PVSA again

[BridgeMates]

So, can I start a cruise in Vancouver that ends in Seattle and then stay on B2B from Seattle to Seattle?

It's confusing....

Thanks.

[cruisestitch]

yes because you embark in a non US port and disembark in a US port so PVSA is not involved 

[D C]

On 8/4/2023 at 7:59 AM, chengkp75 said:

In 2022, the cruise industry carried just under 12 million US passengers (source:  Statistica).  In 2019, the US flagged ferry industry (also included in the PVSA) carried 132 million passengers.  This volume was carried by 246 operators, on 839 vessels in 40 states, 3 US territories, and 2 Canadian provinces (source:  Bureau of Transportation Statistics)..  The US flagged water transportation industry as a whole employs 67,000 US citizens (PVSA and Jones Act), while the cruise industry employs 15,000 in the US (source:  BLS and CLIA).  Once again, you must look beyond the cruise industry for the impact of the PVSA.

Thanks for the details. 

I'll maintain that absolutely no horror would occur if the PVSA were to vanish in its intereity. 

[JRG]

I'm just glad we don't have to stop in Ensenada every time we fly round-trip from San Diego to Kauai because we have a timeshare there but ...

 

But hey remember,  the PVSA  just doesn't apply to cruising,  as if that makes any sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

18 minutes ago, JRG said:

I'm just glad we don't have to stop in Ensenada every time we fly round-trip from San Diego to Kauai because we have a timeshare there but ...

You would if you were flying a non-US carrier.  But, hey, the Civil Aviation Act applies to more than your commuter airlines.

Edited August 6, 2023 by chengkp75

[chengkp75]

13 minutes ago, D C said:

Thanks for the details. 

I'll maintain that absolutely no horror would occur if the PVSA were to vanish in its intereity. 

Sure, because you would not be one of the tens of thousands of US citizens affected, including the 10+ ferry services in Michigan.

[markeb]

27 minutes ago, JRG said:

I'm just glad we don't have to stop in Ensenada every time we fly round-trip from San Diego to Kauai because we have a timeshare there but ...

 

But hey remember,  the PVSA  just doesn't apply to cruising,  as if that makes any sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That’s because you’re flying a US flagged carrier. Same as the PVSA…

[NMTraveller]

17 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Sure, because you would not be one of the tens of thousands of US citizens affected, including the 10+ ferry services in Michigan.

So this is a union protection political thing?

10 Ferry services in Michigan seems rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I understand protecting USA jobs,  but perhaps there is a better way to go forward and at the same time boosting the USA economy!

[Charles4515]

6 minutes ago, NMTraveller said:

So this is a union protection political thing?

10 Ferry services in Michigan seems rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I understand protecting USA jobs,  but perhaps there is a better way to go forward and at the same time boosting the USA economy!

It is protectionism for US industry. 
 

 

[JRG]

54 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

You would if you were flying a non-US carrier.  But, hey, the Civil Aviation Act applies to more than your commuter airlines.

 

Unfortunately, the Associative Law of Mathematics does not apply to Transportations acts, or any other processes that are not Mathematical.  The above post is not logical.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't invent math.   But one cannot use the Assoicative Law of Mathematics to compare how similar PVSA treats airlines and cruiseline and this is one way you can prove it.

 

 

It is a weak comparison that falls apart as explained above.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by JRG

[JRG]

1 hour ago, D C said:

eeThanks for the details. 

I'll maintain that absolutely no horror would occur if the PVSA were to vanish in its intereity. 

 

Agreed and let me just add to that that the US would not be ignorant enough eliminate the PVSA without first replacing it with a modern state of the art Passenger cabotage act so that domestic economies are not adversely affected.    If one is too close to the trees they will not see the forest.

 

So we can live with more exceptions until we can't.  I don't' like the way PVSA was written because it preceded modern transportation and is obsolete and thus hurts Cruisers in the wallet.

 

Its has been easier to band-aid it together over the years and that in and of itself is the symptom of a poorly designed law for the current time.

[markeb]

23 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

Unfortunately, the Associative Law of Mathematics does not apply to Transportations acts, or any other processes that are not Mathematical.  The above post is not logical.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't invent math.   But one cannot use the Assoicative Law of Mathematics to compare how similar PVSA treats airlines and cruiseline and this is one way you can prove it.

 

 

It is a weak comparison that falls apart as explained above.

 

 

 

Actually, arguably the PVSA and Jones act are the precedent legislation for 49 U.S. Code § 41703 - Navigation of foreign civil aircraft. The primary difference being the air transportation legislation combines passengers and cargo in the same law, and doesn't require the same coastwise qualification (the aircraft doesn't have to be manufactured in the US, probably because the US had a significant industry in aircraft manufacturing in 1958, and still does, and didn't want to risk retaliation).

 

It's not math; it's the law. Which is frequently illogical. You can disagree, but math and associative law has nothing to do with this. Your comparison is a total non sequitur.  

[JRG]

28 minutes ago, markeb said:

It's not math; it's the law. Which is frequently illogical. You can disagree,

 

I disagree but I only because I understand. Read this.

 

Potential Longshoreman's strike could impact cruise lines in Vancouver and Victoria. - West Coast Departures - Cruise Critic Community.   There is a fantastic answer written which should serve as the basis for PVSA Snafu 101.  

 

You need to think Bali-hai and wash the crazy PVSA defense motions out of your hair.   The above link is short and will give you something to target.  Go for it and show me what you can originate.

 

I don't care to bandy about the PVSA snafu so I laugh every time I see somebody use that same old comparison and try to persuade me,  but I enjoy it when posters of IQ tell me what they think of the argument in post #17 of the above referenced link.

 

 

 

[markeb]

36 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

I disagree but I only because I understand. Read this.

 

Potential Longshoreman's strike could impact cruise lines in Vancouver and Victoria. - West Coast Departures - Cruise Critic Community.   There is a fantastic answer written which should serve as the basis for PVSA Snafu 101.  

 

You need to think Bali-hai and wash the crazy PVSA defense motions out of your hair.   The above link is short and will give you something to target.  Go for it and show me what you can originate.

 

I don't care to bandy about the PVSA snafu so I laugh every time I see somebody use that same old comparison and try to persuade me,  but I enjoy it when posters of IQ tell me what they think of the argument in post #17 of the above referenced link.

 

 

 

 

Didn't we do this before? Didn't recognize you at first. Not sure this thread is the place for a long discussion...

 

First of all, as I said a couple of years ago, I'm confident change can occur. I'm not confident there's any political will to do it. And the argument that you're benefiting a bunch of "rich cruisers" (perception, not reality) isn't a good argument. The cruise lines themselves need to support change, which they're understandably afraid of. Congress is perfectly capable of dramatically changing the PVSA but leaving the immigration and tax laws unchanged. The cruise lines would then lose their arguments on using foreign labor and they'd have a huge PR issue on their hands.

 

The 2021 law that allowed a cruise season in Alaska is probably a one-off, not a precedent. You had a senator who was the swing vote for both parties. The situation in Canada was viewed as unique, and the result of the Canadian government, not a labor issue in Canada. The law did NOT pass unanimously, it passed by unanimous consent; no one objected when it was brought up at 3:00 pm on a Thursday when the last flights home from Reagon left at 6:00 pm (OK, that's potentially an exaggeration, but that's how unanimous consent works). There was no vote. It was a uniquely elegant solution and I hope the staffer who dreamed it up is making a ton of money on K-Street today. And it had a finite end point. 

 

I'm confident there's a means to update the PVSA and satisfy most constituent groups. I'm not confident there's any political will to do it (It's August 5. The fiscal year ends on September 30. I don't believe a single appropriation has been reported out of committee...). 

 

The argument in Post 17 requires support of the cruise lines, shipbuilders, shore and sea labor, regulatory processes at DHS writ large, and IRS, and a functional legislative body interested in change. And, bluntly, the states most impacted by the PVSA today are no longer truly swing states...

[JRG]

1 hour ago, markeb said:

I'm confident there's a means to update the PVSA and satisfy most constituent groups.

 

Prove it.

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, NMTraveller said:

So this is a union protection political thing?

10 Ferry services in Michigan seems rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I understand protecting USA jobs,  but perhaps there is a better way to go forward and at the same time boosting the USA economy!

No, it is more of a safety thing.  As stated, USCG imposes far stricter safety, training, and certification regulations on US flag vessels, then they can on foreign flag vessels, including cruise vessels.  Most sites claim that the PVSA was originated as a protective measure for US maritime labor and shipbuilding, but at the time it was enacted, maritime labor was in it's infancy, and had no political clout, and the ships involved (steam paddlewheelers) were not the type of ship that could be built overseas and brought to the US, so the shipbuilding would still be in the US.  The PVSA is what brought into existence the USCG's marine safety branch (those guys who board the cruise ships and ensure that SOLAS is followed) in the first place.

 

I mention that there were 10 ferry lines in Michigan simply because that is the home state of the poster I was responding to.  As noted in a previous post, there are hundreds of ferry operators in the US, and I didn't include the other services that the PVSA regulates (dinner cruises, casino cruises, sightseeing cruises, whale watching cruises, and charter fishing boats) that up the ante on US jobs and GDP.  Not sure how allowing foreign flag ships to operate domestically in the US (which is what eliminating the PVSA would allow) would "boost the US economy", since the wages would go to foreign crew, who would not spend it in the US, and the revenue to the cruise line would be tax free in the US, just as it is now, while requiring US flag operators means 100% of the wages stays in the US, and 100% of the revenue is taxable.

[Charles4515]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

No, it is more of a safety thing.  As stated, USCG imposes far stricter safety, training, and certification regulations on US flag vessels, then they can on foreign flag vessels, including cruise vessels.  Most sites claim that the PVSA was originated as a protective measure for US maritime labor and shipbuilding, but at the time it was enacted, maritime labor was in it's infancy, and had no political clout, and the ships involved (steam paddlewheelers) were not the type of ship that could be built overseas and brought to the US, so the shipbuilding would still be in the US.  The PVSA is what brought into existence the USCG's marine safety branch (those guys who board the cruise ships and ensure that SOLAS is followed) in the first place.

But the foriegn flagged vessels that supposedly are not under stricter safety are operating out of US ports anyway. Foriegn built vessels with foreign crews.The safety rules are needed but the PVSA cabatoge rules are not. The idea that ships built in Europe or crewed international are not as safe is an exceptionalism not borne out by reality. There absolutely need to be safety regulations and crew training standards but the PVSA cabatoge rules are not needed for that. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Charles4515

[Charles4515]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I mention that there were 10 ferry lines in Michigan simply because that is the home state of the poster I was responding to.  As noted in a previous post, there are hundreds of ferry operators in the US, and I didn't include the other services that the PVSA regulates (dinner cruises, casino cruises, sightseeing cruises, whale watching cruises, and charter fishing boats) that up the ante on US jobs and GDP.  Not sure how allowing foreign flag ships to operate domestically in the US (which is what eliminating the PVSA would allow) would "boost the US economy", since the wages would go to foreign crew, who would not spend it in the US, and the revenue to the cruise line would be tax free in the US, just as it is now, while requiring US flag operators means 100% of the wages stays in the US, and 100% of the revenue is taxable.

So above you are back to your protectionist argument. But the foreign cruise ships are operating anyway with foreign built ships they just have to make a foreign  stop. How has that helped US workers or shipbuilders? Or safety? Ships are not built in the US and the crews are foreign. None of the major cruise lines operate under a US flag either calling at US ports or operating at international ports. 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Charles4515 said:

There absolutely need to be safety regulations and crew training standards but the PVSA cabatoge rules are not needed for that. 

So, how does the US, which feels that stricter safety and training standards are needed, get to enforce these on foreign flag ships?  It takes the IMO to change SOLAS.  So, the USCG enforces the regulations they feel are needed on those ships that they can, those who operate domestically, as opposed to ships operating in foreign trade, which is under international jurisdiction.

[chengkp75]

57 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

So above you are back to your protectionist argument. But the foreign cruise ships are operating anyway with foreign built ships they just have to make a foreign  stop. How has that helped US workers or shipbuilders? Or safety? Ships are not built in the US and the crews are foreign. None of the major cruise lines operate under a US flag either calling at US ports or operating at international ports. 

What you are asking for is to allow foreign flag ships to operate domestically, which would open up all the types of services I noted to foreign ships and foreign crews.  I am not looking for the USCG to enforce their regulations on foreign ships in foreign trade, but foreign ships operating domestically is something else.  Should we allow trucking lines to use foreign drivers? As noted, should we change the Civil Aviation Act to allow foreign airlines to fly domestic routes?

 

 

[Charles4515]

15 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

So, how does the US, which feels that stricter safety and training standards are needed, get to enforce these on foreign flag ships?  It takes the IMO to change SOLAS.  So, the USCG enforces the regulations they feel are needed on those ships that they can, those who operate domestically, as opposed to ships operating in foreign trade, which is under international jurisdiction.

I don't buy your argument that US safety standards and training are better.  Also quantity of regulations does not make them better. In any case the US has input on the international regulations. 

[Charles4515]

11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Should we allow trucking lines to use foreign drivers?

Trucking companies can and do use foreign drivers. They have to have a certain type of visa. They can drive with their foreign drivers license. 

 

 

[Charles4515]

12 hours ago, markeb said:

First of all, as I said a couple of years ago, I'm confident change can occur. I'm not confident there's any political will to do it. And the argument that you're benefiting a bunch of "rich cruisers" (perception, not reality) isn't a good argument. The cruise lines themselves need to support change, which they're understandably afraid of. Congress is perfectly capable of dramatically changing the PVSA but leaving the immigration and tax laws unchanged. The cruise lines would then lose their arguments on using foreign labor and they'd have a huge PR issue on their hands.

I agree with you. Change could occur but there is no political will to do it. There is also no economic reason to change the status quo for the PVSA. There was the unique Alaska situation during Covid which shows that it could be changed for economic and political reasons but there was no political and economic reason to make it permanent. And I don't see most cruise passengers or most US citizens demanding a change either. We have a lot of obsolete law on the regulations that stay on the books for years and I don't see any momentum to change the PVSA. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Charles4515

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

Trucking companies can and do use foreign drivers. They have to have a certain type of visa. They can drive with their foreign drivers license. 

 

 

Trucking companies can only employ foreign drivers that carry goods into or out of the US, not in "point to point" service within the US, regardless of the type of visa.  The visa requirement applies to those drivers delivering cross border, which is international trade.

[chengkp75]

37 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

I don't buy your argument that US safety standards and training are better.  Also quantity of regulations does not make them better. In any case the US has input on the international regulations. 

Do you know what those regulations are?  If not, then you can't make a judgement on whether the USCG regulations are better or not.  Yes, the US has input on international regulations, as one voice among 175 member nations.  We also represent about 2.6% of the world's merchant tonnage, so we don't carry as much clout as we think.