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

[Cruise Junky]

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.

 

Keep in mind though, Vancouver is only used for the Alaska Run, that means from October - May we have very few ships coming in, we could turn into a year round cruise destination if the Hawaii runs come here

[tomc]

Rev Neal, etc. --

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.

 

AFAIK, you are cruising from Boston to Montreal, one booking (8J4---) going up and another booking (8LM---) going south. That's not a B2B, that's two different cruises, although on the same ship and just hours apart.

 

IMO. In fact, IMHO. IM most HO.

[sail7seas]

You're right, Tom, that it is two different cruises technically. We always have two confirmation numbers but I also can see how Greg may be correct they could call it one cruise and disallow it.

 

We'll have to wait and see how it all shakes out before we know.

We'd be so disappointed to not be permitted our yearly b-to-b Boston-Montreal-Boston.

[RuthC]

Rev Neal, etc. --

 

AFAIK, you are cruising from Boston to Montreal, one booking (8J4---) going up and another booking (8LM---) going south. That's not a B2B, that's two different cruises, although on the same ship and just hours apart.

 

IMO. In fact, IMHO. IM most HO.

Tom, you're making sense here, but we're talking about the government. :rolleyes:

Typically the PSA has not considered that these are different cruises, or that there's different booking numbers. The only thing they have considered is where did the passenger start and end. This has been posted about time and time again on the coastal repositioning cruises that have a 3-day cruise from San Diego to Vancouver followed by a 1-day cruise Vancouver to Seattle---you can take one or the other, but not both.

The Boston to Montreal followed by a Montreal to Boston would be analogous.

I would love to be found totally wrong on this, you understand. But remember, I was a bureaucrat and I know how we think. :o

[xochitl]

Hi,

I am new to these boards but found this thread that pertains directly to our situation. Yesterday received a call from vacations to go where we purchased a cruise on NCL Star from Los Angeles to Vancouver, then a second cruise departing the same day from Vancouver and ends in Seattle. We have paid for our return airfare and everything is booked, but NCL has let us know that we will have to cancel one of the cruises because of the Jones Act. Can NCL prevent us from taking both cruises since they already have my payment in full? It was NCL's fault, and they are letting us know over a month after we booked and paid for it. I read on a website that the cruise line can be fined $200 per passenger ( we are a party of four). I think they should pay the fine since it was their mistake and accepted my money. I really don't want to cancel. Has anybody gone through a similiar situation? Any feedback would be great and thanks in advance.

 

Xochitl:(

[hammybee]

Hi,

I am new to these boards but found this thread that pertains directly to our situation. Yesterday received a call from vacations to go where we purchased a cruise on NCL Star from Los Angeles to Vancouver, then a second cruise departing the same day from Vancouver and ends in Seattle. We have paid for our return airfare and everything is booked, but NCL has let us know that we will have to cancel one of the cruises because of the Jones Act. Can NCL prevent us from taking both cruises since they already have my payment in full? It was NCL's fault, and they are letting us know over a month after we booked and paid for it. I read on a website that the cruise line can be fined $200 per passenger ( we are a party of four). I think they should pay the fine since it was their mistake and accepted my money. I really don't want to cancel. Has anybody gone through a similiar situation? Any feedback would be great and thanks in advance.

 

Xochitl:(

 

This happens with more frequency than you might imagine on various cruise lines, when the passengers book a brief repo cruise at either end of their primary cruise. Those short repo cruises have serious ramifications as it relates to compliance with the PSA.

 

Assuming you booked both cruises at the same time, a more seasoned and knowledgable travel agent would have caught it. Chances are, the agency made an electronic booking with NCL, without human intervention. A subsequent internal audit of PSA compliance within NCL probably brought this to their attention.

 

That you seem a little fired up about NCL making good on this, suggests to me, that your travel agent is not taking ownership of the problem he/she created. I am far more inclined to hold the travel agency's feet to the fire, on this one. They accepted an illegal booking and what are they going to do about it? Expecting the end consumer to have knowledge of the PSA is not reasonable. Be persistent and work your way up through the travel agency food chain. Good luck to you and if you think about it, come back and tell us how this worked out.

[jtl513]

I really don't want to cancel.

I'm afraid you're going to end up going from Vancouver to Seattle by land or air ... or possibly a non-NCL ship if there's one going that way that day.

[xochitl]

Hi,

Thanks for the quick response. I guess maybe you are right and the agency tried to pass the buck. We have not made a decision yet, since I am expecting a response from the agency on Monday. It is just frustrating to learn something like this after everything is set. Live and learn.....Thanks again!

[RevNeal]

Is there any new news on the re-interpretation of the regulations?

[jhannah]

The Jones Act has nothing to do with cruise ships or cruise ship passengers. I know the Passenger Services Act is often called The Jones Act ... but I can't figure out why.

 

The Jones Act was passed to give merchant seamen what amount to Workers' Comp rights if they're injured in the course of their employment.

[foodcruiser]

This ruling will greatly limit the short low priced 3 and 4 day cruises. Many people will take one of these as a first time cruise to give cruising a try. It is hard to do a three day cruise when you have to spend two nights at a port. First time cruisers will have to wait until they can do a longer trip. We will take a short cruise just for a weekend get-away. We will be limited to a repositioning cruise, but then airfare will be highter.

 

Wes

[hammybee]

Hi,

Thanks for the quick response. I guess maybe you are right and the agency tried to pass the buck. We have not made a decision yet, since I am expecting a response from the agency on Monday. It is just frustrating to learn something like this after everything is set. Live and learn.....Thanks again!

 

Since you mentioned the name of the agency (which is, btw, against the Cruise Critic rules:eek: ) if your are persistent and escalate the issue, I think they will do something to make this, if not right, then at least, less wrong.

 

As a consumer, no way you could have known unless you spent a lot of ( too much) time reading on boards, like this. It's the agent's job to know this stuff. Good luck to you.

[DAGVBSB]

Is there any new news on the re-interpretation of the regulations?

 

Revneal... and all the other HAL regulars....

 

Please come over to the thread:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/forumdisplay.php?f=107&page=2&order=desc

 

"PVSA Update--This is NOT Good!! " on the "Ask a Cruise Critic Question" Board. It is a great thread... now 1200 posts and 48,000 views long. We have people from X, NCL and Princess boards over there as all could be affected by the PVSA changes.

 

There are links to news articles as well as some great discussions about the potential impact of these changes on not only cruisers but also on the financial impact (estimated in the millions) on US port and tourism industry workers.

 

The impact will be the greatest in the California ports & Seattle but some Miami, Port Canaveral and New England/Canada cruises will also be affected. The port cities in Maine are really up in arms over this.

 

We need some HAL perspective on that thread though.

[Muster Station]

Obviously this legislation is so stupid and undermining that it will never become law. This was proposed to irritate or motivate someone (P.B.I.A.B.)...What is really behind this, that's what I find interesting. ;)

[RuthC]

Revneal... and all the other HAL regulars....

 

Please come over to the thread:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/forumdisplay.php?f=107&page=2&order=desc.

Greg just asked for the time---not instructions on how to build a clock. We get the ramifications, but some of us have been away and haven't kept up with all the threads.

The question was "Is there anything new?" A simple "Yes" or "No" would do the trick.

[DAGVBSB]

Greg just asked for the time---not instructions on how to build a clock. We get the ramifications, but some of us have been away and haven't kept up with all the threads.

The question was "Is there anything new?" A simple "Yes" or "No" would do the trick.

 

Not a problem Ruth......

 

It appears that we are waiting on a final ruling from the Customs and Border Protection Department (part of Homeland Security). Differing reports say that it could be days or months. Once released, it is unknown how long the cruise lines will have to comply with the new regulations. The cruise lines may have to restructure itineraries in order to meet the new regulations.

 

It is believed that the 48 hour in port proposal may be shortened, but again who knows.

 

In the meantime, NCL has announced that they are pulling the second of their three ships from Hawaii. (the Pride of Hawaii left this month and was reflagged the "Norweigan Jade," now enroute to Europe. The Pride of Aloha is leaving in May for Asia and will be transfered to Star Cruises, NCL's Parent Company.) Only the "Pride of America" will be left in the NCLA (NCL-America) "fleet." It has also been revealed that Apollo Investments agreement to become part owner of NCL dictates that a decision to continue or "liquidate" NCLA will be made by the end of 2008. NCLA could cease to exist. It was NCL who initiated all of these proposed new "clarifications" to the PVSA that started this mess. The new rules were meant as an attempt to save NCLA.

 

So, we are waiting for word from the C&BP. In the meantime, several newspapers have begun to write articles against the proposal.

