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

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, dockman said:

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.

If those ships had to meet the requirements that the POA does, i.e. US crew, US flag (and the inherent cost of compliance with US laws), and US ownership, I can tell you that their prices would equal NCL's.

[npcl]

1 hour ago, dockman said:

 

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.

 

 

Lets put it another way.  Would you like the competition in whatever business you are in to be able to staff with foreign workers, paying salaries in their countries, not have to pay US taxes and retirement, and be able to avoid other US regulations? What would happen to your business or job if it was allowed.  That is what PVSA and the Jones act prevents for the maritime industry in the US.  Most other jobs that are located physically in the US are provided similar protections under other laws.

[AmazedByCruising]

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

1 hour 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.

 

As promised, I have been staying away from cabotage discussions. I'll stay away from the jobs and the tugs and the steamboats and Italy having the same rules. But how does limiting open markets help in towards safety? Aren't all Carnival ships bound to the exact same, and very strict rules, as the ship ironically called Pride of America?

 

[dockman]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

If those ships had to meet the requirements that the POA does, i.e. US crew, US flag (and the inherent cost of compliance with US laws), and US ownership, I can tell you that their prices would equal NCL's.

 

 

That is why i would like to see a waiver from all the provisions re US crew, US flag, etc....level the playing field and let the cruise lines compete in Hawaii and see what that does to hawaii interisland cruise prices.

 

I suspect that some CCL / RCCL brands would be based in Hawaii year round and the overall pricing would decrease dramatically.

 

[dockman]

1 hour ago, npcl said:

Lets put it another way.  Would you like the competition in whatever business you are in to be able to staff with foreign workers, paying salaries in their countries, not have to pay US taxes and retirement, and be able to avoid other US regulations? What would happen to your business or job if it was allowed.  That is what PVSA and the Jones act prevents for the maritime industry in the US.  Most other jobs that are located physically in the US are provided similar protections under other laws.

There are many many businesses in the USA that compete every day with products imported from other countries...there are also many USA businesses that sell their products to these same countries....it's called trade.

 

as for safety...... cruise ships that take on passengers at U.S. ports, the U.S. Coast Guard requires these ships to meet the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)

 

Give Hawaii a waiver from the PSVA and see how fast the prices drop and the inventory  and brands of  Hawaii cruises increases...ask the shoreside vendors who provide , food, fuel, shore excursions, tee shirts, food/beverage, etc etc if they prefer having one ship based in Hawaii or several and see how they feel.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

As promised, I have been staying away from cabotage discussions. I'll stay away from the jobs and the tugs and the steamboats and Italy having the same rules. But how does limiting open markets help in towards safety? Aren't all Carnival ships bound to the exact same, and very strict rules, as the ship ironically called Pride of America?

 

No, see below.

56 minutes ago, dockman said:

There are many many businesses in the USA that compete every day with products imported from other countries...there are also many USA businesses that sell their products to these same countries....it's called trade.

 

as for safety...... cruise ships that take on passengers at U.S. ports, the U.S. Coast Guard requires these ships to meet the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)

 

Give Hawaii a waiver from the PSVA and see how fast the prices drop and the inventory  and brands of  Hawaii cruises increases...ask the shoreside vendors who provide , food, fuel, shore excursions, tee shirts, food/beverage, etc etc if they prefer having one ship based in Hawaii or several and see how they feel.

This shows how little you know about flagging laws.  Yes, all cruise ships must meet SOLAS.  However, SOLAS allows flag states to institute stricter regulations that only apply to ships of their flag.  This is the case with the US and the USCG.  USCG regulations are far different from SOLAS regulations, and only US flag ships must meet these requirements.  For instance, the USCG is not required to inspect foreign flag ships, but is given the authority to do so by SOLAS, and they propose to inspect all foreign cruise ships at least once a year.  However, if due to the ship's schedule, or USCG Marine Inspection budgets or schedules, they don't get to inspect some cruise ships, there is no penalty.  US flag cruise ships must be inspected every quarter (4 times a year), and if they are not, they can lose their Certificate of Inspection (think of the safety inspection sticker on your car), and therefore cannot sail.  Safety, firefighting, and lifesaving equipment for foreign flag ships can be approved by EU standards, which allow the equipment manufacturer to perform all testing.  USCG approval requires testing by third party agencies (think UL or NFPA).  SOLAS only requires deck and engine crew and officers to be credentialed merchant mariners, with training to meet the STCW (Standards of Training, Competency, and Watchkeeping) convention, while the remainder of the crew receive only a 4 hour "Personal Safety and Social Responsibility" course.  USCG regulations require that every person assigned an emergency duty (i.e. the entire crew) must be credentialed mariners, and have passed the "Basic Safety and Lifesaving" course, and the "Basic Firefighting" course, both of which are 40 hour, class and actual training (in boats and with a live fire), classes.  I could go on and on.

