Jones Act - Can't Disembark Ship

[We're The Groupnors]

If he gets off the ship prior to the end of the cruise he will not have gone through US Customs, which would put him in violation of the law, and he could be arrested in addition to being fined $300.

[SantaFeFan]

Why? The last time congress debated the PVSA (again the Jones act has NOTHING to do with cruising) it was to consider making it MORE stringent, not repealing it. No way will it be repealed anytime in the near future.

 

I also have to ask "Why?" Repeal a law that protects the US domestic shipping industry for the convenience of a handful of cruise passengers? Pretty naive and self centered, I have to say. Should we also repeal all laws that you find inconvenient?

[4774Papa]

I also have to ask "Why?" Repeal a law that protects the US domestic shipping industry for the convenience of a handful of cruise passengers? Pretty naive and self centered, I have to say. Should we also repeal all laws that you find inconvenient?

 

 

Repeal of the law would NOT just benefit cruise passengers. The result of the law is that high shipping costs are added to the cost of goods shipped between US ports. Just like the Davis Bacon law causes most Federal Construction to be about twice the cost for taxpayers. It is protectionism that hurts America. It causes higher prices for many things, such as gasoline.

 

The law seriously hampered cleanup of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago.

 

http://watchdogonwallstreet.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/repeal-the-jones-act/

 

http://blog.heartland.org/2013/09/repeal-the-jones-act/

 

Here is a good quote from the above link:

Many people probably do not know it, but American shipping is still governed by the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. As noted by Keli’i Akina, president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and in a recent op-ed in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Akina asserted that this antiquated law represents:

The most economically debilitating plank of the Jones Act requires that ships carrying cargo between U.S. ports be built in the United States. This has created an artificial scarcity of ships largely due to the inefficiency and extraordinary cost of U.S. ship construction, driving up freight and charter rates and thus limiting domestic commerce.

As a consequence, U.S. shipbuilding yards today construct fewer than 1 percent of the world’s deep draft tonnage, and the ships produced for the commercial market come at a hefty price.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Aloha 1]

Repeal of the law would NOT just benefit cruise passengers. The result of the law is that high shipping costs are added to the cost of goods shipped between US ports. Just like the Davis Bacon law causes most Federal Construction to be about twice the cost for taxpayers. It is protectionism that hurts America. It causes higher prices for many things, such as gasoline.

 

The law seriously hampered cleanup of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago.

 

http://watchdogonwallstreet.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/repeal-the-jones-act/

 

http://blog.heartland.org/2013/09/repeal-the-jones-act/

 

Here is a good quote from the above link:

Many people probably do not know it, but American shipping is still governed by the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. As noted by Keli’i Akina, president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and in a recent op-ed in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Akina asserted that this antiquated law represents:

The most economically debilitating plank of the Jones Act requires that ships carrying cargo between U.S. ports be built in the United States. This has created an artificial scarcity of ships largely due to the inefficiency and extraordinary cost of U.S. ship construction, driving up freight and charter rates and thus limiting domestic commerce.

As a consequence, U.S. shipbuilding yards today construct fewer than 1 percent of the world’s deep draft tonnage, and the ships produced for the commercial market come at a hefty price.

 

Plus 1

 

And why should we just accept it? The Congress works for us, regardless of who they really think they work for. If your Senator or Representative thinks your voice counts less than their "funders", vote 'em out.

[wallie5446]

All this is lots of fun but the end result is the same. It is aginst the law.

[Algebralovr]

Back to the original topic, OP, if your brother cannot complete the cruise, he will need to mss the ship entirely.

 

For the rest of you, the PVSA also protects US airlines from being undercut by foreign firms that are supported by foreign governments.

[Charles4515]

Why? The last time congress debated the PVSA (again the Jones act has NOTHING to do with cruising) it was to consider making it MORE stringent, not repealing it. No way will it be repealed anytime in the near future.

 

Also, the cruise lines don't lobby for repeal of the PVSA. Some think that is because they don't want to mess with the status quo. Foreign flagged ships, cheaper labor costs, etc.

