Jones act

[Kittybork]

Why can cruises go from Jacksonville, FL to Key West, FL without an intervening foreign port and not violate the Jones Act?

[ansoninc]

What I want to know is who and why came up with the PVSA anyhow? I do need need to every go to Ensenada again![emoji33]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cruise pup]

Why can cruises go from Jacksonville, FL to Key West, FL without an intervening foreign port and not violate the Jones Act?

 

I think it's because it's a port of call and not a port of disembarkation. If a passenger leaves the vessel for good in Key West, then I think that would be a violation.

[chengkp75]

Why can cruises go from Jacksonville, FL to Key West, FL without an intervening foreign port and not violate the Jones Act?

 

I think it's because it's a port of call and not a port of disembarkation. If a passenger leaves the vessel for good in Key West, then I think that would be a violation.

 

This is correct. Up until the 80's, a foreign flag cruise ship could not call at more than 1 US port, since getting on in Jax and getting off for the day in Key West was a violation. The act has been modified to only prohibit transportation between two US ports, if the passenger intends to "permanently disembark" at the second US port.

[chengkp75]

What I want to know is who and why came up with the PVSA anyhow? I do need need to every go to Ensenada again![emoji33]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

The PVSA was enacted in 1865, and was an outgrowth of earlier legislation, mainly the Steamboat Act of 1852, which was created to regulate the passenger steamboats on US inland waters that were blowing up and catching fire. To get around the costly regulations of the Steamboat Act, steamboat owners were reflagging their boats in foreign countries, so Congress passed the PVSA to require all "coastwise" passenger trade (between US ports or on inland waters or rivers) to be US flag vessels. As I say, to this day, this requires boat operators of ferries, and other passenger vessels in the US to follow in particular the USCG regulations that are stricter than what the USCG can enforce on foreign flag cruise ships, and requires them to hire US crew.

[nealstuber]

If you consider it to be the Cruise Vessel Services Act, then it is perhaps outdated, but it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, which keeps all ferries, water taxis, commuter boats, dinner cruises, casino boats, and even some charter fishing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.

 

 

All true, but I believe the original motivation for the act was to insure US sealift and shipbuilding capacity in time of war.

Maybe it would be worse without the Jones Act and PVSA, but it would be hard to say the either has been very successful. And with respect to the PVSA in particular, I don't see us sending troops by ship in any large scale conflict and it has not really resulted in more than a couple of ocean worthy ships that could be refitted for the purpose. They even had to bend the building rules with NCL's Pride of America.

 

So I'd say while the Jones Act has been marginally successful, the PVSA has not come close to achieving its objective and I'm not sure the objective of insuring US troop capacity by sea is even necessary at this point.

 

Would love to see us figure out how to make US passenger ship building and crewing more competitive rather than making the competition less competitive. But not much chance of that in the current political climate.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[LuckyZ]

Couple of obvious thoughts:

 

- if I were to cruise for this long on one journey , I would weigh about 500 lbs when I got home

 

- you can talk or post till your blue in the face, but if Carnival won't book this for you if it's against their policy, then you ain't getting booked on this trip.

[chengkp75]

All true, but I believe the original motivation for the act was to insure US sealift and shipbuilding capacity in time of war.

Maybe it would be worse without the Jones Act and PVSA, but it would be hard to say the either has been very successful. And with respect to the PVSA in particular, I don't see us sending troops by ship in any large scale conflict and it has not really resulted in more than a couple of ocean worthy ships that could be refitted for the purpose. They even had to bend the building rules with NCL's Pride of America.

 

So I'd say while the Jones Act has been marginally successful, the PVSA has not come close to achieving its objective and I'm not sure the objective of insuring US troop capacity by sea is even necessary at this point.

 

Would love to see us figure out how to make US passenger ship building and crewing more competitive rather than making the competition less competitive. But not much chance of that in the current political climate.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

These are some of the fallacies surrounding the PVSA and the Jones Act. The PVSA by far precedes any thought of US military sealift, and the Jones Act was originally crafted by a Senator from Washington state who saw the sea trade with Alaska going to Canadian interests, and restricted coastwise trade to US vessels. The Jones Act and PVSA have nothing whatever to do with US ships involved in foreign trade.

 

When you think of measures that improved US shipbuilding and sealift capacity, you are really thinking of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, which FDR (not NCL's FDR!) enabled to get us on a war footing for WWII. Unfortunately, this act, which turned us into the largest maritime nation in the world at the time, also resulted in our dramatic fall from that pre-eminence in the decades since. The act granted subsidies to shipowners to cover the difference in cost to construct and operate ships under US flag versus foreign flag. What this did is allow the maritime unions to annually ask for increases in raises, and the shipyards to fail to control construction costs, and the shipping companies didn't care, because every increase was simply covered by the subsidy. Therefore, rather than investing in more efficient methods and technologies, or more efficient means of operating ships, we lagged behind the rest of the world in maritime innovation as the taxpayers footed the bill for driving us out of the market. When Reagan stopped the subsidies, the US shipping industry collapsed.

 

And again, even this decline in the US merchant marine is in the international trade, while the domestic trade is still an integral part of the US economy. Look at all the tugs and barges you see in US ports, or on the Mississippi River, the harbor tugs, let alone the coastwise tankers who take petroleum products where there are no pipelines, in particular Florida. If all of those vessels and jobs went foreign flag, that would have a large impact on the US economy. The Jones Act, nor the PVSA were designed to protect or improve US overseas shipping, but only domestic shipping.

 

Even today, the ships that the US military uses for their sealift during the Gulf Wars and the other conflicts in the Mid East, while all of them are US flag, most of them are not eligible for Jones act trade. In other words, they are allowed to carry US military cargo from the US to Saudi Arabia, but they cannot carry that same US military cargo from Bayonne to Houston. There are many US flag ships, Maersk lines has many, that are US flag, but not Jones Act approved.

 

As far as US shipbuilding becoming more competitive, I'm afraid that ship has sailed long ago, along with the idea that we can bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. People in the US don't want to work the long, hard hours required to build ships, for the wages even paid in the US. The average age of a shipyard worker in the US is 57. We don't want the dirty, hard physical labor jobs like shipbuilding and steelwork, even for a "living" US wage. And this has nothing to do with today's politics, it has been happening for decades.

 

As for crewing, how many cries do you hear here on CC about the international crew not being paid a "living wage"? So how many US citizens would work for those wages? Increase wages? Sure, and prices go up. Just look at the Pride of America, and many of those crew could make more money flipping burgers at McD's than they do on the ship.

 

Sorry, the Jones Act and the PVSA have been, and continue to be, successes in their intended objective of protecting domestic sea trade. If you want to blame anything for the fall of the US merchant marine it is the Merchant Marine Act of 1936.

[StolidCruiser]

 

Sorry, the Jones Act and the PVSA have been, and continue to be, successes in their intended objective of protecting domestic sea trade. If you want to blame anything for the fall of the US merchant marine it is the Merchant Marine Act of 1936.

 

Once again, thank you for sharing reasonable and thorough perspective with authority to balance those "I'd say", "I think" and "I believe".

 

You know.

[AmazedByCruising]

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.

 

Lawmakers in 1886 thought of ships transporting passengers, while a typical cruiseship passenger now flies to the embarkation port and flies back when they arrived. The PVSA was obviously meant to protect an industry providing transportation, written when the oldest Wright brother was 18.

 

Did a company ever appeal after a PVSA fine, saying that this law wasn't meant to spoil people's vacations?

[chengkp75]

Did a company ever appeal after a PVSA fine, saying that this law wasn't meant to spoil people's vacations?

 

How does the law spoil people's vacations? The law fines the cruise line for a violation, not the passenger. It is only the passenger's voluntary signing of the ticket contract that gives the cruise line the right to pass the fine on to the passenger. So, it is up to the cruise line as to whether the fine is passed along or not.

[datolim]

It's actually called the Passenger Vessel Service Act (Jones Act is cargo). I did this exact itinerary in 2012 when the Spirit went over to Australia. The PVSA only affects ships transporting passengers between 2 US ports without stopping at a distant foreign port. There are none on the Seattle-Honolulu legs. But since the end port is Sydney, it is technically OK.

