chengkp75 Posted February 13, 2021 #51 Share Posted February 13, 2021 1 minute ago, gtalum said: Then I apologize for getting that wrong. At any rate, I doubt any of the big cruise lines are willing to reflag their ships to the US and hire American crews to save their Alaska seasons. Well, that's a different argument. A waiver of the PVSA would allow the ship to remain foreign flag, but it would require either a US crew or a foreign crew with H2-B work visas, and paid US wages. But, reflagging would still require a waiver of the PVSA, since the "US built" clause would still need to be waived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balliett Posted February 16, 2021 #52 Share Posted February 16, 2021 I am booked on a HAL cruise to Alaska for August. I thought this news might be of interest here This quote below is from the website of the Federal Maritime Commission, dated Feb 10. The writer is Commissioner Sola. ...In short, this action by the Canadian government may very well result in the loss of a second season for a significant portion of the Alaska cruise business. Another lost season represents a potentially devastating blow to the livelihoods of thousands of Alaskans. As noted in my report, the cruise industry generates tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Alaska annually. It is because of this that I encourage both the Biden administration and Congress to quickly review this issue and consider a limited exception to the PVSA while simultaneously engaging the Canadian government on the diplomatic front to address this particular problem" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted February 16, 2021 #53 Share Posted February 16, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Balliett said: I am booked on a HAL cruise to Alaska for August. I thought this news might be of interest here This quote below is from the website of the Federal Maritime Commission, dated Feb 10. The writer is Commissioner Sola. ...In short, this action by the Canadian government may very well result in the loss of a second season for a significant portion of the Alaska cruise business. Another lost season represents a potentially devastating blow to the livelihoods of thousands of Alaskans. As noted in my report, the cruise industry generates tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Alaska annually. It is because of this that I encourage both the Biden administration and Congress to quickly review this issue and consider a limited exception to the PVSA while simultaneously engaging the Canadian government on the diplomatic front to address this particular problem" That is a report of one of five commissioners, the one with the least time on the commission, and arguably the one with the least maritime experience. It does not reflect the views of the commission as a whole. The other commissioners know that waivers, which must be passed by Congress, are only proposed for "national security reasons", and if no US flag operator is providing the service. Edited February 16, 2021 by chengkp75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balliett Posted February 17, 2021 #54 Share Posted February 17, 2021 11 hours ago, chengkp75 said: That is a report of one of five commissioners, the one with the least time on the commission, and arguably the one with the least maritime experience. It does not reflect the views of the commission as a whole. The other commissioners know that waivers, which must be passed by Congress, are only proposed for "national security reasons", and if no US flag operator is providing the service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balliett Posted February 17, 2021 #55 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Thank you for the additional information, Chengkp75. Your depth of knowlege is welcome, although discouraging in this case. I can only hope that we, and our Canadian friends, are vaccinated soon enough to salvage part of the Alaska season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted February 22, 2021 #56 Share Posted February 22, 2021 Both the Jones Act and the PVSA share many sections of the USC, including 46 USC 501 which covers waivers. In the past, any request from the Secretary of Defense for a waiver had to be granted, if it used the term "national security" as the reason. The new National Defense Authorization bill passed by Congress in January, changes that section of 46USC501 to require that the requested waiver also show that it is in "direct support of active military operations". This further limits the ability of the Executive branch in granting Jones Act/PVSA waivers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare BlerkOne Posted February 22, 2021 #57 Share Posted February 22, 2021 If the President can terminate, why can't he enable? In any event, cruise is half of cruise missile. Ba da bing! (c) Termination of Authority.— The authority granted by this section shall terminate at such time as the Congress by concurrent resolution or the President may designate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare BlerkOne Posted February 26, 2021 #58 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Alaska isn't giving up yet, either. https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/alaska-tourism-restrictions-canada-cruise-ship-ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linsuesue Posted February 26, 2021 #59 Share Posted February 26, 2021 6 hours ago, BlerkOne said: Alaska isn't giving up yet, either. https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/alaska-tourism-restrictions-canada-cruise-ship-ban 60% of the tourists come by cruise ships. Just think how drastically reduced capacity will whittle those percentages down even more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare BlerkOne Posted February 26, 2021 #60 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Congress hasn't given up https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/24458-congress-asks-canada-for-cruising-compromise.