Is it Legal - Jones Act or PVSA Question

[benchmarklearning]

Considering the following sequence of cruises but want to be sure I am "legal."

 

Westerdam from San Diego to Vancouver (April 8)

 

Then Westerdam 1-day cruise from Vancouver to Seattle (April 11)

 

Then Westerdam Seattle to Seattle Alaska cruise (April 12)

 

If it is legal, will I have to get off the ship at any point (probably will have to due to immigration in Vancouver and Seattle).

 

Thanks for any help! :)

[rafinmd]

Not legal. Your origin and final destination are what counts, and you would be getting on in San Diego and off in Seattle. If I was thinking of that I would get off in Vancouver and book a hotel in Seattle for 1 night. Very easy getting between the 2 cities.

 

Roy

[RuthC]

I agree with Roy's answer, and the reasoning behind it.

The Passenger Vessel Services Act is the law you are asking about---not The Jones Act.

[benchmarklearning]

So, to be sure I understand you correctly Rafinmd, I can do the San Diego to Vancouver segment, travel via train, bus or car to Seattle and spend the night, then do the Seattle RT Alaska?

 

That will work...if that is what you mean. :confused:

[scapel]

I agree with Roy's answer, and the reasoning behind it.

The Passenger Vessel Services Act is the law you are asking about---not The Jones Act.

 

I thought the burden of thes two acts was on the ship and not the passenger.

[RuthC]

So, to be sure I understand you correctly Rafinmd, I can do the San Diego to Vancouver segment, travel via train, bus or car to Seattle and spend the night, then do the Seattle RT Alaska?

 

That will work...if that is what you mean. :confused:

That's what he means, and yes, that would work.

The reasoning is that you would now be taking two separate cruises. The first cruise would begin in San Diego, and end in Vancouver, so the PVSA would not apply.

Then you would have a break between cruises. This is key.

The second cruise would begin and end in the same US city, so a near foreign port (Victoria) is all that the PVSA would require.

[jtl513]

So, to be sure I understand you correctly Rafinmd, I can do the San Diego to Vancouver segment, travel via train, bus or car to Seattle and spend the night, then do the Seattle RT Alaska?

 

That will work...if that is what you mean. :confused:

Correct. As long as you spend one night on land, either in Vancouver or Seattle, you would be legal.

 

I thought the burden of thes two acts was on the ship and not the passenger.

The cruise line(s) should prevent you from booking illegal combinations of cruises, but if it somehow happens, and discovered, the ship will be fined $300 pp and they will bill that fine to the passenger.

 

Ruth: didn't mean to repeat yours - CC is very slow for me today and it took a couple of min for me to post.

[bug_dan]

These are three separate cruises, each one meets the requirements of the PSA and as you would not be disembarking before the completion of a cruise, you would be "legal".

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

[benchmarklearning]

That's what I thought Bug Dan but it contradicts what the others have said. Guess I need to do a little more research. :mad:

[scapel]

. The cruise lines typically pass this cost on the passengers who "jump the ship" I jumped ship once and didn't get any charge.

[jtl513]

These are three separate cruises, each one meets the requirements of the PSA and as you would not be disembarking before the completion of a cruise, you would be "legal".

Incorrect. What matters is where the passenger intially embarks and finally disembarks, and S.D. to Seattle is illegal. It wouldn't even be legal if you changed ships or cruise lines once or twice.

 

If such combinations of cruises were legal HAL would certainly offer them for sale as a package.

[rafinmd]

These are three separate cruises, each one meets the requirements of the PSA and as you would not be disembarking before the completion of a cruise, you would be "legal".

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

From the CPB PVSA document Page 8:

 

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/pvsa_icp.ctt/pvsa_icp.pdf

 

"Passenger vessel transportation between United States ports has historically been viewed to be part of the coastwise trade after the enactment of the PVSA. This view is premised on the concepts of continuity of the voyage and whether its intended purpose or objective is coastwise transportation. The PVSA was held to be violated if the coastwise movement by a non-coastwise-qualified vessel was continuous or if the purpose of the trip was a coastwise voyage. See 18 O.A.G. 445, September 4, 1886; 28 O.A.G. 204, February 26, 1910; 29 O.A.G. 318, February 12, 1912; 30 O.A.G. 44, February 1, 1913; 34 O.A.G. 340, December 24, 1924; and 36 O.A.G. 352, August 13, 1930."

 

I think the operative word here is continuous. If you stay on for the 3 individual voyages, while the individual voyages are each legal the continuous combination of the 3 violates the PVSA. When you take the train from Vancouver to Seattle you break the continuity of the voyages and have 2 individual legal voyages.

 

And yes, your conclusion is what I originally meant.

 

Roy

[Tampa Girl]

Would someone please explain the PVSA to me? It seems that a ship cannot go directly from one U.S. port to another without having stopped in a foreign port. Is that how it works?

[Hawaiidan]

it is all on the same line and the same ship.

 

The company and the powers that be are going to look at the whole 3 trips as it were one.

 

Where are you going to find a 1 day cruise?

 

I got bounced from the same situation years ago. I made my point , as you did, but the cruise line legal folks said NO. And that was it, end of conversation !!! Thank you very much.

 

You can take a high speed ferry to Seattle from the port. Forget the car/bus and train and theywill drop you off by the pier

[jtl513]

Would someone please explain the PVSA to me? It seems that a ship cannot go directly from one U.S. port to another without having stopped in a foreign port. Is that how it works?

