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

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, doublebzz said:

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

The article, like most arguments against the Jones Act, focuses strictly on the "built US" portion of the act.  However, the act makes coastwise and inland maritime traffic be US flagged, which makes them be compliant with USCG regulations for safety of construction, maintenance, operation, training, and certification, to better protect the lives of US citizens and the environment by limiting maritime accidents.  It also places hundreds of millions of dollars into the federal tax budget, and billions into the US economy.  As to the shipbuilding, gee, lo and behold, Shell has built, in the US, an LNG bunker tanker to fuel Carnival's new cruise ships.  Building US can be done, provided the market is there, which is what the Jones Act does.  Not sure how the article comes to the conclusion that more ships would be built in the US, at "50% less cost", as the major cost is wages and benefits, so I guess you pay the US shipyard workers 50% less than they make now.  So, the "economies of scale" would come about by building ships for foreign flag owners at 50% of the price, when the shipyards aren't making any money building the more expensive Jones Act fleet.  Somehow I don't follow that.

[AmazedByCruising]

27 minutes ago, doublebzz said:

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

 

While I agree fully with the article, it's not about the Passenger Vessel Services Act which is another law. The PVSA is the one making West Coast cruises hardly possible, and makes ships sailing to a far port for no other reason but making a vacation legal. 

What I really don't understand is that representatives of TAs and cruise lines, who must be encountering these kind of problems at least weekly, still don't know the right name, and how it works.

Edited November 4, 2019 by AmazedByCruising

[Shmoo here]

38 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

and makes ships sailing to a far port for no other reason but making a vacation legal. 

Surely, it's possible find SOMETHING to see/do in almost any port?  That would be the point of traveling.

[AmazedByCruising]

23 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The article, like most arguments against the Jones Act, focuses strictly on the "built US" portion of the act.  However, the act makes coastwise and inland maritime traffic be US flagged, which makes them be compliant with USCG regulations for safety of construction, maintenance, operation, training, and certification, to better protect the lives of US citizens and the environment by limiting maritime accidents.

 

Regarding inland traffic. As a kid I grew up near a very busy river in Holland, seeing German ships, Polish ships, Russian ships, you name it. I think it's the busiest river in Europe. The Dutch ship lobby wouldn't even think of establishing a monopoly for Dutch built, Dutch flagged, or Dutch manned ships with arguments like "accidents", "environment", or even "lives of Dutch citizens". Those arguments would be the laughing material for a tv show. Accidents are so rare that I can't remember even one. I'm not saying that regulations aren't important, but it is possible to enact them even when the flag is different.

 

Rotterdam, the biggest port in Europe employing 70,000 directly, would be bankrupt a few days after Holland would start to "save jobs" by enacting an All Dutch rule on the ships sailing our waterways.

 

In reverse, there are many "unseen" jobs that would exist if there were no Jones Act or PVSA. John would love to be trucking food to a ship doing a West Coast cruise. Michelle really likes to show people around in Hollywood. Unfortunately, because steam boats exploded more than a century ago, Michelle works at McDonalds.

 

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Regarding inland traffic. As a kid I grew up near a very busy river in Holland, seeing German ships, Polish ships, Russian ships, you name it. I think it's the busiest river in Europe. The Dutch ship lobby wouldn't even think of establishing a monopoly for Dutch built, Dutch flagged, or Dutch manned ships with arguments like "accidents", "environment", or even "lives of Dutch citizens". Those arguments would be the laughing material for a tv show. Accidents are so rare that I can't remember even one. I'm not saying that regulations aren't important, but it is possible to enact them even when the flag is different.

 

Rotterdam, the biggest port in Europe employing 70,000 directly, would be bankrupt a few days after Holland would start to "save jobs" by enacting an All Dutch rule on the ships sailing our waterways.

 

In reverse, there are many "unseen" jobs that would exist if there were no Jones Act or PVSA. John would love to be trucking food to a ship doing a West Coast cruise. Michelle really likes to show people around in Hollywood. Unfortunately, because steam boats exploded more than a century ago, Michelle works at McDonalds.

 

 

Yet how many of those German ships are picking up cargo in one Dutch port and carrying it to another Dutch port for discharge?  Not many, I'd bet.  Your river system is different, since it crosses multiple borders, and therefore has significant international trade.  And, nowadays, you don't see Panamanian ships and barges on your rivers, do you?  Nope, because the EU has cabotage laws that preclude "coastwise" traffic by any flag other than EU member states.  So, in an oversimplification, EU member states are synonymous with US states, when it comes to traffic between therm.  Accidents rare?  I've heard of at least 3 major incidents involving river cruise boats, let alone cargo vessels in the last two years.  Question, how do you enact regulations on a ship that is not part of your country?  IMO, through SOLAS and UNCLOS, specifically state that a member nation cannot enforce stricter regulations on another member nation's vessels than what are in the IMO conventions.

