Potential Permanent PVSA Exemption for Alaska Until ...

[D C]

12 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

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?  

By your logic, since the cruise industry allegedly doesn't want to do anything that the PVSA prohibits, then there is no reason for the PVSA to exist, right? 

[nocl]

39 minutes ago, D C said:

By your logic, since the cruise industry allegedly doesn't want to do anything that the PVSA prohibits, then there is no reason for the PVSA to exist, right? 

There is a big difference in the industry is not willing to lobby and invest to change the current law, and the assumption that they will not take advantage of any reduction in regulation if allowed.

 

Of course if you see other players enter the market you might just find them lobbying to keep it in place.

 

There is also the point that PVSA by itself impacts very little, it is the immigration laws (CBP), the import tariffs, and taxation laws that have far more economic impact and would prevent the cruise lines from doing cruises with only US ports, even if PVSA did not exist, just as they do not do cruises to nowhere which are allowed under PVSA.

Edited October 4, 2021 by nocl

[chengkp75]

10 hours ago, D C said:

By your logic, since the cruise industry allegedly doesn't want to do anything that the PVSA prohibits, then there is no reason for the PVSA to exist, right? 

Not at all.  What the cruise lines don't see is any profit in their business model to enter the PVSA trade.  Other business models in the cruise industry see some business opportunities within the PVSA trade, even with the restrictions, and they exist and are doing business.  Also, once again, you are looking at the PVSA from a cruise industry only viewpoint, because the PVSA is needed to ensure all domestic maritime passenger traffic is US flag.  You are taking one market segment and extrapolating to the entire industry.

 

And as the PP noted, if the PVSA went away entirely, the cruise lines would likely take advantage of some PVSA market, if it were profitable, but what they believe will happen is that the PVSA might be relaxed in one area, like the US built clause, and tightened in others, i.e. requiring US crew or work visas for foreign crew, or losing their bonded status for imports.

Edited October 4, 2021 by chengkp75

[JRG]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And as the PP noted, if the PVSA went away entirely, the cruise lines would likely take advantage of some PVSA market, if it were profitable, but what they believe will happen is that the PVSA might be relaxed in one area,

 

The industry is still in duress but its good we haven't seen a second wave of ship dispositions, yet.    Its basically like "any port in a storm" although its "any model in a storm" as far as the cruiselines and their business models are concerned.

 

Be careful flaunting your expertise when it comes to discussing profitability,  

 

Also, It seems unorthodox to use the term 'PVSA Market'  this way,  that seems artificial.

I see it as a potential market opportunity that may exist and if it does the market leaders will react and capitalize and the market followers will follow.   

 

It is a cruising market,  and we are talking about a segment of that market,  specifically Alaskan cruising.   No need to muddy up the waters.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

`