Top-ranking members of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation are asking Canada to allow technical stops.

[mianmike]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

But, whatever, I've exhausted my ideas on presenting ideas to you, believe what you want, just know that the cruise lines' lawyers believe that technical stops are not allowed.

 

Interesting.  

 

When Congressmen send an official letter it's generally written by their Congressional staff who are subject matter experts in virtually nothing and yet they need to be experts in most everything.  I'm sure members of Congress were either contacted by CLIA and/or cruise lines asking for assistance or congressional staffers reached out to CLIA and/or the cruise lines asking how they could help.  

 

I say this because of this excerpt from the Congressional letter to Canada: “One suggestion would be the inclusion of language in a subsequent Interim order that enables cruise ships to meet the requirements of U.S. maritime law by permitting stops in Canada without disembarking passengers,”  Congressional staffers generally don't have the expertise or desire to do the homework necessary to even know if this is a viable solution.  It would be congressional staffer malpractice if they asked another country for a favor that was an absolute waste of time.  (not that it doesn't happen) The staffers ask the subject matter experts for input.  Usually they go to the affected industry and hopefully they follow-up with the regulatory agency for the whole story.

 

The letter writers were told the "suggestion" from someone they assumed knew what they were talking about.   I wonder who made the suggestion?  We know in a statement, CLIA thanked DeFazio and Graves "for their leadership in facilitating dialogue with the Canadian government to determine a path for resumption of cruises to Alaska should cruising resume in the U.S. this year."   

 

 

[DCGuy64]

15 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

No, but what I am saying is that in this economic slow-down caused by the pandemic, there are better ways to stimulate the tourism industry than allowing the cruise industry to restart, just for the sake of letting the cruise industry start.  What I am asking is:  "what is the main reason for your desire to allow the cruise industry to restart?"  Is it that you want to take a vacation, and by doing so, you stimulate an industry, and help the economy?  Or is it that you feel the need to help those who are struggling in this particular industry?  If the first, then that's your viewpoint, but I say wait on cruising until the science says it is safe.  If it is the second, then there are better ways to support all the jobs in the US that rely on the cruise industry than everyone giving their money to the cruise lines and having little of it returned to those industries you want to support.  Either way, I feel that cruising needs to wait until it is safe to do so, and efforts to get around existing laws to "jump start" it should not be disguised as means to help Alaska's tourist industry.

 

Let me put it this way.  As I've shown above, if you pay $700 in cruise fare, $1 of that is returned to the US economy, to start being re-spent to bring about the billions of economic impact that the cruise industry creates.  Let's say instead that the US government taxed you $2, but kept the cruise industry shut down for safety reasons, and used that $2 to stimulate the same businesses that got the $1 from the cruise lines.  That $2 would create more economic impact than the $1, wouldn't it?  What does that $699 that the cruise industry takes out of the country do for the US?

Thank you so much for your excellent response, @chengkp75. You bring up some great points for reflection.

I guess I'd respond in 3 ways:

1. It doesn't matter what I think, because I'm just basically John Q Public and the cruise industry isn't going to do anything different because of what I say. Same with the CDC, Congress, etc. I'm nobody, so while I could argue all day long on Cruise Critic, it's irrelevant.

2. I don't think it's a choice of either vacation vs helping the cruise industry. It's both, at least for me. I enjoy cruising, and I'm slightly irritated now at my buddy from work who first introduced me to cruising, because I got hooked fast and now I need my fix, LOL! I do love cruising as a form of leisure, but I also enjoy meeting crew members and other guests, as well as seeing other countries, one of my passions from way back. I hate to see the cruise industry written off as unnecessary. As a lover of music and foreign languages, I feel the same anger at people who refuse to fund education in foreign languages and music, because these things aren't trivial hobbies to me, they are vital. So yeah, I do want to go on vacation, and there's nothing with that. You didn't say it, but it's become rather fashionable to suggest that people who want to vacation during a pandemic are heartless and cruel. Not so! My going on vacation does not equal killing other people, it doesn't work that way!

