Who actually benefits from the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA)?

[JRG]

15 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

First off, again you show your lack of understanding of the PVSA.

 

The part of PVSA that I don't understand it the part that you @chengkp75can't or refuse to explain.

 

"How does PVSA help US cruising"

 

Forget everything else and just try to answer the question.

 

We know how important PVSA is to you,  but tell us in your own words: (not shouting here, just emphasizing)

 

"HOW IN SAM HILL DOES PVSA HELP U.S. CRUISING? "

 

[GregD]

1 hour ago, ronrythm said:

Because the longshoremen seem powerful, a lot of people assume that all maritime unions are powerful. It’s the only one they ever hear about in the news. 
An aside on the longshoremen; one of the local dock operators was talking about the increase in longshoremen pay. Someone mentioned that over a certain number of years the pay had tripled.  The operator replied that wages had tripled, but the tonnage moved had increased 10 times. Do the math.

Enjoy

⤴️⤴️⤴️This 💯

 

[highcruiser]

I watched Gary's video and it was OK on the topic. I tend to stay away from cruise Youtubers. Most of them are insufferable.

 

This is what I've used to keep me informed on it. Looks to be they just updated it for this year:

https://www.cruiseind.com/analysis-what-is-the-passenger-vessel-services-act-pvsa/

[Flatbush Flyer]

1 hour ago, SelectSys said:

In addition to the labor dimension, is there a national security/defense aspect to either the Jones Act or PSVA?  It seems that national security might be part of the rationale behind these rules.

Start here: https://www.maritime.dot.gov/ports/office-security/office-maritime-security
 

Historical tidbit:  the development (funded by federal/state DHS) of post-9/11 US ship security training/exercising was undertaken at the California Maritime Academy using the TS Golden Bear.

As some might expect, the initial exercise of the proposed standards was a very eye-opening experience about the challenges of a maritime environment (picture a fully outfitted bomb disposal officer wrestling with a companionway or a SWAT team unfamiliar with “seven shorts and a long” horn sequence).

Edited March 13, 2021 by Flatbush Flyer

[chengkp75]

52 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

In addition to the labor dimension, is there a national security/defense aspect to either the Jones Act or PSVA?  It seems that national security might be part of the rationale behind these rules.

There is, but I personally feel it is a flimsy argument for the PVSA/Jones Act.  The idea is that there are US flag vessels that can be commandeered by the military, as was done in WW2, for use in conflicts, and a pool of mariners who can also be commandeered.  During the First Gulf War, the military chartered some foreign flag ships to deliver cargo, and when they got close, they refused to enter the war zone, so there is some justification for this.  As a historical side note, merchant mariners, who were civilians, had the highest casualty rate of any US service during WW2.  Merchant Marine:  3.9%, Marine Corps:  2.9%, Army:  2.1%, Navy:  0.9%, and USCG:  0.2%.  My alma mater lost 142 undergraduate students to enemy action in WW2, making the USMMA the only service academy allowed to carry a "battle standard" showing the awards of those heroes.  Sorry, off my soapbox.

[GregD]

1 hour ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Start here: https://www.maritime.dot.gov/ports/office-security/office-maritime-security
 

Historical tidbit:  the development (funded by federal/state DHS) of post-9/11 US ship security training/exercising was undertaken at the California Maritime Academy using the TS Golden Bear.

As some might expect, the initial exercise of the proposed standards was a very eye-opening experience about the challenges of a maritime environment (picture a fully outfitted bomb disposal officer wrestling with a companionway or a SWAT team unfamiliar with “seven shorts and a long” horn sequence).

I remember reading that report at work once. We had a few good chuckles over it.

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

There is, but I personally feel it is a flimsy argument for the PVSA/Jones Act.  The idea is that there are US flag vessels that can be commandeered by the military, as was done in WW2, for use in conflicts, and a pool of mariners who can also be commandeered.  During the First Gulf War, the military chartered some foreign flag ships to deliver cargo, and when they got close, they refused to enter the war zone, so there is some justification for this.  As a historical side note, merchant mariners, who were civilians, had the highest casualty rate of any US service during WW2.  Merchant Marine:  3.9%, Marine Corps:  2.9%, Army:  2.1%, Navy:  0.9%, and USCG:  0.2%.  My alma mater lost 142 undergraduate students to enemy action in WW2, making the USMMA the only service academy allowed to carry a "battle standard" showing the awards of those heroes.  Sorry, off my soapbox.

 

All great information. In UK the Merchant Marine was recognised by the King after WWI, being granted the title, "Merchant Navy". They also recognised mariners with Merchant Navy Day, which is the weekend closest to 3rd Septemeber, each year.

[Smokeyham]

3 hours ago, JRG said:

 

To answer your question as to 'who benefits'.

