Jones act

[chengkp75]

I'd have to agree with this and with chengkp75's response. There's only two explanations as I see it:

Carnival's internal reservation system has a block in it that wont allow the Seattle-Vancouver route and the Vancouver-Honolulu to be booked back to back (regardless of whats added onto it afterwards) and it keep just kicking back this error.

OR there isn't a system problem and the rep doesn't know the intricacies of the PVSA. Nor should they really. Just keep escalating this higher and higher until you find someone that can help you.

 

Also if they seriously said that you'd be kicked off the ship and thrown in front of a judge, that's just baloney. It's like a $300 fine that the line gets and that's it. No idea where they're getting this info from. This is demonstrative of their lack of understanding the PVSA.

 

Yeah, I wasn't going to touch that part of it, but yes, the fine is to the cruise line, and CBP will tell you that they don't care who the passenger is, and it doesn't hold the passenger liable for any violation. It is simply the cruise ticket contract that gives the cruise line the right to pass the fine on to the passenger.

 

As a PP noted, this can be done for diamond level cruisers, so escalation should be able to resolve this for the "hoi-polloi", even if it makes a bit of work for the cruise line agents.

[Flatbush Flyer]

Actually, this is not correct. CBP does not care how the cruises are marketed or sold, they only look at the end product: does the combined voyage transport a passenger between one US port to another US port without a distant foreign port call.

 

 

 

In this particular case, each segment of the proposed cruise is legal in and of itself. However, combining the first and second portions, becoming Seattle to Honolulu becomes illegal. But, when the third segment is added, it once again becomes a legal voyage.

 

 

 

Now, whether Carnival has some limitation on its booking system that differentiates where the cruise has to be booked, is a different matter, but this proposed itinerary is perfectly legal, and has been done many times in the past.

 

 

 

As stated, voyages that start in ports outside the US are not covered by the PVSA, but also, voyages that end in ports outside the US are not covered either.

 

 

 

The simple fact that Carnival's (and most other cruise line's) phone staff refer to this as a "Jones Act" problem shows how little they know of their own laws. In fact, Australia has cabotage laws similar to the PVSA, that limit coastwise passenger trade to Australian flag ships, but they have a mechanism for granting temporary exemptions to foreign flag ships when no Oz flagged ship is available.

 

 

I stand corrected - but perhaps not totally convinced because, there's the human element at work here.

Though not the CBP, one can often see misinterpretation of rules by TSA personnel as to what is/isn't okay to carry on a plane. And while CBP generally may not "misinterpret" things (that's another story for another time), there can always be that one office® who wouldn't consider OP's multiple bookings as a single journey.

Bottom line is whether the OP trusts a government agency to not make mistakes. [emoji102]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Davechipp74]

I violated the PVSA act one time its no big deal. I was on NCL from N.Y. to Bahamas (I've been on this exact cruise several times) got off the ship in FLA and met Megan who would later become my wife. I went back on board got all my stuff, didnt say a word to anyone (crusing solo) and spent 2 lovely weeks in FLA. Megan would later move to N.Y. and we were married. 2 years later I was going through customs in SEA-TAC airport, they brought up the whole FLA thing, and I had to pay a $300 fine thats it, case closed. I even got a cool red PVSA violation stamp in my passport. Megan and I have since divorced so im back to cruising solo.

[westview1]

I'd have to agree with this and with chengkp75's response. There's only two explanations as I see it:

Carnival's internal reservation system has a block in it that wont allow the Seattle-Vancouver route and the Vancouver-Honolulu to be booked back to back (regardless of whats added onto it afterwards) and it keep just kicking back this error.

OR there isn't a system problem and the rep doesn't know the intricacies of the PVSA. Nor should they really. Just keep escalating this higher and higher until you find someone that can help you.

 

Also if they seriously said that you'd be kicked off the ship and thrown in front of a judge, that's just baloney. It's like a $300 fine that the line gets and that's it. No idea where they're getting this info from. This is demonstrative of their lack of understanding the PVSA.

 

You're right it is a block but, the issue is that they want to continue on to Sydney, which would not be an issue if the 2 companies share the reservation system. They wouldn't technically be starting in the Seattle ending in Honolulu (which does violate the PVSA) but starting in Seattle and ending in Sydney. You can't find the Honolulu - Sydney cruise on the Carnival website, you have to go to Carnival Australia website to book it online or call Carnival Australia. The cruise is priced in Australian dollars and gratuities are included.

 

We tried to book the same B2B2B for September 2017 and the PVP that we spoke to agreed with us that it didn't technically violate the PVSA but, since the 2 companies didn't share the booking system the Seattle - Vancouver then Vancouver - Honolulu is flagged and you can't book the B2B.

 

When we did the Honolulu to Sydney cruise in 2012, there were people who did the B2B2B that the OP is describing. The difference is in 2012 all 3 legs were booked with Carnival U.S. since Carnival Australia didn't exist yet.

[GregD]

...

 

We tried to book the same B2B2B for September 2017 and the PVP that we spoke to agreed with us that it didn't technically violate the PVSA but, since the 2 companies didn't share the booking system the Seattle - Vancouver then Vancouver - Honolulu is flagged and you can't book the B2B.

...

 

That must be what the problem is.

[Woody22]

Thanks for all of your input on this matter, you certainly know your stuff.

I think this has highlighted a potential flaw in Carnivals booking procedure and hopefully they can communicate between themselves and fix the problem.

I'll let you all know how I progress....guessing it might take a while. [emoji51]

[CruiseHealing]

Hopefully this act can be addressed with the changes that are occurring in DC. It is time to bring the Maritme Laws up to date. And even address a Cruise Ship Industry exclusions.

[GROUCHPUSS]

I know for a fact that last year on the Legend there were people that started in Sydney and finished in Seattle they did all three legs of the crossing and it was ok. The reverse should be true for going back to Sydney, as you are still having to do the HI to Vancouver then Alaska to Seattle which is the violation.

Edited January 16, 2017 by GROUCHPUSS

[richkinkade]

The cruse line gets fined if it lets a passenger begin cruising in Seattle on a ship that ends a cruise in Hawaii without that passenger either getting off the ship beforehand or touching a distant foreign port. You can't do it, even if you plan to continue on.

[nealstuber]

Hopefully this act can be addressed with the changes that are occurring in DC. It is time to bring the Maritme Laws up to date. And even address a Cruise Ship Industry exclusions.

 

 

All of the trade changes proposed by the incoming administration are about protecting the American worker at the expense of the American consumer. The PVSA is designed to protect the US flagged vessels and those who man them. So I would not be looking for changes on this front except perhaps to make it harder for foreign workers to transport Americans between US ports.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[S.S.Oceanlover]

The cruse line gets fined if it lets a passenger begin cruising in Seattle on a ship that ends a cruise in Hawaii without that passenger either getting off the ship beforehand or touching a distant foreign port. You can't do it, even if you plan to continue on.

 

 

Your info is not correct. As long as the 3rd cruise ends in a foreign port the cruise line does not incur a fine and the cruise leaving from Seattle to Vancouver, Vancouver to Honolulu, and Honolulu to Australia or any other foreign port is perfectly legal.

 

Bill

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Shmoo here]

The cruse line gets fined if it lets a passenger begin cruising in Seattle on a ship that ends a cruise in Hawaii without that passenger either getting off the ship beforehand or touching a distant foreign port. You can't do it, even if you plan to continue on.

 

As noted, not exactly accurate.

 

The actual law says that a foreign-flagged ship cannot transport a passenger from one US port to a different US port without a stop in a distant foreign port.

 

A distant foreign port is described as any port NOT " in North America, Central America, the Bermuda Islands, or the West Indies (including the Bahama Islands, but not including the Leeward Islands of the Netherlands Antilles, i.e., Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao)." 19 CFR § 4.80a(a)(2). " The law only looks at where a passenger actually embarks and debarks from the same ship.

 

As chengkp75 points out each cruise in of itself is legal. Seattle/Vancouver; Vancouver/Hawaii; Hawaii/Sydney. If you put the first two together it makes the cruise Seattle/Hawaii, and not legal under the law. By adding the next cruise, the cruise is now Seattle/Sydney and again legal.

