Jones Act violation??

[ziggyuk]

Are we saying that the OP would be OK if they were booked as two separate trips?
I mean, they settle the bill and disembark then go through security and reebark in a completely different stateroom.

 

If so, is this not possible, could the OP just cancel one part of the B2B and rebook it as a completely different booking. 

[Waquoit]

How is NCL not on top of this? Why is all the risk on the customer?

[Paul Bogle]

8 minutes ago, ziggyuk said:

Are we saying that the OP would be OK if they were booked as two separate trips?
I mean, they settle the bill and disembark then go through security and reebark in a completely different stateroom.

 

If so, is this not possible, could the OP just cancel one part of the B2B and rebook it as a completely different booking. 

 

The PVSA doesn't concern itself with the booking arrangements made by the shipping company. It concerns itself with where the passenger first embarks the ship and where the passenger permanently disembarks the ship. The reason for this is to avoid creating loopholes which the shipping company could use to circumvent the law.

[Paul Bogle]

3 minutes ago, Waquoit said:

How is NCL not on top of this? Why is all the risk on the customer?

 

I agree it's bad form on the part of NCL and seems to me it should be easier to avoid. 

Unfortunately the customer bares the risk because the customer agrees to pay all fines associated with a violation when they agree to NCL's contract of carriage. NCL is responsible to not provide such cruises but the penalty ultimately falls on the passenger.

[chengkp75]

1 hour 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.

 

1 hour ago, Paul Bogle said:

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

And, yet, when you talk about the PVSA, it is not simply about blue water cruise lines.  Until there is a change in the definition of a passenger vessel, at the international level via the IMO, because you are dealing with international law, then a water taxi is just as much a passenger vessel as the Oasis of the Seas, and the PVSA applies to both equally.

[chengkp75]

20 minutes ago, ziggyuk said:

Are we saying that the OP would be OK if they were booked as two separate trips?
I mean, they settle the bill and disembark then go through security and reebark in a completely different stateroom.

 

If so, is this not possible, could the OP just cancel one part of the B2B and rebook it as a completely different booking. 

No, if the second cruise leaves on the same day as the first cruise ends, then they are considered to be the same voyage, and the passenger has not "permanently" disembarked, especially since B2B passengers do not take their luggage off the ship between cruises.

12 minutes ago, Waquoit said:

How is NCL not on top of this? Why is all the risk on the customer?

NCL is on top of it, just not the CSR's who take the bookings.  B2B bookings go to a compliance department which checks for PVSA violations, and then notifies the passenger.  And NCL's process is no different than any other cruise line's PVSA compliance.

Edited May 25, 2020 by chengkp75

[Paul Bogle]

10 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

And, yet, when you talk about the PVSA, it is not simply about blue water cruise lines.  Until there is a change in the definition of a passenger vessel, at the international level via the IMO, because you are dealing with international law, then a water taxi is just as much a passenger vessel as the Oasis of the Seas, and the PVSA applies to both equally.

 

All G20 nations have laws similar to the USA's PVSA. Does any other G20 nation define a compliant vessel as meeting all four of the following:

 

1) Domestically Built

2) Domestically Owned

3) Predominantly Domestically Crewed

4) Domestically Flagged

 

Other than the USA, none that I am aware of.

 

I think we can amend the PVSA to make blue water voyages more rational without damaging dinner cruises  and water taxis.

I think we can allow the operators of dinner cruises and water taxis to purchase ships made in the USA or abroad without risking the health or safety of their passengers.

 

You imply that the PVSA is a Jenga tower that will collapse if just one block is moved. I do not believe that to be true.

[Newleno]

16 minutes ago, Paul Bogle said:

You imply that the PVSA is a Jenga tower that will collapse if just one block is moved. I do not believe that to be true.

Jenga beautiful beaches especially on the north end.

[chengkp75]

30 minutes ago, Paul Bogle said:

 

All G20 nations have laws similar to the USA's PVSA. Does any other G20 nation define a compliant vessel as meeting all four of the following:

 

1) Domestically Built

2) Domestically Owned

3) Predominantly Domestically Crewed

4) Domestically Flagged

 

Other than the USA, none that I am aware of.5

 

I think we can amend the PVSA to make blue water voyages more rational without damaging dinner cruises  and water taxis.

I think we can allow the operators of dinner cruises and water taxis to purchase ships made in the USA or abroad without risking the health or safety of their passengers.

 

You imply that the PVSA is a Jenga tower that will collapse if just one block is moved. I do not believe that to be true.

So, you think that the cost of construction is the major financial cost to becoming PVSA compliant?  Okay, lets say we allow all foreign flag cruise ships to become PVSA compliant by waiving the construction requirement.  Then they must meet all the other requirements?  The latest Marad study showed that for a cargo ship, with a crew of about 20-30, it is 3.7 times as expensive to operate a ship as a US flag ship over a foreign flag ship.  And, that the major difference in that 370% increase in annual operating cost is the crew cost, which again for a crew of 20-30 is over 5 times as expensive as a foreign flag ship.  So, expand that to the crew of a cruise ship, and how much do you think cruise fares would have to rise to cover the additional costs?

 

While removing the build requirement of the PVSA may have merit, any amendment to the Act that removes the other requirements will open all domestic passenger vessels, those dinner cruises and water taxis you dismiss, to becoming foreign flag, and with that the lessening of domestic payroll and lessening of the USCG's authority over those vessels.  This is because a passenger vessel is any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers, regardless of how many more than 12.

[Budget Queen]

1 hour ago, ziggyuk said:

Are we saying that the OP would be OK if they were booked as two separate trips?
I mean, they settle the bill and disembark then go through security and reebark in a completely different stateroom.

 

If so, is this not possible, could the OP just cancel one part of the B2B and rebook it as a completely different booking. 

NOPE.     Unless-  it is 2 different ships.   

[Paul Bogle]

Earlier in this thread I suggested we allow foreign flagged vessels to operate where no domestic provider operates. I think that is a very good place to start. Since this all will need to be done through waivers we can set rational guidelines that protect workers' rights while providing needed services which otherwise would go unfulfilled. These ideas should apply to both the PVSA and Jones act. The specifics will require debate and give and take. The one size fits all does not work well.

 

The domestic build requirement should go without regard to the above. We do not require aircraft, trains, cars, trucks, bicycles etc. to be domestically made. Sensitive military equipment whether ships planes or tanks are built under national security laws. That should not change though specific regulations should be periodically reviewed for efficacy.

[Paul Bogle]

As far as Blue water and cruising goes, change the language from distant foreign port to foreign port and most of this problem goes away. As I understand it and I know you will correct me if I'm wrong....this provision is a relic of the original Jones act passed after the Civil War. The idea was to protect the US merchant fleet operating at home from foreign competition. That may have been prudent at that time. The distant part (meaning South America) was an intentional loophole to allow foreign ships to carry passengers and cargo between the east coast and the west coast. At that time there wasn't anything close to the domestic capacity needed to meet demand as California grew. 

 

What we really need are sunset requirement for all laws forcing them to be reviewed and updated or at least voted on again, perhaps every ten years. Our failure to do so is making our country less efficient and less competitive slowly over time.

[chengkp75]

Well, you're a little confused on the timeline.  The PVSA was passed in 1886, while the Jones Act was passed in 1920.  But, I digress.  The PVSA was passed not to protect US shipping from competition, but to put enforcement teeth into the Steamboat Acts of 1838 and 1852, passed when steamboats were catching fire and exploding all across the US, in harbors and rivers.  These acts placed safety measures on ships in the US that would prevent fires and save lives, like requiring life jackets and renewing fire hoses every so often.  However, to avoid the cost of the safety measures and inspections, the steamboat owners reflagged their ships to foreign countries, and the fires and explosions went on.  Then the Steamboat Act of 1871 created the Steamboat Inspection Service, which is the direct predecessor of today's USCG Marine Inspection Service (those USCG officers you see inspecting the cruise ships).  The PVSA finally required that all coastwise passenger ships be US flag in order to make them comply with the safety requirements of the various Steamboat Acts, and place them under the jurisdiction of the Inspection Service.  So, the PVSA is all about passenger safety, and continues to do this to this day by requiring US flag passenger vessels to meet the more stringent USCG regulations than the USCG can impose on foreign flag ships.

 

Now, the Jones Act was passed to protect the interests of US shipowners, not the labor or shipbuilding industry as many claim.  It was sponsored by Senator Jones from Washington State, where the Seattle ship owners were complaining that the lucrative trade to Alaska was being taken away by Canadian shipping.  However, it encompasses much more than the trade to Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, it also covers all harbor traffic and all river and Great Lake traffic.

 

Both the PVSA and the Jones Act have been amended in the past, but you have to realize that CLIA, who is the main party of interest in revising the PVSA are not interested, as they see no potential benefit to their bottom line.

[Aladdin22]

2 hours ago, Waquoit said:

How is NCL not on top of this? Why is all the risk on the customer?

I’m shocked it’s taken them all this time. Booked it nearly four months ago and we’ve now got the financial burden of cancelling flights, hotels etc. especially as they admit it’s their system error! 

[chengkp75]

43 minutes ago, Paul Bogle said:

Earlier in this thread I suggested we allow foreign flagged vessels to operate where no domestic provider operates. I think that is a very good place to start. Since this all will need to be done through waivers we can set rational guidelines that protect workers' rights while providing needed services which otherwise would go unfulfilled.

Again, "waivers" which are executive decisions to waive a fine, after a violation has occurred, is different from an "exemption" which would allow a foreign flag ship to cruise a particular route.  What "guidelines" to protect worker's rights would you propose?  And how would you answer a court challenge from the Alaska Marine Highway from saying, well we'll just stop service and go out of business, thereby stopping US service on the route, and now we can start up a new company and file for a PVSA exemption and use foreign crew, and not pay US corporate taxes.  Not sure what jurisdiction any US law regarding "worker's rights" would have on a foreign flag ship, since there wouldn't be any.  As part of the STCW convention, and other international treaties and conventions (SOLAS, MARPOL, MLC, UNCLOS), the US has agreed that they cannot enforce a more stringent requirement on any other nation's ships than what is included in those treaties and conventions.

[chengkp75]

6 minutes ago, Aladdin22 said:

I’m shocked it’s taken them all this time. Booked it nearly four months ago and we’ve now got the financial burden of cancelling flights, hotels etc. especially as they admit it’s their system error! 

Probably because they are involved with refunding millions of dollars of cruise payments, and the compliance department is being used to make sure that repayments and refunds meet all applicable laws.

[Aladdin22]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

Probably because they are involved with refunding millions of dollars of cruise payments, and the compliance department is being used to make sure that repayments and refunds meet all applicable laws.

They weren’t when I booked it, after speaking to three different agents about it! 

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Aladdin22 said:

They weren’t when I booked it, after speaking to three different agents about it! 

But it usually takes a couple of months for compliance review, even at the best of times.

[dexddd]

16 hours ago, Aladdin22 said:

They weren’t when I booked it, after speaking to three different agents about it! 

As I posted earlier, this was happening 11 years ago.  Excuses about refunds being a factor is just that, excuses and guessing.

[Quilting_Cruiser]

On 5/25/2020 at 5:36 AM, sanger727 said:

 

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. 

 

Actually, some airlines are relaxing their refund policies due to Covid-19. I had non-refundable airfare for a trip later this summer and just received a full refund from Alaska Airlines. 😁

Edited May 26, 2020 by Quilting_Cruiser

[Aladdin22]

54 minutes ago, Quilting_Cruiser said:

 

Actually, some airlines are relaxing their refund policies due to Covid-19. I had non-refundable airfare for a trip later this summer and just received a full refund from Alaska Airlines. 😁

Yes, you’re right. I’m ‘lucky’ that the airline have relaxed their rules due to COVID 19, so I’m able to change flights until September 2022 which is very good. Have also been able to cancel hotels booked either side of cruise.  We’re holding off booking anything until 2021.

[Quilting_Cruiser]

15 minutes ago, Aladdin22 said:

Yes, you’re right. I’m ‘lucky’ that the airline have relaxed their rules due to COVID 19, so I’m able to change flights until September 2022 which is very good. Have also been able to cancel hotels booked either side of cruise.  We’re holding off booking anything until 2021.

That’s great! I’m glad it worked out for you. I just booked a few weeks ago for 2021. I’ll re-evaluate as we approach final payment and make a decision then.

[Aladdin22]

2 hours ago, Quilting_Cruiser said:

That’s great! I’m glad it worked out for you. I just booked a few weeks ago for 2021. I’ll re-evaluate as we approach final payment and make a decision then.

Thank you

[don't-use-real-name]

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2020 at 11:27 AM, ziggyuk said:

Are we saying that the OP would be OK if they were booked as two separate trips?
I mean, they settle the bill and disembark then go through security and reebark in a completely different stateroom.

 

If so, is this not possible, could the OP just cancel one part of the B2B and rebook it as a completely different booking. 

 

23 hours ago, Budget Queen said:

NOPE.     Unless-  it is 2 different ships.   

Possible way around this using the JEWEL as an example.

JEWEL sails in two week cycles - 7 days northbound and then 7 days southbound between Vancouver and Seward.

Instead of taking the B2B cruise that connects on the same day with the Vancouver Hawaii leg - take the segment

two weeks earlier creating a BREAK in chain of travel - but this entails additional expenses for that two week period.

Alternate to this take another cruise line - or - as what appears to be any other than the connection on the same day

as the cruise from Vancouver to Hawaii - create a distinct break in travel.

 

The JEWEL does an annual Repositioning cruise in the autumn from Alaska Canada Hawaii and down under to

Australia and New Zealand - in the spring the reverse of this - although this may change with the virus thing

mixing things up and cruises starting later on this year.