oasis. why empty from FL up to NJ?

[jeh10641]

On 4/19/2022 at 7:19 AM, Lane Hog said:

 

Yup. Round trips can be to any country.

 

For PVSA compliance, the port must be outside geographic North America which includes all of the Caribbean ports except for Aruba/Bonaire/Curacao as they're geographically South America.  Not sure where Trinidad or Tobago fall - I've always considered that South America as well.

 

Both the Jones Act and PVSA seem ripe for some degree of reform considering there are not any remaining US flagged passenger lines sailing on either coast and cruising is arguably entertainment now and not transportation.

 

 

I am sure about this. Cruises from Seattle to Alaska stop in Canada. Both countries are North American. Cruises from Boston/NY go to Canada both one way and roundtrip. Ditto cruises from Quebec/Montreal go to U.S. Ports roundtrip and one way.

[jeh10641]

On 4/19/2022 at 8:07 AM, chengkp75 said:

 

And, Uncruise, Alaska Dream Cruise, Lindblad Nat Geo, along with all the other Passenger vessels operating domestically in the US like whale watching, sight seeing, casino, dinner cruise boats (all of which would be in your "entertainment" category), along with ferries, water taxis, commuter boats and any other vessel that carries "more than 12 persons for hire" (the legal definition of "passenger vessel".

 

So, since "cruising is arguably entertainment and not transportation", should the ships meet the building codes in their respective countries, instead of SOLAS, MARPOL and the other international conventions that they do now?  If it moves from one place to another, it is transportation. 

Small cruise ships/ferries do not fall under these acts I believe.

[Lane Hog]

8 minutes ago, jeh10641 said:

I am sure about this. Cruises from Seattle to Alaska stop in Canada. Both countries are North American. 

 

Yup.  The stop within North America works for a round trip cruise. 

It doesn't for a point to point cruise.  They'd have to stop in Russia on the way to Alaska or Seattle, and that isn't happening anytime soon...

Check for yourself... you shouldn't be able to find any one-way cruises on a foreign flag starting or ending Seattle northbound.  Those will all start/end in Vancouver.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Lane Hog said:

There are no US jobs lost if there's nobody currently operating in those types of markets...

But, you conveniently forget that "passenger" vessel, under US law, and international convention, applies to many vessels other than cruise ships, and those tens of thousands of jobs would be lost if foreign ships are allowed in domestic trade.  Should Honduran truck drivers be allowed to drive delivery trucks in the US?  How about Brazilian train engineers?

[whitshel]

51 minutes ago, jeh10641 said:

I am sure about this. Cruises from Seattle to Alaska stop in Canada. Both countries are North American. Cruises from Boston/NY go to Canada both one way and roundtrip. Ditto cruises from Quebec/Montreal go to U.S. Ports roundtrip and one way.

One way Alaska or New England cruises will always always start or end in Canada so the ships aren't transporting passengers from 1 US port to another. Round trippers will just visit a foreign port. 

[whitshel]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

But, you conveniently forget that "passenger" vessel, under US law, and international convention, applies to many vessels other than cruise ships, and those tens of thousands of jobs would be lost if foreign ships are allowed in domestic trade.  Should Honduran truck drivers be allowed to drive delivery trucks in the US?  How about Brazilian train engineers?

Just like you wont find a non-US airline flying between to US airports

[chengkp75]

53 minutes ago, jeh10641 said:

I am sure about this. Cruises from Seattle to Alaska stop in Canada. Both countries are North American. Cruises from Boston/NY go to Canada both one way and roundtrip. Ditto cruises from Quebec/Montreal go to U.S. Ports roundtrip and one way.

Sigh.  Again, the PVSA does not apply to voyages that start or end in foreign countries.  So, a one way from Vancouver to Alaska, or Boston to Quebec are legal.  "Round trip" or "closed loop" cruises only need to visit any foreign port, so a port call in Canada makes a Boston to Canada round trip legal.  However, transportation between two US ports (like from NYC to Miami) requires a port call at a "distant" foreign port.  There is a difference in requirement for closed loop cruises and cruises that start and end in different US ports.

[chengkp75]

54 minutes ago, jeh10641 said:

Small cruise ships/ferries do not fall under these acts I believe.

