The Jones Act

[robcruz]

[quote name='RDC1']While the last US registered cruise ship stopped in 2001, there are numerous ships protected by the law.

For example according to MARAD (US Maritime Administration) in 2010 there were 233 ferry operators that carried 50 million passengers. Note that was just Ferry operations, in 2004 MARAD indicated that there were over 1000 US flagged ships (including ferry operations) carrying passengers under PVSA. The world is not limited to large cruise ships.

Coastwise or Jones Act vessels typically handle a combined total of over one billion tons of cargo annually. These cargoes are mostly bulk products such as petroleum, coal, iron ore, grain, crushed rock and decorative stone. However, high value containerized products dominate the U.S.-flag domestic trade to Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Not surprisingly, the U.S.-flag domestic cargo fleet supporting this massive inland and ocean trade was made up of more than 38,000 vessels (mostly tugs and barges) that represent over $41 billion in private investment in 2010.[/QUOTE]

Ferries, tugs and barges have very little in common with cruiseships. Nobody is recommending the abolition of the PVSA, but if it doesn't make sense for the ocean cruising industry then the ocean cruising industry shouldn't be covered by it. Busing people from Ensenada doesn't create any jobs (except maybe for Homeland Security). It only creates unnecessary expense and hardship.

Laws are man made. There is no rationale why the PVSA can't be amended to that effect leaving all other forms of passenger shipping as is. I guess the only rationale is that one is dealing with politicians.

Forgive my ranting. I am Canadian but US stupidity bothers me as much as Canadian stupidity.

[RDC1]

[quote name='robcruz']Ferries, tugs and barges have very little in common with cruiseships. Nobody is recommending the abolition of the PVSA, but if it doesn't make sense for the ocean cruising industry then the ocean cruising industry shouldn't be covered by it. Busing people from Ensenada doesn't create any jobs (except maybe for Homeland Security). It only creates unnecessary expense and hardship.

Laws are man made. There is no rationale why the PVSA can't be amended to that effect leaving all other forms of passenger shipping as is. I guess the only rationale is that one is dealing with politicians.

Forgive my ranting. I am Canadian but US stupidity bothers me as much as Canadian stupidity.[/QUOTE]

Companies can apply for a waiver as NCL did. Of course they don't because they do not want to comply with US labor laws. So it is rather unlikely that it will be changed.

Then of course once you start changing it where do you draw the line and how do you define it. For example once you exempt cruise lines, there is nothing to stop someone from setting up round trip passenger service in competition with other businesses such as airlines.

Far easier said then done to modify a law for specific exemptions that cannot be worked around with unintended consequences. No need to do it for a relatively few cruise ship passengers.

[hypercafe]

NCL's Pride of America is flagged in the US. That said the ship has to meet higher USCG standards than foreign flagged ships calling on US ports. The crew gets US wages and are covered by US labor laws. The ship pays US taxes, social security tax, medicare tax ect. In return it can sail between US ports. Why should a foreign flagged ship that is not paying any of this be allowed the same deal?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Forums mobile app

[RDC1]

[quote name='hypercafe']NCL's Pride of America is flagged in the US. That said the ship has to meet higher USCG standards than foreign flagged ships calling on US ports. The crew gets US wages and are covered by US labor laws. The ship pays US taxes, social security tax, medicare tax ect. In return it can sail between US ports. Why should a foreign flagged ship that is not paying any of this be allowed the same deal?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Forums mobile app[/QUOTE]

NCL still required a waiver because the law also requires that the ships be built in the US, which the ones NCL uses were not.

[Cruise Junky]

[quote name='RDC1']NCL still required a waiver because the law also requires that the ships be built in the US, which the ones NCL uses were not.[/QUOTE]

Her hull was built in the US which is why they got the exemption.

[RDC1]

[quote name='Cruise Junky']Her hull was built in the US which is why they got the exemption.[/QUOTE]

The one remaining ship was mostly US built, the exemption was granted for three ships of which two were hulls that we built in the US, the third was not.

[Cruise Junky]

[quote name='RDC1']The one remaining ship was mostly US built, the exemption was granted for three ships of which two were hulls that we built in the US, the third was not.[/QUOTE]

Yep. As meatloaf says "two out of three ain't bad" ;).

[robcruz]

[quote name='RDC1']Companies can apply for a waiver as NCL did. Of course they don't because they do not want to comply with US labor laws. So it is rather unlikely that it will be changed.

Then of course once you start changing it where do you draw the line and how do you define it. For example once you exempt cruise lines, there is nothing to stop someone from setting up round trip passenger service in competition with other businesses such as airlines.

Far easier said then done to modify a law for specific exemptions that cannot be worked around with unintended consequences. No need to do it for a relatively few cruise ship passengers.[/QUOTE]

That may be true but if you read post #28 you'll see that several exemptions already have been made. It didn't take an amendment to the US Constitution to pass these exemptions. All make sense and all are still in effect without any unintended consequences. The bottom line is that where there is no US competition the cruise passengers shouldn't have to put up with idiotic restrictions such as required to be bussed to or from Ensenada. As I mentioned earlier the way the law is applied now to cruiseships eliminates US jobs instead of creating them (e.g. the Port of Seattle loses out to Vancouver as being the start or finish of more than 150 one-way cruises per year).

Having said all that, I am aware that the PVSA won't be changed for a long time if ever, but my points are still valid.

[sasset]

[quote name='robcruz']That may be true but if you read post #28 you'll see that several exemptions already have been made. It didn't take an amendment to the US Constitution to pass these exemptions. All make sense and all are still in effect without any unintended consequences. The bottom line is that where there is no US competition the cruise passengers shouldn't have to put up with idiotic restrictions such as required to be bussed to or from Ensenada. As I mentioned earlier the way the law is applied now to cruiseships eliminates US jobs instead of creating them (e.g. the Port of Seattle loses out to Vancouver as being the start or finish of more than 150 one-way cruises per year).

Having said all that, I am aware that the PVSA won't be changed for a long time if ever, but my points are still valid.[/QUOTE]

If people stopped booking those type of cruises, the cruise industry's lobbyists would bring more pressure that Cruise Critic comments would.

[jd1966]

[quote name='sandancer']Had a big disappointment today when our TA called to say that Celebrity, despite, booking our b2b cruises months ago, have advised them that we cannot board in Seattle, go to Alaska, returning to Vancouver, then go on to Honolulu on the same ship. Evidently Celebrity UK did not flag this up at the time we booked. There is no way round it other than to cancel one of the cruises. Anyone got any ideas how we can deal with this without losing one of our cruises? Thanks[/QUOTE]
I feel your pain!! We had the exact same thing happen on the exact two cruises!! The PVSA is a joke and a sick one at that!!

[whitshel]

"If the ship makes a stop in Vancouver before going to Alaska get permission to board in Vancouver, rather than Seattle. That should satisfy the Jones Act prohibitions."

[quote name='cle-guy']The act requires a visit to a "[B]distant[/B] foreign port". Vancouver has been determined to not be "distant" and therefore does not qualify.

This act is the reason that "cruises to nowhere" have been stopped, as well why there is just a single major cruise line who does cruises around hawaii - that ship is flagged as US and therefore adheres to all US laws, and pay regulations - which makes it a costly ship to run, and why many cruise lines just don't do around Hawaii trips, and why one can't just do West coast to Hawaii and back, have to stop someplace else, like Ensenada Mexico as other posters have noted.[/QUOTE]


I think this poster was saying if the cruise also stops in Vancouver or Victoria lets say, then don't embark the ship in Seattle, embark the ship in either Vancouver or Victoria. You would have to get permission from Celebrity to have a special embarkation point. Then you are going from a foreign port to a US port. This really only would work if Vancouver or Victoria was the 1st stop after Seattle. At least that's what I thought they we're saying. Not even sure if you can do that.:confused: