The Future Of The Pride Of America

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, bob brown said:

Since that "wiggle room", does not specifically rule out US coastwise cruises not in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, or the Caribbean, could that mean that it could sail between WA, OR, and CA; or the US Atlantic Coast?

I've seen some legal opinions both ways.  I'm sure that Blount and American Cruise Lines would have some opinion about this.

[bob brown]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I've seen some legal opinions both ways.  I'm sure that Blount and American Cruise Lines would have some opinion about this.

I am sure you are right about that...😉

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, bob brown said:

I am sure you are right about that...😉

And they would have substantial legal status to fight this, as they are completely PVSA compliant, and providing the same routes. PVSA exemptions are only allowed if there is no compliant US operation.

[bob brown]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

And they would have substantial legal status to fight this, as they are completely PVSA compliant, and providing the same routes. PVSA exemptions are only allowed if there is no compliant US operation.

Excellent point! That should settle it, right there...

[98420934]

it is my understanding that PVSA exemptions can be modified by congress, but please correct me if my understanding is incorrect. In these "unprecedented times", an unprecedented modification to the PoA's exemption would not seem to be beyond the realm of possibility. No doubt any such modification would be temporary, to assuage the concerns of those operators normally present in Alaska.

 

It might be in the company's interest to lobby for such a modification, especially if Alaska were to permit cruising to restart before Hawaii. Better to have the ship working in Alaska than sitting at anchor in Hawaii, from the company's perspective.

 

I wonder if Alaska's government would agree from an economic perspective, and would support such a modification in Washington DC.

 

It would certainly be an expensive Alaska cruise! But with so few other ships operating, perhaps the demand would support it… Interesting ideas. Thanks to the posters above for bringing it up.

 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, 98420934 said:

it is my understanding that PVSA exemptions can be modified by congress,

You are correct, but do you think that this would be at the top of the agenda right now?  And do you think there is sufficient support in Congress to pass this?  I frankly don't see it, and with the Alaskan Marine Highway's current budget struggles, they would have something to say about it, or about getting subsidies to equal the playing field.

[farmersfight]

On 2/3/2021 at 6:25 AM, chengkp75 said:

While the POA generates the most revenue of all NCL's ships, it is far from the most profitable, and barely breaks even most quarters.

 

Got to keep all those U.S. mariners handsomely paid...

[farmersfight]

On 2/7/2021 at 9:56 AM, bob brown said:

Since that "wiggle room", does not specifically rule out US coastwise cruises not in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, or the Caribbean, could that mean that it could sail between WA, OR, and CA; or the US Atlantic Coast?

 

I had the exact same thought. From the wording, it seems like these U.S. coastal routes would be legal. However, from a business perspective, I'm sure the PoA would generate far more revenue operating in her normal Hawaiian trade than sailing up or down the U.S. Pacific or Atlantic coast.

Edited February 10, 2021 by farmersfight

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, farmersfight said:

 

Got to keep all those U.S. mariners handsomely paid...

While every crewmember on the POA is a credentialed mariner (unlike foreign flag cruise ships), the pay for the vast majority of crew is minimum wage.  Most could do as well or better flipping burgers at MickeyD's and living at home.  And, even the deck and engine pay scales are low.  When I was there, at the start up, the overtime rate for deck and engine ratings was $0.35 less than their straight time rate (as allowed by their CBA).  And, the pay scale is so low, the unions have to force new members to take the cruise ship jobs, and don't allow them to take any other job as long as there is a POA job open.  One of the real costs of US crew on a cruise ship is the documentation:  each crew member needs a Merchant Mariner Credential (with the associated FBI background check), a TWIC card, Basic Safety Training (a 40 hour course, not the 4 hour "Personal Safety and Social Responsibility" course that is the STCW requirement).  And, then there needs to be a pool of credentialed hotel staff (whose positions are not on cargo ships) to take positions when someone quits, gets fired, or sick or injured.  Since there is no such pool, this is why the POA sails short handed almost all the time.

Edited February 10, 2021 by chengkp75

[bob brown]

18 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And, then there needs to be a pool of credentialed hotel staff (whose positions are not on cargo ships) to take positions when someone quits, gets fired, or sick or injured.  Since there is no such pool, this is why the POA sails short handed almost all the time.

Interesting info...

While there is only a miniscule number, don't cargo ships have cooks, and cabin stewards, to serve the crew,  too?   Wouldn't they come from a similar "pool"?

 

As for the POA, this short-handed situation must account for some perception's of negative crew attitudes...would be hard to blame them, if it is the norm...

[chengkp75]

6 minutes ago, bob brown said:

Interesting info...

While there is only a miniscule number, don't cargo ships have cooks, and cabin stewards, to serve the crew,  too?   Wouldn't they come from a similar "pool"?

 

As for the POA, this short-handed situation must account for some perception's of negative crew attitudes...would be hard to blame them, if it is the norm...

The "steward's department" on a cargo ship typically consists of 3 people:  a Chief Steward who orders the supplies, makes the menus, and typically cooks breakfast, a Chief Cook who cooks the other two meals, and a Steward Assistant, who washes dishes and cleans the officers' cabins.

 

And, as I said, the wages on cruise ships are well below what is paid on cargo ships, so the steward's department personnel are not interested in taking the cruise ship jobs.  Further challenging things is that the deck/engine crew and the hotel crew are represented by two different (though affiliated) unions.

 

In the 4 years that I worked with NCL, we had 1 ship in Hawaii for 4 years, 2 ships there for about 3 years, and 3 ships for 2 years.  Total crew between the 3 ships was about 2800, and the company went through about 10,000 crew in that time.

Edited February 10, 2021 by chengkp75

[bob brown]

Perhaps, the PVSA could be amended to allow foreign flagged ships to be reflagged as US Registered, provided they comply with all that would entail, except for the US - built requirement? 

That way, for a few ships, at least, more US mariner jobs would be provided, and US tax revenues increased, as well.   

And perhaps for the future, those tax gains could be applied to support US ship building, to give them an even playing field to compete against foreign shipyards?

 

I am not sure if the extra costs to do this, would attract much such conversion, but it might for at least a few ships...

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, bob brown said:

Perhaps, the PVSA could be amended to allow foreign flagged ships to be reflagged as US Registered, provided they comply with all that would entail, except for the US - built requirement? 

That way, for a few ships, at least, more US mariner jobs would be provided, and US tax revenues increased, as well.   

And perhaps for the future, those tax gains could be applied to support US ship building, to give them an even playing field to compete against foreign shipyards?

 

I am not sure if the extra costs to do this, would attract much such conversion, but it might for at least a few ships...

Sure it could, but those "all that would entail" are the additional operating costs, costs that even the US Maritime Administration (the agency mandated to promote US shipping has estimated at 3-4 times what a foreign flag ship costs to operate.  That is without any consideration of construction cost differences.  And, of that 3 times higher cost, crew cost is estimated to be about 5 times higher for US flag than foreign.  And that study was done for cargo ships with crews of 20-30, not thousands.

 

So, what cruise line do you see that would want to either absorb 3 times the operating cost, or raise fares to cover 300% operating costs, and keep their customers?  I don't think many, if any, would.

 

As for our shipbuilding industry, subsidies are what killed it.  The Merchant Marine Act of 1936, not the Jones Act or the PVSA, is what killed both shipbuilding and shipping in the US.  This act did exactly what it was intended to do by President Roosevelt, to build the US merchant fleet to levels that would be needed in the coming war.  It paid a subsidy to the shipowner for the difference in cost to build a ship in the US versus a foreign yard.  It also paid a subsidy to the shipowner for the difference in operating cost between US flag and foreign flag.

 

After the war, the shipyards, shipowners, and maritime labor saw how to "game" the system to their mutual advantage.  Shipyards did not invest in new technology to improve their productivity, since that was their cost.  Instead, they used expensive US labor, in inefficient methods, and as prices rose, they merely passed the difference on to the US government, and the subsidy rose.  Likewise, shipowners and maritime labor didn't bother to invest in more efficient motor ships, instead relying on steam ships long after the rest of the world dropped them, because the additional operating cost was passed to the US taxpayer.  Labor's contribution to this was to request continual wage increases, and the shipowners said "Fine", and passed the additional cost to the US taxpayer.

 

President Reagan abolished the construction and operating subsidies, and US maritime labor has struggled ever since to regain balance with the rest of the world.  The shipbuilding industry, however, never tried to rebound from the sudden lack of US commercial ships being built, and concentrated instead on US Navy work, where again, profit and cost overruns are secondary to doing the job.  Our shipyards have lost almost all chance of ever being competitive again with overseas yards.  Those that do build Jones Act shipping, import most of the ships (the tankers I work on are Jones Act tankers, and are considered to be "US built", but only the hull steel was made in the US, the rest being shipped over in pre-assembled modules from Korea) from overseas in order to make even the protected industry work.

[farmersfight]

6 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

While every crewmember on the POA is a credentialed mariner (unlike foreign flag cruise ships), the pay for the vast majority of crew is minimum wage.  Most could do as well or better flipping burgers at MickeyD's and living at home.  And, even the deck and engine pay scales are low.  When I was there, at the start up, the overtime rate for deck and engine ratings was $0.35 less than their straight time rate (as allowed by their CBA).  And, the pay scale is so low, the unions have to force new members to take the cruise ship jobs, and don't allow them to take any other job as long as there is a POA job open.  One of the real costs of US crew on a cruise ship is the documentation:  each crew member needs a Merchant Mariner Credential (with the associated FBI background check), a TWIC card, Basic Safety Training (a 40 hour course, not the 4 hour "Personal Safety and Social Responsibility" course that is the STCW requirement).  And, then there needs to be a pool of credentialed hotel staff (whose positions are not on cargo ships) to take positions when someone quits, gets fired, or sick or injured.  Since there is no such pool, this is why the POA sails short handed almost all the time.

 

Thanks @chengkp75. Great information from someone who was there. Were you a licensed engineer onboard?

 

I'm really surprised that the deck and engine pay scale is so low, especially since they are union jobs. Sounds like that union needs to enter into a better CBA. I never heard of an overtime rate being less than the straight time rate. Hard to believe a union would agree to that.

 

Interesting what you said about the PoA sailing short of hotel staff almost all the time. This has got to affect customer service. Fingers crossed 🤞 that the customer service is still good (at least), as I am booked on her Oct 23-30, 2021.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, farmersfight said:

 

Thanks @chengkp75. Great information from someone who was there. Were you a licensed engineer onboard?

 

I'm really surprised that the deck and engine pay scale is so low, especially since they are union jobs. Sounds like that union needs to enter into a better CBA. I never heard of an overtime rate being less than the straight time rate. Hard to believe a union would agree to that.

 

Interesting what you said about the PoA sailing short of hotel staff almost all the time. This has got to affect customer service. Fingers crossed 🤞 that the customer service is still good (at least), as I am booked on her Oct 23-30, 2021.

Yes, I sailed as First Engineer, Staff Chief and Chief.  The way that the contracts worked was that when NCL was negotiating with the various unions, they stated: "here is the manning scale, and here is our payroll budget, you make it work as far as pay scale goes".  So, for the unlicensed crew, the base rate was lowered to the point where only new members would accept, and the overtime rate was lowered to meet the budget.  After about 3 months, when we were not getting crew to  work overtime, we revisited the CBA to  raise the overtime rate to 125% of  the straight time.  The union was more interested in getting the jobs from 3 ships (and large complements of deck/engine to boot) over doing anything for their members.  Welcome to US maritime labor unions.

[bob brown]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

The union was more interested in getting the jobs from 3 ships (and large complements of deck/engine to boot) over doing anything for their members.  Welcome to US maritime labor unions.

Sounds all too familiar...

Union officials are more interested in empire building, as in drawing in more and more crafts, not even remotely like their original core craft, to inflate their membership, and consequently, dues, and executive compensation; rather than fight for rank and file benefits.   Or, in some cases, they take care of their "core", at the expense of the newly acquired crafts.  Sometimes they do this just to survive, in a shrinking industry, but often they will corruptly make "sweetheart deals" with these other industry owners....

 

Sorry for the rant...

[98420934]

12 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

You are correct, but do you think that this would be at the top of the agenda right now?  And do you think there is sufficient support in Congress to pass this?  I frankly don't see it, and with the Alaskan Marine Highway's current budget struggles, they would have something to say about it, or about getting subsidies to equal the playing field.

Good questions! My discussion was about the idea that exemptions can be changed, which does appear to be an option for this particular ship.

 

Of course, whether or not that option is likely to occur is a different matter entirely. I agree completely that this would be extremely unlikely in pre- or post-pandemic situations.

 

It does seem interesting, and relevant, that many unusual and unprecedented things have been happening recently, things which would not be able to happen normally. I wonder if allowing this US flag vessel to serve and bring tourist dollars to US ports during a challenging economic time for those ports would be seen as a positive by many stakeholders.

 

I also agree that it would be difficult or impossible to lobby for such a change on a permanent basis. However, I wonder if any such change in exemption would be much easier to sell on a temporary basis, limited to the period of time during which operations in Alaska are curtailed as a result of the Canadian restrictions.

 

Of course, this scenario could only come to pass if Alaska cruising were to start up before Hawaii cruising… 

[BruceMuzz]

On 2/11/2021 at 4:08 AM, farmersfight said:

 

Thanks @chengkp75. Great information from someone who was there. Were you a licensed engineer onboard?

 

I'm really surprised that the deck and engine pay scale is so low, especially since they are union jobs. Sounds like that union needs to enter into a better CBA. I never heard of an overtime rate being less than the straight time rate. Hard to believe a union would agree to that.

 

Interesting what you said about the PoA sailing short of hotel staff almost all the time. This has got to affect customer service. Fingers crossed 🤞 that the customer service is still good (at least), as I am booked on her Oct 23-30, 2021.

The entire system for hiring hotel service staff for an American Flag ship just doesn’t work.

Total earning packages for good waiters, barmen, cooks, or cabin stewards on an American ship are substantially lower than on land. Good / talented performers will not even try to get the jobs.

Most applicants for American cruise ship jobs are inexperienced college kids who are tired of working at McDonalds - or couldn’t get a job at McDonalds.  

American flag ships cannot hire people with criminal records. A surprising number of Americans who apply to work on American flag cruise ships have criminal records.

Applicants for work on any cruise ship must pass a drug test. A surprising number of American applicants cannot pass the test.

Once we get past the criminal record and drug test hurdles, the cruise line must pay the FBI to investigate the applicant’s criminal record in all 50 states. Last time I did this, the cost was $1100 per applicant. A surprising number of American applicants who claim that they have no criminal background actually do, and are disqualified. 

Finally, the criminal background investigation can take as long as 11 months. The potential hire cannot work on the ship until the investigation is completed and the Merchant Mariner Card is issued.

So you finally find an applicant who is qualified, can pass a drug test, and has no criminal background. Then you tell him that he must go home and wait any number of months until his MMC card arrives. His reply? He immediately goes over to a land-based employer who will not only pay him more, but will let him start work tomorrow. 

 

At NCL America the problems were more complex. They couldn’t hire and vett service staff as fast as they were firing them. American Flag ships have a minimum manning requirement that is quite high. If the ship does not meet the minimum manning number, it cannot legally sail with passengers. The crew knows that and uses it to their advantage. On the Pride of Aloha, when a waiter was terminated for failing a random drug test or punching a passenger, he would just laugh and say, “I will be back tomorrow”. And he was correct. The company had no available replacements for him, and could not legally sail without him. The company was forced to ask him to come back the next day.

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, BruceMuzz said:

American Flag ships have a minimum manning requirement that is quite high. If the ship does not meet the minimum manning number, it cannot legally sail with passengers. The crew knows that and uses it to their advantage. On the Pride of Aloha, when a waiter was terminated for failing a random drug test or punching a passenger, he would just laugh and say, “I will be back tomorrow”. And he was correct. The company had no available replacements for him, and could not legally sail without him. The company was forced to ask him to come back the next day.

Bruce, I worked on the Aloha for the entire time it was under US flag, and I don't remember it this way at all.  Most of the turn-over was quitting, but setting that aside.  The minimum manning, even to carry passengers was well below the total manning, as there were always at least 100-200 crew whose assigned emergency duty was "assist as directed", and those billets are not considered required.  I don't remember any minimum manning for passengers.  The DOI listed the minimum manning, and that was all deck and engine personnel.  There was a requirement for a minimum number of lifeboatmen that were not deck or engine, but that was only 32, so without the required number of lifeboatmen, yes they couldn't sail.  I remember sitting on many Staff Captain's Mast sessions where we terminated crew, and I can tell you that failing a drug test did not get someone asked back, as the company has a designated person ashore who is notified of all positive drug tests, and this places that person as well as the company liable for fines if the crew member is allowed to remain onboard.

 

But, otherwise I do agree with your description of recruiting.  It cost the company, on average, $10,000 just to get a new crew member to the ship for their first day of work.

[Donald]

13 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Bruce, I worked on the Aloha for the entire time it was under US flag, and I don't remember it this way at all.  Most of the turn-over was quitting, but setting that aside.  The minimum manning, even to carry passengers was well below the total manning, as there were always at least 100-200 crew whose assigned emergency duty was "assist as directed", and those billets are not considered required.  I don't remember any minimum manning for passengers.  The DOI listed the minimum manning, and that was all deck and engine personnel.  There was a requirement for a minimum number of lifeboatmen that were not deck or engine, but that was only 32, so without the required number of lifeboatmen, yes they couldn't sail.  I remember sitting on many Staff Captain's Mast sessions where we terminated crew, and I can tell you that failing a drug test did not get someone asked back, as the company has a designated person ashore who is notified of all positive drug tests, and this places that person as well as the company liable for fines if the crew member is allowed to remain onboard.

 

But, otherwise I do agree with your description of recruiting.  It cost the company, on average, $10,000 just to get a new crew member to the ship for their first day of work.

I was also there.

I remember when the Captain was so fed up with firing Hotel crew that he turned it over to the Hotel Manager - just before the Captain was fired himself.

Then we had all of the people working in the office - just across the street - apply for Merchant Mariner Cards and keep a traveling bag near their desks. This was done so we could quickly put them on the ship as crew when the crew counts fell below the legal minimums, due to the high number of terminations (and resignations). American Hawaii Cruises previously had to do the same thing.   I remember that both cruise lines had far more terminations for alcohol than for drugs, but the high numbers were shocking in both companies.

Having worked for both American Hawaii Cruises and NCL America, I was initially surprised at the number of limousines pulling up near the ships, thinking that it was VIP passengers arriving. I quickly learned that it was actually drug dealers coming to sell their wares to the crew near the pier.

[sugcarol]

5 hours ago, Donald said:

I was also there.

I remember when the Captain was so fed up with firing Hotel crew that he turned it over to the Hotel Manager - just before the Captain was fired himself.

Then we had all of the people working in the office - just across the street - apply for Merchant Mariner Cards and keep a traveling bag near their desks. This was done so we could quickly put them on the ship as crew when the crew counts fell below the legal minimums, due to the high number of terminations (and resignations). American Hawaii Cruises previously had to do the same thing.   I remember that both cruise lines had far more terminations for alcohol than for drugs, but the high numbers were shocking in both companies.

Having worked for both American Hawaii Cruises and NCL America, I was initially surprised at the number of limousines pulling up near the ships, thinking that it was VIP passengers arriving. I quickly learned that it was actually drug dealers coming to sell their wares to the crew near the pier.

My husband and I sailed SS Constitution for our 20th anniversary in 1983. It was a glorious for us. My beloved husband passed away 2 years ago on our 56th anniversary. I decided to book POA for myself and disabled son 11/27/21. I so hope that we can take this cruise.

[bob brown]

I find these accounts of American worker's very discouraging.   If this is really widespread, it is no wonder that cruise lines have to staff with "third world" hands, who's unfortunate home situation makes them appreciate these cruise jobs...🙁

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, bob brown said:

I find these accounts of American worker's very discouraging.   If this is really widespread, it is no wonder that cruise lines have to staff with "third world" hands, who's unfortunate home situation makes them appreciate these cruise jobs...🙁

International crew come from countries that have a long history of "guest workers", where the people go to foreign countries for long stints of better paying work than is available at home.  This has created a "culture" of guest "workership" where this is understood and accepted.

 

Unfortunately, most young US people are not experienced with this.  Most have never spent more than a few days away from home (for a vacation), most that would be taking these service industry jobs have not gone to college and experienced sharing a room with a stranger, let alone a tiny cabin with 3 strangers.  Most US workers expect a 5 day work week, and an 8 hour day.  And, most importantly, these workers are not used to having the threat of random drug and alcohol testing hanging over them.  Certainly not where the drug and alcohol testing and limitations that apply 24/7, not only at the worker's place of work but also "where they live", since on a ship those are the same places.

 

The old days of partying hard on cruise ships by crew went away with the drug and alcohol testing of the 90's, but the non-maritime US workers are not used to these limits and the numbers of firings for alcohol use was incredible.  We even had problems with licensed officers that could not keep up the 0% alcohol limit on watchkeeping officers the entire time they were assigned to the ship, and were fired.

[philv]

I hope the POA stays right where it is for the foreseeable future. It is such a unique itinerary, I'd hate to lose it, especially before my cruise in September. 😉

[CruiserBruce]

9 hours ago, philv said:

I hope the POA stays right where it is for the foreseeable future. It is such a unique itinerary, I'd hate to lose it, especially before my cruise in September. 😉

Due to it's special exemptions, it is very unlikely its going anywhere.