Maritime Law

[mllewis48]

Has anyone heard anything recently about any affect this law will have on cruising from US ports by "non-registered" US ships?

[hammybee]

No news is good news, for now. Here is a link to a long, long thread on the " ask a quetion " board:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=687517

 

For the most part it's just a bunch of nice folk speculating and more recently, going off topic.

[CrystalLady]

I believe you're referring to the proposed amendment to the PVSA - Passenger Vessel Services Act, commonly (but incorrectly) referred to as the "Jones Act".

 

If enacted, it would adversely affect Hawai'i sailings round-trip from the U.S. Mainland. The amendment would require a foreign-flagged vessel to make a 48-hour call at a foreign port, and at least 50% of the itinerary must be in foreign ports. Alaska itineraries sailing round-trip Seattle would also be affected.

 

The finger of blame for this piece of lunacy is generally pointed at NCLA (Norwegian Cruise Line-America) with its faltering inter-Island Hawai'i itineraries (2 of 3 ships transferred out of there) and a Hawai'i senator who's pushing for enactment. I'll refrain from further opinions.:mad:

 

And to return to part of your question, we haven't heard too much more sword-rattling of late.

[RuthC]

If enacted, it would adversely affect Hawai'i sailings round-trip from the U.S. Mainland. ... Alaska itineraries sailing round-trip Seattle would also be affected.

As would NE/Canada round-trip itineraries, and many cruises out of Florida ports. And just about any itineraries that both begin and end in the United States.

Say "buh-bye" to homeporting if the reinterpretation of the Passenger Services Act comes to pass. :rolleyes:

[CrystalLady]

As would NE/Canada round-trip itineraries, and many cruises out of Florida ports. And just about any itineraries that both begin and end in the United States.

Say "buh-bye" to homeporting if the reinterpretation of the Passenger Services Act comes to pass. :rolleyes:

 

The latest re-hash of the amendment would target the round-trip Hawai'i cruises from the U.S. Mainland and "exempt" most of the other itineraries such as the ones you mention. You see, NCLA allegedly is receiving unfair competition from foreign-flagged carriers and it's only the Hawai'ian itineraries that need to be targeted. We believe NCL may have awakened to the fact they were shooting themselves in the bilge to save what's now down to one ship in a market that was never successful for them from Day One.

[billroddy]

Homeland Security, the agency behind this, can send you email updates. It is in the upper right hand corner of link below. (They have many topics. You may get more mail than you want)

Bill

 

http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm

[RuthC]

The latest re-hash of the amendment would target the round-trip Hawai'i cruises from the U.S. Mainland and "exempt" most of the other itineraries such as the ones you mention.

Is it back to that? That would make it a re-re-hash! :rolleyes: The last I heard was that it couldn't be specific to Hawaii as that would be discriminatory.

[Sundagger]

Is it back to that? That would make it a re-re-hash! :rolleyes: The last I heard was that it couldn't be specific to Hawaii as that would be discriminatory.

 

The latest request from NCLA, a senator from Hawaii, and a senator from Alaska, is to have the reinterpretation apply to everywhere that "large, American-flagged cruise ships" cruise. Of course there is only one place that "large American-flagged ships" cruise and that is Hawaii and there is only one ship in that category, the Pride of America. Given that broadly worded application, it *might* not be legally discriminatory. Or it might. Maybe. In a way.

 

A cynical person might speculate that the senators came to a quid pro quo on the almost-$400 million bridge in Ketchican being re-introduced in exchange for support for keeping the POA afloat under the NCLA flag. I'm not that cynical person.

[RuthC]

A cynical person might speculate that the senators came to a quid pro quo on the almost-$400 million bridge in Ketchican being re-introduced in exchange for support for keeping the POA afloat under the NCLA flag. I'm not that cynical person.

But you won't fall down in a dead faint if that should come to pass, either. Right? ;)