The Jones Act

[JRG]

7 hours ago, Fouremco said:

As @chengkp75 has pointed out in numerous past threads, both the Jones Act and PVSA have many international ramifications and complications, and just repealing the PVSA would potentially cause more problems than it would solve. The PVSA governs a far greater range of marine activity than just cruising.

 

That argument fell apart like a new cheap suit.   Here is why:

 

You don't need to repeal it.    As soon as you say that some posters blow their smokestack because they can't differentiate between modification and repeal.

 

Think in terms of making the necessary adjustments to the law so that the cruises from North America are not adversely affected by this steamship period law.      

 

The need to change is there and its just a matter of time before the market gets what it wants.

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by JRG

[Arizona Wildcat]

41 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

That argument fell apart like a new cheap suit.   Here is why:

 

You don't need to repeal it.    As soon as you say that some posters blow their smokestack because they can't differentiate between modification and repeal.

 

Think in terms of making the necessary adjustments to the law so that the cruises from North America are not adversely affected by this steamship period law.      

 

The need to change is there and its just a matter of time before the market gets what it wants.

 

 

 

Won't happen.  There is no need as cruising is not an essential activity.  Would ask hypothetically if you could run "cruises to nowhere" or between only US ports where would that be?

On the West Coast all ports from San Diego to Seattle have huge COVID numbers.  Same on the East Coast unless you can cruise from Maine.

What is essential is having US flagged ships to move fuel and other goods between ports.  Do we want to depend on other countries?  Not likely as There are almost 41000 Jones Act vessels with thousands of US employees.  Many of those jobs would be lost to non US workers.

[steamboats]

15 hours ago, cruisestitch said:

I think that steamboats mis-typed something.

 

the PVSA does permit port stops in the US.  

 

Yes, thanks!

 

steamboats

[NantahalaCruiser]

5 hours ago, sanger727 said:

Yes this is a rule. But it's not a foreign port stop that is required, it's a "distant" foreign port stop. Canada is not a distant foreign port. So you flat out cannot sail from Seattle to Alaska, regardless of stopping in Canada. What you can do is sail from Canada to Seattle or Canada to Alaska. Since you are no longer traveling between two US ports. You are traveling from a Canadian port to a US port.

Then you better give Celebrity a call with your expert warning since they have 18 cruises on the Solstice in 2022 round trip from Seattle to Alaska - stopping in Victoria BC.

 

Perhaps you meant to say that you cannot embark in Seattle and Disembark in an Alaskan port.

Edited January 27, 2021 by NantahalaCruiser

[Fouremco]

11 hours ago, sanger727 said:

Yes this is a rule. But it's not a foreign port stop that is required, it's a "distant" foreign port stop. Canada is not a distant foreign port. So you flat out cannot sail from Seattle to Alaska, regardless of stopping in Canada. What you can do is sail from Canada to Seattle or Canada to Alaska. Since you are no longer traveling between two US ports. You are traveling from a Canadian port to a US port.

There are different requirements with regards to a "foreign port" and a "distant foreign port". For a cruise starting and ending at the same US port, it can visit other US ports as long as the cruise also visits a "foreign port". So a Western Caribbean cruise out of Port Everglades can stop at Key West as long as it visits any of the Western Caribbean ports, none of which are considered "distant". Similarly, a Seattle RT Alaska cruise is permitted as long as it makes a stop in Canada ("foreign port").

 

Cruises that start in one US port and finish in a different US port, however, are required to stop at a "distant foreign port". Consequently, a one-way Seattle-Seward Alaskan cruise would not be permitted, even with a stop in Canada, as the latter is not "distant". On the other hand, a one-way Port Everglades-Los Angeles Panama Canal cruise is permitted as long as it stops as a "distant foreign port" such as Cartagena.

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Fouremco

[Happy Cruiser 6143]

Whatever.  I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to delve into the law.  I just want to be able to cruise happily.  I just think the requirements on port stops are stupid and hamstring the cruise industry.

[sanger727]

9 hours ago, NantahalaCruiser said:

Then you better give Celebrity a call with your expert warning since they have 18 cruises on the Solstice in 2022 round trip from Seattle to Alaska - stopping in Victoria BC.

 

Perhaps you meant to say that you cannot embark in Seattle and Disembark in an Alaskan port.

yes, that is what I meant. Thought that was what the OP was asking about. Of course you can do round trip Seattle with stops in Alaska. What you can’t do is sail from Seattle to Alaska as your cruise.

