It's even worse than we thought

[HappyCruiserettu]

On 4/4/2020 at 7:54 AM, Daniel A said:

I have a 20 day Train/bus tour booked for the end of September.  I think we well likely cancel as the trip would involve 4 different air segments, train travel and 7 days on a tour bus.  Even if the "curve gets flattened" that only helps the hospital situation - it doesn't make any claims about eliminating the risk of covid-19 infection after the curve is flattened.  It's a shame as this is a 'bucket list' trip to various National Parks which we started working on two years ago.  Oh well, we still have the plans on paper - now we'll need to see how gentle Delta will be with us cancelling 4 flights in September.   

Go to Delta's website, and read their notice about cancelling flights booked prior to April 30. 

[Daniel A]

8 minutes ago, HappyCruiserettu said:

My thought, exactly.

 And the PVSA (not the Jones act) would not be a factor unless they were transiting from one US port to another.

First, thank you for the clarification on the PVSA.  I guess the Jones Act applying to passengers is a widespread misnomer.  It looks as if most of the cruise ships are using anchorages off the East Coast.  When those ships need to transit to the West Coast, they could probably use some fare paying PAX to help offset the Panama Canal toll as well as the cost of fuel and other costs.  If they were to pick up the PAX in Port Everglades and transit directly to LA and SF and Seattle they would either need to stop at a Central American country or Mexico enroute.

[d9704011]

3 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

If they were to pick up the PAX in Port Everglades and transit directly to LA and SF and Seattle they would either need to stop at a Central American country or Mexico enroute

PVSA requires a stop in a ‘distant foreign port’.  For your scenario this would be something like Cartagena, Aruba, Bonaire.... Mexico and Central America won’t do it.

[Daniel A]

2 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

PVSA requires a stop in a ‘distant foreign port’.  For your scenario this would be something like Cartagena, Aruba, Bonaire.... Mexico and Central America won’t do it.

Princess offers round trip cruises from New York to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.  Given that New York shares a border with Canada I would think they aren't considered 'distant foreign ports'...

[d9704011]

4 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Princess offers round trip cruises from New York to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.  Given that New York shares a border with Canada I would think they aren't considered 'distant foreign ports'...

True, those are closed loop cruises with a stop in a foreign port.  I thought you were talking about a voyage between Port Everglades and a port on the west coast of the United States.

Edited April 7, 2020 by d9704011

[Skai]

On 4/7/2020 at 8:51 AM, Daniel A said:

Princess offers round trip cruises from New York to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.  Given that New York shares a border with Canada I would think they aren't considered 'distant foreign ports'...

 

Closed loop cruises(AKA round-trip) leaving from/returning to the same U.S. port require at least one stop at a 'near foreign port'  -- IE. Victoria, B.C. for Alaskan cruises or Ensenada, MX for Hawaiian Islands cruises/(3-4 day)West Coast getaways.  

 

The 'distant foreign port' requirement is for a cruise departing from a U.S. port that travels to a different U.S. port.  For example, a one-way Panama canal cruise would require a stop in South America(The ABC islands are also considered as South America). 

 

Ports in Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean are considered 'near foreign ports'

 

The PVSA is why most West Coast re-positioning cruises that involve a U.S. port at one end have a foreign port on the other end. Often those transitioning from a NE U.S. homeport to a SE U.S. homeport for the Caribbean season will include Aruba or Curacao in the itinerary to satisfy the requirement.

 

The one exception to this is when Puerto Rico is involved, as it is not a U.S. state.  Therefore, cruises may start/end in a U.S. port and start/end in Puerto Rico.

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Skai

[npcl]

16 minutes ago, Skai said:

 

Closed loop cruises(AKA round-trip) leaving from/returning to the same U.S. port require at least one stop at a 'near foreign port'  -- IE. Victoria, B.C. for Alaskan cruises or Ensenada, MX for Hawaiian Islands cruises/(3-4 day)West Coast getaways.  

 

The 'distant foreign port' requirement is for a cruise departing from a U.S. port that travels to a different U.S. port.  For example, a one-way Panama canal cruise would require a stop in South America(The ABC islands are also considered as South America). 

 

Ports in Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean are considered 'near foreign ports'

 

The PVSA is why most West Coast re-positioning cruises that involve a U.S. port at one end have a foreign port on the other end. Often those transitioning from a NE U.S. homeport to a SE U.S. homeport for the Caribbean season will include Aruba or Curacao in the itinerary to satisfy the requirement.

 

The one exception to this is when Puerto Rico is involved, as it is not a U.S. state.  Therefore, cruises may start/end in a U.S. port and start/end in Puerto Rico.