 

And, the vast majority of Rotterdam's traffic is international traffic, i.e. it comes from overseas, and that trade has nothing to do with cabotage laws, or the Jones Act.

 

And what of the "unseen" jobs that support the Jones Act fleet?  About half a million jobs, by recent reckoning.  And most of those jobs would be lost if foreign flag ships were allowed in the coastwise trade.  And, again, I reiterate that CLIA has stated that its members feel that a repeal of the PVSA would have no positive impact on their bottom line, meaning they don't see an increased demand for cruises if they could do coastwise cruises, so what makes you think there would be an increase in support jobs.

Edited November 5, 2019 by chengkp75

[rafinmd]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Yet how many of those German ships are picking up cargo in one Dutch port and carrying it to another Dutch port for discharge?  Not many, I'd bet.  Your river system is different, since it crosses multiple borders, and therefore has significant international trade.  And, nowadays, you don't see Panamanian ships and barges on your rivers, do you?  Nope, because the EU has cabotage laws that preclude "coastwise" traffic by any flag other than EU member states.  So, in an oversimplification, EU member states are synonymous with US states, when it comes to traffic between therm.  Accidents rare?  I've heard of at least 3 major incidents involving river cruise boats, let alone cargo vessels in the last two years.  Question, how do you enact regulations on a ship that is not part of your country?  IMO, through SOLAS and UNCLOS, specifically state that a member nation cannot enforce stricter regulations on another member nation's vessels than what are in the IMO conventions.

 

And, the vast majority of Rotterdam's traffic is international traffic, i.e. it comes from overseas, and that trade has nothing to do with cabotage laws, or the Jones Act.

 

And what of the "unseen" jobs that support the Jones Act fleet?  About half a million jobs, by recent reckoning.  And most of those jobs would be lost if foreign flag ships were allowed in the coastwise trade.  And, again, I reiterate that CLIA has stated that its members feel that a repeal of the PVSA would have no positive impact on their bottom line, meaning they don't see an increased demand for cruises if they could do coastwise cruises, so what makes you think there would be an increase in support jobs.

That's interesting.  I just completed a river cruise on the Crystal Bach (Amsterdam to Basel), and that explains why the ship is registered in Malta rather than the Bahamas like Crystal's Ocean Fleet.  And Basel appears to be Switzerland's only port, but I suspect most their traffic goes to either Rotterdam or Amsterdam for transfer to larger ships.  I guess a Rhine cruise could be configured to do only German ports but most are international,

 

I've also seen a lot of US Freighters on the Great Lakes, so there are concentrations of Jones Act shipping while it's more spread out on the ocean ports.  Interesting that many of the ships are registered in Wilmington Delaware although they're too big to go through the St. Lawrence seaway.

 

Roy

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, rafinmd said:

That's interesting.  I just completed a river cruise on the Crystal Bach (Amsterdam to Basel), and that explains why the ship is registered in Malta rather than the Bahamas like Crystal's Ocean Fleet.  And Basel appears to be Switzerland's only port, but I suspect most their traffic goes to either Rotterdam or Amsterdam for transfer to larger ships.  I guess a Rhine cruise could be configured to do only German ports but most are international,

 

I've also seen a lot of US Freighters on the Great Lakes, so there are concentrations of Jones Act shipping while it's more spread out on the ocean ports.  Interesting that many of the ships are registered in Wilmington Delaware although they're too big to go through the St. Lawrence seaway.

 

Roy

One reason that Jones Act shipping is limited along the seacoasts is the Harbor Maintenance Fee, charged by CBP on each item shipped by sea.  If an item gets shipped from one US port to another, it gets charged the fee at both the load port and the discharge port, so it becomes more cost effective to use road or rail transport.  The Great Lakes are a special case, because there isn't a real cost effective way to carry the bulk cargo (mainly iron ore) by rail.

 

It's been studied that simply removing one of the Port Maintenance fees, as if the cargo were being shipped overseas, would result in cargo being far more cost effectively and more environmentally friendly shipped by sea than road or rail, with the benefit of relieving stress on our aging infrastructure.  And, yes, Amazed, that study assumed that US flag Jones Act shipping would be used, so even that is less expensive than road and rail transport.

 

Delaware's largest industry is tax havens.  This is why US flag ships are registered there.

Edited November 5, 2019 by chengkp75

[AmazedByCruising]

 

19 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

So, in an oversimplification, EU member states are synonymous with US states, when it comes to traffic between therm. 

 

That's a fair comparison.

 

19 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Accidents rare?  I've heard of at least 3 major incidents involving river cruise boats, let alone cargo vessels in the last two years. 

 

I've seen those, but those were not in Holland. Maybe rivers are wide enough, and bridges high enough. 

 

19 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Question, how do you enact regulations on a ship that is not part of your country?  IMO, through SOLAS and UNCLOS, specifically state that a member nation cannot enforce stricter regulations on another member nation's vessels than what are in the IMO conventions.

 

"You must use a pilot". "Your fuel must be low on sulfur". "No horn blasting between 9 PM and 8 AM in this port". How are those not stricter regulations?

 

19 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, the vast majority of Rotterdam's traffic is international traffic, i.e. it comes from overseas, and that trade has nothing to do with cabotage laws, or the Jones Act.

 

What do you think happens with 7.5 million TEU delivered to Rotterdam each year? Almost by definition, half of the trade is inland.

 

20 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, again, I reiterate that CLIA has stated that its members feel that a repeal of the PVSA would have no positive impact on their bottom line, meaning they don't see an increased demand for cruises if they could do coastwise cruises, so what makes you think there would be an increase in support jobs.

 

OK, let's not re-discuss the duck boats and the international definition of a passenger vessel. Just assume that the US is powerful and clever enough to define "this is a cruise ship, meant for vacations, not transportation" for which PVSA doesn't count. Maybe a limited list of ships, which the Commission on Actual Cruise Ships publishes every two months.

 

Then, either there are no West Coast cruises because CLIA is right and nobody is interested. Nothing changes, so no harm done. OR, people do like a West Coast cruise, and new jobs are created.

 

Anyway there must be a reason for CLIA's standpoint. They could be afraid of non-members starting West Coast cruises, whatever. There must be a reason to say "Please forbid us from doing business X, we don't care". You want to prevent others from doing X. Or you get something else in return.

 

 

Also, I don't think lawmakers should care that much about the bottom line of members of CLIA. Once in a while they should review old laws, to see if they are still needed. A law that started because of exploding steamboats and eventually got refined by defining "far ports" seems like a fine candidate to be thrown away and redesigned from scratch. 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

 

That's a fair comparison.

 

 

I've seen those, but those were not in Holland. Maybe rivers are wide enough, and bridges high enough. 

 

 

"You must use a pilot". "Your fuel must be low on sulfur". "No horn blasting between 9 PM and 8 AM in this port". How are those not stricter regulations?

Ah, so river accidents suddenly stop at the border of Holland?  I think you're above that. Those things you mention affect things "external" to the ship, but not how the ship operates "internally".  So, you could not make stricter regulations about crew training for two reasons, the flag state says their people are sufficiently trained, and secondly, because the US has agreed that they cannot do that when they agreed to SOLAS, STCW, MARPOL, UNCLOS and every other maritime convention.

2 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

What do you think happens with 7.5 million TEU delivered to Rotterdam each year? Almost by definition, half of the trade is inland.

Of those 7.5 million TEU's, how much is then transported by road, so not subject to cabotage laws, except in laws that define who can drive a truck within the country?  After all, containers are an "intermodal" transportation system.  And even then, of those transported domestically by river, how many are transported by low cost flag of convenience vessels, registered in Bahamas or Panama?  None.  Because of the EU's cabotage laws.

 

OK, let's not re-discuss the duck boats and the international definition of a passenger vessel. Just assume that the US is powerful and clever enough to define "this is a cruise ship, meant for vacations, not transportation" for which PVSA doesn't count. Maybe a limited list of ships, which the Commission on Actual Cruise Ships publishes every two months.

 

And, when the US passes this law, and an operator comes along and says "I want to operate a Panamanian flag ferry in NY harbor, why can't I, since I have a passenger vessel as well, and sues the US government?  This goes to admiralty court, and that courts says that since this applies to international commerce, international law applies, and the US's definition of a "specialized" passenger vessel that gets a operational benefit that others don't is discriminatory, and rules for the ferry operator to the tune of millions.

 

Then, either there are no West Coast cruises because CLIA is right and nobody is interested. Nothing changes, so no harm done. OR, people do like a West Coast cruise, and new jobs are created.

 

Anyway there must be a reason for CLIA's standpoint. They could be afraid of non-members starting West Coast cruises, whatever. There must be a reason to say "Please forbid us from doing business X, we don't care". You want to prevent others from doing X. Or you get something else in return.

 

There are virtually no "non-members" of CLIA, and if the foreign flag cruise lines could force NCL to remove two thirds of their US flag capacity from Hawaii by flooding the market with capacity, what do you think they could/would do to a "non-member" competitor just starting up in a new market?

 

Also, I don't think lawmakers should care that much about the bottom line of members of CLIA. Once in a while they should review old laws, to see if they are still needed. A law that started because of exploding steamboats and eventually got refined by defining "far ports" seems like a fine candidate to be thrown away and redesigned from scratch. 