[TeeRick]

On 1/26/2021 at 11:13 AM, Fouremco said:

There are countless threads dealing with the Jones Act and the PVSA, but this Cruise Critic article provides a quick and easy to understand explanation: https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=3363

Fouremco- Thanks!  I will save this link and refer to it in another month or two or some other future time when this will be brought up as a thread topic on CC.  Just reply with the link.  Simple.  Now if we only had such links for quick replies to smoking threads, tipping threads, amenities & perks threads, and now masking and vaccine threads (I am guilty there!).😉   But if we simplified all of these common topics what else would we do here while waiting for cruising to resume?

[Fouremco]

20 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Fouremco- Thanks!  I will save this link and refer to it in another month or two or some other future time when this will be brought up as a thread topic on CC.  Just reply with the link.  Simple.  Now if we only had such links for quick replies to smoking threads, tipping threads, amenities & perks threads, and now masking and vaccine threads (I am guilty there!).😉   But if we simplified all of these common topics what else would we do here while waiting for cruising to resume?

LOL. Yup, the PVSA resurfaces like clockwork. 

 

One semi-regular topic that has gone silent for close to a year has been the use of passports versus passport cards versus EDL's or "other" documentation. And of course, the ever-popular sub-topic of carrying them ashore or leaving them locked in one's cabin.

[d9704011]

1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

LOL. Yup, the PVSA resurfaces like clockwork. 

 

One semi-regular topic that has gone silent for close to a year has been the use of passports versus passport cards versus EDL's or "other" documentation. And of course, the ever-popular sub-topic of carrying them ashore or leaving them locked in one's cabin.

You must have skipped by this one although it didn’t have much of a shelf life...

 

 

[Fouremco]

1 hour ago, d9704011 said:

You must have skipped by this one although it didn’t have much of a shelf life...

 

 

Thank you! Now I've had a read through the HAL thread my appetite for passport discussions is fully sated. For now! 

[grandgeezer]

17 hours ago, JRG said:

 

That argument fell apart like a new cheap suit.   Here is why:

 

You don't need to repeal it.    As soon as you say that some posters blow their smokestack because they can't differentiate between modification and repeal.

 

Think in terms of making the necessary adjustments to the law so that the cruises from North America are not adversely affected by this steamship period law.      

 

The need to change is there and its just a matter of time before the market gets what it wants.

 

 

 

What market wants it besides the cruising industry? That's just a small percentage of the overall picture. The tail won't wag the dog.

[nocl]

20 hours ago, JRG said:

 

That argument fell apart like a new cheap suit.   Here is why:

 

You don't need to repeal it.    As soon as you say that some posters blow their smokestack because they can't differentiate between modification and repeal.

 

Think in terms of making the necessary adjustments to the law so that the cruises from North America are not adversely affected by this steamship period law.      

 

The need to change is there and its just a matter of time before the market gets what it wants.

 

 

 

The argument did not fall apart and was addressed then as well.

 

The problem with that is that definitions concerning ships, including those in the law are defined in international treaties so just trying to make exceptions for large cruise ships is easier said than done.

 

If they did someone provide such exceptions then you run into the problem that the ships are cruising only between US ports which creates the same problem that killed off cruises to nowhere out of US ports.  The need for crew on such cruises to have US work Visas and pay US taxes on wages because they would be considered to be employed inside the US.

 

One of the main reasons the cruise lines have never really fought to do anything about PVSA and why they do not do cruises to nowhere.

 

With the recent executive order about the Jones act I would not expect anything from the government to change the current requirements for either PVSA or the need for US Visas

[Miaminice]

Instead of changing the law or regulations all it would take was the cruise lines to register a ship to the US... and that wouldn’t happen either.

[steamboats]

Actually the current discussions are about an exemption as it looks like Canadian ports might stay closed. With no Canadian port cruises to Alaska and New England are not possible due to the PSVA.

 

steamboats

[upwarduk]

On 1/26/2021 at 11:29 PM, nocl said:

They sold the route first as SD to Hawaii and Hawaii to SD, they changed that after the first couple due to complaints from passengers.

The Century cruise we were on was actually a B2B repositioning cruise from Sydney, Australia, so many people thought that they had already ‘done’ the distant foreign port.

[GUT2407]

Registering in the USA isn’t enough, doesn’t it also require the ship be built there and crewed with US crew?

