Canada extends ban.....we need US options!

[njhorseman]

59 minutes ago, bigmjh said:

I'm sure that your MIA > SF cruise made other stops along the way that qualified as "distant" foreign ports.

Typically those types of itineraries...and I've done several...will include one or more of the ABC islands, which will satisfy the distant foreign port requirement.

[clo]

40 minutes ago, YoHoHo said:

Columbia

I was actually confused and not criticizing spelling. It's ColOmbia.

[Hlitner]

On 2/7/2021 at 3:56 PM, Mountainduo said:

I stand corrected.  I knew about the PVSA....I guess in my moment of disappointment I overlooked it.

 

I guess the only option is Bermuda.  I'd still be interested in a Bermuda round trip!

And what makes you think that Bermuda will open up to cruise ships in the near future or anytime in 2021?    But Bermuda does allow some visitors.  Here are their current rules which might give folks some pause:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information for Travellers | Government of Bermuda (www.gov.bm)

 

Hank

[sitraveler]

I looked up my Miami-SF cruise, it was 5/8-5/22 2018.  Cartagena was the only distant port.

[njhorseman]

23 minutes ago, sitraveler said:

I looked up my Miami-SF cruise, it was 5/8-5/22 2018.  Cartagena was the only distant port.

Unless they got a waiver from Customs and Border Protection making only a technical stop in Cartagena would not have been legal. I suspect there's more to the story.

[ORV]

Tell me again exactly what a Technical Stop is? Is that where no one gets off?

[LHT28]

3 hours ago, sitraveler said:

I looked up my Miami-SF cruise, it was 5/8-5/22 2018.  Cartagena was the only distant port.

I remember  you  got there but could not get off  but I think they bunkered

 Wasn't  there some weather issue or  something  so you could not get there  in the time slot  allotted?

[LHT28]

39 minutes ago, ORV said:

Tell me again exactly what a Technical Stop is? Is that where no one gets off?

Yes i believe that is right 

They may stop for fuel or emergency situations

 someone will have the long version 😉

 

[njhorseman]

43 minutes ago, ORV said:

Tell me again exactly what a Technical Stop is? Is that where no one gets off?

Yes...there's some paperwork exchanged between the cruise ship and port authority, sometimes a ship might be refueled,  but passengers don't disembark the ship

[njhorseman]

14 minutes ago, LHT28 said:

I remember  you  got there but could not get off  but I think they bunkered

 Wasn't  there some weather issue or  something  so you could not get there  in the time slot  allotted?

A weather issue preventing a normal port call would explain it. Cartagena is often where ships bound from the East Coast to transit the Panama Canal bunker, and they have to leave Cartagena in time to make their allotted time to transit the canal the next day. If there's a weather or mechanical issue that causes the ship to be late to Cartagena then they may only have time to bunker and won't allow passengers to disembark.

So it looks as though my suspicion was correct...there was more to the story.

Edited February 15, 2021 by njhorseman

[TLCOhio]

Agree that there are many good questions as to why this old, old Federal law cannot be change and/or modified.  There are various "interests" involved and we cannot discuss some of those factors here that could be involved and stopping any such change.

 

From the below-linked trade publication this morning, they had this headline: “With Alaska season on the ropes, lines challenged on cabotage law” with these highlights: “Alaska lawmakers were not alone in raising the possibility of changing or waiving laws to enable the industry to operate in Alaska waters this summer. Cruise and travel associations suggested they would seek a temporary waiver to the PVSA for the summer.  But historical precedence indicates that it is far easier said than done: A PVSA waiver has never been granted to the cruise industry. And many industry stakeholders know getting one would mean a steep uphill battle.  The reasons are manifold.  Charlie Papavizas, chair of the maritime practice for Winston & Strawn, has written extensively about the Jones Act, the maritime cabotage law of which the PVSA is a part, and said that historically, 'waivers are exceptions rather than the rule.'  The letter of the law stipulates that any waiver has to be in the interest of national defense, which Papavizas said is 'very difficult' to prove. He found that in virtually every denial, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has determined there to be an insufficient national defense interest.  In what also bodes badly for the cruise industry's chances for a waiver, Papavizas found that in the CBP's many denials, it indicated that a Jones Act waiver 'cannot be issued solely for economic reasons,' simply because there is a 'private economic benefit' or where the interest expressed is solely 'commercial in nature.'  In recent years, Jones Act waivers have been made primarily during natural disasters to enable getting relief to places like Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria.”

