The Jones Act

[Arizona Wildcat]

5 hours ago, K.T.B. said:

 It may not be essential, but if that law affects the economy in a highly negative way (which it currently does) it should be changed.  Don't forget, because of the Jones Act, vital assistance to Puerto Rico was delayed until the US government issued a waiver of the law temporarily.  The same can be done for PSVA until they ultimately change it.

How does cruising not happening effect the economy of Alaska in a highly negative way?  Cruise ships bring about 1M people to Alaska annually.  The cruise ship industry buys few supplies in Alaska.  Almost everything is sourced in Seatyle or Vancouver.  The estimate I saw was of the $2.2B in tourism about 30% was cruise ships.

Others have already said that Many shops are owned by non Alaskans etc. Employees are mostly of temporary visas.  The GDP of Alaska is over $54B.  Thus cruise ships are less than 2% of the economy in Alaska

Balance that with what could likely happen with COVID positive passengers.  

I see the angst and bickering.  Thus simply answer how the communities in SE Alaska can handle the required port agreement to accept into their medical system any ill passengers?  Second, what is the liklihood of passengers being COVID positive and infecting locals?  Remember almost no COVID there.

[Von & John]

6 hours ago, phoenix_dream said:

I don't know what the actual dollar amount lost would be, and it is certainly true that some of the money ends up in other pockets.  But there are indirect as well as direct monetary gains.  Yes, people come from other areas to work for the season.  But while they are there they need a place to live, and food to eat.  They likely pay some amount of payroll taxes to Alaska.  The local areas and the state benefit from all the sales tax collected, as well as the port fees and taxes.  Yes, the cruise lines own some of the properties, busses, etc..  But those had to be purchased somewhere, and some of those places were in Alaska.  And the supplies they use (gas, food for restaurants, cleaning supplies, and on and on) are also part of the Alaska economy (albeit understanding that some may come from other states, much like happens here in the lower 48).  

 

 

@phoenix_dream
Good Evening...

Just a quick clarification
Alaska has neither a state income tax nor state sales tax...

A few municipalities / boroughs / towns / cities have created their own sales tax

                            Sales Tax

Anchorage         No

Denali                 No

Fairbanks           No

Juneau               5.0%

Ketchikan           2.5%

Seward               4.0%
Sitka                    5.0%
Skagway             3.0%

Talkeetna            No

Whittier                5.0%

 

Port fees - definitely...

 

I keep thinking they need to change the Alaskan Cruises this year to start & end in Alaska...

Different ships could have different home ports & complete Round Trips:
Anchorage

Juneau
Ketchikan
Seward
Sitka
Skagway

Whittier

 

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by Von & John

[grandgeezer]

1 hour ago, Von & John said:

 

@phoenix_dream
Good Evening...

Just a quick clarification
Alaska has neither a state income tax nor state sales tax...

A few municipalities / boroughs / towns / cities have created their own sales tax

                            Sales Tax

Anchorage         No

Denali                 No

Fairbanks           No

Juneau               5.0%

Ketchikan           2.5%

Seward               4.0%
Sitka                    5.0%
Skagway             3.0%

Talkeetna            No

Whittier                5.0%

 

Port fees - definitely...

 

I keep thinking they need to change the Alaskan Cruises this year to start & end in Alaska...

Different ships could have different home ports & complete Round Trips:
Anchorage

Juneau
Ketchikan
Seward
Sitka
Skagway

Whittier

 

 

 

How many of these Alaskan cities have the facilities and infrastructure to handle the thousands of people who cruise on a singles ship? Meaning hotels, restaurants public transportation  and most of all flights from all over the world. At best, Juneau and Anchorage, at that would be one bigger ship max.

[d9704011]

6 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

 

How many of these Alaskan cities have the facilities and infrastructure to handle the thousands of people who cruise on a singles ship? Meaning hotels, restaurants public transportation  and most of all flights from all over the world. At best, Juneau and Anchorage, at that would be one bigger ship max.

Anchorage is well on its way to being able to handle the volume of cruisers making their way in and out of the state.  If there is such a burning desire on the part of state and local government, business and citizens to promote a sustainable Alaskan cruise industry perhaps they can put a coupe billion dollars of investment money into the whole thing and expand the airport(s) a bit, build a couple more hotels and work on transportation to/from modernized and expanded port facilities.  None of this will get the industry around the PVSA but when Canada reopens, a stop in Prince Rupert can be set up and more time available for cruising the Alaskan coast instead of using Vancouver and Victoria.

Edited February 6, 2021 by d9704011

[cruisestitch]

Von and John, 

 

your idea to have complete round trips entirely consisting of Alaska ports violates the PVSA.  
 

Without a stop at a Canadian port, there can be no round trip Cruises beginning and ending at any American city.

[chengkp75]

Been a while since I was on the Celebrity board, so didn't see this thread until now.  I will respond to some of the ideas/topics, without responding to snarky comments I usually get from a couple of the posters on this thread.

 

As noted by others, the PVSA refers to all passenger vessels, not just cruise ships, and the international definition of "passenger vessel" is any vessel that carries more than 12 persons for hire.  Because any relaxation/modification/exemption of this law would affect ships from other countries (you are wanting to allow foreign ships into the US), you have to deal with international law, and abide by the definition of "passenger vessel" as defined in that international law.

 

I'll cover an exemption to the PVSA first.  Under the PVSA, the only exemptions can be granted are for national security reasons, and I don't think cruises to Alaska qualify as national security reasons.  Further, exemptions are only allowed if there is no US flag service available on the route.  I think the Alaskan Maritime Highway system would have something to say about low cost foreign ships taking passengers to Alaska, as they are a US flag operation.

 

Next is the "every cruise is affected by the PVSA" and why granting an exemption to the PVSA would not be the only hurdle.  As others have noted, the "cruise to nowhere" vanished a few years ago, but most think that was because of the PVSA.  It wasn't, "cruises to nowhere" are specifically mentioned and allowed in the PVSA by foreign ships.  It was CBP who decided that they needed to enforce the visa rules evenly when dealing with foreign crew on cruises to nowhere.  They decided that a "cruise to nowhere" was essentially domestic work (work inside the US), and therefore the crew needed work visas, not crew visas, and as domestic work, would be subject to US labor laws.  This would increase labor costs about 5 times over the foreign crew (a Marad study showed this to be the case for US flag cargo ships over foreign ships, and those only had crews of 20-25).  So, either the lines increase their fares exponentially, or they lose even more money than sitting still, as the operating costs go up, they operate with reduced pax loads, and have to swallow all the credits from the previously cancelled cruises.

 

For LDEE, neither the PVSA nor the Jones Act were written to protect shipping on the East Coast.  The PVSA was written to enforce safety measures on passenger vessels in the US by requiring them all to be US vessels.  The Jones Act was written to protect the interests of Seattle shipowners who were losing their business to low cost Canadian shippers on the lucrative Alaskan routes.

 

For those who think it would be easy for the lines to reflag to US, there is the US built clause (which can of course be waived, by act of Congress), but there is no pool of documented US crew to fill those ships (and a US flag ship has to have 100% US citizens or Green Card holders (Green Cards are limited to 25% of unlicensed crew) as crew, so again you get into the wages and labor laws, and then you lose the tax exemption that foreign flag ships get for all income earned in the US.

 

For nocl, the last "run" on the PVSA was not about foreign built ships, but the fact that foreign ships were using a "technical stop" in Ensenada to meet the foreign port call requirement for Hawaii cruises from the West Coast.  It almost ended the Alaskan trade all together, when CBP felt they had to go beyond what NCL was requesting (an actual port call where passengers could get off, during the day in Ensenada) and decided that to meet the intent of the PVSA, the "majority" of port time should be at foreign ports.  This was dropped when even NCL requested it.

 

The President cannot make Executive Orders about just anything.  There are limits, and I don't believe that the PVSA counts as one of them.

 

Finally, on the PVSA, I will say that CLIA has stated that they are not interested in a change to the PVSA because of possible cost increases (wages, taxes, etc mentioned above).

 

As for the Jones Act and Puerto Rico, this was just misinformation.  The problem in PR after the hurricane was not the inability to get supplies to PR, it was the inability to distribute them within PR.  There were literally thousands of containers of aid sitting on the docks in San Juan, and no trucks or clear roads to move them.  I even saw an article about thousands of pallets of bottled water that were "found" a year later.  The docks in PR had no place to receive any more aid than the US ships had already brought.  I remember that there were exactly two foreign ships that brought aid directly from the US to PR (which is the Jones Act trade), as opposed to bringing supplies from overseas, which they are legally allowed to do.

[chengkp75]

Another assumption that folks seem to be making in these threads, is that the port cities in the US will be willing to accept cruise passengers, if they were somehow allowed to do US port only cruises.  Most ports in the US have extreme limitations on allowing crew from cargo ships going ashore, and all crew changes (cargo and cruise) are escorted by bonded agents, and limited to transportation directly to the airport, not wandering around the town.  Places like Maine (some US ports) require either a negative test within 72 hours or 14 day self-quarantine for anyone (resident or non-resident) entering the state, I doubt they would allow a couple thousand passengers off a cruise ship for a day visit.

[Fouremco]

Thanks as always @chengkp75.

[JRG]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Finally, on the PVSA, I will say that CLIA has stated that they are not interested in a change to the PVSA because of possible cost increases (wages, taxes, etc mentioned above).

 

Chengpk75,   I have to point out that you are in error here.   One of their recent monthly newsletters has their public relations officer specifically stating that with respect to PVSA  "all options are on the table".

 

This does not reconcile to what you are claiming that CLIA is saying and voids your argument.

 

Also,   I haven't delivered the second-half of the one-two punch that will change posters mind about how negatively PVSA is affecting the cruise industry.

 

Next post maybe.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by JRG

[LGW59]

45 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

Chengpk75,   I have to point out that you are in error here.   One of their recent monthly newsletters has their public relations officer specifically stating that with respect to PVSA  "all options are on the table".

 

This does not reconcile to what you are claiming that CLIA is saying and voids your argument.

 

Also,   I haven't delivered the second-half of the one-two punch that will change posters mind about how negatively PVSA is affecting the cruise industry.

 

Next post maybe.

 

 

Well we will all just have to wait with baited breath!

[Wine-O]

2 hours ago, cruisestitch said:

Von and John, 

 

your idea to have complete round trips entirely consisting of Alaska ports violates the PVSA.  
 

Without a stop at a Canadian port, there can be no round trip Cruises beginning and ending at any American city.

Why can't they stop for a few hours in Victoria and not let any pax off the ship.  If no one gets off the ship, why would that be an issue for the Canadians?    I believe that's what they did for cruises out of Calif where they stopped briefly in Ensenada, Mexico.  🍷 

[cruisestitch]

They used to do that in Ensenada but that is no longer allowed to satisfy the PVSA.

[JRG]

3 hours ago, cruisestitch said:

Von and John, 

 

your idea to have complete round trips entirely consisting of Alaska ports violates the PVSA.  
 

Without a stop at a Canadian port, there can be no round trip Cruises beginning and ending at any American city.

 

But it is a good idea.   And what a wonderful boom for the Travel Agents to be able to  book B2B cruises for passengers,   give them the same cabin both ways,  maybe cabin flowers??    That would open up ALOT of new itinerary combinations.

 

I would love to do regular round-trips from SD or LA to Seattle and not stop at Vancouver.   Maybe 3 or 4 day cruises close to home during the test-cruise phase.  They'd have to modify the PVSA for cruise-ships to do this during the test-cruise phase.    I think I would sign up for one of the test passengers for something like this after more vaccinations are in place.

 

(and I'm talking Celebrity here,   not ACME Cruiselines)

 

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by JRG

[cruisestitch]

It’s nice to dream but first you would need to 

 

1) get rid of the PVSA

2) get the CDC to authorize cruises longer than 7 days if you want to get from California to Alaska

3) get CBP to allow the foreign employees to be employed on such a cruise

 

those are three pretty big impediments

[ECCruise]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Chengpk75,   I have to point out that you are in error here.   One of their recent monthly newsletters has their public relations officer specifically stating that with respect to PVSA  "all options are on the table".

 

This does not reconcile to what you are claiming that CLIA is saying and voids your argument.

 

Also,   I haven't delivered the second-half of the one-two punch that will change posters mind about how negatively PVSA is affecting the cruise industry.

 

Next post maybe.

 

 

Going from a what is to some degree a  Cruise line lobbying arm having "all options on the table" (as if they are in charge) to the government changing policy is a bit of a stretch, I am afraid.

[Fouremco]

 

7 minutes ago, JRG said:

 And what a wonderful boom for the Travel Agents

Yes, I expect that your idea will blow up in their faces.

[kathynorth]

@Chengpk75, I appreciate your clarifying all this information via an easy to understand explanation! Thank you

[JRG]

6 minutes ago, cruisestitch said:

those are three pretty big impediments

 

Thank you for keeping it brief,  and for using outline format.  I'm joking but it is efficient.

 

1) this is forum thread regression.

2) this is true I forgot about the 7 day thing,  my bad.

3) yes,  agreed.    

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Chengpk75,   I have to point out that you are in error here.   One of their recent monthly newsletters has their public relations officer specifically stating that with respect to PVSA  "all options are on the table".

 

This does not reconcile to what you are claiming that CLIA is saying and voids your argument.

 

Also,   I haven't delivered the second-half of the one-two punch that will change posters mind about how negatively PVSA is affecting the cruise industry.

 

Next post maybe.

 

 

 

But that was one public relations employee doing...........pubic relations. Certainly that does not void his argument. 

[nocl]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Been a while since I was on the Celebrity board, so didn't see this thread until now.  I will respond to some of the ideas/topics, without responding to snarky comments I usually get from a couple of the posters on this thread.

 

As noted by others, the PVSA refers to all passenger vessels, not just cruise ships, and the international definition of "passenger vessel" is any vessel that carries more than 12 persons for hire.  Because any relaxation/modification/exemption of this law would affect ships from other countries (you are wanting to allow foreign ships into the US), you have to deal with international law, and abide by the definition of "passenger vessel" as defined in that international law.

