B2B and the Jones Act

I know some B2B cruises can violate the Jones act and Carnival has been know to block you from booking them if they do. Can you explain what it is that violates it. I have taken numerous B2B cruises but they always were from the same port on Close loop cruises. I am looking at taking one from Vancouver to LA as a Hawaii cruise and then B2B it to the LA to Tampa which is a Panama Canal. Would this violate it since it started in Canada.

I know some B2B cruises can violate the Jones act and Carnival has been know to block you from booking them if they do. Can you explain what it is that violates it. I have taken numerous B2B cruises but they always were from the same port on Close loop cruises. I am looking at taking one from Vancouver to LA as a Hawaii cruise and then B2B it to the LA to Tampa which is a Panama Canal. Would this violate it since it started in Canada.

It shouldn't. That's why they start those cruises in Vancouver instead of Seattle.

The act you're worried about is the PVSA - NOT THE JONES ACT.

The Jones Act only applies to merchant freight, NEVER to passengers.

The PVSA is designed to prevent travel between US ports except on US owned, operated, and flagged vessels without a stop in a foreign port. This is why round trip cruises from Seattle to Alaska must stop in Canada.

The PVSA also prohibits foreign vessels from returning passengers to a different port than they embarked from unless they call upon a "distant" foreign port. The only Caribbean ports that qualify as "distant" are Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao. So if you leave from Miami, you must return to Miami, unless you visit a "distant" port.

An exception to this is San Juan, which is excluded from the PVSA.

What B2B combinations does carnival block you from taking?

The itinerary you describe will not run afoul of the PVSA.

Sounds like a great trip!

Side point: The cruise lines have software that will often (not always) generate an alert if you try to book a cruise that has a PVSA issue.

One other thing about this is that the law sees back to back cruises as one single cruise. So for instance if you book a cruise from Seattle-Alaska-Vancouver followed by Vancouver-Hawaii-long Beach, that would be illegal because you are essentially traveling from Seattle to long Beach without a distant foreign port.

One other side note: no back to back combo can possibly violate the PVSA if either leg is a closed loop returning to the same port it left from.

The US Virgin Islands are also exempt from the PVSA.

The OP's B2B would not violate the PVSA for two reasons:

1. The combined cruise (both cruises are considered together as one, regardless of how booked or advertised) starts in a foreign port (Vancouver), so the PVSA is not applicable.

2. The second leg is a one way Panama Canal cruise, which in order for the cruise line to offer it, since it would otherwise violate the PVSA (start in one US port and end in another), must call at a "distant" foreign port, most likely Cartagena.

Thanks everyone for the info. I will e getting this booked in the next day. now I just need to review both to find the same room open on both legs. I only do B2B's when i can keep the same room.

An exception to this is San Juan, which is excluded from the PVSA.

 

It has an exemption as long as there is no competing US flagged vessel.

I know some B2B cruises can violate the Jones act and Carnival has been know to block you from booking them if they do. Can you explain what it is that violates it. I have taken numerous B2B cruises but they always were from the same port on Close loop cruises. I am looking at taking one from Vancouver to LA as a Hawaii cruise and then B2B it to the LA to Tampa which is a Panama Canal. Would this violate it since it started in Canada.

What ship and dates, sounds like an awesome B2B

The PVSA stops you from boarding in 1 US port and debarking in a different US port without going to a ‘distant’ foreign port between. No cruise itinerary will violate the PVSA but a b2b can. All that matters for the purpose of the PVSA is where YOU originally get on and where YOU plan to debark. So boarding in Vancouver and debarking in Tampa is fine.

People get in trouble with alaska itineraries sometimes. For example. If cruise 1 boarded in Honolulu and finished in Vancouver (legal). But you book a b2b following it with an Alaska itinerary that went 1 way from Vancouver to an Alaskan port (also legal). Problem is with this b2b, YOU boarded in Honolulu and debarked in Alaska. Boarding and debarking in 2 different US ports without a ‘distant’ foreign port (Canada doesn’t count); is a PVSA violation.

It can also be an issue if you embark late or debark early. Say you have an itinerary of Tampa, key west, Cozumel, and Jamaica. You miss embarkation in Tampa and decide to meet the ship in key west. YOUR itinerary now is to embark in Key west and debark in Tampa without a distant foreign port in between (the caribbean doesn’t count). So to board, you would be required to pay the PVSA fines.

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

What ship and dates, sounds like an awesome B2B

its on the legend in September 2019. 31 days total

its on the legend in September 2019. 31 days total

From the schedule, it looks like you're probably doing the Vancouver-Hawaii-Los Angeles followed by LA-Panama Canal-Tampa runs. If they try to prevent you, you med need to contact them and tell them this definitely does not violate the PVSA for two reasons:

1) you're embarking from Vancouver, outside the United States

2) the ship visits a distant foreign port in Cartagena

no one is going to try and prevent them, they will never leave Carnivals terminal. I would be willing to bet that Carnival reps who check you in have no clue what PVSA is.

We are also booked for the Panama Canal trip.

It is interesting to read these shipping laws. For instance, the Jones Act does not allow a foreign built, flagged, or staffed container ship to sail from a foreign port en route to Long Beach to stop off in Hawaii and drop off products. If the ship continues to Long Beach they will be paying fines. The products must go to Long Beach first. Then they can be sent to Hawaii. This puts a significant increase in the cost of supplies to the Hawaiian Islands.

The process can be avoided by using a US built, flagged and staffed ship to transport. Then a container ship can stop in Hawaii before reaching Long Beach.

These laws were written in the previous century to protect the US shipping industry. As the world has changed since, they really need to be addressed. I am saying this not to be contrary to US shipping, but to be able to have the US shipping industry to be able to compete with the rest of the world, without having to raise cost to the consumers.

The passenger act was passed after the Jones Act to protect US passenger shipping, which was a main form of intercontinental transport at the time. Once international air traffic become the mainstay, passenger shipping was no longer relevant. It became a luxury and a vacation, instead of a means of crossing the oceans.

We are also booked for the Panama Canal trip.

 

It is interesting to read these shipping laws. For instance, the Jones Act does not allow a foreign built, flagged, or staffed container ship to sail from a foreign port en route to Long Beach to stop off in Hawaii and drop off products. If the ship continues to Long Beach they will be paying fines. The products must go to Long Beach first. Then they can be sent to Hawaii. This puts a significant increase in the cost of supplies to the Hawaiian Islands.

 

The process can be avoided by using a US built, flagged and staffed ship to transport. Then a container ship can stop in Hawaii before reaching Long Beach.

 

These laws were written in the previous century to protect the US shipping industry. As the world has changed since, they really need to be addressed. I am saying this not to be contrary to US shipping, but to be able to have the US shipping industry to be able to compete with the rest of the world, without having to raise cost to the consumers.

 

The passenger act was passed after the Jones Act to protect US passenger shipping, which was a main form of intercontinental transport at the time. Once international air traffic become the mainstay, passenger shipping was no longer relevant. It became a luxury and a vacation, instead of a means of crossing the oceans.

Not sure where you were reading, but most of this is incorrect.

If a foreign flag container ship is coming from a foreign country with goods for Hawaii, there is nothing, certainly not the Jones Act, to prevent the ship stopping in Hawaii and dropping off the goods. This is overseas shipping (coming from a foreign country to the US), and the Jones Act does not come into play in the slightest. Even if the ship then proceeds to Long Beach, and drops off more goods there, the Jones Act has no bearing what so ever. The Jones Act prohibits that foreign flag ship from picking up a container in LA and delivering it to Hawaii (or any other US port). The Jones Act protects the hundreds of thousands of jobs for US citizens who are employed in coastwise trade (from one US port to another, including such things as barge traffic from St. Louis to New Orleans), and adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the US economy.

About 80 countries world wide have maritime cabotage laws similar to the Jones Act and PVSA, including Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, Canada, and the EU.

And, the PVSA (Passenger Vessel Services Act) was passed in 1886, while the Jones Act was passed in 1920. As to the reasons the two acts were passed, let's get beyond Wikipedia's slanted articles. The Jones Act was passed, not to protect US shipping, but because the Seattle merchants who sold supplies to miners and settlers in Alaska were seeing their trade go to Canada (Vancouver) instead. So, it was not to protect US shipping, but US merchants' profits.

In the early part of the 19th century, there were scores of steamboat fires and explosions on the rivers and harbors of the US. In order to control these disasters, the Congress passed the Steamboat Act of 1852, which mandated safety measures on these boats, and created the Steamboat Inspection Service, which is the precursor to the USCG Marine Inspection Division (those USCG inspectors you see that delay embarkation). In order to avoid the cost of installing the safety equipment, maintaining it, and training crews, as well as the cost of inspection, the steamboat owners decided to reflag their vessels in other countries. As there was no SOLAS at the time, the Steamboat Inspection Service had no authority over foreign flag vessels (even today, the USCG cannot enforce their regulations on foreign flag cruise ships, only ensure that the international SOLAS requirements are met). To protect the passengers travelling on these steamboats, Congress then enacted the PVSA in 1886, requiring that all coastwise (between two or more US ports) be on US owned, US built, US flagged, and US crewed vessels. This gave the SIS authority over all coastwise passenger vessels, and while it didn't stop all disasters (see the General Slocum fire in NY harbor in 1891), it at least held the companies liable for disasters. So, again, the PVSA was not enacted to protect US shipping, it was in direct opposition to the stance of the steamboat owners, and maritime labor was in its infancy at the time. As for US shipyards, even the foreign flag steamboats were being built in the US at the time, because those vessels were not capable of ocean crossings.

And, like the Jones Act, the PVSA contributes to US employment and the US economy. Realize that this is the "Passenger" Vessel Services Act, not the "Cruise" vessel act. The definition of "passenger" vessel, in US and international law is any vessel that carries more than 12 people for hire. So, the PVSA protects every ferry, water taxi, commuter boat, duck boat tour, sightseeing boat, whale watching boat, dinner cruise, casino boat, and even large charter fishing boats in the US. While not as large as the Jones Act trade, the PVSA trade does provide tens of thousands of US jobs, and adds tens of millions to the US economy, that would go elsewhere if these vessels were foreign flag.

Not sure where you were reading, but most of this is incorrect.

 

If a foreign flag container ship is coming from a foreign country with goods for Hawaii, there is nothing, certainly not the Jones Act, to prevent the ship stopping in Hawaii and dropping off the goods. This is overseas shipping (coming from a foreign country to the US), and the Jones Act does not come into play in the slightest. Even if the ship then proceeds to Long Beach, and drops off more goods there, the Jones Act has no bearing what so ever. The Jones Act prohibits that foreign flag ship from picking up a container in LA and delivering it to Hawaii (or any other US port). The Jones Act protects the hundreds of thousands of jobs for US citizens who are employed in coastwise trade (from one US port to another, including such things as barge traffic from St. Louis to New Orleans), and adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the US economy.

 

About 80 countries world wide have maritime cabotage laws similar to the Jones Act and PVSA, including Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, Canada, and the EU.

 

And, the PVSA (Passenger Vessel Services Act) was passed in 1886, while the Jones Act was passed in 1920. As to the reasons the two acts were passed, let's get beyond Wikipedia's slanted articles. The Jones Act was passed, not to protect US shipping, but because the Seattle merchants who sold supplies to miners and settlers in Alaska were seeing their trade go to Canada (Vancouver) instead. So, it was not to protect US shipping, but US merchants' profits.

 

In the early part of the 19th century, there were scores of steamboat fires and explosions on the rivers and harbors of the US. In order to control these disasters, the Congress passed the Steamboat Act of 1852, which mandated safety measures on these boats, and created the Steamboat Inspection Service, which is the precursor to the USCG Marine Inspection Division (those USCG inspectors you see that delay embarkation). In order to avoid the cost of installing the safety equipment, maintaining it, and training crews, as well as the cost of inspection, the steamboat owners decided to reflag their vessels in other countries. As there was no SOLAS at the time, the Steamboat Inspection Service had no authority over foreign flag vessels (even today, the USCG cannot enforce their regulations on foreign flag cruise ships, only ensure that the international SOLAS requirements are met). To protect the passengers travelling on these steamboats, Congress then enacted the PVSA in 1886, requiring that all coastwise (between two or more US ports) be on US owned, US built, US flagged, and US crewed vessels. This gave the SIS authority over all coastwise passenger vessels, and while it didn't stop all disasters (see the General Slocum fire in NY harbor in 1891), it at least held the companies liable for disasters. So, again, the PVSA was not enacted to protect US shipping, it was in direct opposition to the stance of the steamboat owners, and maritime labor was in its infancy at the time. As for US shipyards, even the foreign flag steamboats were being built in the US at the time, because those vessels were not capable of ocean crossings.

