Passenger Vessel Services Act

[EddieCruzer]

Would it be legal to take the 4 day coastal on the Grand, departing May 13th from SFO to Vancouver and then pick of the Coral to AK on May 17th in Vancouver? :confused:

[derf5585]

One would need a lawyer to understand the Johns Act but this article makes a stab at it

 

 

It's A Long Way to Ensenada

from

http://www.jonesactquestions.com/home/1-jones-act/364-jones-act-early-disembark-penalties.pdf

[Cruise Junky]

Perfectly legal, you're changing ships.

[Colo Cruiser]

Yes a change of ships solves the dilemma. ;)

[Hlitner]

I think we will try to clear up a few things (perhaps others are interested). The Jones Act was enacted in 1920 and applies only to the transportation of freight between US Ports. It has nothing to do with cruise ships unless that ship was also secretly working as a freighter :).

 

The Law that causes lots of problems for the cruise lines is called the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (PVSA) which is sometimes referred to as a cabatage law. The law primarily prohibits ships from cruising between US Ports unless there is a foreign port involved in the cruise. There is also a provision that results in some nearby foreign ports as not qualifying as a foreign port when a cruise needs an intervening port. Vancouver falls into this class, but we think that only matters when it is used as an intervening port (such as a cruise between San Francisco and an Alaskan port).

 

But the case the OP cites is totally different. The short cruise begins in the US but ends in Canada so the PVSA does not apply (it does not begin and end at a US Port). Now the 2nd part of the OPs question is about taking a different ship from Vancouver. Since this is a different ship and not a continuation of the prior cruise the PVSA would not apply.

 

There is also some interesting history about these cabotage acts. The Jones Act was enacted more then 30 years after the PVSA when some in Congress thought that it would be helpful to apply a similar standard to Freighters as had been previously been imposed on passenger vessels. Most economists who have studied these laws think they have failed miserably in their original goal to promote US owned shipping and cruising (with the creation of more jobs).

 

Hank

Edited December 26, 2013 by Hlitner

[jagoffee]

I think we will try to clear up a few things (perhaps others are interested). The Jones Act was enacted in 1920 and applies only to the transportation of freight between US Ports. It has nothing to do with cruise ships unless that ship was also secretly working as a freighter :).

 

The Law that causes lots of problems for the cruise lines is called the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (PVSA) which is sometimes referred to as a cabatage law. The law primarily prohibits ships from cruising between US Ports unless there is a foreign port involved in the cruise. There is also a provision that results in some nearby foreign ports as not qualifying as a foreign port when a cruise needs an intervening port. Vancouver falls into this class, but we think that only matters when it is used as an intervening port (such as a cruise between San Francisco and an Alaskan port).

 

But the case the OP cites is totally different. The short cruise begins in the US but ends in Canada so the PVSA does not apply (it does not begin and end at a US Port). Now the 2nd part of the OPs question is about taking a different ship from Vancouver. Since this is a different ship and not a continuation of the prior cruise the PVSA would not apply.

 

There is also some interesting history about these cabotage acts. The Jones Act was enacted more then 30 years after the PVSA when some in Congress thought that it would be helpful to apply a similar standard to Freighters as had been previously been imposed on passenger vessels. Most economists who have studied these laws think they have failed miserably in their original goal to promote US owned shipping and cruising (with the creation of more jobs).

 

Hank

 

Are you suggesting that it does not apply to Air transportation in the US? I always thought that it did.

[caribill]

Are you suggesting that it does not apply to Air transportation in the US? I always thought that it did.

 

It does.

 

As a result, for example, you cannot take Air Canada from Seattle to New York, but you can take Air Canada from Seattle to Toronto, change to a different AC flight and continue on to New York.

[Pam in CA]

One would need a lawyer to understand the Johns Act but this article makes a stab at it

 

 

It's A Long Way to Ensenada

from

http://www.jonesactquestions.com/home/1-jones-act/364-jones-act-early-disembark-penalties.pdf

I read this article and it doesn't make sense. More confusing than than anything else. The Jones Act of 1920 regulates the transport of merchandise and the merchant marine, not passengers. The original PVSA (Passenger Vessel Services Act) applies to passengers.

 

In short, with the PVSA, you cannot board a foreign-flagged ship in one US port and disembark (your final destination) the ship at another US port without going to a "far" foreign port. "Far" does not include Canada, Mexico, Central America or the Caribbean with the exception of Curaçao and Aruba.

 

If you change ships, stay overnight in a "near" foreign port such as Vancouver, the PVSA does not apply.

