Passenger Vessel Services Act summary to date

[DAGVBSB]

! can book a 15 day hawaiian cruise on hal zaandam for 345 less than a 7 day p o am single inside on 2-20-10

 

and that is why NCL is trying to force the PVSA rules through. They can't charge the prices that they want (and need) to charge in Hawaii with the cheaper to operate international ships in the way. (btw, this is not a cut on you or another cruiseline...)

 

NCL was hoping that they could get the government to tighten the PVSA so that HAL, RCI, Princess, etc. would have to abandon Hawaii altogether.

 

Think about it: right now 15 days on HAL is LESS than 7 days on NCL. That would make HAL very attractive to anyone who has 15 days to vacation. BUT, if the PVSA rules go through and HAL has to spend 50% of the time in foreign ports instead of Hawaii, would you still choose HAL over NCL?

 

A perfect example of why NCL attempted this try for a monopoly.

[Pam in CA]

Last I heard, the government frowns on monopolies so why would they approve of or partner with NCL on the creation of one? Just a rhetorical question thrown out there.

[smeyer418]

Last I heard, the government frowns on monopolies so why would they approve of or partner with NCL on the creation of one? Just a rhetorical question thrown out there.

The government creates them all the time and is exempt from antitrust laws.

 

remember the difference in price is US taxes US labor laws , NO casino on the NCL ship and no duty free shopping(other lines make big money on these)...

 

so to make it a level field same rules should apply...

[Cruisin' Chick]

and that is why NCL is trying to force the PVSA rules through. They can't charge the prices that they want (and need) to charge in Hawaii with the cheaper to operate international ships in the way. (btw, this is not a cut on you or another cruiseline...)

 

NCL was hoping that they could get the government to tighten the PVSA so that HAL, RCI, Princess, etc. would have to abandon Hawaii altogether.

 

Think about it: right now 15 days on HAL is LESS than 7 days on NCL. That would make HAL very attractive to anyone who has 15 days to vacation. BUT, if the PVSA rules go through and HAL has to spend 50% of the time in foreign ports instead of Hawaii, would you still choose HAL over NCL?

 

A perfect example of why NCL attempted this try for a monopoly.

 

I would much rather go on the RT Hawaii on HAL then circle around Hawaii on NCL, even if the price per day was the same.

[cherylandtk]

Also, I have not seen a definition of "large" ship yet. There are American flagged ships that sail from Seattle to Alaska and back. These ships are small when compared to a panamax ship, but are large when compared to any boat you see being towed around on the highways.

 

So, if the definition of a large ship is not large enough, it could still impact several states, including Alaska, Washington, California, New York, Hawaii and Maine. Of course, if it is too large, it might not impact any of the states.

 

Nonetheless, I don't foresee anyone using my definition of "a large ship." My definition is, if you drop it on your foot and it hurts - it's large.

Not that it means all agencies will have the same definition, but DHS and USCIS use this definition, from the recent WHTI-Passport dustup:

 

Cruise ship means a passenger vessel over 100 gross tons, carrying more than 12 passengers for hire, making a voyage lasting more than 24 hours any part of which is on the high seas, and for which passengers are embarked or disembarked in the United States or its territories.

[Cuizer2]

Not that it means all agencies will have the same definition, but DHS and USCIS use this definition, from the recent WHTI-Passport dustup:

 

Cruise ship means a passenger vessel over 100 gross tons, carrying more than 12 passengers for hire, making a voyage lasting more than 24 hours any part of which is on the high seas, and for which passengers are embarked or disembarked in the United States or its territories.

 

Yes, but what is a "large" cruise ship? If the definition you provide is the definition of a "large" cruise ship, then Alaska must be protected, because there are several American flagged ships that exceed those specifications that cruise Alaska at the same time NCL's foreign flagged ships do.

[smeyer418]

I am fairly sure that the definition for this regulation that is being discussed is greater than 70,000 tons but that doesn't mean it is what will actually come out if anything....

 

(the Pride of America is 80,000 tons)...

[Mizzoocruizer]

Howdy.

 

I'm not a legal or government expert, but it looks like we may have options after all for Hawaii cruises! But we all know that nothing is guaranteed with politics, except more politics!

 

Sent to me by a friend:

 

From Seatrade Insider news at cruise-community.com

 

US coastwise rule-making is rejected

15/8/2008

Proposed rules for coastwise cruises that unleashed a firestorm of controversy have been rejected by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Seatrade Insider has learned. OMB said the draft regulations calling for foreign-flag ships sailing between U.S. ports to spend at least 50% of the voyage in foreign ports did not demonstrate ‘compelling public need.’