 

The problem is seeming to arise due to the fact that only the first two cruises are available to book on Carnival USA, while the third cruise must be booked via Carnival Australia. Therefore the Seattle/Hawaii is unbookable as a B2B.

 

It seems to me, if they (Carnival USA) are able to do this for Diamond passengers, it should be do-able for others. I think that Carnival may be "eating" the fine for diamond passengers, but maybe not. Maybe they've got a work around for them. And are just unwilling to go to the trouble for "regular" passengers. Really unfair.

[Woody22]

Received this email back from Carnival this morning:

 

Response By Email (01/18/2017 11:19 AM)

Hello Brett,

 

It is a pleasure to hear from you today, we hope all is well in your corner of the world.

 

We apologize for any confusion and understand that your final destination is Sydney. Unfortunately, The Jones Act (also known as the Passenger Services Act) prohibits ships of Non-U.S registry from embarking and debarking guests at two different U.S ports. Such travel would constitute point-to-point transportation between two U.S ports, which is prohibited on foreign flagged ships.

 

We greatly appreciate your loyalty and the 52 sailed days with us. Thank you for choosing Carnival to create those moments that matter.

 

Have a FUNtastic Day!

Shelly

Carnival Cruise Line 3655 NW 87th Avenue Miami FL 33178

[crzndeb]

Received this email back from Carnival this morning:

 

Response By Email (01/18/2017 11:19 AM)

Hello Brett,

 

It is a pleasure to hear from you today, we hope all is well in your corner of the world.

 

We apologize for any confusion and understand that your final destination is Sydney. Unfortunately, The Jones Act (also known as the Passenger Services Act) prohibits ships of Non-U.S registry from embarking and debarking guests at two different U.S ports. Such travel would constitute point-to-point transportation between two U.S ports, which is prohibited on foreign flagged ships.

 

We greatly appreciate your loyalty and the 52 sailed days with us. Thank you for choosing Carnival to create those moments that matter.

 

Have a FUNtastic Day!

Shelly

Carnival Cruise Line 3655 NW 87th Avenue Miami FL 33178

 

At least they are consistent with being CLUELESS. You might try reaching out to John Heald and ask why 2 Carnival entities (US and Australia) can't communicate with each other.

[S.S.Oceanlover]

Received this email back from Carnival this morning:

 

Response By Email (01/18/2017 11:19 AM)

Hello Brett,

 

It is a pleasure to hear from you today, we hope all is well in your corner of the world.

 

We apologize for any confusion and understand that your final destination is Sydney. Unfortunately, The Jones Act (also known as the Passenger Services Act) prohibits ships of Non-U.S registry from embarking and debarking guests at two different U.S ports. Such travel would constitute point-to-point transportation between two U.S ports, which is prohibited on foreign flagged ships.

 

We greatly appreciate your loyalty and the 52 sailed days with us. Thank you for choosing Carnival to create those moments that matter.

 

Have a FUNtastic Day!

Shelly

Carnival Cruise Line 3655 NW 87th Avenue Miami FL 33178

Like I said earlier in the thread (jokingly) they think Sydney is in the U.S.

 

(Scratching head)

 

Bill

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Forums mobile app

[Flatbush Flyer]

At least they are consistent with being CLUELESS. You might try reaching out to John Heald and ask why 2 Carnival entities (US and Australia) can't communicate with each other.

 

 

As I said earlier: because the OP's entire travel trip from Seattle to Sydney is not a single "extended" cruise (with its own individual booking number), it is being treated as separate cruises, which is how he booked them. Remember, that, should the wrong segment be cancelled, he would possibly be in violation of the PVSA (depending on who at CBP is assessing the situation. Yes even CBP folks are human, which is why they have an ombudsman for "gray area" issues).

Some cruise lines guard against this type of possible misunderstanding by uniting/listing certain B2B segment as "grand" or "extended" voyages with their own unique identifiers (e.g., itinerary name, booking number, etc.) Looks like Carnival may not have figured that out(?).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

As I said earlier: because the OP's entire travel trip from Seattle to Sydney is not a single "extended" cruise (with its own individual booking number), it is being treated as separate cruises, which is how he booked them. Remember, that, should the wrong segment be cancelled, he would possibly be in violation of the PVSA (depending on who at CBP is assessing the situation. Yes even CBP folks are human, which is why they have an ombudsman for "gray area" issues).