 

A "closed circuit" cruise is one when you embark and disembark the same US port, regardless of how many legs or cruises. In this case, the ship (and you) must sail to a "near" foreign port: Canada, Mexico, Caribbean, etc. This is why short, CA coastal, and Hawaiian cruises out of LA stop in Ensenada. Or, Alaskan cruises stop at Victoria or Vancouver.

 

The PVSA can affect you when you least expect it. For instance, let's say you're taking a cruise from Vancouver to Whittier and you miss the ship. You will not be allowed to board the ship at Ketchikan, Juneau or wherever because that would be a violation. Let's say you're taking a Hawaiian cruise and miss the ship in Honolulu. If that's the last port, you'll be penalized for embarking in San Pedro and disembarking in Honolulu.

 

In an medical emergency, the violation fee is waived.

 

The PVSA can be very confusing.

[derf5585]

If that's the last port, you'll be penalized for embarking in San Pedro and disembarking in Honolulu.

.

 

How much will you be penalized?

[CptSticky]

I think we will try to clear up a few things (perhaps others are interested). The Jones Act was enacted in 1920 and applies only to the transportation of freight between US Ports. It has nothing to do with cruise ships unless that ship was also secretly working as a freighter :).

 

The Law that causes lots of problems for the cruise lines is called the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (PVSA) which is sometimes referred to as a cabatage law. The law primarily prohibits ships from cruising between US Ports unless there is a foreign port involved in the cruise. There is also a provision that results in some nearby foreign ports as not qualifying as a foreign port when a cruise needs an intervening port. Vancouver falls into this class, but we think that only matters when it is used as an intervening port (such as a cruise between San Francisco and an Alaskan port).

 

But the case the OP cites is totally different. The short cruise begins in the US but ends in Canada so the PVSA does not apply (it does not begin and end at a US Port). Now the 2nd part of the OPs question is about taking a different ship from Vancouver. Since this is a different ship and not a continuation of the prior cruise the PVSA would not apply.

 

There is also some interesting history about these cabotage acts. The Jones Act was enacted more then 30 years after the PVSA when some in Congress thought that it would be helpful to apply a similar standard to Freighters as had been previously been imposed on passenger vessels. Most economists who have studied these laws think they have failed miserably in their original goal to promote US owned shipping and cruising (with the creation of more jobs).

 

Hank

Most laws fail miserably in creating jobs, except jobs for politicians.

[RickEk]

How much will you be penalized?

 

$300...

 

I find the Wikipedia article on the PVSA is very helpful...

 

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

[Pam in CA]

How much will you be penalized?

The article says $200/pp. I seem to remember that it's $300/pp. The cruise line will not knowingly allow you to violate the PVSA. What happens is that the ship is fined and they pass the fee along to the passenger so they avoid this by not allowing the passenger to board. So saying, I'll just pay the fine won't work. :) Plus, you may not be allowed to fly to the next port to meet the ship without a passport.

[chengkp75]

I think we will try to clear up a few things (perhaps others are interested). The Jones Act was enacted in 1920 and applies only to the transportation of freight between US Ports. It has nothing to do with cruise ships unless that ship was also secretly working as a freighter :).

 

The Law that causes lots of problems for the cruise lines is called the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (PVSA) which is sometimes referred to as a cabatage law. The law primarily prohibits ships from cruising between US Ports unless there is a foreign port involved in the cruise. There is also a provision that results in some nearby foreign ports as not qualifying as a foreign port when a cruise needs an intervening port. Vancouver falls into this class, but we think that only matters when it is used as an intervening port (such as a cruise between San Francisco and an Alaskan port). A "closed loop" voyage, starting and ending in the same[/b US port, only needs to visit any foreign port to meet PVSA requirements. An "open loop" voyage, starting and ending in [b]different US ports must visit a "distant" foreign port. Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas, and all of the Caribbean, except the "A,B,C" islands (Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao) are not considered "distant" ports.]

 

But the case the OP cites is totally different. The short cruise begins in the US but ends in Canada so the PVSA does not apply (it does not begin and end at a US Port). Now the 2nd part of the OPs question is about taking a different ship from Vancouver. Since this is a different ship and not a continuation of the prior cruise the PVSA would not apply.

 

There is also some interesting history about these cabotage acts. The Jones Act was enacted more then 30 years after the PVSA when some in Congress thought that it would be helpful to apply a similar standard to Freighters as had been previously been imposed on passenger vessels. Most economists who have studied these laws think they have failed miserably in their original goal to promote US owned shipping and cruising (with the creation of more jobs).

