Prepare for Itinerary Change May 1 2019

[retafcruiser]

I was looking at the Regatta cruise from Miami to San Francisco on May 1 and noted that, as published, it will violate the PSVA. The ship does not stop at any distant foreign port, and as such cannot transport passengers between the 2 US ports.  I would expect the itinerary to change to include a stop in either the ABC islands or Cartagena. Be forewarned.

[neepawa]

Last time I checked a map, it showed that Havana, Colon, Panama and a number of ports in Mexico qualified as foreign ports for this cruise.

 

Cheers,

 

Don

Edited January 24, 2019 by neepawa

[sitraveler]

I'm no expert, but on last years Regatta canal voyage, we went to Cartegena for a "technical stop".  No one was allowed on or off, but we waited there for 1 hour.  I assumed this was a "distant foreign port" stop. 

Agree with the OP, but I didn't verify the route.

[retafcruiser]

12 hours ago, neepawa said:

Last time I checked a map, it showed that Havana, Colon, Panama and a number of ports in Mexico qualified as foreign ports for this cruise.

 

Cheers,

 

Don

They are NOT "distant" foreign ports.

[tunaman2011]

12 hours ago, neepawa said:

Last time I checked a map, it showed that Havana, Colon, Panama and a number of ports in Mexico qualified as foreign ports for this cruise.

 

Cheers,

 

Don

Greetings

Sorry, those ports do not qualify as foreign ports under the PVSA.

Good Sailing

Tom

[StanandJim]

47 minutes ago, tunaman2011 said:

Greetings

Sorry, those ports do not qualify as foreign ports under the PVSA.

Good Sailing

Tom

While you are correct according to the letter of the law, the PVSA was created to prevent carriage of passengers between American cities by foreign flagged vessels thus hopefully but as it turned out hopelessly benefiting the Merchant Marine of the United States.

As many Cruises as this applies to, and as antiquated as this whole process is, I have to think that there is an appeal process.  

 

[tunaman2011]

12 minutes ago, StanandJim said:

While you are correct according to the letter of the law, the PVSA was created to prevent carriage of passengers between American cities by foreign flagged vessels thus hopefully but as it turned out hopelessly benefiting the Merchant Marine of the United States.

As many Cruises as this applies to, and as antiquated as this whole process is, I have to think that there is an appeal process.  

 

Greetings

The law is a constant bother for many cruise lines.  The law, as they say, is the law.  NCL sails brand new ships from NYC to Miami without passengers because of the law.  Other lines sail from LA to Hawaii then back to Ensenada to avoid breaking the law.  Alaska cruises either start of end in Canada because of the law.  It's an old, antiquated law but the foreign flagged lines still have to abide by the law or pay the fine.  In fact, the fine was raised from $300/person to $778/person in November 2015.

Edited January 25, 2019 by tunaman2011

[ORV]

So is Ensenada a Distant Foreign Port? 

[retafcruiser]

14 minutes ago, ORV said:

So is Ensenada a Distant Foreign Port? 

No.

[ORV]

Duh, I just forgot how it works with round trip vs. city to city in the US. Round trip can visit foreign port, one city to another requires distant foreign port. 

[StanandJim]

1 hour ago, tunaman2011 said:

Greetings

The law is a constant bother for many cruise lines.  The law, as they say, is the law.  NCL sails brand new ships from NYC to Miami without passengers because of the law.  Other lines sail from LA to Hawaii then back to Ensenada to avoid breaking the law.  Alaska cruises either start of end in Canada because of the law.  It's an old, antiquated law but the foreign flagged lines still have to abide by the law or pay the fine.  In fact, the fine was raised from $300/person to $778/person in November 2015.

I agree with you regarding the Law, and I never suggested that it could be ignored because the circumstances are inconvenient.

I will suggest to you, however, because I've seen it done before, that when a ship fulfills the spirit of the law by stopping at a foreign port between the two American cities, an exception may be granted even if that port is not designated as "distant foreign".   

[tunaman2011]

1 hour ago, ORV said:

So is Ensenada a Distant Foreign Port? 

Greetings

 

It is not a "Distant foreign Port".  They disembark the passengers there and then bus them to San Diego or LA that way avoiding violations.

Good Sailing

Tom

Edited January 25, 2019 by tunaman2011

[tunaman2011]

48 minutes ago, StanandJim said:

I agree with you regarding the Law, and I never suggested that it could be ignored because the circumstances are inconvenient.

I will suggest to you, however, because I've seen it done before, that when a ship fulfills the spirit of the law by stopping at a foreign port between the two American cities, an exception may be granted even if that port is not designated as "distant foreign".   

Greetings

 

This is from the Homeland Security's publication on the Jones Act and the PVSA.

 

WAIVER AUTHORITY—46 U.S.C. § 501 National Defense The PVSA can only be waived in the interest of national defense, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 501. Under 46 U.S.C. § 501(a), the Secretary of Defense may request the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to waive the PVSA to the extent the Secretary of Defense considers such a waiver necessary in the interest of national defense. In this instance, CBP, pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Secretary of DHS shall grant the waiver. For all other waiver requests, the Secretary of DHS is authorized to grant the waiver request if the Secretary of DHS considers it necessary in the interest of national defense (46 U.S.C. § 501(b)). It should be noted that in this latter instance, P.L. 110-417, section 3510, (122 Stat. 4356, enacted on October 14, 2008), amended § 501(b), to require that the Maritime Administrator be consulted regarding the non-availability of qualified United States flag capacity to meet national defense requirements, before the Secretary of DHS grants the waiver request.

 

Here's an article lamenting about the PVSA from the LA Times.  https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-buchholz-pvsa-cruise-20170803-story.html

 

Exceptions are rare.  The fine can be appealed but a 2,000 passenger vessel equates to a $1.5M fine.  The cruise lines are risking a great deal going that route.

 

Good Sailing

Tom

[GeezerCouple]

16 hours ago, sitraveler said:

I'm no expert, but on last years Regatta canal voyage, we went to Cartegena for a "technical stop".  No one was allowed on or off, but we waited there for 1 hour.  I assumed this was a "distant foreign port" stop. 

Agree with the OP, but I didn't verify the route.

 

Is it possible they are doing something like this, but because there are no passengers getting off and it's really sort of a "technical stop", that they don't list it?  Listing the port might lead pax to think it's a "real" port of call...?

 

GC

[retafcruiser]

2 hours ago, GeezerCouple said:

 

Is it possible they are doing something like this, but because there are no passengers getting off and it's really sort of a "technical stop", that they don't list it?  Listing the port might lead pax to think it's a "real" port of call...?

 

GC

A strong possibility.

[StanandJim]

5 hours ago, tunaman2011 said:

risking a great deal going that route

Isn't that what they said about the Boston Tea Party?

 

If nobody challenges the PVSA,  there will never be a resolution.

The bureaucrats will never fix it on their own.  

Edited January 25, 2019 by StanandJim

[RJB]

1 hour ago, StanandJim said:

Isn't that what they said about the Boston Tea Party?

 

If nobody challenges the PVSA,  there will never be a resolution.

The bureaucrats will never fix it on their own.  

Sounds like it is time to change or at least amend the law to make some sense of the reality of it. 

[Shawnino]

Challenging this in an act of corporate civil disobedience risks far more than a $1.5MM fine.

It would also risk the wrath of the government at all sorts of levels.

Sure would be a shame if the next inspection took seven days instead of seven hours...

 

Yes the law should be changed--and not even for something as luxurious as a cruise. Witness Puerto Ricans waiting for Hurricane relief held up by the Jones act.

But the way to fix it isn't by embarrassing the government in Federal Court. 

[RJB]

58 minutes ago, Shawnino said:

Challenging this in an act of corporate civil disobedience risks far more than a $1.5MM fine.

It would also risk the wrath of the government at all sorts of levels.

Sure would be a shame if the next inspection took seven days instead of seven hours...

 

Yes the law should be changed--and not even for something as luxurious as a cruise. Witness Puerto Ricans waiting for Hurricane relief held up by the Jones act.

But the way to fix it isn't by embarrassing the government in Federal Court. 

Then how to do it?  

[LB_NJ]

If you want the act changed try writing to a congressman.  I don't think it will work but have fun.  None of the cruise lines would even think about purposefully violating the law.  I am positive they try to do some lobbying on the issue.

 

FYI, Carnival has an interesting web page about the law including passenger liability.

 

https://help.carnival.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/427/~/the-jones-act-%2F-passenger-services-act-%2F-cabotage-law

[StanandJim]

The real shame of this whole thread is that this Law was instituted to promote passenger ships within  the American Merchant Marine , and they are virtually nonexistent today.  

Except for the Portrait of Dorian Gray, here....  what a disgrace-

 

[LB_NJ]

13 minutes ago, StanandJim said:

The real shame of this whole thread is that this Law was instituted to promote passenger ships within  the American Merchant Marine , and they are virtually nonexistent today.  

 

I do not know about the merchant marine however there are still ships in the US that carry passengers between for example NY and NJ; between NJ and Delaware,  on and off between Maine and Canada.  I am sure there are others.  

[Charles4515]

They are not going to break the law. There will be a stop at a distant foreign port. 

[StanandJim]

6 minutes ago, LB_NJ said:

 

I do not know about the merchant marine however there are still ships in the US that carry passengers between for example NY and NJ; between NJ and Delaware,  on and off between Maine and Canada.  I am sure there are others.  

Aside from the ferries which you speak of there is ONE American flagged ship which carries passengers.  

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, StanandJim said:

The real shame of this whole thread is that this Law was instituted to promote passenger ships within  the American Merchant Marine , and they are virtually nonexistent today.  

 

 

The marine union will defend the law to the death. It is also claimed that the law also protects US security by having an all US citizen merchant marine. The cruise lines don't fight the law becsause they want to keep their ships foreign flagged to avoid US labor laws and taxes. They don't want to rock that boat. It would be very difficult to get the law changed because diverse interests support it. Who is against it, Puerto Rico and Hawaii because they pay high shipping fees because of the PSVA and Jones Act. 

Edited January 26, 2019 by Charles4515