Jump to content

Potential Permanent PVSA Exemption for Alaska Until ...


Ken the cruiser
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. 

Funny you say that because most cruise lines make sure that atleast 1 non EU port is stopped at. They do that to avoid having to charge VAT on all onboard sales.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

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  This is exactly what the cruise lines fear will happen if the PVSA is amended or repealed, that they will be required to meet US law in return for being able to perform domestic voyages.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.

To sum up:

Nobody is harmed in any way, shape, or form by a cruise ship going from one US port to another US port. 

All perceived potential harm is speculative based on a series of "what if" games. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

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. 

 

Yes, it would be the same crew. That was specified in the question.  Also stated is that the question is unconcerned with the law as written.  Who is harmed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, D C said:

To sum up:

Nobody is harmed in any way, shape, or form by a cruise ship going from one US port to another US port. 

All perceived potential harm is speculative based on a series of "what if" games. 

 

No harm, is speculative on your own "what if" that a change can be made in SOLAS.

 

Not to mention that every US flag ship operator is harmed because they have to pay duty on operational items imported, while the foreign ships do not.

Edited by chengkp75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, canderson said:

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

 

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Have you given authorization to purchase a ticket on your credit card? 

 

I didn't check in on line and I didn't use a credit card to purchase the ticket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, D C said:

Yes, it would be the same crew. That was specified in the question.  Also stated is that the question is unconcerned with the law as written.  Who is harmed? 

Well, if you are going to play total make believe and ignore all existing legislation, why don't we just pretend that New Orleans is a foreign port? Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nocl said:

Funny you say that because most cruise lines make sure that atleast 1 non EU port is stopped at. They do that to avoid having to charge VAT on all onboard sales.

 

 

Spain wants to be paid when you order a drink in their waters, but there is no VAT that could be avoided by sailing to a non EU port. Who told you this?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

 

Spain wants to be paid when you order a drink in their waters, but there is no VAT that could be avoided by sailing to a non EU port. Who told you this?

 

I will give you 4 different examples


 

1. Personal experience - I was on a cruise where its non-EU port was canceled and everyone got charged VAT for onboard purchases made anytime during the cruise.  


 

2. Previous articles and discussions here on CC


 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=3242


 

What Is a VAT Tax and Where Will You Find It on a Cruise?


 

The boundaries of the taxing jurisdictions can be quite complicated. On cruises where all the ports are European Union countries, for example, the appropriate VAT will be added to all onboard purchases throughout the cruise.


 


 

3. Other Media - Such as this articles from the times of Malta.  I included this one because it talks about trying to change the law back in 2005 (did not happen).


 

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/call-on-eu-to-revise-vat-laws-for-cruise-liners.78791


 

the present laws also include a provision whereby cruise liners which call on a port outside the EU during their route do not need to pay any VAT as the trip is considered by the EU to be duty-free.


 

4. Cruise lines themselves when they have a cruise that does not include non-EU ports such as this one from Disney.  The first line reads that since the cruise only goes to ports in the EU they are required by law to charge VAT for most on onboard merchandise and services.


 

https://disneycruiselineblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/European-Union-VAT-Information-May-2018.pdf

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

 

I didn't check in on line and I didn't use a credit card to purchase the ticket. 

As an example, here is the Carnival ticket contract, first line:

 

In consideration of the receipt of the full cruise fare and/or boarding and lodging on the vessel to which this Ticket Contract applies (the “Vessel”), Carnival Cruise Line (“Carnival”) and Guest agree that the booking of the cruise and the cruise are subject to the following terms and conditions:

 

 And, from the NCL ticket contract:

 

The Guest agrees that this Contract governs the relationship between the Guest and the Carrier, regardless of the Guest's age, whether the Guest purchased the ticket on his or her own behalf, and/or whether the ticket has been held and/or presented by another person on behalf of the Guest. 

