Icy Strait Point satisfies Jones Act?

[Shmoo here]

10 minutes ago, iceman93 said:

and may still make sense for certain industries.  But for cruises with thousands of passengers and thousands of crew members, it is obsolete,

The question, of course, being - how do you carve out "cruise" ships from the "passenger" vessel description without giving a loophole to every water vessel to sail through.

[drowelf]

I'm of the opinion that nothing will be done to address any changes to the PVSA. Mainly because the definition of passenger vessel is codified in SOLAS and transferred to US Laws as such. The secondary reason being that there is not enough interest by the majority in Congress to tackle such a matter. The two parties can not get together and agree on passing laws that are really needed, think infrastructure here, that a majority of Americans want passed, let alone addressing a niche area that is only of interest to the economies of a few states.

 

Other than those few states that garner a significant income from cruising (Florida, Alaska, ??) would be agitating for any changes and as others have stated, it might be possible anyway due to international treaties that deal with maritime matters. 

[chengkp75]

7 hours ago, iceman93 said:

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The PVSA is obsolete.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  But for cruises with thousands of passengers and thousands of crew members, it is obsolete, counterproductive, and ridiculous in the cost in exacts for no real benefit.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that you could define a sub-class of passenger vessel, and give it the ability to sail in domestic passenger trade, by amending the PVSA.  What do you do about the teeny tiny problem of crew visas in that case.  If you are allowing foreign crew to work a domestic route, then by definition, those crew are working in the US, and require H2-B work visas.  This has nothing at all to do with the PVSA, entirely different legislation involved.  Not only are these visas limited in number, and costly to obtain, but there are other requirements that go along with them, such as having advertised for US workers to fill the jobs (and not being allowed to disregard US applicants), and paying the foreign crew what a comparable US job would pay.  This is the kind of restrictions that CLIA and its member companies have foreseen, and know that there would be absolutely no benefit, and most likely a large detriment, to their bottom line if allowed into the PVSA trade.  And, this is why CLIA has shown no interest in amending the PVSA after their 10 year ordeal getting the waiver for Puerto Rico only to see one line pick up the trade, and then fold after a year due to lack of demand.

Edited May 2, 2021 by chengkp75

[KirkNC]

When I find myself in a hole, I have learned it is best to stop digging.

[ontheweb]

7 hours ago, iceman93 said:

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.

And if it is so obsolete, counterproductive, and ridiculous in the costs it exacts for no real benefit, why has the CLIA not been lobbying for years to have it amended or done away with entirely?

[Copper10-8]

FYI, Icy Strait Point, Hoonah, AK cruise ship berth (pics #1-4) (built in 2015-2016 (opened to cruise ships at the beginning of the 2016 Alaska season). Prior to the floating dock being built that year, it was a tender port. Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL), in partnership with Huna Totem financed/built a second, 500' floating dock (completed in 2020), large enough to accommodate "mega (cruise) ships," about one half mile further from town (last pic) The new cruise ship dock is known as Icy Strait Point Berth II

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CruiseMGM]

2 hours ago, Copper10-8 said:

FYI, Icy Strait Point, Hoonah, AK cruise ship berth (pics #1-4) (built in 2015-2016 (opened to cruise ships at the beginning of the 2016 Alaska season). Prior to the floating dock being built that year, it was a tender port. Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL), in partnership with Huna Totem financed/built a second, 500' floating dock (completed in 2020), large enough to accommodate "mega (cruise) ships," about one half mile further from town (last pic) The new cruise ship dock is known as Icy Strait Point Berth II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the pictures, Copper, great to finally see the new berth. Saw the older one in 2019.

Best wishes!

[JRG]

23 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Hoonah is a tender port, in Icy Straight Point.

 

This is incorrect,   unless they have gotten rid of the dock.   We were there in September a few years and you get off on a dock.       Hoonah is a short walk from the dock and there is not much there.

 

They continue to improve the trinket shop and the fireside accomodations though. 

 

I like the idea the the OP brought up.    Maybe there is something there to look it.

 

 

Perhaps it is a good time to stop drinking the PVSA kool-aid and start thinking about a change to this old steamship law.

 

It is really unfortunate that that same group of posters have to deluge us with the same old saggy song and dance lectures.

 

 

 

 

 

[CruiserBruce]

6 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

 

Perhaps it is a good time to stop drinking the PVSA kool-aid and start thinking about a change to this old steamship law.

 

It is really unfortunate that that same group of posters have to deluge us with the same old saggy song and dance lectures.

 

 

 

 

 

As has been mentioned many times, if the cruise industry wanted it changed, CLIA would be lobbying for it. And the issue of reciprocity plays into it as well...most other countries have similar laws...if the US changes their law, how does that affect others?

 

I get it...you are desperate to cruise, but that doesn't mean the US should move heaven and earth so you can.

 

The people you accuse of "drinking the kool aid" are far more versed in what is current in the marine world. Its ok to admit it, you don't have to disparage everyone who disagrees with you. 

[JRG]

3 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

Just because YOU are desperate to cruise, doesn't mean the US should move heaven and earth so you can.

 

No need to get upset.  It is only forum discussion and it helps if we can get the facts right.

