Will the US suspend the Passenger Vessels Services Act?

[tinkerone]

I could be wrong however if you sailed and didn't stop at a foreign port would that not mean they would have to pay US pay rates/salaries including overtime? I'm pretty sure I have read about this in the past and that was one of the issues that I was prevalent.
Again, I'm no expert but I think that would have to be taken into account.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

I could be wrong however if you sailed and didn't stop at a foreign port would that not mean they would have to pay US pay rates/salaries including overtime? I'm pretty sure I have read about this in the past and that was one of the issues that I was prevalent.
Again, I'm no expert but I think that would have to be taken into account.

Probably. Cruises to nowhere were stopped due to a court ruling that such cruises (with no port stops, foreign or otherwise) were deemed "employment in the US" and such employment requires a different work visa than what the crew typically has now (with cruises stopping in foreign ports). Those visas are more costly and require more involved paperwork. Most cruise lines opted not to do that and just stopped doing cruises to nowhere, apparently for just that reason.

Not having any foreign port stops on a regular cruise could be viewed also as "employment within the US".

 

[insureman]

I could be wrong however if you sailed and didn't stop at a foreign port would that not mean they would have to pay US pay rates/salaries including overtime? I'm pretty sure I have read about this in the past and that was one of the issues that I was prevalent.
Again, I'm no expert but I think that would have to be taken into account.

I think they only have to do that if they are US flagged but I could be mistaken. They should be able to temporarily suspend certain parts of the PVSA without affecting other laws.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

I think they only have to do that if they are US flagged but I could be mistaken. They should be able to temporarily suspend certain parts of the PVSA without affecting other laws.

The decision about those cruises without foreign port stops is not a PVSA issue. It was a court case brought by the CBP. It has to do with work visas. And it applies to all cruises out of US ports.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

Astoria Oregon as a departure / return port. Granted, the minimum sailing to Skagway, Juneau and Ketchikan would probably be 9 nights, but more likely 10. And yes, there's no easy way to get to Astoria, even for Oregonians. But it is a beautiful 2.5 hour drive from Portland. Heck could sail from/to Portland. I would love a cruise on the Columbia along with going to Alaska / Seattle or south to San Francisco / LA/ San Diego.

The issue with that is setting up maintenance and reprovisioning at a new port. It's not turnkey. All of DCL's support and supply chain is Vancouver and San Diego.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

The decision about those cruises without foreign port stops is not a PVSA issue. It was a court case brought by the CBP. It has to do with work visas. And it applies to all cruises out of US ports.

True fact: You do not want to mess with CBP and the resultant tax issues. And the US work visa/employment becomes a tax issue. CBP or Treasury/IRS alone are bad news. Together? Oh no.

 

[MillauFr]

To be a U.S. flagged ship, it has to have been built in the U.S.

The NCL Pride of America which is US Flagged was mostly built in Germany.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

The NCL Pride of America which is US Flagged was mostly built in Germany.

The key word being "mostly". Because parts of her were built in the US, NCL was granted a waiver to flag her in the US.

 

[cgolf]

I could be wrong however if you sailed and didn't stop at a foreign port would that not mean they would have to pay US pay rates/salaries including overtime? I'm pretty sure I have read about this in the past and that was one of the issues that I was prevalent.
Again, I'm no expert but I think that would have to be taken into account.

This is one thing that gets lost on many especially a certain cruise laywer many on here don't like. Its that we look at cruise line working conditions and pay looking at our cost of living and pay. Many if not most of the workers on the ships are making more money on the ships than they can make in their home countries where the cost of living is a fraction of what it is here. Some I have talked to onboard even spoke of retiring in their 40s. I know that isn't happening for me lol.

You could even compare the midwest in the US to say California. I could never afford to move west, because our houses are a fraction of the cost, but they could move here no problem. The cost of living varies a lot even in the US.

 

[jrabbit]

The issue with that is setting up maintenance and reprovisioning at a new port. It's not turnkey. All of DCL's support and supply chain is Vancouver and San Diego.

True That! BUT Sailing with Paying Passengers vs NO Paying Customers could entice cruise lines to set up shop in non traditional ports to stay in business.

 

[DisneyConvert]

So many thoughtful, well-informed (and polite!) replies. Makes me realize that one of the reasons I like and miss our DCL trips . . . is that the ships are filled with nice, down-to-earth, caring people (mostly).

