Jump to content

Hawaii


Recommended Posts

Royal can only visit Hawaii as part of an itinerary that visits at least 1 foreign port.  The Jones Act requires that any foreign-flagged cruise vessel must call at at least 1 foreign port before returning to the United States.  NCL has 1 ship that is flagged in the US - the Pride of America which is an older ship that they keep just to do Hawaii cruises.  Royal Caribbean has no US-flagged vessels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

Just read the Act. It appears to have been created for the shipping of merchants; although, the Law is being applied to cruising. However, apparently the Trump WH is looking at a permanent Jones Act Waiver. Part of the corporate globalization of the world I suppose. Best case scenario would be to either the U.S. start building vessels again(didn't realize the U.S. don't until now) or repeal the Act, which do seem arcadic now days. 

 

Would love to see a Voyager or Freedom class ship there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People get it confused all the time, it's not the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920), it is the PVSA (Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886) that prohibits foreign flagged ships from doing closed-loop voyages that do not visit a foreign port.  While the Jones Act might get some waiver to increase commerce, it is unlikely the PVSA would fall under that as there is nothing to really gain by loosening it.

We can blame the Cleveland administration all we want, but RCCL is completely capable of flagging a ship in the US to do Hawaiian cruises.  They choose not to pay the associated taxes and hire and pay the people they would be required to with a US flagged ship.  I'm not saying they are wrong to not want to do that, I really like the international crew on most cruise ships, but they are just as capable of doing it as NCL is.  NCL just chose to do it, neither RCCL nor anybody else has at this time.

Welcome to the forum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Zambia-Zaire said:

Thanks.

 

Just read the Act. It appears to have been created for the shipping of merchants; although, the Law is being applied to cruising. However, apparently the Trump WH is looking at a permanent Jones Act Waiver. Part of the corporate globalization of the world I suppose. Best case scenario would be to either the U.S. start building vessels again(didn't realize the U.S. don't until now) or repeal the Act, which do seem arcadic now days. 

 

Would love to see a Voyager or Freedom class ship there.

I would absolutely LOVE for there to be a Jones Act Waiver! There used to be a 2 day cruise to nowhere that left from Norfolk VA, that had to go by the wayside partially due to the Jones Act.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zambia-Zaire said:

Thanks NS8VN.

 

Hmmm....that's interesting. That would explain why NCL once had three ships porting from HNL at one time. It would be nice for NCL to have some competition. RCCL needs to flag a ship...it's not going to bankrupt them.

While I would love more competition, keep in mind that if it’s a US flagged ship they have to hire mostly US workers as well, which will increase the pay tremendously. 

My mother in law went on the Norwegian ship once and complained that the service was just not the same with US workers.

Why would RCCL have a US flagged ship to pay more money in taxes and wages and have complaints about service? Just doesn’t make financial sense 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zambia-Zaire said:

That's an unsubstantiated statement...

What part? The comments I made about my mother in laws cruise? That is indeed an opinion.

The comments I made about US based ships having to hire mostly US workers and pay them more? That is true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually.... it's a all been codified into US law.  While it may have been the Jones Act or The PVSA in origin, technically about 15 years ago those all sort of wrapped into various parts of US law (46. U.S.C. § 50101 and 46 U.S.C. § 55103 plus others).  Origins of both impact the cruise industry. 

The Jones Act was originally conceived to apply to merchant shipping but as written parts of it apply to any vessel, cargo or cruise (or other) in US waters.  Percentages of US steel in a ship, percentage of US workers on board, cabotage, etc. are items from Jones that apply to cruise ships while the concept of closed loop and distant foreign port comes (plus other items) come from the PVSA.

There will not be any waivers anytime soon.  Doing so would have ramifications beyond what anyone could imagine. 

The concept of cabotage, picking up a passenger (or a thing like cargo) in one US origin and dropping them (it) off in another US destination applies to airlines as well.  You ever won't see foreign carries such as Qantas, Air Canada or British Airways picking up a passenger in say New York and dropping them in Los Angles.  Nor will you see American, Delta or United (or any US airline) picking up a passenger in Sydney and dropping them off in Brisbane just as an example.  International agreements and conventions rule the movement of passengers and who can move who within a country versus to a foreign country.  They are delicately negotiated between foreign countries.

Many countries have variations of laws that apply to cabotage although some enforce them for airlines more so then for ocean travel because many countries have no domestic maritime industry they are trying to protect.  

Believe it or not there are significant international conventions that govern the maritime industry including the maximum time any one person can work on ship.  If a ship worker wanted to work two back to back contracts by maritime law and convention they can't if it exceeds established time frames.  Hours per days, week, month etc. are as well.  Many of these were established for maritime personnel before cruising became a thing.  If you think a cruise ship worker has it bad there are plenty of maritime ship employees on various other forms of ships that have it much worse.  Today they have it somewhat better because of how the merchant marine industry mistreated it's workers many decades ago.  It wasn't the cruise ship industry that drove the creation of these protections as many people believe.

The day any cruise line is granted a waiver or exemption from US Law there would be an avalanche and ripple effects through many closely or somewhat related industries.  No one is going to upset the carefully balanced apple cart that allows cruise ships (and other 'carriers') to operate as they do today.    A cruise line is just another "carrier" in a complicated system that governs all "carriers" - planes, trains, ships and others.

The reason Puerto Rico isn't subject to enforcement (at the moment) is that there is no US carrier attempting to operate passenger service on a maritime route to the US mainland.  If NCL gave up it's Hawaii operation, it's conceivable that eventually Hawaii could possibly be subject to a similar temporary waiver.  Keywords are conceivable, eventually and possibly.  The story of the NCL's ship that qualify as "US ships" versus "foreign flagged" is complicated and a very long story.  I don't see them giving up on that and any waiver granted to any foreign flagged vessel would surely be met with legal challenges that would go on for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Oliver said:

@twangster  Do you think that maybe Puerto Rico has it differently because it’s a US Territory and not a state? Just curious 

Nope.  There is an actual waiver on the books for PR cruise ship visits, but not for cargo.  In the aftermath of the recent hurricanes they temporarily lifted the cargo cabotage laws (Jones) so that foreign flagged vessels could provide aid otherwise only US flagged ships can carry cargo from the US Mainland to PR. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/jones-act-waived.html

"Trump Waives Jones Act for Puerto Rico, Easing Hurricane Aid Shipments"

They looked at permanently removing Jones Act for PR but it hasn't moved forward.

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/shipping/031218-white-house-studies-permanent-jones-act-waiver-for-puerto-rico-sources

"On September 28, Senators John McCain, Republican-Arizona, and Mike Lee, Republican-Utah, introduced a bill to permanently exempt Puerto Rico from the Jones Act, but the bill has generated no public support from Senate leaders.

Any change to the Jones Act is likely to receive staunch opposition from the domestic maritime industry and both Republicans and Democrats in Congress."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I wanted to sail from Seattle to Hawaii I looked into this extensively.  It's quite interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886

As of October 30, 2003, foreign vessels are also allowed to transport passengers (but not cargo) between the U.S. mainland and Puerto Rico (46 U.S.C. § 55104). However, this exemption will disappear if U.S.-flagged ships resume passenger operations of this type.[2]

Waivers from the PVSA can be requested in case of national defense interest.

 

More information about the PVSA can be found on CBP's website:

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pvsa_icp_3.pdf

"...the intent of the coastwise laws, including the PVSA, was to protect U.S. shipping interests by providing a “legal structure that guarantees a coastwise monopoly to American shipping and thereby promotes development of the American merchant marine.”

Did you know that the PVSA can apply to certain entertainers and cruise line employees?  Travel agents, sales and marketing, etc. are subject to the PVSA.  That would mean NextCruise employees have to pay attention to what port they embark and at the end of their contract, the port they disembark the ship.  

1222553195_PVSAPassenger.thumb.jpeg.1b0357f24477b8376cde37886040c39e.jpeg 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, twangster said:

Nope.  There is an actual waiver on the books for PR cruise ship visits, but not for cargo.  In the aftermath of the recent hurricanes they temporarily lifted the cargo cabotage laws (Jones) so that foreign flagged vessels could provide aid otherwise only US flagged ships can carry cargo from the US Mainland to PR. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/jones-act-waived.html

"Trump Waives Jones Act for Puerto Rico, Easing Hurricane Aid Shipments"

They looked at permanently removing Jones Act for PR but it hasn't moved forward.

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/shipping/031218-white-house-studies-permanent-jones-act-waiver-for-puerto-rico-sources

"On September 28, Senators John McCain, Republican-Arizona, and Mike Lee, Republican-Utah, introduced a bill to permanently exempt Puerto Rico from the Jones Act, but the bill has generated no public support from Senate leaders.

