B2B and Jones Act

[Tweedy]

I have a question and I think I know the answer but I don't know if it is the right answer.

 

We are contemplating sailing roundtrip LA on a Mexican 7-day cruise and then staying on that ship and cruising back to Vancouver. I'm a little foggy as to whether this would be allowed or would it be in violation of the Jones Act. I'm thinking it would be okay to do this.

 

Does anyone know?

[Coral]

This will be fine.

 

We did the opposite a few years ago. We did a Vancouver to LA coastal and then a RT to Mexico out of LA.

 

You just can't embark and disembark 2 different US cities on the West coast. So if you get on in LA and get off in Vancouver, you are fine. If you get on in LA and get off in Seattle or Whittier, it is illegal.

[Tweedy]

Thanks!!!

[Cruisin' Chick]

BTW, unless you're cabotage, it can't be a violation of the Jones Act, which is often mistaken for the PVSA.

[Pam in CA]

BTW' date=' unless you're cabotage, it can't be a violation of the Jones Act, which is often mistaken for the PVSA.[/quote']ROFL! Yup... or a member of the merchant marine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920

 

The law that affects cruise ships is the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA).

[bigenna]

Thanks to Pam's many answers to posts like this and her clear explanations I feel, finally, that I have a good understanding of the PVSA. Thank you Pam!

What amazes me is Princess's CSR's inconsistencies over the PVSA.

Just a couple of months ago I wanted to book a three day from Vancouver to LA on the Grand Princess, followed by a ten day R/T LA to Mexico. The rep insisted that it was a violation. I told her I had done basically the same last year with no problem and she replied that I just didn't get caught and she would not book it for me. She was very grouchy that I doubted her.

So I did what I have found out works - wait ten minutes and phone again, getting a different answer. So I booked the cruise, got my TA to take over the booking, and double checked with her again.

I wonder how much business that Princess rep has lost the company.

[Pam in CA]

I wonder how much business that Princess rep has lost the company.

The vast majority of passengers aren't on CC or other sites and don't know or understand the difference so they accept what the Reps tell them. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Reps because they have a lot of information to learn about a lot of different things. Unless they have years of experience, which few do, they don't know everything about everything. Many of the things we learn or know about here on CC, we take for granted that others, including Reps, know. Any time you work directly with the public, it's an "adventure." My hats off to anyone who does customer service or works as a travel agent. It's usually a thankless job.

[bigenna]

Hi Pam, yes I do agree that serving the public can be difficult, having worked in areas most of my life in that capacity.

The thing that really bothered me was the attitude. I am always very polite if I am questioning information that I suspect may be wrong, but I did not get the same respect returned to me.

Hopefully it was a one off, and she was just having "one of those days"

[Jim Avery]

The vast majority of passengers aren't on CC or other sites and don't know or understand the difference so they accept what the Reps tell them. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Reps because they have a lot of information to learn about a lot of different things. Unless they have years of experience, which few do, they don't know everything about everything. Many of the things we learn or know about here on CC, we take for granted that others, including Reps, know. Any time you work directly with the public, it's an "adventure." My hats off to anyone who does customer service or works as a travel agent. It's usually a thankless job.

 

Exactly right. And, Jones Act = cargo version of the PVSA. Protectionist rules that really no longer apply as there is little to none USA passenger (or cargo) shipping. Just another bureaucratic bungle. I would advise people with these questions to approach Princess as they ultimately know best and are responsible for your cruise.:D

[SoCal Cruiser78]

Exactly right. And, Jones Act = cargo version of the PVSA. Protectionist rules that really no longer apply as there is little to none USA passenger (or cargo) shipping. Just another bureaucratic bungle. I would advise people with these questions to approach Princess as they ultimately know best and are responsible for your cruise.:D

 

As I recall, Sen. John McCain was author of a bill to repeal this shortly before 9/11. In the aftermath, I understand the bill fell by the wayside. Too bad.

[Pam in CA]

As I recall, Sen. John McCain was author of a bill to repeal this shortly before 9/11. In the aftermath, I understand the bill fell by the wayside. Too bad.

I don't remember McCain wanting to repeal the bill as it doesn't affect Arizona which has no shipping industry. I know that Sen. Inouye of Hawaii wanted it modified on behalf of NCL-A to make it impossible for lines other than NCL-A, which had three US-registered ships at the time, to sail to Hawaii from the West Coast. Of course, the modification would have killed a lot of the West coast cruise industry, in particular Alaskan cruises, and New England cruises. It died in Committee once the Governors and Senators of California, Alaska, Washington, New York and Massachusetts realized that the modified bill would cost these states hundreds of thousands of jobs and millions in income. Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Kennedy were the most vociferous. All cruises from these states would have to be one-way from Canada or Mexico because one of the provisions Sen. Inouye proposed was that foreign flagged ships would have to spend 50% of their port time in foreign ports for closed loop cruises. Then, Sen. Inouye changed his bill for just Hawaii but by that time, it was pretty much dead in the water and people saw it for what it was... saving three NCL-A ships to the detriment of all the other lines. Edited June 9, 2014 by Pam in CA

[SoCal Cruiser78]

I don't remember McCain wanting to repeal the bill as it doesn't affect Arizona which has no shipping industry...

 

I was told this by a crewmember many years ago. It would have been before NCL had its US-flagged ships, but I can't find a link to it so I may have been misinformed.

 

It seems that the act has outlived its purpose, so perhaps lawmakers will try again at some point to repeal it!

[Pam in CA]

I was told this by a crewmember many years ago. It would have been before NCL had its US-flagged ships, but I can't find a link to it so I may have been misinformed.

 

It seems that the act has outlived its purpose, so perhaps lawmakers will try again at some point to repeal it!