In a letter, OMB said Customs and Border Protection’s proposed rule for the Passenger Vessel Services Act ‘presents no market failure or compelling public need, omits a statement of the costs and benefits of the rule-making, and does not include a discussion and analysis of regulatory alternatives, significant distributive impacts or uncertainties.’

The rule-making may be revised and resubmitted. It remains to be seen whether that will happen.

The Cruise Lines International Association would not discuss whether the matter is dead. CLIA ‘applauds the administration for taking a serious look at this issue and for reaching an interim decision balancing all interests in the matter,’ said spokeswoman Lanie Fagan.

However, an official with the American Association of Port Authorities told Seatrade Insider it’s ‘a pretty big hurdle’ to have to come back with new rule-making. OMB rejections are somewhat rare, according to Susan Monteverde, vp government affairs for AAPA.

She thinks OMB’s gave ‘a pretty definitive answer’ that indicates Customs and Border Protection ‘haven’t made a good business case for why this rule-making is a necessity.’ AAPA opposed the proposals out of concern they could drive away the international cruise business, harming ports and costing jobs.

AAPA met with OMB and Vice President Cheney’s office over the rule-making. ‘The issues of [negative economic] impact on California and Hawaii seemed to resonate with them,’ Monteverde told Seatrade Insider.

An OMB appointment list shows a number of parties met with administration officials in late July. They include a representative of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, AAPA’s Kurt Nagle, CLIA’s Michael Crye, Carnival Corp.’s Tom Dow, NCL Corp.’s Colin Veitch and officials from the U.S. Maritime Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and Customs and Border Protection.

The proposals were drafted at the instigation of MARAD over concern that NCL America’s U.S.-flag Hawaii business faced unfair competition from foreign-flag lines. At its peak, NCL America deployed three U.S.-flag vessels in Hawaii. Today only Pride of America operates in the trade.

U.S. labor unions and Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye were among the supporters of the rule-making, but scores of other senators, mayors and ports warned that it could have a wide-ranging negative economic impact on the cruise business as a whole.

A spokesman for the Seafarers International Union was not immediately able to comment because he had not seen the OMB decision. Seatrade Insider was not immediately able to reach a Customs official involved in the rule-making. An NCL comment is awaited.

 

 

© Copyright 2008 Seatrade Communications Limited. Replication or redistribution in whole or in part is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Seatrade Communications Limited.

[Cuizer2]

Howdy.

 

I'm not a legal or government expert, but it looks like we may have options after all for Hawaii cruises! But we all know that nothing is guaranteed with politics, except more politics!

 

Sent to me by a friend:

 

From Seatrade Insider news at cruise-community.com

 

US coastwise rule-making is rejected

15/8/2008

Proposed rules for coastwise cruises that unleashed a firestorm of controversy have been rejected by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Seatrade Insider has learned. OMB said the draft regulations calling for foreign-flag ships sailing between U.S. ports to spend at least 50% of the voyage in foreign ports did not demonstrate ‘compelling public need.’

In a letter, OMB said Customs and Border Protection’s proposed rule for the Passenger Vessel Services Act ‘presents no market failure or compelling public need, omits a statement of the costs and benefits of the rule-making, and does not include a discussion and analysis of regulatory alternatives, significant distributive impacts or uncertainties.’

The rule-making may be revised and resubmitted. It remains to be seen whether that will happen.

The Cruise Lines International Association would not discuss whether the matter is dead. CLIA ‘applauds the administration for taking a serious look at this issue and for reaching an interim decision balancing all interests in the matter,’ said spokeswoman Lanie Fagan.

However, an official with the American Association of Port Authorities told Seatrade Insider it’s ‘a pretty big hurdle’ to have to come back with new rule-making. OMB rejections are somewhat rare, according to Susan Monteverde, vp government affairs for AAPA.

She thinks OMB’s gave ‘a pretty definitive answer’ that indicates Customs and Border Protection ‘haven’t made a good business case for why this rule-making is a necessity.’ AAPA opposed the proposals out of concern they could drive away the international cruise business, harming ports and costing jobs.

AAPA met with OMB and Vice President Cheney’s office over the rule-making. ‘The issues of [negative economic] impact on California and Hawaii seemed to resonate with them,’ Monteverde told Seatrade Insider.

An OMB appointment list shows a number of parties met with administration officials in late July. They include a representative of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, AAPA’s Kurt Nagle, CLIA’s Michael Crye, Carnival Corp.’s Tom Dow, NCL Corp.’s Colin Veitch and officials from the U.S. Maritime Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and Customs and Border Protection.

