Why do the 14 day Hawaii Cruises stop in Encenada?

[vcgeno]

It is one of our least favorite stops. Would probably cost too much to spend one more day in Hawaii.

[mollyanne]

It is because the cruise ship must visit a foreign port before returning to the U. S. This is part of the Jones Act - which many would like to see repealed.

[Astro Flyer]

It is one of our least favorite stops. Would probably cost too much to spend one more day in Hawaii.

Due to what's commonly called the Jones Act requiring a stop in a foreign port instead of only US ports. It was instituted about 100 years ago & should be repealed because it prevents more US ports of call.

 

In '05 on the Regal returning from Hawaii the ship slowed down to allow a Mexican naval ship to pick up their fee for our "stop". I believe it was NCL who complained that it was anti-competitive & is probably why there's now a real stop in Ensenada.

 

I agree with you...nothing to really do but walk down the main street if you don't mind constant (but not excessive hounding) sales pitches. :(

[vcgeno]

Due to what's commonly called the Jones Act requiring a stop in a foreign port instead of only US ports. It was instituted about 100 years ago & should be repealed because it prevents more US ports of call.

 

In '05 on the Regal returning from Hawaii the ship slowed down to allow a Mexican naval ship to pick up their fee for our "stop". I believe it was NCL who complained that it was anti-competitive & is probably why there's now a real stop in Ensenada.

 

I agree with you...nothing to really do but walk down the main street if you don't mind constant (but not excessive hounding) sales pitches. :(

 

I did not know that. Sounds ridiculous. Thank you we are going in March and the whole Ensenata thing puzzled me.

[paul929207]

The legislation was passed to help protect the US maritine industry. It is the reason only NCL has ships doing cruises around Hawaii. They have the only ship (I think they have just one now) that meet the law's requirements.

[Astro Flyer]

I did not know that. Sounds ridiculous. Thank you we are going in March and the whole Ensenata thing puzzled me.

I agree that it is definitely a ridiculous requirement & one that it has long outlived it's intended purpose to protect US shipping!

 

From what I've read, it was instituted in the early 1900s to protect US shipping companies from cheaper foreign competition between Seattle & Alaska. I'm certainly not a historian on this Act but for whatever reason our politicians haven't repealed it.

 

It was worse back in '92 sailing to Hawaii on the old Pacific Princess on a repositioning cruise to Honolulu. We had to get to a hotel in San Diego (they provided a buffet dinner) & then a late night bus ride to Ensenada. We all hoped to make it to the pier for the 11:00pm sailing & made it to the ship.

 

But what an unnecessary hassle to have to do it that way due to the Jones Act & being unable to directly sail from LA or SD.

[John Reid]

Though similar to the Jones Act, I think it is the Passenger Vessels Service Act that governs this situation. It doesn't really matter; the end result is the same. Jones was to protect American Merchant Marine cargo interests. As once explained to me, ships of foreign registry cannot transport passengers from one American port to another without an eventual stop in a foreign port. The stop in a foreign port for a cruise that originates in an American port allows the cruise line to keep the less expensive foreign registry and allows for foreign built ships. It also allows the crew pay scale to be exempt from the American labor protections for salary and overtime. It is a tremendous economic advantage to any cruise line to avoid American registry. So, Hawaii cruises stop in Mexico; Alaska cruises that start in Seattle stop in Victoria; New England cruises stop in Halifax; etc. My short cruise from Fort Lauderdale with a stop in Key West had to stop at the line's private island in the Bahamas before returning to FL. And I have heard of situations when weather does not allow for a ship to dock or tender, so the foreign port sends out a boat to exchange papers or make some sort of contact to make the stop official though no passenger went ashore.

 

A "cruise to nowhere" does not have to make a foreign stop because passengers were not transported to another American port.

 

I can't remember if it was NCL or Carnival that had a ship that went from the West Coast to Hawaii without a Mexican stop. I believe it failed financially because of the additional costs. Also, I think that NCL set up a subsidiary company for its one ship that cruises the Hawaiian Islands. I think its registry and pay scale are different from the parent NCL.