Found a really interesting, if dry, report on the PVSA. You are right, sort of. John McCain was Chairman of the Committee that did the review in 2004. http://www.gao.gov/atext/d04421.txt Edited June 9, 2014 by Pam in CA

[Tweedy]

Thanks for the clarification... sorry about the mixed up terminology but you all knew what I was asking so that's good. :D

[SoCal Cruiser78]

Found a really interesting, if dry, report on the PVSA. You are right, sort of. John McCain was Chairman of the Committee that did the review in 2004. http://www.gao.gov/atext/d04421.txt

 

Thanks! What a maze of laws the cruise lines have to deal with...

[Pam in CA]

Thanks! What a maze of laws the cruise lines have to deal with...

That's why they have batteries of lawyers. Laws don't change often. :) Plus, we're here to set them straight. :)

[Cruisin' Chick]

I don't remember McCain wanting to repeal the bill as it doesn't affect Arizona which has no shipping industry. I know that Sen. Inouye of Hawaii wanted it modified on behalf of NCL-A to make it impossible for lines other than NCL-A, which had three US-registered ships at the time, to sail to Hawaii from the West Coast. Of course, the modification would have killed a lot of the West coast cruise industry, in particular Alaskan cruises, and New England cruises. It died in Committee once the Governors and Senators of California, Alaska, Washington, New York and Massachusetts realized that the modified bill would cost these states hundreds of thousands of jobs and millions in income. Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Kennedy were the most vociferous. All cruises from these states would have to be one-way from Canada or Mexico because one of the provisions Sen. Inouye proposed was that foreign flagged ships would have to spend 50% of their port time in foreign ports for closed loop cruises. Then, Sen. Inouye changed his bill for just Hawaii but by that time, it was pretty much dead in the water and people saw it for what it was... saving three NCL-A ships to the detriment of all the other lines.

 

I remember that the then-governor of Hawaii had also joined in to get the change tabled. Some of us did go on the Congressional website set up to express our opinions. I remember seeing the mayor LA's letter when I was seeing who else wrote in...for once he was looking out for LA. My letter centered around the economic damage the change would do to the City of LA (tourism money lost). But I was thinking about one of my favorite cruises (the RT to Hawaii) and so glad I was able to do the same itinerary two times more after Colin Vetch didn't get his way.

 

The amazing thing is that two senators who were pushing for the change were from Hawaii and Alaska.

[Natmix]

We are really confused and unsure if this Act affects our cruise plans at all. We are in Australia and planning a cruise on Princess. 3 back to back cruises. Anchorage to Vancouver. Vancouver to LA. LA to Ft Lauderdale. Are we going to be able to book that? If not, could we just leave out the 5 day Vancouver to LA cruise and just do the Alaska and Panama Canal cruises?

[ggprincess2004]

We are really confused and unsure if this Act affects our cruise plans at all. We are in Australia and planning a cruise on Princess. 3 back to back cruises. Anchorage to Vancouver. Vancouver to LA. LA to Ft Lauderdale. Are we going to be able to book that? If not, could we just leave out the 5 day Vancouver to LA cruise and just do the Alaska and Panama Canal cruises?

 

You actually should be able to book that....it will raise eyebrows, but here is why you can do it. Any cruise that goes from LA to Ft. Lauderdale has to "touch" a "distant foreign port". Highly likely that it is going to call in Aruba. That is what will make this entire itinerary work for you.

 

You can anticipate some push-back when trying to book, but the answer is Anchorage (United States) to Ft. Lauderdale (United States) with a distant foreign port means this itinerary works! Just don't leave out the Panama Canal transit leg and you will be fine.

 

Bon Voyage!!

[lexdisic]

Just curious as to what the reasoning is behind this law that prevents embark/disembark from different ports but is ok if it stops in another country?

[ggprincess2004]

Just curious as to what the reasoning is behind this law that prevents embark/disembark from different ports but is ok if it stops in another country?

 

It is not ok if it just stops in a foreign country - it must call in what is designated a "distant foreign port", a defined term.

 

It was designed to encourage US flagging of vessels, rather than foreign flagging, and protect a US owned fleet in case of war. Rather arcane at this point but nonetheless still US law.

[BEAV]

We are really confused and unsure if this Act affects our cruise plans at all. We are in Australia and planning a cruise on Princess. 3 back to back cruises. Anchorage to Vancouver. Vancouver to LA. LA to Ft Lauderdale. Are we going to be able to book that? If not, could we just leave out the 5 day Vancouver to LA cruise and just do the Alaska and Panama Canal cruises?

 

Anchorage to Ft Lauderdale is perfectly fine, because as ggprincess2004 said, you will call at a distant foreign port between LA and Ft Lauderdale (which "qualifies" that particular voyage as legal). What you couldn't do would be Anchorage-Vancouver-LA because there are no distant foreign ports between those two U.S. ports.

[lexdisic]

It is not ok if it just stops in a foreign country - it must call in what is designated a "distant foreign port", a defined term.

 

It was designed to encourage US flagging of vessels, rather than foreign flagging, and protect a US owned fleet in case of war. Rather arcane at this point but nonetheless still US law.

 

Thanks - still dont understand how a different port makes any difference - then again we still have a medieval law that says we must practice our archery on a Sunday - dont understand that either :D:confused::D

[BEAV]

Thanks - still dont understand how a different port makes any difference - then again we still have a medieval law that says we must practice our archery on a Sunday - dont understand that either :D:confused::D

 

LOL! Remove logic from the equation and you'll be fine! ;)

[ggprincess2004]

LOL! Remove logic from the equation and you'll be fine! ;)

 

Sausage and legislation - making sense of either isn't a healthy exercise!:)