Jones Act Question

[Snoozeman]

Originally Posted by doopydozer

On closed loop cruises( IE Alaska from Seattle ) Victoria or any Canadian

port (Victoria or Seattle ) qualify as a foreign port .

That's why Hawaii cruise ( LAX or San Diego or SFO) stop in

Ensenada Mexico which satisfies the PSVA act.

Correct.

And if Fern's was closed loop she could do it, but it is not.

[Trackypup]

Originally Posted by Snoozeman

Nope, what she describes is a violation.

No it isn't. So let's say it's a Whittier to Vancouver and then she wants do do a Vancouver to Ft Lauderdale. This is no different than the LA to Ft Lauderdale that all lines do. Going through the panama canal, the ships call at Aruba to satisfy the PVSA. Whoever told her no is an idiot and doesn't understand the law. As long as you hit a foreign distant port between two US ports you're fine.

[Trackypup]

Originally Posted by Snoozeman

Correct.

And if Fern's was closed loop she could do it, but it is not.

So please enlighten me how Whittier or Seattle to Ft Lauderdale is any different than LA to Ft Lauderdale?

[Snoozeman]

Originally Posted by Trackypup

So please enlighten me how Whittier or Seattle to Ft Lauderdale is any different than LA to Ft Lauderdale?

Well I see what your saying....but somewhere there has to be a port considered distant on the Canal portion. When she then boards another ship (or stays on) and it goes to another US port. It then becomes a violation because she will be traveling between two US ports. That distant foreign one she stopped at on the canal won't count for the 2nd leg.

[Trackypup]

Originally Posted by Snoozeman

Well I see what your saying....but somewhere there has to be a port considered distant on the Canal portion. When she then boards another ship (or stays on) and it goes to another US port. It then becomes a violation because she will be traveling between two US ports. That distant foreign one she stopped at on the canal won't count for the 2nd leg.

Brick Wall...My Head..BANG BANG BANG it doesn't matter if it's two, three or four cruises, it's where you start and where you end. I'm honestly so done debating this subject. Fern, please talk to a supervisor if this is a cruise you want to do. I'm done

[Snoozeman]

Of course it matters where you start and end, that's the whole point of the regulations.

[Trackypup]

I said its where you start and end that matters.


edited: sorry ``no links``

[Snoozeman]

I know you said that.

The law is antiquated and I had the same position as you at the begining of this thread. I just could not believe that they wouldn't allow it since they did stop at a foreign port. When I read the law I had to agree with Carnival that it was a violation on my friends two cruises and Fern's is pretty much the same. It really doesn't make sense, but that's the law.

For example: Fern boards in Florida goes through the Panama canal to LA. Then the ship repositions to Vancouver. Then it sails to either Alaska or Hawaii (which I believe she wanted to do). Either way this is a violation. She is traveling between two US ports. Again it really doesn't make sense, but that's the law.

[Trackypup]

Did you at least read the link before you deleted it? It's nothing like your friends cruise as there was no distant foreign port involved.

Fern, I posted a link to another cruise site with someone wanting the identical cruise as you. It was allowed, it just had to be escalated as the people that answer the phones don't know the law.

[Trackypup]

Originally Posted by Snoozeman

I know you said that.

The law is antiquated and I had the same position as you at the begining of this thread. I just could not believe that they wouldn't allow it since they did stop at a foreign port. When I read the law I had to agree with Carnival that it was a violation on my friends two cruises and Fern's is pretty much the same. It really doesn't make sense, but that's the law.

For example: Fern boards in Florida goes through the Panama canal to LA. Then the ship repositions to Vancouver. Then it sails to either Alaska or Hawaii (which I believe she wanted to do). Either way this is a violation. She is traveling between two US ports. Again it really doesn't make sense, but that's the law.

Honestly,you should stop posting on this subject because you really don't get it and are posting garbage. Quite sad for a moderator, you really should understand it more before giving advise. I'm embarrassed.

[Snoozeman]

Originally Posted by Trackypup

Honestly,you should stop posting on this subject because you really don't get it and are posting garbage. Quite sad for a moderator, you really should understand it more before giving advise. I'm embarrassed.

The cruise line says its a violation. The U.S. Government says it's a violation. I agree with them and say it's a violation.

And you think we are all wrong? I don't want to agree with them, but that's what we have to live with until it is changed.

[Trackypup]

So you didn't bother to read the link that actually proved I was right? The underpaid phone rep said it was wrong because they don't understand the law, it needs to be escalated to a supervisor. It's a completely legal cruise as my link proved.