 

Hank

 

As one who has benefited from both the Jones Act and the PVSA for my entire career, I can say that the failure of these acts to promote US shipping and jobs is not due to the concept of cabotage (many countries with extensive coastlines have cabotage laws, such as Brazil and Australia), but with the added cost of operating a ship under US flag. The cost to employ all US officers and crew, to build ships with USCG approved equipment and materials, and to meet the more stringent USCG training, certification, and operational regulations has driven the US Merchant Marine from the largest in the world after WWII to the 17th largest today.

 

Having worked onboard both US flag ships and foreign flag ships, having seen the reports of maritime accidents and incidents, and seeing the difference in frequency between the foreign flag ships and US ships, I know that US flag ships are safer and more eco-friendly than foreign flag ships, and I believe that we provide a better and safer operation between US ports than foreign flag ships would.

 

With regards to air passenger cabotage, this is not regulated by the PVSA, but by 49 USC 41703.

[Wehwalt]

$300...

 

I find the Wikipedia article on the PVSA is very helpful...

 

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

 

Speaking as a Wikipedia editor and admin (same nickname), we're really good even if we are saddled with Jimbo Wales!

 

That article, though, clearly needs work and I will see if I can recruit a couple of legal-minded (I am a lawyer) Wikipedians to improve it with me. Or just do it myself.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Wehwalt

[EddieCruzer]

I read this article and it doesn't make sense. More confusing than than anything else. The Jones Act of 1920 regulates the transport of merchandise and the merchant marine, not passengers. The original PVSA (Passenger Vessel Services Act) applies to passengers.

 

In short, with the PVSA, you cannot board a foreign-flagged ship in one US port and disembark (your final destination) the ship at another US port without going to a "far" foreign port. "Far" does not include Canada, Mexico, Central America or the Caribbean with the exception of Curaçao and Aruba.

 

If you change ships, stay overnight in a "near" foreign port such as Vancouver, the PVSA does not apply.

 

A "closed circuit" cruise is one when you embark and disembark the same US port, regardless of how many legs or cruises. In this case, the ship (and you) must sail to a "near" foreign port: Canada, Mexico, Caribbean, etc. This is why short, CA coastal, and Hawaiian cruises out of LA stop in Ensenada. Or, Alaskan cruises stop at Victoria or Vancouver.

 

The PVSA can affect you when you least expect it. For instance, let's say you're taking a cruise from Vancouver to Whittier and you miss the ship. You will not be allowed to board the ship at Ketchikan, Juneau or wherever because that would be a violation. Let's say you're taking a Hawaiian cruise and miss the ship in Honolulu. If that's the last port, you'll be penalized for embarking in San Pedro and disembarking in Honolulu.

 

In an medical emergency, the violation fee is waived.

 

The PVSA can be very confusing.

 

I appreciate all the answers, but I am still confused. We would be disembarking from the Grand Saturday May 17th and embarking on the Coral the same day. Is that not allowed? Do we need a day inbetween or is it ok since it is a different ship? :confused:

[Wehwalt]

I appreciate all the answers, but I am still confused. We would be disembarking from the Grand Saturday May 17th and embarking on the Coral the same day. Is that not allowed? Do we need a day inbetween or is it ok since it is a different ship? :confused:

 

A change of ship cures all. They are considered two separate journeys. I went from Seattle to Vancouver on the Island in September, sat in the convention center for a few hours on a rainy day, then boarded the Golden for San Francisco.

[cherylandtk]

You do not need to stay overnight. It is enough that you change ships and are not on the original ship when it leaves the port. Since you are on a different ship, everything will be fine.

[24639]

As one who has benefited from both the Jones Act and the PVSA for my entire career, I can say that the failure of these acts to promote US shipping and jobs is not due to the concept of cabotage (many countries with extensive coastlines have cabotage laws, such as Brazil and Australia), but with the added cost of operating a ship under US flag. The cost to employ all US officers and crew, to build ships with USCG approved equipment and materials, and to meet the more stringent USCG training, certification, and operational regulations has driven the US Merchant Marine from the largest in the world after WWII to the 17th largest today.

 

Having worked onboard both US flag ships and foreign flag ships, having seen the reports of maritime accidents and incidents, and seeing the difference in frequency between the foreign flag ships and US ships, I know that US flag ships are safer and more eco-friendly than foreign flag ships, and I believe that we provide a better and safer operation between US ports than foreign flag ships would.

 

With regards to air passenger cabotage, this is not regulated by the PVSA, but by 49 USC 41703.

 

I believe that another facet to this is that any vessel flying the US flag can be commissioned in a time of war. Which is another reason why all these cruise companies register their ships in another country. Also,If you look at the ships that do the Hawaiian cruise around the islands only, they are of US registry.

[EddieCruzer]

A change of ship cures all. They are considered two separate journeys. I went from Seattle to Vancouver on the Island in September, sat in the convention center for a few hours on a rainy day, then boarded the Golden for San Francisco.

 

 

Thanks everyone for your help. I think we are going to do that rather than pay for a hotel in Vancouver. One night, plus taxi in Vancouver is almost equivilent to the 4 day cruise!! :eek:

[chengkp75]

I believe that another facet to this is that any vessel flying the US flag can be commissioned in a time of war. Which is another reason why all these cruise companies register their ships in another country. Also,If you look at the ships that do the Hawaiian cruise around the islands only, they are of US registry.

 

Ah, no. US flag ships cannot be commandeered by the US, without a specific act of Congress. Not since WWII has the US taken ships into involuntary service, and even then, they paid the ship owner for them. Those ships that have enrolled in Marad's MSP (Maritime Security Program), and receive a subsidy to operate as a US flag ship (and who have received a waiver of the requirement to be built in the US), accept as the price of the subsidy that their ships may be called for use by the military. There are a limited number of ships eligible for the MSP subsidy. This subsidy was to ensure that there were enough ships that meet the military's need for sealift under US flag.

 

The one and only US flag deep-sea cruise vessel, the Pride of America, is flagged US simply because of NCL's desire to offer Hawaii-only cruises. NCL used to offer 10 day Hawaii cruises on the Bahamian flagged Norwegian Star, but they were required to travel 700 miles to Fanning Island in the Republic of Kiribati to meet the requirements of the PVSA.

[derf5585]

Speaking as a Wikipedia editor and admin (same nickname), we're really good even if we are saddled with Jimbo Wales!

 

 

As someone who does not Jimbo Wales is.

 

Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (/ˈdoʊnəl ˈweɪlz/; born August 7, 1966[3]) is an American Internet entrepreneur best known as the co-founder and promoter of the online non-profit encyclopedia Wikipedia and the for-profit Wikia web-hosting company.

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales

[Pam in CA]

I believe that another facet to this is that any vessel flying the US flag can be commissioned in a time of war.

They do it for money. Always follow the money. They don't want to be required by law to pay US-equivalent wages, pay withholding taxes or have the majority of crew be US citizens. All of the crew, regardless of nationality would have to pay US income taxes on any wages or tips.

 

Norwegian used to have three US-registered ships sailing around Hawaii. Many, many complaints about poor service, huge and constant turnover among American workers who didn't want to work that hard, expensive fares due to high operating costs, etc. Two of the ships were re-registered to be foreign-flagged so there's now only one.

 

Norwegian America was having so many problems that they had the husband of one of their ship's godmothers, the late Sen. Inouye, submit an amendment to the PVSA that would require all foreign-flagged ships spend more than 50% of their port time in foreign ports. Since that would effectively kill R/T Hawaiian from LA, San Diego or San Francisco, Alaskan cruises, round-trip cruises out of NY or Boston, etc. the new Act would cost these ports and states billions in revenue and hundreds of thousands of jobs. All to help one or two Norwegian Cruise Line ships. The Senator tried to reword his Act so that it would apply to just Hawaiian cruises but by that time, all of the affected Senators, Mayors and Governors were aware of the Act and lobbying against it. It died in committee.

[chengkp75]

They do it for money. Always follow the money. They don't want to be required by law to pay US-equivalent wages, pay withholding taxes or have the majority of crew be US citizens. All of the crew, regardless of nationality would have to pay US income taxes on any wages or tips.

 

Norwegian used to have three US-registered ships sailing around Hawaii. Many, many complaints about poor service, huge and constant turnover among American workers who didn't want to work that hard, expensive fares due to high operating costs, etc. Two of the ships were re-registered to be foreign-flagged so there's now only one.

 

Norwegian America was having so many problems that they had the husband of one of their ship's godmothers, the late Sen. Inouye, submit an amendment to the PVSA that would require all foreign-flagged ships spend more than 50% of their port time in foreign ports. Since that would effectively kill R/T Hawaiian from LA, San Diego or San Francisco, Alaskan cruises, round-trip cruises out of NY or Boston, etc. the new Act would cost these ports and states billions in revenue and hundreds of thousands of jobs. All to help one or two Norwegian Cruise Line ships. The Senator tried to reword his Act so that it would apply to just Hawaiian cruises but by that time, all of the affected Senators, Mayors and Governors were aware of the Act and lobbying against it. It died in committee.

