With Canada now closed to cruises until 2022 is now the time to repeal Jones’ Law?

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

I think everyone is well aware of the COVID impact. But this is a cruise forum. There’s nothing wrong with people focusing on the impact to businesses associated with cruise travel. 

 

Of course and understood -- as long as the discussions are just that. But I have seen increasingly heated posts on some threads from those who seem about to pop a gasket that getting cruising restarted isn't the number one thing on the minds of all government, public sector, health care, etc. agencies. 

 

Let's just keep things in perspective.

 

[ldubs]

4 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

 

So, my point is that waiving a section of the PVSA would not change anything in the Jones Act (which regulates commercial shipping).  And simply issuing a waiver for passenger/cruise ships operating between US States would be how I would approach writing such an order.   The argument that such a waiver would impact labor law is probably not relevant since a waiver would not even need to speak to that issue. 

 

That is my issue.  I have a hard time wrapping my arms around waiving our laws for jobs on "American soil" in order to have inexpensive cruises.   

[JRG]

50 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

simply to get someone a vacation during a pandemic.

 

Is this really what you think?   

[Hlitner]

32 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

That is my issue.  I have a hard time wrapping my arms around waiving our laws for jobs on "American soil" in order to have inexpensive cruises.   

I am confused.  How is simply bypassing a stop at a distant foreign port going to impact jobs on "American Soil."  I know there has been a tendency to overcomplicate this entire issue but when you cut through all the various agendas it can simply be a move to help the cruise industry get moving, help the port workers in the USA get more work, help the airlines get more business (which creates more jobs), etc.  I cannot think of any negative impact on the USA.  The only loser would be Canada and their government has indicated that they want to lose the cruise business.....at least for now.

 

Of course this all assumes that the CDC and the cruise industry can work out their differences and find a way to cruise safely.

 

Hank

[JRG]

5 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

I know there has been a tendency to overcomplicate this entire issue but when you cut through all the various agendas it can simply be a move to help the cruise industry get moving, help the port workers in the USA get more work, help the airlines get more business (which creates more jobs), etc.

 

Exactamundo!

[CruiserBruce]

44 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

Is this really what you think?   

Isn't that really the main motive here...waive/alter/ fix the PVSA so we can start cruising again, as Canada isn't likely to reopen any time soon? 

[JRG]

16 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

Isn't that really the main motive here...waive/alter/ fix the PVSA so we can start cruising again, as Canada isn't likely to reopen any time soon? 

 

I gave Cruisemom42 my thoughts on this that maybe we could squeeze a prototype "Test Cruise" for the CDC and Cruiselines to consider.   It seems like maybe they want our feedback on this too.

 

But just as critical a motive for me is that Biden signs that Executive Order supposedly in his in-basket to grant temporary PVSA waiver to help the Economy of Alaska.  You should know that as an EMT,  the long term pressure of economic deprivation upon humans can be just as devastating as the physical trauma.

 

Our son proposed to his wife in the train car at the base of WhitePass Railroad,   so it means something to us on a personal level if we can help.

 

We don't have to go there this year,  but A lot of people have plans still "on hold".

 

Celebrity is making some interesting rumbling too so it bears watching.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by JRG

[ldubs]

1 minute ago, Hlitner said:

I am confused.  How is simply bypassing a stop at a distant foreign port going to impact jobs on "American Soil."  I know there has been a tendency to overcomplicate this entire issue but when you cut through all the various agendas it can simply be a move to help the cruise industry get moving, help the port workers in the USA get more work, help the airlines get more business (which creates more jobs), etc.  I cannot think of any negative impact on the USA.  The only loser would be Canada and their government has indicated that they want to lose the cruise business.....at least for now.

 

Of course this all assumes that the CDC and the cruise industry can work out their differences and find a way to cruise safely.

 

Hank

 

The PVSA allows foreign flag ships that don't have to follow US laws if they are international, meaning they include a foreign port.  Assuming I have that correct, then excluding the foreign port for the convenience of restarting cruises means American passenger shipping is no longer American.  Kind of a stretch, but why not help all of our local businesses by waiving various laws that make businesses more difficult & expensive.   Yes quite a stretch and I understand these ships are not staffed currently with American workers, but it is that concept that causes my problem with simply waiving the law that applies to doing business in our country.  

