Update on new interpretation of the PVSA aka "The Jones Act"

[sail7seas]

Disclaimer: the closest I come to being a legal scholar is having done jury duty. But here's my take on the NE/Canada itinerary.

 

When it's done as a one-way Boston/Montreal (or reverse) the rule doesn't come into play. If anyone (sail?) is doing a back-to-back starting/ending in Boston, then there would have to be better than 50% ports in Canada AND there would have to be a 48 port stop in at least one of the foreign ports.

Does the one-week itinerary have an overnight in Quebec City? I don't believe so. But I'll bet that can be adjusted fairly easily.

 

There's also the round-trip NE/Canada itineraries that begin and end in Boston. I don't know if 50% of the ports on that itinerary are in Canada. I'm certain there's no overnight on it.

 

 

There is no overnight, no 48 hour call at any of the ports on the 7 day itinerary. However, more than 50% of the ports are Canadian. The only U.S. port is embarkation in Boston and stopping in Bar Harbor. Canadian port calls are PEI, Halifax, Sydney, Quebec and Montreal.

 

It could put a stop to permiting our back-to-backs. They may deem it okay for the seven day Boston to Montreal but bar us from returning on the b-to-b.

 

"Dam"....... you want to see a madder than mad Mariner!!! if THAT happens. Why don't they take away all our fun?!#$#$#@

[sail7seas]

There is an Aug 9 sailing in 2008 that goes Boston, Portland, Saint John/New Brunswick, Halifax, Bar Harbor to Boston. That still makes it more than 50% in Canadian ports.

 

[jhannah]

I imagine the Alaska Senators will be very vocal getting this stopped.

We can certainly hope!

[daveco58]

And that intent is???????

 

To prevent foreign companies from transporting American goods and passengers WITHIN the United States.

Just the same way you can't take British Airways from LA to NY. Or like Mexican or Canadian truckers can only bring goods in, or take goods out, but can't move them from Texas to Nebraska

[PRINSENDAM]

Minimum 48 hour stay in foreign port.....

 

That is not just one overnight stay... it is TWO overnights!

 

The only place where ships traditionally spend two nights in port... or even 48 hours is in Bermuda and the stay is usually around 78 hours... three overnights in port.

 

Alaska cruise..... with two full nights in Victoria? The itinerary would have to be something like....

 

Saturday 4 pm Depart Seattle

Sunday At Sea

Monday 11 am Arrive Katchikan

Tuesday 11 am Depart Ketchikan

Wednesday At Sea 11 pm Arrive Victoria

Thursday At Victoria

Friday 11pm Depart Victoria

Saturday 7 am Arrive Seattle

 

 

There is not enough time to get up to Glacier Bay AND do one of the ports. Can't do more than one port anyway if 50% of the ports have to be non US!!!!

 

It is not a bad cruise for those that have DONE Alaska. Two nights in Victoria would be fun but as a cruise.... for the general public... it just wouldn't sell.

 

 

Stephen

[Cruisin' Chick]

It looks like the Government is about to ruin my very favorite Cruise itinerary (Hawaii, round trip out of San Diego).

 

Time to write another letter to my Senators and congressman.

 

I really can’t believe this will fly. The decision makers will go whichever way the most pressure is. If this interpretation will adversely affect certain aspects of the cruise industry in the U. S. (the biggest in the world) then our elected officials, after a certain amount of pressure, will see to it that it does not happen. This is the way our system works. If 85% of the pressure is aimed at not implementing this and 15% is aimed at implementing, who do you think will win?:confused:

 

The Alaska Senators, House members, Governor, State Legislative officials, municipal leaders ... they have all written in opposition (you can read their letters on the website where opinion and responses were being collected. Sadly, I don't expect the bureaucrats to listen to the elected representatives of the sheeple. They haven't yet, so why should they start now? <and, yes, I'm being very pessimistic on this issue ... I'm expecting the worst, so that I won't be as disappointed if it actually happens. Think that will really work? Naaaa.>

 

You should see us talking about this on the Princess boards. This ploy on the part of NCLA to stop competition is pretty low. IMO, I can't imagine too many of cruisers who want a round-trip to Hawaii from the west coast would switch over to the Pride Of ships. And there are many of us in Southern California who detest Ensenada. I can honestly say that at least 80 per cent of the passengers who sailed on the Island Princess on the 12/22/05 cruise to Hawaii stayed on the ship while docked in Ensenada. We only got off for about 20 minutes so that my hubby can buy a trinket for his mother at the marketplace next to the dock.

