Could PVSA finally be gone for good.

[Tree_skier]

3 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

The actual text of the Canadian regs says only those 12 years (12 years and 4 months to be exact) are included in that 100%

That's what I thought too initially. However every article I have read interprets it as requiring for children.   too.  The exception appear to be for for those not considered a passenger and pilot. Whoever that person might be.

 

 

 

[smokeybandit]

3 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

That's what I thought too initially. However every article I have read interprets it as requiring for children.   too.  The exception appear to be for for those not considered a passenger and pilot. Whoever that person might be.

 

 

 

It outright says it.

 

There's this

7 (1) It is prohibited for a cruise ship that is a Canadian vessel to be operated in any waters, and for a cruise ship that is a foreign vessel to be operated in Canadian waters, unless the cruise ship's authorized representative

 

1. (b) verifies that every person on board the cruise ship is vaccinated in accordance with subsection (2) or that they have a reason referred to in subsection (3) for not being vaccinated;

 

 

Then subsection (2) says

Vaccination status

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the vaccination status to be verified is the following:

1. (a) in the case of a person on board the cruise ship other than a passenger or pilot,
   1. (i) that they have received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine dosage regimen before boarding, and
   2. (ii) beginning on January 24, 2022, that they are fully vaccinated; and
2. (b) in the case of a passenger who is 12 years and 4 months of age or older, that they are fully vaccinated.

[Tree_skier]

hmm that does appear to to exempt the kids.  Every article I have read indicated otherwise so I may have gotten this wrong.  This will be interesting to see unfold.

 

Another potential pitfall is that Canada is requiring PCR test only.  Antigen tests are not going to be accepted.

[smokeybandit]

5 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

hmm that does appear to to exempt the kids.  Every article I have read indicated otherwise so I may have gotten this wrong.  This will be interesting to see unfold.

 

Another potential pitfall is that Canada is requiring PCR test only.  Antigen tests are not going to be accepted.

 

The cruise ship guidance basically says TBD on testing.

 

Testing Framework

Testing requirements apply only to passengers five years of age and over. Additional details on testing will be provided through periodic updates to this document.

 

 

But since Canada now allows antigen tests to enter the country, I would be surprised if they'd require PCR tests for cruise passengers

[Tree_skier]

18 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

The cruise ship guidance basically says TBD on testing.

 

Testing Framework

Testing requirements apply only to passengers five years of age and over. Additional details on testing will be provided through periodic updates to this document.

 

 

But since Canada now allows antigen tests to enter the country, I would be surprised if they'd require PCR tests for cruise passengers

Definitions

1 (1) 

The following definitions apply in this Interim Order.

COVID-19

means the coronavirus disease 2019. (COVID-19)

COVID-19 Molecular Test

means a COVID-19 screening or diagnostic test carried out by an accredited laboratory, including a test performed using the method of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP). (essai moléculaire relatif à la COVID-19)

The only test defined by the order is a PCR test.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Tree_skier said:

The exception appear to be for for those not considered a passenger and pilot. Whoever that person might be.

A person on a cruise ship who is not a passenger or pilot is generally referred to as "crew".

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, twangster said:

I'm still amazed ATRA actually passed last year and wasn't challenged by anyone.

I wasn't surprised, as it was presented as a covid relief measure, at a time when other measures were being enacted to assist with covid dislocations to the economy.  However, if this is presented again, I think not only will the maritime unions, and US flag cruise operators have objections to it, but State, Homeland, and USCG will have issues with this possibly becoming an annual event.

[smokeybandit]

9 minutes ago, Tree_skier said:

Definitions

1 (1) 

The following definitions apply in this Interim Order.

COVID-19

means the coronavirus disease 2019. (COVID-19)

COVID-19 Molecular Test

means a COVID-19 screening or diagnostic test carried out by an accredited laboratory, including a test performed using the method of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP). (essai moléculaire relatif à la COVID-19)

The only test defined by the order is a PCR test.

Look at the references to "covid-19 molecular test" in that document. None of it applies to cruise ship passengers.  This is for cruise ship passengers:

 

1. (b) in the case of a passenger, a COVID-19 test result set out in Ship Safety Bulletin No. 18/2021.

That link takes you to the page that has the TBD section on testing

[seasidemama]

I think there are three separate versions of this bill on the table so to speak. Would love the PVSA to be repealed altogether - 2 night weekend cruises to nowhere would be an awesome addition to East Coast deployment (a girl can always dream)..

[seasidemama]

On 6/13/2021 at 11:16 AM, nelblu said:

Think of an itinerary for the East Coast from Boston/NY to Miami & vice versa.  

 

Yes

[seasidemama]

On 6/19/2021 at 10:32 AM, MommaBear55 said:

The aspects of the PSVA that need to be addressed before it could be gone for good would include where the ships would be built, under whose tax authority could it be registered and the bigger issue, as it's effects multiple governmental departments, is do they require an all American crew or can they issue specialty visas for all employees which allows them to work just in the US. 

 

They could just technically go into international waters while cruising and at that point it's no longer a U.S. only cruise.. technically speaking of course 

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, seasidemama said:

I think there are three separate versions of this bill on the table so to speak. Would love the PVSA to be repealed altogether - 2 night weekend cruises to nowhere would be an awesome addition to East Coast deployment (a girl can always dream)..

Actually, cruises to nowhere are specifically allowed by the PVSA.  It is CBP who has ruled that crew working on a cruise to nowhere are working in the US, and require an H-2/B work visa instead of the C-1/D crew visa.  So, even repealing the PVSA would not allow foreign flag ships to do cruises to nowhere.

4 hours ago, seasidemama said:

 

They could just technically go into international waters while cruising and at that point it's no longer a U.S. only cruise.. technically speaking of course 

If this were the case, then the cruise to nowhere you wish for would be legal.  Whether a ship goes into international waters does not make it an international voyage.  Many ships engaged in "coastwise" trade (US domestic voyages) go outside the US territorial waters (12 miles).  Whether a ship visits a foreign port is what defines whether a voyage is domestic or foreign.  If it does not, even if it were to go from NYC halfway across the Atlantic, and then turn around and return to Miami, it would be a domestic voyage.

[Oceansaway17]

On 3/1/2022 at 7:50 PM, chengkp75 said:

I wasn't surprised, as it was presented as a covid relief measure, at a time when other measures were being enacted to assist with covid dislocations to the economy.  However, if this is presented again, I think not only will the maritime unions, and US flag cruise operators have objections to it, but State, Homeland, and USCG will have issues with this possibly becoming an annual event.

but if Canada plays games with the cruising industry about getting off of ship due to concerns about covid, then I think it should be extended.   

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Oceansaway17 said:

but if Canada plays games with the cruising industry about getting off of ship due to concerns about covid, then I think it should be extended.   

And, I will disagree.  If the cruise lines wish to sail strictly to US ports, then they should abide by the same rules as the current US flag cruise ships that are allowed to do so.

[Oceansaway17]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

And, I will disagree.  If the cruise lines wish to sail strictly to US ports, then they should abide by the same rules as the current US flag cruise ships that are allowed to do so.

okay smarty pants, what is your answer if Victoria won't let ships in.? What is the Alaska season dead then? like I said if they play games, let Biden do the same.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, Oceansaway17 said:

okay smarty pants, what is your answer if Victoria won't let ships in.? What is the Alaska season dead then? like I said if they play games, let Biden do the same.

Yep.  President Biden should do what is best for the most citizens, and that is definitely not to allow foreign ships to operate domestically in the US.  Sorry if that interferes with your vacation.

[Oceansaway17]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

Yep.  President Biden should do what is best for the most citizens, and that is definitely not to allow foreign ships to operate domestically in the US.  Sorry if that interferes with your vacation.

me thinks you are one the wrong wave length on this issue.  

I care that if all the ships leaving from Seattle can dock in Victoria, and if they cannot, then Biden should just activate that same go around for that law and bypass Canada.

Lots of Canadian residents are angry with the lack of clarifications on ports. But the cruise lines are selling passage. 

And you seem to not care if Seattle as a city loses all the cruising business because of Canada not opening up Victoria port or requiring entire ship TEST before getting off.  Just silliness and lots of folks are on my side not yours.  

 

 

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Oceansaway17 said:

me thinks you are one the wrong wave length on this issue.  

I care that if all the ships leaving from Seattle can dock in Victoria, and if they cannot, then Biden should just activate that same go around for that law and bypass Canada.