[Astro Flyer]

Thanks for your informative post. :)

[John Reid]

You're welcome.

[Pam in CA]

It's the PVSA, the Passenger Vessel Services Act that as said, was enacted to protect US shipping and shipbuilding from foreign competition. The Jones Act is an amendment to the PVSA.

 

In a nutshell, only ships built in the US may be flagged as US ships, and only US-flagged ships are exempt from the PVSA. The Act applies to ships, both commercial and cruise, that sail from and to a US port. If it's a "closed loop" itinerary, such as the HI cruise which embarks and disembarks in San Pedro, the ship must make a stop at a "near" foreign port. Hence Ensenada. If the ship sails from one US port and disembarks at another, the ship must stop at a "far" foreign port. Stops in Mexico and the Caribbean do not qualify as a "far" foreign port. That's why the Panama Canal itinerary from San Pedro to FLL (or reverse) stop at Aruba and/or Colombia. The PVSA does not apply to Alaskan cruises that embark or disembark in Vancouver.

 

If you, the passenger, embark in San Pedro, for instance, and let's say you miss the ship in Hilo and fly to Honolulu to catch up with it, you've violated the PVSA and the ship is fined $350 for each of you. They have your credit card # and will charge you the $350. An expensive mistake.

 

Several years ago, NCL purchased the hulls of two ships being built in the US by a company that went out of business. NCL received permission from the US Congress to have the hulls towed to Europe and be finished, and be US-flagged. This would allow them to sail around HI without having to take three days to sail to Fanning Island and back, the closest foreign port. However, by being US-flagged, they had to have a large percentage of crew be US citizens, pay all crew US wages, and overtime if they worked more than a certain # of hours. In addition, the crew all had to pay US taxes. It wound up being a very costly venture for NCL and the US crew, in general, didn't work as hard or as well as the foreign crew, which made for a poor cruising experience for the first few months. Eventually, NCL worked it out but the market wasn't strong enough for two ships sailing around HI so one of them was re-flagged. I seem to remember that at one point, NCL had three US-flagged ships but as said, they have only one now.

[Astro Flyer]

Thanks Pam for posting the definitive answer on this question. :D

[DanJ]

It was worse back in '92 sailing to Hawaii on the old Pacific Princess on a repositioning cruise to Honolulu. We had to get to a hotel in San Diego (they provided a buffet dinner) & then a late night bus ride to Ensenada. We all hoped to make it to the pier for the 11:00pm sailing & made it to the ship.

 

But what an unnecessary hassle to have to do it that way due to the Jones Act & being unable to directly sail from LA or SD.

 

These days, Carnival does 2 spring and 2 fall repositioning cruises that move the ship from California to Vancouver and reverese. They use Hawaii as the midpoint. The ship sails empty from San Diego to Ensenada. The passengers get themselves to Ensenada for the cruise, and then go to Hawaii where their cruise ends. Then the next cruise goes from Hawaii to Vancouver. In the fall the reverse happens, with the last cruise ending in Ensenada, where the passengers go back to California to go wherever they are going while the ship sails empty back to San Diego. Yep, this somehow protects US shipping interests LOL

[Astro Flyer]

These days, Carnival does 2 spring and 2 fall repositioning cruises that move the ship from California to Vancouver and reverese. They use Hawaii as the midpoint. The ship sails empty from San Diego to Ensenada. The passengers get themselves to Ensenada for the cruise, and then go to Hawaii where their cruise ends. Then the next cruise goes from Hawaii to Vancouver. In the fall the reverse happens, with the last cruise ending in Ensenada, where the passengers go back to California to go wherever they are going while the ship sails empty back to San Diego. Yep, this somehow protects US shipping interests LOL

After reading Pam's post, it's even more bizarre with all of the rules & regulations in place to create scenarios like you described.

 

I'm certainly no expert on these regulations but it appears that the purpose for enacting them has long outlived it's usefullness & it should be repealed. I'd think that allowing ships to sail only to US ports would help but since I'm not an expert on these regulations, maybe somehow that could adversely affect the cruise industry.