The proposals were drafted at the instigation of MARAD over concern that NCL America’s U.S.-flag Hawaii business faced unfair competition from foreign-flag lines. At its peak, NCL America deployed three U.S.-flag vessels in Hawaii. Today only Pride of America operates in the trade.

U.S. labor unions and Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye were among the supporters of the rule-making, but scores of other senators, mayors and ports warned that it could have a wide-ranging negative economic impact on the cruise business as a whole.

A spokesman for the Seafarers International Union was not immediately able to comment because he had not seen the OMB decision. Seatrade Insider was not immediately able to reach a Customs official involved in the rule-making. An NCL comment is awaited.

 

 

© Copyright 2008 Seatrade Communications Limited. Replication or redistribution in whole or in part is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Seatrade Communications Limited.

 

Wow. This is good news if accurate. My only concern is based on the date (15th day of August, 2008) it came from Europe, and not America (where the date would read 8/15/08). It would be nice to see something from this side of the Atlantic (and/or pond) that this is official.

[cvanhorn]

Wow. This is good news if accurate. My only concern is based on the date (15th day of August, 2008) it came from Europe, and not America (where the date would read 8/15/08). It would be nice to see something from this side of the Atlantic (and/or pond) that this is official.

 

here you go:

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2008/08/15/controversial_cruise_ship_proposal_rejected/

[Cuizer2]

here you go:

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2008/08/15/controversial_cruise_ship_proposal_rejected/

 

 

Well, from this article it appears the proposed rule change has been wounded, but not fatally. Still, given the information in the article, it would seem the earliest anything could now be done would not take effect until summer 2010 (given the current state of world affairs and the US economy, I don't see the new administration giving this issue enough priority to have it enacted by the summer of 2009).

[smeyer418]

Yep the sky didn't fall. OMB said "No"....back to square 1....sometime this century...

[Ethel5]

Do I hear a collective "WHEW?"

[mich2]

VERY COOL!!!

[c-legs]

COMMON SENSE DOES PREVAIL AT TIMES.....!!!:) :cool:

Cheers

[SeattleCruiselover]

Howdy.

 

I'm not a legal or government expert, but it looks like we may have options after all for Hawaii cruises! But we all know that nothing is guaranteed with politics, except more politics!

 

Sent to me by a friend:

 

From Seatrade Insider news at cruise-community.com

 

US coastwise rule-making is rejected

15/8/2008

Proposed rules for coastwise cruises that unleashed a firestorm of controversy have been rejected by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Seatrade Insider has learned. OMB said the draft regulations calling for foreign-flag ships sailing between U.S. ports to spend at least 50% of the voyage in foreign ports did not demonstrate ‘compelling public need.’

In a letter, OMB said Customs and Border Protection’s proposed rule for the Passenger Vessel Services Act ‘presents no market failure or compelling public need, omits a statement of the costs and benefits of the rule-making, and does not include a discussion and analysis of regulatory alternatives, significant distributive impacts or uncertainties.’

The rule-making may be revised and resubmitted. It remains to be seen whether that will happen.

The Cruise Lines International Association would not discuss whether the matter is dead. CLIA ‘applauds the administration for taking a serious look at this issue and for reaching an interim decision balancing all interests in the matter,’ said spokeswoman Lanie Fagan.

However, an official with the American Association of Port Authorities told Seatrade Insider it’s ‘a pretty big hurdle’ to have to come back with new rule-making. OMB rejections are somewhat rare, according to Susan Monteverde, vp government affairs for AAPA.

She thinks OMB’s gave ‘a pretty definitive answer’ that indicates Customs and Border Protection ‘haven’t made a good business case for why this rule-making is a necessity.’ AAPA opposed the proposals out of concern they could drive away the international cruise business, harming ports and costing jobs.

AAPA met with OMB and Vice President Cheney’s office over the rule-making. ‘The issues of [negative economic] impact on California and Hawaii seemed to resonate with them,’ Monteverde told Seatrade Insider.

An OMB appointment list shows a number of parties met with administration officials in late July. They include a representative of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, AAPA’s Kurt Nagle, CLIA’s Michael Crye, Carnival Corp.’s Tom Dow, NCL Corp.’s Colin Veitch and officials from the U.S. Maritime Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and Customs and Border Protection.

The proposals were drafted at the instigation of MARAD over concern that NCL America’s U.S.-flag Hawaii business faced unfair competition from foreign-flag lines. At its peak, NCL America deployed three U.S.-flag vessels in Hawaii. Today only Pride of America operates in the trade.

U.S. labor unions and Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye were among the supporters of the rule-making, but scores of other senators, mayors and ports warned that it could have a wide-ranging negative economic impact on the cruise business as a whole.

