Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About AmazedByCruising

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
  • Interests
    Cruising ofcourse, and the inner workings of it all
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's precisely what I'm saying. They "choose" to comply because there's no viable alternative. There's not much choice. Where is the international accepted definition for a "far port"? Why would the US be able to define "far ports" but wouldn't be able to define what kind of ships must visit one? You make it look as if the UN has a limited set of definitions with which you can define laws but in reality it's the US that can simply not allow a ship into its ports if it's not using the right kind of fuel or if it's not painted in the proper color. It's up to the ships to voluntarily comply or face bankrupcy. I really can't believe that the US cannot make its own distinction between a duckboat and a cruiseship.
  2. I'll just try to object to the phrase "not mandatory". Even the ships meant for the Chinese market only will adhere to US rules that aren't even law when just one of the ships in the fleet would visit Miami. And that's not even a written law. From personal experience, I know how much "input by the industry" is taken by government. "Please accept our offer and don't kill our industry". It's not as if the industry decided they actually needed to have someone looking at screws. "Let's use these screws, they seem to be much easier to clean. Yes such a good idea, we should ask goverment to inspect us and give us a penalties when we don't!" ~ nobody, ever. Whatever the international definition of a passenger vessel is, cabottage rules are local rules and don't need to use that definition. I don't believe the US can't put a 500 pax limit in their own laws.
  3. I put that completely wrong, sorry. I meant to say that the PVSA isn't really about casino boats anymore, not that many are interested in visiting or working on those. In fact I wish we had them over here. Please do not hold me accountable for what my goverment does, but in this case they might be doing the right thing 😃 A cruise ship using any flag that wants to visit a US port once a year must have the right kind of screws for cleaning purposes all year round or they can't enter. As long as no as other states don't object, and why would they, the US can make a law about screws. In that light, a 500 pax limit doesn't seem that hard. Actually, the US raids ships in international waters to look for drugs which is obviously not allowed by international law but, no other state really cares. Those cruises were much more expensive than a regular cruise visiting some boring far port. Also, "it's no problem to forbid certain itineraries because no company would offer them anyway" is not a sound argument. Yes, we've had this dicussion many times and we must have reached the bottom going through each and every argument. It's unfortunate that you will never change your opinion either. I do thank you for explaining many things that are involved that I wouldn't have thought of.
  4. If it is about safety, exploding steam boats, then it's obviously outdated. There is absolutely no reason to think a ship built in Italy, flagged in Malta is less safe than a ship build in the US, flagged in the US. Actually, a Fincantieri ship sounds a lot safer than a ship build by an imaginary McJones Ship Builders, founded in 2018. Not sure why, but Americans simply don't build ships. Putting an US flag on a ship doesn't make it safe either. If it's not about safety, it's only cabotage that could be a reason. Nowadays, people fly to the ship to embark, and fly back after disembarking. That's certainly different. Using a cruise for transportation is virtually impossible. So IMHO the only reasons to uphold the law are the casino boats and dinner cruises, and in return fantastic itineraries can't be done and people are sailing to a "far port" for no other reason than the PVSA. Who cares about casino boats?
  5. Aeroflot is not necessarily more dangerous than Delta. In comparison, most of the ships are not All American either. In fact, Boeing is failing miserably lately when it comes to safety. Re: dead pax. Imagine going to restaurant that presents you with a bill for a $5000 bottle of Champagne. You can ask for a refund because you only ordered two beers, but that's just how the restaurant operates. That's not a very good restaurant, is it? Let me do a "what you are saying". What you are saying is that we don't want duckboats to fly a Maltese flag, but because the UN has a definition for a "passenger vessel" that puts cruiseships and a bananaboat in one category and that's why it's impossible to treat them differently. More than 500 passengers is easy to put into law. Yes, that might include ferries, good for them. It does exclude almost all of "passenger vessels" that are not cruise ships. An actual lawyer might come up with a rule that does make a 100% correct distinction between ships that transport people and ships that are meant to provide a vacation. The PVSA was certainly never meant to forbid vacations.
  6. I'm Dutch. The PVSA fascinates me because the original law was never meant to do what is does now. Nothing ever changes if nobody whines.
  7. I have been discussing PVSA with chengkp75 for ages and stopped doing so because it got useless, hopefully to agree that we disagree. The new thing was "the US is bound to international definitions of what a passenger vessel is, so once a cruise ship can do X, a duck boat can do X too" and I felt I should question that because I think that's simply not true. If that's stirring the pot, so be it.
