Jones Act

[Chorts]

With regard to the Jones Act and the Passenger Vehicle Services Act, I don't understand how the ships that do the Alaska itinerary can go RT Seattle since most do not do a "foreign port" stop or embarkation. I ask this because our friends wanted to board the Mercury in San Francisco and join us since they couldn't make the Ensenada embarkation and were told they could not because of the Jones Act. If you look at the Mercury's itinerary that will be their normal summer Alaska run, it's a round trip from Seattle with no foreign ports. They stop in British Columbia you say......Well, according to the person who called back and told our friends, "sorry, we must cancel your booking because British Columbia is not considered a foreign port, one can only go "what?" Based on our friends first call to Celebrity, they booked through Celebrity, made air and hotel reservations and then thwap...received a call back about the cancellation a short while later.

 

Here's hoping there is someone here that is better versed in the Jones Act, etc. that can better explain this to me. I do understand how this works since I've been doing a lot of research on it.....even went as far as to read Congressional Hearings that were held in the late 1990's. But, this time, it doesn't make sense.

 

Needless to say, our friends were terribly disappointed they couldn't join us.

[ocngypz]

The only plausible explanation would be "between two US Ports".

 

In your friend's case, it would be between SFO and SEA.

 

Another example of the rt SEA, are the rt NYC Canada sailings..so I am thinking the issue is between two US ports.

 

Now, this arose in my office the other day. Calls to Celebrity CS, the answer was no.. no SFO-SEA. Calls to our rep.. answer was no. Then someone in my customer service department got ahold of another department at Celebrity, and was told yes.

 

However, judging by past experience with HAL and Princess in similar situations, the answer is no.

 

Of course, to further muddy the waters, we have the rt SAN and LAX Hawaii sailings which have to make a service call in Ensenada. I have a feeling there is a waiver somewhere pertaining to Canada.

[Chorts]

Another scenario I believe is SAN to Hawaii RT is OK but if oneway from SAN to Hawaii, a stop in Ensenada is in order. Not even sure if the ship is there long enough to tie up...certainly not long enough to go ashore.

 

The point here being, quoted from the internet, Foreign-flagged cruise ships may carry passengers between ports in the Hawaiian Islands as long as no passenger permanently leaves the vessel at ports other than the origination port and the vessel makes at least one call at a foreign port.

 

So, I'm wondering if the same is true with the Seattle RT cruises. You begin and end in Seattle, so no need to visit a foreign port. Whereas, a passsenger can't embark in one US city and permanently disembark in another US city. It's a technicality but one that we can't seem to get around.

[wieslaw]

Mercury starts the cruise in : Ensenada, Mexico (foreign port)and stops in: San Francisco, California, Ketchikan, Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, Skagway, Alaska, Hubbard Glacier (Cruising), Prince Rupert, B.C., Inside Passage (Cruising), Seattle, Washington .......it did not transport people between two US ports - everybody got transported from foreign port ( Ensenada) to US port (Seattle).

If your friends started the cruise in San Francisco even that Mercury stops in Prince Rupert, B.C.(which is "nearby" foreign port) they can not be transported to another US port which is on this cruise - Seattle (the ship would have to stop in a "distant" foreign port to satisfy the law.

 

If the ship (Mercury ) starts from Seattle, Washington, and stops in :Juneau, Alaska, Skagway, Alaska, Hubbard Glacier (Cruising), Ketchikan, Alaska, Prince Rupert, B.C.( "nearby" foreign port), Inside Passage (Cruising), and brings the same people back to Seattle, Washington (the same US port) the law was satisfied (Mercury did stop in "nearby" foreign port).

Same would be true from Ensenada to Hawaii - one way......or the same US port for boarding and departure (San Francisco, or any other) going to Hawaii and back stops in Ensenada ('nearby' foreign port).

Going lets say from FL to San Diego ( two different US ports) ship has to stop in a 'distant' foreign port. And what is 'distant' and what is 'nearby' is not so simple....there are all kinds of exceptions.

Wes

[TheHappyWanderer]

on the Alaska cruises they can use a stop in Victoria as their "foreign" country

[Roland4]

There was a fairly lengthy discussion of this on the Crystal board after Christmas in which someone posted a link to an internet site that explained it really well. Unfortunately I can't find it at the moment. Essentially what it said was that if the port of Embarkation and FINAL DISEMBARKATION are the same, then a stop at a "distant port" is not required. This is why they can do LA/Hawaii and Seattle/Alaska RETURN. For an itinerary such as Miami/LA, a stop in a "distant port" (Usually Aruba/Colombia in the Caribbean) is required. It was explained to me that on the Hawaii trips the Ensenada stop truly is a refuelling service call and has nothing to do with the Jones Act. Whether that is, in fact, the case, I don't know.

 

As an aside, the Jones Act is the reason why, when the QM2 ran into problems in Ft Lauderdale, the passengers were not allowed the option to disembark in FLL instead of continuing to RIO. It had travelled from NYC to FLL without making a "distant stop".

[Chorts]

Thanks to everyone for your responses. I can always count on this board for answers to my questions. I don't especially like the reasoning that my friends can't join us, but I do accept it.