 

This change to an already archaic law would simply negatively impact the ports of Los Angeles, San Diego, and Seattle (and possible other U.S. ports) and could eliminate many jobs of American workers. Just because NCL seriously underestimated the market of an U.S. flagged ship in Hawaii.

[bishop84]

Before this thread goes to far, The Passenger Services Act, and the Jones Act are two totally different pieces of legislation. The PSA pertains to foreign vessels transporting people and goods within the United States. The Jones Act pertains to American flag vessels, created the Merchant Marine and sets standards for their work conditions and training, as well as standards for what ships can be flagged in the United States.

 

Daveco58, Thanks for the correction. I have always assumed they are the same especially as Customs Officers I have talked to referred to the PVSA and Jones Act as being the same thing.

 

After your post I looked it up on the CBP website and it states that the Passenger Vessel Act dates from 1886 whilst the Jones act, to quote their website, "The term refers to several U.S. laws that govern the domestic transportation of merchandise and passengers by water. Strictly speaking, it applies only to Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (46 U.S.C. 883)."

[kryos]

It could put a stop to permiting our back-to-backs. They may deem it okay for the seven day Boston to Montreal but bar us from returning on the b-to-b.

Here's a thought, though. What if HAL had two ships doing the route? You went from Boston to Montreal say on the Amsterdam, and then came back on the Maasdam. Would that do it? You're not on the same ship, so you are either embarking on disembarking in a foreign port on both runs.

 

True, it would be inconvenient to have to switch ships/cabins, but would it work?

 

Same sort of deal can be done for Alaska and Hawaii. One way runs ... board in Ensenada and disembark on one of the Hawaiian islands or board in VanCouver and disembark in Alaska. Then, if you want what used to be a "traditional" 15 or so day cruise, you could just buy a return ticket on another ship. Would this get around the "problem?"

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[bishop84]

And, again folks, the PSA only comes into play when a ship travels from one US port to another US port, i.e. Seattle to Alaska one way, or LA to Hawaii, one way, without calling in a "distant foreign" port, or when a ship travels round trip to one US port, without calling in a "foreign" port.

All they are trying to do is refine the definition of "call".

As you know, these foreign flag vessels are making what are referred to as "technical calls", i.e. drop in long enough to get your papers stamped, in foreign ports, to skirt the intent of the PSA.

 

If the PSA only effects one way travel between different US ports why was this rule interpretation drawn up in response to MARADs concern about round trip cruises to Hawaii from the West Coast without calling at a foreign port. Surely a cruise originating and terminating in, for example, Los Angeles or San Diego a round trip to the same port?

[Jsipes]

This is definitely gonna have major implications for the entire cruise industry. As far as I can see, you will no longer be able to do a seven-day itinerary in Alaska. It's gonna have to be lengthened to allow for the 48 hour period in a foreign port ... which I guess would have to be Van Couver. Hawaii will be the same thing. Any itinerary going out of LA or Seattle will have to be expanded to add foreign ports, including one with a stay of 48 hours.

 

And all to protect one struggling cruise line. I can't help but wonder who NCLA is paying off.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

Yes Rita, you are completely on target......and what's really sad is NCLA is not a very good cruiseline, very few amenities......NCLA apparently thinks HAL and Princess are taking their customers....but it is really a no-brainer, would you rather cruise on 5 star HAL, or pay roundtrip air to HAwaii to cruise on a sub-standard no ammenity 3 1/2star ship ?????? If NCLA would upgrade significantly maybe they would capture more of the market. NCLA doesn't get many return cruisers.....once people sample their product they don't come back, where as Princess and HAL have loyal customers who return over and over again.

[RuthC]

Here's a thought, though. What if HAL had two ships doing the route? You went from Boston to Montreal say on the Amsterdam, and then came back on the Maasdam. Would that do it? You're not on the same ship, so you are either embarking on disembarking in a foreign port on both runs.

 

Would this get around the "problem?"

Not if the return were on the same day. This has already been discussed re: the Spring coastal cruises from San Diego to Vancouver, followed immediately by a one-day Vancouver to Seattle. The two in combination cannot be booked; there has to be a break with a stay-over in Vancouver.