 

Perhaps a better point to this discussion is that no one has come up with adequate controls for cruises during the pandemic.   The way things are currently there is no compromises that would allow cruises to safely happen while the pandemic is uncontrolled.    And of course, once the pandemic is controlled, then cruises can restart without any change to the PVSA.  

[JRG]

2 minutes ago, JRG said:

I gave Cruisemom42 my thoughts on this that maybe we could squeeze a prototype "Test Cruise" for the CDC and Cruiselines to consider. 

 

Say San Francisco to Ketchikan to start.   there and back again.  maybe. 

 

The Critical Path for me reads like this:

1) we get the Test Cruise Specifications from the CDC.

2)we get a waiver for the PVSA

3)Cruiselines meet the specs and get the green light

4)Cruiselines can then sail point to point in the US for the Test Cruises.

5)Then we can all start using our FCC's.

 

(Recognizing full and well that the bigger issue is the Pandemic and the Vaccination).

I don't need to be reminded of that.  

[broberts]

Ahem, it may have escaped the notice of some posting here that there is an ongoing pandemic that has killed almost half a million Americans in the last 12 months. Encouraging interstate travel and thus virus transmission strikes me as very unwise.

 

[JRG]

Ok,  thanks for reminding us.

[Hlitner]

34 minutes ago, broberts said:

Ahem, it may have escaped the notice of some posting here that there is an ongoing pandemic that has killed almost half a million Americans in the last 12 months. Encouraging interstate travel and thus virus transmission strikes me as very unwise.

 

And that certainly is the message sent by your government and ours.   That being said, some of us continue to travel albeit using a high degree of caution due to COVID.   We do our best to strike a balance between continuing to live our life the way we enjoy and also following precautions for COVID mitigation.  And yes, that does mean assuming some extra risk which many are fast to point out :).  As to what you call "Interstate travel" I am not sure that is much more risky then traveling to our local supermarket.   Since this darn pandemic started we have tried to spend a lot of time in warm nice climates (like in Puerto Vallarta where we are living this winter) so that we can stay outdoors, in the sun, and socially distanced from most folks.   All the science favors folks being outdoors as opposed to being indoors.  But somehow that has been ignored by some folks who think they are safer indoors....this despite statistics showing that over 80% of COVID cases are spread between families indoors!

 

Hank 

[c-boy]

48 minutes ago, broberts said:

Ahem, it may have escaped the notice of some posting here that there is an ongoing pandemic that has killed almost half a million Americans in the last 12 months. Encouraging interstate travel and thus virus transmission strikes me as very unwise.

 

    you will probably soil your under garments if you log into flighttracker, and view the global pandemic unfolding before our eye's. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

And that certainly is the message sent by your government and ours.   That being said, some of us continue to travel albeit using a high degree of caution due to COVID.   We do our best to strike a balance between continuing to live our life the way we enjoy and also following precautions for COVID mitigation.  And yes, that does mean assuming some extra risk which many are fast to point out :).  As to what you call "Interstate travel" I am not sure that is much more risky then traveling to our local supermarket.   Since this darn pandemic started we have tried to spend a lot of time in warm nice climates (like in Puerto Vallarta where we are living this winter) so that we can stay outdoors, in the sun, and socially distanced from most folks.   All the science favors folks being outdoors as opposed to being indoors.  But somehow that has been ignored by some folks who think they are safer indoors....this despite statistics showing that over 80% of COVID cases are spread between families indoors!

 

Hank 

  Hank, hope you are staying safe there in Mexico 👍

[Aquahound]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

 

So, my point is that waiving a section of the PVSA would not change anything in the Jones Act (which regulates commercial shipping).  And simply issuing a waiver for passenger/cruise ships operating between US States would be how I would approach writing such an order.   The argument that such a waiver would impact labor law is probably not relevant since a waiver would not even need to speak to that issue.  Any subsequent court battles (if any) would likely take years and become moot when the COVID emergency has ended and things could return to  norms unless Congress were to decide that there is no need for the "distant foreign port" requirement in the PVSA.