 

Again, as far as the vendors are concerned, what is the difference between the 4 trips a month of the POA, and the 8 trips this month from the West Coast.  They are making more money from the 8 foreign flag ships than the POA.

 

Puerto Rico was given an exemption to the PVSA, and as I said, only one cruise line took it up, and it lasted 2 years before being cancelled due to lack of demand.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, dockman said:

 

 

That is why i would like to see a waiver from all the provisions re US crew, US flag, etc....level the playing field and let the cruise lines compete in Hawaii and see what that does to hawaii interisland cruise prices.

 

I suspect that some CCL / RCCL brands would be based in Hawaii year round and the overall pricing would decrease dramatically.

 

At the time that NCL was complaining to CBP that the foreign flag cruise ships sailing from the West Coast were only calling at Ensenada at midnight for a "technical port call" (just to get the ship's papers stamped, and not allowing guests ashore during the two hours of "port time"), and wanted them to meet the "intent" of the law, not just the "letter" of the law, CLIA made a statement that none of it's members were interested in modification or repeal of the PVSA, because they saw no benefit to their bottom line.

[npcl]

29 minutes ago, dockman said:

There are many many businesses in the USA that compete every day with products imported from other countries...there are also many USA businesses that sell their products to these same countries....it's called trade.

 

as for safety...... cruise ships that take on passengers at U.S. ports, the U.S. Coast Guard requires these ships to meet the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)

 

Give Hawaii a waiver from the PSVA and see how fast the prices drop and the inventory  and brands of  Hawaii cruises increases...ask the shoreside vendors who provide , food, fuel, shore excursions, tee shirts, food/beverage, etc etc if they prefer having one ship based in Hawaii or several and see how they feel.

However, those business that are located in the US cannot ignore US law, pay over seas salaries, ignore US safety regulation, etc.

All the Jones Act and PVSA does is give those same protections to shipping and passenger travel within the US.  Requiring that barges, tour boats, ferries, etc. that operate between US ports must also comply with US regulations, salaries, etc. similar with other businesses located within the US.

[dockman]

50 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

No, see below.

This shows how little you know about flagging laws.  Yes, all cruise ships must meet SOLAS.  However, SOLAS allows flag states to institute stricter regulations that only apply to ships of their flag.  This is the case with the US and the USCG.  USCG regulations are far different from SOLAS regulations, and only US flag ships must meet these requirements.  For instance, the USCG is not required to inspect foreign flag ships, but is given the authority to do so by SOLAS, and they propose to inspect all foreign cruise ships at least once a year.  However, if due to the ship's schedule, or USCG Marine Inspection budgets or schedules, they don't get to inspect some cruise ships, there is no penalty.  US flag cruise ships must be inspected every quarter (4 times a year), and if they are not, they can lose their Certificate of Inspection (think of the safety inspection sticker on your car), and therefore cannot sail.  Safety, firefighting, and lifesaving equipment for foreign flag ships can be approved by EU standards, which allow the equipment manufacturer to perform all testing.  USCG approval requires testing by third party agencies (think UL or NFPA).  SOLAS only requires deck and engine crew and officers to be credentialed merchant mariners, with training to meet the STCW (Standards of Training, Competency, and Watchkeeping) convention, while the remainder of the crew receive only a 4 hour "Personal Safety and Social Responsibility" course.  USCG regulations require that every person assigned an emergency duty (i.e. the entire crew) must be credentialed mariners, and have passed the "Basic Safety and Lifesaving" course, and the "Basic Firefighting" course, both of which are 40 hour, class and actual training (in boats and with a live fire), classes.  I could go on and on.

 

Again, as far as the vendors are concerned, what is the difference between the 4 trips a month of the POA, and the 8 trips this month from the West Coast.  They are making more money from the 8 foreign flag ships than the POA.

 

Puerto Rico was given an exemption to the PVSA, and as I said, only one cruise line took it up, and it lasted 2 years before being cancelled due to lack of demand.

 

I have little doubt that sufficient protections would be included in any exemption passed by congress to make sure that the environment and safety concerns would be adequately protected.  You make it sound like an exemption is an all or nothing proposition which it does not need to be.

 

You also seem to miss the point that IF such an exemption were to occur that hawaii could very well have 3 or 4 ships (as NCL originally promised) year round in hawaii.....so if there are 4 ships here and each is doing 4 cruises a month that is 16 sets of port calls...PLUS additional stops for repositioning ships doing the pre-post alaska season runs to from hawaii.  

 

Anyway..i wish you well and am sure you are well versed in current maritime laws.  Perhaps the pro Jones/PVSA bunch should hire you as one of their lobbyists.

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, dockman said:

 

I have little doubt that sufficient protections would be included in any exemption passed by congress to make sure that the environment and safety concerns would be adequately protected.  You make it sound like an exemption is an all or nothing proposition which it does not need to be.

 

You also seem to miss the point that IF such an exemption were to occur that hawaii could very well have 3 or 4 ships (as NCL originally promised) year round in hawaii.....so if there are 4 ships here and each is doing 4 cruises a month that is 16 sets of port calls...PLUS additional stops for repositioning ships doing the pre-post alaska season runs to from hawaii.  

 

Anyway..i wish you well and am sure you are well versed in current maritime laws.  Perhaps the pro Jones/PVSA bunch should hire you as one of their lobbyists.

 

It is those "sufficient protections" that would raise the cost of having an exemption to what NCL has to pay for equipment, inspection, and crew.  As noted, POA only has an exemption to the construction clause, not the crewing or flagging.  Let other cruise lines petition Congress for the same, and see whether or not they wish to have the hassles of US registry.  So, yes, it would be an all or nothing.  The possibility of getting a partial exemption yet having to meet all other US requirements for PVSA compliance is why CLIA members have no desire to obtain an exemption and enter the market.  The additional costs deter them.  The POA must have all repairs (drydockings) done in the US, or be subject to a 40% customs duty on the cost of the repairs, and must pay import duty on all spare parts delivered from overseas, which foreign ships do not (their spares are shipped "in bond" from overseas to the ship).

 

The reason NCL removed ships from the Hawaii market was that given the amount of competition they were getting from the West Coast cruises, there was not sufficient demand for three ships.  So, your dream of 3 or 4 ships based year round is probably just that, a dream.  If there was sufficient demand for the foreign flag ships to come to Hawaii, over the 8 per month currently, all on round trips, they would put the ships on the run, but they are operating within the market demand.

[dockman]

I'

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

It is those "sufficient protections" that would raise the cost of having an exemption to what NCL has to pay for equipment, inspection, and crew.  As noted, POA only has an exemption to the construction clause, not the crewing or flagging.  Let other cruise lines petition Congress for the same, and see whether or not they wish to have the hassles of US registry.  So, yes, it would be an all or nothing.  The possibility of getting a partial exemption yet having to meet all other US requirements for PVSA compliance is why CLIA members have no desire to obtain an exemption and enter the market.  The additional costs deter them.  The POA must have all repairs (drydockings) done in the US, or be subject to a 40% customs duty on the cost of the repairs, and must pay import duty on all spare parts delivered from overseas, which foreign ships do not (their spares are shipped "in bond" from overseas to the ship).

 

The reason NCL removed ships from the Hawaii market was that given the amount of competition they were getting from the West Coast cruises, there was not sufficient demand for three ships.  So, your dream of 3 or 4 ships based year round is probably just that, a dream.  If there was sufficient demand for the foreign flag ships to come to Hawaii, over the 8 per month currently, all on round trips, they would put the ships on the run, but they are operating within the market demand.

I'll take your word for the difficulties but I will continue to think it is sad that the beautiful Hawaiian Islands don't have a more vibrant cruise industry...one full time ship charging prices way higher than many/most other destinations in my estimation is a shame.  Thanks for all the information you have shared.

[npcl]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

It is those "sufficient protections" that would raise the cost of having an exemption to what NCL has to pay for equipment, inspection, and crew.  As noted, POA only has an exemption to the construction clause, not the crewing or flagging.  Let other cruise lines petition Congress for the same, and see whether or not they wish to have the hassles of US registry.  So, yes, it would be an all or nothing.  The possibility of getting a partial exemption yet having to meet all other US requirements for PVSA compliance is why CLIA members have no desire to obtain an exemption and enter the market.  The additional costs deter them.  The POA must have all repairs (drydockings) done in the US, or be subject to a 40% customs duty on the cost of the repairs, and must pay import duty on all spare parts delivered from overseas, which foreign ships do not (their spares are shipped "in bond" from overseas to the ship).

 

The reason NCL removed ships from the Hawaii market was that given the amount of competition they were getting from the West Coast cruises, there was not sufficient demand for three ships.  So, your dream of 3 or 4 ships based year round is probably just that, a dream.  If there was sufficient demand for the foreign flag ships to come to Hawaii, over the 8 per month currently, all on round trips, they would put the ships on the run, but they are operating within the market demand.

The west coast cruises to Hawaii have another advantage, the ability for people to visit Hawaii without having to fly there.  That is a major draw for many that do those cruises.  