 

Or more likely it could cost money to some folks who lobby the congress to keep it in place. :rolleyes:

[BruceMuzz]

This "Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886" (PVSA) also applies to Cargo Ships and Airlines.

 

The last 3 remaining US Flag Cargo Ship companies are still in business only because of this law. Repealing the law would put them out of business in a week - leaving the USA without a Merchant Marine. There are many in the USA who think that it could have catastrophic consequences for the USA.

 

Many airline experts claim that repealing the PVSA (also known as the Jones Act) would bankrupt the major US Airlines almost immediately. They could not survive if they had to compete on a level playing field with foreign flag airlines.

Many believe that losing United, Delta, American, amd a few others would not help the USA.

[geoherb]

Just stay on the ship and pretend it's another day at sea. It's only an 8-hour stop on the Golden's itinerary. I did not look up other ships' itineraries, but they're probably similar.

[Happy ks]

At the time NCL purchased the hulls, they bailed the US out of millions of $ loss due to bankruptcy of the cruise line building them. I cannot remember the name, they had American Hawaiian ships, plus the paddlewheel boats that used to cruise the Mississipi.

 

The gov't worked the deal with NCL for the inter-island Hawaiian route because of the bailout. It sounded good on paper but didn't quite work out the way they expected it to. Service was never up to par on the ships according to customer complaints, crew didn't want to work as hard, I can completely understand why they cut back to one ship.

 

Before that time, NCL had two ships that cruised to Fanning Island to satisfy the PVSA. We cruised on NCL Star on that route and had a great time. But....prior to NCL we cruised on the old American Hawaiian Independence, a very old ship. It was one of the best cruises we've ever taken and I'm sorry we only got to cruise on her once.

 

So your choices are...stop in Ensenada or cruise inter-island with NCL.

[FLACRUISER99]

At the time NCL purchased the hulls, they bailed the US out of millions of $ loss due to bankruptcy of the cruise line building them. I cannot remember the name, they had American Hawaiian ships, plus the paddlewheel boats that used to cruise the Mississipi.

 

The gov't worked the deal with NCL for the inter-island Hawaiian route because of the bailout. It sounded good on paper but didn't quite work out the way they expected it to. Service was never up to par on the ships according to customer complaints, crew didn't want to work as hard, I can completely understand why they cut back to one ship.

 

Before that time, NCL had two ships that cruised to Fanning Island to satisfy the PVSA. We cruised on NCL Star on that route and had a great time. But....prior to NCL we cruised on the old American Hawaiian Independence, a very old ship. It was one of the best cruises we've ever taken and I'm sorry we only got to cruise on her once.

 

So your choices are...stop in Ensenada or cruise inter-island with NCL.

Maybe someone will go back to the Fanning Island route!

[Happy ks]

Maybe someone will go back to the Fanning Island route!

 

 

Many people hated it, we loved it. I think the key to any Hawaiian cruise such as NCL is to have more time in Hawaii, both pre and post cruise.

 

Of course, I think that about all other cruises as well, I'm never anxious to get home and I don't care to go from ship to airport :p

 

My husband wants to eventually do a round trip Hawaii cruise from CA, but I love the islands so much just 5 days there isn't enough. He wants all those sea days.

[vcgeno]

Thank you all for your interesting and informative posts. Who would have thought that this was such a complex issue.

[Pam in CA]

The biggest problem NCL ran into by going to Fanning Island to satisfy the PVSA was that they had to go at full speed both ways in order to allow passengers enough time on the island. Rough seas sometimes prevented them from getting there which meant that the ship had to either skip Fanning Island, which cost a lot of money in PVSA fines, or skip a port in HI. Passengers weren't too pleased if a port was missed.

[Pam in CA]

This "Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886" (PVSA) also applies to Cargo Ships and Airlines.

 

The last 3 remaining US Flag Cargo Ship companies are still in business only because of this law. Repealing the law would put them out of business in a week - leaving the USA without a Merchant Marine. There are many in the USA who think that it could have catastrophic consequences for the USA.

 

Many airline experts claim that repealing the PVSA (also known as the Jones Act) would bankrupt the major US Airlines almost immediately. They could not survive if they had to compete on a level playing field with foreign flag airlines.

