Technical Stop Only requested in Canada 2/25/21

[gmjc2]

57 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

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

Gotta start somewhere!!

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, gmjc2 said:

Gotta start somewhere!!

Yet, given the President's already (within the first month of office) stated support for the Jones Act, I don't foresee much support to get around the PVSA, and even those 4 other Congressmen, while supporting Congressman Young in writing to Canada, did not bother to co-sponsor his bill to waive the PVSA.

Edited February 28, 2021 by chengkp75

[beg3yrs]

12 hours ago, scottca075 said:

 

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

Well, they can tell CBP what to do but CBP doesn't have to do it. If you recall from your 8th grade civics class, Congress writes laws and if passed, they are sent to the president for signature. Then it's a law. I won't get into details of vetoes and such, you can get out your old textbook and learn it (again).

 

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.

 

Again, you act as if CBP is some autonomous overlord. CBP does what it is told by elected officials. They aren't freelancing. CBP is under the executive branch of the US government. This branch is responsible for the enforcement of US law and policy. Elected officials from other branches have no such authority to make CBP do anything.

 

[Earthworm Jim]

12 hours ago, Ombud said:

Could it be temporarily modified as a tradeoff to get votes on another matter (stimulus bill)?

 

 

I'm no political expert, but I can see two ways a change in the PVSA could get folded into some bigger bill to get passed. 1) If the leaders of either the House (Pelosi) or Senate (Schumer) wanted it, they would have enough political juice to get it included. But I've yet to see any evidence that either of them have any interest in this issue. 2) If a single Democratic senator (and it would have to be a senator, not a House member) cared enough about it to take a stand and say they won't vote in favor of whatever bill the Democrats were trying to pass unless the requested changes to the PVSA were included. Because the Democrats need every single Senate vote for most things, since no Republicans have thus far been willing to break ranks.

 

So you'd need a Democratic senator willing to spend a lot of political capital to get this pushed through. The senators most likely to be interested (though they've showed no interest so far) are Alaska's senators, but they're both Republicans so have little leverage.

[AF-1]

This is an topic that has lots of chatter.  Let's see where we go with this

[KeepCalmBearOn]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

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.

 

Congress can amend that to "passenger vessels" by a certain capacity or tonnage.

 

Let's call the act by its real name, The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886. Grover Cleveland signed it into law. May I be so bold as to suggest it could use some modernization?

 

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

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

 

The Speaker of the House, a Californian it happens, can make whatever they choose to happen, happen. She happens to represent one of the largest passenger ports in the state and country.

[KeepCalmBearOn]

1 hour ago, Earthworm Jim said:

The senators most likely to be interested (though they've showed no interest so far) are Alaska's senators, but they're both Republicans so have little leverage.

 

New York and California, two very Blue states, have significant interest in cruises returning as soon as it is safely possible. All four Senators from these states are Democrats.

 

Regardless of how this plays out, The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 18 Flippin' 86 needs revising.

[chengkp75]

21 minutes ago, scottca075 said:

 

Congress can amend that to "passenger vessels" by a certain capacity or tonnage.

 

Let's call the act by its real name, The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886. Grover Cleveland signed it into law. May I be so bold as to suggest it could use some modernization?

 

 

The Speaker of the House, a Californian it happens, can make whatever they choose to happen, happen. She happens to represent one of the largest passenger ports in the state and country.

Actually, they can't, without rescinding various international maritime treaties like SOLAS.  So, you've done a meager amount of research into the PVSA, do you know why it was enacted?  It was enacted to protect passenger lives aboard steamboats in the US.  Do you know that the very same conditions exist today, where the USCG can enforce stricter regulations on US flag vessels than they can on foreign flag vessels, even ones that "homeport" in the US?  While I have no real issue with revising the "US built" clause of the PVSA, I have a whole lot of heartache with allowing foreign crew and foreign ships into the domestic market.  Given your jingoism, I would have thought you would feel the same, but I guess it all comes down to whether it gives you your vacation of choice.

[voljeep]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

e no real issue with revising the "US built" clause of the PVSA, I have a whole lot of heartache with allowing foreign crew and foreign ships into the domestic market

 deleted ... 

Edited February 28, 2021 by voljeep

[chengkp75]

35 minutes ago, scottca075 said:

The Speaker of the House, a Californian it happens, can make whatever they choose to happen, happen. She happens to represent one of the largest passenger ports in the state and country.

Really?

 

Port of Miami:  4.33 million

Port Everglades:  3.89 million

Port of Galveston:  1.9 million

Port of New Orleans:  1.2 million

Port of Seattle:  1.1 million

Port of LA/LB:  650,000

Port of NY/NJ:  593,000

Port of San Francisco:  300,000

[Lady Arwen]

44 minutes ago, scottca075 said:

 

New York and California, two very Blue states, have significant interest in cruises returning as soon as it is safely possible. All four Senators from these states are Democrats.

 

Regardless of how this plays out, The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 18 Flippin' 86 needs revising.

I just want to point out that Chengkp75 is a maritime expert and has an extensive working knowledge of cruiseships and maritime law that is remarkably advanced over anyone here on cc.  If he says it, then you can take it to the bank.  We’re  very fortunate to have him as a contributor on these boards.

[KeepCalmBearOn]

15 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Really?

 

Port of Miami:  4.33 million

Port Everglades:  3.89 million

Port of Galveston:  1.9 million

Port of New Orleans:  1.2 million

Port of Seattle:  1.1 million

Port of LA/LB:  650,000

Port of NY/NJ:  593,000

Port of San Francisco:  300,000

 

It would be nice if you sourced your information and explained it. It is obviously passengers, but there is no date of the information nor explanation if that is passengers originating from the port vs a port call. It would also be nice to know how many trips originate from each port. Be nice to see where San Diego ranks as well.