  8. Any change of any rule will be bad for some and good for others. Maybe some airlines should be scared after the abolishment of PVSA because the cheap Hungarian airlines might be offering $20 flights next for flights from NY to SF. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Everyone except shareholders and employees of US airlines would be quite happy. Should Congress listen to the lobby of Delta Airlines, or should a representive represent the people who elected them, and who do like cheap flights? But even without the slippery slope argument that the abolishment of PVSA might lead to other industries being impacted, the situation now is that the Chief has explained maybe 500 times what itineries can or can't be done and it's still mysterious, while dead people need to visit a far port first before being buried. Even if you think that a state should protect its own industry, there is not much to protect left.
  9. If my English makes you think I might be an expat, thank you 🙂 I do care about the PVSA as West Coast itineraries don't exist, and East Coast always need to sail to some boring island taking up half the cruise. "Stirring he pot" was not my intention, but you're not the first accusing me of trying to do so. Somehow, almost every time I ask a simple, sincere question people think I'm trolling.
  10. The distinction between near and distant foreign ports has no meaning in international law. It's a US thing, a US definition. I can't see why the US is limited to laws about "a passenger vessel according to the the UN" and "not a passengeser vessel according to the UN" instead of making a law that does distinguish a duck boat from a cruise ship even if the UN has no proper definitions for either. The lawmakers could even list the vessels they consider a "cruise ship" as there aren't too many and update the list yearly. It's obvious what a cruise ship is. A judge who hasn't been on a cruise can go to any website made to sell cruises, and all of them would list a few hundred cruise ships and won't show the ferries. Everyone, including judges, know what lawmakers would mean by saying "a cruise ship". And in time, judges might say that some ferries are actually meant as "cruise ships" because they have cabins, a casino and a swimming pool, and they might also decide that a trip less than 14 hours cannot be called a cruise because people use it for transportation only. I'm no sure the EU restricts anything, but individual countries do. For the very same reasons that I don't like. I could give an example why in my industry, all of my competitors are officialy "in favor" of a rule they really hate, which is bad for their customers as well, but it would take more than a few pages to explain. In private, after a few drinks, they hate it as much as I do. CLIA may say they don't care about an act that forbids them from offering certain itineraries, while their members jump through absurd hoops to make some itineraries possible, "visiting" "distant foreign ports" for 2 hours. It would be much simpler and cheaper if not every salesperson would need a massive manual to decide if someone could disembark one port earlier. I don't know the real reasons, but I can't believe that the lines simply "don't care".
  11. I thought it obviously was. The map of what is distant and what is not must be hilarious.
  12. One offers a vacation with sleeping, food and cocktails, booked a year in advance. The other is an attraction where people might suddenly decide to spend their money on the Ferris Wheel instead. How is that not a completely different industry? Would you reckon restaurants, saunas and theatres also to be similar to cruising?
  13. Sorry, I meant Washington to somewhere else in the US, with a visit to St Maarten would be the excuse that allows it, while a visit to Vancouver wouldn't. That's what I think.
  14. I did stop talking about the PVSA, as we simply disagree while we agree on the facts, but this is not one of those. Why would the wording of the PVSA be limited to what is internationally understood as a "passenger vessel"? The PVSA is an American act and Congress can change it any way they want. The PVSA (or its implementation) can define a "far port" that makes Vancouver somehow different from Amsterdam, which doesn't rely on UNCLOS or other international law either. The Constitution apparently doesn't say that it's discrimination that a ship cannot bring pax from Washington to Vancouver, while sailing from Miami to St Martin is OK. A duck boat and a cruise ship operate in completely different industries. IANAL, but Congress could add "except for sea going cruise ships" to the PVSA. There still would be pros and cons, but IMHO it would be perfectly clear for a judge that a duck boat or water taxi was not meant to be one of the exceptions. The exploding steamboats are a thing of the past. People using ships as a means of transportation for longer distances are a thing of the past. When the PVSA was invented, nobody was thinking that there would be ships where most passengers would be using aircrafts to fly to the embarkation port and would fly back again from the disembarkation port, using the ship for their vacation. Travelling has changed so much that I'd say it's not unreasonable to seriously redesign an act from 1886.
  15. I don't like roulette anyway 😀. But I do wonder how many people would like the Monopoly board game when every 12th turn would be "you landed on Income Tax". For BJ, granted with perfect play, you hit Income Tax once or twice a night https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/calculator/ and the Income Tax is hidden very well.
  • Create New...