Passenger Vessel Services Act

[knittinggirl]

Not sure about the Jones act, but we've been on two cruises that had late arrivals due to bad weather. In both cases, we might have missed the connecting ship. There's also the question of whether your luggage makes it on the other ship.

 

On our Galveston fog cruise, the Carnival Destiny was able to leave a day earlier than us, because they were smaller and their captain wasn't as worried about making the turn w/ 30 foot clearance.

 

To be safe, I'd suggest putting a day or two between one cruise and the other.

[caribill]

This law seems pretty stupid and unnessary. Does anyone know why it still exists? Have there been efforts to repeal it and what has happened to those efforts?

 

The law also applies to passenger boats on the Mississippi river and to ferry boats between American cities (for example, in Alaska).

 

It is meant to preserve the (now-nonexistant) American passenger ship building industry, so, yes, it is obsolete as far as modern cruising is concerned.

 

If you know how to get Congress to work on revising this law or actually work on any laws, you have a great future in political consulting.

[RickEk]

The law also applies to passenger boats on the Mississippi river and to ferry boats between American cities (for example, in Alaska).

 

It is meant to preserve the (now-nonexistant) American passenger ship building industry, so, yes, it is obsolete as far as modern cruising is concerned.

 

If you know how to get Congress to work on revising this law or actually work on any laws, you have a great future in political consulting.

 

LOL...yes, it is not a divisive issue (at least not for the non-cruising public), so it will be completely ignored by Congress... :p maybe we should call it a socialist plot or a liberal boondoggle or a tea-party conspiracy? :D

Edited January 3, 2014 by RickEk

[BillB48]

This law seems pretty stupid and unnessary. Does anyone know why it still exists? Have there been efforts to repeal it and what has happened to those efforts?

 

 

Actually the basis for the law is to keep internal trade/transport reserved for US companies. Many nations have similar laws to preclude foreign companies from setting up operations that would perhaps unfairly compete with domestic companies. Even though the PVSA (which regulates passenger travel between US ports) came before the Jones Act (regulates cargo) the rubric of the law extends into air travel as well. As an example of that would be Trans Waziristan Airways can't offer service from NY to Chicago. If the truth be known, the cruise lines are not that unhappy with the status quo. The last time there was going to be tinkering with the law, it was going to make it more stringent. The result would have practically killed the cruise industry on the West Coast and Alaska. Fortunately the matter was dropped.

 

I do have to agree however in the case of some hapless cruiser who wants to string a couple of B2Bs together and then all of sudden he is causing the cruise line who is operating within the law to be in violation of the PVSA. I certainly think some accommodation could be reached to let the cruiser take the cruise in spite of some technical transgression all the while maintaining the intent of the law. We can dream... right?

Edited January 4, 2014 by BillB48

[Loonbeam]

That's what I was thinking. Let people apply for a waiver, pay a fee, raise a little money to knock down the deficit.

 

Actually the basis for the law is to keep internal trade/transport reserved for US companies. Many nations have similar laws to preclude foreign companies from setting up operations that would perhaps unfairly compete with domestic companies. Even though the PVSA (which regulates passenger travel between US ports) came before the Jones Act (regulates cargo) the rubric of the law extends into air travel as well. As an example of that would be Trans Waziristan Airways can't offer service from NY to Chicago. If the truth be known, the cruise lines are not that unhappy with the status quo. The last time there was going to be tinkering with the law, it was going to make it more stringent. The result would have practically killed the cruise industry on the West Coast and Alaska. Fortunately the matter was dropped.

 

I do have to agree however in the case of some hapless cruiser who wants to string a couple of B2Bs together and then all of sudden he is causing the cruise line who is operating within the law to be in violation of the PVSA. I certainly think some accommodation could be reached to let the cruiser take the cruise in spite of some technical transgression all the while maintaining the intent of the law. We can dream... right?

[bob brown]

The regulations regarding 'one-way' or repositioning cruises as far as the intent of the PVSA is fairly clear...

But what about the 'closed-loop' cruises? Ships starting and ending in the same US Port, calling at other US ports, are allowed, so long as they visit at least one 'near foreign port'. Why are those allowed? How does that 'protect' US shipping? And then what about one or two night 'Cruises to Nowhere', that do not call on any other ports? Why are those allowed, and again, how does that protect US shipping?:confused:

 

In theory, the whole Act was to protect US shipping industry...builder's, owner's, operator's, and crew. It's effect has been mainly to eliminate the industry, for the most part, although most cruise lines are still American owned....;)

[caribill]

The regulations regarding 'one-way' or repositioning cruises as far as the intent of the PVSA is fairly clear...

But what about the 'closed-loop' cruises? Ships starting and ending in the same US Port, calling at other US ports, are allowed, so long as they visit at least one 'near foreign port'. Why are those allowed?

 

The PVSA was passed in 1886, long before cruising for pleasure was possible and was intended for the most part to apply to ferries and to ships that just carried pasengers between USA mainland ports in an era before airplanes were invented.

 

It was just never updated for the realities of current possibilities of ocean travel.

 

By the way, it applies to air travel also. If you want to travel between Seattle and Chicago on Air Canada, you must change planes in Canada to do so.

Edited February 9, 2014 by caribill

[BillB48]

Ships starting and ending in the same US Port, calling at other US ports, are allowed, so long as they visit at least one 'near foreign port'. Why are those allowed? How does that 'protect' US shipping? And then what about one or two night 'Cruises to Nowhere', that do not call on any other ports? Why are those allowed,

 

....;)

 

I was reading some background info on that point sometime ago... I don't remember when that particular challenge was made against non US ships making "closed loop" voyages. The decision that they were deemed legal voyages stemmed from the finding since the ship returned to the point where the voyage began and no passenger permanently disembarked, then no transportation took place between two US ports. Now that's pealing the onion one layer at a time:D! The same basic thinking is applied to cruises to nowhere.

[AE_Collector]

[quote name='NavyVeteran;41139607

The law is actually not that confusing:

[*]If you start at one US port and end at a different US port' date=' then you must stop at a DISTANT foreign port (and no ports in Canada or Mexico are DISTANT). This is why a Panama Canal cruise from LA to Fort Lauderdale is legal - it stops at a DISTANT Central American port.

[/list']

 

Also why ships doing Panama Canal or a coastal to LA or SD and then repositioning to the South Pacific beginning with a cruise to Hawaii would have to unload their passengers, sail empty (crew only) to Ensenada, bus most of the new passengers from LA or SD to Ensenada and finally get the one way to Hawaii cruise underway...hopefully by midnight! A lot of fooling around but sometimes a great deal on a cruise!

 

Terry

[bob brown]

Also why ships doing Panama Canal or a coastal to LA or SD and then repositioning to the South Pacific beginning with a cruise to Hawaii would have to unload their passengers, sail empty (crew only) to Ensenada, bus most of the new passengers from LA or SD to Ensenada and finally get the one way to Hawaii cruise underway...hopefully by midnight! A lot of fooling around but sometimes a great deal on a cruise!

 

Terry

If passengers are on a Panama Canal cruise coming from say Florida, and ending in California, and the same ship then did a one way on to Hawaii for repositioning, those coming the whole way could probably legally stay aboard, since they are continuously cruising on the same vessel that already made its 'distant foreign port call' enroute. If the coastal cruise started in Vancouver, ended in California, and then went to Hawaii, the same would be okay, since they started from a foreign port.

All passengers originating the cruise in California, would have to use alternate transportation (bus) to Ensenada to board to make it legal for them.