Does this scenario violate the passenger vessel thingy act?

[Ferry_Watcher]

Assuming that the borders are reopened, the train ride from Vancouver to Seattle is quite nice.  Downside is that it leaves Vancouver early evening.

[JessyCruises]

Sorry to jump on this as well, but would my B2B I have booked in May 2022 be a PVSA violation? I did not think it would be, but this thread has me second guessing myself.

 

We are Canadian, flying into Vancouver from New Brunswick.

 

Cruises:

Ovation of the Seas 

May 5 - Vancouver to Seattle

May 13 - Seattle to Seattle 

 

We will be flying home to New Brunswick on the 20th when we arrive back in Seattle.

 

I think we are good because it starts in Canada so PVSA would not apply on leg 1 and both cruises end in the same US city (Seattle)?

 

Thanks!

Jess

 

Edited June 20, 2021 by Canadian Disney Mom

[Merion_Mom]

9 minutes ago, Canadian Disney Mom said:

Sorry to jump on this as well, but would my B2B I have booked in May 2022 be a PVSA violation? I did not think it would be, but this thread has me second guessing myself.

 

We are Canadian, flying into Vancouver from New Brunswick.

 

Cruises:

Ovation of the Seas 

May 5 - Vancouver to Seattle

May 13 - Seattle to Seattle 

 

We will be flying home to New Brunswick on the 20th when we arrive back in Seattle.

 

I think we are good because it starts in Canada but both cruises end in the same US city (Seattle)?

 

Thanks!

Jess

 

You are fine, because the PVSA only concerns itself with US port to US port issues.

[JessyCruises]

1 minute ago, Merion_Mom said:

You are fine, because the PVSA only concerns itself with US port to US port issues.

Thanks!

[chengkp75]

17 minutes ago, Canadian Disney Mom said:

Sorry to jump on this as well, but would my B2B I have booked in May 2022 be a PVSA violation? I did not think it would be, but this thread has me second guessing myself.

 

We are Canadian, flying into Vancouver from New Brunswick.

 

Cruises:

Ovation of the Seas 

May 5 - Vancouver to Seattle

May 13 - Seattle to Seattle 

 

We will be flying home to New Brunswick on the 20th when we arrive back in Seattle.

 

I think we are good because it starts in Canada so PVSA would not apply on leg 1 and both cruises end in the same US city (Seattle)?

 

Thanks!

Jess

 

Your total voyage starts in Canada and ends in the US.  Therefore, the PVSA does not apply.

[chengkp75]

7 hours ago, SkierRobUMN said:

Yes, if you left Canada and went through customs and immigration in the US and then re-entered Canada then you would have proof in the systems of that. Now, I understand the cruise lines themselves have mechanisms in place to make this scenario impossible by blocking you from booking b2b cruises like the scenario in this thread. But if they didn’t then my scenarios would work. 

No, that would be no different than going on the White Pass railroad excursion that goes from Skagway in Alaska to Whitehorse in the Yukon, and you cross the border twice there as well.  The PVSA wants to know when/where you embarked the ship, and when/where you permanently disembark the ship.  A day trip from Canada to the US and back doesn't matter.

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, boatseller said:

100%, completely, totally stupid.

 

Now just waiting for those to argue we're wrong just becasue it's the law.  The original PVSA is 155 years old...I think a few things in life have changed since then.

You're not wrong just because it is the law, you're wrong because the law still today provides for the safety of US citizens on passenger vessels operating domestically in the US.  Yes, some things in life have changed in 155 years, but some things remain the same, substituting burning/exploding steamboats 155 years ago for sinking ferries around the world today.  And, the hundreds of thousands of US citizens supported by the PVSA fleet, and the benefit to the US economy and tax roles from the PVSA fleet argue against changing the act.

[misha1]

3 hours ago, zekekelso said:

People sometimes use less-than-technical terms for various laws on Cruise Critic. People are forever calling things the Jones Act that aren’t actually part of the Jones Act. Little know fact: “Passenger Vessel Thingy Act” is the technical name of the particular law. Well done OP 👍 

Thanks

[Ferry_Watcher]

2 hours ago, Canadian Disney Mom said:

Sorry to jump on this as well, but would my B2B I have booked in May 2022 be a PVSA violation? I did not think it would be, but this thread has me second guessing myself.

 

We are Canadian, flying into Vancouver from New Brunswick.

