Suspend the Jones Act...

[NavyCruiser]

In these historic unprecedented times, why not suspend the Jones Act just for this summer cruising season?

This Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is now exactly 100 yrs old, but not really applicable in this year's pandemic leisure cruising situation.

If Canada & other Caribbean countries don't want cruise lines & their passengers visiting their shores, then fine, we'll suspend act & visit our own shores or other countries or states that wants us, to save the summer cruising season.

For example, cruises to Alaska from Seattle, skip Vancouver. 

If ABC countries/islands don't want us, reroute to XYZ countries that wants the business.

Worst case, we don't mind just going from Galveston, to New Orleans, to Key West, to Miami, to Puerto Rico, & back...

 

PS:  For those few who are adamant about NOT cruising soon, please stay off this thread & please do not hijack it, it's not about how you want for the rest of us not to cruise & blah, blah, blah...

[Joe817]

I've thought about that very same solution NavyCruiser! It's logical, and the right thing to do in the circumstances. 👍

[BlerkOne]

Suspending the Jones Act would do nothing for passenger cruising. Perhaps the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 and too many special interests would be against that.

[xDisconnections]

Jones Act is for cargo.

PVSA is for passenger vessels.

 

Alaska also requires a negative Covid-19 test result to be provided upon arrival.

[NavyCruiser]

OK, sorry, I'm just an average cruise passenger & not a legal expert.

Don't know ALL the legal shipping laws, just heard of the generic Jones Act.

For all of you know-it-alls, just have a reasonable discussions about suspending ANY/ALL shipping laws to allow us to cruise just for the rest of this 2020 year.

And what "Special Interests" would be against us resuming business & getting people back to work & back to cruising?

[sparks1093]

The cruise lines themselves don't see the benefit to them of any modifications to the PVSA. There is already an exception in the PVSA for Puerto Rico until they can be served by US shipping and only one cruise line ever tried to make use of that exception. There is a thread like this one on the Ask a Cruise Question board and the so called "know it alls" have given many reasons why this wouldn't work (and this thread might be merged with that one because it's a question often asked). It's all well and good having a discussion but doing a little research beforehand goes a long way.

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by sparks1093

[TNcruising02]

I would be fine with cruising to Key West, Puerto Rico, New Orleans, US Virgin Islands, and possibly the private islands if allowed.  I would stay away from places like New York.

[dallasdan]

I would be good with it.  In fact, I would do a 7 day cruise to nowhere if it was offered.  

[NavyCruiser]

2 minutes ago, dallasdan said:

I would be good with it.  In fact, I would do a 7 day cruise to nowhere if it was offered.  

 

Us too.

But current Jones Act (& whatever other laws) currently won't allow us to do that.

That's what this discussion is all about...

[chengkp75]

53 minutes ago, NavyCruiser said:

In these historic unprecedented times, why not suspend the Jones Act just for this summer cruising season?

This Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is now exactly 100 yrs old, but not really applicable in this year's pandemic leisure cruising situation.

If Canada & other Caribbean countries don't want cruise lines & their passengers visiting their shores, then fine, we'll suspend act & visit our own shores or other countries or states that wants us, to save the summer cruising season.

For example, cruises to Alaska from Seattle, skip Vancouver. 

If ABC countries/islands don't want us, reroute to XYZ countries that wants the business.

Worst case, we don't mind just going from Galveston, to New Orleans, to Key West, to Miami, to Puerto Rico, & back...

 

PS:  For those few who are adamant about NOT cruising soon, please stay off this thread & please do not hijack it, it's not about how you want for the rest of us not to cruise & blah, blah, blah...

Yes, let's suspend the PVSA for this summer cruise season,  so you all can have a fun vacation.  In the meantime, all the US flag passenger services covered by the PVSA, who meet US labor, tax, and safety laws, and who are struggling in these "historic unprecedented" times could tell the tens of thousands of US citizens employed on these vessels that "sorry, these are historic and unprecedented times, and we need to hire low cost foreign labor, which we are now allowed to do this summer since the PVSA is suspended, so you are all fired and out of work."  That will certainly help our economy.  I'm sure those folks won't mind giving up their jobs for your vacation.

 

And, as a history lesson, the PVSA (the act pertaining to domestic maritime passenger trade) was enacted in 1886 as a law to protect US citizens against the unsafe practices that lead to widespread injury and deaths on the passenger vessels of the time, since US maritime safety laws do not apply to foreign ships.

 

And, besides, since no cruise line has supplied a covid remediation plan to the CDC for approval, repealing the PVSA would have no effect on whether cruise ships start to sail or not.

Edited June 17, 2020 by chengkp75

[dallasdan]

I don't pretend to know all of the laws governing Cruise ships or other vessels.  Can they just suspend the portion of the law that says you have to stop in a foreign country?

