No B2B Through Vancouver?

[calikak]

Being a law nerd, I did a little legal research on this last night, and in case there are any other law nerds out there who are curious, the cite for the PSA is 46 App. USC 289. The "distant" part of the rule was created by administrative decisions and is currently in the Code of Federal Regulations at 19 CFR 4.80a (note that this is different than 19 CFR 4.80(a)). Those without access to a legal search engine can find both of these on the GPO website (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html for the statute, [/url]http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/ for the regulation). There is a GAO report describing the PSA and the NCL ships that are US-flagged at this website: http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04421.html.

 

For those who are not law nerds, here's a fairly good overview of the PSA and its impact on the world of cruising, in plain English instead of legalese: http://www.sealetter.com/Oct-99/alancol.html.

 

And finally, the International Council of Cruise Lines' policy statement on the PSA: http://www.iccl.org/policies/psa.cfm

[donna5]

I have now been told through 3 TAs and one Princess rep that you cannot do a B2B through Vancouver. We wanted to sail the Island from LAX to Vancouver, then on to Whittier for a 14 day cruise.

 

This apparently violates the Jones Act, although I thought Vancouver was the foreign port required.

 

Does this mean you simply can't do B2B Alaska cruises or just through Vancouver?

 

Any body have any info on this subject?

 

Thanks.

 

Someone is doing a B2B on the Island Coastal-Alaska, they are on the Roll Call board. I asked them if they know why they are able to do this. Haven't heard back yet.

[Druke I]

At one point in the not too far distant past, Sen D. Feinstein (D-CA), was reported as having gone on record supporting a change in the Passenger Services Act, which might eliminate the "distant foreign port" requirement.

 

The Port of San Francisco would benefit greatly if the regulations were eased.

 

Perhaps those who are interested in seeing the law changed should let their senators and representatives know of their interest.

 

It continues to boggle my mind that Vancouver BC is not "far distant" but Ensenada Mexico is "far distant", at least in some cases.

[spongerob]

Thanks, Beth. I have a headache now.:)

[calikak]

Princess initially let me book a B2B that violated the PSA but when they figured it out, they made me cancel one leg of the trip. We had initially booked the first leg by itself and then added the second leg later, and it wasn't until I called Princess to see if we could stay in the same cabin that they figured out there was a PSA problem. So the person who's on the Island Coastal/Alaska B2B might have the same situation going on?

 

You're welcome, Rob! :D

[ccrain]

The 1999 article was as clear as I've read to date. Now I understand the issues a little bit more. I'm going to email my TA the website address.

 

So to summarize what I can glean so far:

 

B2B Whittier to Vancouver is allowed because Vancouver is a foreign port and the cruise starts and stops in the same US city.

 

B2B Vancouver to Whittier is allowed because the cruise starts and stops in a foreign port.

 

B2B coastal LA to Vancouver, then on to Whittier is NOT allowed because you are transporting between 2 US ports without a stop in a Distant Foreign Port.

 

Does that sound about right?

[spongerob]

You got it, Pontiac.

[lstone19]

At one point in the not too far distant past, Sen D. Feinstein (D-CA), was reported as having gone on record supporting a change in the Passenger Services Act, which might eliminate the "distant foreign port" requirement.

 

The Port of San Francisco would benefit greatly if the regulations were eased.

 

Perhaps those who are interested in seeing the law changed should let their senators and representatives know of their interest.

 

It continues to boggle my mind that Vancouver BC is not "far distant" but Ensenada Mexico is "far distant", at least in some cases.

 

Ensenada is not a "distant" port. Ensenada is used in two ways. First, as the foreign port on cruises that return to the same port (e.g. Hawaii cruises out of L.A. - they need to visit any foreign port to be legal so they briefly visit Ensenada).

Second, Ensenada is used as the actual port of embarkation or disembarkation for cruises that go one-way to/from Hawaii. Many of these are marketed as being to/from San Diego but the reality is you're put on a bus in San Diego, driven to Ensenada, and embark there (or v.v.). From the view of the PSA, Ensenada is one of endpoints and as it is a foreign port, the PSA does not apply.

A common "Alaska migration" routing is Florida to San Diego, then same day to Ensenada, to Honolulu, and then to Vancouver. They go to Ensenada to embark passengers going to Honolulu as that is the only way to legally do so. OTOH, if you wanted to go Floriada to Honolulu, you could stay on for the San Diego to Ensenada portion (since a distant foreign port was visited on the Florida to San Diego segment) and if you wanted to go San Diego to Vancouver, you could legally board in San Diego since you will be disembarking in the foreign port of Vancouver. Remember that where YOU embark and disembark is what governs, not how the line markets the cruises.

[Druke I]

Larry

 

Your point about Ensenada is well taken - but again, to mind, just shows the absurdity of the regulations.

[peterv]

I still don't get why this is a problem LA to Whittier. It is not marketed as a 14 day cruise, your first one ends in Vancouver a foreign port. You then embark a new cruise to Whittier in a foreign port, Vancouver.

 

Cheers,

Peter

[spongerob]

Because Vancouver does not qualify for the "distant" foreign port requirement, and the law only pertains to where the passengers embark and disembark, regardless of what the cruise line does in between in staging its cruises.

 

I ran into this last year with a Grand Princess repo. The first leg was New York to San Juan. Perfectly legal according to the PSA. The second leg was San Juan to Galveston. Also perfectly legal. But, combining the two cruises was not legal since I would be embarking at a US port and disembarking at another US port without the required "distant" foreign port in the itinerary.

[lstone19]

I still don't get why this is a problem LA to Whittier. It is not marketed as a 14 day cruise, your first one ends in Vancouver a foreign port. You then embark a new cruise to Whittier in a foreign port, Vancouver.

The PSA does not care about how a cruise is marketed. It cares only about where YOU embark and where YOU disembark. In this case, you would embark in L.A. (a U.S. port) and disembark in Whittier (a U.S. port). Since no "distant foreign port" is visited, it is not legal.

[Cruisin' Chick]

"We really have to do something about the Jones Act."

 

I guess if the cruiselines really wanted to get rid of it, they would get together and grease some palms. You folks have pointed out inconsistencies (Vancouver not counting). It is ridiculous that some ships have to cruise to Fanning Island or make service stops in Ensenada.