Jones Act

[chengkp75]

It also covers aircraft as well. Had a very recent discussion with a Princess CD in which he quoted the "Jones Act" in forcing him to fly from San Francisco to Mexico City, then to Los Angeles. (Confusion between the Jones Act and the PVSA is rampant everywhere.)

 

Then I found out he was on Mexicana airlines - the airline that Princess booked him on. Mexicana cannot fly direct SFO to LAX without violating the PVSA. They have to 'change planes' in a foreign port - in this case Mexico City.

 

As to repealing it, because it applies to more than just cruise ships - no way. There was some talk several years ago, but that disappeared.

 

My big beef is how the PVSA was so 'successful' in 'protecting' the US cruise ship building industry - and the political machinations Senator Inoyue (HI) went through to get the three "Pride" ship experiment for HI off the ground back many years ago. (They actually had to use "pieces" of a trashed US built cruise ship in the new construction done in France I believe in order to "meet" the PVSA requirements for a round trip out of HI without having to go to Christmas Island.) But it effectively forces cruise lines to invest in foreign port facilities - Ensenada, Puerto Maya, BVI, Grand Cayman, etc., which could be invested in Coastal communities in the US. Would love to see some of the Gulf coast ports on a more regular basis.

 

Actually, the Jones Act does not cover airlines, that is a similar but separate act, the Civil Aviation Act.

 

The facts of NCL's US flag ships is that the Pride of America was being built in Pascagoula, MS, for Hawaiian American Cruise Lines, as a US flag cruise ship. Hawaiian American went bankrupt after 9/11, and since the US government had given Title 11 construction loan guarantees for the ship, the US taxpayers were on the hook for an unfinished cruise ship. NCL bought the hull, thereby paying back the millions to the US government, under the condition that the ship could be completed overseas (even ships built according to PVSA and Jones Act requirements can have significant foreign content, it doesn't all have to be built in the US), and that an existing foreign built ship could be reflagged into PVSA service, and that another newly foreign built ship could be reflagged as well. They did not use "pieces" of the hull, the hull was actually expanded in Germany and is the hull of the Pride of America.

 

The foreign cruises NCL used to run out of Hawaii went to Fanning Island, not Christmas Island.

 

The cruise lines do not invest that heavily into foreign ports because of the PVSA. They invest there because it is where the cruising public wants to go. And the only investment in foreign port infrastructure is to build docks where none exist (thereby creating new ports), or on private islands, which are their cash cows. And, there is nothing to stop a cruise from say, Galveston stopping at Mobile or New Orleans, or Tampa, from a PVSA perspective. What is stopping this is the market research the cruise lines have done and are doing that show that the US ports are not that large of a market draw.

 

The US has not had a cruise shipbuilding industry since the '50's. And cruises are almost by definition a foreign voyage, as they call at a foreign port sometime during the voyage, so therefore they fall outside the PVSA. The only limitation the PVSA does is not allow foreign cruise ships to start and end cruises in different US ports. The PVSA has protected the PVSA cruise industry (Blount, American Cruises), which everyone says "aren't real cruise ships", but that is because by definition they are only coastwise ships doing coastwise cruises (no foreign ports). If there was sufficient demand for these strictly coastwise cruises, these companies would build more and larger ships.

 

If you do any research into the real initiatives behind both the PVSA and Jones Act (not the Wikipedia drivel), you would know that the real culprit in the decline of US shipping and shipbuilding, and not just in cruise ships, is the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, not either of the two previously mentioned acts.

 

Hoping for a larger shipbuilding industry, above what the Jones Act trade in particular requires, is whistling in the dark, as very, very few in the US are willing to perform the hard, manual labor, over long hours that shipbuilding requires, which is why the average age of shipyard workers in the US is 57.

[COMBOY]

This is a Jones Act question.....If you book an itinerary from Hawaii to Vancouver BC, THEN do the next cruise from BC to Alaska on the same ship...and disembark in Seattle have you satisfied the Jones Act requirement? A particular cruise line which shall remain nameless (hint...it owns Princess and most everything else) says no. But, it seems to me that since you are required to disembark in Vancouver BC (like most back to back cruises) and re-board wouldn't that be sufficient? Since the origin of the cruise is now in foreign country? Even thought the booking was done directly through the cruise line, the people were just informed they would be fined $300 each.

 

No, It really comes down to is what is intended. In your case it's a cruise from Honolulu to Seattle via Vancouver and Alaska even though it is markets as two separate segments on the same ship. Foreign flagged "same" ships can not carry passengers from two US port without a stop in a "distance" foreign port. The closest foreign port on the Pacific side would Kiribiti Island in the South Pacific which isn't remotely possible. You can do a "closed" looped cruise using a "near" foreign port like Canada or Mexico. The only way to get around this would be to get off in Vancouver and change ships. Two different ships is not a violation of the PVSA.

[abbydancer2003]

 

 

 

My big beef is how the PVSA was so 'successful' in 'protecting' the US cruise ship building industry - and the political machinations Senator Inoyue (HI) went through to get the three "Pride" ship experiment for HI off the ground back many years ago. (

 

And after Norwegian launched Norwegian America, and had two of the three leave due to lackluster sales, Inoyue tried to amend the PSVA to require foreign flagged ships to spend at least 50% of their time in foreign ports. (Thus killing the round trip Hawaii cruises from the west coast). I believe that the senators from California and Washington led the opposition, since it would have also killed the Alaska market from San Francisco and Seattle.

[chengkp75]

And after Norwegian launched Norwegian America, and had two of the three leave due to lackluster sales, Inoyue tried to amend the PSVA to require foreign flagged ships to spend at least 50% of their time in foreign ports. (Thus killing the round trip Hawaii cruises from the west coast). I believe that the senators from California and Washington led the opposition, since it would have also killed the Alaska market from San Francisco and Seattle.

 

It was not lackluster sales that drove the two US flag ships out of Hawaii, but the fact that the other cruise lines added 500% capacity to Hawaii cruises from the West Coast, and could sell a 14 day WC to Hawaii for less than NCL could make money on for their 7 day cruise. The original intent of NCL's challenge to the PVSA was to simply force the foreign flag ships to spend a day in Mexico, rather than the two hour midnight "port call" to get the paperwork done that was the practice at the time. It was CBP who came up with the idea of forcing the 50% of port time to be foreign ports, not NCL or Sen. Inoyue, and when that was proposed, NCL argued against that amendment as it would have hurt their own Alaska itineraries. The upshot was to get what NCL wanted in the first place, that the Mexican port call is advertised as a port call, that passengers have to be let ashore, and the port call is a real port call, not a dodge around the act.

[abbydancer2003]

It was not lackluster sales that drove the two US flag ships out of Hawaii, but the fact that the other cruise lines added 500% capacity to Hawaii cruises from the West Coast, and could sell a 14 day WC to Hawaii for less than NCL could make money on for their 7 day cruise. The original intent of NCL's challenge to the PVSA was to simply force the foreign flag ships to spend a day in Mexico, rather than the two hour midnight "port call" to get the paperwork done that was the practice at the time. It was CBP who came up with the idea of forcing the 50% of port time to be foreign ports, not NCL or Sen. Inoyue, and when that was proposed, NCL argued against that amendment as it would have hurt their own Alaska itineraries. The upshot was to get what NCL wanted in the first place, that the Mexican port call is advertised as a port call, that passengers have to be let ashore, and the port call is a real port call, not a dodge around the act.

 

Ok - I think at the time I read what I posted, but it was a while ago, so the source I had could certainly have been wrong.

Our stop from LA was about 5 hours in the afternoon, I think.

[Pam in CA]

And after Norwegian launched Norwegian America, and had two of the three leave due to lackluster sales, Inoyue tried to amend the PSVA to require foreign flagged ships to spend at least 50% of their time in foreign ports. (Thus killing the round trip Hawaii cruises from the west coast). I believe that the senators from California and Washington led the opposition, since it would have also killed the Alaska market from San Francisco and Seattle.

It would have killed the round-trip New England cruise market as well. Princess didn't have round-trip cruises but other lines do. It would have eliminated thousands of jobs.

[RDC1]

If I remember correctly the cruise line is the one who gets fined and they pass that cost on to the person who caused the fine.

 

Of course I could be wrong but I don't think they each get a $300 fine.

 

Bill

 

As I understand it, the fine is $300 per instance (per passenger that violates the law). The cruise line is charged and it is up to the cruise line if they pass it on.

[Cruisin' Chick]

I often wonder why so many people reference the Jones Act when they are inquiring about the PVSA. Who is it who keeps promoting this misinformation? I explained this thing in another thread this morning. GAH!!!

 

I remember the Patters for my first Hawaiian RT cruise did say the Jones Act (when referring to the importance of getting back on board in the Hawaiian ports). Don't know why the wrong name of the act was given but maybe the CD didn't know the right term.

 

It was funny that at the Cruise Critic meet and mingle, one guy said his son was going to leave the ship at the last Hawaiian port because he had to return to work. I asked what about the law and he claimed his son got permission. Didn't see that guy again, but we had to skip the last port due to high waves so it would have been interesting to know if the son was going to have to grovel when back at work.

[ccrain]

It was not lackluster sales that drove the two US flag ships out of Hawaii, but the fact that the other cruise lines added 500% capacity to Hawaii cruises from the West Coast, and could sell a 14 day WC to Hawaii for less than NCL could make money on for their 7 day cruise. The original intent of NCL's challenge to the PVSA was to simply force the foreign flag ships to spend a day in Mexico, rather than the two hour midnight "port call" to get the paperwork done that was the practice at the time. It was CBP who came up with the idea of forcing the 50% of port time to be foreign ports, not NCL or Sen. Inoyue, and when that was proposed, NCL argued against that amendment as it would have hurt their own Alaska itineraries. The upshot was to get what NCL wanted in the first place, that the Mexican port call is advertised as a port call, that passengers have to be let ashore, and the port call is a real port call, not a dodge around the act.

 

The midnight port calls have now changed to longer periods of time since the 15 day trips have been introduced rather than the 14 day trips - at least for Princess (4 hours in port for SFO cruises, 9 hours for LA cruises). So in the end NCL got what they wanted but it didn't help. I remember when the 50% rules was first discussed. Raised quite a ruckus here on CC due to the affect on all cruises from the US it would have - especially the lucrative Alaska market. I'll have to search and see if I can find that thread.

 

Glancing at pricing NCL is charging $2k+ pp for a 7 day balcony while Princess is charging $2500 pp for a balcony 15 day cruise. And the NCL cruise is going to have airfare, hotels in a relatively expensive destination. So NCL simply could not compete and make money on a 7 day cruise vs a competitive 15 day cruise on another line, and ended up having only one remaining Pride ship. (The high wages of the US crew, the US labor regulations and the lack of a casino probably didn't help either.)

[ccrain]

Found the thread, Talk about a blast from the past:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=671772&highlight=50%25+foreign+port+cpb