Seeing as you deleted the link, here's the post

"My TA went to his sales rep and Princess who took this issue to the their legal department. The legal department has cleared the entire trip from Whittier, Alaska to Florida on the basis of the stop in Aruba which is one of the qualifying ABC ports.

The entire booking is in process and will be on the Island Princess ... persistence has prevailed."

[Snoozeman]

What does that have to do with the cruise in question?

[Future Cruiser]

Can someone explain the purpose of the law? Why did the U.S. government think it's a good idea? The way I see it, that law only makes things worse for America because we could boost our economy by letting all cruise lines create 100% U.S. itineraries without owing passengers $300 or canceling cruises that people have already booked. Imagine how much more money Americans would get from itineraries with no foreign ports!

[Trackypup]

Originally Posted by Snoozeman

What does that have to do with the cruise in question?

seriously? You've been arguing all night and you can't see what it has to do with Fern's cruise?

[Trackypup]

Originally Posted by Future Cruiser

Can someone explain the purpose of the law? Why did the U.S. government think it's a good idea? The way I see it, that law only makes things worse for America because we could boost our economy by letting all cruise lines create 100% U.S. itineraries without owing passengers $300 or canceling cruises that people have already booked. Imagine how much more money Americans would get from itineraries with no foreign ports!

That is one side of the cruising business, it would increase the US only cruises. Its main purpose is to protect the US shipping and ship building business. The PVSA is part of the Jones Act that deals with Cargo, that's the biggy. It also prevents some Chinese ship and crew coming and competing with the Staten Island ferries, or the Seattle ferry business. Similar law is in place for the airlines. It prevents British Airways moving into the US and going head to head with American Airlines, or Easy Jet coming in and going head to head with Southwest.

So while it's purpose is to protect US jobs, it would certainly help the cruise line business, but that's such a small part of the overall law.

[Snoozeman]

Originally Posted by Trackypup

seriously? You've been arguing all night and you can't see what it has to do with Fern's cruise?

This thread is about MY friends cruise and how I came to discover these antiquated laws.

I have no idea what Fern's actually itinerary is as I didn't see her post it. She may share it, I know her and have sailed with her. I would not give my opinion on it unless I actually knew the circumstances.

The information from the other thread you mention is second hand. I am actually familiar with it. How do you know that what didn't actually happen is that Princess looked at all the $ they were going to get on the B2B2B booking and just decided to let her sail...if they got a $300 fine... they would just absorb it. I think that's what very well may have happened. I know it does happen and I suspect that it happens a lot more than we know! They just don't want to acknowledge it.

[Kamloops Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Phil&Liz

Just out of curiosity....who is it that tracks the passenger to know they have violated?

If its the ship, then the "company" knows of the violation at some point.

If it is not the ship, who "orders" the ship to bill/fine the passenger?

Is it DHS, ICE, Treasury, Justice Dept? I

Is the Hotel Director enpowered with authority by some entity?:neutral:

I booked a cruise one time on Princess .

San Fran to Vancouver to Seattle , within 2 weeks I got a call from

Princess .telling me we couldn't do the cruise as booked .

I asked for a supervisory , she said that their computer

flagged the problem.

[ednotmilkman]

I just skimmed over all this thread this lazy morning,

So the confusion for me seems to be that, on a Panama Canal trip, Aruba is considered part of South America and "far" away but any port in Panama or Central America is not a far port??

Trackypup gave me a good explaination of the still relevant parts of the Jones Act for me.

Edwin

[Trackypup]

Originally Posted by ednotmilkman

I just skimmed over all this thread this lazy morning,

So the confusion for me seems to be that, on a Panama Canal trip, Aruba is considered part of South America and "far" away but any port in Panama or Central America is not a far port??

Trackypup gave me a good explaination of the still relevant parts of the Jones Act for me.

Edwin

I'm not really clear on Cartagena, I've read conflicting things and I kind of think they may skip that 1/2 day stop in Aruba if Cartagena filled the requirement. I believe Curacao fits the bill too. Aruba is considered part of the Netherland Antilles and Curacao part of Venezula.

[Future Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Trackypup

I'm not really clear on Cartagena, I've read conflicting things and I kind of think they may skip that 1/2 day stop in Aruba if Cartagena filled the requirement. I believe Curacao fits the bill too. Aruba is considered part of the Netherland Antilles and Curacao part of Venezula.

I have no idea how Cartagena got into the discussion because I had never heard of it.

However, the skipping Aruba part made me think of this: What if a hurricane forced that ship to skip the port and no other distant foreign port was on the itinerary? Would a line be granted an exception because they were unable to stop at the distant foreign port?

[Trackypup]

Originally Posted by Future Cruiser

I have no idea how Cartagena got into the discussion because I had never heard of it.

However, the skipping Aruba part made me think of this: What if a hurricane forced that ship to skip the port and no other distant foreign port was on the itinerary? Would a line be granted an exception because they were unable to stop at the distant foreign port?

Cargagena would be the Central American stop on the Panama cruise. Yes, in extenuating circumstances, ships can be "forgiven" for missing the foreign distant port. A hurricane would be a great example of that.

[ednotmilkman]

Cartagena is in Columbia, South America the last time I checked, although haven't been there.
Curacao is NOT part of Venezuela; it's with Aruba and Bonaire as the ABC islands of the Netherlands Antilles. I've been to all three of them.

Edwin

[Trackypup]

Originally Posted by ednotmilkman

Cartagena is in Columbia, South America the last time I checked, although haven't been there.
Curacao is NOT part of Venezuela; it's with Aruba and Bonaire as the ABC islands of the Netherlands Antilles. I've been to all three of them.

Edwin

Yeah, I knew it was part of the NA, We've been there numerous times. But I thought there was some affiliation with Venezuela.

And that's why I was unsure if Cartagena fulfilled the PVSA, it's technically in South America, but I've read so many legal opinions on the PVSA that declare the entire canal and cities on the canal to be in Central America. But definitely the ABC's qualify.

I also wonder if somewhere like Martinique would qualify?

[Trackypup]

Just checked with one of our Lawyers, Columbia does count.

[Kamloops Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Future Cruiser

Can someone explain the purpose of the law? Why did the U.S. government think it's a good idea? The way I see it, that law only makes things worse for America because we could boost our economy by letting all cruise lines create 100% U.S. itineraries without owing passengers $300 or canceling cruises that people have already booked. Imagine how much more money Americans would get from itineraries with no foreign ports!

The original purpose of the law to protect American ships carrying goods

from California to Hawaii or Alaska. It was stop foreign flagged ships

from under cutting US flagged ships . Basically it us the

government protecting the US merchant marine from destruction.

When there was passenger ships going from California to Hawaii during

the 1920,30, 40 & 50's the ships where all US Flagged Vessels.

That is way to this day all crude being shipped from Alaska to the lower

48 is on US Flagged Tankers.

[S.S.Oceanlover]

Originally Posted by Trackypup

There should be nothing wrong with what you describe. Talk to a supervisor. Doing the Panama Canal they MUST hit a foreign distant port. They're wrong if they won't let you book.

I agree 100%, this should be an allowable cruise.

Bill

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Fern

This should be fixed by now! People have been complaining for years .

We were looking at an Alaska cruise ending in Vancouver, then a Panama Canal cruise beginning in Vancouver. We can't do it . The PVSA is a PITB!

Quoting my own post here, unfortunately I'm right and so is Snoozeman. My wonderful TA spent an hour on the phone with Princess reps and came back with the same answer. We can sail from Anchorage to Vancouver and then sail from Vancouver to Ft. Lauderdale, but NOT on the same ship!

I haven't checked to see whether this will work or not with another ship, but so far it's really a PITA !

Thanks for the help,

[Trackypup]

Originally Posted by Fern

Quoting my own post here, unfortunately I'm right and so is Snoozeman. My wonderful TA spent an hour on the phone with Princess reps and came back with the same answer. We can sail from Anchorage to Vancouver and then sail from Vancouver to Ft. Lauderdale, but NOT on the same ship!

I haven't checked to see whether this will work or not with another ship, but so far it's really a PITA !

Thanks for the help,

That's a totally legal cruise. Sorry you're getting wrong information. Escalate it to their legal department if you really want to take it. We did it in reverse last year, Ft Lauderdale to Vancouver and it carried on to Whittier. Dozens of people did the B2B

[Paul Motter]

I am not an expert in PVSA, but I have to disagree with some of what I have read here.

First, while the law does "say" distant foreign port it is obvious they have accepted Ensenada, Nassau and Vancouver as being "far enough" -otherwise every cruise from the mainland to Hawaii would have to stop in Kiribati, and every Caribbean cruise would have to go to Europe.

Secondly, when you you do two cruises in a row you are doing two different cruises, not one cruise. If you get off and go through customs and then reboard everything should be fine.