5 days before sailing-ncl invokes jones act on us

[mbisson]

As far as departing the ship.. In our case in Port Canaveral, we will have to depart. This is due to customs policy.

 

Your friend has been told he will need to do that also ;)

[marelind]

OP, we ran into the Jones Act 2 years ago when we wanted to book B2B2B: RT Seattle to Alaska; one night Seattle-Vancouver; 4 night Vancouver to LA. All on the Star.

 

We ended up taking the Star RT Seattle to Alaska then a one night to Vancouver. Then we stayed in Vancouver one night and took the Pearl south the next day since their schedule was a day later. I think that itinerary could work for you if you have that kind of flexibility with dates.

[G'ma]

When it comes to federal government bureaucrats and business operations, the less you have them around the better. .....

 

Several Wall Street types and many banks would agree with you, I'm sure......to say nothing of our friend Bernie Madoff.

[G'ma]

I respectfully disagree with you. In my opinion the law is extremely outdated. As far as cruise ships go I think it actually hurts ameican workers. I think there would be a lot more routes that would not visit foreign ports thus keeping the stops and the money in the US. It would help put a lot of port cities. I also believe it would increase cruise line traffic as many people would try cruising that did not have passports. I know I would love to be able to go on a cruise that just does our great east coast cities... Boston, Bar harbor, Portland, NYC, Norfolk, Baltimore, Charleston, Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami.... Quite a few itineraries that would work for me. I do respect the intention is to protect american workers and ship builders (which none are built here) but in my opinion the law has just become out date.

 

I'm not passionate enough to call my congressman but I think it does actually hurt more than it helps.

 

There are already U.S. cruises..smaller ships that do only American ports, rivers and the Great Lakes--and, of course, the debacle in Hawaii. They are high-end when it comes to price and market to a mostly older crowd of Americans and overseas.

 

Most that have tried this have failed; most notably the Mississippi Queen and the Delta Queen...fine, fine cruises. But unable to support their expenses.

 

American Hawaii Cruises was also U.S. flagged...and failed miserably. Prices were through the roof (having to pay U.S. minimum wage, taxes, etc.), the all-American crew was difficult to keep. Many Americans aren't used to being on duty 12-16 hours a day, much less wait on others hand and foot...and the work-force kept jumping ship.

 

Even the current Hawaii cruises have difficulty holding on to employees. My son has lived on Maui for 10 years. He tells me that dozens of young men and women leave that ship every month...and don't go back. He has hired many of them. They work ashore until they have enough money for a ticket home.

 

As for the Jones Act......it is beneficial not only to cruise ships...it was first put in place for Merchant ships-and for their benefit. It is what it is...and has been around a long time...and it works.

[FLAHAM]

Most that have tried this have failed; most notably the Mississippi Queen and the Delta Queen...fine' date=' fine cruises. But unable to support their expenses.[/quote']

 

 

No, the Delta Queen stopped running because it could no longer secure an exemption from the Safety at Sea Act for a wooden boat.

[Don Haynes]

Eliminating the Jones Act would have great implications upon the American river barges and lakers... Those American sailors would be out of a job within a minute if the barges and lakers were allowed to hire foreign crews from Jamaica.... or the Phillipines...

 

The Jones Act protects American jobs.....period.... Anyone who thinks otherwise aren't American sailors....or workers....

 

Is bad enough American workers have to defend their jobs from illegal immigrants.... But that is another story.....

[Laoghaire]

Hello...I am not a lawyer, let alone a maritime lawyer. When I mentioned what happened to my Husband and I re our cruise, if you re read it, you will observe I mentioned the PVSA Act, not the Jones Act.

 

Some of you posters seem ready to retort at anything. My father, brothers, sons are WORKERS and I would not suggest anything that would be detrimental to their occupations.

 

I am through with this thread, a few too many rude people.

 

Helen

[daryleann]

If Vancouver is not considered a 'foreign' port, why is Ensenada considered one? Some cruises make a half day stop in Ensenada then back up to LA or San Diego - at least a few years ago, when we went.

[theshireshihtzu]

OK so for all of you who think we're in a dog eat dog world....here's one for you.

I have been booked on 2 NCL cruises for nearly 3 months now. first cruise from Seattle o Vancouver, 2nd cruise from Vancouver to Los Angeles. While I'm familiar with the Jones act (this is what prevents foreign flagged ships from sailing between 2 US ports without first stopping at a foreign port) what I wasn't aware of until today when NCL called me, was that guess what? Vancouver doesn't count as a foreign port. So the great accomodating folks at NLC offered me a complete refund on either of my cruises since I can't do these back to back. No offer to get me to from Vancouver if I cancel the first one, no hotel in Vancouver, no nothing other than a refund. Wow. Must sign off now, have to figure out what to do from here since obviously I wouldn't expect Continental to work with me on changing my tickets........