A spokesman for the Seafarers International Union was not immediately able to comment because he had not seen the OMB decision. Seatrade Insider was not immediately able to reach a Customs official involved in the rule-making. An NCL comment is awaited.

 

 

© Copyright 2008 Seatrade Communications Limited. Replication or redistribution in whole or in part is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Seatrade Communications Limited.

 

Wow. I haven't opened that issue yet......I should have. I always knew the OMB was good for something....:)

[aaerobear]

Can I hear a great big sigh of relief????????

[c-legs]

Can I hear a great big sigh of relief????????

:D :eek: y e s !!!!!

Now everybody can re-focus on more normal things and let NCL ''et al'' eat their omelets after they wipe off their faces....

I never doubted this outcome, not one bit.

I suggest this has seen all the daylight it will ever see under this administration, and the next one will have far FAR bigger fishes to fry to be even slightly distracted by this issue.

Long live common sense !!!

Cheers

;)

[Cruisin' Chick]

I'm glad I recovered enough from my hay fever attack to get on the computer tonight. For once the government did something right. Now if the PVSA can be eliminated...

[kerrydee]

had sep 09, oct 09 and nov09 scheduled for the radiance of the seas doing 4 and 5 nites mexico from san diego. all of a sudden (on the 15th when this was announced) all those sailings are closed to selling. they won't say why. even revenue says they are doing inventory...yah right.

shall we take bets if they will do 15 day hawaii's?:rolleyes:

[mckinna]

Finally- something that comes out of Washington that makes sense!!

[DAGVBSB]

:D :eek: y e s !!!!!

Now everybody can re-focus on more normal things and let NCL ''et al'' eat their omelets after they wipe off their faces....

I never doubted this outcome, not one bit.

I suggest this has seen all the daylight it will ever see under this administration, and the next one will have far FAR bigger fishes to fry to be even slightly distracted by this issue.

Long live common sense !!!

Cheers

;)

 

I agree with you on all issues. I think the fact that Governor Schwartzenegger was heavily involved weighed heavily in this decision. If you read the article, you will see that it was kicked up all the way to Vice-President Cheney's office. Schwartzenegger is good friends with Cheney and Bush and, I believe, asked them to make this go away BEFORE the election and a potential Democratic Administration.

 

Think about it: Innoye, Akaka and Abercrumbie are big fish in the Democratic party. A Democratic President is likely to give them what they want.

 

This issue is dead for good in my opinion. NCL tried to pull a fast one and lost (and yes, does have egg on their face.). The decision on the continued existance of NCL-America should be made in about 3 months. That means that NCL-America will either 1.) Cease to exist, hence making any future PVSA changes unneeded. or 2.) Will continue to exist and since that will only happen if they can show a profit, it shows that the foreign competition is not that much of a factor and therefore any PVSA changes are again unneccessary. NCL will never be able to bring this issue back again.

 

Speaking of egg on the face... it will be interesting to hear NCL and especially Colin's comments on this issue. They all said that without the PVSA changes, NCL-America would not be able to exist and would collapse. Soooooo, Colin, here's the point... If NCL-America and the POAm continue to sail and the company does not fold, your whines about the changes being necessarry were baseless and flat out wrong. So we will see if the company continues.

 

NCL's inept corporate Management put their "eggs" in the PVSA basket and instead came out looking very bad... which is the norm for Colin Veitch and flunkies.

[Sea Fan]

YAY!!!! Color me Happy here! But I would have enjoyed seeing the look on Colin Veitch's face when this all came down!

 

Dianne

[Cruisin' Chick]

One thing I was thinking of early this morning is that when you think of Disney Cruises, they are doing all right, with just a few ships, high fares, and without casinos. Okay, so they can hire foreign crewmembers... But a major difference between DCL and NCLA would be the quality of management. I never felt the urge to go on a Disney cruise, and would do so only if my hubby really wanted to (and with the the fare comparisons, I don't see that happening), but I heard it's a high quality product.

 

As far as the NCLA cruises, I don't have an urge for them either. But then, if I wanted to just see Hawaii, I would consider a land trip there (even though I would have to fly). I happen to like sea days, which is a major attraction for those of us who have enjoyed the round trip West Coast to Hawaii cruises.

 

BTW, has anyone read the cruise critic news story on this and compared to the other publications? There is no mention of the 50 per cent provision.

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=2728

[cvanhorn]

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2008/08/18/daily40.html

 

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2008/08/20/stupid-cruise-tricks-when-you-cant-get-on-or-off/

 

http://www.smartbrief.com/news/asta/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=5E9C774E-EA5C-46D6-A5D6-41C80DB9DA00&copyid=24AA1A8E-F83D-47C1-87FA-4696707F4834