 

Cruises:

Ovation of the Seas 

May 5 - Vancouver to Seattle

May 13 - Seattle to Seattle 

 

We will be flying home to New Brunswick on the 20th when we arrive back in Seattle.

 

I think we are good because it starts in Canada so PVSA would not apply on leg 1 and both cruises end in the same US city (Seattle)?

 

Thanks!

Jess

 

Your May 5th cruise starts in Vancouver, BC and your May 13 cruise stops in Victoria, BC as part of its itinerary.

[boatseller]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

You're not wrong just because it is the law, you're wrong because the law still today provides for the safety of US citizens on passenger vessels operating domestically in the US.  Yes, some things in life have changed in 155 years, but some things remain the same, substituting burning/exploding steamboats 155 years ago for sinking ferries around the world today.  And, the hundreds of thousands of US citizens supported by the PVSA fleet, and the benefit to the US economy and tax roles from the PVSA fleet argue against changing the act.

No, I meant some here say we're wrong to call something stupid just because it's the law.  Same situation with the CCCP...er CDCP.

 

The relative ease with which the Alaska exemption was granted suggests a lot of things in the PVSA wouldn't survive reauthorization.  14+ day luxury cruises were not part of the debate in 1886.

 

And let's be realistic, a cruise ship built in Europe and managed by a company based in Florida (I can hit 4 with a frisbee from my houses) or Europe or Hong Kong aren't randomly capsizing or exploding or running aground.

 

Reasonable blanket exemption: voyages longer than 4 nights where each guest is assigned a cabin on ships without vehicle or cargo capacity that do not call on the same US port more than 12 times in a 12 month period.

[chengkp75]

27 minutes ago, boatseller said:

No, I meant some here say we're wrong to call something stupid just because it's the law.  Same situation with the CCCP...er CDCP.

 

The relative ease with which the Alaska exemption was granted suggests a lot of things in the PVSA wouldn't survive reauthorization.  14+ day luxury cruises were not part of the debate in 1886.

 

And let's be realistic, a cruise ship built in Europe and managed by a company based in Florida (I can hit 4 with a frisbee from my houses) or Europe or Hong Kong aren't randomly capsizing or exploding or running aground.

 

Reasonable blanket exemption: voyages longer than 4 nights where each guest is assigned a cabin on ships without vehicle or cargo capacity that do not call on the same US port more than 12 times in a 12 month period.

 Costa Concordia.  Carnival Splendor.  Carnival Triumph.  Freedom of the Seas.

 

The ATRA was passed because it gave specific ships (not a "class" of ships like many propose, a passenger capacity limit), on a specific route, for a specific time period, exemptions, is much more acceptable than a blanket exemption for all time.

 

And your proposal runs into several problems, like most arguments against the PVSA.  First, according to SOLAS, which the US is signatory to, and which requires that the US pass the exact wording of SOLAS into US law, a "passenger vessel" is any vessel that carries "more than 12 people for hire", so whether it is a cruise ship or a dinner cruise from Miami, it is a "passenger vessel", and therefore any modification to the PVSA would include all "passenger vessels", and since this action involves more than the US (the flag state of the ships create a state of international commerce), then international law will take precedence over US law.  

 

Now, in your blanket exemption, are the cruises "deemed" to be foreign voyages, as the ATRA does (which has not been challenged in court, and is on pretty dicey ground), or are they "domestic" voyages?  If they are domestic voyages, then the foreign workers need H2B work visas (or you get State and Homeland arguing against the exemption), and these visas require that the worker get paid US wages, be covered by US labor laws, and pay US taxes.  Then there is the conundrum of whether the USCG can apply their stricter regulations on foreign ships if those foreign ships are doing domestic voyages, or whether we allow the ships to operate under SOLAS, and then the US flag fleet (all types of ships) would sue to remove USCG regulations.  Next is the duty free status of the ships.  Currently, foreign ships that bring in spare parts and supplies from overseas do not pay any customs duty on these items, as they are considered to be "in bond" in transit from overseas to the foreign ship.  This includes all liquor purchased for use onboard the ship.  Domestic voyages do not receive this duty free status.  So, unless you are prepared to pay 2-3 times the current cruise price (and I'm being conservative, as the US Maritime Administration estimates that a cargo ship with a crew of 20-25 costs 3 times as much to operate (day to day expenses) than a foreign ship, and that crew cost is 5 times a foreign crew, so multiply that 25 crew by the number of crew on a cruise ship, and see how cruise fares will increase.