 

A few recent ones (all originally linked to from the PVSA thread):

The Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/e...ry/431940.html

 

the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2004158895_cruiselaw03.html

 

San Francisco Officials Protest:

http://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/in...14&Ite mid=58

 

Intersting Article from the Hawaii Star Bulletin where NCL threatens to pull the POAm as well if the rules aren't enacted: (the Hawaii State Government and Tourism Officials are against the changes, the Hawaii Congressional Delegation is in favor of the changes.)

http://starbulletin.com/2008/02/13/news/story03.html

 

 

Finally, here is some interesting reading. This is the official US Government website where the "official" comments, submitted by many people (including Governor Schwartzenegger of California) are listed:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=USCBP-2007-0098

 

 

Just a quick overview of where we are.

[RevNeal]

Thank you.

In other words, nothing's happened since I left the country back on Jan 25 for my 20-day South America/Antarctica cruise on the Rotterdam. Sadly, it still appears that the arrogant bureaucrats are ignoring the overwhelmingly negative remarks from multiple Governors, State Legislators, US Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, Chambers of Commerce, legal professionals, and other interested and impacted parties. Instead, in response to a tiny special-interest voice, many thousands of people working in the US port industry will find their jobs exported to other countries and the American cruiser will find her/his cruising options severely restricted. Uncountable millions of dollars will be lost because of this idiocy and the company that it is supposed to "save" is about to be shut down anyway. Brilliant! :mad:

[jtl513]

... the company that it is supposed to "save" is about to be shut down anyway. Brilliant! :mad:

Certainly there will be injunctions and lawsuits to delay it. Hopefully NCLA will die before those battles are done, and it will all be quietly dropped. :)

[RevNeal]

Certainly there will be injunctions and lawsuits to delay it. Hopefully NCLA will die before those battles are done, and it will all be quietly dropped. :)

 

We're talking about a government bureaucracy, here. I'm not optimistic.

[kryos]

We're talking about a government bureaucracy, here. I'm not optimistic.

Actually I am. If this law goes into effect, it's gonna destroy the port industry in many areas of the U.S. Alaska cruises will all start going out of Vancouver, as will the Canada/New England ones. Hawaii cruises will all start going out of Ensenada and not San Diego. Why would a cruise line continue to sail these itineraries out of a U.S. port if they had all these regulations to contend with? Wouldn't it be much easier to offer free motor coach transport to their passengers, shuttling them from San Diego to Ensenada, or Seattle to Vancouver? The passengers would still fly into their original ports, so it wouldn't affect them very much. They'd just have to endure a bus ride to get to the foreign port.

 

The bottom line is that U.S. port cities will be severely impacted. They will see a major decrease in business, loss of revenue, jobs, etc. The politicians will never let this happen. After all, some of them live in the states hosting those port cities!

 

I personally can't imagine that there won't be a lot of opposition to these changes, and I doubt they will ever become law.

 

NCLA made a tactical blunder when they started their American-flagged division. They never considered the fact that most people who would be apt to cruise Hawaii would be doing so specifically to avoid the long plane flight. Cruising NCLA doesn't buy a thing for them. All they get is a substandard cruise experience while still having to endure the flight to and from the main land.

 

Also, and sad as it is to say ... especially for me, a died in the wool union woman ... the service levels on the American-staffed ships are just not on a par with those employing foreign workers. Us Americans are simply not used to working the number of hours required in the service positions on cruise ships, and therefore we become burned out very fast. I've read nothing but complaints in reviews of the NCLA ships about poor service, sub-standard food, dirty conditions ... you name it. You would rarely see a HAL review citing the same conditions as being prevalent around the ship.

 

So, I honestly doubt these law changes will ever see the light of day. I also see the day coming when NCL will simply disband the NCLA division, realizing that it wasn't a very good idea from the start. Then they'll just get in line with all the other cruise lines and sail their Hawaii runs from the west coast, and as foreign-flagged vessels.

 

Just my humble prediction.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[hammybee]

 

I personally can't imagine that there won't be a lot of opposition to these changes, and I doubt they will ever become law.

 

NCLA made a tactical blunder when they started their American-flagged division. They never considered the fact that most people who would be apt to cruise Hawaii would be doing so specifically to avoid the long plane flight. Cruising NCLA doesn't buy a thing for them. All they get is a substandard cruise experience while still having to endure the flight to and from the main land.

 

Also, and sad as it is to say ... especially for me, a died in the wool union woman ... the service levels on the American-staffed ships are just not on a par with those employing foreign workers. Us Americans are simply not used to working the number of hours required in the service positions on cruise ships, and therefore we become burned out very fast. I've read nothing but complaints in reviews of the NCLA ships about poor service, sub-standard food, dirty conditions ... you name it. You would rarely see a HAL review citing the same conditions as being prevalent around the ship.