I'm betting that the stay-over in Montreal would have to be at least two nights to comply with the new 48-hour rule.

How many passengers have the time and inclination to do that? Not many do the New England/Canada back-to-back, and I'll bet that most of them won't want to go through that contortion just to get back to Boston. I have to wonder if two ships would be cost-effective for HAL?

Sail? What say you?

[sail7seas]

From what I have read here, Boston to Montreal itineraries are not effected. It is only when the cruise begins and ends in a U.S. port. It could impact the FLL roundtrips itineraries, couldn't it?

 

I cannot imagine HAL would have two ships doing Canada/New England for the whole season. Eurodam will be doing a few selected voyages and Amsterdam and maybe even Veendam did this year.

 

No...... we would not go through those contortions. It would, sadly, be the end to our beloved two weeks on Maasdam each August.

 

And if WE don't do it, I can't imagine there are many who would!

[RevNeal]

Here's a thought, though. What if HAL had two ships doing the route? You went from Boston to Montreal say on the Amsterdam, and then came back on the Maasdam. Would that do it? You're not on the same ship, so you are either embarking on disembarking in a foreign port on both runs.

 

Or begin in Montreal and do your back to back that way. I know ... that's inconvenient to those who live in Boston, but it would work. Personally, I wouldn't mind getting to disembark and spend some extra time in Montreal.

 

Regarding Hawaii ... a Round trip out of Vancouver would be fine with me. If we've got to cruise out of Mexico (or some other Central-American port), I would prefer to sail out of a different port than Ensenada ... one with a good airport and hotel facilities for pre-cruise stays and one that would qualify as a "distant foreign port" so as to avoid the idiotic 48 hour rule. Perhaps Acapulco? Don't misunderstand me ... this change would be/will be disastrous for the United States (far more people and US interests would be harmed than would be helped), and I DON'T want it done. However, HAL will continue to cruise to Hawaii ... I just would rather them not do it out of Ensenada.

 

Better-yet ... we need to do away with this stupid law. I've just mailed a letter to my Senators asking them to address this by overturning the law altogether. I've pulled together a lot of quotes from other Senators, Governors, etc., indicating the horrible danger this new interpretation would entail and have used it to illustrate why the law should be repealed. Who knows, perhaps if we can sick more Senators on this issue we can get it changed or wiped out?

[peaches from georgia]

Here's a thought, though. What if HAL had two ships doing the route? You went from Boston to Montreal say on the Amsterdam, and then came back on the Maasdam. Would that do it? You're not on the same ship, so you are either embarking on disembarking in a foreign port on both runs.

 

--rita

I can't imagine that 2 HAL ships would sail full on this itinerary at present prices. Of course, none of us know what cabins occupied/cabin price numbers are for profitability. You also would have to take into account the cost of not sailing the 2nd ship on its current itinerary vs putting it on the Canada/NEng route. Somehow I think HAL would choose keeping only one ship on this itinerary even if it meant not allowing pax to book b2b's, but it is all speculation if any laws are going to be changed anyway.

[sail7seas]

From what is written here, I don't think the Canada/New England Boston to Montreal, Montreal to Boston itineraries would be effected. It seems to be criuses starting and ending in a U.S. port. IF what is here is accurate information.

[RuthC]

Regarding Hawaii ... a Round trip out of Vancouver would be fine with me. If we've got to cruise out of Mexico (or some other Central-American port), I would prefer to sail out of a different port than Ensenada ... one with a good airport and hotel facilities for pre-cruise stays and one that would qualify as a "distant foreign port" so as to avoid the idiotic 48 hour rule. Perhaps Acapulco?

If you sail either from or to a foreign port then you don't have to concern yourself with the PSA at all---it doesn't come into play. So, no 48-hour or >50% foreign ports rules to apply. Also, there's no need to consider "distant" foreign port, either (which Acapulco would not be).

The Passenger Services Act only applies when the cruise both begins and ends at US ports, and has a port stop during the cruise (i.e., a "cruise to nowhere" does not count).

[RuthC]

From what is written here, I don't think the Canada/New England Boston to Montreal, Montreal to Boston itineraries would be effected. It seems to be criuses starting and ending in a U.S. port. IF what is here is accurate information.

Correct.

[Cruzman]

If you sail either from or to a foreign port then you don't have to concern yourself with the PSA at all---it doesn't come into play. So, no 48-hour or >50% foreign ports rules to apply. Also, there's no need to consider "distant" foreign port, either (which Acapulco would not be).

The Passenger Services Act only applies when the cruise both begins and ends at US ports, and has a port stop during the cruise (i.e., a "cruise to nowhere" does not count).

 

That's right! That is why cruise ships will no longer be sailing to Alaska from Seattle if the changes are implemented. They will sail from Vancouver, if at all! Neither will cruises sailing to Hawaii depart from southern California. Cruiselines most likely will offer bus shuttles to Ensenada from which the ships will sail.

[warren peas]

That's right! That is why cruise ships will no longer be sailing to Alaska from Seattle if the changes are implemented. They will sail from Vancouver, if at all! Neither will cruises sailing to Hawaii depart from southern California. Cruiselines most likely will offer bus shuttles to Ensenada from which the ships will sail.

 

IF at all!

 

Seems to me Alaskan cruises from Seattle are rather a recent option or at least they have become more available recently. A few years ago Vancouver had the monopoly as a cruise terminus. Then for a variety of reasons not least of which were convenience and cost Seattle has steadily gained market share. If the act is interpreted as most fear the Alaskan run could just switch back to Vancouver as a start off point. Not a big deal for the average cruiser. A huge deal for the ports involved.

[RevNeal]

If you sail either from or to a foreign port then you don't have to concern yourself with the PSA at all---it doesn't come into play. So, no 48-hour or >50% foreign ports rules to apply. Also, there's no need to consider "distant" foreign port, either (which Acapulco would not be).

The Passenger Services Act only applies when the cruise both begins and ends at US ports, and has a port stop during the cruise (i.e., a "cruise to nowhere" does not count).

 

That's true. And, believe it or not, I knew that it wouldn't apply (see other posts by me). It just gets annoying and confusing and upsetting dealing with this issue. I'd still rather sail out of San Diego.

[RevNeal]

From what is written here, I don't think the Canada/New England Boston to Montreal, Montreal to Boston itineraries would be effected. It seems to be criuses starting and ending in a U.S. port. IF what is here is accurate information.

 

As you've said before, it would only have a chance of impacting you if you're trying to do a b2b, thus creating a round-trip out of Boston. They might not let you do that.

[RevNeal]

That's right! That is why cruise ships will no longer be sailing to Alaska from Seattle if the changes are implemented. They will sail from Vancouver, if at all! Neither will cruises sailing to Hawaii depart from southern California. Cruiselines most likely will offer bus shuttles to Ensenada from which the ships will sail.

 

Given the hassle of being bussed from San Diego to Ensenada and back, I won't do that. A lot of people won't do that. Better to cruise out of a port with a decent airport and pre/post cruise facilities.

[NapTown Jim]

Given the hassle of being bussed from San Diego to Ensenada and back, I won't do that. A lot of people won't do that. Better to cruise out of a port with a decent airport and pre/post cruise facilities.

 

I hear you! I wouldn't consider a cruise that originated in Ensenada either. If/when we cruise to Hawaii we'd prefer either LA or SD, but we'd consider Vancouver if there were no other options. I hope we're getting worked up over nothing. Seems to me there is far more downside to a more strict interpetation of the law than good.

[Cruzman]

IF at all!

 

Seems to me Alaskan cruises from Seattle are rather a recent option or at least they have become more available recently. A few years ago Vancouver had the monopoly as a cruise terminus. Then for a variety of reasons not least of which were convenience and cost Seattle has steadily gained market share. If the act is interpreted as most fear the Alaskan run could just switch back to Vancouver as a start off point. Not a big deal for the average cruiser. A huge deal for the ports involved.

 

Seems to me that the port of Vancouver does have a limit as to how many cruiseships can be accommodated on any given day. Then again, I could be wrong.

[warren peas]

Seems to me that the port of Vancouver does have a limit as to how many cruiseships can be accommodated on any given day. Then again, I could be wrong.

 

Vancouver can handle a minimum of 5 ships. 3 at Canada place and 2 at Balantine pier. Then there is always Victoria. Whether the rest of the city could handle an influx of PAX like that is another story.