Potential Permanent PVSA Exemption for Alaska Until ...

[Ken the cruiser]

6 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

Holy moly, 16 posts on this subject , we get it already 🙄

That's OK. I appreciate @chengkp75taking the time to explain the various aspects in detail on this particular issue. 😎

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

Holy moly, 16 posts on this subject , we get it already 🙄

No one forced you to open the thread, and it is on topic, unlike yours.

[AmazedByCruising]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Here is the PVSA simply:

 

You are "supposed" to know the law. So you cannot kill someone and say that you didn't know that there's a law saying you shouldn't.

 

It gets ridiculous when you need advice from a website to understand if your vacation is allowed or not. If that's needed, there something wrong with the law.

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Thanks! That clears all that up. Now, one more question. From your viewpoint, what would be the severe negative impacts associated with simply eliminating the word "distant" from the term "distant foreign port" associated with any PVSA guidance that references that term?

To me, that is the "camel's nose" towards removing all foreign port requirements for foreign ships.  

[LGW59]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

No one forced you to open the thread, and it is on topic, unlike yours.

Ok

[chengkp75]

Just now, AmazedByCruising said:

 

You are "supposed" to know the law. So you cannot kill someone and say that you didn't know that there's a law saying you shouldn't.

 

It gets ridiculous when you need advice from a website to understand if your vacation is allowed or not. If that's needed, there something wrong with the law.

Really, so everyone in Holland knows every single law?  That's ridiculous.  If that were the case, why are there lawyers?

[Ken the cruiser]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

To me, that is the "camel's nose" towards removing all foreign port requirements for foreign ships.  

OK, I had to look that one up.

 

A small, seemingly innocuous act or decision that will lead to much larger, more serious, and less desirable consequences down the line. The term refers to an alleged Arab proverb that if a camel is allowed to get its nose inside of a tent, it will be impossible to prevent the rest of it from entering.

 

A camel's nose (under the tent) - Idioms by The Free Dictionary

 

You're probably right. But, other than the chance of "leading to harder drugs" to coin another phrase, what would be the downside in your opinion by simply eliminating the word "distant"?

 

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by Ken the cruiser

[chengkp75]

21 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

OK, I had to look that one up.

 

A small, seemingly innocuous act or decision that will lead to much larger, more serious, and less desirable consequences down the line. The term refers to an alleged Arab proverb that if a camel is allowed to get its nose inside of a tent, it will be impossible to prevent the rest of it from entering.

 

A camel's nose (under the tent) - Idioms by The Free Dictionary

 

You're probably right. But, other than the chance of "leading to harder drugs" to coin another phrase, what would be the downside in your opinion by simply eliminating the word "distant"?

 

 

As I said, it is an exemption to the law as it is, and further loosening the exemption would lead to further and further exemptions, until everyone has an exemption.

[AmazedByCruising]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

Really, so everyone in Holland knows every single law?  That's ridiculous.  If that were the case, why are there lawyers?

 

Of course not. Nobody does.

A perfectly valid argument could be that you didn't know that the government would punish you if you kill someone. To make sure that you cannot use such argument in court, you are "supposed" to know each and every law. Most people understand that killing and stealing is probably written down somewhere without actually reading it. 

 

PVSA is different. Any 5 year old can tell you that stealing stuff is bad. But you need a lawyer to find out if your vacation is allowed or not.

[D C]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

As I said, it is an exemption to the law as it is, and further loosening the exemption would lead to further and further exemptions, until everyone has an exemption.

Assuming, of course, that exemptions are bad.  

 

Do tell, what harm would come from allowing cruise ships to not stop in foreign ports and simply go from US port to US port? 

[canderson]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

As I said, it is an exemption to the law as it is, and further loosening the exemption would lead to further and further exemptions, until everyone has an exemption.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Slippery-Slope

[markeb]

11 minutes ago, D C said:

Assuming, of course, that exemptions are bad.  

 

Do tell, what harm would come from allowing cruise ships to not stop in foreign ports and simply go from US port to US port? 

 

TLDR: Hard to assess harm until you know what's actually going to pass.

 

I don't know that any harm would occur, with appropriate regulation. I have no dog in this fight, and really no firm preferences on the outcome. But your question isn't really about the PVSA, which is an amazingly limited scope law, if you actually read it. It only addresses transportation of passengers from one US port to another. The language actually explicitly prohibits transportation by way of ANY foreign port, but that's been revised by administrative rulings and one court ruling. Most of what gets quoted as PVSA in the cruising community is actually Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) implementing regulations, and many of them actually implement immigration, customs, and tax laws.

 

Harm: Hard to say. Go with the recreational drug model and regulate it rather than prohibit it. As chengkp75 has stated, there are complications, specifically international agreements and maritime law. I suspect those aren't easy to change, but probably can be done. Spent a lot of time working with NATO, and a lot of processes are the equivalent of paint drying. What would the US have to give up to make those changes? It won't be zero sum.

 

For the cruiser: The PVSA is not the rate limiting step. Without an international stop, under current immigration law (not the PVSA), the crew can't perform work within the United States. That can be changed, but it may not be easy. The alternative is a US crew, subject to US labor laws, US minimum wage, etc. Or a change to immigration law, or a ruling that the cruise is international regardless, which is essentially what the Alaska legislation did. I've seen all kinds of estimates, but expect cruise fares to increase dramatically if the cruise line has to employ US citizens. I can't imagine a path to grant work visas to the crew; other than senior officers. That's the real issue with "cruises to nowhere", which if you read the CBP information papers, comply with the PVSA, but have immigration issues. And it's why closed loop cruises make an international stop. If you allowed non-coastwise qualified vessels to transport passengers, my bet is the cruises would still make an international stop for customs, tax, and immigration purposes. But not a distant foreign stop. They'd probably be happy to from Seattle to Alaska by way of the easiest Canadian port, but they wouldn't skip Canada. Maybe that's a win.

 

Again, the rulings that allow the distant foreign stop are pretty bureaucratic, but essentially determined that the cruises in question did not have transportation of passengers as their primary intent. The cruise was the purpose, not the movement of passengers. I've not seen any effort to extend that legal theory that originates in 1910 with court rulings in 1940 to modern cruising.

 

IMHO, the PVSA is the bright shiny object preventing a serious review of all laws and regulations in this space. The Alaska legislation bypassed most of the sticky issues by simply declaring the cruises "international" (I think they actually used foreign, which probably isn't the correct term). Murkowski's legislation already suggests she thinks that's a bridge too far for a permanent change. I'm all in favor of a holistic review. I'm pretty confident there's a way to maintain the safety and inspections that concern a Merchant Marine, while differentiating "travel as recreation" from "travel as transportation". But I've lived in the NCR too long to think that's simple or trivial.

 

And I will now go back to something truly important. A wee dram of Glenmorangie...

 

(And to my Bostonian friend, yeah, I've already had a dram, and didn't feel like editing. It's too long! I get it.)

[D C]

52 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

TLDR: Hard to assess harm until you know what's actually going to pass.

 

I don't know that any harm would occur, with appropriate regulation. I have no dog in this fight, and really no firm preferences on the outcome. But your question isn't really about the PVSA, which is an amazingly limited scope law, if you actually read it. It only addresses transportation of passengers from one US port to another. The language actually explicitly prohibits transportation by way of ANY foreign port, but that's been revised by administrative rulings and one court ruling. Most of what gets quoted as PVSA in the cruising community is actually Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) implementing regulations, and many of them actually implement immigration, customs, and tax laws.

 

Harm: Hard to say. Go with the recreational drug model and regulate it rather than prohibit it. As chengkp75 has stated, there are complications, specifically international agreements and maritime law. I suspect those aren't easy to change, but probably can be done. Spent a lot of time working with NATO, and a lot of processes are the equivalent of paint drying. What would the US have to give up to make those changes? It won't be zero sum.

 

For the cruiser: The PVSA is not the rate limiting step. Without an international stop, under current immigration law (not the PVSA), the crew can't perform work within the United States. That can be changed, but it may not be easy. The alternative is a US crew, subject to US labor laws, US minimum wage, etc. Or a change to immigration law, or a ruling that the cruise is international regardless, which is essentially what the Alaska legislation did. I've seen all kinds of estimates, but expect cruise fares to increase dramatically if the cruise line has to employ US citizens. I can't imagine a path to grant work visas to the crew; other than senior officers. That's the real issue with "cruises to nowhere", which if you read the CBP information papers, comply with the PVSA, but have immigration issues. And it's why closed loop cruises make an international stop. If you allowed non-coastwise qualified vessels to transport passengers, my bet is the cruises would still make an international stop for customs, tax, and immigration purposes. But not a distant foreign stop. They'd probably be happy to from Seattle to Alaska by way of the easiest Canadian port, but they wouldn't skip Canada. Maybe that's a win.

 

Again, the rulings that allow the distant foreign stop are pretty bureaucratic, but essentially determined that the cruises in question did not have transportation of passengers as their primary intent. The cruise was the purpose, not the movement of passengers. I've not seen any effort to extend that legal theory that originates in 1910 with court rulings in 1940 to modern cruising.

 

IMHO, the PVSA is the bright shiny object preventing a serious review of all laws and regulations in this space. The Alaska legislation bypassed most of the sticky issues by simply declaring the cruises "international" (I think they actually used foreign, which probably isn't the correct term). Murkowski's legislation already suggests she thinks that's a bridge too far for a permanent change. I'm all in favor of a holistic review. I'm pretty confident there's a way to maintain the safety and inspections that concern a Merchant Marine, while differentiating "travel as recreation" from "travel as transportation". But I've lived in the NCR too long to think that's simple or trivial.

 

And I will now go back to something truly important. A wee dram of Glenmorangie...

 

(And to my Bostonian friend, yeah, I've already had a dram, and didn't feel like editing. It's too long! I get it.)

A wee dram? Is that like cutting a brownie into several parts so as to reduce the calories while consuming the same total quantity of brownies? 

 

I do believe though you've muddied my question with a concern for the law.  

 

Today, a cruise ship can go from port Everglades to Cozumel and back.  Suppose that instead of Cozumel, the ship stopped in New Orleans. Same ship, same crew, same passengers going on excursions. 

 

Is harm done in any sense if that ship stops in New Orleans instead of Cozumel? And to whom is harm done?  We'll assume that the passengers all willfully embarked with full knowledge of their destination. Again, the current law is of no consequence to the question at hand. 

 

 

 

[intr3pid]

19 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 

Actually, as of the last count I saw, there are around 80 nations that have maritime cabotage laws in some form, including some of the flag of convenience nations, and that represent the vast majority of the world's tonnage.  

 

You are confusing general cabotage laws with their subset that would govern the movement of passengers.  Not every country with a cabotage law uses it for passenger movement.  In my example, Australia has cabotage laws (and modern ones).  Yet, you can have a cruise ship take passengers from Perth to Sydney - no problem.  Goods are still restricted.  

 

By my count, countries whose cabotage laws govern passenger transport are just over 60, and only a subset of them use blanket/catch-all language like the PVSA does.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

The USCG does not promulgate environmental standards, that is left to the EPA (I don't know your views on whether they are "antiquated" or not), and the setting of those standards has nothing to do with the PVSA and whether it is antiquated or not.  You really have no idea what is in the PVSA if you think there are environmental standards in it.  The USCG is charged with enforcing the standards set by others.

 

I am glad you understood the point.  There is really no connection between the PVSA and the environmental protection in the US - is what you responded to.  Attributing environmental protection somehow to the existence of the PVSA is like attributing the use of a driver's license to extending mortgage credit.  Maybe it worked in the 1950s.  It's pointless today.  So, like I said, PVSA = an antiquated law that simply gives USCG the right to inspect a ship.  It will do nothing to prevent the major violations as proven time and time again.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Yes, the Alaska discharges (and I won't go into a technical discussion of whether any pollution actually happened from them or not) went on for years, that is a court documented fact.  It is also a fact that the USCG may have inspected the ships annually (depending on the largesse of Congress), and that the flag state also did not discover the violations.  I am more referring to the 200+ violations found on Carnival ships after being convicted of those Alaska violations, and most of those violations did involve actual pollution.  .... So, which system is better prepared to catch violations, the foreign flag ships (where inspection is not mandated, and depends on funding), where it is at best once a year, or the US flag ship which is mandated for inspection 4 times a year?

 

Eh, pointing out the "200+" footnote violations if the system cannot catch the big one?  The horse had already bolted.  You can use your own logic to justify the big dump ("technically pollution?") - but it's irrelevant.  The court convicted the company and fined it $40 million.  Canrival agreed with the charges.  What exactly did Carnival have to pay for those "200+" violations?  Did any conviction take place? 

 

You ask as to which system is better.  There is no system under PVSA.  It was a whistleblower.  Any junior auditor can find 200+ violations when all fingers are pointing and when everyone is looking.  

 

If you want a system that works, look to Norway, the SO2 laws, as well as the established SECOs in the Baltic Sea.  If a system works, you will see the cruise ships alter their behavior.  See the next point.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

And, again, if the foreign ships could be regulated more strictly, as is done with US flag ships, wouldn't it lead to better enforcement?

 

You are using a wrench to operate a computer.  Regulation is absolutely necessary, yes, but the PVSA is not it.  Alaska is very similar to Norway, yet their outlooks couldn't be more different.  Norway has had passenger cabotage laws for a long time.  Those had no influence on moving the cruise lines to reduce their environmental footprint.  Now, look at the last five years - since the new laws emerged.  AIDA  wants to go completely carbon neutral, MSC is only building LNG powered ships, Costa is in the clean build race too, and Hurtigruten is going ballistic with its own emissions targets.  

 

-----------------------------------------

 

The act passed for Alaska is a time limited, specific exemption for certain ships, and was presented as such as a covid releif package.  It has not been challenged in court to see if it actually stands up to legal standards.  

 

The AMHS has been operating in the Alaskan waters for decades.  The cruise ships have been in the Alaskan waters for decades.  They have co-existed perfectly well because the technical escape (the "near foreign" port stop) has no effect on AMHS.  The reason you haven't seen a lawsuit is exactly that.  Neither AMHS nor Staten Island ferry can prove damages.  They don't compete with the cruise ships.  The ferry argument is hinged purely on a hypothetical "what if", and you can rest assured very few, if any, law firms would want to touch it if you have to go out on a limb to prove consequential damages.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

All of the items you mention must meet US law when they are imported to the US to provide consumer protection.  The cruise lines do not have to follow US law.

 

The cruise lines conduct 90% of their business outside of the US.  To the extent they are in the US, they pay their fees.  Just like a resort in Cancun sources its customers from the US but is not subject to the US laws.  And, vice versa, a US container ship or a tanker does not have to worry about the local laws in the UK.  This is also all true for Norway and Germany too, and yet they have come up with a way to force the cruise lines to comply.  

 

We all want to regulate cruise ships harder.  But, like I said, let's not use a wrench to operate a computer.  Craft a law that is directed and to the point.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

And for Amazed, who keeps denigrating the "steamboat safety" concept, let me propose an area where I feel that a US flag cruise ship provides better service to the customer than a foreign flag one.  Professional mariners in the deck and engine departments on all ships are required to have actual firefighting training, so lets disregard them as equal between US flag and foreign flag ships.  Let's look at cruise ship crew, where the hotel department makes up the majority of the crew, and the majority of the fire teams.  On the foreign flag ship, the only crew with any firefighting training at all are those assigned to the fire teams, and their training is limited to onboard simulated fires.

 

Nothing wrong with training the crew better for fire safety - it's absolutely necessary.   But how many noteworthy fire-related mishaps have taken place on cruise ships?  

 

Fire hazard is not a regulatory risk. It's a business risk. Just like you don't have to be shown the law to protect you home, a cruise ship doesn't need to be regulated to prevent fires. 

 

Pollution, on the other hand, is just a regulatory risk under an antiquated law like the PVSA.  As you agree, you can easily pull wool over the eyes of the understaffed inspectors.  You want the cruise lines to become better environmental stewards?  Craft a law that is directed and to the point.

[chengkp75]

10 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

PVSA is different. Any 5 year old can tell you that stealing stuff is bad. But you need a lawyer to find out if your vacation is allowed or not.

You do realize that the fine and the violation is against the cruise line, and not you. You are in no way responsible for anything under the PVSA.  It is your responsibility that you sign over the right for the cruise line to pass on to you any and all fines for whatever violations happen in whatever nations along your cruise, not just the PVSA.

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, D C said:

Assuming, of course, that exemptions are bad.  

 

Do tell, what harm would come from allowing cruise ships to not stop in foreign ports and simply go from US port to US port? 

You have granted a foreign flag ship the right to perform a domestic voyage.  While this may not do any harm to the cruise passenger, or even the cruise line, it now allows all foreign passenger vessels (remember that small item of getting 160+ nations to agree that allowing US citizens an inexpensive vacation is a reason to change international law) the right to perform domestic voyages.  The US cannot regulate international commerce, but it can regulate domestic commerce, and so it does.  If that cruise ship wants to perform domestic commerce, then it should meet all pertinent US laws, just like a trucking line or an airline. And, you know what?  This is exactly what the cruise lines fear will happen if the PVSA is amended or repealed, that they will be required to meet US law in return for being able to perform domestic voyages. As I've said before, the original Alaska exemption took away the foreign nature of the voyage in terms of customs duty on ship's supplies, which is a large financial hardship for the cruise lines, and one they obviously pointed out to Sen. Murkowski, since she does not mention this little tidbit in her bill.

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, intr3pid said:

Fire hazard is not a regulatory risk. It's a business risk. Just like you don't have to be shown the law to protect you home, a cruise ship doesn't need to be regulated to prevent fires. 

 

Pollution, on the other hand, is just a regulatory risk under an antiquated law like the PVSA.  As you agree, you can easily pull wool over the eyes of the understaffed inspectors.  You want the cruise lines to become better environmental stewards?  Craft a law that is directed and to the point.

There is so much wrong in this whole post, I really don't know where to begin.

 

Whether a nation has cabotage laws regarding passenger service or not, the fact that they have some cabotage laws, indicates they are pro to the idea of cabotage, and would not necessarily be amenable to a change that might reduce their ability to have cabotage.

 

My point in saying that the environmental regulations would be better because a ship is US flag (under the PVSA), is that the USCG would have more jurisdiction to inspect the vessels more often.  And, there have been many cases where the USCG has found a vessel to be in violation without a whistleblower.  To use your driver's license analogy, it is not about relating a license to mortgage credit, it is relating having a driver's license and whether there are 2 or 200 state troopers available to enforce the driving laws you agree to when getting the license.

 

And, while I was disappointed in the court's decision, the 200+ "footnote violations" did cost Carnival another $20 million.

 

You point out the SECA's in Europe.  You do know there is one for North America?  And, some of those "footnote" violations were for violating that SECA, so whose behavior has changed?  And, Carnival and others are going to LNG fueled ships in the US to meet the SECA, so Europe is not unique, or better.  And, what the PVSA would allow is tighter enforcement of those rules, or even the ability to pass more stringent laws that apply only to US flag vessels, as allowed by the IMO.

 

Not saying that the ferries are competing directly with the cruise lines.  What I am saying is that the ferries can say "I have to pay the expense to be US flag as a passenger vessel doing domestic voyages, the cruise ships do not have to pay this expense for a passenger vessel doing domestic voyages, why?  That places me at a disadvantage."

 

And, again, you miss the point. You say cruise ships perform the majority of their business outside the US.  But, then, you want them to do domestic voyages (PVSA trade), which by definition is wholly within the US.  So, yes, just like a US flag ship in Europe, if it is on an international voyage, then it applies the flag state laws, for the most part, but if that US flag ship were doing domestic voyages in Europe (which it is not allowed to do by cabotage), it would have to meet their laws.  Which way do you want it?  Or is it that just because a ship flies a foreign flag, it does not need to meet US laws, when doing business strictly in the US?

 

4 hours ago, intr3pid said:

Fire hazard is not a regulatory risk. It's a business risk. Just like you don't have to be shown the law to protect you home, a cruise ship doesn't need to be regulated to prevent fires. 

Really?  So, all local fire codes are not needed, just let businesses decide how best to protect their workers and customers?  Airlines don't need regulations regarding safety measures required?  Cars don't need regulations regarding safety measures?  

 

As for "noteworthy" fires on cruise ships, I can think of a few, and in those few, it has been found that crew training, even up to the Captain, has been deficient.  But, there are also many fires onboard cruise ships that no one ever hears of, because they are dealt with at the small stage, and because there is no central clearing house for reporting them.

 

And, "pollution is just a regulatory risk under the PVSA"?  "Craft a law that is directed and to the point"?  Which law would that be?  The PVSA, which actually says nothing about pollution?  Or the multitude of US laws, both those adopted from international conventions, and also US specific ones, created by various environmental agencies?  Which are you complaining about?  "You can pull the wool over the eyes of understaffed inspectors".  So, why not make it mandatory for those inspectors to do more frequent inspections, hire more inspectors, because there are now more US flag ships that need inspections, instead of letting ships bypass inspections because they are not mandated, and the inspectors are understaffed?

[AmazedByCruising]

14 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

You do realize that the fine and the violation is against the cruise line, and not you. You are in no way responsible for anything under the PVSA.  It is your responsibility that you sign over the right for the cruise line to pass on to you any and all fines for whatever violations happen in whatever nations along your cruise, not just the PVSA.

 

Which means that you must know which fines the cruise line might make you pay for. There are examples on this site where even representatives of the lines themselves didn't understand the law when it gets a bit more complicated, like B2B cruises.

 

I don't think people simply booking a cruise instead of a resort should need to read the fine print of their contract, then the law itself, then how it is interpreted, to find out that that if grandma dies on the ship she can't be flown home but must enjoy the rest of the cruise first. (But after submitting enough forms you will probably not need to pay for it). IANAL, but I wonder what a judge would say about such an unexpected clause in a contract. BTW, I have never signed a contract with the cruise line, nor with my TA. All that was needed was a copy of my passport and payment.

[AmazedByCruising]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

So, yes, just like a US flag ship in Europe, if it is on an international voyage, then it applies the flag state laws, for the most part, but if that US flag ship were doing domestic voyages in Europe (which it is not allowed to do by cabotage), it would have to meet their laws. 

 

Domestic voyages in Europe would mean a cruise from one port in Italy to another. Nobody would be interested in such a cruise.

 

The EU doesn't have a rule saying that a Panamese ship cannot transport people from Denmark to Spain without a detour to Iceland. I wonder why we don't have the problems that the US avoided by adopting the PVSA. 

[Ken the cruiser]

You know in listening to all this of which has been very enlightening and I have happily contributed to, I'm starting to see what @chengkp75and @markeb have been trying to express and I am getting over my relatively minor concerns regarding the PVSA when it comes to "my" personal cruise itinerary options.

 

Oh sure, I provided an earlier suggestion and wondered what the impacts would be to just remove the "distant" from the "distant foreign port" reference in the PVSA guidance. But to be honest, so what if a cruise line as to go to a "distant foreign port", such as Cartagena, when going from Florida to California via the Panama Canal, or I can't book a Ft Lauderdale to Quebec to Boston (or New York) B2B itinerary because there isn't a "distant foreign port" included in any of the bookable cruise legs. Oh well, there are a bunch of other combinations we could choose from that would be just as nice. 

 

As far as Alaska goes if Canada ever has to shut down her ports again for whatever reason, our Congress was able to come up with a workable solution this time, although temporary, and I'm sure they will be able to do it again if necessary. Now, whether Senator Murkowski can get her new bill passed to work around any future Canadian port closures, only time will tell. But at the same time Canada is getting ready to reopen her ports November 1st.

 

Canada to open ports to cruise ships beginning November | Seeking Alpha

 

IMHO once they actually reopen, I believe the current spotlight on the PVSA will drastically dim and its impact on the inability to create unique B2B cruises will go back to being a minor annoyance for us cruisers.

[canderson]

2 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

BTW, I have never signed a contract with the cruise line, nor with my TA. All that was needed was a copy of my passport and payment.

Might want to read those Ts & Cs you scrolled past (or didn't) when you checked that Agree box if you checked in online.

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

BTW, I have never signed a contract with the cruise line, nor with my TA. All that was needed was a copy of my passport and payment.

Have you given authorization to purchase a ticket on your credit card?  Then you have agreed to the terms and conditions of the ticket contract, whether you know it or not, and whether you read them or not.  I believe even a cash receipt (if those are available) will say that acceptance of the terms and conditions are part of the purchase.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Domestic voyages in Europe would mean a cruise from one port in Italy to another. Nobody would be interested in such a cruise.

 

The EU doesn't have a rule saying that a Panamese ship cannot transport people from Denmark to Spain without a detour to Iceland. I wonder why we don't have the problems that the US avoided by adopting the PVSA. 

So why do you feel that anyone would be interested in a cruise from one state of the US to another?

 

No, the EU does not preclude a Panamanian flag vessel from a foreign voyage (remember, even though nations may belong to the EU, they are still separate, sovereign nations, not states of one nation.  The EU does require that any voyages between two ports in one member nation must be flagged in a member nation.  That precludes a ferry (and you still don't accept that there is no "carve out" for "cruise vessels" in the IMO's language, and that I can't help) from going between Palermo and Naples unless it is EU flagged (and there are restrictions on whether other EU nations can partake of "island" trade in many EU nations (Holland is one)). So, a confederation of states (and the parallels are not exact) in Europe say that ships from one member state can participate in domestic trade, but not ships from outside the confederation.  Kind of like a confederation of states in the US saying that a ship from Delaware could be used as a ferry in Florida, but not a ship from Panama.

[Fouremco]

12 hours ago, D C said:

Today, a cruise ship can go from port Everglades to Cozumel and back.  Suppose that instead of Cozumel, the ship stopped in New Orleans. Same ship, same crew, same passengers going on excursions. 

Would it in fact be the same crew? You are making an assumption that might not hold true. As @chengkp75 has noted in the past and as @markeb points out in post #112 above, "Without an international stop, under current immigration law (not the PVSA), the crew can't perform work within the United States."

 

Of course, the other question is whether cruises to New Orleans would ever attract the same volume of passengers as cruises to Cozumel. 

 

[JRG]

5 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

There is so much wrong in this whole post, I really don't know where to begin.

 

@intr3pid has taken all of the air (and gas) out of the anti-PVSA change balloon.   Every single point I have trying to make about CONFUSING THE DISCUSSION using global cabotage terms to address coastwise cruiseline transportation issues have now been spelled out in splendid detail.    The mariners who claim to have knowledge in this area have not been able to understand the core principles and that has been confusing the the general cc audience,   and the constant hand-wringing,  gum-mashing and pining (whatever that is) from the snowbird gallery who support the status quo has finally met its twisted fate.   

 

The article that @Ken the cruiser shared has shed a broad light on the background issues,  so that the average John and Jack cruiser can see what the real problem has been here on CC,  that is,  a gross perpertuation of wrong information regarding PVSA largely because of the confusion generated when you start applying global cabotage to coastline transportation for cruiseships in the US.    

 

 

Everyone is now much better updated with information and I expect the rest of the PVSA anti-change personnel to abandon that ship (if they have not already done so) .