Darned "Jones Act" messing up our plans......

[Shmoo here]

4 minutes ago, DAllenTCY said:

This dialog has come up often....and the end result has been consistent over recent years on CC.

 

You cannot sail from one US port to another US port......doesn't matter two ships.....nor even two cruise lines same day.

What matters is that you must spend overnight in Canada between the two voyages.

 

Your Canadian immigration form will need to be completed within 24 hrs of your departure from San Diego and either collected in the terminal or onboard at the Guest Services desk.

 

Holland America will not risk you denied boarding on the second leg.

 

 

David

 

Not true.

 

 

[richwmn]

On 10/30/2019 at 9:58 AM, chengkp75 said:

For the OP, the information you received from HAL is 100% incorrect, since by taking two ships, you are on two voyages, regardless of whether they disembark/embark on the same day.  PVSA applies only to a ship, not a cruise line, so each ship's voyage is legal under the PVSA, and you are combining two ships, so your plans are completely legal.  Kick this to a supervisor.

 

22 hours ago, DAllenTCY said:

This dialog has come up often....and the end result has been consistent over recent years on CC.

 

You cannot sail from one US port to another US port......doesn't matter two ships.....nor even two cruise lines same day.

What matters is that you must spend overnight in Canada between the two voyages.

 

Your Canadian immigration form will need to be completed within 24 hrs of your departure from San Diego and either collected in the terminal or onboard at the Guest Services desk.

 

Holland America will not risk you denied boarding on the second leg.

 

 

David

 

Please review chengkp75's post quoted above yours. If you change ships or lines you can continue on the same day

 

[3rdGenCunarder]

33 minutes ago, DAllenTCY said:

This dialog has come up often....and the end result has been consistent over recent years on CC.

 

You cannot sail from one US port to another US port......doesn't matter two ships.....nor even two cruise lines same day.

What matters is that you must spend overnight in Canada between the two voyages.

 

Your Canadian immigration form will need to be completed within 24 hrs of your departure from San Diego and either collected in the terminal or onboard at the Guest Services desk.

 

Holland America will not risk you denied boarding on the second leg.

 

 

David

 

 

Canadian Immigration has nothing to do with this. PVSA is a US law, not a Canadian law. Canada wants to know when you arrive and when you leave, but they don't care if you arrive on a ship and leave on a plane, train, or other ship--same day or days later.

 

[dockman]

7 hours ago, Shmoo here said:

Pride of America is US flagged.  A US flagged ship doesn't have to stop at a foreign port. 

 

 

The reasons that hawaii only has one ship doing interisland cruises is the monopoly that former senator inouye gave to NCL ....he could have used his power to get hawaii cruises exempt from PSA act but instead got snookered by NCL to give them in effect a monopoly on interisland cruises...check the prices on a 7 day hawaiian NCL cruise compared to a typical 7 night caribbean cruise to see the true effects of monopolistic pricing...darn shame as with a waiver for hawaii there would no doubt be several cruise ships based permanently in hawaii doing 3, 4, 7, 10 & 14 night cruises around the islands.

[Shmoo here]

Just now, dockman said:

The reasons that hawaii only has one ship doing interisland cruises is the monopoly that former senator inouye gave to NCL ....he could have used his power to get hawaii cruises exempt from PSA act but instead got snookered by NCL to give them in effect a monopoly on interisland cruises...check the prices on a 7 day hawaiian NCL cruise compared to a typical 7 night caribbean cruise to see the true effects of monopolistic pricing...darn shame as with a waiver for hawaii there would no doubt be several cruise ships based permanently in hawaii doing 3, 4, 7, 10 & 14 night cruises around the islands.

I believe the PVSA was enacted long before Senator Inouye was around.  That's what gives NCL the authority to be the only cruise line cruising solely in Hawaii.  

[dockman]

1 hour ago, Shmoo here said:

I believe the PVSA was enacted long before Senator Inouye was around.  That's what gives NCL the authority to be the only cruise line cruising solely in Hawaii.  

..used to have america hawaii cruises the last of the ships built in usa in 1948..they ultimately died and ncl ran a lot of hawaii to kiribati 10 day cruises with many sea days to get around pvsa...silliness...

 

ncl promised hawaii several ships a year but now has one that charges 2 to 3 times as much as a caribbean cruise....nice to have a monopoly in one of the most attractive cruise destinations on the planet.

 

sad

Edited October 31, 2019 by dockman

[colbe]

6 minutes ago, dockman said:

wrong

When was Senator Inouye around?

