How About a Cruise With No Ports for Safety

[PrincessLuver]

23 hours ago, voljeep said:

while it is not cruising - there is an "event" tonight where 19K people will be in an arena for hours, no mask required, no social distancing required ... but you need to sign a waiver to be admitted, and hand sanitizer will be provided 

 

why can't cruising provide that same opportunity ?

 

Well.....the big event was a big bust with maybe 7,000 people there and cruise ships are probably going to have the same problem filling their ships in the age of COVID-19.  Why would people want to sign a waiver for a cruise which supposedly releases the cruise line from liability.  Do you think they are really going to protect you if they do not have to be held accountable?  I doubt it!

 

 It seems like quite a few people SAY they will cruise again but let's see what happens when the ships are ready to sail and there are only a 1/3 of the ship sold out because people really are afraid of catching COVID-19 on a cruise ship and everything that comes with that..

Edited June 21, 2020 by PrincessLuver

[caribill]

1 hour ago, Roberto256 said:

 

This is clearly the result of too much testing.

 

I remember when I was about six, in school.

Some teacher said 'marriage is the prime cause of divorce'.

My little six year old mind spun on that for a minute ... oh yeah!

 

Testing is the prime cause of positive results!

 

 

Agree.

 

If I do not take that pregnancy test, I can't possibly be pregnant.

[PrincessLuver]

48 minutes ago, caribill said:

 

Agree.

 

If I do not take that pregnancy test, I can't possibly be pregnant.

 

Do you think the same reasoning would work for a sobriety test.......please say yes!!!

[caribill]

1 hour ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

Do you think the same reasoning would work for a sobriety test.......please say yes!!!

 

Of course.

[npcl]

20 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

All the ingredients for a superspreader event, might as well go to Las Vegas get better room, food, entertainment.

 

The ports aren't the issue it's the fellow passengers you are breathing their exhaled air!!! There would be a few thousand, and California cases are exploding right now, not to mention someone might be coming from Tulsa too!

According to Tilman Fertitta, the CEO and owner of Landry's (who has several properties in Vegas) which runs 60 major brands and over 600 properties has stated on CNBC several times that the Law Vegas opening is really not going that well.  That while the initial weekend opening did have some crowds the number of people in the Casinos are not very high.

 

 

[Roberto256]

On 6/21/2020 at 11:43 AM, caribill said:

If I do not take that pregnancy test, I can't possibly be pregnant.

 

I saw on the news that Texas has been doing way too much testing!

 

🙂

 

[cruzsnooze]

I wouldn't mind a 3 night cruise just out into international waters and back to Los Angeles right now with temperature checks and some precautions.

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

Hurtigruten is doing Cruises to nowhere now,  aren't they?  Along the coast.

[chipmaster]

On 6/21/2020 at 9:32 AM, PrincessLuver said:

 

Do you think the same reasoning would work for a sobriety test.......please say yes!!!

 

If I don't weigh myself I won't be fat and still fit into the clothes that fit me before the 100 days of lock down, LOL

[memoak]

57 minutes ago, cruzsnooze said:

I wouldn't mind a 3 night cruise just out into international waters and back to Los Angeles right now with temperature checks and some precautions.

Temperature checks are worthless with a majority of infected showing no symptoms 

[SNJCruisers]

1 hour ago, cruzsnooze said:

I wouldn't mind a 3 night cruise just out into international waters and back to Los Angeles right now with temperature checks and some precautions.

Cruises to nowhere, even venturing into international waters will not happen.  Unless a line wishes to pay the accompanying payroll taxes that would be necessary.

[rkacruiser]

21 hours ago, cruzsnooze said:

I wouldn't mind a 3 night cruise just out into international waters and back to Los Angeles right now with temperature checks and some precautions.

 

Yep!  Me too.  But, living in Ohio, I am not going to be flying to Los Angeles for a 3 night cruise.  Fully support the concept from a port closer to my home--and where I could easily drive and not fly!

[rkacruiser]

20 hours ago, SNJCruisers said:

Cruises to nowhere, even venturing into international waters will not happen.  Unless a line wishes to pay the accompanying payroll taxes that would be necessary.

 

Cruises to Nowhere are not going to happen unless some regulations/rules/laws change.  

 

But....

 

This is such an unprecedented time, maybe its time for a paradigm change for the cruise/hospitality industry.  Such a change might once again permit Cruises to Nowhere as once were available.  

