MACH - what's the deal with the Sensation (Key West) - Violation of PVSA of 1886?

[Tom-n-Cheryl]

I wondered if you could use your Carnival connections to see how they were able to divert the Sensation (and another ship as well?) to Key West. From my understanding she was to leave Pt. Canaveral on Thursday, head straight to Key West (overnight there) and return to Pt. Canaveral.

 

The following is copied from Wikipedia regarding the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886:

 

----------------------------------

No foreign vessels shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $200 (now $300) for each passenger so transported and landed.

 

...

 

It does not prevent a ship from taking on passengers at a US port and then returning them to another U.S. city by ground or air, or vice versa, as long as the cruise ship returns to its departing point without stopping (a "cruise to nowhere"), or stops in at least one foreign port.

----------------------------------

 

Either a waiver was officially granted by the US govt., Carnival had to pay a STEEP penalty, or some other loophole was utilized. I don't see WHY the government would grant a waiver, as the Sensation could have easily sailed beyond Key West and simply done circles in the (relatively) calm Gulf of Mexico or other destinations AWAY from Irene!!

 

So... what's up... and, any chance that we can expect "regularly scheduled" 3 day trips to the keys from Pt. Canaveral? (Many people would LOVE that option, compared to Nassau)!!!

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

[jetskier]

 

Either a waiver was officially granted by the US govt., Carnival had to pay a STEEP penalty, or some other loophole was utilized. I don't see WHY the government would grant a waiver, as the Sensation could have easily sailed beyond Key West and simply done circles in the (relatively) calm Gulf of Mexico or other destinations AWAY from Irene!!

 

So... what's up... and, any chance that we can expect "regularly scheduled" 3 day trips to the keys from Pt. Canaveral? (Many people would LOVE that option, compared to Nassau)!!!

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

 

Tom...it probably was a waiver. If I remember correctly during the swine flu scare, there was a waiver granted.

Dave

[scperk]

Yeah Tom they got us last year when we booked the Hawaii to Vancouver and then the next cruise to Alaska..Carnival let us be booked for almost 6 months before telling us we could not do the Alaska cruise...They did give us back our airline change fee as OBC and we spent 6 days in Vancouver and Seattle instead.....and flew home 3 days early...Dennis

[SummerXU]

Carnival's website had said there would be no violation of the PVSA due to the weather....so I assumed they received a waiver.

[*Mach*]

I wondered if you could use your Carnival connections to see how they were able to divert the Sensation (and another ship as well?) to Key West. From my understanding she was to leave Pt. Canaveral on Thursday, head straight to Key West (overnight there) and return to Pt. Canaveral.

 

The following is copied from Wikipedia regarding the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886:

 

----------------------------------

No foreign vessels shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $200 (now $300) for each passenger so transported and landed.

 

...

 

It does not prevent a ship from taking on passengers at a US port and then returning them to another U.S. city by ground or air, or vice versa, as long as the cruise ship returns to its departing point without stopping (a "cruise to nowhere"), or stops in at least one foreign port.

 

----------------------------------

 

Either a waiver was officially granted by the US govt., Carnival had to pay a STEEP penalty, or some other loophole was utilized. I don't see WHY the government would grant a waiver, as the Sensation could have easily sailed beyond Key West and simply done circles in the (relatively) calm Gulf of Mexico or other destinations AWAY from Irene!!

 

So... what's up... and, any chance that we can expect "regularly scheduled" 3 day trips to the keys from Pt. Canaveral? (Many people would LOVE that option, compared to Nassau)!!!

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

 

 

Somewhere in the noise of the past few days I heard there had been waivers granted... Lemme check and I'll post what I find...

:)

[DGP1111]

Tom: It definitely appears that (like on a few earlier occassions, such as the onset of the Swine Flu restrictions) there were some exceptions to the rule/law made. It's certainly beneficial to the cruise lines and their passengers.

 

It could almost be said that several cruise lines (and their online posting supporters/cheerleaders) could learn a lesson or two here before always claiming "It's in the contract. You should have read it. XX didn't cause the issue so why should they be held responsble in any way?"

 

Sometimes common sense judgement should potentially trump the original contract, which is often written with "the norm" in mind.

 

That could have been quite a bill handed to some cruise lines for the change in itinerary. Yowza!!

.

.

[Tom-n-Cheryl]

All of this is very interesting!

 

If the government is capable of handing out waivers -- which likely requires the time of multiple people at some govt. office... why can't they just abolish this antiquated pile of junk that unnecessarily burdens both people and businesses. WAIT -- that might mean that some people would no longer have that as part of their job description! :eek:

 

What, exactly, is going on in D.C. ?? :confused:

 

 

Tom

[kicia]

John posted on his Facebook or blog that Carnival was granted a weather emergency waiver for the stops at Key West so there was no violation. I also would prefer a stop in Key West over Nassau.

[*Mach*]

All of this is very interesting!

 

If the government is capable of handing out waivers -- which likely requires the time of multiple people at some govt. office... why can't they just abolish this antiquated pile of junk that unnecessarily burdens both people and businesses. WAIT -- that might mean that some people would no longer have that as part of their job description! :eek:

 

What, exactly, is going on in D.C. ?? :confused:

 

 

Tom

 

 

I just heard from Carnival... they were granted a waiver to the Jones Act due to the situation.

I agree... the law is utter nonsense but they've tried to abolish before but it never came up for a vote...

:confused:

[Tom-n-Cheryl]

Yeah Tom they got us last year when we booked the Hawaii to Vancouver and then the next cruise to Alaska..Carnival let us be booked for almost 6 months before telling us we could not do the Alaska cruise...They did give us back our airline change fee as OBC and we spent 6 days in Vancouver and Seattle instead.....and flew home 3 days early...Dennis

 

-- Dennis, sorry to see that you fell victim to this "stuff"!

 

Though I am scratching my head now... we had a Hawaii/Alaska cruise booked on the Spirit a couple of years ago, which we had to cancel. Would we have ended up with some type of problem as well?

 

:confused:

 

Tom

[Tom-n-Cheryl]

I just heard from Carnival... they were granted a waiver to the Jones Act due to the situation.

I agree... the law is utter nonsense but they've tried to abolish before but it never came up for a vote...

:confused:

 

Thanks.

 

 

These (seemingly simple) matters can frustrate you if you allow them to!

 

I always read (here on CC) that it's the Jones Act - but my limited research indicates that the Jones Act refers more specifically to cargo vessels - whereas the "Passenger Vessel Services Act" seems more applicable to cruise ships... ???

 

Tom

[CorvetteLady]

The cruise lines should go together and hire a lobbyist to get that law changed. That's how things are done in Washington.

 

It would sure make for some interesting cruise itineraries if they changed the law.

[SCUBA Mark]

Cruise Lines have the ability to comply with the law. All they need to do is built a ship in the US and have the ship run by primarily US crew and they can do a cruise in all US ports if they want to.

 

The law is in place to help US industry and US jobs.

[nonna5]

Cruise Lines have the ability to comply with the law. All they need to do is built a ship in the US and have the ship run by primarily US crew and they can do a cruise in all US ports if they want to.

 

The law is in place to help US industry and US jobs.

 

 

This is true but Americans do not want to work on cruise ships. Just ask NCL about the hard time they have with personnel on the Pride of America. So sad but true.

[Shelli]

Thanks.

 

 

These (seemingly simple) matters can frustrate you if you allow them to!

 

I always read (here on CC) that it's the Jones Act - but my limited research indicates that the Jones Act refers more specifically to cargo vessels - whereas the "Passenger Vessel Services Act" seems more applicable to cruise ships... ???

 

Tom

 

You're correct, Tom. The PVSA and the Jones Act are two different things, but folks frequently confuse them.

[*Mach*]

Cruise Lines have the ability to comply with the law. All they need to do is built a ship in the US and have the ship run by primarily US crew and they can do a cruise in all US ports if they want to.

 

The law is in place to help US industry and US jobs.

 

 

The ship doesn't have to be constructed here as evidenced by NCL's ships that were US flagged and fell under the Passenger Services Act. The three of them were doing runs from the west coast to Hawaii... they couldn't make a dime profit and had to reallocate the vessels... reflag and rename them... The Pride of Aloha and the Pride of Hawaii were both built in Germany and NCL's single remaining US flagged vessel, the Pride of America, was completed in Germany despite being started in Mississippi...

A 7 day sailing on the Pride of America, round trip from Hawaii, STARTS at about $950 for an inside... double occupancy. I can get a balcony cabin on the Carnival Magic cheaper than that. The economics just aren't there.

Dump those antiquated laws and let the cruise lines sail from US ports TO US ports... tons of folks will benefit and more money will stay here in the US...

:)

:)

[RuthlessBoss]

It would be wonderful to have other options. Sometimes I book a cruise with no intent to see Nassau or Freeport, stay on the ship, just to get to another port I'm interested in.

[AllyCat81]

Maybe I'm missing something... don't we already have cruises including US ports? We cruised from Ft Lauderdale, and our first stop was Key West. Is it then because we went to international ports that this isn't an issue? :confused:

Sorry for the dumb question...

[Tom-n-Cheryl]

Maybe I'm missing something... don't we already have cruises including US ports? We cruised from Ft Lauderdale, and our first stop was Key West. Is it then because we went to international ports that this isn't an issue? :confused:

Sorry for the dumb question...

 

Not a dumb question at all! My understanding is that's correct - it's OK because there is a foreign port planned.

 

--- though what happens when there is only one scheduled foreign port (after going to Key West for example) and it is missed due to weather/sea conditions. Are waivers pretty much the standard for situations such as that? At $300 pp, I hate to think of the fine that would be imposed if waivers are not "easy" to get!

 

Tom

[Gig103]

Dump those antiquated laws and let the cruise lines sail from US ports TO US ports... tons of folks will benefit and more money will stay here in the US...

 

I dunno, I think the law makes sense. If the ship operated exclusively in the United States, but isn't subject to U.S. laws and regulations, that isn't fair to transportation companies that reside in the U.S. (airlines, trains, buses). Income and Social Security taxes on those thousands of ship employees would be great for our coffers. Not to mention all the laws that U.S. companies need to obey (I-9, employee protections, etc) and foreign flagged vessels don't need to match. This law isn't just for ships either; as I understand it (I'm not a lawyer) it applies to airlines as well.

[Cruzin2paradise09]

All of this is very interesting!

 

If the government is capable of handing out waivers -- which likely requires the time of multiple people at some govt. office... why can't they just abolish this antiquated pile of junk that unnecessarily burdens both people and businesses. WAIT -- that might mean that some people would no longer have that as part of their job description! :eek:

 

What, exactly, is going on in D.C. ?? :confused:

 

 

Tom

 

Well Tom, if that were to happen, then it would make sense, that would mean someone other than the US Gov't made the decision .... in my 9-1/2 years as a federal employee, I can assure you that anything reasonable or rational has never occurred. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[MissDiva1]

This is true but Americans do not want to work on cruise ships. Just ask NCL about the hard time they have with personnel on the Pride of America. So sad but true.

 

That simply is not true. It all comes down to wages......an American simply cannot live here in the U.S. on the wages they pay foreign cruise ship employees.....

[GaNavy]

Dump those antiquated laws and let the cruise lines sail from US ports TO US ports... tons of folks will benefit and more money will stay here in the US...

 

:)

 

 

:)

 

Sorry, Mach, I think that's pure speculation. And if your experience with NCL/Hawaii is any indication, we can all count on paying more for our cruises.

 

I'm not a big fan of the Bahamas ports either....but then I can think of lots of US ports where ships would be calling that are a lot uglier than Nassau, and while we're at it, just how many US ports are equipped to handle ginormous modern cruise ships? Frankly, I can't think of a 7-day itinerary from any departure port south of NYC and calling exclusively on US ports that interests me.