The PVSA is Anachronistic, Counterproductive, and Stupid, and Should be Repealed!

[Horizon chaser 1957]

Changing either Canadian law or the PVSA could be completely irrelevant if the CDC doesn’t finalize their plans for cruising to resume. The cruise lines are on a holding pattern before they can even begin the trials required.

Even if Canada welcomed cruise ships with open arms AND the PVSA disappeared entirely, there’s no Alaska cruise season if the ships can neither leave from Seattle nor arrive in Alaska.

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5863/?et_cid=3404859&fbclid=IwAR2eTwtCjWimM14YVUWTPy3I6OdQLXHcsTmh7zGSlog_ZyU0fWMVQIQTZ7g

 

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Horizon chaser 1957 said:

Changing either Canadian law or the PVSA could be completely irrelevant if the CDC doesn’t finalize their plans for cruising to resume. The cruise lines are on a holding pattern before they can even begin the trials required.

Even if Canada welcomed cruise ships with open arms AND the PVSA disappeared entirely, there’s no Alaska cruise season if the ships can neither leave from Seattle nor arrive in Alaska.

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5863/?et_cid=3404859&fbclid=IwAR2eTwtCjWimM14YVUWTPy3I6OdQLXHcsTmh7zGSlog_ZyU0fWMVQIQTZ7g

 

What probably has the cruise lines the most upset is that they can no longer sell the promise of those cruises, collect and hold money for months until they finally cancel.

[rkacruiser]

8 hours ago, Lady Arwen said:

Sorry, but the last two pages has been a discussion of American politics and not even remotely tied to cruising.  I think perhaps it would be prudent to move these discussions to a more appropriate forum.  Cruise Critic is not the place for political rhetoric.  Thank you.

 

7 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

Totally agree...getting far away from what we are supposed to be discussing....

 

6 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 

While I agree that there has been some drift, and that always happens no matter what the thread, since politics makes the laws, any discussion about changing laws will almost always venture into political debate.

 

Since few of us here on CC are lawyers, and fewer still admiralty lawyers, we can speculate all day on the legal aspects of the PVSA, but lets try not to bring partisan politics, nor politics in general, into the discussion.  It will take effort, but let's try before the thread gets locked.

 

It would be of great benefit for many of us if Cruise Critic would create a Private Message option for this web site.  If Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum can do so, why can't Cruise Critic?  

[ontheweb]

3 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

 

 

It would be of great benefit for many of us if Cruise Critic would create a Private Message option for this web site.  If Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum can do so, why can't Cruise Critic?  

Interesting idea. On the bottom of every page, it says share your feedback. And in the box where you can share, it says how can we improve this page?.

 

You can share your idea there.

[GUT2407]

1 hour ago, rkacruiser said:

 

 

 

It would be of great benefit for many of us if Cruise Critic would create a Private Message option for this web site.  If Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum can do so, why can't Cruise Critic?  

They used to offer it, there was to much abuse of the rules, so they haven’t offered it in years. Don’t think there is much hope of reintroducing it.

 

[rkacruiser]

1 hour ago, GUT2407 said:

They used to offer it, there was to much abuse of the rules, so they haven’t offered it in years. Don’t think there is much hope of reintroducing it.

 

 

I have been a member of Cruise Critic for many years and I have never been aware of such an option.  What "rules" could be violated if there are messages between individuals using PM that are not observable to others on that web site? 

 

 

[GUT2407]

3 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

I have been a member of Cruise Critic for many years and I have never been aware of such an option.  What "rules" could be violated if there are messages between individuals using PM that are not observable to others on that web site? 

 

 

I only know that I asked about it soon after joining and was told by an admin that it had once been available,

 

As I understand it, there was

 

Abuse

Trolling

Spam

Recommending agents

 

that caused issues.

[rkacruiser]

11 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

I only know that I asked about it soon after joining and was told by an admin that it had once been available,

 

As I understand it, there was

 

Abuse

Trolling

Spam

Recommending agents

 

that caused issues.

 

Thanks for your information.  Interesting, but there have been issues on Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum that have caused moderator concern.  Some of those discussions migrated to PM.  It was successful.  

 

Maybe the purpose of whomever/whatever company that supports these forums differ sufficiently for one to permit PM and one not?  

[nocl]

5 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Thanks for your information.  Interesting, but there have been issues on Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum that have caused moderator concern.  Some of those discussions migrated to PM.  It was successful.  

 

Maybe the purpose of whomever/whatever company that supports these forums differ sufficiently for one to permit PM and one not?  

I would expect that one has more incentive to block people recommending TA's than the other

[ontheweb]

12 hours ago, GUT2407 said:

I only know that I asked about it soon after joining and was told by an admin that it had once been available,

 

As I understand it, there was

 

Abuse

Trolling

Spam

Recommending agents

 

that caused issues.

I could see how recommending TAs or even TAs reaching out could be considered quite a problem given the rules that cruisecritic lives by.

[frankc98376]

We have been on R/T Seattle cruises that were unable to dock in Victoria due to weather. Officials came out to the ship and signed off paperwork.

We were told that when safety was in question this was allowed.  Wondering if this could be a temporary SOP as safety and health is definitely risked now.

[zonk42]

Interesting discussion.

 

Prior to last year, HAL could run a cruise from Seattle to Alaska, with a stop at Vancouver or Victoria, right? That cruise was, presumably, safe enough, compliant with regulations, etc.

 

Now, Canada forbids ships to visit. So, if HAL were permitted to run the exact same cruise, minus the Canada stop, what would be lost? How would *that* cruise’s safety, etc. be compromised in some way directly related to skipping one stop? I cannot see how it possibly would.

 

Am I missing something?

Edited February 14, 2021 by zonk42

[deliver42]

No, you're not missing anything but politics.

[chengkp75]

58 minutes ago, zonk42 said:

Interesting discussion.

 

Prior to last year, HAL could run a cruise from Seattle to Alaska, with a stop at Vancouver or Victoria, right? That cruise was, presumably, safe enough, compliant with regulations, etc.

 

Now, Canada forbids ships to visit. So, if HAL were permitted to run the exact same cruise, minus the Canada stop, what would be lost? How would *that* cruise’s safety, etc. be compromised in some way directly related to skipping one stop? I cannot see how it possibly would.

 

Am I missing something?

No, that cruise would not be any different, but the precedent of allowing a foreign flag ship to complete a "coastwise" (strictly domestic) cruise would open the floodgate for every other passenger vessel to reflag to foreign flag.  I underline "passenger" vessel, because a "passenger" vessel (the legal description of a cruise ship), is defined as any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers for hire.  So, now every ferry, commuter boat, water taxi, dinner cruise, casino boat, sight seeing or whale watching boat, duck boat, and large charter fishing boat could decide to fly the Panamanian flag.

 

So what, you say?  While the HAL ship met all regulations for a foreign flag ship making a foreign voyage (a voyage that goes to more than one country), they do not meet the regulations of a ship allowed to operate strictly within the US.  So, those vessels noted above could fire all their US crew, and hire foreign crew, disregard US labor laws, not pay US taxes, and disregard many USCG safety regulations (the USCG is allowed to promulgate stricter regulations for US flag ships, that they cannot enforce on foreign flag ships, per SOLAS).

 

On the other hand, if the PVSA were waived, then the foreign crew would be working in the US, on domestic voyages, so they would be required to have H2-B work visas, and not C1/D crew visas.  This would require the cruise lines to obtain thousands of these visas, follow US labor laws regarding the crew, and pay the crew the equivalent wage that a US worker would get in a similar position.

