PVSA Confusion

[JRG]

On 8/8/2023 at 8:37 PM, CruizinSusan70 said:

The original trip that violated the PVSA was 15 nights and the new one with the extra day is 17.

 

If I were King for a Day I would waive good bye to the old PVSA*  and refund two days back to the OP's cruising wallet  (taxes and port fees included)  and grant your original cruising wish.  

 

You would also save two days' worth of Kennel charges, which are usually one of our biggest traveling expenses.

 

The really good news is that this would make US dock workers happy and bring them more business than they are currently handling.

 

That is Win-Win for everyone who cruises and for our fellow citizens who work on our docks.

 

 

[cr8tiv1]

36 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

If I were King for a Day I would waive good bye to the old PVSA*  and refund two days back to the OP's cruising wallet  (taxes and port fees included)  and grant your original cruising wish.  

 

You would also save two days' worth of Kennel charges, which are usually one of our biggest traveling expenses.

 

The really good news is that this would make US dock workers happy and bring them more business than they are currently handling.

 

That is Win-Win for everyone who cruises and for our fellow citizens who work on our docks.

 

 

 

Please add that Hawaii residents might actually catch a break in costs.  Matson and Horizon are currently the only shipping agencies for the islands that can transport between the west coast and Hawaii.  99% of everything has to be shipped in to the islands, including milk.  

 

More importantly, I would be able to sail over to the islands instead of fly.  

 

But there are other more serious consequences for doing away with the PVSA.  

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

The really good news is that this would make US dock workers happy and bring them more business than they are currently handling.

How's that?  The cruises will be going to the same ports, regardless of whether the OP is on it for a B2B or not.  One passenger, or even a whole slew of them doing legal (in your world) B2B's makes no difference to dock workers when the cruises are existing itineraries that a passenger just wants to couple together.  You also assume that the cruise lines would make additional itineraries to increase the number of US port calls.  Really don't see that happening, since most US cruise pax don't care about US ports.

[chubbypiggy]

Is it okay to take b2b cruise with 1st 7-day cruise from Seattle to Vancouver, and 2nd 7-day cruise from Vancouver to Los Angeles?   Thank you.

[Guest ldtr]

7 minutes ago, chubbypiggy said:

Is it okay to take b2b cruise with 1st 7-day cruise from Seattle to Vancouver, and 2nd 7-day cruise from Vancouver to Los Angeles?   Thank you.

On the same ship, without a break.  No

[chubbypiggy]

5 minutes ago, ldtr said:

On the same ship, without a break.  No

Thank you.  That is too bad. 

[voljeep]

10 minutes ago, chubbypiggy said:

Thank you.  That is too bad. 

Cruise ships should be exempt from PVSA - end of discussion.

No reason the cruise in #54 should not be allowed

 

[Guest ldtr]

22 minutes ago, voljeep said:

Cruise ships should be exempt from PVSA - end of discussion.

No reason the cruise in #54 should not be allowed

 

Let me know when you see cruise lines actually lobby for it.  Except for special circumstances such as Canada being closed down during the restart, they have not shown any real interest in doing so.  They also know that it will not really bring them any more passengers.  Not really add any profitable routes.  Most importantly will change the economics on foreign competition that could threaten their fairly closed market.  

[JRG]

21 minutes ago, ldtr said:

Let me know when you see cruise lines actually lobby for it. 

 

They don't have to lobby for it.

Let us know when you have a better argument.

[Guest ldtr]

6 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

They don't have to lobby for it.

Let us know when you have a better argument.

They don't because they do not want the change.  The way it is now protects their interests.  The only people that can enter can only do so by doing the same things they do which requires substantial capital and relatively low profit margins.  The only company even to try and play on their home turf is MSC and that only in limited areas.

 

Only then a few cruisers not many arguing to change it on the passenger side.  More arguments on the cargo side, but not many on the passenger side.

Edited August 12, 2023 by ldtr

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, JRG said:

 

They don't have to lobby for it.

Let us know when you have a better argument.

No, they don't.  They tried that already with the Puerto Rico exemption.  That took 10 years, and while the exemption still exists, there was only one line that started regular service between PR and the mainland US, and that closed down after about a year due to low interest.  So, no, they don't have to lobby for it, because they know it doesn't benefit them in any way.

[BlerkOne]

5 hours ago, ldtr said:

Let me know when you see cruise lines actually lobby for it. 

Some time after they are eligible for bailouts in tough economic times. Cruise lines don't vote.

[Mike07]

I think that these major cruise lines marketed or carrying mostly Americans simply flagged their vessels under the United States, they could do such itineraries mentioned in the OP.

Oh wait, that's not going to happen either....

[Womble99]

On 8/8/2023 at 9:08 PM, skynight said:

Don't try to rationalize the law. Accept it. You can not change it. 

Not sure I understand this bit? Everything I ever hear about the US is how it is the model Democracy? If the people do not agree with a draconic law why wouldn't it be changed?

[Traveling Library]

PSVA applies to ships and airplanes. Any vehicle that can commercially transport passengers is under PSVA regulations. It was designed to protect ship building and, ultimately, plane construction. There is no incentive by the shipping and airplane industry to change the law. No PVSA means we could fly any airline from anywhere in the world between two US cities. I can think of a number of not US airlines who I have no interest in flying. 

Edited August 13, 2023 by Traveling Library

[CruizinSusan70]

4 hours ago, Mike07 said:

I think that these major cruise lines marketed or carrying mostly Americans simply flagged their vessels under the United States, they could do such itineraries mentioned in the OP.

Oh wait, that's not going to happen either....

Why do you think it's so expense to cruise on the NCL POA?  Because of the wages they need to pay and the fact that the workers are maxed at a 40 hour week so there's no overtime pay.

[chengkp75]

6 hours ago, Traveling Library said:

PSVA applies to ships and airplanes. Any vehicle that can commercially transport passengers is under PSVA regulations. It was designed to protect ship building and, ultimately, plane construction. There is no incentive by the shipping and airplane industry to change the law. No PVSA means we could fly any airline from anywhere in the world between two US cities. I can think of a number of not US airlines who I have no interest in flying. 

The PVSA does not apply to aircraft.  That is the Civil Aviation Act.

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, CruizinSusan70 said:

Why do you think it's so expense to cruise on the NCL POA?  Because of the wages they need to pay and the fact that the workers are maxed at a 40 hour week so there's no overtime pay.

Sorry, but the crew on the POA is not maxed at 40 hours per week.

[skynight]

10 hours ago, Mike07 said:

I think that these major cruise lines marketed or carrying mostly Americans simply flagged their vessels under the United States, they could do such itineraries mentioned in the OP.

Oh wait, that's not going to happen either....

My understanding of the law. To be a U.S. flagged vessel the main part of the vessel has to be built in the U.S.. Once in operation a high percentage of the crew are required to be U.S. or U.S. territorial residents. You can not simply re-flag.

 

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, skynight said:

My understanding of the law. To be a U.S. flagged vessel the main part of the vessel has to be built in the U.S.. Once in operation a high percentage of the crew are required to be U.S. or U.S. territorial residents. You can not simply re-flag.

 

Yes, the crew needs to be 100% either US citizens, or US green card holders (limited to 25% of crew).  NCL does have an exemption to allow non-green card aliens to get merchant mariner documents in the US, but again this is limited to 25% of the crew, including any green card holders.