 

Blue skies ...--rita

 

Rita, I agree this is much ado about nothing.

 

NCL overestimated how many people would be eager to sail and put too many ships in Hawaiian waters. The supply of cabins exceeded the demand for those cabins. They also assumed that Hawaii would cave and allow them to operate gaming onboard these ships. And they were proven wrong.

 

The issue with NCL NA service is that the wage border lines poverty level in the U.S. whereas in Asia it can and does go a lot further. It's impossible to expect people to work their butts off when the compensation is so relatively insiginificant, compared to the cost of living in the U.S. versus say, Indonesia.

 

And speaking of service, putting aside initial problems, the service is adequate- not as crisp as what one gets on HAL. The cabins and ship is clean and the crew does smile.

 

With soon to be only one ship in Hawai, NCL has more demand than cabins available- problem solved. NCL remains a very cost effective way to see all the islands, with maximum port time.

[Sundagger]

Obviously this legislation is so stupid and undermining that it will never become law. This was proposed to irritate or motivate someone (P.B.I.A.B.)...What is really behind this, that's what I find interesting. ;)

 

Actually I am. If this law goes into effect, it's gonna destroy the port industry in many areas of the U.S. ...

 

...I personally can't imagine that there won't be a lot of opposition to these changes, and I doubt they will ever become law.

 

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

 

I hate to quibble ... but I will in this case. It's not a new law or even an amendment to a law requiring Congressional and Presidential approval. It's just a different interpretation and enforcement and new administrative rules of an existing law, so it doesn't have to go through the steps that a new law would require.

 

So it's up to the Customs and Border Protection people to decide - but given the Congressional interest in it, political pressure will have a major bearing on what eventually happens.

 

NCL now wants the rules to apply only to the Hawaii trade - not to *their* foreign-flagged vessels.

[RevNeal]

So, I honestly doubt these law changes will ever see the light of day.

 

I sure hope you're right on this one, Rita. You're certainly correct about the damage that will be done to the US port industry. However, it's not a new law that's being debated, nor a change in any existing law, but just a bureaucratic re-interpretation of how to implement an existing law. And THAT is why I'm not confident on this matter. The Bureaucrats who are making this decision are not likely to be too responsive to political interests unless legislation is passed which forces them. Again, I hope you're right.

[kryos]

I sure hope you're right on this one, Rita. You're certainly correct about the damage that will be done to the US port industry.

I PRAY I'm right, and maybe you should too. :)

 

Seriously, totally aside from the inconvenience presented to cruisers who now have to ride the bus to a foreign port, if this interpretation were to be passed, it would put a lot of Americans out of work, and result in a major loss of revenue to several large American cities.

 

I would just hope (and pray) that the bureaucrats and the politicians would not allow that to happen.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[RetiredMustang]

Full disclosure up front -- I have not read every post in this entire thread, I've only checked in now and then. But, I agree with rita.

 

I'm certainly no expert, but I have worked for the Federal government for decades, and currently live in Arlington, VA, next to the sausage grinder (Bismark said something about people should not watch how laws and sausages are made), but from what I've seen, the process of how laws and federal regulations are really made would scare the #*^$ out of you! So, if the CBP director had slid this one in, it would have had a good chance of becoming policy ... at least for a while.

 

However, I also know that once you get the attention of Congress, things happen, not always happy ones for you. But, I think in this case, it is happy for those of us who don't want the interests of what is now ONE ship of NCLA to destroy the U.S. cruise industry.

 

I read last week (in the New London Day on line, so probably a CT or RI Representative) that a Congressman had written a letter to the CBP director, protesting the proposed interpretation. And, I have seen a few similar stories around, which tells me the issue is percolating in Congress.

 

Let's see ... Senators Snowe (Maine), Kennedy and Kerry (Mass.), Martinez (Fla.), Stevens (AK), Murray and Cantwell (WA), Boxer and Feinstein (CA), and others whose names I can't recall right now, not to mention many members of the House representing districts with heavy cruise industry, might find this interesting. What if, say, CC members were to alert them, if they didn't already know, that the proposed ruling would kill a major industry in their districts? I suspect that Roger Clemens would drop off the charts and the CBP director would be "invited" to "explain" his intentions before several committees. He could issue his ruling anyway, but the odds are that his ruling would be stayed.

 

Dave