Jones act

Anyone had a problem like the one below?

Tried to book three b2b cruises on Legend, those being Seattle to Vancouver, Vancouver to Honolulu, and Honolulu to Sydney.

Rang Carnival international and was told that I can't do those 3 b2b as I would be in violation of the Jones Act, or more specifically the PVSA. Won't get into the details of this act here, except to say that you can't go from one US port to another without an international stop in between (Vancouver doesn't count). This is for non US registered ships.

Asked them that since the 3rd cruise finished in Sydney if this Act wouldn't be relevant but they still said I could not do them.

Went to travel expo in Sydney, asked Carnival workers about this. They rolled their eyes and said I 100% could do it and that the US side don't know what they are talking about as their system of booking doesn't take into account the Australian part.

Out of interest, rang Carnival international again with this new info and was told yet again that I couldn't do it as it would violate Jones Act, Carnival would be fined and I and my family would be removed from the ship and taken before a federal judge!

Ummmm... anyone shed any light on this??

I won't be booking all three on the Legend regardless...not willing to take the risk. Might do the 2nd and 3rd legs but use a different cruise line for the Alaskan part.

Anyone had a problem like the one below?

 

Tried to book three b2b cruises on Legend, those being Seattle to Vancouver, Vancouver to Honolulu, and Honolulu to Sydney.

 

Rang Carnival international and was told that I can't do those 3 b2b as I would be in violation of the Jones Act, or more specifically the PVSA. Won't get into the details of this act here, except to say that you can't go from one US port to another without an international stop in between (Vancouver doesn't count). This is for non US registered ships.

 

Asked them that since the 3rd cruise finished in Sydney if this Act wouldn't be relevant but they still said I could not do them.

 

Went to travel expo in Sydney, asked Carnival workers about this. They rolled their eyes and said I 100% could do it and that the US side don't know what they are talking about as their system of booking doesn't take into account the Australian part.

 

Out of interest, rang Carnival international again with this new info and was told yet again that I couldn't do it as it would violate Jones Act, Carnival would be fined and I and my family would be removed from the ship and taken before a federal judge!

 

Ummmm... anyone shed any light on this??

 

I won't be booking all three on the Legend regardless...not willing to take the risk. Might do the 2nd and 3rd legs but use a different cruise line for the Alaskan part.

But if you book, Seattle-Vancouver and Vancouver-Sydney should be a non-issue.

But if you book, Seattle-Vancouver and Vancouver-Sydney should be a non-issue.[/

No, ship doesn't overnight in Vancouver so they see it as going from Seattle to Honolulu, 2 US ports without an international port in between. That is not allowed under the Jones Act. But by doing the 3rd leg I don't believe the Act applies, but trying to explain that to them is like banging your head against a brick wall.

It's actually called the Passenger Vessel Service Act (Jones Act is cargo). I did this exact itinerary in 2012 when the Spirit went over to Australia. The PVSA only affects ships transporting passengers between 2 US ports without stopping at a distant foreign port. There are none on the Seattle-Honolulu legs. But since the end port is Sydney, it is technically OK.

However the issue now, is Carnival.au handles bookings for the Honolulu to Sydney leg. Somehow, there must be someway that this can be escalated to somebody that can book all three legs, because it is legal, since you will be boarding in Seattle and disembarking in Sydney.

But like you said, if you can't get it resolved, cruise to Alaska on another cruise line.

It's actually called the Passenger Vessel Service Act (Jones Act is cargo). I did this exact itinerary in 2012 when the Spirit went over to Australia. The PVSA only affects ships transporting passengers between 2 US ports without stopping at a distant foreign port. There are none on the Seattle-Honolulu legs. But since the end port is Sydney, it is technically OK.

 

However the issue now, is Carnival.au handles bookings for the Honolulu to Sydney leg. Somehow, there must be someway that this can be escalated to somebody that can book all three legs, because it is legal, since you will be boarding in Seattle and disembarking in Sydney.

 

But like you said, if you can't get it resolved, cruise to Alaska on another cruise line.

Yep, this is exactly what I have been telling Carnival. But they just look at a computer which says no so they say no as well.

I'm going to see if I can get anywhere with it...more out of curiosity than anything else.

Carnival is correct. You can't sail from US port #1 (Seattle) to Vancouver to US port #2 (Honolulu) without going to a distant foreign port regardless of what you do after you get to Honolulu.

Why in the world would you believe that Carnival employees in Australia would be more familiar with US law than Carnival employees in the US?

Carnival is correct. You can't sail from US port #1 (Seattle) to Vancouver to US port #2 (Honolulu) without going to a distant foreign port regardless of what you do after you get to Honolulu.

 

 

 

Why in the world would you believe that Carnival employees in Australia would be more familiar with US law than Carnival employees in the US?

Why in the world??? Because the Carnival employees at the travel expo called them hopeless and said they have no idea, that's why. They also happened to be American.

"Regardless of what I do after I get to Honolulu".... Why is that exactly? If they take all three cruises together I am embarking in US port and disembarking in Aust port. They take the first 2 legs together to say I'm in violation, so based on that logic why wouldn't they include the third??

Why in the world??? Because the Carnival employees at the travel expo called them hopeless and said they have no idea, that's why. They also happened to be American.

"Regardless of what I do after I get to Honolulu".... Why is that exactly? If they take all three cruises together I am embarking in US port and disembarking in Aust port. They take the first 2 legs together to say I'm in violation, so based on that logic why wouldn't they include the third??

I agree with you 100%. This should certainly be legal. They can't pick and choose which cruises they are going to include.

It's where you embark and where you disembark for the final time is all that matters.

Maybe they think Sydney Australia is in the United States.:p

Bill

How come I can do a cruise from Sydney to America that stops at Hawaii then?:confused::confused:

How come I can do a cruise from Sydney to America that stops at Hawaii then?:confused::confused:

That's because you embarked outside America so PVSA does not apply, it is a US law only

I agree with you 100%. This should certainly be legal. They can't pick and choose which cruises they are going to include.

 

 

 

It's where you embark and where you disembark for the final time is all that matters.

 

 

 

Maybe they think Sydney Australia is in the United States.:p

 

 

 

Bill

You might be right Bill [emoji23]

That's because you embarked outside America so PVSA does not apply, it is a US law only

But what about this one, which I can also do in reverse

It's actually called the Passenger Vessel Service Act (Jones Act is cargo). I did this exact itinerary in 2012 when the Spirit went over to Australia. The PVSA only affects ships transporting passengers between 2 US ports without stopping at a distant foreign port. There are none on the Seattle-Honolulu legs. But since the end port is Sydney, it is technically OK.

 

However the issue now, is Carnival.au handles bookings for the Honolulu to Sydney leg. Somehow, there must be someway that this can be escalated to somebody that can book all three legs, because it is legal, since you will be boarding in Seattle and disembarking in Sydney.

 

But like you said, if you can't get it resolved, cruise to Alaska on another cruise line.

Some lines, apparently not including Carnival, package multiple adjacent cruise segments as a "grand voyage" (or "extended" voyage or some other moniker that joins segments seamlessly in a single booking as opposed to a B2B with two or more separate bookings). Sounds like simple semantics but there is a real difference. In fact some lines prohibit booking B2B segments when they've already published the total trip as a "grand voyage." Thus, in this case, Seattle and Honolulu would only be port stops.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

But what about this one, which I can also do in reverse

That seems to be all one cruise which is fine, as you start at a US port and finish at a foreign one. This whole PVSA/Jones Act issue arises when you are doing transitional cruises where the ship is not returning to its port of departure, in particular back to back cruises on the same ship.

I agree with you 100%. This should certainly be legal. They can't pick and choose which cruises they are going to include.

 

 

 

It's where you embark and where you disembark for the final time is all that matters.

 

 

 

Maybe they think Sydney Australia is in the United States.:p

 

 

 

Bill

Indeed.

Since you start in Seattle and end in Sydney, on the same ship / continuous journey, what you're doing is legal. The Carnival rep is wrong.

What is not allowed is starting in Seattle and ending in Honolulu - which is not what you're asking for.

Floris

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Carnival is correct. You can't sail from US port #1 (Seattle) to Vancouver to US port #2 (Honolulu) without going to a distant foreign port regardless of what you do after you get to Honolulu.

 

 

 

Why in the world would you believe that Carnival employees in Australia would be more familiar with US law than Carnival employees in the US?

You are wrong. The opp isn't ending his journey in Honolulu but continuing to Sydney which is not the US. What he wants to do is totally legit and many of us have taken Seattle to Sydney cruises via Hawaii before.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Indeed.

 

Since you start in Seattle and end in Sydney, on the same ship / continuous journey, what you're doing is legal. The Carnival rep is wrong.

 

What is not allowed is starting in Seattle and ending in Honolulu - which is not what you're asking for.

 

Floris

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

100% agree. Now if I could just get Carnival international to see it that way.

Indeed.

 

Since you start in Seattle and end in Sydney, on the same ship / continuous journey, what you're doing is legal. The Carnival rep is wrong.

 

What is not allowed is starting in Seattle and ending in Honolulu - which is not what you're asking for.

 

Floris

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

As aforementioned, a B2B is not a continuous single journey unless it is booked as a single "grand" or "extended" cruise with its own unique single booking number.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

As aforementioned, a B2B is not a continuous single journey unless it is booked as a single "grand" or "extended" cruise with its own unique single booking number.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Actually, this is not correct. CBP does not care how the cruises are marketed or sold, they only look at the end product: does the combined voyage transport a passenger between one US port to another US port without a distant foreign port call.

In this particular case, each segment of the proposed cruise is legal in and of itself. However, combining the first and second portions, becoming Seattle to Honolulu becomes illegal. But, when the third segment is added, it once again becomes a legal voyage.

Now, whether Carnival has some limitation on its booking system that differentiates where the cruise has to be booked, is a different matter, but this proposed itinerary is perfectly legal, and has been done many times in the past.

As stated, voyages that start in ports outside the US are not covered by the PVSA, but also, voyages that end in ports outside the US are not covered either.

The simple fact that Carnival's (and most other cruise line's) phone staff refer to this as a "Jones Act" problem shows how little they know of their own laws. In fact, Australia has cabotage laws similar to the PVSA, that limit coastwise passenger trade to Australian flag ships, but they have a mechanism for granting temporary exemptions to foreign flag ships when no Oz flagged ship is available.

Actually, this is not correct. CBP does not care how the cruises are marketed or sold, they only look at the end product: does the combined voyage transport a passenger between one US port to another US port without a distant foreign port call.

 

In this particular case, each segment of the proposed cruise is legal in and of itself. However, combining the first and second portions, becoming Seattle to Honolulu becomes illegal. But, when the third segment is added, it once again becomes a legal voyage.

 

Now, whether Carnival has some limitation on its booking system that differentiates where the cruise has to be booked, is a different matter, but this proposed itinerary is perfectly legal, and has been done many times in the past.

 

As stated, voyages that start in ports outside the US are not covered by the PVSA, but also, voyages that end in ports outside the US are not covered either.

 

The simple fact that Carnival's (and most other cruise line's) phone staff refer to this as a "Jones Act" problem shows how little they know of their own laws. In fact, Australia has cabotage laws similar to the PVSA, that limit coastwise passenger trade to Australian flag ships, but they have a mechanism for granting temporary exemptions to foreign flag ships when no Oz flagged ship is available.

Incredible:eek:

Actually, this is not correct. CBP does not care how the cruises are marketed or sold, they only look at the end product: does the combined voyage transport a passenger between one US port to another US port without a distant foreign port call.

 

In this particular case, each segment of the proposed cruise is legal in and of itself. However, combining the first and second portions, becoming Seattle to Honolulu becomes illegal. But, when the third segment is added, it once again becomes a legal voyage.

 

Now, whether Carnival has some limitation on its booking system that differentiates where the cruise has to be booked, is a different matter, but this proposed itinerary is perfectly legal, and has been done many times in the past.

 

As stated, voyages that start in ports outside the US are not covered by the PVSA, but also, voyages that end in ports outside the US are not covered either.

 

The simple fact that Carnival's (and most other cruise line's) phone staff refer to this as a "Jones Act" problem shows how little they know of their own laws. In fact, Australia has cabotage laws similar to the PVSA, that limit coastwise passenger trade to Australian flag ships, but they have a mechanism for granting temporary exemptions to foreign flag ships when no Oz flagged ship is available.

AMAZING!! Was waiting for you to chime in!

This is true.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Anyone had a problem like the one below?

 

Tried to book three b2b cruises on Legend, those being Seattle to Vancouver, Vancouver to Honolulu, and Honolulu to Sydney.

 

Rang Carnival international and was told that I can't do those 3 b2b as I would be in violation of the Jones Act, or more specifically the PVSA. Won't get into the details of this act here, except to say that you can't go from one US port to another without an international stop in between (Vancouver doesn't count). This is for non US registered ships.

 

Asked them that since the 3rd cruise finished in Sydney if this Act wouldn't be relevant but they still said I could not do them.

 

Went to travel expo in Sydney, asked Carnival workers about this. They rolled their eyes and said I 100% could do it and that the US side don't know what they are talking about as their system of booking doesn't take into account the Australian part.

 

Out of interest, rang Carnival international again with this new info and was told yet again that I couldn't do it as it would violate Jones Act, Carnival would be fined and I and my family would be removed from the ship and taken before a federal judge!

 

Ummmm... anyone shed any light on this??

 

I won't be booking all three on the Legend regardless...not willing to take the risk. Might do the 2nd and 3rd legs but use a different cruise line for the Alaskan part.

It's actually called the Passenger Vessel Service Act (Jones Act is cargo). I did this exact itinerary in 2012 when the Spirit went over to Australia. The PVSA only affects ships transporting passengers between 2 US ports without stopping at a distant foreign port. There are none on the Seattle-Honolulu legs. But since the end port is Sydney, it is technically OK.

 

However the issue now, is Carnival.au handles bookings for the Honolulu to Sydney leg. Somehow, there must be someway that this can be escalated to somebody that can book all three legs, because it is legal, since you will be boarding in Seattle and disembarking in Sydney.

 

But like you said, if you can't get it resolved, cruise to Alaska on another cruise line.

I agree with Debbie. Because you have to book the Honolulu to Sydney segment through Carnival Australia (which is a separate entity from Carnival U.S.) and the other 2 legs are booked through Carnival U.S. is the cause of the issue. The U.S. booking system isn't able to "see" the Australian booking so it will flag the cruise as being illegal. Only Diamond desk pvp's at Carnival in the U.S. can book a cruise that is sold through Carnival Australia. Unless you are diamond, when you call Carnival U.S. to book a Carnival Australia cruise they transfer you to Carnival Australia.

If you really want to book the cruise, you could try escalating the issue to a supervisor, but I'm not sure they could help you.

Wow! What a cruise! I think you will make it through. It's good you exposed a minor flaw in the system. A rare event indeed, but wow what a cruise!

I agree with Debbie. Because you have to book the Honolulu to Sydney segment through Carnival Australia (which is a separate entity from Carnival U.S.) and the other 2 legs are booked through Carnival U.S. is the cause of the issue. The U.S. booking system isn't able to "see" the Australian booking so it will flag the cruise as being illegal. Only Diamond desk pvp's at Carnival in the U.S. can book a cruise that is sold through Carnival Australia. Unless you are diamond, when you call Carnival U.S. to book a Carnival Australia cruise they transfer you to Carnival Australia.

 

If you really want to book the cruise, you could try escalating the issue to a supervisor, but I'm not sure they could help you.

I'd have to agree with this and with chengkp75's response. There's only two explanations as I see it:

Carnival's internal reservation system has a block in it that wont allow the Seattle-Vancouver route and the Vancouver-Honolulu to be booked back to back (regardless of whats added onto it afterwards) and it keep just kicking back this error.

OR there isn't a system problem and the rep doesn't know the intricacies of the PVSA. Nor should they really. Just keep escalating this higher and higher until you find someone that can help you.

Also if they seriously said that you'd be kicked off the ship and thrown in front of a judge, that's just baloney. It's like a $300 fine that the line gets and that's it. No idea where they're getting this info from. This is demonstrative of their lack of understanding the PVSA.