 

We tried to do just this and our PCC atNCL said no, because of Jones act.....so we are taking the AMTRACK from Seattle to Vancouver....then sailing to LA and on to the Panama canal.

Try Amtrack ,or do a one day cruise on another line from Seattle to Vancouver. Im suprised they did not tell you when you booked!

[Cuizer2]

If Vancouver is not considered a 'foreign' port, why is Ensenada considered one? Some cruises make a half day stop in Ensenada then back up to LA or San Diego - at least a few years ago, when we went.

 

Vancouver is a foreign port. The requirement is that a foreign flagged ship transporting passengers from one US city to another must make at least one stop at a distant foreign port. Neither Vancouver nor Ensenada is considered a distant foreign port. However, both are considered foreign ports.

 

There are no distant foreign ports in North or Central America. The only distant foreign ports in the Caribbean are islands next to South American (for example Aruba).

 

That is why cruises between the east and west coasts stop at one of the "distant foreign ports" near or on South America.

[sparks1093]

Vancouver is a foreign port. The requirement is that a foreign flagged ship transporting passengers from one US city to another must make at least one stop at a distant foreign port. Neither Vancouver nor Ensenada is considered a distant foreign port. However, both are considered foreign ports.

 

There are no distant foreign ports in North or Central America. The only distant foreign ports in the Caribbean are islands next to South American (for example Aruba).

 

That is why cruises between the east and west coasts stop at one of the "distant foreign ports" near or on South America.

 

Nassau is distant?:confused:

[smeyer418]

NCL is wrong. The law does not allow "A (foreign flagged) SHIP" to transport passengers between two US cities. The law does not prevent two different foreign flagged ships from doing the same thing.

 

NCL allowed you to book these two cruises because they themselves don't understand the PVSA. So the fact they now claim that the same cruise on two different ships violates the PVSA does not carry much weight. Taking the itinerary you are taking, on two different ships, is NOT a violation of the PVSA. The reason is, no (one) foriegn flagged ship is taking you from one US port to another US port.

I agree two different cruise lines isn't a violation as long as NCL isn't paying for it. But they can pay you your money back with a sweetner...

[Cuizer2]

Nassau is distant?:confused:

 

No, Nassau is not a distant foreign port. I said the islands near South America are, such as Aruba.

[smeyer418]

Nassau is distant?:confused:

no its a local foreign port its ok as long as you return to the same US port then you have not been transported between two different US ports. That is the problem. If you go to a distant foreign port then you can return to a different US port....

[Cuizer2]

no its a local foreign port its ok as long as you return to the same US port then you have not been transported between two different US ports. That is the problem. If you go to a distant foreign port then you can return to a different US port....

This is correct.

[Druke I]

They are able to use Ensenada as a "distant foreign port" on closed loop California/Hawaii cruises as Ensenada, Mexico is a long way from Hawaii, and considered distant. You note that they don't stop in Ensenada when outbound, but when homeward bound.

 

Bending of the rules - sure - but it has been allowed.

[Cuizer2]

They are able to use Ensenada as a "distant foreign port" on closed loop California/Hawaii cruises as Ensenada, Mexico is a long way from Hawaii, and considered distant. You note that they don't stop in Ensenada when outbound, but when homeward bound.

 

Bending of the rules - sure - but it has been allowed.

 

Ensenada is NOT a distant foreign port. A closed loop cruise (one that departs and returns to the same port) only requires a stop in a foreign port. Ensenada is a foreign port.

 

There are no distant foreign ports in North or Central America.

[smeyer418]

They are able to use Ensenada as a "distant foreign port" on closed loop California/Hawaii cruises as Ensenada, Mexico is a long way from Hawaii, and considered distant. You note that they don't stop in Ensenada when outbound, but when homeward bound.

 

Bending of the rules - sure - but it has been allowed.

? no bending of the rules. Its exactly within the policy. You may go and return to the same US port as long as you stop at one foreign port. So as long as this ship returns to the same US port and makes any stops as long as one of the stops is a foreign one(either distant or local) its perfectly ok. The only issue was with this was not a full stop but a technical stop and people couldn't get off. Now people can get off and its perfectly ok. Also remember that when the ships do a one way they either get on or disembark at Ensenada and that is ok because when you start or end in a foreign port you haven't been transported between two different US ports.

