Utah Senator's new bill would scrap PSVA, end need for stops in foreign ports for foreign-flagged ships

[voyageur9]

Given the surprising bipartisan support for the temporary lifting of PSVA restrictions this summer to allow Alaska cruises to resume without the need to stop in a Canadian port, this may get some traction.

 

Would have far-reaching impact on cruise line itineraries.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by voyageur9
typo

[Mary229]

Thanks for sharing this story.  

[KirkNC]

It will be interesting to see where this goes (or doesn’t).  No prediction from me as I never thought Congress could agree on anything.

[Heartgrove]

Strange how a land-locked state's senator would care about the PVSA. But we haven' seen his name in the news lately.

[DaveOKC]

This would be great for cruisers I think.  No more needless stops or out of the way routes.

 

 

[MARYVB]

It would give the possibility of another American port Instead of Victoria, Ensenada, etc. OR possibly eliminate a stop at an American port like Bar Harbor, ME or Key West.  I hope this goes through.

 

[jhannah]

That would be great, IMO. Let's hope it gains traction.

[idiebabe]

I agree that this would be fantastic!  Fingers crossed something comes out of it!  🤞

[POA1]

That's CRAZY! There are SO MANY coastal cruises that people use as actual transportation. We're going to Portland, Maine in a few weeks. We opted to take one of these new-fangled aeroplanes rather than steaming up the Atlantic coast.

 

Dadgummit!

[Mary229]

I can imagine a lot of "hopper" cruises on all of the coasts.  It would be quite the boom for a post-covid world when many do not want to do international travel.  The no-fly option will appeal to many also

[Cruise Suzy]

As I understand what has been explained on this forum many times, removing the PVSA is not something foreign flagged cruise lines would want It involves paying US wages, among other things.

[nocl]

I doubt the cruise lines will support any of the three. While they might impact the type Visa required by crew they do not label such cruises as being foreign (as the temp Alaska measure does) ao the issues with US taxes and other laws would still apply.  So cruise lines could do cruises without stopping at US ports with existing crew, would would run into issues with taxes and other labor laws.

[rkacruiser]

9 hours ago, Heartgrove said:

Strange how a land-locked state's senator would care about the PVSA. But we haven' seen his name in the news lately.

 

While I would like the Senator's proposal to gain traction, I think it is "much ado about little".  The Senator is up for re-election in 2022.  He already has at least three challengers for the Republican nomination.  And, even though he is Utah's Senior Senator, his State's Junior Senator seems to be more potentially effective than he.  

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

I doubt the cruise lines will support any of the three. While they might impact the type Visa required by crew they do not label such cruises as being foreign (as the temp Alaska measure does) ao the issues with US taxes and other laws would still apply.  So cruise lines could do cruises without stopping at US ports with existing crew, would would run into issues with taxes and other labor laws.

I can see State Department and CBP (Homeland Security) weighing in against the bills for visa reasons, USCG (again Homeland Security) weighing in on the inability of enforcing their regulations on foreign vessels in domestic trade, and organized labor (including the longshoremen) weighing in on allowing foreign workers to work in the US without work visas.  CLIA and the cruise lines have not pursued this because they know of the "unintended consequences" that would adversely affect their bottom line.  This will have to go to several committees for approval, it won't get the "acclamation" vote that the ATRA did.

[richstowe]

I wonder if these threats spur my government to consider the financial damage to Canadian cruise ports due to the cruise ship ban . Probably not but we'll see . 

[Vic The Parrot]

It's probably a publicity stunt to get attention (and votes) for "them".

 

So in other words, it won't happen. 

[zgscl]

12 hours ago, Cruise Suzy said:

As I understand what has been explained on this forum many times, removing the PVSA is not something foreign flagged cruise lines would want It involves paying US wages, among other things.

I think the other way around. My understanding is removing the PVSA would allow foreign flagged ships with non-us crew to transport passengers within and between us ports/waters. So basically we would lose Pride of America as a us flagged vessel and potentially the small ships could reflag as foreign ships an bring in international crew. 
 

It would open up a lot more itineraries to more ships though, such as Hawaii, eastern seaboard, west coast and Alaska without requiring an international port. If passed this could be a huge win for both cruise lines and US ports. 
 

It would be interesting to see a detailed economic analysis but I would expect that the job losses from the very few US flagged cruise ships (and shipyards that service them) would be more than offset by economic growth in the ports. 

[zgscl]

5 hours ago, richstowe said:

I wonder if these threats spur my government to consider the financial damage to Canadian cruise ports due to the cruise ship ban . Probably not but we'll see . 

If this passes it will be very interesting to see. On the east coast I think it would be virtually unaffected as Canada is the highlight of Canada New England cruises. 
 

On the west coast you would almost certainly lose most of if not all of the Hawaii cruises plus some of the Alaska cruises. That being said Victoria is very popular and ideally situated for a short evening stop on the way back to Seattle as is Vancouver. Also I don’t think Seattle has the capacity to take all of the cruises that started or ended in Vancouver pre-pandemic. I still think Vancouver and Victoria would see quite a bit of traffic in the Alaska & west coast cruise season both because of location and popularity. 
 

Ensenada  on the other hand would probably lose a lot more. Also the US west coast would probably lose most of their Hawaii trips but could potentially gain on coastal and Alaska cruises. 

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, zgscl said:

It would be interesting to see a detailed economic analysis but I would expect that the job losses from the very few US flagged cruise ships (and shipyards that service them) would be more than offset by economic growth in the ports

As noted, even if the specific definition of 800 pax as the limit for granting this exemption is found legal under international law (since you are involving ships of other nations, it no longer falls strictly within US jurisdiction), the cost analysis would involve the problems of crew visas (which I doubt any administration would allow to be simply crew visas) and the probability of having to pay US wages and meet US labor laws (even the percentage of non-resident aliens working on the Pride of America are required to have work visas, receive US wages, pay US taxes, and fall under US labor laws), and the additional cost of meeting USCG safety, certification, and training requirements.  Since Sen. Lee's bill does not designate call for specific routes to be "considered" as foreign voyages (as the ATRA does), then the cruises are "domestic" and will need to meet the above mentioned requirements.  Further, since the ships are now in domestic US trade, they will lose their "duty free" status, where all spare parts and supplies brought in from overseas are free of customs duty (they are considered to be "in bond" and in transit from the foreign point of origin to the foreign destination (the ship), and the "out of bond" liquor that the ship buys (no state or federal tax stamp on any of it) goes away.

 

If the passenger size limit is not found to be legal for a differentiation point, then this opens the entire PVSA fleet to reflagging.  Yes, the PVSA covers far more than the POA and the smaller US flag cruise ships.  It employs hundreds of thousands of US workers, and provides millions of dollars both to the US economy and the US tax rolls.  And, every dollar generated by the PVSA fleet stays in the US.

 

And, after a 10 year lobbying effort to get a PVSA exemption for Puerto Rico, only to see it collapse after about a year due to lack of passenger demand, CLIA is not interested in a repeal/revision of the PVSA because they know that the above added costs will adversely affect their bottom line, with little to no offsetting benefit.

[Himself]

5 hours ago, Vic The Parrot said:

It's probably a publicity stunt to get attention (and votes) for "them".

 

So in other words, it won't happen. 

 

 

Vic:  I did not think the temporary one would get through both houses and it did. 

[zgscl]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

As noted, even if the specific definition of 800 pax as the limit for granting this exemption is found legal under international law (since you are involving ships of other nations, it no longer falls strictly within US jurisdiction), the cost analysis would involve the problems of crew visas (which I doubt any administration would allow to be simply crew visas) and the probability of having to pay US wages and meet US labor laws (even the percentage of non-resident aliens working on the Pride of America are required to have work visas, receive US wages, pay US taxes, and fall under US labor laws), and the additional cost of meeting USCG safety, certification, and training requirements.  Since Sen. Lee's bill does not designate call for specific routes to be "considered" as foreign voyages (as the ATRA does), then the cruises are "domestic" and will need to meet the above mentioned requirements.  Further, since the ships are now in domestic US trade, they will lose their "duty free" status, where all spare parts and supplies brought in from overseas are free of customs duty (they are considered to be "in bond" and in transit from the foreign point of origin to the foreign destination (the ship), and the "out of bond" liquor that the ship buys (no state or federal tax stamp on any of it) goes away.

 

If the passenger size limit is not found to be legal for a differentiation point, then this opens the entire PVSA fleet to reflagging.  Yes, the PVSA covers far more than the POA and the smaller US flag cruise ships.  It employs hundreds of thousands of US workers, and provides millions of dollars both to the US economy and the US tax rolls.  And, every dollar generated by the PVSA fleet stays in the US.