 

So, while you may not have "signed" a ticket contract, you have agreed to the terms by paying for the ticket.  I'm sure somewhere on your receipt it says that terms and conditions apply.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fouremco said:

Well, if you are going to play total make believe and ignore all existing legislation, why don't we just pretend that New Orleans is a foreign port? Problem solved.

Nice way to avoid the question. 

You also seem to be taking the "nobody would want that itinerary" approach, which would make any restrictive law redundant and unnecessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

No harm, is speculative on your own "what if" that a change can be made in SOLAS.

 

Not to mention that every US flag ship operator is harmed because they have to pay duty on operational items imported, while the foreign ships do not.

You are so hung up with the protection provided by the current law that it seems you're unable to see the forest for the trees. 

 

Suppose ship 1 goes from Miami to Cartegena to Grand Cayman to Galveston and back to Miami. 

Suppose ship 2 goes from Miami to Key West to New Orleans to Galveston to Miami. 

 

Which of these itineraries provides more financial benefit to the US? (hint: we all know it's itinerary 1).   Why is more financial benefit to the US as a whole a bad thing?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, D C said:

You are so hung up with the protection provided by the current law that it seems you're unable to see the forest for the trees. 

 

Suppose ship 1 goes from Miami to Cartegena to Grand Cayman to Galveston and back to Miami. 

Suppose ship 2 goes from Miami to Key West to New Orleans to Galveston to Miami. 

 

Which of these itineraries provides more financial benefit to the US? (hint: we all know it's itinerary 1).   Why is more financial benefit to the US as a whole a bad thing?

 

Which provides more financial benefit, a full cruise with itinerary 1, or a nearly empty cruise with itinerary 2?  LIke I've said, you really need to discuss the major loss of revenue by the cruise lines because they are not working to do domestic cruises, or even multiple US ports in one cruise.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Which provides more financial benefit, a full cruise with itinerary 1, or a nearly empty cruise with itinerary 2?  LIke I've said, you really need to discuss the major loss of revenue by the cruise lines because they are not working to do domestic cruises, or even multiple US ports in one cruise.

Surely you can't be serious. Are you so engrained in the protectionist status quo that you're unable to objectively examine other alternatives? 

 

US: If you want to cruise from US port to US port, you need a US built ship, a US flagged ship, and a US citizen crew. 

CruiseLine: That sounds expensive. What if we go from a US port and stop at a foreign port? 

US: we didn't think of that. Sure, that's OK. 

CruiseLine: so we don't need a US built ship, a US flagged ship, or a US crew so long as we go to at least one foreign port? 

US: Correct. 

CruiseLine: Are you sure about that? It means we spend WAY less in the US and way more in other countries. 

US: We didn't think about that. But we're standing our ground. 

CruiseLine: uhhh.... ok.  Off we go. Buh bye. 

 

Why on earth would any cruise line be actively working to do domestic cruises when it means trying to overcome the protectionist idiocy of 100+ year old laws when they make plenty of money by circumventing those very laws? The only loser with the status quo is the US. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, D C said:

You are so hung up with the protection provided by the current law that it seems you're unable to see the forest for the trees. 

 

Suppose ship 1 goes from Miami to Cartegena to Grand Cayman to Galveston and back to Miami. 

Suppose ship 2 goes from Miami to Key West to New Orleans to Galveston to Miami. 

 

Which of these itineraries provides more financial benefit to the US? (hint: we all know it's itinerary 1).   Why is more financial benefit to the US as a whole a bad thing?

 

 

Do you have a business case for itinerary 2? And did you mean Itinerary 2 in your third paragraph? Because I suspect itinerary 1 IS more financially beneficial as more people will likely take it.

 

What size ship and how many passengers to make route 2 profitable (using your "rules", let's forget most of the current legal requirements, but some of them do impact the business case)? "We all know" is a major assumption without data. And, BTW, that cruise isn't really prohibited by the PVSA. It's closed loop and you didn't transport passengers between two US ports. It doesn't happen for all the other messy reasons in other parts of US law and code. Those messy reasons should generate a significant amount of tax revenue for the US and the various states, but would the cost increase enough that occupancy drops? And if there was really demand, most of those messy reasons could be eliminated by a 4 hour stop in Freeport, for instance. That's a business case question, not a legal question. And well done business cases frequently prove the obvious incorrect.

 

American Cruise Lines does essentially littoral cruises on the East Coast. They have a business model for that sector. They would actually be the obvious company to extend their business into other US port to US port cruise travel. There would be issues with acquiring coastwise qualified vessels, but as @chengkp75 has said, those probably aren't insurmountable by qualifying non-US built vessels for the route (which would require legislative relief); their ships are US flagged and I'd assume they'd continue that business model. If there was a good business case to offer those routes. Unless they're as incompetent as CLIA was in their 2020 lobbying, I'd assume they'd be pursuing that relief. Little pieces are probably doable, and it's their business space to lose. But I don't see any evidence of anyone else wanting it. Maybe you do.

 

The forest here is return on investment to stakeholders by publicly held corporations, not the desire of some cruisers to cruise what could well be a non-profitable route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

Do you have a business case for itinerary 2? And did you mean Itinerary 2 in your third paragraph? Because I suspect itinerary 1 IS more financially beneficial as more people will likely take it.

 

What size ship and how many passengers to make route 2 profitable (using your "rules", let's forget most of the current legal requirements, but some of them do impact the business case)? "We all know" is a major assumption without data. And, BTW, that cruise isn't really prohibited by the PVSA. It's closed loop and you didn't transport passengers between two US ports. It doesn't happen for all the other messy reasons in other parts of US law and code. Those messy reasons should generate a significant amount of tax revenue for the US and the various states, but would the cost increase enough that occupancy drops? And if there was really demand, most of those messy reasons could be eliminated by a 4 hour stop in Freeport, for instance. That's a business case question, not a legal question. And well done business cases frequently prove the obvious incorrect.

 

American Cruise Lines does essentially littoral cruises on the East Coast. They have a business model for that sector. They would actually be the obvious company to extend their business into other US port to US port cruise travel. There would be issues with acquiring coastwise qualified vessels, but as @chengkp75 has said, those probably aren't insurmountable by qualifying non-US built vessels for the route (which would require legislative relief); their ships are US flagged and I'd assume they'd continue that business model. If there was a good business case to offer those routes. Unless they're as incompetent as CLIA was in their 2020 lobbying, I'd assume they'd be pursuing that relief. Little pieces are probably doable, and it's their business space to lose. But I don't see any evidence of anyone else wanting it. Maybe you do.

 

The forest here is return on investment to stakeholders by publicly held corporations, not the desire of some cruisers to cruise what could well be a non-profitable route.

Thanks.  Typo that's too late to edit. I meant itinerary 2, not 1 as providing more benefit (the perils of phone posting). 

 

The profitability of any particular itinerary is pure speculation.  Suggesting or speculatioing that a specfifc route is unprofitable is equivalent to saying that the protectionist law is unnecessary because nobody would want that itinerary anyhow. 

 

We don't see evidence of any cruise lines wanting to do coastal itineraries is because they're not asking. Why would you mess with the idiocy of the US government and the lobbying groups that are so self-interested in the status quo that they're unable to see the big picture? Far easier to cruise around in the loopholes while taking US customers to other countries to spend money.  

 

Economics 101: You make money by figuring out how to get people to give YOU money, not by making it easier for people to give someone ELSE money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, D C said:

You are so hung up with the protection provided by the current law that it seems you're unable to see the forest for the trees. 

 

Suppose ship 1 goes from Miami to Cartegena to Grand Cayman to Galveston and back to Miami. 

Suppose ship 2 goes from Miami to Key West to New Orleans to Galveston to Miami. 

