b2b2b Jones Act help please

[luv4cruisin]

Some one who understands the Jones Act, please help me figure out if this is a violation. Sept 2012 on the Pearl I want to do:

 

The Seattle to Vancouver 7 day

then the Vancouver to LA 5 day Pacific Coastal

then the LA to MIA Panama Canal 14 day.

 

I'm pretty sure I can't do it, but NCL said I could. I just don't trust the "hourly" answers. If you know, please help!

[vols_159]

why wouldnt you be able to do it?? you have pay for the 3 cruises why not?

[Cubechick]

Looks good to me...:confused: You have the long distance foreign port covered...

[njhorseman]

Some one who understands the Jones Act, please help me figure out if this is a violation. Sept 2012 on the Pearl I want to do:

 

The Seattle to Vancouver 7 day

then the Vancouver to LA 5 day Pacific Coastal

then the LA to MIA Panama Canal 14 day.

 

I'm pretty sure I can't do it, but NCL said I could. I just don't trust the "hourly" answers. If you know, please help!

 

The itinerary looks good to me, because the third leg includes a port call at Cartagena, Colombia, which qualifies as a Distant Foreign Port under the Passenger Vessel Services Act. (The PVSA, not the Jones Act is the law that applies to cruise ships.)

[sharke]

We actually booked a B2B like this several yrs ago. We arranged the Seattle to Vancouver and Vancouver to LA. No problems when we booked but 2 wks later a NCL agent called and said we couldn't do it because of the Jones Act set way back in I think 1916. Can't remember the details, something about way back when protecting trading rights from country to country etc. :confused::confused:So we cancelled both of the cruises since the attraction was following the coast. NCL wasn't too happy but we ended up finding a great deal on a repositioning cruise out of New York on the Dawn, to the Caribbean and ending in Miami. Sure would like that original itinery, though.

 

 

Some one who understands the Jones Act, please help me figure out if this is a violation. Sept 2012 on the Pearl I want to do:

 

The Seattle to Vancouver 7 day

then the Vancouver to LA 5 day Pacific Coastal

then the LA to MIA Panama Canal 14 day.

 

I'm pretty sure I can't do it, but NCL said I could. I just don't trust the "hourly" answers. If you know, please help!

[njhorseman]

why wouldnt you be able to do it?? you have pay for the 3 cruises why not?

 

The Passenger Vessel Services Act prohibits foreign flagged cruise ships from transporting passengers from one US port to another (in this case Seattle to Miami), unless the ship makes a port call at a port that is defined as a Distant Foreign Port. The OP would not be allowed to do just the first two segments, which would go from Seattle to LA, because ports in Canada do not qualify as a Distant Foreign Port, but by adding the third segment, which calls at Cartagena, Colombia, the cruise becomes legal.

[Seanote]

My best guess is you can't do the first two legs together. You can't travel from Seattle to LA without a stop at a distant foriegn port and Vancouver is not a distant foreign port. The second two legs together are ok, however.

[njhorseman]

We actually booked a B2B like this several yrs ago. We arranged the Seattle to Vancouver and Vancouver to LA. No problems when we booked but 2 wks later a NCL agent called and said we couldn't do it because of the Jones Act set way back in I think 1916. Can't remember the details, something about way back when protecting trading rights from country to country etc. :confused::confused:So we cancelled both of the cruises since the attraction was following the coast. NCL wasn't too happy but we ended up finding a great deal on a repositioning cruise out of New York on the Dawn, to the Caribbean and ending in Miami. Sure would like that original itinery, though.

 

The third segment of the OP's cruise, from LA to Miami, makes the whole cruise itinerary legal under the PVSA (the Jones Act isn't for passenger cruise ships) because it calls at Cartagena, Colombia.

[njhorseman]

My best guess is you can't do the first two legs together. You can't travel from Seattle to LA without a stop at a distant foriegn port and Vancouver is not a distant foreign port. The second two legs together are ok, however.

 

Correct...and all three legs together, which is what the OP is doing is also legal.

[angelsonefive]

You asked so I'll give the answer. you can't do the SEA to YVR, YVR to LA segment :(. The YVR to LA to MIA is doable though. We were on the Star with the opposite intinrary going north LA, YVR. YVR to SEA was not possible. It would be the same way going south. Sorry, there was several cruisers from CC on our ship that had to pick one or the other.