 

 

[JRG]

14 hours ago, iceman93 said:

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.

 

This is the champagne that everyone should be drinking....

 

get rid of the PVSA Kool-Aid on board here and start drinking Champagne.....

 

 

[Himself]

On 5/1/2021 at 11:55 AM, chengkp75 said:

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.

I agree with your explanation.

[thinfool]

The Hoonah argument seems superfluous to me.  It could/would be a foreign port.  So??

Victoria is a foreign port that satisfies the PVSA seemingly well.  

 

A "distant foreign port" is required to  effect the PVSA....Hoonah isn't 'distant'.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, thinfool said:

The Hoonah argument seems superfluous to me.  It could/would be a foreign port.  So??

Victoria is a foreign port that satisfies the PVSA seemingly well.  

 

A "distant foreign port" is required to  effect the PVSA....Hoonah isn't 'distant'.

Distant foreign port is only required for a one way cruise.  Closed loop cruises only require any foreign port.

[iancal]

Really....IF there was a loophole I have no doubt that the cruise lines would have found it years ago and would have acted on it.

 

They have legions of smart lawyers and lobbyists who get very well  paid to do this.

Edited May 2, 2021 by iancal

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

No need to get upset.  It is only forum discussion and it helps if we can get the facts right.

 

 

And which facts would those be?  Your impression that the evil of the PVSA is outweighed by some possible good that the cruise lines haven't found in 50 years?  Or the opinion that the PVSA is obsolete?

[Aquahound]

The bottom line is, ISP is not an option to satisfy PVSA.  It is a US port.  Period.  

 

Even if it was a full reservation (such as the Makah Reservation in Neah Bay, WA), it still would not be a foreign port.   

Edited May 2, 2021 by Aquahound

[Mosaic]

chengkp75, thank you, you are the best.

[KirkNC]

7 hours ago, Copper10-8 said:

FYI, Icy Strait Point, Hoonah, AK cruise ship berth (pics #1-4) (built in 2015-2016 (opened to cruise ships at the beginning of the 2016 Alaska season). Prior to the floating dock being built that year, it was a tender port. Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL), in partnership with Huna Totem financed/built a second, 500' floating dock (completed in 2020), large enough to accommodate "mega (cruise) ships," about one half mile further from town (last pic) The new cruise ship dock is known as Icy Strait Point Berth II

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the pics, we were there on the Zaandam in 2019.

[don't-use-real-name]

Adding map LINK:

 

Google Maps

 

Hoonah is about a mile from the docks at Icy - bottom of image

 

Top of the image shows Ice Strait Point and the 2016 dock -

the newly*** added dock (2020) is to the right of the existing one -

***Older map image dock not yet built

 

Prior to those two docks tendering was required at the pier

that was formerly used by a salmon canning*** industry.

This was the cruise line access to Hoonah.

*** There is a very interesting salmon canning museum at this location.

 

Note the road to the right in the image that weave wanders up to the

top of a mountain where the ZIP Line starts - - -

may not be one of the highest - but certainly one of the longest fastest runs

 

With two mega ships - Icy Strait Point is overwhelmed overtaxed etc.

[Glaciers]

Metlakatla is the only Indian Reservation in Alaska and it does not appear it would meet the qualifications of a foreign port.  

 

In another post a link was provided from the Port of Seattle that indicated;  “Current law requires foreign-flagged vessels to stop at an international port between U.S. port sailings.  The Port of Seattle is working with partners on practical solutions that could enable the 2021 Alaska season to commence even if Canada has yet to permit traveler arrivals at its borders.”

 

It will be interesting to see what these “practical solutions” are.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Glaciers

[donaldsc]

On 5/1/2021 at 8:49 PM, drowelf said:

I'm of the opinion that nothing will be done to address any changes to the PVSA. Mainly because the definition of passenger vessel is codified in SOLAS and transferred to US Laws as such. The secondary reason being that there is not enough interest by the majority in Congress to tackle such a matter. The two parties can not get together and agree on passing laws that are really needed, think infrastructure here, that a majority of Americans want passed, let alone addressing a niche area that is only of interest to the economies of a few states.

 

Other than those few states that garner a significant income from cruising (Florida, Alaska, ??) would be agitating for any changes and as others have stated, it might be possible anyway due to international treaties that deal with maritime matters. 

 

The senators from the great states of Florida and Alaska have provided a lot of support to the programs of the current administration - sarcasm intended.  Why then should the current administration do anything to help those states.  What is in it for the current administration.

 

DON

[rkacruiser]

16 hours ago, donaldsc said:

What is in it for the current administration.

 

JOBS for the citizens of Alaska and Florida who are involved in the hospitality/leisure travel industry.  Citizens working=money earned=taxes that will need to be paid.  

[thinfool]

19 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

JOBS for the citizens of Alaska and Florida who are involved in the hospitality/leisure travel industry.  Citizens working=money earned=taxes that will need to be paid.  

Neither Florida nor Alaska have state income taxes.

[rkacruiser]

4 hours ago, thinfool said:

Neither Florida nor Alaska have state income taxes.

 

But, they do pay Federal income taxes.