3. Lastly, you talked about not cruising until "it's safe." What's safe? 0% risk? Never going to happen. If the CDC is in charge, there'd NEVER be any cruising again. I can think of a million reasons that cruising might be dangerous. So what? I'm an adult and I don't need lectures from the CDC about my risk tolerance. It'd be like having an amusement park run by an insurance company. There'd be no rides. What's the point? As I see it, Covid-19 kills about 4-5% of people with 3.8 co-morbidities, for the rest of us with none, it's close to 0%. Enough is enough. End the lock downs, end the No Sail Order and let's get back to business. 

 

 

[hamrag]

3 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

....I'm nobody, so while I could argue all day long on Cruise Critic, it's irrelevant...

 

Well, the solution is staring right back at you...stop arguing, and you may eventually be considered relevant!

[DCGuy64]

5 minutes ago, hamrag said:

 

Well, the solution is staring right back at you...stop arguing, and you may eventually be considered relevant!

HAHA, I could stop arguing on here, but I'd still predict that RCL, Carnival, MSC, NCL and all the rest still wouldn't give a tinker's toss what I think. I highly doubt they've ever changed a policy because 1 individual complained on CC. (now if it's a LOT of people, that's another story). It might be cathartic for us to debate these issues online, but change reality? Doubtful.

[SouthLyonCruiser]

On 2/26/2021 at 5:28 AM, njhorseman said:

I have seen the regulatory change that disallowed technical stops and I can assure you it exists. The regulation was adopted about 10 or 12 years ago because NCL objected to cruise lines being able to make round trip cruises from the West Coast to Hawaii and back without making a true foreign port call. The ships would make a brief technical stop in Ensenada to satisfy the PVSA  foreign port call requirement . NCL wanted to force them to make an actual port call and their request was successful.

 

Even if Canada were to allow technical stops during its current cruise ship ban such cruises would still be in violation of the PVSA so any legislator making that request of the Canadian government is either ignorant of US law or just trying to make political hay by fooling their constituents who don't know any better.

 

Nor could an executive order be used as a PVSA workaround as as the law only permits such an order for national security reasons.

 

Legislation granting a PVSA waiver is the only possible solution to the problem.

 

Just checked on a Princess round trip Hawaii cruise and there is still a stop in Ensinada that is there for nine hours. I guess that this is not considered a 'technical stop' anymore because they are their for nine hour. It must cover the 'new regulation' by being there more hours than the old stops used to be.

[chengkp75]

30 minutes ago, SouthLyonCruiser said:

Just checked on a Princess round trip Hawaii cruise and there is still a stop in Ensinada that is there for nine hours. I guess that this is not considered a 'technical stop' anymore because they are their for nine hour. It must cover the 'new regulation' by being there more hours than the old stops used to be.

The big difference is that passengers are allowed to go ashore, and the port stop is mentioned in the advertising for the cruise.  Prior to 2007, neither of those were part of the port call.

[BlerkOne]

On 3/1/2021 at 8:20 AM, DCGuy64 said:

 

tl;dr: Government can do anything if it wants to. It just has to want to.

Pretty much. and the season will likely be completed before it can wind its way through the courts.

[mianmike]

The article makes a good point reference the PVSA, we don't prohibit foreign built airlines from flying within and to and from the U.S..  No arcane foreign airport requirement.  I agree the PVSA needs modernization. 

 

 https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-alaskan-cruise-ships-canada-problem-is-really-americas-fault

 

[AmazedByCruising]

1 hour ago, mianmike said:

The article makes a good point reference the PVSA, we don't prohibit foreign built airlines from flying within and to and from the U.S..  No arcane foreign airport requirement.  I agree the PVSA needs modernization. 

 

 https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-alaskan-cruise-ships-canada-problem-is-really-americas-fault

 

 

Thank you for that link. I believe there are similar cabotage laws for aviation as well (though not about who actually built the "ship"), but there's a lot of truth in "That’s the abominable nature of protectionism: given time to work, it makes otherwise illogical economic distortions permanent facts of life, ones on which workers and communities genuinely depend." 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, mianmike said:

The article makes a good point reference the PVSA, we don't prohibit foreign built airlines from flying within and to and from the U.S..  No arcane foreign airport requirement.  I agree the PVSA needs modernization. 