[HappyCruiserettu]

21 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

I'm running into the same situation with a  Princess cruise, San Francisco to Hawaii and back to SF. I wanted to get off in Hilo, and rejoin the ship in Honolulu the next evening. I'm told that is also not allowed.

 

[Shmoo here]

12 hours ago, HappyCruiserettu said:

I'm running into the same situation with a  Princess cruise, San Francisco to Hawaii and back to SF. I wanted to get off in Hilo, and rejoin the ship in Honolulu the next evening. I'm told that is also not allowed.

 

That's because, by debarking the ship in Hilo, you're doing a SF/Hilo cruise and reboarding in Honolulu,  it's a Honolulu/SF cruise.  Both of which are illegal under the PVSA.

[kevingastreich]

37 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

That's because, by debarking the ship in Hilo, you're doing a SF/Hilo cruise and reboarding in Honolulu,  it's a Honolulu/SF cruise.  Both of which are illegal under the PVSA.

That's my point. If you take a cruise line scheduled cruise, you the passenger don't need to worry if you are "violating the PVSA".

[catl331]

42 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

That's because, by debarking the ship in Hilo, 

But if you're leaving most of your stuff on board and not paying your bill yet are you truly debarking?

[Shmoo here]

2 minutes ago, kevingastreich said:

That's my point. If you take a cruise line scheduled cruise, you the passenger don't need to worry if you are "violating the PVSA".

But, if you take a "cruise line scheduled cruise" of, say, SF to Vancouver.  And then want to book the following "cruise line scheduled cruise" of Vancouver/Honolulu cruise, you can't do it.

 

 

[Shmoo here]

Just now, catl331 said:

But if you're leaving most of your stuff on board and not paying your bill yet are you truly debarking?

In the eyes of the PVSA, yes.

[catl331]

2 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

And then want to book the following "cruise line scheduled cruise" of Vancouver/Honolulu cruise, you can't do it.

How about if the it's a round-trip back to VCR, or the final destination is not Honolulu but some other non-US port?

[Shmoo here]

1 minute ago, catl331 said:

How about if the it's a round-trip back to VCR, or the final destination is not Honolulu but some other non-US port?

If the full cruise is Vancouver round trip, then the PVSA does not take effect, as the (now) two separate cruises would be Vancouver/Hilo and Hilo/Vancouver.  But would need to be cleared with the cruise line as to whether THEY would allow it.

 

If the full cruise is, say Vancouver to SF via Hawaii, and was split Vancouver/Hilo & Honolulu/SF, the first "leg" would be legal, but the second wouldn't.

 

 

[kevingastreich]

10 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

But, if you take a "cruise line scheduled cruise" of, say, SF to Vancouver.  And then want to book the following "cruise line scheduled cruise" of Vancouver/Honolulu cruise, you can't do it.

 

 

Rest assured, if they sell you a ticket, you can go.  If they won't, well, that's your answer.  Either way, you don't need to sweat "Am I violating the PVSA?"  It's not your problem, it's the cruise line's problem.

[chengkp75]

59 minutes ago, catl331 said:

How about if the it's a round-trip back to VCR, or the final destination is not Honolulu but some other non-US port?

If the second cruise is round trip Vancouver, then it would be fine, as you would be doing SFO to Vancouver.  If it was to another US port, then no, because you would be doing SFO to that US port.  In many cases, the two legs of a B2B are legal in themselves, but when joined together they become illegal, or it may be that the two cruises combined are legal.  It all comes down to do you originally embark in a US port, and then disembark in a different US port.  That is what is illegal.  CBP doesn't look at the breakdown of the cruises, just where you first got on, and where you finally got off.

[Shmoo here]

9 minutes ago, kevingastreich said:

Rest assured, if they sell you a ticket, you can go.  If they won't, well, that's your answer.  Either way, you don't need to sweat "Am I violating the PVSA?"  It's not your problem, it's the cruise line's problem.

There have been many instances where people have purchased two cruises that violated the PVSA, and the cruise line did not catch it until later, causing many problems with already booked flights, hotels, and more.

 

Yes, people have been notified as close as one month out that they would be required to cancel one or the other cruise when they've booked them.

 

There are people who book cruises "just in case" that would fall in this category, knowing they're going to cancel one or the other (whichever one doesn't work out with their plans).  The cruise line doesn't know whether that's what some one is doing or not.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Shmoo here

[DAllenTCY]

And there goes your non-refundable deposit.

 

David

 

P.S.  Often this CC board can be very helpful.   I'm glad that you changed your initial plans.

Edited November 2, 2019 by DAllenTCY

[doublebzz]

Editorial in Today's (Monday) edition of Wall Street Journal provides a rational argument for repealing the Jones Act.