Potential Permanent PVSA Exemption for Alaska Until ...

[Mark_K]

I’m not sure I see the point of putting smaller luxury line ships (Silversea, RSSC, etc.) at a competitive disadvantage by limiting it to ships of 1,000+ passengers. 

[adolfo2]

On 9/18/2021 at 5:33 PM, phoenix_dream said:

I hope it does as well, and not just for Alaska.  My bucket list fall colors cruise out of Boston has been lifted and shifted two years in a row due to Canada restrictions.  I'm not getting any younger!

I fully agree! North-East cruises shouldn't be held "hostage" by Canada as well

[chengkp75]

On 9/17/2021 at 8:40 PM, markeb said:

Ken,

 

Really curious to see the actual language once this bill is introduced. This year's bill worked because of an elegant (more or less) solution to declare Seattle to Alaska cruises "international" under ALL provisions of the law, not just the PVSA. The presser's language suggests something less in this bill, because she also talks about Merchant Marine jobs. Which would at least suggest she's not pushing for immigration, visa, and tax changes that the current bill sidestepped. So I don't know that relief from the PVSA will accomplish what CC members want. You could end up with US crews, US labor laws, state sales taxes, and US prices...

 

All of which were avoided by declaring Seattle to Alaska cruises "international". And which the cruise lines can avoid (on closed loop cruises) by stopping in Canada. And closed loop cruises don't fall under the PVSA...

This press release is interesting to me as well.  From the language, and the language is the first I've heard that she intends to help US mariners,  it appears that Sen. Murkowski has realized that the USCG, Homeland Security, and State, would all have issues with a permanent exemption of the PVSA for Alaska.  It appears that she is merely looking for a waiver of the US built clause, as the POA has, and that would require the ships to be US flag, but would limit their ability to sail to Alaska only.  That would be the only way she could accomplish "creating jobs for US merchant mariners".  I really have no issue with foreign built ships becoming US flag cruise ships and trading in the PVSA market.  I do believe that the cruise lines will have issues with this, since the US Maritime Administration has determined that for simple cargo ships it costs over 3 times as much to operate as US flag over foreign flag, and that crew costs are nearly 5 times higher.  

[Ken the cruiser]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

 It appears that she is merely looking for a waiver of the US built clause, as the POA has, and that would require the ships to be US flag, but would limit their ability to sail to Alaska only.  That would be the only way she could accomplish "creating jobs for US merchant mariners".  I really have no issue with foreign built ships becoming US flag cruise ships and trading in the PVSA market.  I do believe that the cruise lines will have issues with this, since the US Maritime Administration has determined that for simple cargo ships it costs over 3 times as much to operate as US flag over foreign flag, and that crew costs are nearly 5 times higher.  

In my purely unofficial capacity as someone sitting over in the peanut gallery, I would think getting this signed into law would for the most part just act as a failsafe to only be considered in such cases where the applicable western Canadian ports for some reason in the future would be closed for an indefinite period of time.

[Ken the cruiser]

The push to get Alaska-bound cruise ships exempt from the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA) and being able to avoid calling in Canada has reached a significant step forward. The bill from U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has been introduced to congress.

 

New Bill for Alaska-bound Cruise Ships to Avoid Canada is Introduced to Congress (cruisehive.com)

 

[chengkp75]

14 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

The push to get Alaska-bound cruise ships exempt from the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA) and being able to avoid calling in Canada has reached a significant step forward. The bill from U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has been introduced to congress.

 

New Bill for Alaska-bound Cruise Ships to Avoid Canada is Introduced to Congress (cruisehive.com)

 

Not surprisingly, the bill does nothing that Sen. Murkowski stated in her press release as benefiting US merchant mariners.  This bill proposes to continue allowing foreign crew to work in the US domestically without work visas.  Further, unlike the current Alaska Tourism Recovery Act, it allows the foreign ships to retain their duty free status (for supplies and spare parts, which is way more than the duty free store) for items brought to the ship from overseas.

[markeb]

 

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not surprisingly, the bill does nothing that Sen. Murkowski stated in her press release as benefiting US merchant mariners.  This bill proposes to continue allowing foreign crew to work in the US domestically without work visas.  Further, unlike the current Alaska Tourism Recovery Act, it allows the foreign ships to retain their duty free status (for supplies and spare parts, which is way more than the duty free store) for items brought to the ship from overseas.