 

My answer is Canada and Mexico.   Specifically Vancouver, Victoria and Ensenada because of the redundant trips required by the PVSA stops,  whether it be distant or foreign port.......

I would agree.   At least exempting cruise ships from the PVSA seems to make sense.  

On the US west coast, If cruise ships were exempted ,then the ships might spend longer in Hawaii, Astoria OR, or the Alaskan ports.   
 

Ensenada Mexico is not a particularly pleasant stop for many. 

 

On the out-and-back Alaska cruises leaving from Seattle the ships stop in Victoria on the final night.  Victoria is nice but it means that the ship is a pretty empty on the final evening of the cruise as many are ashore until later in the evening when the ship makes the short journey to Seattle late at night.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Smokeyham

[SelectSys]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

As a historical side note, merchant mariners, who were civilians, had the highest casualty rate of any US service during WW2.

Thanks for the response.  I would assume this relates to the success against allied shipping by submarines during the war and especially in its earliest phases.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, SelectSys said:

Thanks for the response.  I would assume this relates to the success against allied shipping by submarines during the war and especially in its earliest phases.

That and the Murmansk convoys and Japanese kamikaze pilots.

[gmerick]

To protect the jobs in rivers and coastal ferries, all that's needed is PVSA be modified to not require a foreign port, but just require the majority of each stop between at least two of the US ports be spent in international waters.  This exemption could be applied exclusively to passenger vessels, to protect the cargo unions.

The effect of this exemption would allow northeast coast cruising, west coast and Alaska, or west coast Hawaii, and also Gulf of Mexico Florida to NOLA to Texas.  

[chengkp75]

18 minutes ago, gmerick said:

To protect the jobs in rivers and coastal ferries, all that's needed is PVSA be modified to not require a foreign port, but just require the majority of each stop between at least two of the US ports be spent in international waters.  This exemption could be applied exclusively to passenger vessels, to protect the cargo unions.

The effect of this exemption would allow northeast coast cruising, west coast and Alaska, or west coast Hawaii, and also Gulf of Mexico Florida to NOLA to Texas.  

Well, just like a "passenger vessel" is defined in international (maritime law), a "coastwise" voyage is also defined there, and it is any voyage that goes "from one port in a country, to another port in that country, without visiting another country in between".  So, just like trying to parse "cruise ships" from "passenger vessels", unless the US revokes SOLAS, MARPOL and other conventions, there isn't a hope of redefining what a "domestic" or "coastwise" voyage is.  The other part is the visa requirement, which is separate from the PVSA, but which requires foreign crew on domestic voyages (the only ones allowed are "cruises to nowhere") have H2-B work visas, be paid US wages, and abide by US labor laws.

[Flatbush Flyer]

2 hours ago, GregD said:

I remember reading that report at work once. We had a few good chuckles over it.

Another surprise was the multiple black Suburbans that showed up when the exercise began (since the ship’s home is in the Carquinez Strait which is straddled by two FBI different field operations).

 

In all seriousness however, that first exercise was enlightening enough for California’s DHS office to pony up an added $1 million to hone the planning (since they had already divvied up the fed $ to land focused agencies including the CHP and County Sheriffs).

[sparks1093]

5 hours ago, Smokeyham said:

I would agree.   At least exempting cruise ships from the PVSA seems to make sense.  

On the US west coast, If cruise ships were exempted ,then the ships might spend longer in Hawaii, Astoria OR, or the Alaskan ports.   
 

Ensenada Mexico is not a particularly pleasant stop for many. 

 

On the out-and-back Alaska cruises leaving from Seattle the ships stop in Victoria on the final night.  Victoria is nice but it means that the ship is a pretty empty on the final evening of the cruise as many are ashore until later in the evening when the ship makes the short journey to Seattle late at night.

If the cruise lines thought they stood to benefit they would push for the PVSA to be changed, but they don't see much benefit so they don't. It is extremely hard to carve out an exemption for one segment of an industry without others clamoring for the same preferential treatment. As stated many times a passenger vessel is any vessel carrying 12 people. Abolish PVSA and you might see the Staten Island Ferry reflagged (or any number of ferries nationwide). 

[Smokeyham]

54 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

As stated many times a passenger vessel is any vessel carrying 12 people. Abolish PVSA and you might see the Staten Island Ferry reflagged (or any number of ferries nationwide). 

It would seem reasonable that there is a way to craft legislation, and regulations, to differentiate between the Staten Island Ferry that is carrying passengers back and forth between two local ports and cruise ships carrying thousands of passengers between ports that are spread out over many hundreds of miles.

[chengkp75]

28 minutes ago, Smokeyham said:

It would seem reasonable that there is a way to craft legislation, and regulations, to differentiate between the Staten Island Ferry that is carrying passengers back and forth between two local ports and cruise ships carrying thousands of passengers between ports that are spread out over many hundreds of miles.

Yes, but it would not be at the US level, but international, so you would need to get the majority of the 164 nations signatory to SOLAS to change the definition of "passenger vessel".  And, since the US is signatory to SOLAS, they must include the language of SOLAS into US law, and cannot impose stricter requirements on any nation's vessels than required by SOLAS, except US vessels.

[sparks1093]

9 hours ago, Smokeyham said:

It would seem reasonable that there is a way to craft legislation, and regulations, to differentiate between the Staten Island Ferry that is carrying passengers back and forth between two local ports and cruise ships carrying thousands of passengers between ports that are spread out over many hundreds of miles.

 

8 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, but it would not be at the US level, but international, so you would need to get the majority of the 164 nations signatory to SOLAS to change the definition of "passenger vessel".  And, since the US is signatory to SOLAS, they must include the language of SOLAS into US law, and cannot impose stricter requirements on any nation's vessels than required by SOLAS, except US vessels.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, especially when it comes to legislation. In days past we might have been able to do something like this but as the Chief points out international law is also implicated in any changes to the PVSA. Again, if the cruise lines felt that there was money to be made they would be lobbying for a change, but since there isn't, they aren't. You and I are inconsequential in the equation--if they aren't behind it our feelings matter not (although I personally see the benefit to the PVSA even in today's world). It must also be remembered that while cruising is big in our individual world, since we cruise, cruising doesn't make up much in the shipping industry itself. (I would also add that I have no interest in sailing from one US city to another, that to me isn't the point of cruising. If I were interested in visiting multiple US cities along the coastline I'd do it by car, not ship.)

Edited March 14, 2021 by sparks1093

[JRG]

22 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Sorry, off my soapbox.

 

Can you get back on the soapbox and just answer the question.

 

"how does PVSA help cruising"

 

show some sand and tell us how PVSA helps cruising and stop weasling out of the tough questions.

 

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

Never said it does help "cruising", it does help "passenger vessels", which is what it is supposed to do.  You tend to be the one who weasels to a different tack when your theories are refuted by facts.  Some people only have narrow views of things, and never see the big picture, which is why many laws have massive "unintended consequences".

[JRG]

That's closer but you are trying to cover it up weakly.

 

Just say the words  "PVSA does not help the cruising industry"

 

Its not like I am asking you if you ordered a code red.

[ontheweb]

1 minute ago, JRG said:

That's closer but you are trying to cover it up weakly.

 

Just say the words  "PVSA does not help the cruising industry"

 

Its not like I am asking you if you ordered a code red.

You seem to believe that the PVSA is very detrimental to the cruise industry. Why is it then that the CLIA does not vigorously lobby against the PVSA? 

[JRG]

8 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

You seem to believe that the PVSA is very detrimental to the cruise industry. Why is it then that the CLIA does not vigorously lobby against the PVSA? 

 

You are about 6 months behind in the conversation.  Sorry

[CruiserBruce]

15 minutes ago, JRG said:

That's closer but you are trying to cover it up weakly.

 

Just say the words  "PVSA does not help the cruising industry"

 

Its not like I am asking you if you ordered a code red.

It doesn't matter if it helps the cruise industry, its the law, and there seems to be little interest for changing in Congress. Everyone is desperate to resume cruising, but changing the things you don't like isn't the only bump in the road.

 

Insulting people doesn't make your points more correct or superior.

[chengkp75]

Not covering a darn thing up.  The PVSA does today exactly what it does when it was enacted, preserve the safety of US waterways for passengers.  If the cruise lines wish to sail on PVSA compliant itineraries, what is stopping them from building a ship to do it?  What stopped them from buying the old Independence or Constitution, literally scrapping them down to the keel and rebuilding a new, modern cruise ship on that keel?  NCL stepped up, got their exemptions, made the ship US flag, and then were crushed when the foreign ships, operating on those much maligned foreign voyages from the West Coast, adding 500% to Hawaii capacity over 4 years, flooding the market.

[ontheweb]

20 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

You are about 6 months behind in the conversation.  Sorry

And where are you in the conversation? Let us just say that the majority party in both houses of Congress decide that the bill by the minority members from Alaska is the number one priority in the country, make that the world, and repeal or at least modify the PVSA.

 

Do you think that the Alaska cruise season would then be magically saved? Whether you have noticed it or not, there are no cruise ships sailing from US ports, not even the test cruises required by the CDC.

 

And again if the PVSA is so harmful to the large cruise lines where was their lobbying to have it repealed all these past years? Could it be that they feel they are better off with the present law in place?