You are incorrect.  The PVSA applies to all "passenger" vessels, which if you look at the definition in the USC, is "any vessel that carries more than 12 people for hire".  Small cruise ships and ferries, along with a wide variety of other vessels fall within this definition.  I believe what you are referring to, is the exemption that Senator Murkowski proposed to exempt cruise ships with a certain minimum capacity from the PVSA, carefully wording the bill so that existing small cruise vessels calling in Alaska would not be able to flag out to foreign.  If that bill proceeds to a committee hearing, you will hear from those small ship operators, as well as the other thousands of ferry and passenger vessel operators in the US, asking why they cannot be foreign flag.

[rafinmd]

Actually, cruise lines have sailed New York to Florida,  I have done it several times on Crystal.  What is needed is like any other PVSA itinerary, there must be a stop at a DISTANT foreign port.  I'm not sure if it is possible for Oasis Class to visit Aruba or Curacao but if it was possible that would be a legal PVSA itinerary.  If so, it becomes a financial decision whether the demand would make it financially viable.  Oasis deadheading to Bayonne comes down to either an inability to visit those ports or the financial viability of such a cruise.

 

Roy

[vjmatty]

11 minutes ago, rafinmd said:

Actually, cruise lines have sailed New York to Florida,  I have done it several times on Crystal.  What is needed is like any other PVSA itinerary, there must be a stop at a DISTANT foreign port.  I'm not sure if it is possible for Oasis Class to visit Aruba or Curacao but if it was possible that would be a legal PVSA itinerary.  If so, it becomes a financial decision whether the demand would make it financially viable.  Oasis deadheading to Bayonne comes down to either an inability to visit those ports or the financial viability of such a cruise.

 

Roy

 

I've also seen some itineraries from Boston to or from Charleston that go out to Bermuda.....definitely distant and foreign 😉

 

[SRF]

15 hours ago, jeh10641 said:

Small cruise ships/ferries do not fall under these acts I believe.

 

Anything over 12 passengers does.  So VERY small cruise ships would not. 😄

 

[SRF]

3 hours ago, vjmatty said:

 

I've also seen some itineraries from Boston to or from Charleston that go out to Bermuda.....definitely distant and foreign 😉

 

 

You board in Boston and terminate the cruise in Charleston?  What cruise line?

[Charles4515]

4 hours ago, vjmatty said:

 

I've also seen some itineraries from Boston to or from Charleston that go out to Bermuda.....definitely distant and foreign 😉

 

 

Bermuda is a foreign port but it is not a distant port. A cruise from Boston to Bermuda can not end in Charleston unless it adds a distant port which would have to be one of the ABC islands.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Charles4515

[vjmatty]

2 hours ago, SRF said:

 

You board in Boston and terminate the cruise in Charleston?  What cruise line?

 

 

Boy did I remember that wrong.... here is the itinerary map and it is Celebrity.  Sorry, my bad 😞

 

Edited April 21, 2022 by vjmatty
Bad Formatting

[vjmatty]

1 hour ago, Charles4515 said:

 

Bermuda is a foreign port but it is not a distant port. A cruise from Boston to Bermuda can not end in Charleston unless it adds a distant port which would have to be one of the ABC islands.

 

 

Strange.... when you look at a map Bermuda seems just as far away as the ABC islands.  Still not distant enough I guess.

[Another_Critic]

2 minutes ago, vjmatty said:

 

 

Strange.... when you look at a map Bermuda seems just as far away as the ABC islands.  Still not distant enough I guess.

As explained earlier in this thread, Bermuda is in North America, ABC islands are in South America.

[chengkp75]

33 minutes ago, vjmatty said:

 

 

Strange.... when you look at a map Bermuda seems just as far away as the ABC islands.  Still not distant enough I guess.

You have to remember that most maps are Mercator projections, which distort the world so that Greenland is huge.  The further from the equator, the more things stretch.  From Bermuda to the North Carolina coast is about 600 miles.  From Miami to Aruba is 1130 miles.

[Lane Hog]

17 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Should Honduran truck drivers be allowed to drive delivery trucks in the US?  How about Brazilian train engineers?

We already allow Mexican and Canadian trucks to operate within the US.  They have some restrictions (can't carry loads between US points, but can make multiple drops as well as multiple pickups where the ultimate destination is back to either Mexico or Canada).  Are those trucks "less safe" than US trucks?  They share the same roads, so if there's a danger in not being US inspected and licensed, why are they allowed?...

It's protectionist and anti-competitive. Pretending it's all about safety is just an excuse.