 

I didn't get the duty free piece out of a quick read, but I'm assuming that's because this is an amendment to the US Code and that section of the code governs those issues. Is that also the case on the visa question? Being able to stay in the US for more than 29 days on a crew visa doesn't automatically make them eligible to perform work within the US, only to stay in the US. Which would obviously make no sense to the cruise line as they'd have a crew prohibited from working AND a US crew working the voyage...

[chengkp75]

16 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

 

I didn't get the duty free piece out of a quick read, but I'm assuming that's because this is an amendment to the US Code and that section of the code governs those issues. Is that also the case on the visa question? Being able to stay in the US for more than 29 days on a crew visa doesn't automatically make them eligible to perform work within the US, only to stay in the US. Which would obviously make no sense to the cruise line as they'd have a crew prohibited from working AND a US crew working the voyage...

Foreign ships pay no duty on anything they import from overseas for use on the ship, because they are operating in international trade.  US ships that use parts and supplies purchased overseas have to pay customs duty on them when they arrive in the US, since they are operating in domestic trade, if they are in the PVSA trade.  The Alaska Tourism Recover Act, specifically mentioned that while for some laws the voyages were "deemed" to by foreign, for the purposes of the Tariff Act, they were not, so the ships lost their duty free status.  That is a hardship the cruise lines were obviously quick to point out to Sen. Murkowski.

 

The paragraphs listed of the Immigration Act, specifies who is an "immigrant" and who is an "alien".  Crew members on foreign ships, who are merely in transit on the ship (in and out of US ports), get either a D visa (crew) or a C1 visa (crew in transit to/from the vessel (crew change)).  CBP has ruled that foreign crew working on foreign cruise ships that only call at US ports (like the old "cruise to nowhere") are working in the US domestically, and require an H2/B work visa.  This was again skirted by the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act, by "deeming" that the crew had left the US simply by the ship submitting a crew manifest to Canadian Customs & Immigration, whether the ship was going to clear into a Canadian port, or whether Canadian Immigration was going to accept this crew manifest as legal.  The language used in this new bill says that even though the ship is in the US full time (even when outside US waters, since there is no foreign port), that time does not count against the time the crew member can be in the US on a crew visa.

 

There is no provision for US crew, anywhere in her bill. The language of the bill specifically allows a foreign flag ship to operate in a domestic trade, while employing foreign crew without work visas, so what cruise line would hire US crew if given that choice?  Her press release is pure political hyperbole, if not outright lies.

 

And, the lower limit of 1000 passengers is disingenuous at best, as the Senator is fully aware that all current US flag cruise vessels serving Alaska are smaller than that, so she does not want to give them the opportunity to reflag to foreign.  So, they must continue to operate under the fiscal hardships of US flag, while the foreign flag lines get a pass.

[D C]

On 9/17/2021 at 8:18 AM, Ken the cruiser said:

We cannot let that happen again,” said Senator Murkowski. “Next week, I intend to introduce legislation that will permanently exempt Alaskan cruises carrying more than 1,000 passengers from the PVSA. This legislation will create jobs for American merchant mariners in the cruise industry, and to ensure foreign-built cruise ships do not compete with U.S.-built ships, this waiver will end once there is a U.S.-built cruise ship that carries more than 1,000 passengers. 

 

Murkowski Announces Bill to Protect Alaska Tourism Industry (senate.gov)

 

Just repeal the stupid law and be done with it.  Why dance around it and ask for exemptions?  

[chengkp75]

12 minutes ago, D C said:

Just repeal the stupid law and be done with it.  Why dance around it and ask for exemptions?  

Because if you really understood the law, and what it actually does, and not just from a narrow cruise ship centric viewpoint, you would know the law does what it is intended to do.

[Fouremco]

10 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Because if you really understood the law, and what it actually does, and not just from a narrow cruise ship centric viewpoint, you would know the law does what it is intended to do.

Having read your many posts on the PVSA for several years, starting long before COVID and the related Alaska issue, I wish there was a compendium of your posts that people could refer to in order to get a better idea of the broad scope of the PVSA, far beyond cruising.

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Fouremco

[D C]

9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Because if you really understood the law, and what it actually does, and not just from a narrow cruise ship centric viewpoint, you would know the law does what it is intended to do.

If it's intended to harm US business by resulting in ships being built, flagged, and crewed outside of the US, then I'll agree.    Both the PVSA and Jones Act are outdated and worthy of repeal imho. 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, D C said:

If it's intended to harm US business by resulting in ships being built, flagged, and crewed outside of the US, then I'll agree.    Both the PVSA and Jones Act are outdated and worthy of repeal imho. 

