Grrr... Passenger Vessels Services Act

[PrincessShmoo]

But most of the arguments always end up being about national defense and somehow the Navy rather than economics. Although part of that seems to be people confusing it with the Jones Act. Repealing the PVSA would mean a lot more American jobs. But they'd be union jobs. Maybe that's what people don't like.

Well, in most likelyhood, repealing the PVSA would mean that foreign flagged ships could run ships from, say New York to Miami, and they would not be required to hire unionized, american staff/crew. So I don't see how that will increase job opportunities.

 

[scgustafson]

Well, in most likelyhood, repealing the PVSA would mean that foreign flagged ships could run ships from, say New York to Miami, and they would not be required to hire unionized, american staff/crew. So I don't see how that will increase job opportunities.

Exactly.

 

[Intr3pid]

Well, in most likelyhood, repealing the PVSA would mean that foreign flagged ships could run ships from, say New York to Miami, and they would not be required to hire unionized, american staff/crew. So I don't see how that will increase job opportunities.

The reality is, there is a cruise ship running from Miami to St Juan, and back. There are hardly any US employees on board.

Moreover, there is practically no inter-city ferry or ship carrying passengers in the US. Other than POA in Hawaii and maybe some harbor crossings. There isn't any US ship running between Miami and New York either.

PVSA isn't protecting any meaningful number of American jobs. Cruise lines find it easy to avoid it, and hence why it is antiquated.

 

[cadien]

Well, in most likelyhood, repealing the PVSA would mean that foreign flagged ships could run ships from, say New York to Miami, and they would not be required to hire unionized, american staff/crew. So I don't see how that will increase job opportunities.

The dockworkers and port employees. Plus the general bump in tourism. Nothing on board, definitely.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

The dockworkers and port employees. Plus the general bump in tourism. Nothing on board, definitely.

I believe dock workers and port employees are hired by the port. I don't know that there would be that much increase in those jobs.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

I believe dock workers and port employees are hired by the port. I don't know that there would be that much increase in those jobs.

Well, the PSVA may be limiting the amount of passenger voyages that are undertaken by quite a bit. If it were to be repealed, there may be and increase in US passenger sea voyages.

For instance, families from NY going to Disney for a week may take a NYC to PC round trip cruise instead of flying or driving. Or weekend getaway cruises, from NY to DC, or DC to Williamsburg.

By requiring US ships with US crews (and US labor costs), these types of routes are (presumably) non profitable. Ending these requirements may make them profitable.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

families from NY going to Disney for a week may take a NYC to PC round trip cruise

I doubt a round trip cruise would be what they would take. It would have to be 2 one way cruises, if they've planning on a week stay at DL.

Then you run into "everyone must have a passport" thing that many US citizens seem to balk at.

By requiring US ships with US crews (and US labor costs), these types of routes are (presumably) non profitable. Ending these requirements may make them profitable.

I don't think that revoking the law would necessarily make them any more profitable. The cruise lines, even if they don't go union/hire US citizens to work on the ship, will likely be paying more for port costs/food/services in US ports than they do now.

 

[cadien]

The thing is, even if they aren’t super profitable and don’t create a ton of jobs, there’s no use to the law unless a significant group is harmed by repealing it. And I’m not seeing that that group exists any longer.

 

[xiphoid76]

The PVSA looks at where a passenger embarks a ship and where the same passenger debarks the ship in making it's determinations.

So, your B2B would be a NY to Miami cruise. You can't sail from one US port to a different US port without a stop in a DISTANT foreign port. A distant foreign port, to the PVSA, is any port NOT "in North America, Central America, the Bermuda Islands, or the West Indies (including the Bahama Islands, but not including the Leeward Islands of the Netherlands Antilles, i.e., Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao)".

Antigua (West Indies) is considered part of North America, so doesn't qualify as a distant foreign port.

To answer the question - yes, there are people who have experienced this before (check out the Alaska repo cruises in 2012 to see what happened there).

I am so confused, How do any of the Disney cruises qualify to meet these standards? A typicaly Dream ship goes to Nassau and Castaway Cay (Bahamas) and then back to US. There is no distant foreign port stop there; so how does the Dream qualify under the PVSA? Thanks for helping me understand

 

[scgustafson]

I am so confused, How do any of the Disney cruises qualify to meet these standards? A typicaly Dream ship goes to Nassau and Castaway Cay (Bahamas) and then back to US. There is no distant foreign port stop there; so how does the Dream qualify under the PVSA? Thanks for helping me understand

Because they are not taking people between two different US ports (called cabotage), but back to the same departure port, thus it is not transportation between two different US ports.

 

[xiphoid76]

Because they are not taking people between two different US ports (called cabotage), but back to the same departure port, thus it is not transportation between two different US ports.

Thank you, that helps...so the first cruise on the Disney Magic from NYC to San Juan...that is two different ports, with no distant foreign port....is that cruise not allowed for Disney to have? Or did they get a waiver for that cruise?

 

[PrincessShmoo]

Thank you, that helps...so the first cruise on the Disney Magic from NYC to San Juan...that is two different ports, with no distant foreign port....is that cruise not allowed for Disney to have? Or did they get a waiver for that cruise?

Puerto Rico has a waiver under the PVSA.

EXCEPTIONS

Transportation of Passengers Between Puerto Rico and Other U.S. Ports—46 U.S.C. § 55104
An exception to the PVSA permits non-coastwise-qualified vessels (vessels not qualified to engage in the coastwise trade) to transport passengers on voyages between ports in Puerto Rico and other U.S. ports until qualified U.S. vessels are available.
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pvsa_icp_3.pdf

 

[Capt_BJ]

just for discussion/interest

In the 1980's time frame it was possible to take a 'ferry' from Port Canaveral to NYC and the vessel was not US flagged ..... they got around this law by not having a direct service. There were actually two identical ships. One did NYC to Freeport and the other Port Canaveral to Freeport. You could book the PC to NYC with the stop in Freeport where you changed ships - including your car! I'd read about this and when a friend from up there was driving to visit me in Miami .... he used this to go back.

It didn't last too long tho .... not too many folks were interested I suppose. Sort of a prequel to the Auto-train. Would have been somewhere around 83 . . . total travel time was 4 days as I recall.

 

[Ralph&Pam]

The reality is, there is a cruise ship running from Miami to St Juan, and back. There are hardly any US employees on board.

Moreover, there is practically no inter-city ferry or ship carrying passengers in the US. Other than POA in Hawaii and maybe some harbor crossings. There isn't any US ship running between Miami and New York either.

PVSA isn't protecting any meaningful number of American jobs. Cruise lines find it easy to avoid it, and hence why it is antiquated.

The foreign-flagged cruise ship transporting passengers between Miami and San Juan is permitted under an exception to the PVSA that has been in place since October 30, 2003 (46 U.S.C. §55104). That exception provides for automatic revocation if a US-flagged carrier starts carrying passengers between US mainland and Puerto Rico. There has not been such an exception to the Jones Act that covers freight transport; this became an issue in getting relief supplies to PR after the 2017 hurricane damage knocked out the electrical grid.

 

[bumbershoot]

There has not been such an exception to the Jones Act that covers freight transport; this became an issue in getting relief supplies to PR after the 2017 hurricane damage knocked out the electrical grid

Ooh, is that why the cruiseships that helped then took people to the mainland? As a workaround?

 

[Ralph&Pam]

Ooh, is that why the cruiseships that helped then took people to the mainland? As a workaround?

Yes, very likely!

 

[Intr3pid]

The foreign-flagged cruise ship transporting passengers between Miami and San Juan is permitted under an exception to the PVSA that has been in place since October 30, 2003 (46 U.S.C. §55104). That exception provides for automatic revocation if a US-flagged carrier starts carrying passengers between US mainland and Puerto Rico. There has not been such an exception to the Jones Act that covers freight transport; this became an issue in getting relief supplies to PR after the 2017 hurricane damage knocked out the electrical grid.

Yes, and the fact that there hasn't been a revocation since 2003 - and will likely never be in the foreseeable feature - proves the point. PVSA is protecting very little beyond a dead industry.

 

[cadien]

I feel like the people who don't see what the PSVA does to protect American's interests are also the same people who do not understand the importance of the Electoral College. (And no, I am not saying the two things are connected in any particular way.)

What compelling national interest is everyone here overlooking then? The PSVA, not the Jones Act.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

What compelling national interest is everyone here overlooking then? The PSVA, not the Jones Act.

Lobbyists from other forms of transportation? Rail/ air/ bus...

 

[scgustafson]

What compelling national interest is everyone here overlooking then? The PSVA, not the Jones Act.

The PSVA is the precedence for the laws preventing cabotage in the airline industry, which is a much bigger American industry that would be impacted by the allowing of cheaper (and often nationally subsidized) competitors into the domestic market. It would also open up precedence for foreign rail competition.