[Georgie562]

No way I would waste my vacation time (i only get 2 weeks right now) on a cruise to no where. I'll pass

I don't like "staycations" for this reason either. I want to use my vacation time on something exciting!!!

[Shmoo here]

16 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Cruises to Nowhere are not going to happen unless some regulations/rules/laws change.  

 

But....

 

This is such an unprecedented time, maybe its time for a paradigm change for the cruise/hospitality industry.  Such a change might once again permit Cruises to Nowhere as once were available.  

Cruises to nowhere are legal, under the PVSA.  What's stopping them is the court decision regarding the work visas necessary for businesses operating in the US (which a cruise to nowhere qualifies as).  

 

This is the more detailed answer I found elsewhere:

 

What has changed is that CBP has ruled that while crew on foreign flag cruise ships that call in US ports need a crew visa (C1/D1 depending on whether they are joining/leaving in the US or not), crew on a foreign flag vessel doing cruises to nowhere would need a H1-B work visa. The H1 work visa is more difficult to obtain, costs more, and has more financial and legal responsibilities placed on the "sponsor" (cruise line). The cost for a cruise line to get these visas for a thousand crew for one or two voyages (sometimes separated by months) would not be cost effective.

[Charles4515]

Cruises to nowhere are legal, under the PVSA.  What's stopping them is the court decision regarding the work visas necessary for businesses operating in the US (which a cruise to nowhere qualifies as).  
 
This is the more detailed answer I found elsewhere:
 
What has changed is that CBP has ruled that while crew on foreign flag cruise ships that call in US ports need a crew visa (C1/D1 depending on whether they are joining/leaving in the US or not), crew on a foreign flag vessel doing cruises to nowhere would need a H1-B work visa. The H1 work visa is more difficult to obtain, costs more, and has more financial and legal responsibilities placed on the "sponsor" (cruise line). The cost for a cruise line to get these visas for a thousand crew for one or two voyages (sometimes separated by months) would not be cost effective.

In addition to the above the WH has issued an executive order suspending all H1 work visas to the end of the year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[rkacruiser]

14 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

Cruises to nowhere are legal, under the PVSA.  What's stopping them is the court decision regarding the work visas necessary for businesses operating in the US (which a cruise to nowhere qualifies as).  

 

This is the more detailed answer I found elsewhere:

 

What has changed is that CBP has ruled that while crew on foreign flag cruise ships that call in US ports need a crew visa (C1/D1 depending on whether they are joining/leaving in the US or not), crew on a foreign flag vessel doing cruises to nowhere would need a H1-B work visa. The H1 work visa is more difficult to obtain, costs more, and has more financial and legal responsibilities placed on the "sponsor" (cruise line). The cost for a cruise line to get these visas for a thousand crew for one or two voyages (sometimes separated by months) would not be cost effective.

 

So, if it's legal, then as I said....

 

32 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

his is such an unprecedented time, maybe its time for a paradigm change for the cruise/hospitality industry.

 

"Rules" can be changed.  Complicated by Executive Orders by someone who wants the economy to be running "full speed ahead" by the first Tuesday in November but whose actions make it difficult for the hospitality/leisure industry to do their part.  

 

13 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

In addition to the above the WH has issued an executive order suspending all H1 work visas to the end of the year.

 

 

 

[Daniel A]

40 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

Cruises to nowhere are legal, under the PVSA.  What's stopping them is the court decision regarding the work visas necessary for businesses operating in the US (which a cruise to nowhere qualifies as).  

 

This is the more detailed answer I found elsewhere:

 

What has changed is that CBP has ruled that while crew on foreign flag cruise ships that call in US ports need a crew visa (C1/D1 depending on whether they are joining/leaving in the US or not), crew on a foreign flag vessel doing cruises to nowhere would need a H1-B work visa. The H1 work visa is more difficult to obtain, costs more, and has more financial and legal responsibilities placed on the "sponsor" (cruise line). The cost for a cruise line to get these visas for a thousand crew for one or two voyages (sometimes separated by months) would not be cost effective.

It isn't a court decision, it's an administrative ruling from US Customs and Border Protection.  But putting that aside, NCL's Pride of America could be doing cruises to nowhere now.  The ship is flagged and crewed in the US.  They could also be doing Alaska cruises without the need for a stop in Canada.  NCL probably hasn't yet figured out a way to make such cruises financially viable given the current circumstances.

 

I think the cruise industry will wait for either a vaccine or a miracle cure that could be given onboard.

[Charles4515]

It isn't a court decision, it's an administrative ruling from US Customs and Border Protection.  But putting that aside, NCL's Pride of America could be doing cruises to nowhere now.  The ship is flagged and crewed in the US.  They could also be doing Alaska cruises without the need for a stop in Canada.  NCL probably hasn't yet figured out a way to make such cruises financially viable given the current circumstances.
 
I think the cruise industry will wait for either a vaccine or a miracle cure that could be given onboard.

This has come up before. The Pride of America can not do Alaska cruises without a stop in Canada. It is required to sail the Hawaiian Islands year round.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Daniel A]

3 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

This has come up before. The Pride of America can not do Alaska cruises without a stop in Canada. It is required to sail the Hawaiian Islands year round.
 

 

Why would that be?

[Daniel A]

23 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

It isn't a court decision, it's an administrative ruling from US Customs and Border Protection.  But putting that aside, NCL's Pride of America could be doing cruises to nowhere now.  The ship is flagged and crewed in the US.  They could also be doing Alaska cruises without the need for a stop in Canada.  NCL probably hasn't yet figured out a way to make such cruises financially viable given the current circumstances.

 

I think the cruise industry will wait for either a vaccine or a miracle cure that could be given onboard.

I stand corrected.  Even though it flies an American Flag and is crewed by Americans it seems the ship was started in the USA but was finished off in Germany.  But why the US permits it to be "semi-US Flagged"  Is a mystery to me.  It isn't any wonder why the big lines don't want to deal with US over regulation.  😡

Edited June 29, 2020 by Daniel A

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I stand corrected.  Even though it flies an American Flag and is crewed by Americans it seems the ship was started in the USA but was finished off in Germany.  But why the US permits it to be "semi-US Flagged"  Is a mystery to me.  It isn't any wonder why the big lines don't want to deal with US over regulation.  😡

A few misconceptions in the last few posts.  The original owner of the POA went bankrupt after 9/11 (American Hawaiian Cruises), and the US was stuck with a half completed cruise ship that they had extended loan guarantees for.  NCL bought the hull, repaying some of the loan guarantees, with the allowance to complete the ship in Germany (act of Congress to get a PVSA exemption to the "build clause").  The ship is not "semi-US flagged", she is completely a US flag vessel.  There is no requirement that a US flag vessel be built in the US.  I have sailed on many, many ships that were US flagged, but built overseas.  However, these US flag ships that are built overseas are not Jones Act or PVSA compliant.  So, a US flagged ship built overseas cannot carry cargo between US ports, but it can carry cargo to/from the US to foreign countries.  So, the POA received an exemption to the PVSA "built in US" clause, but meets every other requirement of the PVSA (US owned, US flag, US crewed).  Even now, I'm not convinced that the POA does not meet the "content" clause of the PVSA build clause (which requires that a percentage of the "structure" of the ship be US material, while all machinery and equipment can be foreign, and still qualify for the PVSA), but it does not meet the "assembled in the US" portion of the clause.

 

As for Alaskan cruises, the act of Congress that gave the POA it's PVSA exemption specifically limited the POA to cruises strictly within the Hawaiian Islands, or when transiting to/from a US shipyard.  So, the POA cannot do any other cruises than it already does.

 

And, the POA does not fall within the CDC jurisdiction, or the no sail order, since it can only do cruises strictly within the state of Hawaii, and the CDC jurisdiction, as noted in other threads, does not extend to strictly travel or business within a state.  POA has been stopped by the state of Hawaii's State Department of Health requirements.

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

A few misconceptions in the last few posts.  The original owner of the POA went bankrupt after 9/11 (American Hawaiian Cruises), and the US was stuck with a half completed cruise ship that they had extended loan guarantees for.  NCL bought the hull, repaying some of the loan guarantees, with the allowance to complete the ship in Germany (act of Congress to get a PVSA exemption to the "build clause").  The ship is not "semi-US flagged", she is completely a US flag vessel.  There is no requirement that a US flag vessel be built in the US.  I have sailed on many, many ships that were US flagged, but built overseas.  However, these US flag ships that are built overseas are not Jones Act or PVSA compliant.  So, a US flagged ship built overseas cannot carry cargo between US ports, but it can carry cargo to/from the US to foreign countries.  So, the POA received an exemption to the PVSA "built in US" clause, but meets every other requirement of the PVSA (US owned, US flag, US crewed).  Even now, I'm not convinced that the POA does not meet the "content" clause of the PVSA build clause (which requires that a percentage of the "structure" of the ship be US material, while all machinery and equipment can be foreign, and still qualify for the PVSA), but it does not meet the "assembled in the US" portion of the clause.

 

As for Alaskan cruises, the act of Congress that gave the POA it's PVSA exemption specifically limited the POA to cruises strictly within the Hawaiian Islands, or when transiting to/from a US shipyard.  So, the POA cannot do any other cruises than it already does.

I just read an interesting 2003 New York Times article about this whole process complete with political chicanery and 'donations' and a late night amendment to an omnibus appropriations bill.  Limiting POA to Hawaiian waters was part of the deal to get the Senators and Congressman from Hawaii to go along.  (Also greased by NCL donations laundered through a few American executives of NCL and lobbyists.)

 

It is interesting to note that the Times article got it wrong, repeatedly stating it was an exception to the Jones Act, never mentioning the PVSA. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Daniel A

[caribill]

7 hours ago, Daniel A said:

But putting that aside, NCL's Pride of America could be doing cruises to nowhere now.  The ship is flagged and crewed in the US.  They could also be doing Alaska cruises without the need for a stop in Canada.

 

Even if it was permitted to do Alaska only cruises (which it not permitted per above posts), there would be a problem getting anyone who does not live in Alaska to book it.

 

Even with the relaxed rules Alaska is soon implementing, someone wanting to come to Alaska to board the ship would have to provide a negative Covid-19 test result for a test taken within 72 hours of arrival. And if the results were not available yet, have to quarantine at own expense until the results are known.

 

Of course anyone with a positive result would not be allowed to stay in Alaska or board a cruise ship there.

 

How many people would pay for a cruise with no certainty of being allowed by the state of Alaska to actually board the ship?

 

Also, is there any Alaska airport besides Anchorage  that is located near the sea and be able to handle the number of passengers needed to fill the POA? If not, that would limit any cruises to round trip Anchorage.

[chengkp75]

11 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I just read an interesting 2003 New York Times article about this whole process complete with political chicanery and 'donations' and a late night amendment to an omnibus appropriations bill.  Limiting POA to Hawaiian waters was part of the deal to get the Senators and Congressman from Hawaii to go along.  (Also greased by NCL donations laundered through a few American executives of NCL and lobbyists.)

 

It is interesting to note that the Times article got it wrong, repeatedly stating it was an exception to the Jones Act, never mentioning the PVSA. 

Few other points the NYT gets wrong.  POA, and the other two ships when they were US flag were owned, not by NCL, but by NCL America, a US incorporated subsidiary, so that all the revenue generated by the ships is taxable in the US, while none of the revenue generated by any other NCL ship is taxed in the US.

 

Minor point, but the "400 containers of parts" were for both ships, and it was considered to be "less than first class" equipment built in the US, so most of it was scrapped for equipment built elsewhere, as is most of the equipment and machinery on all US built and US flagged vessels.

 

While the shipbuilders' association had a gripe with the ship being allowed to be finished overseas, the hull was already completed, and she was entering the fit out of the hotel, which is typically, even in foreign shipyards, contracted out by the shipowner to specialist sub-contractors who are experienced in doing this.

 

The argument that the other cruise lines wanted to get into the US market is pretty spurious as well.  If they wanted to, they could have lobbied for a revision to the PVSA to eliminate the "build" clause, which could have some merit, but none of the CLIA members are interested in that, or any revision to the PVSA, because doing so would require them to meet the same financial constraints that POA faces, US laws, US crew, US taxes, US regulations.  During the period when NCL had three US flag ships operating in Hawaii, the other cruise lines increased their capacity to Hawaii, from the West Coast, by over 500%, which drove cabin fares so low that NCL was losing $174 million a year on the Hawaiian operation alone.  This lead to the removal of two ships from US flag (and losing their PVSA exemption in the process), and a stabilizing of the Hawaiian market.  To this day, the other cruise lines can offer a 14 day cruise from the West Coast, with 9-10 days of full speed fuel consumption, for less than the POA can offer its 7 day cruises, with only 60 hours at sea, most of it slow steaming between the islands.