Jones Act Question

[LARGIN]

There is nothing wrong with # 2. It is fine as both a one way and a round trip.

 

I do not think so as Vancouver is not classified as a foreign port..

[d-dubya]

could someone explain to a canadian what this pvsa is about and why it exists please?? does it apply to me(i am not an american) does it apply to the ship because they are foreign registered?

 

thanks

 

It applies to carriers (sea, air, rail, and highway actually) registered in foreign countries and operating in the United States. So, if you are on one of those carriers, yes, it would apply to you, in the sense that, say, AirCanada can't fly you from Seattle to New York.

 

almost all Maritime nations have had similar cabotage laws for many years, and nowadays some non-maritime nations also have similar laws applying to rail and air carriers, and the like.

[wrp96]

I do not think so as Vancouver is not classified as a foreign port..

 

 

Incorrect. Vancouver is a foreign port, it's just not a distant foreign port. So for a roundtrip itinerary from Whittier like you proposed (Whittier-Vancouver-Whittier) it is fine. It would only be if you were trying to go Whittier-Vancouver-Seward (for example) that it would not work as that would be a one-way itinerary between two different US ports and require a distant foreign port.

[DanJ]

I do not think so as Vancouver is not classified as a foreign port..

 

Yes, Vancouver is a foreign port. It is not a distant foreign port, which is what I'll assume you meant. I'm not sure either why you say b2b from Vancouver is okay, but not the b2b from Alaska. Whittier to Whittier via Vancouver satisfies the foreign port requirement for a round trip cruise.

 

could someone explain to a canadian what this pvsa is about and why it exists please?? does it apply to me(i am not an american) does it apply to the ship because they are foreign registered?

 

Think of it as the same type of law that means you aren't (supposed to be) able to book Northwest Airlines from Toronto to Detroit, then Detroit to Vancouver, or Air Canada from New York to Toronto and Toronto to Los Angeles.

[LARGIN]

I stand corrected.. I was thinking of our b2b2b

 

SF/Vancouver, Vancouver/Whittier, Whittier/Vancouver.. Legal

SF/Vancouver, Vancouver/Whittier.. Illegal

[paul929207]

I do not think so as Vancouver is not classified as a foreign port..

Vancouver has to be a foriegn port. First it is not in the US. Second, Cruises can carry passengers from Vancouver to Whittier & the reverse.

[Cuizer2]

I do not think so as Vancouver is not classified as a foreign port..

I was not aware that the United States had invaded Canada and made it the 51st state.

[d-dubya]

Vancouver has to be a foriegn port. First it is not in the US. Second, Cruises can carry passengers from Vancouver to Whittier & the reverse.

 

there are "foreign ports", which are of course, any ports that are not U.S. ports, and then there are "Distant foreign ports", as defined in the PVSA, which would be ports not in North or Central America. To carry passengers between two U.S. ports a foreign carrier is required to visit a "distant foreign port", not just any "foreign port".

[LARGIN]

Vancouver has to be a foriegn port. First it is not in the US. Second, Cruises can carry passengers from Vancouver to Whittier & the reverse.

 

I was not aware that the United States had invaded Canada and made it the 51st state.

I meant to say it was not classified as a distant foreign port :p

[paul929207]

I meant to say it was not classified as a distant foreign port :p

Me thinks we were writing at the same time.

[Cuizer2]

I meant to say it was not classified as a distant foreign port :p

You should have said you were referring to Vancouver, Washington and then you would have been correct. :)

[wrp96]

I meant to say it was not classified as a distant foreign port :p

 

 

Works for me!!

[Pam in CA]

could someone explain to a canadian what this pvsa is about and why it exists please?? does it apply to me(i am not an american) does it apply to the ship because they are foreign registered?

The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1898 was originally intended to protect the US shipping industry by making it difficult for foreign-flagged ships to sail between two US ports. At that time, the US shipping industry was a major force and there were many shipyards throughout the US. It's a fairly complicated Act that today can only be changed or modified by Homeland Security. Among the criteria for US-flagged ships and thus allowed to go from one US port to another is that the ship must be built in the US and a proportion of the crew must be US citizens. You'll see questions by people who say, "Why don't the cruiselines just re-flag the ships?" but that's an impossibility since almost none of them are built in the US. It affects all passengers on a ship regardless of nationality. If any passenger violates the PVSA without previous permission or a waiver (yes, waivers are given in certain instances, such as a medical emergency), the ship is fined, not the passenger but then the fine is passed along to the passenger. That's an oversimplification. Here's a link to an excellent discussion of the PVSA: http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=776977

[Cruisin' Chick]

I would have to say that the kid was pretty stupid in this case. Never mind the missed port. Why book a cruise that is going to get you fired? I made special arrangements to take two weeks off (without pay) so I could go on a Panama Canal cruise (I already had two other cruises booked that year and didn't want to back out of them). I got the okay, enjoyed the cruise so much that I wanted to do it again. However, it was too much. I get more vacation time starting in 2011 and book a longer cruise then.

 

I didn't understand why he booked this too, unless you just happened to check in with his boss, who said to GTHB to Chicago. He actually admitted to lurking on our roll call, so I never did find out his screen name (assuming he had actually registered with CC...those were the days when you can check out the roll calls w/o being a member) so I can ask him more in depth about his son.

[j!m]

thank you pam

[Av8tor]

OK - here it goes again, just for clarification:

 

It is legal to sail SEA-YVR on the Golden, spend the night in YVR, and then sail YVR-SFO on the Coral because I spent 24 hours in YVR and it's 2 seperate cruises - correct?

 

 

 

How about the same itinerary without the 24 hours in YVR? I would be closing my first cruise account and changing VESSELS in YVR to open the second cruise account, but doing it all on the same cruise line - would that be OK?

 

I've seen some answers that say this is OK, some that it's not allowed, and others that say it depends on which CSR you get. Confusing to say the least...

[paul929207]

OK - here it goes again, just for clarification:

 

It is legal to sail SEA-YVR on the Golden, spend the night in YVR, and then sail YVR-SFO on the Coral because I spent 24 hours in YVR and it's 2 seperate cruises - correct?

 

 

 

How about the same itinerary without the 24 hours in YVR? I would be closing my first cruise account and changing VESSELS in YVR to open the second cruise account, but doing it all on the same cruise line - would that be OK?

 

I've seen some answers that say this is OK, some that it's not allowed, and others that say it depends on which CSR you get. Confusing to say the least...

As I understand it, your second scenario (switching Princess ships & not spending a niht in Vancouver) would be illegal because both cruises are with the same line (Princess). If you took a RCCl cruise and then switched to Princess that would be okay.

[DanJ]

 

 

 

How about the same itinerary without the 24 hours in YVR? I would be closing my first cruise account and changing VESSELS in YVR to open the second cruise account, but doing it all on the same cruise line - would that be OK?

 

I've seen some answers that say this is OK, some that it's not allowed, and others that say it depends on which CSR you get. Confusing to say the least...

 

I would say, given you aren't supposed to be able to book Air Canada from SEA-YVR and YVR-SFO without a minimum stopover in YVR, even though it would likely be different aircraft on each flight, that the same rule applies with taking a separate ship from the same cruise line in the manner you describe. But that is only a logical conclusion, and we know the law isn't logical LOL.

[Merc85]

Is there something that a passenger has to worry about with these types of bookings? It seems that the cruise lines are the ones who have to worry - if they book you on one of these B2Bs isn't that just fine for the passenger regardless of whether or not it's a problem with one of these (archaic) laws for the cruise line? If they'll book you, what difference does it make to you with regards to this act/law?

[wrp96]

Is there something that a passenger has to worry about with these types of bookings? It seems that the cruise lines are the ones who have to worry - if they book you on one of these B2Bs isn't that just fine for the passenger regardless of whether or not it's a problem with one of these (archaic) laws for the cruise line? If they'll book you, what difference does it make to you with regards to this act/law?

 

 

Yes, the passenger should worry. In the past people have managed to book itineraries that violate the PVSA, and then at the last minute when the cruiseline realized it violated the PVSA, they cancelled one of their bookings. So the passenger then had to scramble for something else last minute.

 

Or if they didn't happen to catch it, then the passenger would be subject to a $300 per person fine when the US government did catch it - and they would when they ran the manifest.

 

Either way it's an expensive proposition for you the passenger, not the cruiseline. So it's best to think of these things BEFORE booking.

[Merc85]

Yes, the passenger should worry. In the past people have managed to book itineraries that violate the PVSA, and then at the last minute when the cruiseline realized it violated the PVSA, they cancelled one of their bookings. So the passenger then had to scramble for something else last minute.

 

Or if they didn't happen to catch it, then the passenger would be subject to a $300 per person fine when the US government did catch it - and they would when they ran the manifest.

 

Either way it's an expensive proposition for you the passenger, not the cruiseline. So it's best to think of these things BEFORE booking.

I thought that I read that the cruise line is subject to the fine, not the passenger, or is my old memory just getting worse? But that would make sense since they should be the most familiar with these issues.

[paul929207]

I thought that I read that the cruise line is subject to the fine, not the passenger, or is my old memory just getting worse? But that would make sense since they should be the most familiar with these issues.

The cruise line is subject to the fine. However, they generally pass it on to the passener(s).

[wrp96]

I thought that I read that the cruise line is subject to the fine, not the passenger, or is my old memory just getting worse? But that would make sense since they should be the most familiar with these issues.

 

 

The government will fine the cruiseline but then the cruiseline will pass it onto the passenger.

[Merc85]

So the law(s) are complicated, the cruise line is the most familiar with them, they book you on your itinerary, take your payment, and then before you can disembark they tell you that you owe them $300?

Hmm.........I think that makes sense to me:rolleyes:

[paul929207]

So the law(s) are complicated, the cruise line is the most familiar with them, they book you on your itinerary, take your payment, and then before you can disembark they tell you that you owe them $300?

Hmm.........I think that makes sense to me:rolleyes:

I think the problem comes up more when a passenger decides to leave the ship in an intermediate port without approval of the US.

 

If the cruise line allowed a passener to book an illegal cruise, they would face more problems than a $300 fine.