[pirate4me2]

I would love a cruise that started in say, Galveston, and stopped in NOLA and Key West! I'd book that in a heartbeat!

[bingomamma19]

58 minutes ago, dallasdan said:

I would be good with it.  In fact, I would do a 7 day cruise to nowhere if it was offered.  

Ditto...i have been to all of the islands many times...i just love being on the ship and listening to the ocean on my balcony

[tattoos]

NavyCruiser, I like your itinerary choices.  I have a B2B cruise booked for the last week of October/first week of November.  At this point, I would be happy if the Breeze just went around and around in circles and never visited a port.  If it stops at any port, please let it be a few nights tied up to Mallory Dock in Key West if they are open for cruise ship passengers.  There is enough to see and do in historic Key West to keep you busy for a couple of weeks and you still won't experience everything.

 

If the cruise lines are going to cancel cruises month by month....people are booking, then being cancelled, waiting for refund or re-booking, ad nauseam.  It's a PITA for the cruise lines and for all the booked passengers who are riding on this merry-go-round.  Just cancel all cruises for the remainder of 2020 and stop the craziness.

 

[chengkp75]

43 minutes ago, NavyCruiser said:

 

Cruise lines are NOT hiring any NEW labor, they're keeping CURRENT labor employed, including US based & US citizens employees in corporate offices, on shore, onboard, & other US based suppliers.

 

And why would ADDING more US based cruises get others "fired & out of work"...?

 

Because it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, not the Cruise Vessel Services Act.  The Act covers transportation by "passenger vessels", which by both US and international law are defined as "any vessel that transports more than 12 persons for hire".  So, if you suspend the PVSA, then operators like the Staten Island Ferry, the Washington State Ferry, the Alaska Marine Highway, and even those pesky ferries that cross the Houston Ship Channel, can fire all their US citizens and hire foreign crew for their vessels.  And, that does not even include the dinner cruises, casino boats, water taxis, sightseeing and whale watching boats, and charter fishing boats that would immediately switch to foreign flag operation.  As most people do, they look at the PVSA from the narrow perspective of the cruise industry, and not the total picture of the passenger vessel industry.

[sparks1093]

1 hour ago, NavyCruiser said:

 

Us too.

But current Jones Act (& whatever other laws) currently won't allow us to do that.

That's what this discussion is all about...

Nope, not being able to do a cruise to nowhere has nothing to do with the PVSA. It's a matter of what visas the crew have. In order to be able to offer a cruise to nowhere all crew members would need visas that allow them to work in the US, which would be very expensive for the cruise lines to obtain.

[sparks1093]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Because it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, not the Cruise Vessel Services Act.  The Act covers transportation by "passenger vessels", which by both US and international law are defined as "any vessel that transports more than 12 persons for hire".  So, if you suspend the PVSA, then operators like the Staten Island Ferry, the Washington State Ferry, the Alaska Marine Highway, and even those pesky ferries that cross the Houston Ship Channel, can fire all their US citizens and hire foreign crew for their vessels.  And, that does not even include the dinner cruises, casino boats, water taxis, sightseeing and whale watching boats, and charter fishing boats that would immediately switch to foreign flag operation.  As most people do, they look at the PVSA from the narrow perspective of the cruise industry, and not the total picture of the passenger vessel industry.

And couldn't a cargo vessel add 12 berths to allow them to make use of this exception?

[xDisconnections]

57 minutes ago, NavyCruiser said:

 

Cruise lines are NOT hiring any NEW labor, they're keeping CURRENT labor employed, including US based & US citizens employees in corporate offices, on shore, onboard, & other US based suppliers.

 

And why would ADDING more US based cruises get others "fired & out of work"...?

 

In cheng’s example, he’s suggesting the possibility of other ships that could terminate the employment and replace them with cheaper labor from other regions or J1s. Not all ships governed by laws are cruise ships.

 

Cheng, thanks for the insight of another protection these cabotage laws.

Edited June 17, 2020 by xDisconnections

[chengkp75]

13 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Of course, the worst US maritime disaster was the Sultana, which arguably could (or not) be foreign flagged. But I doubt the PVSA considered it.

 

https://www.history.com/news/why-nobody-remembers-americas-worst-maritime-disaster

 

 

Special interests who like PVSA include some labor Unions.

