Jones Act violation??

[martincath]

56 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

One note I would add to martincath's post about getting off early in Victoria, is that the Act requires you to "permanently disembark", so you would need to settle your bill and take all your luggage off the ship with you to make the trip to Vancouver, you could not simply get off the ship for the day.

Thanks for clarifying, as I didn't explicitly state '...you and your stuff to Vancouver,'  above. I think if you removed yourselves, but left your stuff onboard, then technically it would shift to a Jones Act violation (now goods being moved between US ports, rather than people) but it would still be unlawful ;-)

[martincath]

4 minutes ago, Aladdin22 said:

Thanks for all your replies. Very annoyed with NCL as we booked this in good faith, called twice before booking, no mention of any problem. We’ve now got non-refundable very expensive flights (not booked with NCL) we can’t use. Will NCL compensate for this? 

I doubt they'll offer to compensate much - frankly probably nothing at all based on past cases I'm familiar with. You only need to change your flights in order to keep either one of the bookings - either to Vancouver and from Hawaii, or to Anchorage and from Vancouver, instead of I assume to Anchorage and from Hawaii for your original B2B.

 

Cancelling both cruises is a personal choice, as indeed that you chose to book a non-refundable fare - so your best case might be compensating for the airline change fee. And given how much income is being lost right now, the odds of them being generous are much reduced... especially if they're losing your money for both cruises instead of just one.

 

Yes, it sucks, but given that the small print of your terms & conditions puts responsibility 100% on YOU for all compliance with travel laws, any compensation at all is being legally generous from their end regardless of the morality of it.

[Budget Queen]

24 minutes ago, Aladdin22 said:

Thanks for all your replies. Very annoyed with NCL as we booked this in good faith, called twice before booking, no mention of any problem. We’ve now got non-refundable very expensive flights (not booked with NCL) we can’t use. Will NCL compensate for this? 

Your 2 purchases are independent.  so no,  NCL is not going to do anything about your flights.    Were you flying in the day of the cruise from Anchorage?    NCL leaves on Monday.    Is there a HAL,  Princess,  Rci/Celebrity ship available?   They would all leave prior.     

 

But-  there is a good chance your cruises are going to be canceled anyway.    

 

 

 

[Quilting_Cruiser]

35 minutes ago, Aladdin22 said:

Thanks for all your replies. Very annoyed with NCL as we booked this in good faith, called twice before booking, no mention of any problem. We’ve now got non-refundable very expensive flights (not booked with NCL) we can’t use. Will NCL compensate for this? 

be sure to talk with tape airline and don’t assume that nothing can be done just because it’s no refundable. I had a nonrefundable airline ticket booked and had to cancel my plans due to Covid-19. The airline gave me a full refund for my no refundable ticket. My travel was booked for a couple months before yours, but maybe...just maybe. good luck!

 

As for cruiseline CS, sometimes it really sucks. A rep actually was adamant one time that I needed a passport to fly from Portland, Oregon to Anchorage, Alaska. As a U.S. citizen I absolutely don’t, but she was 100% certain in her convictions. LOL.

 

 

[Newleno]

Mrs. Jones, Mrs. Jones, Mrs. Jones, we got a thing going on

[steamboats]

11 hours ago, bluesea777 said:

 

I think you meant to say can not can't. You can do either cruise but not both on same ship.

 

 

Should have read "you can´t go on from Vancouver to Hawaii" (when you already come from Seward).

 

steamboats

[steamboats]

12 hours ago, don't-use-real-name said:

The OP being from the UK this itinerary may have been marketed differently !

 

No, they are not marketed differently... it´s two separate cruises... And the systems lets you book them both as B2B without a warning... Same for Royal or Celebrity...

 

steamboats

[dexddd]

The ability to book these types of trips has been going on for a long time and not just on NCL.

 

We had a 2009 Vancouver to LA booked flying into Seattle.  NCL had a one nighter Seattle to Vancouver the night before.  Several on our rollcall booked it to only get contacted by NCL mid summer for early September cruise that they could not do that.  Some ended up taking a Princess one nighter up then moved over to NCL.  Others took the train or bus up.

[don't-use-real-name]

This would be a twice a year cruise debacle with the NCL JEWEL on its last cruise

southbound from Seward to Vancouver - thence Vancouver to Honolulu - and from

there to the Australian New Zealand cruise market - all this in the autumn of the year.

In the spring the reverse.

Apparently the solution is to make the cruise legs independent of each other i.e. taking

another cruise line or air surface transportation - even so much as to take the JEWEL

two weeks earlier. Additional cruise expenses to satisfy a regulation that certainly needs

a review replacement trashing of sorts since the US does not have a cruise industry in

its own right exception the POA and some small ship non-mega maritime lines.

 

[Paul Bogle]

How about repealing the PVSA or amending it to allow foreign flagged ships to operate where PVSA qualified ships do not?

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, don't-use-real-name said:

This would be a twice a year cruise debacle with the NCL JEWEL on its last cruise

southbound from Seward to Vancouver - thence Vancouver to Honolulu - and from

there to the Australian New Zealand cruise market - all this in the autumn of the year.

In the spring the reverse.

Apparently the solution is to make the cruise legs independent of each other i.e. taking

another cruise line or air surface transportation - even so much as to take the JEWEL

two weeks earlier. Additional cruise expenses to satisfy a regulation that certainly needs

a review replacement trashing of sorts since the US does not have a cruise industry in

its own right exception the POA and some small ship non-mega maritime lines.

 

If you are talking about taking all three legs together, then it would not violate the PVSA.

 

And, once again, you look at the PVSA from the limited perspective of the cruise industry, when the act is not the Cruise Vessel Services Act.

[chengkp75]

38 minutes ago, Paul Bogle said:

How about repealing the PVSA or amending it to allow foreign flagged ships to operate where PVSA qualified ships do not?

This has been done in the past.  The cruise lines and Puerto Rico lobbied for 10 years to get an exemption for Puerto Rico.  Only one cruise line decided to start one way itineraries to/from Puerto Rico to the US mainland, Carnival, and the service only lasted a little over a year, before it folded for lack of demand.  The cruise lines see no benefit to their bottom line from an amendment or repeal of the PVSA.

[Paul Bogle]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

This has been done in the past.  The cruise lines and Puerto Rico lobbied for 10 years to get an exemption for Puerto Rico.  Only one cruise line decided to start one way itineraries to/from Puerto Rico to the US mainland, Carnival, and the service only lasted a little over a year, before it folded for lack of demand.  The cruise lines see no benefit to their bottom line from an amendment or repeal of the PVSA.

 

My understanding is that the exemption for conveying humans to and from Puerto Rico still exists as long as a PVSA qualified vessel isn't offering the service.

 

"As of October 30, 2003, foreign vessels are also allowed to transport passengers (but not cargo) between the U.S. mainland and Puerto Rico (46 USC § 55104). However, this exemption will disappear if U.S.-flagged ships resume passenger operations of this type."

 

As you noted it isn't the Cruise Vessel Services act. If no foreign or domestic provider wants to offer the service the restrictions are superfluous.

[Budget Queen]

1 hour ago, don't-use-real-name said:

 

cruise industry in

its own right exception the POA and some small ship non-mega maritime lines.

 

The POA is not any exception.   It complies fully with the policy.    

[Paul Bogle]

3 minutes ago, Budget Queen said:

The POA is not any exception.   It complies fully with the policy.    

 

And was built with substantial taxpayer subsidies.

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

This has been done in the past.  The cruise lines and Puerto Rico lobbied for 10 years to get an exemption for Puerto Rico.  Only one cruise line decided to start one way itineraries to/from Puerto Rico to the US mainland, Carnival, and the service only lasted a little over a year, before it folded for lack of demand.  The cruise lines see no benefit to their bottom line from an amendment or repeal of the PVSA.

There's no regular one way service, but there are still some one way cruises with no distant foreign port call between Puerto Rico and the US mainland. Cruise lines do it to reposition ships to and from Puerto Rico at the beginning and end of the winter cruise season. For example, I took an NCL cruise from Puerto Rico to New York a couple of years ago. The ship had been home porting in San Juan during the winter and was repositioning to a New York home port. No distant foreign ports were visited  on the cruise.

[mugtech]

RCI also has 5 day repositioning cruises to and from San Juan to NYC with a stop in Bermuda. 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Paul Bogle said:

 

And was built with substantial taxpayer subsidies.

Uh, no.  It was being built for American Hawaiian Cruise Line with US government loan guarantees.  When American Hawaiian went bankrupt, the US government was saddled with paying those loan guarantees, until NCL made the agreement to pay for the ship, and get the right to flag in two ships under US flag and get PVSA exemptions for those two ships.  There was no taxpayer subsidy to NCL for the POA.

[chengkp75]

34 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

There's no regular one way service, but there are still some one way cruises with no distant foreign port call between Puerto Rico and the US mainland. Cruise lines do it to reposition ships to and from Puerto Rico at the beginning and end of the winter cruise season. For example, I took an NCL cruise from Puerto Rico to New York a couple of years ago. The ship had been home porting in San Juan during the winter and was repositioning to a New York home port. No distant foreign ports were visited  on the cruise.

Yes, I am aware of the seasonal repo cruises that use Puerto Rico. 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Budget Queen said:

The POA is not any exception.   It complies fully with the policy.    

The POA does not fully comply with the PVSA, it does have an exemption to the build clause.  It was not fully built in the US, though it does meet the US owned, US flag, and US crew requirements.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Paul Bogle said:

 

My understanding is that the exemption for conveying humans to and from Puerto Rico still exists as long as a PVSA qualified vessel isn't offering the service.

 

"As of October 30, 2003, foreign vessels are also allowed to transport passengers (but not cargo) between the U.S. mainland and Puerto Rico (46 USC § 55104). However, this exemption will disappear if U.S.-flagged ships resume passenger operations of this type."

 

As you noted it isn't the Cruise Vessel Services act. If no foreign or domestic provider wants to offer the service the restrictions are superfluous.

You are correct, that the exemption still exists, and as njhorseman notes, it is used seasonally.  While the restrictions of the PVSA may be superfluous in Puerto Rico, they still apply to many vessels operating and carrying passengers in the US today.

[Paul Bogle]

12 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

You are correct, that the exemption still exists, and as njhorseman notes, it is used seasonally.  While the restrictions of the PVSA may be superfluous in Puerto Rico, they still apply to many vessels operating and carrying passengers in the US today.

 

Of course they still apply. They are protecting us from the risk of noncompliant ships carrying passengers from Alaska to Hawaii. Carrying them to Vancouver, kicking them off and loading up a new batch for the Hawaii runs seems to be safe. I guess one must be more experienced with the workings of maritime operations to understand why any of this is either logical or beneficial to the broad American public.

[sanger727]

On 5/23/2020 at 6:36 PM, Aladdin22 said:

Thanks for all your replies. Very annoyed with NCL as we booked this in good faith, called twice before booking, no mention of any problem. We’ve now got non-refundable very expensive flights (not booked with NCL) we can’t use. Will NCL compensate for this? 

 

Is this trip booked for Sept 2020? Almost certainly this will be cancelled by them eventually. I would hold off on making changes until it gets closer. No one is going to reimburse you for non-refundable airfare. So you can either plan to go on a cruise if it goes and just change the airfare to match. Or plan on an entirely different trip and change the airfare to match. Or call the airlines and tell them you want to  cancel due to COVID and see if they will give you a voucher. I don't know what airline you are flying with but Delta is offering vouchers for flights through the end of Sept if you want to cancel. I assume most airlines are doing the same. 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Paul Bogle said:

 

Of course they still apply. They are protecting us from the risk of noncompliant ships carrying passengers from Alaska to Hawaii. Carrying them to Vancouver, kicking them off and loading up a new batch for the Hawaii runs seems to be safe. I guess one must be more experienced with the workings of maritime operations to understand why any of this is either logical or beneficial to the broad American public.

What I am talking about are the hundreds or thousands of vessels that are PVSA compliant, and are working in the US.  Please do not look at the PVSA from the narrow perspective of the cruise industry.  PVSA applies to ferries, commuter boats, water taxis, sightseeing boats, whale watching boats, dinner cruises, casino boats, diving and snorkeling excursion boats and large charter fishing vessels.

[Paul Bogle]

15 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Uh, no.  It was being built for American Hawaiian Cruise Line with US government loan guarantees.  When American Hawaiian went bankrupt, the US government was saddled with paying those loan guarantees, until NCL made the agreement to pay for the ship, and get the right to flag in two ships under US flag and get PVSA exemptions for those two ships.  There was no taxpayer subsidy to NCL for the POA.

 

The Project America loan guarantees cost MARAD $180 million. That is 180 million taxpayer dollars to make Northrup Grumman's Ingalls Shipyard whole and make the sale of the hull and the parts for the second ship economically viable for NCL. I never claimed NCL negotiated a check from the federal government.

 

23 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

What I am talking about are the hundreds or thousands of vessels that are PVSA compliant, and are working in the US.  Please do not look at the PVSA from the narrow perspective of the cruise industry.  PVSA applies to ferries, commuter boats, water taxis, sightseeing boats, whale watching boats, dinner cruises, casino boats, diving and snorkeling excursion boats and large charter fishing vessels.

 

We are chatting on a blue water cruise line forum. Discussions in this light are eminently appropriate.