The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (sometimes abbreviated to PVSA, Passenger Services Act, or PSA) is a protectionist piece of United States legislation which came into force in 1886 relating to cabotage. Essentially, it says:

No foreign vessels shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $200 (now $762) for each passenger so transported and landed.

[rafinmd]

I see chengkp75 has not yet weighed in on the reasons for the PVSA but I think I remember most of it.   Cruising is not really the focal point of the PVSA.  Without it, every local ferry, dinner cruise boat, and such could be run with a foreign flag vessel.  Protectionist, perhaps, but there are a LOT of jobs involved. 

Pride of America got a very LIMITED waiver.  It is a US flag ship but that does not quite qualify it under PVSA.  The PVSA rules also state that a ship must be built in the US, and Pride of America was partially built in the US but finished in a foreign shipyard. 

The exception NCL got was for that part of the work that was done overseas.  Part of the bargain is that they would sail limited itineraries with the ship, for example they cannot sail from Hawaii to Alaska.

NCL's rates are not high because they have a monopoly.  They are high because their costs are high.  Not only must all their crew be certified to work in the US but the qualifications are also higher for a PVSA ship.  Everybody, from the room stewards to cooks to the cruise director must hold US maritime credentials.  Expensive perhaps, but it was at least designed to ensure our safety.  I believe they originally got an exemption for 2 ships but with the costs there was only enough business to justify one, and the other was reflagged to another country.  Other cruise lines could certainly apply for an exemption, similar to the one NCL has and would likely be approved, but the profit margin just doesn't appear to justify it.

 

Finally, the US is not unique with the PVSA.  Many countries maintain similar cabotage requirements.  One that comes to mind is Canada and I've seen it applied a few times.  Blount Small Ship Adventures once experimented with a cruise from Montreal to Newfoundland, and ended up busing passengers to Ogdensburg New York so they wouldn't be transporting people between 2 Canadian ports.  I was also on a Crystal Symphony maritimes cruise round trip Montreal.  It was noted that our stop in St. Pierre/Miquelon (French territory) was required to make the itinerary legal.  I am also on the Zuiderdam in September Quebec to Montreal.  The voyage makes 3 stops in Newfoundland.  I wanted to get off at the first stop and rejoin in the 3rd stop to give me a chance to visit Gander, but was denied as doing so would mean I was transported from Quebec to Corner Brook and would be violating Canadian cabotage rules.

 

Roy

[richwmn]

22 hours ago, rafinmd said:

I see chengkp75 has not yet weighed in on the reasons for the PVSA but I think I remember most of it.   Cruising is not really the focal point of the PVSA.  Without it, every local ferry, dinner cruise boat, and such could be run with a foreign flag vessel.  Protectionist, perhaps, but there are a LOT of jobs involved. 

Pride of America got a very LIMITED waiver.  It is a US flag ship but that does not quite qualify it under PVSA.  The PVSA rules also state that a ship must be built in the US, and Pride of America was partially built in the US but finished in a foreign shipyard. 

The exception NCL got was for that part of the work that was done overseas.  Part of the bargain is that they would sail limited itineraries with the ship, for example they cannot sail from Hawaii to Alaska.

NCL's rates are not high because they have a monopoly.  They are high because their costs are high.  Not only must all their crew be certified to work in the US but the qualifications are also higher for a PVSA ship.  Everybody, from the room stewards to cooks to the cruise director must hold US maritime credentials.  Expensive perhaps, but it was at least designed to ensure our safety.  I believe they originally got an exemption for 2 ships but with the costs there was only enough business to justify one, and the other was reflagged to another country.  Other cruise lines could certainly apply for an exemption, similar to the one NCL has and would likely be approved, but the profit margin just doesn't appear to justify it.

 

Finally, the US is not unique with the PVSA.  Many countries maintain similar cabotage requirements.  One that comes to mind is Canada and I've seen it applied a few times.  Blount Small Ship Adventures once experimented with a cruise from Montreal to Newfoundland, and ended up busing passengers to Ogdensburg New York so they wouldn't be transporting people between 2 Canadian ports.  I was also on a Crystal Symphony maritimes cruise round trip Montreal.  It was noted that our stop in St. Pierre/Miquelon (French territory) was required to make the itinerary legal.  I am also on the Zuiderdam in September Quebec to Montreal.  The voyage makes 3 stops in Newfoundland.  I wanted to get off at the first stop and rejoin in the 3rd stop to give me a chance to visit Gander, but was denied as doing so would mean I was transported from Quebec to Corner Brook and would be violating Canadian cabotage rules.