 

Lastly, taking the numbers as they are, SF looks to be a top ten port in the U.S., which would meet my definition of "one of the busiest in the U.S."

[chengkp75]

10 minutes ago, scottca075 said:

 

It would be nice if you sourced your information and explained it. It is obviously passengers, but there is no date of the information nor explanation if that is passengers originating from the port vs a port call. It would also be nice to know how many trips originate from each port. Be nice to see where San Diego ranks as well.

 

Lastly, taking the numbers as they are, SF looks to be a top ten port in the U.S., which would meet my definition of "one of the busiest in the U.S."

Just google cruise passenger volume at (whatever port).  Those figures are all 2019, and they represent passenger embarkations, not port calls. San Diego ranks below San Francisco, but not by much, about 250,000 if I remember.

 

So, since you feel that the "Passenger Vessel Services Act of 18 flipping 86", as I believe you styled it needs revision, please let us know how and what parts need revision.  Or, is it just, it affects my vacation, it needs to change?

Edited February 28, 2021 by chengkp75

[voljeep]

57 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

ave no real issue with revising the "US built" clause of the PVSA, I have a whole lot of heartache with allowing foreign crew and foreign ships into the domestic market. 

please expound on this why this would explicitly bother you to that extreme ...

[Earthworm Jim]

1 hour ago, scottca075 said:

 

New York and California, two very Blue states, have significant interest in cruises returning as soon as it is safely possible. All four Senators from these states are Democrats.

 

Regardless of how this plays out, The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 18 Flippin' 86 needs revising.

 

But they don't have Alaska cruises under 7 days, which is the main driver for this PVSA talk. New York does have the fall cruises to the Canadian Maritimes, but they aren't a big factor in New York's economy like the Alaska cruises are to Alaska.

[Roberto256]

24 minutes ago, scottca075 said:

Lastly, taking the numbers as they are, SF looks to be a top ten port in the U.S., which would meet my definition of "one of the busiest in the U.S."

 

What's an order of magnitude among friends...

[jangor]

17 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...

I am confused as well.  We have cruised to Alaska twice and never spent more that 12 hours in the Canadian port.

[triple7tahoe]

All this talk about what "Congressional Actions" it would take to revise the PVSA.  How about getting the CDC- Non Congress controlled--to rescind the 7 day restriction??

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, voljeep said:

please expound on this why this would explicitly bother you to that extreme ...

Because I know of the training and safety standards on both US flag and foreign flag ships, the environmental track record of US and foreign flag ships, and this is both for cruise and commercial shipping, from personal experience.  I know the difference in safety regulations that US flag ships must abide by, and those that foreign flag ships abide by.  I know the track record of ferries around the world, where thousands have lost their lives due to criminal negligence.

 

As for my CV, I have worked my entire career, 46 years, as a shipboard marine engineer.  I have sailed as Chief Engineer for over 40 of those years.  I have sailed on almost every type of commercial ship out there;  offshore drilling rigs, tankers, bulkers, container, RO/RO, and cruise ships.  Whether you believe me or not, it really doesn't matter to me.  I have been part of many firsts, and milestones, in the maritime industry, have assisted my country by sailing in war zones, and have obtained a certain reputation in the industry, but like all things, it must come to an end, and I will be retiring this year, so I will no longer have any dog in the fight.  I have supported cruise lines when I felt they were getting unfairly criticized here on CC, and I have also chastised those same cruise lines when I felt they had failed in their duty.

[voljeep]

3 minutes ago, Lady Arwen said:

That would be personal information and I have no authority to post it. 

However, Chengkp75 has been posting on these boards for many years (predominantly on HAL) and has numerous times offered his personal and professional background.  You would be quite interested to read it.  Perhaps if you asked him personally, he would oblige.

i'll wait until my question above is answered ...

 

I certainly don't question his knowledge - that's not my field ... I do have a concern about ...

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, voljeep said:

i'll wait until my question above is answered ...

 

I certainly don't question his knowledge - that's not my field ... I do have a concern about ...

About what?

[voljeep]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

the environmental track record of US and foreign flag ships, and this is both for cruise and commercial shipping, from personal experience

so you are concerned about how PRINCESS got caught dumping , right ?

[voljeep]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

About what?

since you asked - recent Cruise ship experience

[chengkp75]

Just now, voljeep said:

so you are concerned about how PRINCESS got caught dumping , right ?

Of course I am, and I have posted many, many times about Carnival Corps failure at corporate culture change to embrace environmental compliance.  I have worked with two companies that were caught in environmental violations (NCL was one) or that self-reported violations, and were placed on probation as Carnival Corp has been.  In both of those cases, it was the international flag fleet that caused the problems, but in both of those cases, the corporation did a 180 degree about face to embrace fully environmental compliance, and the other company had their compliance policy adopted by the DOJ as the "gold standard" and the requirement for all subsequent probations.  Much of what Carnival Corp is doing now is based on what we did a couple decades ago.  The problem is that Carnival Corp still "doesn't get it", and has not figured out that environmental compliance is going to be cheaper than the alternative.

 

I last sailed on a cruise ship in 2008, but I have friends still in the industry.  The maritime world is a small one.

[Outerdog]

32 minutes ago, scottca075 said:

 

The personal insult was not in that post there was in another, twice. I let the first one slide and didn't respond.

 

If you're referring to his use of the term "jingoism" -- I don't know that I would characterize that as a personal insult as much as an observation -- one I tend to agree with. Certainly you could rebut that, though, rather than bail out of a debate you were clearly losing, no?