Many believe that losing United, Delta, American, amd a few others would not help the USA.

Bruce, thanks for the additional information. I keep forgetting that cruise ships are a very small segment affected by the PVSA whereas US airlines would have to compete with airlines owned and operated by governments that subsidize them, which would create unfair competition for the US carriers.

[Astro Flyer]

This has been a great learning experience for me & like the OP said much more complicated than I thought...thanks to those posting the details.

 

I wonder if it could be modified to allow passenger ships to skip the foreign port requirement without adversely affecting the positive parts of the act. If not, at least I understand more about this complicated Act.

[Pam in CA]

I wonder if it could be modified to allow passenger ships to skip the foreign port requirement without adversely affecting the positive parts of the act. If not, at least I understand more about this complicated Act.

That's another story. :) Senator Inouye, whose wife just happens to be the godmother of an NCL ship, tried to change the PVSA a couple of years ago but for the opposite reason: to protect NCL cruises in HI. (I'm trying to remember the facts but here they are, more or less correct.) He proposed that not only foreign-flagged ships be required to stop at a foreign port, but that foreign port stops should equate to 50% of all port time. There were other onorous parts of the proposal as the intent was to remove all competition from cruises sailing round trip to HI from a West Coast port.

 

Not only would this have killed the HI cruises from the West coast but he forgot that it would also kill cruising to/from Alaska, New England and Canada, and some cruises from FL, costing many thousands of jobs and multi-millions in US port economy. Sen. Inouye tried to amend his proposal by limiting it to just HI cruises but that just made it far more obvious what he was tring to do. Just to save a few hundred NCL jobs. The PVSA is regulated by Homeland Security, which had/has the final say about the Act. The proposal fortunately died from inaction and no decision.

[DanJ]

After reading Pam's post, it's even more bizarre with all of the rules & regulations in place to create scenarios like you described.

 

I'm certainly no expert on these regulations but it appears that the purpose for enacting them has long outlived it's usefullness & it should be repealed. I'd think that allowing ships to sail only to US ports would help but since I'm not an expert on these regulations, maybe somehow that could adversely affect the cruise industry.

 

Or more likely it could cost money to some folks who lobby the congress to keep it in place. :rolleyes:

 

I should clarify that Carnival could just sail direct from San Diego to Vancouver if they wanted, but these are some of the few Hawaii cruises they offer, and are also just about the longest cruises they sell. They also could, if they wanted, offer one longer cruise in each direction that started in San Diego, went to Hawaii and ended in Vancouver (and the reverse again in the fall). My original post sort of implied that they needed to sail from Ensenada to reposition.

 

That whole debacle with NCL trying to get the law changed was ridiculous. They tried to claim that by Princess only making a whistle stop in Ensenada, this was somehow unfair competition for NCL's own Hawaii cruises. Forgetting of course that the Princess cruises were 2 weeks compared to NCL's own weekly cruises in Hawaii. I think NCL was really competing with Hawaii. If people were going to fly all the way there, they were more likely to stay at a resort than cruise around the islands. They just didn't research the market very well thinking they could support 3 ships sailing around the islands, and the 3 ships diluted their product to the point that people weren't very interested in it.

[Pam in CA]

That whole debacle with NCL trying to get the law changed was ridiculous. They tried to claim that by Princess only making a whistle stop in Ensenada, this was somehow unfair competition for NCL's own Hawaii cruises. Forgetting of course that the Princess cruises were 2 weeks compared to NCL's own weekly cruises in Hawaii. I think NCL was really competing with Hawaii. If people were going to fly all the way there, they were more likely to stay at a resort than cruise around the islands. They just didn't research the market very well thinking they could support 3 ships sailing around the islands, and the 3 ships diluted their product to the point that people weren't very interested in it.

They were targeting not only Princess but HAL as well. And, they were claiming that these cruiselines made only "token" stops whereas both cruiselines had changed to making the stop at least a half-day, docking, and allowing passengers to go ashore several years before Senator Inouye made his proposal.