 

Finally, under your "blanket exemption", American Cruise Lines, UnCruise, and Alaska Adventure cruises could reflag to foreign flag, losing those hundreds of US citizen jobs.

[ONECRUISER]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

 Costa Concordia.  Carnival Splendor.  Carnival Triumph.  Freedom of the Seas.

 

The ATRA was passed because it gave specific ships (not a "class" of ships like many propose, a passenger capacity limit), on a specific route, for a specific time period, exemptions, is much more acceptable than a blanket exemption for all time.

 

And your proposal runs into several problems, like most arguments against the PVSA.  First, according to SOLAS, which the US is signatory to, and which requires that the US pass the exact wording of SOLAS into US law, a "passenger vessel" is any vessel that carries "more than 12 people for hire", so whether it is a cruise ship or a dinner cruise from Miami, it is a "passenger vessel", and therefore any modification to the PVSA would include all "passenger vessels", and since this action involves more than the US (the flag state of the ships create a state of international commerce), then international law will take precedence over US law.  

 

Now, in your blanket exemption, are the cruises "deemed" to be foreign voyages, as the ATRA does (which has not been challenged in court, and is on pretty dicey ground), or are they "domestic" voyages?  If they are domestic voyages, then the foreign workers need H2B work visas (or you get State and Homeland arguing against the exemption), and these visas require that the worker get paid US wages, be covered by US labor laws, and pay US taxes.  Then there is the conundrum of whether the USCG can apply their stricter regulations on foreign ships if those foreign ships are doing domestic voyages, or whether we allow the ships to operate under SOLAS, and then the US flag fleet (all types of ships) would sue to remove USCG regulations.  Next is the duty free status of the ships.  Currently, foreign ships that bring in spare parts and supplies from overseas do not pay any customs duty on these items, as they are considered to be "in bond" in transit from overseas to the foreign ship.  This includes all liquor purchased for use onboard the ship.  Domestic voyages do not receive this duty free status.  So, unless you are prepared to pay 2-3 times the current cruise price (and I'm being conservative, as the US Maritime Administration estimates that a cargo ship with a crew of 20-25 costs 3 times as much to operate (day to day expenses) than a foreign ship, and that crew cost is 5 times a foreign crew, so multiply that 25 crew by the number of crew on a cruise ship, and see how cruise fares will increase.

 

Finally, under your "blanket exemption", American Cruise Lines, UnCruise, and Alaska Adventure cruises could reflag to foreign flag, losing those hundreds of US citizen jobs.

And those were Brand New/Modern at time of accidents, just off top my head remember a dozen more inc couple Royal Ship grounding,/Fires/Capsized in decade plus before these 4 listed

[mayleeman]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

 Costa Concordia.  Carnival Splendor.  Carnival Triumph.  Freedom of the Seas.

 

The ATRA was passed because it gave specific ships (not a "class" of ships like many propose, a passenger capacity limit), on a specific route, for a specific time period, exemptions, is much more acceptable than a blanket exemption for all time.

 

And your proposal runs into several problems, like most arguments against the PVSA.  First, according to SOLAS, which the US is signatory to, and which requires that the US pass the exact wording of SOLAS into US law, a "passenger vessel" is any vessel that carries "more than 12 people for hire", so whether it is a cruise ship or a dinner cruise from Miami, it is a "passenger vessel", and therefore any modification to the PVSA would include all "passenger vessels", and since this action involves more than the US (the flag state of the ships create a state of international commerce), then international law will take precedence over US law.  

 

Now, in your blanket exemption, are the cruises "deemed" to be foreign voyages, as the ATRA does (which has not been challenged in court, and is on pretty dicey ground), or are they "domestic" voyages?  If they are domestic voyages, then the foreign workers need H2B work visas (or you get State and Homeland arguing against the exemption), and these visas require that the worker get paid US wages, be covered by US labor laws, and pay US taxes.  Then there is the conundrum of whether the USCG can apply their stricter regulations on foreign ships if those foreign ships are doing domestic voyages, or whether we allow the ships to operate under SOLAS, and then the US flag fleet (all types of ships) would sue to remove USCG regulations.  Next is the duty free status of the ships.  Currently, foreign ships that bring in spare parts and supplies from overseas do not pay any customs duty on these items, as they are considered to be "in bond" in transit from overseas to the foreign ship.  This includes all liquor purchased for use onboard the ship.  Domestic voyages do not receive this duty free status.  So, unless you are prepared to pay 2-3 times the current cruise price (and I'm being conservative, as the US Maritime Administration estimates that a cargo ship with a crew of 20-25 costs 3 times as much to operate (day to day expenses) than a foreign ship, and that crew cost is 5 times a foreign crew, so multiply that 25 crew by the number of crew on a cruise ship, and see how cruise fares will increase.