 

While I agree that the attempt to require a percentage of port time to be foreign was pretty ham-fisted, it was in response to a technical circumvention of the PVSA that the foreign flag ships were using. They were calling at Ensenada on the last night of the cruise, without advertising it as a port of call, arriving late at night, not allowing passengers to disembark, getting the papers cleared for a foreign port, and then sailing the couple of hours to LA. While technically within the requirements of the PVSA, it violated the intent of the law, which is why CBP found the complaint from NCL to have merit, and started hearings on it. The lines sailing from the West Coast to Hawaii, now must advertise Ensenada as a port of call, and allow passengers to get off the ship there.

 

It wasn't so much that Sen. Inouye's wife was a ship's godmother, it was the fact that he had been the driving force behind getting funding for the loan guarantees for Hawaiian Amercian's original ship (which became NCL's POA), and the Patriot, which was an older HAL ship reflagged to US to operate in Hawaii, and the bill that allowed NCL to complete the POA overseas, and flag in the other two ships.

 

As anyone who looks at cruise prices can see, the NCL POA cruise price for a 7 day cruise is similar to the price the other lines charge for a 14 day cruise from the West Coast.

[Loonbeam]

Don't forget that would make the US the primary investigator in the event of mshap as well, as opposed to the far more lenient island authorities, etc. And they would be MUCH more subject to US/Congressional oversight.

 

They do it for money. Always follow the money. They don't want to be required by law to pay US-equivalent wages, pay withholding taxes or have the majority of crew be US citizens. All of the crew, regardless of nationality would have to pay US income taxes on any wages or tips.

 

Norwegian used to have three US-registered ships sailing around Hawaii. Many, many complaints about poor service, huge and constant turnover among American workers who didn't want to work that hard, expensive fares due to high operating costs, etc. Two of the ships were re-registered to be foreign-flagged so there's now only one.

 

Norwegian America was having so many problems that they had the husband of one of their ship's godmothers, the late Sen. Inouye, submit an amendment to the PVSA that would require all foreign-flagged ships spend more than 50% of their port time in foreign ports. Since that would effectively kill R/T Hawaiian from LA, San Diego or San Francisco, Alaskan cruises, round-trip cruises out of NY or Boston, etc. the new Act would cost these ports and states billions in revenue and hundreds of thousands of jobs. All to help one or two Norwegian Cruise Line ships. The Senator tried to reword his Act so that it would apply to just Hawaiian cruises but by that time, all of the affected Senators, Mayors and Governors were aware of the Act and lobbying against it. It died in committee.

[Cruisin' Chick]

They do it for money. Always follow the money. They don't want to be required by law to pay US-equivalent wages, pay withholding taxes or have the majority of crew be US citizens. All of the crew, regardless of nationality would have to pay US income taxes on any wages or tips.

 

Norwegian used to have three US-registered ships sailing around Hawaii. Many, many complaints about poor service, huge and constant turnover among American workers who didn't want to work that hard, expensive fares due to high operating costs, etc. Two of the ships were re-registered to be foreign-flagged so there's now only one.

 

Norwegian America was having so many problems that they had the husband of one of their ship's godmothers, the late Sen. Inouye, submit an amendment to the PVSA that would require all foreign-flagged ships spend more than 50% of their port time in foreign ports. Since that would effectively kill R/T Hawaiian from LA, San Diego or San Francisco, Alaskan cruises, round-trip cruises out of NY or Boston, etc. the new Act would cost these ports and states billions in revenue and hundreds of thousands of jobs. All to help one or two Norwegian Cruise Line ships. The Senator tried to reword his Act so that it would apply to just Hawaiian cruises but by that time, all of the affected Senators, Mayors and Governors were aware of the Act and lobbying against it. It died in committee.

 

When there was a call for comments, there were many against this change, including a few of us Cruise Critic members (like me). I think much of my comment was about how the change would negatively affect the west coast ports, including the city I live in. I believe that many mayors (LA, etc.) chimed in and said it would be bad for their cities.

 

The Guvernator of California as well as the then-governor of Hawaii joined forces and talked to VP Cheney about getting it tabled as the expected result of the change would be a decrease of tourism money coming into Hawaiian and Californian ports because Princess, Royal C, Celebrity, etc. would be dropping the Hawaiian cruises from the west port as un-doable. And it was pretty telling that Senator Stevens of Alaska hurriedly tried to jump on board with NCLa prez Veitch to make it all about the Hawaiian RTs when it was pointed out that NCL's Alaskan cruises would be affected too.

 

And all because the Pride ships weren't doing well.:rolleyes: