Jones Act; QM2; Congress:

[jukeboxy]

Jones Act; QM2; Congress:

 

Those to me are the main issues in the messy little thing with the QM2.

To my country boy thinking the Jones act is a major problem in the way this has all come about. The cruise started in a US port and FLL is the next stop. Even though it was unscheduled it did not have a non-U.S. port between so passengers could not be permitted to offload. So the ship is forced to continue with the passengers on board just as they were when the ship left NY.

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the law only that it does affect decisions made by cruise lines about iteneries. I do have the impression the law was enacted to help encourage cruising and the use of American ports. If that was the purpose that has been fulfilled and it would be hard to reverse the trend in cruising if the law was changed. If the law was changed it would open new iteneries that could inclulde all US ports coast cruises. I think it tends to stiffel the industry more than help it in this day and age.

So I would recomend that Congress study the Jones act and how it affects the cruise industry. At the same time they could add provisions that would assist in the industry compliance with our ADA laws and with the way the industry needs to deal with post 911. If Congress can waste time and money on the G Smith thingy and ship safety to grab headlines then maybe they could try to perform some useful function.

Bottom line is I regret that some people missed some ports on their cruise but I envy them the 9 days on the QM-2 being wined and dinned. I guess the money you spend on a cruise in no way denotes the class you can display when there is a hickup or speedbump to deal with.

Every one here turn your attention to Congress to avoid this type of thing in the future.

[smeyer418]

The Jones Act(actually the passenger services act) applies to all ships, including cargo etc., It has nothing to do with the fact it didn't have a shop at some foreign port(unless it was a distant foreign port), any ship leaving from any US port must stop at at least one foreign port and return to the same port unless it goes to a distant foreign port then it can come back to any US port. Distant foreign port is defined somewhere but suffice it to say its not Canada, Bermuda, Mexico or most of the Carribean...except of course a cruise to nowhere. They could have been left off and all there would have been is a fine. They could have stopped in the Bahamas and left them off, there are a million acceptable things that could have been done. You can get off in any foreign port. Should this be changed...probably but not because of the QM 2...There is a procedure for remitting the fine for an emergency. Most sick relatives qualify...but it has to be a close relative. Most other foreign countries have the same restriction within their own waters and these same rules apply to airlines. Its why foreign air carriers don't carry passengers withing the US. So if its good enough for the cruiselines you'll be flying china air between Boston and NY.

[noblepa]

I've sailed on Carnival a couple of times. They have a guarantee that states that, if you notify the front desk, they will let you off at the first non-US port and fly you home and pro-rate your cruise fare. If you insist on disembarking at a US port, they will comply, but the passenger must pay the $200 per person fine that will be imposed for violation of the Jones Act. So, Cunard could very well have let passengers get off in FLL.I imagine that people are ticked off because Cunard did not voluntarily offer this option. If someone had shown up at the gangway with their luggage, I seriously doubt that Cunard would have had ship's security forcibly prevent them from disembarking. To do THAT would have indeed been kidnapping.At that point, though, Cunard would have been within their rights to tell the passenger that, not only was their fare NOT going to be pro-rated, but that an additional $200 pp charge would be put on their credit card. But Cunard could not have physically prevented a determined passenger from leaving the ship.Cunard would also have been under no obligation to assist the passenger in arranging travel home from FLL.Paul Noble

[dougnewmanatsea]

Oh no, another cabotage thread... Someone please stop me from feeling compelled to reply to these ;) !

 

First, the Jones Act and the Passenger Services Act. These are not the same thing. They are two separate laws that set out basically the same requirements but the Passenger Services Act is concerned with carrying passengers while the Jones Act is concerned with carrying anything else. Since this is a forum about cruising, I will concern myself with the PSA from now on.

 

The PSA dates from 1886. It was not designed to help the cruise industry, or hurt the cruise industry, or have anything whatsoever to do with the cruise industry as there was no cruise industry in 1886. In 1886, the maritime industry existed strictly for transport purposes... Like the airline industry today. Keep in mind that this is the same year in which the automobile was invented. Powered flight was nearly 20 years away. On the oceans, virtually everything except for passengers and mail still moves by sail. The pinnacle of transportation technology is represented by steam locomotives and steamships.

 

The PSA was ostensibly passed to protect the transport infrastructure of the United States and also (though this was probably never admitted) to protect US tax revenue. It stipulates that ships trading between US ports be not only registered in the US but that they be built in a US shipyard, owned by US citizens, and manned by US citizens or legal residents. A ship which does not fullfill these requirements - even a US-flagged ship has two options:

 

If it is operating a round-trip voyage from one US port and returning to the same port, it must call at a foreign port at some point during its voyage. (There is an exception for "cruises to nowhere" which I won't get into here.)

 

If it is operating a one-way voyage between two US ports, it must, at some point during this voyage, call at a "distant foreign port" - this excludes ports in Canada, Mexico, Central America or most of the Caribbean. (As I recall, the nearest foreign ports to be "distant" to the US are the "ABC" islands just off the northern coast of South America.)

 

QM2 is a foreign-flag ship, and so it is illegal for passengers to board her at New York and then disembark at Ft. Lauderdale without any intermediate stops. Ergo, Cunard could not allow passengers to disembark at Ft. Lauderdale. If they did, they would have to pay a $200 fine for each passenger who disembarked. It has been suggested that they should have allowed passengers who wanted to disembark at Ft. Lauderdale to do so, provided the passengers payed Cunard $200 each to cover the fine. There have certainly been instances in which other lines have permitted this to occur. I can't say why Cunard didn't; perhaps they didn't want to break the law. Either way, that's the reason they didn't.

 

As for whether the Passenger Services Act should be changed... I'll leave that political debate for another time. Personally I think some elements of it should be changed, but it should not be eliminated altogether. Others of course have different views.

[Osidegrl]

Well, I am not sure who paid the fine...but the day before the ship left Port Everglades in Ft Lauderdale (again) a (Florida) TV news broadcast had an interview with a passenger that said he and his wife were leaving the ship as he did not feel comfortable sailing when the ship had not been completely repaired.

[jukeboxy]

Doug, I didn't say I had facts just opinions. After all I am a cruise criticer and don't need facts or brains to express my opinion.

I will say thanks for the facts as you understand them I have been enlightened. I don't know which law was involved but I do feel that it requires to be overhauled in the moderen world. It won't hurt for Congress to try to earn their graft by doing some honest work.

 

QM2 is a foreign-flag ship, and so it is illegal for passengers to board her at New York and then disembark at Ft. Lauderdale without any intermediate stops. Ergo, Cunard could not allow passengers to disembark at Ft. Lauderdale. If they did, they would have to pay a $200 fine for each passenger who disembarked. It has been suggested that they should have allowed passengers who wanted to disembark at Ft. Lauderdale to do so, provided the passengers payed Cunard $200 each to cover the fine. There have certainly been instances in which other lines have permitted this to occur. I can't say why Cunard didn't; perhaps they didn't want to break the law. Either way, that's the reason they didn't.

 

That is the part I was trying to get at