 

Finally, under your "blanket exemption", American Cruise Lines, UnCruise, and Alaska Adventure cruises could reflag to foreign flag, losing those hundreds of US citizen jobs.

 

Thread after thread, month after month, pop-up controversies again and again -- through it all, I admire your patience and willingness to teach.

 

Maybe all those hours at sea have given you that gift. I know I am speaking for many, many posters in thanking you!

[boatseller]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

 Costa Concordia.  Carnival Splendor.  Carnival Triumph.  Freedom of the Seas.

 

The ATRA was passed because it gave specific ships (not a "class" of ships like many propose, a passenger capacity limit), on a specific route, for a specific time period, exemptions, is much more acceptable than a blanket exemption for all time.

 

And your proposal runs into several problems, like most arguments against the PVSA.  First, according to SOLAS, which the US is signatory to, and which requires that the US pass the exact wording of SOLAS into US law, a "passenger vessel" is any vessel that carries "more than 12 people for hire", so whether it is a cruise ship or a dinner cruise from Miami, it is a "passenger vessel", and therefore any modification to the PVSA would include all "passenger vessels", and since this action involves more than the US (the flag state of the ships create a state of international commerce), then international law will take precedence over US law.  

 

Now, in your blanket exemption, are the cruises "deemed" to be foreign voyages, as the ATRA does (which has not been challenged in court, and is on pretty dicey ground), or are they "domestic" voyages?  If they are domestic voyages, then the foreign workers need H2B work visas (or you get State and Homeland arguing against the exemption), and these visas require that the worker get paid US wages, be covered by US labor laws, and pay US taxes.  Then there is the conundrum of whether the USCG can apply their stricter regulations on foreign ships if those foreign ships are doing domestic voyages, or whether we allow the ships to operate under SOLAS, and then the US flag fleet (all types of ships) would sue to remove USCG regulations.  Next is the duty free status of the ships.  Currently, foreign ships that bring in spare parts and supplies from overseas do not pay any customs duty on these items, as they are considered to be "in bond" in transit from overseas to the foreign ship.  This includes all liquor purchased for use onboard the ship.  Domestic voyages do not receive this duty free status.  So, unless you are prepared to pay 2-3 times the current cruise price (and I'm being conservative, as the US Maritime Administration estimates that a cargo ship with a crew of 20-25 costs 3 times as much to operate (day to day expenses) than a foreign ship, and that crew cost is 5 times a foreign crew, so multiply that 25 crew by the number of crew on a cruise ship, and see how cruise fares will increase.

 

Finally, under your "blanket exemption", American Cruise Lines, UnCruise, and Alaska Adventure cruises could reflag to foreign flag, losing those hundreds of US citizen jobs.

So, thanks for the thoughtful response, but you seem to be arguing for the law because of the law.

 

That ATRA was passed means PVSA can be redefined.  Also, I'm only suggesting that the passenger restriction be lifted, not that Norwegian Encore can sail one-way cruises between New York and Miami. 

 

Foreign (just not Distent) Ports, sure keep it.  The ships are already sailing those itineraries.  It's just the through Passengers that needs an exemption to allow something that just wasn't a thing 155 years ago and had no economic downside today.  

 

Instead of just critizing, maybe add another requirement.  Good heavens.  These used to be called discussion boards for a reason.  ACL river cruises wouldn't be affected.  UniCruise larges ship has a capacity of a whopping 86, I'm sure the WA delegation can get a non-specific (but totally specific) provision added.

 

Also, everything you mentioned is at the discretion of Congress.

 

" Costa Concordia.  Carnival Splendor.  Carnival Triumph.  Freedom of the Seas."  All irrelevant except....

 

Consta Condodia was an entirely Italian affair, shipyard, registration, company, captain, departure port.  It'd be like Pride of America running aground on Molokini.  Protectionism didn't save them.