[more cruises]

Some one who understands the Jones Act, please help me figure out if this is a violation. Sept 2012 on the Pearl I want to do:

 

The Seattle to Vancouver 7 day

then the Vancouver to LA 5 day Pacific Coastal

then the LA to MIA Panama Canal 14 day.

 

I'm pretty sure I can't do it, but NCL said I could. I just don't trust the "hourly" answers. If you know, please help!

 

 

Trust your instincts. The Seattle/Vancouver/LA is what puts you in violation. Unless you change ships it's considered a Seattle to LA, basically transporting from 1 US port to another. Sure wish these things worked because they'd be dream cruises.

[njhorseman]

Trust your instincts. The Seattle/Vancouver/LA is what puts you in violation. Unless you change ships it's considered a Seattle to LA, basically transporting from 1 US port to another. Sure wish these things worked because they'd be dream cruises.

 

You have to look at all three segments, not just the first two. The total itinerary of Seattle to Miami, making a stop at Cartagena, makes it legal.

[njhorseman]

You asked so I'll give the answer. you can't do the SEA to YVR, YVR to LA segment :(. The YVR to LA to MIA is doable though. We were on the Star with the opposite intinrary going north LA, YVR. YVR to SEA was not possible. It would be the same way going south. Sorry, there was several cruisers from CC on our ship that had to pick one or the other.

 

As I've explained several times, you must look at the entire itinerary, including the third segment from LA to Miami. The distant foreign port call on the third leg makes the entire itinerary legal.

[Ms belp]

Don't you just love how government can tell you how you can cruise?

[jonbgd]

legal under the PVSA (the Jones Act isn't for passenger cruise ships)

But when you talk to the cruise company why you cant do it. They say it is because of the Jones Act.

 

To the OP...... While you cant do the ship on all 3 legs

What you do. Is do the first leg on NCL than do the second leg on Golden Princess than spend 2 days in LA/SOCAL area and hop back on the NCL Pearl for the final leg.

If I could do all those days in a row thats what I would do

[angelsonefive]

As I've explained several times, you must look at the entire itinerary, including the third segment from LA to Miami. The distant foreign port call on the third leg makes the entire itinerary legal.

There were folks on the Pearl that wanted to do this same itinrary but in reverse (MIA,LA,YVR,SEA) they couldn't do the YVR SEA segment. I get your point about Cartagena, but the feds don't see it that way. Just check on the boards you will find this to be true.

[wrp96]

But when you talk to the cruise company why you cant do it. They say it is because of the Jones Act.

 

To the OP...... While you cant do the ship on all 3 legs

What you do. Is do the first leg on NCL than do the second leg on Golden Princess than spend 2 days in LA/SOCAL area and hop back on the NCL Pearl for the final leg.

If I could do all those days in a row thats what I would do

 

They can do it all on one ship. As njhorseman said, because the 3rd cruise stops in Cartagena, which qualifies as a distant foreign port, the PVSA is satisfied - no need for them to switch cruiselines or ships.

 

There were folks on the Pearl that wanted to do this same itinrary but in reverse (MIA,LA,YVR,SEA) they couldn't do the YVR SEA segment. I get your point about Cartagena, but the feds don't see it that way. Just check on the boards you will find this to be true.

 

 

They were told wrong. The Feds see that itinerary as perfectly fine. You just have to call back and get someone who knows what they are talking about.

[time2cruise1]

As I've explained several times, you must look at the entire itinerary, including the third segment from LA to Miami. The distant foreign port call on the third leg makes the entire itinerary legal.

 

And you can keep explaining it and some will say you can't. The cruise as a whole is perfectly fine. As you said you can't get off in LA but as long as they continue to Miami with the distant foreign port it meets all requirements.

[jonbgd]

They can do it all on one ship. As njhorseman said, because the 3rd cruise stops in Cartagena, which qualifies as a distant foreign port, the PVSA is satisfied - no need for them to switch cruiselines or ships.

 

 

 

 

They were told wrong. The Feds see that itinerary as perfectly fine. You just have to call back and get someone who knows what they are talking about.

It isnt the 3rd cruise where the problem is! And it doesnt matter about the PSVA being satisfied!

