Home Affairs Says All Foreign-Flagged Cruise Ships Must Employ Aussie Staff

[NSWP]

On 5/15/2021 at 1:22 PM, Chiliburn said:

That right ,the price will have to go up to meet our award or the service will come down.

It will be $2000 a day in an inside cabin on P and O Straya if all Aussie crew. They will quadruple what current crews get, plus overtime over 8 hrs and weekend loadings.

[Chiliburn]

11 minutes ago, NSWP said:

It will be $2000 a day in an inside cabin on P and O Straya if all Aussie crew. They will quadruple what current crews get, plus overtime over 8 hrs and weekend loadings.

What Union would would that come under uncle Les?

 

[NSWP]

17 minutes ago, Chiliburn said:

What Union would would that come under uncle Les?

 

Maritime Union or Liquor Employee Union?🌶

[Chiliburn]

5 minutes ago, NSWP said:

Maritime Union or Liquor Employee Union?🌶

I suppose Captains circular and Crown & Anchor wouldn’t be recognised in the Union lounge.

[NSWP]

4 minutes ago, Chiliburn said:

I suppose Captains circular and Crown & Anchor wouldn’t be recognised in the Union lounge.

At $2000 a day, one would expect a complimentary adult beverage, chili.  Schooner of Dom Perignon please.

Edited May 16, 2021 by NSWP

[Chiliburn]

7 minutes ago, NSWP said:

At $2000 a day, one would expect a complimentary adult beverage, chili.  Schooner of Dom Perignon please.

Only if your sea card has a little symbol that indicates you are a paid up member of a union,   uncle Les .

 

Other wise your cabin won’t be cleaned, you get a dirty plate when you finally get served and in the theatre you are seated behind a support column.

[ericfromri]

On 5/15/2021 at 8:17 AM, Chiliburn said:

If you are referring to my claims about Pride of America.

The people I where talking to where Australian.

And Pride of America is a ship that has American crew that is Unionised.

I believe it sails around the Hawaiian islands and that’s why it has the Americans to satisfy immigration laws.

 

So I’m told.

U.S. flagged cruise ship

A special exemption on the part of the U.S. government allowed the modified, mostly German-built ship to attain U.S. registry.^[27]Since Pride of America is registered in the U.S., she is subject to American labor laws and is staffed by a mostly American crew. This is in contrast to most other cruise ships, which are registered in flag of convenience countries and have mainly foreign crews. In addition, Pride of America has no casino onboard, because she never leaves U.S. waters. The American registry allows the ship to travel solely between U.S. ports, unlike all other foreign flagged cruise ships that must abide by the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886.

Edited May 16, 2021 by ericfromri

[MicCanberra]

That (government's requirements) may well be the death knell to the mass market ships coming here for a year or two.

[OzKiwiJJ]

Just now, MicCanberra said:

That (government's requirements) may well be the death knell to the mass market ships coming here for a year or two.

Yes, I think that too.

 

I wonder if the government "genius" who thought this one up ever stopped to think where these mythical Australian crew members are going to come from?

[By The Bay]

1 hour ago, ericfromri said:

U.S. flagged cruise ship

A special exemption on the part of the U.S. government allowed the modified, mostly German-built ship to attain U.S. registry.^[27]Since Pride of America is registered in the U.S., she is subject to American labor laws and is staffed by a mostly American crew. This is in contrast to most other cruise ships, which are registered in flag of convenience countries and have mainly foreign crews. In addition, Pride of America has no casino onboard, because she never leaves U.S. waters. The American registry allows the ship to travel solely between U.S. ports, unlike all other foreign flagged cruise ships that must abide by the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886.

Why are they not using the Pride of America for the Alaskan season?

[Chiliburn]

22 minutes ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

Yes, I think that too.

 

I wonder if the government "genius" who thought this one up ever stopped to think where these mythical Australian crew members are going to come from?

A good compromise would be pacific island worker but as you said we can’t staff our hotels and restaurants as it is until we get some backpackers.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Chiliburn

[By The Bay]

Are we getting our knickers in a knot about something that is not going to happen? The wording on the Home Affairs website is:

 

"Crew of large passenger vessels (up to 99 berths, inclusive) are not exempt from Australia’s travel restrictions ". My emphasis.

 

My reading is that the ruling doesn't cover cruise ships with more than 99 berths. 🤔 What do you think?

[Chiliburn]

17 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

That (government's requirements) may well be the death knell to the mass market ships coming here for a year or two.

The way they where treated a year ago and at the moment it would turn anyone off.
If a better market opened up we will loose some ships.
 

[d9704011]

9 minutes ago, By The Bay said:

Why are they not using the Pride of America for the Alaskan season?

Here is an excerpt from a letter from the US GAO to Senator McCain in 2004:

NCL was recently granted a legislative exemption7 from the U.S.-built requirement of U.S. vessel documentation law to operate three foreign-built cruise ships in limited domestic itineraries under the U.S. flag.8 These ships must meet all other requirements to operate under the U.S. flag, including U.S. ownership requirements and operating with a U.S. crew. NCL has created a U.S. subsidiary, NCL America, to meet the U.S. ownership requirements to operate U.S.-flag vessels in domestic trade.9 Because the U.S.-built requirement is waived and the vessels will be operating under the U.S. flag, these ships will be considered qualified to operate in the domestic trade. These ships are therefore unaffected by the restrictions of the PVSA. However, the exemption limits the markets these ships may serve. NCL is required to keep the ships in "regular service" in Hawaii and is restricted from using the exempted vessels for transporting passengers to ports in the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, or Alaska.10 NCL is scheduled to begin service in Hawaii in July 2004.

[Chiliburn]

2 minutes ago, By The Bay said:

Are we getting our knickers in a knot about something that is not going to happen? The wording on the Home Affairs website is:

 

"Crew of large passenger vessels (up to 99 berths, inclusive) are not exempt from Australia’s travel restrictions ". My emphasis.

 

My reading is that the ruling doesn't cover cruise ships with more than 99 berths. 🤔 What do you think?

I think that’s the current ban ,large ships are not exempt.

[By The Bay]

2 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

Here is an excerpt from a letter from the US GAO to Senator McCain in 2004:

NCL was recently granted a legislative exemption7 from the U.S.-built requirement of U.S. vessel documentation law to operate three foreign-built cruise ships in limited domestic itineraries under the U.S. flag.8 These ships must meet all other requirements to operate under the U.S. flag, including U.S. ownership requirements and operating with a U.S. crew. NCL has created a U.S. subsidiary, NCL America, to meet the U.S. ownership requirements to operate U.S.-flag vessels in domestic trade.9 Because the U.S.-built requirement is waived and the vessels will be operating under the U.S. flag, these ships will be considered qualified to operate in the domestic trade. These ships are therefore unaffected by the restrictions of the PVSA. However, the exemption limits the markets these ships may serve. NCL is required to keep the ships in "regular service" in Hawaii and is restricted from using the exempted vessels for transporting passengers to ports in the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, or Alaska.10 NCL is scheduled to begin service in Hawaii in July 2004.

Thanks for the explanation. Have the legislators ever sought to have Alaska removed from the exemption?

[By The Bay]

4 minutes ago, Chiliburn said:

I think that’s the current ban ,large ships are not exempt.

However, they can apply for an exemption?

[Aus Traveller]

The suggestion that the cruise ships should have Australian crew might have just been a comment. I don't think it was stated as government policy. As we all can see, it just would not work.

 

There are not sufficient people trained in hospitality who would be available to work on a cruise ship. When they can earn good money while living at home with their family and seeing their friends on their days and nights off, not many would take a job on a ship. They don't even get to 'see the world' (unless they are on a world cruise 🙂) because the ships usually go to a limited number of ports. If they could employ Aussies, the cruise line would have to pay more than they currently do. My estimate is that the pay would have to be increased by around 50% plus superannuation contribution. This would increase cruise prices.

[Aus Traveller]

11 minutes ago, Chiliburn said:

A good compromise would be pacific island worker but us you said we can’t staff our hotels and restaurants as it is until we get some backpackers.

Pre-COVID, P&O Australia had quite a few crew (room stewards, waiters etc) from Vanuatu.

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, By The Bay said:

Thanks for the explanation. Have the legislators ever sought to have Alaska removed from the exemption?

 

You don't exempt Alaska you have to exempt the individual ships. Apparently it has only happened once during WWII and IIRC it was because there was a need to get certain supplies somewhere. The PVSA isn't a cruise ship legislation, it affects all ships that carry passengers including ferries that is why exemptions are so difficult to gain. 

[Chiliburn]

1 hour ago, By The Bay said:

Thanks for the explanation. Have the legislators ever sought to have Alaska removed from the exemption?

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/25000-2021-alaska-cruise-season-may-be-saved-as-senate-passes-key-bill.html

[MicCanberra]

3 hours ago, By The Bay said:

Why are they not using the Pride of America for the Alaskan season?

As it cruises Hawaii year round why would they.

[jldev]

Here in NZ, we had the ridiculous situation earlier this year when our government denied the Ponant ship in to NZ on the basis that the Ministry of Immigration would not give visas to the non-essential crew (those not essential to operate the ship) and, if Ponant wanted to cruise here, the non-essential roles needed to be filled with New Zealanders.  Back then I argued that the Ministry of Immigration are ignorant about what is required of crew on a cruise ship.  I explained that all crew are responsible for dual roles – their main role AND their role in a ship emergency.  Each crew member, including bartenders, waiters, beauty spa workers, cabin attendants etc (i.e. those deemed to be “non-essential” by the Ministry of Immigration) has a very important duty to fulfill in emergencies such as fire or ship evacuation. Complex training goes into preparing these crew for these emergency roles.  Therefore, there is no way that those crew members are non-essential to the operation of a safe passenger cruise and it is totally illogical why they would be denied visas.

 

So, from the sound of this, the Australian government might be going down the same path.... 

 

 

   

[onlyslightlymad]

On 5/17/2021 at 5:07 PM, jldev said:

Here in NZ, we had the ridiculous situation earlier this year when our government denied the Ponant ship in to NZ on the basis that the Ministry of Immigration would not give visas to the non-essential crew (those not essential to operate the ship) and, if Ponant wanted to cruise here, the non-essential roles needed to be filled with New Zealanders.  Back then I argued that the Ministry of Immigration are ignorant about what is required of crew on a cruise ship.  I explained that all crew are responsible for dual roles – their main role AND their role in a ship emergency.  Each crew member, including bartenders, waiters, beauty spa workers, cabin attendants etc (i.e. those deemed to be “non-essential” by the Ministry of Immigration) has a very important duty to fulfill in emergencies such as fire or ship evacuation. Complex training goes into preparing these crew for these emergency roles.  Therefore, there is no way that those crew members are non-essential to the operation of a safe passenger cruise and it is totally illogical why they would be denied visas.

 

So, from the sound of this, the Australian government might be going down the same path.... 

 

 

   

While that was what was reported in some newspapers that was not what happened.  The Ponant ship was chartered to a NZ company.  Cruise ships are not allowed into NZ under the Maritime Border Order issued due to the pandemic.  There are exemptions available.

 

The NZ Company applied for an exemption to the Director-General of Health under the grounds that the ship was being delivered to a NZ business.  This exemption was granted.

 

After the ship had already departed for NZ, visa applications were made to the Ministry of Immigration.  The visas were granted for the technical crew who were deemed necessary for the purpose of delivering the ship.  The visas were rejected for all those on board not deemed necessary to deliver the ship eg bartenders.  Cruise ships were and still are banned under the maritime order.

 

I have explained this so many times that I am beginning to feel like an expert.

[lissie]

18 hours ago, onlyslightlymad said:

 

I have explained this so many times that I am beginning to feel like an expert.

Plus NZ did approve the arrival of the Russian flagged ship Spirit of Enterby which is used by Heritage Expeditions. We sailed on her in January and can confirm that there were both NZ crew (expedition directory - cruise director and mission specialists) - but also about 60 Russian crew including  cabin cleaners, cooks etc