[chengkp75]

7 hours ago, boatseller said:

Also, I'm only suggesting that the passenger restriction be lifted, not that Norwegian Encore can sail one-way cruises between New York and Miami. 

Not sure what you mean by the "passenger restriction", yet not allow one way cruises?  

 

8 hours ago, boatseller said:

So, thanks for the thoughtful response, but you seem to be arguing for the law because of the law.

No, I am arguing for the law because it still does what it was intended to do.

 

8 hours ago, boatseller said:

Also, everything you mentioned is at the discretion of Congress.

Actually, a lot of it isn't, since it involves international commerce.  As noted, if Congress were to "redefine" what a passenger vessel is, then they would repudiate SOLAS.  Also, SOLAS specifically says that a nation cannot enforce stricter regulations on another nation's vessels, only on vessels of their own flag.

 

8 hours ago, boatseller said:

Consta Condodia was an entirely Italian affair, shipyard, registration, company, captain, departure port.  It'd be like Pride of America running aground on Molokini.  Protectionism didn't save them.

Big difference in that the Concordia was registered under the Italian International Registry, which is an "open" registry.  This works similarly to flags of convenience that nearly all cruise ships sail under, where the taxation, certification, and crewing are covered by more lenient legislation than Italian national registry vessels operate under.  The crew on Italian national register ships must be exclusively Italian, while under international registry, only 6 officers need be Italian.  The purpose of the international registry is to allow ships to operate as if they were under flags of convenience, but to bring the registration fees to the flag country (Italy).  So, the safety regulations that Italian flag ships operate under were not on the Concordia, since it was international registry.  Those safety regulations that Italy can set on their own flag ships is what the USCG does for US ships, and is the only "protectionism" (protecting the safety of US citizens, our waterways, and ports) that the PVSA provides.

 

8 hours ago, boatseller said:

Instead of just critizing, maybe add another requirement.  Good heavens.  These used to be called discussion boards for a reason. 

So, because I put forth legal reasoning as to why the act should not be amended or repealed, I'm "criticizing", but you are "discussing"?  Interesting.  Discussion requires two points of view, and I didn't dismiss your points out of hand, I gave reasons why and obstacles to amending the act.  

 

8 hours ago, boatseller said:

ACL river cruises wouldn't be affected.  UniCruise larges ship has a capacity of a whopping 86, I'm sure the WA delegation can get a non-specific (but totally specific) provision added.

Why would ACL river cruises not be affected?  They are passenger vessels.  And ACL has other vessels, not river cruises, 6 of which are geared up for the Alaska season right now.  UnCruise vessels still carry more than 12 passengers, so they are passenger vessels.  Why could they not reflag out of US and receive the fiscal benefits that the larger ships would get under your plan?  Exemptions to the PVSA are granted either to specific ships for a specific time, or for a specific itinerary (like to/from Puerto Rico), but these indefinite term route exemptions only last until a coastwise qualified (US flag) vessel starts to operate on the route.  So, since both UnCruise and ACL are US flag "passenger vessels", and since they operate between Washington state and Alaska, there could be no "non-specific" exemption allowed.

[boatseller]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Not sure what you mean by the "passenger restriction", yet not allow one way cruises?  

 

No, I am arguing for the law because it still does what it was intended to do.

 

Actually, a lot of it isn't, since it involves international commerce.  As noted, if Congress were to "redefine" what a passenger vessel is, then they would repudiate SOLAS.  Also, SOLAS specifically says that a nation cannot enforce stricter regulations on another nation's vessels, only on vessels of their own flag.

 

Big difference in that the Concordia was registered under the Italian International Registry, which is an "open" registry.  This works similarly to flags of convenience that nearly all cruise ships sail under, where the taxation, certification, and crewing are covered by more lenient legislation than Italian national registry vessels operate under.  The crew on Italian national register ships must be exclusively Italian, while under international registry, only 6 officers need be Italian.  The purpose of the international registry is to allow ships to operate as if they were under flags of convenience, but to bring the registration fees to the flag country (Italy).  So, the safety regulations that Italian flag ships operate under were not on the Concordia, since it was international registry.  Those safety regulations that Italy can set on their own flag ships is what the USCG does for US ships, and is the only "protectionism" (protecting the safety of US citizens, our waterways, and ports) that the PVSA provides.

 

So, because I put forth legal reasoning as to why the act should not be amended or repealed, I'm "criticizing", but you are "discussing"?  Interesting.  Discussion requires two points of view, and I didn't dismiss your points out of hand, I gave reasons why and obstacles to amending the act.  

 

Why would ACL river cruises not be affected?  They are passenger vessels.  And ACL has other vessels, not river cruises, 6 of which are geared up for the Alaska season right now.  UnCruise vessels still carry more than 12 passengers, so they are passenger vessels.  Why could they not reflag out of US and receive the fiscal benefits that the larger ships would get under your plan?  Exemptions to the PVSA are granted either to specific ships for a specific time, or for a specific itinerary (like to/from Puerto Rico), but these indefinite term route exemptions only last until a coastwise qualified (US flag) vessel starts to operate on the route.  So, since both UnCruise and ACL are US flag "passenger vessels", and since they operate between Washington state and Alaska, there could be no "non-specific" exemption allowed.

OMG, did you even read my response?

 

I never mentioned anything about redefining a passenger vessel.  Again, you're just arguing for the law because of the law.

 

Yes, you're critizing.  Maybe explain why allowing perhaps 200 guests a season to sail HNL-SAN (or similar itineraries) threatens thousands of American jobs.  Politicians are very good at targeted exemptions.

 

Let me state it very simply, 155 years later, it's silly that guests can't take a luxury cruise from Honolulu to San Diego but can take one from Miami to Los Angeles, the only difference being Cartagena is a 'distant' port while Vancouver is not.  This despite the travel distance being pretty close.  Those Panama Canal cruises haven't caused mass layoffs at American Cruise Lines, have they?

 

Ok, here's another option, just declare Vancouver or Victoria distant ports for a season or two and see what happens.  Oh no!  Will Amtrak have to suspend the Coast Starlight?

[chengkp75]

47 minutes ago, boatseller said:

OMG, did you even read my response?

 

I never mentioned anything about redefining a passenger vessel.  Again, you're just arguing for the law because of the law.

 

Yes, you're critizing.  Maybe explain why allowing perhaps 200 guests a season to sail HNL-SAN (or similar itineraries) threatens thousands of American jobs.  Politicians are very good at targeted exemptions.

 

Let me state it very simply, 155 years later, it's silly that guests can't take a luxury cruise from Honolulu to San Diego but can take one from Miami to Los Angeles, the only difference being Cartagena is a 'distant' port while Vancouver is not.  This despite the travel distance being pretty close.  Those Panama Canal cruises haven't caused mass layoffs at American Cruise Lines, have they?

 

Ok, here's another option, just declare Vancouver or Victoria distant ports for a season or two and see what happens.  Oh no!  Will Amtrak have to suspend the Coast Starlight?

Yes, I read your response, did you read mine?  Because you are involving ships of another nation, you enter into international law, so much of the being "very good" at things by politicians goes out the window, and that is why there are specialty lawyers for maritime law.  How do you "carve out" a cruise ship based on having cabins assigned or not calling at US ports more than a given number of times, when the international definition of a passenger vessel is so succinct?  Since you can't parse out different types of passenger vessels, when dealing with foreign ships, any change to what is allowed for a cruise ship is allowed to a dinner cruise or ferry.  As I've said, SOLAS does not allow the US to impose stricter regulations on foreign ships than SOLAS allows, so under your plan, a cruise ship could do domestic voyages and not meet USCG regulations, but if Alaska Marine Highway were to reflag under Panama, it either could not do its intended routes, or it would not be afforded the same allowances as the Panamanian flag cruise ship?

 

Oh, and you may want to check your atlas.  Miami to Los Angeles, via the Panama Canal is 4500 miles (not counting a stop in Cartagena), while San Diego to Honolulu is 2200 miles.

 

And, of course there is the response of bringing Amtrak into the picture.  Since the PVSA does not affect rail traffic, it is facetious to discuss, but it would be similar to allowing the Canadian National Railway to operate passenger trains in the US, without US oversight.  Not sure how Amtrak would compete under those circumstances, do you?   Please stick to apples to apples comparisons.

[boatseller]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, I read your response, did you read mine?  Because you are involving ships of another nation, you enter into international law, so much of the being "very good" at things by politicians goes out the window, and that is why there are specialty lawyers for maritime law.  How do you "carve out" a cruise ship based on having cabins assigned or not calling at US ports more than a given number of times, when the international definition of a passenger vessel is so succinct?  Since you can't parse out different types of passenger vessels, when dealing with foreign ships, any change to what is allowed for a cruise ship is allowed to a dinner cruise or ferry.  As I've said, SOLAS does not allow the US to impose stricter regulations on foreign ships than SOLAS allows, so under your plan, a cruise ship could do domestic voyages and not meet USCG regulations, but if Alaska Marine Highway were to reflag under Panama, it either could not do its intended routes, or it would not be afforded the same allowances as the Panamanian flag cruise ship?

 

Oh, and you may want to check your atlas.  Miami to Los Angeles, via the Panama Canal is 4500 miles (not counting a stop in Cartagena), while San Diego to Honolulu is 2200 miles.

 

And, of course there is the response of bringing Amtrak into the picture.  Since the PVSA does not affect rail traffic, it is facetious to discuss, but it would be similar to allowing the Canadian National Railway to operate passenger trains in the US, without US oversight.  Not sure how Amtrak would compete under those circumstances, do you?   Please stick to apples to apples comparisons.

Ok, I'm sorry, you're just not getting it.  I can't make it any simpler or clearer.  They don't need to change the definition of a any vessel type and I never said they did.  So yes, I read your response, but you're responding with irrelevancy.

 

Foreign flagged ships are prevented from transporting passengers between coastwise ports solely by PVSA, not SOLAS or any other law or treaty.  The relevant sections of the PVSA are about cabotage, not safety or tarrifs or duties or anything else.  It's just protectionism as intended.

 

Congress can change, amend, strike any of this on a whim or with enough...facilitation.  They did exactly that with ATRA.

 

Do you know how?  They simple deemed that the ship made a 'foreign' call by...wait for it...ready...this is big...sending an email to Canada!  That's right, you can now visit Canada by email*.  Congress did this at their descretion and I don't see Norway raising a stink about it.

 

So they just deem Vancouver or Victoria as non-nearby ports, voila!, problem solved.  

 

Again, in as simple terms as I can put it, the cabotage rules in the PVSA are a 155 year old anachronism that's silly and should be revisited and modernized.  Cruising from Honolulu to San Diego is no threat to US jobs or industry.  The best test, let someone seriously propose it and see if the airlines object.

 

*Technically, the way I read it, only the foreign crew visits Canada by email but whatever....

Edited June 21, 2021 by boatseller

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, boatseller said:

Ok, I'm sorry, you're just not getting it.  I can't make it any simpler or clearer.  They don't need to change the definition of a any vessel type and I never said they did.  So yes, I read your response, but you're responding with irrelevancy.

Oh, I get it now.  The concept of international law is irrelevant.  One who believes that US law overrides all else, on everyone and everywhere in the world.  Got it.

 

5 hours ago, boatseller said:

Foreign flagged ships are prevented from transporting passengers between coastwise ports solely by PVSA, not SOLAS or any other law or treaty.

In this, you are correct.  But let's take a few examples of proposed exemptions to the PVSA, such as the "cabins assigned and no cargo or vehicles, and not calling at any US port more than 12 times in 12 months (I believe that was your scenario), or simply having more than 800 passengers, or any other qualifier for the term "passenger vessel".  Then, according to this, a Panamanian cruise ship from Carnival can operate in US waters without meeting US regulations.  Then, ACL sees an opportunity to save a whole bunch of money by reflagging to Panama.  But because they may not meet the requirements of your proposed exemption, the US is placing more restrictions on some foreign flag vessels than others, which is not allowed under SOLAS (remember, those pesky international things).

 

5 hours ago, boatseller said:

Congress can change, amend, strike any of this on a whim or with enough...facilitation.  They did exactly that with ATRA.

Guess what?  No, they did not change, amend or strike any part of the PVSA.  They granted specific ships, on specific routes, for a limited specific time, an exemption.  The act was not changed in any way.

 

5 hours ago, boatseller said:

Do you know how?  They simple deemed that the ship made a 'foreign' call by...wait for it...ready...this is big...sending an email to Canada!  That's right, you can now visit Canada by email*.  Congress did this at their descretion and I don't see Norway raising a stink about it.

Has this been challenged in court?  Even Canada could get involved in this in international court.  While I suspect that the ATRA will run its course without challenge, if this were to become a permanent thing (and getting Congress to pass that would be far harder), you would have not only US organized labor fighting a fiction that crew on a ship visited a foreign country but the passengers did not, but also State, Homeland, and likely a few other federal agencies would voice displeasure over this.