Any change to the Jones Act is likely to receive staunch opposition from the domestic maritime industry and both Republicans and Democrats in Congress."

Thanks for reply 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Here's a good explanation of some of the issues discussed in this particular post that either confirms and/or validate, the many informative answers given. The most compelling, imo, start at the 4:20 minute mark; however, I suggest looking the short video in its entirety, for a better overall understanding.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY1BFv8qEeM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
22 hours ago, Zambia-Zaire said:

The issue is that whenever the idea of repealing the PVSA comes up we are thinking about it from the limited scope of cruiselines.

PVSA affects any vessels that operate in US waters.  Repealing it entirely I don't see would ever happen.  It's a very pro-USA economy act that covers fishing vessels, ferries, casino boats, etc as well as cruiseships.

Rewriting it to provide an exclusion for cruiselines is a possibility, but I don't know that the cruiselines ever thought it was worth it to fight that fight.  I could see perhaps an Executive Order at the Federal level that would halt the Customs Border Patrol from fining the cruiseships for not visiting their foreign ports due to the COVID-19 situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If NCL goes under and disappears they could add a  PVSA waiver for Hawaii.  Until then NCL would sue if there was a Hawaii waiver.  They invested heavily into the Pride of America to be compliant as a US flagged vessel crewed by US citizens.  
 

The only reason there is a PVSA Puerto Rico waiver is because no one is operating a compliant ship on the routes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Company can sue for a myriad of reasons.  NCL has paid significant sums of money to be compliant.  They operate at a higher operating cost to remain compliant.  

It's a moot point because it's extremely unlikely to happen.  However if the Government pulled the rug out from under NCL you can bet they would take action to protect their investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, twangster said:

It's a moot point because it's extremely unlikely to happen.

Yeah...not sure what's the discussion is here, like you said, it's a moot point. A law sue in court will "never" happen. NCL will simply adjust their business & operation model to fit the changed dynamic in the industry, in Hawaii...if the Act is repealed & rolled back. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

There is a possible loophole in the PVSA that nobody has discussed. The act itself is clear enough outlining what you can and can't do and who can and can't do what, but if you look at the penalties you can see the clearly preset dollar amounts per passenger.  Now if you dig a little farther you will see that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency are responsible for setting these monetary amounts and have every right and ability to reduce or suspend the monetary penalties. So in theory if advised by the CBP that all penalties related to the PVSA would be waived, a cruise operator could knowingly violate the PVSA and not have to be penalized.  It's a stretch, but there is leeway in the act as written to have the scenario happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JorgeCoolo said:

There is a possible loophole in the PVSA that nobody has discussed. The act itself is clear enough outlining what you can and can't do and who can and can't do what, but if you look at the penalties you can see the clearly preset dollar amounts per passenger.  Now if you dig a little farther you will see that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency are responsible for setting these monetary amounts and have every right and ability to reduce or suspend the monetary penalties. So in theory if advised by the CBP that all penalties related to the PVSA would be waived, a cruise operator could knowingly violate the PVSA and not have to be penalized.  It's a stretch, but there is leeway in the act as written to have the scenario happen.

There is no precedent for CBP to ignore the law and decide not to enforce it.  It is true that CBP has waived the penalties in cases where weather, mechanical breakdowns or health emergencies have created a situation where a ship must violate the law.  In cases where a ship departs with an intent to violate the law the CBP in modern times has enforced the law.  In cases where a passenger falls ill and must be medically evacuated that guest can still face the fee for violating the PVSA but more often than not CBP has been known to waive it in those cases.

This argument would be like saying police officers could help struggling families by not enforcing all laws thereby easing burdens on struggling families.  No speeding tickets unless it was an outrageous violation for example.  No parking tickets either.  Think of the benefits.  

There is a twist to your proposal I have jokingly posted about though...  let me sail and I'll pay the $798 fee. 

When I posted that I was of course joking but when you think about it a number of cruise forum users have floated ideas of moving home ports to various Caribbean nations.  That comes with the extra costs of hotels, meals and airfare expenses for cruisers.  When you think about it, a $798 fee isn't that far from the travel expense that could be incurred by cruise guests to cruise from a Caribbean nation.  My Barbados flight to cruise Grandeur will likely be all of that $800.

So I'll say it again... fine me the $798 but let me sail to Alaska! (or Hawaii)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, twangster said:

There is no precedent for CBP to ignore the law and decide not to enforce it.  It is true that CBP has waived the penalties in cases where weather, mechanical breakdowns or health emergencies have created a situation where a ship must violate the law.  In cases where a ship departs with an intent to violate the law the CBP in modern times has enforced the law.  In cases where a passenger falls ill and must be medically evacuated that guest can still face the fee for violating the PVSA but more often than not CBP has been known to waive it in those cases.

This argument would be like saying police officers could help struggling families by not enforcing all laws thereby easing burdens on struggling families.  No speeding tickets unless it was an outrageous violation for example.  No parking tickets either.  Think of the benefits.  

There is a twist to your proposal I have jokingly posted about though...  let me sail and I'll pay the $798 fee. 

When I posted that I was of course joking but when you think about it a number of cruise forum users have floated ideas of moving home ports to various Caribbean nations.  That comes with the extra costs of hotels, meals and airfare expenses for cruisers.  When you think about it, a $798 fee isn't that far from the travel expense that could be incurred by cruise guests to cruise from a Caribbean nation.  My Barbados flight to cruise Grandeur will likely be all of that $800.

So I'll say it again... fine me the $798 but let me sail to Alaska! (or Hawaii)

This is an unprecedented time and irreparable damage is being done to Alaska port towns. The CBP is responsible for the physical and economic safety of Americans.  Having the power to save an industry might just supercede the lack of precedent. Saying that the CBP should do this on their own is irresponsible, but if a coalition of federal representatives and agencies worked together to make it happen, a full waiver would not have to happen. I still think it's a viable option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JorgeCoolo said:

This is an unprecedented time and irreparable damage is being done to Alaska port towns. The CBP is responsible for the physical and economic safety of Americans.  Having the power to save an industry might just supercede the lack of precedent. Saying that the CBP should do this on their own is irresponsible, but if a coalition of federal representatives and agencies worked together to make it happen, a full waiver would not have to happen. I still think it's a viable option.

CBP is responsible physical security and economic enhancement involving the border.  They are not responsible for domestic economic matters such as as getting Americans to be tourists within America including Americans going to Hawaii or Alaska.  Nor are they responsible to be the financial savior of foreign cruise lines.  

Americans are free to fly to Hawaii and SE Alaska and contribute to the economy.  Many already do.  If Hawaii is the desired destination Americans can easily get a on a plane much sooner than on a ship and go there very soon.   The CBP can't be charged with targeting only the cruise industry to better one or two small regions of America.

Furthermore, if CBP was authorized to ignore the PVSA for foreign cruise lines that still doesn't solve the immigration issues of allowing foreign crew to work in America, paying no US federal or state taxes and not being subject to US labor laws which is what you are proposing.  

Honestly the reason no foreign cruise line is seeking to reform the PVSA is because they don't want to employ US workers on their ships which a study has shown will cost them five times the current foreign labor cost.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2019 at 3:04 PM, Zambia-Zaire said:

Why is NCL the only line allowed to port out of Honolulu & the Hawaiian Island exclusively?

 

The one thing that is frustrating, in order to cruise Hawaii on RCCL, it has to be 10-days+ out of LA, Sea, Van, Syd(transpacific). No 4d, 5d, or 7d cruise out of HNL. Why can't Royal break into that market?   

I took Pride of America several years ago and it went to Fanning Island to get in the foreign  port.  (And I will not go on that ship again, was horrible ship)

I also had read that their wasn't a big market for Hawaii cruises, especially year round.   Otherwise not sure about RC doing Hawaii cruises.   I have taken the  transpacific Hawaiian  cruises, to or from Vancouver.  I like enjoyed it but only cruises April and September.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Linda R said:

I took Pride of America several years ago and it went to Fanning Island to get in the foreign  port.  (And I will not go on that ship again, was horrible ship)

I also had read that their wasn't a big market for Hawaii cruises, especially year round.   Otherwise not sure about RC doing Hawaii cruises.   I have taken the  transpacific Hawaiian  cruises, to or from Vancouver.  I like enjoyed it but only cruises April and September.  

I have heard similar sentiments discussing market size, year round for Hawaii. Very plausible given the sheer cost of flagging a ship there as a home port. Hawaii is such positioned in no-mans land...no reasonable sailings from many ports w/o investing huge numbers of days, no close foreign port to satify the passengers act, and obviously the lack of variety on a regular basis. Such a shame; but, it is what it is....i loved cruising there when Pride of Aloha(now Norwegian Sky) was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...