 

And, like the Jones Act, the PVSA contributes to US employment and the US economy. Realize that this is the "Passenger" Vessel Services Act, not the "Cruise" vessel act. The definition of "passenger" vessel, in US and international law is any vessel that carries more than 12 people for hire. So, the PVSA protects every ferry, water taxi, commuter boat, duck boat tour, sightseeing boat, whale watching boat, dinner cruise, casino boat, and even large charter fishing boats in the US. While not as large as the Jones Act trade, the PVSA trade does provide tens of thousands of US jobs, and adds tens of millions to the US economy, that would go elsewhere if these vessels were foreign flag.

If you reread what I was saying, it prevents a foreign container ship to STOP in Hawaii en route to Long Beach. Once the ship stops in a US port, it must return to a foreign port. This does drive the cost of shipping to Hawaii directly, since an entire container ship would be able to supply Hawaii for an extremely long time, if the load is similar to one going to Long Beach.

I am also not against the laws, but they need to be revisited to accommodate the current industries. The laws were enacted when the US was an isolationist country (read your history). The world is now global.

Also before you bold Cruise Act as an attempt to discredit me, please reread my post. I never mentioned the act as Cruise Act.

Again the spirit of my post was not to remove the laws, but to revisit the laws to make them more applicable to today's global economy. The ability to be able to stop in a remote US port, such as Hawaii to deliver before completing the trip to Long Beach would be a significant DROP in costs to our citizens of the 50th state. As the law is now addressed. The products must be UNLOADED, RELOADED, and shipped via a US flagged, built, staffed, etc ship back to Hawaii.

I am not saying we should apply the law to go from Long Beach to New Orleans in a foreign vessel. I am looking out for our remote American citizens to help reduce their living expenses by modifying laws that were written before they were US states and territories.

At this point we should just agree to disagree and not bomb this thread with our soapbox.

Here is a different opinion on PVSA and cruising. NCL basically has a monopoly in Hawaii with a ship that is US Flagged because of a waiver from Congress.

http://www.uhero.hawaii.edu/assets/UHERO_WP2009-01.pdf

I read what you said, and you are still incorrect. I work in the Jones Act trade, and have dealt with Jones Act issues, even for US flag ships that are not Jones Act compliant for over 40 years. There is nothing in the Jones Act that says a ship cannot proceed from one US port to another, it says that that ship cannot transport cargo from one US port to another. If a Chinese flag ship comes carrying cargo from a variety of nations, stops in Hawaii and unloads 50 containers, but keeps 3000 containers onboard, there is nothing in the Jones Act to prevent the ship from proceeding to LA and discharging 2000 containers there. Why? Because the 3000 containers remaining onboard in Hawaii, were never in Hawaii, they were in China, since that is where the ship is flagged. If you look at any foreign flag container company's website, and look at their itineraries, they can go from one US port to the next, without going to a foreign port inbetween. This happens many, many times every day. The only thing the Jones Act prohibits is that Chinese ship loading a container in Hawaii, and then discharging the same container in LA. That is transporting cargo from one US port to another.

Before you say that the law needs to be changed, you need to know what the law actually says. Here is a link to the Hawaii Free Press that dispels all of the claims you make that the Jones Act does:

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/10736/Jones-Act-Does-Not-Bar-International-Trade-From-Hawaii.aspx

Here is a different opinion on PVSA and cruising. NCL basically has a monopoly in Hawaii with a ship that is US Flagged because of a waiver from Congress.

 

 

http://www.uhero.hawaii.edu/assets/UHERO_WP2009-01.pdf

The ship in question was originally being built in a US shipyard, for a US company, to be flagged in the US, and with a US crew. The company went bankrupt after 9/11, and the US government was left with loan guarantees to the shipyard for a half completed cruise ship. NCL negotiated a waiver for the US built requirement in exchange for repaying the loan guarantees. All other requirements for PVSA trade are met by the Pride of America (US owner, flag, crew). While the agreement did include waivers of the US build requirement for two other ships, those ships are no longer in US flag, nor in the PVSA trade, and have lost their waivers. I am not convinced that the Pride of America, even though she was completed in Germany, does not meet the requirements for US built, as there is only a certain percentage of the ship that needs to be built in the US to meet the US built requirements. Aker shipyard in Philadelphia builds Jones Act tankers and container ships, yet only the hull steel is built in the US, and every piece of machinery, and all the walkways, ladders, railings, hatch covers, propulsion, electronics, etc, etc, are built in Korea and shipped over.

Had Hawaiian American Cruises not gone bankrupt and given NCL the opportunity to buy the hull from the US government, the US flag NCL operation would never have gotten off the ground.