The reason why they cant do it is beacause they broke it down into 3 segments which they have to turn in tho the good old USA for approval.

If NCL were to do it in one cruise it would be fine.

But they wont fill the ship to make money. Thats what HAL is for

 

The Feds dont see that as fine because NCL didnt propose the itinerary that way.

While it doesnt make since it is there to protect american business.

 

Im so glad there are so many sea lawyers here on CC

[time2cruise1]

It isnt the 3rd cruise where the problem is! And it doesnt matter about the PSVA being satisfied!

The reason why they cant do it is beacause they broke it down into 3 segments which they have to turn in tho the good old USA for approval.

If NCL were to do it in one cruise it would be fine.

But they wont fill the ship to make money. Thats what HAL is for

 

The Feds dont see that as fine because NCL didnt propose the itinerary that way.

While it doesnt make since it is there to protect american business.

 

Im so glad there are so many sea lawyers here on CC

 

Nothing to do with law all about logic.

 

Does not matter how it is sold. All about where you get on the ship , where it stops, and where you get off. The Feds could care less how you market a cruise.

[wrp96]

It isnt the 3rd cruise where the problem is! And it doesnt matter about the PSVA being satisfied!

The reason why they cant do it is beacause they broke it down into 3 segments which they have to turn in tho the good old USA for approval.

If NCL were to do it in one cruise it would be fine.

But they wont fill the ship to make money. Thats what HAL is for

 

The Feds dont see that as fine because NCL didnt propose the itinerary that way.

While it doesnt make since it is there to protect american business.

 

Im so glad there are so many sea lawyers here on CC

 

The Feds don't care how the cruiseline sells the cruise. All the feds care about is where YOU board, where YOU get off the ship, and where YOU stop in between.

 

The Feds don't care what NCL's listed itinerary is as long as the itinerary you actually sail (in this case from Seattle to Miami stopping in Cartagena, a distant foreign port) satisfies the PVSA.

 

In the OP's case they would be sailing a one way cruise between two US ports, making a stop in a distant foreign port as defined under the PVSA, which is perfectly legal under the PVSA. And the OP is fine to book this itinerary JUST LIKE NCL TOLD THEM!

[S.S.Oceanlover]

You have to look at all three segments, not just the first two. The total itinerary of Seattle to Miami, making a stop at Cartagena, makes it legal.

 

I agree with you 100%. Since they are taking 3 cruises on the same ship without a day in between it is considered one cruise so with the stop in the panama canal it looks legal to me.

 

Bill

[electricron]

I agree that this B2B2B cruise is legal. The Feds look at where you embark and disembark the ship, and the interim ports. All three legs individually are legal. All three legs combine, Seattle to Miami, is legal because you visit a distant foreign port in Columbia. The last two legs combine, Vancouver to Miami is legal because you're making an International cruise from a foreign port to an American port, just like Vancouver to Los Angeles. But only the first two legs combine, Seattle to Los Angeles, is not legal because you don't visit a distant foreign port.

 

As for the government dictating which cruise you can take or not, many nations do so. How would you like a cheaply ran, foreign staff, non safe ferry running between Los Angeles and Santa Catalina Island? That's what could happen if the PVSA law was struck down. It's a good law. It's not the law's fault that all the cruise lines use foreign built and manned cruise ships. The only American flag cruise ship presently operating is NCLA's Pride of America, and it has restrictions placed upon it because it wasn't entirely built in America.

[mtwingcpa]

But when you talk to the cruise company why you cant do it. They say it is because of the Jones Act.

 

While I agree with others that "Jones Act" isn't technically correct, I've found that it is the moniker cruise lines most frequently use for the applicable law.

 

In similar manner, many people refer to the "Death Tax" or "ObamaCare." Neither of those is technically correct, either. But everyone seems to know what is being referred to. :-)

[angelsonefive]

They can do it all on one ship. As njhorseman said, because the 3rd cruise stops in Cartagena, which qualifies as a distant foreign port, the PVSA is satisfied - no need for them to switch cruiselines or ships.

 

 

 

 

They were told wrong. The Feds see that itinerary as perfectly fine. You just have to call back and get someone who knows what they are talking about.

Maybe your wrong. You find me one post on these boards that anyone has done this itinerary without a fine...give me one. :eek: