Jump to content

Icy Strait Point satisfies Jones Act?


Recommended Posts

I think some Native American tribe reservations have some kind of "sovereign nation" status. Could a port such as Icy Straight Point Alaska Tlingit village qualify as a foreign port for Jones Act purposes? A long shot of course. What if a cruise line took that position and started  the Alaska season with a stop there? The Feds of course would file a lawsuit but by the time it got to court the 2021 season would be over and would be moot for 2022 as Canada should be open. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Willard23 said:

I think some Native American tribe reservations have some kind of "sovereign nation" status. Could a port such as Icy Straight Point Alaska Tlingit village qualify as a foreign port for Jones Act purposes? A long shot of course. What if a cruise line took that position and started  the Alaska season with a stop there? The Feds of course would file a lawsuit but by the time it got to court the 2021 season would be over and would be moot for 2022 as Canada should be open. 

A believe violations result in a hefty per passenger fine which the cruise line would still have to pay.  One of our Jones Act or P whatever acronym  experts will need to chime in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Unless you are hauling cargo, the Jones Act is irrelevant.  What you are trying to reference is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, or PVSA.  This has been discussed so many times over the last 14 months that I am surprised that mistake is still being made.  EM

Edited by Essiesmom
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Essiesmom said:

Unless you are hauling cargo, the Jones Act is irrelevant.  What you are trying to reference is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, or PVSA.  This has been discussed so many times over the last 14 months that I am surprised that mistake is still being made.  EM

And the chance that that mistake will continue to be made is probably very near 100%.

 

And as to the OP's question---before even considering it, are their port facilities there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And the chance that that mistake will continue to be made is probably very near 100%.

 

And as to the OP's question---before even considering it, are their port facilities there?

Yes, there is a port there. I think it is being, or just recently has been, expanded to two ships. So somewhat limited capacity. If two docks, maybe 4 ships a day, if carefully scheduled, using the longer days of the bulk of the Alaska cruising season. Pretty location, but I doubt it meets the rules of the PVSA.

 

As to the PVSA, all you have to do is remember the "PV" stands for "Passenger Vessel", as in, "not cargo".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer is most likely no.  First off, Hoonah is not a reservation, but a town owned by a tribal association, so not quite sure of the actual legal status.  Secondly, native american reservations are granted the designation of "domestic dependent nations", and as such do not have full sovereignty as another nation would.  That makes them, in my opinion, not a "foreign port".

 

Hoonah is a tender port, in Icy Straight Point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Hoonah is a tender port, in Icy Straight Point.

The town may be a tender port, but there is a dock at Icy Strait Point...been there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last I heard, Icy Strait Point was limiting itself to one passenger ship a day, even with the new dock.

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m actually surprised the absurdity of the last year has not incited a reassessment of the PVSA.  There are so many unique itineraries that could be envisioned were it not for that antiquated act whose sole purpose was to protect American-flagged passenger vessels  (all 5 of them 😏) and US mariner union jobs.  Even if the US-port only itineraries were limited in number, there could be some nice trips.
 

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, kelleherdl said:

I’m actually surprised the absurdity of the last year has not incited a reassessment of the PVSA.  There are so many unique itineraries that could be envisioned were it not for that antiquated act whose sole purpose was to protect American-flagged passenger vessels  (all 5 of them 😏) and US mariner union jobs.  Even if the US-port only itineraries were limited in number, there could be some nice trips.
 

Dennis

So, the sole purpose of the PVSA, when it was enacted in 1886, was to protect ships that hadn't been built yet, and US maritime union jobs (when the first maritime union in the US was only formed 11 years prior?  How much clout would that young union have?)?  That "antiquated" act preserves the jobs of several hundred thousand US citizens who spend 100% of their income in the US and pay US taxes.  As usual, you think this is the "Cruise" Vessel Services Act, when it actually applies to all passenger vessels, including the 217 ferry operators (comprising 622 vessels) across 37 states.  Not counting the casinos, dinner cruises, sight seeing, whale watching, and commuter/water taxis all across the country.

 

You might want to read up on the Steamboat Acts of the 1800's, and how these and the PVSA led to the formation of the Steamboat Inspection Service, which is today the USCG's Marine Inspection Division (those USCG guys and gals you see on the cruise ships).

 

Further, a domestic voyage, even if allowed under a PVSA waiver, would require all crew to have H2-B work visas to the US, which requires that they get paid commensurate US wages and follow US labor and safety laws.

Edited by chengkp75
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Willard23 said:

I think some Native American tribe reservations have some kind of "sovereign nation" status. Could a port such as Icy Straight Point Alaska Tlingit village qualify as a foreign port for Jones Act purposes? A long shot of course. What if a cruise line took that position and started  the Alaska season with a stop there? The Feds of course would file a lawsuit but by the time it got to court the 2021 season would be over and would be moot for 2022 as Canada should be open. 

Welcome to the Holland America board.  I like your thinking.  Alaska business and workers have to be hurting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

which requires that they get paid commensurate US wages 

 

Just curious about the end cost of this - do you have any thoughts/ideas/estimates about how much that part alone could add to a cruise fare? 🤔

Link to post
Share on other sites

@chengkp75  I've said it before and will say it again - DON'T MESS WITH THE CHIEF!!!!!!  You know your stuff, and I'm so thankful to your continued willingness to educate those amongst us (myself included) about the shipping and cruise industry and how different regulations, governing bodies, etc. are intertwined and have ramifications and effects on things we'd never casually consider!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SeaHunt said:

 

Just curious about the end cost of this - do you have any thoughts/ideas/estimates about how much that part alone could add to a cruise fare? 🤔

 

Compare the Pride of America to any other mass marrket cruise doing 7 day closed loop cruises from US ports.  The cost differential to do business for that vessel is SIGNIFICANT, and the pricing reflects that.  Some is the cost of fueling/provisioning in Hawaii vs other US ports, but the labor costs and tax implications are the biggest driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Willard23 said:

I think some Native American tribe reservations have some kind of "sovereign nation" status. Could a port such as Icy Straight Point Alaska Tlingit village qualify as a foreign port for Jones Act purposes?

I sure wish that were a solution. Icy Strait Point was the high point of one Alaska cruise we took. It had the world's longest zip line: over 5,000 feet, hitting speeds over 60 mph.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

So, the sole purpose of the PVSA, when it was enacted in 1886, was to protect ships that hadn't been built yet, and US maritime union jobs (when the first maritime union in the US was only formed 11 years prior?  How much clout would that young union have?)?  That "antiquated" act preserves the jobs of several hundred thousand US citizens who spend 100% of their income in the US and pay US taxes.  As usual, you think this is the "Cruise" Vessel Services Act, when it actually applies to all passenger vessels, including the 217 ferry operators (comprising 622 vessels) across 37 states.  Not counting the casinos, dinner cruises, sight seeing, whale watching, and commuter/water taxis all across the country.

 

You might want to read up on the Steamboat Acts of the 1800's, and how these and the PVSA led to the formation of the Steamboat Inspection Service, which is today the USCG's Marine Inspection Division (those USCG guys and gals you see on the cruise ships).

 

Further, a domestic voyage, even if allowed under a PVSA waiver, would require all crew to have H2-B work visas to the US, which requires that they get paid commensurate US wages and follow US labor and safety laws.

I truly appreciate the detailed education.  Unfortunately, nothing of the history you provided precludes passing new legislation or amending the PVSA to meet the needs of the modern cruise industry, which did not exist in the 1880’s. Reassessment could include carving out cruise ships as a separate class of passenger vessels.  My whole point was to ‘reassess or amend’, not delete current law.  If the ‘politics’ of US maritime policy as it relates to the cruise industry remains sacred then nothing will change.  So be it.
 

