Technical Stop Only requested in Canada 2/25/21

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, Thrak said:

 

I'm confused. We have had port stops in Ensenada that were only 4 hours or 9 hours long and very short stops in Canada. I must be missing something here...

Back in 2007, when NCL complained to CBP about the other cruise lines' "technical stops" in Ensenada, CBP issued an "interpretive ruling" on the PVSA, that all port calls would need to be 48 hours long and the majority of all port time be in foreign ports to reflect the "intent" of the PVSA, even NCL responded by asking that CBP roll this back, to simply what NCL had asked for in the first place, that a "port call" had to be advertised in the cruise sales, and that passengers be allowed to go ashore.  This became CBP's final "interpretive" ruling.

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

Yes, curious too.  Have had several stops in Ensenada on Hawaii cruises where no on could disembark, and everything has been ok??????

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

Back in 2007, when NCL complained to CBP about the other cruise lines' "technical stops" in Ensenada, CBP issued an "interpretive ruling" on the PVSA, that all port calls would need to be 48 hours long and the majority of all port time be in foreign ports to reflect the "intent" of the PVSA, even NCL responded by asking that CBP roll this back, to simply what NCL had asked for in the first place, that a "port call" had to be advertised in the cruise sales, and that passengers be allowed to go ashore.  This became CBP's final "interpretive" ruling.

Was just there in 2019, in port for several hours, no one disembarked or was allowed.  

[chengkp75]

45 minutes ago, scottca075 said:

 

The Coronado ferry already has a non-US crew now along with about 50% of the workers in hotels and restaurants 40% in construction, 70% in gardening and landscape services in San Diego.

Well, they may look like "non-US" crew to you, but as a US flag, inspected passenger vessel, at a minimum 75% of the crew must be US citizens, and the remainder can be resident aliens (Green Card holders).  What do I care what percentage are "non-US" in other industries, that is not my concern, nor that of the PVSA and the USCG.  Your jingoism is showing.

 

And, given the number and severity of ferry accidents, fires, sinkings resulting in thousands of deaths around the world, I personally would not like to have foreign flag ferries operating in the US.

Edited February 28, 2021 by chengkp75

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, AnyMajorCruiseDude said:

Was just there in 2019, in port for several hours, no one disembarked or was allowed.  

Well, that was a violation of the PVSA, unless there was an underlying reason for not allowing passengers ashore, that was out of the cruise line's control.

[Thrak]

11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Back in 2007, when NCL complained to CBP about the other cruise lines' "technical stops" in Ensenada, CBP issued an "interpretive ruling" on the PVSA, that all port calls would need to be 48 hours long and the majority of all port time be in foreign ports to reflect the "intent" of the PVSA, even NCL responded by asking that CBP roll this back, to simply what NCL had asked for in the first place, that a "port call" had to be advertised in the cruise sales, and that passengers be allowed to go ashore.  This became CBP's final "interpretive" ruling.

 

Okay so no 48 hour requirement then. That explains the 8 hour stop in 2018.

[KeepCalmBearOn]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Sure the Congressmen can talk to the CBP....

 

No Congress can literally tell CBP what to do since Congress writes the laws.

 

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

but at the end of the day, it is CBP's decision, and the letter of the law that determines what is done.

 

Oh please. CBP has literally been told, "do NOT enforce the immigration laws of the United States" by presidential ukase. I have coffee every morning I am in Coronado with a couple of CBP officers, who are part of my 'solve the world's problems' coffee klatch.

 

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And given CBP's desire at the last time the "technical port call" was investigated, to require that foreign port calls be at least 48 hours long, and that the majority of port time on a cruise be in foreign ports, I don't see them changing this.

 

Again, you act as if CBP is some autonomous overlord. CBP does what it is told by elected officials. They aren't freelancing.

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

27 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, that was a violation of the PVSA, unless there was an underlying reason for not allowing passengers ashore, that was out of the cruise line's control.

Yes, at least we were told since we were delayed due to medical issues in Hawaii, so we didn't have to do the official thing.  Point is, we were able to do it.

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

BTW, we have also had this happen in Victoria, BC when we arrived very late in port, on an AK cruise from Seattle.

[ontheweb]

25 minutes ago, AnyMajorCruiseDude said:

Yes, at least we were told since we were delayed due to medical issues in Hawaii, so we didn't have to do the official thing.  Point is, we were able to do it.

There is a large difference between intentionally scheduling something against the law and an emergency situation that comes up whether it is medical as you cited, a weather problem, or a mechanical problem with the ship. As @chengkp75 has repeatedly posted even in those cases, a waiver must be requested.

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

33 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

There is a large difference between intentionally scheduling something against the law and an emergency situation that comes up whether it is medical as you cited, a weather problem, or a mechanical problem with the ship. As @chengkp75 has repeatedly posted even in those cases, a waiver must be requested.

Sure, but people die on every Hawaii cruise, based on our experience of a dozen cruises there in the last twenty years.  There is always several ambulance s waiting in Hilo upon arrival.  Then they wheel them off in in Maui, Honolulu, etc.  You can count on it.

[Ombud]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

There is a large difference between intentionally scheduling something against the law and an emergency situation that comes up whether it is medical as you cited, a weather problem, or a mechanical problem with the ship. As @chengkp75 has repeatedly posted even in those cases, a waiver must be requested.

