Could PVSA finally be gone for good.

[erinsmom03]

11 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

While in Canada last year we spent 4 days in Victoria.  I loved every minute of it.  I got a suite in a hotel overlooking the water. I spent every evening on their patio having dinner and then later drinks overlooking the water. Each day I did an "excursion" to a different activity doing my best to replicate the Alaskan cruse that I was supposed to be on that I was not.  The waiter at my hotel told that the lack of cruise ships have devastated his income.  This surprised me... He said that large numbers of cruise passengers stop into the hotel for a meal and drinks to or from the cruise port  into the inner harbor.

 

I quite enjoyed Butchart gardens.  With the absence of cruise ships there was probably less than 10% of their usual attendance.  It made for a great time.

 

Sorry I meant  to quote @erinsmom03 in this post.

 

We didn't have the luxury of that much time, but we did enjoy a hop on hop off bus tour, and saw as much of the island as we could fit in. We also went through and thoroughly enjoyed Craigdarroch  Castle. 

 

I think most of us are unaware of the true economic impact the suspension of cruising has had on so many people in ports of call. 

[Pratique]

3 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Yes, I agree.  It's certainly not on anyone's front burner with either House at this time.  The most curious part of this to me is why Senator Lee chose to speak about this issue.  Oh, how I would like to be a "fly on the wall" in many offices in Washington, D. C. as well as in my own State Capitol.   

Senator Lee is up for reelection in 2022.

[Tree_skier]

12 minutes ago, Pratique said:

Repealing PVSA, on the other hand, would get a lot more attention and be more difficult to slide through

How about instead of repealing just modifying it

[HicksRA]

Haven’t been to Victoria, but I found Vancouver to be nothing but San Francisco 2.0. Same scenery and same squalor. 
I’d be happy to bypass it. 

[twangster]

Introducing a bill is really easy.  

 

He isn't the first to tackle the PVSA (or Jones Act for cargo for that matter) and he won't be the last.

 

ATRA is one thing.  Taking on the PVSA will be an interesting endeavor to follow.  Those who have tried before haven't even made it out of committee.  The nuances and weirdness of ATRA is peek into the complexity.  

 

Just now, Tree_skier said:

How about instead of repealing just modifying it

 

That would have far reaching consequences.  It's way more than just about cruise ships.

[Tree_skier]

2 minutes ago, HicksRA said:

Haven’t been to Victoria, but I found Vancouver to be nothing but San Francisco 2.0. Same scenery and same squalor. 
I’d be happy to bypass it. 

If you ever find yourself back there let me know.  I'll let you in on where the good stuff is. 🙂 

[Tree_skier]

3 minutes ago, twangster said:

It's way more than just about cruise ships.

That was my thought.  Leave it in place but carve out something special just for Alaskan cruises.  It is a unique situation.

[Tree_skier]

21 minutes ago, erinsmom03 said:

 

We didn't have the luxury of that much time, but we did enjoy a hop on hop off bus tour, and saw as much of the island as we could fit in. We also went through and thoroughly enjoyed Craigdarroch  Castle. 

 

I think most of us are unaware of the true economic impact the suspension of cruising has had on so many people in ports of call. 

For your edification. 😉 

 

 

 

[mo&fran]

I hope @chengkp75 rings in with the reason  PVSA exists and also enlightens the senator  how bad of an idea this is. While cruise ships are passenger vessels, not all passenger vessels are cruise ships.

[Tree_skier]

Also, it's great to see @twangster.  I haven't read anything from you in a while.  Looking forward to you getting back on a ship and sharing some of your amazing photos! 

[zekekelso]

1 hour ago, Pratique said:

First question is why is the senator from Utah leading this effort?

Because somebody connected to the cruise industry gave him money. Duh. That’s not a knock in that particular senator, just how the system works. 
 

I don’t believe for a second the law will be changed. And if it does get changed, it’ll be for Alaska only. 

[smplybcause]

16 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

That was my thought.  Leave it in place but carve out something special just for Alaskan cruises.  It is a unique situation.

 

I'd say that's harder. Because then Hawaii might ask why they don't get an exception. Or the New England states will want to exclude the Canada stop for them. Maybe there's a market west or east cruise only? 

 

I think an exclusion for Alaska only would become a pissing match especially since Alaska has very little power in congress. 

[zekekelso]

7 minutes ago, smplybcause said:

 

I'd say that's harder. Because then Hawaii might ask why they don't get an exception. Or the New England states will want to exclude the Canada stop for them. Maybe there's a market west or east cruise only? 

 

I think an exclusion for Alaska only would become a pissing match especially since Alaska has very little power in congress.

I think the big difference is that Alaska needs the cruise business. Cruising is insignificant to New England and is more of a nuisance to many in Hawaii. 
 

Take away the requirement and it opens up all sorts of options. Galveston -> New Orleans -> Tampa —> Galveston anyone?

[Pratique]

9 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

Because somebody connected to the cruise industry gave him money. Duh. That’s not a knock in that particular senator, just how the system works. 

Not sure why they would do that. He’s not the one they need leading this.

 

21 minutes ago, mo&fran said:

I hope @chengkp75 rings in with the reason  PVSA exists and also enlightens the senator  how bad of an idea this is. While cruise ships are passenger vessels, not all passenger vessels are cruise ships.

Sen. Lee talked about limiting this to ships with more than 800 berths.

[Pratique]

43 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

How about instead of repealing just modifying it

He’s put out three options.

[Tree_skier]

1 minute ago, Pratique said:

He’s put out three options.

 

Thanks for your help on this.  It will be interesting to watch this unfold.  

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Pratique said:

None of the bills Sen. Lee has proposed address the crew immigration requirements.

 

2 hours ago, Pratique said:

Likewise there is no incentive for the U.S. to relax the visa requirements for the foreign crew members.

 

2 hours ago, Tree_skier said:

I think that relaxing entry requirements for foreign workers fits quite well with the current administrations idealogical agenda.  H1B's just received a relaxation of rules, it wouldn't take anything to to relax the C1 rules in order to move changes to PVSA along I wouldn't think.

Actually, in all three bills, he attempts to have the foreign crews' visa (C1/D) be acceptable for a domestic voyage.  This will get both the State Department and CBP/Homeland Security involved in the discussion, and I don't think they will go along.  So, you think that they just need to carve out another "special case" for a "cruise ship crew" C1 visa?  And, once that hits the fan, organized labor in the US will lobby against this, as allowing foreign workers to work in the US without a work visa.

 

Then there will be the teeny, tiny problem of the USCG, who will advocate to enforce USCG regulations on foreign ships engaged in domestic US transportation, but that is in violation of SOLAS, so you get into international legal issues, and another branch of Homeland Security putting their two cents in.  Because as soon as you say, well, they are foreign ships, so USCG regulations don't apply, every US flag ship will sue in court to get out of USCG regulations, as this places the foreign ships at an economic advantage.  And, if the cruise lines agree to meet the USCG regulations in order to get the PVSA exemption, then the cost of cruising goes up due to the cost of meeting USCG regulations.  This is the exact point why CLIA has not lobbied for revision/repeal of the PVSA, it will cost them a lot of money.

 

Can this happen?  Sure.  Will this have far reaching unintended consequences?  You betcha.  Will it have a  hard row to hoe getting passed?  There are many interests against this, as this issue does not solely benefit foreign ports, but a vibrant US industry.

 

And, I'm not convinced that the passenger limit as being the defining aspect of the exemption is legal in international law.

Edited June 12, 2021 by chengkp75

[Tree_skier]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

 

Actually, in all three bills, he attempts to have the foreign crews' visa (C1/D) be acceptable for a domestic voyage.  This will get both the State Department and CBP/Homeland Security involved in the discussion, and I don't think they will go along.  So, you think that they just need to carve out another "special case" for a "cruise ship crew" C1 visa?  And, once that hits the fan, organized labor in the US will lobby against this, as allowing foreign workers to work in the US without a work visa.

 

Then there will be the teeny, tiny problem of the USCG, who will advocate to enforce USCG regulations on foreign ships engaged in domestic US transportation, but that is in violation of SOLAS, so you get into international legal issues, and another branch of Homeland Security putting their two cents in.  Because as soon as you say, well, they are foreign ships, so USCG regulations don't apply, every US flag ship will sue in court to get out of USCG regulations, as this places the foreign ships at an economic advantage.  And, if the cruise lines agree to meet the USCG regulations in order to get the PVSA exemption, then the cost of cruising goes up due to the cost of meeting USCG regulations.  This is the exact point why CLIA has not lobbied for revision/repeal of the PVSA, it will cost them a lot of money.

 

Can this happen?  Sure.  Will this have far reaching unintended consequences?  You betcha.  Will it have a  hard row to hoe getting passed?  There are many interests against this, as this issue does not solely benefit foreign ports, but a vibrant US industry.

 

And, I'm not convinced that the passenger limit as being the defining aspect of the exemption is legal in international law.

Thanks for chiming in and for your expertise.  It'll be interesting to watch and also to see who supports and who doesn't support Sen Lee's proposition.  

[Pratique]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Actually, in all three bills, he attempts to have the foreign crews' visa (C1/D) be acceptable for a domestic voyage.  This will get both the State Department and CBP/Homeland Security involved in the discussion, and I don't think they will go along.  So, you think that they just need to carve out another "special case" for a "cruise ship crew" C1 visa?  And, once that hits the fan, organized labor in the US will lobby against this, as allowing foreign workers to work in the US without a work visa.

 

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

And, I'm not convinced that the passenger limit as being the defining aspect of the exemption is legal in international law.

Agree. The proposals seem inelegant to me, there needs to be a more robust approach to the visa requirements, oh the hurdles…

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, Pratique said:

 

Agree. The proposals seem inelegant to me, there needs to be a more robust approach to the visa requirements, oh the hurdles…

Yes, this is trying to kick over a lot of apple carts, and will have to go before several different committees, and hear testimony from several different federal agencies, all of whom have not been in favor of revising/repealing the act in the past, and particularly since the past application of the act has ruled out exemptions for strictly economic reasons.

[RFerrington]

deleted

Edited June 12, 2021 by RFerrington

[rkacruiser]

3 hours ago, Pratique said:

Senator Lee is up for reelection in 2022.

 

With potential Primary opponents already named in public media and he is often eclipsed  by the Junior Senator of Utah.  Probably, much "ado about nothing" substantially legislative.  Just more waste of the Senate's time when more significant issues ought to be addressed.  

[HicksRA]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 

 

Actually, in all three bills, he attempts to have the foreign crews' visa (C1/D) be acceptable for a domestic voyage.  This will get both the State Department and CBP/Homeland Security involved in the discussion, and I don't think they will go along.  So, you think that they just need to carve out another "special case" for a "cruise ship crew" C1 visa?  And, once that hits the fan, organized labor in the US will lobby against this, as allowing foreign workers to work in the US without a work visa.

 

Then there will be the teeny, tiny problem of the USCG, who will advocate to enforce USCG regulations on foreign ships engaged in domestic US transportation, but that is in violation of SOLAS, so you get into international legal issues, and another branch of Homeland Security putting their two cents in.  Because as soon as you say, well, they are foreign ships, so USCG regulations don't apply, every US flag ship will sue in court to get out of USCG regulations, as this places the foreign ships at an economic advantage.  And, if the cruise lines agree to meet the USCG regulations in order to get the PVSA exemption, then the cost of cruising goes up due to the cost of meeting USCG regulations.  This is the exact point why CLIA has not lobbied for revision/repeal of the PVSA, it will cost them a lot of money.

 

Can this happen?  Sure.  Will this have far reaching unintended consequences?  You betcha.  Will it have a  hard row to hoe getting passed?  There are many interests against this, as this issue does not solely benefit foreign ports, but a vibrant US industry.

 

And, I'm not convinced that the passenger limit as being the defining aspect of the exemption is legal in international law.

Oh what a tangled web we weave…

[Junkhouse]

Tit for tat. Canada banned cruises because we banned their pipeline.

[Tree_skier]

Not that it is entirely informative based on the discussion here from those more in the know but an interesting take from a popular Canadian cruise blogger about this issue.  I've enjoyed many of Don's previous video's.  His take on the premier of my former province is definitely on point.