As for cruising and the PVSA, CLIA, the cruise industry association has stated that none of its member companies are interested in revising or repealing the PVSA, as they see little to no benefit to the cruise lines' bottom line.

So to board, you would be required to pay the PVSA fines.

Not exactly.

The cruise operator would be the one required to pay the PVSA fines. The only time a passenger would be required to pay the fine is when the cruise line passes the fine onto the passenger instead of eating the cost.

The ship in question was originally being built in a US shipyard, for a US company, to be flagged in the US, and with a US crew. The company went bankrupt after 9/11, and the US government was left with loan guarantees to the shipyard for a half completed cruise ship. NCL negotiated a waiver for the US built requirement in exchange for repaying the loan guarantees. All other requirements for PVSA trade are met by the Pride of America (US owner, flag, crew). While the agreement did include waivers of the US build requirement for two other ships, those ships are no longer in US flag, nor in the PVSA trade, and have lost their waivers. I am not convinced that the Pride of America, even though she was completed in Germany, does not meet the requirements for US built, as there is only a certain percentage of the ship that needs to be built in the US to meet the US built requirements. Aker shipyard in Philadelphia builds Jones Act tankers and container ships, yet only the hull steel is built in the US, and every piece of machinery, and all the walkways, ladders, railings, hatch covers, propulsion, electronics, etc, etc, are built in Korea and shipped over.

 

Had Hawaiian American Cruises not gone bankrupt and given NCL the opportunity to buy the hull from the US government, the US flag NCL operation would never have gotten off the ground.

 

As for cruising and the PVSA, CLIA, the cruise industry association has stated that none of its member companies are interested in revising or repealing the PVSA, as they see little to no benefit to the cruise lines' bottom line.

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing.

The ship in question was originally being built in a US shipyard, for a US company, to be flagged in the US, and with a US crew. The company went bankrupt after 9/11, and the US government was left with loan guarantees to the shipyard for a half completed cruise ship. NCL negotiated a waiver for the US built requirement in exchange for repaying the loan guarantees. All other requirements for PVSA trade are met by the Pride of America (US owner, flag, crew). While the agreement did include waivers of the US build requirement for two other ships, those ships are no longer in US flag, nor in the PVSA trade, and have lost their waivers. I am not convinced that the Pride of America, even though she was completed in Germany, does not meet the requirements for US built, as there is only a certain percentage of the ship that needs to be built in the US to meet the US built requirements. Aker shipyard in Philadelphia builds Jones Act tankers and container ships, yet only the hull steel is built in the US, and every piece of machinery, and all the walkways, ladders, railings, hatch covers, propulsion, electronics, etc, etc, are built in Korea and shipped over.

 

Had Hawaiian American Cruises not gone bankrupt and given NCL the opportunity to buy the hull from the US government, the US flag NCL operation would never have gotten off the ground.

 

As for cruising and the PVSA, CLIA, the cruise industry association has stated that none of its member companies are interested in revising or repealing the PVSA, as they see little to no benefit to the cruise lines' bottom line.

Because of waivers including union agreement, NCL(A) does, in effect, have a monopoly courtesy of Congress. I doubt they will ever have competition. We both agree that the Jones Act and PVSA are different and separate.

Because of waivers including union agreement, NCL(A) does, in effect, have a monopoly courtesy of Congress. I doubt they will ever have competition. We both agree that the Jones Act and PVSA are different and separate.

Having worked the ships in Hawaii for 4 years, including the start up, not aware of any "union agreement" that was part of the original deal with the US government. The point is, that any of the cruise lines could have stepped up and taken advantage of Hawaiian American's bankruptcy. And as far as a monopoly, yes, they are the only ones doing it, but a monopoly means that the operator of the monopoly can set any price they want, since there is no competition. If they really had a monopoly, why did they remove two US flag ships from the trade, and reflag them back to Bahamian flag? Why were they losing $175 million/year in 2008, just on the Hawaiian operation? Because of price competition from the foreign flag ships cruising to Hawaii from the West Coast that can still sell, operate, and profit from a 14 day cruise (with 10 sea days of fuel) for the same or less than NCL can sell the 7 day Hawaiian cruises. Back before NCL started the operation, American Hawaiian Cruises operated the SS Constitution and SS Independence as US flag ships under the PVSA as a similar "monopoly" to NCL, yet no one said a peep about them.