Why Not Suspend the Jones Act

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, CruiserBruce said:

I imagine those ferries are flagged in the US, so the PVSA doesn't apply.

Since they are flagged in the US, the PVSA protects them from foreign competition, so it does apply.

[pilot]

 
 
PVSA also applies to passenger aircraft and is what   stops  Air France, Al Italia, British Air et al from co mpeting with U.S.carriers for U.S. domestic routes.  Foreign aircraft cannot carry pax   from one  U.S. locale directly to another U.S. city.     No picking up pax in Boston, flying directly to NYC , for  example without a stop in an out of U.S. location.
 
 
 
 
sail.noordam@gmail.com

I don’t believe the PVSA has anything to do with airlines.

International airlines operate under negotiated Freedom of the Air rights.


Sent from my iPad using Forums

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, iancal said:

I think that there is an obvious world of difference between taking a few hour commuter ferry ride and a multi day  cruise. 

While this may be true in your perceptions, in a legal sense, i.e. the definition of a passenger vessel, there is no difference between the Oasis of the Seas and the Red and White Fleet in San Francisco, or the San Francisco Water Taxis.

2 hours ago, rafinmd said:

 

Not necessarily.  I've been on the Kennicott for 5 days (Bellingham to Whittier) and could have continued 2 more days to Homer.

 

Roy

As Paul says, that route is now shut down due to the "overnight" itinerary.

[chengkp75]

23 minutes ago, npcl said:

I suspect that since Hawaii is currently requiring 14 day quarantine for travel between islands, and since passengers can not come from outside Hawaii to catch a cruise it does not much matter if the CDC restricted it or not, because the state would not allow it.

 

To be honest I am not at all certain that the CDC restriction would apply to that ship because it is strictly inside the state. So do not know if it is:

 

1. the CDC declaration

2. the governors restrictions inside the state preventing travel between islands.

3. The cruiselines own suspension since no one can get to the ship to cruise even if 1 or 2 did not apply 

Well, since the navigable waters of the US are under federal jurisdiction (even rivers like the Mississippi as far up as Coon Rapids, Minnesota), and since the state jurisdiction only goes out 3 nautical miles, you are in fact leaving the state each time the POA leaves port (the bridge notifies the purser's office when we get to the 3 mile limit, to reprogram the POS registers to no longer add state tax), and entering federal jurisdiction out to 12 nm, and then back into the state.

[sail7seas]

11 minutes ago, pilot said:

ly

 

 

You likely know better  t han I do

 

The subject is not of enough interest  for me to bother researching,  I was that  info by 

[pilot]

4 minutes ago, sail7seas said:

 

 

You likely know better  t han I do

 

The subject is not of enough interest  for me to bother researching,  I was that  info by 

Your answer confused me?  You said  "The subject is not of enough interest  for me to bother researching".  My question is...then

why did you feel the need to post "PVSA also applies to passenger aircraft" if you didn't know if that is correct or not?

 

 

[richwmn]

1 hour ago, pilot said:

Your answer confused me?  You said  "The subject is not of enough interest  for me to bother researching".  My question is...then

why did you feel the need to post "PVSA also applies to passenger aircraft" if you didn't know if that is correct or not?

 

 

Quite often people will post something that they believe to be true because it came from a trusted source. When a known expert contradicts the information, it is customary to change your opinion, but maybe research it more.

As a case in point, I had been told in the past by someone I regarded highly that the PVSA applied to Airlines as well.

Now I know better and will not repeat the assertion.

On the other hand, during a CC M&G a ships officer mentioned the Jones Act meaning PVSA. When I questioned him about it he said he knew the difference but since most people call it the Jones Act it was easier to refer to it that way.

[Shmoo here]

Just now, richwmn said:

he said he knew the difference but since most people call it the Jones Act it was easier to refer to it that way.

One reason that the confusion remains.   

[npcl]

1 hour ago, richwmn said:

Quite often people will post something that they believe to be true because it came from a trusted source. When a known expert contradicts the information, it is customary to change your opinion, but maybe research it more.

As a case in point, I had been told in the past by someone I regarded highly that the PVSA applied to Airlines as well.

Now I know better and will not repeat the assertion.

On the other hand, during a CC M&G a ships officer mentioned the Jones Act meaning PVSA. When I questioned him about it he said he knew the difference but since most people call it the Jones Act it was easier to refer to it that way.

I was on a ship once and the future cruise sales rep stated that the reason why ships stopped at Victory was to avoid paying US task.  He got very hostile when after his presentation I mentioned that it was because of PVSA, until the ships admin officer who was standing nearby stepped in and told him he was incorrect.

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

It is not done by the US government.  A PVSA fine is levied against the cruise line for the violation.  It is only the cruise line's ticket contract that gives the line permission to pass the fine on to the passenger.  I know NCL would inform the spouse about applying for the waiver, and provide the necessary documentation, but I can't speak for all lines.

OK, I've been thinking about this and am a little confused.

 

The cruise line (in your case NCL) is fined and then passes on the fine to the passenger. The passenger can get a waiver of the fine, and NCL will help with the documentation. So now let's say the fine is waived. Does NCL first get the fine money back and then pass it through to the passenger? Or does the passenger never reimburse the cruise line, but the waiver documentation gets the fine reimbursed to NCL from the government? Wouldn't it be easier and less cumbersome if the cruise line itself could file for the waiver and not have the fine levied in the first place?

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

OK, I've been thinking about this and am a little confused.

 

The cruise line (in your case NCL) is fined and then passes on the fine to the passenger. The passenger can get a waiver of the fine, and NCL will help with the documentation. So now let's say the fine is waived. Does NCL first get the fine money back and then pass it through to the passenger? Or does the passenger never reimburse the cruise line, but the waiver documentation gets the fine reimbursed to NCL from the government? Wouldn't it be easier and less cumbersome if the cruise line itself could file for the waiver and not have the fine levied in the first place?

Even though CBP states that they don't care about the passenger when it comes to a fine, whoever files the paperwork for the waiver will get the money.  So, the passenger gets it directly from the government.  So, the cruise line has passed the fine on almost immediately to the passenger (onboard account), while they would have to wait for the government to refund, so they don't care about dealing with it.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Even though CBP states that they don't care about the passenger when it comes to a fine, whoever files the paperwork for the waiver will get the money.  So, the passenger gets it directly from the government.  So, the cruise line has passed the fine on almost immediately to the passenger (onboard account), while they would have to wait for the government to refund, so they don't care about dealing with it.

OK, I now understand the process. It just seems a terrible thing to do to someone who has just lost a loved one.

 

I have read all the arguments for keeping the Jones Act, but would it be so hard to make one small change to make an exemption when a death occurs?

[Shmoo here]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

Jones Act

It's the PVSA we're talking about here.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Shmoo here

[npcl]

7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, since the navigable waters of the US are under federal jurisdiction (even rivers like the Mississippi as far up as Coon Rapids, Minnesota), and since the state jurisdiction only goes out 3 nautical miles, you are in fact leaving the state each time the POA leaves port (the bridge notifies the purser's office when we get to the 3 mile limit, to reprogram the POS registers to no longer add state tax), and entering federal jurisdiction out to 12 nm, and then back into the state.

Yes it is federal jurisdiction, but the power of the CDC in the case of an infectious disease exists only to prevent illness from 1. crossing state lines (when procedures instituted by local authorities are deemed insufficient) and 2. Entering the country.  So it would be an interesting court case if the CDC order would apply to a ship that does not cross between states and only sails to ports within a single state?  

 

However, it most likely will not be tested because even if the CDC order did not apply  the state ordered quarantine between the islands would stop it, if not that the lack of passengers due to the state ordered quarantine for anybody flying in.

 

Another reason that it  most likely would not  be tested is because NCLH would not want to annoy the CDC by filing to get that ship excluded.

 

But it is interesting in an academic way.

Edited April 25, 2020 by npcl