Not exactly. Many HAL cruises out of Tampa have Key West as their first stop, and that's perfectly fine. But a person who missed the ship in Tampa could not rush down to Key West, board, and eventually sail back to Tampa (or any other US city) - UNLESS the ship visited a distant foreign port between K.W. and Tampa. There are no distant foreign ports in North America or the Caribbean or in Central America, so the ship would have to visit Aruba/Bonaire/Curacao or something on the South American mainland, such as Cartagena.

 

On a closed-loop itinerary (e.g. Tampa-Tampa or Seattle-Seattle) then some near foreign port must be visited, and anything in the Caribbean or Central America or Mexico suffices. Or Victoria for r/t Seattle, or Ensenada for San Diego-Hawaii-San Diego.

[rafinmd]

Would someone please explain the PVSA to me? It seems that a ship cannot go directly from one U.S. port to another without having stopped in a foreign port. Is that how it works?

 

There are 3 separate situations:

 

1. This one doesn't typically apply, but a foreign flag ship (virtually all cruise ships today) CAN leave a US port and return to the SAME US port without making any stops (cruise to nowhere).

2. If a ship leaves a US port and returns to the SAME US port, it may stop at other US ports as long as it calls on at least 1 foreign port. That's how ships can do a 14-day round trip Seattle to Alaska with a visit to Victoria/Vancouver but they can not sell half of it as a 1-way Seattle to Alaska.

3. For a ship to go from 1 US port to a different US port it must call on a DISTANT foreign port. Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and perhaps part or all of Central America are considered nearby foreign ports and do not qualify a ship for travel between US Ports. If a ship sails from Ft. Lauderdale to San Diego, it must stop at a DISTANT foreign port. (I'm not sure, but don't think Panama qualifies as distant).

 

Roy

[jtl513]

(I'm not sure, but don't think Panama qualifies as distant).

No, it doesn't. That's why repo's through the P.C. always stop at Cartagena, the A/B/C islands, or something on the west coast of South America.

 

Also, there's one other little wrinkle to the PVSA: St Thomas and Puerto Rico are exceptions, so one could embark at either of those places and disembark at any mainland US city. (or vice versa)

[rafinmd]

it is all on the same line and the same ship.

 

You can take a high speed ferry to Seattle from the port. Forget the car/bus and train and theywill drop you off by the pier

 

Do you have a link for that? I know of one from Victoria but never heard of one from Vancouver.

 

Roy

[PathfinderEss]

Considering the following sequence of cruises but want to be sure I am "legal."

 

Westerdam from San Diego to Vancouver (April 8)

 

Then Westerdam 1-day cruise from Vancouver to Seattle (April 11)

 

Then Westerdam Seattle to Seattle Alaska cruise (April 12)

 

If it is legal, will I have to get off the ship at any point (probably will have to due to immigration in Vancouver and Seattle).

 

Thanks for any help! :)

No it is not legal, we have been shot down so many time trying to do this and it doesn't work. If they don't figure it out in the beginning you will hear from them down the road that you are breaking the Jones act.

[PathfinderEss]

Would someone please explain the PVSA to me? It seems that a ship cannot go directly from one U.S. port to another without having stopped in a foreign port. Is that how it works?

Yes, and add to that a 'distant' foreign port.

[RuthC]

you are breaking the Jones act.

Not the Jones Act; the Passenger Vessel Services Act.

The Jones Act has to do with transportation of goods. The PVSA has to do with transportation of people.

[fleckle]

Not legal. Your origin and final destination are what counts, and you would be getting on in San Diego and off in Seattle. If I was thinking of that I would get off in Vancouver and book a hotel in Seattle for 1 night. Very easy getting between the 2 cities.

 

Roy

Good advice!

Although it appears that the OP's goal was to remain on the same ship throughout, avoiding the need to pack and unpack.

 

Since the passenger will need to disembark in Vancouver anyway, then the Alaska cruise could be taken on any other ship sailing out of Vancouver and the land trip to Seattle would not even be necessary (unless the OP just loves the Westerdam).

[jtl513]

... then the Alaska cruise could be taken on any other ship sailing out of Vancouver ...

Not quite. It would have to be r/t Vancouver, not a one-way to any AK port or anything ending in Seattle.

[fleckle]

Considering the following sequence of cruises but want to be sure I am "legal."

 

Westerdam from San Diego to Vancouver (April 8)

 

Then Westerdam 1-day cruise from Vancouver to Seattle (April 11)

 

Then Westerdam Seattle to Seattle Alaska cruise (April 12)

 

If it is legal, will I have to get off the ship at any point (probably will have to due to immigration in Vancouver and Seattle).

 

Thanks for any help! :)

Just thought of one more possibility.

 

First of all, are those cruises really in April or in May?

 

On the Alaska round trip cruises, the Westerdam makes a last stop in Victoria before returning to Seattle.

 

We know that there are customs/immigration people in Victoria because we have been on Alaska cruises where people were allowed to disembark there, even though it was not the final port.

 

So, your Westerdam back-to-back-to-back may be legally possible if you can obtain permission in advance to disembark in Victoria instead of Seattle.

 

Then you could take a ferry from Victoria to Seattle if you are flying out of Seattle.

 

It could involve some red tape going through the proper channels to obtain official permission to do it, not just relying on the word of some customer service person who answers the phone.

[fleckle]

Not quite. It would have to be r/t Vancouver, not a one-way to any AK port or anything ending in Seattle.

No, in fact a one-way from Vancouver to Whittier or Seward on another ship would be fine.

 

Been there, done that, and so have lots of others :)