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, SeaHunt said:

 

Just curious about the end cost of this - do you have any thoughts/ideas/estimates about how much that part alone could add to a cruise fare? 🤔

The US Maritime Administration has studied this, and for a cargo vessel with a crew of 20-25, it costs nearly 5 times as much to have a US crew as a foreign crew, so think about that multiplied over 1-2000 crew on a cruise ship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kelleherdl said:

Reassessment could include carving out cruise ships as a separate class of passenger vessels.

No, it couldn't.  The definition of "passenger vessel" (any vessel that carries more than 12 people for hire), is part of SOLAS, and since the US is signatory to SOLAS, we agree to adopt the language of SOLAS into US law.  Therefore, to "carve out" cruise ships, you would need to get the majority of the 126 signatory nations of the IMO to agree to it.  So, unless you advocate denouncing SOLAS, and a few other IMO Conventions, for "passenger vessels" you have them all (from Oasis to the Fisher Island Ferry) or nothing.  The other difficulty is that once you start to "discriminate" between foreign flag vessels (to separate cruise ships from, say, the Alaska Marine Highway, if they felt they could benefit from flagging to Panama) is that you are no longer in US law, but in maritime or admiralty law, and this has different theories of what is fair and equitable.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

NCL has proven with the singularity of the Pride of America that IF the Cruise Lines wish to operate a solely US domestic cruise itinerary that they can do so - build the ship so it can be flagged in the US and operate it with crew that are either US citizens and/or legal to work in the US (work Visas) and follow all US labor laws and safety practices.

 

By and large the Cruise Lines have chosen NOT to do this.  Given that fact I don't forsee any of the government agencies involved willing to make carve outs or exemptions, nor should they.

 

Carnival Corp, Royal Caribbean Group and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings all have decided to act in accordance with the PVSA as it relates to foreign flagged vessels so that they can yield the substantial sailings of operating those foreign flagged ships.  They made the choice, they deal with the limitations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, IPB4IGO said:

Icy Strait Point was the high point of one Alaska cruise we took. 

 

This port was a very pleasant surprise for me.  A cold, rainy day when my ship docked and considered not visiting the community.  If I had done so, it would have been my loss.

 

5 hours ago, bcummin said:

The last I heard, Icy Strait Point was limiting itself to one passenger ship a day, even with the new dock.

Barbara

 

One ship per day is what the community of the size of the departed Amsterdam can comfortably handle.  At least, when I visited Icy Point Strait.  A ship the size of some of the NCL and RCCL lines:  I am not so sure that their guests' experiences would as positively mirror mine. 

 

6 hours ago, ontheweb said:

And the chance that that mistake will continue to be made is probably very near 100%.

 

How many of us are graduates of a law school?  How many of us can read all of the legalese without becoming confused?  That's why many of us hire an attorney who can guide us through the legalese maze.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kelleherdl said:

I truly appreciate the detailed education.  Unfortunately, nothing of the history you provided precludes passing new legislation or amending the PVSA to meet the needs of the modern cruise industry, which did not exist in the 1880’s. Reassessment could include carving out cruise ships as a separate class of passenger vessels.  My whole point was to ‘reassess or amend’, not delete current law.  If the ‘politics’ of US maritime policy as it relates to the cruise industry remains sacred then nothing will change.  So be it.
 

Dennis

The cruise lines through their lobbying organization the CLIA have never lobbied for this. That fact should tell you something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the opinion of experts in any field is always appreciated, said experts (who may have spent several decades in a single industry) are often unable or unwilling to have an open mind to new ideas and new ways of doing things.

 

The PVSA is obsolete.  Period, dot, end of sentence.  It may have made sense 150 years ago, and may still make sense for certain industries.  But for cruises with thousands of passengers and thousands of crew members, it is obsolete, counterproductive, and ridiculous in the cost in exacts for no real benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: American Queen Steamboat Company - Celebrate Your Freedom
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com - June 2021
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...