[steamboats]

7 hours ago, GUT2407 said:

Registering in the USA isn’t enough, doesn’t it also require the ship be built there and crewed with US crew?

 

Yes, ship must be built in the US. Owner must be US. Crew must be US or Greencard holder (at least a high percentage - I think it was more than 70%).

 

steamboats

[nocl]

9 hours ago, upwarduk said:

The Century cruise we were on was actually a B2B repositioning cruise from Sydney, Australia, so many people thought that they had already ‘done’ the distant foreign port.

Technically they could have offloaded those that boarded in Hawaii in Mexico and then taken those that boarded in Australia on to San Diego. 

[LB_NJ]

On 1/26/2021 at 10:07 AM, cruisestitch said:

Yes by disembark I mean leave the ship for good, not go ashore for the day.  
 

I think if you actually left the ship for good they would be fined.  I don't remember if there is something in the passage contract where you would have to reimburse the cruise line.

[nocl]

On 1/27/2021 at 11:10 PM, steamboats said:

Actually the current discussions are about an exemption as it looks like Canadian ports might stay closed. With no Canadian port cruises to Alaska and New England are not possible due to the PSVA.

 

steamboats

The problem is how do you write the exception?  Anything that is written to allow large ships would also open other types to do so as well.  For example the Alaska Ferry system would become fair game to a foreign competitor.

 

It also does not solve the US work Visa requirements.  Don't see the cruise lines doing that since it would substantially raise their operating costs.

[LDEE]

On 1/26/2021 at 9:59 AM, cruisestitch said:

I’ll give it a try. A lot of people call the passenger vessel services act the Jones act. That’s an error. The Jones act referred to cargo. The PVSA is for passengers.

 

The PVSA prohibits taking on passengers from one US Port and allowing them to disembark in a different US Port without visiting distant foreign ports in between.  
 

A cruise can start in Fort Lauderdale and visit Key West and then return to Fort Lauderdale. Passengers may not disembark in Key West, because that would violate the PVSA.

 

On the left coast, passengers can embark in Los Angeles and visit San Francisco  on the way to Vancouver but they cannot disembark in San Francisco.  
 

it is enforced and there are fines applied.

The law was originally written to protect US cargo vessels on the east coast from foreign-flagged competition. So a vessel leaving Jacksonville, FL, for example, under a French flag could not call on Baltimore without visiting a foreign port.  Effectively ended any foreign competition.

Some might remember that more recently, the Trump administration suspended the laws so vessels could travel directly from east coast to Puerto Rico after the hurricane. There simply were not enough US flagged vessels to provide the need.

[edgee]

1 hour ago, LDEE said:

The law was originally written to protect US cargo vessels on the east coast from foreign-flagged competition. So a vessel leaving Jacksonville, FL, for example, under a French flag could not call on Baltimore without visiting a foreign port.  Effectively ended any foreign competition.

Some might remember that more recently, the Trump administration suspended the laws so vessels could travel directly from east coast to Puerto Rico after the hurricane. There simply were not enough US flagged vessels to provide the need.

Cargo ships needed an exemption from Jones Act and it was given for just a 10 day period due to the hurricane.  For passenger ships (PVSA) there is a permanent exemption involved for P.R. Celebrity has a long history of repositioning the Summit between New York area and San Juan with a 6 day cruise that does not touch a distant foreign port. The exemption was put in place in the 1970s and will remain until a U.S. flagged vessel starts serving the route.

Edited January 29, 2021 by edgee
Clarity

[steamboats]

10 hours ago, nocl said:

The problem is how do you write the exception?  Anything that is written to allow large ships would also open other types to do so as well.  For example the Alaska Ferry system would become fair game to a foreign competitor.

 

It also does not solve the US work Visa requirements.  Don't see the cruise lines doing that since it would substantially raise their operating costs.

 

You can limit the exemption to cruise vessels and routes. And you can limit it to 2021.

 

steamboats

[nocl]

7 hours ago, steamboats said:

 

You can limit the exemption to cruise vessels and routes. And you can limit it to 2021.

 

steamboats

Easier said than done. Because of the international definitions you can limit it to cruise ships. It would apply to all passenger carrying vessels over a certain size (40 or 50 people if I recall)

 

To grant an exemption one would:

 

1. make sure the law allows it for the reason it is being issued

2. in line with international agreements concerning maritime definitions

3. not considered to be arbitrary

 

Even if you were successful you still have the US work visa issues.

 

Bottom line not going to happen.