 

 https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-alaskan-cruise-ships-canada-problem-is-really-americas-fault

 

As I've said, I have no real heartache with doing away with the US built clause of both the Jones Act and PVSA.  But, while you can fly a foreign built aircraft within the US, you cannot do so on a foreign airline.  If the PVSA were a protectionist piece of legislation, it would be doing a poor job of it.  The PVSA actually discourages shipowners from registering in the US.  It does do it's primary purpose, to ensure the safety of our domestic water traffic.

28 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Thank you for that link. I believe there are similar cabotage laws for aviation as well (though not about who actually built the "ship"), but there's a lot of truth in "That’s the abominable nature of protectionism: given time to work, it makes otherwise illogical economic distortions permanent facts of life, ones on which workers and communities genuinely depend." 

The PVSA is not, and never was, a protectionist legislation.  As I've pointed out to you many times in the past, it was passed long before there was any organized maritime labor to want to protect their jobs, and it placed a financial burden on the shipowners for capital and operating costs.  So, in order to "sweeten the pot" or "level the playing field", those owners who agreed to meet the stricter US safety regulations get a monopoly over those that choose to operate more cheaply and less safely.  If you think it's a sweet deal to have a monopoly on US domestic water traffic, remember the point I've made to you before, it costs over 3 times as much to operate a US flag vessel (that doesn't include the capital expense to build) each and every year, as it does to operate a foreign flag vessel.  Why does it cost more, sure labor cost is a major reason (and a good portion of that is wage demands that cover the additional cost of documentation, training, and security checks that a US crew member requires), but there are the costs of all the labor laws, and the cost of USCG inspections, and buying safety equipment that is USCG approved.

Edited March 2, 2021 by chengkp75

[AmazedByCruising]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

The PVSA is not, and never was, a protectionist legislation.  

 

OK, instead of replying to all you said knowing that you'll say that duck boats also meet the definition of a "passenger vessel" for which it's impossible to define a more refined law, let me examine what the intent of PVSA must be, as it is being upheld long after steamboats exploded all the time and lawmakers thought they should take action.

 

There must be a serious problem X being solved by PVSA, you wouldn't make or keep a law to solve a problem that doesn't exist. That problem X can somehow be completely solved by ships sailing to an island far away enough to be on a list of islands that are far enough. This solution is used a lot to make sure problem X doesn't arise; visit St Martin and problem X is suddenly gone. It can't have anything to do with safety because sailing to St Martin doesn't make magically make the trip safer. What else are problems with ships happily bringing pax around? Environment. How can making a longer trip solve that? It can't. 

 

What kind of problem can X be, if it is not money spent on foreign companies that should have been spent in the US?  You tell me.

 

IMHO, PVSA is a textbook example of protectionist legislation.

[All-ready2cruise]

@AmazedByCruising I believe you will find that many of us here on CC have a great deal of respect for  @chengkp75 and with good reason.  I'm not sure what your reason is for being so disrespectful, however, I can assure you that this person has shared a lot of great, relevant and important information regarding  cruise ship laws and regulations.  

 

What you feel is unimportant to me but, while we all have the right to our opinions, we do need to ensure that we continue to show respect, especially to those who have "done their time" as a valued member of various ships, merchant, cruise, or navy, etc. 

 

Hope you understand the level of respect many of us have for @chengkp75 on this forum.  

Cheers

 

56 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

knowing that you'll say that duck boats also meet the definition of a "passenger vessel" for which it's impossible to define a more refined law

 

[hamrag]

8 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

OK, instead of replying to all you said knowing that you'll say that duck boats also meet the definition of a "passenger vessel" for which it's impossible to define a more refined law, let me examine what the intent of PVSA must be.....

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see.....😉

[chengkp75]

10 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

What kind of problem can X be, if it is not money spent on foreign companies that should have been spent in the US?  You tell me.