[time4u2go]

40 minutes ago, Lane Hog said:

We already allow Mexican and Canadian trucks to operate within the US.  They have some restrictions (can't carry loads between US points, but can make multiple drops as well as multiple pickups where the ultimate destination is back to either Mexico or Canada).  Are those trucks "less safe" than US trucks?  They share the same roads, so if there's a danger in not being US inspected and licensed, why are they allowed?...

It's protectionist and anti-competitive. Pretending it's all about safety is just an excuse.

Who said anything about safety?

[chengkp75]

52 minutes ago, Lane Hog said:

They have some restrictions (can't carry loads between US points, but can make multiple drops as well as multiple pickups where the ultimate destination is back to either Mexico or Canada).

And, these exact same restrictions are what the PVSA and Jones Act are all about.  You can't carry a passenger between US "points" on a foreign ship, but you can pick up or drop off a passenger that is going to a foreign "point".

 

13 minutes ago, time4u2go said:

Who said anything about safety?

I did, and always will.  The USCG requires far stricter regulations on US flag vessels (like those in the Jones Act and PVSA trade), than they can enforce on foreign flag ships, even ones that "home port" in the US.  Just look at the number of passenger vessel accidents leading to deaths around the world, just in this century, and compare that to the US.  Safety is the real reason (contrary to Wikipedia) that the PVSA was enacted in the first place.

[chengkp75]

59 minutes ago, Lane Hog said:

We already allow Mexican and Canadian trucks to operate within the US.

And, those Mexican and Canadian trucks have to have a DOT number, and meet the same requirements as US trucks.

 

"This included things like obtaining authority, meeting insurance requirements, a driver-licensing system comparable to the CDL system in the U.S., adequate drug-testing and accident-reporting programs, environmental standards and more."  From "The Trucker"

 

They fall under the jurisdiction of the USDOT and FMCSA.

 

That is what the Jones Act and PVSA require, meeting the same requirements.

[JRG]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, these exact same restrictions are what the PVSA and Jones Act are all about.  You can't carry a passenger between US "points" on a foreign ship, but you can pick up or drop off a passenger that is going to a foreign "point".

 

I think it is misleading to discuss the Jones Act and the PVSA in the same post.

 

1)The Jones Act is for  marine cargo transportation and the transport of goods.

2)The PVSA is for transportation of passengers.

 

The two are mutually exclusive and it is misleading to use JONES act type of cabotage laws when discussing the PVSA,  it only leads to mass confusion.

 

The PVSA laws are like the Cargo transport laws for the Erie Canal when Mules pulled the load.  The laws that require Mule Owners to pick up after their road apples are probably still on the books.  Why,  because there was no need to remove them.   Same with the Steamship Era laws which is what the PVSA is about.    It is obsolete and there is no need to defend it with conversation that convolutes the discussion.

 

Please do not mix the Jones act with the PVSA .

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, JRG said:

The two are mutually exclusive and it is misleading to use JONES act type of cabotage laws when discussing the PVSA,  it only leads to mass confusion.

 

9 hours ago, JRG said:

Please do not mix the Jones act with the PVSA .

The only mass confusion is yours, if you don't understand that the Jones Act and PVSA are essentially identical, and that most nations that have cabotage laws combine cargo and passenger transport in one law.  The only reason they are "different acts" (and in fact the name of the Bill is irrelevant after it passes, as they both are in the same section of the USC), is that the PVSA was already on the books when the Jones Act was passed.

[vjmatty]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 

The only mass confusion is yours, if you don't understand that the Jones Act and PVSA are essentially identical, and that most nations that have cabotage laws combine cargo and passenger transport in one law.  The only reason they are "different acts" (and in fact the name of the Bill is irrelevant after it passes, as they both are in the same section of the USC), is that the PVSA was already on the books when the Jones Act was passed.

 

One person can not experience "mass" confusion.  And I have seen confusion from many others besides JRG,  so even  if he were confused he would not be the "only" one, although, JRG does not appear confused at all.  And he is correct, many posters here mistakenly refer to the Jones Act when talking about passengers.

 

I know it is tempting sometimes, we all do it.... but try not to let your reliance on snark get in the way of accuracy. 😉

 

[SRF]

Yes, one person can be massively confused. 😄

 

And where most people are confused is not reading what Chengkp75 keeps saying, that PVSA does not only apply to cruise ships, but things like the Staten Island Ferry.  Without it, a foreign carrier could compete with the Staten Island Ferry with ships meeting lower standards and non-US crew.