 

Roy

Only 1 small problem, the original exemption was for 3 ships, Pride of America, Pride of Hawaii, and Pride of Aloha (see history section here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Jade)

Edited October 31, 2019 by richwmn

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, DAllenTCY said:

This dialog has come up often....and the end result has been consistent over recent years on CC.

 

You cannot sail from one US port to another US port......doesn't matter two ships.....nor even two cruise lines same day.

What matters is that you must spend overnight in Canada between the two voyages.

 

Your Canadian immigration form will need to be completed within 24 hrs of your departure from San Diego and either collected in the terminal or onboard at the Guest Services desk.

 

Holland America will not risk you denied boarding on the second leg.

 

 

David

 

This is absolutely not correct.  Changing ships within a cruise line, or changing cruise lines, and boarding a different ship on the same day you disembark another ship, makes two voyages, each of which are compliant with PVSA.

[chengkp75]

7 hours ago, dockman said:

The reasons that hawaii only has one ship doing interisland cruises is the monopoly that former senator inouye gave to NCL ....he could have used his power to get hawaii cruises exempt from PSA act but instead got snookered by NCL to give them in effect a monopoly on interisland cruises...check the prices on a 7 day hawaiian NCL cruise compared to a typical 7 night caribbean cruise to see the true effects of monopolistic pricing...darn shame as with a waiver for hawaii there would no doubt be several cruise ships based permanently in hawaii doing 3, 4, 7, 10 & 14 night cruises around the islands.

It took 10 years of lobbying to get an exemption for foreign flag cruise ships to sail from Puerto Rico to the mainland US, and when it was granted, only one cruise line scheduled regular service in this fashion, Carnival, and that only lasted about 2 years until it was dropped due to lack of demand.  So, getting an exemption for Hawaii would not have been a guaranteed thing, and would not have happened right away.

 

There is no monopoly in cruising Hawaii.  Anyone who wants to build ships in the US, and flag them in the US, like American Cruise Lines or Blount, could bring a ship to Hawaii and compete with NCL.

 

The reason the POA prices are so high is because she has to hire US crew, and pay them US wages, and Social Security, etc.  Also, since the ship only sails in Hawaii, all supplies must be shipped to Hawaii, raising the cost of every food and beverage item served on the ship.  Also, fuel must either be shipped into Hawaii, or produced at the one refinery in Hawaii (there's your monopoly), which raises fuel cost.  Ships sailing from the West Coast to Hawaii buy their food and fuel on the West Coast, where it is cheaper.  I don't think that even if foreign flag ships were allowed to sail strictly within Hawaii that they would.  They would take advantage of the lower prices on the West Coast and continue to sail from there.

 

As rafinmd says, the only part of the PVSA that NCL got a waiver on was the construction clause, they meet the rest of the requirements by being US owned, US flagged, and US crewed.  This increases their cost tremendously, and this is why if other cruise lines got a construction waiver they would not flag US to meet the PVSA.  Professionally, I'm not convinced that NCL did not pursue a challenge to the PVSA construction clause, because even a ship that is built in the US to meet the PVSA construction clause can have a significant portion of its hull and machinery be of foreign construction.  The reason that NCL got the construction waiver was that Hawaiian American Cruises, who had originally ordered the POA from the Litton shipyard in Mississippi, went bankrupt with the ship half finished, and because of loan guarantees granted to ship owners who build in the US, the US government now owned a half finished cruise ship, and Litton got paid.  NCL offered to take the hull off Uncle Sam's hands, no other cruise line offered to do so, though they were just as entitled to do so.

 

Also as rafinmd says, the PVSA is not unique.  Canada has the Coastal Trading Act which prohibits foreign flag ships from carrying passengers between Canadian ports.  China, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and the EU all have similar cabotage laws to the PVSA.

 

And, as I always point out when discussions of the PVSA crop up, CLIA, the cruise line industry group, which represents the vast majority of cruise lines, has stated in the past that none of its members see any advantage to modifying or repealing the PVSA, as there would be no advantage to their bottom line.

[knittinggirl]

I think NCL should have their PVSA status revoked for Hawaii.  Seems like failing to produce the other two ships would be breach of contract.

 

I wish that the Pacific Coastal Hawaii would use an island about midpoint  between Pacific Coast and Hawaii as their far distant port.

[CruiserBruce]

35 minutes ago, knittinggirl said:

I think NCL should have their PVSA status revoked for Hawaii.  Seems like failing to produce the other two ships would be breach of contract.