Some cruise lines guard against this type of possible misunderstanding by uniting/listing certain B2B segment as "grand" or "extended" voyages with their own unique identifiers (e.g., itinerary name, booking number, etc.) Looks like Carnival may not have figured that out(?).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

And again, I will say that CBP doesn't care how the various cruises are marketed and advertised or booked. Many cruise lines don't use the "grand" voyage concept, but will allow you to book multiple cruises together, some even at later dates, that will fulfill the legal requirements of the PVSA. What is happening here is that two different profit centers within a corporation are handling the bookings, and Carnival Oz does not have to report the booking from Hawaii to Sydney to CBP, so the only segments reported to CBP would be the first two segments, which together are illegal under PVSA. It is simply that the two parts of Carnival are not talking to each other. As others have said, in the past, when bookings from Hawaii to Sydney were bookable from Carnival US, this combination was allowed, and when the entire combination is booked through Carnival Oz, in reverse, it is allowed. Since PVSA violations are not filed until after the fact, all Carnival needs to do is get the manifests from both cruises together to show CBP, and there would be no violation.

[Flatbush Flyer]

And again, I will say that CBP doesn't care how the various cruises are marketed and advertised or booked. Many cruise lines don't use the "grand" voyage concept, but will allow you to book multiple cruises together, some even at later dates, that will fulfill the legal requirements of the PVSA. What is happening here is that two different profit centers within a corporation are handling the bookings, and Carnival Oz does not have to report the booking from Hawaii to Sydney to CBP, so the only segments reported to CBP would be the first two segments, which together are illegal under PVSA. It is simply that the two parts of Carnival are not talking to each other. As others have said, in the past, when bookings from Hawaii to Sydney were bookable from Carnival US, this combination was allowed, and when the entire combination is booked through Carnival Oz, in reverse, it is allowed. Since PVSA violations are not filed until after the fact, all Carnival needs to do is get the manifests from both cruises together to show CBP, and there would be no violation.

 

 

And,, then, if OP booked the three segments with only one arm of the corporation and then cancelled the last leg, the remaining segments, Seattle to Hawaii (no matter who looks at them or how they look at them), would be in violation of the PVSA.

 

In any case, this little fiasco is a great reminder that cruise line requirements for transit may be different than those of the governments whose countries they encounter in a passage (in particular, need for passports)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

And,, then, if OP booked the three segments with only one arm of the corporation and then cancelled the last leg, the remaining segments, Seattle to Hawaii (no matter who looks at them or how they look at them), would be in violation of the PVSA.

 

In any case, this little fiasco is a great reminder that cruise line requirements for transit may be different than those of the governments whose countries they encounter in a passage (in particular, need for passports)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Just to beat the dead horse further, if the passenger cancelled the last segment, then the cruise line would notify the passenger that the first two legs violated the PVSA, so they would require a further segment to be cancelled.

[Woody22]

Well after 2 more emails from Carnival saying, yes they understood my trip finished in Sydney, it still violated the PVSA and I could not do it, my persistence has finally had an impact. Below is the email I received last night from Carnival, which represents a 180 degree turn around on what they previously stated.

Ironic that a family from Sydney seems to understand this law better than the the cruise reps from the country the law exists in.

Anyway, I'm happy now [emoji5]️

 

Below are is their latest email in response to mine. Read on if interested and thanks for your input...most of you were right all along!!

Note, Joanne is my wife who also emailed them.

 

Carnival Logo

 

Hi Brett,

Thank you for contacting us once again.

I have responded to Joanne under separate cover and appreciate you staying in touch as well.

Once all three bookings have been created, please advise and we will note them accordingly to avoid cancellation and the Jone's Act fee being applied.

We are looking forward to welcoming you aboard soon! Thank you for choosing Carnival to create those moments that matter.

 

Have a FUNtastic Day!

Shelly

Carnival Cruise Line 3655 NW 87th Avenue Miami FL 33178

 

Message History

Response By Email (02/03/2017 11:11 AM)

Hi Brett,

Thank you for contacting us once again.

I have responded to Joanne under separate cover and appreciate you staying in touch as well.

