5 days before sailing-ncl invokes jones act on us

[sparks1093]

without the likes of you attempting to unemploy more Americans.

:eek::eek::eek:

[electricron]

Sorry! Double post!

[electricron]

Being the amount of pax doing this is relatively small, I'm surprised an offer to pay the $300 PP fine is not being tossed around.

 

When it comes to federal government bureaucrats and business operations, the less you have them around the better. Purposely allowing them onboard when you don't have to is foolish. Report one instance for a $300 fine, allows them to check for others too.........and the resulting long delay somewhere for that to happen.......

[electricron]

:eek::eek::eek:

 

It's the truth from my point of view. I'm going to call a spade a spade whenever I see a spade.

 

Besides, how bad is the word likes?

[MrPete]

When it comes to federal government bureaucrats and business operations, the less you have them around the better. Purposely allowing them onboard when you don't have to is foolish. Report one instance for a $300 fine, allows them to check for others too.........and the resulting long delay somewhere for that to happen.......

 

That would not be my concern. Maybe the cruiselines. If I thought $600 stood between me and my B2B, I'd pay. Or, go WITH the risk of being fined afterwards (if allowed, of course).

[zimmerjulie]

You can definitely take the Star princess to Vancouver, then switch ships without being in violation. I have done it loads of times. It is not against PVSA.

[ashleycrew]

That would not be my concern. Maybe the cruiselines. If I thought $600 stood between me and my B2B, I'd pay. Or, go WITH the risk of being fined afterwards (if allowed, of course).

 

 

Actually I think the cruise line is the one that gets fined and with the way the cruise contract is written they are kind enough to pass the fine on to you :-) that is what makes using 2 different ships/lines ok because none of the ships/cruiselines are doing anything wrong......

[ute_fan]

You're correct, this itinerary would violate the intentions of this law.

Instead, sail the Star to Vancouver, then sail another ship to Alaska and back to Vancouver or Seattle would be legal. Not the same foreign flag ship embarking and disembarking at different American ports without visiting a "remote" foreign port. That honor is reserved for American flag ships only.

By the way, the closest "remote" foreign port to Seattle and Alaska is in Asia (Russia or Japan).

 

This is a question --because I'm not sure of the answer. Wouldn't the two different ships need to be two different cruise lines, not just different ships? For instance, we couldn't have sailed on the NCL Pearl from Seattle to Vancouver and then transferred to the NCL Star without being in violation of the Jones act. By going on Princess and then moving to NCL, it appears that it's not breaking the law.

[electricron]

That would not be my concern. Maybe the cruiselines. If I thought $600 stood between me and my B2B, I'd pay. Or, go WITH the risk of being fined afterwards (if allowed, of course).

 

That's you of course. But I bet there will be 10 times more families who rather not be surprised at U.S. Customs with a $600 or more fine at the end of their cruise.

[MrPete]

That's you of course. But I bet there will be 10 times more families who rather not be surprised at U.S. Customs with a $600 or more fine at the end of their cruise.

 

How possible, if the line is on top of this, like in the case of the OP.

[Rstamper]

on B2B cruises (never done one myself) don't you always get seperate booking numbers? and don't they make everyone get off the ship between the 2 cruises?

 

I was looking at these 2 cruises to do Back to Back

 

7-Day Alaska Los Angeles to Vancouver

 

Details and Availability Ship: Norwegian Star

Embarkation Port: Los Angeles

Ports of call: Los Angeles; Juneau; Ketchikan; Vancouver

2010: May 1

 

 

7-Day Sawyer Glacier Vancouver to Seattle

 

 

Details and Availability Ship: Norwegian Star

Embarkation Port: Vancouver

Ports of call: Vancouver; Ketchikan; Juneau; Skagway; Prince Rupert; Seattle

2010: May 8

 

so based on what I am reading here this would not be possible?:eek::(

 

We tried a similar back to back but it was a 4-night LA to Vancouver and then another 4-night Vancouver to Seattle. They were different ships and different lines and we were told we could not do this.

[MrPete]

Actually I think the cruise line is the one that gets fined and with the way the cruise contract is written they are kind enough to pass the fine on to you :-) that is what makes using 2 different ships/lines ok because none of the ships/cruiselines are doing anything wrong......

 

Which would make sense that the line pick up the tab (at least in this instance), as opposed to refunding, and letting the cabin sail empty.

 

I would surely hate this premature debarkation.

[ashleycrew]

Please don't! The law has been on the books for over a century. If it weren't for this one law, the Pride of America would not be sailing under American flag today employing mostly American sailors. This law not only exists for passenger ships, but applies to merchant ships too.

 

You may find this law inconvenient while on vacation, others depend upon it for their livelihood. The economy is bad enough today without the likes of you attempting to unemploy more Americans.

 

 

I respectfully disagree with you. In my opinion the law is extremely outdated. As far as cruise ships go I think it actually hurts ameican workers. I think there would be a lot more routes that would not visit foreign ports thus keeping the stops and the money in the US. It would help put a lot of port cities. I also believe it would increase cruise line traffic as many people would try cruising that did not have passports. I know I would love to be able to go on a cruise that just does our great east coast cities... Boston, Bar harbor, Portland, NYC, Norfolk, Baltimore, Charleston, Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami.... Quite a few itineraries that would work for me. I do respect the intention is to protect american workers and ship builders (which none are built here) but in my opinion the law has just become out date.

 

I'm not passionate enough to call my congressman but I think it does actually hurt more than it helps.

[Cuizer2]

If I were the OP, I wouldn't just accept this to be true. Insurance covers a lot fo strange problems. They may even go after the cruise line for him.

You cannot buy insurance that protects you in case you accidentally break a law. Go ahead and ask the insurance company. The claim will be denied.

[gtalum]

You cannot buy insurance that protects you in case you accidentally break a law.

 

So you've never heard of liability insurance? ;)

 

The error (and potential but avoided lawbreaking) here is with the cruise line. I suspect this would fall under the delayed travel provisions. Due to a snag, the OP cannot catch his cruise in Seattle, and has to catch up to the ship in Vancouver. I'd float it by them anyway.

[FLAHAM]

When it comes to federal government bureaucrats and business operations, the less you have them around the better.

 

 

Bernie Madoff's sentiments precisely.

[Cuizer2]

So you've never heard of liability insurance? ;)

 

The error (and potential but avoided lawbreaking) here is with the cruise line. I suspect this would fall under the delayed travel provisions. Due to a snag, the OP cannot catch his cruise in Seattle, and has to catch up to the ship in Vancouver. I'd float it by them anyway.

 

Liability insurance covers you for damage you do to other people. It does not provide you with a criminal defense nor will travel insurance reimburse you if you book two cruises and then cannot take one because one of the cruises violates the PVSA.

 

The OP will have no trouble catching the second cruise. The OP is simply going to be denied boarding. This is not covered by travel insurance. However, go ahead and make the claim. It will simply be denied.

[Laoghaire]

Please don't! The law has been on the books for over a century. If it weren't for this one law, the Pride of America would not be sailing under American flag today employing mostly American sailors. This law not only exists for passenger ships, but applies to merchant ships too.

 

You may find this law inconvenient while on vacation, others depend upon it for their livelihood. The economy is bad enough today without the likes of you attempting to unemploy more Americans.

 

WOW!! And what do you know about "the likes of me"? Methinks you are a little rude. JMHO.

 

Helen

[gtalum]

The OP is simply going to be denied boarding. This is not covered by travel insurance.

 

That's exactly what travel insurance covers. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. :)

[njhorseman]

That's exactly what travel insurance covers. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. :)

 

 

No...you are wrong. Aside from the knowledge gained from a couple of decades in the insurance industry, to confirm this I pulled out the trip cancellation policy for my upcoming cruise (policy issued by one of the best known insurers in this business), and one of the items listed in the "What This Certificate Excludes" section, under trip cancellation and interruption coverage is:

"Government prohibitions or regulations"

 

 

The policy also has a general unlawful acts exclusion that backs up the specific exclusion listed above.

[paiagirl]

Cruzfool, in May of this year, we went on the NCL Pearl from San Pedro to Vancouver, then from Vancouver to Seattle on HAL where we met up with the Pearl to Alaska. There were several of us that did this. Most went with Princess while we were the only ones that went with HAL.

[Cuizer2]

That's exactly what travel insurance covers. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. :)

Denied boarding is not covered by insurance. Read your policy. There are exclusions.

[reaman]

Princess has a ship that does the same route, same day. Just book the Princess Star for your Seattle - Vancouver leg. Then switch ships to your original NCL.

[*Wink*]

on B2B cruises (never done one myself) don't you always get seperate booking numbers? and don't they make everyone get off the ship between the 2 cruises?

 

 

Just in case anyone is wondering about your question of whether or not a B2B always gets 2 separate booking numbers, it depends.

 

From what I understand, in my case with my upcoming B2B, I could have either booked it as a 14-day because it was advertised as such, OR I could book it as 2 separate 7-day, which were also advertised.

 

My PCC said that booking it separately would be cheaper in my case.

 

I have a friend who booked the same ship, Sun, for a B2B and it was cheaper for him to book it as one 14-day.

 

Therefore, he has one booking number, I have two.

 

Capish? :p

 

As far as departing the ship.. In our case in Port Canaveral, we will have to depart. This is due to customs policy.

[Nancyquilts]

Please don't! The law has been on the books for over a century. If it weren't for this one law, the Pride of America would not be sailing under American flag today employing mostly American sailors. This law not only exists for passenger ships, but applies to merchant ships too.

 

You may find this law inconvenient while on vacation, others depend upon it for their livelihood. The economy is bad enough today without the likes of you attempting to unemploy more Americans.

So an act of Congress allows the Pride to sail in Hawaii with an American crew, but the inconvenience to passengers and the employment of more port employees and sales people and restaurants in the ports of America are of no value. And probably more Americans would be employed in the ports than on the Pride. Signed by The Likes Of You. ;)