 

5 hours ago, boatseller said:

Again, in as simple terms as I can put it, the cabotage rules in the PVSA are a 155 year old anachronism that's silly and should be revisited and modernized.  Cruising from Honolulu to San Diego is no threat to US jobs or industry.  The best test, let someone seriously propose it and see if the airlines object.

Try not to belittle posters, its not becoming.  The pesky fact is that with "passenger vessels", it is all or nothing, since once again, you are dealing with more than the one holy US and its laws, so if you allow foreign flag cruise ships into coastwise trade, any and all passenger vessels in the US, no matter how large or small, would be eligible for operation under foreign flag.  And, your last statement shows that you don't understand even US law, as airlines are not covered by the PVSA, but by the Civil Aviation Act, which comes from another of those pesky international thingys.

 

And, if you really want to understand the PVSA, look far beyond the Wiki entry, or even the current libertarian writings, and see why the PVSA was really passed in the first place, and then you may see why it continues to protect our citizens and waters.  And, here's a hint, not sure what protectionism was involved in its passage, since the ships it covered at the time, were built in the US, were not going to be built overseas (they couldn't survive the ocean crossing), were crewed by US citizens, and even then, maritime organized labor was non-existent, and were being flagged out of the US.  The Act was, and is, all about requiring ships engaged in trade strictly in the US be liable to US maritime regulations.

 

But, I see you and your buddy have started the mutual admiration society for those who propose change without proposing specifics and who don't understand legal complexities, so I will drop this debate.

[Tolkmit]

23 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And your proposal runs into several problems, like most arguments against the PVSA.  First, according to SOLAS, which the US is signatory to, and which requires that the US pass the exact wording of SOLAS into US law, a "passenger vessel" is any vessel that carries "more than 12 people for hire", so whether it is a cruise ship or a dinner cruise from Miami, it is a "passenger vessel", and therefore any modification to the PVSA would include all "passenger vessels", and since this action involves more than the US (the flag state of the ships create a state of international commerce), then international law will take precedence over US law. 

 

This seems to be the basis of your entire argument, and it's wrong. Nothing in SOLAS prevents countries from making laws specific to passenger vessels of a specific size or capacity. I'm not sure why you believe that is the case, but it's false. If SOLAS forced restrictions similar to the PSVA on all countries, the US couldn't exempt certain vessels from those requirements and remain a signatory. But that's not the case in any way.

 

Even if your misunderstanding of SOLAS were correct, there are still ways around it. The US could easily change the PSVA from being a complete restriction, to imposing a fee on those voyages, and have that fee be inversely proportional to number of passengers. A voyage previously prohibited by the PSVA on a ship with 20 passengers now has to pay 100,000 dollars, a voyage on a ship with 2000 has to pay 100.

[John&LaLa]

22 hours ago, ONECRUISER said:

And those were Brand New/Modern at time of accidents, just off top my head remember a dozen more inc couple Royal Ship grounding,/Fires/Capsized in decade plus before these 4 listed

 

Nordic Empress-Tina Fey Honeymoon

[Biker19]

7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, if you really want to understand the PVSA, look far beyond the Wiki entry, or even the current libertarian writings, and see why the PVSA was really passed in the first place, and then you may see why it continues to protect our citizens and waters. 

If there was no PVSA today or any other law governing shipping and were starting from scratch, would you draft a law such that a ship could take passengers from LA to Miami but could not from Hawaii to LA?

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, Biker19 said:

If there was no PVSA today or any other law governing shipping and were starting from scratch, would you draft a law such that a ship could take passengers from LA to Miami but could not from Hawaii to LA?

As anyone who knows my posting history would say, I might do away with the "distant" foreign port call requirement for one way cruises, but would require that closed loop cruises from the US would have to be US flag.

[JRG]

17 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

But, I see you and your buddy have started the mutual admiration society for those who propose change without proposing specifics and who don't understand legal complexities, so I will drop this debate.

 

This is the real problem,   being more concerned about mutual admiration and not the core issues.

 

This debate is really just starting.

[JRG]

10 hours ago, Biker19 said:

If there was no PVSA today or any other law governing shipping and were starting from scratch, would you draft a law such that a ship could take passengers from LA to Miami but could not from Hawaii to LA?

 

That is a clever way to illustrate the problem.     I wish I thought of that.

 

(notice that your question was never really answered)