 

 

Thank you Hank.  You make a good point here, and some people's opinions of PVSA seem to be drawn form a lack of understanding (and knowledge) of the laws.  It's the Passenger Vessel Services act, not the Cruise Vessel Services Act.  

 

First, it's written in to the law that only the DHS Secretary has the authority to grant on-the-spot PVSA waivers, and they must be in the interest of national defense.

 

To your point....When a non national defense waiver is granted from the PVSA, it must be introduced as a bill and after going through govt bureaucracy, written in to 46 USC, such as the law granting Canadian vessels the authority to run ferry service in NY until US vessels came available (46USC55121).  Same happened with Puerto Rico and Alaska.  All examples I can think of pertained to passenger vessels vital to maintaining crucial commerce.  The only modern cruise ship example I'm aware of is NCL based on ships being partially built out of the US.  But even there, the ships (1 remaining) were US flagged and could only operate in Hawaii.

 

People keep talking about POTUS Executive Order.  I do not believe it is within POTUS authority to waive the PVSA via Executive Order.  Ref the carbon footprint piece...I'm left scratching my head on that one.  I'd love to provide a response, but I'm not sure what the point is. 

Edited February 13, 2021 by Aquahound

[ldubs]

5 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I agree totally, and think any attack on Heidi for his informative post is unwarranted.

 

Just a misunderstanding, I'm sure.   

 

Anyway, when we get past this horror pandemic and things return to normal we can start talking about buffet line cutting again!  I can't wait for that day!  

[crzndeb]

11 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

I'd vote for a proposal that every time someone on CC refers to the PVSA as the Jones Act, another mandatory 5 years is added before its repeal could even be considered.

 

I’m just glad you didn’t make it a drinking game. 😉

[broberts]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

We do our best to strike a balance between continuing to live our life the way we enjoy and also following precautions for COVID mitigation.  And yes, that does mean assuming some extra risk which many are fast to point out :).

 

58 minutes ago, c-boy said:

you will probably soil your under garments if you log into flighttracker, and view the global pandemic unfolding before our eye's. 

 

Thank you but my under garments are unsoiled. 

 

My comments concerning covid-19 have nothing to do with personal courage or lack there of. In fact the suggestion that they might is really an attempt at bullying.

 

No, I'm not so selfish as to think I may act as I see fit regardless of the effect on the well being of others. The spread of infections does no happen without assistance. As even a modicum of thought should make clear, some of this assistance comes from those that believe they are being ultra careful and from those that know better than anyone else.

[Shmoo here]

3 hours ago, JRG said:

Biden signs that Executive Order supposedly in his in-basket to grant temporary PVSA waiver

Where do you get this information from?  Biden has already said he supports the Jones Act and PVSA as they stand.

[ilikeanswers]

Maybe a host should pin a topic about PVSA and the Jones Act since this confusion comes up so often 🤔

 

As for Alaska while a part of me is sorry for them another part of me feels they kind of screwed themselves by literally putting all their tourism eggs into one basket. I remember watching a doco on Alaska port cities and I was really surprised to learn that about 60% of businesses in Ketchikan and Skagway are owned by Cruise line corporations and that was a few years so it could even be higher now. It just seems crazy to me to tie your whole economy to one business. It is sad when you read about the neglect and cuts on the Alaskan Marine Highway, it could have been promoted as one of the great journeys like the trans Siberian they could have diversified their tourism with independent travel which now the government says they want to encourage but I can't help thinking well it's a little too late. I don't think the PVSA is the problem I think the real issue is there has been so little investment into any tourism industry beyond cruising 😕. 

[Hlitner]

2 hours ago, Aquahound said:

 

Thank you Hank.  You make a good point here, and some people's opinions of PVSA seem to be drawn form a lack of understanding (and knowledge) of the laws.  It's the Passenger Vessel Services act, not the Cruise Vessel Services Act.  

 

First, it's written in to the law that only the DHS Secretary has the authority to grant on-the-spot PVSA waivers, and they must be in the interest of national defense.