The serious problem being solved by the PVSA is the decisions by Congress and the US Administrations, since the 1800's that vessel safety is not up to what the people of the US expect.  Therefore, the US government has adopted stricter safety regulations on shipping than what the rest of the world has adopted (via the international conventions like SOLAS, MARPOL, etc).  This problem continues today, despite the transition from steamboats to motor vessels.

 

When a vessel calls at a foreign port during it's voyage, that voyage, by definition in again various international conventions (of which the US is signatory, and therefore must pass enabling legislation incorporating the terms of the convention into US law) is a foreign voyage.  A foreign flag ship engaged in a foreign voyage cannot have any stricter regulations placed on it than what are required under the international conventions.  But, a vessel on a "coastwise" or "domestic" voyage, if the cabotage law  requires it to be US flag, can have the stricter regulations enforced.  So, requiring a foreign flag cruise ship to call at a foreign port, doesn't take the problem away, it just means the US no longer has jurisdiction over that problem.  We take the risk every time we allow a foreign ship into US waters, whether there will be an incident like the MV Bright Field that allided with the New Orleans Riverwalk or the Cosco Busan that allided with the San Francisco Bay Bridge.  Doesn't mean the USCG likes it, just that there is nothing they can do about it.

 

What kind of protectionist legislation makes it more difficult for the "protected" industry to compete?  Or just stay in business?  What business wants to pay 3 times as much to operate as another company?

[farmersfight]

15 hours ago, mianmike said:

The article makes a good point reference the PVSA, we don't prohibit foreign built airlines from flying within and to and from the U.S..  No arcane foreign airport requirement.  I agree the PVSA needs modernization. 

 

 https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-alaskan-cruise-ships-canada-problem-is-really-americas-fault

 

 

I don't see why this is so difficult. Congress wrote, passed & enacted the PVSA. Congress can write, pass & enact a temporary law, such as the Alaskan Tourism Recovery Act (ATRA) that would allow foreign flag cruise ships to operate between Seattle & Alaskan ports without having to stop in Victoria, BC. The temporary ATRA would over ride the PVSA for the 2021 Alaska cruise season. Problem solved. Congress; "git 'er dun".

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, farmersfight said:

 

I don't see why this is so difficult. Congress wrote, passed & enacted the PVSA. Congress can write, pass & enact a temporary law, such as the Alaskan Tourism Recovery Act (ATRA) that would allow foreign flag cruise ships to operate between Seattle & Alaskan ports without having to stop in Victoria, BC. The temporary ATRA would over ride the PVSA for the 2021 Alaska cruise season. Problem solved. Congress; "git 'er dun".

Yet there is so little support for Congressman Young's ATRA that there is no Senate co-sponsor, not even his own state's Senators, and not even the other Congressmen who signed the letter to Canada with him.  I don't see Congress having the desire to pass this kind of legislation, knowing that as soon as it was passed, that every other PVSA compliant vessel operator would challenge in court for relief from the cost of operating under US flag, even for the limited time frame you are talking about.  I believe the USCG would testify against such a measure as well.

[farmersfight]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Yet there is so little support for Congressman Young's ATRA that there is no Senate co-sponsor, not even his own state's Senators, and not even the other Congressmen who signed the letter to Canada with him.  I don't see Congress having the desire to pass this kind of legislation, knowing that as soon as it was passed, that every other PVSA compliant vessel operator would challenge in court for relief from the cost of operating under US flag, even for the limited time frame you are talking about.  I believe the USCG would testify against such a measure as well.

 

Wow, I didn't know and I'm surprised there is not more support for the ATRA, especially from Alaska's senators. I would've thought that all those businesses in the Alaskan ports where the major cruise lines stop throughout a normal Alaskan cruising season would be heavily petitioning their Alaskan senators to pass such legislation.

 

I can understand the U.S. vessel operators (i.e. American Cruise Lines) objecting but I would think that the devastating economic impact of another Alaskan cruise season shutdown would out weigh these objections.

 

Well, hopefully there will be some remedy that will salvage the 2021 Alaskan cruise season (talking about the big foreign flag cruise ships).

[chengkp75]

42 minutes ago, farmersfight said:

Well, hopefully there will be some remedy that will salvage the 2021 Alaskan cruise season (talking about the big foreign flag cruise ships).

See, that's the problem.  Unless the US decides to revoke various international conventions, like SOLAS for example, you cannot parse out a "big foreign flag cruise ship" from a "passenger vessel".  And, when I say that PVSA compliant vessel operators would challenge in court either for relief or for an injunction, I am not talking about the small US flag cruise operators, I am talking about the 220 ferry operators, spread across 37 states that would be looking for a handout to reduce their operating costs to those of a foreign flag ship.  (and add in all the dinner cruises, casino boats, sightseeing and whale watching boat operators, etc, etc, who are also covered under the PVSA.

[don't-use-real-name]

I would guess it will get down to - everyone on board a cruise ship (I mean everyone) will have

had the vaccination and will be wearing masks and tested negative (-) for any hint of the virus

 

AND at this point just maybe a cruise may commence - - -

 

Upon returning to the ship from ANY shore excursion must test negative (-) to board the ship

and continue the cruise.

 

Will this be enough to enlighten the minds of CDC and other authorities ?

[ArthurUSCG]

Thank you @chengkp75for helping to explain the complex maritime laws that involve domestic and international laws. I often struggle with trying to explain and realize I would be writing a legal brief or just saying this is the interpretation and don;t want to go into the background.

I think what's also missing from the PVSA discussion is, every business that owns and every union that works in major ship yard would be up in arms over the waver. Because they would see any waver as a erosion of USA ship building. For those that brought up the economic side of restating cruising, think about how much more bang for the buck would be had by offering 0% gov back loans for building a cruise ship on USA soil with USA sourced materials.

[farmersfight]

10 hours ago, don't-use-real-name said:

everyone on board a cruise ship (I mean everyone) will have

had the vaccination and will be wearing masks

 

Let me get this straight, even after getting vaccinated we'll still be required to wear face diapers? Funny, we don't do that with the flu.

[roger001]

9 minutes ago, farmersfight said:

 

Let me get this straight, even after getting vaccinated we'll still be required to wear face diapers? Funny, we don't do that with the flu.

I agree.  If everyone, everyone is vaccinated, then it should be cruise ship life back to normal....including a buffet...yea, I like them.  Nothing left to protect from then.  

[broberts]

1 hour ago, farmersfight said:

 

Let me get this straight, even after getting vaccinated we'll still be required to wear face diapers? Funny, we don't do that with the flu.

 

No, but you still should wear a mask. Besides, I bet you don't wear a mask when you do have the flu.

 

We don't have sufficient data yet to know if the vaccinated can still spread the virus. Masks are primarily intended to reduce potential transmission by the wearer. Hence the direction to wear masks after innoculation.

[DCGuy64]

1 hour ago, farmersfight said:

 

Let me get this straight, even after getting vaccinated we'll still be required to wear face diapers? Funny, we don't do that with the flu.

Right? The same people who, when I said I didn't like wearing a mask last year told me "don't worry, we'll have a vaccine and then you won't have to" are now saying "well, actually, you'll still have to wear one." More goal post moving. 🙄

That kind of stuff is what makes me say "enough is enough, I'm taking the mask off and there's nothing you can do about it." Which is why I'm glad governors are starting to end the mask mandates. I'm sure that's infuriating the mask brigade, and I'm enjoying every delicious moment of it. 🤣

[Sweetnspicy]

3 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Right? The same people who, when I said I didn't like wearing a mask last year told me "don't worry, we'll have a vaccine and then you won't have to" are now saying "well, actually, you'll still have to wear one." More goal post moving. 🙄

That kind of stuff is what makes me say "enough is enough, I'm taking the mask off and there's nothing you can do about it." Which is why I'm glad governors are starting to end the mask mandates. I'm sure that's infuriating the mask brigade, and I'm enjoying every delicious moment of it. 🤣

I personally like the mask mandates. I haven’t been sick in over a year, I don’t have to smell anyone’s stinky breath or see janky teeth and no has spit on me while they are talking. Glorious.