The lawmakers don't care about the bottom line of CLIA.  If you read the story of when NCL asked CBP to enforce the PVSA on the foreign flag lines making midnight "port calls" in Ensenada, the CBP decided that to enforce the "intent" of the Act, that all cruises, whether closed loop or not, should have the majority of their port time outside the US, which would have put a damper on nearly all Alaskan cruises, much to CLIA's consternation.  Even NCL came out and requested that this not be implemented.  And, where is the push to review, modify, or repeal the Act?  Congress won't act without a request to do so, and there isn't a voice out there, especially if the affected industry's group, CLIA, isn't voicing concerns, asking for the Act to be reviewed.  There have been studies done by the government, at the request of lawmakers, about the effects of the Jones Act, for instance, and they generally show that there is no evidence that the Jones Act adversely affects the economy.   Outside the government, studies show things both ways.  So, Congress goes with their experts.

 

[AL3XCruise]

3 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

Once in a while they should review old laws, to see if they are still needed. A law that started because of exploding steamboats and eventually got refined by defining "far ports" seems like a fine candidate to be thrown away and redesigned from scratch. 

 

Generally any move to revise such an existing law would come in the form of constituents or lobbying groups (in this case either representing the maritime industry or consumers) pushing to have a law changed.  Modifying or repealing legislation is a time consuming task, even minor regulatory changes at the agency level can take years.  I'm not sure how your government operates, but based on the manpower required here reviewing old laws that no one is actively opposing is simply a waste of resources.

 

As @chengkp75 mentioned, seemingly minor changes to a law can have significant impacts on how things are interpreted domestically and internationally.  For example, even if it is possible to carve out some kind of PVSA exemption without creating too much chaos, it wouldn't be simple.  Something more than a relatively small number of people wanting a certain itinerary is required to set an effort like that in motion.  

 

I'm generally against protectionism, but there are arguments for it in the case of the PVSA and particularly the Jones Act.  In addition to the safety considerations outlined previously, there is also the argument that a strong domestically controlled transportation network is an important national asset.  Allowing significant portions to come under the control of foreign entities arguably hurts the resilience of the system.  If a company that is under the influence of a foreign government were to take on a significant portion of inland shipping, that government would potentially have additional leverage during a dispute.  How much of an issue would it be?  I'd need read up a bit before offering an opinion.  Could protections be put in place?  Perhaps.  My point is merely that there are other considerations, some of which may be valid or will at least require work to prove invalid.

 

And this is not unique to the US.  I'd be interested to know if any of those containers arriving in Rotterdam are being transported to a destination within the Netherlands by non-EU companies.  I'd suspect few, if any, are.

[AmazedByCruising]

Thank you, @chengkp75 ,  @AL3XCruise.

I've spent more than a few hours to find out what the exact cabotage laws are over here, and.. it's complicated. For trucks it's easy, for ships it's not. Anyway, just looking at marinetraffic.com, almost every ship is Dutch or German, and I saw one Swiss ship. So the "Panamese" are probably not taking over the Dutch shipping market. I have asked an old friend who worked in the legal department of the ministry for years.

 

 

20 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Those things you mention affect things "external" to the ship, but not how the ship operates "internally".  So, you could not make stricter regulations about crew training for two reasons, the flag state says their people are sufficiently trained, and secondly, because the US has agreed that they cannot do that when they agreed to SOLAS, STCW, MARPOL, UNCLOS and every other maritime convention.

 

When Oasis of the Seas was dry docked in Holland, the labor inspection raided the ship and fined Royal for almost a million. No ships have come to Holland since then, a real shame, but doesn't that show that the government is actually able to interfere with the internal workings of a ship?

 

20 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, when the US passes this law, and an operator comes along and says "I want to operate a Panamanian flag ferry in NY harbor, why can't I, since I have a passenger vessel as well, and sues the US government?  This goes to admiralty court, and that courts says that since this applies to international commerce, international law applies, and the US's definition of a "specialized" passenger vessel that gets a operational benefit that others don't is discriminatory, and rules for the ferry operator to the tune of millions.

 

OK, another thing we've discussed before but I think I found a fresh argument. How could the US make an exception for Pride of America and nobody said "we're being discriminated against, give us millions"? In this case that even feels more just than a ferry claiming it should be on the Official List of Cruise Ships which wouldn't pass the giggle test. Cabotage laws are local (i.e. not international) by definition. I really can't see why the US couldn't make a law that bypasses what the UN thinks is a "passenger vessel". Simply don't mention the word "passenger vessel" but make it precise "a vessel meant to transport passengers, not on the Official List, ...".  Also, the US raids ships in international waters when they suspect drug trafficking without much international uproar, so I think the US is big enough to decide for itself what they deem a "regular passenger vessel" and a "vacation vessel".

 

20 hours ago, AL3XCruise said:

Generally any move to revise such an existing law would come in the form of constituents or lobbying groups (in this case either representing the maritime industry or consumers) pushing to have a law changed.  Modifying or repealing legislation is a time consuming task, even minor regulatory changes at the agency level can take years.  I'm not sure how your government operates, but based on the manpower required here reviewing old laws that no one is actively opposing is simply a waste of resources.

 

I remember that some lawmakers do oppose the PVSA.  My government operates the exact same way. But I don't agree with the "waste of resources". The resources in this case would be a committee who asks what CLIA thinks. Asks some major TA's what they think. Asks what LA thinks. Asks some bureau to investigate what the average consumer thinks. Combine all the findings in a report, et voila. Maybe 2 million spent and now every congressman can make an informed decision without listening to lobby groups. IMHO, that's peanuts compared to the implications PVSA has.

 

Not even counting the cruises that are not offered and the implied (and again, unseen) cost of those (people choosing a different vacation than what they would really want). Simply the number of costly escalated calls to Carnival and Royal to find out if a B2B cruise is legal or not may cost more than that each year. IMHO those are a waste of resources. 

 

Of course, there is no "Cruisers United for Allowing West Coast Cruises" lobby group. But it would be a bad thing when only lobby groups get to decide on policies.

 

19 hours ago, AL3XCruise said:

As @chengkp75 mentioned, seemingly minor changes to a law can have significant impacts on how things are interpreted domestically and internationally.  For example, even if it is possible to carve out some kind of PVSA exemption without creating too much chaos, it wouldn't be simple.  Something more than a relatively small number of people wanting a certain itinerary is required to set an effort like that in motion.  

 

Yeah, I guess. I'm probably a bit naive in thinking that before forbidding something, lawmakers are looking at the unintended consequences before using their axe. Or if they have been using their axe for more than a century, to rethink the law. In this case, a law invented during a time when steamboats exploded and long distance transportation of people by ship was a real thing. That has nothing to do with the current situation. Cruise ships don't explode, and many people fly to the embarkation port and fly back when their vacation is over.

 

20 hours ago, AL3XCruise said:

Allowing significant portions to come under the control of foreign entities arguably hurts the resilience of the system.  If a company that is under the influence of a foreign government were to take on a significant portion of inland shipping, that government would potentially have additional leverage during a dispute.  How much of an issue would it be? 

 

Do you mean "the Chinese do all our inland shipping and can push a button to stop it"? If you got that high on the "diplomacy ladder", you can send in the troops and make the ships sailing. BTW, relying on Huawei to provide major infrastructure, well that would be a huge mistake. That would provide China a serious button that cannot be undone with guns. (and despite many warnings, even by our own intelligence agencies, our government apparently doesn't care. Such a shame).

 

 

19 hours ago, AL3XCruise said:

 

And this is not unique to the US.  I'd be interested to know if any of those containers arriving in Rotterdam are being transported to a destination within the Netherlands by non-EU companies.  I'd suspect few, if any, are.

 

None, I think (looking at marinetraffic.com). But that may have to do with the cost of shipping. A huge investment in the ship itself, and usually the total crew consisting of a man steering the ship and his wife, and maybe one Polish or Romanian sailor. The non-EU companies would have very little advantage. Of course, river cruises are different and have only foreign crew.

 

[rafinmd]

5 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

Thank you, @chengkp75 ,  @AL3XCruise.

I've spent more than a few hours to find out what the exact cabotage laws are over here, and.. it's complicated. For trucks it's easy, for ships it's not. Anyway, just looking at marinetraffic.com, almost every ship is Dutch or German, and I saw one Swiss ship. So the "Panamese" are probably not taking over the Dutch shipping market. I have asked an old friend who worked in the legal department of the ministry for years.

 

 

 

When Oasis of the Seas was dry docked in Holland, the labor inspection raided the ship and fined Royal for almost a million. No ships have come to Holland since then, a real shame, but doesn't that show that the government is actually able to interfere with the internal workings of a ship?

 

 

OK, another thing we've discussed before but I think I found a fresh argument. How could the US make an exception for Pride of America and nobody said "we're being discriminated against, give us millions"? In this case that even feels more just than a ferry claiming it should be on the Official List of Cruise Ships which wouldn't pass the giggle test. Cabotage laws are local (i.e. not international) by definition. I really can't see why the US couldn't make a law that bypasses what the UN thinks is a "passenger vessel". Simply don't mention the word "passenger vessel" but make it precise "a vessel meant to transport passengers, not on the Official List, ...".  Also, the US raids ships in international waters when they suspect drug trafficking without much international uproar, so I think the US is big enough to decide for itself what they deem a "regular passenger vessel" and a "vacation vessel".

