Jump to content

Am I Violating the Jones Act?


gerelmx
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, If only said:

At the time the cruise ended in Vancouver & Celebrity was adamant that it violated the 100yr old Jones Act.  We dealt directly with Celebrity & it was useless. 

 

Sounds like somebody at X thought Vancouver was in the US.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

It is rare for a SCHEDULED cruise to be impacted by any cabotage law from any country, since the cruise lines won't schedule a cruise that violates the law. It is only when passengers combine cruises, that potential violations happen.

There was a recent thread where someone wanted to cruise from Quebec and get off early in Halifax, and was denied because of the Coasting Trading Act.

Is there a reason other than historical that the PVSA includes cruise ships?  Has any attempt been made to change the law at all?  Has the cruise industry lobbied for an exclusion or a change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been following this discussion with some chuckles about 'where' the port is....

 

Just to educate you on the reason this 'is and can' be an issue for the OP and other passengers in a similar situation is, there is a section of the port which is considered to be U.S. territory and as such, one must 'technically' enter the U.S. to get into the port, it is call U.S. Customs.

 

Same thing for airports around the world where most of us go through U.S. Customs before boarding flights back to the U.S. in many airports. These areas are considered the U.S. no matter how small or large the passage area is and everyone is subject to U.S. laws accordingly when transiting through these areas.... with the possible exception of Diplomats.

 

As such, ALL U.S. bound/departing cruises must conform to various U.S. Maritime Law's in this regard AND X is complying with the laws accordingly, or they can be fined for deliberately violating these laws.

 

From the Port of Vancouver website " All passengers embarking in Vancouver will go through screening and U.S. Customs and Border Protection as you are considered to be entering U.S. jurisdiction upon boarding the cruise ship. Please visit the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website for more information and required travel documents"

 

The only fault I see here is X's timely notification to the OP of this issue. This has happened before and discussed before but not in the recent past, that I can find.

 

Only Congress can make changes to the law(s), start there first and not to X. X will not take a bullet for a passenger who wants to do it otherwise, as I Am sure they and other cruise lines have, in error.

 

I trust a good work around will be found for the OP...

 

bon voyage

Edited by Bo1953
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bo1953 said:

Been following this discussion with some chuckles about 'where' the port is....

 

Just to educate you on the reason this 'is and can' be an issue for the OP and other passengers in a similar situation is, there is a section of the port which is considered to be U.S. territory and as such, one must 'technically' enter the U.S. to get into the port, it is call U.S. Customs.

 

Same thing for airports around the world where most of us go through U.S. Customs before boarding flights back to the U.S. in many airports. These areas are considered the U.S. no matter how small or large the passage area is and everyone is subject to U.S. laws accordingly when transiting through these areas.... with the possible exception of Diplomats.

 

As such, ALL U.S. bound/departing cruises must conform to various U.S. Maritime Law's in this regard AND X is complying with the laws accordingly, or they can be fined for deliberately violating these laws.

 

From the Port of Vancouver website " All passengers embarking in Vancouver will go through screening and U.S. Customs and Border Protection as you are considered to be entering U.S. jurisdiction upon boarding the cruise ship. Please visit the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website for more information and required travel documents"

 

Bo, are you saying that when the OP boards the first of his three cruises, in Vancouver, that he is actually boarding in a U.S. port, and so that when he disembarks in LA after the third cruise, he's really traveled between two different U.S. ports without stopping at a distant foreign port, and thus violated the PVSA?    If not, then apologies, as I've misunderstood your point and hope you'll clarify it.  But if you are, I would certainly love to get the reaction of marine regulatory experts like @chengkp75, because that sounds absurd, no offense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Turtles06 said:

 

Bo, are you saying that when the OP boards the first of his three cruises, in Vancouver, that he is actually boarding in a U.S. port, and so that when he disembarks in LA after the third cruise, he's really traveled between two different U.S. ports without stopping at a distant foreign port, and thus violated the PVSA?    If not, then apologies, as I've misunderstood your point and hope you'll clarify it.  But if you are, I would certainly love to get the reaction of marine regulatory experts like @chengkp75, because that sounds absurd, no offense. 

 

Vancouver to LA has one stop in a foreign port Victoria, BC. ,  I doubt in the B2B to Honolulu there the ship does not touch any foreign port.

Edited by gerelmx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Bo1953 said:

Been following this discussion with some chuckles about 'where' the port is....

 

Just to educate you on the reason this 'is and can' be an issue for the OP and other passengers in a similar situation is, there is a section of the port which is considered to be U.S. territory and as such, one must 'technically' enter the U.S. to get into the port, it is call U.S. Customs.

 

Same thing for airports around the world where most of us go through U.S. Customs before boarding flights back to the U.S. in many airports. These areas are considered the U.S. no matter how small or large the passage area is and everyone is subject to U.S. laws accordingly when transiting through these areas.... with the possible exception of Diplomats.

 

As such, ALL U.S. bound/departing cruises must conform to various U.S. Maritime Law's in this regard AND X is complying with the laws accordingly, or they can be fined for deliberately violating these laws.

 

From the Port of Vancouver website " All passengers embarking in Vancouver will go through screening and U.S. Customs and Border Protection as you are considered to be entering U.S. jurisdiction upon boarding the cruise ship. Please visit the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website for more information and required travel documents"

 

The only fault I see here is X's timely notification to the OP of this issue. This has happened before and discussed before but not in the recent past, that I can find.

 

Only Congress can make changes to the law(s), start there first and not to X. X will not take a bullet for a passenger who wants to do it otherwise, as I Am sure they and other cruise lines have, in error.

 

I trust a good work around will be found for the OP...

 

bon voyage

 

If you are correct in what you have stated above then every one way trip between Vancouver and LA or Alaska or Hawaii cannot be allowed.

If you are not correct then the entire trip that the OP wishes to take should be allowed as it is legal.

 

I notice that Celebrity keeps referring to this trip as violating the Jones Act and not the PVSA. I am also wondering if there is a difference in definitions between the Jones Act and the PVSA that is causing Celebrity to keep refusing to allow the trip.

 

I notice also that Celebrity Cruises President and CEO Lisa Lutoff-Perlo has not come on these Boards and offered to get this corrected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bo1953 said:

Been following this discussion with some chuckles about 'where' the port is....

 

Just to educate you on the reason this 'is and can' be an issue for the OP and other passengers in a similar situation is, there is a section of the port which is considered to be U.S. territory and as such, one must 'technically' enter the U.S. to get into the port, it is call U.S. Customs.

 

Same thing for airports around the world where most of us go through U.S. Customs before boarding flights back to the U.S. in many airports. These areas are considered the U.S. no matter how small or large the passage area is and everyone is subject to U.S. laws accordingly when transiting through these areas.... with the possible exception of Diplomats.

I am not so sure about this. Even though you are preclearing U.S. customs and immigration in Vancouver you are still within the legal jurisdiction of the host country, Canada.

Edited by bkbarrym
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, gerelmx said:

 

Vancouver to LA has one stop in a foreign port Victoria, BC. ,  I doubt in the B2B to Honolulu there the ship does not touch any foreign port.

 

But the issue is that there is no distant foreign port, which is the only thing that would make a cruise between two different U.S. ports legal.  However, that's not your issue.  Your three legs should be fine under the PVSA, as many folks have explained above.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Turtles06 said:

 

Bo, are you saying that when the OP boards the first of his three cruises, in Vancouver, that he is actually boarding in a U.S. port, and so that when he disembarks in LA after the third cruise, he's really traveled between two different U.S. ports without stopping at a distant foreign port, and thus violated the PVSA?    If not, then apologies, as I've misunderstood your point and hope you'll clarify it.  But if you are, I would certainly love to get the reaction of marine regulatory experts like @chengkp75, because that sounds absurd, no offense. 

Yes, that is what I Am made to understand from The CBP.

 

It may sound absurd, yet if that is how the U.S. Government interprets and applies the law, then that is how it is.. good, bad or in-different.

 

We can discuss how crazy it is until we are blue or pale in the face, yet the application is the application and it will take an act of congress to change it.

 

bon voyage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gerelmx said:

 

X says that I need to disembark with my bags because my luggage is considered cargo under my name.

So sorry...this has become  even more of a hassle and  more added expense..will they assist with storage..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bkbarrym said:

I am not sure about this. Even though you are preclearing Us customs and immigration in Vancouver you are still within the legal jurisdiction of the host country, Canada.

U.S. jurisdiction does not take into consideration 'host country' as the Host Country has given the U.S. the rights to enforce its' laws as it sees fit within the confines of provided 'legal' jurisdiction within its' borders.

 

I also would presume that Canada would NOT interfere in any decision made on the spot by ANY U.S. law officer within that jurisdiction as to denying entry into the U.S. e.g. boarding the ship at that port.

 

bon voyage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bkbarrym said:

I am not sure about this. Even though you are preclearing Us customs and immigration in Vancouver you are still within the legal jurisdiction of the host country, Canada.

Do you not believe that if a U.S. CPB agent denies you boarding rights to the ship that a Canadian border agent will over rule the decision and permit someone to pass through U.S. 'territory' without causing an incident? I highly doubt it.

 

bon boyage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hcat said:

So sorry...this has become  even more of a hassle and  more added expense..will they assist with storage..?

 

I will need to talk with Guest Relations onboard, to see if they can storage my bags. But the cabin must be empty, that was I told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bo1953 said:

Do you not believe that if a U.S. CPB agent denies you boarding rights to the ship that a Canadian border agent will over rule the decision and permit someone to pass through U.S. 'territory' without causing an incident? I highly doubt it.

 

bon boyage

No, not inferring that. The U.S. CPB agent can deny entry. However, the point I am making is that they are still operating within Canada and the Port of embarkation is within Canada.

Edited by bkbarrym
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bkbarrym said:

No. They can deny entry. However, the point I am making is that they are still operating within Canada and the Port of embarkation is within Canada.

With the exception of that space which Canada has 'ceded' to the U.S. for passport control and enforcement.

 

I, personally, view these areas/sections like Embassies or Consulates where the Host Country will not, unless really provoked into it, will not interfere or cross the threshold of same unless invited to do so, regardless of where they are located within the host country.

 

Same at major airports in Canada and elsewhere where customs is done before arriving in the U.S.

 

bon voyage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bo1953 said:

With the exception of that space which Canada has 'ceded' to the U.S. for passport control and enforcement.

 

I, personally, view these areas/sections like Embassies or Consulates where the Host Country will not, unless really provoked into it, will not interfere or cross the threshold of same unless invited to do so, regardless of where they are located within the host country.

 

Same at major airports in Canada and elsewhere where customs is done before arriving in the U.S.

 

bon voyage

Still, if the airplane or in this case, ship has not departed it is still within the jurisdiction of the host country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Bo1953 said:

Yes, that is what I Am made to understand from The CBP.

 

I think you are confusing a specific physical area in a foreign country that may be considered within the "jurisdiction" of the CBP for U.S. border control purposes, and embarkation from a foreign port on a ship as that term is used within an entirely different regulatory regime, that of the PVSA.  

 

As others have said, if embarking in Vancouver means you are really embarking a domestic U.S. port (it sounds absurd just to say that), then one-way cruises between Vancouver and Alaska, and Vancouver and L.A., which cruise lines do operate, would violate the PVSA, unless they stopped at a distant foreign port, and I don't believe those cruises do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If @Bo1953is correct in saying Vancouver would be considered a US port because of the US Customs area, then it would seem that all of the three legs on their own would violate the PVSA.  All travel from one "US port" to a different "US port".  None go to a distant foreign port. So why aren't these illegal too?  Celebrity can't have it both ways.

  • 1st Leg Sept 22 Vancouver to Honolulu
  • 2nd Leg Oct 3 Honolulu to Vancouver
  • 3rd Leg Oct 13 Vancouver to Los Angeles
Edited by Jersey42
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently it's impossible to actually start a cruise from Canada if  you depart from Vancouver????

 

I have to agree with Jersey42.....there's something missing here......

 

I wonder if getting off and going through customs in Vancouver on the Honolulu to Vancouver cruise...putting the luggage in Canada....and then checking in to the Vancouver Los Angeles cruise would solve the problem.  (PITA for the OP...but doable).

 

Edited by ghstudio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Is there a reason other than historical that the PVSA includes cruise ships?  Has any attempt been made to change the law at all?  Has the cruise industry lobbied for an exclusion or a change?

The reason is that it is the Passenger Vessel act, and the international definition of a passenger vessel is any vessel that carries more than 12 people, for hire. Exempting cruise ships from this definition while still enforcing it on other passenger vessels would not stand up to a court challenge.  The cruise lines and Puerto Rico lobbied for 10 years to get an exemption for PR, and only Carnival actually started service, which folded after a couple of years due to poor sales. CLIA has stated that none of its members have any interest in repealing or modifying the act, as they see no benefit to the bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...