Mr. Jones and His Act?

[bruinlvr]

I am hoping to book a B2B on the Golden in Sept: leg #1; one day Seattle to Vancouver and then the same day we land in Vancouver we start leg #2, a 3 day Vancouver to LA.

 

Is this possible with that Jones guy and his funny rules for passengers?

[RickEk]

I am hoping to book a B2B on the Golden in Sept: leg #1; one day Seattle to Vancouver and then the same day we land in Vancouver we start leg #2, a 3 day Vancouver to LA.

 

Is this possible with that Jones guy and his funny rules for passengers?

 

Technically, it's the PVSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886). And no, the voyage you are contemplating would be illegal under that Act, since you are going from one US port to another US port without going to a distant foreign port.

[Toto2Kansas]

Nope, they won't allow you to take this B2B cruise as you board the ship in a U.S. port and disembark in a U.S. port (without visiting a distant foreign port) on the cruise. Now if you could spend one day in Vancouver (between cruises) and then board a ship the following day, it would be allowed. Sorry!

[Putterdude]

I agree, the PVSA will not permit this cruise. You could come to Vancouver and take it but not out of Seattle as Vancouver is not considered to be a distant foreign port on the act.

[LARGIN]

Toto & Rick are correct..

[paul929207]

Sorry, it would be illegal as the cruise line would be taking you from Seattle to LA

[Princess Patches]

Yes, I agree with above posters. It is not allowed. Remember the PVSA rules (PVSA concerns passengers and Jones Act concerns cargo):

 

1. Sailing between two DIFFERENT US ports you must go to a FAR foreign port (there are no far foreign ports in North America, Central America or the Caribbean except the ABC ports: Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao)

 

2. Sailing between the SAME US ports you can go to a NEAR foreign port, such as Vancouver, Ensenada, etc.

 

So if you were sailing roundtrip to/from Seattle the stop in Vancouver would satisfy the law, but since you are sailing Seattle to LA the Vancouver stop will not satisfy the law.

 

Here's how I remember it:

 

DIFFERENT (us ports) = FAR

SAME (us ports) = NEAR

[judyjudy56]

We have been wondering the same thing. Would it be legal if you did the Seattle to Vancouver, Vancouver to LA and then the LA roundtrip coastal. We thought this may be legal since the last cruise does stop in Mexico.

[bruinlvr]

Here's how I remember it:

 

DIFFERENT (us ports) = FAR

SAME (us ports) = NEAR

 

 

Ok, thanks for the answers. One other question. What if my 1st leg is on a different cruise line. Same date parameters. Would that fly?

[RickEk]

Ok, thanks for the answers. One other question. What if my 1st leg is on a different cruise line. Same date parameters. Would that fly?

 

 

I believe that would be ok.

[Pam in CA]

We have been wondering the same thing. Would it be legal if you did the Seattle to Vancouver, Vancouver to LA and then the LA roundtrip coastal. We thought this may be legal since the last cruise does stop in Mexico.

Illegal. Unless you stayed overnight in Vancouver and embarked another cruise. For instance, you could go from Seattle to Vancouver, stay in Vancouver overnight, then embark in Vancouver to LA and then the LA R/T coastal. This would be legal since you would be embarking in Vancouver, not Seattle, and disembarking in LA.

 

You are cruising from Seattle to LA and because these are two different US ports, you must go to a FAR foreign port, i.e., Fanning Island, Central America, etc. The stop is Ensenada is only for the LA-to-LA itinerary since those embarking and disembarking in the same US port can go to a NEAR foreign port in Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean, etc.

[Princess Patches]

We have been wondering the same thing. Would it be legal if you did the Seattle to Vancouver, Vancouver to LA and then the LA roundtrip coastal. We thought this may be legal since the last cruise does stop in Mexico.

 

 

No, that will violate the act.

 

Remember DIFFERENT = FAR. Therefore, since you are travelling from Seattle and ultimately ending in Los Angeles, you are traveling between DIFFERENT ports, thus you must go to a FAR foreign port. Vancouver and Ensenada are NEAR foreign ports (there are no FAR foreign ports in North America, Central America or Caribbean except the ABC ports -Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao).

 

It is simple: DIFFERENT = FAR

SAME = NEAR

[paul929207]

We have been wondering the same thing. Would it be legal if you did the Seattle to Vancouver, Vancouver to LA and then the LA roundtrip coastal. We thought this may be legal since the last cruise does stop in Mexico.

Nope, this is also illegal. You are going from Seattle to LA and not visiting a distant foriegn port. Canada and Mexico are not "distant"

[DougH]

Why don't you do the 9/18 Seattle to Vancouver on the Sapphire, spend a couple of days in Vancouver then board the 9/21 Vancouver to LA on the Island?

[Princess Patches]

If you want to sail on any Pacific Coastal cruises B2B, you must begin and end in the same port (Seattle to Seattle or LA to LA), then Vancouver or Ensenada will satisfy as a near foreign port.

 

Your other choice is to begin and/or end your cruise in Vancouver because then you won't be travelling between two U.S. ports at all and the act does not apply to you.

[BigGuy25]

1. Sailing between two DIFFERENT US ports you must go to a FAR foreign port (there are no far foreign ports in North America, Central America or the Caribbean except the ABC ports: Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao)

 

2. Sailing between the SAME US ports you can go to a NEAR foreign port, such as Vancouver, Ensenada, etc.

 

 

Thanks for articulating that difference. I think I had missed that in the past when trying to explain the PVSA and how Ensenada somehow fit into the picture!!

[paul929207]

Why don't you do the 9/18 Seattle to Vancouver on the Sapphire, spend a couple of days in Vancouver then board the 9/21 Vancouver to LA on the Island?

These would be considered two separate cruises and therefore would be legal.

[oskidunker]

WHo gets anything out of it now?

[paul929207]

WHo gets anything out of it now?

There was an effort to change the law a few years back which never went anywhere. This was fortunate because the Senators from NCL, I mean, Hawaii, wanted to strengthen the law. They wanted to require much longer stays outside the US. This would have killed the Hawaiian cruises from the West Coast, which was what NCL wanted to do.

[Princess Patches]

Here's how I remember it:

 

DIFFERENT (us ports) = FAR

SAME (us ports) = NEAR

 

 

Ok, thanks for the answers. One other question. What if my 1st leg is on a different cruise line. Same date parameters. Would that fly?

 

 

That would be fine. No violation of act in that case, because the act is ship specific. It does not apply if you are sailing on two different ships.

[Princess Patches]

WHo gets anything out of it now?

 

 

We need a whole other thread for that discussion! The act was aimed at protecting U.S. domestic transportation industries. Attempts to repeal it have failed because many believe the US Merchant Marine industry would collapse without it.

[scranger]

What if my 1st leg is on a different cruise line. Same date parameters. Would that fly?

 

Probably OK, since the act applies to vessels (i.e., cruise lines), and not the passengers themselves. Thus, if two different vessels were involved, neither would be in violation of the act.

[DougH]

These would be considered two separate cruises and therefore would be legal.

 

That's why I suggested it :)

[Vexorg]

WHo gets anything out of it now?

 

It's still around mostly because it also applies to air travel, and therefore restricts foreign airlines from providing point-to-point service in the US.

[Pam in CA]

There was an effort to change the law a few years back which never went anywhere. This was fortunate because the Senators from NCL, I mean, Hawaii, wanted to strengthen the law. They wanted to require much longer stays outside the US. This would have killed the Hawaiian cruises from the West Coast, which was what NCL wanted to do.

Actually, it would have impacted the entire US cruise industry since it would have required, among other things, 50% of all port time in a foreign port. When it became clear that would seriously impact the Alaskan, New York, Boston, FLL, Miami, etc. cruises, NCL tried to narrow the bill to just HI which made it even more obviously self-serving. Senator Inouyue of HI is the one who tried to modify the PVSA in this way when he should have reclused himself as his wife is the godmother for an NCL ship. Only one NCL ship would have benefitted and thousands of jobs and millions of $ lost to US ports.

 

The PVSA is still in effect to protect the US shipping industry as well as US airlines and is why you can't, for instance, fly on British Airways or Air France from New York to LA.