Lots of Canadian residents are angry with the lack of clarifications on ports. But the cruise lines are selling passage. 

And you seem to not care if Seattle as a city loses all the cruising business because of Canada not opening up Victoria port or requiring entire ship TEST before getting off.  Just silliness and lots of folks are on my side not yours.  

 

 

There are a lot of cruise passengers on your side, but there are hundreds of thousands of US citizens supported by the PVSA fleet (it is far more than just cruise ships), who pay US taxes, and buy goods and services in the US, and add to the US economy (which the foreign crew do not, and which results in far more indirect spending in the US economy than the cruise lines do).  Repeating a temporary measure that was designed as a temporary relief measure would set a dangerous precedent that would jeopardize the livelihood of those US citizens.  I have no problem with allowing foreign built cruise ships from operating under the PVSA, but they should meet the other requirements, namely US crew and US flag.

[smokeybandit]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

There are a lot of cruise passengers on your side, but there are hundreds of thousands of US citizens supported by the PVSA fleet (it is far more than just cruise ships), who pay US taxes, and buy goods and services in the US, and add to the US economy (which the foreign crew do not, and which results in far more indirect spending in the US economy than the cruise lines do).  Repeating a temporary measure that was designed as a temporary relief measure would set a dangerous precedent that would jeopardize the livelihood of those US citizens.  I have no problem with allowing foreign built cruise ships from operating under the PVSA, but they should meet the other requirements, namely US crew and US flag.

 

What American is out a dollar because a cruise ship no longer stops in Canada?

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, smokeybandit said:

 

What American is out a dollar because a cruise ship no longer stops in Canada?

Every US citizen that should be a crew member on a ship that is doing domestic US voyages.  Ask Uncruise, American Cruise Lines, and Alaska Dream whether they would prefer to hire far cheaper foreign crew (you'll note that the minimum passenger limit of the last temporary Alaska measure was set to disqualify these currently US flag ships from the measures of having foreign crew, and foregoing USCG regulations), and save untold thousands in payroll taxes and regulatory costs.

[AmazedByCruising]

 

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Every US citizen that should be a crew member on a ship that is doing domestic US voyages.  Ask Uncruise, American Cruise Lines, and Alaska Dream

 

Those lines are so small that CLIA could simply ask their members for a small contribution to pay the existing crew enough to retire. If it's just about those lines, saving those few jobs isn't worth the weird itineraries, fuel use, etc.

[chengkp75]

11 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

 

Those lines are so small that CLIA could simply ask their members for a small contribution to pay the existing crew enough to retire. If it's just about those lines, saving those few jobs isn't worth the weird itineraries, fuel use, etc.

And, if the existing crew were to retire, who would take their place?  Foreign crew?  Same problem for potential US crew.  And, you know perfectly well, that the PVSA extends beyond those cruise lines, its just that they were singled out for discrimination in last year's bill.

[deliver42]

To make this permanent ius the only logical way to go. The U.S. can't count on Canada as a travel partner.

[AmazedByCruising]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

And, if the existing crew were to retire, who would take their place?  Foreign crew?  Same problem for potential US crew.  And, you know perfectly well, that the PVSA extends beyond those cruise lines, its just that they were singled out for discrimination in last year's bill.

 

Foreign crew, no doubt. Cheaper cruises for all Americans, that's good. And a few less job opportunities for Americans to work on a ship as a waiter. Just like the demand for farriers has declined. To compensate there'd be more land based jobs to sell the cabins in a bigger fleet carrying more passengers and to supply the ships with beef and lobster and toilet paper. Jobs with better payment. 

 

And I'm perfectly OK with discriminating between ships that are meant to transport people and ships that provide a vacation while people fly to and from the port. Apparently it is legally possible to discriminate between Wide Vision of the Seas and a duck boat. The duck boat owners didn't go to court. 

[twangster]

7 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

And I'm perfectly OK with discriminating between ships that are meant to transport people and ships that provide a vacation while people fly to and from the port. Apparently it is legally possible to discriminate between Wide Vision of the Seas and a duck boat. The duck boat owners didn't go to court. 

 

It's not so clean.  International treaties don't differentiate.  A passenger vessel is a passenger vessel.   

 

America is free to create endless rules for American flagged vessels but when they start creating rules for international or foreign flagged vessels it ventures into international treaties and conventions and that is a can of worms.