 

To your point....When a non national defense waiver is granted from the PVSA, it must be introduced as a bill and after going through govt bureaucracy, written in to 46 USC, such as the law granting Canadian vessels the authority to run ferry service in NY until US vessels came available (46USC55121).  Same happened with Puerto Rico and Alaska.  All examples I can think of pertained to passenger vessels vital to maintaining crucial commerce.  The only modern cruise ship example I'm aware of is NCL based on ships being partially built out of the US.  But even there, the ships (1 remaining) were US flagged and could only operate in Hawaii.

 

People keep talking about POTUS Executive Order.  I do not believe it is within POTUS authority to waive the PVSA via Executive Order.  Ref the carbon footprint piece...I'm left scratching my head on that one.  I'd love to provide a response, but I'm not sure what the point is. 

You may be right about it not being within the authority of POTUS, but neither are many of the EOs signed by the past few presidents.  The way things work now is that a President does just about anything he wants and dares the courts to intervene.  Sometimes the courts do intervene and more often they find ways to stay out of the fray.   Even when the courts do get involved it can be months or years until there is a resolution and meanwhile the EO will often continue to be the rule of the land.  

 

So lets consider what happens if a President waives the "distant foreign port" requirement in the PVSA.  Who is going to have "standing" to go to court?  The US Ports will be happy, the cruise lines happy, the various US labor unions happy, etc.  If Canada wanted to go to court they would likely not have sufficient "standing" since the waiver really has zero impact on Canada (it was their own decision to refuse the cruise ships).  So, who is the aggrieved party?  Darned if I know.

 

Hank

[CruiserBruce]

2 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

You may be right about it not being within the authority of POTUS, but neither are many of the EOs signed by the past few presidents.  The way things work now is that a President does just about anything he wants and dares the courts to intervene.  Sometimes the courts do intervene and more often they find ways to stay out of the fray.   Even when the courts do get involved it can be months or years until there is a resolution and meanwhile the EO will often continue to be the rule of the land.  

 

So lets consider what happens if a President waives the "distant foreign port" requirement in the PVSA.  Who is going to have "standing" to go to court?  The US Ports will be happy, the cruise lines happy, the various US labor unions happy, etc.  If Canada wanted to go to court they would likely not have sufficient "standing" since the waiver really has zero impact on Canada (it was their own decision to refuse the cruise ships).  So, who is the aggrieved party?  Darned if I know.

 

Hank

More confusion.  For a roundtrip cruise, it's not a "distant foreign port". It's simply a foreign port. For a one way cruise between two US ports, then "distant foreign port" comes into play.

[cruisemom42]

11 hours ago, JRG said:

p.s   On a different note,  there is a movie on Netflix called "The Dig" that you may like.

 

Thanks -- watched it last weekend. Fabulous movie. 

 

On one of my recent visits to the British Museum, I stood eyeball to eyeball with the Sutton Hoo mask for nearly 20 minutes, undisturbed, just marveling at it. Then walked away to another area. Then came back again for another long look before leaving. It really is an amazing object.

 

 

[njhorseman]

33 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

 

So lets consider what happens if a President waives the "distant foreign port" requirement in the PVSA.  Who is going to have "standing" to go to court? 

American Cruise Lines and Uncruise Adventures .

[JRG]

1 minute ago, cruisemom42 said:

Thanks -- watched it last weekend. Fabulous movie. 

 

On one of my recent visits to the British Museum, I stood eyeball to eyeball with the Sutton Hoo mask for nearly 20 minutes, undisturbed, just marveling at it. Then walked away to another area. Then came back again for another long look before leaving. It really is an amazing object.

 

I 've done that in the Egyptian section of the Met so I know what you mean.  

 

 

[Heidi13]

34 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

American Cruise Lines and Uncruise Adventures .

 

In addition to the 2 companies you mentioned, I suspect you can also add NCL. With relaxing the PVSA, they would probably layoff of US crews on PoA, replacing them with lower cost and more traditional cruise ship officers and ratings. Maintenance and drydocking may also go to foreign yards.

 

Since the "P" in PVSA stands for passenger, I suspect the scope of the Act most likely includes all vessels licenced to carry > 12 pax, therefore all local ferries, launches, dinner cruises, etc. would be open to competition from low cost FoC operators.