The Jones Act/ Passenger Service Act - Back to Back Sailings

[Pierlesscruisers]

and a U.S. carrier cannot fly you from Toronto to Vancouver via Chicago.

 

I would think that situation would be out of the purview of the PVSA and a matter for Canadian law rather than US law since it involves flights originating and ending in Canada and not the US. Or am I missing something?

 

Tom

[Bibble]

Based on reading all of this, it now has me questioning this: I had believe that the PVSA was that a passenger couldn't board in one US City, then disembark in another US City. I've got that part.

Then now, about the "distant foreign port", and I understand why an Alaskan cruise stops in Victoria.

 

My question - doing a round trip Seattle to Alaska, where passengers are embarking and disembarking at the same port, why does that have to stop in Canada? But then how do Hawaii cruises work? without a distant foreign port?

 

No dog in the fight, just a curiosity that I've thought about for quite some time...

[Sea Turtle]

I've read so many of these type of threads on CC that my head is spinning. :confused: Will someone 'in the know' look at my bookings?

 

Ruby Princess - Seattle to Vancouver - Sep 29-Sep 30, 2018

NCL Bliss - Vancouver to Los Angeles - Sep 30-Oct 05, 2018

 

Just a simple yea or nay is all I'm seeking! :)

[Pierlesscruisers]

I've read so many of these type of threads on CC that my head is spinning. :confused: Will someone 'in the know' look at my bookings?

 

Ruby Princess - Seattle to Vancouver - Sep 29-Sep 30, 2018

NCL Bliss - Vancouver to Los Angeles - Sep 30-Oct 05, 2018

 

Just a simple yea or nay is all I'm seeking! :)

 

You are good to go. You change ships so there is no violation. Relax and enjoy yourself! ;)

 

Tom

[Pierlesscruisers]

My question - doing a round trip Seattle to Alaska, where passengers are embarking and disembarking at the same port, why does that have to stop in Canada? But then how do Hawaii cruises work? without a distant foreign port?

 

No dog in the fight, just a curiosity that I've thought about for quite some time...

 

I believe that if you check the itinerary of the Hawaii cruise, that it stops in Ensenada on the way back from Hawaii.

 

Tom

[thinfool]

Based on reading all of this, it now has me questioning this: I had believe that the PVSA was that a passenger couldn't board in one US City, then disembark in another US City. I've got that part.

Then now, about the "distant foreign port", and I understand why an Alaskan cruise stops in Victoria.

 

My question - doing a round trip Seattle to Alaska, where passengers are embarking and disembarking at the same port, why does that have to stop in Canada? But then how do Hawaii cruises work? without a distant foreign port?

 

No dog in the fight, just a curiosity that I've thought about for quite some time...

 

 

 

All that is necessary on a closed loop cruise is a call at a foreign port, not a "distant" foreign port.

 

A "distant" foreign port is required on cruises from one US port to another US port.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[BillB48]

Based on reading all of this, it now has me questioning this: I had believe that the PVSA was that a passenger couldn't board in one US City, then disembark in another US City. I've got that part.

Then now, about the "distant foreign port", and I understand why an Alaskan cruise stops in Victoria.

 

My question - doing a round trip Seattle to Alaska, where passengers are embarking and disembarking at the same port, why does that have to stop in Canada? But then how do Hawaii cruises work? without a distant foreign port?

 

No dog in the fight, just a curiosity that I've thought about for quite some time...

 

What you are describing is a closed loop cruise... beginning and ending at the US same port. The only thing required is a stop at a foreign port, does not need to be a distant port.

 

For Hawaii there are no non US ships offering closed loop cruises that originate in Hawaii, only NCL's US flagged ship Pride of America with a closed loop from Honolulu. Lines that call in Hawaii either begin/end in Vancouver when they are doing a trans-Pacific cruise which are not impacted by PVSA because the cruise ends or begins in a foreign port. There are some cruises that originate in California that go to Hawaii, these are closed loops and usually call in Ensenada during the voyage.

 

Before NCL had a US flagged ship they would have to sail to Kiribati to satisfy the PVSA.

[VibeGuy]

Closed loop/circle cruises that don't actually result in a net move of the passenger across an entire voyage, simply have to call at *any* foreign port; it does not have to be distant.

 

There used to be "cruises to nowhere" that were a closed loop and called at zero ports during the journey; these were eliminated a year or two ago when Homeland Security started taking a very specific interpretation of visa validity for mariners after a lawsuit brought by Genting over Bimini Superfast operations. The specific conceit that allows Seattle R/T sailings to call at US ports is that the loop is "via" Victoria, and thus the ship has left the US - therefore a visa that allows mariners to enter and depart the US with the ship is valid, as they have actually departed. In closed loop cruises with no foreign port calls, they haven't departed.

[brian1]

Hi,I thought that was the case,but the fcc girl on the Star thought otherwise.By the time we got back to UK our preferred Alaska landtour was sold out,so we had to book a second choice.I wish these so called consultants would know the rules,cheers,Brian.

Hi,I forgot to add that the same girl was on the Coral when we bought our fcc.We felt like saying something but couldnt be asked,cheers,Brian.

[lstone19]

I would think that situation would be out of the purview of the PVSA and a matter for Canadian law rather than US law since it involves flights originating and ending in Canada and not the US. Or am I missing something?

 

PVSA deals with ships. I was talking about the similar rules for aviation. But while aviation rules are much more unified across countries, my Canada to Canada via the U.S. example was poor since we were discussing U.S. based rules. And while I doubt the U.S. would care in that case, Canada indeed would.

[Bibble]

Thank you for all the answers to my question!

I didn't realize that a cruise to Hawaii would stop in Ensenada, nor did i realize the difference about NCL having the ship for the closed loop Hawaii cruise.

NOR did I realize that "cruises to nowhere" have stopped (as that confused me how they were allowed...)

 

thank you!

[COMBOY]

Please inform me if this type of back to back itinerary would be acceptable, or if it would be unacceptable as per the Jones Act (even though it is not one cruise, it is two different bookings)?

 

As previously mentioned, when I spoke to Canadian Customs about the above situation/ inquiry they said there were no issues with the plan as I would be clearing Canadian Customs and entering Canada before returning to the United States."

 

This is very simple no. Vancouver is not considered a "distant" foreign port. Even though it's two separate cruises and you have to get off and on in Vancouver and clear customs Princess is still transporting you from Seattle to Los Angeles and that is against the PVSA. The closest "distance" foreign port on the Pacific side is Fanning Island in the South Pacific or Aruba, Curacao or Bonaire on the Caribbean side and none of those ports are part of your itinerary. The whole reason Princess is doing these cruises at the end of the year is to re-position the Ruby back down to Los Angeles to start Mexico cruises. Since they can't transport passenger from Seattle to LA they have to re-position the ship up to Vancouver as one cruise and Vancouver to LA as an other voyage. Unfortunately passengers can't do them as B2B due to the PVSA.

[Cuizer2]

Based on reading all of this, it now has me questioning this: I had believe that the PVSA was that a passenger couldn't board in one US City, then disembark in another US City. I've got that part.

Then now, about the "distant foreign port", and I understand why an Alaskan cruise stops in Victoria.

 

My question - doing a round trip Seattle to Alaska, where passengers are embarking and disembarking at the same port, why does that have to stop in Canada? But then how do Hawaii cruises work? without a distant foreign port?

 

No dog in the fight, just a curiosity that I've thought about for quite some time...

 

A foreign flagged ship leaving and returning to the same US port must make at least one stop in ANY foreign port. It does not have to be a "distant" foreign port. There are no distant foreign ports in North or Central America.

 

There are different types of Hawaiian cruises. Round trip cruises, such as described above only need to stop in a foreign port, typically either Vancouver or Victoria if the Hawaiian cruise left from Seattle or Ensenada if the Hawaiian cruise left from Los Angeles or San Diego.

 

If the cruise leaves from a foreign port (for example Ensenada or Vancouver) then it can stop in Hawaii and disembark passengers who can either fly home, take a different ship home, or if they are strong swimmers, swim home. The same applies if the ship leaves from Hawaii then the passengers have to disembark in either Ensenada or Vancouver and drive home.

 

Finally, if the ship leaves from Ensenada or Vancouver and visits Hawaii, it can then return to any US mainland port to disembark its passengers since the voyage began in a foreign port (so the ship is not transporting passengers between two US ports).

[Cuizer2]

I've read so many of these type of threads on CC that my head is spinning. :confused: Will someone 'in the know' look at my bookings?

 

Ruby Princess - Seattle to Vancouver - Sep 29-Sep 30, 2018

NCL Bliss - Vancouver to Los Angeles - Sep 30-Oct 05, 2018

 

Just a simple yea or nay is all I'm seeking! :)

 

This is okay because no ship is transporting you from one US port to another US port.

 

Of course, if you are going from one US starboard to another US starboard, the rules are different.

[attilamom1217]

This is such an outdated law and the reason why ships stop at Victoria and Ensenada.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

 

You are confusing two different laws. The PVSA is for embarking and disembarking in two different US cities. It requires a dustant foreign port -- cannot be Canada or Mexico or most if the Caribbean nor Central America. Can be ABC islands or South America.

 

You are referring to a law that requires all non-American flagged ships to visit a foreign port for all cruises - including those that start and end at the same US port. A cruise going round trip from LA to Hawaii and back to LA must visit Mexico; thus the stop at Ensenada.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[SoCalTraveler]

I find the posters interesting who show up here when this topic reappears (as it does with regularity) and announce that the Jones Act or the PSVA are "outdated." The concepts behind these laws were enacted in the first Congress, and kept by multiple Congresses since then. Other than some folks in Hawaii, there appears to be no public or political support to allow foreign flagged carriers to transport goods or passengers between two U S ports. However, there are always posters who, once they learn they can't sail on a cruise ship from Seattle to Los Angeles (for lack of stopping in a distant foreign port) decide that the law ought to be tossed out to suit their personal convenience. These laws have been around a long time, have a rational purpose (even if it inconveniences you), and face no organized American opposition. Oh, to be sure, repeal them and you will find foreign flagged carriers hauling goods on the Great Lakes, or Ryan Air flying the LA to San Francisco route. At the same time, you'll find foreign protectionist sentiment keeping American carriers from competing overseas.

[Cuizer2]

I find the posters interesting who show up here when this topic reappears (as it does with regularity) and announce that the Jones Act or the PSVA are "outdated." The concepts behind these laws were enacted in the first Congress, and kept by multiple Congresses since then. Other than some folks in Hawaii, there appears to be no public or political support to allow foreign flagged carriers to transport goods or passengers between two U S ports. However, there are always posters who, once they learn they can't sail on a cruise ship from Seattle to Los Angeles (for lack of stopping in a distant foreign port) decide that the law ought to be tossed out to suit their personal convenience. These laws have been around a long time, have a rational purpose (even if it inconveniences you), and face no organized American opposition. Oh, to be sure, repeal them and you will find foreign flagged carriers hauling goods on the Great Lakes, or Ryan Air flying the LA to San Francisco route. At the same time, you'll find foreign protectionist sentiment keeping American carriers from competing overseas.

 

All almost true. Repealing the PVSA will not affect cargo ships (repealing the PSVA will not have any effect on any ships). And while there is a real US merchant marine, the US passenger ship fleet is not quite as big and more or less exists in niche markets. This is why, rightly or wrongly, many people think the PVSA is outdated.

 

However, it should be pointed out that even the cruise lines (Carnival, Disney, Royal Caribbean, NCL, Princess, HAL and others) have made no attempt to change or scuttle the PVSA. The only attempt I am aware of, to change the PVSA, was made by NCL America (and a few friends). NCL America attempted to strengthen (not weaken) the PCSA. That move was opposed by coastal states that were concerned the changes would hurt their own ports. In the end nothing happened because the supporters of the change did not go about it in the right way. Apparently, after seeing the opposition, there was no stomach to make another attempt by going about it the right way.

 

However, based on the actions of the supporters of proposed changes, it appears that any attempt to weaken the PVSA would be met by a fairly strong resistance. However, I doubt that there would be any resistance to weakening the PSVA, even though any attempt to do so would likely fail based on technical problems.

[chengkp75]

You are confusing two different laws. The PVSA is for embarking and disembarking in two different US cities. It requires a dustant foreign port -- cannot be Canada or Mexico or most if the Caribbean nor Central America. Can be ABC islands or South America.

 

You are referring to a law that requires all non-American flagged ships to visit a foreign port for all cruises - including those that start and end at the same US port. A cruise going round trip from LA to Hawaii and back to LA must visit Mexico; thus the stop at Ensenada.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

They are not two different laws. The PVSA reserves "coastwise" transportation of passengers between US ports to US flag ships. Without a call at a foreign port, the voyage is by definition "coastwise", and therefore regulated by the PVSA. The ability of cruise ships to do closed loop cruises with only a foreign port call is actually an amendment of the PVSA done decades ago. Just as the "cruise to nowhere" was an amendment to the PVSA since it is by definition a "coastwise" voyage. Cruises to nowhere were not stopped because of the PVSA, since it is written to specifically allow these cruises. Cruises to nowhere are still legal, but CBP has ruled that the entire crew needs B1 work visas, not C1 crew visas. C1 visas are given out to virtually anyone with a merchant mariners document, or anyone with a letter of employment from a shipping company. B1 visas require much more documentation, cost, and fiscal responsibility on the company's part, and hence they are not economical for the cruise lines to do for the occasional cruise to nowhere.

[SoCalTraveler]

I suspect the cruise lines are not pushing for change because a foreign flagged ship going solely between U S ports is likely to have to comply with state labor laws, such as minimum wage, hours, overtime, breaks, etc. That's going to affect pricing. I would guess NCL complies with Hawaiian labor laws on its ship which circles Hawaii. So it's not just business support for changing the PVSA (which I think is non-existent), but there will be price resistance from cruisers when they find that the cruise from LA to Seattle is significantly more expensive that the cruise from LA to Vancouver. Then those people will be posting here wondering why we don't repeal those "outmoded" laws.

[chengkp75]

I suspect the cruise lines are not pushing for change because a foreign flagged ship going solely between U S ports is likely to have to comply with state labor laws, such as minimum wage, hours, overtime, breaks, etc. That's going to affect pricing. I would guess NCL complies with Hawaiian labor laws on its ship which circles Hawaii. So it's not just business support for changing the PVSA (which I think is non-existent), but there will be price resistance from cruisers when they find that the cruise from LA to Seattle is significantly more expensive that the cruise from LA to Vancouver. Then those people will be posting here wondering why we don't repeal those "outmoded" laws.

 

NCL's Pride of America is US owned (a subidiary of NCL, which is a foreign corporation), US flagged, and US crewed, so yes, it meets all state and federal laws with regards to things like OSHA, taxes, labor laws, etc, etc. CLIA has stated that their member cruise lines have no interest in changing the PVSA, since it would have very little effect on their bottom line, while possibly incurring additional restrictions. It took lobbying for 20 years to get the exemption for one way cruises to Puerto Rico, and only Carnival stepped up to create one way itineraries, and those have stopped due to low bookings.

[Shmoo here]

NCL's Pride of America is US owned (a subidiary of NCL, which is a foreign corporation), US flagged, and US crewed, so yes, it meets all state and federal laws with regards to things like OSHA, taxes, labor laws, etc, etc. CLIA has stated that their member cruise lines have no interest in changing the PVSA, since it would have very little effect on their bottom line, while possibly incurring additional restrictions. It took lobbying for 20 years to get the exemption for one way cruises to Puerto Rico, and only Carnival stepped up to create one way itineraries, and those have stopped due to low bookings.

Disney has started doing a few one way itineraries from San Juan.

[Sea Turtle]

Thank you, Pierlesscruisers and Cuizer2! This thread out of all the countless others I hit made the most sense. I appreciate you confirming what I believed to be okay for my journey.

 

Enjoy the day. :cool:

[Bibble]

Thank you, Pierlesscruisers and Cuizer2! This thread out of all the countless others I hit made the most sense. I appreciate you confirming what I believed to be okay for my journey.

 

Enjoy the day. :cool:

 

Me too!

[Pierlesscruisers]

Me too!

 

Thank you, Pierlesscruisers and Cuizer2! This thread out of all the countless others I hit made the most sense. I appreciate you confirming what I believed to be okay for my journey.

 

Enjoy the day. :cool:

 

You're both quite welcome. You can repay me by having a great time on your cruise! Try not to behave yourselves! ;p

 

Tom

[brian1]

This is okay because no ship is transporting you from one US port to another US port.

 

Of course, if you are going from one US starboard to another US starboard, the rules are different.

Hi,excuse my ignorance,what is a US starboard?Cheers,Brian.