Actually, since the Sultana burned in 1865, and the PVSA was not passed until 1886, let me correct some misapprehensions about the PVSA.  During the early part of the 19th century, there was a large number of steamboats burning and exploding on US rivers and harbors, and so protect US citizens, the Congress passed the Steamboat Act of 1838, which mandated safety requirements for steamboats including inspections by outside, appointed inspectors.  Ship owners reacted badly to this law, because of the additional cost of the safety requirements, and steamboat accidents continued to increase, so Congress then passed the Steamboat Act of 1852, which started the formation of a federal inspection service.   Accidents and loss of life continued, so in 1871, Congress passed the Steamboat Act of 1871, which created the Steamboat Inspection Service in the Treasury Department, which is the progenitor of today's USCG Marine Inspection Division (those USCG inspectors you see on ships), and the USCG resided in the Treasury Department for a long time.  The 1871 Act seems to have been the final straw for steamboat operators, who decided to change the flag of their vessels to other than US, so they would not be subject to the 1871 Act.  So, in order to force compliance with the 1871 Act, Congress passed the PVSA in 1886, which mandated that all domestic passenger vessels had to be US flag, so that they were subject to the safety regulations of the Steamboat Inspection Service.  So, contrary to popular belief, the PVSA was not passed to protect US maritime jobs or US shipbuilding jobs, but instead to protect US citizens.

 

So, to answer your question, the Sultana is one incident that led to the passage of the PVSA.

 

What most cruisers don't know is that even though they see USCG inspectors on foreign flag cruise ships, those inspectors can only enforce the international regulations of SOLAS and other international conventions, but not the more stringent regulations that the USCG has promulgated for US flag vessels.

[chengkp75]

13 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

And couldn't a cargo vessel add 12 berths to allow them to make use of this exception?

When I started sailing over 40 years ago, many cargo ships carried 12 passengers, but the practice has shrunk, but there are still several foreign container lines that will carry 12 passengers.

[BlerkOne]

The other side of the coin is PVSA is pure protectionist of US jobs, many in non-existent industries like shipbuilding.

 

The exception for Puerto Rico disappears should a US ferry company decide to operate to Puerto Rico. Congress made an exception for NCL to have a cruising monopoly in Hawaii even though the ship did not strictly meet the requirements to be US flagged.

 

It is clearly NOT just for safety.

[NavyCruiser]

42 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

... So, if you suspend the PVSA, then operators like the Staten Island Ferry, the Washington State Ferry, the Alaska Marine Highway, and even those pesky ferries that cross the Houston Ship Channel, can fire all their US citizens and hire foreign crew for their vessels.  And, that does not even include the dinner cruises, casino boats, water taxis, sightseeing and whale watching boats, and charter fishing boats that would immediately switch to foreign flag operation....

 

Easy.

KEEP ALL current laws for ALL of those vessels above.

NO new hires of ANY foreign workers for next few months.

 

SUSPEND those acts/laws just for cruise ships with over 1000+ passengers, so they can operate just for the next few months only.   

Get back to business, get back to cruising...

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, BlerkOne said:

The other side of the coin is PVSA is pure protectionist of US jobs, many in non-existent industries like shipbuilding.

 

The exception for Puerto Rico disappears should a US ferry company decide to operate to Puerto Rico. Congress made an exception for NCL to have a cruising monopoly in Hawaii even though the ship did not strictly meet the requirements to be US flagged.

 

It is clearly NOT just for safety.

I guess the fact that shipbuilding in the US is non-existent would come as a surprise to the 116,000 US citizens employed in the $36 billion industry.

 

You are a bit loose with your terminology.  NCL's Pride of America does in fact meet every single requirement to be "US flagged".  There are many US flagged vessels that were not built in the US, it is just that US flag ships that were not built in the US are not Jones Act or PVSA compliant.  The POA did receive a waiver to the "US built" clause of the PVSA (though her content would meet the PVSA requirements, it is only the "assembled in the US" part that was not met) because otherwise the US government would be stuck with a partially completed cruise ship for which they had provided taxpayer funded loan guarantees.  The POA does, however, meet all other requirements of the PVSA, including US flagged, US crewed, and US owned.  These requirements bring with them the more stringent USCG regulations regarding training, documentation, and licensing of officers and crew, more frequent and stringent inspections by USCG, and different testing and certification standards for safety and life saving equipment than foreign ships.

 

So, yeah, the PVSA is about safety.

[sparks1093]

12 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

The other side of the coin is PVSA is pure protectionist of US jobs, many in non-existent industries like shipbuilding.

 

The exception for Puerto Rico disappears should a US ferry company decide to operate to Puerto Rico. Congress made an exception for NCL to have a cruising monopoly in Hawaii even though the ship did not strictly meet the requirements to be US flagged.

 

It is clearly NOT just for safety.

Because exceptions were made decades after the law was passed doesn't change the reason the law was passed.

[sparks1093]

1 minute ago, NavyCruiser said:

 

Easy.

KEEP ALL current laws for ALL of those vessels above.

NO new hires of ANY foreign workers for next few months.

 

SUSPEND those acts/laws just for cruise ships with over 1000+ passengers, so they can operate just for the next few months only.   

Get back to business, get back to cruising...

Congress has bigger fish to fry.