 

BTW a trip to no where doesn't stop anywhere and you haven't been transported between anyplace.

 

Finally the cruise industry is NOT lobbying for any change. They are perfectly happy with these rules as it allows them to use foreign flagged ships and non US crews(hence cheaper)....so the fact that it inconveniences a few travelers has no constituency to change it for. and remember these are the same rules that prohibit foreign flagged airlines from transporting people between two US air airports....Its ok when they come from overseas but not transport people within the US.... no way is that changing now.

[Druke I]

You're both right - my answer was not adequate nor correct.

[sparks1093]

No, Nassau is not a distant foreign port. I said the islands near South America are, such as Aruba.

 

I know you did, I was wondering how Nassau fit into the whole thing until I read about the closed loop regs.

[BruceMuzz]

Being the amount of pax doing this is relatively small, I'm surprised an offer to pay the $300 PP fine is not being tossed around.

 

Although the PVSA seems relatively straightforward, the enforcement of it is not. The responsibility for enforcement is officially left to the US Coast guard, who are plainly not interested. So they pass it off to the US Customs people, who are even less interested and see it as additional unpaid work for them.

 

The actual interpretation and enforcement of the law is quite variable. In practice, much seems to depend on how the local Customs Officer feels today, which way the wind is blowing, whether or not his wife made him breakfast, and how his stocks are doing this week.

 

In the end, however, the cruise lines are quite afraid of this goofy law. If they knowingly break the law - or knowingly allow you to break it - their ship or ships can be banned from calling at US Ports. The Captain of the ship also can have notations or points taken against his license if he knowingly allows this. It could be a career ending move.

[DAGVBSB]

Hello...DH and I are booked on the NCL Pearl from Vancouver B.C. to LA, then LA to Miami. We originally booked from Seattle to Vancouver to LA to Miami, only to be told a week later we couldn't do that. NCL said it was because of the Jones Act. I see now it was the PVSA. We were very disappointed, it would have been so easy to leave from our home port of Seattle! So now we are flying into Vancouver this coming Sunday, picking up the Pearl on Monday, and will finally get to cruise. Others in the same circumstances are either traveling on the Princess Star (I believe), or taking Amtrak to Vancouver.

 

Let's all write our congressman/woman and change this crazy law!

 

Helen

 

The PVSA has been in effect since the late 1800's. Originally designed to protect US Shipping and transportation interests from foreign competition, many parts of it are just out of date.

 

Don't plan on getting it repealed or changed. NCL would fight the repeal of the law with every cent they have. There is only ONE ship in the world that can legally sail between US ports.... the "Pride of America" and it is owned by NCL! Without the PVSA, NCL would have serious competition in Hawaii.

 

NCL and Sen. Daniel Innoye (D-Ha), actually tried to get the PVSA/Jones Act strengthened just a few years ago in order to try and knock out the remaining competition for NCL in Hawaii. (their changes would have banned the LA/San Diego cruises to Hawaii that the other lines run.) Had NCL got away with it, then it would have also adversly affected the Alaska and New England cruise business. The attempt was thwarted by a coalition of California, Alaska and New England travel businesses and lawmakers.

[chloe kitty]

NCL says regardless whether its 2 different ships its still a Jones act violation. So I guess I'm back to bus or train to Vancouver. Any suggestions there?

 

 

I had this same problem when I booked SEA-YVR and YVR-LAX. I was unaware of the rule, but still thought YVR is an intl. port. According to Princess, for certain cruise specified on a list, they can't be done as b2b. The Princess agent said that if you change cruise companies, it could be done. ie: Princess to YVR and NCL to LAX or visa versa.

[chloe kitty]

Please don't! The law has been on the books for over a century. If it weren't for this one law, the Pride of America would not be sailing under American flag today employing mostly American sailors. This law not only exists for passenger ships, but applies to merchant ships too.

 

You may find this law inconvenient while on vacation, others depend upon it for their livelihood. The economy is bad enough today without the likes of you attempting to unemploy more Americans.

 

From my understanding from many people, the ship would be much better off not having American crew!

[aussiepom]

Hi talk about putting the cat amongst the pigeons as an aussie can I ask this?Can we go from Vancouver to Seward b2b(millie) stay one night in Vancouver,then Vancouver to L.A and then book to go onto Miami all on NCL Pearl,you see we are already booked from Van/Seward on Millie and booked from Van to L.A(cruisevouchers) but not the other legs which we plan to book next year.I,am I right in saying there is not a Amtrak train Sea/Vancouver but a bus which can take forever...