Repeal the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA)

[chengkp75]

54 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

1.  1998 is way too old too cite and everybody knows it.   Think in the now as the context has changed.

 

2.  Nobody is talking about 'repealing',  that is your built-in bias at work,   read again, we are talking about excluding cruiselines from the act,  not repealing.   I say again NOT repealing, but excluding.    The sky will not come falling down if cruiselines are exempted.

 

And your bias is showing, since the quote says "In fact, the International Council of Cruise Lines has expressed no interest in changing law to open new U.S. routes for its member companies", please note the wording "changing law", so no mention there of repeal.  And, again you fail to understand the legal definition of a passenger vessel, which I've explained to you several times, and which would lead to far more unintended consequences if any blanket type (as opposed to a one off waiver) waiver was  granted.  And, with the CDC being the major hurdle to cruising in the US, yet other countries opening up to tourism, what makes anyone suspect that just by waiving a wand and suspending the PVSA that the CDC will miraculously open their eyes and say "gee, why don't we allow cruise ships to start up again?"

 

48 minutes ago, JRG said:

Then they should be qualified to differentiate the usage of 'repeal'  and 'exclude' in this context.   

 

If they cannot then there will always be failure to communicate on this issue.

Oh, yeah, the semantics teacher, that's why I put you on ignore.  Perhaps a little less semantics and a little more reading comprehension.  Back to ignore.

[npcl]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And your bias is showing, since the quote says "In fact, the International Council of Cruise Lines has expressed no interest in changing law to open new U.S. routes for its member companies", please note the wording "changing law", so no mention there of repeal.  And, again you fail to understand the legal definition of a passenger vessel, which I've explained to you several times, and which would lead to far more unintended consequences if any blanket type (as opposed to a one off waiver) waiver was  granted.  And, with the CDC being the major hurdle to cruising in the US, yet other countries opening up to tourism, what makes anyone suspect that just by waiving a wand and suspending the PVSA that the CDC will miraculously open their eyes and say "gee, why don't we allow cruise ships to start up again?"

 

Oh, yeah, the semantics teacher, that's why I put you on ignore.  Perhaps a little less semantics and a little more reading comprehension.  Back to ignore.

who has opened up to tourism on large cruise ships?

 

the openings for tourism is pretty much all land based tourism with major restrictions/requirements such as negative test within 72 hours prior to arrival.

 

[JRG]

I believe this is one of those topics that has meat on the bone.    If I were monitoring CC social media for one of the cruiselines I would take note.   

 

It is unfortunate that everytime it comes up it get blasted in reductio ad absurdum fashion by the same salty members.

 

Rendering on an opinion that is based on somebodys recommendation 20 years ago is foolish.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Charles4515]

I believe this is one of those topics that has meat on the bone.    If I were monitoring CC social media for one of the cruiselines I would take note.      It is unfortunate that everytime it comes up it get blasted in reductio ad absurdum fashion by the same salty members.  

Rendering on an opinion that is based on somebodys recommendation 20 years ago is foolish.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Some are so taken by the chief participating on Cruise Critic that they take his words as gospel. On every CC board if the subject comes up he jumps in. Seems to be his mission on Cruise Critic. He is definitely knowledgeable and articulate but that does not make him right about keeping the PSVA as it is. I personally think the PSVA should be modified. But it has to be done carefully. There is more involved than some cruisers wanting a quick cruise fix. Also besides members of the cruising public wanting modifications until the cruise lines ask for modifications it is unlikely that lawmakers are going to make any changes. So contact lawmakers but also contact cruise lines. Don’t rely on social media.  

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

 

 

[Shmoo here]

51 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 Some are so taken by the chief participating on Cruise Critic that they take his words as gospel. On every CC board if the subject comes up he jumps in. Seems to be his mission on Cruise Critic. He is definitely knowledgeable and articulate but that does not make him right about keeping the PSVA as it is. I personally think the PSVA should be modified. But it has to be done carefully. There is more involved than some cruisers wanting a quick cruise fix. Also besides members of the cruising public wanting modifications until the cruise lines ask for modifications it is unlikely that lawmakers are going to make any changes. So contact lawmakers but also contact cruise lines. Don’t rely on social media.  

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

 

 

I rather imagine that most cruise lines are aware that some people think it's necessary to "change/repeal/ease/modify" the PVSA.  If they see no need to pursue it, they won't.

 

 

[Cruzaholic41]

5 hours ago, JRG said:

 

It is unfortunate that everytime it comes up it get blasted in reductio ad absurdum fashion by the same salty members.

 

Rendering on an opinion that is based on somebodys recommendation 20 years ago is foolish.   

 

So your opinion is more valuable than others?  You can’t even express it without insulting those who feel otherwise. I know little about the PVSA but I’d rather base my opinion on the facts presented by the maritime experts on this board over some anonymous bloke who thinks his opinion is superior. 

[CruiserBruce]

2 minutes ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

So your opinion is more valuable than others?  You can’t even express it without insulting those who feel otherwise. I know little about the PVSA but I’d rather base my opinion on the facts presented by the maritime experts on this board over some anonymous bloke who thinks his opinion is superior. 

Nicely said. 

[Turtles06]

2 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

Some are so taken by the chief participating on Cruise Critic that they take his words as gospel. On every CC board if the subject comes up he jumps in. Seems to be his mission on Cruise Critic. He is definitely knowledgeable and articulate but that does not make him right about keeping the PSVA as it is. I personally think the PSVA should be modified. But it has to be done carefully.

 

Well, at least @chengkp75 knows it's the PVSA, not the PSVA.   

 

 

[Charles4515]

 

Well, at least @chengkp75 knows it's the PVSA, not the PSVA.   

 

 

 

Thank you for pointing out my typo. That added nothing to the topic.

 

Some would rather follow one “expert”

who is active on this web site than think for themselves.

 

As to the cruise industry not lobbying for a change to the PVSA they have been happy to fly flags of convenience, avoid US regulations, US wages and US taxes.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Aquahound]

10 hours ago, JRG said:

 

As a maritime professional,  Chengkp75 could not possibly know or have the best interests of CLIA in mind.   It is also an issue that is above his paygrade and above that of the ferry captains and defenders of the PVSA galaxy,  knowledgeable in the respective fields as they may be,   they have missed the boat on this one.

 

 

8 hours ago, JRG said:

 

2.  Nobody is talking about 'repealing',  that is your built-in bias at work,   read again, we are talking about excluding cruiselines from the act,  not repealing.   I say again NOT repealing, but excluding.    The sky will not come falling down if cruiselines are exempted.

 

 

Whoa!  That escalated quick.  I'm not sure the source of this indignation toward Chengkp75, but I think it's a little unfair.  

 

Your claim that nobody is talking about repealing is false.  It's the very title of this thread and if you open the article, the word repeal is used throughout the article, including in the title.    

 

I am somewhat versed in the PVSA, though not an expert.  I happen to think it's a bad idea to allow foreign corporations to run foreign flagged ships full of vastly majority foreign workers in exclusive US commerce.  So not only do I think repeal is a bad idea, but I also think cruise line exemptions are a bad idea.  To be clear, that is my opinion.  It is also my opinion that there is not a demand for US only cruises.  What I've failed to see supporters of repeal/exempt/exclude/whatever prove is what purpose it would serve.  What exactly would come out of a cruise line exemption?  The ability to bypass one stop in Canada when enroute Alaska?  That's hardly worth the time and effort.  Who exactly would benefit from this?

[broberts]

I suspect that the economic loss resulting for repealing the PVSA outweighs the desires of a few cruise passengers bored with current itineraries.