 

Which of these itineraries provides more financial benefit to the US? (hint: we all know it's itinerary 1).   Why is more financial benefit to the US as a whole a bad thing?

 

Put it this way out of all of the closed loop Caribbean cruises that take place by all of the cruise lines, how many stop at another US city other than the embarkation/disembarkation ports?  A few stop in Key West.  Not many stop anywhere else.  Even though it would be easy for the cruise lines to do a close loop cruise that would include other US cities.

 

Take a look at the west coast.  The main draws on the Pacific coastal cruises are small tourist focused cities along the costs (Santa Barbara, Monterey for example) Some people like an over night stop in San Francisco.  

 

Pacific coastal cruises are not exactly major money makers, mostly a place to keep a few ships busy during the off season for Alaska.

 

If people really wanted to cruise from a US port to large US port cities (that they easily fly to or drive to) you would be seeing them included in many close loop cruises today.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, D C said:

The profitability of any particular itinerary is pure speculation. 

CLIA stated a few years back that it's members did not see any advantage to modifying or repealing the PVSA, as they saw very little benefit to their bottom line, and potential harm to it.  I would take industry experts "speculation" over yours any day.

 

They spent money to get the exemption for Puerto Rico, so there has been "asking".  While the exemption still exists, no cruise line takes advantage of it, except for a rare repositioning cruise.  I guess they may have used that example when looking at further PVSA type routes.  And, if they were "asking" about Puerto Rico, don't you think their marketing folks were asking test markets about other ones?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, D C said:

Why on earth would any cruise line be actively working to do domestic cruises when it means trying to overcome the protectionist idiocy of 100+ year old laws when they make plenty of money by circumventing those very laws? The only loser with the status quo is the US. 

 

Your presentation and arguments are very effective.   I agree with much of what you have presented here and I'm convinced the tide has turned in favor of diminishing PVSA and its counter-effectiveness.

 

The Temporary Permanent Alaska Bill has been the first domino to fall,  it will be followed by a reprieve of the restrictions holding back B2B bookings/sailings,  and that be the catalyst for the elimination of Ensenada as a unnecessary stop followed by a change in the domestic routes for Gulf and Eastern Seaboard sailings.    Everything is pointing to elimination of the distant and foreign port concept as the need to update laws 'specific' to cruising has emerged and will continue to be front and center.

 

The need for Americans to sail within nearby coasts has been increased because of Covid -19 causing the  vacation squeeze play that has gripped everybody.   Insurance reasons notwithstanding, retired cruisers and those with marginal perhaps health issues may now prefer coastal sailings vs.  worldwide longer sailings for more health reasons than existed pre-Covid.   The market (cruiselines) will react to this opportunity by testing the waters to see if pent-up demand from drive-to-port customers can support a short-term impetus or become a viable part of their long-term strategic planning.

 

This is one of the biggest legislative movements we have ever seen for cruising fans,  there is no way to ignore that,  and if you can't see that then you may be too close to the forest for the trees.

 

p.s.  if you are clueless enough to think that this is the 'marketing' people and the 'marketing research' that is speaking,  you are wrong,  it is about 'Product Management'  and those people 'Product Managers' who call the shots these days.   FYI.

 

When you hear the phrase "The Market gets what it Wants'   it is because of "Market Opportunities"  or removal of "Barriers to Entry" help to make it work.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Your presentation and arguments are very effective.   I agree with much of what you have presented here and I'm convinced the tide has turned in favor of diminishing PVSA and its counter-effectiveness.

 

The Temporary Permanent Alaska Bill has been the first domino to fall,  it will be followed by a reprieve of the restrictions holding back B2B bookings/sailings,  and that be the catalyst for the elimination of Ensenada as a unnecessary stop followed by a change in the domestic routes for Gulf and Eastern Seaboard sailings.    Everything is pointing to elimination of the distant and foreign port concept as the need to update laws 'specific' to cruising has emerged and will continue to be front and center.

 

The need for Americans to sail within nearby coasts has been increased because of Covid -19 causing the  vacation squeeze play that has gripped everybody.   Insurance reasons notwithstanding, retired cruisers and those with marginal perhaps health issues may now prefer coastal sailings vs.  worldwide longer sailings for more health reasons than existed pre-Covid.   The market (cruiselines) will react to this opportunity by testing the waters to see if pent-up demand from drive-to-port customers can support a short-term impetus or become a viable part of their long-term strategic planning.

 

This is one of the biggest legislative movements we have ever seen for cruising fans,  there is no way to ignore that,  and if you can't see that then you may be too close to the forest for the trees.

 

p.s.  if you are clueless enough to think that this is the 'marketing' people and the 'marketing research' that is speaking,  you are wrong,  it is about 'Product Management'  and those people 'Product Managers' who call the shots these days.   FYI.

 

When you hear the phrase "The Market gets what it Wants'   it is because of "Market Opportunities"  or removal of "Barriers to Entry" help to make it work.   

I understand what@D Cand yourself are suggesting, but "who" in all fairness is going to lobby these major PVSA changes you speak of through Congress? It doesn't sound like the CLIA or the major cruise lines see an advantage to changing them.

 

Senator Lee from Utah submitted legislation to eliminate the PVSA, but from what I understand they went nowhere. 

 

Senator Lee of Utah Introduces Bills to Repeal the Passenger Vessel Services Act (gcaptain.com)

 

I just looked at some American Cruise Line 2022 US coastal itineraries and they are over $700 pp/day plus tips for a basic balcony cabin, which is definitely a non-starter for most of the folks cruising today; although they're still in business, so somebody must want to sail with them.

 

USA River Cruises & Alaska Cruises | American Cruise Lines

 

I think Senator Murkowski is just focused on keeping the cruise ships sailing from the Lower 48 to Alaska and back if Canada ever deems it necessary to close her borders again.

 

So, I hear what you're saying, but who is going to be the driving force to make the major PVSA changes you're suggesting a reality?

 

Edited by Ken the cruiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't think the PVSA needs to be eliminated or amended to allow cruise ships to operate solely domestic trips w/o complying with US labor & immigration laws, or be registered in the US, I do think we need to reconsider allowing foreign built vessels to be registered and operated under the US flag provided they meet all the standards for safety and environmental compliance.  It has been allowed for decades for aircraft and surface transport vehicles, so why are ships specifically excluded?

 

That said - even if Celebrity, or any other cruise line, were to build a ship at Meyer Werft, Fincantieri STX, etc would they want to flag in the US and deal with the increased operational cost structure - probably not.  Complying with the current PVSA regulations and staying foreign flagged is far more financially beneficial to them.  There are very few solely domestic itineraries that appeal to enough cruisers to make it worthwhile- mainly Intra-Island Hawaii and Alaska.  The fact that NCL went from 3 ships in Hawaii down to 1, and has made ZERO effort to pursue expanding the Hawaii product speaks volumes.

 

Canada shutting down during a Global Pandemic was/is a once in a century phenomenon.  Did it hurt the economy of SE Alaska, sure, but the entire world was in panic mode for the last 15-18 months.  I'd like to think if in the near future we ever saw Canadian ports close again to cruise ships we'd see MUCH swifter action by congress to enact a similar temporary exemption to the PVSA to help ensure that the economy of a state like Alaska is not unduly harmed again.  The framework and precedent are now there to take emergency action if ever needed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

As I've said,  I don't have a real heartache with allowing foreign flag ships into the PVSA trade, but as you say,  the lines won't want the expense of US flag operations. 

As demonstrated with European routes, cruise line passengers do not even like having to pay VAT on ship board sales on cruises that only hit EU ports. The reason why most cruises take in atleast one non EU port during cruises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2021 at 6:41 AM, chengkp75 said:

See below.

There is so much wrong in this whole post, I really don't know where to begin.
Ahh, this sounds like watching the trailer of 'John Carter'.  Start with hype, but want to get up and leave 1/3rd of the way into it.

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

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.

 

Do you realize that countries such as Australia DID have passenger movement restrictions?  And that the number I quoted you has gone DOWN over time?  As populations worldwide have exploded, countries with no independent or economic passenger transport competence have allowed international operators to step in. This will continue to happen as the local travel and tourism boom.  As cruise ships increase their footprint globally, you will continue to see countries accommodate passenger movements exemptions.

 

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

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. 
 

We are not discussing having a US flag.  We are discussing having a law tell you that you cannot transport passengers in a certain way.  We have seen no gains in environmental protection while the PVSA has existed - as proven in Carnival's case.  Norway's laws don't require a Norwegian flag to enforce their standards.  Like I said, you are hoping to connect a driver's license with creditworthiness, but it doesn't work.  You can have your state troopers enforce driving violations, but they can do nothing to prevent emissions.  Unless, of course, they see a car on fire!

 

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

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

 

I don't consider that anything separate from the original $40 million penalty.  The court appointed the auditors - not that somehow the PVSA's enforcement caught those violations.  The ships were still foreign flagged - and if the whistleblower's actions hadn't led to the court taking over the process, the existence of PVSA would not have done anything.  (I thought you were referring to another case of violations that I had missed.)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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.

 

Now that you are starting to understand the ends, let's get you over to understanding the means as well.  It's the SO2 laws, SECAs, and all else that are forcing everyone's hands.  The PVSA has nothing to do with it.  The PVSA doesn't apply to 99% of the ships in the US waters, including the ones you are touting as the new Carnival LNGs.  Those new ships will still be foreign flagged, they will still bear no accountability to the PVSA, and they will still use the 'near foreign port' rule to escape any US laws.  The solution is not the cabotage laws, the solution is environmental laws that are direct and to the point.  See below.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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."

 

"Why"?  Because the cruise ships are not state or municipality funded.  In fact, as we saw in 2020, cruise ships received absolutely no help from any source other than commercial lending arrangements (and their own equity issuance).  The "US flag" expense is passed on to the consumers - and as noted in the case of AMHS, if the ferry systems (AMHS + BC ferries) thought they had a case, we would have heard it by now.
 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?


You have written this in a way that I hope you yourself can make sense out of.

 

First of all, hardly any cruise ships find it economically feasible to do the routes that compete with those of the local ferry system.  But, let's say we allow them to do roundtrip Alaska from Seattle without a need to stop in, say, Victoria.  They will pay all port fees, they will bring consumer spending to these US ports (otherwise not happening), and they will allow US public to enjoy an affordable vacation.  This is the premise the likes of Italy and Australia have operated with.

 

European countries are the size of the US states.  Cabotage laws as far as a passenger movement is concerned are meaningless.  With one day's sail, you can reach another country.  But, let's take the example of MSC in Italy.  MSC - in agreement with the Italian government - allows passengers to get on and off at different ports.  Most of their pre-COVID itineraries touched a number of countries, but in 2020, they ran Italy-only itineraries.  The Italian government has seen benefits in MSC's development of ports, such as Genoa, even if several ships are using Maltese flags.  Costa, a Carnival owned line, does it the same way.  

 

Consider the Barcelona to Rome trip.  Pretty much every cruise line has a summer itinerary doing this route - and they co-exist with the likes of MS Cruise Roma (ferry running between Barcelona and Rome).  What does it prove?  Allowing cruise ships such itineraries, while flying a foreign flag, helps almost everyone is several ways.  The ferry system continues to grow, the consumer spending is channeled into the ports, and an affordable vacation benefits the population. 

 

Where there is a need to enforce environmental protection, you do it through a law that is direct and to the point.  See below.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?   

 

Exactly which part of the PVSA addresses fire code?  Wrench for a computer.  What will PVSA do to force 99% of the ships in the US waters to follow a specific fire code?  Which cabotage law forces airlines to follow a fire code?  Which cabotage law forces cars to have 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.


Please list them here, and tell us how many per year out of how many actual sailings.  (I know the numbers.)  Let's hear from you that out of 52 cruise weeks * 300 ships = approximately 15,000 sailings in 2019, how many reported a fire incident?  And we will then compare with how may cars were in an accident in the US in that year as a proportion of total trips taken.  

 

As for the minor incidents, every industry - regulated or not - has them.  Let's not use speculation, however, to justify a law that takes an economic toll on the general population.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

 

Glad you asked.  Let's take some of it from Norway's playbook.

 

1.  Require the ships porting in the US to follow the necessary emissions standards, particularly those relating to SO2.
2.  Require the ships applying for, say, the Glacier Bay licenses to be subject to multiple annual audits at their own expense.
3.  Require the ships porting in Alaska to be carbon neutral by the year 20XX.  
4.  Create a new category of operational licensing covering the cruise ships.  Under this, cover all your inspections / audits / compliance reporting. The CDC's success in shutting down and gradually restarting cruises during the pandemic proves how easy it can be.  Make it a business risk to flout laws by denying them access to US consumers.
5.  More importantly, (A) don't rely on an antiquated protectionist law to get this done for you, and (B) let cruise ships determine their own business model on how to run their ships to keep them affordable for the general public.

 

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

The PVSA, which actually says nothing about pollution?

 

Now that you agree, do it right the next time.  Don't relate the existence of PVSA to success or failure with environmental protection.  Your reasoning is post # 70 was full of crater-sized holes.  PVSA = nothing to do with environmental protection.  It's an old, antiquated compliance law.  If you want cruise ships to alter behavior, craft a law that is directed and to the point.  See above.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, intr3pid said:

There is so much wrong in this whole post, I really don't know where to begin.
Ahh, this sounds like watching the trailer of 'John Carter'.  Start with hype, but want to get up and leave 1/3rd of the way into it.

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

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.

 

Do you realize that countries such as Australia DID have passenger movement restrictions?  And that the number I quoted you has gone DOWN over time?  As populations worldwide have exploded, countries with no independent or economic passenger transport competence have allowed international operators to step in. This will continue to happen as the local travel and tourism boom.  As cruise ships increase their footprint globally, you will continue to see countries accommodate passenger movements exemptions.

 

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

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. 
 

We are not discussing having a US flag.  We are discussing having a law tell you that you cannot transport passengers in a certain way.  We have seen no gains in environmental protection while the PVSA has existed - as proven in Carnival's case.  Norway's laws don't require a Norwegian flag to enforce their standards.  Like I said, you are hoping to connect a driver's license with creditworthiness, but it doesn't work.  You can have your state troopers enforce driving violations, but they can do nothing to prevent emissions.  Unless, of course, they see a car on fire!

 

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

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

 

I don't consider that anything separate from the original $40 million penalty.  The court appointed the auditors - not that somehow the PVSA's enforcement caught those violations.  The ships were still foreign flagged - and if the whistleblower's actions hadn't led to the court taking over the process, the existence of PVSA would not have done anything.  (I thought you were referring to another case of violations that I had missed.)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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.

 

Now that you are starting to understand the ends, let's get you over to understanding the means as well.  It's the SO2 laws, SECAs, and all else that are forcing everyone's hands.  The PVSA has nothing to do with it.  The PVSA doesn't apply to 99% of the ships in the US waters, including the ones you are touting as the new Carnival LNGs.  Those new ships will still be foreign flagged, they will still bear no accountability to the PVSA, and they will still use the 'near foreign port' rule to escape any US laws.  The solution is not the cabotage laws, the solution is environmental laws that are direct and to the point.  See below.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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."

 

"Why"?  Because the cruise ships are not state or municipality funded.  In fact, as we saw in 2020, cruise ships received absolutely no help from any source other than commercial lending arrangements (and their own equity issuance).  The "US flag" expense is passed on to the consumers - and as noted in the case of AMHS, if the ferry systems (AMHS + BC ferries) thought they had a case, we would have heard it by now.
 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?


You have written this in a way that I hope you yourself can make sense out of.

 

First of all, hardly any cruise ships find it economically feasible to do the routes that compete with those of the local ferry system.  But, let's say we allow them to do roundtrip Alaska from Seattle without a need to stop in, say, Victoria.  They will pay all port fees, they will bring consumer spending to these US ports (otherwise not happening), and they will allow US public to enjoy an affordable vacation.  This is the premise the likes of Italy and Australia have operated with.

 

European countries are the size of the US states.  Cabotage laws as far as a passenger movement is concerned are meaningless.  With one day's sail, you can reach another country.  But, let's take the example of MSC in Italy.  MSC - in agreement with the Italian government - allows passengers to get on and off at different ports.  Most of their pre-COVID itineraries touched a number of countries, but in 2020, they ran Italy-only itineraries.  The Italian government has seen benefits in MSC's development of ports, such as Genoa, even if several ships are using Maltese flags.  Costa, a Carnival owned line, does it the same way.  

 

Consider the Barcelona to Rome trip.  Pretty much every cruise line has a summer itinerary doing this route - and they co-exist with the likes of MS Cruise Roma (ferry running between Barcelona and Rome).  What does it prove?  Allowing cruise ships such itineraries, while flying a foreign flag, helps almost everyone is several ways.  The ferry system continues to grow, the consumer spending is channeled into the ports, and an affordable vacation benefits the population. 

 

Where there is a need to enforce environmental protection, you do it through a law that is direct and to the point.  See below.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?   

 

Exactly which part of the PVSA addresses fire code?  Wrench for a computer.  What will PVSA do to force 99% of the ships in the US waters to follow a specific fire code?  Which cabotage law forces airlines to follow a fire code?  Which cabotage law forces cars to have 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.


Please list them here, and tell us how many per year out of how many actual sailings.  (I know the numbers.)  Let's hear from you that out of 52 cruise weeks * 300 ships = approximately 15,000 sailings in 2019, how many reported a fire incident?  And we will then compare with how may cars were in an accident in the US in that year as a proportion of total trips taken.  

 

As for the minor incidents, every industry - regulated or not - has them.  Let's not use speculation, however, to justify a law that takes an economic toll on the general population.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

 

Glad you asked.  Let's take some of it from Norway's playbook.

 

1.  Require the ships porting in the US to follow the necessary emissions standards, particularly those relating to SO2.
2.  Require the ships applying for, say, the Glacier Bay licenses to be subject to multiple annual audits at their own expense.
3.  Require the ships porting in Alaska to be carbon neutral by the year 20XX.  
4.  Create a new category of operational licensing covering the cruise ships.  Under this, cover all your inspections / audits / compliance reporting. The CDC's success in shutting down and gradually restarting cruises during the pandemic proves how easy it can be.  Make it a business risk to flout laws by denying them access to US consumers.
5.  More importantly, (A) don't rely on an antiquated protectionist law to get this done for you, and (B) let cruise ships determine their own business model on how to run their ships to keep them affordable for the general public.

 

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

The PVSA, which actually says nothing about pollution?

 

Now that you agree, do it right the next time.  Don't relate the existence of PVSA to success or failure with environmental protection.  Your reasoning is post # 70 was full of crater-sized holes.  PVSA = nothing to do with environmental protection.  It's an old, antiquated compliance law.  If you want cruise ships to alter behavior, craft a law that is directed and to the point.  See above.

Time for some popcorn 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...