 

Folks don't understand that as soon as you make a law that affects more than one country (in this case the "port state" (the US) and the "flag state" (where the ship is registered)), you are not dealing simply with US law anymore, and you have to apply the tenets of maritime law, and this can get very complicated trying to do whatever you want, without violating maritime law or causing unintended consequences.

 

As a professional mariner, given the number of deaths in ferry accidents around the world, I would not like to see foreign flag passenger ships servicing our harbors and rivers.

Edited February 14, 2021 by chengkp75

[Roger88]

I am sure that people there are smarter that they seem. I always welcomed all those positive moves towards the general well-being of people. I also appreciate when there are organizations or volunteers step up to help people around them

[SJSULIBRARIAN]

Chengkp75's third paragraph pretty well sums it up - "paying the equivalent wage of a U.S. worker".  Can you imagine the cost of a cruise if the crew is paid the U.S. minimum wage which may go to $15.00 hr. soon and already that in Seattle.

[CruiserBruce]

1 hour ago, zonk42 said:

Interesting discussion.

 

Prior to last year, HAL could run a cruise from Seattle to Alaska, with a stop at Vancouver or Victoria, right? That cruise was, presumably, safe enough, compliant with regulations, etc.

 

Now, Canada forbids ships to visit. So, if HAL were permitted to run the exact same cruise, minus the Canada stop, what would be lost? How would *that* cruise’s safety, etc. be compromised in some way directly related to skipping one stop? I cannot see how it possibly would.

 

Am I missing something?

No. All the sailings from Seward were to Vancouver, one way, and then returned (separate one way cruise). All the sailings out of Seattle were roundtrip, with a stop in Victoria.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, CruiserBruce said:

No. All the sailings from Seward were to Vancouver, one way, and then returned (separate one way cruise). All the sailings out of Seattle were roundtrip, with a stop in Victoria.

When several years ago we did an Alaskan cruise (on Princess) roundtrip from Seattle, we stopped in Vancouver.

[tallyho8]

On 2/14/2021 at 4:15 PM, ontheweb said:

When several years ago we did an Alaskan cruise (on Princess) roundtrip from Seattle, we stopped in Vancouver.

You are allowed to stop in Victoria, Vancouver, Port Rupert or any other port in Canada.

[nocl]

On 2/14/2021 at 12:29 PM, SJSULIBRARIAN said:

Chengkp75's third paragraph pretty well sums it up - "paying the equivalent wage of a U.S. worker".  Can you imagine the cost of a cruise if the crew is paid the U.S. minimum wage which may go to $15.00 hr. soon and already that in Seattle.

Well NCL seems to do it with their US flagged cruises in Hawaii.  While they are a little higher than other mainstream cruises there were a percentage above, not multiples of.

[Donald]

5 hours ago, nocl said:

Well NCL seems to do it with their US flagged cruises in Hawaii.  While they are a little higher than other mainstream cruises there were a percentage above, not multiples of.

Yes,  NCL does do it in Hawaii - but they are just barely making a profit on the one remaining ship. And the only way they can make a profit is thanks to the US Taxpayers. When the American shipyard building the Pride of America went bankrupt. American taxpayers took the fall. Then NCL picked up the ship for next to nothing. They have no debt to service.

Now they are stuck with a ship that can only legally sail in Hawaii, without a casino or duty free anything. Most guests buy drinks ashore, where they are cheaper, and rent cars to make their own shore excursions. The ship is little more than a hotel that floats between the islands late at night.  

They don’t want to sell it to another cruise line - who could use it to compete against them.

They can’t change the flag without losing - permanently - their chance to make domestic cruises in the USA.

The Pride of America was poorly designed and built, and is a huge white elephant that can only (barely) survive in Hawaii.

American Taxpayers shelled out several hundred million dollars to cover the bankruptcy, then NCL invested nearly three billion dollars more to set up their Hawaii Operations.

Then the other two American flag ships were re-flagged and sent to other parts of the world - where they can actually make a profit.

After burning all that money, NCL is stuck with one big lemon, and no viable choice to do anything profitable with it.

[chengkp75]

6 hours ago, nocl said:

Well NCL seems to do it with their US flagged cruises in Hawaii.  While they are a little higher than other mainstream cruises there were a percentage above, not multiples of.

Well, I don't paint a dark a picture as the previous poster, but I agree with most of what he says regarding the POA.  When NCL started the operation, they set fares to a level where they could make a profit, and the other cruise lines saw how high those fares were, and knew they could charge slightly less and make even more money given their lower costs, on a cruise to Hawaii from the West Coast, so during the time that NCL had 3 ships operating in Hawaii, competition rose by 500%.  This drove fares down to the point that NCL was losing $175 million per year on the 3 Hawaiian ships, since they had to reduce fares to match the foreign competitors.  And, the foreign ships, cruising from the West Coast, could offer a 14 day cruise (with several times the fuel cost, since they had 5 sea days each way) for less than NCL could make money on a 7 day cruise.

 

The original plan by KT Lim, the CEO of Genting Group, that owned NCL at the time of the Hawaiian start up, was to have the ships as "loss leaders" (if they actually made money, that was gravy), while using the US owned and US crewed ships as "cover" for a foreigner who wanted to buy up Hawaiian infrastructure (he planned on buying hotels, golf courses, tour companies) where the real money would be made.  

[Gail & Marty sailing away]

On 2/14/2021 at 3:04 PM, chengkp75 said:

No, that cruise would not be any different, but the precedent of allowing a foreign flag ship to complete a "coastwise" (strictly domestic) cruise would open the floodgate for every other passenger vessel to reflag to foreign flag.  I underline "passenger" vessel, because a "passenger" vessel (the legal description of a cruise ship), is defined as any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers for hire.  So, now every ferry, commuter boat, water taxi, dinner cruise, casino boat, sight seeing or whale watching boat, duck boat, and large charter fishing boat could decide to fly the Panamanian flag.

 

So what, you say?  While the HAL ship met all regulations for a foreign flag ship making a foreign voyage (a voyage that goes to more than one country), they do not meet the regulations of a ship allowed to operate strictly within the US.  So, those vessels noted above could fire all their US crew, and hire foreign crew, disregard US labor laws, not pay US taxes, and disregard many USCG safety regulations (the USCG is allowed to promulgate stricter regulations for US flag ships, that they cannot enforce on foreign flag ships, per SOLAS).

 

On the other hand, if the PVSA were waived, then the foreign crew would be working in the US, on domestic voyages, so they would be required to have H2-B work visas, and not C1/D crew visas.  This would require the cruise lines to obtain thousands of these visas, follow US labor laws regarding the crew, and pay the crew the equivalent wage that a US worker would get in a similar position.

 

Folks don't understand that as soon as you make a law that affects more than one country (in this case the "port state" (the US) and the "flag state" (where the ship is registered)), you are not dealing simply with US law anymore, and you have to apply the tenets of maritime law, and this can get very complicated trying to do whatever you want, without violating maritime law or causing unintended consequences.

 

As a professional mariner, given the number of deaths in ferry accidents around the world, I would not like to see foreign flag passenger ships servicing our harbors and rivers.

Thanks for sharing  ..

[rkacruiser]

On 2/14/2021 at 1:09 AM, nocl said:

I would expect that one has more incentive to block people recommending TA's than the other

 

You are undoubtedly correct.  I have never read any TA recommendations on AU.  What seems to be objectionable are posts that are deemed by the moderators to be to "off the topic" or "too political and not relevant to Amtrak".  Understandable, I think.  

[zonk42]

On 2/14/2021 at 3:37 PM, CruiserBruce said:

No. All the sailings from Seward were to Vancouver, one way, and then returned (separate one way cruise). All the sailings out of Seattle were roundtrip, with a stop in Victoria.

Ok, thanks for that clarification.