chengkp75

If a ship transports a passenger from one US port to another US port, that is "domestic" trade, and is restricted to US flag vessels (back about the 1980's, the PVSA allowed for this if the voyage included a "distant" foreign port, since ships were getting around the PVSA by going 40 miles from Miami to the Bahamas, stopping only to get the ship's papers stamped for a port call, not letting passengers ashore, and calling it a "foreign" voyage). The EU (and I know the UK left) has cabotage that limits domestic trade to EU members, so Panamanian or Bahamian flagged cruise ships could not do domestic routes anywhere in the EU. While the UK does not have strict cabotage laws, per se, and have agreed to not impose cabotage restrictions on EU flag vessels, they do have laws that make it economically unfeasible to operate a non-UK or non-EU flag vessel in domestic UK trade. You do not see Liberian, Panamanian, or Bahamian ships carrying cargo around the UK coast, nor operating as ferries within the UK.

First off, let me answer your confusion over the B3B. While Princess sells the three cruises as separate cruises, CBP, for purposes of the PVSA, considers where you got on the ship, and where you left the ship as the "voyage", so the three cruises are considered, by them, as one. While not large ships, American Cruise Lines, Uncruise Adventures, Alaska Dream Adventures, and Lindblad/National Geographic all operate coastal and ocean-going cruise ships under US flag.

Maybe you should follow this requirement as well, which you never seem to do.

And, how would allowing the foreign flag ships to access US ports without a foreign port affect the port workers? According to your logic, it would allow more port calls, with more work for the port workers, since the PVSA has no effect on port workers. Though maybe you should discuss this with the union experts that you are related to. But, maybe the laws of mathematics come into effect here, like you propose.

Yeah, this is why over the last couple of decades the cruise industry association CLIA has stated that their member companies are not interested in changes to the PVSA, since they see very little benefit to their bottom lines, and see likely restrictions added that would adversely affect their bottom line.

Ancient Mariner Lobster Pound in Westbrook, and then boil my own, way, way cheaper. (just had an 8 lobster boil (lobster, shrimp, potatoes, corn on cob) this last weekend. Under $100 to feed 7) Seriously, if I was to go out for a lobster, I'd go to Becky's, Gilbert's, High Roller, or Portland Lobster.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

That is correct, but I was pointing out that it is not just "rules" on the ship.

Not really. The laws of the Bahamas apply onboard the ship, and the Bahamas has strict laws about serving alcohol to minors.

Or having the Red and White Fleet in SF using foreign crew, and not being subject to USCG regulations.

Actually, the reason that cruise lines are not interested in changing the PVSA is that they fear that any lessening of the restrictions of the PVSA on routes would be accompanied by more restrictions on things like labor laws, safety regulations, and other operating expenses (remember what happened to cruises to nowhere?). They see little to no benefit to their bottom lines from a change in the PVSA.

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.

Close, but not quite. First off, each diesel engine has it's own attached generator, which generate power for all uses around the ship (engine room machinery, hotel load, propulsion, etc). There are two propulsion motors that take power from these four generators to drive the propellers. The engine rooms will be as you say, pretty much under the funnel. However, the engineering spaces will run the entire length of the ship, from bow to stern, with various machinery in various spaces along the ship. As for the OP's question, below "deck 1" on the ship will be decks "01", "02", and "03", with "03" being the lowest, and this is where the engines, and most of the engine room machinery will be located. If you are all the way aft, there may be some noise early in the morning from the aft mooring station which is aftmost on deck 1, during docking.

Extension cords and power strips, when used properly, and when not surge protected are not a fire hazard on a ship, any more than they are in your home.

Wrong. Switching from one ship to another, even in the same line, without a day's layover is perfectly legal under the PVSA. The law looks at where the passenger initially boards the ship, and where the passenger finally disembarks the ship, as being one voyage. Moving to another ship starts a second voyage.

It is not an Italian law, it is an EU one, cabotage very similar to the US's PVSA. It prohibits non-EU flagged ships from transporting passengers from one port to another within a member state, without an intervening port call at another nation.

And, again, I'll chime in here, and point out that it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, not the Cruise Ship Services Act. This is important because the international definition of a "passenger" vessel is "any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers for hire". So, the act restricts the operation of ferries, water taxis, commuter boats, casino boats, dinner cruises, sightseeing boats, whale watching boats, and large charter fishing boats to US flagged vessels, allowing the US to enforce the USCG's much stricter safety, training, and certification regulations, over the international requirements of SOLAS and other conventions that foreign flag ships operate under. Cruise ships are merely the large end of the scale. Contrary to popular misconception among the cruising public, the USCG has only limited jurisdiction over foreign flag cruise ships, and can only ensure that the ship meets the requirements of SOLAS and the other international conventions, but not the stricter regulations that these conventions allow a flag state to enact for ships of their own flag. A single example is that the USCG tries to inspect foreign flag cruise ships twice a year, as port state control inspections, but these are not mandatory, and are not always completed due to budgetary or time constraints. On the other hand, US flag cruise ships are required to have mandatory inspections by the USCG 4 times every year.

And, the required signage to warn the cabin steward and all crew that UV light is being used in the cabin, so they can obtain the proper safety equipment?

He can say whatever he wants to, and use whatever financial reporting voodoo he needs to, the mechanics says that it's a wash on debt balance.