 

 

I remember that some lawmakers do oppose the PVSA.  My government operates the exact same way. But I don't agree with the "waste of resources". The resources in this case would be a committee who asks what CLIA thinks. Asks some major TA's what they think. Asks what LA thinks. Asks some bureau to investigate what the average consumer thinks. Combine all the findings in a report, et voila. Maybe 2 million spent and now every congressman can make an informed decision without listening to lobby groups. IMHO, that's peanuts compared to the implications PVSA has.

 

Not even counting the cruises that are not offered and the implied (and again, unseen) cost of those (people choosing a different vacation than what they would really want). Simply the number of costly escalated calls to Carnival and Royal to find out if a B2B cruise is legal or not may cost more than that each year. IMHO those are a waste of resources. 

 

Of course, there is no "Cruisers United for Allowing West Coast Cruises" lobby group. But it would be a bad thing when only lobby groups get to decide on policies.

 

 

Yeah, I guess. I'm probably a bit naive in thinking that before forbidding something, lawmakers are looking at the unintended consequences before using their axe. Or if they have been using their axe for more than a century, to rethink the law. In this case, a law invented during a time when steamboats exploded and long distance transportation of people by ship was a real thing. That has nothing to do with the current situation. Cruise ships don't explode, and many people fly to the embarkation port and fly back when their vacation is over.

 

 

Do you mean "the Chinese do all our inland shipping and can push a button to stop it"? If you got that high on the "diplomacy ladder", you can send in the troops and make the ships sailing. BTW, relying on Huawei to provide major infrastructure, well that would be a huge mistake. That would provide China a serious button that cannot be undone with guns. (and despite many warnings, even by our own intelligence agencies, our government apparently doesn't care. Such a shame).

 

 

 

None, I think (looking at marinetraffic.com). But that may have to do with the cost of shipping. A huge investment in the ship itself, and usually the total crew consisting of a man steering the ship and his wife, and maybe one Polish or Romanian sailor. The non-EU companies would have very little advantage. Of course, river cruises are different and have only foreign crew.

 

I think it's finally time to update my "ignore" list.

 

Roy

[kazu]

9 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

When Oasis of the Seas was dry docked in Holland, the labor inspection raided the ship and fined Royal for almost a million. No ships have come to Holland since then, a real shame, but doesn't that show that the government is actually able to interfere with the internal workings of a ship?

 

What the heck are you talking about?  Oasis of the Seas  is a cruise ship and was fined back in 2014.  There have been plenty of cruise ships visiting Holland/Netherlands since then.  I have been on the Rotterdam when it arrived in Rotterdam and the Prinsendam arriving in Amsterdam.  

[chengkp75]

10 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

When Oasis of the Seas was dry docked in Holland, the labor inspection raided the ship and fined Royal for almost a million. No ships have come to Holland since then, a real shame, but doesn't that show that the government is actually able to interfere with the internal workings of a ship?

No, those workers were not crew, they were sub-contractors.  Most nations have very definite definitions of who is considered crew on ships and who is not.

 

10 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

How could the US make an exception for Pride of America and nobody said "we're being discriminated against, give us millions"?

POA was granted an exemption to only one clause of the PVSA, the construction clause, and even then, I'm not convinced that someone could not really do a study and determine that the work done on the POA in the US shipyard before being sold to NCL does not meet the "substantial content" percentage of US work to qualify under the PVSA.  POA meets all other clauses of the PVSA: US owned, US flag, US crew.  I'm sure that if another cruise line, or a ferry, wished to operate a ship under US flag, but wanted to build the ship overseas, if there was a good reason for waiving the construction clause, like the fact that the US government "owned" the uncompleted POA due to loan guarantees, and NCL took it off their hands, then the waiver could be granted.

 

10 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

I remember that some lawmakers do oppose the PVSA.  My government operates the exact same way. But I don't agree with the "waste of resources". The resources in this case would be a committee who asks what CLIA thinks. Asks some major TA's what they think. Asks what LA thinks. Asks some bureau to investigate what the average consumer thinks. Combine all the findings in a report, et voila. Maybe 2 million spent and now every congressman can make an informed decision without listening to lobby groups. IMHO, that's peanuts compared to the implications PVSA has

Actually, most of the legislative fight is over the Jones Act, not the PVSA, the vast majority of the US, and Congress, don't even know what the PVSA is.  And, if there was that much financial gain, both to the US and CLIA, don't you think there would be people pushing for it?  I think you, and many here on CC, who have a unique perspective as devoted cruisers, inflate the potential market for PVSA cruises.  There are PVSA cruises available, on Blount and American Cruises, and if there were that much potential market, don't you think these companies would be expanding capacity at incredible rates?  Really, you think that the number of calls about B2B cruises costs the cruise line over $2 million/year?  I'd love to see the number of passengers who take a B2B as a percentage of total passengers, my guess would be less than 0.5%.

 

You continue to harp on the past reason for the PVSA as "steamboats exploding", but every year, ferries roll over and sink, river cruise boats collide, cruise ships have fires that leave them stranded, or lose power and leave the ship drifting onto a rocky lee shore in a storm.  Not to mention cargo ship incidents. Maritime accidents still happen, and if the US feels that they want to have stricter safety regulations than the rest of the world, I think that's fine, even though I'm the only one in this discussion that is affected by those regulations, which make my professional life more complicated every day.

10 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

None, I think (looking at marinetraffic.com). But that may have to do with the cost of shipping. A huge investment in the ship itself, and usually the total crew consisting of a man steering the ship and his wife, and maybe one Polish or Romanian sailor. The non-EU companies would have very little advantage. Of course, river cruises are different and have only foreign crew.

Here again, you look at a narrow part of flagging to a flag of convenience, when you say that crew size would not make much difference.  First off, hiring a non-EU crew not only results in a lower wage, but there would be no payment by the employer to Dutch Social Security, a significant savings.  Second, what is the difference in registration fees between EU and non-EU nations?  Third, what is the difference in inspection and certification costs for operating an EU flag ship over a non-EU flag ship?  Can I buy equipment for my ship that is sub-standard to EU flag requirements, but meets my flag state's laws and the IMO, and saves me money?   Can I set up an ISM code that meets my flag state's okay and the IMO, but would not meet EU standards, and therefore lower my maintenance cost?  What are the insurance requirements for EU flag versus my flag state's?

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, kazu said:

 

What the heck are you talking about?  Oasis of the Seas  is a cruise ship and was fined back in 2014.  There have been plenty of cruise ships visiting Holland/Netherlands since then.  I have been on the Rotterdam when it arrived in Rotterdam and the Prinsendam arriving in Amsterdam.  

No, he means no cruise ship has drydocked in a Dutch shipyard since then.  It is a blow to the Dutch shipyard industry, but I would suspect that it is more in Amazed's ideas than in the shipyards' actual bottom line, since shipyards don't make that much more on a cruise ship than any other ship, because of the amount of work done by those sub-contractors.  Cruise ships bring in armies of sub-contractors, typically from Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines to do the hotel renovations, and they do this because they don't pay according to the laws of the country where the shipyard is.  And, HAL ships are Dutch flag, so they are outside the discussion of cabotage laws with regards to calling in Holland.

[3rdGenCunarder]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

No, he means no cruise ship has drydocked in a Dutch shipyard since then.  It is a blow to the Dutch shipyard industry, but I would suspect that it is more in Amazed's ideas than in the shipyards' actual bottom line, since shipyards don't make that much more on a cruise ship than any other ship, because of the amount of work done by those sub-contractors.  Cruise ships bring in armies of sub-contractors, typically from Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines to do the hotel renovations, and they do this because they don't pay according to the laws of the country where the shipyard is.  And, HAL ships are Dutch flag, so they are outside the discussion of cabotage laws with regards to calling in Holland.

 

Interesting.  I always assumed the subs were local and arranged for by the ship yard as part of the drydock "package." I learn something new every day on CC, thanks!

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

Interesting.  I always assumed the subs were local and arranged for by the ship yard as part of the drydock "package." I learn something new every day on CC, thanks!

Most of the subs are "tiger teams" that the cruise lines keep together to do their renovations.  These teams are experienced with setting up things like upholstery shops onboard (in a lounge for instance), where the engineers have brought in a temporary power panel to power 35-40 sewing machines and a half dozen band saws (for cutting 6" thick stacks of identical pieces of material to upholster MDR chairs for example).  The cruise lines want experienced teams that can get the work done properly and on time, and not rely on someone arranged by the outside, and over whom they have little control.  This is also why the subs are boarded on the ship, as they are flown in, and keeping the accommodation and dining close to the jobsite improves efficiency.  Many of these will also be manufacturers' teams, like some of the decking (the Bolidt rubber decking, for example) crews, or Scandinavian crews to install galley equipment as they are expert in stainless steel fabrication.

[3rdGenCunarder]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Most of the subs are "tiger teams" that the cruise lines keep together to do their renovations.  These teams are experienced with setting up things like upholstery shops onboard (in a lounge for instance), where the engineers have brought in a temporary power panel to power 35-40 sewing machines and a half dozen band saws (for cutting 6" thick stacks of identical pieces of material to upholster MDR chairs for example).  The cruise lines want experienced teams that can get the work done properly and on time, and not rely on someone arranged by the outside, and over whom they have little control.  This is also why the subs are boarded on the ship, as they are flown in, and keeping the accommodation and dining close to the jobsite improves efficiency.  Many of these will also be manufacturers' teams, like some of the decking (the Bolidt rubber decking, for example) crews, or Scandinavian crews to install galley equipment as they are expert in stainless steel fabrication.