Once all three bookings have been created, please advise and we will note them accordingly to avoid cancellation and the Jone's Act fee being applied.

We are looking forward to welcoming you aboard soon! Thank you for choosing Carnival to create those moments that matter.

 

Have a FUNtastic Day!

Shelly

Carnival Cruise Line 3655 NW 87th Avenue Miami FL 33178

Customer By Service Email (02/01/2017 09:39 PM)

Hi Shelly,

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, I respectfully disagree with the information you have provided.

 

 

 

You have listed the information regarding the Jones Act from Carnivals website regarding point-to-point transportation between 2 US ports. I understand that if this was in fact the itinery I and my family were propsing to undertake it would be in violation.

 

 

 

However, the next paragraph on the Carnival website states.. " The exception to this rule is if the itinery includes a 'distant foreign port' ". Our cruise finishes in Sydney, Australia... a port considered to be both distant and foreign.

 

 

 

Surely there is someone who can see and is able to organise these three cruises as one continious cruise, thus allowing us to undertake all three??

 

 

 

Sorry if I sound repetative, but could you please, one last time, confirm and reply in writting that these 3 cruises taken back to back do infact violate the Jones Act. I only ask as I have fellow cruisers, another cruise company, a travel agent and Carnival Australia reps who all insist that it doesn't. I would like to show them your reply.

 

 

 

Thanks again an have a great day,

 

 

 

Brett Wood

 

 

 

 

 

[---001:001872:60851---]

[chengkp75]

Perseverance pays. And amazingly, they still refer to the Jones Act (not sure who Jone is, since they refer to her (Jone's) act). :p

[travelphreak]

This was very interesting reading and I learned a lot.

 

First - what a fabulous cruise - I am envious.:D

 

Second - If Carnival doesn't want you to spend your money with them there are other cruise lines that will happily help you out. Vancouver-Vancouver via Alaska itineraries are available from NCL or HAL and then you can book the Vancouver-Honolulu leg and the Honolulu-Sydney leg on Carnival. If you time it right you might even be able to spend a day or two in Vancouver (a beautiful city and fun to visit).

 

One would think that with the money you are trying to spend with Carnival that they could eat the $300 PVSA violation (if it really exists).

 

Just my .02 cents worth. Any way you ultimately do it - have a great cruise!

[S.S.Oceanlover]

This was very interesting reading and I learned a lot.

 

First - what a fabulous cruise - I am envious.:D

 

Second - If Carnival doesn't want you to spend your money with them there are other cruise lines that will happily help you out. Vancouver-Vancouver via Alaska itineraries are available from NCL or HAL and then you can book the Vancouver-Honolulu leg and the Honolulu-Sydney leg on Carnival. If you time it right you might even be able to spend a day or two in Vancouver (a beautiful city and fun to visit).

 

One would think that with the money you are trying to spend with Carnival that they could eat the $300 PVSA violation (if it really exists).

 

Just my .02 cents worth. Any way you ultimately do it - have a great cruise!

 

Yes it really exist and they can't knowingly violate the law.

 

Bill

[tea4ular]

Anyone had a problem like the one below?

 

Yep. We had booked a B2B several years ago for Alaska - I don't recall the specific logistics, however my husband is a quadriplegic, and we were wanting to avoid flying (we live near Port of Los Angeles) - grabbed our cabins, started making plans, were more than 50% paid off, and about 3 months before sail date got a call from our TA, the trip is off due to the Jones Act. We would need 24 hours between sailing to alleviate the loophole. Unfortunately for us, it wasn't going to work. We got some slack about getting a full refund, but boy did we fight that one! :eek:

 

It's an antiquated maritime law and one that needs to be reworked or abolished -

[chengkp75]

It's an antiquated maritime law and one that needs to be reworked or abolished -

 

If you consider it to be the Cruise Vessel Services Act, then it is perhaps outdated, but it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, which keeps all ferries, water taxis, commuter boats, dinner cruises, casino boats, and even some charter fishing boats from being foreign flag, and bypassing US jobs, and US labor, tax, environmental, and safety laws. The PVSA and its big brother the Jones Act provide hundreds of thousands of US jobs, and provide billions of dollars in revenue to the US economy, and millions in US tax revenue.