 

 

 

It is not exempt because it is not a US state.  for example a cruise ship could not start in one port in Puerto Rico and end in another.  It is exempt, because it is a listed exemption to the regulation.

 

This document is very good for anyone wanting to understand the PVSA

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Sep/PVSA-ICP.pdf

 

46 U.S.C. § 55101(a) and (b)- Application of Coastwise Laws The coastwise laws apply to the United States, including U.S. island territories and possessions. The coastwise laws do not apply to American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.

 

Exceptions to the PVSA

 

The PVSA does not apply to: • American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. • The transportation of passengers between a port in Puerto Rico and another port in the United States. Note: This exception does not apply to the transportation of passengers between ports in Puerto Rico.36 Such a transportation would be a violation of the PVSA. • Canadian Vessels o Holding a permit issued by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation may transport passengers between Rochester, New York and Alexandria Bay, New York. o Transporting passengers between ports in Southeastern Alaska. o Transporting passengers between Hyder, Alaska and other points in southeastern Alaska or in the United States outside Alaska.

[Skai]

I believe that I used the term 'exception'.

 

Q: What do Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands all have in common?

 

A: . They're all U.S. territories(SEE: Not U.S. states).

 

One might choose to apply logic as to why they were specifically listed as 'exempted'.

 

 

 

[npcl]

15 minutes ago, Skai said:

I believe that I used the term 'exception'.

 

Q: What do Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands all have in common?

 

A: . They're all U.S. territories(SEE: Not U.S. states).

 

One might choose to apply logic as to why they were specifically listed as 'exempted'.

 

 

 

You stated that they were exempted because it was not a state

 

"The one exception to this is when Puerto Rico is involved, as it is not a U.S. state."

 

The material I listed states explicitly that the law applies to the United States, including U.S. island territories and possessions.

 

As such the fact that an area is not a state does not exclude it.  To be excluded in must be excluded by legislative intent, that is to say stated in the law.

 

You will also note that Puerto Rico is not fully excluded.  You cannot for example transport passengers from 1 port in Puerto Rico, to another port in Puerto Rico without complying with the law.

 

Also note that it is not the only exception.

Edited April 9, 2020 by npcl

[AF-1]

so are you guys saying there are two different cruise ports in Puerto Rico?  

 

You will also note that Puerto Rico is not fully excluded.  You cannot for example transport passengers from 1 port in Puerto Rico, to another port in Puerto Rico without complying with the law.

[Daniel A]

I have to say that I am finding this thread to be very informative.  Thanks to all who are contributing!  

[d9704011]

10 hours ago, Skai said:

I believe that I used the term 'exception'.

 

Q: What do Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands all have in common?

 

A: . They're all U.S. territories(SEE: Not U.S. states).

 

One might choose to apply logic as to why they were specifically listed as 'exempted'.

 

 

 

I believe the exception for Puerto Rico is more closely related to the (non) availability of “coast-wise qualified” passenger carrying vessels rather than statehood.

[npcl]

2 hours ago, AF-1 said:

so are you guys saying there are two different cruise ports in Puerto Rico?  

 

You will also note that Puerto Rico is not fully excluded.  You cannot for example transport passengers from 1 port in Puerto Rico, to another port in Puerto Rico without complying with the law.

There is only one that is used for large cruise ships.  There are others for small ships.

 

Just using the information to show that Puerto Rico was not exempt because it was not a state.

 

Just as only only 4 of the United States 16 territories have some degree of exemption.

[npcl]

10 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

I believe the exception for Puerto Rico is more closely related to the (non) availability of “coast-wise qualified” passenger carrying vessels rather than statehood.

Yes, however the ruling that I referenced was when someone wanted to use non-US ships to take passengers between islands in Puerto Rico.  

 

In Puerto Rico's case I seem to recall that it was one case where their was interest in cruise lines doing cruises doing one way cruises between the mainland and Puerto Rico.  After trying some routes doing that the cruise lines generally decided the routes wasn't profitable.  So they were dropped and Puerto Rico is basically a cruise destination port, except for some closed loop cruises home ported in Puerto Rico.

[Daniel A]

Since PVSA was enacted in 1886 (134 years ago) and signed into law by Grover Cleveland maybe it's time to have Congress take a stab at updating the law based on modern realities.  An American ocean cruise industry just doesn't exist and it doesn't look like one is likely to spring up anytime soon.  At this point in time this protectionist legislation is only protecting extinct dinosaurs.  As an American, I would love to be able to take a cruise from Boston to Key West with stops in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, Charleston, Savannah, Miami... but I can't because an archaic law won't allow it because it's protecting a cruise line that doesn't exist.  So the law is actually limiting my freedom of choice by requiring me to sail out of the same port I return to and going to foreign ports to spend my money.  The law is not only making me spend my cruising dollars outside the US, it's taking potential fees, and tourist dollars away from all the cities I mentioned earlier.  I wonder if anybody out there could start an internet petition to send to our senators and congressmen asking for the law to be updated.  I would even think that the tourism boards and chambers of commerce for those locations would like to help.  I would start the petition myself but I lack the technical abilities, but I'd be glad to help any way I could.

[npcl]

53 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Since PVSA was enacted in 1886 (134 years ago) and signed into law by Grover Cleveland maybe it's time to have Congress take a stab at updating the law based on modern realities.  An American ocean cruise industry just doesn't exist and it doesn't look like one is likely to spring up anytime soon.  At this point in time this protectionist legislation is only protecting extinct dinosaurs.  As an American, I would love to be able to take a cruise from Boston to Key West with stops in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, Charleston, Savannah, Miami... but I can't because an archaic law won't allow it because it's protecting a cruise line that doesn't exist.  So the law is actually limiting my freedom of choice by requiring me to sail out of the same port I return to and going to foreign ports to spend my money.  The law is not only making me spend my cruising dollars outside the US, it's taking potential fees, and tourist dollars away from all the cities I mentioned earlier.  I wonder if anybody out there could start an internet petition to send to our senators and congressmen asking for the law to be updated.  I would even think that the tourism boards and chambers of commerce for those locations would like to help.  I would start the petition myself but I lack the technical abilities, but I'd be glad to help any way I could.

Actually not.  It is still protecting all the ships carrying passengers inside and around the US, including tour boats, ferries, river boats, etc.  Literally tens of thousands of jobs.

 

The cruise lines have really not be interested in trying to get the law changed.  They consider the current set up to be profitable. The one way may not be as profitable as you think since it would mean all the passengers would need to book at least one flight.

Edited April 9, 2020 by npcl

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, npcl said:

Actually not.  It is still protecting all the ships carrying passengers inside and around the US, including tour boats, ferries, river boats, etc.  Literally tens of thousands of jobs.

 

The cruise lines have really not be interested in trying to get the law changed.  They consider the current set up to be profitable. The one way may not be as profitable as you think since it would mean all the passengers would need to book at least one flight.

I wasn't thinking of a repeal, rather an amendment to the law as it exists.  This is why I wrote  "An American ocean cruise industry just doesn't exist and it doesn't look like one is likely to spring up anytime soon."   Isn't one exception allowing a Canadian operation between Rochester and Alexandria Bay because there aren't any US companies servicing that route?  I think there may be some radical changes to the industry and maybe a line in trouble might want to try.

[npcl]

1 minute ago, Daniel A said:

I wasn't thinking of a repeal, rather an amendment to the law as it exists.  This is why I wrote  "An American ocean cruise industry just doesn't exist and it doesn't look like one is likely to spring up anytime soon."   Isn't one exception allowing a Canadian operation between Rochester and Alexandria Bay because there aren't any US companies servicing that route?  I think there may be some radical changes to the industry and maybe a line in trouble might want to try.

The issue is how do you change without threatening the industries it protects?  Especially without getting sued.  Not as easy as it might sound on the surface.

 

Also keep in mind that during the last couple of times it has come up, the changes being discussed has been to tighten.

 

 

[Daniel A]

2 minutes ago, npcl said:

The issue is how do you change without threatening the industries it protects?  Especially without getting sued.  Not as easy as it might sound on the surface.

 

Also keep in mind that during the last couple of times it has come up, the changes being discussed has been to tighten.

Times will be different for a while.  If enough states & cities were to push for it, some legislators would listen.  Some things get introduced in congress that don't make much sense but they get through anyway.  The change could be done by exempting specific routes to and from specific ports.  Much like was done for the Rochester to Alexandria Bay route.  As far a being sued goes one can't be afraid of court challenges to changes of laws - currently that seems to be the cost of passing almost any legislation.

[npcl]

13 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Times will be different for a while.  If enough states & cities were to push for it, some legislators would listen.  Some things get introduced in congress that don't make much sense but they get through anyway.  The change could be done by exempting specific routes to and from specific ports.  Much like was done for the Rochester to Alexandria Bay route.  As far a being sued goes one can't be afraid of court challenges to changes of laws - currently that seems to be the cost of passing almost any legislation.

Not going to happen.  Not a lot of supporters for the cruise lines in Congress.  Even the embarkation and disembarkation ports are not exactly happy with the major lines.

 

Recent poll put support for cruise lines getting any kind of assistance at 20%.

 

Who exactly do you think is going to push for it?

[Daniel A]

5 minutes ago, npcl said:

Not going to happen.  Not a lot of supporters for the cruise lines in Congress.  Even the embarkation and disembarkation ports are not exactly happy with the major lines.

 

Recent poll put support for cruise lines getting any kind of assistance at 20%.

 

Who exactly do you think is going to push for it?

Well, given that the House isn't even in session, nothing would be happening during this crises anyway.  I was thinking more in the long term.  Special conditions could be placed in order to qualify for the exemption i.e. minimum standards for a percentage of US crew members, special fees to be paid to the states where they visit, purchasing carbon offsets, whatever pet projects congressmen on applicable committees want.  Who I think would push for it would be Americans who want to visit American cities, cities and states which are strapped for cash and will do anything to get out of the red (namely all of them), dock workers and unions in these cities, usual purveyors who would supply the ships.

 

I'm not saying this is something that will happen, but it could be just the kind of change that could get a number Americans thinking about getting on a cruise ship again.  What's more, it can create jobs in some US cities that desperately need work.

[Cruise Raider]

3 hours ago, Daniel A said:

Well, given that the House isn't even in session, nothing would be happening during this crises anyway.  I was thinking more in the long term.  Special conditions could be placed in order to qualify for the exemption i.e. minimum standards for a percentage of US crew members, special fees to be paid to the states where they visit, purchasing carbon offsets, whatever pet projects congressmen on applicable committees want.  Who I think would push for it would be Americans who want to visit American cities, cities and states which are strapped for cash and will do anything to get out of the red (namely all of them), dock workers and unions in these cities, usual purveyors who would supply the ships.

 

I'm not saying this is something that will happen, but it could be just the kind of change that could get a number Americans thinking about getting on a cruise ship again.  What's more, it can create jobs in some US cities that desperately need work.

 

I agree 100%!  We usually try to book cruises with a heavy focus on US ports of call, mainly Alaska, Hawaii and Pacific Coastal.  Even though the taxes, fees and port charges are usually quite high, it's a price I am willing to pay.  I also see all those Americans that are in the travel industry have been devastated by the suspension of cruises ... as so many others have been.  Who knows when things will get back to normal??  I sure hope it is sooner than later ... 

[bluesea321]

And now this.  

 

"On April 9, 2020, CDC renewed the No Sail Order and Other Measures Related to Operations Order signed by the CDC Director on March 14, 2020—subject to the modifications and additional stipulated conditions as set forth in this Order. This Order shall continue in operation until the earliest of (1) the expiration of the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ declaration that COVID-19 constitutes a public health emergency; (2) the CDC Director rescinds or modifies the order based on specific public health or other considerations; or (3) 100 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register."   See the attached pdf for the full requirements

 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/index.html

No-Sail-Order-Cruise-Ships.pdf

[Mackenzie1]

17 minutes ago, bluesea321 said:

And now this.  

 

"On April 9, 2020, CDC renewed the No Sail Order and Other Measures Related to Operations Order signed by the CDC Director on March 14, 2020—subject to the modifications and additional stipulated conditions as set forth in this Order. This Order shall continue in operation until the earliest of (1) the expiration of the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ declaration that COVID-19 constitutes a public health emergency; (2) the CDC Director rescinds or modifies the order based on specific public health or other considerations; or (3) 100 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register."   See the attached pdf for the full requirements

 

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/cruise/index.html

No-Sail-Order-Cruise-Ships.pdf 107.47 kB · 1 download

This is most discouraging!  No. 1 and No. 2 will never happen, so all we have is No. 3, which is 100 days from publication in the Federal Register. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Mackenzie1

[bluesea321]

2 minutes ago, Mackenzie1 said:

Most discouraging!  No. 1 and No. 2 will never happen, so all we have is No. 3, which is 100 days from publication in the Federal Register. 

 

Yeap, and please see the PDF, it provides a dire summary of the cruise ship situation around US ports and the difficulties in tending to ill crew members on board.  From Page 5:

 

"If unrestricted cruise ship passenger operations were permitted to resume, infected and exposed cruise ship cases would place healthcare workers at substantial increased risk. Specifically, these cases would divert medical resources away from persons with other medical problems and other COVID-19 cases, consuming precious diagnostics, therapeutics, and protective equipment. Ongoing concerns with cruise ship transmission would further draw valuable resources away from the immense Federal, State, and local effort to contain and mitigate the spread of COVID- 19. Further, the current ongoing non-passenger operation of cruise ships has not sufficiently abated the public health concern, as ship crew become sick and require medical care drawing on otherwise engaged Federal, State, and local resources. As operators of non-U.S. flagged vessels sailing in international waters, it is imperative that the cruise ship industry and cruise lines themselves take responsibility for the care of their crew and do not further tax limited U.S. resources during a public health emergency."