Let me ask you a question.  What US flag ships have been lost due to the Jones Act?  The Jones Act fleet is as large as its ever been.  That is because it is a "coastwise" or domestic trade, and there are no foreign flagged or built ships engaged in the trade.  Meanwhile, the US flag foreign-going fleet has been decimated by foreign competition, yet there is nothing in the Jones Act that even applies remotely to these US flag ships.  Lots of people again, don't understand what these acts do and don't do.  As for cruise ships, I am fine with allowing foreign built cruise ships, if they meet all other requirements of the PVSA (US owned, US flag, US crew) into the PVSA trade.  As I've said before, our shipbuilding industry is not interested in building commercial ships, and environmental laws and local pressure would prevent any expansion of an industry like shipbuilding in the US, so fine, let the ships be built overseas, and flag them US and then they can cruise from Washington to Alaska, and California to Hawaii, and NYC to Galveston all they want to.

 

And, the PVSA is intended to keep passengers on passenger vessels (note I said passenger vessels, not cruise vessels, because it does not only apply to cruise ships) safer and our waterways cleaner, and does so by making every single passenger vessel, from a 12 person charter fishing boat to the Pride of America, that operates exclusively in the US adhere to stricter USCG regulations than the foreign ships must meet.  It also keeps several hundred thousand US citizens employed, and hundreds of millions of dollars added to the US economy and the tax rolls.

[verizon]

Its your choice if you want a dead city or a lively city in Seattle.

How come the people in Seattle never speak up?

I hardly believe that the hotels in Vancouver are more expensive than in New York City.

[Ken the cruiser]

Now Rep Don Young added an interesting twist to the bill he submitted in the House:

 

While another bill submitted by Alaska congressman, Don Young, in summer 2021, calls to “deem certain voyages transporting passengers between ports or places within the United States in compliance with certain requirements upon calling on a port owned by an Indian Tribe, and for other purposes.”

 

In the bill documentation the term “Indian Tribe” is explained as “any federally recognized Indian tribe, band, nation, village, or other organized group or community” and “any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.”

 

 

Alaskan Officials Push for Foreign-Flagged Cruising Bypassing Canada - Cruise Industry News | Cruise News

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Ken the cruiser

[D C]

On 9/24/2021 at 3:31 PM, chengkp75 said:

Let me ask you a question.  What US flag ships have been lost due to the Jones Act?  The Jones Act fleet is as large as its ever been.  That is because it is a "coastwise" or domestic trade, and there are no foreign flagged or built ships engaged in the trade.  Meanwhile, the US flag foreign-going fleet has been decimated by foreign competition, yet there is nothing in the Jones Act that even applies remotely to these US flag ships.  Lots of people again, don't understand what these acts do and don't do.  As for cruise ships, I am fine with allowing foreign built cruise ships, if they meet all other requirements of the PVSA (US owned, US flag, US crew) into the PVSA trade.  As I've said before, our shipbuilding industry is not interested in building commercial ships, and environmental laws and local pressure would prevent any expansion of an industry like shipbuilding in the US, so fine, let the ships be built overseas, and flag them US and then they can cruise from Washington to Alaska, and California to Hawaii, and NYC to Galveston all they want to.

 

And, the PVSA is intended to keep passengers on passenger vessels (note I said passenger vessels, not cruise vessels, because it does not only apply to cruise ships) safer and our waterways cleaner, and does so by making every single passenger vessel, from a 12 person charter fishing boat to the Pride of America, that operates exclusively in the US adhere to stricter USCG regulations than the foreign ships must meet.  It also keeps several hundred thousand US citizens employed, and hundreds of millions of dollars added to the US economy and the tax rolls.

Of course there's no loss of US flagged vessels in coastwise trade.  There's also no competition, and the result is expensive.  You clearly favour the protectionist viewpoint, which is fine.  I do not and would rather see the competition. 

[D C]

14 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Now Rep Don Young added an interesting twist to the bill he submitted in the House:

 

While another bill submitted by Alaska congressman, Don Young, in summer 2021, calls to “deem certain voyages transporting passengers between ports or places within the United States in compliance with certain requirements upon calling on a port owned by an Indian Tribe, and for other purposes.”

 

In the bill documentation the term “Indian Tribe” is explained as “any federally recognized Indian tribe, band, nation, village, or other organized group or community” and “any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.”

 

 

Alaskan Officials Push for Foreign-Flagged Cruising Bypassing Canada - Cruise Industry News | Cruise News

 

 

Do the ships dock at land owned by indigenous people in Alaska?  Seems plausible that they'd be considered 'foreign' ports. 