 

Wow, the ship becomes a factory!!!

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

 

Wow, the ship becomes a factory!!!

 

Oh, yeah.  There will be 1-3000 sub-contractors onboard, sometimes as much as the pax cabins will hold.  Some crew spend the entire drydock rounding up and taking furniture to the upholsterers and bringing it back when its done.  Then, I-95 gets taken over at night (it's too busy during the day) by the carpet layers, who roll out and pre-cut the carpet to be laid the next day.  Any public space that is not being renovated gets used as a "shop" or a storage place for materials.  The teak deck guys will have a workshop container placed on the pool deck.  Even most of what passengers think of as "structural" work (renewing walls and ceilings when spaces are renovated, dining and bar tables welded to the deck in renovated spaces, and very little of what a pax sees is actually "structural", is done by the contractors.  The shipyard deals with the hull and machinery, and leaves the "home decorating" to the experts.

[SeaDog-46]

When Statendam did her last voyage for HAL & arrived in Singapore to be transfered to P&O Australia. 6-700 European contractor people were arriving onboard at Harbour View cruise Terminal as we were disembarking at 08:00. Also by that time ply sheets were covering the teak decking in areas shut off to passengers & containers were landing on deck.  In 14 days they removed & replaced most of the public areas & turned the 2 tier dinningroom into 2 seperate dining areas by filling in the opening & removing the stairs. By the time Pacific Eden left Sembawang drydock Ryndam had arrived & was put in the drydock & turned into Pacific Aria.

The HAL master & staff Capt. stayed on loan to P&O for over a year & the staff Chief Engineer transfered to P&O & was promoted to Chief Engineer. The ship changer registration to London & some New Zealand deck officers stayed on to Freemantle.

[DanusLight]

I searched the boards, and found this thread, prior to posting. 
I’m booked on a cruise from Fort Lauderdale. I booked the cruise prior to the release of my work schedule. If I’m reading the PVSA correctly, I CAN debark in Grand Turk in order to make flights to be in Manila in time that I’m needed? It means only missing the last sea day before the ship arrives back in Fort Lauderdale.  
Thank You in advance for your answers. 

[3rdGenCunarder]

19 minutes ago, DanusLight said:

I searched the boards, and found this thread, prior to posting. 
I’m booked on a cruise from Fort Lauderdale. I booked the cruise prior to the release of my work schedule. If I’m reading the PVSA correctly, I CAN debark in Grand Turk in order to make flights to be in Manila in time that I’m needed? It means only missing the last sea day before the ship arrives back in Fort Lauderdale.  
Thank You in advance for your answers. 

 

You need to check with HAL about debarking before the final port. I don't think PVSA is an issue, but Grand Turk may have requirements about their customs/immigration process because your entry into Turks and Caicos would be different than a day stop on a cruise.

 

[npcl]

1 hour ago, DanusLight said:

I searched the boards, and found this thread, prior to posting. 
I’m booked on a cruise from Fort Lauderdale. I booked the cruise prior to the release of my work schedule. If I’m reading the PVSA correctly, I CAN debark in Grand Turk in order to make flights to be in Manila in time that I’m needed? It means only missing the last sea day before the ship arrives back in Fort Lauderdale.  
Thank You in advance for your answers. 

What happens if weather is bad and the ship cannot stop at Grand Turk?  

An early departure must be approved by the cruise lines due to local  customs requirements.

[chengkp75]

On 10/31/2019 at 2:18 AM, 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

 

And your answer is consistently wrong.  PVSA only applies to a single ship, as changing ships changes the voyage, so yes, sailing from one US port to another US port is legal if you change ships or change lines, even departing the same day you disembarked the first trip.  Do you care to know why this is legal?  Because the PVSA states that it pertains to passage from one US port to another US port where you permanently disembark (meaning you pay your bill and take your luggage).  That ends the voyage.  Boarding another ship starts a second voyage.  If you do a B2B on the same ship, from one US port to another, the port between the cruises is not the port where you "permanently disembark", even if you get a new folio for charges, and a new S&S card, it would be the port at the end of the second cruise.  And, further, the "24 hour rule" is not mentioned in the PVSA, or its enforcement guidances for CBP officers, so this can or can not be allowed to get back on the same ship after 24 hours ashore.  This mainly depends on how the cruise is marketed.

[knittinggirl]

You probably want to spend the night anyway.  What if the first ship is late getting into port and the second ship leaves on time.   We've been on a ship that got back to port around 3 PM.  By the time you disembark, get your luggage, it's possible you'll be too late for the all aboard deadline.  Because passengers need to be onboard a certain amount of time before sailing.