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

So if there was a waiver this would help cruises out of Seattle but would still mean no Disney Wonder sailings as they do out of Vancouver. And it's not a case of 'let's just switch the sailings to Seattle' as those berths have already been assigned to other cruise lines.

We sailed on the Wonder out of Seattle. It may not be the best days of the week for sailing if they had to make changes now but nothing is impossible.

 

[bcwife76]

We sailed on the Wonder out of Seattle. It may not be the best days of the week for sailing if they had to make changes now but nothing is impossible.

Yes but if Canada extends the ban it doesn't matter where they sail from, you still can't sail to Alaska. Changing to Seattle doesn't change this fact unfortunately.

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

Yes but if Canada extends the ban it doesn't matter where they sail from, you still can't sail to Alaska. Changing to Seattle doesn't change this fact unfortunately.

Can you explain why?
We only stopped at Victoria to satisfy the foreign port requirement. If the US government were able to temporarily waive this rule, why couldn’t a ship sail from one US port to another?

 

[PrincessShmoo]

Can you explain why?
We only stopped at Victoria to satisfy the foreign port requirement. If the US government were able to temporarily waive this rule, why couldn’t a ship sail from one US port to another?

The question is whether, or even IF they want to, issue a waiver. Historically, it seems it won't be.

According to the law itself the only waivers would be granted for national defense:

WAIVER AUTHORITY—46 U.S.C. § 501 National Defense

The PVSA can only be waived in the interest of national defense, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 501. Under 46 U.S.C. § 501(a), the Secretary of Defense may request the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to waive the PVSA to the extent the Secretary of Defense considers such a waiver necessary in the interest of national defense. In this instance, CBP, pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Secretary of DHS shall grant the waiver. For all other waiver requests, the Secretary of DHS is authorized to grant the waiver request if the Secretary of DHS considers it necessary in the interest of national defense (46 U.S.C. § 501(b)). It should be noted that in this latter instance, P.L. 110-417, section 3510, (122 Stat. 4356, enacted on October 14, 2008), amended § 501(b), to require that the Maritime Administrator be consulted regarding the non-availability of qualified United States flag capacity to meet national defense requirements, before the Secretary of DHS grants the waiver request.

 

[tvguy]

Can you explain why?
We only stopped at Victoria to satisfy the foreign port requirement. If the US government were able to temporarily waive this rule, why couldn’t a ship sail from one US port to another?

I'm not sure a cruise rises to the level that would merit a waiver. But IF cruise lines are serious, there are islands in the Aleutians that belong to Russia that could be a stop to satisfy the foreign port requirement. Sort of like what cruises to Hawaii did with Fanning Island,

 

[Starwind]

Can you explain why?
We only stopped at Victoria to satisfy the foreign port requirement. If the US government were able to temporarily waive this rule, why couldn’t a ship sail from one US port to another?

For sailing from Seattle to Alaska, if the Canadian ban is still on there is also the issue of not being allowed in "Canadian waters" [the ban is not just ports, but Canadian waters as a whole]. So they'd have to go "the long way around" as it were, with no Canadian Inside Passage, etc. I don't know the full impact it would have on such revised itineraries, but there would be quite a bit more than just not porting in Canada, which could impact whether the cruise lines would deem it worthwhile to do.

SW

 

[PrincessShmoo]

I'm not sure a cruise rises to the level that would merit a waiver. But IF cruise lines are serious, there are islands in the Aleutians that belong to Russia that could be a stop to satisfy the foreign port requirement. Sort of like what cruises to Hawaii did with Fanning Island,

Can those islands/port actually accommodate large cruise ships? How much additional time would that add to the cruise (getting there and back)?

 

[bcwife76]

Can those islands/port actually accommodate large cruise ships? How much additional time would that add to the cruise (getting there and back)?

I'd say that would take longer than 7 days which is also not allowed by the CDC mandates right now.

 

[DCLCrazy64622]

I just wonder if there is enough interest in routes just between U.S. ports? I would think if the cruise industry thought so they would have lobbied for changes years ago.

I would love to start in port canaveral and then stop along a few place on the eastern seaboard ending NYC or Maine. I would rather give my tourist money to my own country, frankly.