[Ken the cruiser]

3 minutes ago, D C said:

Do the ships dock at land owned by indigenous people in Alaska?  Seems plausible that they'd be considered 'foreign' ports. 

A little farther down in the article it says this:

 

According to industry sources, one such port that would qualify as native land would be Icy Strait Point.

 

[D C]

2 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

A little farther down in the article it says this:

 

According to industry sources, one such port that would qualify as native land would be Icy Strait Point.

 

Seems like that wouldn't even require legislation, but could be addressed via lawsuit.  "we DID leave the US"   

Slim chance any cruise line will take that bold of a step though. Perhaps someone on the coastwise trade side would be so willing. 

[Ken the cruiser]

25 minutes ago, D C said:

Seems like that wouldn't even require legislation, but could be addressed via lawsuit.  "we DID leave the US"   

Slim chance any cruise line will take that bold of a step though. Perhaps someone on the coastwise trade side would be so willing. 

This is just something else to watch from over here in the peanut gallery. But I would think the chances are pretty slim this is going to tip the PVSA scales in favor of bypassing a Canadian port if a cruise ship would even consider such an option.

[D C]

1 hour ago, Ken the cruiser said:

This is just something else to watch from over here in the peanut gallery. But I would think the chances are pretty slim this is going to tip the PVSA scales in favor of bypassing a Canadian port if a cruise ship would even consider such an option.

I find it interesting mainly because of how some recent court cases have favoured indigenous people and land rights.  

[Fouremco]

I somehow doubt that declaring indigenous lands as being foreign, and by extension, indigenous people foreigners, is going to get much traction.

[JRG]

8 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Now Rep Don Young added an interesting twist to the bill he submitted in the House:

 

While another bill submitted by Alaska congressman, Don Young, in summer 2021, calls to “deem certain voyages transporting passengers between ports or places within the United States in compliance with certain requirements upon calling on a port owned by an Indian Tribe, and for other purposes.”

 

In the bill documentation the term “Indian Tribe” is explained as “any federally recognized Indian tribe, band, nation, village, or other organized group or community” and “any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.”

 

 

Alaskan Officials Push for Foreign-Flagged Cruising Bypassing Canada - Cruise Industry News | Cruise News

 

That's a great article Ken and it is fresh.     I actually remember somebody posting a comment that the US should deem one of the Indian lands a foreign port to satisfy the PVSA and it went over like a lead balloon.   It just goes to show that lawmakers are intent on dismantling the restrictions PVSA imposes on cruising one way or another and the bills are going to keep and keep coming.    

 

Interesting to see that the article closes with the comment that Canada needs to start lobbying with the cruise industry to make sure the bill does not pass.   That is hilarious to me that Canada wants to lobby to prevent us from passing laws.

[chengkp75]

22 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Now Rep Don Young added an interesting twist to the bill he submitted in the House:

 

While another bill submitted by Alaska congressman, Don Young, in summer 2021, calls to “deem certain voyages transporting passengers between ports or places within the United States in compliance with certain requirements upon calling on a port owned by an Indian Tribe, and for other purposes.”

 

In the bill documentation the term “Indian Tribe” is explained as “any federally recognized Indian tribe, band, nation, village, or other organized group or community” and “any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.”

 

 

Alaskan Officials Push for Foreign-Flagged Cruising Bypassing Canada - Cruise Industry News | Cruise News

 

 

The problem with this is that the US government does not recognize the Indian Nations (or their tribes) as foreign nations.  The Indian nations are recognized by the US Federal government as "domestic dependent nations.  The Indian nations have a limited sovereignty under the US, more like a state, or a commonwealth.  The people on Indian owned lands, are US citizens.

[chengkp75]

On 9/24/2021 at 12:55 PM, D C said:

If it's intended to harm US business by resulting in ships being built, flagged, and crewed outside of the US, then I'll agree.    Both the PVSA and Jones Act are outdated and worthy of repeal imho. 

 

22 hours ago, D C said:

Of course there's no loss of US flagged vessels in coastwise trade.  There's also no competition, and the result is expensive.  You clearly favour the protectionist viewpoint, which is fine.  I do not and would rather see the competition. 

I'm not quite clear on your viewpoint.  First, you say that the PVSA harms US business "by resulting in ships being built, flagged, and crewed outside the US", and then you say that there is no loss to the US coastwise fleet (which is what the PVSA covers).  Then you say you would prefer the competition, which would harm those US businesses by competing with foreign businesses.  Though maybe its that the US businesses would benefit from being able to hire foreign crew, and operate ships at lower cost, and it would only hurt the US employees of those businesses that you find okay.