prices. I don't agree with the rest as I do not think they could get enough employees who are willing to work both the hours and the high service demand required of them. In addition to the extra wages, IIRC that was also a problem NCL originally had with their fleet in Hawaii.

Then there are too many hours. As for high service I think US workers can give high service. I have received plenty of high service from workers in the US. It is like the argument that US workers could not build good cars in the US. It was the US auto companies that could not build good cars not the workers.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Charles4515 said:

Saying 14 days should be less than 7 days is not the way it works.

Never said the 14 day cruise should be less, I said it is.  So, with increased fuel cost and less crew cost, they can offer 14 days worth of food and service for less than POA can offer for 7 days.  

 

First you say the supply was limited, so I guess you feel the price was high due to lack of supply?  Then you say the demand was low, so that should have reduced price.  Which way was it?  And the demand was so high that not only were the ships sailing near capacity every week, but the other cruise lines had increased their capacity to Hawaii from the West Coast by 500% during the time that NCL had 3 ships in Hawaii.

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

Then there are too many hours. As for high service I think US workers can give high service. I have received plenty of high service from workers in the US. It is like the argument that US workers could not build good cars in the US. It was the US auto companies that could not build good cars not the workers.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

So, then you increase the number of crew, raising the crewing cost even higher, and you still expect the cruise fares to be comparable?  You need to understand the same thing NCL learned when they first started with US labor.  In the maritime field, overtime is the cheapest labor there is.  While it may be 125 to 150% of straight time wages, when you take those hours away from one worker and add them to a new worker, you are now adding a second set of benefits, that cost more than the difference in overtime.  In addition to adding even more crew to cook and serve that larger crew.

 

Sure, US workers can give high service.  Just not for minimum wage.  The vast majority of crew on the POA is earning just that, minimum wage.

 

Also, there is a vast difference between crew training and certification for foreign flag cruise ships, and US flag cruise ships.  According to the IMO, all hotel staff on foreign flag cruise ships only need to receive a 4 hour class onboard of "personal safety and social responsibility" as their only statutory training.  So, when a foreign dishwasher gets injured or quits, all the company needs to do is call the crewing agency in the Philippines and have another warm body flown to the ship.  The USCG requires that "all crew members assigned an emergency duty" (which means everybody onboard except the guest entertainers, because all crew are listed on the "station bill" or emergency duty list), must be a fully credentialed merchant mariner, which requires a 40 hour, USCG approved training location, class in Basic Safety Training, and a TWIC (Transportation Worker Identification Card), both of which cost, and the Merchant Mariners Credential also costs, and takes time (the TWIC requires an FBI background check).  So, someone goes and gets all of these documents and training, and then hopes to be hired by the cruise line?  Or, the cruise line pays for the person to get all this, and then that person has to sit around waiting to fill a potential position, without pay?  What I am saying is there is no pool of trained crew that can be hired to fill positions on US flag cruise ships.  This is one of the many challenges that NCL went through, and are still going through, with their Hawaii operation, when one crew quits, the ship generally sails short handed until new crew can be certified.