[jcrandle]

And, if you pick a homeless person to reboard the ship to avoid the PVSA, be sure to find one that looks very much like you, as the security folks always appear to be VERY careful to match the stored photo to the person boarding.

[3dog]

If he gets off the ship prior to the end of the cruise he will not have gone through US Customs' date=' which would put him in violation of the law, and he could be arrested in addition to being fined $300.[/quote']

 

If you get of a ship at a US port, you will either go through customs and immigration, or find it isn't necessary. Ships that visit a US port while on a closed loop itinerary will usually visit that port as their first ports, in which case customs/immigration is not necessary (haven't been to a foreign port yet), or as their last port(s), in which case you will go through customs/immigration at that the first of the US ports or on the ship before arriving at that port (and customs/immigration isn't needed at the destination port - note, though, that getting off at that port is a violation of the PVSA).

[3dog]

For the rest of you, the PVSA also protects US airlines from being undercut by foreign firms that are supported by foreign governments.

 

Indeed, and (IMHO) is why it hasn't been repealed or lessened. As suggested elsewhere in this thread, there isn't much impact to passengers on ocean vessels, but there is very much a big impact to airlines.

[dread_pirate]

Ya I wouldn't do that as I wouldn't want to cause any delays for the other passengers. Part of me wants to just bring him and on that day say there is a work emergency and he needs to leave. If there is a fine, so be it. I can't imagine that they can say no, you can't leave..but at the same time would hate to find out there is more than just a fine.

 

Sorry, but a work "emergency" is most probably not the kind of emergency that will allow a waiver of the PVSA requirements. When the law speaks of emergencies, it is likely referring to medical emergencies that require immediate shoreside attention, or other family-type emergencies (such as a death in the family). These are objective emergencies that, in anyone's book, require the passenger to depart the ship. The possibility of being fired if one does not return to work is unlikely to sway the authorities.

[Gonzo70]

If you get of a ship at a US port, you will either go through customs and immigration, or find it isn't necessary. Ships that visit a US port while on a closed loop itinerary will usually visit that port as their first ports, in which case customs/immigration is not necessary (haven't been to a foreign port yet), or as their last port(s), in which case you will go through customs/immigration at that the first of the US ports or on the ship before arriving at that port (and customs/immigration isn't needed at the destination port - note, though, that getting off at that port is a violation of the PVSA).

 

Indeed, and (IMHO) is why it hasn't been repealed or lessened. As suggested elsewhere in this thread, there isn't much impact to passengers on ocean vessels, but there is very much a big impact to airlines.

 

To clarify a few things, everybody must go through customs when entering the US at the end of a cruise - so if a passenger ends a cruise early in a US port they must go through customs (even if the ship has not yet called at an international port). You still must declare anything you obtained on the ship (i.e. duty free alcohol, shopping; declare what if any food you are bringing into the US etc.).

 

Also the PVSA is not the same law that impacts the airlines. Air travel does have similar cabotage laws but the PVSA applies to the transportation of passengers on ships. Large cruise ships are not the only vessels governed by the PVSA. There are lots of ferries in the US, there are river and lake cruise ships etc; PVSA applies to all passenger vessels calling at US ports, not just major cruise ships.

[Grumpy100]

Take his card and find some homeless person on Market St. that looks like him. Tell him he can spend three days on a cruise ship and eat all the food he wants and even take a shower. I bet you will find some takers. :D[/quo

 

I will take his place. Wait I am a girl. I guess that would not work.....

[sasset]

Sorry, but a work "emergency" is most probably not the kind of emergency that will allow a waiver of the PVSA requirements. When the law speaks of emergencies, it is likely referring to medical emergencies that require immediate shoreside attention, or other family-type emergencies (such as a death in the family). These are objective emergencies that, in anyone's book, require the passenger to depart the ship. The possibility of being fired if one does not return to work is unlikely to sway the authorities.

 

Emergencies, by definition, are rarely known in advance.

[dread_pirate]

Emergencies, by definition, are rarely known in advance.

 

Understood (and agreed). But that doesn't mean that what one's employer considers an "emergency" for work purposes qualifies as an "emergency" exemption to the PVSA - unless of course one's employer is the US military.