Could it be temporarily modified as a tradeoff to get votes on another matter (stimulus bill)? All I'm saying is these are not ordinary times so perhaps the senators weren't wrong in trying to think outside the box

 

I still think it's interesting that 5 senators wrote what some of us thought

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Ombud

[2 cruises a year]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Considering that the Alaskan Congressman has not found anyone else to sponsor his bill, to just work around the PVSA, do you really think that either party, whether they control Congress and/or the White House, has any interest in granting an exemption (by suspending the Act) to the cruise lines?  I don't see the interest anywhere in Washington.

 

And, if you completely suspend the Act, especially for as long as you say, you open up the whole box of unintended consequences with the Coronado ferry reflagging and hiring non-US crew, and not being subject to USCG regulations.

Exactly about opening a new can of worms. (sorry to change your metaphor)  The PSVA and Jones Act affect a lot more than just Alaska and New England.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, AnyMajorCruiseDude said:

Sure, but people die on every Hawaii cruise, based on our experience of a dozen cruises there in the last twenty years.  There is always several ambulance s waiting in Hilo upon arrival.  Then they wheel them off in in Maui, Honolulu, etc.  You can count on it.

Done several round trip cruises to Hawaii all stopped in Ensenada.  Every time passengers got off.

 

Most of the time the stop happens as planned.  An exception is exactly that an exception.

 

Treated a bit different when it is not under the cruise lines control, compared to an intentional plan to ignore the requirement.

[rdsqrl]

1 hour ago, AnyMajorCruiseDude said:

Sure, but people die on every Hawaii cruise, based on our experience of a dozen cruises there in the last twenty years.  There is always several ambulance s waiting in Hilo upon arrival.  Then they wheel them off in in Maui, Honolulu, etc.  You can count on it.

Well, if they're already dead, it's not an emergency situation any more, is it? 

[Castaway Cowgirl]

4 hours ago, scottca075 said:

 

One party controls both the House and Senate and Presidency. Seems pretty simple to me.

That party won’t help a red state.

[caribill]

5 hours ago, Thrak said:

 

I'm confused. We have had port stops in Ensenada that were only 4 hours or 9 hours long and very short stops in Canada. I must be missing something here...

 

That was a proposal which was never adopted. Your 4 hour and 9 hour stops met (and would continue to meet) the current law.

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, ontheweb said:

There is a large difference between intentionally scheduling something against the law and an emergency situation that comes up whether it is medical as you cited, a weather problem, or a mechanical problem with the ship. As @chengkp75 has repeatedly posted even in those cases, a waiver must be requested.

 

8 hours ago, AnyMajorCruiseDude said:

Sure, but people die on every Hawaii cruise, based on our experience of a dozen cruises there in the last twenty years.  There is always several ambulance s waiting in Hilo upon arrival.  Then they wheel them off in in Maui, Honolulu, etc.  You can count on it.

This is "force majeure" or a situation that is out of the cruise line's control.  However, knowingly making a "technical stop" is within the line's control, so not allowed.

[chengkp75]

7 hours ago, Ombud said:

Could it be temporarily modified as a tradeoff to get votes on another matter (stimulus bill)? All I'm saying is these are not ordinary times so perhaps the senators weren't wrong in trying to think outside the box

 

I still think it's interesting that 5 senators wrote what some of us thought

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but it was 5 Congressmen out of 435, which is less significant than even 5 Senators out of 100.

[ontheweb]

18 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not to beat a dead horse, but it was 5 Congressmen out of 435, which is less significant than even 5 Senators out of 100.

Yes, there is a major difference between 5 Congressman and 5 Senators as to their influence.

 

The one possibility that could change any of this is if Alaska's Senator Murkowski weighed in as there is a possibility that she could be a swing vote needed to pass other legislation. But, as far as I know nothing has come out where she has commented on any legislation concerning cruises.

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, there is a major difference between 5 Congressman and 5 Senators as to their influence.

 

The one possibility that could change any of this is if Alaska's Senator Murkowski weighed in as there is a possibility that she could be a swing vote needed to pass other legislation. But, as far as I know nothing has come out where she has commented on any legislation concerning cruises.

I saw reporting last week or so, where she told reporters in Alaska that getting around the PVSA would be a very high hurdle, and she was not optimistic.

[ontheweb]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I saw reporting last week or so, where she told reporters in Alaska that getting around the PVSA would be a very high hurdle, and she was not optimistic.

And that is a far cry away from what the 5 Congressmen are saying, or what some posters in these threads think will be easily accomplished.

[SinbadThePorter]

10 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, given the number and severity of ferry accidents, fires, sinkings resulting in thousands of deaths around the world, I personally would not like to have foreign flag ferries operating in the US.

 

Is there really much of a demand for blue water ferry services in the US? I tried googling US ferry services, but except for bay and river based services, there didn't seem to be much of an industry for the PVSA to protect.

[chengkp75]

18 minutes ago, SinbadThePorter said:

 

Is there really much of a demand for blue water ferry services in the US? I tried googling US ferry services, but except for bay and river based services, there didn't seem to be much of an industry for the PVSA to protect.

The PVSA does not just protect "blue water" shipping.  It is in fact, designed to protect "coastwise" (domestic) shipping wherever.  The PVSA covers every single ferry in the US (there are about 220 ferry operators in 37 states), water taxis, commuter boats, dinner cruises, casino boats, sight seeing and whale watching excursion boats, and even large charter fishing boats.  Any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers for hire is a "passenger vessel", and it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act.  The PVSA and the Jones Act cover the same range of vessels that Australia's Coastal Trading Act does.

[chengkp75]

11 hours ago, scottca075 said:

No Congress can literally tell CBP what to do since Congress writes the laws.

And rewriting that law requires a lot more support than 5 Congressmen.