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted February 26, 2021 #61 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 hour ago, BlerkOne said: Congress hasn't given up https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/24458-congress-asks-canada-for-cruising-compromise.html Yet, while the House Committee feels that making technical stops in Canada is "meeting the requirements of US maritime law, they would still have to get CBP to change their ruling that technical stops do not meet the requirements of US maritime law, in addition to getting Canada to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare BlerkOne Posted February 26, 2021 #62 Share Posted February 26, 2021 11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said: Yet, while the House Committee feels that making technical stops in Canada is "meeting the requirements of US maritime law, they would still have to get CBP to change their ruling that technical stops do not meet the requirements of US maritime law, in addition to getting Canada to agree. I think Congress knows the CBP boss and rulings are not law, they are interpretations and subject to change, including temporary waivers. I'm not convinced an Executive Order couldn't take care of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare BlerkOne Posted February 27, 2021 #63 Share Posted February 27, 2021 22 hours ago, chengkp75 said: Yet, while the House Committee feels that making technical stops in Canada is "meeting the requirements of US maritime law, they would still have to get CBP to change their ruling that technical stops do not meet the requirements of US maritime law, in addition to getting Canada to agree. Aha! On Wednesday, Young introduced the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act that would provide a temporary Passenger Vessel Services Act workaround by deeming round-trip voyages between Alaska and Washington state as foreign voyages for the purposes of US law. The provisions are temporary and would only apply during the closure of Canadian waters and ports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted February 27, 2021 #64 Share Posted February 27, 2021 (edited) 50 minutes ago, BlerkOne said: Aha! On Wednesday, Young introduced the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act that would provide a temporary Passenger Vessel Services Act workaround by deeming round-trip voyages between Alaska and Washington state as foreign voyages for the purposes of US law. The provisions are temporary and would only apply during the closure of Canadian waters and ports. Yet, in US law, 46 CFR 42.05-45, an international voyage is defined in terms of Article 2(4) of the International Convention on Load Lines, to which the US is signatory. According to that definition, an "international voyage" ("foreign voyage" really has no meaning in legal terms) is one where the ship passages from one country to another. So, unless Congressman Young wants to remove the sections of the USC and CFR that relate to the ICLL, and withdraw the US from the ICLL (which may have repercussions with regards to other international conventions, like SOLAS), there is no way that a voyage strictly between two US ports can be called a "domestic" voyage. I saw this days ago, and dismissed it as posturing by the Congressman for his constituents. No one, not even his colleagues from the Alaska Congressional delegation have signed on to sponsor this bill. To me, the chances of this bill passing both houses is about the same as the Jets winning the Super Bowl this year. Edited February 27, 2021 by chengkp75 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare BlerkOne Posted February 27, 2021 #65 Share Posted February 27, 2021 1 hour ago, chengkp75 said: To me, the chances of this bill passing both houses is about the same as the Jets winning the Super Bowl this year. So you are saying there is a chance! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d9704011 Posted February 27, 2021 #66 Share Posted February 27, 2021 7 minutes ago, BlerkOne said: So you are saying there is a chance! No. Next Super Bowl is in 2022. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare BlerkOne Posted February 27, 2021 #67 Share Posted February 27, 2021 1 minute ago, d9704011 said: No. Next Super Bowl is in 2022. So chengkp75 wasn't an English major. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare ontheweb Posted February 27, 2021 #68 Share Posted February 27, 2021 2 hours ago, chengkp75 said: Yet, in US law, 46 CFR 42.05-45, an international voyage is defined in terms of Article 2(4) of the International Convention on Load Lines, to which the US is signatory. According to that definition, an "international voyage" ("foreign voyage" really has no meaning in legal terms) is one where the ship passages from one country to another. So, unless Congressman Young wants to remove the sections of the USC and CFR that relate to the ICLL, and withdraw the US from the ICLL (which may have repercussions with regards to other international conventions, like SOLAS), there is no way that a voyage strictly between two US ports can be called a "domestic" voyage. I saw this days ago, and dismissed it as posturing by the Congressman for his constituents. No one, not even his colleagues from the Alaska Congressional delegation have signed on to sponsor this bill. To me, the chances of this bill passing both houses is about the same as the Jets winning the Super Bowl this year. I think the poster you quoted is confusing offering a bill with getting it passed into law. And to be technical--the jets have never won a Super Bowl. The game did not yet have that name when they beat the Colts. And to his dying day, Bubba Smith of the Colts maintained that game was fixed. How could a Hall of Fame coach start Earl Morral over Johnny Unitas? How much money did the owners make when that game led to the leagues merging and no longer bid against one another for players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atanac Posted February 27, 2021 #69 Share Posted February 27, 2021 5 hours ago, chengkp75 said: I saw this days ago, and dismissed it as posturing by the Congressman for his constituents. No one, not even his colleagues from the Alaska Congressional delegation have signed on to sponsor this bill. Who sets the dollar amount for a PVSA violation? Could they leave the PVSA alone and just access a $1.00 penalty to the cruise lines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted February 28, 2021 #70 Share Posted February 28, 2021 1 hour ago, atanac said: Who sets the dollar amount for a PVSA violation? Could they leave the PVSA alone and just access a $1.00 penalty to the cruise lines? The USC sets the fine at $300/passenger, CFR's have clarified this to allow for adjustments due to inflation (it is now $762). So, while they possibly could reduce the fine back to $300, it would take Congress to lower it below that. I don't see both houses and the President caring enough about the cruise industry to make this possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atanac Posted February 28, 2021 #71 Share Posted February 28, 2021 1 hour ago, chengkp75 said: The USC sets the fine at $300/passenger, CFR's have clarified this to allow for adjustments due to inflation (it is now $762). So, while they possibly could reduce the fine back to $300, it would take Congress to lower it below that. I don't see both houses and the President caring enough about the cruise industry to make this possible. Thanks for your response. I've read all your comments and it does seem like quite a hill to climb in order to formalize a waiver. If you are correct that Congress have the ability to make the fine irrelevant that seems like an easy work-around. They may not care much for the cruise industry but there are thousands of U.S. jobs from all the ancillary support operations that they should care about. Of course if I thought of this option I'm sure there are more well heeled politicians and trade groups who have floated this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted February 28, 2021 #72 Share Posted February 28, 2021 9 hours ago, atanac said: They may not care much for the cruise industry but there are thousands of U.S. jobs from all the ancillary support operations that they should care about. And, there are ways to support those US jobs without funding the offshore cruise lines at the same time. Is all of this about cruisers being able to cruise, or truly about supporting the support industries in the US? Because as soon as you do waivers or "work arounds" of the PVSA, and then have to work around visa requirements, giving jobs to foreign crew, there will be just as many US folks complaining about why the US is supporting those foreign crew, when unemployment is so high currently. There are other ways to support the "support industry" of the cruise lines, much is already in motion from the past and future covid relief bills that do the same thing without the cruise lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted February 28, 2021 #73 Share Posted February 28, 2021 (edited) 39 minutes ago, BlerkOne said: Simple solutions are quick to implement or modify. The industry doesn't need more endless debate and obstruction. No, what you are really saying is "my vacation does not need more debate and obstruction". Those affected in the US by the shutdown of the cruise industry are already receiving stimulus money, and every dollar of that remains in the US. What percentage of the money you pay for a cruise do you feel really is put back into the US economy? Bit of quick research shows that in 2019, cruise industry direct spending in the US was $20.1 billion. At the same time, they carried 28.5 billion passengers from North America. So, less than $1 of your cruise fare is returned to the US economy. That's worse than Uncle Sam. Edited February 28, 2021 by chengkp75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfaaa Posted February 28, 2021 #74 Share Posted February 28, 2021 11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said: Bit of quick research shows that in 2019, cruise industry direct spending in the US was $20.1 billion. At the same time, they carried 28.5 billion passengers from North America. So, less than $1 of your cruise fare is returned to the US economy. That's worse than Uncle Sam. True but you can't measure the intangible solely based on monetary terms. The fun, pleasure and wonderful memories of cruising to 28.5B N American cruisers are priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare BlerkOne Posted February 28, 2021 #75 Share Posted February 28, 2021 14 minutes ago, chengkp75 said: No, what you are really saying is "my vacation does not need more debate and obstruction". Those affected in the US by the shutdown of the cruise industry are already receiving stimulus money, and every dollar of that remains in the US. What percentage of the money you pay for a cruise do you feel really is put back into the US economy? Bit of quick research shows that in 2019, cruise industry direct spending in the US was $20.1 billion. At the same time, they carried 28.5 billion passengers from North America. So, less than $1 of your cruise fare is returned to the US economy. That's worse than Uncle Sam. What I am saying is Canada should not be able to decide the fate of Alaska cruising. Besides direct spending by cruise lines there is direct spending by all those passengers, and indirect spending by both. What you are saying is you are in favor of antiquated protectionist laws no matter the cost to Americans, including the freedom to spend their money how they please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now