 

I have long said that I would not be seriously disturbed if the "US built" clause of the PVSA were to be repealed, since our shipbuilding industry is for the majority wedded to the US Navy, and not interested in commercial shipbuilding.  Take a foreign built ship (like the Pride of Aloha (Norwegian Sky) or Pride of Hawaii (Norwegian Jade) that is retrofitted to meet USCG regulations, operate it under a US subsidiary (the "US owned" clause of the PVSA), so they pay US corporate taxes, crew it with US crew, pay US wages, and I'd be quite content with that.  However, the cost of doing what I've listed above would so skew the economics of the cruise industry, so this is why the cruise industry does not wish to repeal or modify the PVSA, because they fear they would have to meet US standards in return.

 

And, you are not quite correct.  There are many, many US flag vessels that were built overseas.  They just cannot engage in "coastwise" (domestic US) trade.  In other words, a ship built in the US, under the US flag, would be "Jones Act" qualified, and could take cargo from Houston to New York, as well as from Houston to Amsterdam.  A US flag ship that is built overseas, would not be "Jones Act" qualified, so while it could take cargo from Houston to Amsterdam, it could not take cargo from Houston to New York.  The same applies to passenger vessels.  The cruise lines could reflag their foreign built vessels to US flag, but they would not be "PVSA qualified", and could not do the one US port to another US port that people ask about.

[cr8tiv1]

7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The PVSA does not apply to aircraft.  That is the Civil Aviation Act.

 

I knew someone would know the correct Act.  Of course it would be chengkp75.  Now to remember that information.

[CruizinSusan70]

9 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Sorry, but the crew on the POA is not maxed at 40 hours per week.

Thanks for the correction.  Mistakenly assumed that the cruise line would not wish to pay OT wages.

[cr8tiv1]

I will be the first to admit that NCL Hawaii (Pride of America) has the best itinerary of the Hawaiian Islands. I've done the cruise.  Will never do it again.  

 

Here is a comparison.  I tried to find like fares.

 

October / Balcony / November 2023 / no taxes, fee, insurance,

 

NCL $2399 / standard fare

No beverage package

Obstructed balcony 

7 days

 

Plus Hotel/airfare/food Pre-cruise on the island.  There are only few airlines that will get you to the islands for day of cruise from the West Coast.  I find this risky.

 

There is no where to park your rental car without costing you an arm and a leg for overnight stays in Kauai and Maui.

 

Basically a floating hotel.  Very little onboard activities.

 

Princess $2524

No Beverage Package

Lead in Balcony aft

15/16 days

 

Plus Hotel/airfare/food Pre-cruise, if you need to get to the west coast.

Hawaiian Cultural Ambassadors onboard and full of other enrichment activities.

 

I understand that there are passengers who are unable to afford the two weeks to do a Princess cruise.  I definitely am a cheerleader for Princess going to Hawaii.

 

[greenie082756]

We tried to book the following back-to-back and were told that we could not do it because of the PVSA.

 

First cruise is called Circle the Carribean from Ft. Lauderdale to many islands including Curacao which I understand that is a distant foreign port if I read the PVSA correctly. It will return to Ft. Lauderdale.

 

We wanted to do a back-to-back staying on the same ship through the Panama Canal from Ft. Lauderdale to Los Angeles. We were told that the first cruise did not quality so we could not take the second cruise. 

 

Not trying to beat a dead horse, just confused. Put in a question to my PVP and hopefully will have an answer. 

[BlerkOne]

1 minute ago, greenie082756 said:

We tried to book the following back-to-back and were told that we could not do it because of the PVSA.

 

First cruise is called Circle the Carribean from Ft. Lauderdale to many islands including Curacao which I understand that is a distant foreign port if I read the PVSA correctly. It will return to Ft. Lauderdale.

 

We wanted to do a back-to-back staying on the same ship through the Panama Canal from Ft. Lauderdale to Los Angeles. We were told that the first cruise did not quality so we could not take the second cruise. 

 

Not trying to beat a dead horse, just confused. Put in a question to my PVP and hopefully will have an answer. 

Something isn't right there. Curacao is a distant foreign port, but I don't think that matters.

 

The Panama Canal cruise has to have a distant foreign port or that cruise wouldn't be legal.