 

I wish that the Pacific Coastal Hawaii would use an island about midpoint  between Pacific Coast and Hawaii as their far distant port.

Ah...there is no island between Hawaii and the West Coast. And the "far distant ports" are clearly defined in the law. Generally, the closest to the US are Cartegena and the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao).

 

 

[knittinggirl]

4 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

Ah...there is no island between Hawaii and the West Coast. And the "far distant ports" are clearly defined in the law. Generally, the closest to the US are Cartegena and the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao).

 

 

Knew about the ABC islands.  All those mentioned are days in the wrong direction, if going from Pacific Coastal to Hawaii.

[3rdGenCunarder]

39 minutes ago, knittinggirl said:

Knew about the ABC islands.  All those mentioned are days in the wrong direction, if going from Pacific Coastal to Hawaii.

 

I think Cruiser Bruce's point is that such an island does not exist.

 

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, knittinggirl said:

I think NCL should have their PVSA status revoked for Hawaii.  Seems like failing to produce the other two ships would be breach of contract.

 

I wish that the Pacific Coastal Hawaii would use an island about midpoint  between Pacific Coast and Hawaii as their far distant port.

Well, there's a story here.  Part of that exemption was that NCL would reflag another foreign flag ship (the Norwegian Sky became the Pride of Aloha), and get an exemption, and NCL would build another ship in a foreign shipyard, flag it US and get an exemption for that ship (Pride of Hawaii became the Norwegian Jade), so in fact, they did have three US flag ships at one point in the Hawaiian trade.  The other cruise lines increased capacity going to Hawaii during this time by 500%, driving cabin fares below where NCL could make money, and they were losing $174 million the last year they had three ships in Hawaii.  So, the Aloha was reflagged as the Sky again, and the Hawaii became the Jade, and they no longer have any consideration for potential return to PVSA service.

 

As noted, there are no islands between the West Coast and Hawaii.  The closest foreign port to Hawaii is Fanning Island in the Republic of Kuribati, 700 miles south of the Big Island.  It takes a day and a half to get there from Hawaii.  It is considered a "distant" port, so if other cruise lines wished to do so, they could either do round trip Hawaii cruises (including Fanning) as NCL did for years with their foreign flag ships, or from the West Coast to Fanning and then to Hawaii.

[DaveOKC]

Glad you listened to the advice from CC.  This board can really save you at times.

[dockman]

A quick check shows average balcony rates on Pride of America 7 day Hawaii cruise at around $2500 per person plus port over the next six to 12 months...the average balcony on an NCL 7 day caribbean cruise is typically about $1000 plus port with some dates sold for less than $500 a person. 

 

NCL has a de facto monopoly which allows them to command these very high prices. The caribbean has lower costs and lots of competition.  Hawaii NCL has higher cost and little if any competition.  I would also bet that shore excursion sales in Hawaii are significantly higher dollar values than a caribbean cruise.

 

The local cargo companies in Hawaii, primarily Matson, have lobbied long and hard to make sure there are zero cracks in the Jones Act and the PSA.  Many estimates say that the Jones Act restrictions raise the cost of living in Hawaii by approximately 15%.

 

Jones and PVSA are ancient (1920) laws that need to be amended or repealed but are supported by millions of dollars poured into politicians via lobbyist groups.   For a more detailed read try this report....    https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear#introduction

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, dockman said:

A quick check shows average balcony rates on Pride of America 7 day Hawaii cruise at around $2500 per person plus port over the next six to 12 months...the average balcony on an NCL 7 day caribbean cruise is typically about $1000 plus port with some dates sold for less than $500 a person. 

 

NCL has a de facto monopoly which allows them to command these very high prices. The caribbean has lower costs and lots of competition.  Hawaii NCL has higher cost and little if any competition.  I would also bet that shore excursion sales in Hawaii are significantly higher dollar values than a caribbean cruise.

 

The local cargo companies in Hawaii, primarily Matson, have lobbied long and hard to make sure there are zero cracks in the Jones Act and the PSA.  Many estimates say that the Jones Act restrictions raise the cost of living in Hawaii by approximately 15%.

 

Jones and PVSA are ancient (1920) laws that need to be amended or repealed but are supported by millions of dollars poured into politicians via lobbyist groups.   For a more detailed read try this report....    https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear#introduction

And I can give you any number of reports that state that the Jones Act has no effect on the cost of living in places like Hawaii, or Puerto Rico, where the latest GAO survey confirmed this.

 

If you look at NCL's quarterly reports, the Hawaii operations are not among the highest earning itineraries, despite the high fares, due to the high costs.  As I stated in another thread about the PVSA and NCL's "monopoly, this month, the POA has 4 calls at the port of Honolulu (one each week), while the mainstream cruise lines (discounting the luxury lines) have 8 port calls (plus two more luxury lines), so there really isn't a monopoly is there?  The other cruise lines are bringing more passengers, and more money to Hawaii than NCL.  What you need to compare is the cost of a POA 7 day cruise with it's competition, a 10 day one way to Hawaii, or more accurately a 15 round trip from the West Coast.  The 15 day on Carnival is $1700/person.  Now, lets compare costs:  The Carnival cruise has twice the food and beverage cost for each passenger.   The Carnival cruise has 8 full sea days of fuel consumption (plus the same fuel consumption for their 5 days in Hawaii, since POA overnights twice, as the POA), so that is in the vicinity of $1 million per cruise in additional fuel cost.  So, how does Carnival charge so little for their cruises?  Their operating costs (food and beverage, fuel, crew cost) is vastly lower. And if NCL's prices are so inflated, wouldn't the cruising public avoid the POA and take the longer, yet cheaper, Carnival cruise.  NCL has lowered their fares to the break even point.  NCL's Caribbean service uses foreign flag ships with the same foreign flag cost savings as the other cruise lines.

 

Your article admits that repeal of the Jones Act (or PVSA) would open the US's inland waterways to foreign shipping (meaning the tug and barge operations on the Mississippi and Ohio rivers and others).  The USCG has enough difficulty enforcing safety regulations and we have enough accidents in our harbors and on our rivers with US flag operations, it would be chaos and mayhem, pollution if we allow foreign flag operators into our inland waterways.  Besides, do you think they would hire US crew?  No way, that wage money would go out of the US to their home countries.  The Jones Act alone adds several hundred billions to the US economy, and millions to the US tax rolls.  The article claims that most of our commerce goes by means other than sea, and this is true of domestic commerce, because the truckers (Teamsters, remember?) and railroad lobbies have promoted these means.  It is shown, and the GAO agrees, that coastal shipping, using US flag ships would be less costly, and less environmentally harmful than rail or road, and would alleviate much of our infrastructure problems.  However, coastwise shipping is "taxed" twice, once in port fees for being loaded in the US, and once for being discharged in the US.  Commodities coming from foreign ports only gets charged this fee once.

 

And, the Jones Act and PVSA have no effect on shipping from foreign countries, which accounts for 80% of shipping in the US.  These can be ships of any flag.

[CruiserBruce]

1 hour ago, dockman said:

A quick check shows average balcony rates on Pride of America 7 day Hawaii cruise at around $2500 per person plus port over the next six to 12 months...the average balcony on an NCL 7 day caribbean cruise is typically about $1000 plus port with some dates sold for less than $500 a person. 

 

NCL has a de facto monopoly which allows them to command these very high prices. The caribbean has lower costs and lots of competition.  Hawaii NCL has higher cost and little if any competition.  I would also bet that shore excursion sales in Hawaii are significantly higher dollar values than a caribbean cruise.

 

The local cargo companies in Hawaii, primarily Matson, have lobbied long and hard to make sure there are zero cracks in the Jones Act and the PSA.  Many estimates say that the Jones Act restrictions raise the cost of living in Hawaii by approximately 15%.

 

Jones and PVSA are ancient (1920) laws that need to be amended or repealed but are supported by millions of dollars poured into politicians via lobbyist groups.   For a more detailed read try this report....    https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear#introduction

A little checking would find that EVERYTHING is more expensive in Hawaii, as opposed to the Caribbean...by a pretty significant margin.

[kevingastreich]

23 hours ago, Shmoo here said:

Call again.  If the two cruises are on different ships, it's certainly legal to do them.

 

The PVSA only applies to B2B cruises on the same ship that would make the total cruise be from one US port to another.

 

Since you're departing from San Diego to Vancouver on one ship, and moving to a different ship for the Vancouver to Seattle cruise, it's totally allowable.

 

 

Of course you are right. Otherwise, it would be up to the passenger to determine if they themselves are violating the PVSA and that would be ridiculous.

[DaveOKC]

20 minutes ago, kevingastreich said:

Of course you are right. Otherwise, it would be up to the passenger to determine if they themselves are violating the PVSA and that would be ridiculous.

Not necessarily true - if on the same line, the company would know.  We have received warnings from HAL about this before.

[dockman]

1 hour ago, CruiserBruce said:

A little checking would find that EVERYTHING is more expensive in Hawaii, as opposed to the Caribbean...by a pretty significant margin.

not sure i need to check... i have noticed that living in hawaii for 45 years.....though there are definitely some expensive places in the caribbean as well....

 

 

[dockman]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And I can give you any number of reports that state that the Jones Act has no effect on the cost of living in places like Hawaii, or Puerto Rico, where the latest GAO survey confirmed this.

 

If you look at NCL's quarterly reports, the Hawaii operations are not among the highest earning itineraries, despite the high fares, due to the high costs.  As I stated in another thread about the PVSA and NCL's "monopoly, this month, the POA has 4 calls at the port of Honolulu (one each week), while the mainstream cruise lines (discounting the luxury lines) have 8 port calls (plus two more luxury lines), so there really isn't a monopoly is there?  The other cruise lines are bringing more passengers, and more money to Hawaii than NCL.  What you need to compare is the cost of a POA 7 day cruise with it's competition, a 10 day one way to Hawaii, or more accurately a 15 round trip from the West Coast.  The 15 day on Carnival is $1700/person.  Now, lets compare costs:  The Carnival cruise has twice the food and beverage cost for each passenger.   The Carnival cruise has 8 full sea days of fuel consumption (plus the same fuel consumption for their 5 days in Hawaii, since POA overnights twice, as the POA), so that is in the vicinity of $1 million per cruise in additional fuel cost.  So, how does Carnival charge so little for their cruises?  Their operating costs (food and beverage, fuel, crew cost) is vastly lower. And if NCL's prices are so inflated, wouldn't the cruising public avoid the POA and take the longer, yet cheaper, Carnival cruise.  NCL has lowered their fares to the break even point.  NCL's Caribbean service uses foreign flag ships with the same foreign flag cost savings as the other cruise lines.

 

Your article admits that repeal of the Jones Act (or PVSA) would open the US's inland waterways to foreign shipping (meaning the tug and barge operations on the Mississippi and Ohio rivers and others).  The USCG has enough difficulty enforcing safety regulations and we have enough accidents in our harbors and on our rivers with US flag operations, it would be chaos and mayhem, pollution if we allow foreign flag operators into our inland waterways.  Besides, do you think they would hire US crew?  No way, that wage money would go out of the US to their home countries.  The Jones Act alone adds several hundred billions to the US economy, and millions to the US tax rolls.  The article claims that most of our commerce goes by means other than sea, and this is true of domestic commerce, because the truckers (Teamsters, remember?) and railroad lobbies have promoted these means.  It is shown, and the GAO agrees, that coastal shipping, using US flag ships would be less costly, and less environmentally harmful than rail or road, and would alleviate much of our infrastructure problems.  However, coastwise shipping is "taxed" twice, once in port fees for being loaded in the US, and once for being discharged in the US.  Commodities coming from foreign ports only gets charged this fee once.

 

And, the Jones Act and PVSA have no effect on shipping from foreign countries, which accounts for 80% of shipping in the US.  These can be ships of any flag.

 

I don't like the Jones or PVSA acts....seems you do.  I am sure we can both find all kinds of reports supporting or opposing change.  Common sense tells me that if there were more ships sailing round trip from hnl that it would ultimately result in lower prices via competition.

 

 Trying to compare ships sailing to/from hawaii with 8 or so sea days involved is a very different product than someone flying into hnl, doing a 3, 4 , 7 ,10 or 14 day cruise around the islands and then flying back to the mainland.  These type cruises would result in many more pre/post cruise stays and pump a lot of $$ into Hawaii tourism rather than people doing a 15 day round trip from YVR etc with only 5 days or so actually spent in the islands.

 

I like open markets and competition.

 

 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, dockman said:

 Trying to compare ships sailing to/from hawaii with 8 or so sea days involved is a very different product than someone flying into hnl, doing a 3, 4 , 7 ,10 or 14 day cruise around the islands and then flying back to the mainland.

'Bout like comparing a US flag cruise in Hawaii with a foreign flag cruise in the Caribbean.  And how many people actually fly in for pre/post cruise (how many questions about "can I make my flight" do you see on CC?).

 

2 hours ago, dockman said:

I like open markets and competition.

I prefer safety and environmental compliance.  Look at Carnival's, or even NCL's foreign flag operations, and their environmental "stewardship" or lack there of.

Edited October 31, 2019 by chengkp75