Jones Act Violation?

Would the following itinerary be in violation of the Jones Act law?

Princess Cruises - Los Angeles to Vancouver

Vancouver - 2 day Hotel stay

Royal Caribbean - Vancouver to Seattle

I’m thinking that with the two day break between cruises that the itinerary would not be in violation of the Jones Act...but I may be wrong.

What do you think?

Thank you 😊

No violation of the PVSA, two different cruises.

Would the following itinerary be in violation of the Jones Act law?

 

 

 

Princess Cruises - Los Angeles to Vancouver

 

 

 

 

 

Vancouver - 2 day Hotel stay

 

 

 

 

 

Royal Caribbean - Vancouver to Seattle

 

 

 

 

 

I’m thinking that with the two day break between cruises that the itinerary would not be in violation of the Jones Act...but I may be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you [emoji4]

That’s Ok

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, if you violated the Jones Act, you wouldn't be fined, the cruise line would.

Also, if you violated the Jones Act, you wouldn't be fined, the cruise line would.

Are you sure about that? Anyway, the PVSA, not the Jones Act, is the one in question (as Bob pointed out). As the others have stated you would not be in violation in this case.

Are you sure about that? Anyway, the PVSA, not the Jones Act, is the one in question (as Bob pointed out). As the others have stated you would not be in violation in this case.

PVSA, thanks for the correction.

As I understand paragraph 3 under section "Penalty" page 14, the vessel operator would be fined.

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

PVSA, thanks for the correction.

As I understand paragraph 3 under section "Penalty" page 14, the vessel operator would be fined.

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

Interesting, I had never heard that before.

PVSA, thanks for the correction.

As I understand paragraph 3 under section "Penalty" page 14, the vessel operator would be fined.

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

True, but somewhere in the cruise contract I'm sure it says they would pass that fee on to the guest.

True, but somewhere in the cruise contract I'm sure it says they would pass that fee on to the guest.

That makes sense. I can't imagine the cruise line paying for a passengers mistake of violating an act.

True, but somewhere in the cruise contract I'm sure it says they would pass that fee on to the guest.

Correct.

Item 8, continued on Page 6, sub item "h":

Passenger acknowledges that for certain voyages, such as a round-trip voyage

commencing in a United States port, the Passenger must complete the entire

voyage and that failure to do so may result in a fine or other penalty being

assessed by one or more governmental agencies. Passenger hereby agrees to pay

any such fine or penalty imposed because Passenger failed to complete the entire

voyage and to reimburse Carrier in the event it pays such fine or penalty.

https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/CTC_Not_For_BR.pdf

If the PVSA was repealed or abolished, I think there would be opportunities for short inexpensive US cruises. Bar Harbor, Maine to Boston, MA to Baltimore, MD, to Norfolk, VA, to Charleston, SC, to Miami, FL. The passenger could get on at any port and get off at any port. The ship would go non-stop and the passenger could customize the cruise (prior to boarding). Just thinking (writing) out loud.

Correct.

Item 8, continued on Page 6, sub item "h":

Passenger acknowledges that for certain voyages, such as a round-trip voyage

commencing in a United States port, the Passenger must complete the entire

voyage and that failure to do so may result in a fine or other penalty being

assessed by one or more governmental agencies. Passenger hereby agrees to pay

any such fine or penalty imposed because Passenger failed to complete the entire

voyage and to reimburse Carrier in the event it pays such fine or penalty.

 

https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/CTC_Not_For_BR.pdf

This would be from the passenger by not completing a cruise causing a violation. A Back to Back would be the responsibility of the cruise line to enforce.

If the PVSA was repealed or abolished, I think there would be opportunities for short inexpensive US cruises. Bar Harbor, Maine to Boston, MA to Baltimore, MD, to Norfolk, VA, to Charleston, SC, to Miami, FL. The passenger could get on at any port and get off at any port. The ship would go non-stop and the passenger could customize the cruise (prior to boarding). Just thinking (writing) out loud.

If the PVSA were repealed or abolished, then the tens of thousands of jobs that rely on the PVSA trade would evaporate and move offshore. What are these jobs, you ask? Every ferry, water taxi, commuter boat, duck tour, whale watching tour, dinner cruise, casino boat, and some larger charter fishing boats would reflag out of the US, and their jobs would go to foreigners. Also, these boats, that spend their entire time in US harbors, rivers, and coastal areas would no longer fall under the aegis of the USCG for the stricter safety and certification regulations that apply to US flag vessels, than the USCG can enforce on foreign flag cruise ships. And, of course, the domestic spending that those US citizens who work in the PVSA trade make would vanish to the crew's home country, and the tax revenue on their salaries would vanish as well. The PVSA protects a lot more than the cruise industry.

The cruise line's industry group, CLIA, has made it known several times in the past that they nor their member cruise lines have any inclination to amend, or repeal, the PVSA, as they see no substantial benefit to their bottom lines, and potential detriment if the US places more restrictions in other areas, like safety and inspections or taxes, in exchange for repealing the PVSA.

If the PVSA were repealed or abolished, then the tens of thousands of jobs that rely on the PVSA trade would evaporate and move offshore. What are these jobs, you ask? Every ferry, water taxi, commuter boat, duck tour, whale watching tour, dinner cruise, casino boat, and some larger charter fishing boats would reflag out of the US, and their jobs would go to foreigners. Also, these boats, that spend their entire time in US harbors, rivers, and coastal areas would no longer fall under the aegis of the USCG for the stricter safety and certification regulations that apply to US flag vessels, than the USCG can enforce on foreign flag cruise ships. And, of course, the domestic spending that those US citizens who work in the PVSA trade make would vanish to the crew's home country, and the tax revenue on their salaries would vanish as well. The PVSA protects a lot more than the cruise industry.

 

The cruise line's industry group, CLIA, has made it known several times in the past that they nor their member cruise lines have any inclination to amend, or repeal, the PVSA, as they see no substantial benefit to their bottom lines, and potential detriment if the US places more restrictions in other areas, like safety and inspections or taxes, in exchange for repealing the PVSA.

Wow. I didn't grasp the bigger picture. Thank you for your input.

If the PVSA were repealed or abolished, then the tens of thousands of jobs that rely on the PVSA trade would evaporate and move offshore. What are these jobs, you ask? Every ferry, water taxi, commuter boat, duck tour, whale watching tour, dinner cruise, casino boat, and some larger charter fishing boats would reflag out of the US, and their jobs would go to foreigners. Also, these boats, that spend their entire time in US harbors, rivers, and coastal areas would no longer fall under the aegis of the USCG for the stricter safety and certification regulations that apply to US flag vessels, than the USCG can enforce on foreign flag cruise ships. And, of course, the domestic spending that those US citizens who work in the PVSA trade make would vanish to the crew's home country, and the tax revenue on their salaries would vanish as well. The PVSA protects a lot more than the cruise industry.

 

The cruise line's industry group, CLIA, has made it known several times in the past that they nor their member cruise lines have any inclination to amend, or repeal, the PVSA, as they see no substantial benefit to their bottom lines, and potential detriment if the US places more restrictions in other areas, like safety and inspections or taxes, in exchange for repealing the PVSA.

Interesting points. Of course, the law could be changed in such a way that likely only large cruise ships would be impacted (for example, ships regularly carrying over 1500 passengers per voyage).

I understand that cruise lines may not want the status quo to change. Change involves risk and turbulence. Change might also encourage new, innovative competitors to enter the market.

If the PVSA were repealed or abolished, then the tens of thousands of jobs that rely on the PVSA trade would evaporate and move offshore. What are these jobs, you ask? Every ferry, water taxi, commuter boat, duck tour, whale watching tour, dinner cruise, casino boat, and some larger charter fishing boats would reflag out of the US, and their jobs would go to foreigners. Also, these boats, that spend their entire time in US harbors, rivers, and coastal areas would no longer fall under the aegis of the USCG for the stricter safety and certification regulations that apply to US flag vessels, than the USCG can enforce on foreign flag cruise ships. And, of course, the domestic spending that those US citizens who work in the PVSA trade make would vanish to the crew's home country, and the tax revenue on their salaries would vanish as well. The PVSA protects a lot more than the cruise industry.

 

The cruise line's industry group, CLIA, has made it known several times in the past that they nor their member cruise lines have any inclination to amend, or repeal, the PVSA, as they see no substantial benefit to their bottom lines, and potential detriment if the US places more restrictions in other areas, like safety and inspections or taxes, in exchange for repealing the PVSA.

Thank you for saying that much better and in much more detail than I was about to post. :)

That makes sense. I can't imagine the cruise line paying for a passengers mistake of violating an act.

When a few hundred people decided to get off our HAL Christmas cruise in Honolulu instead of completing the journey back to San Diego, their onboard accounts were charged.

They also had to handle all their own luggage.

It was very cool and rough going out to Hawaii and all we heard from crew members was that it was going to be worse on the way back.

Wrong - the sun was shining, it was great for sunbathing and the sea was like glass. And we had lots more room around the pool with all of them off the ship!

Moral of the story is stay with the ship!

Recent reports are that PVSA fines have increased to $764. per violation, up substantially from the previous amount of $300.

Deters me!:cool:

Interesting points. Of course, the law could be changed in such a way that likely only large cruise ships would be impacted (for example, ships regularly carrying over 1500 passengers per voyage).

 

I understand that cruise lines may not want the status quo to change. Change involves risk and turbulence. Change might also encourage new, innovative competitors to enter the market.

The problem comes with the international definition of a "passenger" vessel. While cargo and miscellaneous vessels can have different regulations based on tonnage, the international definition of "passenger" vessel is any vessel that carries "more than 12 passengers". This is why container ships that carry passengers only carry 12, so they don't have to meet the more stringent regulations pertaining to passenger vessels. No matter how big or so small, more than 12 passengers is a passenger vessel, and it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, not the Cruise Vessel Services Act. So, it would take not only a change to the PVSA, but a change in international law to exempt only large cruise ships from the PVSA. If the US law only were changed, it would not withstand the first court challenge from the Alaska Marine Highway ferries, wanting to go foreign flag.

I've spent my life at sea, and I've seen the differences in operations, and safety between foreign flag ships and US flag ships, both cargo and passenger, and I certainly would not want our harbors teeming with foreign flag ferries and charter boats.

When a few hundred people decided to get off our HAL Christmas cruise in Honolulu instead of completing the journey back to San Diego, their onboard accounts were charged.

They also had to handle all their own luggage.

It was very cool and rough going out to Hawaii and all we heard from crew members was that it was going to be worse on the way back.

Wrong - the sun was shining, it was great for sunbathing and the sea was like glass. And we had lots more room around the pool with all of them off the ship!

 

Moral of the story is stay with the ship!

Wow, not very smart for those pax, but great for everyone who wisely chose to stay onboard!

Recent reports are that PVSA fines have increased to $764. per violation, up substantially from the previous amount of $300.

 

Deters me!:cool:

Ouch!

For the OP, you could even switch ships on the same day in Vancouver. Our son has done that between two Princess ships. We have done the two day stay in Vancouver between different Princess ships. Basically you can't go between two US ports without a South American port in between on the same ship.

And you can't get away with not boarding in Vancouver but meeting the ship in Victoria on it's first stop. Alaska to Vancouver to Victoria to LA on same ship is a no-no even if you don't board in Vancouver. They read this as intentionally trying to get around PVSA.

Cruise line will cancel any combination that violates PVSA and may not identify the issue for months after you book it. Lots of discussions here from folks that had that problem and have had back to back cruises cancelled.

Thank you for your replies. We will book the cruises and enjoy all 3 segments.

Sorry for using the wrong termanalogy “Jones Act”. I have heard about the PSVA, but forgot...my bad.

This dated Act should go away...it really messes up some B2B Cruises. I was already bumped off one ship...now I found another that will work for us, without concern of being told “No, can do” by the Cruise Line. Thanks for all your replies. 😃

Thank you for your replies. We will book the cruises and enjoy all 3 segments.

 

Sorry for using the wrong termanalogy “Jones Act”. I have heard about the PSVA, but forgot...my bad.

 

This dated Act should go away...it really messes up some B2B Cruises. I was already bumped off one ship...now I found another that will work for us, without concern of being told “No, can do” by the Cruise Line. Thanks for all your replies. 😃

Well, I know I'm in the minority here on CC, but the tens of thousands of US citizens, whose livelihoods, not just their vacations, depend on the PVSA feel differently than you about it "going away".

The problem comes with the international definition of a "passenger" vessel. While cargo and miscellaneous vessels can have different regulations based on tonnage, the international definition of "passenger" vessel is any vessel that carries "more than 12 passengers".

What's the definition of a passenger? "Someone who wants to get from A to B" is not, as most cruises go from A to A. "Someone who doesn't work" is not, as people like to help raise he sails on some ships. "Someone who gets paid for being on the ship" includes people paid for counting birds, and travel agents.

Is there some international definition that divides crew or officers from passengers?