 

And, after a 10 year lobbying effort to get a PVSA exemption for Puerto Rico, only to see it collapse after about a year due to lack of passenger demand, CLIA is not interested in a repeal/revision of the PVSA because they know that the above added costs will adversely affect their bottom line, with little to no offsetting benefit.

 

Honestly I was surprised that it passed so quickly and easily also. Great point about the passenger size limit and larger number of ships this could impact if the 800 pax limit is not upheld.  

 

I am not certain on the visa & pay issue. Would flag state labor laws not apply any more if the vessel was only in US waters? Even if that is the case would alternating US only and cruises that stop at a foreign port then exempt them from that? Ultimately a lot of this all depends on what actually passes (if anything). Certainly could be a lot of unintended consequences.

 

That said I really don't know how much movement there will be on this in congress. A one time exemption in response to global pandemic is quite different from a permanent change, but who knows congress can be unpredictable. 

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, zgscl said:

I am not certain on the visa & pay issue. Would flag state labor laws not apply any more if the vessel was only in US waters? Even if that is the case would alternating US only and cruises that stop at a foreign port then exempt them from that? Ultimately a lot of this all depends on what actually passes (if anything). Certainly could be a lot of unintended consequences.

This is why they no longer offer "cruises to nowhere".  Most people here on CC think it is the PVSA that prevents them, but they are actually specifically allowed as exemptions to the PVSA.  The reason they are not offered is the fact that CBP has ruled that workers on a cruise to nowhere (or a cruise that is within the US only) are working in the US, and therefore require an H2B work visa.  These are limited in number, are more difficult to obtain, and have restrictions on workers who work under these visas, like the employer has to pay the foreign worker what an equivalent US worker would make, and that all US labor laws would apply.  Regardless of flag state, if the voyage is domestic (or "coastwise" as an all US cruise would be), then the laws of the US apply.  Alternating cruises would not change things, as they would have to pay US wages for the all US cruise, and then could pay foreign wage for the foreign cruise.  The work visa rules apply even for a "one time, at the beginning of the season", one night cruise to nowhere.

 

The ATRA was passed by voice vote, where only the title of the bill is announced, so it is dressed as a covid recovery bill, without mentioning anything about the PVSA or cruise ships.

[zgscl]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

This is why they no longer offer "cruises to nowhere".  Most people here on CC think it is the PVSA that prevents them, but they are actually specifically allowed as exemptions to the PVSA.  The reason they are not offered is the fact that CBP has ruled that workers on a cruise to nowhere (or a cruise that is within the US only) are working in the US, and therefore require an H2B work visa.  These are limited in number, are more difficult to obtain, and have restrictions on workers who work under these visas, like the employer has to pay the foreign worker what an equivalent US worker would make, and that all US labor laws would apply.  Regardless of flag state, if the voyage is domestic (or "coastwise" as an all US cruise would be), then the laws of the US apply.  Alternating cruises would not change things, as they would have to pay US wages for the all US cruise, and then could pay foreign wage for the foreign cruise.  The work visa rules apply even for a "one time, at the beginning of the season", one night cruise to nowhere.

 

The ATRA was passed by voice vote, where only the title of the bill is announced, so it is dressed as a covid recovery bill, without mentioning anything about the PVSA or cruise ships.

That is very interesting, I hadn’t read about the visa/work rule issue before. Certainly neither is insurmountable if congress writes exemptions into or amends current law. The bigger question is how much desire would there really be for this on the hill. It would be very different than a voice vote on a one time recovery act I would think.  I can’t imagine this is at the top of anyone’s to do list with the current state of things. Then again this could possibly something that garners bipartisan support and could be touted as an easy win on both sides (or could die in gridlock). We shall see.

[dockman]

Yes there are many complicating rules and regulations written into the various laws...all of which COULD just as well be rewritten to do away with some of the more absurd provisions that have been in force for decades and defy logic.

[generichandle]

Hmm, UTAH Senator. Does this not sound a little contrived?

 

After all, all those cruise ships the origonate  in UTAH ............

 

Obviously this is purely political. You will certainly hear the resistance from corporations who have to compete with "those dang ferriners" who "use Third World workers at Slave wages"

 

This is NOT gonna happen folks, or at least without a LOT of resistance' which I suspect our respected Senator is hoping for. Politics!