 

However the issue now, is Carnival.au handles bookings for the Honolulu to Sydney leg. Somehow, there must be someway that this can be escalated to somebody that can book all three legs, because it is legal, since you will be boarding in Seattle and disembarking in Sydney.

 

But like you said, if you can't get it resolved, cruise to Alaska on another cruise line.

 

You are right. The law says no foreign registered cruise ship can carry pax between 2 US ports without calling first at a Distant Foreign port.

This matter was dealt with at length when the NCL Pride of America first started sailing in Hawaii.

That is why NCL has a very long term contract with Kiribati to deny service to the other cruise lines. Kiribati is a Distant Foreign port and it is only 2 days sailing time from Honolulu. This is very doable for the other cruise ships from State-side. I don't think any cruise line can knowingly break the law without any long term consequences.

[AmazedByCruising]

How does the law spoil people's vacations? The law fines the cruise line for a violation, not the passenger. It is only the passenger's voluntary signing of the ticket contract that gives the cruise line the right to pass the fine on to the passenger. So, it is up to the cruise line as to whether the fine is passed along or not.

 

OK, not "spoiling vacations". "Making vacations impossible" would have been better wording.

 

I was just asking if a judge ever looked at a case where the PVSA was applied to a cruise vacation and one of the parties argued that the law was meant for transportation, not for holidays that just happen to include transportation. In the mean time I realized that a judge must have looked at it, as "cruises to nowhere" where passengers are not even transported at all, fall under the law.

[chengkp75]

OK, not "spoiling vacations". "Making vacations impossible" would have been better wording.

 

I was just asking if a judge ever looked at a case where the PVSA was applied to a cruise vacation and one of the parties argued that the law was meant for transportation, not for holidays that just happen to include transportation. In the mean time I realized that a judge must have looked at it, as "cruises to nowhere" where passengers are not even transported at all, fall under the law.

 

Well, cruises to nowhere were granted an exemption to the PVSA, since even though no "transportation" is involved, it is a "coastwise" voyage since it does not go to a foreign port. This is why casino boats in the US are covered by the PVSA, even though they go outside US territorial waters in order to gamble, but they don't call at a foreign port. What stopped cruises to nowhere (which are still allowed by the PVSA) is CBP's requirement that crew working on a foreign flag ship operating cruises to nowhere must have US work visas, instead of crew visas. These work visas are more expensive and more difficult to obtain than crew visas, so the cruise lines don't find it economical to obtain them for any crew that might be onboard for a cruise to nowhere.

 

Also, remember that the cruise lines themselves have stated that they are not interested in changes to the PVSA, because if the act were relaxed, there would be other, costly requirements added, and they don't see a major economic benefit to doing PVSA cruises.

[whitshel]

It's just like the airlines, you can't fly an international carrier between 2 us cities, ie British airways from San Diego to Miami.

 

I thought the same thing about the law (stupid a## out dated law) when we took our very 1st cruise, Ensenada, MX to Hawaii. We we're clueless on the law back then, wondered why the previous cruise did a panama canal cruise that ended in San Diego and then floated down to Ensenada empty. We we're all bused from San Diego to Ensenada to get on, some people said they were at the port when the ship left left empty:eek: then had to take the 2 hour bus ride down, seemed crazy at the time.

 

But after much research and thought, the law really does make sense, even tho it wasn't meant for cruise ships they still fall under it and you can't have foreign flagged vessels transporting people between us ports.

[Elaine5715]

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 feel smarter after reading your posts.

[torcruise]

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.

 

And this is probably why the cruise line is kicking it back. Just because you book another leg of the trip, you could easily cancel that leg or just not show up. And since The two are not connected they maybe liable for allowing you to book simply on your word

[chengkp75]

And this is probably why the cruise line is kicking it back. Just because you book another leg of the trip, you could easily cancel that leg or just not show up. And since The two are not connected they maybe liable for allowing you to book simply on your word

 

Please note that the OP has come back and said that Carnival has reversed itself, and is allowing the cruises. I will dispute the poster you quoted, that he got a "PVSA violation sticker" in his passport, or that he received a fine for a years old violation, since the CBP doesn't give a damn about who the passenger was, and the cruise line was already fined 2 years prior. What that poster received was a fine for not properly entering the country, not for violating the PVSA.