 

Here is more background and history cited in this story/analysis: "Rod McLeod, former chief marketing officer at Royal Caribbean International and a former executive at Carnival Corp. and Norwegian Cruise Line, has been in or consulted for the industry for more than four decades and has never seen a PVSA waiver granted to the cruise industry.  'If there was any time in the history of the PVSA that an exception should be granted, it is now,' he said. "'t will protect jobs in Seattle, clearly in Alaska -- all American jobs. A lot of people are going to be hurt by this.'  Despite that, he is "'not really confident that they'd make an exception.'  The unions that support the law, he said, particularly the Seafarers International Union, would not want to allow any precedence to be set."

 

Full story at:

https://www.travelweekly.com/Cruise-Travel/With-Alaska-season-on-the-ropes-lines-challenged-on-cabotage-law

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

Norway Coast/Fjords/Arctic Circle cruise from Copenhagen, July 2010, to the top of Europe. Scenic visuals with key tips. Live/blog at 241,369 views.

www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1227923

[njhorseman]

34 minutes ago, TLCOhio said:

Charlie Papavizas, chair of the maritime practice for Winston & Strawn, has written extensively about the Jones Act, the maritime cabotage law of which the PVSA is a par

I hope those were the words of Travel Weekly and not the lawyer who is head of his firm's maritime practice because the PVSA dates from 1886 while the Jones Act dates from 1920. So...no...the PVSA is most assuredly not part of the Jones Act as it predates the Jones Act by 34 years.

Travel Weekly should know better.

[Ride-The-Waves]

There are plenty of options to include flying to Anchorage and still seeing the state and its beauty.  Rent a car, take the train, do some flight seeing, ride a dog sled, enjoy the culture.  Don't need a "cruise" to do that.

[Ride-The-Waves]

4 hours ago, TLCOhio said:

Agree that there are many good questions as to why this old, old Federal law cannot be change and/or modified.  There are various "interests" involved and we cannot discuss some of those factors here that could be involved and stopping any such change.

 

From the below-linked trade publication this morning, they had this headline: “With Alaska season on the ropes, lines challenged on cabotage law” with these highlights: “Alaska lawmakers were not alone in raising the possibility of changing or waiving laws to enable the industry to operate in Alaska waters this summer. Cruise and travel associations suggested they would seek a temporary waiver to the PVSA for the summer.  But historical precedence indicates that it is far easier said than done: A PVSA waiver has never been granted to the cruise industry. And many industry stakeholders know getting one would mean a steep uphill battle.  The reasons are manifold.  Charlie Papavizas, chair of the maritime practice for Winston & Strawn, has written extensively about the Jones Act, the maritime cabotage law of which the PVSA is a part, and said that historically, 'waivers are exceptions rather than the rule.'  The letter of the law stipulates that any waiver has to be in the interest of national defense, which Papavizas said is 'very difficult' to prove. He found that in virtually every denial, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has determined there to be an insufficient national defense interest.  In what also bodes badly for the cruise industry's chances for a waiver, Papavizas found that in the CBP's many denials, it indicated that a Jones Act waiver 'cannot be issued solely for economic reasons,' simply because there is a 'private economic benefit' or where the interest expressed is solely 'commercial in nature.'  In recent years, Jones Act waivers have been made primarily during natural disasters to enable getting relief to places like Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria.”

 

Here is more background and history cited in this story/analysis: "Rod McLeod, former chief marketing officer at Royal Caribbean International and a former executive at Carnival Corp. and Norwegian Cruise Line, has been in or consulted for the industry for more than four decades and has never seen a PVSA waiver granted to the cruise industry.  'If there was any time in the history of the PVSA that an exception should be granted, it is now,' he said. "'t will protect jobs in Seattle, clearly in Alaska -- all American jobs. A lot of people are going to be hurt by this.'  Despite that, he is "'not really confident that they'd make an exception.'  The unions that support the law, he said, particularly the Seafarers International Union, would not want to allow any precedence to be set."

 

Full story at:

https://www.travelweekly.com/Cruise-Travel/With-Alaska-season-on-the-ropes-lines-challenged-on-cabotage-law

 

THANKS!  Enjoy!  Terry in Ohio

 

Norway Coast/Fjords/Arctic Circle cruise from Copenhagen, July 2010, to the top of Europe. Scenic visuals with key tips. Live/blog at 241,369 views.

www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1227923

The cruise industry itself does not want to see this law changed, modified and wavered.  That would mean they would need to pay crew by US standards, be subject to increased oversight by everyone from state entities to federal, and pay more tax to the US and states.  It's just something to whine about - no more, no less.

[broberts]

On 2/8/2021 at 9:17 AM, Aloha 1 said:

The easiest solution is a temporary suspension of the PVSA. Then only the CDC roadblock will need to end.

 

The legislation affects the actions of far more than a few dozen mass market cruise ships. Suspension of the act would be a non-trivial undertaking. So much so that I suspect the injunctions and court  cases would well survive the pandemic.

[njhorseman]

41 minutes ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

The cruise industry itself does not want to see this law changed, modified and wavered.

Actually I suspect right now they do, at least temporarily for the 2021 Alaskan and Canadian Maritime cruise seasons. But as part of that limited temporary suspension since it would not be possible to satisfy the crewing and other requirements of an American-flagged ship I suspect they're asking for a waiver of the foreign port requirement, not everything that goes with it. So, they would still be able to employ foreign crew and operate under international maritime pay scales, not US labor laws. It would be similar to the legislated exception that was passed to allow foreign flagged ships to operate between mainland US ports and Puerto Rico without a distant foreign port call. 

[Waynetor]

For east coast cruises would there be any interest in a NY, Boston, Newport, Bar Harbor, Bermuda, NY cruise?

[njhorseman]

18 minutes ago, Waynetor said:

For east coast cruises would there be any interest in a NY, Boston, Newport, Bar Harbor, Bermuda, NY cruise?

As I recall similar itineraries have been used in the past. I doubt there's much interest in it.

[Aloha 1]

18 hours ago, broberts said:

 

The legislation affects the actions of far more than a few dozen mass market cruise ships. Suspension of the act would be a non-trivial undertaking. So much so that I suspect the injunctions and court  cases would well survive the pandemic.

The law is an anachronism .

[broberts]

16 minutes ago, Aloha 1 said:

The law is an anachronism .

 

Is protecting American jobs anachronistic?

[Hawaiidan]

On 2/14/2021 at 2:52 PM, Hlitner said:

And what makes you think that Bermuda will open up to cruise ships in the near future or anytime in 2021?    But Bermuda does allow some visitors.  Here are their current rules which might give folks some pause:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information for Travellers | Government of Bermuda (www.gov.bm)

 

Hank

On the other hand what makes you think it will not?.     There comes a time when economic needs trump the damage restrictions produce..    Reality is this virus, like all the others is not going away.  We need to deal with that reality.  We can not just lock down the world and hide from each other....  Life is full of risks....we  take them every day.  This is just the latest.  There will be more in our lifetimes

On 2/16/2021 at 10:28 AM, broberts said:

 

Is protecting American jobs anachronistic?

well, when your protecting  a few hundred jobs at most at the expense of  hundreds of thousands even millions, is the law really protecting the people? 

  Living in Hawaii for years everybody suffered from the profits of a few...who gave generous contributions to legislators.   

  Here is your Hawaiian words for the Day..it means Monopoly....."MATSON" and" Horizon".

[chengkp75]

I'll see your GrassRoots study and raise you a Transportation Institute study done by PriceWaterhouse, that shows the Jones Act fleet supports over half a million jobs directly, adds $72 billion in GDP, $41 billion in wages, and $16 billion in federal, state and local taxes.

 

https://transportationinstitute.org/jones-act/#:~:text=Directly%2C approximately 82%2C000 U.S. jobs,billion in U.S. labor compensation.

 

And, another study that shows the Jones Act has only a minimal impact on the Hawaiian economy:

 

https://www.americanmaritimepartnership.com/hawaii-economy/#:~:text=The Jones Act ensures 13%2C000,impact to the local economy.

 

I did not read the Grassroots report completely, so I'm not sure if they are looking at just removing the US built clause (which I really have no problem with), or with allowing foreign flag ships to operate domestically with foreign crew, at foreign crew wages, which I do have a problem with.  I also have a problem with allowing foreign ships to operate domestically without meeting USCG safety regulations.

[jagoffee]

Chengkp85,  it is hard to disagree with you.  You certainly have a lot of knowledge that you share with everyone.

The ship building restrictions certainly as it relates to cruise ship does not seem to be protecting any jobs.

 

It does seem that the loophole that legalizes stopping in Canada and Mexico in order to avoid the Jones Act requirements helps Canada and Mexico more than the US.  I assume the objective is to create job opportunities in Hawaii and Alaska.  I suspect this may be why cruise lines are not pushing to change the Jones Act as they do not want this loophole to be closed.  
I would hope our legislators could find a way to support Hawaii and Alaska without creating additional job opportunities in Canada and Mexico.  It seems like that loophole results in the doing the opposite of the Jones Act objectives in this narrow aspect.  Moving jobs from the US to other countries.  

[chengkp75]

57 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

Chengkp85,  it is hard to disagree with you.  You certainly have a lot of knowledge that you share with everyone.

The ship building restrictions certainly as it relates to cruise ship does not seem to be protecting any jobs.

 

It does seem that the loophole that legalizes stopping in Canada and Mexico in order to avoid the Jones Act requirements helps Canada and Mexico more than the US.  I assume the objective is to create job opportunities in Hawaii and Alaska.  I suspect this may be why cruise lines are not pushing to change the Jones Act as they do not want this loophole to be closed.  
I would hope our legislators could find a way to support Hawaii and Alaska without creating additional job opportunities in Canada and Mexico.  It seems like that loophole results in the doing the opposite of the Jones Act objectives in this narrow aspect.  Moving jobs from the US to other countries.  

While PVSA restrictions aid Canada and Mexico for cruises more than the US, I will again point out that it is the Passenger, not Cruise, Vessel Services Act, and this means that every single vessel that carries more than 12 passengers in the US, is covered by the PVSA.  And, therefore, the PVSA, while not providing the benefits to the US economy that the Jones Act fleet does, does support tens of thousands, if not more than a hundred thousand jobs in the US, and a significant benefit to the US economy.  Think of every single ferry, whether the Staten Island ferry, the Washington State ferries, or the small ferries that carry traffic across major and minor rivers (Galveston, Chesapeake Bay, etc) (there are 220 ferry operators in the US in 37 states, transporting over 70 million passengers, including over 2 million in Illinois), casino boats, dinner cruises, whale watching, sight seeing, water taxi, commuter boats, and large charter fishing boats.  All of these keep the US safer by flying the US flag, and contribute more to the US economy than a foreign flag vessel would.

 

The reason that cruise lines are not pushing to get exemptions to the PVSA have nothing to do with the PVSA.  It all comes down to the same reason that the cruise lines do not do "cruises to nowhere" anymore, even though these are still legal under the PVSA.  Those crew working "domestic" voyages (any voyage without a foreign port call), would be considered to be "working in the US" by CBP, and therefore would require an H2-B "non-agricultural temporary worker" visa, not a C1/D crew visa.  The cruise lines would then have to pay that crew US wages, and follow US labor laws.  There would be a further possibility that in granting a waiver to the PVSA, Congress (who is the one who must pass waivers, not the President) might require foreign ships to comply with USCG regulations, which are far stricter for US flag vessels than those that they can enforce on foreign flag vessels.

[KirkNC]

Something tells me this debate will still be going on in September....