 

I'll cover an exemption to the PVSA first.  Under the PVSA, the only exemptions can be granted are for national security reasons, and I don't think cruises to Alaska qualify as national security reasons.  Further, exemptions are only allowed if there is no US flag service available on the route.  I think the Alaskan Maritime Highway system would have something to say about low cost foreign ships taking passengers to Alaska, as they are a US flag operation.

 

Next is the "every cruise is affected by the PVSA" and why granting an exemption to the PVSA would not be the only hurdle.  As others have noted, the "cruise to nowhere" vanished a few years ago, but most think that was because of the PVSA.  It wasn't, "cruises to nowhere" are specifically mentioned and allowed in the PVSA by foreign ships.  It was CBP who decided that they needed to enforce the visa rules evenly when dealing with foreign crew on cruises to nowhere.  They decided that a "cruise to nowhere" was essentially domestic work (work inside the US), and therefore the crew needed work visas, not crew visas, and as domestic work, would be subject to US labor laws.  This would increase labor costs about 5 times over the foreign crew (a Marad study showed this to be the case for US flag cargo ships over foreign ships, and those only had crews of 20-25).  So, either the lines increase their fares exponentially, or they lose even more money than sitting still, as the operating costs go up, they operate with reduced pax loads, and have to swallow all the credits from the previously cancelled cruises.

 

For LDEE, neither the PVSA nor the Jones Act were written to protect shipping on the East Coast.  The PVSA was written to enforce safety measures on passenger vessels in the US by requiring them all to be US vessels.  The Jones Act was written to protect the interests of Seattle shipowners who were losing their business to low cost Canadian shippers on the lucrative Alaskan routes.

 

For those who think it would be easy for the lines to reflag to US, there is the US built clause (which can of course be waived, by act of Congress), but there is no pool of documented US crew to fill those ships (and a US flag ship has to have 100% US citizens or Green Card holders (Green Cards are limited to 25% of unlicensed crew) as crew, so again you get into the wages and labor laws, and then you lose the tax exemption that foreign flag ships get for all income earned in the US.

 

For nocl, the last "run" on the PVSA was not about foreign built ships, but the fact that foreign ships were using a "technical stop" in Ensenada to meet the foreign port call requirement for Hawaii cruises from the West Coast.  It almost ended the Alaskan trade all together, when CBP felt they had to go beyond what NCL was requesting (an actual port call where passengers could get off, during the day in Ensenada) and decided that to meet the intent of the PVSA, the "majority" of port time should be at foreign ports.  This was dropped when even NCL requested it.

 

The President cannot make Executive Orders about just anything.  There are limits, and I don't believe that the PVSA counts as one of them.

 

Finally, on the PVSA, I will say that CLIA has stated that they are not interested in a change to the PVSA because of possible cost increases (wages, taxes, etc mentioned above).

 

As for the Jones Act and Puerto Rico, this was just misinformation.  The problem in PR after the hurricane was not the inability to get supplies to PR, it was the inability to distribute them within PR.  There were literally thousands of containers of aid sitting on the docks in San Juan, and no trucks or clear roads to move them.  I even saw an article about thousands of pallets of bottled water that were "found" a year later.  The docks in PR had no place to receive any more aid than the US ships had already brought.  I remember that there were exactly two foreign ships that brought aid directly from the US to PR (which is the Jones Act trade), as opposed to bringing supplies from overseas, which they are legally allowed to do.

Do you know when that was? I cannot find any bills  since the one sponsored by John McCain in 2001 showing up in the online Congressional records.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, nocl said:

Do you know when that was? I cannot find any bills  since the one sponsored by John McCain in 2001 showing up in the online Congressional records.

It was not a bill, it was a request for change to a federal regulation.  It was in 2007-2008.  McCain was always opposed to the Jones Act, got too much money from big agriculture, I suspect.

[nocl]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

It was not a bill, it was a request for change to a federal regulation.  It was in 2007-2008.  McCain was always opposed to the Jones Act, got too much money from big agriculture, I suspect.

Ok, so the last time Congress was involved was 2001.  An attempt that was limited only to allowing foreign built vessels to be reflagged and that went down in flames so to speak.

[KmomChicago]

1 hour ago, Wine-O said:

Why can't they stop for a few hours in Victoria and not let any pax off the ship.  If no one gets off the ship, why would that be an issue for the Canadians?    I believe that's what they did for cruises out of Calif where they stopped briefly in Ensenada, Mexico.  🍷 

 

Canada's verbiage specifically said Canadian waters. It didn't say ports.

[nocl]

49 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

But that was one public relations employee doing...........pubic relations. Certainly that does not void his argument. 

One of many comments made by cruise lines that have been proven incorrect.  Right along with many cruises sold that have no chance of cruising

[cruisestitch]

Canada MIGHT go for such a “technical stop” but the PVSA won’t allow it.